Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

HULK spot in Full Screen Quicktime!

Hulk looked great (and thread talkbacks) by BTWR	Jan 26th, 2003 10:58:39 PM
yeah I agree the Hulk looked SO sweet. And along with the other users who are starting to speak up, I agree that AICN should have THREADED talkbacks! *AUFT: AICN-Users For Threading*
kinda tv lookin by Jon E Cin	Jan 26th, 2003 10:58:49 PM
This looks like a tv movie..so does Daredevil. Whats the deal?
GAY by KneelBeforeZod	Jan 26th, 2003 10:58:57 PM
THE HULK SUCKS, YOU SUCK, THE SUPERBOWL SUCKED!!! actually that was very cool, and matrix looked like more of the same bullet slo-mo crapfest.
This movie will be THE summer film!!!! by Rogue_Leader	Jan 26th, 2003 10:59:04 PM
Well other than that Matrix! Ang Lee? How can we lose with this guy at the helm?
Tank-Throwing rules! by whyisthematrix	Jan 26th, 2003 11:02:52 PM
Everyone's gonna bitch about the tank throwing, but I thought it rocked. Hulk did stuff like that every issue in the comics! yeah, and that's a good point - why aren't these threaded? Like on slashdot. SO much easier to read. AUFT
Big, Green and... looks like Shrek? by TheJake	Jan 26th, 2003 11:22:07 PM
Is it just me or does the Hulk look similar to Shrek? Did the same people do the CG? Give Shrek some Rogain, tape back his ears, get a tan (to make him darker green) and steroids/a couple weeks in a gym and POOF! You wouldn't like him when he's angry!
Naysayers? Alternatives to CG? by dorfer	Jan 26th, 2003 11:35:26 PM
So, CG sucks? What is the alternative, o wise preachers of the Anti-CG? Without CG, this movie doesn't get made. Sure, some of this looks a tad (TAD) rough... slowing it down, you can see the compositing artifacts around the character. But there's plenty of time to clean that up. I think, overall, the CG looks great. It's gonna be a fun movie to watch. Let's hope a less "rock video-esque" trailer hits soon. Then we can really see how the Hulk moves and fits into the environment. I hope the story is good, but I must face facts... I'm buying a ticket to see the big green guy break shit. Oh, and I really think this TV spot contains a "partially-morphing" Banner/Hulk. --d
WHY CG!?!? Count your fucken Blessings!!!! by RickSlamu2	Jan 26th, 2003 11:38:01 PM
I read a rumor that they scrapped all the CG and insted the Hulk would be played by "THE GAME" Yep Hunter Herst helmsly himself! Hows that for fucken Heart atack! Thank god it was onlt a rumor!
It looks even more real on a hulk sized screen... by Steal_Dragon	Jan 26th, 2003 11:51:03 PM
Weird.
The Hulk looks even more real on a hulk sized screen... by Steal_Dragon	Jan 26th, 2003 11:52:51 PM
Weird.
Re:Alternatives to CGI.... by Horus	Jan 27th, 2003 12:10:34 AM
Well...the real problem isn't CGI..It's bad cgi.I have no problem with the T-Rex in JP1 , The Balrog , a lot of the creatures in Starship troopers and the Dragons in reign of fire and so on.The problem arises when the cgi is so obvious that realism , just goes out the window.As for this Hulk the design seems very dissapointing ..he just looks like a scaled up comic toy figure from ten years ago.In one close up , he looks more chubby /bloated that raw muscle.I was kinda hoping for something more primal and monsterous.Small head , gigantic muscles and veins close to popping all over the arms etc.The sort of stuff Simon Bisley and Berni wrightson paints .YOu see pics of body builders , who've been pumping a bit too much , that have exactly the right look , like theyre gonna burst any second.Alternatives wise perhaps a mix of reverse hobbit style scale changing.. and a very well crafted , full body prosphetic over Eric Banna might look wayy better.Those berserker Urak-Hai guys in two towers , looked like pure bulky muscle...and I wasn't 100% sure if it was make-up ..or they just employed, some real heavy steroid abusing New Zealand body builders .Finally the hulk tv series made the mistake of covering Lou Ferigno in totally opaque mint coloured paint , destroying any sense of veins and translucency in the process..he looked a lot more monsterous out of makeup.Nice to see that the movie continues the tv series' silly use of bermuda shorts sized trousers, on banner to give the feeling hes hulked out!
The Tank by donnysan	Jan 27th, 2003 12:32:58 AM
They may have shown the hulk whirling a tank around by the barrel in the comics, but such obvious bad physics takes away from the movie. The barrel would bend or rip out of it's mounting, not to mention the person who mentioned in another talkback that if the tank weighed more than the hulk he would lift himself off the ground instead of lifting the tank unless he used some kind of lever or fulcrum.
I'm usually the first person to... by Hobbitastic	Jan 27th, 2003 12:39:06 AM
look at someone's negative post and say, "What an asshole." But tonight, I'm the asshole because I really think the CGI Hulk looks like ASS! I hope they take the almost 5 months between now and the release date to fix that shit up because right now, it's just a hair above the Scorpion King in "The Mummy Returns."
I see i'm not the only one that thinks this looks like Shrek.... by ThunderballX	Jan 27th, 2003 12:58:46 AM
....let's hope the FX are not finished.
Time to reserve a seat. by Shanks 'R' Us	Jan 27th, 2003 01:04:20 AM
It's funny. When I saw the blurry stills from the trailer earlier this week, I remembered that I used to be scared shitless of the Hulk when I was four or something. Then I saw this trailer and I immediately swore to myself that I was going to be in a theater watching this movie on opening weekend... the fear is gone now, only excitement remains....
when oh when, bad trailer formats by Lelon	Jan 27th, 2003 01:04:27 AM
when oh when will we get a DECENT format for movie trailers. why dont these companies get with the program and just use divx. QUICKTIME SUCKS
Real-world physics, comic-book effects by NakedYossarian	Jan 27th, 2003 01:05:05 AM
Oh, you silly bastards! The BEST that computer graphics can do is make the Hulkster look like a comic book because he's not real. He looks fan-fucking-tastic in those previews and they're not going to change it now. Body-builders don't get as big as the hulk (and they use a different process to gain muscle, fancypants), so there's no comparison. To enjoy this movie, take your physics book and throw it out the window (tank-physics guy, you may have been sarcastic but I couldn't really tell). It's a comic-book movie! If you want to complain about bad movie science, go chat about The Core and get your ass handed to you by the writers.
Very Scooby-Doo like HULK effects by couchtrip105	Jan 27th, 2003 01:06:14 AM
The close up of the face we have all seen rules. The rest looks like about as realistic as Scooby Doo did in Scooby-Doo the movie. And just how big are we making the HULK...He is about 3x the size of a tank? Since when?
That trailer ruled! by DaFacerRules	Jan 27th, 2003 01:15:56 AM
... with the exception of the music. I'll be waiting for a "score" version to pass real judgement!
I love it when the fanboys demand realism by St.Buggering	Jan 27th, 2003 01:18:10 AM
Because what they should have done was find a REAL nine foot tall green steroid monster, because CGI doesn't look real. Unlike a Jack Kirby illustration; those are completely convincing. Do any of you think before you hit the keyboard, or is it all just stream-of-consciousness? And incidentally, what's the alternative to CGI? Would you prefer stop-motion animation? An optical shot of a muscular dwarf blown up to Hulk size? Really, share your massive effects savvy with the rest of us. Of course, we all know your answer; everything sucks unless it's in Lord of the Rings. Everything in Lord of the Rings rules.
