Andorion writes "How many comics will make it to the big screen, how many will be as good as Spiderman or X-Men, and how many will be as bad as Daredevil? Who knows, but the new trailer for The Hulk was just released, and it looks pretty sweet!"
475 comments
lets hope...
by
REBloomfield
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
they stick to the story on this. I don't mind chaning bits to make it flow, but most of Dredd made me cringe....
Re:lets hope...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Let's hope they include the sad walking away music.
Re:lets hope...
by
Mancide
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I thought DD was a good movie for what they had to work with. DD was never Spidey in the comics, and the movie had to follow the Spidey movie which was huge, and I think a lot of people expected an edgier Spidey movie, when that isn't even what the comic was.
Daredevil wasn't awful, the vision effects were really cool and the sound effects were the first in a movie that I felt they spent as much time on as the movie itself, as the sound played a really important role in certain scenes.
I think most of you all are taking pot shots at DD because of Affleck, but he's really a good actor.
-- "This amp is special, see all the knobs go up to 11, that means it is one louder than other amps"
Yeah... I'm sick of seeing all of these comic book movies get botched up and end up looking like some silly caricatures of a saturday morning cartoon show.
Ok, I admit it I'm not a big hulk fan, I hardly ever watched the show as a kid and I haven't read the comic books. I will probably go see the movie because for some reason I will never understand my wife is very excited to go see it.
But what exactly is the story they have to stick to? He gets mad, he becomes the hulk, (I love that the TV hulk was just him with green skin, a ripped shirt, and tussled hair) the hulk then breaks stuff, and there's like evil to fight and stuff. I imagine even Stallone could manage this one (except the part where he's not the hulk, because frankly ol' Sly is not that believable as a human).
Now this movie could be more of the beginning of the story type of thing (like X-Men or Spiderman, which were both good) in which case there's a story there to follow. I wouldn't worry too much about them screwing that story up though.
Then again, they may be taking potshots at DD because overall the movie sucked?
I mean, ok, there where some cool vfx and sfx, but the story was crap, character development was artificial, not to mention the dialogue. The pacing was way off too, and many of the vfx shots were awfull.
And I didn't mind Afleck...but please don't call him a good actor. Afleck has one role he plays tollerably well, and that's himself. So he's not even versatile, let alone a 'good actor'.
Well, except it wasn't "just him with green skin". It was a totally different person. The Hulk was played by body builder Lou Ferrigno while Banner was played by Bill Bixby.
As soon as they announced stallone as Dredd it was known it was going to suck.
You don't hire that big of a star to stick behind a helmet, so you knew the helmet was going which means the uniform was going, so you needed a story were Dredd spend the majority of the movie out of uniform, QED a bad judge Dredd movie.
I would agree with this, it seemed to me that the movie had been cut up and redited several times, much like Batman And Robin.
Re:lets hope...
by
D.Throttle
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This is directed by Ang Lee, director of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Ice Storm, Sense and Sesibility, and Eat Drink Man Woman. I believe it is highly probable that this is going to kick major ass.
The Hulk story is actually pretty complicated and I'd be interested to see what version of the Hulk they'll use for the movie. I imagine it'll just be the dumb green version since thats the version of the Hulk most people associate the Hulk with. But it'd be cool if they could incorporate the other Hulk personas. It probably couldn't be done in a single movie though; otherwise it'd be like 8 hours long. Perhaps in the sequels.
I didn't know that Bruce grew to a 20 foot hight when he turned into the Hulk.
It looks like there are some defenite hight descreptencies between the scenes. There is one scene where his hand is holding a chick like she was a Barbie doll.
I hope people do NOT remember the tv series.....I thought it really sucked when compared to the comics. It was poorly done, and the stories were lame....I'm hoping for much more in the movie...
-- Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I think most of those problems came from having editors on crack *and* meth. X-Men, DD and Spider-Man all feel like they were edited to the bone to remove any "excess" nanoseconds from the movie. I think they'd be much better films if they had another 30-40 minutes for charachter development, and to let scenes build instead of throwing everything in your face.
I think most of you all are taking pot shots at DD because of Affleck, but he's really a good actor.
In Bizarro world maybe... Affleck is a pure Hollywood product, polished on the outside but with no soul and heart on the inside.
I'm looking forward to the Hulk movie, though the Hulk in the preview reminded me an awful lot of Shrek, which of course is no good. Here's hoping they finish it off with style.
I don't know...
by
Shads
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
... I was kinda disappointed, why the hulk, there are much better movies they could have made. The hulk is a pretty poor choice although it does invoke some nogstolgia.
--
Shadus
Re:I don't know...
by
RaboKrabekian
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think the nostalgia factor plays a huge part. Not only are you making a Marvel property, which is a hot thing right now, but you can also tap in to everyone who fondly remembers the TV show. (And any younger Family Guy fans who want to see what all the fuss is about).
-- "Moderate drinking can help prevent amputated limbs" -- Abigail Zuger, NYTimes, 12/31/02
Nostalgia is key word in your comment. Anything that by-passes creativity, originality and marketing appeals to Hollywood. It saves them money.
For me, the Incredible Hulk was something that I watched as a child. I don't need to revisit it. I had a good childhood, but my life now isn't so poor that I need to remember my childhood experiences to be happy. I need new experiences to be a happy adult. Beating a dead horse (an apparent favourite of Hollywood) isn't very satisifying to me.
I've got to say I was VERY disappointed recently when I discovered Hollywood is remaking the Italian Job. That was a classic for me. The title's a bit misleading though - the twits have moved the setting to LA. Talk about ruining something good. Then again, I guess it must be targetted at N. Americans, 'coz most of the ones I've spoken to about the original haven't heard of it.
Any suggestions as to other movies they could have made (I presume you're referring to other comics)? Personally, I think Thor or Dr. Strange offer good opportunities for visually interesting films (read: better effects than mere explosions and superstunts)...
now, when I watch it, its horrible..the story line sucks...which will hopefully make it a good movie
less love story, more hardcore action, unlike spiderman's lame ass movie plot
-- [I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
Re:I don't know...
by
Brendor
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I think of all the Marvel Heroes, HULK is a much more fascinating character than most and definitely more than nostalgic. As revealed by a backstory search on goolge, Bruce Banner is a rich character with much backstory and a tortured soul.
Between Ang Lee's direction and what looks to be very dynamic character work, I think this wil be a very satisfying ride.
Some backstory
Everything from his relationship with his father to his girlfriend's father/nemesis has potential for interesting drama and conflict.
From Julk History PageRobert Bruce Banner was born in Dayton, Ohio, the son of Dr. Brian Banner and Rebecca Banner. He was loved by his mother, but hated by his alcoholic father, who was extremely jealous of his relationship with his mother.
A former atomic physicist Brian concluded that Bruce's intelligence was a mutation derived from Brian's exposure to radiation.
Brian Banner finally murdered his wife when she attempted to leave with Bruce. Bruce was raised by Rebecca's sister and later attended Science High School. He diverted his anger into his study of science.
Bruce Banner attended Desert State University in Navapo, New Mexico, where he studied with such contemporaries as Walter Langkowski (a.k.a. Sasquatch) Peter Corbeau and Raoul Stoddard.
Banner was a highly withdrawn intellectual unable to cope with emotions. Obtaining his doctorate in nuclear physics from the California Institute of Technology, Banner went to work at a nuclear research facility at Desert Base, New Mexico.
Before the days before the Gamma Bomb accident that would create the Hulk, Banner's father was released from the mental hospital. This release would lead up to the last confrontation between Bruce Banner and his father at his mother's grave.
Actually, IMHO the tv show works against the movie because the movie is so unrealistic. Yeah, yeah...the whole concept is, but stick with me here.
In the tv show, you had a regular ol doctor who turned into a giant green guy. But at least the giant green guy was a real person too, so it was a little more believable than turning into a 13 ft tall CG innovation. To me, they would have to do a lot more work to make the Hulk's movements, et al, look human...which, remember, is the point of the whole comic...he really is human, just with a few 'changes' when he gets mad.
I haven't followed comics in about ten years, so my thoughts are obviously dated. Peter David did a nice run on the Hulk that was thought provoking, dealing with the multiple personalities of Banner (original stupid "Hulk Smash!" Hulk, a mafia-style Grey Hulk, and a very intelligent combination of the two). I haven't followed the movie too closely, but from what I've seen, they've opted for the dumbed-down, "Hulk Smash!" variety.
Which is stupid, but stupid sells.
Well, what I read of the Hulk, was out of the Marvel books on "Origins of the Marvel Superhero"...and then they put out a large book that held a few years worth of Hulk stories....in these the Hulk was drawn by various artists..and the story changed here and there (Bruce Banner? Bob Banner? And on the tv, I think it was David Banner?)...but, I do recall in general, that the Hulk was MUCH larger than the avg. human being...not only in muscle and width...but, also in height.
I too would be disappointed in there not being the bomb blast radiation that changes him.....but, then again, didn't they change the spiderman origin in the movie? In the comic, the lab was not a DNA research lab..but, some kind of radiation or something lab...and a spider accidently got zapped by the high voltage in the lab...and fell and bit Parker...so, they do seem to take liberties in this...which isn't necessary IMHO.
-- Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Peter David's Hulk was one of the last superhero comics that I read. Very, very well done. I will always remember "Honey, I'm home!", issue 380 or so, when Doc Sampson "cures" the Hulk with the help of the Ringmaster.
I agree with some other posts that the Hulk is a much, much more deep character than is presented in the original TV show.
I wonder if they'll do the "gamma-bomb" origin of the comic book, or the "looking to release human potential" origin of the TV show.
As un-PC as it is, the gamma bomb origin is actually a little more deep. Bruce constantly repressed his own anger and never related to other people on an emotional level. He didn't trust his emotions. Why would a logical, dispassionate, but gentle person work to construct a bomb? He doesn't have a good answer because he doesn't know his own emotional needs well enough.
Spoiler from the comic: He saw his father murder his mother. You don't get much more traumatic than that.
And you were right to saw it. X-men totally blew. I do not understand how anyone can consider it a good movie. Spider-man was passable, and X-2 looks like it may redeem the first one, but I will never, ever inflict the first X-men movie on myself again.
Better Choices
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Go for the popular comics - like Blue Beetle!
Big cuddly monster
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
I dunno about you people... but The Hulk looks a little too cartoony. Sort of like a mad cross between Spiderman and Shrek. Can't wait to see it!:)
Re:Don't make me angry...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Offtopic? Spot the culturally challenged moderator... Bumbaclaat...
Re:Don't make me angry...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Shame people would mark the best line from the live action series as "OffTopic"
I suppose they marked any references to Chuckles as off topic for spiderman.
Re:Don't make me angry...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Offtopic? Spot the culturally challenged moderator...
Seriously. I was surprised how far down I had to scroll to find this reference to the TV series; muttered at least once an episode it seemed.
Somebody needs to remove that moderation ASAP. If the moderator doesn't know the Hulk franchise well enough to spot that he has no business moderating anything off topic.
Re:Don't make me angry...
by
Dr.Enormous
·
· Score: 5, Funny
You wouldn't like me when I'm Ang Lee...
Re:Don't make me angry...
by
Farley+Mullet
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Hulk SMASH!
Ang Lee's directing, so more like: Hulk BORED!
Re:Don't make me angry...
by
Torinaga-Sama
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, it must be not getting laid season again.
I got my first -1 in years for making the same comment a few seconds later. I suppose I should feel better that the guy who beat me to the punch got hit as well.
Well I think I will now go use my Mod points for good.
Re:Don't make me angry...
by
72beetle
·
· Score: 2, Funny
You wouldn't like me when I'm angry...
Hell, I don't like you NOW.
-72
-- -Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
Re:Don't make me angry...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
, oooh...
New Trailer for The Hulk?
by
GMontag
·
· Score: 5, Funny
What happened to his old trailer? Was it just a plain aluminum job like the kind old people tow to Florida?
I hope his trailer is made of something really strong, like adamantium(sp?) as in Wolverines bones. Stainless just does not stand up to the nasty temper of the Hulk!
Re:Much materiel for plot
by
petronivs
·
· Score: 1
A functional plot for a movie, yes.
Movies these days aren't expected to have much plot. It's not like books. Heh, not at all. Even so, the Hulk comics waxed pretty good at times, even in terms of plot.
-- This is the real signature
(Beats those shadows on the cave wall, don't it?)
Re:Much materiel for plot
by
Psarchasm
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but really - why not go see the real Jeckle and Hyde when LXG comes out?
I'll see both... the tank tossing scene from The Hulk looks way too cool to miss on the big screen. And I'm hoping Connery can pull off Quatermain in LXG. Just hoping they don't waterdown Hyde too much from Alan Moore's vision.
Well, you have two options as I see it:
(1) Stop watching trailers
(2) Suck it up and get over it
The choice is yours...:)
Seems the most "comic booky" ...
by
binaryDigit
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Of all the big money superhero movies. I guess this is the first one where the primary character is physically larger than life. The trailer makes it almost look like a photorealstic cartoon vs a "live action" movie with the scenes including the Hulk (and I guess technically those scenes probably are).
I was very surprised by how much of the Hulk they actually showed. I would have expected much more "teasing" up until the very end.
Re:Seems the most "comic booky" ...
by
aflat362
·
· Score: 0
I guess this is the first one where the primary character is physically larger than life
well, superman, spiderman, the x-men, batman etc. aren't supposed to be physically larger than life. They are either normal humans like bat man or enhanced humans like the x-men or spider man. Super man, well his clark kent alter ego wouldn't work out if he didn't look human
This looks a lot better than the previous trailers. The Hulk scenes look more realistic than in the previous long trailer, and it looks like they might make it a character study of sorts. I hope it's good.
And what was wrong with Daredevil? Sure it felt a little short and cheesy, but I really liked it!
yeah, I feel so guilty and ashamed that I liked Daredevil. I guess I'm a geek, but not a cool geek like everyone here.
I actually didn't like SpiderMan that much - I still bought the TV and I enjoy watching it - but I always felt he was the gayest of all of the superheros... well, aside from AquaMan - he was outrageously gay.
Daredevil had Jennifer Garner in it, and she is hot enough to make me watch anything that she is in.
--
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
Ever read the Authority? A couple of the superheros in there really ARE gay. It's a pretty good poke at Batman and Superman; their Authority-equivelant characters kiss (and more)!
I haven't actually read any comic books since 6th grade... which was like 10 years ago. I was more into "Nam" than I was the superhero stuff.
One of my good friends feels that much of bodybuilding came about because of the superhero combic books, especially those like the Hulk. The same friend is gay - no word from him whether or not the comics turned him gay.:) (preemptive reply for the retards: that should obviously be seen a joke)
--
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
uhh - I bought DVD... don't get me wrong, I bought a TV too - but it had nothing to do with the Spiderman movie.
--
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
Re:Ooh...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
DareDevil cheesy? All those people who are saying Spider-Man is a really good movie better watch the first half hour or so again... that first half hour is worse than anything in DareDevil. Not to mention that at least Affleck and Garner had some chemistry... Dunst and had none. Mind you, I do think did a better job playing Spidey than Afflect did DareDevil, but I much prefered the darker atmosphere of DareDevil to Spider-Man.
"but I always felt he was the gayest of all of the superheros... well, aside from AquaMan - he was outrageously gay.
Daredevil had Jennifer Garner in it, and she is hot enough to make me watch anything that she is in."
OK, you can relax now. You have made it abundantly clear that you are heterosexual. But then there was that comment about being "guilty and ashamed that I liked Daredevil."
That was probably the most convincing debate I've ever witnessed (I'm not 100% sure I was actually part of it though)... either way I'm sold, I'll take two.
--
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
Re:Ooh...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
With the name AssFace, the word penis in your website and constant mentioning of "gay", I think it may be YOU who needs to come out of the closet.
The hulk looks HUGE... even larger than in the comic/toon. But, this stuff does look impressive. I wonder how real/unreal/surreal it will look on the large screen.. I hope it don't look cheap and monster inc.. ish...
-- |/________
|\A|ALYS|
Re:relative size
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
He changes size according to his rage: Long check-out line in the grocery store, 8 feet; slashdotted web page, 10 to 12 feet; no toilet paper, 15 feet./comics film forum lurker
Lets be realistic here... how are you going to make a 10 some-odd foot tall 800lbs green muscle man look realistic? Hm? Explain to me? See, other CGI sprites, like the CGI Neo, or the dinosaurs in JP, they have a foundation in reality, painstakingly rendered to perform like the actual object. The human eye is more comfortable with something like that.
Now, I don't know about you, but I don't know any 12 foot tall, 800lbs green dudes to model the Hulk after. Rather than have the cheesy effects of the TV show hulk.. all slow mo BS and wierd camera angles..
He's about as close to a human Hulk that I've ever seen. 6'5" and about 360 pounds ought to scale to Hulk proportions pretty easily.
Cheesy Look
by
buktotruth
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
As much as I love a movie where a big green guy smashes things, I think the CGI could you use ALOT of work. In the trailer he looks obviously computer generated.
I'm waiting for the Matrix where you can't tell the difference b/w real Neo and computer generated Neo.
Re:Cheesy Look
by
AssFace
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
In the outdoor scene in the trailer - where he is standing at the base of a hill of what looks to be a San Fran scene perhaps - has a bunch of cops in front of him, his back is to us and covered in dust... THAT shot of him looks real.
the rest looks like a giant toddler that is a bit too shiny and plastic looking.
--
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
Re:Cheesy Look
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
As much as I love a movie where a big green guy smashes things, I think the CGI could you use ALOT of work. In the trailer he looks obviously computer generated. I'm waiting for the Matrix where you can't tell the difference b/w real Neo and computer generated Neo.
CGI Keanu Reaves already looks a lot more realistic than the real Keanu Reaves.
It was intended to have a surreal look. Hulk was never meant to look completely real in his big green guy form. It is kind of an homage to the fact that he is a comic character.
-- Beer Die is the game of champions
Learning To walk my own path.
No kidding. He looks like a cross between Gumby and the Stay-Puft (sp?) Marshmallow Man from Ghostbusters, as animated by the team that did the terrible CGI fight sequence in Blade II. You know which one I'm talking about.
At least it's got Jennifer Connelly in it. I was wondering when she would do another film.
-- "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
That sounds an awful lot like a cop out that one can hear in art and architecture studios around the world and in any language - not to mention CG labs. "It doesn't look right? uhh.... yeah... uh, it is *supposed* to look like that! It is an homage to... you know... stuff. Can I sleep now?"
If they wanted a surreal look, there are a bunch of ways that I would argue could pull off the look and make it an abvious homage... instead it currently comes off as poorly done and perhaps even rushed in order to come in under budget. Maybe they are doing it as an homage to all those other films that also rushed things to come in under budget?
I haven't looked - what effects house is doing the CGI? Or rather, what houses are doing what parts - it is hardly ever one place that does it all - they farm out shaders to one group, various scenes to another, explosions to yet another, and then they might have two teams of animators - the top team for close ups and the B team for grander movement and initial keyframes (beyond any motion capture that they might have done... or farmed out).
--
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
imdb.com says that: Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) [us] (special visual effects and animation) K.N.B. EFX Group Inc. [us] are doing the effects. I would think with ILM if they say they are doing it on purpose, Ang Lee really wants the CGI to look like it does.
-- Beer Die is the game of champions
Learning To walk my own path.
I agree with you there - if it is ILM, they likely really are doing it that way. ugh - I'll bet there are a lot of pissed CG animation and modeling guys there.
--
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
" I'm waiting for the Matrix where you can't tell the difference b/w real Neo and computer generated Neo. "
That won't be Reloaded. Though they did a decent job, it's still pretty obvious.
I studied the imagery in the scene where Neo gets attacked by a bunch of Agent Smiths. One of the problems with it was that they didn't make the suites black like the live-action characters wear. Instead, they were a dark shade of gray. As a result, it not only looked visually different, but you could also see the distinctive look of CG-shaders.
I ran that scene through After Effects and color corrected the suits down to black, and it looked MUCH more convincing. At that point, it looked more like a blue/greenscreen gag. Unfortunately, it still didn't quite grab me as 'convincing'.
Here's the problem: if they're using CG to do something actors can't do (well it'd be virtuallypointless to use it otherwise!) we're instinctively going to know that. It'll look wrong no matter how convincing it is. Hmm. I dunno. I'm a big fan of the subtle stuff. Going over the top in a scene like that is just begging for criticism, and the Hulk is probably going to go through the same trouble. He is a little on the improbable side.
Hulk may look a little CG in the quick scenes you see him in, but I thought the same thing about spiderman when those trailers came out. I was like 'aw..he looks soo CG!, bah!'...and Spidey turned out great. I'm willing to give the big green guy a chance.
If Hulk may have looked like CG character in that trailer, then he definitely looked like a super pissed off CG character!
-- FUNK!
Re:Cheesy Look
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
At least it's got Jennifer Connelly [imdb.com] in it. I was wondering when she would do another film.
Yeah, but it seems her hair has a harder time getting into character, looks the same as Requiem, not that I'm complaining...
Every movie works on a budget. I don't see Hulk as being a huge hit, I doubt it has the FX budget of Matrix. ILM will only produce as good of CG as you can pay for and I think Hulk probably has a lot more minutes of CG than Matrix will.
Why Quicktime?
by
hardcampa
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
What's up with the stream of previews all in Quicktime format.
I can't think of a single format that sux more than quicktime.
Anyone here that rather see Quicktime over DivX?
Re:Why Quicktime?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Apple does all the encoding of the video with very hiquality equipment and provides all the hosting (can withstand a/. posting) for FREE just to have the content on their site.
It certainly isn't for quality or ease of use. I've got to jump through hoops to turn it into something I watch on my DVD player, and I can't be the only person who wants to do that!
If it was DivX, I'd be running a converter on it to view it in QuickTime. So it saves me a step or two.
No formats worse that QuickTime? If it was in Windows Media 9 format, only those using WMP 9 could view it, and the player is ONLY for Windows. Real Media is more cross platform, but I doubt it would look as good.
-- "Common Sense Ain't" -Unknown
Damning with a faint praise
by
secolactico
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
how many will be as good as Spiderman or X-Men
I did like X-Men, but if Hulk's only as good as Spiderman, I guess I won't be going to see it.
That said, I hope the end credit roll to the tune of the "Sad Piano Music" of the Bill Bixby/Lou Ferrigno series (as seen on Family Guy).
-- No sig
Re:Damning with a faint praise
by
IIRCAFAIKIANAL
·
· Score: 1
It'll probably be that other song....
Doc Bruce Banner Belted by gamma rays turns into the Hulk ain't he un-glam-or-
Meh, I hope not.
-- Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
Re:Damning with a faint praise
by
jmccay
·
· Score: 0, Troll
It won't seem the same without Bill Bixby/Lou Ferrigno playing the main characters. I loved that series as a kid. I am holding my judgement till I see more trailers before I decide if I am going to the movie, but I won't go it if it has anybody on the a boycott list because it's time these rich royalty wanna-bes learn they are not royalty (and the America public will hold them responcible for what they say).
-- At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
Re:Damning with a faint praise
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
They should dig up Bill Bixby and cast him in the role as "Uncle Bruce Banner Sr." The only thing wrong with that is that I don't think he was Republican, damn.
Re:Damning with a faint praise
by
CoyoteGuy
·
· Score: 1
Oh my.. You are damning anyone with an independant view on politics and world events. Heaven forbid anyone voice their opinions, and they differ with yours.
Thank god I'm Canadian, and we don't all follow our government like a soupline. We actually tell our politicians when we don't like their agenda. hahah I feel sorry for the patriotic way.
-- Slashdot.. Land of nerds, trolls, and FlameBait..
Re:Damning with a faint praise
by
Tattva
·
· Score: 1
Thank god I'm Canadian, and we don't all follow our government like a soupline
No, but your government follows our government like a soup line. Honestly, didn't we "accidentally" kill more canadians in Iraq than the Republican Guard did? Since it seems the acid rain and DDT sterilization program didn't pan out, we're going to have to take more direct measures with you guys.
p.s.
Go Avalanche!
-- personal attacks hurt, especially when deserved
Re:Damning with a faint praise
by
CoyoteGuy
·
· Score: 1
And when we don't follow Bush like a soupline, you get angry and cry foul. Sorry, but the stats are in, and the Americans are flocking over the borders in droves because we have free and decent health care, we respect our environment, and we have way better beer. Hmm.. Makes you wonder, why the heck you guys live down there.
-- Slashdot.. Land of nerds, trolls, and FlameBait..
Re:Damning with a faint praise
by
Tattva
·
· Score: 1
I was actually being sarcastic and I agree with your critique of the (presumed) tendencies of Americans to toe the line during times of perceived threats. It's important to note that this tendency has its basis in group pyschology and Canadians might find themselves a bit more miltaristic and nationalistic if they felt the umbrella of American strategic security they enjoy were collapsing.
I don't like to put the winky smiley-face in my comments because I like to think I'm a good enough writer to get my point across, oh well.
-- personal attacks hurt, especially when deserved
Re:Damning with a faint praise
by
CoyoteGuy
·
· Score: 1
hehe My mistake.. Guess my sense of pride took over. Guess it's a consequence from the looming world issues that I hear about every minute of every day. My apologies.
-- Slashdot.. Land of nerds, trolls, and FlameBait..
Re:Damning with a faint praise
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The fact is that you and the French need us a LOT more than we need you. What would you do if we stopped buying your products and imports?
Re:Damning with a faint praise
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Actually, you are the one "damning anyone with an independant view on politics and world events". You have the same opinion that a majority of the world does, and that is if America doesn't do what the rest of the world wants, then America is wrong. Well, get over it.
The poster is just using their money to advocate views and beliefs that they agree with, and that's what freedom is about. The sad thing that the responces to the poster are really the trolls.
Considering the Hulk's anger-management problem, is it really wise to put him up in another trailer? Maybe he should be forced to lie in the bed he has made. That's the only way he'll learn personal responsibility.
Hulk and Jack are sitting around. Jack does something annoying. Hulk squishes him into a paste. Roll credits.
I'd still pay good money to see it, though.
--
I may be wrong, but I'm never uncertain.
Re:Trailer trash
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How about Joker vs. the Hulk? That'd actually be pretty interesting. I mean, the Joker is really a villain who tries to drive his enemies crazy rather than, say, coming up with effective means of killing them. Batman is always stoic about it, but it'd be cool to see Joker spend the movie taunting Bruce Banner into going all big and green and smashing his surroundings. When you think about it, he's actually the perfect villain for the Hulk to face.
Lies! Death to the infidels!
by
Tuxinatorium
·
· Score: 2, Funny
This is OUR hulk, not the americans' hulk! It will slaughter them all at the gates of baghdad before any American troops come close to our glorious city!
looks better than the first preview
by
AssFace
·
· Score: 1
The first preview made him look very obviously CG and just like a big goofy toddler. This one is better in that he looks real in the shots that are closer to him - but it still really suffers from the obviousness of being animated (moving too cartoon-like - which is easier to animate than realistic life-like actions). He moves to quickly for his size - which probably doesn't matter much since the whole point is to suspend disbelief... but for whatever reason, he is still human form enough that it just looks poorly done the way it is now.
I'm hoping this isn't the case when it is on the big screen.
This preview made it look better than the last one.
Also, I never followed the comic book - so I guess he was much bigger in the comic book than he was in the TV series - but his comic-like increase in size is silly - I preferred the TV version where he just got really big, but still on the scale of what a human body could tolerate.
In the end - I'm psyched to see it - I like Eric Bana (sp?) too - but the CG Hulk might ruin it if it is so obviously CG.
and again, perhaps it happened all of the time in the comic book, but the silly leaps and bounds that he is taking are... well, silly. It is one thing for a giant human form to lift heavy things - we would expect that by what we know of physics. But we wouldn't expect it to be able to leap that far, and especially not that fast. That is the most annoying part - that it doesn't follow physics.
--
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
Re:looks better than the first preview
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You're assuming, as most people do, that larger constructs/objects move more slowly than smaller ones. Nobody has yet to back this up, however, and simple physics tells us that no, larger things don't have to be slower. Godzilla, for the most part, moved at "normal" speed. Time and motion do not slow down (nor slow YOU down) simply because you're 100 feet tall.
Granted, the food intake for, say, the Hulk, would have to be enormous to (1) facilitate simple things such as standing, walking, breathing, etc. and (2) facilitate his more mutant actions...such as flinging tanks.
Of course, the Hulk could always process food more efficiently than normal humans, and extract, say, 125% of the ATP that the rest of us do.
-AC
Re:looks better than the first preview
by
bad_fx
·
· Score: 0
and simple physics tells us that no, larger things don't have to be slower. Godzilla, for the most part, moved at "normal" speed
In an argument about whether the physics of the Hulk is realistic, your one reference is Godzilla.... Good god man!
Only on slashdot...
Spider-man good? Daredevil bad?
by
Stront
·
· Score: 1
Got them the wrong way round, there.
Now that *does* make me mad!
STRONT SMASH!
-- --
http://www.strontiumdog.net
Re:Once again, the anti-nuke kooks in the liberal
by
Cackmobile
·
· Score: 0
Seeing the Hulk is quite some years old, I don't think thats argument really stands. And whats wrong with being a Godless Commie, I am one (well godless socialist to be precise). ANd the future for us is alternative energy; Solar, Wind and Tidal power. BTW I think nuclear power would be great if they could find a way to get rid of the waste. And don't even thoink about sending Down Uder like some Yanks want. Maybe send it into the sun.
-- --
Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
What's wrong with Quicktime ?
by
dnaumov
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Can someone explain me why there is always so much whining about Quicktime ? For Windows and Mac, you have the official Apple Quicktime player, for UNIX, you have MPlayer and Xine, which both play Quicktime videos just fine. What is the problem ? I've been watching Quicktime videos under Windows, Linux and FreeBSD and never had a problem, am I the only one ? "It just sucks" is not a valid explanation / reason.
Re:What's wrong with Quicktime ?
by
morbuz
·
· Score: 1
Can you explain me what's good about quicktime?
The files are huge and the quality is not exacly great.
-- CAPS LOCK IS LIKE CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL!
Re:What's wrong with Quicktime ?
by
dnaumov
·
· Score: 1
"Can you explain me what's good about quicktime? The files are huge and the quality is not exacly great."
Show me a DiVX technology for video streams and I will be one happy camper. I am afraid you can't.
Re:What's wrong with Quicktime ?
by
jdreed1024
·
· Score: 1
Can someone explain me why there is always so much whining about Quicktime ?
Because this is/., and it's cool to bash Apple. Not quite as cool as it is to bash MS (which is more justified), but still pretty cool.
In all seriousness though, the slashbots have a hard time supporting something mainstream. If people like it and use it, it's clearly not l33t enough. MP3 gets bashed in favor of Ogg; QuickTime gets bashed in favor of DivX; etc.
-- There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
Re:What's wrong with Quicktime ?
by
Zathrus
·
· Score: 1
The whining about QT decreased dramatically once Sorensen codecs were available for Mplayer... until then a large number of the newer QT files out there couldn't be viewed on Linux.
Re:What's wrong with Quicktime ?
by
smoondog
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Agreed. Quicktime works just fine for me and I think that generally, the quality of quicktime can't be beat.
-Sean
Re:What's wrong with Quicktime ?
by
ttrafford
·
· Score: 1
Isn't DivX embedded in an OGM streamable?
Re:What's wrong with Quicktime ?
by
Matt+Amato
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The problem is that even though you can play quicktime under linux, doing so is still in the shady area of legality. There are no native libraries to read the sorenson codec. Currently, developers have to resort to tricks using the windows DLLs and bits from wine. As for some other complaints, it's a closed format, and protected by patents. The ability to do something isn't enough to justify it being okay. I want to be able to fully and legally do it.
Matt
Re:What's wrong with Quicktime ?
by
Galvatron
·
· Score: 1
Because the Quicktime player (at least for windows) is an ugly, clumsy piece of shit that bugs you about giving them money every 5 movies or so.
Quicktime is hardly the anti-christ, but it's one of the most closed and controlled video formats in widespread use these days (as bad as Real or WMV).
-- "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Re:What's wrong with Quicktime ?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What is wrong with quicktime is that they force me to install their crappy player and not just download a codec that lets me watch stuff in whatever player i want!
so fuck them and their bloated crappy software
Re:What's wrong with Quicktime ?
by
Thing+1
·
· Score: 1
What's wrong with quicktime?
I'm running the latest release on Windows 2000, and the Hulk trailer had a bunch of artifacts -- stars, white dots, in much of the black parts. Very annoying.
I don't know if these artifacts were my fault or the fault of the player/encoder, but none of the Family Guy episodes I downloaded from Kazaa have any artifacts.
So I blame quicktime.
-- I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:What's wrong with Quicktime ?
by
ic3p1ck
·
· Score: 1
I agree.
It also doesn't have a full screen option (unless you register/buy it) so its HTPC unfriendly. At least using another format (avi) would allow it to be played by a large number of different players.
Maybe he attaches it to all the other flying super heros?:)
Re:Dude The Hulk can fly!
by
pi+radians
·
· Score: 3, Funny
The problem with these cartoons is that they arent realistic.
How true.
Every one I know from planet Krypton can't fly (but man they sure can jump high) and those two guys that I work with who were bitten by those radioactive spiders still only take the bus to get through the city.
Join me brothers in our fight to maintain realism and accuracy in our comic books!
--
sin(6cos(r)+5A)
Re:Why Quicktime? Just to piss YOU off
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Umm yeah.
1)It's a "recognizable" name
2)The tools to create it (macs and sorensen codecs) are well better on the APPLE CREATED format
3)It by FAR outstrips even Divx in pixel per pixel quality. (maybe not for file size ratio)
4)The format is also recognized by other types of players.
5)Apple leverages the exclusives to sell Macs... good for them!!!
Another misuse of CGI
by
stratjakt
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Some of those hulk shots look plain phony. CGI models look great and all, but the motion is always too fluid, too phony.
A big muscleman with green greasepaint would move much more convincingly, Lou Ferigno (sp?) made a more convincing Hulk than an animated model. Roll Big Poppa Pump around in some grass clippings and have him hulk around.
Sometimes the most simple and conventional SFX are the most convincing on screen. CGI is great for aliens and monsters and stuff like that, but there are too many subtleties with human movement that we're all subconciously accustomed to.
Plus, the "making of" documentaries are now just filming a couple nerds sitting in front of a 22 inch monitor looking at wire models.
--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Big Poppa Pump probably wanted too much money and all.
-- Being called a dork on Slashdot must be like being called the retard in special ed.
Re:Another misuse of CGI
by
Iamthefallen
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Ah, the new age of CGI. Remember Jurassic Park? Terminator 2?
Back when CGI was used to create things that didn't exist, or create spectacular scenes and special effects that'd be near impossible to make with conventional films. For a while now however, CGI is simply the cheaper alternative. It's easier, faster and cheaper to blow up something in a computer than to actually rig explosives, if it looks real is irrelevant. It is a step back to the corny special effects of previous decades where the audience is asked to not look to closely at the screen. When CGI is used to create scenes that are hard to do in reality it is a Good Thing, when it's used to keep the budget down it usually tends to suck badly.
-- Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
Re:Another misuse of CGI
by
phutureboy
·
· Score: 1
I agree completely. In the trailer, Hulk's movement is waaay too jerky and unnatural-looking.
Do some tricky camera work like LOTR and make him look way bigger than everyone/everything else...use wires and shit to make him throw people around...
I think thats why I can watch the matrix 50 times and spiderman once (and only because of female influence)...cool fight scenes are wayyy better if its real people rather than computer animation. I would rather people punching people, throwing them around, all done on wires, good camera work, etc.
Producers: grab some balls and make an elite comic movie without an abuse of CGI, like X-men! (but a bit more action)
-- [I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
Re:Another misuse of CGI
by
fermion
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I just think this is an example of very bad and exaggerated CGI. As it stands now, it is little more than a high tech shadow puppet. Some of the things, like the Hulk running as if he were in the gravity well of the moon rather than the earth, and the over the edge effects with the tanks cannot be fixed. OTOH, I do hope the body work is not final. As they say, we have the technology to rebuild him, and the science to do a better job.
-- "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide."
Orphan Black
Re:Another misuse of CGI
by
sigep_ohio
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
the CGI was never intended to be completely realistic. In keeping with the comic book theme, the big green guy was made to look somewhat cartoony.
Could people please stop complaining about movie CGI and how fantasy characters must look "real". What is "real" when the character does not exist and has not existed in any form outside of COMIC books? Comic characters don't look even remotely real, heck animation doesn't even look or move completely real. The simple concept behind most comic characters is not even close to real, yet somehow in the movies they are supposed to LOOK and ACT real?
The reason everyone has problems with human-like characters done in CGI is that you keep trying to force those characters to fit your own model of how a human looks and moves. This is also why aliens and monsters look great with CGI, because you don't have any particular model in your head about how they should look and move.
-- Beer Die is the game of champions
Learning To walk my own path.
Gotta agree. CGI is just going to look ridiculous when the hulk comes around. It would be more realistic (realizing, of course, how unrealistic this is), if they just some huge steroid freak play the part of the hulk. One of the things that made the TV show so cool to watch when I was a kid was the fact that you could imagine what it would be like to stand next to the Hulk (Ferigno).
Re:Another misuse of CGI
by
sigep_ohio
·
· Score: 1
Actually, CGI is not always cheaper nor faster. Sometimes though it is easier or safer for those making the film to use CGI instead of practical effects. Films are made with real people and their lives and safety need to be taken into account while making a film. If the stunt can be done practically, you would be hard pressed to find a person making films today who wouldn't try it practically first. CGI is slow, costly, and often times doesn't allow the actors to give the best performance. Therefore CGI is used only when it is impractical to do so otherwise. This is most often the case atleast.
-- Beer Die is the game of champions
Learning To walk my own path.
Re:Another misuse of CGI
by
Iamthefallen
·
· Score: 1
But of course, my objection isn't that CGI is used to model 100.000 orchs attacking a fortress in LoTR for instance, although possible, it isn't feasible to do it in reality. My objection is to the CGI you see where they use to take shortcuts, I remember one of the worst cases was the movie Eraser, towards the end there's a burning warehouse which is basically a semi-transparent 2d sprite on top of the film, I guess actually torching a building was too expensive. And that's what my objection is, cutting corners to create a cheaper movie and creating horribly poor effects while doing so. We're backpedaling to the age when spaceships were beercans on strings, except now we use an ugly CGI cylinder on a path instead.
-- Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
Re:Another misuse of CGI
by
sigep_ohio
·
· Score: 1
hey, as long as those beer cans were empty I am ok with that. All kidding aside, I do see your point. But, for every LoTR(though I did find the Wargs sequence in TTT looked like "bad CGI" to me) there will be an Eraser. Good filmmakers know what they are doing, and so we as film watchers need to place some faith in their abilities. It didn't seem to me that the CGI in Hulk took shortcuts(unless you count the fact that he doesn't look quite real enough), especially considering the return to the Hulk's comic book proportions(a good move IMO).
-- Beer Die is the game of champions
Learning To walk my own path.
Re:Another misuse of CGI
by
phelddagrif
·
· Score: 1
Still The hulk retains the same basic structure and figure of a human, and should behave accordingly. I have no problem with exaggeration, but there is a threshold, at which a creature either needs to show blatent stylization, or it become unbelievable.
Another reason that people complain about realism, is that the treatment of the hulk seems inconsistent with the rest of the surroundings. If your going to stylize one element (the hulk) then all things need the same treatment, or the single element is going to be funny or wrong looking based on it's inconsistency with everything else in the movie. The same goes for our judgment of his movements. If he looks like he should be human, then he should move like one.
Re:Another misuse of CGI
by
davew2040
·
· Score: 1
Um, yeah... Gonna have to disagree with you there... For some reason I can't picture any actual human being tossing a tank off into the distance, but it looks pretty decent with the CG. The same sentiment goes for a lot of other scenes in the movie. Using an actor would either make him look ridiculously small for the feats he's performing, or make the miniaturized sets around him look equally silly (in the event they took that route).
Re:Another misuse of CGI
by
nickjennings
·
· Score: 1
I think that regardless of when CGI is used, it should be quality work. The HULK looks so damn fake in these trailers it's almost embarrasing to the industry. Even Gollum didn't look this bad.
Of course there wasn't as much CG in T2 as you might think. There were a good number of practical effects, miniatures, robotics, make-up and squibs... and little things like using twin actors (and actresess) whenever the T-1000 had to confront the person it had just morphed into face-to-face. A lot of clever stuff, and the CG work, while impressive and certainly groundbreaking, took more of credit than it deserved.
-- This sig intentionally left justified.
Re:Another misuse of CGI
by
dachshund
·
· Score: 1
It is a step back to the corny special effects of previous decades where the audience is asked to not look to closely at the screen
I'm not sure there was ever any period where non-CGI special effects got so sophisticated that we're now taking a "step back" by using CGI. In the 80s, I recall lots of "superimpose one piece of film onto another" kind of effects. In the 90s, there was just lots of lousy CGI.
The current CGI techniques are a major improvement over both of the previous styles. I do miss some of the inventiveness that old-fashioned special effects necessitated, but I'm not sure it's the end of the world.
"It's easier, faster and cheaper to blow up something in a computer than to actually rig explosives..."
This statement reveals your ignorance about the effects industry. It's the other way around. Explosions are almost always made by rigging up explosives on a model or against bluescreen, then digitally compositing it into the final shot. Explosions and fire are two things that GCI does not yet do very well, and it is MUCH easier, faster and cheaper to blow it up for real, than to try and simulate it with a computer.
Admittedly, this may not be informative as this observation is purely subjective, but...
I felt the same way as you upon first review of the CGI Hulk character months ago. Though optimistic, I truly felt disappointed.
Then, I saw the first big trailer in the theater. Whoa! Truly, the scale of seeing the CGI images on the big screen translated much better than seeing them full screen on a monitor, even with "glorious" QuickTime.
So, not to invalidate your opinion, but I'd be interested to hear about how it looks to you on the big screen. The size of the viewed image really makes a difference to me.
You didn't like Gollum? I thought he was pretty much perfect. I could definitely envision a critter that moved and acted the way he did, and I didn't see any traditional CG-produced artifacts.
Re:Another misuse of CGI
by
Iamthefallen
·
· Score: 1
Explosions and fire are two things that GCI does not yet do very well
Uhm, that was my point wasn't it? CGI sucks for it and they still like to use it, basically pre-made scripts creating an explosion of a spaceship/plane/boat/building/sheep. Show [object], overlay [effect] over [object], tada! Instant CGI and much cheaper.
CGI sucks for animating humanoids aswell unless you take extreme care in the tiniest detail of the animation, which is what the original posters gripe was about. If you don't take extreme care in creating the effects it's just going to look wrong. Well made CGI can be stunning, the cheap bulk kind just looks bad, really bad.
-- Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
Wait...the parent was complaining that the movements were too smooth and fluid to be natural. Now I'm confused.
--
I read the internet for the articles.
Re:Another misuse of CGI
by
Alex+Thorpe
·
· Score: 1
It doesn't always suck. Babylon 5 often made use of "CGI Sets", where the actors are standing on a section of floor, and everything else is added later, and the audience rarely noticed, because it looked like a regular set. It wasn't all fancy space battles.
-- --
You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Re:Another misuse of CGI
by
fredrik70
·
· Score: 1
Hey, remember the queen mother in Aliens? the fight in the end of the movie is still an amazing piece of work IMHO.
-- if (!signature) {
throw std::runtime_error("No sig!");
}
Re:Another misuse of CGI
by
nickjennings
·
· Score: 1
You didn't like Gollum?
Don't get me wrong, I think Gollum was good work. However I am looking at things from the goal of not being able to tell, technically not logically, whether something is CG or not.
I mean, if you see a Gollum or a Hulk in a movie, you know it's not real, but this should only be due to obvious reasoning as opposed to shoddy CG.
All in all, I think Gollum is the best example we have so far (though I could be wrong, I haven't seen every CG movie to date), but it's still a far cry from seemless.
Talk about interesting shows to make movies of...
by
Yoda2
·
· Score: 2, Funny
...was quite good IMHO. OK, so it was a smaller-scale story than X-Men or Spider-Man, and the main character didn't have the firepower of a battalion of Marines. So what? It definitely got me interested in DD as I had no prior experience with that corner of the Marvel-verse. It even raised my opinion of Ben Affleck out of the cellar.
--
Things are more like they are now than they ever were before.
Re:Daredevil
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
spiderman was shit.... i havent seen a decent movie come out of the USA since The Matrix.
The worst thing about it was the script, not the overall story just the dialogue mainly. It was all too predictable, by dumbing the story down and trying to satisfy the fanboys they created a very generic formula comic book film.
Saying all that I kinda enjoyed it, though most of the good bits were ripped off from Tim Burtons first Batman film.
Re:Daredevil
by
gravelpup
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It's because you have no experience with DD that you thought it was good. Read some of the comic books and see for yourself.
That's probably true. But it raises an interesting question:
What makes a "good" comic book movie?
a) the one that can manage the most suspension of disbelief (i.e. makes the story the "realest")?
b) the one that sticks closest to canon?
c) the one that throws continuity out the window, but goes for the best "interpretation" of the "spirit" of the comic?
d) The one that makes the most money because the most people like it?
