The Incredible Hulk CGI Thread

[The Shape]

I personally think no one has seen the finished product and they're saving it for the actual movie and aren't going to release 100% finished cgi in any clips/trailers/tv spots.

Doesn't make sense.

 

[Kirmit]

Doesn't make sense.

Why not? The CGI at this point is good enough to get people in the seats, be great for word and mouth if they're completely wowed in the cinema.

 

[Judson Caspian]

To me it's just his face. Even calm, he shouldn't look that gentle.

He almost has a handsome appearance or something right there.

His cheek looks puffy like he's suffering from toothache or something. On the other hand, it could be dirt making it look that way.

 

[The Shape]

Why not? The CGI at this point is good enough to get people in the seats, be great for word and mouth if they're completely wowed in the cinema.

I know everyone likes to think that they literally work on the movie until a day before its release, but this is simply not the case. I'm willing to bet the movie is in the can right now, because with about two weeks left until the wide release (though it will obviously be screened prior to that) it pretty much needs to be finished. I'm sure they finished earlier this month.

But even so, your logic doesn't make sense. Put out decent CGI is trailers and TV spots to "suprise" people when they actually see the movie? No. They'd want to put the best, top-notch shots in the trailer to say "Hey, look how awesome this is. Come see our movie!", rather than "This looks pretty good, right? Come check us out if you want and you might be surprised..."

If anything, I'm positive that the exclusive clips are 100% finished. Why put out full scenes from the movie if they aren't completed?

 

[Kirmit]

His cheek looks puffy like he's suffering from toothache or something. On the other hand, it could be dirt making it look that way.

Something I just thought of, if this is after the abomb fight, he could be all bruised and beaten up, would explain his face.

 

[Kirmit]

I know everyone likes to think that they literally work on the movie until a day before its release, but this is simply not the case. I'm willing to bet the movie is in the can right now, because with about two weeks left until the wide release (though it will obviously be screened prior to that) it pretty much needs to be finished. I'm sure they finished earlier this month.

But even so, your logic doesn't make sense. Put out decent CGI is trailers and TV spots to "suprise" people when they actually see the movie? No. They'd want to put the best, top-notch shots in the trailer to say "Hey, look how awesome this is. Come see our movie!", rather than "This looks pretty good, right? Come check us out if you want and you might be surprised..."

If anything, I'm positive that the exclusive clips are 100% finished. Why put out full scenes from the movie if they aren't completed?

LL and crew admitted themselve people have low expectations for this film, so they likely aren't heading for big opening. What they'll likely be counting on is word and mouth making this film a success, a great way to do this is to wow the audience.

Now I'm not saying they're still working on the effects, infact they're completely finished the film according to a recent interview, I'm saying they're not putting the most upto date shots out there. They need the film to hit big time and the opening isn't going to do that despite good trailers etc but it can get a reasonable opening then because the audience were wowed continue to make bundles of money. Anyway that's just my view on it, if I'm wrong fair enough, either way I'm happy with the effects we have now.

 

[Dotten]

His cheek looks puffy like he's suffering from toothache or something. On the other hand, it could be dirt making it look that way.

Or it could be that he has been on the receiving end of some hefty punches

It would be cool if his face was a bit messed up after being *****slapped by Abom.

 

[Thot]

I gotta say that the recent Hulk/Abomination fight scene is quite impressive! Glad they released it. It's the first clip that really showed me how much of a badass Hulk is going to be. My confidence in TIH has increased a few points. Hope the story/script is as solid as the special efx seem to be. I'll definitely be in line on opening day!!

