Eh. I've only seen the Eric Bana Hulk. At that point super hero movies were still.. well, not great but alright. Worth wasting a few hours once. At this point it's just silly nonsense to me. I can't in good faith vote for either because I haven't seen the movies but neither one looked terribly convincing from the trailers.

TheTreeKing

United States26 Posts

November 02 2012 00:20 GMT

#42

On October 31 2012 14:14 Akamu wrote:

Show nested quote +

more like friggin gross

The weirdest boner...

Zambrah

United States7288 Posts

November 02 2012 00:22 GMT

#43

I prefer Mark Ruffalo's Hulk, sure he wasn't really SCARY, but look at the Avengers for god's sake, theres a fucking demigod mixed in there.

I really liked that Ruffalo's Hulk kept Ruffalo's facial features, mostly just because it does a good job of linking Banner to the Hulk and uniting them as a single being with two sides.

Anyways, this may just because I fucking manloved the Avengers.

Frudgey

Canada3367 Posts

November 02 2012 00:23 GMT

#44

I'm going to say the Edward Norton Hulk. I think the Hulk typically looks better with longer hair, but thats just my opinion. Overall I think the Hulk looked best in his 1990's iterations.

TALegion

United States1187 Posts

November 02 2012 00:25 GMT

#45

Norton had almost everything perfectly, but the veins and almost tightness of the skin sort of freaked me out. Really, that probably is (by far) the best depiction of what the hulk should look like, but it at times seemed a little bit much in terms of the muscular detail.

Inertiaddict

United States126 Posts

November 02 2012 00:32 GMT

#46

I personally think the Avenger's Hulk is superior is every way.

The picture in the OP sets up a bit of a strawman, imo, because you have contrasting shots of different emotions.
Ruffalo's Hulk looks the most organic. He may not seem like the most intensely angry and savage Hulk, but by far, he looks like the most REAL Hulk (pores in the skin, better anatomical structure, more careful luminescence in the eyes), and they lay the groundwork for him having a personality that somewhat emerges through.

Mark Ruffalo's Hulk definitely had moments where he looks every bit as fierce as Norton's Hulk, too:
[image loading]

When he jumps on that F-22 after taking shots to the back, he's pretty angry looking.

I also think that both Hulk movies leading up to Avenger's were garbage. The Eric Bana one was trash, and the Ed Norton one was also not that good. I don't think that Ed Norton makes a good scientist at all, while Mark Ruffalo not only had some of the most poignant lines as Dr. Banner ("We are a chemical reaction that causes chaos";"What is S.H.I.E.L.D. even doing in the energy business"; for example), but we were worried for Black Widow when she tries to recruit Banner and he yells at her.

The other Hulks were melodramatic and most centered around him babysitting his girlfriend. I was very unimpressed by every Hulk movie ever made thus far, except for what they did with him in The Avengers. Of course, I could be wrong.

riotjune

United States3392 Posts

November 02 2012 00:40 GMT

#47

Appearance wise Ed Norton hulk. Ruffalo's hulk better in everything else including Bruce Banner.

TheManInBlack

Nigeria266 Posts

November 02 2012 02:17 GMT

#48

I will agree that Ed Norton as a scientist was kind of terrible. He seemed more like a bum living in Brazil than a genius trying to outwit the US army.

However Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner wasn't all that great either.. as someone who is well read in Physics, I wasn't impressed by anything he said nor did I feel as if he exuberated intelligence beyond average intellect.

Going back to the Hulk comparisons, there was no fight here which resulted from Bruce Banner being provoked - he was always angry. This simple notion kind of kills the concept for me.

Skullflower

United States3779 Posts

November 02 2012 04:46 GMT

#49

On October 31 2012 12:13 bahunto28 wrote:
obviously..
+ Show Spoiler +

although it could be mistaken for a green honey boo boo.

Bruce Vilanch?

tangwhat

New Zealand446 Posts

November 02 2012 04:56 GMT

#50

On November 02 2012 09:32 Inertiaddict wrote:
he looks like the most REAL Hulk (pores in the skin, better anatomical structure, more careful luminescence in the eyes), and they lay the groundwork for him having a personality that somewhat emerges through.

It's definitely not like there were advances in technology that allowed the more recent hulk to look better animated than the one from 2008.

Angel_

United States1617 Posts

November 02 2012 05:42 GMT

#51

I think they tried to make ruffalo's hulk terrifying when he goes crazy on the ship, but I don't think they pulled it off well.
Mark ruffalo was the best banner I think
but norton had the better hulk

but at the same time the norton hulk scene in the forest that reminded me of king kong was really really really stupid.

Pufftrees

2449 Posts

November 02 2012 05:45 GMT

#52

They look the same to me lol, one is just mad.