Color me impressed. While I still don’t have high hopes for this film, I have to admit to being a little bit surprised that I actually sort of enjoyed this trailer. Like the Ironman trailer from a couple of weeks ago, we get a lot of our hero in human form, while a little bit less of the CGI bullshit. The human drama is what makes these movies work; believe it or not, that’s the truth. Too much “Hulk smash” and it would get bogged down in it’s own nonsense.
As all (almost “all”) of us know, the last Hulk movie was a steaming piss puddle. But since this movie is taking the franchise in a new direction – away from the comic book stuff and a little bit more like the 70′s television show – I have hopes that the stellar cast can make the most of this and be the first comic book movie in history to actually not suck (I’m being facetious of course).
While not very bright of a blip on my radar for this summer, I do admit to at least being intrigued after this trailer. Check it out and leave your thoughts.
The Incredible Hulk
Director: Louis Leterrier (The Transporter series, Danny the Dog)
Starring: Edward Norton, Tim Roth, Liv Tyler, John Hurt, Robert Downey Jr, Tim Blake Nelson
Wow. I’m *shocked* that this doesn’t look like complete crap. Might even check this out on cheap Tuesday ($4!) at the theatre. Great cast, and I always enjoy pointing out Toronto landmarks in American movies (like the Yonge Street shot at the end of this trailer).
@”The human drama is what makes these movies work; believe it or not, that’s the truth. ”
I wouldn’t say that’s too controversial a statement. Actors have as much to do with selling effects as effects artists. That is too say that ultimately fx, no matter how well done, always comes down to the audience’s willingness to suspend disbelief.
So just to clarify, we all enjoy the Ang Lee version right?
I’m going to side with Kurt on the Ang Lee version of Hulk. If I owned it I’d throw it in before most of the other super hero movies out there.
I’m intrigued. Don’t know if it elevates it above wait for DVD, (few movies do), but I look forward to seeing what Norton and Roth do with the Hulk.
On a different tangent, the marketing people should be taken out back and introduced to my Boomstick! This is the first glimpse we’ve had and the movie comes out rather soon and yet they try to make it as hard as possible to see the trailer! I’m in Canada, and they don’t want me to see it! US only?! Then click on HD trailer and it plays perfect! So first they have stupid restrictions, then screw up the execution of the restrictions. Wonder how long that YouTube video will last before they take it down. Wouldn’t want anyone to know this is actually coming out now. There, rant over.
I wouldn’t say the CGI was b.s. It was the ridiculous and completely irrelevant origin story of the first movie that made it a flop… The hulk creature himself was one of the best “actors” in the first film.
Since I don’t really care about the story, I’ll comment on my own area of expertise.
From a tech standpoint, I’m very dissapointed in the design and execution of both the Hulk and Abomination. Weak animation, compositing, texturing.. everything looked plastic. Now I know that shots get tweaked up until release, but still.. I was very underwhelmed.
Even the basic representation of the Hulk/Abomination was off. I’m familair with the main character designer, and he was not up to the task. They should have had someone like Ian McCaig or Miles Teves establish the look – guys who understand proportion and aesthetics of how the human body works. Poor design from the get-go.
A lot of the issues I had with the first hulk’s art direction were not on the ILM side, but rather from Ang Lee himself. He wanted it super fakey looking to reinforce the comic book-ness of it all. But I think they pushed it too far. Still, all in all, I much prefer Lee’s version to this mess.
Norton seems miscast to me – Bana had more brooding angst. It’s hard not to giggle at Norton in the trailer. Jennifer Connolly is far better eye-candy as well.
Kong is still far and away the most convincing “demanding” CG character yet put on film, and I was hoping that this film might have pushed the envelope, but from this trailer it appears I was wrong.
Looks like Iron Man is going to be it for me this summer.
I don’t think audiences should have to go see “There will be Blood” or “No Country” just to experince a well made film with attention to detail and respect for the audience. It IS possible to make a sci-fi, action film that doesn’t suck. Cameron does it. So does Peter Jackson and Del Toro. Why can’t they clone themselves?
(I am with both John and Kurt – I LOVED Ang Lee’s vision of the Hulk. I think people just turned on it because it wasn’t what a “normal” comic book movie is supposed to be).
And am I the ONLY one who thinks this film looks awesome? Every piece of news about it so far has gotten me more and more excited about it and this trailer is just the icing on the cake. I personally think this will be the surprise film of the summer (not the BEST, but just the one that people aren’t expecting to be any good and it turns out to kick major ass).
