The Incredible Hulk CGI Thread

[TheBeastWithin]

Hulk has never looked like banner in the comic, nor has meant to, when banner changes he literally turns inta a completely different person/creature.

Exactly. Hulk is a monster, not a musclebound version of Banner. His proportions completely change when transforming. Hulk's face typically takes on a cro-magnon appearance with the heavy brow, small high-placed nose and large upper lip. His limbs also become disproportionately larger than normal in relation to his massively muscled body. This is a complete and utter transformation not simply just putting on muscle very quickly and turning green. If that were the case he'd just look like a green bodybuilder.

 

[Godman]

Guess it depends which Hulk the people like. I alike the muscular humanoid where as others may like the monster aspects. To each his/her own. I just like Ang's character more due to the heart of the matter plus CG was just better hell it's ILM

 

[Compi716]

I couldn't care less which one looks better, I just want the movie to not suck as much as the first one. I'll probably find out on DVD or buy tickets to another movie and sneak in.

Um...WHY? Seriously, what is the point to that?

 

[Kirmit]

Sounds like a lame attempt at saying 'I want to see the movie but refuse to pay any money towards its box office earnings'.

 

[Godman]

Personally, I find the whole comparison - Unjust. It's been what - 5 years since the Ang's version? Comparing the CGI from then and Now... Is just unfair to Ang... There are aspects of course which could be better in both. But remember, We're not talking about making a black suit and have a bat logo on it. We're talking oversized green muso wrestler. Big Difference. Accept what we have and take it. Both are good. Ang's was good for it's day. Norton's is also good for today. In another 5 years, we'll say this one is pure rubbish Technology increase, and so will CGI. So... The past version was great - The modern is just as good. No point comparing the two... You should go embrace and love both of them!

Bad thing is when I first saw ang's i was impressed but this new one is just rubbish so far and that is the difference and how to compare

 

[Nivek]

Godman, what attracts you to this new movie? Is there anything that does interest you enough to watch it in the movies at least once?

 

[Nivek]

That 100% done stuff is garbage. It's horrible CG and since the people have spoken they had to release some kind of statement to save their hides. The CG is terrible through and through. It is not a smart marketing decision to release a single on radio which is practically the promotion for the album it's attached to and when the beat or lyrics sound horrible or unaudible u say..."it's not finished yet". Lame excuse and I don't care if anyone says it's unfinished. What I see is what I get and what I see is garbage CGI. Until otherwise that's all I have to go by. That's what people said about the plane scene in Iron man or the Cg in spiderman 3 when he hops of the building in black suit and the car for Batman Begins. Unfinished, they're working on it but when all those movies came out the footage was the EXACT same. That is media nonsense to keep the fans at ease with hope for everything that looks like crap in the trailer to look better. Only problem with Ang Lee's was hight and color. The model could have been slightly less fat and more to the new ones body mass but as for the CG work and animation it was top notch for it's time. The entire desert scene was amazing and I truly doubt that the new one will top it. At least Ang's looked like Bana where as The new 2008 does not resemble Norton in the least and I don't wanna hear crap like it's not finished CG cause that can lose audience and terrible marketing advertising non finished work.

Like a Disney movie releasing the pencil work with no color and saying it's just a trailer not finished. Nope!!!!

Godman, are you aware that it is general practice that most trailer's for effects heavy films do actually contain workprint versions of brief effects shot? I would really recommend viewing trailer for any big film for the last ten years with the trailers, just to see the many examples that I'm talking about. I'm sure others will also confirm this is standard practice.

As for the Hulk, he is a dark, distorted reflection of Bruce Banner, not him green skinned and roided out. Hulk is a monster. I really like Ang's take, but I have to agree about the Hulk looking too baby faced, and it's obvious when Ang did facial motion capture for Hulk and when Bana was in control of the face puppetry. It's damn good work, but this Hulk looks more like the Hulk. I really like the leaner body, and love the facial design.

