Freedom Reborn Archive

The villian and the man who plays him:

http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=5648

Its the good-old nemesis match up...  :thumbup:

I knew who the villian would be a LONG time ago.

That being said, it's a much better choice than "Absorbing Dad" and should have been what they did in the first place.  They could have even done a shared origin.

At any rate, they're fixing this now, so I can't complain too much.

Im glad to hear that, at least the hulk is going to have something to swing at, which has helped spidey and Batman and hindered Superman (give the man a villain!).

Ohh, heck yeah!

It's funny how Hulk 1 had a great director and a kinda average cast (except for the dude who played Thunderbolt Ross).

Hulk 2 has possibly the best cast for a comic book movie so far (aside from Road To Perdition), but the director sucks ... its the guy who did Transporter 2, right?

I wouldent be too harsh on Louis Leterrier... he also did Unleashed which is basically hulk as a Jet Li instead of Bruce Banner. Its the story of a sweet and innocent guy who becomes a raging mass of martial arts whenever his collar is removed. Through art and friendship he tries to domesticate the beast within, with cool results. Check it out!

Although...

I hope they dont scratch everything... Ang Lee told some powerful stories within the hulk and had some amazing visuals. I really wish they just did this as a sequel insted of some reboot, it is just pandering to people who cannot recognized good editing or story telling when they see it... absorbing dad aside (yuck).

Oh, I'm definitely not demanding a reboot.  Like with F4, I'm just hoping that they make a sequal that fixes the problems in the original.

Lugaru, I know you liked that movie, and I know we've danced that whole dance before, so I'm not saying this in an attempt to open a debate as we can only agree to disagree, but I would have NO problems with them scratching everything Lee did.  I thought that movie was just plain awful, yeah, maybe there were some good ideas in there, but I felt that they were lost among the drivel, so I hope they have little or no reference to it.

Totally Troll-y response on my part, disregard and continue... but check out unleashed though. Seriosly.

I can't wait for the dialog in this movie.  :P

(Lugaru, I didn't mean to offend you)

I like Jet Li films, I'll have to try and check that out.  I thought Transporter 2 wasn't terrible, solid action movie, but perhaps not a good fit for Hulk.  I hope that Unleashed will paint a more full picture.

Benton,
Unleashed was a much better movie than Transporter 2, in my opinion (sic) as well.

I heard somewhere (can't recall where) that the Hulk will actually be gray in the new movie. Anyone else hear this?

-MJB

yeah, i read that too, MJB.

I heard that, then read an interview with Avi Arad, in which he said that was just a joke, and that 'ol green jeans will be....well....green.

Joking or not I would not be suprised if they work it in at some point as fan service... either by a weird dose of radiation or just having a couple dozen buckets of gray paint land on him (that would be funny actually). Still Im sure they would avoid the "evil" angle after spidey 3.

i'm a big hulk fan but in the hulk movie the only parts good were the parts with the hulk actually in  it.the rest of the movie was boring.oh yeah...betty ross was fine!

I'm not sure how I feel about this possibility.... Read the article:

http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=5714

Is he any good at acting? Haven't seen him anywhere but as the Ol' green guy...

Quote from: Xorn on May 21, 2007, 08:52:11 AM
I'm not sure how I feel about this possibility.... Read the article:

http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=5714

Is he any good at acting? Haven't seen him anywhere but as the Ol' green guy...

I don't know about actual acting, but he is essentially deaf and has a very odd speaking style as a result.  The few times I've seen him doing anything other than the Hulk this has really goten in the way of his acting.

Well, he communicates quite well, despite being deaf.  He speaks very clearly, and if the character he plays is deaf, I see no problems at all.  Even if not, as long as it's not an intensive speaking role, I can't imagine it would be that big of an issue.

Quote from: Xorn on May 21, 2007, 08:52:11 AMIs he any good at acting? Haven't seen him anywhere but as the Ol' green guy...

Actually, you *have* seen him in a part other than the Hulk.  He played a security guard (with Stan Lee!) in the first movie.




Unless, of course, someone tells me that was one of the deleted scenes that was included on the DVD. :doh:

You guys forget the old Hercules movies from the 80's? Yeah, me too.

More news on cast... Gen Ross is:

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=1&id=41886&type=0

Another A-list actor in my book... It does seem they will be doing a complete reboot as far as the cast is concerned... I wonder if they will even mention any of the events that transpired in the Hulk movie...

QuoteUnless, of course, someone tells me that was one of the deleted scenes that was included on the DVD. doh

It was.

I like William Hurt, and i think he will do fine in the roll, but Sam Elliot was one of the few things I think they got right in the first film. Im kinda sad hes not coming back -- though I do understand that as a "reboot" instead of a true sequel, things need to be changed.

catwhowalksbyhimself:  I'm pretty sure I saw the scene with Stan and Lou in the theater.

While a lot of us did not know that this was going to be the villain a LONG time ago, I think it's a great choice. I for one, am glad to hear it. The first film gave us some great Hulk action and the snubbed us in the end. The army scenes got the viewers going, and then the "climactic" battle was some "Absorbing man turns in Zzzaxxx the energy creature". What a let down.

Hulk and Abomination duking it out? I'm in.  :)

Well, its a tie between this film and Iron Man for the best cast in comic film yet. I really liked Sam Elliot as Thunderbolt Ross, though ... he was the most well-cast actor in Ang's Hulk.

Sounds good so far. Ed Norton is a wonderful choice for the lead role. He has done many different kinds of roles in his career, too.

As for best casting in a Marvel film, I still feel that the X-Men franchise had the best casting, hands down.

I think this is the right thread...

Found this on SuperHeroHype (http://www.superherohype.com) before it got pulled. Thought you guys might find it interesting.

Abomination Revealed...
[spoiler](http://www.captainspud.com/mjb/images/abomb.jpg)[/spoiler]

I'm sure there will be haters but I don't mind the changes much. Would prefer an actual photo instead of the back of an action figure but what is a guy to do?

-MJB

what did the original look like? Cus this one looks pretty sweet.

The only thing I would have done would be to add some fin ears.

http://www.marveldirectory.com/individuals/a/abomination.htm

And PS: Wasn't Transporter 2 suppose to be a parody? I always assumed it was.

Hmm...I don't really understand the rationale for changing the character design, as the original is recognizable to comic fans and (in my opinion) more visually interesting with the ears.  It is also more easily distinguished from Hulk himself.  That being said, the new design isn't bad.  It's not exactly ground breaking, but I'm not upset by it.

I thought Transporter 2 was a really awesome movie up until it showed the all-time worst and unintentionally hilarious scene of any movie ever. I laughed from the point when he saw that bomb on the bottom of his car and realized he'd be able to drive his car into midair and have it flip just enough so that the crane hanging down would knock it off. Like, how did he know to do that AM I RIGHT?!

Am I the only one disturbed by the Hulk action figure with "super clap" powers? *shudder*

I suppose the filmmakers had to do something to the original Abomination design to avoid offering viewers what might amount to a Hulkified version of those Gremlins from that 1984 film. *shrug*

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning

What's so bad about that, ow_tiobe_sb?   ;)

He looks more like Swamp Thing, to me.  Add them ear fins on there, and it might help.....maybe.

Quote from: ow_tiobe_sb on February 14, 2008, 01:55:33 PM
Am I the only one disturbed by the Hulk action figure with "super clap" powers? *shudder*

just gotta make sure the kids wear protection when they play with him

it looks like the character tony stark(robert downey jr.) is also in the hulk movie.

does anyone know how theyre going to bring the hulk to the big screen.is it the same computer animation like the other movie?

If you are asking if the Hulk will be computer generated then the answer is yes. If you are asking if they are using the same model that was used in the Ang Lee Hulk movie then the answer is no.

-MJB

TRAILER!

http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=6920

That's awesome!

Seriously, it looks like a real Hulk movie, when an actual villain Hulk can have a knock out, drag down fight with.

It should be fun.

Damn MTV and their "can't show things outside the US" crap. Anyway, found a spanish one on youtube, damn does this movie look good!

Quote from: Verfall on March 12, 2008, 06:29:26 PM
Damn MTV and their "can't show things outside the US" crap.

my thoughts exactly, ohh well as per usual the fanboys have begun moaning and complaining that the cgi and effects look crap

The trailer is up on MTV's website. Feel free to watch and voice your opinions. :)

www.mtv.com (http://www.mtv.com)

-MJB

The Hulk looks cool, but is it me or does he has a tad bit too much hair?

Quote from: JeyNyce on March 13, 2008, 11:40:17 AM
The Hulk looks cool, but is it me or does he has a tad bit too much hair?

Yeah, I was thinkin' the same thing.  And the face, or at least the chin, looks a bit too angular.

And can we get some ear-wings on the Abomination?  :D

Just to be absolutely clear about what this film represents, ComingSoon.net (http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=15533) seems to indicate that [spoiler]this film is a reboot of sorts.  However, certain elements of the trailer are confusing in that they seem to hint at Banner's having a much longer past dealing with his problem.  In other words, my question is whether or not this film intends to re-create the gamma bomb explosion scene which leads to the introduction of the Hulk, or will it rely on this well known sequence as a series of events that occurred off-screen--in which case, the film leaves the door open to the possibility that this is a sequel and not an attempt to restart?  [RANT]IMHO, film franchises that want to restart and erase the tale told only five short years ago irritate me to no end.  The Ang Lee film was not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I thought Eric Bana and Jennifer Connelly performed well despite the weaknesses of the story (and I thought the psychodrama approach to telling the Hulk's story was at least a good concept, even if its realisation was less than satisfying in parts).  If this next film is a reboot, it strikes me as unnecessary and simply underlines the fact that there is no such thing as artistic loyalty in such a crass Marvel film industry.  :thumbdown:[/RANT][/spoiler]

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning

I think the Lee-Kirby comic book origin, or even the TV show origin, are both better than that confused, weirdly Freudian thing Ang Lee put together. By the way, the first few minutes of the TV pilot are a brilliant example of efficient and dramatic screenwriting.
But potentially, the original origin is even darker and more powerful. The cold scientist Banner is transformed by his own creation, a bomb more terrible than the hydrogen bomb. It hints that the scariest monster is the guy in the lab coat.

http://incredible-hulk-trailer.blogspot.com/

Looks quite good. Nice to see Dawn of The Dead jerk as Doc Samson, plus the "Banner falls from plane, turns into Hulk on the way down" set piece.

The only things I'm not keen on are:

* as mentioned, rebooting Ang Lee's movie. For all its faults, at least it got Hulk's origin out of the way. No need to explore that further.

* the look of the Hulk. His face and build looks a little off to me ... maybe too cartoony.

