The Incredible Hulk CGI Thread

[Cth]

Yeah, is this a quote from some publication, or you just pull this out of your crack?

Apparently it's from here: (typo intact)
http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2006/08/30/cgi_gone_awry/page2.html

Never heard of the guy before, but heard of the website before.

Basically, it's the equivalent of a Hot Rod enthusiasts website reviewing a film. In other words, I don't put a lot of credibility in it.

I disagree with it completely, as the article clearly is written with a LOTR snob slant. (See also: Clerks II)

 

[ArtTeacher]

Never have I heard the compliment (outside of these forums) that it looked real.

And I do mean never.

Ditto.

 

[TheBeastWithin]

Sorry Mercurius, but Ang's could also be spotted a mile away (for me.) I don't get the emo-rock-star thing, and... sometimes his baby face? More like always his awkwardly mishapen constantly changing face!

Believe it or not, many GA members I've heard do think this one looks better (gasp! How dare they!) And thought Angs was perfectly cartoony just as you may find this one.

Never have I heard the compliment (outside of these forums) that it looked real.

And I do mean never.

Double ditto. Regardless of how good the actual CGI was on Hulk, the design itself was so cartoony, neon-green, non-threatening, baby-faced, inconsistent and changed size to the point it was ridiculous to the regular movie-goer. Where a fan sees slight differences in the quality of the CGI between the two Hulks, the regular moviegoer now sees a frightening, police car demolishing, roaring, ripped-as-hell, street-fighting, 9 foot tall monster.

 

[Green eyed Hulk]

If they can make Gollum look like a real character, then why not the Hulk?

This always gets me, I didn' think gollum was as real looking as everyone thought. it was very good cgi but people went crazy over using it as a benchmark for great cgi, just because it was in LOTR. If that same cgi was in a hulk film it would get panned , I really believe so. The same with the character in the 1st harry potter film Dobby. These characters never got nit picked to hell and back like the Hulk.
Thats my honest opinion.

 

[FrostBite]

This always gets me, I didn' think gollum was as real looking as everyone thought. it was very good cgi but people went crazy over using it as a benchmark for great cgi, just because it was in LOTR. If that same cgi was in a hulk film it would get panned , I really believe so. The same with the character in the 1st harry potter film Dobby. These characters never got nit picked to hell and back like the Hulk.
Thats my honest opinion.

Exactly, I said this earlier. It really ISN'T that great looking, whether or not they love those films, Gollum does NOT look real (even for the time.)

 

[HULKFish]

Double ditto. Regardless of how good the actual CGI was on Hulk, the design itself was so cartoony, neon-green, non-threatening, baby-faced, inconsistent and changed size to the point it was ridiculous to the regular movie-goer. Where a fan sees slight differences in the quality of the CGI between the two Hulks, the regular moviegoer now sees a frightening, police car demolishing, roaring, ripped-as-hell, street-fighting, 9 foot tall monster.

Well said TBW, sounds like poetry! I couldn't have said it better myself...

 

[Mercurius]

Double ditto. Regardless of how good the actual CGI was on Hulk, the design itself was so cartoony, neon-green, non-threatening, baby-faced, inconsistent and changed size to the point it was ridiculous to the regular movie-goer. Where a fan sees slight differences in the quality of the CGI between the two Hulks, the regular moviegoer now sees a frightening, police car demolishing, roaring, ripped-as-hell, street-fighting, 9 foot tall monster.

"Regardless of how good the CGI was".

Quite revealing way to start a one-sided, hugely partisan post.

Until now, I see absolutely nothing frightening in this new Hulk; I mean, his face is frightening, but not in a good way, if you understand what I'm implying with those gleaming green and eyeliner. t:

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

Some idiots just won't be satisfied no matter what you give them. If Nolan had gone the route of classic Joker, even though quite a few people hated Heath's version initially, someone STILL would've whined that they should've gone a different direction.


The Hulk can't get much more awesome than he is now.

 

[TheBeastWithin]

Some idiots just won't be satisfied no matter what you give them. The Hulk can't get much more awesome than he is now.

Two completely accurate statements.

 

[goldenchylde]

Say what you will about the length, pacing, or lack of action, but anyone who puts Hulk 03 on a bad CG list is a clown. Not every scene was perfect, the shade of green they used in most shots was ill advised, even the fact that he changed sizes was troublesome, but the CG was AT LEAST on par with effects up til then. This isn't even debatable. You can debate how good it was, or which movies were better but putting the Hulk on a list with Van Helsing, takes away all credibility from the person who wrote that. This is really getting out of hand. Its almost the cool thing to clown Hulk cg when it was clearly groundbreaking.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Are we still comparing this movie's CGI to that other movie that nobody liked? Who cares if the CGI in the other movie was better, the story and characters sucked and the movie bombed at the boxoffice and with audiences. Personally I could care less if CGI in a movie is less than perfect if the rest of the film is good.

 

[Naite22]

Exactly, I said this earlier. It really ISN'T that great looking, whether or not they love those films, Gollum does NOT look real (even for the time.)

