The Incredible Hulk CGI Thread

[Scooter]

Bah, but it was a silly design, and bright green. Which ruined how good the effects were (sadly, because I do think they were marvelous or... to make a pun out of the situation, incredible.)

And no, people will never accept Hulk. Hulk is unique, and for that the world will not tolerate his existence.

If the design was silly five years ago, it's straight-up cartoon now. And the green was awesome.

But, even though I feel the effects (and design, and just about everything else I've seen so far) in TIH are inferior to those of Hulk, I doubt they'll be ripped on to the same degree - for a variey of reasons, but partly because of the low-key apporach this build up to this film has taken.

 

[FrostBite]

If the design was silly five years ago, it's straight-up cartoon now. And the green was awesome.

But, even though I feel the effects (and design, and just about everything else I've seen so far) in TIH are inferior to those of Hulk, I doubt they'll be ripped on to the same degree - for a variey of reasons, but partly because of the low-key apporach this build up to this film has taken.

The design was silly because of a baby face that constantly changed (For the worst) some of his best shots were expressionless moments (when he stares down Talbot I LOVE it.)

And no, many who see it don't rip on it because of ... again the design, he looks more menacing to people this time around. Everyone I show it to says "Now thats more like it!" Is it because of how well he blends with the environment? Or because they feel they could reach out and touch him? Nope. But because he just looks like the Hulk they want.

Kind of like Tranformers has designs I don't want, so it's ruined for me regardless of how good the effects are.

 

[joefixit2]

I agree. Should be a real muscular guy, but have him done like the huge dude in 300. The entire movie needs to be 300ish so that Hulk can fit in it and not look stupid.

Wow, I really can't believe you said that outloud.

If they had a guy painted green for this movie, you would have 99.9% of the world saying it was the stupidest thing they have ever seen. Your making a movie about a comic book character that is at least 7 feet tall in the book, who exactly are you going to find that can fit that bill and not look like Fat Albert in green make-up? CGI was the only way to go for this movie.

 

[joefixit2]

Glad I didn't spend my time reading that, why? It was probably filled with non-sense and a big dose of ego.

And so with that Godman, you are the second to get the pleasure of my ignore list.

I hear it's cold in the world of the ignored, it's like a totally different black dimension where no light can enter, only the chill that runs up your spine... pack some booties.

okay, that blabbity blabbity thing made me laugh out loud. Well played sir, well played!

 

[Scooter]

The design was silly because of a baby face that constantly changed (For the worst) some of his best shots were expressionless moments (when he stares down Talbot I LOVE it.)

The shots with Talbot, in the army base (as he tries to drill into Hulk's skull...for some reason) were phenomenal. From what I gather, most fanboys were just pissed becaus ethe Hulk showed emotions other angry.

And no, many who see it don't rip on it because of ... again the design, he looks more menacing to people this time around. Everyone I show it to says "Now thats more like it!" Is it because of how well he blends with the environment? Or because they feel they could reach out and touch him? Nope. But because he just looks like the Hulk they want.

Or, because he's shiny and new. This new Hulk is no more menacing than the old. Less so, I'd argue, because it's a much less convincing design.

 

[M.O.Steel]

Well I understand using a real person when you can, but for Hulk, for his proportions as people have said, trick camera angles wouldn't do him justice to me. I think what we have now looks fantastic (and yes I know that we disagree, as you are not consistently impressed.)

I just can't see going back to a man in a suit, (i.e. Hyde) or a man painted green like Lou ever again. It's like I crossed a threshold I wouldn't want to go back from.

Yes we could make a man wider / taller. But we will never get the absolutely freaked up porportions of the Hulk with simple force perspective. He needs longer arms than legs, bigger hands than a normal person would, etc. etc. etc.

I am not saying it couldn't be done though, I am just saying I'd rather it be CG in this case.

sure fair enough, agree to disagree. i don't mind the CGI (although some parts make me cringe), but it's just something i would have prefered.

again, this is a discussion about the CGI of the film. i don't see why others need to start calling each other names because of a difference of opnion.

