The Incredible Hulk Theatrical Trailer Thread

[Gamma Ra]

The trailer is just an amazing piece of footage in my opinion. I really loved how intense, exciting, and brutal the Hulk is when he's on the screen. I think with the extra attention Norton gave the script, the character, and how he's a fan of the comics and the television series it has to be good.

Personally I agree with the director and Norton when they say the Hulk is a fugitive story and that the concept of "The Lonely Man" should be explored. I love it and I love how you can hear the orchestrated version of "The Lonely Man" theme at the end of the trailer.

For me everything about this trailer screams "The Hulk".

Honestly I can't wait to see the scene of Hulk and Betty sitting in the rain together. Hopefully that scene is as emotionally charged as it looks on the screen.

I am psyched about Hulk, more so than ever. I got to see the Iron Man film for the second time, which solidified how great and well rounded that movie was, but this time I went to a later showing. The people applauded after the Hulk trailer and throughout it, you could hear people enjoying it.t:t:t:

What makes the Banner character work IMO, is that he's a guy trying to hide from himself and we all know that you can't hide from yourself, cause everywhere you go, there you are(great song). Yet Banner does attempt. The scene with Norton getting gassed in the trailer, with that look in his face, speaks volumes. He seemed to fear for the soldiers almost as to say 'PLEASE...get out of here!"

The scene of Hulk and Betty under the bridge is another scene that speaks volumes, but this time in Hulk's case. He's one of the most caring characters you'll find. Extremely protective of his friends, yet he is also as tenacious as they come and the worse threat to his enemies.

 

[Golgo-13]

My feelings are this.



differentiates itself from the o3 Hulk, it's clear this movie has a different direction.

Does it? The general public still thinks this is a sequel not a reboot. And remember the 2003 film was also marketed as an action/popcorn film too - just go back and look at it's trailers. Ppl might assume that they're being duped again with trick advertising.

The movie looks great to me, and i know that it won't be the same borefest as the 2003 film cause i've been following the production from the beginning, but i think marketing is doing a lousy job at getting that fact across to the general public, who are no doubt, gonna be the bulk of the films B.O revenue.

 

[The Shape]

Honestly since IM release, my desire for the TDK has somewhat dropped. Now I'm wanting the Hulk more than ever. Though I'm sure a new trailer for the DK will change all that. But I'm still sure IM will out TDK. It's just not a family friendly film though I'm loving the Joker! Dude is sick!

http://www.whysoserious.com/happytrails/trailer.htm

 

[Gamma Ra]

http://www.whysoserious.com/happytrails/trailer.htm

Looks good.

 

[Zimmy]

also on CGI note... he may not be as photo real as Golem...as the 03 one tried to be.


but...that being said he looks interesting.... as he looks at Roth....with disgust ...

he is reminicent of a massive cave troll from LOR. thats all I ever wanted.

I'm one of the minority that thinks the 03 Hulk wipes the floor with Golem fx-wise.

I loved the new trailer but as someone mentioned in another post, this Hulk looks to me like a bigger version of the Morlocks from I Am Legend which were some of the worst fx I have seen from a major motion picture in a long time.

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

is the new trailer up for download yet in hd

 

[jc50_2000]

is the new trailer up for download yet in hd

I think so. It can be found at:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/theincrediblehulk/hd/

I think that, on some people, the picture definition of the movie may be the difference between those who like the CGI, and those who don't. I started watching the trailer in HD. This gave a small uneasy feeling about accepting the CGI as a tangible entity by the actors on the trailer.

I hope it gets retouched for the IMAX theaters. CGI Hulk seems to be easier on the eyes on smaller picture. I suppose the brain compensates and resolves at that resolution.

- JC -

 

[dark_b]

I see that the CGI people don't like is the Hulk close up in daylight. Now look at the pic I have posted of it, in spoiler tabs, I haven't altered it at all. I think it is from the 1080p version of the trailer and I think the CGI looks great. Compare the right side of the pic to the left side, to me it seems that the right side has a better texture; finished CGI, whereas the left side of the pic is still not finished.

Spoiler

Anyone else agree?

you not only showed us that you dont knwo how rendering works,. you showed us that you dont understand the basics of lightining.not trying to bash you or something. but this is really bad IMO.

 

[Sarg92]

you not only showed us that you dont knwo how rendering works,. you showed us that you dont understand the basics of lightining.not trying to bash you or something. but this is really bad IMO.

Well that is true. I do not know how rendering or lighting works, I don't even care to be honest. I just stick to Photoshop and create graphic/digital art.

What I was trying to express was that the area with no light shining on it looks so good. There is a good skin texture and the CGI is looking good. And I kind of read that when light shines on an object that the detailed textures kind of turn into a smooth looking one but isn't the area with light shining on it, a little too smooth? Too much light on it?

