ROTTEN TOMATOES: New Images and Trailer Bulletin: The Incredible Hulk Comments

New Images and Trailer Bulletin: The Incredible Hulk

by Jeff Giles | April 30, 2008

Summary

You've seen the Ang Lee-directed warmup. You've seen the teaser trailer. You've even read all the rumors of behind-the-scenes creative turmoil. It's been a long wait, Hulk fans, but you've finally got a theatrical trailer for Louis Leterrier's The Incredible Hulk to sink your teeth into! Back to Article

(1-58 of 58 posts) | Reply

FullMelson writes:
on Apr 30 2008 01:58 PM

Well it's official there will never be a good adaptation of The Hulk.

Imo this film looks to fall way behind in quality when compared to what
I've seen of both Ironman and TDK...And seriously how on earth would Tim Roth's character have survived that kick, if the blow alone didn't kill
him then landing two or three miles away should have.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Apr 30 2008 02:32 PM

I find this movie perplexing. On one hand, it looks like a mediocre movie. But the CGI on Hulk is weak, yet Abomination looks great. Great CG in a film like this actually has a chance to lift a mediocre movie up a bit. It just looks to be a really forgettable movie and a complete misfire.

And bad movies aren't necessarily failures like mediocre ones are. At least the bad one gives you something to think about. Mediocre ones just do nothing.

(Reply to this)

tgibfo writes:
on Apr 30 2008 02:44 PM

On the contrary, with a high-quality cast (Edward Norton is a genius, Tim Roth is amazing and William Hurt is great) and a pretty decent plot of the military going after one person who has military secrets and is on the run, I'd go see this. But as soon as the Hulk appears, I lose interest. They'll never do this right with CG. It works with Spider-Man because the whole plot is more cartoon-y, and you don't have so many close-ups of a CGI face. Here, though, you need realism, and CGI human features just don't work next to real human features. The closest you could get to this working is using a PREDATOR-era Schwartzeneggar in green and making him larger by using special effects. Not gonna happen.

(Reply to this)

rambo- killer #2 writes:
on Apr 30 2008 02:54 PM

People keep complaining about this film and how it seems to be too formula and is nothing but an action/ adventure movie. But are you people stupid? That's what the original comic book and the original beloved series were you idiots. So this is going to be truer to this character which is great. And people seem to underestimate Norton who is pure talent and has a lot creatively invested into this movie and character. The rest of the cast is reliable enough and this movie is going to be the solid Hulk smashing entertainment we've all waited for. I mean seriously what could be worse than Ang Lee's ridiculous vision?

(Reply to this)

minderbinder writes:
on Apr 30 2008 03:25 PM

The more I see of this, the more it looks worse than the first one.

Nothing looks to be an improvement, other than maybe more time spent on action scenes, but if they're lame, who cares?

I have to agree that I still don't buy a CGI hulk, just looks so fake that it takes me out of the movie - if the FX are going to be this bad they should have just done it as animation instead of live action.

(Reply to this)

rockclmbr6 writes:
on Apr 30 2008 03:28 PM

Looks a LOT better than Ang Lee's version. I mean jeeze, that trailer had more action that his version.

I think Norton is a fantastic actor, so I'm looking forward to this. If anything, it will be a nice summer blockbuster action flick, which will probably be incredibly disappointing to comic fans everywhere and incredibly entertaining for me. *shrug*

(Reply to this)

trpsomewhere writes:
on Apr 30 2008 03:36 PM

I think people are making too many weird assertions on this without having seen the movie. I think it's worth it... no matter what. We know that the CG's (probably) never gonna be able to present a Hulk that looks real, but really, how many Green Giants have you seen in your life?

The moment the notion comes out about a 8-foot tall muscle-bound freak, you gotta know the guy's not real. And don't use your trained eyes to see it. Look at it through the eyes of a teenager or younger kid. They're gonna think it's fantastic and might wanna see it time and time again :-)

I think we're thinking about these comic movies in a very realistic manner. But we forget one critical point: Comics are blown out of proportion so that we can escape from reality, and so are movies based on those comics.

