Is special effects technology finally ready for the Hulk?

[luke1234]

ang lees hulk looked good but he was just tooo big, im interested in seeing The new hulk

 

[FrostBite]

I personally think that the CGI in this movie will be great. Why are they holding out on us? My guess is to perfect the CGI.

Let me give you an example, take the Killzone 2 game for the PlayStation 3. Sony showed one CGI test footage back in 2006. After that footage they showed nothing. Nothing for an entire year. Why? Because they were perfecting the graphics so much to look brilliant as possible, to raise a bar in the gaming graphics world. Now when they showed their new footage in 2007, everyone was in awe, some not believing it was actual gameplay but the thing is that was footage showed at Pre-Pre-Alpha stage which is early in development. Wait until they actually finish it, the graphics will be amazing.

This will be the same for The Incredible Hulk in my opinion. They are going to make it look real as possible however some people will still moan it doesn't look real and is not good enough when they know nothing at all on the subject they are moaning about!

Sorry, follow games much more than movies, so can't help but chime in.

The early showing was not pre-rendered BUT was slowed down in order to render everything much easier.

The game IS near finalized (and was in playable form earlier this year), and they look... pretty much the same. So while good it wasn't a leap over what they originally did, unless you want to count it finally being sped up and still looking good. (Which I do.)

Though, I don't count it as being as awe-inspiring as a year ago. Plenty look visually better to me now.

 

[E. Nygma]

^ Opinions vary and that's fine... but how can any one say that Hulk in the 2003 movie was PERFECT!!?... that's just crazy! it had F-A-K-E written aaaaall over it!

If 39ft tall is perfect then maybe

 

[Crook]

Oh and the fact you believe that CG is only good when done by ILM or WETA is laughable to me.

Never said that. But they are undoubtedly the top 2 sfx houses right now, so for a big blockbuster film such as this, I would've preferred them. They've consistently surpassed expectations, so forgive me if I want the same treatment for Hulk.

Right Narnia raised no bars, that Academy Award Nomination was definitely thrown out there for pity sake.

It means it was good cg work. The likes of POTC2, TF, and Kong is what I'm talking about. Films whose fx they constantly reference and praise. Films that are used to see where the bar is currently at, so they may surpass it. When was the last time Narnia was mentioned among those leagues?

Rhythm and Hues has worked on other movies. Not all the best, but their work wasn't bad. They created over 100 effects for X-men 2, and worked on Superman Returns (while thats not my favorite film, I do think it looked good.)

That's all good and well, if their human cgi on SR didn't looks outright obvious. There isn't one scene in that film where you couldn't tell if it was a cgi Superman or not.

So let's wait and see before jumping to conclusions hm?

Maybe you'd like to cite where I ever tried to state any facts about the film, hm?

I stated my worries and concerns. I do want this film to be a success, but the short timeframe and it's huge reliance on excellent cgi from a 2nd rate sfx house, have me a bit doubtful that they can pull it off.

 

[Sarg92]

Sorry, follow games much more than movies, so can't help but chime in.

The early showing was not pre-rendered BUT was slowed down in order to render everything much easier.

The game IS near finalized (and was in playable form earlier this year), and they look... pretty much the same. So while good it wasn't a leap over what they originally did, unless you want to count it finally being sped up and still looking good. (Which I do.)

Though, I don't count it as being as awe-inspiring as a year ago. Plenty look visually better to me now.

Oh right. I heard that the footage at E3'06 was test footage and E3'07 was actual gameplay and was mighty close to their expectations but still was in pre-pre-alpha build. They are still working on the game but I think the graphics are going to improve a bit more, so is lighting and physics.

Can't wait for the game though! Some people don't believe that the footage at E3'07 was gameplay they still believe it was fake CGI footage!

Gran Turismo 5 also looks real sweet too!

LoL! Sorry for the off-topicness guys!

We need a Hulk Lounge!

 

[FrostBite]

Never said that. But they are undoubtedly the top 2 sfx houses right now, so for a big blockbuster film such as this, I would've preferred them. They've consistently surpassed expectations, so forgive me if I want the same treatment for Hulk.


