The Incredible Hulk CGI Thread

[Mercurius]

Not sure if you noticed, but alot of us prefer this "cartoonish" version. And too much detail? Are you kidding me? Too MUCH detail? Get out. Get out while you still have time.

Look through this angle: we have TWO things in common. Both of us are hyped for Dark Knight and Golden Army. t:

 

[Nivek]

Too much detail? I'm sorry, thats a lame critisim. Glad your excited to see Hellboy and Dark Knight, but too much freaking detail?

 

[Nathan]

Many complained Ang's Hulk looks too fat, with not enough defination.

Hulk has been drawn alot of different ways, this is our real world hulk, this is what he should look like, 100% muscle bursting out of his skin, 0% fat, there's nothing cartoonish about the design, it is a realistic interpretation of someone pumping with that much muscle would look like.

When discussing a 9ft green monster, I think realism is the last thing we should be concerned about. But since where on the subject of realism, most, if not all, of the strongest men in the world aren't known for having every strand of muscle visible. You know, the guys that pull trucks, lift tires, cars and whatever else that weighs a lot.

That's what most of them look like.


They don't look like bodybuilders who train their bodies to show off and even go as far as taking pills to get rid of unnecessary water to make their muscles even more stand out. So if we're talking about who did a better job at portraying a hulking giant with incredible strength, Ang did a better job.

 

[Mercurius]

Too much detail? I'm sorry, thats a lame critisim. Glad your excited to see Hellboy and Dark Knight, but too much freaking detail?

See: too much detail resulted in ropey mucles. In a flesh excessively shiny, in a hypertophy of the close-up shot.

When working with this kind of thing, when you overdo it the result is artificial.

This Hulk version has also this EMO face. In more than one shot his face is cartoonish. Well, you said you like it. That's ok, for sure, but I can't share your enthusiasm for it.

One good point of it is the attenuated green, which is of course better than the 03 one, especially in the clips and trailer, where we can check the movement.

But this design has these weak points mentioned above.

 

[Kirmit]

That's different, these are normal guys, who can lift what a few hundred pounds? Hulk can lift tons, his muscles are bursting with adenaline and gamma, so much so that's they're popping out of his skin, like I said he's 100% muscle 0% fat. Rightfully you should be able to see all of hulks facial muscles aswell but I'm willing to let them slide on that one .

The design is great imo, nuff said.

 

[Nivek]

In your opinion. I love the 2003 film as much as any of you, but I also agree that Hulk looks a bit undefined and soft more often than not.

Most important detail about Hulk is, he's not a body builder, or a power lifter, he is a monster. I'm from the school of thought that the CG is along the same lines as different artist interpretations of the character in comics. Some guys have drawn him just a bit bigger than Lou with little muscle definition, some guys have made him as big as a Mack Truck with a whole different take on human muscle structure and anatomy. And I'm cool with it. There is no right or wrong when it comes to drawing characters like the Hulk. same should go for live action depictions.

 

[Spade]

I don't think the design is the problem. The problem is that they're just too waxy. I know they're trying to go for this sweaty look, but what sold the Hulk's look in 2003 were the visible pores giving it texture. Here, Hulk and Abomination look a little weightless and unnaturally shiny rather than heavy and sticky.

 

[Nivek]

This Hulk version has also this EMO face.

Comments like referring a modern slang term like Emo to a character like the Hulk just are going to stir up more anger at your comments. Define what EMO is to you instead of just saying that damn word, because this is one of those words that make me want to head-butt someone in the face.

If you mean EMO because the Hulk has shaggy longer hair, and that he looks angry, well.... THATS WHAT THE HULK LOOKS LIKE.

 

[Kirmit]

Hulk was stomping about long before puny emo's walked the earth, they copied his look! t:.

 

[Nivek]

Emo is another stupid trend phrase that angers the wrong people. Like me.

 

[Spade]

I don't see what's the problem with his face. "Emo" has always stood for "emotional." If a person doesn't want an "emo" look to his face, then they're saying they want the Hulk to be an emotionless slab for the whole film. That's going to excite people...

Even if you're talking about the emo style of dress, it's a pointless argument. We all knew that they were never going to make Hulk look mongoloid, and if you look at Deodato's take you'd know that he gave more pointed and loose features to Hulk.

 

[slackadjuster]

That emo crap is for ***s!!!!!!!!!!

 

[welsh hulk]

hi,just thought i'd put my 2 cents worth in on the debate,to me the cgi just gets better and better,i watched ang lee's hulk again last night and while i personally think that film is great,the cgi is'nt anywhere near as good as the new film in my opinion.in parts it really stood out how super-imposed the hulk looked.really cant wait for the new hulk,cant remember ever being so excited for a film in my life

 

[NoirMan82]

I don't think the design is the problem. The problem is that they're just too waxy. I know they're trying to go for this sweaty look, but what sold the Hulk's look in 2003 were the visible pores giving it texture. Here, Hulk and Abomination look a little weightless and unnaturally shiny rather than heavy and sticky.

I don't get the "weightless" part of your statement. I've watch those cli[s like 100 times now, and Hulk and Abomb have plenty of weight felt in their movements. When they fight their whole environment is shaking and thundering around them, sending debris everywhere. They are somewhat humanoid, they shouldn't move like tanks. Even an Elephant can sneak up on you unheard, I don't think Hulk should be lumbering around.