 

[FrostBite]

Or, because he's shiny and new. This new Hulk is no more menacing than the old. Less so, I'd argue, because it's a much less convincing design.

If they complained about the other when it was shiny and new why wouldn't they with this one? That logic is kind of flawed.

Isn't it possible that others have a different opinion than yours on how convincing / menacing it looks? Of course my sampling of people isn't a representation of the masses, but they didn't like the first from even the trailers before seeing the film (which I was blown away with and actually argued with them on.) In any case to me, (outside of a few shots, see: screaming in the field) this new version is more convincing and more menacing.

But as M.O. Steel says, agree to disagree.

 

[Scooter]

Isn't it possible that others have a different opinion than yours on how convincing / menacing it looks?

Don't be ridiculous.

In any case to me, (outside of a few shots, see: screaming in the field) this new version is more convincing and more menacing.

And, to me, it looks poorly designed, poorly executed (aside from one or two snippets) and majorly disappointing. :

But as M.O. Steel says, agree to disagree.

Okay. At least, this way, I'm still right.

 

[FrostBite]

Okay. At least, this way, I'm still right.

No! That way I am still right!

 

[ForgottenLAW]

Don't be ridiculous.


And, to me, it looks poorly designed, poorly executed (aside from one or two snippets) and majorly disappointing. :


Okay. At least, this way, I'm still right.

.... thats just sad

 

[Scooter]

I disagree!

 

[Comicfan]

CGI IS RUINING MOVIES!!

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic/story/0,,2281466,00.html

Maybe I´m a little later into this..

But I simply can agree with this article, CGI has pushed the movies to a whole new realm than can´t be obtained with practical effects

Yes, there are bad CGI, but its not the CGI that is ruining the movies, a movie doesn´t flop or do bad because it has bad CGI, bad stories ruin movies

HECK I saw IJ4 yesterday, and was so atracted to the story and characters that I didn´t mind the CGI at all, yes, I knew it was there, but it didn´t take out of the story

You can say whatever you want about the CGI, but even the most average CGI looks tons better than the best stop motion animation or guy in a suit

 

[Comicfan]

sure fair enough, agree to disagree. i don't mind the CGI (although some parts make me cringe), but it's just something i would have prefered.

again, this is a discussion about the CGI of the film. i don't see why others need to start calling each other names because of a difference of opnion.

I think in this day and age painting a man green and filming him in "funny" angles to make him look big is silly, when you can make a HULKING beast with CGI

AND YES I´m ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO COMPLAINS AND OVER ANALISE THE CGI OF THIS FILM...

.. because, come on... A whole thread with people just saying how great the CGI of the new HULK looks.... that just boring...


I do still think there something funny about the hulks model anatomy

But lets face it CGI rockst:

 

[M.O.Steel]

I think in this day and age painting a man green and filming him in "funny" angles to make him look big is silly, when you can make a HULKING beast with CGI

AND YES I´m ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO COMPLAINS AND OVER ANALISE THE CGI OF THIS FILM...

.. because, come on... A whole thread with people just saying how great the CGI of the new HULK looks.... that just boring...


I do still think there something funny about the hulks model anatomy

But lets face it CGI rockst:

again, it's a matter of opnion. i think it looks sillier that when everything is so real and the entire environment is grounded in the real world, the CG hulk sticks out like a sore thumb. so yeah, they all look silly. one minute, it's real life, the next, it looks like a awesome version of shrek.

 

[NoirMan82]

that wasn't good, but there are amazing make-up artists out there that can do a good job. looking at predator and aliens, looking at the thing, they can easily fix the problems. there were a lot of things wrogn with that movie, i was using it as a example since the two are very similar.



funny you say that because i feel the exact same for people that are SO avid supporters of 100% CG. i think they are the delusional ones if they think it looks amazing and real.