--
Things are more like they are now than they ever were before.
I agree. I really enjoyed Daredevil and would pay to see a sequel. I thought Daredevil was as good as the other two films, but it was a different formula.
see, thats a big reason why I liked it: they did take some big liberties, but it had the pacing and feel and dialogue of a classic stan lee comic book. All the narration in the film was written in the same way as the text that appears in the little yellow box in the corner of a comic panel.
Honestly, the level of writing and character and plot development that goes into some of the best known comics. Spiderman almost succeded, X-men did a pretty good job. Personally, I feel the ones that stick closest to canon are the best, seeing as how the comics have a huge fan base already. I will probably never understand why movie studios feel they can do a better job telling a story then the writers that actually built a huge foundation already. I understand that character development oftentimes need give way to time constraints, but just look at what happened to the Batman series of movies to see what happens when Hollywood gets their hands on a good story and decides that they can do better.
SealBeater
-- --
Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
Yes, but you cannot make a movie from a comic book. You can't take the panels one-by-one and put them together into moving pictures and expect it to win awards, or to even entertain.
Things that work on the comic page layout do not necessarily translate to the big screen.
Hell, I'd go so far to say they NEVER do that. Movies are different beasts. You obviously have no experience in adapting material, so I understand the naivete.
Graphic Novels cannot be read like novels.
Soundtrack (Score) CDs cannot beat the experience of listening to it along with the moving pictures associated with it.
Certainly there are some awesome Daredevil miniseries that absolutely kick ass, riveting, interesting stories, but even the most lauded series in the daredevil arsenal could never work on the big screen. They're too long, too complicated, filled with too many plot points and too much character to make a 2 hour movie that doesn't bore the hell out of everyone but the most dedicated fanboy.
Movie studios don't want character studies, they want action, broad strokes to appeal to a broad audience. Daredevil went pretty far into the character department for a comic book flick (prescription drug taking, for example, which I thought was impressive as hell, considering), and Mark Steven Johnson had to fight to include what was in there.
Why do the comic book movies never follow the comic books? Now you know...
It's because you have no experience with DD that you thought it was good.
Told a few of my friends this.
Daredevil had probably the best plot I have ever seen in a comic book. The characters were very complex and interesting.
Daredevil was accessible, definately wasn't squeeky-clean, was very conflicted about a lot of things including his feelings for a known criminal.
Electra, as I remember, wasn't a one dimensional character either, she had sticky fingers:) ( or something like that ), and was *crazy* about the do-gooder ( source of conflict ).
Sure I forgot a lot of stuff ( it's been decades:), but of what I remember, I'm still impressed.
-- Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
Personally, I feel the ones that stick closest to canon are the best
You haven't read comics lately, have you?
Canon has been violated and stretched so many times as to lose plausibiity. Personally, the best comics I've seen recently are the "Ultimate Marvel" series, where they re-introduce the entire frickin' universe.
It even raised my opinion of Ben Affleck out of the cellar.
Everything Affleck has done since Chasing Amy has sent him further into the cellar in my opinion. I make a conscious effort to avoid his new movies at all costs.
-- Is that a real poncho? I mean, is that a Mexican poncho or is that a Sears poncho?
Let me guess, his Chasing Amy performance didn't put him further down into the cellar just because it was directed by Kevin Smith...
Going OT here but what the hell. I am not a Kevin Smith booster, and in fact will be boycotting his next movie Jersey Girl. If you are interested, I believe that Affleck and Smith both peaked in that movie, and neither will ever top his performance.
-- Is that a real poncho? I mean, is that a Mexican poncho or is that a Sears poncho?
I have no experience with the DareDevil comic and the movie did absolutly nothing for me.
I loved Spiderman, and also had no experience with the comic. But I loved Spiderman because I felt I got to know all the characters. Even the Bad guy was developed and had complex relationships with those people around him.
You got none of that in DareDevil. Every charcter was just a guy. I know nothing about the reporter or why he is so obsessed with DareDevil. I know nothing about KingPin except he is a big rich bad guy.
The character development is what is keeping me really interested in the Hulk (another comic I never read). In the Crouching Tiger commentary Ang Lee said something about how he likes flawed characters, and I don't know if you can get much more flawed than an intelligent guy who lets his Anger get the best of him and turns into a green destructive monster. I think the Hulk will be a good movie.
Re:Once again, the anti-nuke kooks in the liberal
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
...
You have *never* read the Hulk have you.
In the original comic, Bruce Banner becomes the Hulk after being exposed to gamma rays from a nuke experiment. You're going to bash current media for actually being faithful to the original comic?
Umm, you are kidding right ?
by
Zanek
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
How the hell was Spiderman or Xmen a good movie ? Taco must be on crack. If special effects and comics make a good movie then its a sad world we live in. Spiderman was so predictable and poorly acted I almost walked out of the theatre. Since when did comic book themed movies just get a free ride to not have a story ! I say, if the target audience is kids (7-18) then yes, maybe Spiderman was great for them but for any adult it was pure garbage. Why is it so hard for a movie with an already built in base audience and etc to come up with something resembling a slightly intrigueing plot . And I'm not even talking about something close to 'Apocolyse Now' or 'Usual Suspects', but just something to whet your appetite
Re:Umm, you are kidding right ?
by
radja
·
· Score: 1
compared to daredevil, they're bloody good..
--
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Re:Umm, you are kidding right ?
by
AssFace
·
· Score: 1
While you very well might be right about Taco being on crack - the poster wrote his opinion of DD and Spiderman - that wasn't an editor's addition. Meaning it wasn't Taco's written opinion - just because he posted someone's story doesn't mean it is his dogma.
--
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
Re:Umm, you are kidding right ?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Spiderman was so predictable and poorly acted I almost walked out of the theatre. Since when did comic book themed movies just get a free ride to not have a story !
That scene where Tobey Maguire figures out how to shoot off webs ("Whohoo! cool!") made it worth the while for me.
Re:Umm, you are kidding right ?
by
Kombat
·
· Score: 1
I actually liked DareDevil much more than Spiderman. The CGI in Spiderman was *terrible*. Sure, it was pretty faithful to the comic, but that's only because they were setting it up to milk the franchise for as many sequels as people will pay to see. DareDevil, on the other hand, didn't have the luxury of such a guaranteed sequel, so it had to have a story that stood on its own. Did they take liberties from the comics? I'm sure they did, but I wouldn't know - I only read a couple comics when I was much younger. But as far as the two movies go, on their own merits, I found the story, acting, and effects much better in DareDevil than Spiderman.
Just from watching the trailer, I think they blew it. The big green guy looks totally disproportonate, like an oversized mal-colored smurf. It's too bad too. The technology is there, but a bad artist wrecked it. Maybe they should have looked up Lou instead.
I'll still probably see it in the first week (comic book movies are my escape from reality), but instead of thinking "This will be cool" I'll be thinking "I hope it doesn't suck".
Just from watching the trailer, I think they blew it. The big green guy looks totally disproportonate, like an oversized mal-colored smurf.
I disagree, I like the _huge_ hulk of the old marvel paper cutout cartoons and of the various historical comics themselves. This guy usd to _jump_ between pacific islands. Lou was never big enough for my liking. And it was the width thing that was the kicker, he was talk enough and "big enough" but just too narrow. hulk needs to be the side of a house big. Although having said that, it would make the trousers staying on around the waist even les belivable:-). Then again different strokes for different strokes
-- "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
It is? Name one single move in which a CGI character moves so naturally that it doesn't look incredibly fake. How about the fight scenes in "Blade 2?" Maybe the roof-jumping scene in "Spiderman?" No, wait, what about when Robert Patrick walks out of the burning truck wreckage in "Terminator 2?"
Humans are innately good at detecting unnatural motion. We don't even have to think about it - it's built into our evolution. We see something moving, and we can tell whether it's natural or not. All of the things I listed above looked fake in the movies. Why? I don't know - it's hard to say. It's the little things. Like when Spidey was jumping from rooftop to rooftop, it just didn't look like someone was actually doing it. He was falling too fast on the downward parts, or something.
Don't get me wrong, CGI is getting better, but simulating natural human motion (especially when they're doing things that humans wouldn't ordinarily be strong/fast enough to do) is incredibly difficult, and contrary to your comment, no, the technology is not there yet. Or at least, if it is, I can't think of a single example of it yet.
If they use CGI actors in the Matrix, then I'm just praying they've managed to find a way to make it look natural and real. Otherwise, it'll ruin the movie for me. The original Matrix blew me away because they used just the right mix of wires and slow-motion to make the scenes look very realistic. I just hope the sequels can maintain these expectations, or even raise the bar.
I remember when this movie was still in the early stages, there was a lot of crazy talk about Bruce being bitten by radioactive dogs and shit like that. Nice to see that someone seems to have thrown a comic in front of the producers face at some point.
--
It hurts when I pee.
Re:Thank god
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If you look closer towards the end of the trailer, there is something that looks like a mutated pitbull with The Hulk so I don't know if the radioactive dogs story was all crazy talk.
I'm serious... look sometime after the hulk throws that big ball through the wall and it bounces down onto a car, a couple of seconds after that. It'd give the movie an interesting twist to have someone/something else then Bruce getting exposed to the radioaction...
There was this one episode where "David Banner" (the human side of the Hulk) was a roadie for this rock band, and one of the band members put acid in his soda.
Then he got all crazy, and turned into the Hulk, but he was the Hulk on acid and everything was chartreuse and tennis ball yellow. Are they gonna do that in the movie? 'Cause if not I will be deeply disappointed.
-- (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Re:More from the TV show?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You mean Bruce Banner, right?
Re:More from the TV show?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
In the comics he's Bruce, in the TV show he's David. Not sure why.
Re:More from the TV show?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
HAHAHA
I saw that episode too. It RAWKED.
Re:More from the TV show?
by
SealBeater
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
In the comics he's Bruce, in the TV show he's David. Not sure why.
Stan Lee liked names with both initials the same, Richard Reed, Bruce Banner, Peter Parker, etc. It helped him remember what the names were. The producers of the TV show changed it to David, because at the time, they felt "Bruce" would stir up homosexual connotations. In other words, they thought "Bruce" was gay and "David" was more manly. Side note, considering that "David" is the name of the naked statue that Michaelangelo sculpted, I'm not quite sure what they were thinking.
SealBeater
-- --
Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
You know, I probably would have seen this trailer and made a comment on it, in hopes of being Modded +3 Funny, but my hosts file says all the Akamai servers are local. Stupid Akamai.
The real star in this movie is Jennifer Connelly. She's beautiful, talented, a great actor, beautiful, she's been in a lot of great movies (Dark City, Requiem for A Dream, A Beautiful Mind, Waking the Dead and - Labyrinth (!) to name a few) and last but not least... did I say she's beautiful?
*sigh*
Re:Jennifer
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Was beautiful...
So pail and thin now...
Check out "Career Opportunities" or "The Rockteer" (which I really love). She had a great body.
What happened? Anorexia? Personal trainer gone awry? Drugs? Booze?
Seems like Clarisa Fockhart / Sarah Michelle Gellar / Courtney Cox syndrome is at it again...
My sentiments exactly. At first I couldn't place her face and thought she was Claire Forlani(who I liked in Meet Joe Black) but Jennifer is more beautiful IMHO.
But damn, she looked good in her scenes, both from an acting and eye-candy point of view.
-- The only reason all cover-ups appear to fail is that you never hear about the ones that succeed.
I was wondering why this hadn't been mentioned already.
spiderman
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Spiderman blew, and so will this. Terrible dialog made spiderman suck, and the hulk looks so out-of-touch with the rest of the film. It is over-obvious he was never physically there, even for a child.
Re:Thank god...and origins
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Actually it seems like they're ignoring the gamma bomb/test blast/Rick Jones thing as there doesn't seem to be any allusion to it in the trailer.
No sign of General Ross either...
It's a shame as the origins of super heroes go so much towards their character. That's why I was pleased they kept it real with spidey (despite the web-shooter thing).
I like the look of him. The tv one was stoopid. Reminds of the McFarlane Hulk (but luckily not quite so exaggerated).
Looks a bit too computer generated to me. It kinda has that whole 'Scooby Doo' feel to it from these previews.
-- --
Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Hope they include classic Hulk theme
by
buddhaunderthetree
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Doc Bruce Banner, Belted by gamma rays, Turned into the Hulk. Ain't he unglamo-rays! Wreckin' the town With the power of a bull, Ain't no monster clown Who is that lovable? It's ever lovin' Hulk! HULK!! HULK!!"
Maybe Smashmouth could do it.
-- "Technology.....the knack of so arranging the world that we don't have to experience it."
Max Firsch
Re:Hope they include classic Hulk theme
by
tealover
·
· Score: 1
Actually I thought the hulk was usually better about physics in that he usually wasn't lifting absurd things that would simply crumble.
The leaping would really be a function of how fast the muscles could contract and expand. Since he's obviously muscled to a point beyond extreme he probably could do these things. (Personally I liked in the comics when he was switching between brainless Hulk and Bruce Banner Hulk and came out of one of his rages while half-way through a leap. He paniced, created a huge crater, and came out smiling since he didn't die.)
My favorite part of the trailer has to be him hammer-throwing the tank. The barrell of a tank just MIGHT be strong enough to do that too.
-- ---
I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Re:Physics?!?
by
AssFace
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
While it is largely a moot point to argue the physics of a made up character in a made up similar world - assuming that he is a really big human and doesn't have special muscles... which again, is a silly presumption in a made up world... he is moving to fast in his leaps.
But yes, for the lifting and smashing parts, I like the physics - yay! But the jumping silliness, the plastic looking skin shaders in most scenes, and the movement physics are what annoy me.
Again - I really think I need to just work on suspending disbelief - or they need to have a character that makes it easier to suspend it for.
--
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
Re:Physics?!?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Arguing the physics of the Hulk? Man, that's geeky. I'll bite:
Say the Hulk weighs, conservatively, 400 lbs. From the trailers he appears to jump, again conservatively, 50 ft straight into the air (I'm being really conservative since it looks like he weighs about 800lbs and jumps 100 ft). If he has feet about 24" long by 8" wide and assuming that he jumps with the entire surface of the foot in contact with the ground, he will need to generate a couple hundred thousand ft. lbs of force. That's enough to punch foot shaped holes into the asphalt and concrete.
Re:Physics?!?
by
John+Carmack
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
To leap 50' in the air, you must be going 56.6 ft/s when leaving the ground, disregarding air resistance. Apogee will be in 1.77 seconds.
Assuming a linear acceleration, and a four foot period of acceleration from crouching to leaving the ground with legs extended, the average speed must be 28.3 ft/s over the four feet, for 0.14 seconds of acceleration, or 404 ft/s^2. 12.6 G's of acceleration isn't at all unreasonable for arm / leg contraction at light loads. You can make a >50G acceleration with a pitching motion of your arm.
12.6 G's of acceleration for an 800 pound hulk is only 10080 pounds, divided by two 24" long by 8" wide feet give a mere 26.25 psi force on the pavement.
If I botched these calculations, everyone is surely going to take the opportunity to say how the Armadillo vehicles will crash and burn...:-)
John Carmack
Re:Physics?!?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So what would happen if Hulk tried to rocket jump?
Seriously though, would the tank's (haven't seen it in awhile, assuming an M1) barrel be strong enough to not fold as he starts to swing it? The math is way beyond me, but it intuitively seems like the tank's ~30 tons could make the thing crumble like a plastic straw....
Re:Physics?!?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The barrel of the cannon on a M1A1 is one of the most rigid and strong structures ever made. I don't think it would fold if it failed, at least not much more than a smallish bend.
Re:Don't make me horny...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You wouldn't like me when I'm horny...
Re: New Superman move
by
captain+igor
·
· Score: 1
Does anyone know anything about the new superman movie? I've been hearing rumors for years now, but nothing firm, any info anyone?
Anyone know what piece of music (classical?)is being played in the preview? I've heard it in a lot of ads and previews, but I've never know what it's called.
It sounds like a modified Carmina Burana, by Carl Orff. Used in Excalibur among many many other things.
Dear god.. they've killed the story
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hmm.. from what I could tell.. everyone knows who the Hulk really is.. now doesn't that fly in the face of the story? It's become a "How can we fix Bruce Banner" and "How can Bruce Banner deny who he's become" story.. gah....
Noo key ler
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The future of mankind is clearly any thing at all Turkey offal into oil and water. Presto!
Not only that, but it actually works. This ain't no lab experiment.
I thought Daredevil was a fine movie. It was more of a film noire that comic book movie; with a more complicated character. But some prefer car chases, special effects and gratuitous sex to character development and plot. To each his own.
Looks....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Craptacular. The effects don't seem very good, and while it echoes the TV series a lot, it seems, I'm not paying money to watch a glorified TV series episode.
If I want that, I'll see the craptastic ST: Nemesis again.
Reality Cartooning???
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Great Scott! Cartoons not realistic!?!?
Can you say 'duh'? They're fantasy, the laws of physics have no place here.
Here's some info on a related game that is being released. The most interesting thing is that the same CGI being used for the movie (and the trailer you just saw) is supposedly being used in the game so it's supposed to be the closest correlation between movie graphics and game graphics ever.
Name the next Cartoon Character to hit big screen
by
asciimonster
·
· Score: 1
Now that most of the Marvel Comic characters have been done, what will be next? Since cartoon characters have shown to be very lucrative movie material, allsorts of non-Marvel characters will be eligible.
Will we see some anime on the big screen? Will we see all the pokemon clones (digimon, beyblade, medabots) to be made into movies?
I notice that everything that doesn't look real, from Hulk, to the non-CGI wirework in Daredevil, to Al Strobel's missing arm in Twin Peaks, get dismissed as "bad CGI" no matter how convincing, or in some cases, REAL! While the special effects that simulate realistic situations go by unnoticed and uncriticised: there's not so much of that as there is usually no point, but for example the scene where "Bobby" turns into Mystique in "X-men" (the actress wasn't available so she was completely CGI), or historically the way that SFX professionals assumed "1941" would get the Oscar for best special effects but the academy didn't notice there were special effects in it.
Read the book!
by
Kredal
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The
book version is being written by Peter David, who has written TONS of stuff about the Hulk, including comics, other books, and even the Hulk's wedding. I'm looking forward to it... and I can imagine the Hulk as a big hulking green giant, and not the cute cuddly cartoon version of the movie... and it'll probably be closer to the comic, too.
(disclaimer: that is a sponsered link)
-- Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
I'm boycotting this trailer. I don't have QuickTime installed, and so I am boycotting any movie clip that requires me to install it. Why can't movie studios provide trailers in DivX format? That's what everyone I know uses.
I'm boycotting this movie. The heartless movie studios have denied me my right to download and copy any movie I want. That makes me sad.
"...how many will be as good as Spiderman or X-Men..."
For real? X-Men? Spider Man? I heartily disagree. Those movies sucked...bad. Hardly the charcters, stories or imagery I kne(o)w and love(d).
As I have said about a lot of Sci-Fi, I cannot think of one good comic to movie translation, not one. And anyone in the know didn't even think for a second that Daredevil would be any good, I mean, one word..."Affleck". What a shame too, Miller's DD stories are some of the best 'comics' ever saw.
All the above mentioned have had great stories, >I am talking hey-day here
Maybe I am just getting old, but I would rather not see any of this crap, than see these sorry ass flicks ruin what I, and others, know.
Heh, y'know, I had this discussion on another forum a while back, and I got the same reply.
Maybe I expect too much, but, what I read, the story/mood/etc that is created in my head never even comes close to what I see on film.
The movies are all so...glitzy, flashy...dumb. I never interpreted the stories that way.
If I was 15-25 seeing the movies for the first time I might think otherwise, but I dunno. Too many years of movie-making in my head, I know what I want to see, I just don't.
Ahh, those were the days
by
SpiffyMarc
·
· Score: 1
Remember when we were but wee lads, and could watch cartoons, without secretly analyzing the reality of the physics behind them? Oh, the price we pay for jobs where we can post comments on Slashdot from the comfort of our office chairs.
While I'm at it, how can Wonder Woman fly an invisible jet? How does she even remember where she put it?
Size Changes, etc.
by
agentkhaki
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
First of all, I must admit that the CGI does look a little on the phoney side. That being said...
The size of the Hulk doesn't really matter. Just like in the comic books, where the size of the character, the proportions of his muscles, the angluarity of his overall form varies from one artist/comic to the next. If the Hulk varies in size through-out the movie, good for him. If he seems a little large, well, deal with it. It's a movie based on a comic book - double-suspension of disbelief.
Second, what's with black in CGI never looking 'right?' At least, that's what my brain is telling me whenever I see CGi that looks like... well... CGI - ie that the black of shadows and whatnot doesn't seem as dark as it actually is in nature.
Third, I was liking everything about the trailer until I saw that hell-hound looking thing standing on the tree-branch, and then a few frames later, the Hulk swatting it into oblivion. Is that supposed to be a real dog? Or some sort of hell-spawn dog that's going to destroy everything about the movie?
Four, I have to agree about the speed of his movement. The Hulk relies on brute strength to get things done - not brains, and certainly not speed. The bits where he leaps from place to place - yes. The shot of him windmilling his legs like the Flash gone gamma - no. Sorry, but no. Wrong.
Uhm. That's actually about all. I wish someone would do a *good* movie about Deadpool - more trash-talking, wise-crakin' than the comic book (not the movie) Spiderman, without the reliance on a mutant spider to get things moving.
That dog is Gammy the lovable gamma-irradiated mutt. There's supposed to be a great scene where the dog chases a group of 19th century cowboy re-creationists driving a chuck wagon.
"Hulk Hounds" or something similar. I think the army (or badguys?) figured out what/how Banner got his Hulkiness and applied it to some pitbulls. Someone said that these actually existed at one point or another in the comics.
-- Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
For some reason, the word 'Hulkiness' really grabs me. Just sounds like a... good word. Eh, yes, I'm tired.
-- Ack!
Re:Size Changes, etc.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The Hulk relies on brute strength to get things done - not brains
Depends on which version you're talking about. For a time, the Hulk was gray, and had both brute strength AND brains. Banner got to be a wimpy guy who acted dumb and made a lot of Hulk-style threats (not the best combination!).
The gray Hulk wasn't particularly ethical -- he took on a job in Vegas as a Mob enforcer.
Let's have some 2000AD movies!
by
FyRE666
·
· Score: 1
Although I wouldn't want to see another Judge Dredd film, obviously, I'd like to see "Bad Company" or "Ace Truckin' Co" on the big screen. Even Robo-Hunter. I thought those stories were particularly original, and the last two pretty damned funny!
