The Incredible Hulk CGI Thread

[Compi716]

The early reviews are saying that the CGI is perfect.


Thank God.

 

[Green eyed Hulk]

Hulk's CGI RULES!!!

Hsve you seen the 2 reviews at IMDB? They give the impression that the CGI is amazing and flawless

 

[Scooter]

This looks much better than was the case when this shot (or a variation of it) was orginally released. Not quite as impressive as was the case a few years ago, but my initial suspicions regarding the CGI may yet be seen out.

Also, Banner seems to have found a supplier of Hulk size pants. Good for him.

 

[#1Batmanfan]

The cgi was good but the last battle it seemed a little more fake ... like i said earlier if u have problems with the cgi and dont like it then your not going to feel any different about the cgi in the movie

 

[Agentdemon]

The cgi was good but the last battle it seemed a little more fake ... like i said earlier if u have problems with the cgi and dont like it then your not going to feel any different about the cgi in the movie

When he does the thunderclap it looks very crappy in the commercials, is it improved in the film or the same?

 

[Nivek]

... like i said earlier if u have problems with the cgi and dont like it then your not going to feel any different about the cgi in the movie

Alot of us expect that criticism. Even if it had drastically improved to godlike levels, there will always be someone saying it should be better, or that it "looks like a video game".

 

[El Payaso]

I saw a couple of clips and am refusing to see them all before watching the actual movie. But thing with CGI is the same as usual, it gets to a really high point but once I got used to it you start to expect for something else.

At first I was quite dissapointed with the first Hulk trailer. But those clips I saw were simply fantastic. Some parts of them I still find them semi-fake, but I can feel the thrilling effect all over.

 

[goldenchylde]

Now I wish they had actually gone with the Bulked up Norton look. I would have loved to see that more photo realistic approach. Well I can't blame the artists but the director for making poor decisions on not being tough on CG. We'll see how the movie plays. Hopefully the trailer is NOTHING like the movie will actually be like, which is rare, but The score along with Norton's take should be able to distract me for two hours, but a 28 or so minute fight with CG at the end? May throw me off as bad as the other Hulk finale.

The thing is, a bulked up Norton wouldn't be the Hulk. The artists would have been making a poor decision if they went in that direction. If they wanted to go that route they could've just bulked up Norton after they shot the all the Banner scenes, it'd make for a funny Big Banner movie but a lousy Hulk movie.

 

[Knightsaber Priss]

The cgi was good but the last battle it seemed a little more fake ... like i said earlier if u have problems with the cgi and dont like it then your not going to feel any different about the cgi in the movie

Pfft!!! You're talking to someone who's watched guys (And a gal I believe in GMK as Baragon.) smacking each other around in a city full of miniatures. Not even this alleged sketchy CGI in the final battle between Hulk and Abomination could phase me. I'm more interested in the plotline than 100% photorealistic CGI.

The thing is, a bulked up Norton wouldn't be the Hulk. The artists would have been making a poor decision if they went in that direction. If they wanted to go that route they could've just bulked up Norton after they shot the all the Banner scenes, it'd make for a funny Big Banner movie but a lousy Hulk movie.

I'd just like to add an observation of my own here in my reply. I don't know if you or anyone else has noticed this, but I think they retained some minute features from Norton, like the general shape of his eyes on the CGI Hulk.

 

[Cth]

The next time someone says the film's renders look like something out of a videogame, or that their PS3/360 can do..

Show them this:

 

[Nivek]

"Iz cant see no differnt! Iz gona Bomz!!!"

 

[webhead731]

"Iz cant see no differnt! Iz gona Bomz!!!"

u st00pid n00b! go back to teh bat boardz!

 

[TheBeastWithin]

Lol.

 

[SalaciousVC]

Colin Strause(He and His brother Run a Special Effects company called Hydralux that did some new work on this film)Said on a Alien/Predator Forum I go on that,they did over 300 shots on The Incredible Hulk, including a couple of CG Abomination shots. R&H did all the Hulk shots.

Just thought you guys would like to know

 

[Gamma Ra]

Hsve you seen the 2 reviews at IMDB? They give the impression that the CGI is amazing and flawless

I'm reading everything Hulk.

That's good news though.

 

[Green eyed Hulk]

Here is a comment from a 3rd review on IMDB:

"I could see that CGI has REALLY improved in the last 5 years. The Hulk in this film looks more authentic, and realistic. The detail with his muscles, and veins was jaw-dropping".

 

[Godman]

Here is a comment from a 3rd review on IMDB:

"I could see that CGI has REALLY improved in the last 5 years. The Hulk in this film looks more authentic, and realistic. The detail with his muscles, and veins was jaw-dropping".

i'll give it a chance...but the reviews are also people who can be paid to say junk or people who didn't even give Ang a chance after a few minutes of that Hulk. I will chance it though. Wait till we get a full round of reviews and we'll see

 

[TheBeastWithin]

Here is a comment from a 3rd review on IMDB:

"I could see that CGI has REALLY improved in the last 5 years. The Hulk in this film looks more authentic, and realistic. The detail with his muscles, and veins was jaw-dropping".

Sweet.

 

[Jaspertian1105]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5JsDylEPNh0

after watching this video the effort of ILM was pretty amazing but the effects have improved and it shows

 

[Green eyed Hulk]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5JsDylEPNh0

after watching this video the effort of ILM was pretty amazing but the effects have improved and it shows

Your absolutely right, but the reason ILM's hulk isn't considered great CGI is because too many haters tarnished its reputation all those years ago, which is a damn shame IMO.

 

[deathfromabove]

But even then, that wouldn't be a calm green fat man...

hahahaha. what is that picture from anyway?

CGI IS RUINING MOVIES!!

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

nice article. i agree that cgi is just another tool and it is often over utilized. but i also think there are sometimes when only cgi will get the job done. alphonso cauron uses alot of digital techniques but you can't tell. city scapes and mattes are often unrecognizable but when you start animating people or creatures they better be perfect or the eye will notice.

If you prefer the real world more, why are you watching the movies?

thats just silly.

and thats not what he said.

 

[deathfromabove]

But even then, that wouldn't be a calm green fat man...

hahahaha. what is that picture from anyway?

CGI IS RUINING MOVIES!!

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

nice article. i agree that cgi is just another tool and it is often over utilized. but i also think there are sometimes when only cgi will get the job done.

the dinosaurs in jurassic park still look pretty stunning but some of the shots in a movie like "i am legend", which was made years later with supposedly much improved technology at its disposal , look like garbage. why? execution.

i think with the enough talent and time at your disposal you can make nearly anything look photorealistic at this point. alphonso cauron uses alot of digital techniques but you can't tell. city scapes and mattes are often unrecognizable but when you start animating people or creatures they better be perfect or the eye will notice.

i think that guys like nolan, jackson (usually), cauron, and heck even favreau, are pretty good at blending practical effects with cgi in a way that doesnt distract from the movie. nothing takes you out of a movie faster than a poorly rendered effect.

If you prefer the real world more, why are you watching the movies?

thats just silly.

and thats not what he said.

 

[Spade]

I find it amazing that ILM's Hulk model was so believable when you look at the tech of 2003. Motion capture wasn't nearly as advanced, yet I'm alot more sold on their Hulk than what I've seen of this one (with no offense to those who think otherwise).

 

[Cth]

Your absolutely right, but the reason ILM's hulk isn't considered great CGI is because too many haters tarnished its reputation all those years ago, which is a damn shame IMO.

Yeah, it's Lord of the Rings/Prequel Trilogy backlash.

A shame really as they put forth some real advances with the CGI on Hulk. The whole layering approach to light reflecting on the skin, water effects with hair, dust particles clinging to skin realistically, etc.

 

[Knightsaber Priss]

I find it amazing that ILM's Hulk model was so believable when you look at the tech of 2003. Motion capture wasn't nearly as advanced, yet I'm alot more sold on their Hulk than what I've seen of this one (with no offense to those who think otherwise).

That and ILM was also very busy with other projects like Star Wars.