The Incredible Hulk CGI Thread

[colossal]

Sorry Frosty, no I didnt see your post on it, and once again, thats just my opinion, I was just basing it on what many at the time of its release had said - at the end of the day, its a fair point to say giant mechanised CGI characters are obviously CGI, how could they not be, but I do remember seeing that scene where Bumblebee stands atop that mound of earth, with Shia and Megan looking up at him, the light streaming from behind, and I just sat there thinking nothing other than.... woah. That happened many times in the movie, happened several times in the Hulk movie, LOTR too, even the finale of Spidey 3, not many films make you watch in awe anymore, and I relish the ones that do that (which made Indy 4 such a tragic waste for me, I enjoyed so much of it, but some key unneccessary additions really took me out of the movie and it suffered as a result).

Im not a kid anymore (depends on who you ask), Im 28 going on 40, but to sit in a cinema after seeing so many CGI movies and not only accepting what I was seeing as part of the universe, but still being impressed by it, that's cool, that is worth paying for a ticket for.

EDIT: OHHH, you meant the CGI for Iron Man being obvious? Oh, to hell with you then, you mad man

Its a forum, everyone can disagree, and while there were some scenes in Iron Man that I felt I could totally tell were CGI, others I couldnt tell at all, so for me, in Iron Man more so than most films therefore, the CGI definitely did its job, I didnt even think about the CGI for the most part, I just a few more ... woah moments And yes, the CGI throughout the movie never once took me out of the scene, so for me it definitely did its job. If they took you out of it, as I said, its always a shame, but I hope you enjoyed the movie as a whole, it's not like us fans get movies based on our favourite heroes every year.

 

[FrostBite]

Sorry Frosty, no I didnt see your post on it, and once again, thats just my opinion, I was just basing it on what many at the time of its release had said - at the end of the day, its a fair point to say giant mechanised CGI characters are obviously CGI, how could they not be, but I do remember seeing that scene where Bumblebee stands atop that mound of earth, with Shia and Megan looking up at him, the light streaming from behind, and I just sat there thinking nothing other than.... woah. That happened many times in the movie, happened several times in the Hulk movie, LOTR too, even the finale of Spidey 3, not many films make you watch in awe anymore, and I relish the ones that do that (which made Indy 4 such a tragic waste for me, I enjoyed so much of it, but some key unneccessary additions really took me out of the movie and it suffered as a result).

Im not a kid anymore (depends on who you ask), Im 28 going on 40, but to sit in a cinema after seeing so many CGI movies and not only accepting what I was seeing as part of the universe, but still being impressed by it, that's cool, that is worth paying for a ticket for.

Oh no, I am a rarity as they say. I am impressed by most CG, yet unlike those who criticize it a lot because they claim other movies look more "real" I've never seen a movie that wasn't quite obviously CG.

Earlier when I was jumped on all I said was that I could tell which scenes in Iron Man looked CG, and which looked practical. And boy was a ripped apart for saying that. Didn't mean I wasn't impressed.

Edit: and it has never taken me out of the moment. I am never so picky with CG, er... unless it was to look like something out of the late 80's, then I'd be concerned lol.

 

[colossal]

It is subjective, in fact I feel that most people would say any art form is subjective, one man's horrible distaste for a pile of bricks portrayed as art in a gallery is another man's evocative inspiration, I once identified with a fountain spouting out of a violin in an art gallery in Sydney, no idea why, I just liked the concept.

One of my friends used to train with me at the gym constantly when we were younger, we grew up on Arnie and Stallone and the Pumping Iron documentary. We took a group to see the first Hulk, and while he didnt mind the movie, he kept saying that they should have gone with another Lou Ferrigno, a man in prosthetics and makeup, because to him, he could identify with the realistic musculature, the sculpted adonis. Thats not to say he doesnt like CGI, but he prefers the old TV show style.

