The Incredible Hulk CGI Thread

hulk design

  • tv series

  • ang lee's

  • comics


Results are only viewable after voting.
too late, theyve dropped the ball. you dont wait this long to release a traile ... then release a half baked one. the effects are not going to improve by much. marvel know theyve done a doobie , those effects are worse than 2003 by a long way and that hulk was lambusted from pillar to post, what of this one???? and abomination, looks like one of those tree guys from lord of the rings, only not as goodcgi wise. awfully dissapointed, and im a fan
 
The Abomination actually looks fine. It's the Hulk that needs work.
 
The effects are a bit comic bookish to me, but I believe they will get it up to speed by the release date. What I am thrilled about, and have said so all along, are the little touches and nods towards Bixby's version. That's a very nice tribute to the man and his life. There's even a little bit of the theme from the show there on the website. Cool!
 
too late, theyve dropped the ball. you dont wait this long to release a traile ... then release a half baked one. the effects are not going to improve by much. marvel know theyve done a doobie , those effects are worse than 2003 by a long way and that hulk was lambusted from pillar to post, what of this one???? and abomination, looks like one of those tree guys from lord of the rings, only not as goodcgi wise. awfully dissapointed, and im a fan

I do have to say it's to compare anything at this point when we've only seen 10 seconds of this new Hulk.

The CGI is okay, but it's not as bad as people are trying to it out to be.

I'm a supporter of Rhythm and Hues. Besides Alvin and the Chipmunks/Scobby-Doo, this is their first major solo project. They did great work on Aslan in Narnia (Stupid Sony Imageworks did the beavers) and on Marlon Brando in Superman Returns (again, Imageworks did the rest). Not to mention that Imageworks did the 'vampires' in "I am Legend". yuck.

I have faith that the CGI will be good. I don't think it'll be great, but I think it'll be stylized enough where it doesn't matter..
 
I didn't think his skin looked that bad, I figure it would be normal for his skin to look harder and a bit more shell like then normal people considering he can take massive impact.
 
i honestly don't know why so many people had a problem with Hulk's look in the first film. to me he looked utterly believable. he wasn't very ripped but he looked like a walking, running, jumping tank. i really like Ang Lee's Hulk despite the movie being slow at first.

this Hulk, while having some improvements, also has drawbacks. the biggest improvement is that he's more cut and defined than the original, but the drawback is that they over did it. there is a such thing as TOO MUCH and they simply put too much definition on him. he looks like he's straight up on roids (not a good thing). Ang's Hulk might not have been cut like this one but at least i could believe that the bullets they were firing at him could bounce off of him like they did. this one looks like he has skin so thin that the bullets could easily tear into his muscles. they gave him so much definition that his skin ends up looking more plastic and play-doe than Ang's Hulk. i understand they want Hulk to look diesel but he looks 1 step away from looking like the abomination. give him a different color, put some spikes on his back and give him protruding hip-bones instead of pants and you've basically got the abomination. that's how overboard they went with the definition of his muscles. it's simply overkill.
 
That's a bad thing?

Yes.

Imagine John Romita Jr's take on how Peter Parker looks in the comics. Even if they managed to make a perfect CG version of that Peter, he wouldn't fit into a live-action movie. He'd look too comic booky.
This is what people usually mean when they refer to comic booky, or cartoony looking CGI. It's CGI that doesn't fit into live-action, no matter what, because of the style of the art.
 
i honestly don't know why so many people had a problem with Hulk's look in the first film. to me he looked utterly believable. he wasn't very ripped but he looked like a walking, running, jumping tank. i really like Ang Lee's Hulk despite the movie being slow at first.

this Hulk, while having some improvements, also has drawbacks. the biggest improvement is that he's more cut and defined than the original, but the drawback is that they over did it. there is a such thing as TOO MUCH and they simply put too much definition on him. he looks like he's straight up on roids (not a good thing). Ang's Hulk might not have been cut like this one but at least i could believe that the bullets they were firing at him could bounce off of him like they did. this one looks like he has skin so thin that the bullets could easily tear into his muscles. they gave him so much definition that his skin ends up looking more plastic and play-doe than Ang's Hulk. i understand they want Hulk to look diesel but he looks 1 step away from looking like the abomination. give him a different color, put some spikes on his back and give him protruding hip-bones instead of pants and you've basically got the abomination. that's how overboard they went with the definition of his muscles. it's simply overkill.

I think it makes sense that the Hulks skin is so tight.
Just look at Norton, he's a very skinny guy.
Very skinny guys who lay on the muscle mass and keep on a trainers diet have the overstretched skin look.
Norton is going from 0 to 100 in a matter of moments.
Although gamma mutation doesn't make sense in the first place, it wouldn't be fitting to have him gain more body fat due to the transformation.
Looks like he's on roids? Dude, he's on gamma radiation!
Bana is a bit chubby, so was his Hulk.
 
agreed, and abomination looks laughable. theyd need to tweek this by 50 % to make it decent effects wise. its all well and good going on about bill bixby, im afraid though a tribute to him wont gross you 300 million. this film has made the mistake of releasing bad cgi..... WHEN ITS MAIN ****ING CHARACTERS ARE CGI. thats a hell of a bad one. the story will now recede into second place behind the resurected shrek jokes etc. im baffled how people havent been sacked for the worst marketing campaign ive seen for a big blockbuster
 
Although gamma mutation doesn't make sense in the first place, it wouldn't be fitting to have him gain more body fat due to the transformation.
Why does it make sense to gain muscle mass and not body fat? :huh:
 
yes the specular on hes skin is to hard.
it looks so shiny .
 