Unnecessary. Pointless. I’ll be avoiding this, and I do like Louis Leterrier’s Transporter and Danny The Dog.
I’ll be watching my Ang Lee version on DVD again.
The Hulk story really only needed a single film, and well, it was done quite well the first time.
“I don’t think audiences should have to go see “There will be Blood” or “No Country” just to experince a well made film with attention to detail and respect for the audience. It IS possible to make a sci-fi, action film that doesn’t suck. Cameron does it. So does Peter Jackson and Del Toro. Why can’t they clone themselves?”
You summed up the way Row Three feels. Its why we dislike the Transformers movie so much. People say how much fun it was to see the giant robots but just imagine the same special effects with not so many close up shakey camera fights and a good story.
@Ross – from a summer blockbuster type movie I’m as interested as I could be. It has some great actors so I’m going to give it a chance but really I’m looking forward to other movies much more.
ang lees hulk was ok the villain sucked most comic book movie have gotten afair to good trnaslation to movies specially spidey i have been having great hope for this hulk movie in which i think it will be the best one made not too mention restart of batman series and the great job on sperdmans movies ironman looks to be no push over either
all u doubter bout this hulk movie looks far superior to the other hulk movie i had my doub ts bout transformers but it surprised me. i think it will be grat atleast if nothing else the villian wont suck comapred to ang lees hulk
I’d agree that Ang Lee’s film suffers when Nick Nolte goes ‘electro’ – but everything up to that point was stretching the comic-book genre of films. The new Hulk looks like pandering all the way.
Give the people what they want, even if it is likely un-inventive. It’s the Hollywood Way.
James Cameron did 2 movies that transcend their fluffy exterior. Peter Jackson pandered beyond belief with King Kong, a remake that was all about recreating the scenes that somebody else made amazing. As for Del Toro, he really only has done two sci-fi action films, and to say that they truly are amazing pieces of work is a stretch that I for one find too far to pass by.
I love every damn indulgent minute of KING KONG (well except maybe the dino-run which is far too long and badly composited). I’m not quite sure I’d call it pandering, because, clearly folks didn’t want an hour of story set-up before Kong.
Self-Indulgent maybe?
The movie is GOLD though. As blockbusters and remakes go. It was a fine film. particularly the crafting and execution of Kong, and the scale and scope of things.
Yum.
I like Del Toro’s smaller scale spanish pieces.
I was disappointed a lot with Hell Boy (although many details are great, the overall story is just bad, bad, bad). Loved Blade II, one of the most purely fun comic-book movies ever made. Flawed, yes definitely, but a joy.
I’m thinking Del Toro is going to get things right with Hell Boy 2, that being said, I’d take a Devil’s Backbones over Hellboys any day of the week.
I agree with you on Del Toro’s two actionfilms completely.
I think King Kong was bad though. Other than pretty mindblowing acting by King Kong himself, I thought everything was dull, uninteresting, even the action was completely uncompelling to me, just like it was in The Lord of the Rings. I don’t think Peter Jackson is particularly talented. I guess maybe self-indulgent would be more appropriate than pandering, but I just think that basing a film in things that have fans is pandering to that fanbase to some degree. You know he’s not going to challenge the original piece on any way to somehow create something different. In the end all it is, is the same fight against the airoplanes just done with computermodels. It’s exactly the same mechanics as the new Transformers film. The only difference is in the cinematography, which I will agree that Peter Jackson does better than the average action-director, but nowhere near as good as the truly interesting filmmakers working today.
Well, now that I’ve actually managed to SEE this thing…
I really enjoyed Lee’s version of “The Hulk” and honestly didn’t think it needed to be left in the dust. That said, I can understand that fanboys may not have taken well with the movie and since I know nothing about the Hulk (other than he turns green and big when he gets angry), maybe my indifference helped me with the enjoyment level of the first one.
Now, I really like Edward Norton and well, Tim Roth is great when he’s “on” and to boot, I’ve loved Leterrier’s previous works and this looks pretty solid. I can’t think of a better way to do The Hulk other than CGI and it doesn’t look bad but I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that Norton is in a CG heavy flick so that’s my own bias but otherwise, this looks good.
And I think it’s worth noting that both incarnations of this superhero have been taken on by foreigners. Seems a bit oddball.
>>You know he’s not going to challenge the original piece on any way to somehow create something different. In the end all it is, is the same fight against the airoplanes just done with computermodels.
