Animatronic Hulk footage from 1998

[Evil Twin]

But, since the Hulk isn't even the same size and scale as a Human being (even the biggest guy you could find wouldn't match up) the stand in would have to be animatronic. Both recent movies gave us an awesome looking Hulk, I just want more physical interaction between the actors and the Hulk.

There are plenty of ways to manage that on film. Put the actor on a box or the other actors in a hole. LOTR being a fine example of how you can work with scale seamlessly. Nomal Human : Hulk = Hobbit : Normal Human.

But, it doesn't really matter. At some point, they need to worry more about the Hulk's "performance" and character than about the special effects. I don't believe they've managed that more than spottily in either movie. You make the character compelling enough and the audience will make the leap in suspension of disbelief more willingly.

 

[Stripesy Strip]

Its an interesting idea but I agree it wouldn't have worked unless Hulk spent the majority of his screentime standing on the spot.

I don't see why. Look at those big puppets in The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

I think a CGI-less Hulk could have been fascinating to see. A mix of puppets, animatronics, man in suit. And you could have a big man playing the character at some important moments. Take the movie Harry and the Hendersen with the Big Foot character. They used a 7-foot man, put him in a suit and had animatronics for his face.

Also I think a Hulk in a suit and makeup would work better on Hulk than on The Thing. You can't just have a body builder and putting green paint on him these days, but with all the advancements, there's plenty you can do with makeup and masks and face appliances that could be superior to what they could do on the tv show.

It makes me think a Hulk tv show these days would work well with animatronics and puppets and makeup. They could keep the movie version as CGI and have a tv show where they could do cheap cruder special effects. They could do something fun, have guys like Rick Baker, Rob Bottin and The Sam Winston company go nuts by coming up with various freaks and gamma villains. Less like the old tv show where Banner would get to know ordinary people in ordinary life and more of a lighter sam raimi-like adventure approach.

 

[dcHulk]

I don't see why.

Again, I defer to Hyde from LXG. See the previous page for links to videos about his creation and the obvious limitations of the man-in-a-suit/animatronics technique. I just don't think it would work.

 

[bubbadoom]

LXG is a good example of how bad digital creatures can look next to real ones. The second/bigger/evil "Hyde" at the end was total crap!

 

[TheWrathOfGod]

Did you guys catch the Eradicator stuff at the end from Superman Lives?!

 

[Marvel Spider]

BUMP

Newly released pictures of the animatronic Hulk from Steve Johnson's Facebook Page.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Cool!

Interesting in light of the recent talk of a TV show. Might an animatronic Hulk be used in the TV show?

 

[Hmarrs]

Quick question there was a scene in that clip with Ben Grim a.k.a.Thing in the rain
that I don't recall from either ff movie can someone help me out?

 

[Hmarrs]

Quick question there was a scenne in there with Ben Grim a.k.a.Thing in the rain
that I don't recall from either ff movie can someone help me out?

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

I think it was a test to get the gig for the Fantastic Four movie.

 

[Hmarrs]

I think it was a test to get the gig for the Fantastic Four movie.

Looks better then the movie.

 

[Slushy]

I hate it when Hollywood relies on CGI. Sometimes a guy in a suit or animatronic works best because the special effects don't stick out like a sore thumb.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Are you crazy? You want to see the "ninja turtle" method applied to the incredible hulk? Again, LL and others tried this way and it didn't work. They didn't go the cgi route for financial reasons, but rather practical and realistic ones.

It' snot a ninja turtle approach, more Jurassic Park.

The scenes in JP where they combined CGI and animations are still some of the best looking spx in a movie, even by today's standards. And the reason is simple, because when you have something real involved, it's easier to make the object look real then when you make it all out of CGI.

Even great CGI like Avatar, had moments where it looked fake when the Navi were in scenes next to actual humans. You have something tangible mixed with good CGI, I think that's the best combination for great looking SPX.

 

[bubbadoom]

The Thing clip on the XFX clip was one of their test make-up to get the FF movie, but they did not get it in the end.

As a foot note to the JURASSIC PARK comments above, remember that in the first JP movie, there is a total of SIX minutes of CGI dinos in that 120 plus minute movie - thus MOST of the dino footage was practical, not digital.

 

[dcHulk]

It' snot a ninja turtle approach, more Jurassic Park.

The scenes in JP where they combined CGI and animations are still some of the best looking spx in a movie, even by today's standards. And the reason is simple, because when you have something real involved, it's easier to make the object look real then when you make it all out of CGI.

Even great CGI like Avatar, had moments where it looked fake when the Navi were in scenes next to actual humans. You have something tangible mixed with good CGI, I think that's the best combination for great looking SPX.

It's much easier to animate dinos with limited expressions than a humanoid with practical effects. I mean, what do they need? Open mouth, close mouth and blink. I'm not saying that it can't be done, I'm just saying that it hasn't been done for good reasons.

Oh, and the ninja turtle comment was relating to their heads being controlled animatronically (mouth and eye movements).

 

[Infinity9999x]

It's much easier to animate dinos with limited expressions than a humanoid with practical effects. I mean, what do they need? Open mouth, close mouth and blink. I'm not saying that it can't be done, I'm just saying that it hasn't been done for good reasons.

Oh, and the ninja turtle comment was relating to their heads being controlled animatronically (mouth and eye movements).

I'd agree with that. It is hard to get good facial expressions. Even with animatronics that have done it well, (Labyrinth, Dark Crystal, Star Wars) often times it still looks like a very expressive puppet.

