f13.net

I like Eric Bana, but uh....This is still cool.

Link (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117963139.html?categoryid=13&cs=1)


Maybe it won't be such a popcorn flick after all.

I thought it was going Direct-to-Video. Seems like a big name to be putting on a direct title.

That's cool, but let's keep in mind that Norton has been in his share of crap.

Ugh.  I loved Eric Bana in the first one.  Would this be the first Marvel property where they've changed the lead actor?

I believe the fantastic four was a completely new cast....  8-)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109770/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109770/)

Ok, MODERN Marvel interpretations. :)

Having The Hulk as the leader of Project Mayhem would be pretty cool.

I want to see Hulk curb-stomp someone.

YES.

I like Ed Norton.  And he seems perfect for the Banner role.

Bana was okay,  but...  He was nowhere near dorky enough.  It was like those movies where they take the really hot woman,  dress her down for the first part and pretend you can't tell she's really attractive, then give her a makeover and she's gorgeous. 

They put Bana in a bike helmet, but he still looks like Bana as soon as he takes the helmet off.

Someone like Ed Norton or Steve Carell just feels better for a slightly dorky Banner who's repressing his rage.

Hmm, Bana used to be normal looking (if that makes sense). He started off as a goofy comedian at that -- and his breakthrough role was when he moved into drama and turned into a psychopathic fatass (which is how most people first came to know him):

(http://www.spybroken.com/bana/pics/film/chopper/chopper27.jpg) (on the right)

(http://movies.pnc.com.au/movelogo/chopchop.jpg)

Pre Chopper Bana:

(http://www.spybroken.com/bana/pics/tv/fullfrontal/fullfrontal06.jpg)

I think it was only after Troy that he became associated with action roles, and somehow morphed into a leading man type. At the time Hulk was made though, he was a good fit.

Maybe it's just the shadows, but Bana's got that Jack Burton look down in the first pick.  Perhaps we've found the actor needed for Big Trouble in Little China 2.

Stuntman Mike is the only actor needed for Jack Burton in Big Trouble in Little China 2.  End of the discussion.

Stuntman Mike is 56 years old.  56 year old people driving as fast as they can see is a scary thought.

Apparently, they're finally suppposed to show a trailer for this on Wed. at 9:56 p.m. ET, on MTV, MTVU, MTV2, FH1, Spike TV, Nick at Nite, and CMT.  Not that I really expect anyone to care enough to wait at their TV's for the trailer to come on.  Mostly I just find it out that they've waited until almost exactly three months before the movie releases to show a trailer for it.  Did it just take them this long to get to a point where they were comfortable with how the special effects looked?

Might be it doesn't have Iron Man level budget.

Well it is damaged goods at this point. 

Anyone know why they're not casting Bana again?  I tough he was a great in the first one.

It could be the shitty quality, but the CGI actually looks worse than the last one.

http://io9.com/367175/your-first-look-at-the-hulk-vs-abomination-smackdown?autoplay=true

Bana apparently lost a lot of enthusiasm in being the Hulk after his experience with Ang Lee. I believe he said he'd never been on a more serious movie set.

On a related note, apparently Norton and Marvel are banging heads over the final cut of this new film.

Yeah, I think I'm just gonna sit this one out if I can avoid it at work.

Hulk fucking sucks. But I would pay $100 to see Tim Roth vs Edward Norton.

So there's that.

If only we were getting Tim Roth vs. Edward Norton instead of CGI Hulk vs. CGI Abomination.

I was referring to the Chess scene...

Who am I kidding? I'll download it and skip the parts that made me download it instead of spending $9.

Yeah, Hulk is still just too shiny. I didn't realize Ed Norton, Tim Roth and Liv Tyler were in this thing. I thought they'd cast cheap unknowns. I'm thinking the fact that I haven't really heard much about it is not a good sign of its quality.

I thought Bana was cool too, but Ed Norton seems like a perfect Bruce Banner. Hopefully it doesn't suck!


Man, that's crazy talk!

I don't see where the hate comes from. That trailer was solid enough. Not omgfingawesome like Iron Man, but solid.

I agree with shiznitz.  I wasn't going to see this.  I may now.

For those who don't know, the picture quality on the movieweb site is slightly better than the earlier mentioned link (http://www.movieweb.com/news/53/27253.php).  As for why I don't like it, it's because the Abomination/Hulk showdown looks like pure unfiltered crap.  Also the cheesy dramatic music they're playing when the two charge and leap at each other in what looks it could be a trailer for a sequel to the Marvel Nemesis: Rise of the Imperfects fighting game, doesn't fill me with a lot of confidence.

