Question on Hulks appearance

[Sava]

lets see,

All CGI= Kong, Gollum, Sonny and Hulk

Man in Suit= Hyde, Thing and.....umm.....


well, you get the picture, all CGI wins evey time.

 

[xwolverine2]

he needs to be more ripped and less bulky/fat boobs.

 

[Sava]

he needs to be more ripped and less bulky/fat boobs.

show me a pic of where he looked like that

 

[cushe83]

lets see,

All CGI= Kong, Gollum, Sonny and Hulk

Man in Suit= Hyde, Thing and.....umm.....


well, you get the picture, all CGI wins evey time.

How does CGI being ised more frequenly equate to it asthetically looking better.....it doesn't.

For as many CGI effects that can be given as an example of why some deem it superior, just as many can be given to show how inferior it is even in 2007. For every King Kong theres a The host. Both films worked on by the same digital effects company but one vastley superior to the other. So its neither here nor there.

 

[Norm3]

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

 

[not_a_victim]

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

Ok, so now what? Yeah, he is ACTING goofy there, and I will admit the jaw/chin area is messed up, but look at the body. It doesn't look bad at all, and this was obviously low budget.
OH, yeah, he's about 15 feet tall, but other than that, it's ok.

 

[Crook]

Have there been any reports of who's doing the sfx for this? They really need to bag ILM and use the same techniques they've done for Davey Jones.

 

[Sava]

How does CGI being ised more frequenly equate to it asthetically looking better.....it doesn't.

For as many CGI effects that can be given as an example of why some deem it superior, just as many can be given to show how inferior it is even in 2007. For every King Kong theres a The host. Both films worked on by the same digital effects company but one vastley superior to the other. So its neither here nor there.

the Host?... as in that Koren movie?... that had great CGI. Using Prosthetics (sp) to make hulk is a s**t idea, we have Thing to look at how fake and crappy he'll look. Hulk has to have skin and crap like that, its 1) really hard to do that, 2) too time consuming and 3) actors b**ch about makeup and how they cant pee for hours. LXG tried to do skin with Prosthetics and didnt work.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

Well, according to the new scoop the possibility of Ferrigno in a latex suit as the Abomination is very high. Who will dress the Hulk latex suit?

 

[Sava]

god... i hope to god Lou isnt Abomi, it would really suck if he was, it would really suck if both Abomi and Hulk were in suits

 

[Obi-Ron]

The Abomination can easily be done with prosthetics, but Hulk is a different story.

 

[cushe83]

the Host?... as in that Koren movie?... that had great CGI. Using Prosthetics (sp) to make hulk is a s**t idea, we have Thing to look at how fake and crappy he'll look. Hulk has to have skin and crap like that, its 1) really hard to do that, 2) too time consuming and 3) actors b**ch about makeup and how they cant pee for hours. LXG tried to do skin with Prosthetics and didnt work.

Uh the CGI in the host was absolutley horrible. which was my point. You can look at any original movie that airs on the sci-fi channel and see quite that CGI is not always the best way to go. 1) It isnt hard to to recreate skin, And to suggest so is stupid. Thats saying tin the history of Prosthetic and animatronic effects none of these artist are able to create skin, thats stupid.
2) Yes it may be time consuming to craete a prosthetic from maquette, perifrial sculpt, to molding, but no more time consuming then it would be to create an entire actor from skeletal structure, tendon muscle, flesh and hair fibers individually. 3) It really doesnt make a difference for the comfort zone of the actor as far as effects make up is concerned. Jim Carey had to wear the grinch make up as well as full eye contacts that they had to have an army sargent come to the set and help him deal wit the pain. If the Actor can't do it, then he doesn't get the role thats how that works. And just becuase LXG couldn't do it obviously does not mean it can't be done.