I don't think CGI looks real, I also don't think practical effects look real. The human eye is hard to fool. But can both still be amazing? Yes. I just prefer one over the other, or in unison. LL stated that both practical effects and cgi are used in TIH. However, for Hulk himself, CGI fits the bill. I mean, even if the used a guy in make-up they would still need cgi for all the action shots. So why use such a method when you have to use cgi for all the action and to enhance the practical effects? Why not just use all CGI at that point?

The issue is that the practical approach a few people would like is anything but. It's a logistic headache and that would ruin the quality of the film. I think the supports of cg are a little more in the right because we've seen so many times in so many films done successfully. The practical approach, however, not so much.The whole debate is just so useless because it's not like anyone believes a CG character is real moreso than a than a pratical one. It's all about which approach lends it self best to the film-making process. For Hulk, I think CGI is the best way. We'll see for surre in 9 days.

 

[Comicfan]

again, it's a matter of opnion. i think it looks sillier that when everything is so real and the entire environment is grounded in the real world, the CG hulk sticks out like a sore thumb. so yeah, they all look silly. one minute, it's real life, the next, it looks like a awesome version of shrek.

And you don´t think a guy in suit looks silly in a movie?

or how about when you know the building that is blowing up is just a couple of feet tall?

And don´t get me started on stop motion...

Just think os so many movies that... sure they could have been done with practical FXs but they would have been so great or epic just out of top of my head:

- LOTR trilogy
- IRONMAN
- TRANSFORMERS
- THE HOST
- SPIDERMAN
- NARNIA
- HARRY POTTER
- PIRATES OF THE CARIBEAN
- the new KING KONG
- JURASIC PARK (I know there where lots of practical FXs in there, but some of the most fast paced scenes where CGI)

and the list goes on and on...

 

[Green eyed Hulk]

What makes me chuckle about a man in a suit, was how whenever the Thing overstretched or lifted something his suit, which was supposed to portray a rock like texture creased. I bet the Thing would kick ass as a Cgi character.

 

[Godman]

Wow, I really can't believe you said that outloud.

If they had a guy painted green for this movie, you would have 99.9% of the world saying it was the stupidest thing they have ever seen. Your making a movie about a comic book character that is at least 7 feet tall in the book, who exactly are you going to find that can fit that bill and not look like Fat Albert in green make-up? CGI was the only way to go for this movie.

They could have used Cg only to enhance a real guy rather than an entire being

 

[Spade]

Then people would be complaining about how the enhancements look cheap and unrealistic.

See how nobody wins in this?

 

[Godman]

Maybe I´m a little later into this..

But I simply can agree with this article, CGI has pushed the movies to a whole new realm than can´t be obtained with practical effects

Yes, there are bad CGI, but its not the CGI that is ruining the movies, a movie doesn´t flop or do bad because it has bad CGI, bad stories ruin movies

HECK I saw IJ4 yesterday, and was so atracted to the story and characters that I didn´t mind the CGI at all, yes, I knew it was there, but it didn´t take out of the story

You can say whatever you want about the CGI, but even the most average CGI looks tons better than the best stop motion animation or guy in a suit

Watch Minority Report and THAT is how CGI is used only when needed. Spielberg is one of the best CG users ever. very sparingly. That's why I think with a cinematic Genius like him we would have gotten a Hulk to die for. This Hulk is quick and cheap even in comparission with 2003 when Ang Lee pulled no punches with the amount of realism he went for with his Hulk.

If you do use Cgi, at least for the ENTIRE main character...Revolutionize the medium.
The Matrix had NO CGI characters but found a way to make the scenes VERY believable where as Reloaded and Revolutions failed miserably in revolutionizing ANYTHING. That CGI was garbage and the wachowskis got too trigger happy with it.

 

[Godman]

Then people would be complaining about how the enhancements look cheap and unrealistic.

See how nobody wins in this?