Yes.

Imagine John Romita Jr's take on how Peter Parker looks in the comics. Even if they managed to make a perfect CG version of that Peter, he wouldn't fit into a live-action movie. He'd look too comic booky.
This is what people usually mean when they refer to comic booky, or cartoony looking CGI. It's CGI that doesn't fit into live-action, no matter what, because of the style of the art.

To be fair in every single Spider-man the CG didn't fit and not because of the style of art. It just looked blatantly CG.
 
To be fair in every single Spider-man the CG didn't fit and not because of the style of art. It just looked blatantly CG.

Yeah, and I had a problem with that, too. Sony Imageworks is awful.
 
but the character wasnt cgi based, the hulk is therefore add 2 and 2 here guys
 
Yeah, and I had a problem with that, too. Sony Imageworks is awful.

Just saying never hindered everyones enjoyment of them. Apparently exposed skin CG just bothers people. :hehe:

We're not at a point where photorealism is a cake walk. Why we expect it for every summer block buster baffles me.
 
Well, back in 2004, the CG in Spider-Man 2 was some of the best we ever seen. Looking back now, it's become obvious that the bar for CG has been raised ridiculously higher since then.

-TNC
 
but the character wasnt cgi based, the hulk is therefore add 2 and 2 here guys

No Peter Parker wasn't. Spider-man for the most part was. Any swinging, jumping etc.

Same case of Banner and Hulk, sorry bub.

Well, back in 2004, the CG in Spider-Man 2 was some of the best we ever seen. Looking back now, it's become obvious that the bar for CG has been raised ridiculously higher since then.

-TNC

I am not talking with age, I am saying as I sat in that theater day one, everything looked out of place.

Did I care? No. I understand limitations of teams, and film. Just because ILM does one thing, doesn't mean R&H is going to imitate it, or even can yet.

It's like walking into an art museum looking at something made by Da Vinci, and then looking over to your friend who just started his career and saying "Dude, this is 2008, what the **** is wrong with you? You suck!"
 
Well, back in 2004, the CG in Spider-Man 2 was some of the best we ever seen. Looking back now, it's become obvious that the bar for CG has been raised ridiculously higher since then.

-TNC


I don't agree. I didn't see any improvement on the cgi between Spider-man 2 and 3.
 
I don't agree. I didn't see any improvement on the cgi between Spider-man 2 and 3.


In fact aside from the birth of Sandman the majority of it didn't look up to par with Spider-Man 2.

I don't get why so many are absolutely trashing the visuals in TIH. It's not that bad.

The visuals in Ang's Hulk were pretty good and the ones for TIH are on par with Ang's if not better.

I keep hearing the gloss comments about the Hulk, we'll as LL said they're still working on them, not to mention although I liked the effects in Ang's Hulk...still didn't change the fact that he was too bright and cartoony.

These look more realistic. Maybe some day-shots will change minds, whether it's mine or the haters.
 
I don't agree. I didn't see any improvement on the cgi between Spider-man 2 and 3.
I didn't mention Spider-Man 3. I'm just talking about the standards. This is why Spider-Man 3's CG was ridiculed.

-TNC
 
er sorry bub, there were laods of scenes with spidey shot with just the actor. what scenes will these be in hulk? hes all cgi you muppet. you didnt see a bad golem did you. or substandard shots of kong. yet this hulk in my opinion is worse than the 2003 one, and abom, looks soooooooo bad. you do not release substandard cgi shots when your characters are cgi based
 
I didn't mention Spider-Man 3. I'm just talking about the standards. This is why Spider-Man 3's CG was ridiculed.

-TNC

Ok then think when you stated "the bar had been set higher" that's over stating it some. Ive seen an improvement in films between then and now but I've seen no bar shattering differences. It's more along the lines of a few more steps being added to a ladder. Seems more like things have been improved apon in the years between that film and 08, Ive haven't deen anything that made what came before it obsolete like the original jurassic park.
 
In fact aside from the birth of Sandman the majority of it didn't look up to par with Spider-Man 2.

I don't get why so many are absolutely trashing the visuals in TIH. It's not that bad.

The visuals in Ang's Hulk were pretty good and the ones for TIH are on par with Ang's if not better.
Isn't it bad enough that a film five years old has comparable cgi?

Perhaps it's a testament to the work done by ILM but it may not always reflect well with the new film.

I mean I have made exactly the same case from jumps from spidey 2 to 3 and even comparing swinging scenes from the 1st film which are still my favourite spidey cgi shots (even though they don't look the most realistic).
 
Ok then think when you stated "the bar had been set higher" that's over stating it some. Ive seen an improvement in films between then and now but I've seen no bar shattering differences. It's more along the lines of a few more steps being added to a ladder. Seems more like things have been improved apon in the years between that film and 08, Ive haven't deen anything that made what came before it obsolete like the original jurassic park.
you weren't in awe of the first transformer trailers when you saw them?

not even starscream jumping, transforming in mid air and then flying off?

I think i came in my pants when i saw that.
 

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,359
Messages
22,091,573
Members
45,886
Latest member
Elchido
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"