Yea that’s sort of the whole point! Jackson’s version is a personal love poem to the original movie. Jackson had immense love and respect for the source material. He didn’t let his ego step in and say “Hey I’m going to “challenge” the original just because I think I know better” (In contrast to Speilberg’s War of the Worlds which shit all over the original vision of Well’s book) Jackson wisely said “I’m going to keep the essence and mechanics of the original masterpiece and ENHANCE it by adding in more love and attention to things that were technical limitations in the original” No one wants to see yet another arrogant director change everything just for the sake of taking ownership. There is a time and place to make your own unique vision, and a time and place to honor something you love by imagining what the original COULD have been if it had been done today.
So what did Jackson do? He took Skull Island and blew it out. Bumped it up 50 notches. He added the spider pit sequence back it. He added more creatures. He took the orignal classic T-Rex sequence and blew it out by throwing in 3 frickin V-rexes at once. As for Kong, the film went to much greater lengths to make Kong an empathetic and sympathetic character. Putting such soul and subtle emotion into Kong wasn’t even remotely doable back in the 30′s, but I think Willis O’brien WOULD have done it if he could.
Now whether or not you appreciate one man’s homage to his favorite movie from childhood is a matter of personal preference, but I give Jackson incredible respect for going to such great lengths to create what he did and keep his ego out of the process along the way. The amount of attention to detail and pre-production work Weta put into LOTR and Kong is mind-blowing. Far and away beyond what any other director would do.
I think that if Jackson has a flaw, it’s that he’s TOO much of a geek at heart. TOO much of a fanboy. He has trouble editing down his stuff because he lavishes so much over it. What other diector would show us eye-candy sequences like mountain trolls opening the Gates of Mordor or Gandalf’s actual demise atop Zirak-zigil. Hell, he even flew traditional animators to Wellington to re-create the lost pit spider sequence in 30′s era stop-motion armatures just for the fun of it.
I think it’s unrealistic and unfair to compare guys like Jackson, Cameron, and Del Toro to Hitchcock and Kubrick in the first place. No effects-laden sci fi or fantasy film will ever be good enough to films snobs who look down their noses at everything but esoteric dramas, and to whom the very notion of a comic book movie is a joke to begin with.
What it comes down to, I think, is that fans of this genre don’t necessarily demand “The Godfather” quality of human drama, they just want a film that shows respect to any source material, takes itself seriously enough not to mock and insult the audience, and demonstrates a level of love and quality above and beyond the lowest common denominator. Take just a LITTLE time to ensure the story isn’t patently dumb and full of glaring plot holes.
Fans can easily tell the difference between something like Fantastic Four and Transformers vs Kong or Pan’s Labyrinth. You can’t fake passion for the subject.
I agree with almost everything that you said. I think that Ang Lee’s Hulk is more interesting both in content and in form than The Godfather.
Everything you said about King Kong is absolutely true though. It is pandering, or self-indulgence. But wether or not you can stomach it and think it’s a good movie is subjective. Like I said, for me, the action didn’t deliver for me, and the characters were completely uninteresting. But that’s not to take anything away from how he approached the material, in the hands of another director it’s very likely that I might like a film done in the same manner.
Andrew, last time you ducked me, but it’s time you answer for your anti-comic book remarks. I don’t think you’ve ever read one.
Which comics have you read and why do you think the medium is trashy?
Also Marina, Norton’s been in at least one cgi heavy flick, FIGHT CLUB.
Rusty James – alright. Got me there though I have a feeling you know what I was getting at.
And there’s nothing wrong with a good comic book. And no, they’re not all trashy (though I guess some could be considered that – as can some books). And this coming from a girl. Gasp!
Yeah, too bad they take the amazing comic books (From Hell, Watchmen) and turn them into trashy films. Even though I kind of like From Hell alittle bit in some places from time to time, it’s nowhere near the masterpiece that the comic book is.
I haven’t read Watchmen. My comic experience is fairly limited. I have nearly all of Clive Barkers “Hellraiser”, I dabbled in “Hellblazer” for a while. I have an assortment of various incarnations of Anne Rice’s books in comic form (which have some amazing art). Made my way through LXG, Astonishing X-Men and a few others here and there. My fave is still Top Cow’s “The Magdalena”.
Henrik, you have not seen Watchmen yet.
Marina, I did get your point. And my point was that “cgi heavy films” can take many forms and genres.
I don’t know; ever since Andrew’s recent comments about comic books I’ve found myself frustated with a certain mindset. I admit I’ve been a little snarky about the subject lately.
Everyone’s aloud a bit of snark.