The Incredible Hulk CGI Thread

[Sava]

i heard he went overboard with indy 4. haven't seen it yet.

watched Indy yesterday.. i dont get that complaint, i actually think he used CG very well in that movie

 

[Comicfan]

watched Indy yesterday.. i dont get that complaint, i actually think he used CG very well in that movie

I totally agree, I went in expecting awful CGI scenarios and characters overused all over the film... but I really didn´t saw that, and the CGI they used, I really didn´t mind, It didnt take me out of the history

 

[Godman]

i heard he went overboard with indy 4. haven't seen it yet.

With all the stunt man deaths happening these days with major productions...I can see why some of the vehicle stunts were just kept to a minimum and given the CG treatment. At least we never get Human CG. Thank GOD!!!!! It just was a lot of CG cause no indy movie has EVER had CGI, but that was like 20 years ago or so right? Anyway I LOVED Indiana Jones 4. Spielberg used that new HD style like Superman Returns and it flowed very well. We are used to that gritty 80s look of things which also made Rambo suffer a little cause of certain CGI guts abd stuff that just looked like CG. Old Rambo just used props and good shots.

 

[Godman]

watched Indy yesterday.. i dont get that complaint, i actually think he used CG very well in that movie

Very well. Again, it's because it's Indiana Jones which made popularity in the 80s with absolutely no CG but some GREAT animatics and props.

 

[Shivsguy616]

With all the stunt man deaths happening these days with major productions...quote]

Have there been many? The only one I'v heard of recently is the TDK death. Could you inform me of others?

 

[Mel4Prez]

I'm a guy that's all for practical effects. As the article says, nothing beats the real thing, and I firmly believe that. Obviously, there are instances where CGI is necessary. I, for one, love when it's used in a stylized format, or someplace that isn't meant to be grounded in reality. For example, Sin City and 300 are obvious choices where this applies. Even Speed Racer, in which an entirely different universe was created.

However, when making a Hulk movie that's set in a real-world environment, having a completely CGI Hulk running around can put a damper on things for me. Call me old fashioned, but seeing two computerized monster doesn't have the same effect on me that watching real, practical action does. There's nothing like it, IMO.

Well Said. I think for a lot of us we feel the same way.

Here is something that caught my eye on a blog talking about Indiana Jones Skull

" CGI - I could write ten pages on this, but I’ll be damned if right off the bat, the first scene, full of CGI, didn’t put me in a bad mood. CGI prairie dogs, at least 3 separate shots of them. WTF? CGI whips. CGI scorpions. CGI ants. CGI landscapes. CGI alien things. CGI collapsing pyramids. CGI rearranging pyramids. The original movies had tons of practical effects and looked great. Real stunts, real bugs, real locations, and I loved every damn one of them. The CGI in this film was over the top and distracting. Hated it! And while I’m on the subject - those CGI ants? Ten billion ants that can climb, move at 30 miles per hour, and kill a man nearly instantly. WTF? The originals were at least somewhat grounded by reality."

 

[Mel4Prez]

For those of you that didn't read the article

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic/story/0,,2281466,00.html

 

[Nivek]

I totally agree, I went in expecting awful CGI scenarios and characters overused all over the film... but I really didn´t saw that, and the CGI they used, I really didn´t mind, It didnt take me out of the history

I actually heard they used old school (1980's) special effects with models and green screens, and that people have thought it's bad CG. I havn't seen it myself, could that be the case?

 

[NoirMan82]

Better than what we have... At least. Like the mix of real and CG with Abe Sapien and with Davey Jones...GREAT and fantastic CG and like Jurassic Park using animatics along with CGI. It's possible and matter of fact WAAAAY more believable. Burton gave us Apes with extremely GREAT make up and strayed from CGI which he could have just replaced the actors with easily if he was trigger happy.

Ninja Turtles did GREAT with their characters cause I can still watch them movies and feel that CG will NEVER surpass it.