Hulk, CGI, and everything else by Skylord2	Jan 27th, 2003 01:24:48 AM
First off, leme just say this: If the HULK wasn't made with CGI it would completely suck ass wind. You would get a cheap, goofy, cheesy ass flick that would be INCREDIBLY similar to the TV Show. Yeah, Lou was good back then, but so was the live-action Spider-Man. Nowadays, people (and comic book fans especially) demand MORE, BIGGER and BETTER from the tripe Hollywood has tried to pawn off on us in years past. Remember the CAPTAIN AMERICA with Ned Beatty? How about Roger Corman's FANTASTIC FOUR? Thank GOD that movie got shelved and is collecting dust until it foes straight to video three days b4 the FF movie comes out. How about this: Batman and Robin. Or even worse: Nicholas Cage as Superman. Gimme a BREAK! Spider-Man without CGI would have sucked. A live-action HULK (whether portrayed by HHH, Big Poppa Pump or Brock Lesnar) would suck. Read the comic books. Look at Hulk standing next to ANYONE and he is truly a H-U-L-K. As for threading, screw that. nuff said. oh and just for argument's sake, my list of FUTURE comic book characters that NEED to be CGI if brought to the silver screen: 1. The Thing (Fantastic Four) 2. Juggernaut (X-Men) 3. Doomsday (Superman) 4. Galactus (FF) 5. Sasquatch (Alpha Flight) 6. Anvil (Stryke Force)(yeah, THAT one will never happen -sniff-)
Actually, St.Buggering, everything in Lord Of The Rings DOES rul by Noriko Takaya	Jan 27th, 2003 01:32:00 AM
But so does the Hulk--he rules, too. So there's only one solution to this conundrum--PUT THE HULK IN RETURN OF THE KING!! We can have him lay the smack down on Sauron (CGI HULK: "HULK SMASH PUNY FLAMING EYEBALL!!" SAURON: "How the Hell much am I being paid for this again? I want a fucking raise!"), step on Gollum and chuck the ring into Mt. Doom! Then the Fantastic 4 can fly down and airlift him, Frodo and Sam out of there. We can give Peter Jackson a break and let Michael Bay direct! O.K. O.K., no more LSD before I post. Toppu o Nerae!
agree (and disagree) by BTWR	Jan 27th, 2003 01:35:44 AM
I agree that HULK has to be cgi'd. The hulk is not an Ah-nuld (circa 1977), he's a monster. There's no human alive who could portray the comic charachter. And i DISAGREE with those who say threading is bad. Wheover said the idiotic idea that "That way you HAVE to read EVERYONE'S post" is just a moron. Ever see a Star Wars talkback? It's 2000 posts long! Threading would allow you to sift through the 50-100 or so topics so there would be 50-100 CONVERSATIONS instead of 2000 rants by dumb fanboys. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I am too. *AUFT*
Hulk = sucky by Brian_De_Man	Jan 27th, 2003 01:36:08 AM
As far as this movie being good. It will not be. There is no real story behind it. The CGI looks horrible. It looked like a remake of Scooby Doo. Everything in the background did not mix at all with the Hulk. He never melded into the background and everything he did looked too fake. Im sorry to say this is one of the movies this Summer I could care less to see. A Spiderman that will suck even more than before.
hulk cgi sucks ass by limboslam	Jan 27th, 2003 01:36:58 AM
These Universal pictures bastards better get their asses in gear and rework the hulk cgi effects! To you morons that don't think the hulk needs to look realistic, you need a reality check. Obviousely he's not going to look realistic, but he can look physical. This thing they made looks like nothing more that a fricking cartoon! Idiots just guarenteed themselves a box-office bomb!
The problem with the HULK by Clark82	Jan 27th, 2003 01:39:46 AM
I know a lot of people are complaining about the look of the Hulk, and I can understand where they are coming from. I think what people are seeing is a conflict of themes. While alot of what was seen in the teaser could have come out of any new and totally interesting action movie, the shots of the Hulk scream not only comic book, but also cartoon. However, I don't agree that this is "cartoon network," as some have said. Fan boys for years have been screaming about the purity of their beloved superheroes and their representation on the big screen. This seems to be a very true and faithful adaptation for the Hulk, if in the character design alone. This shouldn't be a problem, except that part of seeing said superheroes in the movies is that it allows us to see what they would be like in, and what might happen in, the "real world." There may be an obvious contrast between these too desires as it seems that both are present in the same film.
Alternatives to CGI.... by Sofa King	Jan 27th, 2003 01:43:59 AM
What could we use instead of CGI for the hulk? There are plenty of things! First off, we could paint Joss Whedon's ego green. That would be plenty big enough to be the hulk! Second, we could build an animatronic hulk. I'm sure a good FX studio could slap together a robot capable of that kind of movement in no time at all. Third: just find someone REALLY tall, and put them in a fake muscle suit. It'll look totally natural! Fourth: just avoid the problem altogether by never actually showing the hulk and just have one of the characters describe everything that he does (which will be off-screen) to the audience. "OH! LOOK! THE HULK JUST TURNED OVER A TANK!" ************Honestly, though, the scene where he literally throws the tank is a bit laughable. As for the rest, though, I simply don't give a fuck if it's obviously CGI- first off, WHAT THE FUCK ELSE COULD IT POSSIBLY BE? As pointed out, you should be able to instantly spot it as CGI simply because there's nothing else that could create such effects. Second off, the range of movement created by CGI effects far outway the 'fake' look of CGI.
Oh yeah, and add me to AUFT: AICN-Users For Threading by Noriko Takaya	Jan 27th, 2003 01:48:53 AM
Not only that, but set this mutha up like friggin' slashdot, so certain douchebags can be moderated down where I don't have to see them, while intelligent posters who actually have something to day can be modded up. I don't want to be forced to see idiot ranting and name-calling, and I'm sure some out there don't want to have to see my posts. On Slashdot one can set his or her settings so that they only see the highest moderated posts, or so that they see everything. What could be more democratic then that? Hay, Harry, go ask Rob Malda if you can borrow his site's code. Toppu o Nerae!
some shots look good, others don't. by booface	Jan 27th, 2003 01:50:39 AM
But they have ample time to fix it all up, so I think it will turn out good.
Origins by Det. John Kimble	Jan 27th, 2003 01:51:10 AM
Looks like they stuck to the gamma bomb idea. Why else would they be in the desert. Why else would that huge fireball explosion near the end of the trailer be IN THE SKY and ABOVE ABANDONED HOUSES? I think Ang has pulled a fast one and this is gonna be pretty dang close to the book... Kimble has spoken.
Are you retarded? by pungaboy	Jan 27th, 2003 02:22:59 AM
The Hulk doesn't look realistic? Of course not dumbass! He's a fifteen-foot-tall green dude wearing purple jogging pants! Who on earth would have the complete lack of fashion sense to combine green and purple in an ensemble?!?! Anyway, I thought that the Hulk looked great in that trailer. The scenes where he's just standing there in the house with all the dust settling... I mean, come on... that looks excellent. I mean, yeah, when he's jumping around tossing tanks through the air - it's a little "out-there" as far as believability is concerned, but the truth is, I don't know how you could EVER bring a character like the Hulk to life and make it totally believable. And the other thing to consider, is this: I doubt we've seen any of the hulk's "acting moments" yet. I mean, if I just showed you footage of gollum flailing around in that river and climbing down the wall and jumping around throwing tanks, you wouldn't be impressed by that either. What really made Gollum come to life were his little monolouges and his acting. He still looked like CG, but the acting and the character brought the pixels to life. So maybe the Hulk isn't totally realistic, but I think we have yet to see if he's "believable" (or maybe "disbelievable" is a better word in this instance). Regardless, I'm gonna go check this film out. I really liked the comic book and the character. Ang Lee is a very talented director, and I really like the cast too. I hope this film turns out to be more than just a "disaster" flick.