 

[dark_b]

Well that is true. I do not know how rendering or lighting works, I don't even care to be honest. I just stick to Photoshop and create graphic/digital art.

What I was trying to express was that the area with no light shining on it looks so good. There is a good skin texture and the CGI is looking good. And I kind of read that when light shines on an object that the detailed textures kind of turn into a smooth looking one but isn't the area with light shining on it, a little too smooth? Too much light on it?

hmmm.
i have a feeling that you really tryed to find a reason why peopel complain about the CGI.
i mean why would a CGI company render half of hulks face with better settings then the other side?
if you think about it....you dont even need to understand CGI to know that what you wrotte was just WRONG.

was away for some days and i see that people still complain about the CGI.interesting. i mena its funny because i dont remeber that kind of complaints with any other big budget movie.

maybe.....just maybe they are really not good for 2008 and 130 milions.

like i said already. at least teh action looks good.

 

[ultimatefan]

hmmm.
i have a feeling that you really tryed to find a reason why peopel complain about the CGI.
i mean why would a CGI company render half of hulks face with better settings then the other side?
if you think about it....you dont even need to understand CGI to know that what you wrotte was just WRONG.

was away for some days and i see that people still complain about the CGI.interesting. i mena its funny because i dont remeber that kind of complaints with any other big budget movie.

maybe.....just maybe they are really not good for 2008 and 130 milions.

like i said already. at least teh action looks good.

I remember endless complainings about CGI in pretty much every big budget movie I´ve followed. There were near bloodbaths in the Spidey boards, with all three movies.

 

[onioz2]

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[Sarg92]

hmmm.
i have a feeling that you really tryed to find a reason why peopel complain about the CGI.
i mean why would a CGI company render half of hulks face with better settings then the other side?
if you think about it....you dont even need to understand CGI to know that what you wrotte was just WRONG.

was away for some days and i see that people still complain about the CGI.interesting. i mena its funny because i dont remeber that kind of complaints with any other big budget movie.

maybe.....just maybe they are really not good for 2008 and 130 milions.

like i said already. at least teh action looks good.

You know what dark_b? I am not gonna go any futher with this.

I incorrectly worded my first post and then when I read responses I reposted explaining what I was trying to say and a poster understood what I was trying to say.

I don't mean that R&H only rendered one side of Hulk's face, I am just saying that is looks vastly different. If you cover each side up you'd think one was a work in progress whereas the other was a finished piece. Even with light shining there, there should still be a similar texture and detail to a shaded area.

All I was trying to say was that both sides of the face look different, not that one side was finished or unfinished. I just incorrectly worded my posts.

Personally, I think the CGI is great and really good for unfinished work. People that I have spoken to did not say one word about the CGI, they just think the film looks great and wanna watch it. The public do not watch Hulk scenes frame by frame and analyse the CGI, they don't let things like CGI bother them, they just want a good film!

Like I said with my opening sentence, I do not want to take this any futher dark_b.

 

[onioz2]

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[FrostBite]

http://www.whysoserious.com/happytrails/trailer.htm

Thanks! Hadn't got to see it with my showings of IM.

Sadly, I am becoming more indifferent to TDK as time goes on. (Maybe from seeing so much of it early?) I am finding it very hard to get myself pumped to see it. (Though I still will and will probably enjoy it.)

 

[Kirmit]

The only problems I have with the face close up shot is that the eyes look a bit lifeless, the teeth need work and the mouth shouldn't be completely black imo. The skin, hair, lighting, shape and muscle potions all look great to me in that shot, either way i'm happy enough with the shot.

 

[onioz2]

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[Sarg92]

Pic 1:

Pic 2:

Which one looks better to you?

Both are unaltered as far as I know

 

[dark_b]

the first pic looks better. more color plus the dark parts of the pic are more darker.

 

[onioz2]

 

[Shivsguy616]

LMFAO!!!!! Dude! It doesn't work like that.

 

[Godman]

Boring CGI...very uninteresting and uninovative

 

[Golgo-13]

I've been very critically of the CG since i saw it, but i myust say that most of the shots look alot beter when viewed on the big screen...even the face shot! Better, but still off.

Oh, guess what i saw in my lobby when i went to see IronMan.....

..my wife had her camera on her.

 

[TheBeastWithin]

I've been very critically of the CG since i saw it, but i myust say that most of the shots look alot beter when viewed on the big screen...even the face shot! Better, but still off.

Oh, guess what i saw in my lobby when i went to see IronMan.....

..my wife had her camera on her.

That looks killer. Hope my theater gets one.

 

[FaT_tONle]

the first pic looks better. more color plus the dark parts of the pic are more darker.

Yeah that picture was up to Golem standards... that's the kind of texture they need.