The Incredible Hulk CGI Thread

[The Chris]

I have a feeling that the new hulk will be more consistent with the cg. There are moments of the last one of great stuff like the whole day time military battle, and I always liked that stare in the house. But was some not too great stuff like his first reveal, a litte bit of the stuff where he's wet, and the fight with his father is really bad. The night stuff looks much better in this one.

 

[LiveWire777]

^
In all fairness Blade movies have never really been a milestone for CGI

 

[Doc Samson]

That final Betty scene was magic and will not be replicated EVER in a hulk movie and also the entire desert scene was great from the moment Hulk started sprinting till the time the rocks caved on him. What I mean is we still saw the "digital" feel to all the scenes but that and Hulk are my fav humanoids. Gollum was dope too just that he was more cartoony and meant to fit in LOTR that way. Hulk actually looked like bana and honestly that CG was AMAZING when he landed on the jet and had his eyes flickering and whole facial skin was vibrating due to wind effects. ILM really topped themselves on that one. The worst ILM CG to me was Scorpian King, The Rock...YUK!!!! Some of the worst CG ever. Agent smith getting punched in revolutions was a great effect though very obviously CG.

ok I got cha, I just wasn't sure because your original posts made it seem like ALL the scenes were bad, but I do agree, humanoids are tough, and when their over 8 ft tall and green, things can be a bit...difficult. I just felt certain scenes and shots (almost all daytime) ILM nailed. Like others have said, the nighttime stuff with this new Hulk is actually pretty good to me. My only real gripe is, what happened to the original concept art "look" to the Hulk's face? He looked much more bestial, and Hulk-like to me, that design was awesome. Everybody always says how "normal" or clean Ang's Hulk looked (which I agree with, because they made it look like Bana, which they should, but thats a whole other debate) but to me, this one looks just as clean, if not more so. The only difference is he looks more angry all the time, but thats it. The big forehead is gone, the long neanderthal mouth and small nose is gone, he looks pretty normal to me, just a tad upset. If you compare the actual cg with the concept art they showed originally, they scaled his face back big-time, and I personally would've like to see the more creature Sal Buscema look onscreen...

 

[Obi-Ron]

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.

If there was an internet in the days of stop-motion and bluescreen effects, the movie industry would have gone under in the 50's.

 

[FrostBite]

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!!!!!

Meh, loved every minute of it. I am sure Hulk won't do that well (But god I really hope it DOES rake in the money at least it's got a great time slot with little competition,) and critically it will probably fall behind Ang's.

But again, I'll love every minute of it (I can already tell.) t:

I've seen Iron Man 3 times, and will probably go see Speed a second since a friend wants to go. I need to watch how much I am spending on these summer flicks!

 

[M.O.Steel]

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.

yeah all you said is right, but the bottom pic still looks much more real than the top one. but this is just comparing shots.

 

[M.O.Steel]

If there was an internet in the days of stop-motion and bluescreen effects, the movie industry would have gone under in the 50's.

or maybe we would have had much better movies now?

 

[Kirmit]

To me both comparing shots look asif they could be standing right infront on me. The only reason I think people think the old hulk looks more realistic is because it basically just looks like a green man. That isn't what hulk should be imo, hulk is a monster, something much harder to believe than a green man. Now the new hulk in that shot looks great, you can see wrinkles, pores, stubble etc etc, the same can be said for the old hulk shot (cept for the stubble) but he doesn't look like hulk imo. Both look equally as good as each other, one being green man though, one being monster, like I said, something much harder to believe and therefore less 'realistic'.

 

[M.O.Steel]

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!"

moral of the story...don't use CG.

you have an awesome point there. but really, the thread is comparative, not absolute. just because people think hulk 03 looks better than TIH (jsut based on the material so far), doesn't mean 03 looks amazing. it had problems with it also.

 

[M.O.Steel]

To me both comparing shots look asif they could be standing right infront on me. The only reason I think people think the old hulk looks more realistic is because it basically just looks like a green man. That isn't what hulk should be imo, hulk is a monster, something much harder to believe than a green man. Now the new hulk in that shot looks great, you can see wrinkles, pores, stubble etc etc, the same can be said for the old hulk shot (cept for the stubble) but he doesn't look like hulk imo. Both look equally as good as each other, one being green man though, one being monster, like I said, something much harder to believe and therefore less 'realistic'.

fair enough.

 

[Obi-Ron]

or maybe we would have had much better movies now?

Yeah, right. More complaints maybe.

 

[Obi-Ron]

edit:double post

 

[THOR]

So far the ILM work on the 2003 movie looks better and more realisitic (for a giant green man anyway). Hopefully the guys at Rythm and Hues are working overtime to improve the effects shots before the June release. They still have another few weeks before they need to lock the print. I much prefer the design of the 2008 Hulk however as it looks like Buscema Hulk come to life. At least the movie should be better than this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tWmHEF_PT8E

 

[ArtTeacher]

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.

