The Incredible Hulk CGI Thread

[Mercurius]

All that shows quite clearly is the fact that you are completely insane.

I know that I'm completely insane. What does it have to do with the issue here?

 

[Mercurius]

I do not understand why the CGI haters say that this CGI should be like the CGI by ILM.

This is by R&H not ILM, both companies deliever great CGI but with different styles. In a way CGI is art and both companies have their styles which show in their art.

Take a Van Gogh to a Picasso, both look amazing but look different and have different styles because they are from different artists.

CGI haturz? Where?

And the comparison of the Hulks to Van Gogh and Picasso is way of the mark.

But on a general view you're right, guys, the new clips display a better version, but it needs improvement, yet.

Especially Hulk's face, it looks like an EMO version of Hulk. t:

 

[Golgo-13]

That's what's getting me. I can accept the body of Hulk, if his face was done RIGHT, but in most body shots it's not. It's like R&H only bothered putting in any effort into the face when it's a close up shots (with the exception of a few).....

 

[Crook]

This.

I hadn't watched the clips in HD until just recently, and even though I thought they were very good I could understand how some people could be disappointed, but let me just say this to everyone who has passed judgment on this before looking at it in HD: The hell is wrong with you??? Get to it! The detail is absolutely incredible, but unfortunately a lot of it is lost when compressed into SD. The CG in this movie is amazing, everything from the stubble on his face to the pulsating muscles in his back. Go look at in HD, how it was filmed and meant to be seen, and then try to say with a straight face that it looks bad.

Do you have IGN Insider? Hook a bro up, man!

But yeah, that looks incredible. I've been a pretty harsh judge on this movie's cgi, but it's only because I want it to be good. And the recent material shows a vast improvement, so I will give the sfx team credit for that.

 

[Judson Caspian]

That doesn't look like CGI at all. It looks real.

 

[Kirmit]

i personally think it's gonna look great when it's finished and on the big screen at 24fps

i'm still worried that R&H are focusing on detail modeling
and animation
(which by the way are amazing)

but compared to a perfectly lit rubber ball that's just sitting on the floor

the high detail smooth moving cgi stands to get way more critiques than the stuff that doesn't look like well drawn pictures but simply real...weak model or not

point in case

as great as this looks..with all the stubble, wrinkles and sweat...

looks like pretty cgi when compared to this

unfortunately in todays world it's not weather it looks real or not...but rather if it looks like cgi!

and yes i know i'm comparing finished work to possibly unfinished but the point still stands....i can smell R&H's work a mile away(pretty pictures)

The top one loks alot better imo, the skin texture, the detailing in the skin, the eyes, the hair, everything looks better, it looks completely real.

 

[El Payaso]

My problem with Ang's Hulk was mainly the green. It was difficult to accept that kind of green as a serious and believable characteristic. Yes, even if we're talking about fiction.

I'm quite glad they changed that. The green of Leterrer's Hulk seems so much more believable.

 

[Kirmit]

Yeah, looking at the 2 above pics it really shows how luminous Ang's hulk was.

 

[Sarg92]

And the comparison of the Hulks to Van Gogh and Picasso is way of the mark.

I wasn't comparing the Hulks to Van Gogh and Picasso. I was saying that both ILM and R&H are great artists and have their own styles and touch on their work, both deliver great art but it will look different. Some people expect the CGI from this movie to be exactly like the CGI from Ang's Hulk but it won't as R&H have their own style in their work.

So the Van Gogh/Picasso thing was like both artists delievered amazing art but both had their own styles which made their work what it was, as ILM and R&H deliever great art but both have their own unique styles which makes their work look like how it does.

 

[dark_b]

i like the CGI in the ABO/hulk fight. but you need to watch it in HD. the details are great. i also like the skin.

 

[NoirMan82]

personally i'm way more interested in Letterier's camera work and iconica visually story telling than photo realism

those new clips are awesome and this going to be the bench mark superhero brawls and what not

i don't really care about the level of cgi when we have a director like louis

but

that doesn't mean i can't call bs when i see it

objectively (which shouldn't really apply to art)
that 03 shot(not the whole film) looks more "real" than anything we've seen yet from this film...

but the performance in this is greater than pretty much all of ang's "emotion driven" film.

Fo sho! The only thing that might bother me is som of the slowmotion shots. These days it seems cheesier than it used to be. Unless it's a major part of action in relation to the plot, slow motion is too overused. Thank you Matrix.

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

As much as I often don't like the 03 Hulk's appearance, the way he looks is usually awesome. The most real he seemed to me was after he pounded the tank, then strolled over to the last one, slapping his palm with the cannon.

He looked amazing right there.

 

[Van Petrol]

I'm sorry.....but the Hulk looks F'N FANTASTIC!!!

 

[Mercurius]

The top one loks alot better imo, the skin texture, the detailing in the skin, the eyes, the hair, everything looks better, it looks completely real.

The problem is exactly that.