That's why I would use more CGI on the more intricate facial areas, (possibly even some mo-cap) and combine much of it with Animatronics. I'm always a fan of more practical effects being used, but I agree that you need exceptional animatronics and makeup to make it work. Though Hellboy 2 showed us how great this can look, especially in the Troll Market.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I think eventually technology will get to a point that CGI can do everything . . . but we're not there yet.

Jurassic Park is a great example of animatronics and CGI coming together beautifully . . . and the 2nd and 3rd films actually looked weaker when they relied more heavily on CGI. We saw that with Star Wars also. Later films with more CGI lost some of the 'realism' of the original. Sometimes film-makers seem to do better when their hands are tied by practical effects and when they're given a blank check of CGI, they over-do things and create visuals that are on the verge of being silly.

Peter Jackson's King Kong was absolutely AMAZING, but I think it would have been a better film if he had trimmed it down and taken out the dino-stampede and a few other scenes that were just too over-the-top.

I think Spider-man also relied too heavily on CGI. There were several scenes - particularly in the last film - in which the CGI was very distracting and I couldn't figure out why they didn't just do it with real actors.

Maybe I'm showing my age, but Avatar is unwatchable to me. Since it's shown up on HBO, I've been trying to watch it, but I just can't. The visuals are so distractingly unnatural-looking that I can't enjoy it.

In both Hulk films, I thought the CGI looked great when he was dimly lit and moving slowly, but when he was in the stark light of day, and/or moving quickly it never looked right.

With CGI, I think it's often a case of "just because you can, doesn't mean that you should".

CGI has allowed film-makers to do things they could never have dreamed of 20 years ago, but there are still limits and I think we see many, MANY examples of film-makers over-using CGI. There are instances in which we're taken out of the moment by a filmaker who wanted to creat a visual spectacle so badly that he didn't realize he created something that looked like a Disney cartoon spliced into a film . . . and the directors are often so in love with those distracting images . . . particularly when they spent millions on a few seconds, that they can't bring themselves to do the right thing and leave a good chunk of it on the cutting room floor.

 

[dcHulk]

I'd agree with that. It is hard to get good facial expressions. Even with animatronics that have done it well, (Labyrinth, Dark Crystal, Star Wars) often times it still looks like a very expressive puppet.

That's why I would use more CGI on the more intricate facial areas, (possibly even some mo-cap) and combine much of it with Animatronics. I'm always a fan of more practical effects being used, but I agree that you need exceptional animatronics and makeup to make it work. Though Hellboy 2 showed us how great this can look, especially in the Troll Market.

I think eventually technology will get to a point that CGI can do everything . . . but we're not there yet.


With CGI, I think it's often a case of "just because you can, doesn't mean that you should".

I will agree with this. Practical effects are better and should be used when possible. Jon Favreau uses this same approach.

 

[dark_b]

this is why animatroncis wouldnt work for Hulk. it would move to much like a robot.
http://www.youtube.com/user/stevejohnsonfx#p/u/2/_rGQZDYNpa4

 

[Timstuff]

He's recently uploaded much more detailed footage of the hulk animatronics being built and tested:

 

[Stripesy Strip]

this is why animatroncis wouldnt work for Hulk. it would move to much like a robot.
http://www.youtube.com/user/stevejohnsonfx#p/u/2/_rGQZDYNpa4

I think it looks pretty amazing, actually. Especially look at the flesh on arm, the latex looks amazingly real. They could have a fake Banner arm being ripped asunder and have another arm coming off it. The sky's the limit.

And the movement of the robot doesn't look less real than the CGI Hulks.

 

[co2]

I'm amazed by all the money and work that was poured into something to make it look so good....and it never came of anything. Why did they spend that much and go that far if it wasn't going to see the light of day?
Maybe something like this will be used for the TV show?

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I'm amazed by all the money and work that was poured into something to make it look so good....and it never came of anything. Why did they spend that much and go that far if it wasn't going to see the light of day?
Maybe something like this will be used for the TV show?

I think the simple answer to that is: "If you're considering spending 100 million + to make a movie, it's a wise investment to spend a million first to confirm the technolgy you're thinking about using will work."

I do think the animatronics are very cool . . . but I also think that they would have required some suspension of disbelief for the audience.

Our brains know what things look like in the real world and a character like the Hulk still can't be done . . . even with the best of any technology to the point we will completely believe it.

It would be fun to be able to hop in a time machine, go back 30 years and show someone footage from the latest Hulk film. People of that era would have been absolutely BLOWN AWAY by scenes that we take for granted in the CGI era.

Given a little more time and a talented film-maker, there will be a day that we will see the Hulk brought to life in a way that we won't question but rather we'll simply enjoy the show.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

I think the simple answer to that is: "If you're considering spending 100 million + to make a movie, it's a wise investment to spend a million first to confirm the technolgy you're thinking about using will work."

I do think the animatronics are very cool . . . but I also think that they would have required some suspension of disbelief for the audience.

Our brains know what things look like in the real world and a character like the Hulk still can't be done . . . even with the best of any technology to the point we will completely believe it.

Really? Because I think that maybe a couple of person went to see a movie starring an animatronic character. It was called E.T.
Not to mention the Alien movies or Short Circuit.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Really? Because I think that maybe a couple of person went to see a movie starring an animatronic character. It was called E.T.
Not to mention the Alien movies or Short Circuit.

Don't you think Hulk is MUCH harder to pull off than any of those?