I think I'm one of the few people who loved the original Hulk movie. There were really only 2 things that bothered me: the ending, and when the Hulk fights on tree limbs. I mean, really Ang Lee? Tree limbs? Is this Crouching Tiger Hidden Hulk? But I digress.

At first I was against this reboot crap too. In fact I still kind of am. Hulk came out 5 years ago. People aren't going to forget that film so soon. So this "reboot" I think is going to confuse a lot of people. But not us internet geeks who know, lol.

when they announced the cast though, I was all for it, especially when I heard Norton took the initiative to get involved with the script and make edits. The trailer looks good. I think the CGI looks decent. I just find it odd that Marvel would shun Hulk 2003 so easily. Fantastic Four was a much worse movie than Hulk, but that one was flagged for a sequel right away with the same cast and all. It all boiled down to box office on that one, but I'm sure Hulk didn't lose that much money. It's just frustrating as I really think Hulk is a very underrated, under appreciated, and, much like the character himself, misunderstood film.

I do like what I'm seeing from this trailer.

my thoughts on the new film are that the new film will stand on its own like the other never happened.also this time around will be better because they probably heard what everybody hated about the first film and will correct it with the new film.this hulk will be more like the rampaging hulk everyone grew up with.its going to be a smash fest and thats what everyone looks for from the hulk.my question is how theyre going to use tony stark in the new film?will we see the hulkbuster armor?sweet!

Quote from: herodad1 on March 13, 2008, 08:44:06 PM
its going to be a smash fest and thats what everyone looks for from the hulk.

that's exactly what I'm afraid of though, and why I really liked the first Hulk movie. It wasn't just a completely mindless action movie, and instead actually took time to develop its characters. Hopefully we can have both the good character development and action scenes in this one though.

I liked the first movie too.  Speed, size, and strength wise the Hulk couldn't have been better...and there was plenty of smashing.  IMO much much much better than the Fantastic Four 1 and 2.  I don't think it needs a reboot, but I'm open minded.

The first Hulk wasn't that bad.  It didn't start to get good until Hulk was fighting the Army.

Keep in mind that, unless I am mistaken, this movie is being made by marvel studios while the first was before Marvel founded their own studios, so I definitely would not expect a straight sequal.  That being set, I believe the plan was for it to be a basic reboot, but for the actual origin to remain open so one could assume the last movie did take place.

Could be wrong, though.

Tim Roth?  Cool!  Did we know that? :unsure:

I'm going to have to disagree with several people here about the reboot thing... while I agree it would be very annoying if I have to go through the origin of Hulk AGAIN, the fact remains that If this does a more effective job I'm not going to whine about a reboot "so soon" after the last. Frankly, I wish certain OTHERS would follow suit and just let us forget what were horrible ideas that hadn't been thought out AT ALL *cough*Superman*cough*.

You can complain about not going back to the original concept, but if I had the choice between a sequel that was decent but still mostly a rehash of the same garbage the first experienced and a movie that discounted everything before but was in all respects better... Heck, I want the better film.

As for the new Hulk movie... I agree with Marvell somewhat. I'm all for Hulk Smashing things, but without any characterization there the smashing is empty, and that would make Tomato sad. However, the first one overdid it... a good chunk of the movie was devoted to the psychobable about how everything Banner did was his father's fault, and we have to pity poor poor Banner for this reason. If they keep the story focused on Banner's own responsibility I'll enjoy it more.

The first Star Trek movie, like the first Hulk movie, was unpardonably dull. So Paramount basically ignored the first film and made an excellent, action-packed, dramatic second film. That's what I'd like to see here.
I won't even concede that the first Hulk movie was better than the first Fantastic Four movie, which was at least fun-loving, for all its faults. The Hulk movie was pretentious, ponderous and TEDIOUS. The kids in the audience were squirming with boredom the night I saw it, and I was as fed up as they were.
Odd, because both Robert Wise and Ang Lee have made brilliant films.

The first Hulk movie was great.  It wasn't as good as Spider-man, but it was leaps beyond Fantastic Four.  Fantastic Four had me checking my watch to see when the pain would stop.  I would put Hulk ahead of all of Marvel's movies except the Spider-man trilogy, Blade or X2.  I own a copy of Hulk and have watched it no less than 7 times.  I'm hoping though that Cat is right and they do not fully discount his previous movie origin even if they go with a different cast, crew and method of storytelling.  I'm just afraid that this might end up being like X3: dumbed down with the action taking precedence over story and characterization.

To each his own. Hated hated hated the Hulk, Bought the DVD of Fantastic Four.

Okies, now that Lent's over, I can watch videos again, and I have to say this new Hulk looks so much more fun than the first one.

From the New York Time

What's Big and Green, and Desperate to Be a Hit All Over?
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/10/arts/10hulk-600.jpg)
The Hulk from "The Incredible Hulk," a coming film starring Edward Norton that has attracted some negative buzz.
By BROOKS BARNES
Published: April 10, 2008

LOS ANGELES — Bad buzz. Creative infighting. Superhero gridlock at the multiplex. For Marvel Studios, handling gamma rays is starting to look like a cakewalk compared to turning "The Incredible Hulk" into a movie franchise.

The unjolly green giant, born from a botched gamma bomb experiment in a 1962 comic book, belongs to an elite class of superhero. In Marvel's stable of characters, which includes the X-Men and the Silver Surfer, only Spider-Man outsells him. The Hulk, along with his emotionally withdrawn alter ego, Dr. Bruce Banner, has spawned television shows, theme-park rides and best-selling toys.
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/10/arts/10hulk2-190.jpg)
But big-screen glory has eluded him. In 2003 "Hulk," a pricey attempt to give the monster a Spidey-size movie career, flopped after the director Ang Lee's artsy creature was ridiculed as Gumbyesque. That picture, which cost $150 million to make, sold a disappointing $132 million in tickets in North America and made less overseas.

Now Marvel is attempting what it openly calls a do-over. Starring Edward Norton, "The Incredible Hulk," set for a June 13 release, will serve up more action (Hulk battles a new creature called Abomination) and more female-friendly themes. (Banner is madly in love.) The monster was mute in Mr. Lee's film, but this one speaks, a nod to the campy 1978-82 television series that starred Bill Bixby and the bodybuilder Lou Ferrigno (resplendent in green body paint).

Marvel and its distribution partner, Universal Pictures, expect "The Incredible Hulk" to be nothing short of a blockbuster, citing strong sales for a newly introduced "Hulk" comic book series as one reason for optimism.
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/10/arts/10hulk3-190.jpg)
"We are really proud about how the new film came out," said David Maisel, chairman of Marvel Studios. "The 2003 movie was like test-driving a car. We were able to see what people liked and did not." But signs of trouble abound, leading to lip-biting among some Marvel investors, Hulk fans and movie theater owners. "There are people who clearly don't think it looks good and are expecting a bomb," said Doug Creutz, an entertainment analyst at Cowan & Company.

The trailer, engineered to vanquish memories of the 2003 film, arrived last month and instantly polarized the comic book crowd. The look of the new Hulk — meaner and greener — won praise from some fans online, but several influential tastemakers held their noses.

Entertainment Weekly pronounced the computer-generated effects "totally fake-looking," while obsessedwithfilm.com deemed the project "just hideous."
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/10/arts/10hulk4-190.jpg)
And then there's the bickering among the creative team.

Mr. Norton and Marvel, which has the right of final approval on the film, have sparred in recent weeks over trims, among other issues, said studio executives involved, who asked to remain anonymous as they were not authorized to speak publicly. Mr. Norton — who was hired to rewrite the script along with playing the lead — has made it clear he won't cooperate with publicity plans if he's not happy with the final product, these people said.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Norton said he had no comment. Mr. Maisel brushed off the friction as par for the course.

"When you get to this point in the process, there are always lots of passionate discussions," he said. "Edward is very passionate. He is as passionate about the Hulk as we are." (For those unaccustomed to Hollywood speak, "very passionate" roughly translates to a seven on the "he's a difficult person" scale.)

Even if everything were running smoothly, "The Incredible Hulk," which has a budget of about $150 million, would probably be having a difficult time generating excitement. With studios in hot pursuit of franchises, superheroes are booked elbow to elbow at the summer multiplex. Seven movies built around larger-than-life characters will vie for attention between May and August, including Batman's latest adventures ("The Dark Knight") and "Hancock," which stars Will Smith as a misanthropic superhero. "Iron Man," with Robert Downey Jr. as a wealthy industrialist who builds an armored suit, arrives next month from Marvel and Paramount.

Even Stan Lee, a creator of the Hulk and Iron Man characters, seems underenthused about the prospects of his green baby. "My prediction is that it will be more popular than the last one," he said. His "Iron Man" prediction? "Enormous hit," he said.

Universal Pictures, which will distribute and market "The Incredible Hulk," bristles at the notion that the monster needs C.P.R. "I would caution anybody against betting against it," said Adam Fogelson, Universal's president for marketing and distribution.

Mr. Fogelson said the trailer for "The Incredible Hulk" had generated more streams online than any previous Universal trailer. He also said the movie had the largest number of licensing and promotional partners of any Universal project in 2008, although he would not name any.

Universal noted that Mr. Norton's Hulk, according to a recent poll on the ticket-selling Web site Fandango, is the fourth "most anticipated new character portrayal" of the summer. (Over all the movie ranked as the seventh "most anticipated summer 2008" movie.)

As for competition, Marvel and Universal plan to use the giddiness around "Iron Man" to their advantage. A second "Hulk" trailer will run in conjunction with "Iron Man," and Mr. Downey will make a cameo in "Hulk" as Iron Man.

Despite these promising signs — and an insistence that Mr. Lee's film has gotten a bum rap — Marvel and Universal are definitely trying not to repeat their mistakes in 2003. They have held back on showing any footage of the new monster until they are satisfied with the effects. Last time Universal broadcast a Super Bowl ad that quickly prompted the Gumby comparisons, and the studio ended up plowing $20 million into extra special effects.

One detail in the first film that irked fans — the Hulk grows to three different sizes depending on his level of annoyance — has been eliminated. This time he will be a uniform nine feet tall. The two studios are also playing down Banner's loser tendencies and playing up Hulk as a hero.

Perhaps the most obvious difference is that the new movie will stick closer to the television show, which is most people's point of reference for the Hulk. That's partly why the producers added back the word "incredible" to the title. In another nod, Banner's eyes glow bright green when he starts to get angry.

Some fans have picked up on the differences.

"In reading the early hype on the movie, I was concerned that Marvel would seek to dumb down the character in reaction to the failure of the 2003 film," said Charlie Brooks, the moderator of a Hulk message board at comicboards.com. "The trailer gave me hope."