HULK SMASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! by BRTick	Jan 27th, 2003 02:27:40 AM
the hulk is going to be so awesome!!!!!!!!! you think he doesnt look real? as opposed to how he looks in the comics or what? you dumbasses! go watch kangaroo jack! if you dont like movies what the fuck are you even doing on this site!
dorfer has a point.....how exactly do you want the filmmakers to by Red Raider	Jan 27th, 2003 03:35:06 AM
You certainly can't take a body builder, paint him green head to toe, place a whack hairdo on his dome, and have him snarl at the camera on cue. Perhaps that works for a low budget, 1970's era t.v show, but not for a major hollywood production with a 100 million + budget. You certainly can't have Eric Bana wear a Hulk suit. I don't care what makeup guru you brought in, just imagine how idiculous that would look. You might as well bring back the "inflatable arms" effect from the old t.v. show...remember that?! Almost as bad as the same ship blowing up..over & over & over again(and from the same angle, sometimes reversed to try to fool us)on Battlestar Galatica, but I digress. You can't have the FX guys regress back to stop motion animation. Peasants in the Middle East don't even go for that level of effects anymore. So what is left? CG animation. There's still five months until Hulk is released, and believe-you-me, Dennis Muren & ILM will bust their asses to polish the film's effects. Remember, these animators grew up reading Hulk comics like the rest of us, and they don't want what they're creating to look like shit. I'm confident Ang Lee doesn't want his main character laughed out of the theater. ____btw, I have no gripes about what I saw in that terrific Matrix Reloaded preview. Despite being a cocky fucker, John Gaeta is about to unleash an arsenal of FX that usually evoke responses from most fanboys like "HOLY SHIT!" & "FUCKING AWESOME!" As the Wachowski Bros. said: "Enter the Gaeta...Gaeta Time!"
Reason Why It Looks Bad by PhatTurnip	Jan 27th, 2003 03:37:37 AM
Listen, not to bad mouth it or piss anyone off and I never post but I see this as just a huge CG vs. NonCG debate. Truth be told the real reason it looks "fake" is that ILM the effects house doing this and all credit goes to them for their amazing body of work has never been great at human or humanoid animation. Truth is animating humanoid characters is almost impossible to truly nail and suspend disbelief. You would need a team of the most amazing animators on the planet and frankley they don't have them. ILM is an effects house and the best one I admit (though WETA because of Gollum has surpassed their performance in the realm of animation). As humans we have an instinctual understanding of motion especially motion of other humans.. it is very very hard to create a synthetic human and have us belief it real. Look at Final Fantasy a beautiful looking film but the animation was horrible, Spiderman (sorry guys it sucked big time), need I say Jar Jar. I have to admit Gollum is by far the closest REAL looking humanoid ever animated and even that had it's flaws. ILM is amazing at creatures and mechanical objects... think about it no one really gave much flak about the Mummy simply because the Mummy moved and behaved like a Mummy so we really weren't expecting pure human motion, same goes with a Dinosaur... but remember Jumanji? Well it had creatures that we KNOW how they move and it looked "fake".. you can fake a dinosaur cause we never see any... at least none of us sane people so we have no frame of reference for their true biomechanics. I think ILM is AMAZING at effects like in Star Wars, Pearl Harbor etc etc but this is a totally different beast. ILM is trying to make a HUMAN, not a robot, a Gungan, a Tiger Rat, Dinosaur... nor is it enhancing an already live action shot with CG cut aways like they did in EP 2 (which looked great). To give them credit, Gollumn was humanoid yes but different enough from a human that there still was no PURE frame of reference for the viewer so a lot of his motion is looked past. The Hulk is a man that is bulging muscles, huge, angry, green, BUT still based on human anatomy and motion... I dont think they will succede. I love Ang Lee and the live action parts look great.. but the CG looked BAD. Sorry there is also a think called physics which bothers me... throwing that tank... ummm no it wouldnt behave that way when thrown, look at his body he throws it too easy there was no strain in him. Not to bitch but I just wished they did a better job with the animation.
This will rule all Hell by The Dude Abides	Jan 27th, 2003 03:38:07 AM
and it comes out on my birthday. Couldn't ask for a better gift. If you guys want to send me pwesents, I'll be happly to supply my address...
Does anyone know if Rick Jones is in this? by The Dude Abides	Jan 27th, 2003 03:45:46 AM

I will agree on one point. The shot of the Hulk throwing the ta by Red Raider	Jan 27th, 2003 03:55:31 AM
The rest of what I saw, however, looked fine to me. With five months until the film's release, you can bet that Dennis Muren & his ILM team are getting opinions from viewers of this trailer, trying to see if they've hit the mark or not. Don't think that the tank tossing scene can't be fixed or redone. If they get the vibe from potential moviegoers that that shot sucks, they'll rework it and make it more believeable. At least I'd like to believe they have that capability. If I was the head of FX for Hulk, that's sure as shit what I'd be doing. Guage the public opinion over the trailer & then get on the horn with director Ang Lee to get an ok to redo some shots(ie, the tank tossing shot). Dennis Muren...are you listening?!
Gauge the public by PhatTurnip	Jan 27th, 2003 04:02:12 AM
Small problem with that... it is called a budget. Unbeknownst to some, ILM has a budget, yes there are 5 months left but I guarantee they are in cruch mode to finish the shots they have left, they would have NO time to start rethinking their animations without going over budget or worse have to push back a release date. What they MAY be able to do it tweak lighting and compositing but it is VERY doubtful they have time or budget for animation changes which would require relaying out the shots.
Hulk by Playhouse	Jan 27th, 2003 04:09:36 AM
I'm just hoping that they rushed to get this trailer out and that they are still tweaking the CG. I think it looks good but not great. Some of the shots are damn impressive. A lot of the close-up work is terrific, but the wide shots leave a lot to be desired. The lighting, the shading and the placement all seem off. It looked to me as if I were watching a cartoon in the wide shots like the exploding water tank scene and when he's tossing the tank. Like I said, I hope they are going to continue refining those scenes so it appears more real and natural in relation to the film around it. Otherwise, the rest of it looked great. The shots with just the Hulk's arm in frame, the shot of him meeting up with his father (Nolte), and especially the close-up face shot are dead on. And I can really see how they incorporated Eric Bana's face into the CG. It works. It makes sense and they nailed it. A little bit further to go but I think they are on the right track.
The problem with the Hulk in CGI by Defiant	Jan 27th, 2003 04:13:04 AM
A friend of mine actually works for ILM and worked on this film. He told me at the time he was working on it that he felt the Hulk is the most impressive thing that ILM has ever done. He may be right, but the fact is that in live action, CGI no matter how good it is will always look slightly out of place. This is especially true if you are rendering a character that looks similar to a human. That is why having CGI characters as main characters is still not a very good idea. The closest I have seen to this being pulled off was Gollum in The Two Towers and unfortunately the Hulk doesn't look as real. Best way to cover it up is to have it in very dark places, but IMO they got greedy and used the Hulk in Broad Daylight too many times, and that is where it looks very cartoony IMO. The Hulk also throwing that tank looked cartoony cause the physics seemed way off. As for what I think they should have done, presonally I think they should have gotten a Huge guy (not like you need an actor for the Hulk) and use some of those size manipulation tecniques used in Lord of the Rings. Would have been much cheaper and looked far more realistic.
CGI vs. Meat-Head in green paint by BettyBrant	Jan 27th, 2003 04:16:30 AM
Are you talkbackers retards? We live in the frickin' 21st Century, of course the Hulk has to be CGI? You cry that you say he look too CGI.....well doesnt that beat being able to tell its buffed up actor in green paint?? Even so, no human could be the Hulk, thats because hes SUPERHUMAN!
