The Incredible Hulk CGI Thread

[HULKFish]

Who started this thread anyway, a ILM employee???

LOL, just wondering... We'll know the real answer soon enough, this is all speculation right now.

 

[Showtime]

What is with you guys?

Are any of you actually in the film industry, some of you have the swagger as if you are when discussing about these topics?

 

[ArtTeacher]

Not according to this post:

And that's worse than others perpetuating the stereotype of pissy, negative, cynical, bitter, hyper-critical, know-it-all, message board fanboy...how?

Great. You've found the Anti-SuperHeroHypeGuy. Get the cross...

ONE post is a "long witch hunt" (especially compared to the TIH EFFECTS CIRCUS that has operated around here for weeks, Mr. Barnum)?

And how is my post "proving him wrong"?
All I'm doing is, as you love to say, stating my opinon...and getting attacked for it, yadda, yadda, yadda *insert cliché alert here*

I'm asking a question if one is worse than the other.

How can asking a question be proof that someone is wrong?

 

[Showtime]

Are we still talking about Hulk CGI in here or are we arguing and discussing the who started what and when. I can just close the thread so we don't have to argue.

 

[webhead731]

http://www.autodesk.com/eng/etc/fake_or_foto/quiz.html

No cheating!

8/10.

Some of those were obviously CGI.

 

[ArtTeacher]

Who started this thread anyway, a ILM employee???

Warner Brothers?

 

[Breck]

Excellent, well-written post.
"How to Flame without Flaming"
I see during your time at Hulkmovie.com back in 2003, a little Hulk5150 rubbed off on ya!

*thumbs up*

That's funny. As I've been reading some of your recent brilliant posts, I kept thinking that I rubbed off on you during my time at Hulkmovie.com.

I KEED I KEED!

 

[Advanced Dark]

I didn't do very good. The pictures are too small.

 

[FrostBite]

I didn't do very good. The pictures are too small.

Click on them, they get bigger.

 

[Breck]

You can click them to see the full size image you know...

I got 8/10 and 3/4.

Spoiler

The two I got wrong on the first set were the two car images. The first one looks absolutely real. I was amazed to find it was CG. The second one is such a close-up, tight shot it was really a toss-up. I just arbitrarily picked CG. On the second set I picked CG for the wine glass, but my first instinct was to say Photo. I thought it was another tricky one like that first car. Should've gone with my gut.

 

[ArtTeacher]

Click on them, they get bigger.

You always got to bring porn into the thread, don't you, FrostBite?

 

[ArtTeacher]

You can click them to see the full size image you know...I got 8/10

I got 8/10, too.

Spoiler

Dude, that first car was rockin'! When I looked at the background, I thought maybe it was CGI, but then when I focused on the car, I thought NO WAY. So, does this mean that car was 100% cgi from the ground up, so to speak?

 

[Showtime]

I got 6/10. D-!

 

[Advanced Dark]

Everytime I get to picture 5 it crashes on me and I gotta start over. Try it from home later.

 

[Breck]

Spoiler

Dude, that first car was rockin'! When I looked at the background, I thought maybe it was CGI, but then when I focused on the car, I thought NO WAY. So, does this mean that car was 100% cgi from the ground up, so to speak?

Spoiler

Apparently, the car, ground, and fence are all CG. The background is a photo.

Go here http://www.propergraphics.com/vehicles/bmw7e65.htm and you can see the wireframe view.

Just goes to show how much easier it is to generate photo-realistic inorganic objects.

 

[ArtTeacher]

Spoilers for the CGI test, only.
LOL! It's like we're having this secret conversation in Spoiler Limbo.

Spoiler

Apparently, the car, ground, and fence are all CG. The background is a photo.

Well, apparently, I have Computer Generated Dyslexia...or would that be Generated Computer Lysdexia?

Go here http://www.propergraphics.com/vehicles/bmw7e65.htm and you can see the wireframe view.

Yeah, I saw that after I posted! *smack's head*

Just goes to show how much easier it is to generate photo-realistic inorganic objects.

True dat. Awesome work!

 

[Advanced Dark]

Ed Norton version more realistic by far and it's not finished so why not wait till the movie is out and the f/x are done.

 

[The Hulk]

when its all said and done, having a full cgi character makes it hard for any thing NOT to look a tad fake. we know he is fake so some aspects look un realistic. i watched hulk last night and i have to say hulk looked very realistic and beliveable at times. not all the way through the movie did he not look real. its such a pointless statement to make based on 20 seconds of new hulk from a trailer. and i think it comes down to personal taste. i have watched that new trailer about 100 times (well the end bit any how), and as a true hard core hulk fan i love it. im sold. the re design is much better as far as comic book look goes. that does not make it look any better or worse that the first movie. credit needs to be given to the first movie for opening up the door to new movies like tih. and keep in mind that the first hulk started pre production 2 years before filming. i think for what little we have seen, the cgi looks fantastic for the time r&h has had to work on it. as long as hulk does what he does in the comics on screen, and looks as good as in the trailer then i wont even worry about it looking fake. its a comic character in a real world. this is why i think comic movies should all be like tmnt, totally cgi. like the short iron man clips shown on the marvel site. we would never question the realism if the whole world was fake as well as the characters. so to end my rant, lets ease up a bit on 20 seconds of a film that has not finshed yet and has not been seen yet. wait till release to make a statement like this.

 

[Thot]

Judging merely from what I've seen so far, I think the new Hulk looks quite a bit better from an aesthetic point of view. For me, he more closely resembles what I would term the "comic book Hulk". More of what I had expected the first time around. From what little I've seen in the new trailer, the CGI looks good, great detail. Ang Lee's HULK was a horrible, horrible movie but the Hulk CGI itself wasn't bad despite his rather soft, babyfaced appearance.

 

[Cracker Jack]

I rubbed off on you during my time at Hulkmovie.com.

515.....AT don't worry there a shot you can get that will clear that up in no time. t:

 

[The Joker_1000]

You've just lost all credibility with that post.

Coming from the guy who picks a post that is telling the truth.

The new Hulk is much better & the guy above me already explained why.

 

[EmeraldBeast]

Because we all know the Hulk is always drawn the same way in the comics:

Oh wait...

Anyone notice only four toes on the bottom comic?

 

[Scooter]

Coming from the guy who picks a post that is telling the truth.

The new Hulk is much better & the guy above me already explained why.

 

[co2]

Usually I only see a movie at the cinema once, two times if I really liked it. Then I get it on DVD and the amount of times I watch it is determined by how rewatchable it is. it all depends on how good it is, really.

Exact same here. This one IS Hulk, and seeing as how that doesn't happen often, if it is at least decent, I will probably see it twice before waiting for DVD. Typically if I liked it enough to see it twice, I'll be getting the DVD. I'm pretty picky about buying DVD too.

 

[Sava]

Ang Lee's Hulk looked nothing like the comic version.

You've just lost all credibility to me with that post.

Ang's Hulk didnt look like the most popular version of Hulk, but Stan's first 6 issues had a Hulk that looked more Human and Ang's Hulk IMO, looks the same.