Better than what we have... At least. Like the mix of real and CG with Abe Sapien and with Davey Jones...GREAT and fantastic CG and like Jurassic Park using animatics along with CGI. It's possible and matter of fact WAAAAY more believable. Burton gave us Apes with extremely GREAT make up and strayed from CGI which he could have just replaced the actors with easily if he was trigger happy.

Ninja Turtles did GREAT with their characters cause I can still watch them movies and feel that CG will NEVER surpass it.

 

[M.O.Steel]

And you don´t think a guy in suit looks silly in a movie?

or how about when you know the building that is blowing up is just a couple of feet tall?

And don´t get me started on stop motion...

Just think os so many movies that... sure they could have been done with practical FXs but they would have been so great or epic just out of top of my head:

- LOTR trilogy
- IRONMAN
- TRANSFORMERS
- THE HOST
- SPIDERMAN
- NARNIA
- HARRY POTTER
- PIRATES OF THE CARIBEAN
- the new KING KONG
- JURASIC PARK (I know there where lots of practical FXs in there, but some of the most fast paced scenes where CGI)

and the list goes on and on...

you just commented on my last post instead of the entire conversation. i've said elsewhere, I am NOT anti-CG, man. all the movies you said are perfect use of CG, and i wouldn't and couldn't imagine a practical way to acquire them. How are you supposed to create transforming robots? I'm not anti CG. i just think this CG just doesn't look good. maybe it's the company, maybe the amount of money or time they spent, some parts just doesn't look good.

no, it wouldn't be a regular joe wearing a puffy muscle suit. i imagine a bodybuilder, and the use of prosthetics to acquire the correct proportions, and then forced perspective to create size. they have excellent make-up artists now that its not just a dude in a sumo wrestling suit.

again, it's a matter of use. spiderman looked great, LOTR. but like i describe, T2 looks amazing and feels much more real than T3. the first matrix felt a lot more real than two and three. and all the compared movies have some CG, it's the just the degree of difference.

if we were movie producers/directors, and we ask the make-up department that we want to creat hulk as a person and want him to look like this

...they could create it in a heartbeat. people underestimate them a lot more than they deserve.

i love this poster, and this could easily be create with a bodybuilder and prosthetics.

 

[M.O.Steel]

Watch Minority Report and THAT is how CGI is used only when needed. Spielberg is one of the best CG users ever. very sparingly. That's why I think with a cinematic Genius like him we would have gotten a Hulk to die for. This Hulk is quick and cheap even in comparission with 2003 when Ang Lee pulled no punches with the amount of realism he went for with his Hulk.

If you do use Cgi, at least for the ENTIRE main character...Revolutionize the medium.
The Matrix had NO CGI characters but found a way to make the scenes VERY believable where as Reloaded and Revolutions failed miserably in revolutionizing ANYTHING. That CGI was garbage and the wachowskis got too trigger happy with it.

i heard he went overboard with indy 4. haven't seen it yet.

 

[Godman]

And you don´t think a guy in suit looks silly in a movie?

or how about when you know the building that is blowing up is just a couple of feet tall?

And don´t get me started on stop motion...

Just think os so many movies that... sure they could have been done with practical FXs but they would have been so great or epic just out of top of my head:

- LOTR trilogy
- IRONMAN
- TRANSFORMERS
- THE HOST
- SPIDERMAN
- NARNIA
- HARRY POTTER
- PIRATES OF THE CARIBEAN
- the new KING KONG
- JURASIC PARK (I know there where lots of practical FXs in there, but some of the most fast paced scenes where CGI)

and the list goes on and on...

Potter, Spiderman, and LOTR had some pretty bad CG besides the creatures. I mean when the Humans turned CG it was HORRIBLE. Legalus on the elephant and grabbing onto the beast horse earlier were horrible and spidey swinging and climbing the wall was HORRIBLE and unnecessary. Harry Potter didn't need Human CG as Blade 2 used...Bad, Bad, Bad

 

[M.O.Steel]

i will admit the CG improved considerably from the first trailer, and hopefully all the bad parts are straightened and polished out by next week.