It wasn't the fight scene that convinced me.  Ed Norton looks to be doing a good job with Banner, and I'm interested to see if they can really explore the character.

That's great and all, but as good as all the character work might be leading up to it, I just have little desire to watch a movie where I expect the climax to suck.

My problem with that trailer is that it removed all of the surprise of the film and pretty much gave me an idea of how the entire thing plays out.

Isn't that the problem with just about every trailer though?

This one was so damn blatent.  Geez I wonder what the last 10 minutes of the movie is going to be? Bruce Banner reaching the end of his character arc to embrace his alter-ego instead of shunning it, fighting the Abomination on the city streets, and la de freaking dah.

If the meat of your trailer is the last 30 minutes then yeah, fuck that.  I'll still see it but shit.  They're probably going to surprise everyone with an Avengers setup that includes an intelligent Hulk.  Oh, and The Matrix had the best trailer that didn't ruin anything.

For crissakes. He's the Hulk. Damn whether you the know outcome or not. It's just cool to watch him smash shit.

I think the Bana one succeeded in that respect too... Don't know why there's so much hate for it.

Because the final action scene was done so poorly and darkly that I literally couldn't tell what was going on.

I'll grant you that.

It had some good action sequences otherwise though. I liked it on a visceral level at least. And from what we know, they're making an even more popcorn oriented flick this time around. So hopefully, it'll be even more visceral than what Ang Lee tried to do. I think it'll be entertaining.

Because there wasn't nearly enough Hulk Smash, a whole lot of Daddy Issues Drama, and the climax of the climatic fight scene was a bit... silly. Oh and the Hulk looked like a shiny plastic Barney doll that was green.

That said, I liked the original other than my complaints above.

After spiderman(had spiderman 2 come out?) and all the hype the hulk got, it just couldn't live up to expectations. The last hulk movie was good I think but it had flaws and was simply not what people wanted, it left a bitter taste in their mouths. As said before, the ending was horrible and there simply wasn't enough "hulk smash"

Not just to parrot what everyone else is saying, I feel like this will be a much better movie. The budget won't be as high, the hulk to me doesn't look all that great(almost too human, just bigger and greener) however everyone's expectations are a lot lower. We'll go in, expecting a fun hulk movie and we'll be satisfied. To me this is probably the smartest thing marvel could have done with the property. Wash the taste of the old hulk out of our mouths, give us a nice refreshing new look and then if it does well, make another with a bigger budget.

Hell, it worked for batman, right?

Sooo... Looks like there's going to be a badass cameo in the new Hulk movie.  :drill:

Seems to be old news, but I just found out a few minutes ago when the newest commercial popped up on tv. The move makes me wonder how worried the execs are about getting their money back on this one, although it is reassuring.

I'm going to check it out, I think.

So at the very least, they'll make about 7 bucks.  :awesome_for_real:

I think it's more that Marvel is producing both movies and is trying to create a cohesive universe rather than a series on one-shots.

I saw a preview screening of "The Incredible Hulk". All in all: "Iron Man" was better. It's not a bad film, but it's not a great film either. "The Incredible Hulk" is a well presented dumb comic book movie, but it's still a dumb comic book movie.

If you want to read a long review, here's mine. (http://sc.thebeholder.org/hulk_incredible2008.htm)

hm. just watched today, it didn't really leave an impression on me, except the part when they played the Lonely man theme it kinda felt sad. Otherwise, it's a very average movie.

Word is going around that Sony wants to get Spider-man 4 out in 2011 (http://icv2.com/articles/news/12781.html).  The problem is that the summer of 2011 is also when the Captain America and Avengers movies are supposed to come out.

Hm, bored of spidey. They can't really make him more interesting unless he somehow has a cross-over with other marvel characters, it doesn't have to be the prominent ones more like...Daredevil? His villains gallery aren't really that impressive when translated to a movie. Electro? Vulture? The Scorpion? Hydroman?

Do they kill off MJ?  I'll watch it for that.

They've been slowly developing the character of The Lizard, who I always thought of as a cool villain. I wouldn't mind seeing the Punisher show up and having him portrayed as a bad guy. Electro is cool. That's the character James Cameron wrote into his spec script almost ten years ago. I read that a while back and it was badass. If the movie goes ahead, it'll be interesting to see how relations end between SONY and Marvel Studios.


edit:

I wanted to see Gwen Stacy in the first one with MJ as a background character. Having the two of them in part one still would have worked. The actress they chose for MJ still doesn't seem to fit the role. Off with her head!

