The Incredible Hulk CGI Thread

[DBZ2cool]

Louis tells the truth which is good.

 

[Prefix]

Got any examples of this?

Fantastic Four is a prime example. Trailer after trailer was released and criticisms over how fake the Thing looked were always answered with "they'll alter it in post-production" and they didn't. It looked the same.

 

[FrostBite]

Louis tells the truth which is good.

Well yes, thats because he's a director trying to get his foot in the door.. now if he ever gets several successful films... guaranteed he'll start lying. More pompous a director becomes, the more lies he'll spout.

 

[FrostBite]

Fantastic Four is a prime example. Trailer after trailer was released and criticisms over how fake the Thing looked were always answered with "they'll alter it in post-production" and they didn't. It looked the same.

...That was a suit though, and the director to my knowledge never said they were going back and improving it. How could they? What he was filmed in is what we got. They weren't planning on digitally enhancing his looks.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Fantastic Four is a prime example. Trailer after trailer was released and criticisms over how fake the Thing looked were always answered with "they'll alter it in post-production" and they didn't. It looked the same.

No actually they did fix it up quite a bit but that was a suit and that film had not only a smaller budget, but also less of the budget was used for the actual filming since Fox had to pay Marvel to use the rights. Still they did make clear improvements over the first shots. Fox screwed up though and should have done a CGI Thing. That was a huge mistake. If Chiklis didnt' want to do voiceovers than find someone else.

 

[Prefix]

...That was a suit though, and the director to my knowledge never said they were going back and improving it. How could they? What he was filmed in is what we got. They weren't planning on digitally enhancing his looks.

Actually Avi Arad promised just that. I distinctly remember a comment on adding cracks and dust.

 

[FrostBite]

No actually they did fix it up quite a bit but that was a suit and that film had not only a smaller budget, but also less of the budget was used for the actual filming since Fox had to pay Marvel to use the rights. Still they did make clear improvements over the first shots. Fox screwed up though and should have done a CGI Thing. That was a huge mistake. If Chiklis didnt' want to do voiceovers than find someone else.

They did? I take back my words then. Still it's a suit, it's not as simple as going back and applying textures or fixing the render of something.

 

[DBZ2cool]

Whatever Avi Arad says should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[FrostBite]

Actually Avi Arad promised just that. I distinctly remember a comment on adding cracks and dust.

Best laugh all day. There was the flaw in your excuse, you believed something Arad said.

 

[Advanced Dark]

No Arad told the truth there. Remember the first FF trailer when the Thing was pummelled to the ground by the lamp post and the cement didn't crack. Then the final trailer there was alot more added. In the first footage of Johnny skiing there was no smoke or fire coming from. On the next one there was. The flame effects were improved, the Silver Surfer effects were improved in the second one, etc...In Iron Man when we first saw the footage back at the comic-con they changed it too.

 

[Showtime]

Too bad that didn't make the movie better.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Too bad that didn't make the movie better.

The first film was mediocre at best. The Things costume and Reed's f/x were just bad. The 2nd film aside from the Bachelor party and a short runtime...I loved it. Mainly because of The Silver Surfer.

 

[Prefix]

Best laugh all day. There was the flaw in your excuse, you believed something Arad said.

I believed him back in 2005. I don't believe him now.

 

[Prefix]

No Arad told the truth there. Remember the first FF trailer when the Thing was pummelled to the ground by the lamp post and the cement didn't crack. Then the final trailer there was alot more added. In the first footage of Johnny skiing there was no smoke or fire coming from. On the next one there was. The flame effects were improved, the Silver Surfer effects were improved in the second one, etc...In Iron Man when we first saw the footage back at the comic-con they changed it too.

And none of that has anything to do with improving the quality of the Thing costume, which I was talking about.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Arad isn't at Marvel anymore so you won't be hearing him at Marvel conference calls or promoting Marvel Studios. Still he pretty much revived this genre by himself. It was his passion that started with Blade in 1998 on film that revived everything for Marvel, DC, and the genre.

 

[Advanced Dark]

And none of that has anything to do with improving the quality of the Thing costume, which I was talking about.

I was just giving examples. They did do some CGI touch up on the costume whereas the first teaser had none of the CGI work on it. However the costume sucked, the design sucked...we all know that.

 

[Golgo-13]

Pay attention, numbnuts.

Screw you.

 

[Shivsguy616]

Anyone remember the tank scene in the Ironman superbowl trailer? That was improved on expenentially in a matter of weeks. Don't wory. These people aren't stupid. They do this much better than you could.

 

[Breck]

Fantastic Four is a prime example. Trailer after trailer was released and criticisms over how fake the Thing looked were always answered with "they'll alter it in post-production" and they didn't. It looked the same.

So your prime example is a promise from someone not directly involved in the production of the movie about a character that wasn't CG? Disqualified. Got anything else?

 

[Shivsguy616]

Anyone remember the tank scene in the Ironman superbowl trailer? That was improved on expenentially in a matter of weeks. Don't wory. These people aren't stupid. They do this much better than you could.

 

[Prefix]

So your prime example is a promise from someone not directly involved in the production of the movie about a character that wasn't CG? Disqualified. Got anything else?

I'm not going to bother, because any answer I give you will be 'disqualified'. Of all the debates I have going on right now, yours are the ones most devoid of logic, rationality and courtesy.

 

[Prefix]

Anyone remember the tank scene in the Ironman superbowl trailer? That was improved on expenentially in a matter of weeks. Don't wory. These people aren't stupid. They do this much better than you could.

That particular incident gives me hope for this movie.

 

[HULKFish]

LOOKS DAM GOOD NOW! If it was the finished product I'd be satisfied... Quit knit-picking dang!

 

[Prefix]

I don't 'knit-pick'. I express my opinion on what I see before me.

Here are a few positive comments to calm things down:

- The Abomination is perfectly fine and improvements can only make it better.
- The actual weight and movements of the models is solid.
- The way they ran at each other gave me goosebumps.
- I like the design of the Hulk himself.

 

[Breck]

I'm not going to bother, because any answer I give you will be 'disqualified'. Of all the debates I have going on right now, yours are the ones most devoid of logic, rationality and courtesy.

What is irrational or illogical about dismissing an example that is inapplicable to the current topic? Your example is invalid because there was no promise made by someone in creative control of the movie and because the effect in question was not CG, and CG is the topic at hand. You made a claim and I'm just asking you to back it up.