The Hulk Trailer

[Guest JangoFett4Hire]

If they were smart, they would do the Hulk movie in a similar vein to say, the original Godzilla. Sleeping dinosaur hit with a nuke, becomes superpowered, fucks up tokyo with anti-nuclear sentiment subtly tossed about the movie. David Banner (or was it Bruce?) blasted by radio-active waste, becomes big green unjolly semi-giant, goes on a rampage, and is stopped by whoever. Wait until the sequel to make it campy with supervillians such as The Rhino or the Watcher or whoever...

[Guest Gathering Moss]

Lethargic, David Hayter penned the scripts to X-Men, Watchmen, and X2. He *knows* how to adapt a comic-book.

Please don't tell me you think the X-Men movie was a good adaptation of the comic book. It was a nice little mutant adventure movie, but it never really struck me as an X-Men movie. The plot was fairly ridiculous, even for something based on a comic book, some of the characterizations were spotty, and the dialog was inconsistent. It's entertaining, but it's not a good adaptation at all.

Considering the budget they had to work withg, it was an excellent encapzulziation of 40 years of comic history. Name one adaptation that was truer to the characters or had less of the camp that has plagued comic book movies since their inception.

 

 

SUPERMAN: Had Otis and Tessmaucher, and completely ruined Luthor.

 

BATMAN: Joker was hammy and uninteresting. Script never really knew what it wanted to be, veers wildly in tone and pace.

 

 

None of the other comic-book films have characters nearly as iconic as X-MEN does. If you want to argue that it's a bad movie, fine. It has it's flaws. But don't doubt that it's an *excellent* adaptation. X-MEN is probobly the best adaptation of a comic-book ever made, (With the possible exception of THE CROW) and if you don't think so, you're wrong.

The beauty of an opinion is that it can't be wrong. You don’t have to agree with it, but you can't say, "If you don't agree with what I think then you're wrong." That's just plain ignorant.

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

No it isn't the idea of the comic books is retarted, but the plot of the movie. I guess I used to wrong word. Lets say, looks dumb? I dunno, I guess it doesn't appeal to me.

 

I won't go see it the night it comes out, I'll wait till I hear word of mouth. If it is good, then I'll see it. But I'm not getting all wet for the movie or anything.

Plot? How did you get any idea of what the plot is like from 45 seconds of rapidly cut action scenes?

He can't. So I don't know why he would say something so dumb.

[Guest DrTom]

Name one adaptation that was truer to the characters or had less of the camp that has plagued comic book movies since their inception.

Spider-Man. Easily the best adaptation I've seen. There will never be a perfect comic book adaptation, but it was obvious in watching the movie that Sam Raimi was a Spider-Man fan. I know they changed a few details and the Goblin's suit was dumb, but dressing him in green and magenta rags would have looked stupid, too. And the ending was spot-on, not compromising the characters at all for the sake of a Hollywood happy denouement. Extra points there.

 

SUPERMAN: Had Otis and Tessmaucher, and completely ruined Luthor.

Luthor was still depicted as an evil genius, and he was played with perfect panache by Hackman. The fact that he surrounded himself with incompetents was an unfortunate convention of the movie.

 

BATMAN: Joker was hammy and uninteresting. Script never really knew what it wanted to be, veers wildly in tone and pace.

I don't like any of the Batman movies, so there are no good adaptations in that franchise. Despite the way the character was written, I thought Nicholson did an excellent job in the role. I just wish they had written the part better.

 

If you want to argue that it's a bad movie, fine.

That's never been my argument. It's a perfectly fine adventure movie. But I don't think it's a good adaptation of the comic book. And adding more mutants in the sequel won't help, since all the characterizations were spotty in the first one (Wolverine's was the best, while Storm's was awful). It's easy to tell the story of one hero, since he gets the bulk of the screen time. When you have four main characters (Storm, Cylops, Jean, and Logan) and two secondaries (Professor X and Rogue) to develop, plus an ensemble cast of villains, a lot's going to suffer.

