The Incredible Hulk CGI Thread

[terry78]

I'm sure back in the day early man scoffed at the wheel and the invention of fire as well. "What the **** do we need a wheel for when we can walk miles to our destination? And what the hell is up with fire?! I'm perfectly happy eating my sabretooh cat raw, as God intended."

 

[M.O.Steel]

No offense, but Alec Gillis hasn't produced a good suit or practical effect since Aliens, and it's primarily because of the exact same reason CGI tends to suck: bad designs coupled with limited time. So he's not exactly one to talk.

As for the rest of the article, it only convinces me that films today need a longer post-production and better acting. No, I'm not joking about the latter. If the actors can't give an organic performance, then either they have a limited imagination or need to work on their craft. That's a pallid excuse. Still, I do agree with one thing: overuse. I've seen many films where practical effects could have been attempted. CGI should be used when the real thing isn't feasible or believable. But then again, if there was more time and skill applied CGI could have limitless capabilities.

while i agree with just about everything else, i really don't think the acting is the issue. if fact, i think it s better than i expected considering what they are working with. sometimes i don't even realize that they are not looking at anything other until i see the behind the scenes.

i'm not sure why you think it's the fault of the actors around the CG and not the CG itself. we're talking about the realism of CG subject itself, not the environment around it.

 

[M.O.Steel]

I'm sure back in the day early man scoffed at the wheel and the invention of fire as well. "What the **** do we need a wheel for when we can walk miles to our destination? And what the hell is up with fire?! I'm perfectly happy eating my sabretooh cat raw, as God intended."

funny you mention that cause i remember reading a quote somewhere that someoen famous said, "automobiles are nice but they are a high-end luxury and will never replace a horse and a carriage." (paraphrased)

 

[The Shape]

funny you mention that cause i remember reading a quote somewhere that someoen famous said, "automobiles are nice but they are a high-end luxury and will never replace a horse and a carriage." (paraphrased)

Does this mean you want CGI to replace all practical effects and acting?

 

[M.O.Steel]

Does this mean you want CGI to replace all practical effects and acting?

no man, read my other posts. he's words just reminded me of the quote. if you read my posts (including the one right above), you would know i'm against CG hulk, and would have prefered a real person with cg-help. I just don't think CG has gotten to the point where it can replace a human, and i don't it ever will.

however, movies like 300 and sincity show that you could easily work with green screen, but i don't replace humans.

i'm not against CG per se, i just prefer real world more. and hulk IMO doesn't qualify as fantastical.

 

[ant3ros]

no man, read my other posts. he's words just reminded me of the quote. if you read my posts (including the one right above), you would know i'm against CG hulk, and would have prefered a real person with cg-help. I just don't think CG has gotten to the point where it can replace a human, and i don't it ever will.

however, movies like 300 and sincity show that you could easily work with green screen, but i don't replace humans.

i'm not against CG per se, i just prefer real world more. and hulk IMO doesn't qualify as fantastical.

If you prefer the real world more, why are you watching the movies? The movies have always been about illusion, which is what CGI is. I think all this complaining about CGI not being ready is childish. Gollum worked. Hulk will work. I think people are whining more about the aesthetic decisions rather than the technology.

 

[Spade]

This movie's Hulk is 10', gray-green, and 1,500 lbs. That would be hard to convey with prosthetics. Plus, most bodybuilders aren't actors for a reason. It'd be even harder to find a really muscular one, put prosthetics on him, and then get a good performance.

 

[NoirMan82]

while i don't think it was great either, it would have been much worse if they used a CG body with vinny's head. and i think that is the exception, not the rule.

hulk's anatomy is not as unique as some of the other characters that stayed CG-free, especially the new which looks like big lean body-builder.

i think if you watch LXG with jekyll and hyde, i think it really would look good to use a real individual with "CG enhanced". i don't think it needs to be either one or the other.

I consider Mr. Hyde in LXG the main offender when it comes to the topic. I'm sorry, but that was wore than any CGI I've ever seen. I mean, if CGI takes you out of a scene, what is obvious, bad make-up going to do? I don't mean to sound rude, but those who want a real person as hulk are either too nostalgic or too dillusional.

