The Incredible Hulk CGI Thread

[GreedLantern]

Ang Lee's Hulk looked like something a fan could make, I'm not lying. I am not talking about the movement and the action scenes but the general design. The skin was SO untextured it got on my nerves, it was so flawless and perfect. A real Hulk would have tougher skin with WAY more detail, it's muscle would be more realistic in terms of muscle fiber etc.

Ang Lee Hulk was undetailed but it was good cgi...the cgi was great but realisticly it was terrible. Terrible because of its lack of detail (forgive me if I am being redundant, I'm just trying to drive the point home).

Norton Hulk is very very detailed, great shadowing, realistic muscle texture, and it's skin shows more than it's color. However in some pictures it may be evident that it needs work, some clips of him don't have GREATEST cgi but they are passable.

I would rather have a more realistic and detailed Hulk who's design is stellar at least than one whos design is great but totally unrealistic in terms of skin, muscle and detail.
Hulk is a brutal beast so naturally he would have roughed up skin not untouched newborn flesh.

 

[Prefix]

Ang Lee's Hulk looked like something a fan could make, I'm not lying. I am not talking about the movement and the action scenes but the general design. The skin was SO untextured it got on my nerves, it was so flawless and perfect. A real Hulk would have tougher skin with WAY more detail, it's muscle would be more realistic in terms of muscle fiber etc.

Ang Lee Hulk was undetailed but it was good cgi...the cgi was great but realisticly it was terrible. Terrible because of its lack of detail (forgive me if I am being redundant, I'm just trying to drive the point home).

Norton Hulk is very very detailed, great shadowing, realistic muscle texture, and it's skin shows more than it's color. However in some pictures it may be evident that it needs work, some clips of him don't have GREATEST cgi but they are passable.

I would rather have a more realistic and detailed Hulk who's design is stellar at least than one whos design is great but totally unrealistic in terms of skin, muscle and detail.
Hulk is a brutal beast so naturally he would have roughed up skin not untouched newborn flesh.

So basically you can't separate character design from actual render quality. Good for you.

 

[GreedLantern]

So basically you can't separate character design from actual render quality. Good for you.

a little more explanation please....

 

[Prefix]

a little more explanation please....

You make loads of criticisms about the design of Ang Lee's Hulk, which is perfectly fine, but you use them to criticise the quality of the CGI itself, which is a totally separate subject. Yeah, Lee's Hulk had newborn baby skin, but the CGI looked like real newborn baby skin.

 

[GreedLantern]

You make loads of criticisms about the design of Ang Lee's Hulk, which is perfectly fine, but you use them to criticise the quality of the CGI itself, which is a totally separate subject. Yeah, Lee's Hulk had newborn baby skin, but the CGI looked like real newborn baby skin.

Okay, I understand a little better now. Maybe I did word it the wrong way. My only complaint is that his skin looks like baby skin (yes they did a good job on that) but I don't think Hulk should HAVE baby skin, I think more detailed skin is needed. Thats why I like the new design, it's detailed.

 

[Kirmit]

You make loads of criticisms about the design of Ang Lee's Hulk, which is perfectly fine, but you use them to criticise the quality of the CGI itself, which is a totally separate subject. Yeah, Lee's Hulk had newborn baby skin, but the CGI looked like real newborn baby skin.

I have read GreenLanterns post, he actually says the cgi is great, he didn't bash the cgi he said what was used was unrealistic for what hulk is supposed to be, he shouldn't have crisp clean, perfectly smooth baby skin.

 

[Prefix]

Okay then, I apoligise.

But if I see you disagreeing with me again, I'll cut your face.

 

[GreedLantern]

I have read GreenLanterns post, he actually says the cgi is great, he didn't bash the cgi he said what was used was unrealistic for what hulk is supposed to be, he shouldn't have crisp clean, perfectly smooth baby skin.

you got it Kirmit...I didn't think deciphering my words was that difficult.

 

[Sava]

But Sava, that full $150 million didn't all go FX. And Kong was infamous for having Kong himself change in each of the trailers, point to his Broken Jaw and the rance of his fur texture being less prominent in the final film.

yeah, i know all 150 mill didnt go towards the CG, same with when all 137mill didnt go towards the CG for the first film, the thing is, the CG in the trailers dont look better than the CG in 03's, it doesnt look that much better when you think about how much the last film's CG was critizised. Its like Marvel saying "trust us, it'll be better" and not actually showing it. The CG in Kong's trailers or TF's trailers were only a little better than what we got in the final film, yeah there were some changes but it didnt look, in the trailers, like they needed more work. I remember seeing the first Kong teaser and being blown away by it, it was just unreal how good he looked, in the final movie, he didnt look THAT much better. Same with TF, i dont doubt that Hulk will look better, he has to. But the GP have lost faith in Hulk, they wont give him another chance, so they wont go to see him unless the CG is mind blowing.