Let's not turn a comic-based movie into a social commentary! :-)

(Reply to this)

Sputnik99 writes:
on Apr 30 2008 03:42 PM

IMO, Ang Lee's Hulk was a brilliantly creative movie. The reason it failed was not becase of Mr. Lee, it was because of the lame storyline. Lee's style was full of life and energy, although the ending was way too long. I don't see any of that creatvity in the trailers of this new Hulk movie.

People can complain all they want about Ang Lee's movie, but IMO it will probably have twice the creative energy of this new one, which looks more and more like the truly ridiculous of the two Hulk films.

(Reply to this)

Amish writes:
on Apr 30 2008 03:44 PM

Banner is the military secret.

yeah I probably stole that line from the movie.

(Reply to this)

minderbinder writes:
on Apr 30 2008 03:48 PM

"but really, how many Green Giants have you seen in your life?"

Lou Ferrigno sure looked real to me.

The Hulk character is just a human but extra strong, extra big, and green. I don't see why they can't just get a big burly guy and use FX to enhance him.

Hell, why not at least use a real actor for the face and just CGI the body?

(Reply to this)

u1sart writes:
on Apr 30 2008 03:57 PM

I think this movie is going to be good and better than the Ang lee film. It seems like its gonna have more action and more suspense.

(Reply to this)

trgdr777 writes:
on Apr 30 2008 04:06 PM

These images look like trash to me. For its time the first Hulk looked better than this. Pretty effects would have been the only thing to make me want to watch this movie, but those close ups are REALLY unconvincing.

A movie like this doesn't need to use a big burly actor to look convincing. There are some extremely talented CG artists that have produced results that are way better than this. If you used some really good mocap (with a little bit of tweaking) for the face and the musculature moves correctly under a well rendered skin surface you could make it believable enough.

Some of the stuff on here looks like it was made on a TV commercial budget though.

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Apr 30 2008 04:08 PM

In reply to this comment (#1711965)
Mindbender; This is a fair point about why no one seems to want to use a real person and I don't really have an answer to it other than some philosophical nonsense about everyone wanting to go 'larger than life.' I will say, regarding using a real face, that in the Ang Lee version, they essentially DID just 'blow up' Eric Bana when making the hulk-- look into the face, it's more or less the same dude, distorted for size. If they didn't distort for size it would've looked [even more] rediculous.

I'm going on record right now to say I'm looking forward to this movie, for all the reasons everyone has positive has stated and because I'm going to *GO IN* expecting to be disappointed with the CG. That has served me very well in the past, so I don't spend time dwelling on it.

And simply because it deserves repeating, I can't imagine Ed Norton signing on unless he was satisfied this would have some stones.

(Reply to this)

drdoom13 writes:
on Apr 30 2008 04:36 PM

more action does not a better movie make

(Reply to this)

Iamremote01 writes:
on Apr 30 2008 05:01 PM

I'll see it... but honestly, looks like Ang Lee will have the last laugh here.

(Reply to this)

Floor Man writes:
on Apr 30 2008 05:19 PM

Well, thank goodness for *that*. The faith that I lost after seeing the teaser has been restored, and then some. :)

Now I'm really looking forward to this...Edward Norton is amazing!

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Apr 30 2008 05:39 PM

I actually don't think this looks as bad as everyone thinks it does. I would agree, the graphics don't look totally superb, and I liked the Hulk from the first film a little better. I think the best thing this movie has going for it is low expectations. When expectations are low, people can legitimately be suprised by something less than perfect. I think it'll do fine, probably better than fine.