I love the old TV show, and have watched a few episodes recently and take it for what it is, another unique take on the comic character. But Im forever glad that they went with CGI again, that it was the right decision. So many clips to choose from, but in Confrontation, when Hulk looms out of the shadows and bears his teeth at Blonsky, and then effortlessly throws a fork lift truck at him, with those few notes of music from the soundtrack (which Ill definitely be picking up after that scene and the two scenes with Betty and Banner, and thats the first time Ive been properly interested in a soundtrack since Daredevil - I still put that track Hang On from DD on in the morning to psych me up before a workout or to help drag my butt to work) - it just has a wonderful tone and vision about it - June 12th cant come soon enough.

 

[Green eyed Hulk]

CGI is subjective but that does'nt give people the right to **** all over it, as is the case with this movie. maybe there should be a seperate thread were all the haters can go and vent there anger at the CGI and post comments about how it looks like a video game (damn you guys must be playing some seriously advanced **** on a PS9 or something), or how the hulks eyebrow hair didn't move as much in the wind. There are some scenes which I feel are not as great as the night times shots but it seems totaly pointless to freeze frame a shot, go through it with a fine tooth comb just to find any justification to devalue the CGi. I remember how we had this type of debacle in 2003, and now some people actually use that film and say how great the CGI is, where were these people in 2003??? Probably panning the CGI, is my guess.

 

[Jaspertian1105]

I wonder how the hulk would look if it was made by ILM, would it really look so much different? ILM is probably the best company (and WETA) but from what i have read some of the CGI in Indiana Jones wasn't very good so i don't know if they would a better job than R & H with the Hulk

 

[Kirmit]

I wonder how the hulk would look if it was made by ILM, would it really look so much different? ILM is probably the best company (and WETA) but from what i have read some of the CGI in Indiana Jones wasn't very good so i don't know if they would a better job than R & H with the Hulk

If they were given the same time period and same amount of money as R & H, I think it would be about equal imo, they had longer to work on Ang's Hulk than R & H had to work on this one.

 

[Jaspertian1105]

There some pretty interesting trivia in IMDB about the special effects:

In development for 12 years, sufficient time for CGI to become sophisticated enough to render the special effects needed

Creating the Hulk in CGI was one of the most complex tasks Industrial Light & Magic had ever undertaken at that time. The computer model used 12996 texture maps, and required 1165 muscle movements and 100 layers of skin. It took the combined work and efforts of about 180 ILM technicians (69 technical artists, 41 animators, 35 compositors, 10 muscle action animators, 9 CG modellers, 8 supervisors, 6 skin painters and 5 motion-capture wranglers), over 2.5 million hours and one and a half years for him to be effectively created and portrayed in the film. With all that work, some of the public complained that the Hulk looked too fake, comparing him with Shrek

so according to this ILM worked on the Hulk for an year and a half. R & H probably had a year to work on the hulk ( and the abomination) and he will possibly have more screen time than in 2003. i think is really amazing the work that R & H they have done within the time that they gave them

 

[Green eyed Hulk]

If you look at the full cast and crew on IMDB, you can also see how many people there are iin the SFX dept.

 

[FrostBite]

There some pretty interesting trivia in IMDB about the special effects:

In development for 12 years, sufficient time for CGI to become sophisticated enough to render the special effects needed

Creating the Hulk in CGI was one of the most complex tasks Industrial Light & Magic had ever undertaken at that time. The computer model used 12996 texture maps, and required 1165 muscle movements and 100 layers of skin. It took the combined work and efforts of about 180 ILM technicians (69 technical artists, 41 animators, 35 compositors, 10 muscle action animators, 9 CG modellers, 8 supervisors, 6 skin painters and 5 motion-capture wranglers), over 2.5 million hours and one and a half years for him to be effectively created and portrayed in the film. With all that work, some of the public complained that the Hulk looked too fake, comparing him with Shrek

so according to this ILM worked on the Hulk for an year and a half. R & H probably had a year to work on the hulk ( and the abomination) and he will possibly have more screen time than in 2003. i think is really amazing the work that R & H they have done within the time that they gave them

Actually quite a bit less than a year. They started filming in May I believe? So... the movie itself comes out a little more than a year from that point. Of course designs were being created before filming and some primary work could have began, but they couldn't start putting him into scenes until of course, they were finished... meaning they really did have much less than a year to create the beast we see.