Gollum was seen in 2002 (along with the trolls, etc.), more than 6 months before Hulk.

If there was an internet in the days of stop-motion and bluescreen effects, the movie industry would have gone under in the 50's.

LOL!

 

[Hulkfan2008!]

hey if you really wanna see how far the cgi has come since the first trailer go to the website and look at 'hulk roar' pic from the first trailer, and then look at the hulk ripping the car pic and compair i was surprised to see the vast difference!t:



http://incrediblehulk.marvel.com

 

[snoodmonger]

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...

That's absurd. All three of the Lord of the Rings movies were out by 2003. The level of CGI since then hasn't improved that much, IMO. In fact, I'm not sure the CGI from those movies has been topped, yet.

 

[wobbly]

The common mistake I see is people thinking that CGI improves (or should improve) as fast as the hardware that runs the programs. It doesn't, not really, as the basic principles behind CGI 3D modelling are the same now as when Jurassic Park was made. Yes, they can handle far more polygons, more complex textures, lighting, etc, and it can all be rendered a lot faster too, but just like operating systems over the last decade, though there's been a ton of refinements to the basic software, there has not been any real quantum leaps to the process. Bottom line is that the best possible CGI today will not be dramatically better than the best possible CGI from a few years ago.

Another way to look at this: King Kong, the original version, used exactly the same principle that Harry Haryhausen was using (and to far less criticism) well into the 1980's. Refinements to the technique occurred over the decades, but in the end were the monsters in 'Clash of the Titans' that much better than those in 'the 7th Voyage of Sinbad'? No, they certainly were not, and we are looking at well over 20 years between those films.

Now with all that being said, that doesn't excuse R&H from putting out work that is at least as good as is possible by todays standards. Have they done this with Hulk?
With the night shots I think they are pretty damn close...The daytime shots though I have to say are letting them down a bit atm. Will try and reserve judgement until I see whatever is confirmed as 'final' shots though.

 

[TheBeastWithin]

The common mistake I see is people thinking that CGI improves (or should improve) as fast as the hardware that runs the programs. It doesn't, not really, as the basic principles behind CGI 3D modelling are the same now as when Jurassic Park was made. Yes, they can handle far more polygons, more complex textures, lighting, etc, and it can all be rendered a lot faster too, but just like operating systems over the last decade, though there's been a ton of refinements to the basic software, there has not been any real quantum leaps to the process. Bottom line is that the best possible CGI today will not be dramatically better than the best possible CGI from a few years ago.

Another way to look at this: King Kong, the original version, used exactly the same principle that Harry Haryhausen was using (and to far less criticism) well into the 1980's. Refinements to the technique occurred over the decades, but in the end were the monsters in 'Clash of the Titans' that much better than those in 'the 7th Voyage of Sinbad'? No, they certainly were not, and we are looking at well over 20 years between those films.

Now with all that being said, that doesn't excuse R&H from putting out work that is at least as good as is possible by todays standards. Have they done this with Hulk?
With the night shots I think they are pretty damn close...The daytime shots though I have to say are letting them down a bit atm. Will try and reserve judgement until I see whatever is confirmed as 'final' shots though.

Very well put. I'm in complete agreement.

 

[SuperBoon]

The common mistake I see is people thinking that CGI improves (or should improve) as fast as the hardware that runs the programs. It doesn't, not really, as the basic principles behind CGI 3D modelling are the same now as when Jurassic Park was made. Yes, they can handle far more polygons, more complex textures, lighting, etc, and it can all be rendered a lot faster too, but just like operating systems over the last decade, though there's been a ton of refinements to the basic software, there has not been any real quantum leaps to the process. Bottom line is that the best possible CGI today will not be dramatically better than the best possible CGI from a few years ago.

Another way to look at this: King Kong, the original version, used exactly the same principle that Harry Haryhausen was using (and to far less criticism) well into the 1980's. Refinements to the technique occurred over the decades, but in the end were the monsters in 'Clash of the Titans' that much better than those in 'the 7th Voyage of Sinbad'? No, they certainly were not, and we are looking at well over 20 years between those films.

Now with all that being said, that doesn't excuse R&H from putting out work that is at least as good as is possible by todays standards. Have they done this with Hulk?
With the night shots I think they are pretty damn close...The daytime shots though I have to say are letting them down a bit atm. Will try and reserve judgement until I see whatever is confirmed as 'final' shots though.

Best post of this thread, period.

