Man in suit for Hulk.

[Nivek]

some posts in here are just stupid

Same ol' complaints, but I gotta admit, the Hulks size and lack of cast interaction was indeed a big factor in peoples reaction to the film.

 

[Stuart Green]

11/25/2006


A man in suit Hulk sounds just fine to me. Before the inevitable negative feedback to my reply, just bear with me for a second.

It can be done, but only if it's done right and looks right. Yes, we all know that the Thing in "Fantastic Four" was good but not as good as the comics and that the Mr. Hyde from the "League" movie was nowhere near as cool as it could've been. But while we also know that the Hulk is much wider and more muscular than your average bodybuilder, let alone an ordinary human being. I do think that it can be done like they did for the 1970s series with Lou Ferrigno, with the contact lens white eyes (admit it: the Hulk's white eyes were cool looking) and green make-up. But to make it work, they'd have to get someone even more built, or at least as fit, as Mr. Ferrigno to pull it off correctly.

Besides, it's a known fact (and it's obvious in an actor's performance when you see them in movies) that actors react better to and perform better with an actual flesh-and-blood actor than something computer animators have to spend a small fortune and several weeks on to get it right. With "Hulk", the interactions with the actors and the CGI Hulk don't just not look right -- they don't feel right. It's like watching someone else's video game character standing next to a flesh and blood actor.

But then again, that brings us back to the big debate: how do you make a man in green make-up look cool and yet not make it look like it's "downgrading" the film? To me, it's not a downgrade at all. This is a different Hulk movie and, as mentioned, they'll be using different methods of bringing the Hulk to life according to what's needed: CGI, animatronics (similar to the Jurassic Park robots) and the mixed-reactions "man in suit" option. Obviously, for action sequences the Hulk HAS to be CGI (super-strength, thunderclaps, super leaps, the inevitable smack down fight with Abomination). But for ACTING, Hulk HAS to be a man in suit. As impressive as CGI characters are getting in movies (such as Gollum and King Kong), they still don't look right when they interact emotionally when performing with the actors, no matter what marvels motion capture have done lately.

To me, I don't want to feel like I'm watching a PlayStation looking Hulk interact with an actor. Not only does it look bad, it breaks one classic element of going to the theater: it's distracting enough so that it takes you out of the movie. Now, one could think that they could use a "Lord of the Rings" style technique, by making the man in suit Hulk actor look taller and wider than the people he interacts with (Betty, General Ross, etc.). I mean, if they can make a 6 foot plus actor like John Rhys Davies and make him a dwarf in "LOTR", surely they can make a man in green make-up look wider and taller than normal, right?

But still, one reason why I support a majority of a green make-up applied actor as the Hulk for interaction and acting reasons isn't just about good performances, it's about money. Sure the Hulk has a 100 million plus budget, but so did the first film and look at how much of the Hulk we got out of it. A lot of sequences with the Hulk in the 2003 film had to be cut out entirely for not only time purposes, but for budget reasons. And to top it all off, let's not forget we have a SECOND green muscular behemoth in the form of the villain, Abomination. If Hulk and Abomination are both supposed to be "CGI all the way", as most fans have said, it's going to be very costly. If we want to see Hulk do what he does best (re: smashing buildings, enemies, etc., by means of thunderclaps, leaps and his other powers), logically they'd have to save some money for the action sequences by having at least a few scenes of a guy in green make-up.

Still, no matter how the Hulk is brought to life when he gets back into the theaters, I am also glad that it will follow the tone of the 1970s "The Incredible Hulk" TV series but without the budgetary problems that plagued the show.

A lot of people tend to forget or get confused by the fact that when people say this movie will be more like the TV show, they're talking about the actual tone of the story and NOT of the Hulk himself. We're not going to see the Hulk just throw things, lift things, smash things, jump down from a few stories tall building and land, and run away in slow motion whenever last seen like on the TV series. I'm confident that the Hulk's abilities will be there and he'll smash things into oblivion, as it rightfully should be. However, I do hope the transformation sequences are shown more like they were on the TV show and nowhere near as quick as the 2003 "Hulk" movie's metamorphosis scenes were. Ironically, this is the only aspect of the possible "man in suit" on-screen moments that people actually agree would work for the new film.

However, I must also say that while the TV series is the definitive way most people see the Hulk (and a good majority of Hulk fans, myself and several friends of mine), don't confuse that that's how many comic fans see the definitive way we see the Hulk himself. After all, a lot of fans of the Hulk show that don't know the comic don't know just how powerful the Hulk really is compared to the TV series. There are things you couldn't do with an actor in the 1970s. If you'd tried to make an actor look like he was jumping over three miles in a single bound, you'd have, most likely, animation doing those scenes or an actor with wires lifted off the ground before a blue screen or however they'd try and make those effects in the 1970s.

