No Hulk sequel, a RE-START instead.

[November Rain]

Not necessarily. I think you are stuck on the whole CG thing, and the idea that more realistic = more CG = more money.

I'm just saying that if they DIDN'T have over a hundred million dollars to spend, then the focus would be on coming up with very convincing and creative ways to sell the idea of a giant, raging, green man. My point is that too much money tends to stifle creativity more than enhance it.

Give 20 million to a *really good director* and they won't need a completely CG Hulk.

so you're saying a less expensive hulk would create a more realistic looking one with dubbed down feats would be better than a cgi one?

i don't get it, all cgi scenes pretty much look like cgi, it's not like they blend into the background, especially the characters.

i dunno know, from what you are saying it's like you prefer the puppet yoda in the phantom menance to the cgi one used in attack of the clones and return of the sith, even though the later was obviously cgi.

 

[Lobster Charlie]

No. What I'm saying is I want to see true creativity, instead of the overuse of technology.

Bad is bad, and unconvincing is unconvincing. The puppet yoda in Phantom Menace was bad. The CG Hulk in The Hulk was unconvincing. Strange...both were done by ILM. Hmm.

Since The Hulk is a big green MAN, one without any serious deformities, it seems like overkill to render him completely in 3D. When you do something like that, you tend to run the risk of being less convincing. I just don't think ILM truly had it in them to completely pull that off. Could WETA have done better? Probably. But it still would've cost a bundle of money.

I think with the proper mix of live actor, make up, and limited use of CG in some scenes, one could pull this off convincingly without having to spend 10s of millions of dollars on CGI. Like I said...creativity is key.

Do you get it now?

 

[Chris Wallace]

What MAN weighs over 1000 pounds? He is humanoid, but not human.

 

[November Rain]

No. What I'm saying is I want to see true creativity, instead of the overuse of technology.

Bad is bad, and unconvincing is unconvincing. The puppet yoda in Phantom Menace was bad. The CG Hulk in The Hulk was unconvincing. Strange...both were done by ILM. Hmm.

Since The Hulk is a big green MAN, one without any serious deformities, it seems like overkill to render him completely in 3D. When you do something like that, you tend to run the risk of being less convincing. I just don't think ILM truly had it in them to completely pull that off. Could WETA have done better? Probably. But it still would've cost a bundle of money.

I think with the proper mix of live actor, make up, and limited use of CG in some scenes, one could pull this off convincingly without having to spend 10s of millions of dollars on CGI. Like I said...creativity is key.

Do you get it now?

but how is anything other than a cgi hulk going to convince people that this is the strongest most savage entity the world has ever witnessed?

i don't know but when your definition of convincing comes into play, there isn;t a superhero movie out yet that convinces me that anything going on is real, there aren't any cgi scenes that convince me that trick my mind into thinking that was done in real life. There isn't any stunt that convinces me that the action is really happening whether in real life or cgi.

tis part of the disbelief.

i mean when i watch spidey, i'm no more convinced because it's a man in a costume than when the cgi spidey takes place, infact when it comes to certain aspects such as web slinging, i woudl much rather have a cgi spidey. If spidey was cgi for the whole film, if done to the same quality as the hulk, i doubt i would complain about it needing an actor to take the role.

do you think that the thing was convincing in fantastic four?

 

[Lobster Charlie]

Well one thing about Thing in Fantastic Four was---I knew he was there. The costume needed some serious help, but I feel that a CG thing would've been even *less* convincing.

As for your first question: like I said before, a live actor with a mixture of makeup and CGI would be a great way to approach it. Real people are convincing. When I see a Bib Fortuna in Return Of the Jedi--I know he's there. CGI has this soft kind of fake look to it. Its normally well-animated and presented, but very rarely is it completely convincing.

 

[Lobster Charlie]

What MAN weighs over 1000 pounds? He is humanoid, but not human.

 

[El Payaso]

Well one thing about Thing in Fantastic Four was---I knew he was there.

For our disgrace.

That rubber suit did convince you? or the fact that The Thing was shorter than Johnny Storm?

 

[Sava]

Well one thing about Thing in Fantastic Four was---I knew he was there. The costume needed some serious help, but I feel that a CG thing would've been even *less* convincing.

As for your first question: like I said before, a live actor with a mixture of makeup and CGI would be a great way to approach it. Real people are convincing. When I see a Bib Fortuna in Return Of the Jedi--I know he's there. CGI has this soft kind of fake look to it. Its normally well-animated and presented, but very rarely is it completely convincing.

have you seen LXG?

 

[Chris Wallace]

For our disgrace.

