Guest Redhawk Report post Posted June 9, 2003 As far as the latest Hulk commericals/trailers go, I'll just say this: When I went to see Spider-Man and the Hulk preview was simply a guy looking into a mirror, then shaking, then his eye turning green and then a house wall breaking, I couldn't wait to see it. After the trailer I saw today at 2 Fast 2 Furious (HORRIBLE movie, by the way), I don't even know if I won't just wait until the video comes out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Grand Pubah of 1620 Report post Posted June 9, 2003 Agreed 1000%. Chrissakes, the Hulk isn't even human. There's no reason he has to look exactly like a human, albeit with green skin and freakish physical dimensions. The Hulk is one man's dark, twisted rage strangely come to life. If he looks like a big green vaguely man-like monster, that's because it's what he is. I'm definitely seeing this one. For once we see eye to eye Dr Tom. There has never been a "realistic"(as far as comic book realism goes) adadptation of wht the Hulk would be like in real life. There is no way you could pull it off unless you use CGI, I mean the Hulk held a mountain range up to protect the entire Marvel Universe from being squashed. I doubt that Lou could pull that off. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DrTom Report post Posted June 9, 2003 There is no way you could pull it off unless you use CGI... Probably not. But part of me thinks that if Elijah Wood can be made to look 3'6" and John Rhys-Davies can be made to look 4'0", then some musclehead could be digitized out to 9' or so. It would probably end up looking faker than CGI, though, and it would risk stretching the audience's credulity to have some guy doing all these things they see on the screen. CGI was definitely the way to go, and I think the Hulk looks fine as is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ripper Report post Posted June 9, 2003 As a CGI artist, the guy looks freakin incredible. The way the lighting reacts and the skin texture is gorgous is leaps and bounds beyond what they did in Spiderman(although I understand how some might not see that). I am definately looking forward to this film. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rendclaw 0 Report post Posted June 10, 2003 That one line in the trailer fascinated me more than the CGI. I was listening to Stern this morning and he was talking about that, how he thought X2 was great, while they missed the boat with Daredevil (thats what happens when you hire actors with big names and subpar acting ability), and how the Hulk seems to be running 50/50 between being a success or a flop.. His opinions were pretty much spot-on....though I agree that there are too many superhero movies coming out. Being in my mid-30s, I remember the Ferrigno/Bixby days. Considering that they had to dumb down the show to make it palatable to the mainstream, the TV series, for what it was, was pretty good. Even though CGI has made leaps and bounds over the last several years, there are still limits to what can be done with it. Like Tom said, if they came make Elijah Wood and John Rhys-Davies look like a hobbit and a dwarf and do it convincingly, I'm sure that the studio did what it could to make it believable. I'm definitely going to see it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Steve J. Rogers Report post Posted June 10, 2003 and how the Hulk seems to be running 50/50 between being a success or a flop.. His opinions were pretty much spot-on....though I agree that there are too many superhero movies coming out. Being in my mid-30s, I remember the Ferrigno/Bixby days. Considering that they had to dumb down the show to make it palatable to the mainstream, the TV series, for what it was, was pretty good. Even though CGI has made leaps and bounds over the last several years, there are still limits to what can be done with it. Like Tom said, if they came make Elijah Wood and John Rhys-Davies look like a hobbit and a dwarf and do it convincingly, I'm sure that the studio did what it could to make it believable. I'm definitely going to see it. I was listening to Stern this morning and he was talking about that, how he thought X2 was great, while they missed the boat with Daredevil (thats what happens when you hire actors with big names and subpar acting ability), Intresting. Well considering there is no one I would rather have than Pattrick Stewart in the role of Charles Xavier there aren't too many "names for names sake" in X-Men, other than Stewart McKellan, Romajin-Stamos, Berry, and Paquin were the only "names" in the first movie and none seemed like they were "forced" into the role (see Batman and DareDevil) Jennifer Connolley and Nick Nolte are the only "names" in this one that the rubes will reconize but I don't know what the timeline is between Jennifer getting Betty Ross role and her becoming pop-culturely significant with "A Beatiful Mind" Steve Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Steve J. Rogers Report post Posted June 10, 2003 One more thing with Stern, its tough to take alot of what he says seriously when it comes to sci-fi/fantasy/horror genre flicks (I mean this is the guy who thought "Fart-Man" was a great idea for a superhero spoof) when he makes comments like when he said Peter Jackson and Miramax were idiots for making "Lord Of The Rings" a trilogy as in "What if Return Of The King" flops? What a moron. Movies are sometimes made because the filmakers think they should be made. Profit is a large part of it, but there is no way LOTR should have been made unless it was chopped up into seperate movies, like the books were. Steve Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Satanico Report post Posted June 10, 2003 I was listening to Stern this morning and he was talking about that, how he thought X2 was great, while they missed the boat with Daredevil (thats what happens when you hire actors with big names and subpar acting ability), Intresting. Well considering there is no one I would rather have than Pattrick Stewart in the role of Charles Xavier there aren't too many "names for names sake" in X-Men, other than Stewart McKellan, Romajin-Stamos, Berry, and Paquin were the only "names" in the first movie and none seemed like they were "forced" into the role (see Batman and DareDevil) Jennifer Connolley and Nick Nolte are the only "names" in this one that the rubes will reconize but I don't know what the timeline is between Jennifer getting Betty Ross role and her becoming pop-culturely significant with "A Beatiful Mind" Steve When he said big name actors with sub par acting ability he was only referring to Daredevil. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Marshall Report post Posted June 11, 2003 Does anyone care that the hulk only gets 15 minutes of screen time? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Satanico Report post Posted June 11, 2003 Does anyone care that the hulk only gets 15 minutes of screen time? I wasn't aware of that, but no that doesn't bother me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites