Question on Hulks appearance

[TRWalter Kovacs]

hey sorry if this has been discussed but i was curious if the hulks body will be all cg or if norton will be in a suit like hellboy or the thing? or will it be a body builder or something? just curious thanks

 

[wil]

Norton in a suit! Boy, you just suggested the No.1 method for the movie to flop!

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

Come on. I will be delighted to see Norton and Roth in rubber suits beating the crap out of each other, on a scale reduced set.

 

[Steelsheen]

i recall reading somewhere that Hulk will still be CG but there may be parts of him (like an arm or a leg) that will be created by the workshop.

 

[wil]

Come on. I will be delighted to see Norton and Roth in rubber suits beating the crap out of each other, on a scale reduced set.

They did the face really well in Hellboy but with his shirt off it sucked. When he was lifting the weights his muscles didn't flex like it should in real life. It almost felt like rubber!

And the Hulk's body is all muscle. Imagine what a disaster it could turn out to be!

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

They did the face really well in Hellboy but with his shirt off it sucked. When he was lifting the weights his muscles didn't flex like it should in real life. It almost felt like rubber!

And the Hulk's body is all muscle. Imagine what a disaster it could turn out to be!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8MjBU2sNK4

 

[wil]

Okay, those were not so bad (Its a parody rite!). But really, I expect more from a true Hulk movie. Besides the height : width ratio needs to be lesser. If edward norton puts on a rubber jacket his chestline is never gonna match Hulk's if his arms are to move too. Your thoughts?

 

[Brian Braddock]

CGI with animatronic's for close up's maybe.

Personally, I thought the all CGI approach in the 1st film worked and was astounding (for the most part):-

But given the new film's (reduced?) budget compared to the last one, they may use animatronic inserts for cost cutting purposes.

 

[TRWalter Kovacs]

anyone remember how good mr. hyde looked from LXG? that was a guy in a suit...or even juggernaut, vinnie jones. i dont know, i think (if done by right guys) norton in a suit MIGHT work. ecsepcially is stan winston does it

 

[cushe83]

I swear by stand winston. I f he can't make an organic body suit that looks like it was grown from flesh tendon and muscle then it can't be done. Quite frankley I'm suprised by everyones let CGI handle it attitude. I mean if Spiderman 3 has told us anything its cgi is not always reliable.

The cgi getting worse as thse films go along. I saw the trailer a couple of months ago and I thought 'oh well maybe its just the preliminary footage that hasn't been polished yet. but ever digtially enhaced effect was painfully obvious. I've seen dinosaurs walk across a screen and it looked believable I can't beleive in 2007 they can't make a man of normal perportions appear to defy gravity

 

[ANTOINE X]

Naah! enough about cg, that s for video games . I think that for HULK 2 they should use the same technology as the giant blue monster in 300. I Dont know exactly how they did it but that was cool FX.

 

[Ahura Mazda]

What giant blue monster?

And I am sorry but the Mr Hyde looked very bad relative to the Hulk so really I do not know why anyone is suggesting it.

One thing to note it is easier to do CGI renderings of dinosaurs then a cgi rendering of an enlargenned human being because of your own frame of references. Humans are harder to make realisitically using CGI but creatures are easier.

 

[Sava]

Hyde looked S**T...

 

[The Shredder]

Personally, I thought the all CGI approach in the 1st film worked and was astounding (for the most part)

I have to agree with you on that one.

 

[HULKFish]

CGI with animatronic's for close up's maybe.

Personally, I thought the all CGI approach in the 1st film worked and was astounding (for the most part):-

But given the new film's (reduced?) budget compared to the last one, they may use animatronic inserts for cost cutting purposes.

I've always said that the first scene was the perfect sized HULK, except for his head was too big and his arms could've been a tad bigger. There is no reduced budget though, it's the same as the first movie, 120M.

 

[ANTOINE X]

What giant blue monster?

In 300 the spartans were fighting that giant monster and I think they did it very well. hulk2 should use the same fx as the one in 300 not some shrek cg crap!

 

[sean61675]

CGI with animatronic's for close up's maybe.

Personally, I thought the all CGI approach in the 1st film worked and was astounding (for the most part):-

But given the new film's (reduced?) budget compared to the last one, they may use animatronic inserts for cost cutting purposes.

The first picture...yes, looked good especially when he was in the 8' to 9' range. I never liked the face because they based the Hulk's expression and look on Eric Bana's face. He needs the more classic comic savage hulk look in my opinion.

 

[Brian Braddock]

The first picture...yes, looked good especially when he was in the 8' to 9' range. I never liked the face because they based the Hulk's expression and look on Eric Bana's face. He needs the more classic comic savage hulk look in my opinion.

That's a valid point, Sean.

Stylistically, the face may not have been what everyone wanted or expected, and I'm sure they'll change that aspect this time around......

