It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


At the BraxCave-Incredible Hulk Trailer-6-13-08

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 11:55 PM
First, where's Brax?

Best copy of the trailer so far (not widescreen) BraxCave

Looks good.

Only criticism right now, is it looks like this movie might go the way that some action flicks have with super-fast jump cuts and too dark screen.

You can barely focus on the screen content before they switch to another scene.

Of course they often do that in trailers so you can't see very clearly. There's good shots of the two warring creatures, so I won't post any screenshots.

Casting looks ok, but I I'd have rather had someone other than Liv Tyler (Arwen in LotR) for Betty. She looks a little like Jennifer Connelly (Betty in Ang Lee's version), but looks rather plain in the movie.

Ed Norton is also OK, but to me, he's got a cloying and smarmy aspect to him.

Tim Roth seems to be perfect for the role of The Abomination.

He's got that odd villain look. No Russian, though, Tim says. "They wouldn't pay for a dialog coach".

Trailer is also up at the MTV site, but it's agonizing trying to watch it - they're loading something in the background making it take f-o-r-e-v-e-r to load and play. The YouTube copy at Brax's is better.

I might wait for the DVD...we'll see.

posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 02:03 PM
It's obvious this movie is going to be superior to the first, but the casting in the first was better, and that's coming from a big Ed Norton fan. Liv Tyler has zero acting range.

This Hulk looks better than the first IMO.


posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 10:32 PM
I found the standoff between the two toward the end there pretty cool. I would check this film out. I would like to see some more trailers though, to get a better idea. So far so good

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 07:33 PM
Interview with director Louis LeTerrier

Better, clearer pics than in the teaser trailer.

More stuff as it surfaces.

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 07:46 PM
It doesn't look too bad. I'll most likely rent this movie simply on the fact that Ed Norton
is in it and I can't think of a movie he's done that I haven't liked.

However, sometimes I'd like to see a movie without so much CGI and characters
that are slightly more believable.

[edit on 14-3-2008 by SuprDupr]

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 03:44 PM

Originally posted by Badge01
First, where's Brax?

Here is a newer trailer.

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 05:42 PM
Cool. Looks like it will be good, and the story will be character-driven.

Reportedly they will not keep the concept of the Hulk having three 'sizes' depending on the threat shown in the Ang Lee film, which I liked a lot, but other people did not like. He'll be set at a standard 9 feet tall. (darn).

It was rumored early on the 'Grey Hulk' might make an appearance, along with other Marvel characters, but I have a feeling if that had any truth to it, this was dumped in the re-write. Allegedly, Iron Man (R. Downey) will have a cameo.

At this time, at least for 2008 standards, the CGI still looks fake.

In addition, as shown in this trailer, they're still making the MONUMENTALLY DUMB error of having the cuts so short and the action so fast that you can't see what's going on. I HATE that.

If it isn't scrimping on the lighting so you can't see, it's jump cutting the heck out of the film so you can't see what's happening.

What's the point of the SFX if you do that?

Stan Lee says he thinks the Hulk will be a little better than he last one, whatever that means, but that Iron Man will be a Huge Hit.

Hard to say. Some of the recent Iron Man clips look very amateurish, almost like they didn't completey finish the CGI or something.

Oh well.

Hey, thanks for the update, man.

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 11:02 PM

Originally posted by Badge01
Reportedly they will not keep the concept of the Hulk having three 'sizes' depending on the threat shown in the Ang Lee film, which I liked a lot, but other people did not like. He'll be set at a standard 9 feet tall. (darn).

The different Hulk sizes were an unnecessary liberty that movie took with the Hulk. It's too different from the source material and it didn't add to the movie making anything better.
Yeah, I didn't like it

It was rumored early on the 'Grey Hulk' might make an appearance, along with other Marvel characters, but I have a feeling if that had any truth to it, this was dumped in the re-write. Allegedly, Iron Man (R. Downey) will have a cameo.

Tony Stark Meets with General Ross, during or after the credits. It's all a build up to the Avengers movie. Gray Hulk was an early rumor made by Avi Arad...who no longer works for Marvel.

At this time, at least for 2008 standards, the CGI still looks fake.

The CGI isn't impressive. However CGI is something that they work on from beginning to end of production. Hopefully when the movie hits the big screen everything will look clean.

posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 12:22 PM
Just got a look at the new movie, The Incredible Hulk 2.

To me, it looks more on par with a very well-done 'movie-of-the-week' than a major studio release.