Weird? by JUSTICE41	Jan 27th, 2003 04:27:30 AM
I don't remember anyone questioning how the Green Goblin was able to hold up the cable car and the girl with out being pulled by the weight. This is how it works guys. Distribution of weight. Once the hulk lifts the tank , the weight is now on his back shoulders and legs. The ground under his feet would start to give unless his feet were wide enough to disperse the weight evenly. They are. The tank is built in such a way that yes it can be held up by it's turret. But seeing as how it really isn't, the Hulk is actually doing a hammer throw. The ground is the only place you'll be able to show the signs of weight. So far all the Hulks Movements are completely correct. It's just his physique is much squattier looking than anything we've seen outside of Dwarves and midgets. I think that what we have seen so far is the equivelent of the First teaser for the X-men movie. You know, before Cyclops' Optic blasts and other obvious missing effects. Remember, all the movements and faial expressions are Motion captured and Probably Waldo effects, straight from Bana himself. Watch hoow he moves and you'll then accept the way the Hulk is going to move.
I think the sequel should be called Hulk Rules with Hulk Hogan a by Chaffro	Jan 27th, 2003 05:21:17 AM
"Me long lost smashing brother, brother."
who cares !! by slz	Jan 27th, 2003 05:46:14 AM
Sure, Mr Hulk doesn't look too real,but come'nnnnnu'u'uysan grrls he looks fuck'n good!!! so does JC the editing, the cinemaphot...the mood of despair between 2 lovers Nolte as a looser with the heart of.. andandandand with Ang freekn Lee as our spiriual leader, who cares... IT'S A WONDERFUL TIME TO LIVE IN A WORLD OF OUR OWN... By THE WAY hULK, FOCUS YOR ANGER TOWARDS THE IDIOT LIVING INSIDE THE BIG WHITE HOUSE UP ON THE HILL, AND EVERYTHING WILL BE WELL OH SO WELL!!!!
The problem is they DID use CGI and made a sucky looking HULK by couchtrip105	Jan 27th, 2003 05:52:44 AM

Uhhh this looks bad! by ImaTarget	Jan 27th, 2003 07:00:38 AM
Well lets make some enemies. Yes it does look more expensive then DD or X2. no surprise here. but hell this hulk looks TOO much like a comic figure, dunno he just doesn
How can I download this trailer to my hard drive? by Otto Parts	Jan 27th, 2003 07:49:18 AM
Anyone? Oh, and why are all these people on here moaning about threading? Are they newbies or something? Stop yer whining guys and just deal with it, AICN is changing for nobody.
Hulk just want to be left alone! by rev_skarekroe	Jan 27th, 2003 08:25:16 AM
Why puny humans say Hulk look bad?! Hulk smash! Hulk not look like cartoon! Hulk look more like Goro from Mortal Kombat! Hulk will rip off your head, and use your skull for toilet! No, sorry, that Ultimate Hulk. Hulk go sleep now. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. sk
"HULK KICK MATRIX ASS!" by SuperHeroJack85	Jan 27th, 2003 08:29:49 AM
The HULK tv spot was amazing! 2003 will be the year of Marvel with The Hulk, X2 and DareDevil (Can't Wait) Matrix 2 & 3 will be good but The Hulk will be the Blockbuster of 2003.
:( by Spiegeltrui	Jan 27th, 2003 08:32:19 AM
Let's see, great actors, brilliant director, some of the best CGI ever, and still SO MANY talkbacks complaining about this movie!?!? Based on a freaking fast-cut teaser trailer too! I wonder what kind of movie it will take to make you guys happy. This is just sad. :(
What's wrong with the effects? by Monkey Lover	Jan 27th, 2003 09:17:54 AM
Assholes. It looks good. So just shut the fuck up.
Armchair Movie Critics by 1000_Yard_Stare	Jan 27th, 2003 09:33:00 AM
It really makes me laugh to see how seriously we fanboys take ourselves. Apparently, everyone in this talkback is an expert in FX work, Screenwriting, and direction. It's also quite laughable how obviously biased talkbackers are. Our opinions are based totally and completly on whatever our favorite film franchise happens to be at the moment. LOTR is the latest fanboy fetish, so of course peter Jackson and company can do no wrong. Then we try and use our half assed opinions as basis for bullshit, Ill-informed statements. "WETA has outdone ILM in every way". Yeah, sure. A quarter-century of groundbreaking, industry leading effects work has been rendered irrelevant and obselete by one film. Give me a fucking break. I've been reading comics since the early eighties and as far as I can tell, ILM has come as close as we can possibly hope to giving us a believable HULK. I can't imagine that the use of puppeteering, animatronics or stop-motion animation would yield much better results. C'mon people, just because it isn't Gollum doesn't your obligated to bash it. And for the record, Gollum did not look "real". He looked really good when you take into consideration what we've seen in terms of CGI up to this point, but by no means did he look "real". There wasn't one moment in TTT when I wasn't conscious that I was watching a visual effect instead of an actor. I understand that you guys love the work of Tolkien, but bring it back down to earth for christ sakes! By this this time next year, when LOTR:ROTK is nearing it's final box office tally and places no higher than fourth on the year end box-office chart (right behind HULK, MATRIX REVOLUTIONS and MATRIX RELOADED)the talkbacks will be a very interesting place indeed. I wonder what excuse we fanboys will come up with as to why it didn't resonate with the American public the way we thought it would.
The debate is interesting... by happylizard	Jan 27th, 2003 09:51:54 AM
...but I for one am looking forward to this one, most of all. I loved the TV show as a kid, and went through a hulk-heavy comic book period, so I am primed. Hulk Smash Puny Expectations! Question: will he talk like in the comics, or just growl like in the show? Anyone know?
I love the retro look by sofalord	Jan 27th, 2003 09:52:26 AM
Yeah this will rock. I'm also glad they set this back in the 60s so we see all the original cast of characters (Betty Ross, Glenn Talbot and Gen. Thunderbolt Ross). Alas no Rick Jones (oh well, guess some things always have to be lost in the translation like Spidey's webshooters). But I hear Lou Ferrigno makes a cameo as a security guard in here somewhere. Should be fun.
This movie will do just fine by sofalord	Jan 27th, 2003 10:05:10 AM
There have been lots of complaining here about the CGI not being "perfect" and all I can say is the CGI in "Spider-man" had a ton of things wrong with it but guess what. The general public (the ones that make or break films) didn't give a dam about that. They loved the film as a whole and accepted that of course this guy swinging around on webs was "fake" (it all comes out of a comic book for God sake). So just relax and enjoy the film. This isn't rocket science.
The Incredible Shrek? by Precinct13	Jan 27th, 2003 10:09:05 AM
I have to be honest, I was hooked into that trailer every bit of the way, until they revealed the Hulk! I didn't have a problem with his size, as that is how he should be (I always hated the whole Lou Ferrigno look to begin with). But that face, it just totally takes you out of the element! Not only does it looks worse than the "Mummy Returns" as far as CGI goes, the face looks just like Shrek (as noted above) and for me, that's too hard too look past. I'm not saying they shouldn't of used CGI (how else could they do it?), but why not combine it with Rick Baker's or Stan Winston's make up/animatronics? Look at what Baker did for "Mighty Joe Young". By far better looking than any kind of pure CGI animated character ILM could do by itself. Everyone who argues that CGI is the only way to do this film are only half right. CGI is a wonderful tool, but it works best when it is used alongside other techniques such as animatronics and miniatures. Do I really need to cite LOTR as proof?
Alternative to CGI by tarontine	Jan 27th, 2003 10:20:50 AM
Popeye. Huh, you say? Look at Robin Williams in Popeye. His forearms looked absurd in size like a cartoon, but they looked fantastic! Down to the pale little hairs on his arm. Don't cast a muscle guy. Hold an audition for actors and stunt men who are at least 6' 6", ideally trying to find a talented 6' 10" or 7' man. Build a realistic, a la Popeye laytex suit for his entire body with monster muscles all over the place. The actor provides the height and emotion. The suit provides the girth and muscles. That's the way I would have gone.