Sony probably doesn't care what time table Marvel Studios sets for its films.

I wonder if Spider-Man IV will follow the law of superhero movie sequels and suck so hard that Spider-Man 5 will be a reboot?

They should.  While Spider-man is still a huge franchise, they're coming off a movie that received a lukewarm reception from critics and fans (to put it mildly) in Spider-man 3, as well as a four year gap between movies.  In the meantime, Marvel will have been building up to the Cap and Avengers movies with four previous movies (Iron Man 1 & 2, Hulk, Thor), one of which is already a huge success.

hulk was barely a C. If i'm generous is a B-
I am not familiar with Thor and I doubt many people would. I really hope Marvel change their mind about Thor Movie. I know he's a flagship character, but man, Sentry would've made a better movie than Thor imo.

Most movie-goers weren't familiar with Iron Man before the movie came out either.  There are a number of hurdles in doing a Thor movie, but I don't think that is really one of them.

Yes but it sounds so....Medieval. Fantasy like. There's Narnia for that. Lord of the Rings. Are we gonna put a hercules in modern age, what is he fighting for? How does he react to surrounding? That's the problem.

Don't forget about the Ant-Man film!

Iron Man 2 is, to my knowledge, still a while away from pre-production. And if it comes out in 2010, will the main cast wish to turn around and go right back into filming for 2011?

Thor is a big question mark. I know that there is a sub-set of comic book fans that like Thor. I just don't understand it, myself, and if they use Ultimate Thor, then the turn off most of that fanbase too.

Having the CapAm movie a WWII period piece also has some risks. The name recognition of the character is good, but does a large enough audience really want to see superheroes in WWII? Apart from "The Rocketeer" (set roughly in that time frame, I think) it's some pretty untested ground.

Sony, on the other hand, can develop the next Spider-Man film in complete isolation to whatever Marvel wants to do. They can be nice about it, but they certainly don't have to pull back on their plans just because Marvel might be releasing some films in the same year.

Iron Man is a party-loving billionaire with an armoured supersuit.

Thor is a guy with a hammer.

It's a lot easy to see the attraction in seeing "Iron Man" over "Thor".

I'm not a huge fan of Thor myself.  The difference between Thor and most of Marvel's other characters is that he doesn't really have a solid status quo to build a film around.  Do you attach him to a mortal host like Donald Blake or Eric Masterson?  If so, is that host an actual person or just a creation of Odin's like Blake turned out to be in an odd attempt to teach Thor humility?  Giving him a human host allows them to play up the super-hero aspect of it a little bit more, especially if the go the route they did with Eric Masterson (divorced father, struggling to make ends-meet only to end up having to share his existance with a Superhero).  Or you could just focus on Thor and Asgard with more of a fantasy thing.  Mayble play up the Ragnarok thing as a sub-plot throughout the movies or something.

Point being, there isn't really a solid outline even to tell Thor's origin story.  Whoever ends up writing the screenplay for this has a lot of flexibility in what can be done.

if they can't even do Ghost rider right....i doubt Thor will.

Here's a dude. Who sold his soul to save his father. He was deceived. And now he is damned as an immortal motorcycle stunt man who ate sweets while watching bad cartoons at night. Until one night, he met his ex-girlfriend and his Satanic Benefactor returns to call his dues as THE GHOST RIDER  !! :drill:

To be fair, they haven't been able to get Ghost Rider right in the comics for a long time either (and don't get me started on their repeated failures with Blade in the comics).

Ghost Rider movie... god what an abortion that was. You can't get a guy with a flaming skull for a head to look cool on film, you suck at life.

The problem is that Ghost Rider is just a guy who looks cool. The character sucks ass and always has.

[edit] I just realized that Daniel Day Lewis would be the perfect Dr. Strange.

Too bad he'd never do it.

Looking at your avatar and seeing the metion of Daniel Day Lewis makes me think he needs to be in a Preacher flick. He could play Herr Star, Saint of Killers, Cassidy, or even Jesse Custer.  :drill:

He could play all of the roles. You know he could do it  :drill:

Damn yeah, you're right. The guy is just that awesome.

I enjoyed the Hulk movie.  But then I read the comic arc that some elements were taken from, which probably helped, 'cause that arc kicked ass.