OK, a little late, but I finally saw the second HULK movie, "The Incredible Hulk", starring Ed Norton.

Though nearly every review said it was far better than Ang Lee's 'The Hulk', I thought it SUCKED.

TERRIBLE.

Ang Lee's was far, far better, and followed much more of a comic storyboard, whereas "The Incredible Hulk" seemed to be obsessed with recreating the TV series.

I was a comic nut, and collected as a kid in '70s, so I feel qualified in saying this.

If you're coming from the original Marvel comics perspective, you thought the TV series was amusing, but nothing like the comic.

ALSO... I thought I liked Ed Norton, but he shows no real inner conflict nor tension. He's just... Ed Norton.

Comic heads, please feel free...

I was one of the few people that liked the Ang Lee Hulk movie--it had great editing, but I prefer the new film. It's nowhere near as cerebral as the first film, true, but I think it's more successful in portraying a true Hulk on the screen.

There's supposed to be a director's cut of the second film floating around which is longer and has more depth than what was eventually released, but Marvel didn't want to take any chances after the backlash from the first movie and nixed it in favor of a more action heavy edit. Ed Norton was so annoyed by that decision, he refused to promote the movie.

sextonseven said:

WOW. I didn't know this. Yeah, this one is nearly all guns, explosions, etc., and no real human tension/interest.

I loved the first movie. I have the second one on DVD but haven't felt any burning urge to watch it yet.

I like the second one better because it has more action. I thought the first one was boring.

But none of the movies are REALLY, REALLY great.

And where was Rick Jones?

I can appreciate The Hulk for technicaly it was a well made movie but the CGI hulk was laughable.
I didnt really like the new one, they can't seem to perfect a CGI Hulk at all

Giovanni777 said:

It took 45 minutes for the hulk reveal in the first one which was annoying.

One thing I realized that I didn't like about the first film until after I saw the second one was that Eric Bana was totally miscast as Banner. He's way too hunky! Bruce Banner is supposed to be a scrawny, nerdy looking scientist more along the lines of Edward Norton. The perfect Hulk film is somewhere in between the two movies.

I think it's like this:

The first one was for the comic freaks, which I was in the best age of comics.

The second was desperately trying 2 recreate the TV series, which had nothing 2 do with the comic.

Since comic freaks R the minority, and U don't sell movies 2 the minority, they went 4 what would sell.

There were moments I liked, but there was so much action that there was little 2 no plot.

Marvel comics from the late '70s/early '80s had great writing, strong plots, and several sub-plots.

...
The second one was the way it was to set up for the Avengers movie.
Duh.