The Incredible Hulk CGI Thread

[Dark Spidey]

In my opinion TIH looked way too plasticky. And while I like the subdued green in the trailers, in the movies climax it was very frustrating that he looked more grey than anything, and so didn't stand out enough.

Having re-watched Ang Lee's Hulk today on DVD I think that the '03 version was much more realistic. The lighting, the textures... everything. Apart from the scene in the corridor with the foam and Talbot and the drill, I find it pretty much flawless.

 

[M.O.Steel]

http://www.aaron-sims.com/creatures/creatures-image-91.html

this would have been a cool abomination. kinda looks fishy without being obvious.

 

[brandon_jk]

In my opinion TIH looked way too plasticky. And while I like the subdued green in the trailers, in the movies climax it was very frustrating that he looked more grey than anything, and so didn't stand out enough.

Having re-watched Ang Lee's Hulk today on DVD I think that the '03 version was much more realistic. The lighting, the textures... everything. Apart from the scene in the corridor with the foam and Talbot and the drill, I find it pretty much flawless.

the drill sequence in the first hulk was one of the most realistic shot of the entire movie, imho.

i'm not talking about the whole foam scene, but only the close-up of hulk while talbot is trying to put the drill on his face.

 

[hame4479]

http://www.aaron-sims.com/creatures/creatures-image-91.html

this would have been a cool abomination. kinda looks fishy without being obvious.

Ya much more menacing, Also I kinda like that more greyed out monstous version of the hulk he has.

 

[Gotham]

http://www.aaron-sims.com/creatures/creatures-image-91.html

this would have been a cool abomination. kinda looks fishy without being obvious.

Wow. That wouldn't have been half bad. I still like the version we had for this film, though.

 

[Golgo-13]

http://www.aaron-sims.com/creatures/creatures-image-91.html

this would have been a cool abomination. kinda looks fishy without being obvious.

Cool.

 

[The Shape]

Ang Lee's Hulk absolutely looked more real, there's no denying that. Anyone who says the CGI in TIH is better than the 2003 version is simply in denial. The 2003 Hulk's skin texture and movement looked real, and often seamless. Sure, there were some unflattering shots, but more often than not, the CGI was spot on.

With that said, I prefer the design of Hulk in TIH, though his "roaring" was a little overdone.

 

[DBZ2cool]

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.

I heard Ang Lee and his minions are on this board defending their work.

I think you are either him or one of his minions.

 

[Enriquespy]

The one point where 08 hulk beat hands down the CGI in hulk 03 is during the middle of the table transformation, when norton is all wrinkly and gross, it was sooo realistic and weird looking..

 

[The Chris]

The one point where 08 hulk beat hands down the CGI in hulk 03 is during the middle of the table transformation, when norton is all wrinkly and gross, it was sooo realistic and weird looking..

Yes. The first time I actually BELIEVED that a man transformed into the Incredible Hulk.

 

[ant3ros]

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.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Seriously, I would like to know.

 

[Syncos]

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.

TIH doesn't have the best CG in the world. but it does have damned good CG. I love the defenders that act like CG makes or breaks the movie. There is no denying that TIH has a better story, with more intelligent writing, and a better visual style (not talking about CG) than Hulk 03. Even disregarding CG, TIH beats Hulk 03 hands down as a better movie.

 

[Enriquespy]

Even disregarding CG, TIH beats Hulk 03 hands down as a better movie.

WORD!!!

 

[dcHulk]

This thread is becoming absolutely ridiculous. Guys and gals, I don't believe there is any need to degrade one movie or the other over the CGI. BOTH are good in their own right. Indeed some scenes in both are mind-blowing good. Why should we part the Red Sea with frivolous arguments over lighting, rendering, texture, etc. SO WHAT! For cryin out loud, we got another HULK movie! We should consider ourselves lucky that Marvel wasn't scared off by a lackluster performance of one film and gave us another.

Sure everyone has opinions (and this is mine) and it's perfectly fine to voice them. But, everyone, there is no need in the constant attacks on the CGI of either film. It is what it is and no amount of whining and complaining will change it.

 

[ArtTeacher]

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.

 

[CGHulk]

Mova has added TIH to it's list of clients.
http://www.mova.com/gallery.php?g=client

As well as Marvel Studios and Rhythm & Hues.
http://www.mova.com/aboutus.php?a=clients

 

[Nivek]

I heard Ang Lee and his minions are on this board defending their work.

I think you are either him or one of his minions.

Alot of fans of the Ang Lee film admit this is the better Hulk movie of the two. But some people are using praise and the fan base for the 2003 film to downgrade this one. It's not fair, and borderline b.s. coming from an older vet of the Hulk 03 boards. Yes, the film had great FX for the time, but you can tell they focused on some shots more than others. If your a really a Hulk fan and wont admit that, well, I have little regard for your opinion in regards to the newest film. It may not have as many money shots, but at least this Hulks quality doesn't fluctuate with his Height.

 

[Dark Spidey]

the drill sequence in the first hulk was one of the most realistic shot of the entire movie, imho.

i'm not talking about the whole foam scene, but only the close-up of hulk while talbot is trying to put the drill on his face.

Oh no, yeah I totally agree with that. The close-up was amazing.

It's just the shots before that with Talbot approaching the foamed-up Hulk that I think are a bit suspect.

 

[wobbly]

Game, set & match...

 

[November Rain]

This thread has served its purpose...

no one from either side is willing to accept the facts. Personally though You don't see debates about the quality of cgi from spiderman 3 to 1 because 3 is like 6 years older. This should really have been the case here.

Saying this though, I don't believe the cgi in both films were bad enough to take you out of the respective scenes (much) so effectively its job done for both camps.

there will always be people who prefer one over the other and that's perfectly fine, I guess its their reasoning for not liking the other that everyone has a problem with but a lot of posters aren't capable of expressing themselves effectively within a few lines or just want to rally up a somewhat bias looking opinion so the rollercoaster goes on and on and on...

 

[EternalMaster]

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.

LOL!!!! It looks somewhat real.

Too bad NO WHERE NEAR as good as the new CGI. Seriously, it's not a debateable point. No one but you 2003 Hulk fanboys believes that the new CGI looks worse than the 2003 CGI.

You guys are lying to yourselves. Plain and simple. Lying to yourselves.

That shot above? Sure, it looks good. It's one of the few shots in the 2003 (and I mean FEW) that looks decent.

But the skin on everything but his face... looks like smooth rubber or soft plastic. Color of the skin? Far more cartoony looking than 2008 Hulk. Hair texture? Good, but not AS good as 2008 Hulk.

But then again, that is one of the better 2003 shots. In 50% of the shots, Hulk looked iffy. In 40% he looked terrible and cartoony, flopping around the screen all neon green. And for the last 10% of the shots, yeah, he looked pretty good.

But if we compare the best of both films, 2008 Hulk wins. If you compare the average of both films, 2008 Hulk wins.

Right now, people like you are trying to find minor flaws in 2008 Hulk and then compare them to all the best shots of 2003 Hulk.

It's disingenuous arguing at best, and trolling at worst. If you want to harp on how great Ang Lee was to the point of lying, then feel free to post on 2003 Hulk boards.

 

[The Chris]

When new hulk comes out on dvd I would like that shot compared to hulk's angry look at Ross at the campus.

 

[wobbly]

I have to say I always find the "taken out of the movie" comment a little curious when it is aimed at CGI.

Seriously, when you guys watch the old Sinbad films, or 'Jason & the Argonauts' or 'Clash of the titans', are you "taken out of the movie" whenever all that jerky stop motion puppetry takes over the screen?

How about Star Wars (original editions) with the obvious masking of the ships against any light backgrounds? The original alien bar scene, That giant eel/sock puppet thing in Empire Strikes back, or the rancour in ROTJ? Admiral Ackbar's oh so obvious head mask? Muppet Yoda?

Then we have Donner's Superman in flight (all the distance shots without wires)...The very obvious use of miniatures in many a film's 'disaster' set pieces...and let's consider the entirely practical 'Jaws' robot too...

I ask this because the audiences back in those days were certainly not "taken out of the movie" by any of these things. Hell, however hokey they are by today's standards, these films still enjoy a good following regardless of their dated FX.

So what has changed that audiences now can be so easily 'taken out of a movie' by what is clearly a superior special effect?

 

[The Dutch Hulk]

I'd rather see Jessica if you don't mind t:

 

[GDM]

I truly believe that when TIH comes out on Blue ray or dvd the cgi will look incredibly beter than it looked in the cinema. A lot more detail will be visible. I often consider the cgi bad when watching movies at the cinema or bootleg copies but i find that on the dvd they are much better. Hell i even thought that iron man had bad cgi in the scene when he blasts those guys off, but i bet it will lokk much better on the dvd. I f you look at the hd trailer of the hulk the cgi looks pretty good. The thing is that u can't get all that detail in cinema. So I guess we'll have to wait and see. Than we'll judge.