Re:Spider-man good? Daredevil bad?
by
stretch0611
·
· Score: 1
I did not see Daredevil, so I can't comment on that. But I agree with Spiderman. Spiderman was more sugar-coated than most Disney flicks. Spiderman reminded me of the Dungeons and Dragons movie they made a few years ago; cool special effects, but a plot and storyline for 3 year olds. It should have been darker.
-- Looking for a job? Want your resume written professionally? DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
Eh, I would never have guessed/. would be interested in "The Mask: the return of the green face"...
bleh!!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I think they should make a movie about that Jay & Silent Bob comic book. They could say a bunch of dick and fart jokes, and make fun of gays too. I think it would be the BONG!!! Maybe even have Mark Hammil and what's her name in it.
Snoogins...
Yeah, there was a Batman TV show
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Superman is well. What the hell was hollywood thinking? Why did Hollywood have to be dumb and make those great movies?
Re:Yeah, there was a Batman TV show
by
Malc
·
· Score: 1
It was Spiderman that really disappointed me recently. I should have known better - not only was it an obvious cash-grab, but I dislike Toby Macguire as I don't think he can act. I thought that film was dreadful - poor story and shoddy acting. Thank goodness I partially stuck to my guns and saw it as a rental rather than in the cinema.
Re: New Superman move
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm not going to tell you until you figure out how to post a reply to the correct thread.
Well, I guess this all started (in the last 20 years) from Batman right? Well outside superman (and Swamp Thing) it seems like movie companies have ignored the DC folks? Where's the Green Lantern Movie? Where is The Flash Movie? Where is A Preacher Movie? Oh well probably better off without after seeing how bad they fucked up Daredevil... Oh now a Watchmen movie, that would be... eeeh maybe not. I'll keep my cherished childhood memories locked inside my head with all the funny voices telling me to hurt people, where they belong.
Hulk FUN!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
One thing about the old TV show: I never understood why Bruce Banner was so bummed out about being the Hulk. You always saw him moping at the end of every episode while he was hitch-hiking, walking, etc. to yet another town. Oh, poor me. Thrashed another city/bunch of cars/building/beat up on some more people who needed beating on, etc. Oh, the humanity.
Now me, I'd have some fun with it. Hang out in bars and pick fights with people:
Hey, a**hole! What are you lookin' at? Don't
make me get all pissed at you!
All right. Maybe I'd make a bad Hulk.
it's not a made-up world
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
See, the kicker of the superhero genre is that they're SUPERhumans in OUR normal world.
Re:it's not a made-up world
by
AssFace
·
· Score: 1
That still doesn't explain those outfits that they wear.
I want to see a superhero that is schizophrenic and fights the mole-people that talk to him from the sewers. Ideally he does this naked and frantically, but only on his lunch break.
Now that is a superhero.
Speaking of superheros, one of the funniest (via sheer power of being so damn offensive) things I've ever read was in the Harvard Lampoon. It was something to the extent of: We Are All Superheros Yes, that's right. There is no superhero that is any better than a soccer mom. Or the crossing guard. Even the truck drivers are superheros in their own way. The grocery clerk, the church minister, our teachers - we are all superheros in what we do, because we are all amazing.
Except for the blind. Those fuckers make me sick.
(it might have been the deaf - either way, bravo)
--
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
Re:Don't make me horny...
by
sigep_ohio
·
· Score: 1
huh, Austin...I think you have the wrong movie series.
-- Beer Die is the game of champions
Learning To walk my own path.
If you managed to stay until the end of the credits for Spiderman you would have heard the corny Spiderman song from the 70's (60's?) cartoon, which sounded so awful that it was a real shock to my system. When I was a kid that song was cool, mostly due to its association with Spiderman I guess. The theater I saw it in stopped the projector halfway through the song of course.
I for one prefer the CGI Hulk to the Lou Ferrigno Hulk if only for the fact that they can now make the Hulk the right size. The Hulk is supposed to be HUGE, and by huge I mean much larger than a muscle-bound body builder.
I would imagine that one of the reasons why Bill Bixby played Dr. David Banner in the Hulk TV series was that he was a pretty little guy - the transformation of him into the Hulk would be a bit more believeable because of the size difference between Bixby and Ferrigno.
And yes, for you sticklers out there, I did mean to say David Banner. The TV series, for some inexplicable reason, didn't want to use the comic character's name of Bruce Banner.
I do find it interesting, however, that viewing the trailer, the origion of the Hulk borrows more from the TV series than the comic book. In the original story, Bruce Banner was caught in a nuclear explosion. They could have used this - maybe moved the test side to underground, but didn't. Oh well.
Maybe they'll eventually remake the "Trial of the Incredible Hulk" TV movie where attorney Matt Murdock represents David Banner in his criminal trial.
-- 144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
Re:Name the next Cartoon Character to hit big scre
by
Drachemorder
·
· Score: 1
In the trailer, Banner claims that he likes becoming the Hulk. That's a gross violation of his character. Why try to find a cure for his Hulk-ness when he likes the destruction he causes? Hollywood has never gotten a comic book movie right since Superman, which is sad since that was over 25 years ago:(
I'm willing to lay odds that there will be some inappropriate mention of the size of the Hulk's member as well.....
-- A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board:
"You know what? You're right."
DareDevil was a hell of a lot better than spiderman. At least Ben Affleck LOOKED like a super hero. Toby McGuire looks like he is 12. Peter Parker LOOKED like a college student. (If you are complaining about Kingpin being black, consider this: how many white actors were large enough to play the part, let alone have acting ability?)
How is it that when the Hulk changes back to his "normal" self, all his clothes have been ripped to shreds by his transformation... except his pants.
I'm guessing... Fruit of the Loom plus Spandex???
And he's gotta have a hell of a budget for clothing, unless he just swipes alot of them off clotheslines. After all, you'd think people would catch on, and start using driers.
--
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
my vote...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
...is for The Sandman. Its probably a bit though thoughtful for the American public, however.
Spiderman or X-Men, and how many will be as bad as Daredevil?
You're forgetting the originals. Batman. Superman. Now those were good movies.
The one I'm really waiting for - TINTIN !!!
by
agslashdot
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Tintin, now that's a REAL comic. The cartoon version's available for all 22 episodes.
Spielberg's now putting together the first American version of Tintin. Most likely, Caprio'll play the lead. I can't think of anybody else with a closer resemblance to Tintin.
( For the ignorant masses who know not who Tintin is, the definitive site : http://www.tintin.be )
Re Iron Man
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
You will. And Silver Surfer, FF, etc. Check out Superhero Hype.com sometime. Now is the Golden Age of Comics Film and (to paraphrase Ovid): Let others praise ancient times, I am glad to be born in these.
Troll? Troll? Troll? Being modded down.....makes me...an...gry......
~rip!~ ~tear!~ -grunt!-
ARRGH! HULK PISSED!! HULK SMASH MODERATORS! HULK KILL SMASH DOT!
Re:Spider-man good? Daredevil bad?
by
Nitar
·
· Score: 1
Me too, I rather enjoyed Daredevil! I'm not sure why people give it the bad reviews.
Are you high?
by
Scrameustache
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
In the trailer, Banner claims that he likes becoming the Hulk
Nope, he doesn't like becoming the hulk, he's fighting it. He likes it once he's gone past the point of no return, when the hulk totally supresses his own thoughts and replaces them with pure animal rage. And he doesn't like the fact that he likes it.
Why try to find a cure for his Hulk-ness when he likes the destruction he causes?
Because, if you pay attention you'll see that he doesn't like the destruction. Dunno what you were watching, but it wasn't that trailer.
Hollywood has never gotten a comic book movie right since Superman
lol! Yeah, right, because flying around the earth to go back in time was "getting it right"! Wheee, same thing for the comic-relief Luthor huh?
Batman was getting it right (the first one). Spiderman was giving the horny teens what they wanted, wich commercially is getting it right but not in spirit. XMen got it right. Daredevil...hell, I like that better than Spiderman (at least the wet t-shirt moment wasn't so damned forced and pointless).
Yeah, right, because flying around the earth to go back in time was "getting it right"!
You can actually almost rationalize this. If you can go faster than light, you can access timelike trajectories and go backward in time.
Light goes 186,000 miles per second, so light can go all the way around the Earth (at the surface) just over seven times in one second. In the scene, Supes is at least 500 miles up, and doing more than seven laps per second, so he must be exceeding the speed of light. The blue glow of Cerenkov radiation around him confirms this.
So, it's actually not to unreasonable to suppose that he's exceeding the speed of light; the Earth isn't *really* spinning backward, he's just going back in time.
Then, of course, they spoil it by having him need so "spin up" the Earth again...
I seem to recall the wet t-shirt moment in Spiderman had two points. For the life of me, I can't remember what they were though...
The left nipple, and the right nipple...
Re:Are you high?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Am I the only one who thinks that the Blade movies constitute the best superhero-based series so far? They have no pretentions of being blockbusters, and yet I find them to be more thrilling than the rest. I suspect it's because they are comfortable with their R-rating, and that gives the directors considerably more freedom with the material...
Or is "CGI" the new term for computer graphics in movies? I always thought it was "CG". To me, "CGI" is Common Gateway Interface... you know, web scripties.
It's just you. CGI, or Computer Generated Images, has been used as a movie term for many years. It's a good thing to leave your parents' basement more than once a decade.
-- It's better to burn out than to fade away
daredevil was pretty good
by
DuckWing
·
· Score: 1
I didn't think DareDevil was as bad as the poster suggests. I thought the movie was pretty excellent and stayed pretty close to the comic. Of course, YMMV.
To those of us who grew up on the comic-book and TV cartoon Hulk, Lou Ferrigno just wasn't the same character. The comic book wasn't a giant in height, but he was supernaturally huge, with inhuman proportions. He also talked, and some of the book's most poignant moments were the Hulk's dialogue as he calmed down. He was a creature of rage, but the dialogue revealed that his rage was often fueled by things he couldn't understand that were beyond his control. It was very much of its time -- a creature created by the atom and persecuted by the military. All he ever wanted was to be left alone.
The Ferrigno/Bixby vehicle was fairly well-done, but it wasn't really about the same character. Hulk didn't talk, and the whole scientific/nuclear paranoia and rage angle was glossed over.
I haven't paid much attention, but I hope the new movie has more to do with the comic book. The Hulk shouldn't look like a bodybuilder.
DareDevil may have made a good movie (haven't seen it yet), but SpiderMan made a good movie while being true to the character.
So, for the purists, the changes to Electra would be enough to upset them and dismiss the entire movie. If you're not a purist then you can get around all of the changes and look at it as pure entertainment and evaluate it that way.
-- ---
I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Re:Perspective
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If Spiderman was true to the comic, then the comic is bad. It was only saved by the bits of humor, but the action scenes were not exciting at all, and the acting lacked considerably. I did not find myself involved in the characters, and I felt insulted by their attempts to make everyone feel better by inserting pro-America shots/lines/songs.
The creators have talked about this before (sorry I can't give a link). Remember the big American version of Godzilla? (I know, you've probably repressed it, but just try.) They teased the Godzilla design all the way up to the release, never showing the full image. The creators of the Hulk (and Spider-Man, too) agreed that this was a bad idea. You're dealing with a primary character that is completely CG, so a lot rests on how he looks. It was important to get the images of Hulk and Spidey out for people to see, and put a lot of fears to rest. Notice that they haven't exactly been hiding Nightcrawler in the X2 previews either.
I guess ESP does exist!
by
Transfan76
·
· Score: 1
I'm so surprised by all the people who can make a well informed opinion on the movie by a 3 minute clip. I tend to find the CG stuff looks better when it's bigger then a postcard. Let's hold off judegment until you actually see the movie on the big screen.
Re:DD's just a B movie, that's all
by
ianscot
·
· Score: 1
Daredevil was kind of a mess, but basically it was just a B movie. They released it when they did 'cause it wouldn't have competed against the summer crowd of cookie cutter action movies.
Personally I thought it was far too luridly violent. The paper-clips-in-the-throat thing, the knife that goes through and stretches the character's shirt behind her torso, the (meant to be funny) killing of the old lady on the plane -- those were gratuitous, to use the word right, and didn't fit with the comics I remembered. The character could have had his grit and toughness without that kind of stupid choice.
At least they tried some stuff with the extreme flashback for their narrative line and the "seeing sounds" effect. The result was pretty uneven, but those two elements were in keeping with the spirit of the comics, I thought.
It's a C- of a movie. (Not nearly as awful as dreck like "Pearl Harbor" on the Ben Affleck mediocrity spectrum.)
-- "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Re:Talk about interesting shows to make movies of.
by
mtrupe
·
· Score: 1
Will the Greatest Ameircan Hero be some skinny blonde-haired CGI animation with jerky movements?
David Keown
by
First_In_Hell
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
As a long time reader of the Hulk comics, this trailer makes me feel a lot better. As a kid I could never get into the TV show because visually it was nothing like the comic book. The Hulk was all about size and power, and back then it just was not possible.
Someone mentioned the leaping was unrealistic. In the comic the Hulk could leap like a mofo.
Does anyone know the classic David Keown rendering of the Hulk in the early 90's? He was FREAKING HUGE. That is how a comic book hero should be. This is how the Hulk was originally imagined to be . . . SUPPOSED to be.
You guys can keep your TV show. I'm on board for this. If you ever read the comics this IS the Hulk, visually the TV show was just a cheap imitation.
That's exactly what I was thinking too. I used to read the Hulk when Buscema was doing the art in the early eighties, and picked it up again when Keown was drawing them. But to be quite honest, it was Peter David's writing that made me look forward to each issue.
-- Wearing pants should always be optional.
whicked!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
LOL and I've got eric banas autograph! I didn't even ask for it.. back when he was a comedian in good ole melbourne town...
wonder if its ebay material yet?
Oh, won't someone please think of the story
by
gosand
·
· Score: 1
I have to say, this one will probably suck just like most other Comic adaptations. I think the thing that they need to work on is the story. Batman didn't. Spiderman tried, but they just had to "Hollywood" it up. X-men did OK. Spawn made an attempt. I didn't see Daredevil, but DAMN, Jennifer Garner will make me rent it for sure.
In bringing them to the screen they try to recreate the comics. They can't. The comics were kind of corny, but they had many many issues to develop the... story. They could revisit the story later, tweak it a little, and tease you with it. When they have to pack it all into a 2 hour movie, it doesn't work. Especially when the characters can be a little corny to start with, or teetering on the edge.
In all honesty, the Hulk's story got old pretty quickly to me. There are many other interesting stories they could do, and I am sure they will try. In this day and age, I wouldn't be surprised if they did Captain America. He was pretty lame at times, but I really liked the issues where he fought the Vampire (can't remember his name).
In essence, Hollywood just doesn't get it. They want to create a franchise, and sell merchandise. I used to have a Tshirt with the "Bat Signal" on it, several years before the first movie came out. Once I saw the movie, I never wore it again, they had ruined the "coolness" of it by completely saturating the market with Batman crap. Now I just remember the cool things for what they really are, and try not to pay attention to the popular opinion. The popular opinion is fed to people, and very rarely is it worth the small effort it takes to acknowledge it.
--
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
The comic movie flaw
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
The problem with live action movie's based on graphic novels (what you're all calling "comics") is that it's difficult to establish a sense of reality for the viewer. In a graphic novel the characters interacting in their universe is more easily accepted by the reader because every aspect of the novel complements each other within its own reality.
In a live action movie, though, the characters tend to look like idiots in lame halloween costumes because they can't blend into the real universe of our reality that they're supposed to be part of.
Seriously, if you were walking down the street and a guy in a Spidey suit came out of nowhere to save you fron some impending doom unknown to you, chances are good that you would either run from him thinking he was a freak or you would kick his arse until the cops showed up.
Umm, isn't there a distinction between graphic novels and "comics"? You seemed to be dismissive of people here referring to many of these things as comics, but the Incredible Hulk, Daredevil, Spider-Man, etc. are all published as comics. Sure there are some graphic novels, but those are not what are generally being adapted as movies.
I know this is just semantics, but you seem to be saying that "graphic novels" is the only proper term (and seemingly looking down on people who refer to them as comics), but comics is the proper term, and certainly not a term that anyone should be ashamed of using. I remember Neil Gaiman had a good essay a little while ago about why he makes it very clear to anyone he meets that he writes comics, and doesn't take the tact of trying to hide that or use a different term.
-Tom
Re:Talk about interesting shows to make movies of.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Great, now I got the freakin theme song stuck in my head.
Bastard.....
Re:name change
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
rumour is that the tv execs thought bruce was a gayish name.
The whole Gollum thing is a good model that would address both sides of this: You take a live actor, Lou F. in his day, but you map his motions to the CGI creation. Or if you want, you can do it the Hobbit way and re-size the guy.
But what do we get? We get Jar Jar Binks as action hero. Watchable in a trailer, and that's about it for me.
We're long since past the "Wow isn't that cool what they can do?" phase. The "big wow" scenes are just as painful. By halfway through Phantom Menace we'd gotten the joke: watching a huge panorama of CGI "action" on screen, half the time you can't even find the characters to root for them. When it's in the service of okay writing, it has limited value -- first glance at Rivendell -- but even in LOTR: Fellowship, I rolled my eyes at the enormous statues. In the background they might have worked, but to focus attention on them only makes it more obvious that I feel no sense of awe at all over this stuff.
-- "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Re:lets hope... (look's wrong to me..)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I read Hulk since it started and I am dissapointed unless I'm mistaken?! I don't remember any father and Bruce is supposed to be a brilliant physicist that tries to rescue a young and reckless boy that has drived onto a military testsite just when they are to explode a new type of nuclear? bomb, I think it was called a "gammabomb". He (Bruce) runs out in the last seconds and manages to throw the kid behind a wall but is then himself exposed to "gamma" radiation (the gamma-radiation was colored green in the drawings, that's why Hulk is green). This happening is a critical point in the whole Hulk saga that parallels Bruce's selflessness with Hulks loneliness and doomed attempts to try to do the right things in a world that is not accepting him or try to exploit him.
In my view Hulk is both more facinating and potentionally complex as a character than Spiderman.
Also, I expect this movie to draw large female crowds exactly because of this ambivalence and struggle for acceptance. Everybody knows girls are attracted to troubled strong and difficult boys with a heart of gold deep, deep inside...
Why Hollywood (unless I'm mistaken) jumps away from the whole bombtest-scene, I can only guess has to do with being politically correct (or is it patriotic?). Someone could start remembering who was the first ever to use a WMD..
TG.
culturally challenged?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
says someone who can't spell bomboklaat.
Re:culturally challenged?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Please provide a link to back up your assertion that "bomboklaat" is correct, whereas "bumbaclaat", "bumbo clot", etc, are incorrect. I get the most Google hits from "bumbaclaat".
Spiderman was a BAD worthless movie.
by
zymano
·
· Score: 1
just like Daredevil . The Batman movies are the litmus test . None have come close. Spiderman was more of a chick/date film. Not very good.
I love my HULK HANDS!!!
by
CowardNeal
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I love em so much! Get them before they run out.
i agree about spiderman. Another Hollyjoke.
by
zymano
·
· Score: 1
The movie was real boring at times . They took a great character and destroyed him , hollywood that is. The love story they put in it was garbage and ruined the film. Acting was worthless also.
"how many will be as good as Spiderman or X-Men, and how many will be as bad as Daredevil?"
My own 2-cents:
Spiderman was alright. TobyM's acting was pretty weak. He was supposed to act like a kinda shy, kinda introverted, kinda geek...but ended up looking a little mentally slow and a lot constipated.
X-Men was boring. It was just an introduction for those not familiar with X-Men. Also...of all the mutants to choose...the frog dude?? How stupid.
Dare Devil was pretty fun. I liked it fine. And, I like that they succeeded in giving it a dark feel. Consider the dorky Batman films...none of which felt dark. Instead, they felt like a circus without much color.
[o/t] Re:Damning with a faint praise
by
revscat
·
· Score: 1
Because my GOD what if somebody holds political views that differ from yours! Why, that's just unpatriotic! Destructive! Communist! Give them money? HELL NO! Especially if they are so obviously bent on the destruction of MERKA! Anyone who doesn't support the GOP is in favor of nuking Washington, DC.
Must... support... the prevailing... political opinion... Must... be... politically... correct.
What's funny is that you don't even realize how PC you're being, and probably cringe at the label.
Re:[o/t] Re:Damning with a faint praise
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You have no idea what PC really is, and the sad part is you negate your own argument because you are trying to take away the original poster's right to choose how he/she spend their own money. You sound like the liberal actors complaining when the vast majority of the public actually reacts to what they say by boycotting their words. You true are a sad person lost in a maze of left-wing lies.
Can't full screen, slow to start streaming. No option to save streams in non premium versions. Seems like they have an upgraded version every other month (with no increase in quality) requring me to install a new version for every new trailer I want to watch. Requires a dedicated player to play. Difficulty skipping ahead/behind in the stream to different segments of a streaming video.
I would prefer just plain mpeg1 or mpeg2, and having the ability to save the stream to my hard drive for later viewing. If anything this is a good thing since the trailers are realitivly small and you can distribute them to friends, thereby driving up the hype.
No No sharing is bad! Everyone should have to download from the site everytime they want to use it, and pay each time. Why should they pay to hype the movie if they could CHARGE you to do it for them? Hey wait, I think I just invented a new beusiness model! I better go patent it and sell it to Amazon!
Hopefully everyone can recognize that for the joke it is (everyone including the USPTO that is)
You can fullscreen in the PRO Windows / Mac versions of Apple's QuickTime or in any of the free UNIX video players that support Quicktime. I've just recently enjoyed watching the ultra-high quality 97 mb Matrix 2 quicktime trailer in fullscreen on my FreeBSD box with MPlayer.
Except when you do (under Windows, at least), it changes your screen resolution!
Um, gee, thanks Apple, but sometimes I'm watching your videos on a monitor that I have to calibrate for each resolution, and it looks like crap if you decide you don't want to use my video card's very capable scaling capability. Plus changing the resolution under Windows can cause other apps to resize themselves because they think the available screen real estate has shrunk, meaning my desktop is all messed up when the video ends.
Good Comics = Bad Movies
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
After the Spawn movie I was a little soured on the whole comics to movie thing. There is supposed to be a "good" sequel but I think it's due to come out when DNF comes out.
Cool Hulk Sound Clips in MP3 format...
by
mjpaci
·
· Score: 1
Pretty good collection. Poor bastard won't know what hit him.
--Mike
Re:Cool Hulk Sound Clips in MP3 format...
by
dbretton
·
· Score: 1
That's pretty cool. Now I'm going to download the audio clip of the Hulk transformation so I can play it while I'm having sex with my girlfriend:
~rip~ ~rip~ RARRRRAAHHHGGGGGHHHH!
Re:Lies! Death to the infidels!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
In Soviet Iraq, you lie to the Information Minister!