 

[Jaspertian1105]

Actually quite a bit less than a year. They started filming in May I believe? So... the movie itself comes out a little more than a year from that point. Of course designs were being created before filming and some primary work could have began, but they couldn't start putting him into scenes until of course, they were finished... meaning they really did have much less than a year to create the beast we see.

Really? wow we should really appreciate this CGI even more, its a huge work in very little time, not to mention that ILM had been perfecting the technology for 12 years. I understand that some people want to criticize the CGI but i don't think they are seeing the big picture

 

[FrostBite]

Really? wow we should really appreciate this CGI even more, its a huge work in very little time, not to mention that ILM had been perfecting the technology for 12 years. I understand that some people want to criticize the CGI but i don't think they are seeing the big picture

Sadly, people rarely do. R&H's has accomplished a lot. And even when people complained about how horrible it looked, some how they managed to pull in sleepless nights to make it look fantastic to be welcomed with responses of "Better, but still crap."

 

[Knightsaber Priss]

Sadly, people rarely do. R&H's has accomplished a lot. And even when people complained about how horrible it looked, some how they managed to pull in sleepless nights to make it look fantastic to be welcomed with responses of "Better, but still crap."

You know, I don't give a crap what haters think of the CGI in this movie. I personally think it looks pretty good all things considered. You have no idea just how hard it is to render human like creatures as realistically as possible. I think R&H has done a commendable job.

 

[Jaspertian1105]

when i look at the effects in the street fight clip im just blown away with the amount of detail, you can really see how much easier is to make photo realistic metal than flesh. When you see hulk punching blonsky and the car behind him moves because of the force of his punches and the pieces of the car that fly away you have to appreciate the CGI, if you don't i really don't understand what more could you ask.

 

[FrostBite]

You know, I don't give a crap what haters think of the CGI in this movie. I personally think it looks pretty good all things considered. You have no idea just how hard it is to render human like creatures as realistically as possible. I think R&H has done a commendable job.

Right there with you Godzilla! t: Every time I watch a trailer I am still in awe by how good the Hulk looks in this film.

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

when i look at the effects in the street fight clip im just blown away with the amount of detail, you can really see how much easier is to make photo realistic metal than flesh. When you see hulk punching blonsky and the car behind him moves because of the force of his punches and the pieces of the car that fly away you have to appreciate the CGI, if you don't i really don't understand what more could you ask.

I couldn't have said that better myself. Last night, on Entertainment Tonight or one of the shows like that, they showed a good portion of the clip, and it looks even better on tv than on a comp monitor. I was just like "holy crap!" the entire time t:

 

[Jaspertian1105]

The daylight CGI is the only one that in some scenes still feels a bit unfinished, that unfortunate because seeing the night footage you know that it could look even better but beyond that i love this new Hulk and i will be there on June 19 (i don't live in US unfortunately)

 

[Godman]

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?

Indiana Jones had a black line throughout the entire screening, so we got free passes to anything else we want. Happening is whats happening and I will pay for the likes of that, but Hulk...free pass

 

[Scooter]

There some pretty interesting trivia in IMDB about the special effects:

In development for 12 years, sufficient time for CGI to become sophisticated enough to render the special effects needed

Creating the Hulk in CGI was one of the most complex tasks Industrial Light & Magic had ever undertaken at that time. The computer model used 12996 texture maps, and required 1165 muscle movements and 100 layers of skin. It took the combined work and efforts of about 180 ILM technicians (69 technical artists, 41 animators, 35 compositors, 10 muscle action animators, 9 CG modellers, 8 supervisors, 6 skin painters and 5 motion-capture wranglers), over 2.5 million hours and one and a half years for him to be effectively created and portrayed in the film. With all that work, some of the public complained that the Hulk looked too fake, comparing him with Shrek