I'm not saying to water down the Hulk in any way, shape or form by getting a man in suit to portray him. His powers and abilities clearly must be CGI and the movie should rightfully include what's in the comics. But what I AM saying that as terms of acting, to me, CG just doesn't hold a candle to an actual actor. Besides, CGI is so overused in films these days, in some cases it's used moreso than the actual film's plot ("Poseidon", anyone?) that at times, it just isn't enough.

Well, it's just my opinion and that's my two cents, as it were (which is two cents more than my opinion is actually worth).

Still, I think there's one thing we can ALL agree on: let's just be thankful that the Hulk is finally coming back to the silver-screen where he belongs.

'Nuff said.



Sincerely,
Stuart Green

 

[Chris Wallace]

For a long time, the definitive way most people saw Batman was a happy-go-lucky, long-winded goofball running around in blue & grey tights in broad daylight.

 

[brian]

hey jus curious, what was it that got all the hulk fans so mad about the first hulk not being done right? i bought it and thought it wasnt all that bad. he actually looks almost the same as he does in todays comics.

 

[DACMAN]

^I've never read a Hulk comic,I watched the t.v. series.So the Hulk can run at high speeds like the Flash?

So if this movie was just like the comics,then how come there changing things for the next one?

First off, no the HULK cannot run as fast as the Flash. He can reach light speed. The HULK can run at around 300 mph.

Second, what' being changed are the changes they made from the comics. He won't be 15 feet tall, he'll be around 8 feet tall as Avid said, like the comics. He'll talk, like the comics. The villian will actually be a villian from the comics. I never said it was just like the comics, just more so than the TV show.

 

[DACMAN]

hey jus curious, what was it that got all the hulk fans so mad about the first hulk not being done right? i bought it and thought it wasnt all that bad. he actually looks almost the same as he does in todays comics.

The two biggest things are (and keep in mind I liked the first one alright)

He never talked

and the origin was NOTHING like the comics.

 

[Chris Wallace]

The two biggest things are (and keep in mind I liked the first one alright)

He never talked

and the origin was NOTHING like the comics.

No-the biggest complaints (i.e. most common) were about his size & the slow pacing of the film.
And he BARELY talked. I'd rather they kept it that way.

 

[DACMAN]

He asked about the fans. Not the general public.

 

[WeaponXProject]

No-the biggest complaints (i.e. most common) were about his size & the slow pacing of the film.
And he BARELY talked. I'd rather they kept it that way.

Me too.

 

[Walks Unseen]

I dont know what people's problems were with Hulk's look in the first film. IMO he is, even to this day, the most realistic looking CG character ever. Even more so than Gollum. I hope they keep it CG for Incredible HULK. You just can't do the big green machine justice with a suit.

And as for people complaining about his origin not being like in the comics, well...they kind of had to change it. It just dosen't make sense that a guy turns into a big green monster by just getting hit by gamma radiation.

 

[Sarg92]

I dont know what people's problems were with Hulk's look in the first film. IMO he is, even to this day, the most realistic looking CG character ever. Even more so than Gollum. I hope they keep it CG for Incredible HULK. You just can't do the big green machine justice with a suit.

And as for people complaining about his origin not being like in the comics, well...they kind of had to change it. It just dosen't make sense that a guy turns into a big green monster by just getting hit by gamma radiation.

Gamma rays are travelling through you right now. They pass right through your body. An overdose would kill you. So it was right for them to change the origin slightly.

It still had a connection with the comics as Banner saved a person like in the comics and it was a gamma bomb that went boom, like in the comics.

 

[Chris Wallace]

He asked about the fans. Not the general public.

From my observations, it applies in both cases.

 

[Walks Unseen]

11/25/2006


A man in suit Hulk sounds just fine to me. Before the inevitable negative feedback to my reply, just bear with me for a second.

It can be done, but only if it's done right and looks right. Yes, we all know that the Thing in "Fantastic Four" was good but not as good as the comics and that the Mr. Hyde from the "League" movie was nowhere near as cool as it could've been. But while we also know that the Hulk is much wider and more muscular than your average bodybuilder, let alone an ordinary human being. I do think that it can be done like they did for the 1970s series with Lou Ferrigno, with the contact lens white eyes (admit it: the Hulk's white eyes were cool looking) and green make-up. But to make it work, they'd have to get someone even more built, or at least as fit, as Mr. Ferrigno to pull it off correctly.