 

[smooth3006]

That 100% done stuff is garbage. It's horrible CG and since the people have spoken they had to release some kind of statement to save their hides. The CG is terrible through and through. It is not a smart marketing decision to release a single on radio which is practically the promotion for the album it's attached to and when the beat or lyrics sound horrible or unaudible u say..."it's not finished yet". Lame excuse and I don't care if anyone says it's unfinished. What I see is what I get and what I see is garbage CGI. Until otherwise that's all I have to go by. That's what people said about the plane scene in Iron man or the Cg in spiderman 3 when he hops of the building in black suit and the car for Batman Begins. Unfinished, they're working on it but when all those movies came out the footage was the EXACT same. That is media nonsense to keep the fans at ease with hope for everything that looks like crap in the trailer to look better. Only problem with Ang Lee's was hight and color. The model could have been slightly less fat and more to the new ones body mass but as for the CG work and animation it was top notch for it's time. The entire desert scene was amazing and I truly doubt that the new one will top it. At least Ang's looked like Bana where as The new 2008 does not resemble Norton in the least and I don't wanna hear crap like it's not finished CG cause that can lose audience and terrible marketing advertising non finished work.

Like a Disney movie releasing the pencil work with no color and saying it's just a trailer not finished. Nope!!!!

great another ang lee fanboy. look if you don't like what you see, then don't go see the movie.

 

[Venomfan]

i saw the trailer when i saw run fatboy run and people behind me were like "another one, oh great, i'd actually like to see a good marvel movie" saw the trailer again with forgetting sarah marshall and the guy beside me was like "this looks so fake, their relying on CG way to much" saw it again with Iron man and it had the best crowd reaction, as soon as his fist slammed down and started growing the audience was like "whooooah", other than that all negative responses. i think it looks awesome though besides Abomination

 

[Sava]

Godman, are you aware that it is general practice that most trailer's for effects heavy films do actually contain workprint versions of brief effects shot? I would really recommend viewing trailer for any big film for the last ten years with the trailers, just to see the many examples that I'm talking about. I'm sure others will also confirm this is standard practice.

i agree with this part, most big summer movies do release trailers with unfinished CG...but, i dont remember a really BIG summer movie with CG in trailers that look THIS unfinished. I dont remember looking at Kong trailers and ever thinking that this shot looked unfinshed while this other one looked finished. Same with Transformers. The number of times Hulk goes from looking great to just plain bad is wrong IMO, the ratio in that is horrible. Its like, we get 3 bad shots of Hulk to every good one. Look how close we are to the release date, did TF look this unfinished with a month to release?...did Kong?...

My main problem with this new trailer is that the CG is good enough, thats it, good enough. Its never truly stunning, Kong had stunning CG in its trailers, so did TF, hell, so did LOTR. Is it wrong to expect Hulk, my fav character of all time, to be up there with Kong and Gollum? Isnt there a problem when you cant, for sure, tell that the CG in this one, so far, is better than the CG in the last one? For those who are going to come in here and tell me to wait and see, why should i?... shouldnt 5 years and 150mill guarantee us better CGI?..even at this early stage.

 

[Nivek]

But Sava, that full $150 million didn't all go FX. And Kong was infamous for having Kong himself change in each of the trailers, point to his Broken Jaw and the rance of his fur texture being less prominent in the final film.

 

[Mercurius]

But Sava, that full $150 million didn't all go FX. And Kong was infamous for having Kong himself change in each of the trailers, point to his Broken Jaw and the rance of his fur texture being less prominent in the final film.

Fact that.

If it can improve like that, the final result will be great.

But it is also fact: it NEEDS improvement.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

i agree with this part, most big summer movies do release trailers with unfinished CG...but, i dont remember a really BIG summer movie with CG in trailers that look THIS unfinished. I dont remember looking at Kong trailers and ever thinking that this shot looked unfinshed while this other one looked finished. Same with Transformers. The number of times Hulk goes from looking great to just plain bad is wrong IMO, the ratio in that is horrible. Its like, we get 3 bad shots of Hulk to every good one. Look how close we are to the release date, did TF look this unfinished with a month to release?...did Kong?...

