Totally different concept, different actors, etc.
What do you guys think?
YouTube - NEW INCREDIBLE HULK TRAILER!
"The Incredible Hulk" | Video | Our Newest Trailers: 'The Incredible Hulk' & More | MTV
Printable View
Totally different concept, different actors, etc.
What do you guys think?
YouTube - NEW INCREDIBLE HULK TRAILER!
"The Incredible Hulk" | Video | Our Newest Trailers: 'The Incredible Hulk' & More | MTV
Can't be any worse than the other one.
Also, on an only slightly related note, I heard Mark Wahlberg is shooting Max Payne in Toronto :D
I don't get it. The first one sucked so much that they decided to give it another go? It's not like the Hulk is this great story that needs to be done right.
All that aside, it looked ok.
I thought it looked all right. The trailer wasn't amazing, but it looked decent. I have a lot of respect for Edward Norton, but the previous Hulk had plenty of good actors in it, too. Hopefully this one will do better by the character.
Yeah, I wasn't that impressed with the trailer either. I didn't mind the first one though.
This sequels/remakes trend is starting to get ridiculous. The last Hulk movie was only released five years ago. Is this really necessary? The trailer looked alright, but certainly nothing mind-blowing enough to be worth re-imagining the series so quickly.
Why Ed? Why?
Now you know the real reason why he offered David his shirt. We was just going to tear it off anyway.
I really, really like Edward Norton so I will likely see this. I have my doubts about him pulling it off, but really, who didn't have their doubts about him pulling off a neo-nazi ex con? And look what happened there. So I'm hopeful.
Marvel hated what the film studio's were doing to the movies, sop they bought all the rights back and decided to make them how they should be.
I heard they are going to re-do X-Men into awesomenes.
The new Hulk looks amazing, I can't wait for it.
So far it looks brilliant, far better the film before it.
Meh, I'll give it a go. Could be good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Necronopticous
Quote:
Originally Posted by Necronopticous
Quote:
Originally Posted by Necronopticous
Quote:
Originally Posted by Necronopticous
Quote:
Originally Posted by Necronopticous
Quote:
Originally Posted by Necronopticous
Quote:
Originally Posted by Necronopticous
Quote:
Originally Posted by Necronopticous
Is this true? That would be so great.Quote:
Originally Posted by Balzac
Only? That's a pretty decent amount of time. It's not like they're pushing these turds out once every two years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Germ Hamee
The last Hulk movie was awful, and even if this is starting the whole thing over, I doubt I'll be able to bring myself to see it.
The other Hulk movie was awesome and anyone who says otherwise is being a pretentious douchenozzle.
The trailer was alright and the "slow-motion-jumping-at-each-other-to-attack-at-the-end-of-the-trailer" bit is very tired and uninspiring at this point.
5 years between remakes is a pretty short time.
Imagine if they decided to redo Lord of the Rings this year. Although that's totally different because they got it right the first time.
However, I still maintain it is impossible to get Hulk 'right'. Hulk just isn't the most interesting of superheroes.
Well, I'd better change my opinion since MILF says we aren't allowed to have our own opinion otherwise we'd be douches.
You have accurately assessed the situation and I applaud your acceptance of the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raebus
Here's a list of upcoming titles from Marvel.
Marvel Announces Movie Line-Up | BeyondHollywood.com | Asian, Foreign, Horror, and Genre Movie Reviews and News
I liked the first one until the last part with fighting electric dad at the end XD Hulk isn't that interesting and I don't see a remake being that much better.
Marvel has some of the dumbest superheroes. Spiderman is probably the best they have and it still doesn't come close to the awesome that his Batman.
I've always thought Marvel had the better superheroes, just because they tried to explain their origins using (mostly) real world phenomenon, despite how pseudoscientific. Like... Superman is just an alien from some far off planet who just happens to like fighting crime on earth, where Spiderman was an ordinary teen who had his genes messed up by a radioactive spider bite which gave him his abilities. The only DC one that's really like that is Batman which, admittedly, is awesome.
Lol, so it's okay to do a remake after five years, but not after two? I don't know about that - they both seem ridiculously soon to me. I'd rather if they insist on flooding the market with remakes that they stick to things that are actually... you know, dated. Even if they mucked it up the first time, I'm with Del Murder in that it's not like The Incredible Hulk is some masterpiece of comic book literature that deserves a magnificent film adaptation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roto13
But I'll admit that I'm mostly sick of seeing super hero movies. Fantastic Four pretty much killed it for me.
It's not a remake any more than Ultimate Spider-Man is a comic book remake of the original Spider-Man.
...which were thirty-seven years apart from start to start. I think that qualifies as dated enough to be worth re-imagining. This Hulk business doesn't.
Why not? Why is it okay for sequels to come out within five years, but not completely new interpretations of the source material?
Say what? Stan Lee & Company were obviously unhappy with the first movie, realised a bad thing when they saw it, and are now trying to put things right with Ed Norton at the helm. Don't like it? Don't watch it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Germ Hamee
In the meantime, Robert Downey Jr still goes to the top of the class, after Mr Welsh.
I'm not really down with the sequels business either, unless the story really merits it. This just comes down to my general dismay at the overwhelming amount of sequels and remakes coming out (most of which aren't very notable), while good original material is getting trapped in their shadows. I understand it's a business, and what people already know sells better than anything else, but it's still bothersome. Particularly in this case because we JUST saw a man become the Hulk. Why do we need to see it again? Even if they mucked it up the first time, there's no reason we should be paying for their lack of quality control. But--the masses apparently enjoy watching the same things over and over again, and as such, continue paying to flog the cash cow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kawaii Ryűkishi
This would actually be pretty cool if this really was a radically different interpretation of The Hulk, but it looks pretty much like the same things with different faces and minus the picture-in-picture stuff.
But I'm afraid this could start to wander off topic pretty quickly, so I'll digress and we'll just see how it goes.
As long as the studio stands to make a reasonable profit, they'll churn out whatever they feel like.
Five years is a short amount of time to look to the same source material for a new movie; however, if the movie is a substantially different interpretation and style, it may be seen as something more than the second movie about the same thing in a relatively short period of time.
That is a vulgar statement. There is only a three year difference between two years and five years, but it may be difficult for some to see because some people live on shorter time scales than others. What takes years for some people might only take months for other people!Quote:
Originally Posted by Roto13
the trailer wasnt anything special, hopefully not any worse than the last......why dont they just make a movie with hulk just destroyin stuff and screw the story :p