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!"
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
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!:)
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.
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!!!!
...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
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.
Next comic hero on the screen...
by
jherubin
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
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.
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
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
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.
-- Ack!
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!!!
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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
... 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
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! :)
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.
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!!!!
...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.
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.
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.
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!
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 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.
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.