I'm amazed by how biased you are. You mention TMNT? A movie where you saw every flaw in the costume? I love that film, it was one of the best comic films ever, but the turtles were so flawed. Also, TIH is using practical effect mixed with CGI. On certain shots animatronics are used as well as other methods. You're just so busy dumping on the film you didn't educate yourself about it. Lastly, Abe Sapien and Davy Jones are a hell of a lot easier to pull off than Hulk. They have, for the most part, normal human proportions and movements. Hulk is superhuman in size and ability, and a guy in prosthetics can't achieve that visually. I'll argue that until you can prove me wrong.

 

[Jaspertian1105]

Dont even bother with Godman, he just writes for himself

 

[Nivek]

Very well. Again, it's because it's Indiana Jones which made popularity in the 80s with absolutely no CG but some GREAT animatics and props.

In the quote above Godman referred to 80's special effects as Animatics. Which make no sense since Animatics are a basic CG animation used to gauge and place certain CG fx shots. Dont listen to people critique special effects like they are some expert when they cant get terminology on techniques right. And this guy is his own worst enemy.

 

[Jaspertian1105]

I think the CGI is amazing (save for a couple of scenes in daylight) but the still don't understand that comparing this movie with the 2003 hulk is ridiculous. The amount of CGI shots is different, there are 2 CGI characters instead of 1, the time that the company's had to work on the effect its different. I think the 2003 effects are amazing and many shots still look great today but its not the hulk for me, i don't see the hulk in that movie, just a gigantic green man but that doesn't make him the hulk in my book

 

[Obi-Ron]

Very well. Again, it's because it's Indiana Jones which made popularity in the 80s with absolutely no CG but some GREAT animatics and props.

Go watch the dolls riding the mine carts from Temple of Doom again, and then come talk about how great the effects were in the 80s.

 

[Godman]

In the quote above Godman referred to 80's special effects as Animatics. Which make no sense since Animatics are a basic CG animation used to gauge and place certain CG fx shots. Dont listen to people critique special effects like they are some expert when they cant get terminology on techniques right. And this guy is his own worst enemy.

Actually...

an·i·mat·ic (

n

-m

t

k)n. A preliminary version of a television commercial in which animated cutout figures are used instead of live participants and real objects.


I'm a storyboard artist...

Animatics have been there waaaaaaay before CGI. 3D animatics maybe not, but they've been using toys and stop motion to also get the point accross in storyboard phase

 

[Comicfan]

Go watch the dolls riding the mine carts from Temple of Doom again, and then come talk about how great the effects were in the 80s.

CGI its not the devil

there are bad CGI just like there are bad makeup, bad prostetics, bad miniatures, bad sets...bad actors, bad stories

 

[Godman]

With all the stunt man deaths happening these days with major productions...quote]

Have there been many? The only one I'v heard of recently is the TDK death. Could you inform me of others?

Batman Begins also had a fatality and Spiderman 1 or 2 I forget.

 

[goldenchylde]

Some ppl just don't like CG, it doesn't matter how good it is, how well its done, if ppl know its CG they're against it. I don't care if u use practical effects or CG as long as it fits with the movie I'm cool with it. I saw Indy4 w/o any expectations since I've prolly only seen one Indy movie before years ago. It had quite a bit of CG but, it wasn't distracting, the movie was fun, the CG didn't make it any less fun. CG prairie dogs weren't a problem for me, they were for comic relief, and me and the rest of the audience found them funny. The collapsing pyramids looked amazing to me.

In this day an age, with dvd extras, and behind the scenes hbo specials, everyone knows about the tricks filmmakers use to pull off special effects. When I watch an old movie with practical effects its obvious to me when I'm watching a rubber doll, a miniature, or foam rocks, it doesn't take anything away from the movie though. Cg allows for fluidity that practical effects usually don't offer. Will you know its CG when you see it, heck yea 99.9% of the time, but you also can tell with practical effects. I loved Hellboy, but no amount of makeup stops making him look like a guy in a suit, his performance does, the plot draws you in so you believe he's real for 2.5 hours, but if you're sitting there critiquing every frame you'll know he's a guy in a suit.


Point: A practical hulk in this day and age would be far too limiting. You can't have some of the crazy comic book shots we're seeing in the trailer with totally practical effects. Even if they went with animatronics, the amount of research and funding they'd need to get the Hulk and Abom to move the way they do from the trailers, would exceed the film's budget tenfold. The CG in 03 was great, was in perfect? No. Name any movie with perfect effects. None. The CG in 08 thus far looks great, will it be perfect? No. Will the movie be great, I hope so.

 

[Godman]

Well Said. I think for a lot of us we feel the same way.

Here is something that caught my eye on a blog talking about Indiana Jones Skull

" CGI - I could write ten pages on this, but I’ll be damned if right off the bat, the first scene, full of CGI, didn’t put me in a bad mood. CGI prairie dogs, at least 3 separate shots of them. WTF? CGI whips. CGI scorpions. CGI ants. CGI landscapes. CGI alien things. CGI collapsing pyramids. CGI rearranging pyramids. The original movies had tons of practical effects and looked great. Real stunts, real bugs, real locations, and I loved every damn one of them. The CGI in this film was over the top and distracting. Hated it! And while I’m on the subject - those CGI ants? Ten billion ants that can climb, move at 30 miles per hour, and kill a man nearly instantly. WTF? The originals were at least somewhat grounded by reality."

There are places in the Sahara with Ants of such menace. Huge Army and safari ants can be that menacing also the CG was not all that distracting and movies used to have more time to complete back then to where certain practical things would have taken more time to get right.

I agree the old movies felt more grounded, but Aliens dont look right as costumes these days, The whip was unnecessary but not distracting. We can get scorpians and animals down so no problem using CG for creatures that we actually do a damn good job on. It's humanoids I have problems with.

At least spielberg has never tried to make us look like idiots by placing a CG character in place of a flesh based terrestrial as our selves. Even Minority Report was very well done with not too much unnecessary CG, but I do see ur distaste.

 

[Godman]

I'm amazed by how biased you are. You mention TMNT? A movie where you saw every flaw in the costume? I love that film, it was one of the best comic films ever, but the turtles were so flawed. Also, TIH is using practical effect mixed with CGI. On certain shots animatronics are used as well as other methods. You're just so busy dumping on the film you didn't educate yourself about it. Lastly, Abe Sapien and Davy Jones are a hell of a lot easier to pull off than Hulk. They have, for the most part, normal human proportions and movements. Hulk is superhuman in size and ability, and a guy in prosthetics can't achieve that visually. I'll argue that until you can prove me wrong.

To take a body builder which is HULK's initial size if we are going with ORIGINS. Only difference is his height. Hulk can be pulled of like the giant guy in 300. Get Nathan Jones who looks massive in every movie and just hire average height actors which most are short as hell anyway. They used the sizing effect very well in LOTR. It is very possible when Frodo can actually look that small compared to most the others.

So we got the sizing out the way, now all they need is good transition. I HATED blade 2's CGI, but the tried very well with transitions from CG to human and back, just that CGI technology ain't there yet.

LXG also had pretty good prosthetics, just needed a little CG touch up like Davy Jones and you got a pretty good menacing Hulk.

 

[Godman]

Some ppl just don't like CG, it doesn't matter how good it is, how well its done, if ppl know its CG they're against it. I don't care if u use practical effects or CG as long as it fits with the movie I'm cool with it. I saw Indy4 w/o any expectations since I've prolly only seen one Indy movie before years ago. It had quite a bit of CG but, it wasn't distracting, the movie was fun, the CG didn't make it any less fun. CG prairie dogs weren't a problem for me, they were for comic relief, and me and the rest of the audience found them funny. The collapsing pyramids looked amazing to me.