Strange that the article said that the Hulk speaking would be a nod to the TV series--given that he never speaks in the series either.  I guess the writer of the article just didn't know what he was talking about, which annoys me.

Regardless, I have great hopes for this movie, and some of the thing's I've heard give me more hope.  As for the Hulk's look--this is probably a character that just can't translate into a real life movie all that well as far as his appearance.  That's okay, he won't look perfect and I accept that.  He seems to look decent enough, and I'm not going to nitpick further than that.

This article strikes me as a really, really clumsy attempt to create a controversy.  Granted the new H probably won't be the next spider-man, but that's a very long road from making it a bad film.  A moody actor?   (In Hollywood?!  Heaven forbid!!) Lee uses one more adjective for Iron Man than Hulk and he's down on the project?  (Want to bet he was on some sort of Iron Man junket?).  A couple of self-appointed (?self-important?) "taste makers" thinks the big H looks cheesy? (flying in the face of fairly widespread fan acclaim to the trailer).  Tempest in a teapot.

:bangs shoe on table: It's yellow entertainment journalism, I tells ya!!!

I wouldn't wipe myself with that article.

 :wub: Mmmm.... Edward Norton.  :wub: :wub: :wub:

Don't read further, if you don't want to know stuff! You have been warned!!!!

(http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk180/HoldyourfireAl/Movies/hr_Posters_1.jpg)


(http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk180/HoldyourfireAl/Movies/untitled1111.jpg)

The preview of The Incredible Hulk was suppossed to start at 3PM in the IGN Theatre at the NYCCC. Unfortunately, a crowd of at least 1,000 of us were left cooling our heels until almost 4PM due to another movie studio running their presentation too long. Needless to say, many of us were not happy! The convention was over at 7PM, The Incredible Hulk presentation was suppossed to be done at 4PM, so it cut into a lot of shopping & other presentations that I wanted to attend. Thankfully, after we all got seated (filling the theatre to capacity!) we were in for a special time!

On stage were Tim Roth (Abomination), Louis Lettier (director), Kevin Feige (Marvel Studios), and Gale Anne Hurd(?) (producer). In a surprise move, they brought out Lou Ferrigno!

The Incredible Hulk 5-10 minute clip....

It opens with General "Thunderbolt" Ross (William Hurt) walking with Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth) in a hanger (?). They are discussing the process they are going to perform on Emil. Apparently, Marvel is setting up future movies (as you will read at the end of my tale!) and seem to be introducing the Super Soldier Formula. Of course, Captain America was created using the only known sample of the Super Soldier Serum along with the stabilizing effects of the Vita Rays in 1941. The plan was to turn ordinary soldiers into peaks of human perfection in the effort to thwart the Nazis. Unfortunately, a Nazi assassin/spy shoots & kills Professor Erkstine, the creator of the Super Soldier Serum. Erkstine had committed the formula to memory & had not written anything down, so that the secrets of the Super Soldier Program would not be discovered by the Axis powers. This resulted in the creation of Captain America, the only super soldier.
Ross explains to Blonsky that he must be informed of any side-effects. We then see the very painful process that Emil Blonsky endures. Now we cut to a college university(?) and Ed Norton as Dr. Robert Bruce Banner. Apparently, Banner has been discovered by Ross & his troops! The university has been invaded by the US military. Banner is seen running through an elevated glass/brick tunnel that connects two buildings at the university. Ross has his men aiming at Banner. They shoot tear gas canisters into the elevated passageway. As the gas begins to disperse from the canisters, Bruce spies another player down below---Betty Ross (Liv Tyler)!
The army seems to be manhandling her and restricting her access to Banner. She breaks free & screams for Bruce as she begins running across a green field towards the passageway where Banner is trapped. Soldiers pursue her. In one of my favorite scenes, acting like the Betty of the comics, she elbows one of the soldiers who drops to the ground bleeding from his mouth and nose. The other soldiers grapple and restrain her. Bruce looking down at the chaos is none too happy even as his escape route fills with the tear gas! You know what's coming next, right?
Banner bangs his hands against the glass and screams for them to let Betty go! As the gas engulfs him, his eyes turn green! He is now completely obscured in smoke. We cut to a slightly backwards, side view of Banner in the tunnel. Straight out of issue #1 of The Incredible Hulk, comes the transformation we've been anticipating! We are thrilled to see his boots splitting open, looking as if the late, great,co-father of Marvel Comics, Jack Kirby had drawn it himself! Now we see the fists smashing through the glass of the elevated passage. The Hulk breaks free and leaps upwards, finally landing on the field below to confront Ross and his troops. He bellows a mighty roar and then begins his counter offense!
The Hulk battles the military might of Ross' armored troops---guns, tanks, jeeps, etc...He tosses them about like a child on a rampage! Finally, Ross pulls back his men and tells Emil Blonsky that, "he's up." Emil, now apparently enhanced with the Super Soldier Serum, directly confronts the Hulk. He leaps around like Captain America, avoiding the Hulk's blows and landing some of his own! It seems as if Blonsky has tired out our monstorous hero! They now stand, sideways, facing one another. The 9'(should be 7' folks, but better than Ang Lee's 15') Incredible Hulk looks down at this "puny human" soldier not knowing what to make of him and angry that he couldn't get his paws on him. Emil looks up at him and says, "is that all you've got?" The Hulk responds by kicking him in the chest.

CUT!

The crowd goes nuts in applause!

We now move to a Q&A phase. About 10 of us line-up (including me!). Most of the questions are mundane & have little to do with the movie. One guy is roundly booed for praising the Ang Lee film and asking Leterrier how he is going to "honor" it in this new one? Kevin Feige states that Lee's film had some great parts, but what's different about this new film is that it kicks arse! Someone asks Gale Anne Hurd about the troubles with Norton. She agrees that he is very intense and that he is taking this film very, very seriously. That has caused disagreements about the length and cut. She says that Norton is totally committed to this movie and was just in the editing room with her days ago. Despite the disagreements, (Marvel wants a shorter, concise, fast paced action picture after the failure of Ang Lee's previous cerebral outing, while Ed Norton (who rewrote much of the script) and the director, Louis Leterrier
, want a longer, more explanation filled movie) she says that Ed wants this film to succeed, that he really believes in it. One of the panel members suggests that we read this week's Entertainment Weekly in which Ed Norton's side is revealed and hopefully all this can be put to rest. Unfortunately, I never get to ask my questions....

1. As much as I love what I have seen, I am very disappointed by the "reimagining" of the Abomination's appearance. Perhaps, the general movie-going public is oblivious to the Abomination's existence, but to those of us, who have followed the Hulk's comic book adventures as children, the Abomination is our most beloved villain. I mean----why not include his trademarked ears?!?!?!?

2. I am happy with the inclusion of long-time Incredible Hulk supporting character, Dr. Leonard Samson. Will we see a gamma induced transformation come his way in The Incredible Hulk II ?

The reason that I didn't get my chance at the mike was because of the surprise appearance of Lou Ferrigno, who got a standing ovation! Lou was invited to sit on the panel. Director Leterrier states that he dislikes "cameo" walk-on appearances in films. He says Lou will actually have a role in the film and that some of it is quite funny! Hopefully, we will see a stare down between the two Hulks! Leterrier
then talks about fans constantly asking if this Hulk will speak & he looks at Ferrigno. Lou says that he thinks it had always been a mistake not to have Hulk speak in the TV show. Leterrier asks him if he wants the job now? ***Now we don't know if Leterrier
was joking or not. He did say that, "you guys really want to hear Hulk say "Hulk SMASH!", don't you?" This of course met with lots of applause! We'll see! I really hope that they realize that the Hulk is not mute in any way & allow him to speak in this film!**** At the conclusion of Leterrier's discussion with Ferrigno, they had Lou roar----"Hulk SMASH!!!" That really met with a round of applause!
Things that were gleaned from the panel....

- Leterrier had many, many images from The Incredible Hulk comic books through the years posted all around his office for inspiration. He said that while viewing the film the other day that he was quite happy that each and every image has made the cut into the film!

-Leterrier stated that not only was the comic book used as source material and inspiration, but also was the TV show. The whole panel went on glowing about Bill Bixby's work and how it truely set the tone for what is to come.

-Leterrier said that he was working with the composer on the score this past week and that it is very, very good....STAR WARS good!

The panel then announced that they would show us the previously unseen new trailer for The Incredible Hulk! They also said to wait about 15 seconds before leaving to see something that has been rumored for months (and leads me to believe the connection between future Marvel films that I have talked about earlier!)

The trailer opens. It includes footage from the teaser trailer, scenes from the little preview we had seen earlier, and more new Hulk scenes. The one scene that I loved was a shot of Betty and Hulk sitting together, perched on a cliff, perhaps talking? That comes directly out of this issue, drawn by Dale Keown---

(http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/hulk/373-1.jpg)

and fulfills the director's pledge of including actual scenes from the comic!

As the trailer closes, the lights stay down and we are in for a very short tease...

On the screen, we see General Ross, sitting alone at a table in some rural bar. A well dressed man enters and walks over to Ross. It's Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark (Iron Man)! He says that he hears that Ross needs some help with "his problem." Ross says, "my problem? What about YOU'RE problem?"

The crowd goes nuts! The lights return. The panel is over and we are told that the new Hulk movie poster will be available at the Marvel booth.

The End!

They SHOULD have Lou Ferrigno do the Hulk's voice; he did it for the Hulk cartoon series that was on UPN back in the 90s and did a pretty awesome job.

As for the Abomination....ugh. He looks more like Bi-Beast with only one face than the Abomination, quite frankly.

I'm betting the next movie will probably have the Leader (I've heard Sam Sterns is in this one) and Doc Samson in it.

Quote from: GhostMachine on April 20, 2008, 06:26:56 PM
As for the Abomination....ugh. He looks more like Bi-Beast with only one face than the Abomination, quite frankly.

Would that make him a Uni-Beast or just a plain Beast?

I'm not going to take the Abomination's lack of webbed ears against the film's design team, though... in many instances, the decision to go with one design element over another is ultimately made by a "suit" and not by somebody who's actually familiar with the property. In fact, here's how I imagine the early design meetings went:

Movie Exec: (looking at concept sketch of Abomination) Why does he have webbed ears? Is he an amphibian or something?

Designer: Uh, no sir, we made him with webbed ears 'cause that's how he's always been drawn in the source material.

Movie Exec: I don't like it... it makes him look like he crawled out of a swamp, lose the ears.

Designer: Uh, sir, you do realize that amphibians don't have external ears, much less webbed ears, right? I think many of the people who are familiar with the Abomination character might take issue with him losing the distinctive ears.