 

[webhead731]

Oh my goodness, are we back to fighting about CGI AGAIN?! Whoever thinks the CGI in that Abomy and Hulk fight was bad is ******ed. I'm sorry but that's just not cool. The Blonsky fight had good CGI in my opinion too, but it moved really fast and was blurry (like it should be if it's moving) and I can see how people MAY get that a little "it's too blurry!" thing going on. Sure, the Hulk's CGI maybe can use some work in a couple shots, but goodness it opens next month! Surely it'll be fixed up. And even if it's not, it still doesn't look bad at all. I can deal with it. I feel bad for the team because it's hard to make CGI humans (especially muscular human-like monsters). No one say "Transformers had 100% great CGI!" because those were robots. Great CGI? Hell yeah. Is it easier than a human? Of course. Just machines. With humans you have skin textures, eye balls that move, skin bends in places when parts of the body move in certain ways, muscles, veins and all that crap. I'm an artist so I know about that stuff.

 

[Spade]

I don't get the "weightless" part of your statement. I've watch those cli[s like 100 times now, and Hulk and Abomb have plenty of weight felt in their movements.

Not to me. In the clip where he saves Betty, sure. But in the fighting clips? I think he moves too seamlessly. He goes from shots where his body looks limited in motion (which looks right for a creature that tall and muscular) to spins in the air that look effortless.

When they fight their whole environment is shaking and thundering around them, sending debris everywhere.

Yes, the debris and shockwaves are good enough. However, I'm talking about the creatures themselves. All of the gleam and movement makes them look okay at best to me. The last Hulk looked impressive both when he was running and standing around. This one has a better design, but it doesn't sell itself in the technical department.

 

[Kirmit]

Not to me. In the clip where he saves Betty, sure. But in the fighting clips? I think he moves too seamlessly. He goes from shots where his body looks limited in motion (which looks right for a creature that tall and muscular) to spins in the air that look effortless.



Yes, the debris and shockwaves are good enough. However, I'm talking about the creatures themselves. All of the gleam and movement makes them look okay at best to me. The last Hulk looked impressive both when he was running and standing around. This one has a better design, but it doesn't sell itself in the technical department.

I disagree, imo hulk moves fine, as does abomb, they're big creatures but they're also gamma filled giving them enhanced abilities, including speed and agility, it works perfectly for what hulk is.

 

[Scooter]

Oh my goodness, are we back to fighting about CGI AGAIN?! Whoever thinks the CGI in that Abomy and Hulk fight was bad is ******ed. I'm sorry but that's just not cool. The Blonsky fight had good CGI in my opinion too, but it moved really fast and was blurry (like it should be if it's moving) and I can see how people MAY get that a little "it's too blurry!" thing going on. Sure, the Hulk's CGI maybe can use some work in a couple shots, but goodness it opens next month! Surely it'll be fixed up. And even if it's not, it still doesn't look bad at all. I can deal with it. I feel bad for the team because it's hard to make CGI humans (especially muscular human-like monsters). No one say "Transformers had 100% great CGI!" because those were robots. Great CGI? Hell yeah. Is it easier than a human? Of course. Just machines. With humans you have skin textures, eye balls that move, skin bends in places when parts of the body move in certain ways, muscles, veins and all that crap. I'm an artist so I know about that stuff.

But, on a less unintentionally-hilarious note...

It is kind of ridiculous, for those complaining about the CGI in TIH (lol?), to point to the clip of Hulk and Abomination. It looked pretty damn good. Maybe not as good as the best of Hulk, but, within the context of this fim, I sincerely doubt that it will, in any way, detract from the theater going experience. You'll be so caught up in the action of the moment (which should be pretty cool, considering), that the absolute perfection, or lack there of (though, as I said, it looks pretty damn good to me), of the effects wil be a negligable detriment.

That being said, for those intent on voicing a negative opinion, there are much better examples - from what we've been presented thusfar - to cite in doing so. The Hulk, for example, looked pretty crappy in most of the shots of the Blonsky encounter clip.

 

[Spade]

Again, I think the fight concepts are great and that the designs look interesting. I just think that, 5 years after the last Hulk, most of these shots should at least be on-par with what we saw in '03. I don't think they are, and I'm not a gusher for the first film nor a CGI critic.

 

[Scooter]

I would agree with you, though I would take a step farther and say that the Hulk of five years ago was superior in both design and execution. It makes you wonder what Ang Lee, ILM, etc. would have accomplished this go around.

That being said, this film could still turn out very enjoyable.

 

[Hulkfan2008!]

the cgi is awsome the weight and movments seem real the voices are good and the action is intense so whats th problem?

 

[Spade]

the cgi is awsome the weight and movments seem real the voices are good and the action is intense so whats th problem?

Maybe because that's all in your opinion...?

 

[Hulkfan2008!]

maybe but none of our oppinions matter so be thankful and deal with what youve got.

 

[Spade]

If that were the case, I'd be looking at Hulk 2 as directed by Ang Lee right now.

 

[Hulkfan2008!]

ugh........man, that shouldnt even be mentioned around here
naw, angs movie was ok but LL's i think will rock! t:​