Gosh, I hate to be negative...BUT.... by gangstah	Jan 27th, 2003 10:26:08 AM
I wish I wasn't the only person in the world suffering from old man syndrome. I'm a little tired of CGI. ATOC really pissed me off. At first I loved the movie, then I realized I only loved it because I didn't loathe it (like TPM). As time went on I got tired of forgiving the "unreal" animation of Jar Jar, of the Clones, of EVERYTHING. So I sit there watching the Hulk ad and realize...okay...I'll have to put up with crappy animation again. What happen to the good old days of us being in awe that a 6 foot Star Destroyer could be made to look a mile long? That, to me, is impressive. Not someone sitting at a Linux box, drawing pictures.
Overblown Expectations by 1000_Yard_Stare	Jan 27th, 2003 10:37:05 AM
Your right Stan Gable, the third entry in a trilogy/franchise does tend to do better than the second (ROTJ is a good example). But what I'm saying is that these fanboy-friendly websites/publications aren't always a good gauge of what will really strike a cord with the general public. This time last year, box office analysts and fanboys were certain that AOTC was going to out-gross Spidey at the multiplexes, but looked what happened. Remember winter of 1999? When everyone just knew that TPM was going to dwarf TITANIC? or the fall of 2001, when fanboys were certain that FOTR was going to be a box office phenomenon the likes of which the world had never seen? I do agree with you that ROTK will outdo both FOTR and TTT, but I think that The Hulk will suprise alot of people. And as for The Matrix Sequels? The only hurdle in the path of either Reloaded or Revolutions is the R rating they will both likely recieve from the MPAA. If either one of those recieves a PG-13, you will see the biggest domestic gross for a film since TPM's $431,000,000.00. Keep in mind that I am not arguing the actual quality/relevance of any of the films in question(I think Memento was the best film of 2001 although it made nowhere near 100 mil), just that fanboys tend to overestimate the popularity of there favorite franchise.
gangstash, I understand your position... but by dorfer	Jan 27th, 2003 10:52:41 AM
you don't know the half of it if you really consider CGI work as "sitting at a Linux box drawing pictures". That's absurd. As for models vs. CG, I think that the debate is still open on that. But, you can't very well have a 12-inch model Hulk destroy a city. That's called Stop-Motion animation. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Stop Motion and having done a bit myself, I have great respect for the professionals in that field. It's the purest form of animation. HOWEVER, it would not hold up visually in a feature film like this. SO, be sick of CG, don't see The Hulk, but don't not see it because "the animation sucks". It's the BEST there is to offer. --d
Yes! That's the answer! 300 lb. wrestlers as our new Superhero by dorfer	Jan 27th, 2003 11:42:56 AM
What crap. Let's all face it, these CG-Naysayers would NEVER be satisfied. These are the folks who actually believe they could solve problems or make the movies "everyone wants to see". Legend? LEGEND???? Nice work on makeup, but a shitload of closeups does not a superhero make. As for wrestlers, there is not one out there with the physique AND size to pull this off. What you're left with is some compositing issues a'la LOTR. It worked there, but come on, are we gonna find a lot of "little people" to stand in for people standing near Hulk for the far shots? And "clever editing"?? That generally makes for lousy "fight scenes". Like a previous poster said, we could just have a shot of the actors and hear some carnage off screen accompanied by a frightened Connelly shrieking "Hulk has just smashed a tank!!" With some clever editing, I'm sure that will lead to stunning action. There is a reason that actors aren't in muscle suits, that wrestlers aren't painted green. Whether people believe it or not, that won't cut it any longer. These CG-Naysayers would be first in line shouting that Brock Lestner (or whatever the fuck his name is) is just too small and makes an unrealistic Hulk. Or that the compositing around the actor looks like crap. Or that you could "tell that actor was composited in". Whatever. I've had too much coffee. --d
THREADED talkbacks, please! And mod/rating like slashdot would by minderbinder	Jan 27th, 2003 11:59:39 AM
Haven't seen the trailer so can't comment on it (spoiler free, baby!). But quicktime does rock.
HULK CRASH MY BASTARD COMPUTER by vicious_bastard	Jan 27th, 2003 12:01:40 PM
No Hulk-luck for me.
Say what? by greg39	Jan 27th, 2003 12:06:43 PM
Let me make sure I git this straight. We are arguing about how real a 10 ft. tall, 1000 lb. green dude made from Gamma Radiation looks? Okay, cool carry on.
WTF is wrong with you people??!! by Piddle	Jan 27th, 2003 12:24:10 PM
Sure, the CG doesn't look great NOW, but there's still 5 fucking months to work on it!! Anyways, the CG in the trailer looks as good as in some flicks of about 5 years ago, and nobody gripes about those. For the people who don't like how the hulk looks, except it, that's how he looks in the comics. Same goes for the people who say the physics in the tank throwing bit are wrong: put down your calculators, Hulk can throw a tank cause that's what Hulk does. He tosses tanks like baseballs and smashes shit up. If it weren'tfor CG, this movie would never be made. And anyways, how would it look if a guy in a green suit threw a tank?
just a question by neckbone	Jan 27th, 2003 12:29:16 PM
what's the reasoning behind banner's mass going from normal man size to 700 lbs or whatever his greenness weighs? does he absorb matter out of the air? not looking to start another tank-physics debate, i can suspend reality for a comic-based flick (sorry, armageddon and the core are not afforded this same convenience); although the green goblin holding up the entire cable and gondola was retarded. just curious if the subject has ever been brought up in the hulk comics???
disappointed by Tahd	Jan 27th, 2003 12:40:59 PM
jeezus christo, that was bad. the hulk looks like a cartoon character - its gotta be better than this. this was one trailer my buddies and i were looking forward to during the 'bowl and all were laughing by end of spot. please, please, please don't let this be the hulk we'll see on the big screen
You Guys Suck by greg39	Jan 27th, 2003 12:53:53 PM
Hey, is it just me or do you guys imagine everyone on this site as looking like Comic Book Guy from the Simsons? Anyway, to all the real movie fans in here, Do you guys remember when we used to go to movies to be entertained? Who cares how perfect the special effects are? As long as the story holds your attention shouldn't that be enough. Jesus guys, if you think you can do better what the hell is holding you back. There's a ton of money out there with your name on it. Go make your perfect CGI movies, but I bet everyone of them will suck because you guysplace effects over story quality. Sorry, I had to get that off my chest.
hey neckbone ever see the thing? by sundown	Jan 27th, 2003 12:55:08 PM

hey neckbone ever see the thing? by sundown	Jan 27th, 2003 12:55:09 PM

hey neckbone could the radioactive by sundown	Jan 27th, 2003 01:01:12 PM
scifi gamma radiation be converted to green mass and make a giant monster guy? Anyways it reminds me of the dogs from the Thing (John Carpenters) and how an alien creature can be emorphous because the hulk too can get goopy and morph from green to grey and get caught in the middle as it is all part of his fragmented psyche...I just hope that the first time he changes in the film he is grey and that way they could go back to that in sequels and do the whole green, grey, mindless thing in the trilogy...mindless hulk being my favorite...
apologize for the duped post by sundown	Jan 27th, 2003 01:04:05 PM
aicn/browser trouble...or maybe its the worm!