Movie Exec: I've been in this business a long time kid, and trust me, I know what people want, and webbed ears isn't one of them. Now lose the ears, and while you're at it, give him bones coming out of his spine... people are terrified of skeletons, so the more protruding bones on this Abomination character, the better.

this seems frighteningly accurate

Quote from: Carravaggio on April 20, 2008, 11:25:19 PM
this seems frighteningly accurate

I concur. You got that down way too good, Z. Have you ever seen the movie "The Player"?

Quote from: TheMarvell on April 21, 2008, 10:35:50 PM

Quote from: Carravaggio on April 20, 2008, 11:25:19 PM
this seems frighteningly accurate

I concur. You got that down way too good, Z. Have you ever seen the movie "The Player"?

The Robert Altman movie? Sadly no. But I've been in enough production meetings to gain a sense of the sometimes ridiculous reasoning that goes on behind the scenes when it comes to design decisions.

You should see the movie then. It's a funny take on Hollywood execs, mixed in with a murder story. It's quite good. Also, have you seen An Evening With Kevin Smith? He talks about his encounter with one of Hollywoods big producers when asked to write a script for a Superman movie in the 90's, and the producer had silly ideas that would later be used in Wild Wild West, lol. Your mock dialog reminded me so much of that.

also, am I the only one not thrilled by this new "marvel hero crossover/cameo" thing about to happen? I thought it was agreed upon that they wouldn't do any crossovers in the movies and just have each hero in their own universe? I'm just not too keen on it.

Quote from: TheMarvell on April 22, 2008, 10:34:16 PM
also, am I the only one not thrilled by this new "marvel hero crossover/cameo" thing about to happen? I thought it was agreed upon that they wouldn't do any crossovers in the movies and just have each hero in their own universe? I'm just not too keen on it.

No, that was agreed upon because with Marvel originally not having a Hollywood Production role and being forced to sell off their rights to seperate movie companies that it would be impossible to make it happen. But if each Marvel comic never was allowed to cross over into another then the Marvel Universe wouldn't be such a great mixing bowl of storylines - so when Marvel created their Production Offices in partnership with Paramount Pictures that was the first problem they resolved to fixing. And I'm quite sure that Columbia's future Spider-Man trilogy will also be joining the ranks of the cross cameo appearances as well. Really, would an Avengers movie ever get made if Marvel kept each major character seperated from each other just to keep the storylines simple? The writers are keeping these surprise cameo appearances as easter eggs to tie the Marvel Universe together even in film form and if it helps explain a plot point like the Supersoldier Formula then all the better in my book.

Plus Marvel learned after selling the rights to Fantastic Four, X-Men, Daredevil, and Elektra to 20th Century Fox and finding out that a contract mistake ended up not allowing them to be used in any crossover with another companies characters. This was discovered when the Spectacular Spider-Man animators wanted to use Kingpin in their new series and Fox wouldn't allow them because Columbia owned the rights to Spider-Man and they were compedators. Apparently something had changed between Fox and Columbia after the CGI animated Spider-Man had the black Kingpin voiced by Michael Clarke Duncan. Universal Studios worked out a deal with Paramount so they could release the Incredible Hulk and maintain the rights but had to opt for a clause to allow for crossover characters. So the good news is that Wolverine will not be appearing in any non-mutant movies unless it's in Fantastic Four or Daredevil sequels.

- CrimsonQuill

The shared universe is the way they are gearing up for an Avengers Movie. Iron Man, then Hulk, then Nick Fury, then Thor, and AntMan (hopefully introducing Wasp) probably waiting until the Avengers movie to bring them all together to introduce Captain America.

Exactly what I was thinking, expecially with the Super Soldier formula playing a role in the Hulk movie.

I'm thing we're going to see more bits of open plot let for the Avengers movie and other hints as the individual movies come out.  The Avengers movie will then end up as a sequal to all the individual movies and not so much its own entity.  And personally, I like that.  If these characters are going to be together, we should feel that they are part of the same universe, from the beginning if possible.  Otherwise, we have the kind of disconnect that makes people hesitate at bring the Superman Returns and Batman Begins continuities together.  They just don't feel like they are in the same universe.

I guess I'm just not that excited about an Avengers movie, and think its kind of, well, unnecessary. If they can do it, and do it well, then more power to them, but I just get this vision of some big superhero special effects action fest with little to no substance. Not that they can't pull off an ensemble movie, far from it given the X-Men films, I'm just skeptical that it will work.

also, why Ant-Man? I'm honestly not familiar with the character at all and haven't even heard of him until I heard of the movie they're making, and when researching his character, I still failed to understand why they'd make a movie for him.

Quote from: TheMarvell on April 23, 2008, 09:33:37 PM
I guess I'm just not that excited about an Avengers movie, and think its kind of, well, unnecessary. If they can do it, and do it well, then more power to them, but I just get this vision of some big superhero special effects action fest with little to no substance. Not that they can't pull off an ensemble movie, far from it given the X-Men films, I'm just skeptical that it will work.

My fears precisely!  IMO, the only X-Men film that approached a worthy ensemble piece was X2, and even that lacked much screen time for James Marsden, who was supposed to portray the team leader, Cyclops (:huh:)--so we still ended up with a film much more focused on the de facto team leader and fan-favourite, Wolverine.  I'm not at all convinced that the writers and directors of these Marvel Comics films have the ability to pull off a decent ensemble piece whilst keeping the strictly capitalistic urges of the studio executives at bay.  Certainly, if there is a team title that deserves a good film, 'tis The (original) Avengers, but I fear that 'twill suffer from the problems faced by X3 or Spider-Man 3: too many mutants/superheroes/villains, too little screen, and too little time for respectable character/plot development (unless the studio execs are willing to go to 2.5-3 hours for a first time team outing, which they may be willing to do based on the box office strengths of the solo prequels).

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning

Quote from: TheMarvell on April 23, 2008, 09:33:37 PM
also, why Ant-Man? I'm honestly not familiar with the character at all and haven't even heard of him until I heard of the movie they're making, and when researching his character, I still failed to understand why they'd make a movie for him.

Because he was a founding Avenger (not to mention, under a variety of identities, a character extremely important to the history of that group). All of this does seem to be in part a deliberate build-up toward a possible Avengers movie.

Quotebut I fear that 'twill suffer from the problems faced by X3 or Spider-Man 3: too many mutants/superheroes/villains, too little screen, and too little time for respectable character/plot development (unless the studio execs are willing to go to 2.5-3 hours for a first time team outing, which they may be willing to do based on the box office strengths of the solo prequels).

Actually that's one of the problems that building up in this manner will help to avoid.  With bits of the plot already in place, they can throw a story at you without much of the preliminary stuff.

Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on April 24, 2008, 09:36:54 AM
Actually that's one of the problems that building up in this manner will help to avoid.  With bits of the plot already in place, they can throw a story at you without much of the preliminary stuff.

I still think you are giving the writers, directors, and film studios too much credit, cat.  Never underestimate the movie industry's ability to completely arse up a perfectly good idea.  It takes a great deal more than a cameo appearance from Robert Downey, Jr. in The Incredible Hulk to establish the often rocky relationships between The Avengers' characters, and, with very few exceptions (e.g., the relationship between Peter and Mary Jane in the Spider-Man series or the relationships between Wolverine and characters who interact with him frequently in the X-Men series, etc.), I've yet to see laudable attempts at interpersonal character development. 

Nevertheless, your point is taken, and I will try to keep an open mind about any prospective Avengers film project, despite the fact that these comic book conversion films have often left me unimpressed.  Of course, I liked films such as The Hulk and Superman Returns, so my tastes and expectations might represent a minority in the field of public opinion.

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning

QuoteI still think you are giving the writers, directors, and film studios too much credit, cat.

It's more like I'm starting from a position a optimism and waiting for evidence that it might turn out badly, while you seem to be coming form the opposite direction.  Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but it leads to a large difference in perspective.

Could they mess it up?  Of course, but the way they are doing things so far is in a direction full of potential.  You can't ask for much more at this point.

Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on April 24, 2008, 10:02:50 AM
It's more like I'm starting from a position a optimism and waiting for evidence that it might turn out badly, while you seem to be coming form the opposite direction.  Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but it leads to a large difference in perspective.

No arguments here, cat.  I'd be the first to identify myself as a career pessimist.  In any case, I hope you are right about a potential Avengers film and its likelihood of achieving a higher quality through the groundwork of the prequels.

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning

even with prequels lined up and made to get that ground work and back story up and out of the way, there still resides the main fear of having nothing but a superhero/villain brawl fest. Sure, they won't have to tell you how the superheroes got their powers because they already did in other movies, but I'm sure most of hollywood producers would just take that as a means to put in less story, and much more action. A superhero movie requires action, but if that's all it is, then you have no movie.

I guess I'm mainly skeptical about all this because Hollywood really hasn't perfected the superhero movie quite yet, in my eyes. For every great one that comes out, there's an equal one that's a huge dud. For every Spider-Man, there's an Elektra. Or ones with mixed results like Spider-Man 3 and The Hulk.

It's very, very difficult to balance out story, characters, and action with that many involved in the movie. Like was already said, even in the great ones like X-Men 2, you still had those characters put on hold for part or most of the movie, like Cyclops, that were virtually pointless.

X3 was okay as a re-imagining of the Dark Phoenix storyline.  It was rather short on plot, but the action was pretty intense.  X-Men mix-ups tend to be large anyway, so it's not really a surprise.  My biggest problems with it had to do with the characterization for Jean Grey. 

Why she 'disappeared' Cyclops in the beginning of X3 was not really explained nor justified.  They hint that it might have been accidental, but they don't say so.  Nor was it really in character for her to passively follow Magneto around and suddenly start trusting him.  She was just too passive and reactive when it should have portrayed her as increasingly more intoxicated with power.

S3 I didn't bother to watch.  I'm no fan of Venom, it was obvious they tried to put in too much for one movie, and the clip of emo Peter flipping his hair back made me gag.  I may eventually rent it just to see it once.

The Ang Lee Hulk movie, IMHO, was a disaster... and that's just from skimming the novelization.  I had no desire to actually watch it.  This one sounds more promising, so I'm cautiously optimistic. 

I'm definitely anticipating the Iron Man movie and very much want to see it.

An Avengers movie?  Not unless they're actively planning for a trilogy and willing to focus on one plotline at a time without trying to blend too many things in at once.  Otherwise you can't do them justice.  The question is, what villains would be logical and reasonable choices for an Avengers movie?  And you can't really answer that question without first asking which Avengers.  One thing is sure, it has to be some kind of national or global threat.

Quote from: BlueBard on April 25, 2008, 07:36:28 AM
An Avengers movie?  Not unless they're actively planning for a trilogy and willing to focus on one plotline at a time without trying to blend too many things in at once.  Otherwise you can't do them justice.  The question is, what villains would be logical and reasonable choices for an Avengers movie?  And you can't really answer that question without first asking which Avengers.  One thing is sure, it has to be some kind of national or global threat.