Besides, it's a known fact (and it's obvious in an actor's performance when you see them in movies) that actors react better to and perform better with an actual flesh-and-blood actor than something computer animators have to spend a small fortune and several weeks on to get it right. With "Hulk", the interactions with the actors and the CGI Hulk don't just not look right -- they don't feel right. It's like watching someone else's video game character standing next to a flesh and blood actor.

But then again, that brings us back to the big debate: how do you make a man in green make-up look cool and yet not make it look like it's "downgrading" the film? To me, it's not a downgrade at all. This is a different Hulk movie and, as mentioned, they'll be using different methods of bringing the Hulk to life according to what's needed: CGI, animatronics (similar to the Jurassic Park robots) and the mixed-reactions "man in suit" option. Obviously, for action sequences the Hulk HAS to be CGI (super-strength, thunderclaps, super leaps, the inevitable smack down fight with Abomination). But for ACTING, Hulk HAS to be a man in suit. As impressive as CGI characters are getting in movies (such as Gollum and King Kong), they still don't look right when they interact emotionally when performing with the actors, no matter what marvels motion capture have done lately.

To me, I don't want to feel like I'm watching a PlayStation looking Hulk interact with an actor. Not only does it look bad, it breaks one classic element of going to the theater: it's distracting enough so that it takes you out of the movie. Now, one could think that they could use a "Lord of the Rings" style technique, by making the man in suit Hulk actor look taller and wider than the people he interacts with (Betty, General Ross, etc.). I mean, if they can make a 6 foot plus actor like John Rhys Davies and make him a dwarf in "LOTR", surely they can make a man in green make-up look wider and taller than normal, right?

But still, one reason why I support a majority of a green make-up applied actor as the Hulk for interaction and acting reasons isn't just about good performances, it's about money. Sure the Hulk has a 100 million plus budget, but so did the first film and look at how much of the Hulk we got out of it. A lot of sequences with the Hulk in the 2003 film had to be cut out entirely for not only time purposes, but for budget reasons. And to top it all off, let's not forget we have a SECOND green muscular behemoth in the form of the villain, Abomination. If Hulk and Abomination are both supposed to be "CGI all the way", as most fans have said, it's going to be very costly. If we want to see Hulk do what he does best (re: smashing buildings, enemies, etc., by means of thunderclaps, leaps and his other powers), logically they'd have to save some money for the action sequences by having at least a few scenes of a guy in green make-up.

Still, no matter how the Hulk is brought to life when he gets back into the theaters, I am also glad that it will follow the tone of the 1970s "The Incredible Hulk" TV series but without the budgetary problems that plagued the show.

A lot of people tend to forget or get confused by the fact that when people say this movie will be more like the TV show, they're talking about the actual tone of the story and NOT of the Hulk himself. We're not going to see the Hulk just throw things, lift things, smash things, jump down from a few stories tall building and land, and run away in slow motion whenever last seen like on the TV series. I'm confident that the Hulk's abilities will be there and he'll smash things into oblivion, as it rightfully should be. However, I do hope the transformation sequences are shown more like they were on the TV show and nowhere near as quick as the 2003 "Hulk" movie's metamorphosis scenes were. Ironically, this is the only aspect of the possible "man in suit" on-screen moments that people actually agree would work for the new film.

However, I must also say that while the TV series is the definitive way most people see the Hulk (and a good majority of Hulk fans, myself and several friends of mine), don't confuse that that's how many comic fans see the definitive way we see the Hulk himself. After all, a lot of fans of the Hulk show that don't know the comic don't know just how powerful the Hulk really is compared to the TV series. There are things you couldn't do with an actor in the 1970s. If you'd tried to make an actor look like he was jumping over three miles in a single bound, you'd have, most likely, animation doing those scenes or an actor with wires lifted off the ground before a blue screen or however they'd try and make those effects in the 1970s.

I'm not saying to water down the Hulk in any way, shape or form by getting a man in suit to portray him. His powers and abilities clearly must be CGI and the movie should rightfully include what's in the comics. But what I AM saying that as terms of acting, to me, CG just doesn't hold a candle to an actual actor. Besides, CGI is so overused in films these days, in some cases it's used moreso than the actual film's plot ("Poseidon", anyone?) that at times, it just isn't enough.

Well, it's just my opinion and that's my two cents, as it were (which is two cents more than my opinion is actually worth).