 

[FrostBite]

But the GP have lost faith in Hulk, they wont give him another chance, so they wont go to see him unless the CG is mind blowing.

My fear for the GP is NOT the CG, tons of people do terrible CG (I Am Legend) and do well.

The GP isn't going to see Hulk though, if marketing doesn't kick in (doesn't look like it is,) if interviews don't start kicking in (don't see them,) and if word of mouth isn't incredibly positive.

And, interesting thing about the GP, they don't care about quality that much. They bashed 03 more likely, for design, not how good it interacted with it's surroundings. Many people I have shown the trailer to my surprise said "he looks so much better than in the last one!"

My mind was blown.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

My fear for the GP is NOT the CG, tons of people do terrible CG (I Am Legend) and do well.

The GP isn't going to see Hulk though, if marketing doesn't kick in (doesn't look like it is,) if interviews don't start kicking in (don't see them,) and if word of mouth isn't incredibly positive.

And, interesting thing about the GP, they don't care about quality that much. They bashed 03 more likely, for design, not how good it interacted with it's surroundings. Many people I have shown the trailer to my surprise said "he looks so much better than in the last one!"

My mind was blown.

Wow great point

TIH looks better than I am legend, and I robot and close to Chronicles of Narnia if not better and all those movies did fine

mainly cause the movies where good movies inspite of their poor cgi

which is the key

 

[FrostBite]

Wow great point

TIH looks better than I am legend, and I robot and close to Chronicles of Narnia if not better and all those movies did fine

mainly cause the movies where good movies inspite of their poor cgi

which is the key

Even more surprisingly R&H's was nominated for it's work on Narnia, in that year's Oscars.

 

[Sarg92]

Even more surprisingly R&H's was nominated for it's work on Narnia, in that year's Oscars.

And didn't R&H win an Oscar for their work on the polar bears in Golden Compass?

 

[FrostBite]

And didn't R&H win an Oscar for their work on the polar bears in Golden Compass?

Yep they beating out Spidey and Transformers I believe.

 

[CGHulk]

And didn't R&H win an Oscar for their work on the polar bears in Golden Compass?

Th Polar Bears were done by CFC Framestore. http://www.framestore-cfc.com/feature/thegoldencompass/index.html
They stole Aslan the Lion from R&H for Prince Caspian.

 

[Sarg92]

Th Polar Bears were done by CFC Framestore. http://www.framestore-cfc.com/feature/thegoldencompass/index.html
They stole Aslan the Lion from R&H in Prince Caspian the sequel to the Lion Witch and the Wardrobe.

Oh right, never knew that but when I saw the text with all the Oscar winners it said that "The Golden Compass- Rhythm and Hues"

 

[CGHulk]

Oh right, never knew that but when I saw the text with all the Oscar winners it said that "The Golden Compass- Rhythm and Hues"

R&H did the Daemon's, the animals. Alot of people think R&H didn't deserve the Oscar! Beating out Transformers and Pirates. But CFC Framstores work is exceptional in the film.

 

[FrostBite]

R&H did the Daemon's, the animals. Alot of people think R&H didn't deserve the Oscar! Beating out Transformers and Pirates. But CFC Framstores work is exceptional in the film.

I think they deserved to get recognized with the nomination. Win? No.

 

[DoubleM]

That 100% done stuff is garbage. It's horrible CG and since the people have spoken they had to release some kind of statement to save their hides. The CG is terrible through and through. It is not a smart marketing decision to release a single on radio which is practically the promotion for the album it's attached to and when the beat or lyrics sound horrible or unaudible u say..."it's not finished yet". Lame excuse and I don't care if anyone says it's unfinished. What I see is what I get and what I see is garbage CGI. Until otherwise that's all I have to go by. That's what people said about the plane scene in Iron man or the Cg in spiderman 3 when he hops of the building in black suit and the car for Batman Begins. Unfinished, they're working on it but when all those movies came out the footage was the EXACT same. That is media nonsense to keep the fans at ease with hope for everything that looks like crap in the trailer to look better. Only problem with Ang Lee's was hight and color. The model could have been slightly less fat and more to the new ones body mass but as for the CG work and animation it was top notch for it's time. The entire desert scene was amazing and I truly doubt that the new one will top it. At least Ang's looked like Bana where as The new 2008 does not resemble Norton in the least and I don't wanna hear crap like it's not finished CG cause that can lose audience and terrible marketing advertising non finished work.

Like a Disney movie releasing the pencil work with no color and saying it's just a trailer not finished. Nope!!!!