Ultron, Kang, or Loki. ^_^

Quote from: Previsionary on April 25, 2008, 09:35:14 AM

Quote from: BlueBard on April 25, 2008, 07:36:28 AM
An Avengers movie?  Not unless they're actively planning for a trilogy and willing to focus on one plotline at a time without trying to blend too many things in at once.  Otherwise you can't do them justice.  The question is, what villains would be logical and reasonable choices for an Avengers movie?  And you can't really answer that question without first asking which Avengers.  One thing is sure, it has to be some kind of national or global threat.

Ultron, Kang, or Loki. ^_^

Both Ultron and Kang would, in my opinion, work better for sequals than for the sifrst move- build the Avengers up before giving them opponents powerful enough to potentially beat the whole team single handedly.

I find it kind of funny the Loki's developed a reputation as a major Avengers foe- despite being responsible for the team's forming, he's never really been an important reccuring Avengers villain. Since issue 1, he has only very occasionally fought the team- maybe once per decade, if that- and, with the exception of Acts of Vengeance, he's never really shown himself to be a major threat to the team. By contrast, another magic-wielding Asgardian, the Enchantress, was a major reccuring Avengers foe throughout the Stan Lee and Roy Thomas runs on the series, only to suddenly completely lose interest in the group once Steve Englehart took over as writer.

Frankly, I think some sort of Baron Zemo/Masters of Evil storyline would work best- especially if, as the line-up of movies currently in the works would suggest, it's basically the original Avengers lineup we're talking about.

Masters of Evil is problematical because you have a whole bunch of relatively obscure villains.  I had to look them up online just to remember who they were.  So then you have to introduce -them- as well as develop the hero characters.

Kang, maybe.

I'm not a major Avengers fan, but my three choices I presented earlier were just thrown out. :P

My explanation for Ultron and Loki come from the potential of them being built up or referenced in the Thor and Ant-man movies if they are ever made. If they're even seen in cameo shots or seen in books or, in ant-man's case, being worked on, then we already have the building blocks in place for the first Avenger's level threat. Kang only came to mind since he's been a constant threat throughout the years to pretty much every avenger lineup and some of its spinoffs. But really, it depends on how the ironman/hulk movie does and how far they're able to go with this idea. I would really like if they got the comic writers to be involved since there's less of a chance for the idea to come across as uberly sloppy, but eh. This seems like the decade of risks, so it'll be interesting to see how far Marvel pushes it.

From wikipedia:

QuoteLeterrier changed the Abomination's design from the comics because he felt the audience would question why he resembled a fish or a reptile, instead of "an über-human" like the Hulk. Instead, his hideousness is derived from being injected multiple times into his skin, muscles and bones; creating a creature with a protruding spine and sharp bones that he can use to stab. His green skin is pale, and reflects light, so it appears orange because of surrounding fire during the climactic battle.

I wonder why they made the action figure brown?
Oh, and the new action figures are small.  They are probably an ok size compared to the small figures released for Spider-man 3.

Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on April 28, 2008, 10:51:01 AM
From wikipedia:

QuoteLeterrier changed the Abomination's design from the comics because he felt the audience would question why he resembled a fish or a reptile, instead of "an über-human" like the Hulk. Instead, his hideousness is derived from being injected multiple times into his skin, muscles and bones; creating a creature with a protruding spine and sharp bones that he can use to stab. His green skin is pale, and reflects light, so it appears orange because of surrounding fire during the climactic battle.

all well and good but i still don't see how they couldn't have updated the ears as well

Just throw finny ears on this guy and I think he'd look sweet. Nobody questions sweet stuff, either.

He did have only two toes a foot, right? Because it's sweet?

Also... I would loooove to see the Avengers fight Kang. Actually, I'd love to see them fight Ultron first, then somebody else, THEN have it turn out Kang is behind everything in the third movie. I don't know why, but I just always liked the guy.

new trailer released:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/theincrediblehulk/medium.html

Saw the new trailer before Iron Man.
I'm still a bit unsure about the new Hulk movie.  There's something about him that looks like a 3D rendered comic drawing.  However, from the trailer it looks like it might not be completely tossing out events from the first movie, as it appears he is hiding out in South America just as he was at the end of the first movie.

I remember reading an interview with the director, and they noticed the South America connection too, but the director insisted that it was just a coincidence, and that the movies really have no connection with each other at all.

There has been a fight scene (Hulk vs Emil Blonsky (pre-Abomination)) from the new film posted on MySpace.

It'll be at the first link for today (working), and probably will be at the second link afterwards, I guess. (it's giving me errors right now)
http://movies.myspace.com/

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=34758499

Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on April 28, 2008, 12:18:31 PM

Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on April 28, 2008, 10:51:01 AM
From wikipedia:

QuoteLeterrier changed the Abomination's design from the comics because he felt the audience would question why he resembled a fish or a reptile, instead of "an über-human" like the Hulk. Instead, his hideousness is derived from being injected multiple times into his skin, muscles and bones; creating a creature with a protruding spine and sharp bones that he can use to stab. His green skin is pale, and reflects light, so it appears orange because of surrounding fire during the climactic battle.

all well and good but i still don't see how they couldn't have updated the ears as well

Yeah the new abomination in the new Hulk series has a modified design as well in regards to the fins on his face. They're sort of merged into his jawline and looks just like some additional spines coming out of his face instead of strange fin like reptile ears. They could have done something like that with the abomination in this movie I think considering he already has bones protruding out of his body.

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808495230/video/795013

click on street fight

Nice!

It's just not possible to have a big green fella NOT look like a cartoon.

So... he uses cars like boxing gloves? Like in the video game? Is that... cool or something?
I'd rather see him just throw it at the guy or something.

But I am still pumped to see the movie because, heck, I love the Hulk. The dumb one. Who smashes stuff and gets depressed because nobody likes him because he smashes everything.

Is it just me or does anyone else get visions of the Hulk going: "First Rule of Fight Club: Hulk say no talk about fight club"?

I'm wondering why Abomination looks like Doomsday.

See, my hopes are dashing now. The Hulk is too CGI. Just like the last one. They made Hyde look good in League of extrordinary Gentlemen, why can't they do it here. He looks like I'm watching that cgi movie with spider-man, Iron man and Hulk in it. If they could tone it down like they did with Iron Man it would be so much better. However, I did like the fight scene with Blonsky vs the Hulk.

I don't think it's possible that the Hulk could ever not look CGI.  He's just too non-realistic of a character to ever really look good in live action.

Where is Lou Ferrigno now that we really need him?  :D

Quote from: thanoson on May 28, 2008, 08:35:07 AM
See, my hopes are dashing now. The Hulk is too CGI. Just like the last one. They made Hyde look good in League of extrordinary Gentlemen, why can't they do it here.

You're not the first person I've heard (or read) make this comment.

I think part of the reason why the Hulk looks "fake" or overtly CGI to some people is because of the animation: he looks very "springy" and lithe. When we see large mammals, we don't expect them to move very fast or be light on their feet. When you see a bear, you don't expect to see it move with the grace of a cheetah (even though we know that bears can run at impressive speeds and can even outpace horses for short distances). Likewise, we all know that rhinos can run relatively fast, but we don't expect them to have the same movement lines as a gazelle when they run (or gallop or whatever it is they do). This is actually tied in with our minds' innate ability to perceive momentum and predict the motion of moving masses in space.

So when we see something as massive as the Hulk, there's the expectation that he should be a lumbering brute... not necessarily slow-moving, but there should be an implication of mass and weight, i.e., if the Hulk swings his massive and heavy fists, we expect a prominent wind-up (anticipation, or what animators call "antic") prior to the movement and some slight "over-throw" or end-of-movement correction (what animators call "settle"). The guys who animated Mr. Hyde in "League of the Extraordinary Gentlemen" did a great job of implying weight and mass in his movements, and that's probably why you remember it looking like a very good CGI portrayal of a Hulk-sized character.

From the trailers and footage I've seen, it doesn't look like the Hulk has that type of motion going on. Now, I'm sure there's a good reason for that... the Hulk is supposed to be superhumanly strong and fast, so all our preconceived notions of how a 1000 lbs. oversized human should move (if we had any) must be thrown out the window (I mean these guys are pro animators, after all... they were probably instructed to animate the Hulk as if swinging cars around and whatnot is effortless).

As catwhowalksbyhimself said, the Hulk's appearance (and his attendant abilities) are just too far out of our realm of realistic experience that he'll always look "fake" in film to a certain degree, whether he's portrayed using CGI, prosthetics, or a combination of both (and no, as much as I loved it, the 1980s Lou Ferrigno Hulk was not a "realistic" portrayal of the Hulk, it was a realistic portrayal of a champion bodybuilder covered with green body paint  :lol:).

Hmm, I guess I'm alone in thinking that CGI street fight looked incredible and tons better than the first Hulk movie. My girlfriend keeps calling Hulk "rubber man" cause she thinks the CGI is really really bad, even in this newest Hulk movie. It was a big mistake taking her with me when I saw the first Hulk movie. The first time Hulk made an appearance she started laughing out load and couldn't stop. I don't know, when I saw this street fight scene, my jaw dropped to the floor. I thought it looked very good and as realistic as you can get for the Hulk.

For the most parts, I think the animations are pretty good. That fight scene did look good, although a little too fast ala Transformers. Iron Monger pulled off bulk and speed just fine. Hyde in Van Helsing pulled it off fine as well. My main issue is with the plasticity of his skin. It looks like plastic. Or rubber if you will. I bet if you freeze framed Blonsky vs Hulk it would glare out at you. His skin just doesn't look alive or real.

 :spoiler:


[spoiler]Captain America linky (http://www.latinoreview.com/news/hulk-america-4822)[/spoiler]

couple of questions...1.) is emil subjected to a form of the super soldier serum in their first encounter.he sure is agile for a normal human.no special ops guy could pull that off.  2.) is there going to be a teaser scene at the end of the credits like in ironman? 3.) could someone post the teaser seen from ironman.i missed it.

Yes, that was revealed on attack of the show and the interview is available on their site. IIRC, he said there's no end credit scenes/teasers. Herodad, youtube is your friend.

Don't know if this was posted before, but sorry kids, no Cap in this movie.

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Captain-America-Cut-Out-Of-Hulk-To-Protect-Your-Kids-9131.html

The last part of the story is my favorite.

Apparently, it's now official that Lou is the voice of the Hulk.  You can read it here (http://www.darkhorizons.com/news08/080527a.php), but I quote the relevant parts.