Still, I think there's one thing we can ALL agree on: let's just be thankful that the Hulk is finally coming back to the silver-screen where he belongs.

'Nuff said.



Sincerely,
Stuart Green

I understand what your saying. But I think most people would see it as a downgrade from the first film. Really, people who have seen the first film, then see a trailer of the second with a man in a Hulk suit may see it as a cheap sequel and will probably not go and see it. I personally don't mind if they go back to CGI (because Hulk looked awesome in the first film despite what other people say) or use a Hulk suit as long as it dosen't look bad or cheap.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I don't see a suit working. Period.

 

[Nivek]

No, unless it's done by the Best guy availible (Rick Baker) with the right budget to do a animatronic/man in suit Hulk right, a live action Hulk will not do the character justice.

Besides, the freedom of motion of the CGI Hulk is unmatched. A guy in suit would be way to rigid and fake looking (see LXG).

 

[ang_hulk]

its to late now i im not for it anyways,makes it to close to corny.Another thing,CGI characters work better with CGI sets and objects.

 

[Walks Unseen]

CGI is really the only way to do the character justice. Besides when Hulk uses his abilites they will need to use CGI anyway, so what is the point of doing a Hulk suit version?

 

[Chris Wallace]

No, unless it's done by the Best guy availible (Rick Baker) with the right budget to do a animatronic/man in suit Hulk right, a live action Hulk will not do the character justice.

Besides, the freedom of motion of the CGI Hulk is unmatched. A guy in suit would be way to rigid and fake looking (see LXG).

Actually, Stan Winston is probably on par w/Mr. Baker, who is the reason why I've hated just about every werewolf movie I've seen in the last 20 years.

 

[Nivek]

Actually, Stan Winston is probably on par w/Mr. Baker, who is the reason why I've hated just about every werewolf movie I've seen in the last 20 years.

No way, Bakers the more seasoned artist, Winston is a studio head. Rick Baker actually still get's his hands dirty, Stan Winston has been more of a team supervisor than an artist anymore. I dont think he's sculpted anything himself in close to 15 years. Baker is also quick to credit his crew when they do work in his studio (like Matt Rose), but Winston has an industry reputation for posing with his employees work in photo's with sculpture tool in hand. I like both of their studios work, but I prefer Baker because he's a great artist himself, and he likes the Hulk. Winstons more interested in the paycheck.

And WTF do you have against Bakers Werewolves? At least they look Canine instead of ape-Men.

 

[brian]

well, the 1st flim he was completely cg, so if they make any differences then it cant be too far from what they've already done. i mean, doing a man in a suit would kind of ruin the franchise that started it. you gotta continue with what you started with, only making improvements. hulks size in the movie almost matches the comics (not quite) but for live action it fits. remember its not the comics, some things have to change.

 

[Chris Wallace]

No way, Bakers the more seasoned artist, Winston is a studio head. Rick Baker actually still get's his hands dirty, Stan Winston has been more of a team supervisor than an artist anymore. I dont think he's sculpted anything himself in close to 15 years. Baker is also quick to credit his crew when they do work in his studio (like Matt Rose), but Winston has an industry reputation for posing with his employees work in photo's with sculpture tool in hand. I like both of their studios work, but I prefer Baker because he's a great artist himself, and he likes the Hulk. Winstons more interested in the paycheck.

And WTF do you have against Bakers Werewolves? At least they look Canine instead of ape-Men.

Okay, Winston's past his prime & not in the trenches like he once was. Okay. You totally misunderstood me on the werewolves. You got the opposite meaning. What I meant was, none that I've seen in the last 20 years measure up to his. Not even close.

 

[James Bond 007]

PLEASE not a man in a suit, PLEASE not a man in a suit, PLEASE not a man in a suit, PLEASE not a man in a suit, PLEASE not a man in a suit, PLEASE not a man in a suit, PLEASE not a man in a suit,

 

[Chris Wallace]

PLEASE not a man in a suit, PLEASE not a man in a suit, PLEASE not a man in a suit, PLEASE not a man in a suit, PLEASE not a man in a suit, PLEASE not a man in a suit, PLEASE not a man in a suit,

So how do you REALLY feel about it?

 

[Spider - Man]

It would be as implausable to make Hulk a man in a suit as it would have been to have Gollum be a human in makeup. CGI is the much better way to go.

 

[WeaponXProject]

It would be as implausable to make Hulk a man in a suit as it would have been to have Gollum be a human in makeup. CGI is the much better way to go.

Good point. I agree.