 

X-MEN is probobly the best adaptation of a comic-book ever made, (With the possible exception of THE CROW) and if you don't think so, you're wrong.

Oh, so if I don't agree with you, I'm wrong. How convenient. I bet that won you many an argument on the jungle gym, but it doesn't hold any water here.

 

Edit: I haven't a clue why the tags don't seem to work...

[Guest Mole]

No it isn't the idea of the comic books is retarted, but the plot of the movie. I guess I used to wrong word. Lets say, looks dumb? I dunno, I guess it doesn't appeal to me.

 

I won't go see it the night it comes out, I'll wait till I hear word of mouth. If it is good, then I'll see it. But I'm not getting all wet for the movie or anything.

Plot? How did you get any idea of what the plot is like from 45 seconds of rapidly cut action scenes?

He can't. So I don't know why he would say something so dumb.

Well you're right, I couldn't of gotten the actually plot from what I saw. But what I am GUESSING the plot is, I have no intentions in seeing it. It looked like Hulk was just getting away from the cops, by throwing stuff around and shit. I was expecting something completly different, so yeah.

 

A trailer is supposed to grab the attention of a the viewer, and make them want to see the movie. From what I saw, I have little attentions to see the movie before I hear what people have to say about it. Daredevil on the other hand grabbed my attention right away, so I'll see it no matter what people say. Hulk didn't do that, so I don't wanna see it without a recommindation. Make sense?

 

You guys really are all over this movie, aren't ya?

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

Hulk is a hell of a good character, that's all I'm saying.

[Guest Lethargic]

No it isn't the idea of the comic books is retarted, but the plot of the movie. I guess I used to wrong word. Lets say, looks dumb? I dunno, I guess it doesn't appeal to me.

 

I won't go see it the night it comes out, I'll wait till I hear word of mouth. If it is good, then I'll see it. But I'm not getting all wet for the movie or anything.

Plot? How did you get any idea of what the plot is like from 45 seconds of rapidly cut action scenes?

He can't. So I don't know why he would say something so dumb.

Well you're right, I couldn't of gotten the actually plot from what I saw. But what I am GUESSING the plot is, I have no intentions in seeing it. It looked like Hulk was just getting away from the cops, by throwing stuff around and shit. I was expecting something completly different, so yeah.

 

A trailer is supposed to grab the attention of a the viewer, and make them want to see the movie. From what I saw, I have little attentions to see the movie before I hear what people have to say about it. Daredevil on the other hand grabbed my attention right away, so I'll see it no matter what people say. Hulk didn't do that, so I don't wanna see it without a recommindation. Make sense?

 

You guys really are all over this movie, aren't ya?

I'd wait until a real trailer before making a decision like that though. This was a rushed commercial to get on the Superbowl hype. If you don't know the plot, it's simply Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hyde. That's it. It's just done on a bigger scale. That plot has worked for thousands of movies, it might work for one more.

[Guest Mole]

Like I have said before, I'm not ruling out seeing the movie. I just want to read the reviews and hear the word of mouth before I see it.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Name one adaptation that was truer to the characters or had less of the camp that has plagued comic book movies since their inception.

Spider-Man. Easily the best adaptation I've seen. There will never be a perfect comic book adaptation, but it was obvious in watching the movie that Sam Raimi was a Spider-Man fan. I know they changed a few details and the Goblin's suit was dumb, but dressing him in green and magenta rags would have looked stupid, too. And the ending was spot-on, not compromising the characters at all for the sake of a Hollywood happy denouement. Extra points there.

 

SUPERMAN: Had Otis and Tessmaucher, and completely ruined Luthor.

Luthor was still depicted as an evil genius, and he was played with perfect panache by Hackman. The fact that he surrounded himself with incompetents was an unfortunate convention of the movie.

 

BATMAN: Joker was hammy and uninteresting. Script never really knew what it wanted to be, veers wildly in tone and pace.