(Reply to this)

cswb writes:
on Apr 30 2008 06:01 PM

I swear to God you people like to ***** just for the sake of bitching. Do any of you know anything about the Hulk other than he's green!! Like the idiot who said tha Lou Ferigno looked convincing as the Hulk, also his description of the hulk "The Hulk character is just a human but extra strong, extra big, and green". You moron!! First off the Hulk is based on a comic book, you know what those are right their basically science fiction, fantasy. Make Beleive!!! The Hulk is a nine foot tall monster not a 6 foot tall guy in green paint. This hulk actually looks closer to what the character looks like in the comic book and not that stay puft marshmellow man that ANG LEE created! But if any of you people knew what you were talking about you'd know that!! This movie is head and shoulders above ANG LEE's version and I haven't even seen the damn thing yet and I know that. Marvel has gone out and got themselves two completely top notch casts for their movies this time. Edward Norton is an Oscar nominated actor who for my money has never given a bad performance and has made sitting through any one of his movies worthwhile. So how about you people stop ripping apart a movie based on a two minute trailer and actually go and see it and then if you don't like it, then you submit your opinion.

(Reply to this)

tomwaitsjr writes:
on Apr 30 2008 06:25 PM

cswb, do you have any quaaludes?

This movie looks terrible. And I agree with the mention of Tim Roth getting kicked in the gut by the hulk. . . total BS.

But hey, now I'll have extra money to spend on the most likely best movie of the summer.

POSTAL!

:)

JOY! AUSOMENESS! POSTAL IS WIN!

(Reply to this)

Young Turk writes:
on Apr 30 2008 06:53 PM

In reply to this comment (#1711840)
This could easily be worse than Ang Lee's version.

and comics are all social commentaries in some shape or form.

(Reply to this)

Uradik Smoke writes:
on Apr 30 2008 07:10 PM

Wait a minute here ... Am I reading alot of this correctly ???

Some of you Effffffin morons think this could be worse than Ang Lees Hulk ?

How in the name of GOD are you idots saying that after only seeing the trailer ? Maybe you need to go to Blockbuster tonight and rent Ang Lees Hulk and watch it just so you remember how SH*TTY that movie was ...

I for one think the trailer looks great , the plot looks to be solid , the acting looks to be top notch, The CG looks good to me , not great but alot better than the first attempt at Hulk , and he overall demeaner of this movie seems to be spot on ...

I just cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could say this looks that bad ...

(Reply to this)

chewie louie writes:
on Apr 30 2008 07:28 PM

Looks like I'm in the minority. I think the trailer looks pretty good and expect this one to do much better than the first hulk. By the way, I liked the nod to the theme music from the Hulk television series.

(Reply to this)

jmo2ski writes:
on Apr 30 2008 07:30 PM

Why in the hell not make a human hulk, such as what happened with Hellboy. You know it really isn' that hard, he doesn't have to be this big giant that "kids" are into.

Unless they are fooling us by putting shots of CGI in, when he is really like the Hellboy character, but if he is just another CGI character, This is destined to flop.

(Reply to this)

mtj4life writes:
on Apr 30 2008 07:40 PM

Why do people have to bash a film before it's even released? Look at how people did that with Transformers last year then turned around and ate their words to praise it? And before someone bashes Transformers, remember that it couldn't have been so bad to make over 300 million at the boxoffice. And it's funny how the people who are bashing it now are going to be the ones to purchase a ticket to see it....So lets let the movie be released before we start making judgments on it and not just form an opinion off a trailer.

(Reply to this)

psycho_jack writes:
on Apr 30 2008 08:15 PM

people just likes to bash movies before they are out i guess.. i like the trailer, it looks awesome. I dont know y people say the CG is bad, it looks alrite to me..specially the adbomination looks great.. as for norton it looks like he s goin for great acting in this hulk.. but they need to promote this film more

(Reply to this)

brettswiz writes:
on Apr 30 2008 08:25 PM

The only thing I'm worried about this movie is the story. I feel like I already know whats going on after the first theatrical trailer. Banner in different country, starts running, goes to the US, first fight happens, Roth turns into the Abomination, banner goes into hiding thinks about life, final fight happens. Granted, I know most trailers now a days basically hand feed you what the movie will be, but really nothing in that synopsis is getting me that excited. Maybe the fact is that it is a comic book movie and its the Hulk. Why do we need this movie to be so... serious???

