Oh no, don't do this to the Hulk! (1 Viewer)

[Scott Weinberg]

I'd hate to see this thread degenerate into a discussion of Harry Knowles, but there's another very strong reason to avoid his site (aside from his 5-grade ranmblings): he reports bullshit. On more than one occasion this site has jumped the gun and reported news that was "flimsy" at best. I understand that ANY source (website, newspaper, whatever) may sometimes report something erroneous, but AICN takes that to an astronomical level.
Terrell, you said "Why judge him on his writing?" Well, what should we judge him on? His cooking skills? His personal appearance? I'm far from an excellent writer, but there's one thing I think of EVERY time I write my reviews: the reader. If someone fills an article full of CAPS ALL OVER THE PLACE, passages full of exclamation!!!!!!!!!!!!!! points!!!!!!!!!!!!, and copious amounts of indecipherable jibber-jabber, I take that as a "screw you" to the reader.
Guys like HK are the reason most online critics are treated with such disdain. (A few years back, I had to convince the studios to put me on their screenings list, and they were quite hesitant - fearing that "online critic" meant "AICN".) The reason he's given so many favors by the studios is because his site is popular. (Please don't tell me that popularity = quality.) AICN was one of the first movie news sites around, so he was fortunate to be the first one there.
Personally, I cannot understand how ANYONE would want to read AICN when there are so many well-written and articulate movie sites just like it. (www.chud.com, www.upcomingmovies.com, Link Removed, www.darkhorizons.com, etc.)
Some might dismiss my comments as sour grapes, but that's honestly not the case. James Berardinelli is quite renowned (and has been mentioned in print ads as well as a few of Ebert's reviews), but I couldn't think of anything nasty to say about him if you paid me. (And I usually see him twice a week!)
I have no doubt that HK is a big movie fan. Big woop. So are millions of people, many of whom can string together an articulate sentence.

 

[Sean Oneil]

Guys, Knowles may be so popular because a lot of people can relate to his writing? I am not defending him at all, but it really does irk me when people condescend someone because they either:

A. Are not as skilled a writer as they are, or apparently do not possess as large a vocabulary.

B. They simply choose to express themselves in a different way with their writing style.

A review does not always have to be written in a self-important style. I read a lot of reviews that seemingly aim more to impress the reader, rather than to inform them.

If you are going to be a good reviewer, you cannot go too far out there if you want to stay in touch with most people. If you use incredibly complex sentence structure that is laden with esoteric words and enigmatic references to obscure films, then no one is likely to know what you are talking about -at which point you have failed in your attempt to inform the reader (if indeed that ever was the intent).

I think it is too bad that a lot of people take considerable flak from others, simply because they choose to write in a simplistic way that everyone will be able to understand. It is also sad to see how some people will pick apart others because they don't have masters in English literature and do not attempt to be William Shakespeare every time they sit down at a keyboard.

Sorry about the ranting guys. I mean no offense to anyone on this thread, nor am I defending Knowles specifically, as I have only read one review of his. I just think that everyone’s opinion has merit. Maybe I am wrong about that?

 

[Terrell]

Again, I don't care for Harry Knowles, nor do I give gim much attention. I don't even like the guy. I don't visit AICN except on occasion. But Scott, Harry has never claimed he was a great writer. Sean hit the nail on the head. Why does everyone have to write as if they have a genius IQ and a doctorate from MIT? People here used that same cheap shot against Ron. Quite frankly, I don't want to read articles I need a dictionary to understand. After all, it's just a movie fan site. It's not a thesis.

I don't care for Knowles. But this writing slam has gotten to be nothing more than a cheap, easy bash. It's overused and is nothing more than a slam when someone can't think of a better one.

All I'm saying is the man does seem to get a lot of perks and info that many other insiders don't. He got a look at a rough cut of AOTC. That's more than I can say for a lot of so-called insiders. You can slam him all you want. As for writing slams, if someone proclaims themselves to be a great writer, and they're not, then that might be a reason o say he's a bad writer. But this writing slam has gotten cheap and overused.

As for my argument, Sean said it for me.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Here's a bit regarding HK's website and writing that matters to me...integrity.

Speaking of that AOTC review, he was not honest in his initial review with the circumstances under which he saw it. He protected the studio who showed it to him by being dishonest with the people who pay his bills and support his site. He set up his review under less than honest pretenses. I have a problem with that. I know that nowadays journalistic integrity doesn't mean squat...the scoop is all that matters. But honesty matters to me.

Take care,

Chuck

 

[Terrell]

But how do you know he's being dishonest when he says he loved the film? I don't think we're in a position to call him a liar about how he felt about what he saw. Maybe I misinterpreted. I'm just glad he liked what he saw. He may be one of few who actually do.

Now, if you're saying he wasn't honest about how he got the film, then yes, he didn't divulge how he got a first look. I think we know how he got the film. Lucasfilm allowed him to see a rough cut. But does it really matter. Even respected journalists have very little integrity. Why should we expect more from a movie fan who runs a website.

 

[Norm]

Can we stay on topic, Please!

 

[Norm]

Even more bad news,It only gets worse!
http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=12078

 

[Norm]

"I just got back from a lecture given by Peter Cuneo, CEO of Marvel Entertainment, in New York City. He revealed one other change that Ang Lee is making to the Hulk - unlike in the comics, where Dr. Banner has no memory of what happened to him, in the movie he will."
http://www.corona.bc.ca/films/mainFramed.html

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

"I just got back from a lecture given by Peter Cuneo, CEO of Marvel Entertainment, in New York City. He revealed one other change that Ang Lee is making to the Hulk - unlike in the comics, where Dr. Banner has no memory of what happened to him, in the movie he will."