The movie intro looks like a TV intro, and though the three actions scenes, which make up the bulk of the movie are full of stunts, the characters come across as flat.

Edward Norton is a good actor, but this is not the role for him. Though a good character actor, he just doesn't have the screen presence to carry the lead, imo.

The CGI looks cartoony, and blocky in close-up. The effects and the storyboarding was better in the first Hulk movie, I think.

Should be worth seeing on DVD, but don't think it will make it big at the box office.

2 cents.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by Badge01]

posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 09:10 AM
Did anyone notice the spawning of the evil Marvel character in the scene just past the injection of Banner?

Obviously you'll know the guy if you peruse the character list.

The Leader

posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 04:53 PM
Checked it out last night and I really liked it.
After that last piece of junk done by Ang Lee I needed an apology, and now I have it.
The CGI was good but not great, the story was pretty good and Norton as usual, was excellent.

posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 08:19 PM
I'm at a loss to explain why people thought this was superior to the Ang Lee Hulk. Maybe someone can explain it to me?

I can illustrate at least 10 great scenes in the first Hulk just from memory. It's been a few months since I've seen it again.

1. The scene with the gamma-treated dogs. Not only great CGI, but frighteningly done and also completely novel and at first viewing, unexpected. I loved the way the Hulk grew in size in the shoulder area to defeat the one dog's bite;

2. The scene where Hulk breaks out of his confinement chamber;

3. The scene where they foam the Hulk and he again grows larger defeating the foam, and in addition the way the dart bounces off of him and unexpectedly explodes;

4. The scene where Banner dreams he's shaving and the Hulk appears behind the mirror;

5. The fight with the tanks;

6. The fight with and the escape from the helicopters, jumping out of danger;

7. The ride the Hulk takes on the jet preventing it from damaging the bridge, then hanging on for a wild ride to the edge of space, then freezing over and plummeting to Earth;

8. Nolte's scene in the reactor where he morphs part of his hand into metal and then merges with the flooring;

9. Nolte's scene where he bites the electrical conduit, absorbing all that energy;

10. The fight inside the house with Talbot (Josh Lucas) and Hulk emerging from the house in a shower of splinters, being fired on and growing even bigger as a countermeasure.

That's not to mention the memorable score by Danny Elfman and beautiful cinematography by Frederick Elmes, and the superb visualization as a comic book extract. Using split-screens like window panes, they get several angles in one shot.

In addition there are lots of great character interactions and great acting by Bana, and Elliot, Lucas and Nolte.

I can only think of a couple scenes that are memorable in this new version, and the CGI was not nearly as well done.

I found the original to be very re-watchable and I even bought the DVD, which has 23 great extracts going into the making of the movie. I was most intrigued the way Ang Lee used a motion-capture suit to detail the Hulk's movements. (They definitely didn't do anything that elaborate with the new version.) It's one of the best DVDs I've seen as to composition content and added value. Most DVD rating sites give it very high marks.

I can't imagine watching the new Hulk more than once and most of it was so boring, I'd probably fast forward through most of it. By the way critics cited the first one as having a flaw that the Hulk didn't show up for 45 min. Well in the new one (except for a brief glimpse in shadow), it's more than 50 minutes into the movie before we see the creature.

2 cents.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by Badge01]

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 01:05 PM
reply to post by Badge01

Yes the scenes you mentioned were great, but that was all that was good about the movie. You described about 30 minutes of footage in a 2 ½ hour film, the rest is about some weird guy with mommy and daddy issues, and when I go to a theatre and lay down my money to see a movie about a 8’ foot tall green guy that wants to go around smashing things that is what I want to see.
HULK SMASH!, not Hulk angry because daddy didn’t love me now must go see psycho therapist for Hulks dissociative personality disorder.
Lets face it a lot of Ang Lees Hulk was a very boring story. But that’s just MHO, to each their own.

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 03:07 PM
reply to post by Mr Mxyztplk

I agree, the sob-story behind the main plot and all the scenes with the young David Banner (Bruce's father) were annoying, and should have been dropped or shortened in the first Hulk movie. I think people went to that movie with the mind set that they were going to see a great comic book yarn brought to the big screen, with an emphasis on the action and on the main character. Instead they got a melo-drama. I didn't go see it in theatres once I heard that the Hulk didn't show up until the 45 min mark.

It probably wasn't necessary for us to get all that backstory.