It means it was good cg work. The likes of POTC2, TF, and Kong is what I'm talking about. Films whose fx they constantly reference and praise. Films that are used to see where the bar is currently at, so they may surpass it. When was the last time Narnia was mentioned among those leagues?


That's all good and well, if their human cgi on SR didn't looks outright obvious. There isn't one scene in that film where you couldn't tell if it was a cgi Superman or not.


Maybe you'd like to cite where I ever tried to state any facts about the film, hm?

I stated my worries and concerns. I do want this film to be a success, but the short timeframe and it's huge reliance on excellent cgi from a 2nd rate sfx house, have me a bit doubtful that they can pull it off.

Not saying you stated facts, I said jumping to conclusions... meaning why do you have such fear about it? Sorry if I seem harsh I am just saying, that theres no reason to fear, just as there is no reason to be confident.

I'm meh, on this situation until we see a trailer or pic. I may defend Rhythm and Hues as a company but I have no reason to think the Hulk model will be fantastic just as I have no reason to worry.

The CGI on Spider-man was obvious too. Never was there a time I went "How did they make Tobey do that?!" But didn't stop them from being good films.


As someone else said TF is an inorganic object. It's easier to work with metal than a living being made from scratch made to look real. PoTC 2 actually did seem rather rubbery to me at times, the parts that looked top notch wasn't the CG to me, it was the prosthetics.


Kong though, I'll give you, but great CG didn't stop it from being one of the worst films I've ever seen (yeah I said it. I literally wanted to run out of the theater but 8 bucks is 8 bucks.) So CG being TF rank isn't going to make or break this film. Hulk doesn't HAVE to be in those ranks to be a good film, or even have great CG.

It just needs something thats believable, Kong looked dang near perfect and I don't expect Hulk to be that way. Based off of previous works, and the concept art, he will be a more stylistic beast than he will a photo-realistic 9 foot green man with bulging muscles.

 

[FrostBite]

Oh right. I heard that the footage at E3'06 was test footage and E3'07 was actual gameplay and was mighty close to their expectations but still was in pre-pre-alpha build. They are still working on the game but I think the graphics are going to improve a bit more, so is lighting and physics.

Can't wait for the game though! Some people don't believe that the footage at E3'07 was gameplay they still believe it was fake CGI footage!

Gran Turismo 5 also looks real sweet too!

LoL! Sorry for the off-topicness guys!

We need a Hulk Lounge!

For me I play them all (systems,) and I'll take polish over poly-pushing every time. Realism does look sweet in GT, I am just not a GT fan. Mario Galaxy was the best looking game all year to me, and it wasn't because I could see the details of his stache haha. The game was just super polished.

And indeed, sorry for the off-topicness everyone.

 

[Doc Samson]

I agree with the sentiment that Transformers can't really be used as a gauge because of the difference in characters. A giant humanoid is, I imagine, vastly more difficult than transforming vehicles that actually exist. I still think certain parts of Ang's film had fantastic cgi, while others didn't. I think the color change in this film will help, a deeper, darker more gray-ish green won't make the Hulk appear so bright at times. But it will be interesting to see if they can pull this off, as I've said before, nothing will make or break this film more than the effects...

 

[Spade]

I'm hoping to be impressed. That's all I ask. Whether it's a Hulk that looks photo-realistic or one that's an improvement, it just needs to feel like it's part of the real world. I don't want a prosthetic Hulk. That's good for some reference shots, but people don't seem to realize how corny a Hulk that isn't CGI would probably look in a movie.

For the record, I didn't have a problem with Ang Lee's Incredible Hulk. It looked fake, but then again most CGI looks fake at times.

 

[deathfromabove]

I LOVE armchair Special Effects experts! They dont know Wed Clay from an XYZ axis, but they can tell you till the cows come home when somethings look fake. Give 'em a tasty cookie!

you dont need to know how to render 3d effects to see that something looks fake.

your elitism is tired.

 

[EmeraldBeast]

I'm hoping to be impressed. That's all I ask. Whether it's a Hulk that looks photo-realistic or one that's an improvement, it just needs to feel like it's part of the real world. I don't want a prosthetic Hulk. That's good for some reference shots, but people don't seem to realize how corny a Hulk that isn't CGI would probably look in a movie.