I've also pointed this out a thousand times before! Glad to finaly hear that I'm not the only one who thinks this!

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

Are we still comparing this movie's CGI to that other movie that nobody liked? Who cares if the CGI in the other movie was better, the story and characters sucked and the movie bombed at the boxoffice and with audiences. Personally I could care less if CGI in a movie is less than perfect if the rest of the film is good.

The way I think of it, I'd settle for mediocre CGI, with the kind of ridiculously awesome action and smashing we're getting.

 

[Mercurius]

The way I think of it, I'd settle for mediocre CGI, with the kind of ridiculously awesome action and smashing we're getting.

Oh, thank you so much for making such a clear statement!

So we don't have to argue.

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

Oh, thank you so much for making such a clear statement!

So we don't have to argue.

Not that I was saying that the CGI is mediocre, only that I would if I had to.

 

[Mercurius]

Are we still comparing this movie's CGI to that other movie that nobody liked? Who cares if the CGI in the other movie was better, the story and characters sucked and the movie bombed at the boxoffice and with audiences. Personally I could care less if CGI in a movie is less than perfect if the rest of the film is good.

You know, this opinion really is absolutely respectable, but I'd rather have both.

And about the "still comparing": well, this is the CGI thread, isn't it? People feel they have some grounds on which to establish the values of the two movies' technical aspects.

 

[Mercurius]

Not that I was saying that the CGI is mediocre, only that I would if I had to.

I see.

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

People usually fire back with some self righteous "I CAN POST WHERE I WANT TO" line, but it seems odd that people who act like they hate everything about this movie are in these threads just as much as everyone else who are eagerly awaiting it.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

You know, this opinion really is absolutely respectable, but I'd rather have both.

And about the "still comparing": well, this is the CGI thread, isn't it? People feel they have some grounds on which to establish the values of the two movies' technical aspects.

But you aren't always going to have both. It seems strange to me that the Ang Lee Hulk fans can' except less than excellent (according to them) CGI but can except all the crap in that first movie.

And yes I know this is my opinion but it's strange to me. And I know all of the people complaining aren't fans of Ang Lee's Hulk but most of them are.

 

[Nivek]

Is it really nessasary to slag the Ang film this much? It's kinda pi$$ing me off (since I AM a fan of it, regardless of it's shortcomings) and it doesn't shine the person saying it in a good light. Talk about the movie at hand, instead of looking at something in the past.

 

[Mercurius]

But you aren't always going to have both. It seems strange to me that the Ang Lee Hulk fans can' except less than excellent (according to them) CGI but can except all the crap in that first movie.

And yes I know this is my opinion but it's strange to me. And I know all of the people complaining aren't fans of Ang Lee's Hulk but most of them are.

Hey! Read back when I was answering to FrostBite: I'm no Ang Lee's movie fan, deemed the dogs and absorbing man ridiculous, complained about the baby face and the shiny green.

But not being an Ang Lee version fan won't make me accept at face value all the "awsome!" routine about this new one.

I said te story of Letterrier's is possibly much better, that the green colour is better, but there are problems also.

 

[Mercurius]

People usually fire back with some self righteous "I CAN POST WHERE I WANT TO" line, but it seems odd that people who act like they hate everything about this movie are in these threads just as much as everyone else who are eagerly awaiting it.

Let me see.

That's not about baser passions like "hate" and "love".

It's fanboy scrutinizing stuff.

Applying our deep knowledge of useless pop culture to the service of movie-making industry when it comes to superhero issues. t:

 

[Kirmit]

Exactly, I said this earlier. It really ISN'T that great looking, whether or not they love those films, Gollum does NOT look real (even for the time.)

100% agree, I never found Gollum very convincing, might've just been the eyes though.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Hey! Read back when I was answering to FrostBite: I'm no Ang Lee's movie fan, deemed the dogs and absorbing man ridiculous, complained about the baby face and the shiny green.

But not being an Ang Lee version fan won't make me accept at face value all the "awsome!" routine about this new one.

I said te story of Letterrier's is possibly much better, that the green colour is better, but there are problems also.

I don't think that the movie looks perfect at all. In fact I am highly skeptical of it and do not believe that the CGI looks anywhere near perfect or great for that matter. I know this is a CGI thread and I think that serveral people have great points about it but I think, maybe wrongly, that a lot of folk are acting like the CGI will make or break this film for them. Despite the myth, I whole heartedly believe that what killed Ang Lee's Hulk movie was an awful story, lame ass unfeeling characters and the failed experimental comicbook panels crap. I think that people could have gotten pass their distaste of the CGI if they liked everything else. The story and characters should be peoples main concern, CGI should be way down that list.

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

Let me see.

That's not about baser passions like "hate" and "love".

It's fanboy scrutinizing stuff.

Applying our deep knowledge of useless pop culture to the service of movie-making industry when it comes to superhero issues. t:

Lol.. that's true. I just wish that some people would stop giving the CGI final judgement. I mean, look at the huge improvement in this shot.. and who's to say it hasn't gotten twice this good since the time this clip was put together?