I finally got around to watching a bit of Hulk '03 the other night, and the effort they put into the creature really showed. Very subtle things - light playing off the skin, moisture affecting the hair, muscles tensing and flexing, etc. - make for effects that hold up remarkably well. Honestly, among the best CGI of its kind ever put to film. It's amazing (and disappointing) to think what ILM would have done with a sequel. Not only because they are the technically superior company, but also because they would have had that experience and depth of knowledge - combined with advancing technology - to draw upon. Shame.

 

[Jaspertian1105]

I finally got around to watching a bit of Hulk '03 the other night, and the effort they put into the creature really showed. Very subtle things - light playing off the skin, moisture affecting the hair, muscles tensing and flexing, etc. - make for effects that hold up remarkably well. Honestly, among the best CGI of its kind ever put to film. It's amazing (and disappointing) to think what ILM would have done with a sequel. Not only because they are the technically superior company, but also because they would have had that experience and depth of knowledge - combined with advancing technology - to draw upon. Shame.

yeah i wonder how the Hulk would have looked but i don't care really right now, i don't the final product would have been much more different, maybe because of the experience there would be less unfinished scenes but we have to see the final product yet but i already love what R & H have done

 

[Godman]

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, couldn't 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 color 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.

Great post but I just don't like tolerating anything. If things acan be better then they need to be. I can compramise certain things but its like an ugly chick. If she's obese and ugly then she's obese & ugly and she may have a great heart, but if I have preferences of better quality in a well figured and shapely healthy girl then I have that right.

You too all have the right to like whatever you wish. Some weird human believes Batman and Robin was the greatest movie ever made and that Keaton and Nolan are idiots and you're right...opinions!!!!

Like we all KNOW as FACT that Eminem can rap very well...but many will actually say he's wack and love morons like Soulja boy and stupid **** cause it's what the pop culture finds acceptable as entertainment. I remember when movie makers like Burton and Spielberg would have never let mediocrity grace their screens and as much as you all hate it...At least Ang lee did a damn good job with creativity when it came to his adaptation. The editing was ground breaking and the CGI was too. Hulk was a good FILM, just not a great movie. It wasn't franchise friendly and when it tried to add elements of the pop culture (has to be a super villain) is where it failed very badly.

Anyway back to the CGI...I hate it. it just doesn't look good and you guys are right...MY opinion and honestly believe if I was behind the production of this movie I would make the PERFECT comic book adaptation. I even pitched the perfect x men movie adaptation before the initial one came out and not one disagreement with how It SHOULD have been. Superman the same and now Hulk. Ang had the psychology and feel DOWN, but made a banner movie, not a HULK movie.

This movie maybe good, but by the trailer and ALL the clips it leaves much to still be desired in a HULK that could be.

Hulk could be a movie on Epic proportions like King Kong, but it's treated like a comic book franchise now as I can tell from the interviews and clips. Ang tried to not have that COMIC BOOK movie tagging along with the flick.

I like serious movies with fun in them not fun movies with serious elements.

Hulk is NOT fun. Spider man is Fun so the cheap CG fits the ball cause it's cheap entertainment which I hoped Hulk not to be.

I could be all wrong, but I guarantee you this movie will not hold weight as a classic whatsoever. I guarantee that by the time this year is over...Iron man, Indiana Jones, and The Dark Knight will still be remembered months after. The main character in Hulk is the worst aspect of the movie. It won't do so well... The CGI is laughable like the ones in Van Helsing and the Mummy returns.

 

[Zohan Dvir]

I like the new CG hulk. Much better proportioned and doesn't have the squat look of the 03 Hulk. I also think his grunting and growls are more sinister reminiscent of the tv hulk. Overall he looks more menacing than the 03 Hulk which is a great thing.