 

[Sava]

Uh the CGI in the host was absolutley horrible. which was my point. You can look at any original movie that airs on the sci-fi channel and see quite that CGI is not always the best way to go. 1) It isnt hard to to recreate skin, And to suggest so is stupid. Thats saying tin the history of Prosthetic and animatronic effects none of these artist are able to create skin, thats stupid.
2) Yes it may be time consuming to craete a prosthetic from maquette, perifrial sculpt, to molding, but no more time consuming then it would be to create an entire actor from skeletal structure, tendon muscle, flesh and hair fibers individually. 3) It really doesnt make a difference for the comfort zone of the actor as far as effects make up is concerned. Jim Carey had to wear the grinch make up as well as full eye contacts that they had to have an army sargent come to the set and help him deal wit the pain. If the Actor can't do it, then he doesn't get the role thats how that works. And just becuase LXG couldn't do it obviously does not mean it can't be done.

WTF?... are we even talking about the same movie here?... the Host had some awesome CGI that could go up against American summer movies. I'm not saying that they couldnt create skin in prosthetics, just that CGI skin looks better, it just needs the right people behind it, like WETA with Gollum and Kong or ILM with Hulk.

Yeah, it would be time consuming for CGI but the actor doesnt need hours of makeup and s**t like that. So it actually saves time in the end. Some actors hate having full body makeup. Its just that simple. Abomination will be bigger than Hulk and Hulk is already 9ft tall. So they go to do some tricks like they did with LOTR and all that. ILM and WETA have already proved that these kinda monsters can be done and look better than what prosthetics can achive. Why go back there?

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

So they go to do some tricks like they did with LOTR and all that. ILM and WETA have already proved that these kinda monsters can be done and look better than what prosthetics can achive. Why go back there?

Because it's cheaper and you can do it on camera.
If you need to see a brutal fight between two 9 feet green giants, the easiest way is to cover two wrestlers in green latex and having them fight in a scale reduced set. It will look even better than seeing CGI monsters who obeys their own gravity laws and will look fake for that.

 

[Sava]

Because it's cheaper and you can do it on camera.
If you need to see a brutal fight between two 9 feet green giants, the easiest way is to cover two wrestlers in green latex and having them fight in a scale reduced set. It will look even better than seeing CGI monsters who obeys their own gravity laws and will look fake for that.

exactly, go the cheap route and this film will look s**t compared to 03's. CGI monsters fighing each other looks great when done right (Kong vs V-rexs or Hulk vs Dogs). Coviering a guy in green latex wont look as good as the CGI in the first movie. That will be a step back IMO. Covering a guy in prothetics wont work that great either, he wont be able to move much. Hell, Bale cant turn around from the waist up in a bat suit but these guys got to fight and do all that s**t. It could work, get some great guys together and they might pull it off, but there's more of a chance it could go wrong that right. CGI has worked before for Hulk. They've hired a up and coming CGI studio, so their price wont be a high as ILM or WETA and these guys have something to prove.

 

[<(o_o)>]

I hope they don't go with the Hulk with a buzz cut look like the Hulk in the Ultimate Avengers movie.

Think they will use the Hulk design for the new movie for an Ultimate Avengers movie or will both have their own unique looking Hulks?

 

[Golgo-13]

I hope they don't go with the Hulk with a buzz cut look like the Hulk in the Ultimate Avengers movie.

Think they will use the Hulk design for the new movie for an Ultimate Avengers movie or will both have their own unique looking Hulks?

Yeah, that version of Hulks look sucked plus his green/grey skin tone ruined it for me too.

 

[cushe83]

WTF?... are we even talking about the same movie here?... the Host had some awesome CGI that could go up against American summer movies. I'm not saying that they couldnt create skin in prosthetics, just that CGI skin looks better, it just needs the right people behind it, like WETA with Gollum and Kong or ILM with Hulk.

Yeah, it would be time consuming for CGI but the actor doesnt need hours of makeup and s**t like that. So it actually saves time in the end. Some actors hate having full body makeup. Its just that simple. Abomination will be bigger than Hulk and Hulk is already 9ft tall. So they go to do some tricks like they did with LOTR and all that. ILM and WETA have already proved that these kinda monsters can be done and look better than what prosthetics can achive. Why go back there?