For the record, I didn't have a problem with Ang Lee's Incredible Hulk. It looked fake, but then again most CGI looks fake at times.

I hope this helps soothe some of the concerns about the technology issues. I am writing to reassure you that TIH will be a top notch production. As I speak with fellow contributors who actually worked on the production, I urge you to read the following excerpt from my conversation yesterday:

EB: What can you tell us about your experience on the set?

JT: I was a Trainee Assistant Editor on the movie in Toronto.
I have been doing this stuff for a couple of years, and have working with a lot of different people. But, this editorial crew was the most generous and experienced people I have ever worked with. I wish I was still on the show.

EB: Have you seen the CG Hulk?

JT: Let me tell you one of my first memories from childhood was watching Lou "HULK OUT" on the original series in about 1977 in England. I had the luxury of working on the Toronto shoot for The Incredible Hulk. A wonderful experience working with a spectacular crew, assisting in the making of what in my opinion will be a spectacular film and Hulk. I can hardly wait for Friday the 13th!!

EB: What your opinion on what he looks like compared to the 2003 version?

DS: Le t me answer that one. When we first started, I did not get to see what The Hulk looked like in his digitized entirety, only because we were in our prelim stages, but from the photos and the concept art work on set, he is far superior in keeping to his original comic book image. Much better than the 2003 version. You won't be disappointed.

EB: Thanks guys! Here's hoping TIH smashes his way into box office records on June 13, 2008!

 

[Obi-Ron]

That's very cool, thanks for the update. I take it neither has seen the final product yet.

 

[FrostBite]

I hope this helps soothe some of the concerns about the technology issues. I am writing to reassure you that TIH will be a top notch production. As I speak with fellow contributors who actually worked on the production, I urge you to read the following excerpt from my conversation yesterday:

EB: What can you tell us about your experience on the set?

JT: I was a Trainee Assistant Editor on the movie in Toronto.
I have been doing this stuff for a couple of years, and have working with a lot of different people. But, this editorial crew was the most generous and experienced people I have ever worked with. I wish I was still on the show.

EB: Have you seen the CG Hulk?

JT: Let me tell you one of my first memories from childhood was watching Lou "HULK OUT" on the original series in about 1977 in England. I had the luxury of working on the Toronto shoot for The Incredible Hulk. A wonderful experience working with a spectacular crew, assisting in the making of what in my opinion will be a spectacular film and Hulk. I can hardly wait for Friday the 13th!!

EB: What your opinion on what he looks like compared to the 2003 version?

DS: Le t me answer that one. When we first started, I did not get to see what The Hulk looked like in his digitized entirety, only because we were in our prelim stages, but from the photos and the concept art work on set, he is far superior in keeping to his original comic book image. Much better than the 2003 version. You won't be disappointed.

EB: Thanks guys! Here's hoping TIH smashes his way into box office records on June 13, 2008!

Well, thanks for the insight EB, but I don't think anyone with worries in this thread was worried about the look they were going for.

We've all seen the concept art, most would think top-notch of it. What certain people in this thread (Not me) fear is that the finished CGI may not be believable, so I don't know that this would really put their worries at ease.

 

[Hoedowned]

That's all good and well, if their human cgi on SR didn't looks outright obvious. There isn't one scene in that film where you couldn't tell if it was a cgi Superman or not.

Actually they only did the digital Brando (and a few other stuff I don't remember much).

 

[EmeraldBeast]

Actually they only did the digital Brando (and a few other stuff I don't remember much).

The digital Brando was taken from unreleased footage and not generated by CGI.