You Guys Suck by greg39	Jan 27th, 2003 01:41:49 PM
Hey, is it just me or do you guys imagine everyone on this site as looking like Comic Book Guy from the Simsons? Anyway, to all the real movie fans in here, Do you guys remember when we used to go to movies to be entertained? Who cares how perfect the special effects are? As long as the story holds your attention shouldn't that be enough. Jesus guys, if you think you can do better what the hell is holding you back. There's a ton of money out there with your name on it. Go make your perfect CGI movies, but I bet everyone of them will suck because you guysplace effects over story quality. Sorry, I had to get that off my chest.
quinn by neckbone	Jan 27th, 2003 01:54:45 PM
i'll go with the extradimensional bit, sounds as good as any. sundown - 'the thing' rules (in my top couple all-time sci-fi/horror), i always assumed it's mass equaled the sum of it's victims, although the final creature did look bigger than all the men, dogs, blood supply, it had mimicked... must've eaten a lot of snow.
CGI vs. Bodybuilder by Konger	Jan 27th, 2003 02:00:26 PM
I, for one, am disappointed with the CGI. Hulk's face reminds me of the princess from Shrek. He looks rubbery as if they forgot to add texture to his skin and clothes. As for those who say you can't use a bodybuilder you don't know the state of bodybuilding these days. Check google for Victor Richards, Paul Dillett, Jay Cutler, Ronnie Coleman, or Lee Priest (on whom the Hulk was modelled). Ronnie, for example, is 320 at 5'11" offseason with veins running across his body. Vic Richards is 5'10" and 330. Cutler about the same. You use forced perspective and the numerous effects techniques available to 21st century EFX artists and I'm sure you can scale these guys to any size.
Forget using a real person.... especially bodybuilders. by dorfer	Jan 27th, 2003 03:07:53 PM
The Hulk is NOT real. Forced perspective will yield similar problems to pure CG. Nothing is perfect... and, apparently, nothing will satisfy some purists. Konger, do you actually think it looks as thought they FORGOT textures/shaders on the skin and clothes?? Have you seen the closeups. He looks great. #### I think many people take issue with CG out of ignorance. CG is NOT a computer's representation of something. No, it is an artist's (or a group of artists') representation by utilizing a NEW TOOL in FX. Texture artists are painters, modelers are sculptors, animators are actors... lighters, cameramen, etc, they all are part of this process and display their talents using a new tool. I also hear a lot of people blame poor movies on CG. That's a crock of shit. The best movies are those that are made with a great story. FX just supports the story when necessary. CG isn't the answer to everything, but it can and should be utilized when necessary. And I think it's necessary when an 8 ft. tall green humanoid is supposed to destroy things on screen. #### Why the hell am I arguing this point? Let's wait for the next trailer. --d
Calm down, AngoraSweater by dorfer	Jan 27th, 2003 03:53:16 PM
And what the hell do you know of ME, anyway? Don't pretend to know what I would think and what my opinions are based on your shoddy mental misrepresentations. Yes, Legend, brilliant. I REALLY like that movie. I do. I don't really recall Tim Curry's character running much. Or jumping. Or interacting with several environments. The same methods would not work for this movie. CG is the BEST option for this. Why? Because this movie would have been made YEARS ago if the character could have been realized appropriately. As for "crying like a little girl" when I found out that Elijah Wood was going to be playing Frodo... um, fuck off. Not true. There are some brilliant effects in LOTR. Apparently, you would be VERY surprised to learn just how much of the movie was CG. And quit casting dispersions regarding my "feeble" mind, Sweater. CG is here. It can be utilized just like models, makeup, camera tricks, miniatures, whatever. CG doesn't replace actors, it expands the realm of the possible in movies, you moron. If it weren't for CG, LOTR wouldn't be half as stunning as it is. So climb off your high horse. --d
can somebody PLEASE fucking explain to me... by TV CASUALTY	Jan 27th, 2003 04:45:54 PM
why fucking Quicktime freezes up my fucking computer EVERY SINGLE TIME, whether it's a downloaded file, or off a website? I fucking hate it. Oh, but the Hulk looks badass, once I downloaded the windows media version.
HULK SMASH! Oh, and toss a tank by the frickin' gun barrel... w by CountVonGroovy	Jan 27th, 2003 04:51:26 PM

Ah, "CG merged with live action"... the catchphrase to save the by dorfer	Jan 27th, 2003 05:21:06 PM
AngoraSweater, you ignorant slut. (Just doesn't ring like "Jane", does it?) CG blended with live action? I see Toy Story, Jimmy Neutron, Shrek, et al as purely CG. The rest are "CG and live action blended". In fact, I believe Hulk's facial structures were created by "blending" Eric Bana's "live action" face and "CG". You're throwing around catchphrases believing you have the answers. Oh, so the Hulk "looks CG"?? Well, it IS CG. It will never look real. Ever. Because, and let's all say this together... THE HULK ISN'T REAL. Furhtermore, you're making assumptions based on a 46-second rapid-fire-edit promo piece. The cave troll may not have been the strongest piece in LOTR. Was it a good scene? Yes, fun to watch. Without CG, there is no cave troll. There is no Gollum. There are no huge battle scenes (and don't give me Braveheart as an example; Helms Deep was several times its size). CG is a great tool when employed appropriately. And I believe the Hulk is a great example of it. And, how should the filmmakers create a Gollum? Or a cave troll? Or the Hulk? YOU don't have the answers, Sweater. Don't know about you, but I'm not going to judge movies on their effects alone. It's a bold move to attempt to create the Hulk in CG. It's a hell of a task to model, rig, texture and animate a humanoid. Sure, Final Fantasy did a decent job, but the story was so terrible, I lost all respect for the whole thing. The work on this movie (and Gollum's work) will continue to open doors. Future CG characters will be even better. I guess you'll just have to mourn the death of "true cinema" forever, Sweater. And drop the patronizing "doggy" speak. It does nothing but insult you and annoy the rest of us. --d
Right on by greg39	Jan 27th, 2003 05:28:06 PM
Right on Dorfer, Finally someone who sees my point.
You people.. by Piddle	Jan 27th, 2003 06:15:37 PM
You people are really starting to piss me off. Did we watch the same trailer? Because I'm beginning to think that we didn't. The trailer I remember, didn't show all that much of the Hulk. Maybe, say, 6-10 seconds of him all together. And it is a FACT that the FX shots aren't complete. If they were, the movie would be out now. Hell, they were probably thrown together just for the trailer. Go back to ANY CG heavy film teaser, and you'll see a big change in the FX shots. But then again, I LIKE movies, despite any small fault they have.
GANDALFED by TomVee	Jan 27th, 2003 06:58:35 PM
Simple solution: you hire Brock L. or Kurt A. and "gandalf" him.
Supposed to best ever!?! by limboslam	Jan 27th, 2003 06:59:56 PM
C'mon, all this justification for the Hulk not looking realistic enough is a load. All we got from ILM was how the hulk cgi effects were going to be "like nothing we've ever seen before. "The best work they'd ever done," etc. The trailer showed us a hulk that is simply rediculous looking. Sorry, in this day and age a cartoon-ish looking hulk is just not justifiable. Nevermind that "purist" talk. Us "purists" want to see a hulk that looks like it fits in the real world. That doesn't mean dressing up a body builder. I just think that ILM (or somebody) could've done better. No matter how many ways you guys try to justify a cartoonish looking hulk, you can't justify the fact that it just looks plain stupid.