In this day an age, with dvd extras, and behind the scenes hbo specials, everyone knows about the tricks filmmakers use to pull off special effects. When I watch an old movie with practical effects its obvious to me when I'm watching a rubber doll, a miniature, or foam rocks, it doesn't take anything away from the movie though. Cg allows for fluidity that practical effects usually don't offer. Will you know its CG when you see it, heck yea 99.9% of the time, but you also can tell with practical effects. I loved Hellboy, but no amount of makeup stops making him look like a guy in a suit, his performance does, the plot draws you in so you believe he's real for 2.5 hours, but if you're sitting there critiquing every frame you'll know he's a guy in a suit.


Point: A practical hulk in this day and age would be far too limiting. You can't have some of the crazy comic book shots we're seeing in the trailer with totally practical effects. Even if they went with animatronics, the amount of research and funding they'd need to get the Hulk and Abom to move the way they do from the trailers, would exceed the film's budget tenfold. The CG in 03 was great, was in perfect? No. Name any movie with perfect effects. None. The CG in 08 thus far looks great, will it be perfect? No. Will the movie be great, I hope so.

King Komg was near perfect though on the real

 

[Godman]

Go watch the dolls riding the mine carts from Temple of Doom again, and then come talk about how great the effects were in the 80s.

Good enough for it's time and NOBODY used to complain. We got to trigger happy with CG and people ain't as simple minded on it like when Jar Jar came out. We have gotten smarter since and some CG has been a victim of peoples intelligence. Hulk 03 was very good for it's time and had outshined everything that came before. It was the most photo realistic full CG character used in a movie to date. The new one had THAT to top and it hasn't. It's more to the cartoony side of things and honestly I think they just wanted to make a character basically fit good enough on screen rather than make him as believable as possible. Even though we know it's CG ALL THE TIME, at least help us think that you TRIED to fool us. At least. It does count.

Not when you just slap some ish together and play on the fact that we know it's CG. You can tell 03, AI, Jurassic Park, King Kong tried to fool us the best they could with their technology. Some CG like Blade 2 just looks like they know it's CG and don't care to go beyond that and just slap it up there because average minded movie goers will just suck it up. Even my mom hated spiderman CG and sucked her teeth in everytime he came accross the screen. Spider man also being a cheese fest also didn't help her take away from the CG. She enjoyed Speed Racer actually even more because it fit the cartoony world it was grounded in. When you try and make a movie grounded on our reality and then defy that reality with poor CGI it just doesn't look good.

If you watch this Hulk movie's dramatic scenes and then watch the ones with Hulk in them, it really throws off the feel cause it doesn't fit. If you were going for a 300, Sin City type then the CG would fit better cause there's a whole lot of other CG around to balance everything. Hulk's CG may really not be that bad, but in a non fantastical world and you have a creature that looks like it should be in a NArnia movie then it doesn't work that well...Just my opinion

 

[terry78]

^Basically, we've all become too smart for our own good. Sometimes I do agree with the old adage, ignorance is bliss.

 

[webhead731]

Potter, Spiderman, and LOTR had some pretty bad CG besides the creatures. I mean when the Humans turned CG it was HORRIBLE. Legalus on the elephant and grabbing onto the beast horse earlier were horrible and spidey swinging and climbing the wall was HORRIBLE and unnecessary. Harry Potter didn't need Human CG as Blade 2 used...Bad, Bad, Bad

It's been awhile since I've seen LOTR, I agree with Harry Potter, but Spider-Man? Shut up. There might be a meh shot or two but for the most part that CGI is pretty damn good.

 

[Knightsaber Priss]

watched Indy yesterday.. i dont get that complaint, i actually think he used CG very well in that movie

Those CGI Prairie Dogs, Monkeys and Ants were horrible!! How can you say the CGI was absolutely flawless!? There was no excuse for this crap since they have real life models to study unlike the Hulk or Abomination. I expected alot better from ILM unless Lucas' own employees really are starting to hate him.

 

[Nivek]

Well, this thread is breaking down at lightspeed.