Ed Norton stated that he was trying to strike a balance of the comic book and the 70's TV show. One hand you have the comic book Hulk. On the other hand you have Bill Bixby version David Banner, which Ed Norton will play.

 

[Obi-Ron]

Except his name is Bruce.

 

[Sarg92]

Has CG Killed Our Imaginations?

I read with interest a lot of the reader comments about the new Incredible Hulk trailer. The main problem for those who didn't like it seems to be that the Hulk doesn't look real enough. It's a perfectly valid criticism – he doesn't always look utterly perfect and tangible – but it made me wonder if we've reached a point in cinema where we've lost the ability to suspend our disbelief. We are, after all, talking about a 10-foot tall green man, something you would be rather surprised to see standing in the queue at your local Tesco. Precisely how realistic can something entirely unrealistic be?

We never used to be so picky. If somebody watches the original King Kong or any of the works of Ray Harryhausen, you will never hear them complain about how the skeletons were a bit jerky or that the big ape's fur didn't blow realistically when he was climbing the Empire State Building (if they do complain, however, you should feel free to shoot them on the grounds of wrongness and philistinism). You just watch the film, acknowledge that what you are seeing couldn't possibly exist, admire the artistry it took to create it and choose to believe it anyway. That's what suspension of disbelief is: ignoring the protests of your eyes and more logical parts of your brain in order to enjoy a good story.

We've now arrived at a place where technology is capable of producing something so photo-realistic that if we can detect a small patch of skin that doesn't fold in the right way or an eye that fails to glint with emotion, we cry foul and declare what's on screen to be ridiculous and unbelievable. I've done it myself, huffing through Spider-Man 3 about the fact that the giant man made of sand just didn't look like a real giant man made of sand. I base this complaint on precisely no experience of giant men made of sand, just a belief in what he should look like. Apparently my vision contrasted with those of the vastly more talented and able people at ILM (or whomever created it). So, why have we become so demanding? Why have our eyes taken over the job of filmic enjoyment from our brains?

Maybe it's that we're spoiled. I look at Davy Jones in Pirates of the Caribbean and can't separate him from the real people, so good is the CGI, so I know computer created characters can look perfect. Or I can see an actual emotional performance in the eyes of Peter Jackson's King Kong, so I know they don't have to be blank beauties. So does that mean we have to expect every film to hit those standards, even without budget in the upper $200-millions? Have the effects houses shot themselves in the foot by being too capable? I hope that I can still enjoy The Incredible Hulk even if I sometimes don't think the light bounced properly off Abomination's spine spikes. To mix my summer blockbusters a bit, I want to believe.

Maybe Guillermo Del Toro has the right idea in his approach to The Hobbit: do as much as you can with animatronics. Hell, let's go all the way. Bring back claymation. Or Fingerbobs.

http://www.empireonline.com/empireblog/Post.asp?id=124

 

[Nivek]

Has CG Killed Our Imaginations?

I read with interest a lot of the reader comments about the new Incredible Hulk trailer. The main problem for those who didn't like it seems to be that the Hulk doesn't look real enough. It's a perfectly valid criticism – he doesn't always look utterly perfect and tangible – but it made me wonder if we've reached a point in cinema where we've lost the ability to suspend our disbelief. We are, after all, talking about a 10-foot tall green man, something you would be rather surprised to see standing in the queue at your local Tesco. Precisely how realistic can something entirely unrealistic be?

We never used to be so picky. If somebody watches the original King Kong or any of the works of Ray Harryhausen, you will never hear them complain about how the skeletons were a bit jerky or that the big ape's fur didn't blow realistically when he was climbing the Empire State Building (if they do complain, however, you should feel free to shoot them on the grounds of wrongness and philistinism). You just watch the film, acknowledge that what you are seeing couldn't possibly exist, admire the artistry it took to create it and choose to believe it anyway. That's what suspension of disbelief is: ignoring the protests of your eyes and more logical parts of your brain in order to enjoy a good story.

We've now arrived at a place where technology is capable of producing something so photo-realistic that if we can detect a small patch of skin that doesn't fold in the right way or an eye that fails to glint with emotion, we cry foul and declare what's on screen to be ridiculous and unbelievable. I've done it myself, huffing through Spider-Man 3 about the fact that the giant man made of sand just didn't look like a real giant man made of sand. I base this complaint on precisely no experience of giant men made of sand, just a belief in what he should look like. Apparently my vision contrasted with those of the vastly more talented and able people at ILM (or whomever created it). So, why have we become so demanding? Why have our eyes taken over the job of filmic enjoyment from our brains?

