That's a shame, cause I love the first film, and at the same time am totally open for another take on the character. Universal looks like it doesn't even try to put it on the average audience's radar. The movie opens in 3 MONTHS and we only have a teaser, while the bad rap surrounding the first one meant it needed a HUGE pimping campaign, not unlike Iron Man. For shame...

but how bout that fucking movie, huh? fight club. jesus christ. they just don't make em like that anymore. loved the book too.

Buh bye Dickhead.

Karma can be a bitch I tells ya.

Ang's HULK is a very polarizing film. One thing I liked about it was the editing of frames and zooms and effect and lighting. I dunno why but I just found it a new cool comics-brought-to-life technique. *shrug*

Anyways there are some hokey parts to HULK but overall it captured the essence of the character. Sometimes the panels were stupid, and comic-book font is lame, but the Hulk dogs somehow ended up working for me. (I pay well, that's probably why)

Also, just because I like the movie American History X (except the ending, which seemed melodramatic to me) does not make me a racist. Just so you know. And I remember the sidewalk scene for its brutality. Not because I would do/fantasize about/agree with doing such a thing.

I thoroughly enjoyed the retarded action-y-ness of both Transporters (especially 2, which was even dumber and more entertaining than the first one), so I'm looking forward to seeing what Leterrier does with The Hulk, a character who seems a perfect fit for big dumb action. Also, I am intrigued by Edward Norton's decision to write and star in this film. Is he making a bid to become the new Sylvester Stallone?

This is a genuine question, because I hear arguments like yours a lot, but I've yet to understand where the hidden intelligence in that film is. Could you help a stupid guy out, mate?

I think the problem most people have with the film is that they view comic books and comic book movies as low art. This basically means that it cannot discuss certain issues and has to, at times, serve the lowest common denominator. Although I've never heard people explicitly state this argument (some have come close) I believe this is the crux of the entire divide. Of course, Ang Lee realizes this and attempts to split the difference in his film between the high art aspects (the previously mentioned themes) and the low art aspects (the split screen, etc.). It was ironic that before the film so many people wanted comic books to be taken "seriously" but afterwards many people argued that Lee made the Hulk "humorless."

I don't personally believe that any genre or medium should be written off, so I thought Lee's high art/low art experiment was pretty ingenious. I assume that since most people don't articulate their own problems with Ang Lee's high art/low art aspect that don't actually "get" the film or fully understand why they dislike the film.

My feeling is, if you're making a film about a guy who turns into a muscular green giant when he's angry, don't stuff it full of dreary, sub-Oprah Winfrey 'issues' gobbledygook and try to pass it off as depth. Let me see a big angry monster wrecking up the place, please, and for God's sake make it fun to watch. Hopefully, that's what we're going to get from Leterrier and Norton's version.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm050 4642/

Danny the Dog was crap, Tranpsorter 2 was crap... not much else on it

Come on, that bit where he dives out the window and jumps on the cars? That was genius!

BTW, calling those who don't follow your viewpoint of his movie basically shallow does not help your point. The "subtle character study" does not translate well for a Hulk movie if all you have is that and a lack of action (for the most part). They can make a Hulk movie that shows some sort of balance between Banner and his inner demons vs. balls to wall action. It is a fucking huge green man after all.

He's about 12ft. tall while Abomination is about 14ft.

The script is poor, but the action could be spectacular if R&H can handle the fx..