I don't like any of the Batman movies, so there are no good adaptations in that franchise. Despite the way the character was written, I thought Nicholson did an excellent job in the role. I just wish they had written the part better.

 

If you want to argue that it's a bad movie, fine.

That's never been my argument. It's a perfectly fine adventure movie. But I don't think it's a good adaptation of the comic book. And adding more mutants in the sequel won't help, since all the characterizations were spotty in the first one (Wolverine's was the best, while Storm's was awful). It's easy to tell the story of one hero, since he gets the bulk of the screen time. When you have four main characters (Storm, Cylops, Jean, and Logan) and two secondaries (Professor X and Rogue) to develop, plus an ensemble cast of villains, a lot's going to suffer.

 

X-MEN is probobly the best adaptation of a comic-book ever made, (With the possible exception of THE CROW) and if you don't think so, you're wrong.

Oh, so if I don't agree with you, I'm wrong. How convenient. I bet that won you many an argument on the jungle gym, but it doesn't hold any water here.

 

Edit: I haven't a clue why the tags don't seem to work...

Sorry it took so long to respond. I've come down with a bug. Before I get to my reply, I'd like to apologize for my harshness with the original post. I'm a bit under-the-weather.

 

1. Spider-Man is just as faithful as X-Men, I'll grant you that *however* when writing X-Men, the writers had to do a lot more than Spider-man's. They had a significantly lower budget, and were forced to cut massive corners while writing the script, and yet they still churned out script that stayed true to every character there. Rogue was a bit younger, but it was still ROGUE. Sabretooth was a little less cerebral, but it was still... SABRETOOTH. The themes were there, if they seemed cliched, it's because they've been retelling the same themes the last 40 years. The movie has flaws, I'll be the first to admit, but the script is not one of them. The lifeless fight scenes and low budget; *that's* the root of X-Men's problems.

 

2. You're absoulutly right.

 

That's the problem. Luthor is NOT just an evil genius, he is THE evil genius. The lame-ass big plan and the constant camp made him a D-Grade Bond villian.

 

3.Well, that's kinda what I said, Doc. Jack brought enormous energy to the project, it was just the character was so.... weak in his motivation we never really feel for him. (Although his plan to just randomly poison people for the hell of it is *perfect* and is completely true to what the Joker SHOULD be.)

 

4. To be fair, the script called for "Origin" sequences for Storm, Jean, and Cyke, but were cut for the almighty budget. Storm's scenes were also cut because Halle Berry didn't want to be there. (And it SHOWED)

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I'm bumping this so Dr. Tom can see that I responded, carry on.

[Guest Sassquatch]

Man, you don't need another superpowered character in that movie when you have the Hulk who is and always has been his own worst enemy.  That is what makes the character so interesting, its someone who can out punch anything with a problem it can't punch!

 

While this aspect is appealing to some people, this is not the thing that sells to a comic book based audience who grew up watching the Hulk pound the crap out of anyone that tried to hurt him or his beloved Betty.

 

If you have been reading the latest Hulk books, the series has been using this same aspect in the book with the Hulk being his own worst enemy while running away from some people who want to find him and use him.

 

This has turned out to be one of the most masturbatory and uninteresting Hulk storylines to have come out in a while. The Hulk has one of the most impressive line-ups of super villains to choose from and fight. Yet he has been a relegated background character while Banner does all of the work and only uses the Hulk for when there is a situation he can't handle.

 

The act gets old very quickly and is one of the reasons why the fans who were Hulk fans demanded to have more super villains show up in the books.

 

The Leader and Abmonination would delute the Hulk aura when Thunderbolt Ross would do just as well.

 

It's actually spelled "dilute" but I'm not going to make a big deal out of spelling mistakes.

 

 

If anything, General Ross would be the one who would weaken the Hulk's aura as a badass while guys like the Leader or the Abomination would be the ones who would help reinforce the fact that the Hulk is the one guy you don't want to mess with.