That rubber suit did convince you? or the fact that The Thing was shorter than Johnny Storm?

I enjoyed FF; things like their heights didn't bother me.
What's funny to me is, as many people as we had arguing against a CGI Hulk, & complaining about him being too big, we seem to have just as many arguing for a CGI Thing, citing him being too small. The filmmakers can't win.

 

[Chris Wallace]

have you seen LXG?

I didn't care for it; I thought the CGI in that was rather cheesy.

 

[Sava]

I didn't care for it; I thought the CGI in that was rather cheesy.

Well, Hyde had everything he wanted and still looked s**t...IMO

 

[El Payaso]

I enjoyed FF; things like their heights didn't bother me.
What's funny to me is, as many people as we had arguing against a CGI Hulk, & complaining about him being too big, we seem to have just as many arguing for a CGI Thing, citing him being too small. The filmmakers can't win.

Well, maybe if FF was any good Thing's height wouldn't matter that much.

 

[November Rain]

Well one thing about Thing in Fantastic Four was---I knew he was there. The costume needed some serious help, but I feel that a CG thing would've been even *less* convincing.

As for your first question: like I said before, a live actor with a mixture of makeup and CGI would be a great way to approach it. Real people are convincing. When I see a Bib Fortuna in Return Of the Jedi--I know he's there. CGI has this soft kind of fake look to it. Its normally well-animated and presented, but very rarely is it completely convincing.

however you saw how limited the thing was strength wise...

in order of feats, the thing can't handle a fire truck with two hands where spidey can stop a speeding train and also hold a tram with one hand (heck goblin is stronger than both of them technically).

you see the thing about THE THING is that i always saw him as a person in a costume, his movement wasn't natural and was fairly restricted, nor was his size and stature really intimidating enough. I felt more like i was looking at a circus act rather than looking at something that is so extra ordinary that it needs no name.

by making him tangible made the character less realistic and hence less convincing in my eyes.


did you not like king kong because you knew that it was a computer generated monster, how about the dinosaurs in jurassic park?

 

[Lobster Charlie]

The Thing was not only an average costume, he was also starring in a fairly poorly-shot movie. FF is not real good cinema. And the practical effects team wasn't that great. It didn't help that his "rocky" skin was so shiny at times, either. But I didn't mind The Thing so much.

With the proper lighting and staging, and subtle effects like small (cg) puffs of rock dust wisping off of him whenever he makes sudden moves, a bit of a bigger (and different) actor to play him...it would've worked better. What you're doing right now is picking bad examples of practical effects.

But you know, I don't hate CG. I hate the overuse and mis-use of it. I feel The Hulk used too much of it, and it wasn't very good. Whenever he emoted, it looked lame, forced, not enough "human" behind it for me. When you're dealing with such a human-like character, with a human face, you should really just use a human, especially in the closeups. Did we really need a full-CG hulk running in the desert? No. We could've just had an actor do ALL of those scenes himself, and it would've been better, more convincing.

Spiderman can get away with so much CG, because he doesn't really have a face with expressions, and its mainly used for action sequences. Even then, in Spiderman 1, the CG was pretty bad in spots.

My thing is, just be open to using a variety of different techniques to sell your character. Use more creativity and not so much technology all the time. American Werewolf In London still remains one of my favorite films, as dated as it is, because they simply understood the concept of staging, drama, and how to really play with the audience's fear. And the more "real" your staging and characters are, the more the real actors are able to immerse themselves in their roles and sell it better.

Just my 2 cents. You ask good questions and raise good points!

 

[ObakeTora]

Im all for a Hulk remake, but I want to see Ang direct again with a better script. Could you imagine what his take on juggernaut would have been?

 

[HULKSTER'04]

I loved the first movie,but if they go for the original comics based HULK this time, i think it will be a good one!
so i wish them luck!

 

[ObakeTora]

they better include Rick Jones this time.

 

[Ions]

but I want to see Ang direct again with a better script.

I know! Ang can direct all the action scenes and manage the cgi. And someone else can direct everything else. A win-win situation for all*.

* using "all" I of course do not mean all, in this usage it's excluding everyone who disagrees with said statement

[Ions is amused]

 

[Gogo Bananas]

I just want an actual GAMMA BOMB to go off in his face. No crappy cop outs - just a plain ol' nuke, please.
The bomb just adds an indespensible subtext to the whole shebang.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

The Thing was not only an average costume, he was also starring in a fairly poorly-shot movie. FF is not real good cinema. And the practical effects team wasn't that great. It didn't help that his "rocky" skin was so shiny at times, either. But I didn't mind The Thing so much.