AngoraSweater, please save us. by dorfer	Jan 27th, 2003 07:36:11 PM
Save us from the "low standards". #### Look, I'm sick of wasting time here. I was interested in having an argument about the merits of wholly CG characters, but you've made this more about who you think I am and defending the good name of classic effects. Well, yay, you win... I guess. I will admit that I love Alien and Aliens. I will admit that I loved the effects LOTR, CG and otherwise. Legend... um, eh. I UNDERSTAND that you appreciate some good CG IF AND ONLY IF it is mixed with live action. Yeah, I get. Like the Blade 2 Facesuckers. Again, yes, I. Get. It. I got it the first time. You state that even if a character is animated well, it's still a bad example of CG in live action movies. What the hell is that supposed to mean? The sole fact that a character is wholly CG precludes it from being a "good effect"? What actually makes these effects "bad"? Maybe you don't think the shading is effective. I don't have any idea what you think because you've basically said nothing. And, if you could put your little 4-year-old cousin in front of the monitor? Or maybe that's just a metaphor for the child within you who feels cheated by these horrible "unrealistic" effects. Regardless, let me try to break this to you gently... from this point on, you will probably KNOW that the CG characters in movies are CG. Just like I KNEW that the Aliens were GUYS IN RUBBER SUITS AND ANIMATRONIC DEVICES. The reason most folks are able to suspend disbelief and "not question" what they see is because they went to the theaters to be entertained. I know that I go to see shit I can't see around me every day. To watch a good story. And maybe, just maybe, see some nice effects to help everything along. Furthermore, don't claim to know me. Don't suggest that I'm a "child of the industry". Don't throw the "illusion of life" catchphrase in my face. Don't patronize me with your dumbed-down definition of animation. The next thing you're going to tell me is that you're a seasoned animator who reads "The Illusion of Life" daily. So, sit at home on June 20th. Stay out of the theaters. I don't want to have to listen to your absurd comments three rows back while I'm actually trying to enjoy a movie. --d
DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT EFFECTS HOUSE IS DOING THE HULK? I WANT T by couchtrip105	Jan 27th, 2003 07:44:33 PM
eMAIL ME IF YOU WANT. couchtrip12@hotmail.com
Every single one of you non-CG retro dweebs by Skylord2	Jan 27th, 2003 07:48:14 PM
needs to go pick up a couple of INCREDIBLE HULK comic books and just LOOK at how big the H-U-L-K really is. This guy outsizes nearly everyone in the Marvel Universe. And the DC Universe. And Image, Dark Horse and all the rest. There is no bigger altered human in comic books. That's why he's called "HULK" and not "BIG GUY". And that's why CG is the only sane way to go when bringing the GREAT GREEN ONE to the Screen. There is noone and I mean NO ONE on this planet that could portray the Hulk with any justice. It's the same reason there was NO ONE on the planet that could've realistically portrayed Gollum or Yoda or Jar Jar. CG rules. And now, we are without limits as to what we can bring to the screen.
couchtrip, it's ILM. by dorfer	Jan 27th, 2003 07:49:09 PM
see above.
re: TVCASULTY....I've come to discover quicktime runs best on a by Red Raider	Jan 27th, 2003 08:04:32 PM
...In the past I refused to touch a macintosh, until recently I bought a used Imac with Mac OS X. Although I will keep my PC, I find myself using Mac more & more every day. And quicktime runs flawlessly on it. I, like you, would get so fucking pissed at how quicktime ran on my PC(it looks more like a slide show than a movie!). And my PC is fairly fast(1.6gighz,512k RAM). Go figure....
by dorfer	Jan 27th, 2003 08:08:33 PM

Stitch's super-strength felt more convincing to me. by Oh Hell	Jan 27th, 2003 08:34:12 PM
My favorite effect in the Hulk trailer right now is the close-up of a man's eye morphing into that of a green monster. It looks cool and believable. _______________________ I'm having a tougher time believing in the CG Hulk, though. When it comes to CG depictions of power, strength and size...I've been spoiled rotten by the likes of the _Jurassic Park_ T-Rex, the _JP_ T-Rex/Spinosaurus battle and the stunning dragons in _Reign of Fire_. When it comes to depicting super-strength and invulnerability, I had an easier time believing the character animation in Disney's _Lilo & Stitch_ than the animation that I saw in the _Hulk_ trailer. When Stitch throws the Volkswagen Beetle, I can feel the weight of that Beetle and get a sense of Stitch's immense strength. When the Hulk throws the tank, the tank feels weightless. This sort of animation might be "realistic" for a creature as powerful as the Hulk, but I don't know if it makes for a more satisfying spectacle. _______________________ That said, I realize that story matters more than FX. I'll definitely see this film if it comes with a good story. :-)
Stupid Talkback by dorfer	Jan 27th, 2003 08:44:54 PM
Apparently, my post above was too inane to be displayed WITH TEXT. Anyway, I was just wondering what version of Quicktime the PC users are using. Some posters have had issues with QT on PC's. I haven't had such problems. Right now I'm running QT 5. However, I my first view of the new Matrix spot was choppy. When I watched it again, it was fine. Perhaps it's a caching issue. Performance may also depend on the codec use, but I'm not sure. Not well versed in that. So far, though, I've been happier with QT than with the Windows Media formats. Doesn't mean I'm ready to star in some "Mac Switch" commercial. OSX does rock, though. Maybe one day The Powers That Be can come together and create the UberBox. The best of all worlds. Until then, I'll deal with the dreaded "Blue Screen of Death". --d
hulk's tank by old school dc	Jan 27th, 2003 11:34:42 PM
I'm surprised no one hasn't said anything about Hulk taking on the US military. Traditionally that's been an easy target, but by the time this comes out, making the military to be the "bad guy" could be risky. Watching the preview made me uneasy.
Saw this was a bunch of dudes during the super bowl... by PumpyMcAss	Jan 28th, 2003 12:19:12 AM
when the trailer was over we all said in unison, "GAAAAYYY!" Lamest looking movie I have ever seen. Why not just rerun the shitty cartoon series again?
Looks like Incredible Mr. Limpet by MDM26	Jan 28th, 2003 01:11:29 AM
Mixing Cartoons and Live action looks terrible. Please stop using CG in this format. An actor painted up Green would of been more realistic. They did it in the television show....they should do an updated version for the film. I'm very disappointed...Eric Bana is an awesome actor, but this looks like it's going to suck.
What the hell? by dorfer	Jan 28th, 2003 01:28:44 AM
For fuck's sake, there should be an IQ test administered before talkback privileges are granted. --d
Some People's Kids by jokrsmile	Jan 28th, 2003 01:57:51 AM
Some people's kids should not be seen or heard. First off I agree with anyone making the point that most of the nay sayers that are complaining about size, strength and the physics of the Hulk need to go out and pick up a comic once in awhile. The Hulk never was the lame ass version that the TV show portrayed. The Hulk is the biggest and baddest human to walk the Marvel universe. Second to you nay sayers that are bitching about the CG again...GET A NEW ARGUMENT. I for one am tired of people spouting off about such things as "the Hulk looks too cartoonish". I'm all for points of view, but have the balls to be specific and put up a valid arguement. I loved what I saw in the trailer. The Hulk is embodied with EXTREME strenth and size, so of course he's going to move differently. No actor could portray the Hulk...Ever. I for one am excited to see what else Ang Lee has in store. The trailer kicked ass, period!!! Besides most of the nay sayers who post here are only interested in getting under other people's skin. Like I said not seen or heard.
Whining is alright in my opinion by JUSTICE41	Jan 28th, 2003 03:55:49 AM
... This way we all know who not to hang around. Like the guy above said, most of the whiners do it just to get a rise out of you gullable saps. Ignore em. Most of them are pissed they have to hold their dicks between their fingers, and take all that hate out on the rest of us while maintaining anonymity like the Base cowards they are. Probably don't even use their real Email addresses.
TV SPOT NOT GREAT... R U ON DOPE??? by Mt. Top	Jan 28th, 2003 06:47:44 AM
Hulk say, "TV SPOT BAD!! HULK DESERVE BETTER... WILL CRUSH LAME CGI. Fans wait long time. HULK KILL IF FANS LET DOWN!!! CAN PUNY CGI MEN EVER GET STUFF RIGHT?!?! HULK SAY NO!!!"
