Gotta go with Thor on this one. Thunder God trumps mutated angry nerd every time.
They are pretty equal in sheer strength, but Thor has the addition of his mystic hammer and storm powers. Plus (although he isn't exactly a genius) Thor is smarter than the Hulk. So in a battle of equals in strength, Thor should be able to outwit the bestial Hulk and score the victory.
This would be an awesome battle to behold on the big screen. Hopefully it's one we may actually see in the upcoming Avengers movie.
You Hulk-o-philes can help me out here -- in the comics, did the Hulk grow in size as he got angrier? Both of the films show this to be true, with his height beginning somewhere around the OHOTMU-listed 7-feet, but quickly seeming to exceed 10'. I just think that would be a factor in any battle that might require leverage in close quarters.
As to who I like better? Thor, no contest. A far more interesting character.
How many of you saw the Avengers movie trailer online yesterday before it was yanked? I only saw it once, and it was pretty murky. But there was certainly enough coolness there to make me wish I had a time machine and could fast-forward to next summer!
I love 'em both equally.. I still go back to Defenders 10 (I know it's not their first fight..), and it's a good match.
But True Believers.... as William mentioned: Thor is indeed a god, and can call up uber-lightning bolts with a wave of his Hammer. So I'm still thinkin' that's giving him the edge.
Hulkie has it all on the muscles side, no doubts at all, but Thor's got so much more.
I have to give the edge to the Hulk film -- the Edward Norton version, that is.
Don't get me wrong, I liked both. and I actually like Thor better as a character. But I think the Hulk film was just more fun. It jumped right into the action and gave a real bang-up fight for the climax.
The Thor film was slowed down by having to lay out the origin. (Seriously, why do so many comic book films have to do this? Why can't they just tell an adventure story and leave it at that?) That and Thor spent much of the film "reduced" to being an ordinary mortal. And finally the fight against the Destroyer was over a little too quickly for my taste.
Not that Thor was a bad film. I enjoyed it, but it had more baggage to deal with than the Hulk.
P.S. My understanding, Doug, was that while the Hulk did get stronger when he got angrier, he didn't grow larger. I think what you saw was the CGI magic getting the scale of the character wrong.
Inkstained is correct about the apparent need to explain origins..
It get's a bit old, but I guess movie-makers see it essential to start off a new franchise.
You'll laugh at the example, but the '66 Batman series didn't need an 'origin' episode. You certainly knew who Batman and Robin was, or for the drove of new, uninformed watchers.., no one cared.
The Hulk movie did have that edge, I'll give you that.
Doug, The Hulk's size did not vary in the comics. The angrier he got, the stronger he got, but he stayed the same height and mass. However, In the first Hulk movie (by Ang Lee) he definitely got larger as he got AngLee-er (er, uh, I mean angrier). However in the second movie the Hulk's size stayed consistent as it did in the comics. (But in that movie he was already pretty dang BIG).
Inkstained, I think Karen meant which version of the character would win in a fight. Not who had the better movie. (At least I think that's what she meant. Karen?)
But since you brought it up, I do agree with you that the 2nd Hulk flick was superior to Thor's movie debut. I really thought that the Incredible Hulk movie redeemed the franchise quite nicely after the first fiasco. I was looking forward to the sequel and the debut of "The Leader". It's a shame that Ed Norton won't be reprising his roll for the Avengers (or any future Hulk films for that matter).
As for the Thor movie, I thought it was good, but it got a bit slow in the middle. They really couldn't have come up with a plot that allowed Thor to retain his powers through the whole movie? Definitely needed a bit more action throughout.
I thought they made the Hulk too big in the 2nd film (never saw the first), although that seems to be following the Ultimate version which is more or less standard for most of the Marvel films of the last decade. I also wonder if the Hulk will be more intelligible in the Avengers flick or will he still be mostly mute? Anyhow, while it'll definitely be a tough fight, if Thor keeps his wits and uses all his power I'd say he can beat the Hulk, but he'd get a whooping if he dares to underestimate ol' Greenskin.
HI guys, I did indeed mean which character would win in a fight, sorry for not clarifying that. Since we'd run a Versus post before pitting these two against each other as comic characters, I thought it might be fun to see how opinions ran based on how they were depicted on the big screen.