Re:Talk about interesting shows to make movies of.
by
gmhowell
·
· Score: 1
Theme from the "Greatest American Hero" (Believe it or Not) - Joey Scarbury
Look at what's happened to me I can't believe it myself Suddenly I'm on top of the world Shoulda been somebody else
CHORUS: Believe it or not I'm walking on air I never thought I could feel so free Flying away on a wing and a prayer Who could it be? Believe it or not it's just me
Just like the light of a new day It hit me from out of the blue Breaking me out of the spell I was in Making all of my wishes come true
-- Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
So why does this movie...
by
Richard+Mills
·
· Score: 1
...look so much like "Shrek II"? Maybe the movie will be good, but, come on, the Hulk looks like a big cartoon.
Re:Big cuddly Lou
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
From what I saw of the trailer, I would have preferred if they went back to Lou Ferrigno or some other overbloated bodybuilder (and we know theyre not on roids since they use the same drug tests for Mr.Universe as theydo for the Olympics).
Hell, they could have even used some female bodybuilder!
I'm surprised actually, that there isn't a site which archives trailers and has new ones and charges a small fee to view them each month.
-- Bring back the old version of slashdot.
New .sig file quote
by
LookSharp
·
· Score: 2, Funny
After all of these negative reviews based on a two minute trailer (which may or may not contain pieces of file that will actually be shown in the 100-minute version), I think I have a new.sig quote:
"Those who would give up watching a fun movie to spend hours disecting the teaser-trailer deserve neither."
Every cliche needs a little modernization from time to time, right?:)
Real Jekyll and Hyde my ass
by
EnglishTim
·
· Score: 1
'LXG', as they call it, looks *appallingly* bad - from the looks of the trailer, it has none of the style or Victorian charm of the original comic, just a buncha guys in Matrix-style leather trenchcoats driving a big ol' car. A Car fer frick's sake! Where's the steampunk in that?
And then to call it 'LXG'... euuugchhhh....
Re:Real Jekyll and Hyde my ass
by
Lectrik
·
· Score: 1
'LXG', as they call it, looks *appallingly* bad - from the looks of the trailer, it has none of the style or Victorian charm of the original comic, just a buncha guys in Matrix-style leather trenchcoats driving a big ol' car. A Car fer frick's sake! Where's the steampunk in that?
And then to call it 'LXG'... euuugchhhh....
Yes but the plus side to comic book based movies is that it'll get some people interested in the comics. I never had the chance to read DareDevil before the movie came out so I spent some time at the local book store browsing the graphic novel section. If your store is anything like the 3 I've been in it'll be located on the same aisle as the pencil & paper RPG stuff.
I've started picking up quite a few interesting GNs and compilations including Marvel's Earth X and DC's Kingdom Come (you haven't read a comic until you've read one where the pages were painted by the artist and printed on nice glossy paper) There are all sorts of "Essential" collections from Marvel, Wolverine, Thor, Hulk, X-Men just to name a few. If you think the movie will be crap go buy a book (just not *:the Movie)
Now i'll stop (so I stop parenthesizing (Is that even a word? (No, but it doesn't matter they can't hear me (I'm too many parenthesis deep))))
-- ---
As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent...
doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
Re:lets hope... (look's wrong to me..)
by
Perrin-GoldenEyes
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Er...just as a point of fact, the United States was FAR from the first to use "weapons of mass destruction." Nuclear, yes. But biological warfare was used in Europe way back into the middle ages (and I wouldn't be shocked to hear that it'd been used farther back than that and in other areas too). Chemical weapons were used extensively in the first World War.
There are plenty of decent reasons to sling mud at the US government without people fabricating new (and utterly incorrect) ones.
-- -Perrin.
Now I want you to go in that bag and find my lightsaber. It's the one that says bad mother-fscker on it.
Re:Daredevil vs spider-man
by
Brown+Eggs
·
· Score: 1
You know, I am amazed that people are so quick to bash daredevil for the weak dialogue and such, and have been unwilling to turn the same criticism on spider-man, which is much more deserving. I definitely related more to the "heart" of the daredevil portrayal than that of spiderman. Both movies had a great buildup of background story (which I hope is where the Hulk shines as well). Spiderman quickly lost that after the horrid green goblin and overly "batman and robin" type scenes with our hero. Daredevil I felt never made that bad leap, and stayed more or less dark and character focused (as superficial as it was). No to mention toby maguires constipated reaction to Ol' Ben's death - still makes me laugh. Ok, that was a bit mean:) But I hope the Hulk avoids the mistake of both of these - though I am not counting on it (better to be surprised than disappointed).
I don't think so. I can't think of any other Marvel characters who could carry basically wide appealing movies. Hoenstly, the Icon character in the general populace are done.
Ghost Rider is the only other one I can think of, or Iron Man or FF? But any other recognizable figures are under the X-men franchise don't lend themselves to niche markets or bad stories. Can you imagine the horror of a Captain America movie? Well- may'be I'm jsut flashing back.
Then again, Blade was pretty much a 2nd rung character- I would love a Dr. Strange pic.
I also remember Hulk tv movies- may'be on the USA network? Now, this could be a hallucination, but I remember a couple of guest characters in a blind lawyer in black leotards, a pseudo-Daredevil- and a guy in furs that was supposed to pass as Thor.
And you know what, bad as that sounds- the Captain America movie was worse.
Re distinction between graphic novels and comics.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You know, you're absolutly right. My comment within my post does come off as dismissive. That was not my intent. I guess I was in jerk mode when I wrote that line. Now that I'm aware, it won't happen again.
As for the distinction between comics and graphic novel... I think this link addresses it very well.
Re:lets hope... (look's wrong to me..)
by
TGK
·
· Score: 1
This isn't so much off topic as tangential. Moderators, read the parrent and grandparrent before burning me on this.
First recorded use of a Biological Device -- Seige of a Turkish fortification during the 1st Crusade. The turks catipulted plague infested bodies at the European invaders.
First recorded use of a Chemical Device -- The Battle of Ypres II between German and Canadian forces. The Germans relesed Chlorine gas from hundreds of massive canisters burried in the ground. Luckily for them the winds stayed steady. The Canadians had a bad day.
First recorded use of a Nuclear Device -- August 6, 1945. The Enola Gay drops a 15 Kiloton Uranium Fission device on the Japanese port city of Hiroshima. A subsequent bombing of Nagasaki with a plutonium fission device is the last recorded use of Nuclear weapons in combat.
Interestingly enough chemical weapons were first conceived by Leonardo Di Vinci for use against ships at sea. He reasoned that a gas attack on a ship would be fairly easy to pull off and would allow the boarding and capture of naval assets rather than their wastefull sinking.
-- Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Re:Name the next Cartoon Character to hit big scre
by
Wandering+Idiot
·
· Score: 1
Digimon already had a movie. Pokemon themselves have had somehting like 4 (I think the the last few were on video only)
And there are plenty of anime movies- most of them just never get released into theatres in the US (although there are exceptions, like Spirited Away).
I don't really see what anime movies have to do with live-action superhero movies, though.
Yes, but you cannot make a movie from a comic book. (well you can if your name is William Shatner)
Remember a little series called "TekWar"?
Willaim Shatner gave a "making of" interview where he said flat out that he used the comic books (Dark Horse I think) based on his literary masterpieces directly as the storyboards for the series episodes. Very obviously he did expect the result to be entertaining. (actually, there were four "TV movies" followed by 18 regular episodes so the Hollywood types agreed with him)
Just as a bit of trivia does anyone know if Shatner really did write the books without a ghostwriter? The timing of the first book (during a screenwriters strike) sure seems to suggest that ghostwriters would probably work pretty cheaply...
-- You either believe in rational thought or you don't
For those having trouble playing it:
by
Gyorg_Lavode
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I've posted this before but since people still seem to have problems with quicktime and linux I'll post it again w/ a bit more added on.
As everyone should be aware, mplayer playes quicktime movies on linux. Unfortunately, alot of people have problems with the audio. Basically, the problem is that the new quicktime movies use aac (advanced audio codec) audio instead of mp3 like older quicktime files. The solution of course is to install aac support for mplayer.
To do this, first you must install the codec. The codec that supports aac is available at audiocoding.com. It's called FAAD2. I used the cvs (1.2 beta) so I don't know if the stable 1.1 will work. (The 1.1 requires a small patch to get it to compile with newer forms of the libsndfile or forms of gcc > 3.) Other than that it compiled fine. The second change is that the libraries for faad are installed in/usr/local/lib. Apperently mplayer doesn't, by default, look in/usr/local/lib. I symbolically linked the libraries to/usr/lib (where mplayer DOES look), but I assume you could add/usr/local/lib to the search path.
Hopefully this helps many of the people who want to run these and other quicktime files on linux. Mplayer has made great strides and while it's not perfect, (crashes if you try to run 2 qt files back to back without restarting), it is the best there is for linux, (or for that matter any other system). (As an alternate note, the rpm faad2-1.1-fr1.20030409.i386.rpm does not work. While it installs to the correct place, the mplayer config is not able to detect the version of faad from it. I've heard that it will work as long as you also install the devel package, but did not test it.)
Now, it turns out that it's pretty easy to embed mplayer into mozilla, (or in my case phoen...err, firebird). You just need to go to the mplayer plugin project at sourceforge, download, compile and put in your plugin directory and mplayer will but up inside your browser so that those embeded-only files are no longer a problem.
-- I do security
Re:For those having trouble playing it:
by
Apotsy
·
· Score: 1
Unfortunately, alot of people have problems with the audio. Basically, the problem is that the new quicktime movies use aac (advanced audio codec) audio instead of mp3 like older quicktime files.
Actually, most of the older trailers used a QDesign codec for sound, not MP3.
Re:For those having trouble playing it:
by
vivek7006
·
· Score: 1
I compiled and installed stable 1.1. It did not work... Still no sound. How do I get the lates cvs 1.2 beta? I tried downloading from http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/faa c/ but, there are various tags like "main", "ver_2_2" etc. Also there is no tar ball. Can you tell me how exactly do I get all the relevent code. I am a linux newbie
Re:For those having trouble playing it:
by
Gyorg_Lavode
·
· Score: 1
cvs -z3 -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/ faac co faad2
-- I do security
I have one of those issues
by
Uberbah
·
· Score: 1
Spidey vs Transformers...Marvel had publishing rights at the time (can't remember whos doing the new Transformers comics) so they could do stuff like this.
As I recall, Spidey (in black costume era) was helping the Autobots rescue some human scientist that the Decepticons had kidnapped to turn oil into engergon.
What I REALLY want to see is Magneto vs the Transformers. Such sweet carnage it would be.:-)
Re:I have one of those issues
by
Heywood+Yabuzof
·
· Score: 2, Funny
C'mon now, that really wouldn't be much of a fight, unless the Autobots have built some new "Saturn" Transformers that I haven't heard about.
He's written for B5, most of the Q stories for Star Trek (good good stuff), Spider-Man and of course his 17 year run on the Hulk.
He came up with all the cool stuff for the Hulk: the grey skinned version who wanted to take over the world, the evil future version of himself, and the fusing of the crafyness of the grey hulk and Bruce Banner's personality into the body of the big green Hulk. If you think that the combination of a genious intellect in a near-invunerable body made him too strong, he had a new weakness: piss him off, and he'd turn human with the 'Hulk Smash!' personality.:)
The reason I heard he left the title is that he ran out of ideas that Marvel would let him do. Which is one of my gripes with Marvel (and Star Trek): to beholden to the status quo.
I first read his stuff with the Star Trek books.. I was hooked with Imzadi... Rock and a Hard Place, Q-in-Law, Q-Squared, I Q.. all great books. I also love his New Frontier series... He's also got the King Arthur in Yew York series (Knight Life) and Sir Apropos of Nothing series (self titled and "Woad to Wuin") which are just full of bad puns, fantasy cliches.. all kinds of fun stuff. I don't think I've read a Peter David book I haven't liked. (:
-- Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
Q Squared is frikkin awsome. If only that had been made into the last Next Gen movie rather than Nemesis....
And unfortunatly I missed on out New Fronteir. I did notice that it was a Peter David book, but I was poor and figured he was merely launching the series, and other writers would take over later. Little did I know that he was going to write all of them.:(
12 books of NF written (plus a couple one-offs that aren't counted... for the Gateways series and the Double Helix series..) not to mention the comic book! Books 13, 14, and a little collection of stories by popular Trek authors are all coming out in October.. Gonna be a good month! (:
-- Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
Re:Talk about interesting shows to make movies of.
by
gol64738
·
· Score: 1
damn, damn, damn--
please make a movie of Salvage One. god i loved that series!
you didn't read the Frank Miller books did you?
by
Uberbah
·
· Score: 2
Actually I haven't either, but I know what happened.
He was one of the first comic book authors to take a charachter and basically destroy his life, then watch what he does. Now thats pretty common, seems to happen to Spider-Man all the time, but when Miller was writting DD it was fresh, shocking, and cool.
The way Bullseye kills Electra in the movie is straight out of the comic book. He takes her own sword and impales her with it striaght through the heart, and yeah you see the tip sticking out her back. Then she got ressurected by the Hand (ninja sorcerors) and ends up working for the Kingpin as his assasin, and is tasked with killing Daredevil.
One of the all time great moments in comics came after the Kingpin destoryed Daredevils personal and professional life prior to killing him. He had Daredevil put in a car that was then tossed in the river so he'd drown. The great moment is when the Kingpin realizes that not only did Matt escape from the car, but now he has enough reason to hate the Kingpin for the next ten thousand years and has nothing to lose.
So the movie is actually pretty tame compared to the comics. That said, I also dislike violence when its totally pointless. I'm a big Dr. Who fan, and there are several otherwise great episodes that I don't care for because everybody dies.
Re:you didn't read the Frank Miller books did you?
by
ianscot
·
· Score: 1
Nope, didn't read Frank Miller's version. At what point do we get bored with the superhero as vendetta killer theme? It ain't that amazing.
My DareDevil would predate Miller's. He had the grittiness, and the stories were on a much more human scale than the other comics, but the whole turgid sullenness thing wasn't hip yet.
(Hmm. Didn't we hear a rumor about a sequel with Elektra as our protagonist?)
-- "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Re:you didn't read the Frank Miller books did you?
by
Uberbah
·
· Score: 1
At what point do we get bored with the superhero as vendetta killer theme? It ain't that amazing.
How many of those have we actually had? Off the top of my head I can only think of three heroes in a true blood rage: the aformentioned Miller books on DD, when the Green Goblin threw Gwen Stacey to her death and when the Punisher's family was killed. And of the three, only the Punisher actually killed anybody! The Kingpin and Bullseye are still alive and well, and the Goblin ended up killing himself with his own glider (another case where the movie scene comes straight from the book).
Most heros are all about not killing people, no matter how evil they might be. In fact most of them will stop somebody else from killing someone completely evil. Look at all the bad guys that Spidey saved from being taken out by the Punisher.
And they're so extreme at times that I get disgusted. Spidey pulls Carnage out of a fire, saving his life just after Carnage went on a killing spree. Hell, the story arc was called "Maximum Carnage". So you have this bad guy who kills innocent people, and sure he's being sent to jail but you know they always escape and you know they'll kill again when they do. I wonder how many people in the Marvel Universe are dead because Spidey pulled Carnage out of a fire.
Sure, you can say you value human life, no matter how evil, but when you save a bad guy who you know is going to kill again and again you are putting a higher value on his life than that of his victums.
Re:you didn't read the Frank Miller books did you?
by
SuiteSisterMary
·
· Score: 1
I've read The Science of Superheroes (good book, btw) and now somebody should do The Ethics of Superheroes.
-- Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
The Hulk is on Jerry Springer tonight!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If you're a superhero who was dating another superhero, but has been having an affair with a mere mortal, call 1-800-SPR-INGER! We want to hear from you...
Next up: Hulk, Wonder Woman, and some skanky trailer ho from Park #12, Double-wide #4.
The Fatal Flaw makes the Hero
by
PMuse
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The Marvel pantheon is full of deep, fascinating characters (as well as some real stinkers). The best of the Marvel heroes revolve around some fundamental question of humanity or some basic emotion. For instance:
Spiderman = Responsibility. Stan Lee's quip, "With great power comes great responsibility" may not be as catchy as "Up, Up and Away" or "To the Batmobile, Robin", but it's a lot more inspiring when you think about it. Pete Parker received a talent by random chance, an accident, something that he had no say about. That talent has been both blessing and curse to him. That talent is what makes the stories fun to read. What Pete does with that talent is what makes them meaningful.
Hulk = Rage. Bruce David Banner is a civilized, intelligent man. The raging child inside him is anything but. The writers of this book have spent years dousing for the sources of the ever-flowing font of rage that wells up within Banner's fractured soul. His father, his mother, his wife, his father-in-law, his employers. About the only thing they haven't thrown at poor Bruce, as far as I can recall, is children. It doesn't hurt the story any that it was the work of Bruce's own intellect (the gamma experiment) that set the monster within him loose. Now, every day that Bruce wakes up amid the wreckage of some unfamiliar place, he must ask "My God, what have I done?" of his actions taken both while monster and as a man.
Iron Man = Weakness. Bright and shiny on the outside, a lifestyle of flash and sparkle. But, within, there are flaws. Billionaire playboy inventor Tony Stark has a weak heart, is an alcoholic, and has no lasting relationships. Is his entire life a hollow shell? In addition, Iron Man must also deal with the constant possibilities that the handiwork of his mind, which is also the foundation of his fortune, can be so easily turned to evil by others. Iron Man, and to some extent the Hulk as well, must address the problem presented over and over in Tolkien's works: the creations of our intellects can turn against us to work great evil because all machines, once created, have no governing wisdom of their own. Bruce Banner's science opened Pandora's Box and found the Hulk inside. Tony Stark tried to create a better world through technology and learned that technology is equally powerful as a tool of evil.
Captain America = Idealism. Steve Rogers is a man of high ideals faced with a world filled with awful circumstances. Sure, he can try to fight the bad guy, but he's only human and he often fails. What's harder to fight are the situations where the country he loves hasn't lived those ideals.
X-Men = Alienation. While individual X-men have very individual stories, the series overall explores the question of conflict between diverse groups. The homo sapiens v. homo superior conflict serves as a metaphor not only for race relations, but for relationships between parents and children as well. Each mutant must deal with the feelings of isolation and loneliness they experience while acting out their personal mythology: "nothing like this has ever happened to anyone buy me."
Green Lantern (and Dare Devil) = Fear. Courage is an act that only those who feel fear can perform. I'm not sure that either of these characters lives up to their billing as being "without fear", but they both show that it's possible to act in situations that would scare the living @&%! out of any rational person.
To sum it up, every great hero needs a fatal flaw. The flaw is how the reader relates. The flaw is how the tale teaches. Stories in comics are just as full of flash and bang as any other mythic tale, but they can also be as full of substance.
'Nuff said.
-- "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Re:The Fatal Flaw makes the Hero
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Err...why did you include Green Lantern?
He's a DC character.
Re:The Fatal Flaw makes the Hero
by
Thing+1
·
· Score: 1
To sum it up, every great hero needs a fatal flaw.
So true. Although Superman is DC not Marvel, he's another example of the hero who is made greater by his fatal flaw, kryptonite.
It provides for more intricate plots, and puts fear in the viewer/reader, thinking perhaps Superman has been beaten this time.
Doesn't make sense, though, that Superman is weakened by rocks from his home planet. Smallville never explained this either.
-- I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:The Fatal Flaw makes the Hero
by
RoninM
·
· Score: 1
I don't know, since I never got into the Superman comic books, but I can guess. Kryptonite is radioactive. The radioactivity robs Superman of his super powers. I guess that Krypton's sun also gave off lower levels of the same type of radiation, which is why we didn't see people flying around in tights and underwear there.
-- If a corporation is a personhood, is owning stock slavery?
Re:The Fatal Flaw makes the Hero
by
PMuse
·
· Score: 1
Hmmm. Fair question. Let's see. How about "I was trying to be ecumenical?" No? Maybe "My knowledge of DC is limited, else I'd have included more of them." Nah, probably because "What I wanted to say was about heroes generally, not just Marvel."
-- "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Re:What's wrong with Quicktime ,NOTHIN
by
wiremind
·
· Score: 1
i like quicktime too. Whenever i have the choice, i choose quicktime.
People are complaining about the Hulk graphics because they aren't consistent with the rest of the movie. The rest of the charachters aren't obviously CG, so the Hulk stands out like a sore thumb. If the whole movie was generated on a computer, a la FF: Spirits Within, then it would be ok because it would be consistent.
And aside from looking right, its got to move right too. In the comics the Hulk is 8 feet tall and wights about a ton, but is incredibly strong. He might be able to jump a mile into the air, but he still has mass. To make an example, say somebody rams him with a two ton truck. He can't go flying because he weighs too much, but he wont not be moved because he's not that heavy. So when they're working the CG they should also make sure the physics look right as well.
Does anybody know how the heck the Incredible Hulk's pants stay on when he makes his transformation??? How can he grow 10 times in size and still fit into Bruce Banner's skivvies???? I need answers!!
Uh, the technical answer would have to be answered by Reed Richards of the Fantastic Four, but it's well known that lots of clothes for superhero types are made out of "unstable molecules"-- it's how come Reed Richards can stretch his clothes so much, and why the Human Torch's clothes don't burn, f'rinstance.
Wow, I've read too many comics.
-- When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat? -C. Palahniuk
Havent seen Fantastic Four ?
by
garaged
·
· Score: 1
X men is great, spider too, i love dd, and will love more x2, but anybody has seen FF ??? its so awful I think they will do it again from trash.
hope Hulk is better that FF, at least a batman like movie
For a trailer, that was pretty weak, especially around the dialogue. But the sound was mixed oddly (Audigy and Klipsch/THX 4.1, so don't blame my gear, or my ear). Maybe what it needs is Senssurround.
And the CGI, from this distance, looks like it might be PS2 quality. Worse than the bad CGI in Spider-Man. How they can take a computer generated 9-foot guy and make him look like a 3-inch model keyed into the frame is beyond me.
For God's sake
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Why the fuck do all the goddamn movie sites only stream their trailers!? I'm on dial-up outside of the USA and South Korea, like half a billion other users around the world, and here's a message to Hollywood on our behalf: get it into your thick fucking skulls, STREAMING DOES NOT WORK! Why the hell can't these guys just serve mpegs, avis and quicktime files? Oh no! Someone else might serve/post/trade them! Heaven forbid, free publicity! To the Retard Mobile Robin, we're off to the RIAA! Jesus Christ...
Re:Spider-man good? Daredevil bad?
by
Trillan
·
· Score: 1
I liked Daredevil, too.
Spiderman... well, it was a bit over the top, but I certainly can't call it bad.
Wohooo ...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Whow, he jumps just like Supermario!!! Maybe his secret isn't gamma rays but mushrooms...