 

[Scooter]

The Problem With Fx

Now That The Bar On Special Effects Has Been Raised So High, Is It Impossible To Clear?
Devin Gordon
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 5:41 PM ET Oct 22, 2007

Three years ago, for the first time in his career, Ang Lee directed a film that included the use of visual effects. It wasn't groundbreaking stuff. "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," as everyone knows by now, was a kung-fu fantasy in which actors sailed through the air with the aid of wires--a familiar technique in Asian cinema known as "wire fu."
Lee's execution of wire fu was solid but not remarkable. The actors lurched a bit when they took off and hung somewhat limply in the air while they flew. The presence of wires, which were deleted digitally in postproduction, was obvious. But here's the thing: no one cared. The flying in "Crouching Tiger" may have struck American viewers as silly at first, but soon they were too engrossed in the movie to fuss.

Earlier this summer, Ang Lee released a film that included extensive use of visual effects. Unlike "Crouching Tiger," this was groundbreaking stuff. "The Hulk" featured a muscle-bound 15-foot green monster that was entirely computer generated and had to deliver, along with the usual range of smashing theatrics, a full, emotional performance. But the creature itself wasn't even the greatest challenge facing Industrial Light & Magic, the visual-effects house handling the task. In the movie, the Hulk had to appear in broad daylight, in our world, in the context of other humans. Nothing like it had ever been tried before. (Gollum of "Lord of the Rings," the most successful computer-generated, or CG, character to date, didn't have to look plausible in the middle of San Francisco.) In the visual-effects community, ILM's Hulk was seen as a major achievement: the life in the creature's eyes, the way light played naturally off its skin, its synthesis into its surroundings, all were deemed first-rate. Film critics, however, panned not only the movie but ILM's work. The monster didn't look real. Case closed. Moviegoers must've agreed, because after a huge opening weekend, "The Hulk" died at the box office.

What lesson, then, is Ang Lee supposed to have learned from his two experiences? He made one movie with rudimentary FX (jargon for special effects) and won four Oscars. Then he made another movie with world-class visual effects and got hammered. It'd be easy to conclude that the lesson is this: visual effects only work if the story works. But while that's often true, it can't always be the case. If an actor can give a great performance in an otherwise mediocre movie--as Johnny Depp just did in "Pirates of the Caribbean"--why can't a lousy movie have great visual effects? And no reasonable person would argue that the effects in "Crouching Tiger" were better than those in "The Hulk." They weren't. There's not even a comparison. Here's the real lesson for Lee, for ILM, and for any studio planning its next big action spectacular: the FX bar has been raised so high--call it an FX arms race--that it's almost impossible to clear it.

One of the great myths going around Hollywood now is that, with CGI, anything is possible. Photorealistic humans! Emotional performances! Virtual reality! The truth is, all of us still know CGI when we see it. Even the best work has an indefinable "digitalness" to it that FX artists haven't yet, and may never, overcome. Large objects don't seem "heavy." Textures, such as clothing or skin, seem too smooth. Movement is either herky-jerky or implausibly fluid. And yet, at the same time, CGI has come close enough to complete verisimilitude that audiences now expect it to go all the way. So when we see it onscreen, we have a strict pass/fail barometer. We either think, "Wow, that looks pretty real"--which is rare--or we think, "Forget it, that looks fake." Curiously, we are evaluating something we know to be synthetic on the basis of how near it comes to a goal it can't reach. Is it any wonder then that, more often than not, CGI fails? The game is rigged against it.

It wasn't always like this. Before the visual-effects industry was transformed by CGI in the early 1990s--thanks to films like James Cameron's "Terminator 2" and Steven Spielberg's "Jurassic Park"--the bar was much lower. The original "Star Wars" trilogy featured revolutionary special effects--but no one mistook what they were seeing for reality. Chewbacca looked like a tall man in a furry suit. The spacecraft looked like plastic models floating in a dark room. The story was marvelous, of course, but the same story today with similar production values would get laughed out of the theater. We weren't dumber back then, or less observant. We just had lower expectations. The original Christopher Reeve "Superman" movie is another example: the flying in that movie wouldn't fly today. But it was good enough for 1978.

