Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Movies Media

New Trailer for The Hulk 501

Posted by CmdrTaco from the taco-smash dept.
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!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Trailer for The Hulk More

New Trailer for The Hulk

Comments Filter:

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @09:55AM (#5780525)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:lets hope... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Let's hope they include the sad walking away music.

    • Re:lets hope... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Mancide ( 30030 )
      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 a
      • 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'.
        • The pacing was way off too

          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... (Score:3, Funny)

        by sllim ( 95682 )
        Yeah. Affleck was D'bomb in Phantoms.

    • Re:lets hope... (Score:3, Funny)

      by levik ( 52444 )
      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.

      Oh... Wait....

    • 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 ma
      • > for some reason I will never understand my wife
        > is very excited to go see it.

        > I love that the TV hulk was just him with green skin, a ripped shirt, and tussled hair

        ...it sounds like you perfectly understand her excitement. :)
    • 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.

    • Re:lets hope... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by D.Throttle ( 432930 )
      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.
    • 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!

  • I don't know... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Shads ( 4567 ) <<shadus> <at> <shadus.org>> on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @09:57AM (#5780539) Homepage Journal
    ... 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.
    • 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).
      • 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...

    • Re:I don't know... (Score:5, Funny)

      by DasBub ( 139460 ) <dasbub@das[ ].com ['bub' in gap]> on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @09:59AM (#5780558) Homepage
      although it does invoke some nogstolgia.

      I hear you can clear that up with some antibiotics.

    • 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?

    • 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)...
    • why the hulk?!!?!??!?!?!

      the hulk rules!

      i used to love that cartoon

      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

    • Re:I don't know... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Brendor ( 208073 ) <{brendan.e} {at} {gmail.com}> on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @10:52AM (#5781042) Journal
      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 Page [buyersmls.com]Robert 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.

      • The Fatal Flaw makes the Hero (Score:5, Insightful)

        by PMuse ( 320639 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @02:23PM (#5782895)
        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.

  • Download URL (Score:5, Informative)

    by Zoid ( 8837 ) <zoidctf@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @09:58AM (#5780547) Homepage
    480 version [akamai.net]


  • I can feel it inside me. Sometimes when I lose control and flame everything... I think I like it...
    FLAME!!!
  • At first I thought this was a joke, but I guess not. I like the ride at Universal Studios, but I do not blieve it would make a great full length film.

    But then again I said the same thing about X-Men...

    Go calculate [webcalc.net] something

  • Better Choices (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Go for the popular comics - like Blue Beetle!
  • You wouldn't like me when I'm angry...

  • New Trailer for The Hulk? (Score:5, Funny)

    by GMontag ( 42283 ) <[gmontag] [at] [guymontag.com]> on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @10:00AM (#5780565) Homepage Journal
    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!

  • Seems the most "comic booky" ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by binaryDigit ( 557647 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @10:03AM (#5780589)
    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.
  • 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...

  • Cheesy Look (Score:2, Interesting)

    by buktotruth ( 651740 )
    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 (Score:2, Interesting)

      by AssFace ( 118098 )
      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.

  • Damning with a faint praise (Score:3, Insightful)

    by secolactico ( 519805 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @10:06AM (#5780616) Journal
    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).
    • 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.
    • 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.

  • Trailer trash (Score:4, Funny)

    by guacamolefoo ( 577448 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @10:06AM (#5780617) Homepage Journal
    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.

    • Re:Trailer trash (Score:5, Funny)

      by artemis67 ( 93453 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @10:23AM (#5780766)
      Considering the Hulk's anger-management problem, is it really wise to put him up in another trailer?

      Maybe in the sequel, the Hulk will be ordered by the courts to have Jack Nicholson move in with him to help control his anger.

      At least THAT would be a far more interesting anger management movie than the dreck the Adam Sandler is currently in.
  • 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!

  • What's wrong with Quicktime ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dnaumov ( 453672 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @10:09AM (#5780642)
    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.
    • 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.

    • 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.
    • 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 ? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Matt Amato ( 2494 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @11:16AM (#5781225)
      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
  • Woah!

    The Hulk can fly! And he's huge. Shrek on steroids!

    I dunno...
    • He jumps moron. You never read the comic book.
      • Superman jumps too (tallest buildings in a single bound). Eventually he just started flying.

        I was watching old Superfriends shows on Cartoon Network, apparently Bat Man could fly too.

        Oh yeah, and Wonder Woman flies now too in the new Justice League cartoons.

        Spiderman doesnt fly, but somehow he can swing above the roofline of a city. Just what does he attach his webs too, birds?

        The problem with these cartoons is that they arent realistic.

  • Another misuse of CGI (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @10:10AM (#5780650) Journal
    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.

    • Re:Another misuse of CGI (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Iamthefallen ( 523816 ) <Gmail name: Iamthefallen> on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @10:31AM (#5780853) Homepage Journal
      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.
      • 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.
    • I completely agree.

      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
    • 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 st

  • Talk about interesting shows to make movies of... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Yoda2 ( 522522 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @10:10AM (#5780652)
    They are in the early stages of making a movie of The Greatest American Hero [upcomingmovies.com].

  • Daredevil (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gravelpup ( 305775 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .godkcor.> on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @10:10AM (#5780654) Journal
    ...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.
    • It definitely got me interested in DD as I had no prior experience with that corner of the Marvel-verse.

      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.

      SealBeater

      • Re:Daredevil (Score:4, Interesting)

        by gravelpup ( 305775 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .godkcor.> on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @10:49AM (#5781018) Journal
        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?

        • 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
    • 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.
  • 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".
  • 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.
  • 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...
  • Looks a bit too computer generated to me. It kinda has that whole 'Scooby Doo' feel to it from these previews.

  • Hope they include classic Hulk theme (Score:5, Funny)

    by buddhaunderthetree ( 318870 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @10:24AM (#5780777)
    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.

  • 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.

    • Re Iron Man (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @11:22AM (#5781260)
      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.
  • I think the cg effects for the hulk look HORRIBLE. I think they would be fine if the whole thing were a cartoon but I think they look completely unnatural when combined with real video. The hulk looks totally artificial.

    Plus, I thought DD was fairly decent having collected the comics growing up...

  • I can think of two reasons to see this film: (Score:5, Funny)

    by VikingBerserker ( 546589 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @10:26AM (#5780799)
    Jennifer Connelly.
  • There were more shots of Connelly in that trailer than the Hulk.
  • 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.

  • Here's [gameinfowire.com] 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.

  • Read the book! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kredal ( 566494 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @10:36AM (#5780907) Homepage Journal
    The book [amazon.com] 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)

  • Isn't this a trailer for Sandler and de Niro's 'Anger Management"?

  • Size Changes, etc. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by agentkhaki ( 92172 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @10:43AM (#5780966) Homepage
    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.
  • Eh, I would never have guessed /. would be interested in "The Mask: the return of the green face" ...

  • For those having trouble playing it: (Score:5, Informative)

    by Gyorg_Lavode ( 520114 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2003 @01:16PM (#5782283)
    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 [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 [sourceforge.net] 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Business will be either better or worse. -- Calvin Coolidge

Close