Re:lets hope... (look's wrong to me..)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
First recorded use of a Chemical Device -- The Battle of Ypres II between German and Canadian forces. The Germans relesed Chlorine gas from hundreds of massive canisters burried in the ground. Luckily for them the winds stayed steady. The Canadians had a bad day.
The Canadians actually didn't have things as bad as they could have that day. One of the soldiers in the trenches was a chemist, and recognized the oncoming gas. His solution? Urinate on some rags and breathe through them. The chlorine would react with the urine and crystalize, allowing the soldiers to survive the gassing.
It sounds like a really unpleasant gas mask, but it's better than the alternative.
Re:lets hope... (look's wrong to me..)
by
caouchouc
·
· Score: 1
There were two gas attacks during the second Battle of Ypres. The first was against the allied lines stationed there. They were forced to retreat, but were replaced by the 1st Canadian Division.
The Canadians were then hit with the second gas attack, but stood their ground. A chemist in their ranks came up with the countermeasure of pissing on some cloth and breathing through it to stop chlorine from getting into their lungs. Apparently, it scared the hell out of the attacking German force to see that what was supposed to be a lethal gas attack had only pissed the Canadians off. The loss of morale likely helped in their failure to take Ypres.
The Canadians were rather ferocious fighters back then.
X-men good? Daredevil bad?
by
rattboi
·
· Score: 1
I was just wondering if what was said in the news post was what the consensus of people felt towards those movies?
For instance, I really am a big X-men comic fan, but I thought that the movie was crap. I knew it would be crap before it came out, too, because they would never be able to develop so many characters in only 1 1/2 hours. And all the dialog sucked. It just didn't feel like X-men to me.
Spiderman was a good comic, and I really did appreciate the movie translation. It addressed many of the things that make Spiderman...well...Spiderman. Anyways, I liked that one.
Daredevil to me felt very much like a comic book, although I have never read any Daredevil comics, so maybe that's why my opinion is what it is. I enjoyed the movie, but I'm not sure what kind of butchery happened in the adaptation.
Anyways, I just wanted to voice my opinion about what I felt was a totally biased news post.
In summation: X-men is bad, Spiderman is good, Daredevil is good.
First off, Pmuse, nice post. I wish I had moderator points.
You got me to thinking in your descriptions. In many of the descriptions, the essance of the characters were described as fleshed out in certain series of runs of the comments. For example, your iron man is definately from the Armor Wars, where Tony Stark finds out his tech was used to create all armored villans.
It struck me how sometimes, someone rights a hero and just nails it. Another example is Frank Miller's "Batman Returns." He has forever left is mark on Batman and has changed the character. The show Batman Beyond is truly a product of his vision. In all these cases, look at the initial character, and compare to the changes made. Sometimes, not even the original author gets it "right."
My question is, for the Hulk, has there ever been such a defining momment. I will invite yells here, but for me the comic has been cheesy the few times I read it. If it carries any weight, I think of Bill Bixby in the TV show who put so much humanity into Banner.
It struck me how sometimes, someone rights a hero and just nails it. This, IMHO, is why the Spiderman movie was such a success. They nailed the character. Sure, the CGI was great, but the real key for me was getting the character of Peter Parker right. Even the characters of Harry Osborn and Mary Jane Watson were full of substance. Harry's hatred of Spiderman is well set up for future films, and Peter ends the film with a bone-head, teenager move with Mary Jane. I could care less that they shifted a radio-active spider to a genetically-engineered spider or that the web spinners are now organic instead of mechanical.
My question is, for the Hulk, has there ever been such a defining moment. I will invite yells here, but for me the comic has been cheesy the few times I read it. If it carries any weight, I think of Bill Bixby in the TV show who put so much humanity into Banner. I've only read the book for about four years, so my core concept of the character is based the show and Bill Bixby. IMHO, the various writers of the book have had such wildly different visions of the character that it's hard to form a coherent picture.
For instance, the skin color changes from green to grey to savage to smart to whatever have been pretty distracting. One of the problems these changes were meant to address is that while Banner tends to grow as a character, the Hulk tends not to remember very much and does not develop much over time. So, the writers gave the Hulk a series of magical transformations to new personalities. It's only a partial fix. For the readers to identify with the Hulk, to feel like they know him, the Hulk needs to know himself. _He_ needs to remember.
Well, I'll be there for the movie. Spiderman will be a hard act to follow, but all we can do is "Read and find out."
I wish I could comment on Frank Miller's Batman, but I haven't read it (or any Batman, more's the pity). What I've heard about it is everything that you suggest -- namely, that no one can understand the character of Batman today without understanding Miller's work.
-- "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Yeah--THAT's straightforward
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
And people wonder why Linux hasn't taken off in the mainstream. Less coding, more testing!
Interoperability is the new buzzword now! Live up to it!
(I hope someone sees this before some Linux fanboi mods this down as "troll".)
"Old Trailer Getting ' Bit Dank"
by
pyrrho
·
· Score: 1
You could instead use Media Player Classic which is a "clone" of Windows Media Player 6.4, and can also play Quicktime and Real stuff (as long as you have them installed).
It's pretty slick.
Re:Talk about interesting shows to make movies of.
by
Wolfrider
·
· Score: 1
--God, that series was so lame. I got SO tired of stupid curly-blond-haired-guy NOT being able to control the Alien Power Suit, and always crash-landing like a dumbass.
-- .
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
Universal
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Aren't they owned by a French conglomerate? Boycott FRANCE! I say we give France to the Palestinians! Or are you american Slashdot readers just a bunch of wimps, Linux wimps?
Aaaargh, not Imperial!
by
LPetrazickis
·
· Score: 1
Carmack? Aren't you that famous guy who lost a Mars probe because you coded in Imperial instead of Metric? I suggest that you switch now before something truly horrific happens.
The next probe lost due to a standards crash could conceivably do something like rip the fabric of reality and unleash the hordes of hell. Of course, I wouldn't think that a down-to-earth NASA scientist would worry about things like that. Right?:)
--
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
They should have hired a real muscleman
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Lou Ferrigno is retired, but somebody else tall and muscular like Brock Lesnar would have made it much better. If necessary they could use the CGI to increase his size somewhat, while still maintaining natural movement.
But the way they did this one made it look like a stupid cartoon.
The Simpons Provide Prospective
by
Herkum01
·
· Score: 1
Homer: (Talking to a gay man) "You turned the navy into a big joke. You took all our best names and turned them into sissy names. Names like Bruce, Lance, and Julian."
I already know what is going to happen, they make this movie it has some success, 6 months later the pron movie comes out called,
Hulk: The Jolly Green Giant!
and I am sure that a line from the movie will be, "Hulk horny!" Comeon, how is that not a winner?
OMG
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I know it has already been modded funny, but this has to be the best pun of the year.
Re:Aaaargh, not Imperial! (WARNING)
by
Jason+Scott
·
· Score: 1
Just for the record, if you have entered into a Hulk Trailer Physics Discussion and John Friggin' Carmack starts weighing in and uses the full power of the mind that wrote the physics engine for nearly every ID product to assist you in calculating the physics of the Hulk Trailer... and then you counteract with a dismissal referring to an obscure NASA miscalculation regarding measurements.. and you're wrong because in fact you're confusing him with a general NASA engineer instead of his side work with Armadillo and professional rocket propulsion.....
At this point, everyone should be running at full speed (rocket-jumping, if they got them) because you've just opened the biggest black-hole of geekery since Stallman and Torvalds took the stage together and ignited a GNU/Linux naming flamewar at a Linux Award Ceremony. Every last bit of non-geekery lying around for a two mile area, from stupid t-shirts with the BSD daemon on them to every hand-written Sci-Fi con button should be flying through the air at dangerous speeds to be blowing into the event horizon of the complete and total geekitude tornado that has been unleashed.
Close your eyes, baby.
(Yes, that's right, an obscure Aliens quote in a John-Carmack-participated NASA-referencing Hulk Trailer Physics discussion.)
In a flashy cut trailer you don't an entire shot with the Hulk in it that lasts more than a second. You can freeze a frame and say 'it looks too smooth and fakey' or you can look at it moving for a subsecond and make a guess at how a longer shot would look.
There really isn't enough information at this time to make an informed decision.
But not being able to make an informed decision has never stopped a Slashdotter.
The Gamma energy that transformed Banner into the Hulk caused the molecules of Bruce Banner's pants (which were cheifly polyester, since he was 'born' in the 60s) to stretch. It is akin to the 'unstable molecules' in the Fantastic Four's outfits.
The only side effect was it turned whatever pants he was wearing purple.
At least that's what I remember from reading the Hulk's letter pages back in the day.
I definitely agree with you, these shots look like something make in Xara3D. However, I wonder if it's because we know that it can't be real and thus we subliminally point out the problems.
Perhaps a person who was generated with the same procedure (a la Matrix) would seem more real because we can accept it as truth with little force.
On the other hand, you could argue that we could spot the CGI person and it's flaws because we look at people every day (or at least when you shut your monitor off) and we can point out what is wrong.
-- This is my digital signature. 10011011001
Re:lets hope... (look's wrong to me..)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Is that what they teach you in Canadian schools? Geez, you guys believe anything, don't you?
How to enjoy more movies
by
James+Lewis
·
· Score: 1
I think as most people who are intelligent see more and more movies it becomes increasingly difficult for them to find movies that are unique, well done, and that don't insult their intelligence. However, some people become so overly critical that they go into a movie EXPECTING not to like it, and so usually dislike movies they would ordinarily have enjoyed had their disposition been different going in. There are some movies, and comic book movies certainly fall into this, that are enjoyable only if you go in willing to experience the movie in the context in which it was made, and not the overwhelmingly logical real-life world you live in.
Take Daredevil. Obviously the cheese factor on that movie was pretty high, and it really turned some people off. But come on, this is a movie made in the spirit of COMIC BOOKS. If you read a comic book and find that someone named "bullseye" who actually has a bullseye branded onto his forehead cheesy, then maybe you just don't like the classic comic book atmosphere. It doesn't mean the movie was bad... it just means you don't like cheesy comic books. I much prefer the dark atmosphere of say, the batman cartoon, to the cheesy comic book style. Still, I was able to get myself into a cheesy enough state to enjoy Daredevil. If you want to enjoy any significant portion of the movies you see, you have to learn to take yourself out of that cynical, purely logical state that you drag yourself through most of your life, and try living in a different state the short time in which it takes to enjoy the movie for what it is.
Re:Aaaargh, not Imperial! (WARNING)
by
LPetrazickis
·
· Score: 1
and you're wrong because in fact you're confusing him with a general NASA engineer
Dude, that was a joke. I am very well aware of John's work and I was not referencing his rocketry hobby at all.;)
At this point, everyone should be running at full speed (rocket-jumping, if they got them) because you've just opened the biggest black-hole of geekery since Stallman and Torvalds took the stage together and ignited a GNU/Linux naming flamewar at a Linux Award Ceremony.
Did you just liken me to RMS? Wow, thanks.:)
--
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
I don't want to notice that when these guys are all flying around a room it is all fake.
No way, the people demand thrutfulness.
-- IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Spriderman speaking zulu
by
overlordhab
·
· Score: 1
In SA we used to get all the hero animation series dubbed into different languages. You could switch on the radio to listen to the original english soundtrack. Spiderman was dubbed into Zulu and became Rabobi. A local metal band did a cover of the Zulu soundtrack.
Domafanya ba ya tsetsie i"Green Goblin" baba kae i"Dr . Octopus"
Botswa i"arch enemies" otswa a Rabobi
Rabobi banetsa i"spider sense is tingling".
Di gona yoa i"Green Goblin" "Dr . Octopus"
Ya tokoloshi "medicine", Hao!
Rabobi ba ya gona "Dr . Octopus" "left right"
i"Green Goblin" "uppercut" "KO one time"
Re:Aaaargh, not Imperial! (WARNING)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Geez, I would never be able to guess that you were one of the writers of Jerkcity and Leisuretown!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, Green Lantern's flaw is the colour yellow, wich means fear in cowboy slang...so ok, I kinda see what you mean.
Of course, his real weakness is that his superhero weakness is the stupid colour yellow...man were they out of ideas that week! The damn colour yellow...
--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Physics?!? coder - hmmm
by
Tuna_Shooter
·
· Score: 1
I once offered my services to Armadillo as an Inertial platform coder of such... no reply....
but i wish the best of luck to you....
-- *--- Sometimes a majority only means that all the fools are on the same side. ---*
Slashdot Mirror
they stick to the story on this. I don't mind chaning bits to make it flow, but most of Dredd made me cringe....
... I was kinda disappointed, why the hulk, there are much better movies they could have made. The hulk is a pretty poor choice although it does invoke some nogstolgia.
Shadus
480 version
/// Zoid.
I can feel it inside me. Sometimes when I lose control and flame everything... I think I like it...
FLAME!!!
find ~your -name '*base* | xargs chown
But then again I said the same thing about X-Men...
Go calculate something
Go for the popular comics - like Blue Beetle!
I dunno about you people... but The Hulk looks a little too cartoony. Sort of like a mad cross between Spiderman and Shrek. Can't wait to see it! :)
You wouldn't like me when I'm angry...
What happened to his old trailer? Was it just a plain aluminum job like the kind old people tow to Florida?
I hope his trailer is made of something really strong, like adamantium(sp?) as in Wolverines bones. Stainless just does not stand up to the nasty temper of the Hulk!
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
The Hulk has a very good Dr Jekyl/Mr Hyde subtext going on. They could make that work very well.
Plus, all the explosions and army guys! What more can a guy like?
This is the real signature
(Beats those shadows on the cave wall, don't it?)
Well, you have two options as I see it: (1) Stop watching trailers (2) Suck it up and get over it The choice is yours... :)
Of all the big money superhero movies. I guess this is the first one where the primary character is physically larger than life. The trailer makes it almost look like a photorealstic cartoon vs a "live action" movie with the scenes including the Hulk (and I guess technically those scenes probably are).
I was very surprised by how much of the Hulk they actually showed. I would have expected much more "teasing" up until the very end.
What's wrong?
Is Quicktime for almost every damn trailer coming out of Hollywood too hard for you sweetie?
This looks a lot better than the previous trailers. The Hulk scenes look more realistic than in the previous long trailer, and it looks like they might make it a character study of sorts. I hope it's good.
And what was wrong with Daredevil? Sure it felt a little short and cheesy, but I really liked it!
Honor Among Slackers. A veri
The hulk looks HUGE... even larger than in the comic/toon. But, this stuff does look impressive. I wonder how real/unreal/surreal it will look on the large screen.. I hope it don't look cheap and monster inc.. ish...
|/________
|\A|ALYS|
As much as I love a movie where a big green guy smashes things, I think the CGI could you use ALOT of work. In the trailer he looks obviously computer generated. I'm waiting for the Matrix where you can't tell the difference b/w real Neo and computer generated Neo.
What's up with the stream of previews all in Quicktime format. I can't think of a single format that sux more than quicktime. Anyone here that rather see Quicktime over DivX?
how many will be as good as Spiderman or X-Men
I did like X-Men, but if Hulk's only as good as Spiderman, I guess I won't be going to see it.
That said, I hope the end credit roll to the tune of the "Sad Piano Music" of the Bill Bixby/Lou Ferrigno series (as seen on Family Guy).
No sig
New Trailer for The Hulk
Considering the Hulk's anger-management problem, is it really wise to put him up in another trailer? Maybe he should be forced to lie in the bed he has made. That's the only way he'll learn personal responsibility.
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
This is OUR hulk, not the americans' hulk! It will slaughter them all at the gates of baghdad before any American troops come close to our glorious city!
Repeal the DMCA!
The first preview made him look very obviously CG and just like a big goofy toddler.
This one is better in that he looks real in the shots that are closer to him - but it still really suffers from the obviousness of being animated (moving too cartoon-like - which is easier to animate than realistic life-like actions).
He moves to quickly for his size - which probably doesn't matter much since the whole point is to suspend disbelief... but for whatever reason, he is still human form enough that it just looks poorly done the way it is now.
I'm hoping this isn't the case when it is on the big screen.
This preview made it look better than the last one.
Also, I never followed the comic book - so I guess he was much bigger in the comic book than he was in the TV series - but his comic-like increase in size is silly - I preferred the TV version where he just got really big, but still on the scale of what a human body could tolerate.
In the end - I'm psyched to see it - I like Eric Bana (sp?) too - but the CG Hulk might ruin it if it is so obviously CG.
and again, perhaps it happened all of the time in the comic book, but the silly leaps and bounds that he is taking are... well, silly. It is one thing for a giant human form to lift heavy things - we would expect that by what we know of physics.
But we wouldn't expect it to be able to leap that far, and especially not that fast. That is the most annoying part - that it doesn't follow physics.
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
Got them the wrong way round, there.
Now that *does* make me mad!
STRONT SMASH!
-- http://www.strontiumdog.net
Seeing the Hulk is quite some years old, I don't think thats argument really stands. And whats wrong with being a Godless Commie, I am one (well godless socialist to be precise). ANd the future for us is alternative energy; Solar, Wind and Tidal power. BTW I think nuclear power would be great if they could find a way to get rid of the waste. And don't even thoink about sending Down Uder like some Yanks want. Maybe send it into the sun.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
Can someone explain me why there is always so much whining about Quicktime ? For Windows and Mac, you have the official Apple Quicktime player, for UNIX, you have MPlayer and Xine, which both play Quicktime videos just fine. What is the problem ? I've been watching Quicktime videos under Windows, Linux and FreeBSD and never had a problem, am I the only one ? "It just sucks" is not a valid explanation / reason.
Woah!
The Hulk can fly! And he's huge. Shrek on steroids!
I dunno...
1)It's a "recognizable" name
2)The tools to create it (macs and sorensen codecs) are well better on the APPLE CREATED format
3)It by FAR outstrips even Divx in pixel per pixel quality. (maybe not for file size ratio) 4)The format is also recognized by other types of players. 5)Apple leverages the exclusives to sell Macs ... good for them!!!
Some of those hulk shots look plain phony. CGI models look great and all, but the motion is always too fluid, too phony.
A big muscleman with green greasepaint would move much more convincingly, Lou Ferigno (sp?) made a more convincing Hulk than an animated model. Roll Big Poppa Pump around in some grass clippings and have him hulk around.
Sometimes the most simple and conventional SFX are the most convincing on screen. CGI is great for aliens and monsters and stuff like that, but there are too many subtleties with human movement that we're all subconciously accustomed to.
Plus, the "making of" documentaries are now just filming a couple nerds sitting in front of a 22 inch monitor looking at wire models.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
They are in the early stages of making a movie of The Greatest American Hero.
...was quite good IMHO. OK, so it was a smaller-scale story than X-Men or Spider-Man, and the main character didn't have the firepower of a battalion of Marines. So what? It definitely got me interested in DD as I had no prior experience with that corner of the Marvel-verse. It even raised my opinion of Ben Affleck out of the cellar.
Things are more like they are now than they ever were before.
...
You have *never* read the Hulk have you.
In the original comic, Bruce Banner becomes the Hulk after being exposed to gamma rays from a nuke experiment. You're going to bash current media for actually being faithful to the original comic?
How the hell was Spiderman or Xmen a good movie ? Taco must be on crack.
If special effects and comics make a good movie then its a sad world we live in.
Spiderman was so predictable and poorly acted I almost walked out of the theatre. Since when did comic book themed movies just get a free ride to not have a story !
I say, if the target audience is kids (7-18) then yes, maybe Spiderman was great for them
but for any adult it was pure garbage. Why is it so hard for a movie with an already built in base audience and etc to come up with something resembling a slightly intrigueing plot
. And I'm not even talking about something close to 'Apocolyse Now' or 'Usual Suspects', but just something to whet your appetite
Help pay for my wedding! Go to my kickass website
Or you could just install mplayer.
SealBeater
-- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
I came away from Daredevil with the feeling I had just watched the made for TV take on Daredevil. It had no amount of quality to it.
My Journal - 1,337 fans and countin
Just from watching the trailer, I think they blew it. The big green guy looks totally disproportonate, like an oversized mal-colored smurf. It's too bad too. The technology is there, but a bad artist wrecked it. Maybe they should have looked up Lou instead.
I'll still probably see it in the first week (comic book movies are my escape from reality), but instead of thinking "This will be cool" I'll be thinking "I hope it doesn't suck".
Don't post your GNU propaganda crap in this thread.
That might make me angry...and believe me, you won't like me when I'm angry.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
How big is Hulk supposed to be, anyway? It looks like he varies between about 10 feet tall to 50-60 feet.
I remember when this movie was still in the early stages, there was a lot of crazy talk about Bruce being bitten by radioactive dogs and shit like that. Nice to see that someone seems to have thrown a comic in front of the producers face at some point.
It hurts when I pee.
Why's a tornado like an Arkansas divorce?
Either way, someone's losing a mobile home.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
There was this one episode where "David Banner" (the human side of the Hulk) was a roadie for this rock band, and one of the band members put acid in his soda.
Then he got all crazy, and turned into the Hulk, but he was the Hulk on acid and everything was chartreuse and tennis ball yellow. Are they gonna do that in the movie? 'Cause if not I will be deeply disappointed.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
You know, I probably would have seen this trailer and made a comment on it, in hopes of being Modded +3 Funny, but my hosts file says all the Akamai servers are local. Stupid Akamai.
I bought some marvel stock last year and it has almost quadrupled. I see more cash in my pocket in the next few months.
How come there is no post about the new laura croft movie.... I must be hanging out at the wrong geek website...
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -Tom Waits
The real star in this movie is Jennifer Connelly. She's beautiful, talented, a great actor, beautiful, she's been in a lot of great movies (Dark City, Requiem for A Dream, A Beautiful Mind, Waking the Dead and - Labyrinth (!) to name a few) and last but not least... did I say she's beautiful?
*sigh*
Spiderman blew, and so will this. Terrible dialog made spiderman suck, and the hulk looks so out-of-touch with the rest of the film. It is over-obvious he was never physically there, even for a child.
Actually it seems like they're ignoring the gamma bomb/test blast/Rick Jones thing as there doesn't seem to be any allusion to it in the trailer.
No sign of General Ross either...
It's a shame as the origins of super heroes go so much towards their character. That's why I was pleased they kept it real with spidey (despite the web-shooter thing).
I like the look of him. The tv one was stoopid. Reminds of the McFarlane Hulk (but luckily not quite so exaggerated).
Kev.
I dunno, MPlayer and Xine sound pretty free to me...
Looks a bit too computer generated to me. It kinda has that whole 'Scooby Doo' feel to it from these previews.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Doc Bruce Banner,
Belted by gamma rays,
Turned into the Hulk.
Ain't he unglamo-rays!