Maybe it's that we're spoiled. I look at Davy Jones in Pirates of the Caribbean and can't separate him from the real people, so good is the CGI, so I know computer created characters can look perfect. Or I can see an actual emotional performance in the eyes of Peter Jackson's King Kong, so I know they don't have to be blank beauties. So does that mean we have to expect every film to hit those standards, even without budget in the upper $200-millions? Have the effects houses shot themselves in the foot by being too capable? I hope that I can still enjoy The Incredible Hulk even if I sometimes don't think the light bounced properly off Abomination's spine spikes. To mix my summer blockbusters a bit, I want to believe.

Maybe Guillermo Del Toro has the right idea in his approach to The Hobbit: do as much as you can with animatronics. Hell, let's go all the way. Bring back claymation. Or Fingerbobs.

http://www.empireonline.com/empireblog/Post.asp?id=124

Gee, this all sounds sooo familier. Great article, but it all comes down to "Just shut up and just watch the damn film and maybe you MIGHT Enjoy it!".

 

[DarthPollo]

My fear for the GP is NOT the CG, tons of people do terrible CG (I Am Legend) and do well.

The GP isn't going to see Hulk though, if marketing doesn't kick in (doesn't look like it is,) if interviews don't start kicking in (don't see them,) and if word of mouth isn't incredibly positive.

And, interesting thing about the GP, they don't care about quality that much. They bashed 03 more likely, for design, not how good it interacted with it's surroundings. Many people I have shown the trailer to my surprise said "he looks so much better than in the last one!"

My mind was blown.

I'm gonna dare to say this, having edward norton in the movie, it's a great treat for the GP...

 

[FrostBite]

Has CG Killed Our Imaginations?

To answer your question Empire...

YES...sadly it has. Well that and the educational system.

 

[vanglorious]

Has CG Killed Our Imaginations?

I read with interest a lot of the reader comments about the new Incredible Hulk trailer. The main problem for those who didn't like it seems to be that the Hulk doesn't look real enough. It's a perfectly valid criticism – he doesn't always look utterly perfect and tangible – but it made me wonder if we've reached a point in cinema where we've lost the ability to suspend our disbelief. We are, after all, talking about a 10-foot tall green man, something you would be rather surprised to see standing in the queue at your local Tesco. Precisely how realistic can something entirely unrealistic be?

We never used to be so picky. If somebody watches the original King Kong or any of the works of Ray Harryhausen, you will never hear them complain about how the skeletons were a bit jerky or that the big ape's fur didn't blow realistically when he was climbing the Empire State Building (if they do complain, however, you should feel free to shoot them on the grounds of wrongness and philistinism). You just watch the film, acknowledge that what you are seeing couldn't possibly exist, admire the artistry it took to create it and choose to believe it anyway. That's what suspension of disbelief is: ignoring the protests of your eyes and more logical parts of your brain in order to enjoy a good story.

We've now arrived at a place where technology is capable of producing something so photo-realistic that if we can detect a small patch of skin that doesn't fold in the right way or an eye that fails to glint with emotion, we cry foul and declare what's on screen to be ridiculous and unbelievable. I've done it myself, huffing through Spider-Man 3 about the fact that the giant man made of sand just didn't look like a real giant man made of sand. I base this complaint on precisely no experience of giant men made of sand, just a belief in what he should look like. Apparently my vision contrasted with those of the vastly more talented and able people at ILM (or whomever created it). So, why have we become so demanding? Why have our eyes taken over the job of filmic enjoyment from our brains?

Maybe it's that we're spoiled. I look at Davy Jones in Pirates of the Caribbean and can't separate him from the real people, so good is the CGI, so I know computer created characters can look perfect. Or I can see an actual emotional performance in the eyes of Peter Jackson's King Kong, so I know they don't have to be blank beauties. So does that mean we have to expect every film to hit those standards, even without budget in the upper $200-millions? Have the effects houses shot themselves in the foot by being too capable? I hope that I can still enjoy The Incredible Hulk even if I sometimes don't think the light bounced properly off Abomination's spine spikes. To mix my summer blockbusters a bit, I want to believe.

Maybe Guillermo Del Toro has the right idea in his approach to The Hobbit: do as much as you can with animatronics. Hell, let's go all the way. Bring back claymation. Or Fingerbobs.

http://www.empireonline.com/empireblog/Post.asp?id=124

An interesting post. I agree that we were a lot more lenient to rickety special effects in the oldun days. But we've been spoilt by the likes of Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, King Kong, Gollum, Davy Jones, Transformers etc. And then when something shoddy like Incredible Hulk comes along I think we have every right to throw a bit of a tantrum and say "hey, we know you can do better than this." I mean come on we're talking about a 150 million dollar major blockbuster; this is not a cheap Canadian made sci-fi TV special - if it were I might go a little easy on it.

That's not going to make or break a film for me; but arguably when the star of your film is a special effect...well he better be a damn good special effect.