The Incredible Hulk

I am gonna to see it and again, you're talking a smidgen of Patrick Kielty there. The fact that I found a tidbit of information on a browse as opposed to 'hunting' down news about it is irrelevant when considering your bias, and a thing that strikes me whenever you post; dealing in absolutes.

Shiit, that trailer is awesome.

Originally posted by exanda kane
Actually Edward Norton's looking like the only interesting thing about this film. Exaggerated Van Damme comparisons aside, I gave you the crappy trailer, be happy kids.

A bit pompous are we? The link was already provided in the thread start.

This is the second trailer that was only releasaed on May the 1st, not during March when you gave that link. Admittedly links and pages are updated.

I don't think the CGI looks that bad, at least nowhere near as bad as in I Am Legend. And the official trailer is pretty awesome, so far looking a lot better than the last Hulk movie

Hi Robtard,
I am a great fan of hulk movies.This seems to generate a lot of interest in anyone watching this absolutely information.Thanks for that.

Edward Norton is a good actor but I get the feeling this movie will suck based on the trailer. Hopefully I will be proved wrong though.

Looks awesome imo. Besides Norton is an amazing actor and is a huge hulk film so it's actually going to be an accurate comic film!

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Edward Norton is a good actor but I get the feeling this movie will suck based on the trailer. Hopefully I will be proved wrong though.

Yeah... same here.

And the Hulk still looks lame to me. Can't really explain it but the texture just looks shitty imo. Same for the A-bomb. Norton seems kind of iffy to me as well. He does seem rather pretentious in this movie.

Hulk's one of my favorite Marvel characters though, so I'll keep my hopes up.

The level to which people judge movies on trailers these days is ridiculous. All movies.

-AC

I guess I'm in a minority here, having really enjoyed the Ang Lee Hulk film (as a film, if not purely as a Hulk film) but, this film's shaping up nicely. might just be worthwhile having "rebooted" The Hulk.

Norton's great casting as Banner, not quite in the league of Robert Downey Jr as Stark but great nonetheless.

I just hope Hulk isn't fighting poodles or busy sub-textually resolving daddy issues in this film. I would really like the character to be brought up to just around pre-Planet Hulk, intelligent, rational and in the process of embracing the Hulk and understanding him (meditation and therapy) rather than just fighting him(self).

I think that the design is better this time around, but the special effects aren't as good.

Originally posted by Toku King
I think that the design is better this time around, but the special effects aren't as good.

Indeed....

Originally posted by Toku King
I think that the design is better this time around, but the special effects aren't as good.

Are you serious? What little can be seen, it looks at least as good if not better than the Ang Lee version. The scene where Hulk is fighting the military, it looks better than when Ang-Hulk fought the military, effects-wise and action-wise.

I agree.

I don't know what people expect. They want a 10ft tall green mutant to look realistic or something?

-AC

Me personally, no. But I like the look of Lee's Hulk more to this one. I can't really place my finger on why, but I do. The Hulk's skin just looks iffy here.

The graphics were probably better in the last one, and Hulk did look good, but I think he looks harder this time.

Not as soft.

-AC

I have a legit question...

Where the f**k does the mass come from when Dr. Bruce Banner turns into the Hulk? What can explain this mass increase?

I got a better understanding of WHAT happens to the mass when he shrinks back down...because there was smoky stuff leaving his body when he was turning back in Bruce in Ang Lee's version.

Stupid nit pick...I know....but whatever.

A fair question....however, it dates back to the comics of the 60s.

Jack Kirby wasn't very scientific about the physics of his creations. So it really was left for fan speculation.

How I wish Kirby was alive. He would have block these atrocities. But you know Marvel gotta milk the cow.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
A fair question....however, it dates back to the comics of the 60s.

Jack Kirby wasn't very scientific about the physics of his creations. So it really was left for fan speculation.

How I wish Kirby was alive. He would have block these atrocities. But you know Marvel gotta milk the cow.

Unlike other forms of "comics", I think American comics try to do better at giving believable and logical explanations for things/powers.

A kid told me he absorbs the air around him and quickly recombines the molecules to his use. That would be great in all if air had a lot of carbon in it, but it doesn't. The ground is out of the question because it is never shown that the ground is absorbed into his feet.