..... I posted those pics as examples that the technique used to create the Hulk; i.e, CG, worked just fine.

 

[sean61675]

That's a valid point, Sean.

Stylistically, the face may not have been what everyone wanted or expected, and I'm sure they'll change that aspect this time around......

..... I posted those pics as examples that the technique used to create the Hulk; i.e, CG, worked just fine.

Good examples though. I was just never sold on the face or body type (especially the 25' high "Kong" Hulk).

 

[cushe83]

What giant blue monster?

And I am sorry but the Mr Hyde looked very bad relative to the Hulk so really I do not know why anyone is suggesting it.

One thing to note it is easier to do CGI renderings of dinosaurs then a cgi rendering of an enlargenned human being because of your own frame of references. Humans are harder to make realisitically using CGI but creatures are easier.

If your implying that the reasons why the computer generated dinosaurs of Jurassic park look more realistic then the gravity defying acrobatics of spiderman becuase theres no frame of reference to judge the realism of the dinosaurs to the cgi stunt spiderman I would beg to differ.

I would argue that should be the precise reason that the models for spiderman should fair better then what they have made it scince there is an actual thing they can refer to to ensure realism. As shown in the pictures of hulk from ang lee's hulk is that the texture mapping of hulks skin is incredible, you can see the pores and everything but they did a good job out of making something very unrealistic look like it is made of flesh and bone. The problem is the effect as a whole is very abnimated and unrealistic.

 

[thorstone]

I'd aim for the size of the Hulk in that original transformation in Ang Lee's film.

I think Spielberg's Jurassic Park T-rex scenes are the best example of how to use both animatronics and animation.


As far as what CGI does and doesn't do good-- it does metalic and scaly surfaces well but it doesn't do hair or soft textures like human skin well.

Even Peter Jackson's Kong had some CGI moments that made me cringe-- that is a film that was in need of animatronics to interact with the actors.

 

[Skip Rockhard]

The first picture...yes, looked good especially when he was in the 8' to 9' range. I never liked the face because they based the Hulk's expression and look on Eric Bana's face. He needs the more classic comic savage hulk look in my opinion.

Actually, to be more precise, they used Eric Bana's face, Jennifer Connelly's face, and Ang Lee's face for the Hulk in Hulk. Each one was used for different 'emotions'. Like Jennifer Connelly's being used for more of the somber sadder Hulk.

Personally, I think it's a great and unique idea. Hopefully they do a more consistent look though, because as interesting as it was in Hulk, his face changed too drastically.

 

[sean61675]

Actually, to be more precise, they used Eric Bana's face, Jennifer Connelly's face, and Ang Lee's face for the Hulk in Hulk. Each one was used for different 'emotions'. Like Jennifer Connelly's being used for more of the somber sadder Hulk.

Personally, I think it's a great and unique idea. Hopefully they do a more consistent look though, because as interesting as it was in Hulk, his face changed too drastically.

I di not know that. Very interesting. I guess Dale Keown's (spelling??) look for me is spot on (the pencil rendering in the other thread). That size and look would be great. I do think especially given the other comment about CGI being better for metallic and scaly surfaces like the T-Rex in J.P. that the Abomination will look better because they do not have to recreate real skin texture I.E. the Hulk.

 

[Dangerous]

I think 100% CGI is the way to go.
CGI itself is not getting worse, its just all up to how much work goes into it from the artists.
SM3 had some dodgy shots but that was down to lack of effort nothing else.

The first scene Hulk appears in the 2003 film, he was the perfect size and 100% convincing.
Except this time Hulk’s face should be savage hulk, not based on the actor playing Banner.
I am a bit worried about the prospect of animatronics, it should just be all CGI like last time.

Also Hulk should be no bigger than 9ft, when Hulk busted outta that underground desert complex in the 03 film his size was ridiculous.

 

[not_a_victim]

It seems to me that anytime the Hulk was out in brght sunshine, the CGI seemed to be not as realistic as when he was kept in relatively low light. The tank fight scene was just horrible, but all shots of the Hulk (in the lab, in Banner's home, etc) were pretty good.
BTW, After having watched TLOEG just the other day, I thought, why not have a simultaneous use of suit, puppetry, forced perspective, and CGI.
Hyde didn't look bad at all if you overlooked his hands, which just sat there. If they could have been rendered in CGI, or puppetry to actually make them interact with the enviroment, it would have been much better.
I just don't think CGI is gonna work for this, as you are forced to have both actors and CGI interacting with the same enviroment, and I have yet to see that rendered well in any movie.....
therefore....
I will always want a man in suit/cgi/puppetry combo.
Alright, I know I am going to get flamed for it, so save those responses that are strictly negative, and give me some actual ideas/facts/examples if you think wholly CGI would work.