These days, there's a new "Superman" or "Star Wars" every weekend. With each blockbuster movie, studios are trying desperately to show audiences something they've never seen before. But in most cases, they shouldn't bother. For one thing, a great story is cheaper than great visual effects. And if you do spend the dollars for great CGI, there's no guarantee you'll even get credit for it. When it comes to visual effects, there's no such thing as an A for effort. Just ask the folks at ILM.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/57731?tid=relatedcl

Interesting article from years ago. The basic premise may yet be relevant.

 

[Godman]

Why not? The CGI at this point is good enough to get people in the seats, be great for word and mouth if they're completely wowed in the cinema.

The transformation clip has sealed the deal for me that this is the worst CGI since the scorpion king.

I tried guys, I really tried but I'll see if I can make it through this movie. CG is very important to my experience and when it's just awful...well then...

 

[Green eyed Hulk]

The transformation clip has sealed the deal for me that this is the worst CGI since the scorpion king.

I tried guys, I really tried but I'll see if I can make it through this movie. CG is very important to my experience and when it's just awful...well then...

If you are talking about the transformation clip when he is strapped to the chair then I beg to differ. For me this is one of the best scenes cgi wise. The part when you see his clenched fist looks totally real IMO.

 

[Godman]

If you are talking about the transformation clip when he is strapped to the chair then I beg to differ. For me this is one of the best scenes cgi wise. The part when you see his clenched fist looks totally real IMO.

Seems like his hands are the only passable things on the entire body. The face looks old mannish and it's just terrible dude. When he changes on the bridge and leaps out through the glass to land on the grass...YUK. From animation to style to model...very bad CGI.

 

[Green eyed Hulk]

Seems like his hands are the only passable things on the entire body. The face looks old mannish and it's just terrible dude. When he changes on the bridge and leaps out through the glass to land on the grass...YUK. From animation to style to model...very bad CGI.

I guess thats your opinion but to compare it to scorpion king is ludicrous. Have you seen any CGI of a human or beast like the hulk thats better? If you want to see bad CGI check out the white animal thing in the new Mummy film now thats bad, but I bet it doesn't get criticised like the hulk.

 

[Godman]

I guess thats your opinion but to compare it to scorpion king is ludicrous. Have you seen any CGI of a human or beast like the hulk thats better? If you want to see bad CGI check out the white animal thing in the new Mummy film now thats bad, but I bet it doesn't get criticised like the hulk.

Hulk 2003
Final Fantasy...First one.
Gollum


All waaaay ahead of there time and though Gollum is more fantastical, it hold weight in it's own realm and so did 2003 Hulk for what it did. it was Ground breaking CGI. The new one is not groundbreaking at all but lack luster compared to things I've seen before.

I just don't comprehend how Hulk 2003 just looked far better than this new one. The new one really looks like it's a Video Game cinematic.

 

[Green eyed Hulk]

Hulk 2003
Final Fantasy...First one.
Gollum


All waaaay ahead of there time and though Gollum is more fantastical, it hold weight in it's own realm and so did 2003 Hulk for what it did. it was Ground breaking CGI. The new one is not groundbreaking at all but lack luster compared to things I've seen before.

I just don't comprehend how Hulk 2003 just looked far better than this new one. The new one really looks like it's a Video Game cinematic.

2003 hulk was good but the design isn't a patch on this design. Yes final fantasy was ahead of its time but there is no way it looks more realistic than this hulk does. As for Gollum everyone ignores any imperfections in the CGI just because it was LOTR. Although I personally had no problem with Gollums CGI, if we're nit picking then Gollum didn't look real to me he just looked like a fantasy character in a fantasy world, but by no means real.

 

[Godman]

2003 hulk was good but the design isn't a patch on this design. Yes final fantasy was ahead of its time but there is no way it looks more realistic than this hulk does. As for Gollum everyone ignores any imperfections in the CGI just because it was LOTR. Although I personally had no problem with Gollums CGI, if we're nit picking then Gollum didn't look real to me he just looked like a fantasy character in a fantasy world, but by no means real.