(Reply to this)

Lost*Highway* writes:
on Apr 30 2008 09:18 PM

In reply to this comment (#1712241)
You cannot equate quality with box office...most people like crap,as long as there are big explosion and lots of CGI the sheep will go.

(Reply to this)

martinscorsese25 writes:
on Apr 30 2008 09:44 PM

who cares TDK will rule this summer!!! also there a new trailer of it. try to watch it. although its very low quality

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lU9HHS1TfPg

and how about iron man dudes. 93%!! wow i would have never predicted that, it top the batman begins and is equal to spider-man 2!!! wow right.. though i still refused to read the reviews cause i want to be surprised.. but seeing that i already saw the tomatometer on the homepage, then i'm pretty sure my movie enjoyment will be reduced.. cause i dont want to know if the movie is good or not until i watch it...

(Reply to this)

BigMonsterRodeo writes:
on Apr 30 2008 09:55 PM

Read this if you want to understand this whole kicking business you fools...

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/36465

Personally, I can't wait. Norton is the sh**.

(Reply to this)

terrible1 writes:
on Apr 30 2008 10:56 PM

you guys are all weak! first off its a comic book movie about a green giant...how could the hulk possibly live up to CGI expectations? get over it! second off, there is a major struggle with edward norton and the studio to get the full 2 hour plus version released in theatres, complete with total character devolpment (something that is absent in most comic book movies). beyond that, the trailers dont necesarily prove anything about the movie. ****ty movies often have pretty cool trailers (i.e. 10,000 BC). thats simply a marketing issue. ease up and check out The Incredible Hulk for yourself before passing too much judgement based on a two minute trailer. (by the way, this is my first post! holla!)

(Reply to this)

balanceman writes:
on May 01 2008 12:01 AM

I used to collect the comic book the Hulk and read it for years, and more recently, Planet Hulk, and World War Hulk. I was also a fan of the tv show. I was disappointed with Ang Lee's hulk but this time around being familiar with some of the stories from the comic they definately look like they are going in the right direction. Do you know how much Thunderbolt Ross had been in the comic? Abomination? Many, many times. Try this...freeze frame certain parts of this trailer and imagine them as a comic book frame. Then try to tell me it doesn't feel like the Hulk. It is exactly like it should be, a comic book brought to life in moving pictures.

(Reply to this)

SpitfireOverThames writes:
on May 01 2008 07:42 AM

It is really sad that Universal's special effects just aren't as masterfully done as some of the films that have come out in the last few years (such as KING KONG, JURASSIC PARK, NARNIA, LOTR, SPIDER-MAN 2-3, IRON MAN, X-MEN, SUPERMAN RETURNS). The problem has been that the special effects for HULK were not, I believe, tested in front of a live audience. If they had been, they would surely have gone back and made changes.

I know if I were directing or producing this film that I would want the Hulk to be the highlight of any and all special effects...start from him. Get him right, the movie has a fighting chance to be embraced and loved. Get that wrong, and you are truly building an unstable foundation for the film. I think there were problems with Ang Lee's special effects, but at this point, they look to me to have been better. Yes, the Hulk has a different, better look in this new incarnation, but at what price?

I was a bit surprised at how computer-like the Hulk appears in the trailer. I just couldn't believe it. Is this a blockbuster or not? The slow-motion bit where Hulk leaps out of the glass enclosure was a shocker... That is NOT the time to slow down the Hulk when the effects are as poor as they are...