They tried so hard to give you as much details as they could collect and the result is that you cannot believe it.

It's too excessive in all departments. The close-up shot shows that, you almost can see his cells, it's overdone effect on a cartoonish design of angry Hulk.

 

[FrostBite]

The problem is exactly that.

They tried so hard to give you as much details as they could collect and the result is that you cannot believe it.

It's too excessive in all departments. The close-up shot shows that, you almost can see his cells, it's overdone effect on a cartoonish design of angry Hulk.

Wait... first he's not real enough, now he's too real... is this what I am hearing?

I am sorry Mercurius, I am sure you are a bang up guy, but... really now. ....Really.

 

[Kirmit]

I don't find the design cartoonish, exaggerated yeah, but hulk is an exaggerated character. As for too much detail, no way, you put someones face that close to the camera and you'd get the same result.

 

[Kirmit]

Wait... first he's not real enough, now he's too real... is this what I am hearing?

I am sorry Mercurius, I am sure you are a bang up guy, but... really now. ....Really.

I do find that funny, people moan it doesn't look real enough, now people moan it's too real lol.

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

I don't find the design cartoonish, exaggerated yeah, but hulk is an exaggerated character. As for too much detail, no way, you put someones face that close to the camera and you'd get the same result.

Yeah exactly, an example I can think of. One of the first shots of Bill the Butcher you get in Gangs of New York. He walks out to the battlefield, and the camera switches to a shot of his fake eye. You could see every crease, wrinkle etc.. tons of detail in that shot.

 

[Mercurius]

I wasn't comparing the Hulks to Van Gogh and Picasso. I was saying that both ILM and R&H are great artists and have their own styles and touch on their work, both deliver great art but it will look different. Some people expect the CGI from this movie to be exactly like the CGI from Ang's Hulk but it won't as R&H have their own style in their work.

So the Van Gogh/Picasso thing was like both artists delievered amazing art but both had their own styles which made their work what it was, as ILM and R&H deliever great art but both have their own unique styles which makes their work look like how it does.

I got it the first time, Sarg.

My point is: Van Gogh and Picasso's styles differed because they had different visions of life, and they were from different periods, and different places.

Van Gogh had serious problems trying to draw something by the rules; Picasso was a virtuoso. Van Gogh made a revolution through the register of colours in hard forms; Picasso was much more about erasing time in the canvas.

So, their dfferences are enjoyable because they translate personal views of life and technique.

Well, back to the Hulks, the analogy doesn't hold well.

The problem with Lee's Hulk was, sometimes, his baby face and a bright green (but the rendering of the creature was absolutely perfect).

The problem with Letterrier's is that the design is cartoonish, covered with layers of hyper realism (exaggerated to the point of making his back and forearms to have wrinkles) that result in a very uncomfortable thing to see. Moreover, his EMO face of his is annoying.

 

[FrostBite]

I got it the first time, Sarg.

My point is: Van Gogh and Picasso's styles differed because they had different visions of life, and they were from different periods, and different places.

Van Gogh had serious problems trying to draw something by the rules; Picasso was a virtuoso. Van Gogh made a revolution through the register of colours in hard forms; Picasso was much more about erasing time in the canvas.

So, their dfferences are enjoyable because they translate personal views of life and technique.

Well, back to the Hulks, the analogy doesn't hold well.

The problem with Lee's Hulk was, sometimes, his baby face and a bright green (but the rendering of the creature was absolutely perfect).

The problem with Letterrier's is that the design is cartoonish, covered with layers of hyper realism (exaggerated to the point of making his back and forearms to have wrinkles) that result in a very uncomfortable thing to see. Moreover, his EMO face of his is annoying.

Funny, because the analogy still stands. Heck, it even stands in comic books. Two different artists will produce two different products. Different styles, techniques, thought processes, and visions.

 

[Hulkfan2008!]

cgi is awsome nuff said!

 

[Mercurius]

Wait... first he's not real enough, now he's too real... is this what I am hearing?

I am sorry Mercurius, I am sure you are a bang up guy, but... really now. ....Really.

It's not THAT difficult to grasp, I suppose, Frosty, the fact that when you overdo something it looks artificial and not real.

 

[Kirmit]

It's not THAT difficult to grasp, I suppose, Frosty, the fact that when you overdo something it looks artificial and not real.

But that's the point, it isn't overdone, like I said stick someones face that close to a camera and see what you get, you'd be able to see every pore, every wrinkle.

 

[Hulkfan2008!]

It's not THAT difficult to grasp, I suppose, Frosty, the fact that when you overdo something it looks artificial and not real.

wtf

 

[FrostBite]

It's not THAT difficult to grasp, I suppose, Frosty, the fact that when you overdo something it looks artificial and not real.

Nah I understood, I just like bustin your balls. To me, it certainly does look more real than 03, 03 as others have said, has far to much of a clay like quality. While fantastic for the time, I cannot shake how much better this one looks for me. I do not see any overwhelming amount of detail to the point of seeing cells.