Quote
The next scene is a quick one where Banner encounters the original Hulk, Lou Ferrigno, who is still as ripped as the days he was painted in green some two plus decades ago. As it turns out, Ferrigno wound up with more than just a cameo in the new movie.

"Louis offered him on the stage of New York Comic Con to come in and do the voice," Feige says. Although most fans thought the moment was little more than a joke, Ferrigno's barritone pipes were ultimately used to voice the new Hulk.

"A few days after that he came in and recorded a few lines that, along with having been processed...Lou is now the credited voice of the Hulk... He was great at it... He'd been practicing... He lost his whole voice..."

QuoteDon't know if this was posted before, but sorry kids, no Cap in this movie.

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Captain-America-Cut-Out-Of-Hulk-To-Protect-Your-Kids-9131.html

The last part of the story is my favorite.

It does say something about our society, that no one worries about kids being exposed to scarey big monsters that rip everything and everyone to streds, but add a depressing scene that might, heaven forbid, make them cry, and everyone goes out of their way to pull it.

Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on June 12, 2008, 08:55:34 AM

QuoteDon't know if this was posted before, but sorry kids, no Cap in this movie.

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Captain-America-Cut-Out-Of-Hulk-To-Protect-Your-Kids-9131.html

The last part of the story is my favorite.

It does say something about our society, that no one worries about kids being exposed to scarey big monsters that rip everything and everyone to streds, but add a depressing scene that might, heaven forbid, make them cry, and everyone goes out of their way to pull it.

Two words:  Director's Cut

They already said it will be on the DVD, along with 70 other minutes of cut scenes.

That's right, 70 minutes!

They also claim that scene will be released online soon, but this from the same people who promised it would be in the film in the first place.

well, the good news is, the director has gone on record as saying he's only planning on making ONE cut of the dvd so, there's that. But I really doubt he'll be able to keep his word on that. :P

Just came back from watching the movie and all I got to say is that they did it right this time.  This is the way the HULK should have been done.  They also gave a lot of props to the TV show, and hinted about the Avengers.  Not as good as Iron Man, but WAY better than the first HULK movie. :thumbup:

Saw it!

Lots of little surprises.  The one that gave me an "Oh!" moment:

[spoiler]When I realized who Stearns was, before the lab accident.[/spoiler]

The only complaint I might have would be some of the camera work gets blurry... but then it would just about have to be for some of those scenes.

The story is really good (what there is of it) and the acting is fine.  The suspense and action ratio stays really high throughout the movie, and there are even little funny bits here and there.

Good one-liner: [spoiler]Betty Ross:  "Not even a little bit excited?"[/spoiler]

I give it a Green Thumbs Up.  You might say, "Hulk Smash!"

Ive always felt that the hulk was a pretty one note character...
And the few instances that Ive read that seemed to break out of that will never be made into a film (Intelligent grey hulk as Vegas Enforcer)...

So while the movie is pretty one dimensional and simplistic, its done in a way that works for the Hulk character, and as a result its big, loud, and pretty entertaining (Even the overly CGI looking characters I got used to eventually). The story is thread bare and the characterizations are pretty non existent, but Edward Norton is good as Banner and he and Liv Tyler have good chemistry. The weakest part I think was General Ross who just pretty much stands around barking orders... which is fine, but if your whole character is there to chew scenery, I woulda liked to see a bit more gusto... CHEW the scenery.

All in all I think it worked really well for what it was, It's no Iron man, but its way more satisfying in its simplistic storytelling than Indiana Jones was.

Saw it! Love it! Smash Smash!

Just got back from a double-header of Hulk and Iron Man and my adrenaline is pumping too much to sleep, so I thought I'd post my comments. 

This version of Hulk is MUCH better than the previous movie.  I liked the original ok, but like many here, I thought the ending was a huge letdown.  Not so here.  I liked this from start to finish.  Great mix of action, drama and humor.  I especially appreciated all the little extras they threw in for the geeks.  There was one in particular that I saw that it seemed most people in the audience missed...

[spoiler]The kid at the college who used his cell phone to record the firefight between the soldiers and Hulk, during the TV news story later, he is identified as a reporter for the student paper named McGee. (I missed his first name, but when I heard McGee, my ears perked up)[/spoiler]

Also, I agree with others here who say that this movie was not quite as good as Iron Man, but its still a great movie to see.  Its definitely one I will be adding to my growing Superhero Movie collection.  I would say that this movie compares to Iron Man like Spidey 2 did to Spidey 1 (at least for me).

Just got back from seeing it...

[spoiler]
First thing I have to say is, it is very much based off the TV series. The entire opening credits, the music, all of the "fan service," Lou Ferigno, all taken, in part or in whole, from the show. Which, in this case, is not a bad thing, but it is a thin wire to walk upon. Remember, Joel Schumacher made his Batman films as an homage to the TV series, and we all know how that turned out.

I liked the bit with Dr. Sterns. Nice tie- in for the second movie (if it's made). Leonard Samson was practically non- existent. General Ross was very one- sided. His best scene is at the end when he's drinking. It's the only time he shows any kind of facial emotion (does that sound right? It's late, and I can't think of the right word).

The CGI was better than Ang Lee's, but during the fight scene at the end, I lost track of which behemoth was which for a few seconds, due to the lighting. I also caught myself thinking "How did Killer Croc end up in this movie" once or twice.

Ed Norton and Liv Tyler had some chemistry on screen. Not much, but enough to make it believable.

I'm really unhappy about the "Avengers Spoiler Tie- In" segment at the end of the film. It seemed rushed and out of place. Firstly, it should have been after the credits, but that's just a personal choice. Next, it should have been Nick Fury showing up, also in my opinion. And lastly, they should have gone to Banner's shack. Why would they ask the guy who would least likely bring Hulk in, let alone convince him to join a superteam, to... y'know, bring the Hulk in and ask him to be on a superteam?! Makes no sense to me.

Overall, I liked the film. It had some very good moments, and if given a chance to see it again, maybe as a drive- in double feature, I'd see it again. I'd give it a solid 7/10 (9 being Iron Man and 1 being Batman & Robin... 10 is unattainable.)

[Oh, and I liked Stan Lee's cameo. Comedic gold!]
[/spoiler]

Raptor, while I was typing this, you posted, and yes, I liked the "geek newspaper student" bit!

Hitman,

[spoiler]
I actually get why Stark went to Gen. Ross instead of going straight to Banner.  Stark is going to be the public face of the Avengers (besides Captain America, that is) and he has a working relationship with the military.  He needs Gen. Ross to back off of Banner so he can recruit him, so you tell the General to back off and help you find him.  Makes sense to me anyway. [/spoiler]

Too jazzed to type out a long response. I friggin loved this movie. I've been a huge fan of ol' green jeans since the original TV show. This movie seemed to have been made just for me.

I picked up all the little nods to the show and the comics (at least I think I did). I giggled like a school girl when Hulk started smashing and I wanted to cheer after Banner's final scene.

Go see this!

-MJB

We should try to list all the tie-ins.  There were just so many.  I'll let someone else start it and give folks here a chance to see the movie.  Don't want to ruin anything for anyone (I know you guys can't resist clicking the "show spoiler" in a post even when you don't want to).

This movie was so good. I think people are smarter and better at saying stuff than me, so I'll let them say it. But my GOD was that awesome.

I got back and I was pretty impressed. The way the movie played out I am actually kind of glad that special cameo scene got deleted. I guess I will have to see that scene to really reserve judgement but from what I heard of it and where it takes place it doesnt sound like it would have fit unless the scene was rather lengthy.

Abomination isnt as bad as I thought he would be. I still would have rather had ear ridges or horns or something.

Norton was good and gave me a nostolgic Bill Bixby feeling. Live Tyler wasnt bad either as Ross. that one to me is close to a lateral trade off. Hurt was o.k. but I think Sam Elliot would have done it better and I do wish they would have asked him.

Overall it was a good movie. Better than the first and over some of the other ones. Not quite as good as spider-man 1 or Ironman but this one gives me some hope of a future for this franchise.

Hulk Review by Hulk. (http://filmthreat.com/index.php?section=reviews&Id=11003)

Saw it with Proto today. Liked it very much, didn't love it. It's not an out of the park home run like Iron Man but it's easily a solid triple, and a worthy addition to the new Marvel studios line.

The good:
HULK SMASH! Finally!  The action was well done, and while there were a LOT more action scenes, they were never allowed to distract from the actual story.
The Acting. I expected a lot from Edward Norton, Tim Roth and William Hurt, and was not disappointed.
The Avengers set up scene, though I too would've preferred it to be after the credits.
Loved  (most of)the nods to the TV show (Especially the playing with the "Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry" line) as well as the running "Days without Incident" thing
Set the story up well to be continued in another installment without feeling unfinished

The bad:
70 minutes cut!?!  I mean, yes, ok, no way in <bleep> are you going to be able to sell a 3 hr 10 min movie, I get that, I do.  But you could've gone 2.5 hours no problem.  I cant say for sure till I see it, I suppose, but I got the distinct impression that this was one of the rare cases when leaving the footage IN would've improved the movie; far too often movies leave in stuff that shouldve been cut out.
Liv Tyler- Ok, maybe I'm biased, because I've loved Jennifer Connely since Labyrinth but Liv was just..not bad, exactly, just kinda weak..and bland.
I was also somewhat dissapointed in Tim Blake Nelson- he was hyperactive and over the top.  Again, not BAD per se, just..not how I would've done it. 
Some of the CGI footage could've benefited from one final pass.  Less cartoony then the 03 movie, but still there.
While the actor for Doc Samson wasn't Roger Bart as I originally thought, he still simply doesnt work for me as even a pre-transformation Samson. They would have to do substantial work to make a post transformation one believable.
That was a hell of a lot of work to set up Stan's cameo.  I would've just [spoiler] Made him the owner of Stanley's pizza place [/spoiler]

The nitpicky
[spoiler]
I understand the nods to the TV show, but the gear shown in the origin sequence was 30 years old.  As a geek, I found this INCREDIBLY distracting. I was sitting there thinking: "WTH? Was that a TAPE DRIVE? Nobody has used a TAPE DRIVE for 20+ years! How the freaking long has he been on the run for?"  And later, when it was revealed it was 5 years, I almost burst out laughing.
The Helicopter scene has a couple of bad points
a) It's quite frankly, an insanely stupid decision by someone who, up till then had been an incredibly smart man. As was pointed out by Betty (and when the characters comment on how stupid the decision is, all it does is serve to highlight it)  He'd just been given an antidote so he didn't even know if he would change. It would've been a far smarter decision to set the thing down and have him trigger himself after they were in the air again.  I understand that it's far more dramatic to have him do it by falling from the copter, but they did it in a way that undercuts the character. If that was the effect they were going for, the whole sequence in the copter couldve and shouldve been rewritten.
b) Not that the fall was believable- we saw him hit the street as Banner. Sorry, but a fall from the height the chopper appeared to be at would have reduced a human being to POWDER. Not only that, what was left of Banner would've bounced, not gone through the street.  The Hulk would've gone through the street, but that wasn't what they showed.  Could've been directed better to make the fall and the results less contradictory.
[/spoiler]

Last, but not least, I'd like to make a point I hope Marvel studios gets drilled into their heads:

Jon Favreau and Robert Downey Jr are both Iron Man fans and produced a great film.

