criterionforum.org

MichaelB wrote:

HerrSchreck wrote:Schreck smile bright now. Make gleam. Wipe tears. Schreck go lay on female now. Make motion.

"Make motion" double meaning.
Reader might get wrong idea.
Or right idea.
Or right idea that's very wrong.

Or wrong idea that's very right.
Make motion mean bump bump.
Bump bump have double.
Make mind up.
moviscop go lay on female now, make mocean.
whoosh whoosh whoosh

moviscop wrote:Make motion mean bump bump.

Ah. Bump bump.
Not dump dump.
Hulk get it now.

wattsup32 wrote:As to the CGI, this was one of the very few times I have walked away feeling like they DID get it right (other than Lord of the Rings, and you are so right that Jackson should always be brought on as a consultant on any CGI intensive film). The detail was spectacular on hulk, even if the character appeared mildly (but only mildly) cartoony. I don't know what could make it appear better. I certainly like that look better than an actual hulking human painted green and it certainly looks better than the best comic book artwork.

I strongly disagree. I passionately hate CGI in almost all its forms and believe its ruining films (Sweeney Todd had absolutely NO business using CGI for anything). The Ang Lee Hulk looked like shit, and so does this one, but it comes to a point where you have to accept that Hollywood thinks this shit still looks good even though we're probably another decade (or more) away from actually doing it right. Jackson's use of it has been credible but there were moments in LOTR and Kong where you can easily tell he and his crew did not put as much work into certain shots or characters and it still looked fake. Lou Ferrigno is at least a real person and I'd take him painted green any day over this monstrosity that looks like one of King Kong's nose goblins.

wpqx wrote:I strongly disagree. I passionately hate CGI in almost all its forms and believe its ruining films (Sweeney Todd had absolutely NO business using CGI for anything). The Ang Lee Hulk looked like shit, and so does this one, but it comes to a point where you have to accept that Hollywood thinks this shit still looks good even though we're probably another decade (or more) away from actually doing it right. Jackson's use of it has been credible but there were moments in LOTR and Kong where you can easily tell he and his crew did not put as much work into certain shots or characters and it still looked fake. Lou Ferrigno is at least a real person and I'd take him painted green any day over this monstrosity that looks like one of King Kong's nose goblins.

yes, it seems like you do hate it passionately.

wattsup32 wrote:

dx23 wrote:Besides the bad editing, the only other bad thing (actually really bad thing) is the CGI in the movie. Marvel and the producers of these films should really consult Peter Jackson on how to do credible CGI on a movie, because Hulk looks really bad. The Ang Lee version was bad, but this one took the cake in CGI roughness and lack of detail and realism.

I don't get what was wrong with the editing. Anyone care to explain?

As to the CGI, this was one of the very few times I have walked away feeling like they DID get it right (other than Lord of the Rings, and you are so right that Jackson should always be brought on as a consultant on any CGI intensive film). The detail was spectacular on hulk, even if the character appeared mildly (but only mildly) cartoony. I don't know what could make it appear better. I certainly like that look better than an actual hulking human painted green and it certainly looks better than the best comic book artwork.

The scene that I remember the most for its spotty editing was at the end of the fight in the University and the transition to the next scene on the cave with Betty.

I just returned from seeing The Incredible Hulk and was impressed. I remember wandering into the theater before to witness Ang Lee's version, which I did enjoy aesthetically. I felt like there was a very cool dark undertone to the piece which I enjoyed. I was expecting the same sort of vibe through the new version, but it wasn't the same at all.
I really enjoyed the CGI, which I don't think I have EVER said before. The Hulk looked fierce and rough. Bana did a good job on the last film, but you have to admit, he did kinda bring a girly-look to the Hulk. His version was not as rough as Nortons. I also felt like the actors connected really well. Tyler and Norton had a connection that is rare in modern-film. Especially in a pop-corn flick like the Hulk. The scenes they shared were encapsulating. Did I mention that the bad guy was really awesome to watch? I mean,

Spoiler

that monster they created was so badass it was ridiculous.

The only aspect of this film I really didn't like was the ending. At first, it seemed cool, then the whole gimmicky idea set in and it fell flat.

So the DVD compiles 44 minutes worth of deleted scenes.

I'd like to see if they make the movie anything more than mediocre, but I doubt it. Leterrier directs great action. The end. I thought and still think that Ang Lee's Hulk was a misunderstood masterpiece, which drew heavily from Peter David's psychological horror during his classic run on the comic book.