I know a lot of fans are defending the special effects because they want to believe that the movie will do well. They are defending it because they care about the character (and possibly future Marvel movies), as do I. There are still six weeks before the film opens up... Let us hope they go back and make the necessary changes to make this character come alive... Make us believe in the Hulk...

Of course, I will go see this film. But I am biased to support it. What about others out there? That is who the makers of the film need to convince to get them buying movie tickets.

~Sean

~Sean

(Reply to this)

jeremyd4 writes:
on May 01 2008 08:03 AM

To all the people complaining about Tim Roth getting kicked in the trailer - wait until you see IRON MAN - your heads will completely explode. The movie is filled with incredibly unrealistic scenes of Tony Stark falling from the sky at great heights and crashing into walls WITHOUT gear on...

Oh, but that's at 93% as everyone also points out. I guess this kinda stuff works in a comic book movie.

(Reply to this)

jeremyd4 writes:
on May 01 2008 08:11 AM

..........and the HELLBOY costume was not convincing at all - unless of course I was supposed to assume that arm of his is made of plastic??

(Reply to this)

BowieSwimmer writes:
on May 01 2008 08:36 AM

After seeing these trailers, I actually miss Ang Lee.

Edward Norton makes for a terrible Hulk. Robert Downey Jr. is an incredible "offbeat" casting decision for Iron Man. This one not so much...

I think Marvel has a huge hit on its hands this weekend with Iron Man, but then should get ready for a big blow when this releases later this summer.
With Marvel financing its own films completely now, things are much more on the line. And failing to reboot the Hulk series AGAIN won't bode well.

(Reply to this)

Shatter24 writes:
on May 01 2008 08:57 AM

Hulk will be a big success with the mainstream audience and be middle-of-the-road with the critics (60-65%). I expect it to gross near $200 million before all is said and done. That will make it a bigger success than the first film and will make it a profit. People (including myself) will like the action, the pacing, the villain, the angst as presented by Norton, the separated lovers feel. I think even though the film may not be original, its going to set a good foundation for future films, kind of like the original X-Men did.

Biggest problem with Ang Lee's Hulk is that many people were bored for long periods of time with it. It needs to be intense, emotional, exciting, and then done. Get a successful action film in first, then add to the story next time. I think this is going to be a pretty decent hit for Marvel. At least it is franchise buildable (from the looks of it), rather than Lee's story. I'll probably never watch his film again (but for those of you who love it, you can find it in the Wal-Mart bargain bin for under $5) now that a hopefully superior version is available.

(Reply to this)

minderbinder writes:
on May 01 2008 09:54 AM

In reply to this comment (#1712108)
"Do any of you know anything about the Hulk other than he's green!! Like the idiot who said tha Lou Ferigno looked convincing as the Hulk, also his description of the hulk "The Hulk character is just a human but extra strong, extra big, and green". You moron!! First off the Hulk is based on a comic book, you know what those are right their basically science fiction, fantasy. Make Beleive!!! The Hulk is a nine foot tall monster not a 6 foot tall guy in green paint."

So how exactly is the Hulk different than a big burly guy? Specifically. You call me an idiot yet you don't say anything that disagrees with me - he's taller, extra burly, and green.

All of those could be done easily by filming an actor and using FX to make him bigger (and bulkier if needed).

You might as well insist that Hagrid or the hobbits could only be done as CGI animation since they're not the same size as normal actors.

So if you really think an actor wouldn't work, give real reasons why. And even if you did CGI for the body, why not use live action for the face?

I do think Ferrigno was more effective in that you always knew you were watching a real person and not obviously reminded that it was animation, taking you out of the story.

And I agree that even CGI would be MUCH better if they used mocap instead of just animating everything, the motion is a big part of the problem.

(Reply to this)

ThinPhantom writes:
on May 01 2008 10:10 AM

the only way to save this movie is to add some comic relief. anybody know what the fat kid from super bad is doing these days?