Don't get me wrong, Gollum had problems as anything Humans do but The new Hulk is waaaaaay behind others who did thing YEARS before. Even the OGRE in LOTR is better than this new Hulk. It is Horrid for real and unless u are too simple minded to see it you would know that by todays standards that CGI is not good

 

[FrostBite]

Don't get me wrong, Gollum had problems as anything Humans do but The new Hulk is waaaaaay behind others who did thing YEARS before. Even the OGRE in LOTR is better than this new Hulk. It is Horrid for real and unless u are too simple minded to see it you would know that by todays standards that CGI is not good

Someones quite arrogant about subjective matters...rawr.

 

[Godman]

Someones quite arrogant about subjective matters...rawr.

NOt arrogance just annoying when something is god awful and people just meander around it cause they feel it's ok to low standards they set. It's annoying as hell and that's why a lot of things, movies, music, fx, and so on are where they're at. people have dumbed down to accept anything that's passable. Hell if something is not good I don't simplyfy my displeasures but sate how I see it and without even comparing, Hulk may not have been ready to be rebooted if these fx are the best they can give us today. maybe 20yrs down the road or so.

 

[FrostBite]

NOt arrogance just annoying when something is god awful and people just meander around it cause they feel it's ok to low standards they set. It's annoying as hell and that's why a lot of things, movies, music, fx, and so on are where they're at. people have dumbed down to accept anything that's passable. Hell if something is not good I don't simplyfy my displeasures but sate how I see it and without even comparing, Hulk may not have been ready to be rebooted if these fx are the best they can give us today. maybe 20yrs down the road or so.

Know what I find annoying? How much people ***** and moan about how they are entitled to things.

Know what else I find annoying? When something doesn't meet their expectations and they act as if the world has done them some great injustice.

Know what else I find annoying? When people spout of opinion on subjective matters such as art (which CG falls under) as fact. Go in the booth, count the polygons, compare programs and techniques each model was made using (ILM's and R&H's) and come back and tell me which is technically superior. If it's ILM's then you can whine.

Know what I find most annoying? When someone says people have set their standards to low because they happen to be happier with more than they themselves are. It's like chastising people for being happy with what comes their way. Really sick twisted point of view.

So yeah, in the grand scheme of things, I guess we are both pretty freaking annoyed aren't we?

 

[dcHulk]

Someones quite arrogant about subjective matters...rawr.

You're not kidding. I don't understand why someone who hates the CGI so much that he won't go to the movie to see the final render would stay around these boards and continue to bash the animation. If you don't like it, fine. That's up to you. By why try to spoil it for others by trying to convince them that your opinion is the right one?

 

[Kirmit]

Know what I find annoying? How much people ***** and moan about how they are entitled to things.

Know what else I find annoying? When something doesn't meet their expectations and they act as if the world has done them some great injustice.

Know what else I find annoying? When people spout of opinion on subjective matters such as art (which CG falls under) as fact. Go in the booth, count the polygons, compare programs and techniques each model was made using (ILM's and R&H's) and come back and tell me which is technically superior. If it's ILM's then you can whine.

Know what I find most annoying? When someone says people have set their standards to low because they happen to be happier with more than they themselves are. It's like chastising people for being happy with what comes their way. Really sick twisted point of view.

So yeah, in the grand scheme of things, I guess we are both pretty freaking annoyed aren't we?

Great post frosty! .

 

[Breck]

NOt arrogance just annoying when something is god awful and people just meander around it cause they feel it's ok to low standards they set. It's annoying as hell and that's why a lot of things, movies, music, fx, and so on are where they're at. people have dumbed down to accept anything that's passable. Hell if something is not good I don't simplyfy my displeasures but sate how I see it and without even comparing, Hulk may not have been ready to be rebooted if these fx are the best they can give us today. maybe 20yrs down the road or so.

No one is meandering or lowering their standards. Most of us think the CG in this movie is much better than all of those examples you gave. This could be a movie about Solomon Grundy, whom I have zero fanboy allegiance to, and I'd say the same thing.

