The Incredible Hulk CGI Thread

[Godman]

Ok...

Let's talk about something new and positive.

What ya think of this "finished" CGI?

Loooks like it's made for a beowulf style movie than a Live action one

 

[Hulkfan2008!]

are you done diss'n on this movie.

 

[TheBeastWithin]

Ok...

Let's talk about something new and positive.

What ya think of this "finished" CGI?

Looks better than this...

 

[EmeraldBeast]

i dont understand this type of thinking.

There are alot of things you don't understand and my point is for someone who has no technical knowledge on how to generate a humanoid figure sure does alot of critiquing. Now being entitled to opinionate doesn't make you an expert on CGI nor what you post even moot. While LL has been working feverishly, many on the boards just complain while they are working on bringing us TIH. How just is that? Do you know what it takes to do this? I'm glad it is even being done, let alone with a great cast. You enjoyed Superman Returns and that also had scenes with less than stellar fx. Why don't you reserve judgement until you see the movie?

 

[EmeraldBeast]

That's beautiful

Noticed your tag. Number 1 movie of the year is............IRON MAN so far.
Speed racer is for the 10 yr olds.

 

[Spade]

Is it even? From what I'm hearing, even the 10 year olds are staying away from the Wachowski film.

 

[EmeraldBeast]

Is it even? From what I'm hearing, even the 10 year olds are staying away from the Wachowski film.

Visually stunning does not make it a good movie. A point in this is The CGI for TIH may not be perfect....but the story is well paced and exciting. Speed Racer gave a couple of people headaches. Its an LSD flick from the 70s, lol. Just say no. I'm starting my own M.A.D.D. group: Moviegoers Against Dumb Directing

 

[M.O.Steel]

Looks better than this...

does it?

i think it looks amazing. and i think it's better than pic compared .

 

[FrostBite]

Noticed your tag. Number 1 movie of the year is............IRON MAN so far.
Speed racer is for the 10 yr olds.

And the 10 year old in me had mad fun at it.

 

[Snikt]

does it?

i think it looks amazing. and i think it's better than pic compared .

After seeing some of the new footage, I think this pic looks pretty weak when compared to the new one. Sure it still looks good, but the '03 pic looks more like a cartoon when compared to the '08 flick. Just my two cents.

 

[Shivsguy616]

The new one needs to look this good or better. So far, it undenyably doesn't. I'll reserve my judgement until I see the finished product.

 

[LiveWire777]

Looks better than this...

I like how the new one doesn't have that kermit the frog hue to it.

 

[EmeraldBeast]

And the 10 year old in me had mad fun at it.

I'm am glad you had fun. The movie still sucks. C- is what it is and will tank after two weeks. Iron Man spanked it by 30 million. DAMMMMMNNNN!!!!!

 

[Mercurius]

I like how the new one doesn't have that kermit the frog hue to it.

It's the only thing one can say in favour of it.

Ang Lee's version is waaaaaaay better. And that's a shame.

 

[LiveWire777]

I also like how the new one looks a lil more neanderthal then Ang's version.

 

[EmeraldBeast]

It's the only thing one can say in favour of it.

Ang Lee's version is waaaaaaay better. And that's a shame.

Ang Lee's Hulk was impressive but not consistant. I didn't like the fact he was that green like someone spray painted him kirmit green and his face changed at least six times.

 

[Mercurius]

Ang Lee's Hulk was impressive but not consistant. I didn't like the fact he was that green like someone spray painted him kirmit green and his face changed at least six times.

The Kermit green is right.

The face changing, not. Everybody has different faces for different moods, and the Hulk as well.

The new one just looks like an EMO Hulk: too delicate eyes. He screams and all, but gimme a break.

No neanderthal at all.

 

[co2]

Looks better than this...

hmm..I'm not so sure about that. I have been a proponent of the new CGI, as I was for the '03. I think both look good, but I may have to give the edge to the '03 for a more photorealistic edge.

Either way, I think the new CGI looks great and will not in any way detract from the movie for me.

 

[TheBeastWithin]

does it?

i think it looks amazing. and i think it's better than pic compared .

I think the top pic has a far better, more monstrous design, better color, and CGI that is as good as the bottom pic. You can distinguish pores, slight stubble, more character lines/wrinkles and chiseled facial musculature, such as the taut cheek. Looks very sturdy. The bottom look much softer and less defined but that's more of a design critique. I think the glowing green eyes makes Hulk look a little less "real" to some. Hopefully the rest of the shots will be up to the level of this one in film.

 

[bunk]

I prefer the bright green myself. Gray is fine too, but mixing the two together seems pointless.

 

[Mercurius]

I think the top pic has a far better, more monstrous design, better color, and CGI that is as good as the bottom pic. You can distinguish pores, slight stubble, more character lines/wrinkles and chiseled facial musculature, such as the taut cheek. Looks very sturdy. The bottom look much softer and less defined but that's more of a design critique. I think the glowing green eyes makes Hulk look a little less "real" to some. Hopefully the rest of the shots will be up to the level of this one in film.

The new one looks like Xbox version of a John Buscema design. Period.

The old one looks real. And it's not the only shot in which we almost believe this Hulk, even bright green, exists.

 

[ArtTeacher]

2003: "Oh, there's a Hulk movie? Um...the cgi sucks! Ang Lee sucks! It looks fake!"

2008: "Oh, there's a new Hulk movie? Um...the cgi sucks! The 2003 movie's cgi was brilliant! Ang Lee is a genius! This looks fake!"

 

[Nivek]

2003: "Oh, there's a Hulk movie? Um...the cgi sucks! Ang Lee sucks! It looks fake!"

2008: "Oh, there's a new Hulk movie? Um...the cgi sucks! The 2003 movie's cgi was brilliant! Ang Lee is a genius! This looks fake!"

Hey now, thats not fair...


Nevermind, that is how it goes anymore.

 

[TheBeastWithin]

2003: "Oh, there's a Hulk movie? Um...the cgi sucks! Ang Lee sucks! It looks fake!"

2008: "Oh, there's a new Hulk movie? Um...the cgi sucks! The 2003 movie's cgi was brilliant! Ang Lee is a genius! This looks fake!"

Being someone that was on this board in 2003, you are absolutely spot on.

 

[Odin's Lapdog]

To be fair, considering the state of cgi back in 2003, ang lee was a genius.

There isn't comparable cgi from back then to compare to today's work except for the hulk. cgi of that era was truelly poor. blade 2 fights a matrix reloaded burly brawl come to mind...

The fact is simply it's impossible to get a hulk film right in this day and age. Too many conflicting factors.

It's possible for transformers though although they are easier. A great hulk rendition may be possible in the next 10 years but not yet.