Louis Lassiter and Edward Norton are both Hulk fans and produced a very good film.

Sam Raimi is a spider-man fan and produced 2 good films (and one film ruined by fan insistence on Venom)

Brian Singer is an Xmen fan and produced 2 very good films.

Brett Ratner is NOT an Xmen fan and produced a mediocre film that killed your franchise stone dead.

Get it yet, Marvel?  Find the FANS of your work and (provided they have some talent) give them what they want *coughquitstiffingJonFavreauforIronManIIcough* and you, quite literally cannot go wrong.

Take that to the bank, true Believers!  Excelsior!

Final Grade: A-

Summer movie ranking (so far)
Iron Man: A+
Prince Caspian: A
Incredible Hulk: A-
Indiana Jones; B

Quote from: bredon7777 on June 14, 2008, 08:37:57 PM
Brett Ratner is NOT an Xmen fan and produced a mediocre film that killed your franchise stone dead.

Slight thread-jack here...

Contrary to popular belief the Ratner X sequel was the highest grossing of them all.

X1 = $296 million

X2 = $407 million

X3 = $459 million

Quote from: WikipediaIt is the first X-Men movie to surpass $200 million outside the United States.

Thread-jack over.

Go see Hulk. Message over.

-MJB

Quote from: MJB on June 15, 2008, 01:06:06 AM

Quote from: bredon7777 on June 14, 2008, 08:37:57 PM
Brett Ratner is NOT an Xmen fan and produced a mediocre film that killed your franchise stone dead.

Slight thread-jack here...

Contrary to popular belief the Ratner X sequel was the highest grossing of them all.

X1 = $296 million

X2 = $407 million

X3 = $459 million

Quote from: WikipediaIt is the first X-Men movie to surpass $200 million outside the United States.

Thread-jack over.

Go see Hulk. Message over.

-MJB

Money earned is in no way indicative of quality. And as there's been no serious talk of an X4, my statement stands.

I do agree that they should go see Hulk, though.

My favorite line:

Banner: Don't make me.....Hungry, You wouldn't like me when I'm Hungry.  :D

About the Avengers tie in:
[spoiler]I don't think they are going to recruit the Hulk, I think they are going after him.  Didn't one point the Avenger went after the Hulk? [/spoiler]

[spoiler]
Technically, they went after an illusion of the Hulk that was being cast by Loki, I believe. [/spoiler]

Quote from: bredon7777 on June 15, 2008, 06:26:25 AM

Quote from: MJB on June 15, 2008, 01:06:06 AM

Quote from: bredon7777 on June 14, 2008, 08:37:57 PM
Brett Ratner is NOT an Xmen fan and produced a mediocre film that killed your franchise stone dead.

Slight thread-jack here...

Contrary to popular belief the Ratner X sequel was the highest grossing of them all.

X1 = $296 million

X2 = $407 million

X3 = $459 million

Quote from: WikipediaIt is the first X-Men movie to surpass $200 million outside the United States.

Thread-jack over.

Go see Hulk. Message over.

-MJB

Money earned is in no way indicative of quality. And as there's been no serious talk of an X4, my statement stands.

I do agree that they should go see Hulk, though.

That wasn't the point he was trying to make. X4 isn't in the works most likely because several of the actors are off doing other things including two X-spinoffs (IE: franchise films). Quality isn't always what determines a sequel otherwise we wouldn't be getting so many crap sequels in the upcoming years: http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/13412/30_upcoming_movie_sequels_you_didnt_know_about.html?redux

I'd be shocked if you can call half of the list quality, but they did make some money for the most part

BTB, from what I've seen around, there's still a few more X-men movies being planned/pitched, so we'll see how that goes. [ending threadjack in 3...2...1]

Quote from: bredon7777 on June 15, 2008, 06:40:06 AM
[spoiler]
Technically, they went after an illusion of the Hulk that was being cast by Loki, I believe. [/spoiler]

The way I remember it, the Loki illusion is the reason they go after the Hulk ... but it IS the Hulk they go after.


:spoiler:





:spoiler:





Anyway, saw the movie ... and it was nearly perfect IHMO.   Loved the nods to Bill Bixby.   Didn't love the cameo by Lou.  Loved the use of Lou as the voice of the Hulk, hope that continues.   Loved Liv.  Up until now I thought that there was something a little odd with her look, here she just looked absolutely beautiful.   Didn't like the CGI at the beginning of the movie, thought it looked too fake ... but by the end of the movie it had completely captured me and thought it was brilliant.  Wondered though with all that CGI if they could ever have the classic Hulk vs. Thing fight.   Norton was perfect for the role.  Loved his don't make me angry line.  Didn't like the nod to Frank McGee.   Disagree with the comment that they took too much time to set up the Stan Lee appearance.  That was done to set up what happens to Sterns.   Loved all the Cap tie-ins.  Thought they worked well because my daughter and her husband got all the references and they're not the comic geek I am.  But I am looking forward to the DVD to see what came out.

If you haven't seen this movie yet ... why are you reading this .... go... watch... come back ... read.

Absolutely loved the Hulk. I spent a great deal of time with my jaw agape at some of FX work. That scene in the mountains had me CONVINCED. I'm sorry, but he looked REAL.

Great story, too. To me, it seemed like it was paced perfectly, and it seemed a lot longer than it was. I'm excited to see the deleted scenes. I hope this movie does well, because it deserves it.

Need I say how cool the fight scenes were?

Go see this movie. You will enjoy it. A lot.

Just an update.

This movie was expected by many of the so-called experts to be a major flop, mostly because of the reputation of the previous Hulk movie.

It has, however, done rather well.  Not nearly in the area of the big-grossing superhero films, but still a good opening weekend.  The reviews have also been, on the whole, favorable.  A lot better than the first one, at least.  The audience has absolutely loved it.

Personally, I think this movie will pick up steam as it goes along.  A lot of people are probably hesitant because of this earlier movie.  Many probably assume it's a sequel anyways.  Once buzz gets around at how entertaining it is, more folks will go and see it.

At any rate, it has beaten expectations--and the current competition--and should easily make a profit and pave the way for more Hulk.

i saw hulk and really liked it.my question is who's going to be cap.somewhere i read that what they cut out of the movie is where banner goes to the frozen north to kill himself and runs into captain america.they plan on putting it back into the dvd.am i wrong or right about this?

They said it would be included in the special features, along with the other 70 minutes they took out.

Wait...

[spoiler]Wouldn't the only way he'd meet Cap in the frozen north is if he stumbles upon Cap's frozen body?  Maybe that's why they said the scene would be disturbing to folks...Banner having a heart-wrenching breakdown in the presence of a frozen (and believed dead) war hero?  I can't think of any other reason Cap would hanging out in the arctic, for a suicidal Banner to just bump into him.[/spoiler]

Dana

Quote from: cmdrkoenig67 on June 15, 2008, 08:08:32 PM
Wait...

[spoiler]Wouldn't the only way he'd meet Cap in the frozen north is if he stumbles upon Cap's frozen body?  Maybe that's why they said the scene would be disturbing to folks...Banner having a heart-wrenching breakdown in the presence of a frozen (and believed dead) war hero?  I can't think of any other reason Cap would hanging out in the arctic, for a suicidal Banner to just bump into him.[/spoiler]

Dana

Since I've yet to read anything about CA being cast, I'm guessing that HULK just sees him in the ice, possibly without any clear face recognition. I believe the scene is in the novelization. From what I read in a deleted scene spoiler, I think based on the novelization, the beginning scene wasn't too clear on CA's role in the arctic.

I'd read somewhere that what the director meant by "meeting Captain America" was seeing the Super-Soldier serum being injected into Blonsky.

No, it was very clear that they meant actually meeting the actual Captain America.

Update on the movie:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jb68x_tOGx8QHjI0Cr6C-Vy79OGgD91B4RU80

And to clear up the issue with Cap, Banner was going to kill himself in the arctic, but the hulk spits out the bullet and while the hulk leaves he runs into Cap who will be frozen in the ice. 

As an early Father's Day treat, my wife :wub: took me to see this film on opening day (Friday).  We both enjoyed it, and I am not afraid to say that
[spoiler]I nearly teared up when I heard the score's rendition of that haunting piano melody that played at the end of each episode of the television series.  It truly was a film targeting fans of the television series with its numerous allusions, but I am certain that the film still enjoys a broad appeal to audiences lacking knowledge of those allusions.  If I had to criticise The Incredible Hulk, I would say that Penn's treatment of Gen. Ross was far too monolithic and, by comparison, Ang Lee's/Sam Elliott's rendition of the same character in 2003 was far more satisfying in its breadth of emotional and motivational complexity.  Only at the end of The Incredible Hulk do we begin to see the possibility of some ambivalence in Gen. Ross toward Banner/The Hulk, and at that point I found myself too wrapped up in that exhausting final battle to pay a compassionate "Thunderbolt" much mind.  'Tis a shame, for I have enjoyed Hurt in his various roles, and his acting ability seemed unfairly limited by this film.

I found the chemistry between Tyler and Norton fairly effective at addressing the pathos of their characters' tortured relationship.  Whereas Lee used openness between Bana and Connelly and some version of the psychoanalytic "talking cure" to great effect in 2003, Penn exercised a disciplined subtlety, reticence, and moments between Bruce and Betty that silently recognised the seeming impossibility of their relationship.  I'm glad that Penn did not quietly sideline Tyler, as many comic book/action films are wont to do with their female leads.  Her performance made me chuckle (appropriately) at various moments, including the scene on the street in New York following her departure from the cab of death: "You, zip it!" :)  I did, however, take exception to the way Penn's Betty seemed prepared to kick Doc Sampson (a safe bet compared to Bruce, as far as partners go) to the curb as soon as she caught a glimpse of Bruce at Stanley's pizzeria.  I hope that the deleted scenes paint a more emotionally complex picture of Betty with respect to Bruce's sudden return.

