SF Signal: Incredible Hulk Trailer: Good or Bad?

Incredible Hulk Trailer: Good or Bad?

I only caught bits and pieces of the previous Hulk movie, and the one thing that struck me was that they got the physics of the Hulk's movement all wrong. Hard to tell from this new version. What do you think?

Sigh. This should be better than the Bana one.....but I would have used either the Leader and/or the Abomination as villains.

Posted by Honoric on Thursday March 13, 2008 at 1:39 PM

Ummmmm, and this is supposed to be an improvement over the Ang Lee version... how?

Posted by Chris Johnston on Thursday March 13, 2008 at 2:33 PM

Meh. I'm one of the few people who actually liked Ang Lee's version, but wasn't the point of remaking it to turn it into an exciting action movie? It really doesn't seem like that's what they've done, and I'm not sure how much I'm really looking forward to another climactic battle scene between two CGI monsters. For just a teaser trailer, that seemed to give an awful lot away, and not all of it particularly good.

Posted by Fred on Thursday March 13, 2008 at 3:05 PM

Ehh.. good cast. Trailer doesn't really do it for me. Doesn't make me dislike it, it's just neutral. I'll see it if someone else is already going.

Posted by felix on Thursday March 13, 2008 at 3:06 PM

Honoric: By the way, Abomination is the villain. That's who Tim Roth (and his CGI counterpart) plays.

Posted by Fred on Thursday March 13, 2008 at 3:08 PM

When I watched the trailer I assumed that the villain was the Abomination, even though it didn't quite look like him . . .

Hmmmm, and as for the "physics" of the movement they look ok - I am not sure what John "Mr. Wizard" D is talking about?

Posted by Rich on Thursday March 13, 2008 at 3:47 PM

I agree with the physics being wrong...or at least 'underwhelming'

In that shot when he's running down a NYC street toward Abomination...each footstep he takes should be leaving footprints in and tearing up the asphalt.

Hulk weighs a ton or so...and NYC streets are not that thick (Subways, etc.)

Although the texture of his skin is an improvement over the Shrek-like Ang version, I'm not crazy about the actual anatomy...

Maybe I'm old-school but I think he should retain the squatter more 1970's stature...

To me, and this goes for all comic adaptations, anything that varies from the basic 'drawn' style of the character is a let-down.
(An example are the ridiculous 'tribal' markings that for some reason someone decided was an 'improvement' on the original character design of Nightcrawler in the X-men films.)

Posted by razzo on Thursday March 13, 2008 at 8:16 PM

Oh, and I almost forgot: the implausibility of Bruce Banner's stretchy-pants. Not that I'm anxious to see Hulk Jr., but I don't think pants can expand to three times their normal volume.

Posted by John on Thursday March 13, 2008 at 9:25 PM

I believe those stretchy pants were designed specially for Banner by scientists at Star Labs. It was all explained in Incredible Hulk #374. (Just kidding. I know someone is going to look that up and come back here to call me a liar and start a flamewar.)

I couldn't make it through the first Hulk movie because the story moved so slowly. But it didn't help that the Hulk and other monsters looked too cartoony. This doesn't seem to be much of an improvement. Try again in 10 years when CGI looks as good as the real thing, or just CGI the whole damn thing.

Posted by Matt Jarpe on Friday March 14, 2008 at 7:13 AM

Okay, I'm a comic, science fiction and bit of a science geek so I know where you're coming from when you ask about "physics of the Hulk".

But even I have to step back and say it's the least problem with the Lee version.

Posted by mwbworld on Friday March 14, 2008 at 8:38 AM