The Incredible Hulk CGI Thread

[Brian Braddock]

i just watched this scene again and you're wrong his feet do interact with the water. when he first lands the water splashes then as he walks he kinda shuffles the water with his feet. he's not stomping when he walks so you don't see big splashes but the water does move.

Man-E, bless you for posting that;

Unfortunatley, some posters have convinced themselves that they saw what they saw (even though you, I and a whole lot of others know that they really didn't) and so according to them, it's down as fact, the CGI was so obviously terrible, it was unfinished and, yeah, Hulk 'glided' across the water.

I guess different cinemas were showing different prints of the film or something. One version was finished - the other one wasn't.

In truth, some people just have an axe to grind with R & H because they're not ILM or WETA.

 

[Scooter]

It was a minor detail, that stream, but I think the fact that it's been noticed and brought up, more than once, says something. I noticed when I saw the film, and it certainly seemed off. Not terrible or anything, since it was so minor, just amiss.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

I'm sorry, but was the stream supposed to be 3 ft. deep or something? Most of the ones I've seen like that are a couple inces deep. And another one of those "why does it matter" critical things, if he's walking in a puddle in the rain, how much is it supposed to ripple?

Sheesh, nit picking a 2 second shot, really reaching there guys.

The second time I watched it I paid special attention to this scene because of this thread and it looked ok to me. I don't see the big deal. He made the water move...what else is there?

That I didn't even notice anything the first time says something too.

 

[Nivek]

But I think it's total B.S. to scrutinise a shot like that anyway.

"Man, I couldn't believe that the Hulk didn't make that water splash more, I mean, he's a 10 ft. tall radioactive monster, where is my realism?"

 

[ant3ros]

Hulk should create tsunamis an earthquakes with each foot step.
\
RARGH!

 

[EternalMaster]

The second time I watched it I paid special attention to this scene because of this thread and it looked ok to me. I don't see the big deal. He made the water move...what else is there?

That I didn't even notice anything the first time says something too.

It does say something: the nitpickers are borderline delusional. They convinced themselves the CGI would be worse than 2003 Hulk, so they just sat back and tried their hardest to see it as being ultra-bad when it was actually quite good.

Best special FX ever? No no no. But solid FX? Yes. Better than 2003? By a mile.

 

[Scooter]

Better than 2003? By a mile.

Borderline delusional...

 

[Nivek]

Also, Incredible Hulk didn't have the Mini-frames and editing effects going on like 2003. All the CGFX was front and center. Bigger target, I guess.

 

[Comicfan]

Can someone please Save this pics and host them somewhere else, I can´t access that link

 

[EternalMaster]

Borderline delusional...

LOL, are you trying to assert that these modern FX look worse than 2003? Merely the same as 2003? Or only a slight bit better thn 2003?

There is no way to debate that the I-Hulk CGI looked less realistic than 2003's Hulk.

[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUVIWB6Ic54&NR=1[/YT]

That's one of the best scenes in the last Hulk movie, CGI-wise. Does not even compare with the new Hulk flick on any level.

 

[Nivek]

In your opinion.

I'm an Ang Hulk fan, but some of you supporters come off a bit strange since the FX in 2003 are geat, but they had as many "off" scenes (if not more) than Incredible Hulk. Ang's Hulk just hid them better with creative editing.

 

[Zig-Zag Man]

I'm sorry, but was the stream supposed to be 3 ft. deep or something? Most of the ones I've seen like that are a couple inces deep. And another one of those "why does it matter" critical things, if he's walking in a puddle in the rain, how much is it supposed to ripple?

Sheesh, nit picking a 2 second shot, really reaching there guys.

Well, a character that big should have alot of water displacement. That shot among many others was absolutely terrible. I mean he literally looks like he's gliding. No weight, no momnetum.

ILM seriously did a better job 5 years ago.

 

[Dr.SpiderPigAKI]

i didn't even notice anything wrong with that scene, on the contrary starting with hulk holding betty to the end of the cave scene were the best cgi in the whole film, IMO

 

[hame4479]

Guys on a photrealistic level ILM's Hulk was much more convincing and didn't constantly look like he was covered in some kind of ceramic glaze, how anyone can actually debate this is beyond me.

 

[Nivek]

LOL! Visual water displacement in a stream all of an inch deep, in the rain. Uh oh, that 2 second shot rips me right out into reality of watching a 10 ft. tall radioactive man-beast.

ILM's Hulk glided on fine sand in some scenes. This Hulk left footprints in the grass, and splintered the asphalt and concrete on the NYC streets.

Like I said, really reaching guys.

 

[K.B.]

While I did like the movie and how the hulk looked, I prefer the hulk from 03. It looked more realistic then the one in TIH.

WAYYY to many veins for no real reason and looked a bit rubbery at times.

 

[Nivek]

Guys on a photrealistic level ILM's Hulk was much more convincing and didn't constantly look like he was covered in some kind of ceramic glaze, how anyone can actually debate this is beyond me.

Yeah, he looked great, but in which scene? ILM's Hulk looked great in some shots (Ice Cream parlor breakout), and looks glossy in others (Dog Fight), and like a felt Henson puppet at the worst (some Desert/San Fransisco scenes). And I'm a fan saying this.

 

[Zig-Zag Man]

LOL! Visual water displacement in a stream all of an inch deep, in the rain. Uh oh, that 2 second shot rips me right out into reality of watching a 10 ft. tall radioactive man-beast.

ILM's Hulk glided on fine sand in some scenes. This Hulk left footprints in the grass, and splintered the asphalt and concrete on the NYC streets.

Like I said, really reaching guys.

I'm not reaching at all. It looks like a bland NBA Live game for PS2. This huge characters is gliding on the scenery around him. And as an above poster stated, why is the Hulk in every scene have like a ceramic almost glazed donut like look to him? ILM's Hulk didn't glide on sand, ever. He kicked it up, got dirty, etc. I assume you are referencing the scene where he's running quickly in the canyon avoiding the helicopter's missles. He wasn't gliding, he was running extremely fast. The scene I'm talking about is in real time and shows this massive hollow Hulk looking character gliding on a stream and on the grass around him. It was atrocious looking. Took me the viewer right out of the scene. And it then it turn didn't help that the rest of the cave scene looked just as bad. All in all it was just lackluster quality for the digital Hulk. I also didn't think it was a sound choice to go with the glowing eyes. They lost alot of realism and relatability in the characters eyes by making them glowing green ovals. This is one of the reasons Hulk in 2003 was a character you could sympathize for and believe in. His eyes didn't turn him into a giant cartoon character.

 

[Zig-Zag Man]

In the dogfight he very might well be wet. He's rolling around in wet bushes and grass, right next to a pond. The fact is the 2003 Hulk had better more realistic body structure and movements, and ultra realistic skin that acted in ways human skin does.

This looks real.

 

[samsnee]

The only problem I had with TIH Hulk is that the head looks too small for the body. But a couple of shots in the cave scene, as well in the finale looked perfect.

 

[Nivek]

LOL, this is great hearing all you defenders coming out of the woodwork now. Where the hell we're you clowns in 2003 when it mattered? Or is this just another tool to diminish the new, more Hulk-centered film by elevating Ang's Hulk film? I cant tell.

As I pointed out, Angs Hulk had more problems than this Hulk when it came to realism, and overall the FX wasn't all that consistent which made things worse. But I'm not getting into a tired argument with people who dont know squat about CG anymore. It's tired, and more people like this Hulk movie. Suck it up, just like the real Ang Hulk supporters had to for 5 years.

 

[Zig-Zag Man]

What is this calling me clown, where was I 5 years ago, as if I had to be here then to defend what is obviously a superior film now in comparison? **** ...

Hulk '03 had inconsistent CGI? Sure, which meant it had to be great at times. TIH has perpetually bad CGI.

Hulk '03 was more Hulk centered than TIH. TIH is about action scenes and bringing little boys action figure battles at play time to the big screen. Ang Lee had more respect for the heart and intelligence of the material.

Hulk '03 had the balls to be different, where as TIH lays down in mediocrity, while being ultimately forgetful. It was a boring, predictable film, with no great performances to even make it enthralling.

 

[dcHulk]

LOL, this is great hearing all you defenders coming out of the woodwork now. Where the hell we're you clowns in 2003 when it mattered? Or is this just another tool to diminish the new, more Hulk-centered film by elevating Ang's Hulk film? I cant tell.

As I pointed out, Angs Hulk had more problems than this Hulk when it came to realism, and overall the FX wasn't all that consistent which made things worse. But I'm not getting into a tired argument with people who dont know squat about CG anymore. It's tired, and more people like this Hulk movie. Suck it up, just like the real Ang Hulk supporters had to for 5 years.

You are right, Nivek. I don't understand all this negativity. It's probably best to just ignore these jokers. They don't know what they're talkin about anyway.

 

[CGHulk]

Well someone here has a superiority complex!

 

[Sun_Down]

That was Walt Disney's motto, wasn't it?

There's a very real difference between an entirely cartoon world with cartoon characters and a cartoon character trying to interact with real people in a real setting.