Penn's version of Emil Blonsky struck me as simply a means to an end, namely, a device for setting up a superpowered slugfest near the culmination of the film (which, of course, the film needed to be more successful than Ang Lee's Hulk).  This underdeveloped characterisation of Blonsky (which boils down to his simplistic mantra, "I'm a fighter.") was in no way ameliorated by the performance by Tim Roth, who has made quite a reputation for himself in rather one-dimensional, ultra-violent roles.  To me, the only other minor upshot to this scenario was the opportunity to introduce the Super Soldier programme into the ever-expanding Marvel Universe equation.  Of course, by cutting Captain America's appearance from the film, the opportunity to capitalise further on this development was lost ('Twould have been interesting to have Banner/The Hulk encounter both extremes of the Super Soldier spectrum, Cap and Blonsky.).  I would have liked to have heard more about and from this character, but, then again, I am not certain that Roth would have been the appropriate vehicle to deliver such a character.

I was pleasantly surprised by Norton's performance, given that I have never been a huge fan.  He certainly was well cast as the wiry, resourceful Banner, and I thought that he convincingly portrayed the gamut of emotional states that the unfortunate scientist is subject to.  Tim Blake Nelson, on the other hand, was simply goofy and poorly cast, IMHO.  Luckily, if we should encounter Leader in subsequent sequels, the character will require enough make-up to make recasting this role a distinct possibility without causing cast continuity buffs much grief.

I'll agree with most that The Incredible Hulk is not on par with Iron Man.  Of course, the former had a great deal more baggage to deal with (the television series, Ang Lee's unpopular rendition, this film's reboot, etc.) than did the latter, and I am certain that that baggage coloured my experience (both positively and negatively).  If I had to close my eyes to 2003 and imagine that The Incredible Hulk was the debut of this character in the new wave of comic book films, I would definitely rank it higher than, say, 2000's X-Men, which was competent but not great--and I would place it miles above Daredevil, Elektra, and both Fantastic Four films.[/spoiler]

Everyone should definitely see this enjoyable film this summer.  Once is sufficient (whereas I still find myself tempted to view Iron Man a second time).

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning

Saw it. Loved it. Good hard hitting tight story and great action. All the actors did great jobs. Lots of little great touches also.

I saw the film and liked it as well. Highly entertaining, and I loved all the nods. Better than the first one? Even as a fan of the first one, yeah, I'd say so. Hulk really is more about the action, which this version had plenty, but I still appreciate the 2003 version for what it is and that it bucked the trend of summer action movies by actually making it more intelligent. In terms of overall reception though, at rotten tomatoes, this version is only doing about 3% better, but I think the general public is enjoying this version more.

But in both cases, I didn't care for the endings. This movie's ending would have been perfect after the Banner yoga scene. I did NOT like the Robert Downey Jr. scene tacked on. That really did feel like an after-the-credits bonus scene, not a way to end the actual movie.

the only real complaint besides the tacked on cameo ending though is the special effects. A lot of times, it looked like a really good video game FMV cut scene. The 2003 version I thought had better visuals, but only slightly.

with all that said, this is easily one of the better movies I've seen this summer. I didn't walk out of the theater feeling frustrated or disappointed like I did with Indiana Jones 4, The Happening, and Narnia. Out of the summer movie season so far, Iron Man and Hulk are easily the best films to come out.

...and there's 70 minutes of extra footage?! good LORD that's a lot to cut! why the hell did they cut out so much?! I heard Edward Norton isn't doing anything to promote the movie because of this too.

Saw it. Liked it. I enjoyed the bone-tossing: the Bill Bixby scene, the Lou F. cameo, the TV Hulk "music to thumb a ride by" music, and even the use of Danny from The Score as Stanley.

Oh, and the "You won't like me when I'm hungry!" scene was hilarious.  :lol:

As someone who essentially liked the 2003 movie but who thinks it was not cerebral, just poorly paced (and those aren't the same thing), I thought this was much better.

I don't have much new to add, besides maybe
[spoiler]If Edward Norton is refusing to promote the movie because of the cut footage, that's very unprofessional. I could see if it the lost scenes really ruined the movie and turned something good into something he was ashamed of. But, the movie that hit the theaters was quite good and people who want to see the lost footage will get to see it on the DVD's anyway. So, if he is being annoying, I thinks he needs to accept that the movie was already two hours long and deal with it.

BTW, I liked his acting. And, I liked Liv Tyler as Betty Ross. The latter was a little odd for me because, while she is very pretty, I haven't really been able to buy her as a love interest since Armageddon.

I know they were trying to get the whole "potential Hulk cure" scene in there (which went basically nowhere), but it struck me as odd that the government could get a whole extraction team down to Brazil in seemingly no time flat, but they let all sorts of shenanigans go on at Sterns' lab before they try and capture Banner. I didn't buy the way that was set up.

FWIW, I can buy that Stark would approach Gen. Scott in recruiting the Hulk for the Avengers. What I can't buy is that, given what's been seen of the Hulk by this point, anyone would want him on the team.[/spoiler]

Saw it.  Liked it.  Saw it again.  Big improvement from the first movie... which disappointed me to no end.
[spoiler]
One tidbit I haven't seen anyone mention was the set-up for the sequels big baddy... The Leader.  He's got a lot of replicated gamma irradiated blood to create a host of gamma induced lackies.  Also in the opening sequence... Rick Jones was listed as one of his known associates.  I wonder if any scenes with him ended up in the 70 minutes cut? [/spoiler]

I hope they don't put Rick in the movie.  It's better to have Banner by himself for now.

Quote from: stumpy on June 18, 2008, 12:08:09 AM
[spoiler]
FWIW, I can buy that Stark would approach Gen. Scott in recruiting the Hulk for the Avengers. What I can't buy is that, given what's been seen of the Hulk by this point, anyone would want him on the team.[/spoiler]

My take on this scene is that
[spoiler]Project Avenger's first objective will be to track down and take down The Hulk, who will subsequently (and perhaps out of necessity if that film's villain proves to be, e.g., Ultron or another evil powerhouse) join the team.  I did not get the sense that Stark wanted to recruit The Hulk but that he was informing Gen. Ross that Project Avenger is going forward and that it may prove more effective at apprehending Banner/The Hulk than the revived Super Soldier programme was.[/spoiler]

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning

That could be, OTS.  I think it makes more sense than if Banner was directly approached about joining the Avengers.

Hulk has both been a part of the Avengers and has also fought them, so it could go either way (or both!).

My take on the final scene with Banner:

[spoiler]The director said they left that scene ambiguous on purpose, so that future movies could take the character in any direction.  I'll accept that.

But from a fan's point of view, I'd say that Banner wanted to know that he could induce the Hulk on purpose in case Abomination or any other threat needed to be dealt with.  In some of the earlier comics material he did just that, before the whole split-personality thing really kicked in.

There are at least a couple of threats that Banner would have wanted to deal with: all of that Hulk blood that Stearns synthesized (not yet being aware of Stearns as The Leader) and Gen. Ross's Super Soldier program.  Banner wouldn't be able to destroy those threats, but that kind of destruction comes natural to the Hulk.

Also, he learned that Hulk is more than just a beast.  He rescued Betty on several occasions.  He could have (maybe) killed Abomination, but Betty was able to stop him.  He may have felt that by inducing Hulk on purpose he could avoid the more violent expression of his anger.  And he learned that Hulk could at least be "aimed" in the right direction. 

Some of the stuff Hulk does shows definite signs of Banner's intelligence peering though the rage.  Using armor plating to try to shield himself from the sonic cannons.  Jumping out of the waveform generated by the sonic cannons (I cheered at that one!).  Using a hand clap to extinguish the flames around the copter.  Hulk isn't going to win any Nobel prizes, but he's not entirely stupid.

Finally, it could be that his attempt to control the Hulk actually begins the process of fragmenting his personality, as that side of him resists being controlled or suppressed.[/spoiler]

One thing I will say... I really hope that they don't try to 'tame' the Hulk just to be able to put him in a movie with the Avengers.  That would really be a tragedy.

Quote from: BlueBard on June 18, 2008, 08:43:07 AM
One thing I will say... I really hope that they don't try to 'tame' the Hulk just to be able to put him in a movie with the Avengers.  That would really be a tragedy.

I couldn't agree more.  'Twould be in the writer's/director's best interests to keep The Hulk on unsteady ground with The Avengers, for doing so would give the relationships between Earth's Mightiest Heroes more ambivalence and uncertainty.  I think we can expect some tension between Iron Man and The Hulk, and I would not be surprised if Captain America differs with Stark on a number of policies.  And, of course, Nick Fury is likely to ruffle some superpowered feathers as well in his Samuel L. Jackson incarnation.

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning

Ok, saw it on tuesday. Cgi aside, I thought it was done really well. Though, Emil's sudden turn to bad guy was a bit much. My gf pointed out this to me. When they were in the front of the Appollo theater, she wanted to yell out, "It's showtime at the Apollo. Hulk Smash!" Then he did his jazz hands thing.

well I rented it and it did not have the deleted scene that was promised by the director so I was a little dissapointed

Quote from: Ares_God_of_War on October 21, 2008, 09:33:08 PM
well I rented it and it did not have the deleted scene that was promised by the director so I was a little dissapointed

The alternate beginning and the chat between Banner and Doc Samson is on the Special Features disc of the 3 DVD set (feature film disc, bonus features disc, and digital PC version) apparently which most rental places or vending machines don't carry. It's the same thing with Indiana Jones 4 which is being pimped out everywhere as a single disc but also has a 2- Disc Special Edition available but only at some stores.

However, If you have Netflix then you can get the Special Features disc there.. as I checked just a few minutes before I saw your post.

- CQ

So, has anyone seen the scene with Cap?

i saw an article with arrows/pictures were he's suppose to be but still saw nothing.now ive got to re-watch ironman to see the shield on tony's work bench.

i'm holding off for the moment the uk only got a single or 2 disc set, so i'll import the 3 disc one after a while

Quote from: bat1987 on October 22, 2008, 03:57:47 AM
So, has anyone seen the scene with Cap?

It's up on youtube.  You really don't see Cap himself, you'll see a shadow on the ground and part of his shield.  It's not really clear so I understand why it wasn't in the movie.

got a link to it

Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on October 22, 2008, 02:04:24 PM
got a link to it

Don't know what happened to the link - but here's one I found: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSzhxllE0RM

Quote from: Uncle Yuan on October 23, 2008, 04:52:15 PM

Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on October 22, 2008, 02:04:24 PM
got a link to it

Don't know what happened to the link - but here's one I found: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSzhxllE0RM

Erm, thanks for the link, UY.  *chuckle*

ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning

lol and I have been on my best behaviour not to post links like that in the forums, lol

If it's a rickroll, you're very original.

Quote from: qazwsx on October 24, 2008, 04:36:52 PM
If it's a rickroll, you're very original.

[spoiler]Originality is so very, very not the point of rickrolling.[/spoiler]