 

While the idea of the Hulk laying waste to Ross and his military looks appealing, a rumble in the city with the Abomination would be more visually exuberant with these two behemoth's going punch for punch and knocking each other’s blocks off in the process. A battle to the finish as their can only be one victor and that monster shall claim their place as the toughest being in the Marvel Universe.

 

Then you have the Leader who might not look imposing or possess giant muscles, but looks can be deceiving. The Leader's mental prowess rivals that of the Hulk's strength with the variety of attacks and defenses the Leader possesses within his arsenal. That giant head of his is not just for show but rather a deadly weapon itself as he can fire off psyche bolts which have always caused the Hulk a world of hurt. Not to mention the fact that the Leader can control non-Gamma based beings minds if he looks in their eyes long enough which makes him more of a potential threat than General Ross since the Leader would be willing to waste someone close to the Hulk while Ross would simply stick with the frontal assault on the Hulk.

 

Ross would kill the Hulk and then get that star he lost when he was unable to apprehend the Hulk when he first showed up. The Leader and the Abomination would continue to lay waste to anything and/or anyone in their paths leaving a trail of broken bones and blood in their wake.

 

You'll have to excuse me if I find your comment about the Leader and the Abomination weakening the Hulk's "aura" just plain ignorant if you think that Ross poses more of a threat to the world in general when compared to the Leader and the Abomination.

 

And The Hulk isn't so deep that it takes years to understand him. Guy gets hit with radiation and now turns into a monster when he gets angry is all you really need.

 

Like you said though, the Hulk's battle with himself is appealing and just like Jekyll and Hyde, the battle within is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

It will all be in the execution of that premise where the movie will succeed or not.

 

The movie will succeed if the material shown is not a total deviation from the central material of the character along with whether or not the story told is interesting and grabs the audience in some way.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I agree with Sass. The Hulk has been my favortie Marvel guy since I was old enough to read. (4) I loved the Peter david run and The Professor incarnation of the Hulk. I'm wondering why we can't get The Leader or Man-Thing or Abomination. It seems that people remember the TV Show with it's lack of super-villians rather than the Peter David run which in my opinion was better than Miller's run on Daredevil.

 

At it's heart The Hulk is a combination of 3 elements:

 

1. Frankenstein

2. Jekyll and Hyde

3. The Fugitive

 

The humanity of Banner and the mindless rage of the Hulk make the Hulk a much deeper book than 90% of the other Marvel and DC titles. I just hope that they remember that this is a SUPER-HERO story. Not some Greek tragedy.

[Guest converge241]

I really think they should have not shown hulk in the commercial/trailer

 

he/it looks awful

 

like a cartoon or a green stay puft marshmallow man..I would have seen it if they had kept that under wraps

[Guest DrTom]

They had a significantly lower budget, and were forced to cut massive corners while writing the script...

How does the budget affect the writers? They write the story and hand it to the producer(s), who then have to worry about fitting it within the budget. They might have been told not to go wild on SFX, but an X-Men movie doesn't need all that, anyway.

 

... yet they still churned out script that stayed true to every character there... Sabretooth was a little less cerebral, but it was still... SABRETOOTH.

Sabretooth was an idiot with claws who growled a lot. He was a moron in that movie, nothing at all like how he's been written in the comics. It's fine that they didn't delve too much into his background, but they could have given a few details on him. I know how he can shrug off Logan spearing him in the chest with his claws, but a more casual fan may not. Magneto didn't strike me as the Magneto from the comics. Ditto Mystique. That's the problem with having an ensemble cast of heroes and villains: you just can't characterize them all like they deserve, and some of them will suffer for it.

 

I still think Spider-Man was the better adaptation, if only because it was able to focus on just one hero, just one villain, and a few important supporting characters.

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

I found Sabretooth to be a poor adaptation of his comic character also, though the others seemed ok to me.

Personally I'd give Spider-Man the edge as the better adaptation of the two.