My main problem with this new trailer is that the CG is good enough, thats it, good enough. Its never truly stunning, Kong had stunning CG in its trailers, so did TF, hell, so did LOTR. Is it wrong to expect Hulk, my fav character of all time, to be up there with Kong and Gollum? Isnt there a problem when you cant, for sure, tell that the CG in this one, so far, is better than the CG in the last one? For those who are going to come in here and tell me to wait and see, why should i?... shouldnt 5 years and 150mill guarantee us better CGI?..even at this early stage.

I think you have illustrated what i fear about this movie. it looks to safe. nothing about it looks like they are taking the extra mile and going to make it unbelievable.

 

[Obi-Ron]

So.....it's TOO believable??? First time I've heard that as a complaint.

 

[Crook]

But Sava, that full $150 million didn't all go FX. And Kong was infamous for having Kong himself change in each of the trailers, point to his Broken Jaw and the rance of his fur texture being less prominent in the final film.

Those are design elements. Has nothing to do with the quality of the cgi work.

Sava has a very good point. Neither POTC, LOTR, Kong, or TF had this much shoddy work and divisive debate....a month or so from release. Just didn't happen.

 

[LiveWire777]

"My masterful statue of the Hulk's head is complete! Now to sculp the body!"

I'm not going to pass judgement until I see the movie, but I will comment on how these two film designs show the difference between comics and movies. In comics you draw massive bulging muscles to look realistic, but Ang Lee copied that and his Hulk looked like green dough. This new film's design is slimmer, to convey its emotional nature as a furious beast if not exactly copying the 2D proportions.

You hit it on the nose good sir!!

 

[LiveWire777]

"My masterful statue of the Hulk's head is complete! Now to sculp the body!"

I'm not going to pass judgement until I see the movie, but I will comment on how these two film designs show the difference between comics and movies. In comics you draw massive bulging muscles to look realistic, but Ang Lee copied that and his Hulk looked like green dough. This new film's design is slimmer, to convey its emotional nature as a furious beast if not exactly copying the 2D proportions.

You hit it on the nose good sir!!

 

[Knightsaber Priss]

Well, I'm waiting until I see the movie until I pass judgment on the Hulk itself. A trailer is still just a trailer. I think after Ironman's huge weekend Box Office intake Team Hulk will be pressed upon subliminally to match it in quality. Of course if there's a good, engaging story I can forgive less than perfect CGI. I've watched very good movies in the past that didn't even have the luxury of CGI (Neverending Story - The first and only relevant movie in that series. The others are just crap. Don't watch them.) to bring their fantastical creatures to life.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

So.....it's TOO believable??? First time I've heard that as a complaint.

well here is an example of a safe movie, and here is an example of a bold movie in my opinion of course

spiderman 3 is a safe movie

spiderman 2 is a bold movie

iron man is a bold movie, all three xmen movies especiallhy the first and third are safe movies. the first Pirates is a bold movie the sequels are safe

basically there is nothing out of the box here. good casting but nothing that fits as perfectly as downey for stark or depp for pirates. the story looks like it will be fine, the action cgi fine at least Pirates 3 attempted to blow the doors open

but that is all from the trailer the movie could be compeltely different and blow my mind which i hope for, but iron man's trailer instantly made me believe it was gunna be awesome and it was so i would hope hulk does the same

 

[Nivek]

Those are design elements. Has nothing to do with the quality of the cgi work.

Um, it has EVERYTHING to do with the quality of CG work, when they have to redo everything from a later point, and redesign every completed or partilly completed part.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Fact that.

If it can improve like that, the final result will be great.

But it is also fact: it NEEDS improvement.

to be honest... most movie trailers CG doesn't improve that much greater from the final prouct im afraid..

 

[Prefix]

Especially when the trailer debuts a month before the movie is released.