In the new version, they also make that mistake, no Hulk to speak of until the 50min mark. But the new one didn't have the redeeming qualities of the first.

The scene where Hulk fights with the army, all the stunts look amateurish. When he throws the Humvees they look like they are dragged on cables. When he jumps on the equipment truck and with his bodyweight alone smashes a metal vehicle, it seemed unrealistic.

Then they overdo the bit about him grabbing two vehicles and using them as battering rams, both in the army fight scene and where he rips a police car in half and batters the Abomination with the two halves.

The fight with the Abom. didn't have much rhyme or reason. At one point the Hulk starts winning and you don't know why, then he's able to strangle a being that can rip apart metal with his bare hands, yet he's choked with a simple metal chain.

It didn't make sense when he let the beast live because we know he'll recover and still be a threat. So the ending is left up in the air.

I can't really cite one great scene in the new movie, let alone ten.

I'd have rather seen something really different. There's lots of good Hulk stories out there in the comic series they could have segued from, but they chose to pick up where Ang Lee's version left off, in the jungle, then seemed to deny the first version and the whole 'gamma-radiation' thing.

I just don't see a central vision, nor any unifying theme. It's just three long action scenes that we've mostly seen before. Nothing novel. Even the addition of the Abomination didn't add much.

They left a few loose ends, such as the Stan Lee cameo. Why was Banner so worried about his blood dripping into the soda bottles, why did Stan Lee's character collapse when he drank it?

Thanks for the comments, though.

2 cents.

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 04:07 PM
You obviously didn't like it Badge, no-one can make you like it, but a couple of things you have said in that last post have made me more interested in the film, mainly the ripping cars in half and stuff.
A simple bit of chain becomes alot more complex when it has 2 big strong green hands on the 2 ends of it.

I can watch The Other One when it's on TV quite easily but I always found the mutant dogs rediculous and pointing towards a younger audience.

I hope this new one is more of an adult story.

posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 09:21 PM
Loved it.

My second favorite movie this year.

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 10:33 AM
Well, my question remains. Post ten great scenes in the new Hulk. Off hand, I can only think of one.

The beginning is derivative, tacking on the final part of the Ang Lee version, but denying the Gamma-Ray origin. In the first version they take the time and with good CGI to show the reason behind the Gamma-ray effect. I see nothing comparable to explain the super-soldier serum.

The first section is boring and I think most people'll be fast forwarding through it.

The Hulk doesn't show up (except in shadow at 25min) until 50 min in; five minutes longer than the first Hulk.

The fight scenes with the Army are boring and not novel and don't look like a real 'fight'. The sound pulsars scene goes on too long.

There's no real romance between Betty and the Hulk (or with Bruce Banner).

The only decently interesting scene is when they inject Banner and Betty jumps on his chest to try and calm him after he's already changed. The scene in the caves is depressing, not interesting. In fact the whole tone is down and negative.

The CGI and muscularity is second-rate compared with the first Hulk movie and the movement isn't anywhere near as novel as the motion-capture method that Lee used.

The music is basically sing-song and not at all memorable.

The ending is not satisfying, the Hulk does not kill or disable the Abomination but leaves him alive and in danger of recovering.

Again, if you liked it, fine. I challenge anyone to post a comparable list of great scenes as I did above. I'm not saying it's a bad movie, just that it pales in comparison.

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 10:48 AM
reply to post by Chukkles

It's interesting and a bit surprising that you didn't like the scene with the dogs. It was well done and novel. C'mon the idea of another species Hulking-out isn't exciting?

They picked three good canine species, and the hulked verision was believable. To me the scene where he fights them and when the Poodle-Hulk attacks the car is one of the more frightening parts of the movie. In addition the background music with the tom-tom motif also adds to the excitement. (I haven't re-watched it, just going on memory)

In addition the CGI setting up the scene where Betty sees the Hulk hiding in the shadows, then the technique (seen on the DVD extras scenes) used to put her in the car is clever and well done. They used the real actress and a mechanical arm which was green screened out in the final product.

The only part that is a bit too much is showing them climbing up the trees, but the part where the Rottweiler-Hulk stalks him down the tree branch is great, imo.

One of the DVD extras shows them discussing this scene and it's explained that the storyboarding has a longer fight, but that the complex CGI would be prohibitively expensive. Too bad they didn't do that, to me and to others I talked to, this is one of the best scenes. Sorry you didn't find it intriguing.

Thanks for your comments, and good thread.

top topics


log in