 

[M.O.Steel]

If you prefer the real world more, why are you watching the movies? The movies have always been about illusion, which is what CGI is. I think all this complaining about CGI not being ready is childish. Gollum worked. Hulk will work. I think people are whining more about the aesthetic decisions rather than the technology.

why am i watching movies? that's what you got out of my post man? jeez. you really missed my point. so every movie that came before the invention of CG are stupid or horrible? so godfather, citizen kane, braveheart are not illusions or movies because they don't use CG? why does CG have to be the only thing involved when creating an illusion?

reread my post man. i meant the real world applications. as in i prefer something like how batman moved over how the new hulk looks. i prefer how the aliens and the predators looked over jar jar binks. i prefer how the thing looked over the hulk. Gollum is an amazing exception, as are some others that are amazing.

why is it childish to point out an observation in my opinion? is it because you don't agree with it. doesn't even make sense really. this is a discussion forum, where people with differences of opnions come to discuss, especially this thread is purely about the effects of TIH. don't call someone childish or say that they are whining just because you don't agree with them.

if you want an example of how a CG-heavy movie doesn't look as great...look at terminator 2 vs. terminator 3. it's so strange how the effects of a movie with minimal CG about 10 years older actually looks better.

 

[M.O.Steel]

This movie's Hulk is 10', gray-green, and 1,500 lbs. That would be hard to convey with prosthetics. Plus, most bodybuilders aren't actors for a reason. It'd be even harder to find a really muscular one, put prosthetics on him, and then get a good performance.

i don't think it is. all the description you said can be done. 10 feet? not a problem, gray-green, why would this even be a issue, it's not like it's a super-color that only computers know how to make. the weight, all the parts where he breaks things can done with CG or practical effects. it's not like when i look at an image of the new hulk, i think, damn, he looks like he weighs alot. none of those things are the limiting factors of prosthetics and real individual.

finding a bodybuilder actor is a problem, but not for someone that roars and fights. that's all the hulk does. it's not having a conversation about quatum dynamics. i'm sure with proper casting, they can fing someone that can roar, run, jump and fight.

 

[M.O.Steel]

I consider Mr. Hyde in LXG the main offender when it comes to the topic. I'm sorry, but that was wore than any CGI I've ever seen. I mean, if CGI takes you out of a scene, what is obvious, bad make-up going to do?

that wasn't good, but there are amazing make-up artists out there that can do a good job. looking at predator and aliens, looking at the thing, they can easily fix the problems. there were a lot of things wrogn with that movie, i was using it as a example since the two are very similar.

I don't mean to sound rude, but those who want a real person as hulk are either too nostalgic or too dillusional.

funny you say that because i feel the exact same for people that are SO avid supporters of 100% CG. i think they are the delusional ones if they think it looks amazing and real.

 

[terry78]

The Hulk's dimensions are not human. It's impossible. You've seen the character in most incarnations, he barely fits into a doorway, if that. No man can give you that illusion, even with the camera trick of depth perception.

 

[FrostBite]

funny you say that because i feel the exact same for people that are SO avid supporters of 100% CG. i think they are the delusional ones if they think it looks amazing and real.

What about us who think it looks amazing and yet also love practical effects? You see, Hulk and Abomination isn't over doing it for me, Iron Man isn't over doing it for me... Indy IV, was over doing it. When you start making CG backgrounds, CG smoke, CG animals, CG ...er well everything, thats when it starts ticking me off.

Speed Racer had a reason for CG backgrounds, Indy IV, does not.

If Spielberg were doing this movie we'd have CG cars being flipped over by Abomination.

What I love about this film is a great deal is still real, just not the characters themselves.

I love CG, I love practical, I don't see a reason why the two cannot co-exist and people just have fun with both?

 

[webhead731]

Spielberg would have had that Mark I mask Iron Man put in front of Yin Sin in CGI.

 

[terry78]

I'm going to be blunt...an animatronic or guy in a makeup job as Hulk would get laughed out of the theatre. I'm not even kidding. It wouldn't look good at all. It just wouldn't. Everyone knows what the Hulk looks like, how he moves, his size....Hellboy is somewhat smaller so that works. Hulk has to look like a towering behemoth compared to even the tallest non-alien/mutant man.

 

[Spade]

Personally, I don't think practical effects would be bad with some Hulk material. If we just see a hand, you can save some cash and gain some realism at the same time. But (like terry78 brought up) it'd be hard to make the proportions of a character with those stats work with practical effects. At most, I'd suggest an anamatronic strictly for reference. Other than what's need for reference or a quick glimpse of a limb, I endorse a CG Hulk. That's not to say this one has consistently impressed me, but I do have faith that they will eventually improve it to the point where we wouldn't have to have these discussions anymore.

 

[Scooter]

CGI Hulk pretty much got laughed out of the theater too, and those were the best digital effects you could have asked for.

Will the people ever accept the Hulk? *Cue Lonely Man theme...