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on May 01 2008 10:22 AM

In reply to this comment (#1712681)
Spitfire;

interesting theory, but I could not disagree with you more for the following reasons: Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith-

George Lucas demonstrated as a director EXACTLY why you don't start with the effect and build outward. at least half of each movie was green screen and half the characters never made it off a hard drive. The results: Visually, each movie had some mind-blowingly beautiful special effects and scenes. Each starship was so intricately rendered as to almost have its own personality.
..And I couldn't have given less of a metric batsh#t about any of it because the dialogue was so unforgivably bad and the acting so wooden. It actually made me angry that THIS many resources were being brought into service for such a mediocre project.
COMPARE: the first trilogy where the effects were done (in some cases) with sh#t they found around the house and some REALLY brilliant innovations. And BETTER ACTING. AND BETTER SCRIPTS.
I imagine the counter-argument to this is that 'well, this movie is ABOUT the Hulk- he is the central character' Okay, try these: Stealth- insane budget on a movie about a plane. Cool plane, sh#tty movie. T3, rise of the machines. ILM ferchrissakes back on board to do the effects for she-terminator and while it wasn't a flop, the movie is generally maligned. WHY? because the story and characters were kind of weak despite top-notch visuals. And finally, Transformers (which I am on record as having REALLY enjoyed). Everyone who pissed on the movie hated the STORY and the characters, not so much the visuals.

And in conclusion: they should NOT I repeat NOT create a visual effect and then build a movie around it.

(Reply to this)

tomwaitsjr writes:
on May 01 2008 11:32 AM

The Hollywood Stock Exchange site is normally very accurate when it comes to blockbuster films, especially as they are close to release. Right now they have it at 94.22 million over a 4 week period. I think Hulk will likely finish at 80 million during this time frame.

I do notice that Tim Blake Nelson is in this film. He's a great director and character actor. . . so I hope the movie does better than I expect. . .

The Incredible Hulk
Symbol: HULK2 Status: Active Genre: Action/Adventure Phase: Wrap

Price: H$94.22 Change: 1/2 Volume: 1,839,801

Gross: $0 Release Date: 06/13/2008

(Reply to this)

Skates forJersey Dude writes:
on May 01 2008 11:36 AM

ITS A MOVIE! DO people always die in the comic books from **** like that? NO! Why is everyone always so critical. Enjoy the film for what it is, if not **** off. "oh he wouldnt have survived the kick..blah blah blah...blah" Are you serious what a tool you are. How about go make your own Hulk movie. The movie has a good cast and looks pretty damn cool. They should just call this NEGATIVE REPLIES.COM

(Reply to this)

AlbertBrodsky writes:
on May 01 2008 11:40 AM

I truly believe that this will be a huge improvement over the first one. I'm starting to hate CGI, but whatever. My kids are stoked, and as far as my pocketbook is concerned, that's all that matters. God, that first one was awful. Ed Norton is the perfect casting for this as well. The whole cast looks top notch.

(Reply to this)

stg writes:
on May 01 2008 01:55 PM

For ****sake ppl stop bitchin and moanin' every ****in time its the same story. Heath Ledger for joker!! bad choice, wierd laugh, same old bull****, daniel craig for bond! its a horrible choice death of the franchise blah blah. Everytime you have had to eat your words.

So for once instead the -ve skepticism wait to see the ****ing movie before u complain or better don't watch it nobody is putting a ****ing gun to ur head. But for me its not going to get better then this, Edward norton doing a comic movie its a once in a lifetime acievement, the guy has an absolute flawless record in movies and thats nearly impossible to acheive even for Mr.(I should retire) De niro and Pacino. Edward's name was enough to get me to watch the movie, I don't give a rats *** bout the CGI, its more then ok all I care bout is that the movie tells a good story in the end that all that counts. Even Pixar arguably the best CGI studio right now believe in one thing only and thats the story. CGI comes after that, and wats so ****in bad about it, the hulk screaming face close-up is a scene lifted right out of a comic book panel and it looks gr8 as compared to the horrible ****y cgi of Ang Lees Hulk, where in some scenes the Hulk's pants seemed to be missing and he was butt naked. Any of u ppl saying its going to be worse then Ang Lees Hulk need to refresh there mem. as u were probably all sleeping when you first saw it.