 

[TNC9852002]

That 100% done stuff is garbage. It's horrible CG and since the people have spoken they had to release some kind of statement to save their hides. The CG is terrible through and through. It is not a smart marketing decision to release a single on radio which is practically the promotion for the album it's attached to and when the beat or lyrics sound horrible or unaudible u say..."it's not finished yet". Lame excuse and I don't care if anyone says it's unfinished. What I see is what I get and what I see is garbage CGI. Until otherwise that's all I have to go by. That's what people said about the plane scene in Iron man or the Cg in spiderman 3 when he hops of the building in black suit and the car for Batman Begins. Unfinished, they're working on it but when all those movies came out the footage was the EXACT same. That is media nonsense to keep the fans at ease with hope for everything that looks like crap in the trailer to look better. Only problem with Ang Lee's was hight and color. The model could have been slightly less fat and more to the new ones body mass but as for the CG work and animation it was top notch for it's time. The entire desert scene was amazing and I truly doubt that the new one will top it. At least Ang's looked like Bana where as The new 2008 does not resemble Norton in the least and I don't wanna hear crap like it's not finished CG cause that can lose audience and terrible marketing advertising non finished work.

Like a Disney movie releasing the pencil work with no color and saying it's just a trailer not finished. Nope!!!!

2003 Hulk didn't look anymore like Bana than 2008's looks like Norton. There is a very very very small resemblance, but between the two of them, their resemblances are no more significant than the other, IMO.

-TNC

 

[Thythoutrust]

That 100% done stuff is garbage. It's horrible CG and since the people have spoken they had to release some kind of statement to save their hides. The CG is terrible through and through. It is not a smart marketing decision to release a single on radio which is practically the promotion for the album it's attached to and when the beat or lyrics sound horrible or unaudible u say..."it's not finished yet". Lame excuse and I don't care if anyone says it's unfinished. What I see is what I get and what I see is garbage CGI. Until otherwise that's all I have to go by. That's what people said about the plane scene in Iron man or the Cg in spiderman 3 when he hops of the building in black suit and the car for Batman Begins. Unfinished, they're working on it but when all those movies came out the footage was the EXACT same. That is media nonsense to keep the fans at ease with hope for everything that looks like crap in the trailer to look better. Only problem with Ang Lee's was hight and color. The model could have been slightly less fat and more to the new ones body mass but as for the CG work and animation it was top notch for it's time. The entire desert scene was amazing and I truly doubt that the new one will top it. At least Ang's looked like Bana where as The new 2008 does not resemble Norton in the least and I don't wanna hear crap like it's not finished CG cause that can lose audience and terrible marketing advertising non finished work.

Like a Disney movie releasing the pencil work with no color and saying it's just a trailer not finished. Nope!!!!

Okay First of all the Ang Lee's movie was terrible. Yeah okay that guy made Brokeback Mountain. But the Hulk wasn't realistic what so ever.
The Hulk didn't even look scary nor violent, he looked like a green Barney. Yeah, the visual effects weren't so bad... But that's about it, the storyline was ****ty and Bana was ****ty. Norton is a great actor, Fight Club was awesome, American History X was great.... He's not your average nobody, that guy knows what he's doing. God, he didn't get nominated for two oscars for nothing. Who cares if Ang Lee's Hulk looked like Bana? Have you ever read an actual Hulk comic? Banner doesn't look like the Hulk what so ever. The incredible hulk is filled with great actors like Norton, Live Tyler and Tim Roth...

 

[Prefix]

Okay First of all the Ang Lee's movie was terrible. Yeah okay that guy made Brokeback Mountain. But the Hulk wasn't realistic what so ever.
The Hulk didn't even look scary nor violent, he looked like a green Barney. Yeah, the visual effects weren't so bad... But that's about it, the storyline was ****ty and Bana was ****ty. Norton is a great actor, Fight Club was awesome, American History X was great.... He's not your average nobody, that guy knows what he's doing. God, he didn't get nominated for two oscars for nothing. Who cares if Ang Lee's Hulk looked like Bana? Have you ever read an actual Hulk comic? Banner doesn't look like the Hulk what so ever. The incredible hulk is filled with great actors like Norton, Live Tyler and Tim Roth...

Can you tell me why you are telling him Ang Lee's movie was bad when he didn't mention the quality of the film at all?