comment #1

T. Holly says ...

WTF was that?

comment #2

Mumbleboy says ...

This is looking weak after the awesomeness of the Iron Man and Dark Knight trailers.

I still am a huge fan of the hulk. Not as a storytelling device but as a tear shit up device. Maybe once it hits quicktime it will seem a little more incredible.

comment #3

Mgmax says ...

Didn't I mention Star Trek 2 in relation to this yesterday? That's what I feel it's likely to be-- slicker, more conventional and ordinary, certainly easier to sit through and less pretentious, but also less likely to show you anything you haven't seen before.

I still regret that the Hulk, and the grey hulk or whoever the other guy is, are toddler-proportioned CGI giants. They'd have been better off rethinking how to do the Hulk entirely, instead of giving us more of the unconvincing guy who bounces on his big fat feet. There's something about him that just looks like a toy, where if he was played by a bulked-up real person, he might have been realer and more disturbing.

After my negative comments yesterday, I feel like I could actually make it through two hours of this, but I doubt I'm going to remember much of it a week later.

comment #4

redmond says ...

I hope they fix the CGI, but it's more along the lines of what a Hulk movie should be. Total destruction. This will either be better than it deserves be (ala Transformers) or completely forgettable.

Kudos for pulling a scene out The Ultimates where Bruce Banner is tossed out of a helicopter. I'm sure Edward Norton will claim he wrote that himself.

comment #5

Suki Jonze says ...

Hmmm. Not gettin the love. Opening so soon and this is the best and first look we get -- two CGI video game creatures runnin toward each other? screw that, im in line to get me some Dark knight....

Suki Jonze
http://www.hollywood-newsroom.com/

comment #6

actionman says ...

The CGI looks weak but the film does look pretty "fun" I guess...and fairly stylish. I loved what Letterrier did with Unleashed; we'll see how he does with a budget six times bigger than his previous film.

comment #7

tophertilson says ...

I know I'm in the minority, but I kinda liked the Ang Lee film. I don't know that I'd call it "good" necessarily, but it did exert a strange fascination. I'd put it in the same category as David Lynch's DUNE. I don't know why anyone thought either would be a good idea, but it's nice to see serious artists taking a stab at an impenetrable slab of genre cheese.

This looks like another CGI-fueled studio release. It'll probably do better box-office, yet for all its proficiency, I doubt it'll be as memorable as that weird-ass Lee concoction.

comment #8

rr3333 says ...

Does anyone kno what kind of steroids Norton used for the role?

comment #9

Rosebudsthesled says ...

HULK MAD THAT HULK NOT SAY HULK MAD IN TRAILER.

HULK MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDD!

comment #10

actionman says ...

Also, I enjoyed Ang Lee's HULK a lot, all the way till that fucking disgraceful ending. What a disaster that was. I remember really, really loving the way Lee did the scene transitions; a true comic book touch right there that even Raimi and Nolan, for all their brilliance, haven't quite topped.

comment #11

mutinyco says ...

This is turning into a cliche now. First, we had Kong thumping his chest and running full-on to attack the T Rex. Then we had the same thing in Transformers with Optimus Prime. Now, we have Hulk doing the long run lead up to battle.

comment #12

Gnome de Guerre says ...

To paraphrase my comment on the other thread:

Compare with trailers for Ang Lee's version, this one seems colorless, straightforward, and uninspired. Compared with the Speed Racer or Iron Man trailers it looks almost downright boring.

Doesn't seem big enough. Doesn't seem fresh. Looks like reheated leftovers. But I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

comment #13

MAGGA says ...

I was only half-paying attention to this until I saw the unbelievably daring design fior The Hulk. My jaw dropped to the floor and I knew this would be immense. The I realised it was a monster. That is how The Hulk should look! I would have seen that movie elleven times on sheer principle. Or ten! I'll watch this, of course, loved the one from last year or whatever

comment #14

D.Z. says ...

redmond: "This will either be better than it deserves be (ala Transformers)"

More like more insulting to my intelligence than it deserves to be. Anyway, I expected the Hulk, not a Godzilla wannabe by way of Harryhausen.

comment #15

corey3rd says ...

shouldn't there be a title card: From People Who didn't bring you the sucky Hulk that you didn't like a few years ago!

Bill Bixby died for Ed Norton's sins.

comment #16

JBM... says ...

Screenplay by Edward Norton, story by Zak Penn, based on the Marvel comic book character created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.

Nope...

Written by Edward Norton, based on the Marvel comic book character created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.