 

[EmeraldBeast]

For the record, I'd like to point out that I believe no company, whether it be ILM, Weta or R&H for that matter can generate any human form that we don't know is CGI. When you take a character such as Golum from LOTR then the CGI is excepted because of the nature of the character. Jurrassic Park's creatures were widely accepted as state of the art CGI. No such complaints about ILM's Star Wars additions of Jabba the Hut or such characters added to the movies. So I ask, do you really think the Technology is here for this Hulk movie? NO, but they will get as close to it as possible and what will they get for their efforts? The few complaining "oh that doesnt look this or doesnt look that". This movie will not and I mean will not please every single person, but I will bet the house that we (the majority) will applaud the effort and story and direction. For those who read this movie script, you do realize that when this project hits the big screen you will have the advantage of knowing how all turns out and will pick apart CGI, direction, etc. I just simply want the production to ENTERTAIN ME. We know the CGI will be good. Just how good will depend on how picky we are as fans. Spiderman came out and no one complained yet we know what was CGI and what wasn't. The movie was great and grossed $403 million dollars. So I ask what will you accept as passable CGI knowing it is near impossible to do? Is an improvement over Ang Lee's be good enough? What happened to the average movie going public who went in with a clear slate?

 

[FrostBite]

For the record, I'd like to point out that I believe no company, whether it be ILM, Weta or R&H for that matter can generate any human form that we don't know is CGI. When you take a character such as Golum from LOTR then the CGI is excepted because of the nature of the character. Jurrassic Park's creatures were widely accepted as state of the art CGI. No such complaints about ILM's Star Wars additions of Jabba the Hut or such characters added to the movies. So I ask, do you really think the Technology is here for this Hulk movie? NO, but they will get as close to it as possible and what will they get for their efforts? The few complaining "oh that doesnt look this or doesnt look that". This movie will not and I mean will not please every single person, but I will bet the house that we (the majority) will applaud the effort and story and direction. For those who read this movie script, you do realize that when this project hits the big screen you will have the advantage of knowing how all turns out and will pick apart CGI, direction, etc. I just simply want the production to ENTERTAIN ME. We know the CGI will be good. Just how good will depend on how picky we are as fans. Spiderman came out and no one complained yet we know what was CGI and what wasn't. The movie was great and grossed $403 million dollars. So I ask what will you accept as passable CGI knowing it is near impossible to do? Is an improvement over Ang Lee's be good enough? What happened to the average movie going public who went in with a clear slate?

-Starts a slow clap-

Agreed. -wipes tear away- simply agreed.

 

[co2]

For the record, I'd like to point out that I believe no company, whether it be ILM, Weta or R&H for that matter can generate any human form that we don't know is CGI. When you take a character such as Golum from LOTR then the CGI is excepted because of the nature of the character. Jurrassic Park's creatures were widely accepted as state of the art CGI. No such complaints about ILM's Star Wars additions of Jabba the Hut or such characters added to the movies. So I ask, do you really think the Technology is here for this Hulk movie? NO, but they will get as close to it as possible and what will they get for their efforts? The few complaining "oh that doesnt look this or doesnt look that". This movie will not and I mean will not please every single person, but I will bet the house that we (the majority) will applaud the effort and story and direction. For those who read this movie script, you do realize that when this project hits the big screen you will have the advantage of knowing how all turns out and will pick apart CGI, direction, etc. I just simply want the production to ENTERTAIN ME. We know the CGI will be good. Just how good will depend on how picky we are as fans. Spiderman came out and no one complained yet we know what was CGI and what wasn't. The movie was great and grossed $403 million dollars. So I ask what will you accept as passable CGI knowing it is near impossible to do? Is an improvement over Ang Lee's be good enough? What happened to the average movie going public who went in with a clear slate?

And that was what my original post was meant to address.. Is technology itself ready? Regardless, people WILL complain even if it is great....just like some DID on Spider-man. I'm not sure what level it will have to be for a majority of people to be so accepting. Maybe this movie will be it.

 

[Cracker Jack]

So I ask what will you accept as passable CGI knowing it is near impossible to do? Is an improvement over Ang Lee's be good enough? What happened to the average movie going public who went in with a clear slate?

I have said it before and will say it again, having grown up with movies like Jason and the Argonauts, Clash of the Titans and Sinbad the Sailor I have an advantage over a lot of you “Younger” people, It all looks pretty cool to me. Sure, I can tell it’s fake. Mostly because I know it is. I enjoy movies. To me they’re fun. A get away. I don’t study them for hidden meaning or messages. How do you make the unbelievable believable? As a spectator I let go. I forget that “That isn’t possible.” I will believe bad CGI long before I will bad acting or a crap story. I could not even attempt to create CGI. I wouldn’t know where to beginning. However, I could try to tell or write a story. My grammar and spelling may not be the best but I can write down my thoughts and let spell check and grammar check do the rest. LOL I will take an improvement over Ang Lee's any day.