I'm sorry for you that you don't like the effects, but that's your opinion. Stop acting as if it's undisputed fact.

 

[colossal]

I havent really said much about the CGI for this movie besides the occasional post of 'AWESOME' or 'INCREDIBLE' - I dont have any degree or speciality in CGI or animation or modelling, Im just a 2D Graphic Designer for eCommerce sites with a vague art background in school with an old hobby in comic drawing - none of it is substantial to giving a professional verdict on the CGI.

All Ive got to go on is, as Frostbite said, my subjective opinion, my personal belief in the quality, style and feel - so none of it is fact, and anyone that says that their opinion is fact is putting themselves on a very unstable pedestal.

Having said that, Im a massive fan of sci-fi and comic movies, try to get to the first showing of every Marvel and DC movie thats been out, and consider myself one of the mainstream comic movie fans as I have similar opinions to the majority (BB was a breath of fresh air, Arnie should have been Bane in the old Batman movie, Blade 1 and 2 kicks and while I accepted 3 for fun, it left a sour taste for what it could have been, Superman 1 and 2 are classics, Donner version is iconic for the most part).

Now what Ive just wrote, not everyone is going to agree, or agree that thats the majority opinion, which is totally fine, its just my opinion. So is how I feel about the original Hulk movie, a fantastic take and unique vision of the Hulk, especially considering the many iterations there have been of him. It was let down by the final act for me, thats the only gripe, couldnt care less about a CGI poodle, but the metaphorical bubble battle could have gone in a totally different direction for me.

Hulk 2003 had fantastic CGI for the most part, it was more the design premise of having him change size and therefore facial appearance which was a shame. I was fine with the colour until seeing this new version too.

This Hulk, unsurprisingly, has split fans and 'trolls' alike - but I just think that we take for granted the amount of effort and detail put into these creations now. Recently I read that someone thought the CGI in Iron Man was terrible, which to me, IMO, was ludicrous, or Transformers even - because in both films, the CGI didnt take me out of the movie. Over the top set pieces and they still just entertained - they did their job.

That's all they need to do, and when you go into a movie where you are seeing 2 9-10ft tall jade titans tearing each other and the city apart, your mind is never going to let you accept that any of it is real, but as long as it doesnt tear you from the scene, from the atmosphere, who the hell cares?

If it does that for some of you, then thats a shame, whether it does that because you feel that the CGI is sub par, or because you allow it to do so because of your own vision of what the hulk and CGI should look like, its still a shame. But you'll have every valid reason to come back on this board after watching it and say, yup, the CGI sucked, made the movie blow etc etc. You can say what you want, this isnt Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back, no one is going to come to your house and drop kick you in the face for running your mouth on a forum, but appreciate that your verdict is simply your opinion, by no means fact or by no means should be treated with any more respect or acknowledgement as a viewer who was happy with the finished product.

By now most of you have switched off, even for me thats a huge amount to write (you can see from my post number Im more of a reader than a writer), but just feel that its surprising how many fans are willing to condemn a movie over CGI, without even having waited enough to watch the finished article in the theatre, with other fans, in the environment it was meant to be viewed in... and that is the biggest shame of all - comic fans are supposed to be able to embrace the spectacular, to imagine the unimaginable, or at least tolerate it.

 

[dcHulk]

^^^^^^^^^^^^Excellent post colossal

 

[FrostBite]

.

This Hulk, unsurprisingly, has split fans and 'trolls' alike - but I just think that we take for granted the amount of effort and detail put into these creations now. Recently I read that someone thought the CGI in Iron Man was terrible, which to me, IMO, was ludicrous, or Transformers even - because in both films, the CGI didnt take me out of the movie. Over the top set pieces and they still just entertained - they did their job.

Was it me? Earlier in this thread all I said was it was "obvious" (not bad, but obvious) and people jumped on me like I was a mad man!