...nope...

Written, produced, photographed, edited and directed by Edward Norton.

...there we go!

comment #17

Edward says ...

I agree with Mgmax that they should have used a real person and done some digital magic to make him look bigger, like they made the hobbits look smaller in LOTR.

Didn't I say in an earlier post that Norton wrote, "Grrrrrrrr." or something close. Can I just add that I'm in love with Liv Tyler. So, I'll try and see it on the big screen at the theater pub.

comment #18

Rich S. says ...

I hate to say it, but the parts of the Ang Lee film where they did "HULK SMASH!" looked a lot more in spirit with the original than this. Sam Elliott sure looked and acted more like Thunderbolt Ross than William Hurt (though I'm sure Hurt will bring an interesting spin). So far, I'm not feelin' it.

By the way, for those not fans of the comic, that thing he's fighting at the end is supposed to be the Abomination. So as not to spoil anything, the Abomination appears in another form earlier in the trailer.

comment #19

GLee2112 says ...

wow, this movie looks just as bad or worse than the last one.

comment #20

Mgmax says ...

I hardly think it's spoiling it to note that that's the only reason those random shots of Tim Roth make any sense.

comment #21

Mgmax says ...

Also, I highly recommend reading the biography of the Abomination at Wikipedia. It's hilarious in its run-on, constant plot-twist way:

"Eventually, operatives from the secret organization Home Base release the Abomination in order to fight the Hulk. The Abomination has become even more vicious as a result of his incarceration, and reminds Banner of the loss of Betty to goad him into a violent response. The plan backfires as the Abomination faces an enraged Hulk, who utterly defeats him.
These events are later revealed to have been a hallucination created by the entity Nightmare..."

comment #22

Rich S. says ...

I think I preferred it when he was just a garden-variety commie spy.

comment #23

DavidF says ...

The real treasure in this trailer is seeing how they "converted" Yonge Street in Toronto into "Harlem" by adding an Apollo marquee.

Even a regular visitor like Wells should recognize the obvious TO landmarks like Sam the Record Man and, of course, the Zanzibar peeler which is amazingly visible.

Nothing in this trailer convinces me the film will suck, nothing convinces me it will rule. Hopefully, the latter though I don't get as jazzed for Hulk as Spider-Man, Batman and Superman.

comment #24

Mark says ...

The best CGI beast remains Mr. Hyde in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. The domestic partnership twist, however, involving Bruce and "Don't mistake me for a therapist" is interesting.

comment #25

mizerock says ...

I had to look up what a "peeler joint" was - it turns out not to involve potatos at all! It's obvious in retrospect, but it's not a term I've heard before in the states.

comment #26

bents75 says ...

"I know I'm in the minority, but I kinda liked the Ang Lee film."

I agree tophertilson, I didn't care for it at all the first time I saw it - but after the series of mostly mind numbing comic book movies that have come out since - I think Lee's film actually holds up quite well in comparison. And contrary to public opinion, was pretty well in tune with the comic book - or at least certain eras of it.

In fact, with the exception of the first two spiderman movies and the first two x-men - Marvel hasn't produced one better than Lee's Hulk.

And maybe it's just me, but I think this looks considerably worse.

Everyone seems to be assuming that it will be better - as if Hollywood has never remade a film without success.

comment #27

Bocephus says ...

Lee's Hulk is seriously underrated. If nothing else he deserves kudos for having the balls to make an intellectual romantic superhero movie from a source that most people (who don't know better) expect to be a mindless smash-fest.

The only problem I had is that The Hulk never spoke. I really hope that, in the new dumbed down version, we at least get to hear him say "Hulk Smash!"

comment #28

Richardson says ...

"Everyone seems to be assuming that it will be better - as if Hollywood has never remade a film without success."

I don't think that's a fair statement. People assume that it will be more in line with what people want from a summer action movie featuring the character called "Hulk". Better / worse doesn't enter into it; people don't even talk about how bad Ang Lee's "Hulk" was in terms of the shallow characterization, the awkward direction, or the terrible acting. They mostly tend to just talk about their reaction: (paraphrased) "What the fuck was that?"

"And maybe it's just me, but I think this looks considerably worse."

I think the trailer is deliberately showing how it's nothing like Ang Lee's version.

That said, seeing the trailer, I regret previous statements I have made to the effect that I expect good things of this movie. That trailer makes me suspect it will be closer to the mediocrity of 'Daredevil' or 'Blade'.

still can't wait to see Omar throw down with the Hulk, though.