 

[co2]

I will believe bad CGI long before I will bad acting or a crap story.

That part I can completely agree with. The mood and emotions of the cast and film can sell less that stellar FXs...but the same can't be true of the other way around. I can still watch 1933 King Kong and get such a kick out of it. Kong was state of the art for it's time, but it can't hold a candle to current FX work of course. But if the story and characters are compelling, I'll be much more forgiving and just enjoy it. It has to be true to it's mood, in essence.

 

[SuperBoon]

I grew up watching Jason and the Argonauts and Clash of the Titans aswell, but, I work with Computer Generated Imagery, with 3D Studio Max for a hobby, I urge you fella's to look at the detail of the face in the Comic Con footage that we've seen and compare it to the Hulk from the Ang lee film, its worlds apart isn't it, this in animation is going to take a lot longer to create with all the different textures involved (look at the special features on creating the Hulk on the DVD for the 2003 film) and rendering these images is going to take a lot longer, this coupled with the fact that they are using a mixture of prosthetics and CGI means a longer editing process, I'm sure everybody here wants to see a great looking Hulk this time, as the other movie was a bit hit and miss CGI wise, I know we're all eager to see the big green guy again, but lets look forward to pure brilliance this time!

 

[storyteller]

Sometimes i think were spoiled by big budget cgi that we cant tell the difference between truely bad cgi and just cgi that can only do so much. The hulk had good cgi, but lets face it. Show me a man who looks similar to angs hulk. When we know something isnt real we will look for errors. I remember when people said gollum was state of the art. I look at the footage now an i gotta say gollum looks out of place with the environment. But i didnt think that when the movies came out. Is special effects ready for the hulk? I believe so. Is special effects perfect? I dont think so.

 

[Cracker Jack]

if the story and characters are compelling, I'll be much more forgiving and just enjoy it. It has to be true to it's mood, in essence.

I urge you fella's to look at the detail of the face in the Comic Con footage that we've seen and compare it to the Hulk from the Ang lee film, its worlds apart isn't it,

My point is I don’t pay as much attention to the CG the way I do to what’s actually happening in the movie. The story. Is the acting convincing. Does the story make sense, is it a good or interesting story. These are the things that I go for. Sure I look at the FX and notice them. But bad FX don’t really distract me as much as bad acting or a boring story. I take into consideration that creating a CG character is difficult. Even harder, a convincing one. Coming up with an interesting story/plot is not as difficult. IMO. I don’t really care if a story is far fetched. That’s what you/I go to a movie for. To see something that’s make believe and loose myself for a 90 minutes or so. Watching an actor read their lines and never convince me that they are actually the character they are portraying drives me nuts. If they are that bored with the movie what do you think the audience will be? The only complaints I had with Angs Hulk was that the story was boring, inconsistent with the comic, the acting wasn’t convincing and the size of the Hulk was wrong. To me Angs Hulk looked great, besides his size. I didn’t mind the kinda baby face look and I don’t know what people are talking about when they say “he was too green.” To green? The Hulk? BAH!

 

[Bannerless Hulk]

The only complaints I had with Angs Hulk was that the story was boring, inconsistent with the comic, the acting wasn’t convincing and the size of the Hulk was wrong.

lol That's all?

Reason your comment rewritten would go something like "...the story sucked, it insulted the comic, the actors were overpaid and they botched one of the Hulk's key characteristics." Otherwise, nothing really.

 

[Naite22]

Dude, Ang's Hulk looks state of the art even now after 4 1/2 years out...

You go and show me any 4 1/2 year special effects that still look state of the art now, and then come talk to me...

You've gotta be ****ing kidding me!??? I've got a ton, but Hulk was and will NEVER be state of the art. ID4 STILL looks absolutely incredible after 11 years, not to mention the special effects in T2! T-1000 puts the silver surfer from FF2 to rest!