I dont know if we were looking at the same film, or mabe your just not familiar with the a higher caliber of CGI effcts becuase those were terrible coming from an amature in the field. I'm guessing your not familiar with the feild past whatching these films you mentioned. Um as I've said it is just as much time comsuming to have to create an actual actor from scratch then applying prosthetics. Several advances in the feild have been created for full body prosthetics to shorten the legnth of time for application. Basically it looks better becuase its actually there is a basic argument. Heres prime example, walking witht he dinosaurs live is a visual masterpiece that uses live full sized animatronics. Its speaks for it self and practicle animatronics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv7zGykSulk&mode=related&search=

I'm telling you it isn't up to the actor whether or not the're comfortable with the make-up and the application if they can't do what the job entales then they don't get he job simple as that. And IML and WETA are precise reasons to show that CGI can not do everything. The effects in kong were not perfect and I see them very easily being visibly dated in 3 years time.

 

[Sava]

I dont know if we were looking at the same film, or mabe your just not familiar with the a higher caliber of CGI effcts becuase those were terrible coming from an amature in the field. I'm guessing your not familiar with the feild past whatching these films you mentioned. Um as I've said it is just as much time comsuming to have to create an actual actor from scratch then applying prosthetics. Several advances in the feild have been created for full body prosthetics to shorten the legnth of time for application. Basically it looks better becuase its actually there is a basic argument. Heres prime example, walking witht he dinosaurs live is a visual masterpiece that uses live full sized animatronics. Its speaks for it self and practicle animatronics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv7zGykSulk&mode=related&search=

I'm telling you it isn't up to the actor whether or not the're comfortable with the make-up and the application if they can't do what the job entales then they don't get he job simple as that. And IML and WETA are precise reasons to show that CGI can not do everything. The effects in kong were not perfect and I see them very easily being visibly dated in 3 years time.

this is the film i'm talking about http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468492/

you are right, i dont know much other than what i see in movies and i like CGI stuff better, just like nearly everyone out there. People loved Gollum, Kong, Davy Jones and so on. That Trex clip was awesome BTW but the V-rexs in Kong still beat it, they moved much faster and better, looked real even when they arent. the arguement that just because they are real, they look better is bulls**t. Yeah, the effects in Kong will be dated, but not by prosthetics or robotics but by CGI. Why go to an unproven thing when CGI has given us all these things?... Marvel sure as hell wont want to take more chances with this movie, atleast i hope they dont.

 

[cryptic name]

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!

i'm not a big fan of the idea of norton in a suit. but the hellboy torso makeup was beautiful

 

[HULKFish]

exactly, go the cheap route and this film will look s**t compared to 03's. CGI monsters fighing each other looks great when done right (Kong vs V-rexs or Hulk vs Dogs). Coviering a guy in green latex wont look as good as the CGI in the first movie. That will be a step back IMO. Covering a guy in prothetics wont work that great either, he wont be able to move much. Hell, Bale cant turn around from the waist up in a bat suit but these guys got to fight and do all that s**t. It could work, get some great guys together and they might pull it off, but there's more of a chance it could go wrong that right. CGI has worked before for Hulk. They've hired a up and coming CGI studio, so their price wont be a high as ILM or WETA and these guys have something to prove.

I CAN'T AGREE MORE!! HULK in CGI or it will totally SUCK! There is NO way latex would look good at all and NO human on the planet is built sufficiently or is proportioned adequately enough to play HULK...

 

[TheBeastWithin]

I CAN'T AGREE MORE!! HULK in CGI or it will totally SUCK! There is NO way latex would look good at all and NO human on the planet is built sufficiently or is proportioned adequately enough to play HULK...

Agreed.

 

[ANTOINE X]

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.

I know cg and the problem with hulk is not the modeling part but the animation wich is some time "Shrek" a like. What was used to create the monster in 300? I strongly suggest they use that technology.

 

[Sava]

I know cg and the problem with hulk is not the modeling part but the animation wich is some time "Shrek" a like. What was used to create the monster in 300? I strongly suggest they use that technology.

that wasnt CGI, it was a man in make-up...

 

[antsiou]

that wasnt CGI, it was a man in make-up...

Yep I agree, and would had that as much as I can see it work for a "monster" that size in 300, he's far from being the hulk in term of height, and especially width

VS

I can't see man in suit be able to look realistic with that width..

A good use of both could definitely be a good option, but all make up and no CGI...