 

[webhead731]

I'm going to be blunt...an animatronic or guy in a makeup job as Hulk would get laughed out of the theatre. I'm not even kidding. It wouldn't look good at all. It just wouldn't. Everyone knows what the Hulk looks like, how he moves, his size....Hellboy is somewhat smaller so that works. Hulk has to look like a towering behemoth compared to even the tallest non-alien/mutant man.

Well said man.
A real man playing Hulk looks great from the old TV series because that was the best they could do. But CGI is needed for Hulk today unless they can find the Hulk himself.

 

[terry78]

If you live in a large city look at some of the statues in various parks or places. Usually they make them several times the size of the average person. Now imagine somebody actually being that height and size. That's what you should see when you see the Hulk.

 

[FrostBite]

CGI Hulk pretty much got laughed out of the theater too, and those were the best digital effects you could have asked for.

Will the people ever accept the Hulk? *Cue Lonely Man theme...

Bah, but it was a silly design, and bright green. Which ruined how good the effects were (sadly, because I do think they were marvelous or... to make a pun out of the situation, incredible.)

And no, people will never accept Hulk. Hulk is unique, and for that the world will not tolerate his existence.

 

[Spade]

CGI Hulk pretty much got laughed out of the theater too, and those were the best digital effects you could have asked for.

Will the people ever accept the Hulk? *Cue Lonely Man theme...

Honestly? I don't think so. There will be complaints about how he's achieved until science either creates a real-life Hulk or solid holograms are invented.

 

[M.O.Steel]

What about us who think it looks amazing and yet also love practical effects? You see, Hulk and Abomination isn't over doing it for me, Iron Man isn't over doing it for me... Indy IV, was over doing it. When you start making CG backgrounds, CG smoke, CG animals, CG ...er well everything, thats when it starts ticking me off.

Speed Racer had a reason for CG backgrounds, Indy IV, does not.

If Spielberg were doing this movie we'd have CG cars being flipped over by Abomination.

What I love about this film is a great deal is still real, just not the characters themselves.

I love CG, I love practical, I don't see a reason why the two cannot co-exist and people just have fun with both?

That's what i've been saying all along. i love those people, because i am one of them (i would just use the real person as the base for the hulk) it just seems like posters here like to pigeon-hole people. i think they should definitely co-exist, and use CG when you just can't pull it off. it's not either you like it or you hate it. it's not either Jar Jar binks or the 70s show hulk. that's not the only reference for a real life hulk.

some scenes you obviously just can't use a real person, and that's when you use CG. same thing with spiderman, superman, iron man etc. keep it real, and then use CG to enhance the effects and when not practical human manuvering.

i haven't seen indy yet, but i can't imagine why they would need CG. the last three movies did just fine without them.

 

[M.O.Steel]

I'm going to be blunt...an animatronic or guy in a makeup job as Hulk would get laughed out of the theatre. I'm not even kidding. It wouldn't look good at all. It just wouldn't. Everyone knows what the Hulk looks like, how he moves, his size....Hellboy is somewhat smaller so that works. Hulk has to look like a towering behemoth compared to even the tallest non-alien/mutant man.

the first thing my dad said when he saw 03 was, why is he a cartoon...

about the size, it's acheived through forced perspective. that's how xerses looks like he's 9 feet when next to leonides even though they are both about the same hieght.

 

[FrostBite]

That's what i've been saying all along. i love those people, because i am one of them (i would just use the real person as the base for the hulk) it just seems like posters here like to pigeon-hole people. i think they should definitely co-exist, and use CG when you just can't pull it off. it's not either you like it or you hate it.

some scenes you obviously just can't use a real person, and that's when you use CG. same thing with spiderman, superman, etc. keep it real, and then use CG to enhance the effects and when not practical human manuvering.

Well I understand using a real person when you can, but for Hulk, for his proportions as people have said, trick camera angles wouldn't do him justice to me. I think what we have now looks fantastic (and yes I know that we disagree, as you are not consistently impressed.)

I just can't see going back to a man in a suit, (i.e. Hyde) or a man painted green like Lou ever again. It's like I crossed a threshold I wouldn't want to go back from.

 

[FrostBite]

forced perspective. that's how xerses looks like he's 9 feet when next to leonides even though they are both about the same hieght.

Yes we could make a man wider / taller. But we will never get the absolutely freaked up porportions of the Hulk with simple force perspective. He needs longer arms than legs, bigger hands than a normal person would, etc. etc. etc.

I am not saying it couldn't be done though, I am just saying I'd rather it be CG in this case.