That could be good. As cool as it would have been to see his reaction when he comes out of Hulk mode and sees all the destruction, it could be even worse when he comes out of Hulk mode and remembers in detail all the carnage he wrought. I mean, how horrible would that be?

 

[Norm]

Adam Lenhardt, Banner usually found out what happen anyway. He doesn't need to remember it.

 

[Mark Schmitt]

If Ang Lee was smart, he'd keep it close to the Hulk as he was written by Peter David (a long run in the comic book).
David introduced the whole concept of Bruce Banner's father being abusive and even eventually killing Bruce's mother. Bruce developed a split personality as a result and when the gamma bomb accident occurred, the Hulk emerged as a manifestation of that other personality.
This changed the comic from being a simple story about a guy irradiated by gamma rays to being something much darker and complex.
I think Nick Nolte would be great as his father, and the fact that his father is even featured in the movie shows that Ang Lee may be headed that way. As for anything else mentioned on AICN (which I refuse to read), I'll wait until the movie comes out. I don't take stock in rumors.
If Spiderman's success shows us one thing, it's that you really don't need to stray too far from the comic for a great movie, web shooters notwithstanding. I, for one, like the decision Raimi made regarding them after hearing his explanation.
I may be wrong about Peter David introducing the concept I described, but he really fleshed it out in any case. What I am intrested in is will the Hulk be smart or stupid? Maybe both? Can't wait for this one.
Man, am I letting out my inner nerd.

 

[Sean Bryan]

I watched the HULK TV show and knew the character from the cartoons and various comic books, but I never really followed the HULK comics too closely.

It seems that the HULK has gone through various "forms" like dumb, smart, green, and I thought I rememberd seeing him Grey for a while.

Can anyone give a short summary of the comic character's evloution/history?

Thanks

 

[TheoGB]

Re: David or Bruce Banner:
When seeing the trailer for the Hulk my boss said he hoped that they'd get the name right and make it Bruce for the movie.
Having seen this thread I asked what he meant.
He said that in the original comic it was always Bruce Banner but the TV show changed the name to David because they felt that Bruce wasn't American enough or something??!!?
Anyhow, I can't be bothered reading the AICN site as it makes me a bit ill colours-wise.
Whether this clears things up, I don't know...

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Adam Lenhardt, Banner usually found out what happen anyway. He doesn't need to remember it.

Yeah, but it wouldn't work too well on the screen. First you show him doing all the damage on screen, then you spend time having him figure out all the damage he caused. It would come off as redundant.

 

[Andy Sheets]

Can anyone give a short summary of the comic character's evloution/history?

I'll take a crack at it. He actually started out in the very first issue as grey, because of a coloring error, IIRC. They changed it to green right after that. But in the early issues, the Hulk was relatively smart (albeit a major prick) and transformed according to a day/night cycle. A lot of the early issues were hysterically weird because Banner had a gamma ray projector that he was using to try and reverse his transformation. So he'd blast himself with this thing and there'd be a new Hulk in almost every new story. Over time, however, they gradually began settling on Hulk being a stupid, childlike creature who just wanted the mean old Army to leave him alone, and that's where the "HULK SMASH!" stuff came from. It stayed like that for a long time until Peter David took over the writing in the late 80's, I think, and he took the concept back to the original idea of there being multiple Hulks that Banner could turn into. He brought back the grey, intelligent but devious Hulk, who became a Mob enforcer named Mr. Fixit, and then eventually progressed the storyline to the point where the book ended up with a permanently "merged" Hulk that combined Banner's intellect and basic personality with the green Hulk's superior strength. However, a few years ago Marvel got nostalgic for the past and against David's wishes dictated that the savage, "HULK SMASH!" Hulk be brought back. And that's about where's it's been ever since. I hope I didn't leave too much out

 

[ChrisMatson]

Here's a HULK bio straight from Marvel that explains the different HULKs. I am used to the old TV show :frowning:

 

[Ricardo C]

Don't forget about the whole Onslaught business, which ended with Bruce and the Hulk as separate entities. Plus the Hulk that ended up in the Heroes Reborn pocket universe. My head hurts now

 

[Norm]

More Bad news, This is getting sad Ang Lee is ruining this character, Marvel is a sellout!
June 9, 2002... Last Friday E! Online's Anderson Jones Movie Scoop column broke a story that, if it's true, reveals how Bruce Banner gets his gamma poisoning that eventually turns him into the Hulk. As comic book fans will know, the comics' Banner got gamma radiated by exposing his unprotected body to the full might of a gamma bomb blast. While it's not entirely clear in Jones' report, it could be that the origin of the movie Hulk occurs when (swipe to reveal SPOILERS!) a "pack of feral irradiated dogs" bite Banner. Jones' source also reveals that (more SPOILERS!)mutated junkyard canines will tussle with Banner, including a fight between the hero and a "giant poodle".
[Scooped by 'Jiffy'; originally appeared on E!'s Movie Scoop.]
http://www.corona.bc.ca/films/mainFramed.html

 

[JonZ]

Guys,
Harry is A FAN. Just like us. Hes not a professional writer, or critic - he's just a Geek(and a BIG one) and loves movies.
Ive been going to AICN for about 5 years now. I check the site every few days. Yes, Ive seen alot of info that been incorrect or wrong there, but he's also a target for such things, and Im sure plenty of people send him info just for a joke/get one over on him/make him and his site look stupid.
But Ive seen ALOT of scoops that have later been proved accurate. He knows people in the business,but as with any "spoiler" website, I look at it as just a fun read until more info comes out and something can be confirmed.
As for The Hulk, Ive been very displeased with what Ive read, but we'll have to see.(Im sure someone whos sees a rough cut will eventually send a review to AICN)

 

[Norm]

Jonz, Harry didn't write the above post. Its from Coming Attractions.