 

[Golgo-13]

To me both comparing shots look asif they could be standing right infront on me. The only reason I think people think the old hulk looks more realistic is because it basically just looks like a green man. That isn't what hulk should be imo, hulk is a monster, something much harder to believe than a green man. Now the new hulk in that shot looks great, you can see wrinkles, pores, stubble etc etc, the same can be said for the old hulk shot (cept for the stubble) but he doesn't look like hulk imo. Both look equally as good as each other, one being green man though, one being monster, like I said, something much harder to believe and therefore less 'realistic'.

I think you nailed it with this post Kirmit. This is coming from someone who's been a critic of the new cgi rendering of the Hulk.

I was also wondering how this Hulk was rendered in comparison to the 2003 Hulk; I was thinking that the 2003 Hulk might have been rendered while they still had the 3D model in flesh tone color, then once they got the skin textures perfect they went back and added the green color to it, which is why the skin of the 2003 film looks a little more photo-realistic. Whereas R&H tried to get the rendering done after they had painted him green, thus why it looks off because they have no reference point for rendering a green skinned mammal, because none exist in nature for them to use as an example......

Anyone knowledgable with CGI, think this is a possibility?

 

[SuperBoon]

I think you nailed it with this post Kirmit. This is coming from someone who's been a critic of the new cgi rendering of the Hulk.

I was also wondering how this Hulk was rendered in comparison to the 2003 Hulk; I was thinking that the 2003 Hulk might have been rendered while they still had the 3D model in flesh tone color, then once they got the skin textures perfect they went back and added the green color to it, which is why the skin of the 2003 film looks a little more photo-realistic. Whereas R&H tried to get the rendering done after they had painted him green, thus why it looks off because they have no reference point for rendering a green skinned mammal, because none exist in nature for them to use as an example......

Anyone knowledgable with CGI, think this is a possibility?

I work with 3d Studio Max & Photoshop, more so in a commercial sense ie. logos and such, I'll try to answer your question. Basically you'll have different departments of one studio working on the model, some artists will work on the texture and skin colour and others will be working on the animation side of things, all these departments will be constantly tweaking things up til' zero hour (sometimes putting in 20 hour days) to get things right , it's down to the Director's okay at the end of the day for the final Render. Rendering time is what cost's, especially with photo-realistic images/motion and R&H will be using some sort of render farm for their renders, which speeds up the process, yet is still time consuming waiting for the final image to be produced. Also bear in mind that R&H have 'farmed-out' some of the work to, I think 'Soho' in Canada to do some of the work (which is normal considering some of the ILM work for the 2003 Hulk animation was created by free-lancers)

 

[Golgo-13]

I work with 3d Studio Max & Photoshop, more so in a commercial sense ie. logos and such, I'll try to answer your question. Basically you'll have different departments of one studio working on the model, some artists will work on the texture and skin colour and others will be working on the animation side of things, all these departments will be constantly tweaking things up til' zero hour (sometimes putting in 20 hour days) to get things right , it's down to the Director's okay at the end of the day for the final Render. Rendering time is what cost's, especially with photo-realistic images/motion and R&H will be using some sort of render farm for their renders, which speeds up the process, yet is still time consuming waiting for the final image to be produced. Also bear in mind that R&H have 'farmed-out' some of the work to, I think 'Soho' in Canada to do some of the work (which is normal considering some of the ILM work for the 2003 Hulk animation was created by free-lancers)

 

[EmeraldBeast]

The common mistake I see is people thinking that CGI improves (or should improve) as fast as the hardware that runs the programs. It doesn't, not really, as the basic principles behind CGI 3D modelling are the same now as when Jurassic Park was made. Yes, they can handle far more polygons, more complex textures, lighting, etc, and it can all be rendered a lot faster too, but just like operating systems over the last decade, though there's been a ton of refinements to the basic software, there has not been any real quantum leaps to the process. Bottom line is that the best possible CGI today will not be dramatically better than the best possible CGI from a few years ago.

Another way to look at this: King Kong, the original version, used exactly the same principle that Harry Haryhausen was using (and to far less criticism) well into the 1980's. Refinements to the technique occurred over the decades, but in the end were the monsters in 'Clash of the Titans' that much better than those in 'the 7th Voyage of Sinbad'? No, they certainly were not, and we are looking at well over 20 years between those films.

Now with all that being said, that doesn't excuse R&H from putting out work that is at least as good as is possible by todays standards. Have they done this with Hulk?
With the night shots I think they are pretty damn close...The daytime shots though I have to say are letting them down a bit atm. Will try and reserve judgement until I see whatever is confirmed as 'final' shots though.

How refreshing to read one of your posts Wobbly. Very well put. 100% spot on.

 

[ironwez20]

i never liked angs hulk, he reminded me of shrek for some reason.

 

[ironwez20]

i never liked angs hulk, he reminded me of shrek for some reason.