Wreckin' the town
With the power of a bull,
Ain't no monster clown
Who is that lovable?
It's ever lovin' Hulk! HULK!! HULK!!"
Maybe Smashmouth could do it.
"Technology.....the knack of so arranging the world that we don't have to experience it." Max Firsch
I, personally, would like to see Iron Man on the big screen.
Bringing the tech of the armor to the movies should be interesting with the effects that are possible today.
Certainly nothing on dental hygiene, anyway.
Season 1 and 2 are on DVD available at amazon.com.
Actually I thought the hulk was usually better about physics in that he usually wasn't lifting absurd things that would simply crumble.
The leaping would really be a function of how fast the muscles could contract and expand. Since he's obviously muscled to a point beyond extreme he probably could do these things. (Personally I liked in the comics when he was switching between brainless Hulk and Bruce Banner Hulk and came out of one of his rages while half-way through a leap. He paniced, created a huge crater, and came out smiling since he didn't die.)
My favorite part of the trailer has to be him hammer-throwing the tank. The barrell of a tank just MIGHT be strong enough to do that too.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
You wouldn't like me when I'm horny...
Does anyone know anything about the new superman movie? I've been hearing rumors for years now, but nothing firm, any info anyone?
Anyone know what piece of music (classical?)is being played in the preview? I've heard it in a lot of ads and previews, but I've never know what it's called.
Ed Wedig
Graphic design services
docbrown.net
Hmm.. from what I could tell.. everyone knows who the Hulk really is.. now doesn't that fly in the face of the story? It's become a "How can we fix Bruce Banner" and "How can Bruce Banner deny who he's become" story.. gah....
The future of mankind is clearly any thing at all Turkey offal into oil and water. Presto!
Not only that, but it actually works. This ain't no lab experiment.
I thought Daredevil was a fine movie. It was more of a film noire that comic book movie; with a more complicated character. But some prefer car chases, special effects and gratuitous sex to character development and plot. To each his own.
Craptacular. The effects don't seem very good, and while it echoes the TV series a lot, it seems, I'm not paying money to watch a glorified TV series episode.
If I want that, I'll see the craptastic ST: Nemesis again.
Great Scott!
Cartoons not realistic!?!?
Can you say 'duh'? They're fantasy, the laws of physics have no place here.
Here's some info on a related game that is being released. The most interesting thing is that the same CGI being used for the movie (and the trailer you just saw) is supposedly being used in the game so it's supposed to be the closest correlation between movie graphics and game graphics ever.
Why do I h8 apple?
Now that most of the Marvel Comic characters have been done, what will be next?
Since cartoon characters have shown to be very lucrative movie material, allsorts of non-Marvel characters will be eligible.
Will we see some anime on the big screen?
Will we see all the pokemon clones (digimon, beyblade, medabots) to be made into movies?
What's your opinion?
Check out one of the Hulks (Eric Bana) other great movies - Chopper. It's a great wholesome movie you can watch with your kids.
I notice that everything that doesn't look real, from Hulk, to the non-CGI wirework in Daredevil, to Al Strobel's missing arm in Twin Peaks, get dismissed as "bad CGI" no matter how convincing, or in some cases, REAL! While the special effects that simulate realistic situations go by unnoticed and uncriticised: there's not so much of that as there is usually no point, but for example the scene where "Bobby" turns into Mystique in "X-men" (the actress wasn't available so she was completely CGI), or historically the way that SFX professionals assumed "1941" would get the Oscar for best special effects but the academy didn't notice there were special effects in it.
(disclaimer: that is a sponsered link)
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
I'm boycotting this trailer. I don't have QuickTime installed, and so I am boycotting any movie clip that requires me to install it. Why can't movie studios provide trailers in DivX format? That's what everyone I know uses.
I'm boycotting this movie. The heartless movie studios have denied me my right to download and copy any movie I want. That makes me sad.
Isn't this a trailer for Sandler and de Niro's 'Anger Management"?
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
For real? X-Men? Spider Man? I heartily disagree. Those movies sucked...bad. Hardly the charcters, stories or imagery I kne(o)w and love(d).
As I have said about a lot of Sci-Fi, I cannot think of one good comic to movie translation, not one. And anyone in the know didn't even think for a second that Daredevil would be any good, I mean, one word..."Affleck". What a shame too, Miller's DD stories are some of the best 'comics' ever saw.
All the above mentioned have had great stories, >I am talking hey-day here Maybe I am just getting old, but I would rather not see any of this crap, than see these sorry ass flicks ruin what I, and others, know.
Remember when we were but wee lads, and could watch cartoons, without secretly analyzing the reality of the physics behind them? Oh, the price we pay for jobs where we can post comments on Slashdot from the comfort of our office chairs.
While I'm at it, how can Wonder Woman fly an invisible jet? How does she even remember where she put it?
First of all, I must admit that the CGI does look a little on the phoney side. That being said...
The size of the Hulk doesn't really matter. Just like in the comic books, where the size of the character, the proportions of his muscles, the angluarity of his overall form varies from one artist/comic to the next. If the Hulk varies in size through-out the movie, good for him. If he seems a little large, well, deal with it. It's a movie based on a comic book - double-suspension of disbelief.
Second, what's with black in CGI never looking 'right?' At least, that's what my brain is telling me whenever I see CGi that looks like... well... CGI - ie that the black of shadows and whatnot doesn't seem as dark as it actually is in nature.
Third, I was liking everything about the trailer until I saw that hell-hound looking thing standing on the tree-branch, and then a few frames later, the Hulk swatting it into oblivion. Is that supposed to be a real dog? Or some sort of hell-spawn dog that's going to destroy everything about the movie?
Four, I have to agree about the speed of his movement. The Hulk relies on brute strength to get things done - not brains, and certainly not speed. The bits where he leaps from place to place - yes. The shot of him windmilling his legs like the Flash gone gamma - no. Sorry, but no. Wrong.
Uhm. That's actually about all. I wish someone would do a *good* movie about Deadpool - more trash-talking, wise-crakin' than the comic book (not the movie) Spiderman, without the reliance on a mutant spider to get things moving.
Ack!
Although I wouldn't want to see another Judge Dredd film, obviously, I'd like to see "Bad Company" or "Ace Truckin' Co" on the big screen. Even Robo-Hunter. I thought those stories were particularly original, and the last two pretty damned funny!
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
I did not see Daredevil, so I can't comment on that. But I agree with Spiderman. Spiderman was more sugar-coated than most Disney flicks. Spiderman reminded me of the Dungeons and Dragons movie they made a few years ago; cool special effects, but a plot and storyline for 3 year olds. It should have been darker.
Looking for a job?
Want your resume written professionally?
DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
Eh, I would never have guessed /. would be interested in "The Mask: the return of the green face" ...
I think they should make a movie about that Jay & Silent Bob comic book. They could say a bunch of dick and fart jokes, and make fun of gays too. I think it would be the BONG!!! Maybe even have Mark Hammil and what's her name in it.
Snoogins...
Superman is well.
What the hell was hollywood thinking? Why did Hollywood have to be dumb and make those great movies?
I'm not going to tell you until you figure out how to post a reply to the correct thread.
Well, I guess this all started (in the last 20 years) from Batman right? Well outside superman (and Swamp Thing) it seems like movie companies have ignored the DC folks? Where's the Green Lantern Movie? Where is The Flash Movie? Where is A Preacher Movie? Oh well probably better off without after seeing how bad they fucked up Daredevil... Oh now a Watchmen movie, that would be ... eeeh maybe not. I'll keep my cherished childhood memories locked inside my head with all the funny voices telling me to hurt people, where they belong.
One thing about the old TV show: I never understood why Bruce Banner was so bummed out about being the Hulk. You always saw him moping at the end of every episode while he was hitch-hiking, walking, etc. to yet another town. Oh, poor me. Thrashed another city/bunch of cars/building/beat up on some more people who needed beating on, etc. Oh, the humanity.
Now me, I'd have some fun with it. Hang out in bars and pick fights with people:
All right. Maybe I'd make a bad Hulk.
See, the kicker of the superhero genre is that they're SUPERhumans in OUR normal world.
huh, Austin...I think you have the wrong movie series.
Beer Die is the game of champions Learning To walk my own path.
If you managed to stay until the end of the credits for Spiderman you would have heard the corny Spiderman song from the 70's (60's?) cartoon, which sounded so awful that it was a real shock to my system. When I was a kid that song was cool, mostly due to its association with Spiderman I guess. The theater I saw it in stopped the projector halfway through the song of course.
Lasers Controlled Games!
I'm only watching if the Macho Man Randy Savage (with Elizabeth) is in it, or maybe I'd settle for Jake "the Snake" Roberts, otherwise forget it.
I for one prefer the CGI Hulk to the Lou Ferrigno Hulk if only for the fact that they can now make the Hulk the right size. The Hulk is supposed to be HUGE, and by huge I mean much larger than a muscle-bound body builder.
I would imagine that one of the reasons why Bill Bixby played Dr. David Banner in the Hulk TV series was that he was a pretty little guy - the transformation of him into the Hulk would be a bit more believeable because of the size difference between Bixby and Ferrigno.
And yes, for you sticklers out there, I did mean to say David Banner. The TV series, for some inexplicable reason, didn't want to use the comic character's name of Bruce Banner.
I do find it interesting, however, that viewing the trailer, the origion of the Hulk borrows more from the TV series than the comic book. In the original story, Bruce Banner was caught in a nuclear explosion. They could have used this - maybe moved the test side to underground, but didn't. Oh well.
Maybe they'll eventually remake the "Trial of the Incredible Hulk" TV movie where attorney Matt Murdock represents David Banner in his criminal trial.
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
Of course, the odds of that happening are probably about the same as the odds of Strong Sad developing a sense of optimism, but hey, one can hope.
In the trailer, Banner claims that he likes becoming the Hulk. That's a gross violation of his character. Why try to find a cure for his Hulk-ness when he likes the destruction he causes? Hollywood has never gotten a comic book movie right since Superman, which is sad since that was over 25 years ago :(
I'm willing to lay odds that there will be some inappropriate mention of the size of the Hulk's member as well.....
A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
Arrgh! Hulk's brain... on fire! Too much .... Slashdot! Hulk SMASH puny Slashdot! Hulk SMASH!! ARRRRRGH!!!!
The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
DareDevil was a hell of a lot better than spiderman. At least Ben Affleck LOOKED like a super hero. Toby McGuire looks like he is 12. Peter Parker LOOKED like a college student. (If you are complaining about Kingpin being black, consider this: how many white actors were large enough to play the part, let alone have acting ability?)
I'm guessing... Fruit of the Loom plus Spandex???
And he's gotta have a hell of a budget for clothing, unless he just swipes alot of them off clotheslines. After all, you'd think people would catch on, and start using driers.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
...is for The Sandman. Its probably a bit though thoughtful for the American public, however.
You're forgetting the originals. Batman. Superman. Now those were good movies.
Tintin, now that's a REAL comic. The cartoon version's available for all 22 episodes.
Spielberg's now putting together the first American version of Tintin. Most likely, Caprio'll play the lead. I can't think of anybody else with a closer resemblance to Tintin.
( For the ignorant masses who know not who Tintin is, the definitive site : http://www.tintin.be )
You will. And Silver Surfer, FF, etc. Check out Superhero Hype.com sometime. Now is the Golden Age of Comics Film and (to paraphrase Ovid): Let others praise ancient times, I am glad to be born in these.
The PORNO version to come out!
Hulk: HULK SMASH!
Me: Yeoowsa! She's gonna be sore tomorrow...
Me too, I rather enjoyed Daredevil! I'm not sure why people give it the bad reviews.
In the trailer, Banner claims that he likes becoming the Hulk
Nope, he doesn't like becoming the hulk, he's fighting it. He likes it once he's gone past the point of no return, when the hulk totally supresses his own thoughts and replaces them with pure animal rage. And he doesn't like the fact that he likes it.
Why try to find a cure for his Hulk-ness when he likes the destruction he causes?
Because, if you pay attention you'll see that he doesn't like the destruction. Dunno what you were watching, but it wasn't that trailer.
Hollywood has never gotten a comic book movie right since Superman
lol!
Yeah, right, because flying around the earth to go back in time was "getting it right"! Wheee, same thing for the comic-relief Luthor huh?
Batman was getting it right (the first one).
Spiderman was giving the horny teens what they wanted, wich commercially is getting it right but not in spirit.
XMen got it right.
Daredevil...hell, I like that better than Spiderman (at least the wet t-shirt moment wasn't so damned forced and pointless).
You can't take the sky from me...
Or is "CGI" the new term for computer graphics in movies? I always thought it was "CG". To me, "CGI" is Common Gateway Interface... you know, web scripties.
Are people getting confused or am I?
I didn't think DareDevil was as bad as the poster suggests. I thought the movie was pretty excellent and stayed pretty close to the comic. Of course, YMMV.
-- DuckWing
Click here for bios, photos, of the Hulk.
Watach gonna do, when he, runs wild on you!
Take-off every
Isn't that car in the first couple of frames the same one that the agent jumps on in the Matrix trailer?
Man, these movie tie-ins are getting strange.
3D Printing Tips and Tricks at Zheng3.com
To those of us who grew up on the comic-book and TV cartoon Hulk, Lou Ferrigno just wasn't the same character. The comic book wasn't a giant in height, but he was supernaturally huge, with inhuman proportions. He also talked, and some of the book's most poignant moments were the Hulk's dialogue as he calmed down. He was a creature of rage, but the dialogue revealed that his rage was often fueled by things he couldn't understand that were beyond his control. It was very much of its time -- a creature created by the atom and persecuted by the military. All he ever wanted was to be left alone.
The Ferrigno/Bixby vehicle was fairly well-done, but it wasn't really about the same character. Hulk didn't talk, and the whole scientific/nuclear paranoia and rage angle was glossed over.
I haven't paid much attention, but I hope the new movie has more to do with the comic book. The Hulk shouldn't look like a bodybuilder.
DareDevil may have made a good movie (haven't seen it yet), but SpiderMan made a good movie while being true to the character.
So, for the purists, the changes to Electra would be enough to upset them and dismiss the entire movie. If you're not a purist then you can get around all of the changes and look at it as pure entertainment and evaluate it that way.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
The creators have talked about this before (sorry I can't give a link). Remember the big American version of Godzilla? (I know, you've probably repressed it, but just try.) They teased the Godzilla design all the way up to the release, never showing the full image. The creators of the Hulk (and Spider-Man, too) agreed that this was a bad idea. You're dealing with a primary character that is completely CG, so a lot rests on how he looks. It was important to get the images of Hulk and Spidey out for people to see, and put a lot of fears to rest. Notice that they haven't exactly been hiding Nightcrawler in the X2 previews either.
I'm so surprised by all the people who can make a well informed opinion on the movie by a 3 minute clip. I tend to find the CG stuff looks better when it's bigger then a postcard. Let's hold off judegment until you actually see the movie on the big screen.
Personally I thought it was far too luridly violent. The paper-clips-in-the-throat thing, the knife that goes through and stretches the character's shirt behind her torso, the (meant to be funny) killing of the old lady on the plane -- those were gratuitous, to use the word right, and didn't fit with the comics I remembered. The character could have had his grit and toughness without that kind of stupid choice.
At least they tried some stuff with the extreme flashback for their narrative line and the "seeing sounds" effect. The result was pretty uneven, but those two elements were in keeping with the spirit of the comics, I thought.
It's a C- of a movie. (Not nearly as awful as dreck like "Pearl Harbor" on the Ben Affleck mediocrity spectrum.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Will the Greatest Ameircan Hero be some skinny blonde-haired CGI animation with jerky movements?
[FromTheMorning]
Someone mentioned the leaping was unrealistic. In the comic the Hulk could leap like a mofo.
Does anyone know the classic David Keown rendering of the Hulk in the early 90's? He was FREAKING HUGE. That is how a comic book hero should be. This is how the Hulk was originally imagined to be . . . SUPPOSED to be.
You guys can keep your TV show. I'm on board for this. If you ever read the comics this IS the Hulk, visually the TV show was just a cheap imitation.
LOL and I've got eric banas autograph! I didn't even ask for it.. back when he was a comedian in good ole melbourne town...
wonder if its ebay material yet?
In bringing them to the screen they try to recreate the comics. They can't. The comics were kind of corny, but they had many many issues to develop the ... story. They could revisit the story later, tweak it a little, and tease you with it. When they have to pack it all into a 2 hour movie, it doesn't work. Especially when the characters can be a little corny to start with, or teetering on the edge.
In all honesty, the Hulk's story got old pretty quickly to me. There are many other interesting stories they could do, and I am sure they will try. In this day and age, I wouldn't be surprised if they did Captain America. He was pretty lame at times, but I really liked the issues where he fought the Vampire (can't remember his name).
In essence, Hollywood just doesn't get it. They want to create a franchise, and sell merchandise. I used to have a Tshirt with the "Bat Signal" on it, several years before the first movie came out. Once I saw the movie, I never wore it again, they had ruined the "coolness" of it by completely saturating the market with Batman crap. Now I just remember the cool things for what they really are, and try not to pay attention to the popular opinion. The popular opinion is fed to people, and very rarely is it worth the small effort it takes to acknowledge it.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
The problem with live action movie's based on graphic novels (what you're all calling "comics") is that it's difficult to establish a sense of reality for the viewer. In a graphic novel the characters interacting in their universe is more easily accepted by the reader because every aspect of the novel complements each other within its own reality.
In a live action movie, though, the characters tend to look like idiots in lame halloween costumes because they can't blend into the real universe of our reality that they're supposed to be part of.
Seriously, if you were walking down the street and a guy in a Spidey suit came out of nowhere to save you fron some impending doom unknown to you, chances are good that you would either run from him thinking he was a freak or you would kick his arse until the cops showed up.
Great, now I got the freakin theme song stuck in my head.
Bastard.....
rumour is that the tv execs thought bruce was a gayish name.
But what do we get? We get Jar Jar Binks as action hero. Watchable in a trailer, and that's about it for me.
We're long since past the "Wow isn't that cool what they can do?" phase. The "big wow" scenes are just as painful. By halfway through Phantom Menace we'd gotten the joke: watching a huge panorama of CGI "action" on screen, half the time you can't even find the characters to root for them. When it's in the service of okay writing, it has limited value -- first glance at Rivendell -- but even in LOTR: Fellowship, I rolled my eyes at the enormous statues. In the background they might have worked, but to focus attention on them only makes it more obvious that I feel no sense of awe at all over this stuff.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
I read Hulk since it started and I am dissapointed unless I'm mistaken?!
I don't remember any father and Bruce is supposed to be a brilliant physicist that tries to rescue a young and reckless boy that has drived onto a military testsite just when they are to explode a new type of nuclear? bomb, I think it was called a "gammabomb". He (Bruce) runs out in the last seconds and manages to throw the kid behind a wall but is then himself exposed to "gamma" radiation (the gamma-radiation was colored green in the drawings, that's why Hulk is green). This happening is a critical point in the whole Hulk saga that parallels Bruce's selflessness with Hulks loneliness and doomed attempts to try to do the right things in a world that is not accepting him or try to exploit him.
In my view Hulk is both more facinating and potentionally complex as a character than Spiderman.
Also, I expect this movie to draw large female crowds exactly because of this ambivalence and struggle for acceptance. Everybody knows girls are attracted to troubled strong and difficult boys with a heart of gold deep, deep inside...
Why Hollywood (unless I'm mistaken) jumps away from the whole bombtest-scene, I can only guess has to do with being politically correct (or is it patriotic?). Someone could start remembering who was the first ever to use a WMD..
TG.
says someone who can't spell bomboklaat.
just like Daredevil . The Batman movies are the litmus test . None have come close. Spiderman was more of a chick/date film. Not very good.
I love em so much! Get them before they run out.
The movie was real boring at times . They took a great character and destroyed him , hollywood that is. The love story they put in it was garbage and ruined the film. Acting was worthless also.
My own 2-cents:
Spiderman was alright. TobyM's acting was pretty weak. He was supposed to act like a kinda shy, kinda introverted, kinda geek...but ended up looking a little mentally slow and a lot constipated.
X-Men was boring. It was just an introduction for those not familiar with X-Men. Also...of all the mutants to choose...the frog dude?? How stupid.
Dare Devil was pretty fun. I liked it fine. And, I like that they succeeded in giving it a dark feel. Consider the dorky Batman films...none of which felt dark. Instead, they felt like a circus without much color.
Because my GOD what if somebody holds political views that differ from yours! Why, that's just unpatriotic! Destructive! Communist! Give them money? HELL NO! Especially if they are so obviously bent on the destruction of MERKA! Anyone who doesn't support the GOP is in favor of nuking Washington, DC.
Must... support... the prevailing... political opinion... Must... be... politically... correct.
What's funny is that you don't even realize how PC you're being, and probably cringe at the label.
Can't full screen, slow to start streaming. No option to save streams in non premium versions. Seems like they have an upgraded version every other month (with no increase in quality) requring me to install a new version for every new trailer I want to watch. Requires a dedicated player to play. Difficulty skipping ahead/behind in the stream to different segments of a streaming video.
I would prefer just plain mpeg1 or mpeg2, and having the ability to save the stream to my hard drive for later viewing. If anything this is a good thing since the trailers are realitivly small and you can distribute them to friends, thereby driving up the hype.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
After the Spawn movie I was a little soured on the whole comics to movie thing. There is supposed to be a "good" sequel but I think it's due to come out when DNF comes out.
...can be found here.
Pretty good collection. Poor bastard won't know what hit him.
--Mike
In Soviet Iraq, you lie to the Information Minister!
Theme from the "Greatest American Hero" (Believe it or Not) - Joey Scarbury
Look at what's happened to me
I can't believe it myself
Suddenly I'm on top of the world
Shoulda been somebody else
CHORUS:
Believe it or not I'm walking on air
I never thought I could feel so free
Flying away on a wing and a prayer
Who could it be?
Believe it or not it's just me
Just like the light of a new day
It hit me from out of the blue
Breaking me out of the spell I was in
Making all of my wishes come true
CHORUS
Who could it be?
Believe it or not it's just me
Thank you.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
...look so much like "Shrek II"? Maybe the movie will be good, but, come on, the Hulk looks like a big cartoon.
From what I saw of the trailer, I would have preferred if they went back to Lou Ferrigno or some other overbloated bodybuilder (and we know theyre not on roids since they use the same drug tests for Mr.Universe as theydo for the Olympics).
Hell, they could have even used some female bodybuilder!
I'm surprised actually, that there isn't a site which archives trailers and has new ones and charges a small fee to view them each month.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
After all of these negative reviews based on a two minute trailer (which may or may not contain pieces of file that will actually be shown in the 100-minute version), I think I have a new .sig quote:
:)
"Those who would give up watching a fun movie to spend hours disecting the teaser-trailer deserve neither."