With the proper lighting and staging, and subtle effects like small (cg) puffs of rock dust wisping off of him whenever he makes sudden moves, a bit of a bigger (and different) actor to play him...it would've worked better. What you're doing right now is picking bad examples of practical effects.

But you know, I don't hate CG. I hate the overuse and mis-use of it. I feel The Hulk used too much of it, and it wasn't very good. Whenever he emoted, it looked lame, forced, not enough "human" behind it for me. When you're dealing with such a human-like character, with a human face, you should really just use a human, especially in the closeups. Did we really need a full-CG hulk running in the desert? No. We could've just had an actor do ALL of those scenes himself, and it would've been better, more convincing.

Spiderman can get away with so much CG, because he doesn't really have a face with expressions, and its mainly used for action sequences. Even then, in Spiderman 1, the CG was pretty bad in spots.

My thing is, just be open to using a variety of different techniques to sell your character. Use more creativity and not so much technology all the time. American Werewolf In London still remains one of my favorite films, as dated as it is, because they simply understood the concept of staging, drama, and how to really play with the audience's fear. And the more "real" your staging and characters are, the more the real actors are able to immerse themselves in their roles and sell it better.

Just my 2 cents. You ask good questions and raise good points!

Just have to chip in here, no one hear is saying that a man in a suit/make up doesnt work, i think they are simply saying it wouldnt work for The Hulk. The Hulk is a monstor, a force of nature that cannot be stopped by any conventional weapons the humans possess. He is an aberation of nature, something that we have never seen before that will truly shock and scare us. Now how the hell can a human play anything like that.

Another example, and i have used this before, LOTR, no one can rightly claim that those movies over-used CGI. They mostly used make-up and suits. BUT, they only used make up and suits when an actor was capable of portraying the charactet, when the character had human proportions. But what did the filmakers do when they came accross a creature/character that didnt have human proportions? Like the Balrog, or the cave trolls, they went with CGI, because they knew that make-up etc wouldnt do the trick, wouldnt make the monstor convincing enough. Do you see were i am going here?

Now i appreciate your opinion about the movie, your not the only one to dislike it, not by a long shot, but the CGI is not the reason this movie didnt make the money it was supposed to. I am hard to please when it comes to CGI, believe me, i can spot it a mile away and it takes me out of the movie experience sometimes, which i hate, Hulk didnt do this to me.

You want a good example of bad CGI? Try the Scorpion King in the Mummy Returns, THAT looked like a video game if any CGI does, and too put the Hulk in the same category as that is LUDICROUS IMO.

 

[Shadow_Knight]

I don't care if they make a remake or a sequel I hated the Hulk and if they want to make it better by a sequel or a remake I say whatever floats your boat if it's better then the first on I'll see it.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Well, being a big fan of the first movie, i would much prefer a sequel, but i would still go and see a re-make.

 

[Hades]

I just want an actual GAMMA BOMB to go off in his face. No crappy cop outs - just a plain ol' nuke, please.
The bomb just adds an indespensible subtext to the whole shebang.

Like what? there was a gamma bomb in the movie used as an "indespensible subtext"

The only way it wasn't used for the transformation was because, well, it would probably be too much to swallow for the average movie goer. The whole radioactive thing doesn't work anymore...they changed it for Spider-man. I did miss Rick Jones though. But he could easily be added in a sequel.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Like what? there was a gamma bomb in the movie used as an "indespensible subtext"

The only way it wasn't used for the transformation was because, well, it would probably be too much to swallow for the average movie goer. The whole radioactive thing doesn't work anymore...they changed it for Spider-man. I did miss Rick Jones though. But he could easily be added in a sequel.

Exactly, totally agree with you.

 

[TheSumOfGod]

In the 60's, it was all about radiation. Radiation gave superheores their powers. Then again, back then the transistor was the most advanced form of technology, and even Iron Man's suit was transistor-powered. Nowadays it's all about genetic engineering, because that's the new frontier of technology. In the Hulk movie, they used gamma radiation, genetic engineering and nanotechnology, which I thought was pure genius, since nanotechnology is the next step of highly advanced technology, it is literally the future of humanity, most probably the key to our immortality in real life, robotized molecules perpetually regenerating us. You just watch, 20 years from now, all superhero origins are gonna be ret-conned to include nanotechnology. And then, probably a century from now, when "power crystals" and "metaphysical energy fields" are the latest feat of science, all superhero origins are gonna be ret-conned to include "power crystals" and "metaphysical energy fields". You'll see. Point is: change is good, when it makes sense and when it is done properly. I have NO problem with Hulk now being a combination of past tech (radiation), present tech (genetics) and future tech (nanomeds). I even like the hell out of it.