I can't wait for this movie Tim Roth, Liv Tyler, William Hurt and a script by Edward Norton, its not gonna get better then this for the Hulk. I am just glad for the gr8 triple combo of Ironman,Hulk and The Dark Knight its gonna be an awesome summer.

(Reply to this)

tomwaitsjr writes:
on May 01 2008 02:29 PM

Many of you have potty mouths!

Edward Norton does have a great track record. The only movie of his I didn't like was "Death to Smoochy."

(Reply to this)

gsundt writes:
on May 01 2008 02:35 PM

Not gonna lie -- looks pretty great. I agree that the effects don't quite look as solid as they could, but they've got a month or so to clean 'em up. I would strongly recommend that.

Ang Lee's version was exceedingly dull, and while I'm all about story, the Hulk needs some action.

And for those who say they should just do the muscley man thing (ala Hellboy)...

...are you ****ing retarded? That'd be gay. That'd be gayer than that big gay pile...

It works in Hellboy because he was never designed to be a mammoth monster. He's just slightly larger than those around him. The Hulk does, in fact, need to be really huge.

And someone wrote that was just for the kids... It's not. Hulk's been huge for just about ever. So shut your mouth before any more crap falls out of it.

(Reply to this)

h-town24 writes:
on May 01 2008 03:37 PM

"On the contrary, with a high-quality cast" The first one had a better cast and crew! Oscar winners!

(Reply to this)

RottenRob writes:
on May 01 2008 04:59 PM

I'm a very old man of 34, but I think Ang Lee's Hulk was great, and not boring at all. I was very happy to see something presented with a real vision and great atmosphere. It made the action scenes all the more exciting when they came along. I know it's in the past, but since so many people puke all over it every time the new Hulk comes up I wanted to throw in my opinion.

This new one will probably be fun to watch, but the trailers don't make it seem like it.

And I agree that the kick in the stomach seems stupid and awkward, out of context at least. I don't mean that in a nerdy way, like "no way, that would totally kill him!" Rather, it just seems stupid. But I don't want to be a naysayer.

Me just like old Hulk, me think. But me can watch old Hulk on DVD if want. Me still see new Hulk. Maybe like.

(Reply to this)

BigMonsterRodeo writes:
on May 01 2008 06:56 PM

In reply to this comment (#1712988)
Really people... read this and actually get this kicking thing into context:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/36465

It is such a stupid point to complain about.

(Reply to this)

-apocolyptic- writes:
on May 01 2008 09:00 PM

In reply to this comment (#1712108)
Yeah but when we submit our opinion will you sideline that into another fanboy rant of who knows the hulk better?
I have never been a fan of the hulk until I watched the ang lee version.
he gave depth to an otherwise shallow character.

so when i voice my opinion, hopefully you will respect it and not comment on it, for i will have then seen it.

the first trailer sucked large, but the new one does seem to have depth to it.

(Reply to this)

psycho_jack writes:
on May 01 2008 09:25 PM

i say everyone interested with the hulk character just go see the movie & judge by themselves.. people shud see the film before bitching about its quality.. beside mr norton seems really dedicated to make this movie great

(Reply to this)

dsence writes:
on May 02 2008 01:10 AM

In reply to this comment (#1712108)
Nope

(Reply to this)