Personally I'd have to give it to Thor. He's also strong and he's got the hammer, and the lightning. I don't see the movie Hulk doing that well against him.
I agree Fred, the Hulk is never one to be underestimated. And if you thought 'ol greenskin was too big in the second movie, you should have seen him in the first one. At one point I think he got to about 18 feet tall. While watching it, I sometimes felt that Ang Lee really wanted to direct a King Kong movie instead of the Hulk. That said, the first film still had a couple of moments that made it worth at least one screening. For instance there's a scene where he takes on the Army in the desert that is lifted right out of the comics. So, if you're ever bored and have the opportunity, you might want to check it out.
William's dead-on, the Hulk in the first film just got to a ridiculous size. I don't think he changed size in the second one, but was too big to start with, as far as I am concerned. Even in the comics now, he looks about ten feet tall. What's wrong with him being 7 feet tall and massive? I thought the whole idea was that he was a man-monster, not just a monster.
I do love that sequence in the desert from the first film, and I think the overall look of that Hulk was better than the look of the second one, although I really like the second film.
Karen: "I did indeed mean which character would win in a fight, sorry for not clarifying that."
Oops, I probably should have read your original closer. In that case, I have to give it to Thor because he has a lot more going on than just physical strength.
An 18-foot tall Hulk??? Sheesh, William, yep, that is far too tall! In the comics the Hulk bulks up to about 3 times Bruce Banner's size but he doesn't get 3 times as tall -- this is the Hulk, after all, not Giant-Man. Ah, well, eventually I'll have to check it out, along with the Daredevil and X-Men III flicks which I likewise missed.
Karen: Just for fun: Movie-Thor vs. Movie-Hulk: who wins??
Thor, hands down. He kills frost giants. Hulk fights mutated poodles and his dad as a cloud. No contest.
ReplyDelete(Okay, the second Hulk was a lot better, and the fight with Abomination was pretty slick. Still, all about the Thunder God.)
Gotta go with Thor on this one. Thunder God trumps mutated angry nerd every time.
ReplyDeleteThey are pretty equal in sheer strength, but Thor has the addition of his mystic hammer and storm powers. Plus (although he isn't exactly a genius) Thor is smarter than the Hulk. So in a battle of equals in strength, Thor should be able to outwit the bestial Hulk and score the victory.
This would be an awesome battle to behold on the big screen. Hopefully it's one we may actually see in the upcoming Avengers movie.
You Hulk-o-philes can help me out here -- in the comics, did the Hulk grow in size as he got angrier? Both of the films show this to be true, with his height beginning somewhere around the OHOTMU-listed 7-feet, but quickly seeming to exceed 10'. I just think that would be a factor in any battle that might require leverage in close quarters.
ReplyDeleteAs to who I like better? Thor, no contest. A far more interesting character.
How many of you saw the Avengers movie trailer online yesterday before it was yanked? I only saw it once, and it was pretty murky. But there was certainly enough coolness there to make me wish I had a time machine and could fast-forward to next summer!
Doug
Hulk wins. In comics, animation, movies, whatever.
ReplyDeleteThe old "angrier=stronger" business means he has unlimited power.
I love 'em both equally.. I still go back to Defenders 10 (I know it's not their first fight..), and it's a good match.
ReplyDeleteBut True Believers.... as William mentioned: Thor is indeed a god, and can call up uber-lightning bolts with a wave of his Hammer. So I'm still thinkin' that's giving him the edge.
Hulkie has it all on the muscles side, no doubts at all, but Thor's got so much more.
I have to give the edge to the Hulk film -- the Edward Norton version, that is.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong, I liked both. and I actually like Thor better as a character. But I think the Hulk film was just more fun. It jumped right into the action and gave a real bang-up fight for the climax.
The Thor film was slowed down by having to lay out the origin. (Seriously, why do so many comic book films have to do this? Why can't they just tell an adventure story and leave it at that?) That and Thor spent much of the film "reduced" to being an ordinary mortal. And finally the fight against the Destroyer was over a little too quickly for my taste.
Not that Thor was a bad film. I enjoyed it, but it had more baggage to deal with than the Hulk.