 

[Jaspertian1105]

Great post but I just don't like tolerating anything. If things acan be better then they need to be. I can compramise certain things but its like an ugly chick. If she's obese and ugly then she's obese & ugly and she may have a great heart, but if I have preferences of better quality in a well figured and shapely healthy girl then I have that right.

You too all have the right to like whatever you wish. Some weird human believes Batman and Robin was the greatest movie ever made and that Keaton and Nolan are idiots and you're right...opinions!!!!

Like we all KNOW as FACT that Eminem can rap very well...but many will actually say he's wack and love morons like Soulja boy and stupid **** cause it's what the pop culture finds acceptable as entertainment. I remember when movie makers like Burton and Spielberg would have never let mediocrity grace their screens and as much as you all hate it...At least Ang lee did a damn good job with creativity when it came to his adaptation. The editing was ground breaking and the CGI was too. Hulk was a good FILM, just not a great movie. It wasn't franchise friendly and when it tried to add elements of the pop culture (has to be a super villain) is where it failed very badly.

Anyway back to the CGI...I hate it. it just doesn't look good and you guys are right...MY opinion and honestly believe if I was behind the production of this movie I would make the PERFECT comic book adaptation. I even pitched the perfect x men movie adaptation before the initial one came out and not one disagreement with how It SHOULD have been. Superman the same and now Hulk. Ang had the psychology and feel DOWN, but made a banner movie, not a HULK movie.

This movie maybe good, but by the trailer and ALL the clips it leaves much to still be desired in a HULK that could be.

Hulk could be a movie on Epic proportions like King Kong, but it's treated like a comic book franchise now as I can tell from the interviews and clips. Ang tried to not have that COMIC BOOK movie tagging along with the flick.

I like serious movies with fun in them not fun movies with serious elements.

Hulk is NOT fun. Spider man is Fun so the cheap CG fits the ball cause it's cheap entertainment which I hoped Hulk not to be.

I could be all wrong, but I guarantee you this movie will not hold weight as a classic whatsoever. I guarantee that by the time this year is over...Iron man, Indiana Jones, and The Dark Knight will still be remembered months after. The main character in Hulk is the worst aspect of the movie. It won't do so well... The CGI is laughable like the ones in Van Helsing and the Mummy returns.

dude you are freaking exaggerating (and you dont seem very modest also), also you listen to Eminem, you just lost my respect right there man im sorry

 

[Godman]

I wonder how the hulk would look if it was made by ILM, would it really look so much different? ILM is probably the best company (and WETA) but from what i have read some of the CGI in Indiana Jones wasn't very good so i don't know if they would a better job than R & H with the Hulk

Can't just say ILM, has to be the team in ILM that actually worked on Hulk and the key modelers. ILM at least had proved their worth with jar Jar and several other spiffy things like Jurassic park along the way to be given the task of Hulk. This new company worked on I am Legend right? which looked like **** to start with. The movie was good, but the CGI was atrocious.

 

[Godman]

I like the new CG hulk. Much better proportioned and doesn't have the squat look of the 03 Hulk. I also think his grunting and growls are more sinister reminiscent of the tv hulk. Overall he looks more menacing than the 03 Hulk which is a great thing.

Just doesn't look as photo realistic. Honestly...The LOTR Ogre looks even better than this Hulk.

Maybe the director should have used a different key or style of filming that would be able to make this Hulk look less CG like 300 or something cause this ain't workin.

 

[Jaspertian1105]

Can't just say ILM, has to be the team in ILM that actually worked on Hulk and the key modelers. ILM at least had proved their worth with jar Jar and several other spiffy things like Jurassic park along the way to be given the task of Hulk. This new company worked on I am Legend right? which looked like **** to start with. The movie was good, but the CGI was atrocious.

if you dont like any aspect of the movie just dont watch it, its simple as that