VoshNarenek writes:
on May 02 2008 06:38 PM

Me Hulk. Me Inflect. Puny David Banner monotone. Ha ha, but seriously; at first I was sour on the special effects, but they've grown on me. Hulk looks rough, and perhaps like he's made of clay, but he's supposed to be bullet proof, so he'd be rough looking, so that adds up. Unfortunately, every indication is that the plot itself was written with 12 year old boys in mind who have WWF posters on their bedroom walls and ceilings. The trailer lays out the story from beginning to end; always a great sign (sarcasm). It wreaks of the big time studio's practice of targeting their favorite audience, the dumbest of us, and then dumbing things down even further so they can look down at it. It's as if James Cameron was brought in to "fix" Ang Lee's mess. It's one of those projects that says to regular dumb folk, "we're on your side with the action and the rocknroll rough necking (high five, appreciative guffaws)" when what they really mean is, "we're just laughing at you, and thanks for being easily amused and thanks for your money!" Just breath in that great dialog! "That all you got? Huh?" or "You mean to tell me, Callahan, that another of your bio-experiments is outta control!? The mayors gonna have my a**!" And doesn't Banner have any friends who will tell him that the Hulk never actually hurts people, so he can stop wringing his hands as if he's slaughtering orphans when he "loses control"? And I need a yearly quota of actors getting that look in their eye as if to say, "oh no he didn't, he about to walk right out there, can you believe it, uhn uhhh! Uhnt uhh! No he di-int!" Those kinds of scenes always make me slap my inner thigh and elbow my buds, sharing the moment. But I wonder why there is a far off sound of laughter coming from Hollywood...

(Reply to this)

tomwaitsjr writes:
on May 02 2008 07:28 PM

Hey! I just saw Iron Man. There is no part in Iron Man as unrealistic as that stupid gut-kick. Iron Man did a great job of living in the somewhat plausible. HULK looks idiotic.

And guess what tho? I never liked HULK as a comic either, so shoot me. Shoot me with your UWE BOLL SHOT. When I was a kid I liked the TV show, and still love the music to it.

Maybe the reason I don't like HULK is the reason that you do. God forgive us having divergent opinions yet acting civil to one another.

And again. IRON MAN was great. 2nd best comic film to #1 Batman Begins.

(Reply to this)

Teehulk writes:
on May 05 2008 08:02 PM

Boy, a lot of you people commenting on here, especially on the first page, really know how to put a damper on things. Plain and simple, if you think it looks like garbage and the Hulk is not that great of a character and Batman is the most awesomest hero ever, then please..don't go see it. Stay off the boards if you've got a gripe about the CGI. Its been redundantly said about how unrealistic it looks. Hulk has a small but faithful fan-base and we are all gonna see it and will most likely love it. Hulk has always been the kind of character where you love him or you hate him and no matter how much movie studios adhere to what all the haters complain about to try and make them happy, it won't happen. So the hell with all you complainers and stick to your goddamn Knight in Darkness and whatever else it is you get off on. Stop littering these boards with your negativity.

(Reply to this)

trgdr777 writes:
on May 05 2008 09:34 PM

In reply to this comment (#1721760)
The purpose of having these boards is to give an opinion. If that happens to be a negative opinion based on what has been shown so far, then that's perfectly okay. I don't have a problem with people having a more positive outlook based on what they've seen. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. What would be the point if we all said it looked great?

(Reply to this)

Teehulk writes:
on May 06 2008 03:10 AM

In reply to this comment (#1721898)
I got no problem with people who want to give their opinion, but when there are those who give stupid claims that this movie is crap or that this is gonna fail because the CGI is so bad, thats when I get irritated. Notice how it took me this long to say anything. I would rather read postings where people are getting excited like I am. Its too much of a downer reading all the same negative stuff repeatedly.

(Reply to this)

Teehulk writes:
on May 08 2008 01:41 AM

I'm glad I got the last say. Hulk Rules!

(Reply to this)

chinman93 writes:
on May 10 2008 01:25 PM

incredible hulk will bury the 2003 hulk and every1 will forget that pile of crap a true hero will emerge june 13th 2008 **** all haters of this film i shoved my **** in their mom's mouth and shot spunk all over her face and analy raped her up the ***!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Reply to this)