Every cliche needs a little modernization from time to time, right?
'LXG', as they call it, looks *appallingly* bad - from the looks of the trailer, it has none of the style or Victorian charm of the original comic, just a buncha guys in Matrix-style leather trenchcoats driving a big ol' car. A Car fer frick's sake! Where's the steampunk in that?
And then to call it 'LXG'... euuugchhhh....
Er...just as a point of fact, the United States was FAR from the first to use "weapons of mass destruction." Nuclear, yes. But biological warfare was used in Europe way back into the middle ages (and I wouldn't be shocked to hear that it'd been used farther back than that and in other areas too). Chemical weapons were used extensively in the first World War.
There are plenty of decent reasons to sling mud at the US government without people fabricating new (and utterly incorrect) ones.
-Perrin.
Now I want you to go in that bag and find my lightsaber. It's the one that says bad mother-fscker on it.
You know, I am amazed that people are so quick to bash daredevil for the weak dialogue and such, and have been unwilling to turn the same criticism on spider-man, which is much more deserving. I definitely related more to the "heart" of the daredevil portrayal than that of spiderman. Both movies had a great buildup of background story (which I hope is where the Hulk shines as well). Spiderman quickly lost that after the horrid green goblin and overly "batman and robin" type scenes with our hero. Daredevil I felt never made that bad leap, and stayed more or less dark and character focused (as superficial as it was). No to mention toby maguires constipated reaction to Ol' Ben's death - still makes me laugh. Ok, that was a bit mean :) But I hope the Hulk avoids the mistake of both of these - though I am not counting on it (better to be surprised than disappointed).
I don't think so. I can't think of any other Marvel characters who could carry basically wide appealing movies. Hoenstly, the Icon character in the general populace are done.
Ghost Rider is the only other one I can think of, or Iron Man or FF? But any other recognizable figures are under the X-men franchise don't lend themselves to niche markets or bad stories. Can you imagine the horror of a Captain America movie? Well- may'be I'm jsut flashing back.
Then again, Blade was pretty much a 2nd rung character- I would love a Dr. Strange pic.
You know, you're absolutly right. My comment within my post does come off as dismissive. That was not my intent. I guess I was in jerk mode when I wrote that line. Now that I'm aware, it won't happen again.
As for the distinction between comics and graphic novel... I think this link addresses it very well.
This isn't so much off topic as tangential. Moderators, read the parrent and grandparrent before burning me on this.
First recorded use of a Biological Device -- Seige of a Turkish fortification during the 1st Crusade. The turks catipulted plague infested bodies at the European invaders.
First recorded use of a Chemical Device -- The Battle of Ypres II between German and Canadian forces. The Germans relesed Chlorine gas from hundreds of massive canisters burried in the ground. Luckily for them the winds stayed steady. The Canadians had a bad day.
First recorded use of a Nuclear Device -- August 6, 1945. The Enola Gay drops a 15 Kiloton Uranium Fission device on the Japanese port city of Hiroshima. A subsequent bombing of Nagasaki with a plutonium fission device is the last recorded use of Nuclear weapons in combat.
Interestingly enough chemical weapons were first conceived by Leonardo Di Vinci for use against ships at sea. He reasoned that a gas attack on a ship would be fairly easy to pull off and would allow the boarding and capture of naval assets rather than their wastefull sinking.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Digimon already had a movie. Pokemon themselves have had somehting like 4 (I think the the last few were on video only) And there are plenty of anime movies- most of them just never get released into theatres in the US (although there are exceptions, like Spirited Away).
I don't really see what anime movies have to do with live-action superhero movies, though.
Remember a little series called "TekWar"?
Willaim Shatner gave a "making of" interview where he said flat out that he used the comic books (Dark Horse I think) based on his literary masterpieces directly as the storyboards for the series episodes. Very obviously he did expect the result to be entertaining. (actually, there were four "TV movies" followed by 18 regular episodes so the Hollywood types agreed with him)
Just as a bit of trivia does anyone know if Shatner really did write the books without a ghostwriter? The timing of the first book (during a screenwriters strike) sure seems to suggest that ghostwriters would probably work pretty cheaply...
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
As everyone should be aware, mplayer playes quicktime movies on linux. Unfortunately, alot of people have problems with the audio. Basically, the problem is that the new quicktime movies use aac (advanced audio codec) audio instead of mp3 like older quicktime files. The solution of course is to install aac support for mplayer.
To do this, first you must install the codec. The codec that supports aac is available at audiocoding.com. It's called FAAD2. I used the cvs (1.2 beta) so I don't know if the stable 1.1 will work. (The 1.1 requires a small patch to get it to compile with newer forms of the libsndfile or forms of gcc > 3.) Other than that it compiled fine. The second change is that the libraries for faad are installed in /usr/local/lib. Apperently mplayer doesn't, by default, look in /usr/local/lib. I symbolically linked the libraries to /usr/lib (where mplayer DOES look), but I assume you could add /usr/local/lib to the search path.
Hopefully this helps many of the people who want to run these and other quicktime files on linux. Mplayer has made great strides and while it's not perfect, (crashes if you try to run 2 qt files back to back without restarting), it is the best there is for linux, (or for that matter any other system). (As an alternate note, the rpm faad2-1.1-fr1.20030409.i386.rpm does not work. While it installs to the correct place, the mplayer config is not able to detect the version of faad from it. I've heard that it will work as long as you also install the devel package, but did not test it.)
Now, it turns out that it's pretty easy to embed mplayer into mozilla, (or in my case phoen...err, firebird). You just need to go to the mplayer plugin project at sourceforge, download, compile and put in your plugin directory and mplayer will but up inside your browser so that those embeded-only files are no longer a problem.
I do security
Spidey vs Transformers...Marvel had publishing rights at the time (can't remember whos doing the new Transformers comics) so they could do stuff like this.
:-)
As I recall, Spidey (in black costume era) was helping the Autobots rescue some human scientist that the Decepticons had kidnapped to turn oil into engergon.
What I REALLY want to see is Magneto vs the Transformers. Such sweet carnage it would be.
He's written for B5, most of the Q stories for Star Trek (good good stuff), Spider-Man and of course his 17 year run on the Hulk.
:)
He came up with all the cool stuff for the Hulk: the grey skinned version who wanted to take over the world, the evil future version of himself, and the fusing of the crafyness of the grey hulk and Bruce Banner's personality into the body of the big green Hulk. If you think that the combination of a genious intellect in a near-invunerable body made him too strong, he had a new weakness: piss him off, and he'd turn human with the 'Hulk Smash!' personality.
The reason I heard he left the title is that he ran out of ideas that Marvel would let him do. Which is one of my gripes with Marvel (and Star Trek): to beholden to the status quo.
damn, damn, damn--
please make a movie of Salvage One.
god i loved that series!
Actually I haven't either, but I know what happened.
He was one of the first comic book authors to take a charachter and basically destroy his life, then watch what he does. Now thats pretty common, seems to happen to Spider-Man all the time, but when Miller was writting DD it was fresh, shocking, and cool.
The way Bullseye kills Electra in the movie is straight out of the comic book. He takes her own sword and impales her with it striaght through the heart, and yeah you see the tip sticking out her back. Then she got ressurected by the Hand (ninja sorcerors) and ends up working for the Kingpin as his assasin, and is tasked with killing Daredevil.
One of the all time great moments in comics came after the Kingpin destoryed Daredevils personal and professional life prior to killing him. He had Daredevil put in a car that was then tossed in the river so he'd drown. The great moment is when the Kingpin realizes that not only did Matt escape from the car, but now he has enough reason to hate the Kingpin for the next ten thousand years and has nothing to lose.
So the movie is actually pretty tame compared to the comics. That said, I also dislike violence when its totally pointless. I'm a big Dr. Who fan, and there are several otherwise great episodes that I don't care for because everybody dies.
If you're a superhero who was dating another superhero, but has been having an affair with a mere mortal, call 1-800-SPR-INGER! We want to hear from you...
Next up: Hulk, Wonder Woman, and some skanky trailer ho from Park #12, Double-wide #4.
The Marvel pantheon is full of deep, fascinating characters (as well as some real stinkers). The best of the Marvel heroes revolve around some fundamental question of humanity or some basic emotion. For instance:
Spiderman = Responsibility. Stan Lee's quip, "With great power comes great responsibility" may not be as catchy as "Up, Up and Away" or "To the Batmobile, Robin", but it's a lot more inspiring when you think about it. Pete Parker received a talent by random chance, an accident, something that he had no say about. That talent has been both blessing and curse to him. That talent is what makes the stories fun to read. What Pete does with that talent is what makes them meaningful.
Hulk = Rage. Bruce David Banner is a civilized, intelligent man. The raging child inside him is anything but. The writers of this book have spent years dousing for the sources of the ever-flowing font of rage that wells up within Banner's fractured soul. His father, his mother, his wife, his father-in-law, his employers. About the only thing they haven't thrown at poor Bruce, as far as I can recall, is children. It doesn't hurt the story any that it was the work of Bruce's own intellect (the gamma experiment) that set the monster within him loose. Now, every day that Bruce wakes up amid the wreckage of some unfamiliar place, he must ask "My God, what have I done?" of his actions taken both while monster and as a man.
Iron Man = Weakness. Bright and shiny on the outside, a lifestyle of flash and sparkle. But, within, there are flaws. Billionaire playboy inventor Tony Stark has a weak heart, is an alcoholic, and has no lasting relationships. Is his entire life a hollow shell? In addition, Iron Man must also deal with the constant possibilities that the handiwork of his mind, which is also the foundation of his fortune, can be so easily turned to evil by others. Iron Man, and to some extent the Hulk as well, must address the problem presented over and over in Tolkien's works: the creations of our intellects can turn against us to work great evil because all machines, once created, have no governing wisdom of their own. Bruce Banner's science opened Pandora's Box and found the Hulk inside. Tony Stark tried to create a better world through technology and learned that technology is equally powerful as a tool of evil.
Captain America = Idealism. Steve Rogers is a man of high ideals faced with a world filled with awful circumstances. Sure, he can try to fight the bad guy, but he's only human and he often fails. What's harder to fight are the situations where the country he loves hasn't lived those ideals.
X-Men = Alienation. While individual X-men have very individual stories, the series overall explores the question of conflict between diverse groups. The homo sapiens v. homo superior conflict serves as a metaphor not only for race relations, but for relationships between parents and children as well. Each mutant must deal with the feelings of isolation and loneliness they experience while acting out their personal mythology: "nothing like this has ever happened to anyone buy me."
Green Lantern (and Dare Devil) = Fear. Courage is an act that only those who feel fear can perform. I'm not sure that either of these characters lives up to their billing as being "without fear", but they both show that it's possible to act in situations that would scare the living @&%! out of any rational person.
To sum it up, every great hero needs a fatal flaw. The flaw is how the reader relates. The flaw is how the tale teaches. Stories in comics are just as full of flash and bang as any other mythic tale, but they can also be as full of substance.
'Nuff said.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
i like quicktime too.
Whenever i have the choice, i choose quicktime.
People are complaining about the Hulk graphics because they aren't consistent with the rest of the movie. The rest of the charachters aren't obviously CG, so the Hulk stands out like a sore thumb. If the whole movie was generated on a computer, a la FF: Spirits Within, then it would be ok because it would be consistent.
And aside from looking right, its got to move right too. In the comics the Hulk is 8 feet tall and wights about a ton, but is incredibly strong. He might be able to jump a mile into the air, but he still has mass. To make an example, say somebody rams him with a two ton truck. He can't go flying because he weighs too much, but he wont not be moved because he's not that heavy. So when they're working the CG they should also make sure the physics look right as well.
Does anybody know how the heck the Incredible Hulk's pants stay on when he makes his transformation??? How can he grow 10 times in size and still fit into Bruce Banner's skivvies???? I need answers!!
X men is great, spider too, i love dd, and will love more x2, but anybody has seen FF ??? its so awful I think they will do it again from trash.
hope Hulk is better that FF, at least a batman like movie
I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
For a trailer, that was pretty weak, especially around the dialogue. But the sound was mixed oddly (Audigy and Klipsch/THX 4.1, so don't blame my gear, or my ear). Maybe what it needs is Senssurround.
And the CGI, from this distance, looks like it might be PS2 quality. Worse than the bad CGI in Spider-Man. How they can take a computer generated 9-foot guy and make him look like a 3-inch model keyed into the frame is beyond me.
Why the fuck do all the goddamn movie sites only stream their trailers!? I'm on dial-up outside of the USA and South Korea, like half a billion other users around the world, and here's a message to Hollywood on our behalf: get it into your thick fucking skulls, STREAMING DOES NOT WORK! Why the hell can't these guys just serve mpegs, avis and quicktime files? Oh no! Someone else might serve/post/trade them! Heaven forbid, free publicity! To the Retard Mobile Robin, we're off to the RIAA! Jesus Christ...
I liked Daredevil, too.
Spiderman... well, it was a bit over the top, but I certainly can't call it bad.
Whow, he jumps just like Supermario!!! Maybe his secret isn't gamma rays but mushrooms...
First recorded use of a Chemical Device -- The Battle of Ypres II between German and Canadian forces. The Germans relesed Chlorine gas from hundreds of massive canisters burried in the ground. Luckily for them the winds stayed steady. The Canadians had a bad day.
The Canadians actually didn't have things as bad as they could have that day. One of the soldiers in the trenches was a chemist, and recognized the oncoming gas. His solution? Urinate on some rags and breathe through them. The chlorine would react with the urine and crystalize, allowing the soldiers to survive the gassing.
It sounds like a really unpleasant gas mask, but it's better than the alternative.
There were two gas attacks during the second Battle of Ypres. The first was against the allied lines stationed there. They were forced to retreat, but were replaced by the 1st Canadian Division.
The Canadians were then hit with the second gas attack, but stood their ground. A chemist in their ranks came up with the countermeasure of pissing on some cloth and breathing through it to stop chlorine from getting into their lungs. Apparently, it scared the hell out of the attacking German force to see that what was supposed to be a lethal gas attack had only pissed the Canadians off. The loss of morale likely helped in their failure to take Ypres.
The Canadians were rather ferocious fighters back then.
I was just wondering if what was said in the news post was what the consensus of people felt towards those movies?
For instance, I really am a big X-men comic fan, but I thought that the movie was crap. I knew it would be crap before it came out, too, because they would never be able to develop so many characters in only 1 1/2 hours. And all the dialog sucked. It just didn't feel like X-men to me.
Spiderman was a good comic, and I really did appreciate the movie translation. It addressed many of the things that make Spiderman...well...Spiderman. Anyways, I liked that one.
Daredevil to me felt very much like a comic book, although I have never read any Daredevil comics, so maybe that's why my opinion is what it is. I enjoyed the movie, but I'm not sure what kind of butchery happened in the adaptation.
Anyways, I just wanted to voice my opinion about what I felt was a totally biased news post.
In summation: X-men is bad, Spiderman is good, Daredevil is good.
I'd be happy to hear some opinions otherwise
Great - now he can move out of the van down by the river!
First off, Pmuse, nice post. I wish I had moderator points. You got me to thinking in your descriptions. In many of the descriptions, the essance of the characters were described as fleshed out in certain series of runs of the comments. For example, your iron man is definately from the Armor Wars, where Tony Stark finds out his tech was used to create all armored villans. It struck me how sometimes, someone rights a hero and just nails it. Another example is Frank Miller's "Batman Returns." He has forever left is mark on Batman and has changed the character. The show Batman Beyond is truly a product of his vision. In all these cases, look at the initial character, and compare to the changes made. Sometimes, not even the original author gets it "right." My question is, for the Hulk, has there ever been such a defining momment. I will invite yells here, but for me the comic has been cheesy the few times I read it. If it carries any weight, I think of Bill Bixby in the TV show who put so much humanity into Banner.
"He who laughs last, didn't get the joke."-Cap
And people wonder why Linux hasn't taken off in the mainstream. Less coding, more testing!
Interoperability is the new buzzword now! Live up to it!
(I hope someone sees this before some Linux fanboi mods this down as "troll".)
... The Hulk was quoted as saying.
-pyrrho
Thank God they weren't in charge of making Batman.
May we never see th
I am still waiting for a live action Milk & Cheese.
I thought X-Men was pretty good, not great, but I thought Spiderman and Daredevil were awful. Blade was a much better movie than all of them.
Are you listening Perens!
You could instead use Media Player Classic which is a "clone" of Windows Media Player 6.4, and can also play Quicktime and Real stuff (as long as you have them installed).
It's pretty slick.
--God, that series was so lame. I got SO tired of stupid curly-blond-haired-guy NOT being able to control the Alien Power Suit, and always crash-landing like a dumbass.
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
Aren't they owned by a French conglomerate? Boycott FRANCE! I say we give France to the Palestinians! Or are you american Slashdot readers just a bunch of wimps, Linux wimps?
Carmack? Aren't you that famous guy who lost a Mars probe because you coded in Imperial instead of Metric? I suggest that you switch now before something truly horrific happens.
The next probe lost due to a standards crash could conceivably do something like rip the fabric of reality and unleash the hordes of hell. Of course, I wouldn't think that a down-to-earth NASA scientist would worry about things like that. Right?:)
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
Lou Ferrigno is retired, but somebody else tall and muscular like Brock Lesnar would have made it much better. If necessary they could use the CGI to increase his size somewhat, while still maintaining natural movement.
But the way they did this one made it look like a stupid cartoon.
Homer: (Talking to a gay man) "You turned the navy into a big joke. You took all our best names and turned them into sissy names. Names like Bruce, Lance, and Julian."
I already know what is going to happen, they make this movie it has some success, 6 months later the pron movie comes out called,
Hulk: The Jolly Green Giant!
and I am sure that a line from the movie will be, "Hulk horny!" Comeon, how is that not a winner?
I know it has already been modded funny, but this has to be the best pun of the year.
Just for the record, if you have entered into a Hulk Trailer Physics Discussion and John Friggin' Carmack starts weighing in and uses the full power of the mind that wrote the physics engine for nearly every ID product to assist you in calculating the physics of the Hulk Trailer... and then you counteract with a dismissal referring to an obscure NASA miscalculation regarding measurements.. and you're wrong because in fact you're confusing him with a general NASA engineer instead of his side work with Armadillo and professional rocket propulsion.....
At this point, everyone should be running at full speed (rocket-jumping, if they got them) because you've just opened the biggest black-hole of geekery since Stallman and Torvalds took the stage together and ignited a GNU/Linux naming flamewar at a Linux Award Ceremony. Every last bit of non-geekery lying around for a two mile area, from stupid t-shirts with the BSD daemon on them to every hand-written Sci-Fi con button should be flying through the air at dangerous speeds to be blowing into the event horizon of the complete and total geekitude tornado that has been unleashed.
Close your eyes, baby.
(Yes, that's right, an obscure Aliens quote in a John-Carmack-participated NASA-referencing Hulk Trailer Physics discussion.)
In a flashy cut trailer you don't an entire shot with the Hulk in it that lasts more than a second. You can freeze a frame and say 'it looks too smooth and fakey' or you can look at it moving for a subsecond and make a guess at how a longer shot would look.
There really isn't enough information at this time to make an informed decision.
But not being able to make an informed decision has never stopped a Slashdotter.
My father is a blogger.
The Gamma energy that transformed Banner into the Hulk caused the molecules of Bruce Banner's pants (which were cheifly polyester, since he was 'born' in the 60s) to stretch. It is akin to the 'unstable molecules' in the Fantastic Four's outfits.
The only side effect was it turned whatever pants he was wearing purple.
At least that's what I remember from reading the Hulk's letter pages back in the day.
My father is a blogger.
Spiderman was terrible.
John Friggin' Carmack starts weighing in and uses the full power of the mind
Fortunately, he probably didn't use full power or we'd be reading a full DNA analysis of the Hulk's muscles.
Perhaps a person who was generated with the same procedure (a la Matrix) would seem more real because we can accept it as truth with little force.
On the other hand, you could argue that we could spot the CGI person and it's flaws because we look at people every day (or at least when you shut your monitor off) and we can point out what is wrong.
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
Is that what they teach you in Canadian schools? Geez, you guys believe anything, don't you?
Take Daredevil. Obviously the cheese factor on that movie was pretty high, and it really turned some people off. But come on, this is a movie made in the spirit of COMIC BOOKS. If you read a comic book and find that someone named "bullseye" who actually has a bullseye branded onto his forehead cheesy, then maybe you just don't like the classic comic book atmosphere. It doesn't mean the movie was bad... it just means you don't like cheesy comic books. I much prefer the dark atmosphere of say, the batman cartoon, to the cheesy comic book style. Still, I was able to get myself into a cheesy enough state to enjoy Daredevil. If you want to enjoy any significant portion of the movies you see, you have to learn to take yourself out of that cynical, purely logical state that you drag yourself through most of your life, and try living in a different state the short time in which it takes to enjoy the movie for what it is.
and you're wrong because in fact you're confusing him with a general NASA engineer
Dude, that was a joke. I am very well aware of John's work and I was not referencing his rocketry hobby at all.;)
At this point, everyone should be running at full speed (rocket-jumping, if they got them) because you've just opened the biggest black-hole of geekery since Stallman and Torvalds took the stage together and ignited a GNU/Linux naming flamewar at a Linux Award Ceremony.
Did you just liken me to RMS? Wow, thanks.:)
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
I don't want to notice that when these guys are all flying around a room it is all fake.
No way, the people demand thrutfulness.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
In SA we used to get all the hero animation series dubbed into different languages. You could switch on the radio to listen to the original english soundtrack. Spiderman was dubbed into Zulu and became Rabobi. A local metal band did a cover of the Zulu soundtrack. Domafanya ba ya tsetsie i"Green Goblin" baba kae i"Dr . Octopus"
Botswa i"arch enemies" otswa a Rabobi
Rabobi banetsa i"spider sense is tingling".
Di gona yoa i"Green Goblin" "Dr . Octopus"
Ya tokoloshi "medicine", Hao!
Rabobi ba ya gona "Dr . Octopus" "left right"
i"Green Goblin" "uppercut" "KO one time"
Geez, I would never be able to guess that you were one of the writers of Jerkcity and Leisuretown!!!!!!!!!!!!
Green Lantern (and Dare Devil) = Fear.
Well, Green Lantern's flaw is the colour yellow, wich means fear in cowboy slang...so ok, I kinda see what you mean.
Of course, his real weakness is that his superhero weakness is the stupid colour yellow...man were they out of ideas that week! The damn colour yellow...
You can't take the sky from me...
I once offered my services to Armadillo as an Inertial platform coder of such ... no reply....
but i wish the best of luck to you....
*--- Sometimes a majority only means that all the fools are on the same side. ---*