P.S. My understanding, Doug, was that while the Hulk did get stronger when he got angrier, he didn't grow larger. I think what you saw was the CGI magic getting the scale of the character wrong.
Inkstained is correct about the apparent need to explain origins..
ReplyDeleteIt get's a bit old, but I guess movie-makers see it essential to start off a new franchise.
You'll laugh at the example, but the '66 Batman series didn't need an 'origin' episode. You certainly knew who Batman and Robin was, or for the drove of new, uninformed watchers.., no one cared.
The Hulk movie did have that edge, I'll give you that.
Doug, The Hulk's size did not vary in the comics. The angrier he got, the stronger he got, but he stayed the same height and mass. However, In the first Hulk movie (by Ang Lee) he definitely got larger as he got AngLee-er (er, uh, I mean angrier). However in the second movie the Hulk's size stayed consistent as it did in the comics. (But in that movie he was already pretty dang BIG).
ReplyDeleteInkstained, I think Karen meant which version of the character would win in a fight. Not who had the better movie. (At least I think that's what she meant. Karen?)
But since you brought it up, I do agree with you that the 2nd Hulk flick was superior to Thor's movie debut. I really thought that the Incredible Hulk movie redeemed the franchise quite nicely after the first fiasco. I was looking forward to the sequel and the debut of "The Leader". It's a shame that Ed Norton won't be reprising his roll for the Avengers (or any future Hulk films for that matter).
As for the Thor movie, I thought it was good, but it got a bit slow in the middle. They really couldn't have come up with a plot that allowed Thor to retain his powers through the whole movie? Definitely needed a bit more action throughout.
I thought they made the Hulk too big in the 2nd film (never saw the first), although that seems to be following the Ultimate version which is more or less standard for most of the Marvel films of the last decade. I also wonder if the Hulk will be more intelligible in the Avengers flick or will he still be mostly mute? Anyhow, while it'll definitely be a tough fight, if Thor keeps his wits and uses all his power I'd say he can beat the Hulk, but he'd get a whooping if he dares to underestimate ol' Greenskin.
ReplyDeleteHI guys, I did indeed mean which character would win in a fight, sorry for not clarifying that. Since we'd run a Versus post before pitting these two against each other as comic characters, I thought it might be fun to see how opinions ran based on how they were depicted on the big screen.
ReplyDeletePersonally I'd have to give it to Thor. He's also strong and he's got the hammer, and the lightning. I don't see the movie Hulk doing that well against him.
Karen
I agree Fred, the Hulk is never one to be underestimated. And if you thought 'ol greenskin was too big in the second movie, you should have seen him in the first one. At one point I think he got to about 18 feet tall. While watching it, I sometimes felt that Ang Lee really wanted to direct a King Kong movie instead of the Hulk. That said, the first film still had a couple of moments that made it worth at least one screening. For instance there's a scene where he takes on the Army in the desert that is lifted right out of the comics. So, if you're ever bored and have the opportunity, you might want to check it out.
ReplyDeleteWilliam's dead-on, the Hulk in the first film just got to a ridiculous size. I don't think he changed size in the second one, but was too big to start with, as far as I am concerned. Even in the comics now, he looks about ten feet tall. What's wrong with him being 7 feet tall and massive? I thought the whole idea was that he was a man-monster, not just a monster.
ReplyDeleteI do love that sequence in the desert from the first film, and I think the overall look of that Hulk was better than the look of the second one, although I really like the second film.
Karen
Karen: "I did indeed mean which character would win in a fight, sorry for not clarifying that."
ReplyDeleteOops, I probably should have read your original closer. In that case, I have to give it to Thor because he has a lot more going on than just physical strength.
I'd for movie-Thor if the studio had the balls to let him wear his damn helmet.
ReplyDeleteI'd vote movie-Hulk if he weren't so over-rendered you can barely make out his musculature.
Here's hoping both are improved for Avengers.
An 18-foot tall Hulk??? Sheesh, William, yep, that is far too tall! In the comics the Hulk bulks up to about 3 times Bruce Banner's size but he doesn't get 3 times as tall -- this is the Hulk, after all, not Giant-Man. Ah, well, eventually I'll have to check it out, along with the Daredevil and X-Men III flicks which I likewise missed.
ReplyDelete