Red Raider, thanks.. by TV CASUALTY	Jan 28th, 2003 08:26:15 AM
but since this is my computer at work, I guess I'm fucked. Don't think they're gonna invest in a Mac for me to watch movie previews on. That's what I get for fucking around in the office, I guess.
tmquinn & cube-square by RoboBagPiper	Jan 28th, 2003 09:01:41 AM
Um... I hope you were joking. The reason an ant can pick up a grasshopper 50 times its weight is this little thing called the cube-square law. That is, weight goes up as volume, ie the cube of the scale size, strength as the cross-sectional area, ie the square of the scale size. If an ant's 100 times as small as a human, he's going to weigh a millionth of a human's weight, but have one ten thousandth a human's strength. Proportionally, for his weight, then, he's a hundred times as strong. No laws of physics being thrown out the window here; small critters are strong for their weight not because of some innate ability, but simply because they are small. Comic book fantasies are fun and all that, but sometimes we need to step back and reflect on reality.
Why bragging about being able to tell that the Hulk looks fake m by Vegas	Jan 28th, 2003 11:52:19 AM
Um, you ever see a mirage? Looks like water, but it isn't water, is it? Now imagine you're living thousands of years ago, you're a nomad, trying to find a place to get some food and drink for your family. If you spend your life chasing mirages instead of seeking out actual water, you're gonna DIE. See, human beings have EVOLVED with this ability to tell real from fake. It's a survival skill. Our eyes got really good so we wouldn't DIE. Now, when we see a giant green man in purple pants breaking shit, we can tell it isn't real. We know that giant green man in purple pants breaking shit is a mirage. We ALL know this. The difference is that some of us can just enjoy the fun spectacle of a giant green man in purple pants breaking shit, and have fun with it for what it is, while some OTHERS feel that pointing out that that's not a REAL giant green man in purple pants breaking shit is some sort of testament to their ocular ability. It's not. It's just proof that you've evolved (somewhat) so that you wouldn't die. Okay? You're not special. We can all tell that shit isn't real, so you don't need to brag about it ANYMORE. Now try to rewire your fucking brain so that you can have FUN with these movies again, like you did when you were little, before you thought that hating all the right things would make you look "cool." Because it doesn't.
The answers to the above questions... and more! by Andel Crodo	Jan 28th, 2003 12:32:38 PM
Why can the Hulk throw a tank? For the same reason Superman can fly. Suspend disbelief. It's really that simple. How does he gain more muscle mass? For the same reason there's no werewolf hair left over at dawn. Suspend disbelief! It's really that simple. Just click your heels three times and suspend disbelief. Please. This is going to be so much better than the tripe TV show which was less its 4-color roots than it was a rehash of Frankenstein's monster. Keep it up, gang, and we'll never get to see Thor hurl Mjolnir or Ben Grim fire up a stogie... and all because you "didn't like the way it looked."
I know an alternative to CG by Wee Willie	Jan 28th, 2003 01:06:13 PM
Shoot a real actor in make-up, combined with CG to make him look big. Then again, we're not talking about Gollum here, we're talking the Hulk. A HUGE step back for Ang Lee/.
Vegas by numberface	Jan 28th, 2003 01:07:39 PM
Sarcasm so rarely works in talkback. Congratulations on making it work in spades.
To all CG promoters... by ZuZuPetals	Jan 28th, 2003 01:22:21 PM
From a poster in the Matrix 2 forum:::------I'm sure somewhere someone came up to Peter Jackson and said "hey, you can make every single last one of the orcs and Urakai full framed CG (regardless of how close they are to the camera)and not have to pay any actors or for equipment! A guy in front of a computer can shit out these things every two minutes. We'll save a bundle!" But Pete said "Hello no! We're making all this shit."(except for the orcs and actors not in prime view) and the movie looked great because of it. The first Matrix could've had a completely rubbery, overexaggerated CG Smith throwing a completely rubbery, overexaggerated CG Neo into a completely CG wall but the bros. did it with stunt people, editing, prop effects, etc. and it looks great. Very rarely is a fully CG character done well in movies and given the fact we've all seen it done better without fully CG characters i'm suprised there's this much opposition.
Just Stop Already by NeoDurden	Jan 28th, 2003 01:27:24 PM
I consider myself a fanboy, and all you other "fanboys" who are complaining about this trailer are just insane. Seeing this trailer made me forget all about the stupid crap I have heard about the script and got me very excited to see this film. I am convinced, like other posters have said, that nothing will ever please some of you. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. GO ANG LEE!
Once Again by NeoDurden	Jan 28th, 2003 01:35:28 PM
I just saw the trailer again and let me say, not only does this look better and more amazing than Spiderman, but it could be the best comic film ever made. Mark my words, this is going to rock.
Lou Ferrigno called... by Gambit8370	Jan 28th, 2003 03:10:23 PM
He wants his purple pants back!
classic by neckbone	Jan 28th, 2003 05:27:58 PM
vegas - i'm bummed this thread is so long, cause next to no one will get to enjoy the "giant green man in purple pants breaking shit" line. that is some funny stuff. sounds like one of those 'lost in the translation' lists of words that get butchered in non-english speaking countries (we have no word for 'badass', so it's 'he who is untouchable'). assuming the japanese have no direct translation for 'hulk' i propose your quip as the overseas title. it's gonna be a bitch getting it all on the theater marquees tho...
The Hulk looks like the Jolly Green Giant!!! by vex27	Jan 28th, 2003 07:13:16 PM
What the fuck!!!, are they trying to sell green beans or very bad looking movie. ILM sucks , WETA rules just look at the Cave Troll from the LOTR. Now thats some realistic CGI, the Hulk looks he belongs in a straight to video animated kids movie. Go Power Rangers Go, kill the big ugly green monster.
Thanks for chiming in, vex. by dorfer	Jan 28th, 2003 08:46:34 PM
Um, yeah, that's about it. My life is further enriched. --d
Vegas is wrong by Andel Crodo	Jan 28th, 2003 09:31:21 PM
I've seen lots of shit and I can tell you... it's REAL!! I've even made some of my own! (great post, btw)
CrapGeneratedImage by pencil-man	Jan 29th, 2003 12:19:02 AM
The CGI looked worse than a Playstation 2 game- that's what my friend said, anyway. I still want to jizz on Jennifer Connely's face though...OOoooogghh- poit!
Not photorealistic? Hogwash... by FreeJack	Jan 29th, 2003 05:36:56 AM
Try looking at a digitized film cell instead of a soft, compressed quicktime. Like this one - http://www.comicscontinuum.com /stories/0301/25/hulk3.jpg Now...unless you're blind, that's photoreal. You're just not used to seeing many green-skinned men five times bigger than Mr. Olympia.
HULK - The Summer Comedy by Mako	Jan 29th, 2003 09:48:51 AM
Bhawhahahahahahaha.... that was the funniest commercial during the Superbowl. Can't tell you how many of us we're cracking up over the "Green Stay Puffed Marshmellow Man" bouncing around like a jellybean. I kind of had the impression that THE HULK was supposed to be serious.... hmmmmm... oh well... here's looking to some BIG GREEN LAUGHS this summer...
slow down by arsey	Jan 30th, 2003 06:01:18 PM
the cgi in some clips needs to be slowed down. a behemoth the size of the hulk should move as such, with a gargantuan, lumbering power. a presence.. the sequence where he jumps out of the water tank looks like a jump-kick from tekken or something the daylight hulk looks to be the trickiest to pull off (obviously), could've been sorted with the nighttime-only transformations found in grey hulk's history, woulda been very cool if he was grey up close i think he looks quite good, better than i expected. overall happy(ish) so far
talk back? by arsey	Jan 30th, 2003 06:04:22 PM
does this hulk speak, does anyone know?

Talkbacks

HULK spot in Full Screen Quicktime!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks