Why CGI?

[Hmarrs]

the size issue is already taken care of, they already are moving faster than they appear to be because they are the apropriate scale. creatures like the hulk and abomination have the strength and speed to move themselves effortlessly. indicators of weight would be in their momentum, how that reacts with the internal forces of their bodies and their affect on the surroundings.

Yeah but they still move way too fast.If it had been a person a real person
that big according to physics he wouldn't be moving that fast.I know in the comics they can probably move that fast but in movies it should only be at certain times and at certain bursts of speed.Actually in comics I believe it's in certain burts of speed because there are times where the Hulk was quick enough to catch Quicksilver running around him and other times Spiderman is doing circles around him.So it must be in sudden bursts and given the nature of his power and strength I can see that.People have to relate first in a way they can understand even for me it looks weird to see him move just as fast as the people around him if not faster.That and taken into consideration what you said momentum which is all related.CGI could workout a whole lot better.
Wieght and Mass produces the momentum and speed at which they move.
It's actually all relative.

 

[Arach Knight]

Yeah but they still move way too fast.If it had been a person a real person that big according to physics he wouldn't be moving that fast.

Your entire argument fell apart right there. We aren't dealing with physics or known reality. Some things in fiction are just too over the top to be ignored, but in the case of a graceful giant who is powered by Gamma Radiation, i'd say you have already over thought the matter. It is fiction. He doesn't have to move realistically. He couldn't exist in and of himself, so why trifle over what he should be able to do in reality? In reality, hitting a man with gamma radiation would kill him.

 

[Hmarrs]

Your entire argument fell apart right there. We aren't dealing with physics or known reality. Some things in fiction are just too over the top to be ignored, but in the case of a graceful giant who is powered by Gamma Radiation, i'd say you have already over thought the matter. It is fiction. He doesn't have to move realistically. He couldn't exist in and of himself, so why trifle over what he should be able to do in reality? In reality, hitting a man with gamma radiation would kill him.

Dude your missing the point,I'm not even talking about the character.
I'm talking about the realism of CGI and why it looks fake.Read my post again.I also made referance to the King Kong movie as welll.
As far as the character is concerned real or not he has got to move realistically regardless if he is going to be taken realistically.Of course he has to move realistically.He is a fictional character who moves realistically.It's called Hollywood.If it's done right.

 

[Arach Knight]

Why does he have to move "realistically"? By my measure, he doesn't move in any abnormal fashion. I mean you are nitpicking about how the Hulk moves too fast? Really? The guy is able to jump vertically some near 2 miles and can jump even greater distances horizontally. He can shift his trajectory (and thus his velocity) in mid-air, which by known laws of physics, is impossible. And he's been doing that for decades in the comic books. If you haven't complained about that over the years, then I don't see how you can complain about how he is moving now. And for that matter, King Kong isn't even real.

You are demanding too much reality from creatures that exist far beyond such a realm. I don't see how you can enjoy films like these when you are so quick to pick them apart rather than relaxing. I mean you no offense, but do not be so uptight. Relax, breathe in and realize that this is science fiction/fantasy. Nothing has to make sense because it is neither probable nor plausible in our world. And that is why these films and comics are enjoyed. Because they escape the concerns of reality. The CGI is fine. I suggest you just withdraw yourself from discussions on this film, until it actually comes out. I only see you ruining it for yourself in your need to find somebody who agrees that the CGI is faulty. Most of us have already said that we find it to be up to par or better than the previous Hulk film.

And for the record, here is perhaps the best reason as to why I don't like real actors playing inhumanly large characters...

Not a bad concept, but by far, it is not Juggernaut...Just look at the forearm prosthetics they had to use, to make him look larger. The ab prosthetics they used just to make him look larger in muscle size. And even with camera tricks designed to make him look taller than everyone, he still failed to match his comic book alter ego...

Remember that Juggernaut isn't as tall as Hulk. And you expect them to try camera tricks, prosthetics and real actors again? At least CGI is more faithful to the character idea and representation.

 

[Hmarrs]

Why does he have to move "realistically"? By my measure, he doesn't move in any abnormal fashion. I mean you are nitpicking about how the Hulk moves too fast? Really? The guy is able to jump vertically some near 2 miles and can jump even greater distances horizontally. He can shift his trajectory (and thus his velocity) in mid-air, which by known laws of physics, is impossible. And he's been doing that for decades in the comic books. If you haven't complained about that over the years, then I don't see how you can complain about how he is moving now. And for that matter, King Kong isn't even real.

You are demanding too much reality from creatures that exist far beyond such a realm. I don't see how you can enjoy films like these when you are so quick to pick them apart rather than relaxing. I mean you no offense, but do not be so uptight. Relax, breathe in and realize that this is science fiction/fantasy. Nothing has to make sense because it is neither probable nor plausible in our world. And that is why these films and comics are enjoyed. Because they escape the concerns of reality. The CGI is fine. I suggest you just withdraw yourself from discussions on this film, until it actually comes out. I only see you ruining it for yourself in your need to find somebody who agrees that the CGI is faulty. Most of us have already said that we find it to be up to par or better than the previous Hulk film.

And for the record, here is perhaps the best reason as to why I don't like real actors playing inhumanly large characters...

Not a bad concept, but by far, it is not Juggernaut...Just look at the forearm prosthetics they had to use, to make him look larger. The ab prosthetics they used just to make him look larger in muscle size. And even with camera tricks designed to make him look taller than everyone, he still failed to match his comic book alter ego...

Remember that Juggernaut isn't as tall as Hulk. And you expect them to try camera tricks, prosthetics and real actors again? At least CGI is more faithful to the character idea and representation.

Dude your not getting what I'm saying so just forget it.
Also I am not uptight and I am not looking for anyone to agree with me.
The only people who seem to be uptight are the people like yourself asking me to leave and not discuss it until the movie comes out.That what this thread was started for.So people can post comments bounce stuff off each other.Why do people on these threads care so much about opposing opinions?It seems that people on here take things so personnel if you don't see things the way they do.In my mind if you have an opinion and are not willing to accept another's opinion then a Thread is not the place for you.

I think the people that find this thread offensive should leave.There are hundreds of other topics out there.Why come back to a thread that bothers you about someone else's opinion?I think that people who don't have a problem can discuss these things without worrying.I'm not worried I could care less.I'm still going to see the movie.So what?You keep bringing up the character's to me I'm talking about CGI you don't get it.I'm talking the cost of Coffee in Cuba your talking about the cost of Tea in China.So please just leave it alone.

 

[Hypestyle]

it would have been cool for a robot Hulk for close-ups.. get Stan Winston...

 

[Arach Knight]

Dude your not getting what I'm saying so just forget it.

Well let's see how much i'm not getting you...

Okay maybe the new one may seem more accurate personality wise.
I'm talking in terms of realism.

You mean the same realism that I have addressed several times throughout the thread? Or are we talking about the juxtaposition i've made between the movie and comic Juggernaut? Or how about me directly addressing your concerns with CGI and physics?

ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLRIGHTY then....I'm glad it looks real to somebody.

Yep...people are taking offense. Because you have answered with refute after refute as well as the above sarcasm (though i'll credit you for later apologizing to the person you were addressing).

Yeah but they still move way too fast.If it had been a person a real person
that big according to physics he wouldn't be moving that fast.I know in the comics they can probably move that fast but in movies it should only be at certain times and at certain bursts of speed.

Yep...there you are talking about physics...and realism...

"Why does he have to move "realistically"? By my measure, he doesn't move in any abnormal fashion. I mean you are nitpicking about how the Hulk moves too fast? Really? The guy is able to jump vertically some near 2 miles and can jump even greater distances horizontally. He can shift his trajectory (and thus his velocity) in mid-air, which by known laws of physics, is impossible. And he's been doing that for decades in the comic books. If you haven't complained about that over the years, then I don't see how you can complain about how he is moving now."

And yep...there I am addressing that concern. So it seems like I do get it.

 

[ANTOINE X]

I think juggernaut was cool. I liked the scene where he run and breaks wall one by one. Juggernaut is huge but understand that by the years the artist making him bigger and bigger to a point where he is more like a monster than anything else. although instead of picking Vinnie Jones who is tall but not large enough, they should have pick a wrestler like triple H.

 

[Hmarrs]

Well let's see how much i'm not getting you...



You mean the same realism that I have addressed several times throughout the thread? Or are we talking about the juxtaposition i've made between the movie and comic Juggernaut? Or how about me directly addressing your concerns with CGI and physics?



Yep...people are taking offense. Because you have answered with refute after refute as well as the above sarcasm (though i'll credit you for later apologizing to the person you were addressing).



Yep...there you are talking about physics...and realism...

"Why does he have to move "realistically"? By my measure, he doesn't move in any abnormal fashion. I mean you are nitpicking about how the Hulk moves too fast? Really? The guy is able to jump vertically some near 2 miles and can jump even greater distances horizontally. He can shift his trajectory (and thus his velocity) in mid-air, which by known laws of physics, is impossible. And he's been doing that for decades in the comic books. If you haven't complained about that over the years, then I don't see how you can complain about how he is moving now."

And yep...there I am addressing that concern. So it seems like I do get it.

Wow!Are you for real.
I have not answered in refute.I'm discussing concerns with people who
I think might have insight.Honestly they have brought up good points but so have I.That's what a Thread is for.What is there to get upset about?I mean Really???Every now and then I may come across someone that get's crazy if you don't agree with them.Which in my opinion this is the worst place for someone like that to be because every one here has there own opinion.Opinions I might add I like to hear.
About my sacarism:Did you even read my post,it's as if you glance over them and pick out what you want.
I never got sarcastic.I said I was sorry if it sounded that way because that's not how I meant it.I was joking.(Joking)Of course on a post it's difficult to know where the person posting is coming from since there is no reflection on tone of voice.
Again you keep making references to my post and you keep repeating and repeating the same things.In no way are you even comming close to adressing what I'm talking about.So again just drop it or read my post again and start over.Someone please tell this guy the cost of "Tea in China,I'm still looking for the price of Coffee".
(That was just a joke before you think I'm being sarcastic or upset)

Ummm...Tea anyone?

 

[Arach Knight]

Considering I kept the context of your statements that I quoted, and even quoted myself in response to one of your quotes, I would say that I am far from looking for "the price of tea in China." Your argument/debate/query/statements can be summed up as follows...


1)You admittedly agree that the 2003 Hulk movie was not a good movie.

2)You believe that the design of the title character in that film, is superior to the design and aesthetic of the title character in this months upcoming summer blockboster.

3)You feel that Hulk should have been done with a mixture of CGI, a real human and prosthetics.

Now i'm not saying your opinion is not without merit, because it is obviously your personal position on the matter. I, as well as others, have offered up their views on why such a feat would only hurt the Hulk more than it would help him. You have been shown examples of Hyde from the LOEG film as well as Juggernaut from X3 (both of which used camera tricks, CGI and prosthetics to make real actors appear like their larger comic counter parts).

When you shifted your complaint to CGI not taking physics into consideration, I addressed the fact that you can not complain about scientific laws in animating a fictional character that has an origin rooted in the defiance of such laws. You said Hulk moved too fast. I said that he can shift his trajectory and velocity (impossible without aid) in mid-air. The point being, that you have not complained about the general lack of scientific accuracy for the character, but rather only complain about elements that suit your current argument about CGI.

I will concede that I have perhaps come off as too abbrasive, but that was only in the fact that I felt as though you were being mildly hostile toward me as well. So for that, I apologize. But I will not renege on my previous statements. Nor can you say that i'm discussing "the price of tea in China" while you are "searching for cofee." I think i've addressed you frequently, in a moderate fashion and with support for my arguments outside of the realm of my general opinion.

I actually provided physical evidence from the past, to support my point. I'm hardly as lofty in this debate as you are so attempting to make me out to be (and yes I regard that as passive-aggressive hostility. So perhaps you can see why i've been so abbrasive). Nor have I robbed you of context. I quoted you from several different posts, to show the general tone of your argument throughout the thread. If you feel as though that paints a picture of you that is disagreeable, I suggest that you set down your brush, for it is a self-portrait and not a contortion of my own machination.

 

[Hmarrs]

Considering I kept the context of your statements that I quoted, and even quoted myself in response to one of your quotes, I would say that I am far from looking for "the price of tea in China." Your argument/debate/query/statements can be summed up as follows...


1)You admittedly agree that the 2003 Hulk movie was not a good movie.

2)You believe that the design of the title character in that film, is superior to the design and aesthetic of the title character in this months upcoming summer blockboster.

3)You feel that Hulk should have been done with a mixture of CGI, a real human and prosthetics.

Now i'm not saying your opinion is not without merit, because it is obviously your personal position on the matter. I, as well as others, have offered up their views on why such a feat would only hurt the Hulk more than it would help him. You have been shown examples of Hyde from the LOEG film as well as Juggernaut from X3 (both of which used camera tricks, CGI and prosthetics to make real actors appear like their larger comic counter parts).

When you shifted your complaint to CGI not taking physics into consideration, I addressed the fact that you can not complain about scientific laws in animating a fictional character that has an origin rooted in the defiance of such laws. You said Hulk moved too fast. I said that he can shift his trajectory and velocity (impossible without aid) in mid-air. The point being, that you have not complained about the general lack of scientific accuracy for the character, but rather only complain about elements that suit your current argument about CGI.

I will concede that I have perhaps come off as too abbrasive, but that was only in the fact that I felt as though you were being mildly hostile toward me as well. So for that, I apologize. But I will not renege on my previous statements. Nor can you say that i'm discussing "the price of tea in China" while you are "searching for cofee." I think i've addressed you frequently, in a moderate fashion and with support for my arguments outside of the realm of my general opinion.

I actually provided physical evidence from the past, to support my point. I'm hardly as lofty in this debate as you are so attempting to make me out to be (and yes I regard that as passive-aggressive hostility. So perhaps you can see why i've been so abbrasive). Nor have I robbed you of context. I quoted you from several different posts, to show the general tone of your argument throughout the thread. If you feel as though that paints a picture of you that is disagreeable, I suggest that you set down your brush, for it is a self-portrait and not a contortion of my own machination.

How long are you and I going to have this dance.
Okay
1.)I understand that you have qouted me and that's fine.I stand behind the qoutes.WHat I am suggesting is I don't think you understood what I have qouted.So even if you were to qoute everything I said but didn't understand or misunderstood my qoutes it would be to no avail.

2.)What I was saying was yes I liked the first Hulk overall design better yes I said that.All but how tall he was.

3.)In the new Hulk what I like in the design is the attitude behind his character.So I like them both in different ways.I personally think it would have been nice to have blended both together but that's just me.

4.)I didn't say he should have been done with a mixture.I asked why wasn't he done with a mixture.If you look back t the very first post.That was my question.If I said he should have then it was in light of my original question.As I often wondered if it would have looked better.
Now I have heard some good arguments pro and con.I value them both.
I can't and won't say who I think is right.Both have persented good points on either side.Antoine x for one and yourself.

5.)I never shifted.I don't question the Hulk's ability and or whether or not he is real.

What I am talking about is Fictional Realism or Realistic Fiction.
Ex.
Do you remeber King Kong Vs.Godzilla really,really hokey right.
Fictional Characters but they looked fake right.

Okay King Kong 1978 or 77 I don't remember but anyway it looked even better right.

Okay now the new King Kong 2005 or 06.Whatever the improvements have been made because as time goes on they find new ways to adjust and bring more realism to the character and yet it is the same fictional character.You see what I mean being fictional in my argument have nothing to do with the way your presenting your argument.
The new Godzilla Movie and Jurrastic park and Golum from LOTR were all fictional and have fictional movements but they were more realistic to me.
Why because they were handled in a trajectory that was more adjadcent to their size and weight.Yet they were all fictional.I feel CGI does not compliment that many times.

Okay ex.The Hulk jumps miles up right.Like he did in the last movie.In my opinion he did not land as a creature that weighed 1000 pounds if this were included the level of believeability would have more of an effect.Get what I'm saying?That's just one example.As far as the speed even if he could move that fast it should not appear that way to us.Large things altough they move fast look slow to us.747 move 700 miles per hour but from our prospective it doesn't look that way.Trains move at great speeds but it really doesn't transfer to us that way.I'm not nitpicking I'm just saying that when this is taken into account CGI will have more of an effect.

Do you see what I mean?

 

[Hmarrs]

Considering I kept the context of your statements that I quoted, and even quoted myself in response to one of your quotes, I would say that I am far from looking for "the price of tea in China." Your argument/debate/query/statements can be summed up as follows...


1)You admittedly agree that the 2003 Hulk movie was not a good movie.

2)You believe that the design of the title character in that film, is superior to the design and aesthetic of the title character in this months upcoming summer blockboster.

3)You feel that Hulk should have been done with a mixture of CGI, a real human and prosthetics.

Now i'm not saying your opinion is not without merit, because it is obviously your personal position on the matter. I, as well as others, have offered up their views on why such a feat would only hurt the Hulk more than it would help him. You have been shown examples of Hyde from the LOEG film as well as Juggernaut from X3 (both of which used camera tricks, CGI and prosthetics to make real actors appear like their larger comic counter parts).

When you shifted your complaint to CGI not taking physics into consideration, I addressed the fact that you can not complain about scientific laws in animating a fictional character that has an origin rooted in the defiance of such laws. You said Hulk moved too fast. I said that he can shift his trajectory and velocity (impossible without aid) in mid-air. The point being, that you have not complained about the general lack of scientific accuracy for the character, but rather only complain about elements that suit your current argument about CGI.

I will concede that I have perhaps come off as too abbrasive, but that was only in the fact that I felt as though you were being mildly hostile toward me as well. So for that, I apologize. But I will not renege on my previous statements. Nor can you say that i'm discussing "the price of tea in China" while you are "searching for cofee." I think i've addressed you frequently, in a moderate fashion and with support for my arguments outside of the realm of my general opinion.

I actually provided physical evidence from the past, to support my point. I'm hardly as lofty in this debate as you are so attempting to make me out to be (and yes I regard that as passive-aggressive hostility. So perhaps you can see why i've been so abbrasive). Nor have I robbed you of context. I quoted you from several different posts, to show the general tone of your argument throughout the thread. If you feel as though that paints a picture of you that is disagreeable, I suggest that you set down your brush, for it is a self-portrait and not a contortion of my own machination.

How long are you and I going to have this dance.
Okay
1.)I understand that you have qouted me and that's fine.I stand behind the qoutes.WHat I am suggesting is I don't think you understood what I have qouted.So even if you were to qoute everything I said but didn't understand or misunderstood my qoutes it would be to no avail.

2.)What I was saying was yes I liked the first Hulk overall design better yes I said that.All but how tall he was.

3.)In the new Hulk what I like in the design is the attitude behind his character.So I like them both in different ways.I personally think it would have been nice to have blended both together but that's just me.

4.)I didn't say he should have been done with a mixture.I asked why wasn't he done with a mixture.If you look back t the very first post.That was my question.If I said he should have then it was in light of my original question.As I often wondered if it would have looked better.
Now I have heard some good arguments pro and con.I value them both.
I can't and won't say who I think is right.Both have persented good points on either side.Antoine x for one and yourself.

5.)I never shifted.I don't question the Hulk's ability and or whether or not he is real.

What I am talking about is Fictional Realism or Realistic Fiction.
Ex.
Do you remeber King Kong Vs.Godzilla really,really hokey right.
Fictional Characters but they looked fake right.

Okay King Kong 1978 or 77 I don't remember but anyway it looked even better right.

Okay now the new King Kong 2005 or 06.Whatever the improvements have been made because as time goes on they find new ways to adjust and bring more realism to the character and yet it is the same fictional character.You see what I mean being fictional in my argument have nothing to do with the way your presenting your argument.
The new Godzilla Movie and Jurrastic park and Golum from LOTR were all fictional and have fictional movements but they were more realistic to me.
Why because they were handled in a trajectory that was more adjadcent to their size and weight.Yet they were all fictional.I feel CGI does not compliment that many times.

Okay ex.The Hulk jumps miles up right.Like he did in the last movie.In my opinion he did not land as a creature that weighed 1000 pounds if this were included the level of believeability would have more of an effect.Get what I'm saying?That's just one example.As far as the speed even if he could move that fast it should not appear that way to us.Large things altough they move fast look slow to us.747 move 700 miles per hour but from our prospective it doesn't look that way.Trains move at great speeds but it really doesn't transfer to us that way.I'm not nitpicking I'm just saying that when this is taken into account CGI will have more of an effect.

Do you see what I mean?

Picture if you will the Hulk movie comes out and they use a Puppet on stings.What would you say.
You would be like hey what gives/You would then say to me that looked phony why did they do that.
Then I say so what that they used a puppet on a string who care's the hulk is fake anyway.
Now of course my example is a bit extreme but it's the same argument nonetheless that's why I think saying the Hulk is fake anyway is no excuse.It actually cheapens the character for you to say that.
Hollywood is about making the unbelievabe believable.Why else would we go see the movie.I mean it will take time for CGI to catch up,so what can be done to make it better?I gave my opinion.I think it's in movement,and scale because it has no wieght it's light and computer programing.So all this has to be accounted for.I think some people have nailed it and some have not.I believe when it is realized we will see a tremendous leap.
So my question was did they use all at their disposal to make it believeable that's all.
Also if I offended you or anyone else for that matter than again I apologize.It really isn't that big of a deal.That Tea joke was just that a joke.I like to joke to make light of things that's all.
But do you see my point?

 

[Arach Knight]

Now that is the credible and fully thought out position that this debate has needed. Far from ephemeral. It leaves little to be dubious of.

"If I said he should have then it was in light of my original question.As I often wondered if it would have looked better.
Now I have heard some good arguments pro and con.I value them both."

I find that more agreeable. When I read your initial query, I took it to mean that you felt such methods would yield a better outcome, but if you can recognize the failings of current technology when it comes to mixing CGI and prosthetics...then I can't disagree. I would never say that such a combination should remain out of the question, but it can be said that as of right now, it will not create a convicing creature.

"What I am talking about is Fictional Realism or Realistic Fiction"

That is a more defined thought but a less definitive statement, if that makes sense to you. What should seem plausible even in fictional terms, versus what we must abandon from our own reality, in order to enjoy ourselves when we see fiction play out. To this extent, I can entirely agree. I had a few such complaints myself when it came to fictional realism in the third Star Wars film. Your previous statements made it seem as though you had concern over the absence of physics in the film, where as this new statement conveys that you are concerned about believable and not literal realism.

With your points addressed at length rather than in brief, I find that your position is mostly (though not entirely) similar to mine. It appears that I have misunderstood you to a degree. It was difficult for me to extrapolate your statements due to their pithy nature, but this discourse has clarified any such grievances. I still find the new Hulk to be visually acceptable and thus must continue to disagree with you on that front. But I agree more or less with your views on CGI in general. So my apologies sir.

 

[terry78]

Depending on the artist, these characters' height and size flucuate constantly. Juggernaut is big, but he's not so big that people are like, "ahhhhh!!" like they are with Hulk...he's about on par with that world's tallest chinese guy, only not as thin. Hulk however, is about as tall as a 9-10ft. tall statue, which you can picture if you ever stood next to one.

 

[ANTOINE X]

Depending on the artist, these characters' height and size flucuate constantly. Juggernaut is big, but he's not so big that people are like, "ahhhhh!!" like they are with Hulk...he's about on par with that world's tallest chinese guy, only not as thin. Hulk however, is about as tall as a 9-10ft. tall statue, which you can picture if you ever stood next to one.

Thats what I tried to explain in an other thread. There s this new generation who grew up with artists making all superheroes looking like king-kong. Even Spider-man look like is on steroid some time. Hulk is big but not King kong size? Same thing with Juggernaut.

 

[shapeshifter]

you pic looses some of its effectiveness because he is standing next to Marvel's resident half pint.
the only way to make it worst would be to have him standing by Puck.

 

[storyteller]

The problem with applying real world physics to characters like the hulk is that these characters violate real world physics in many ways. The hulk should not even be able to swing his arms much less tear a tank apart and throw it across the field. It looks fake because its not possible. What i tend to notice is that most perceptions of the best cgi was based on first experience. I look at gollum now and i gotta say that he has not aged well given my first impressions. I can see that the character is out of place with the world.

Another point " Wait for the cgi to get better" is a lame argument. Practice makes perfect applys to cgi as anything else. Notice how gollum got better as the movies progressed. Why? Because they didnt wait for it to get better. They made the gollum the best they could for one movie and then they were able to take it up a notch for the next. You cant make cgi better without practice.

Also BAD CGI. Oh come on look at sci fi channels 5000 dollar budget movies. Thats bad cgi. Your telling me hulk 2003 belongs in the same category? You know what gollum had to the characters benefit. Gollum had a gray tone to his skin and the environment matched. If the movie took place in a sunny green plain, gollum would have looked a lot more out of place. I personally had no problem with hulk 2003 cgi but maybe the thing going against him was he was a green giant in the real world.

Next camera tricks and prosthetics. Im all up for it if they can get it to work. Hellboy I praise for the stuff. Though hell boy is no hulk. Also why the hulk in prosthetics wouldnt work so well for the main source. Well The hellhound from hellboy and Hyde from LOEG didnt exactly seem flexible. They could hardly get their arms up in those suits. Luckily hell boy wasnt Bruce lee so it worked out. Hyde had no real fight till the end(and it was all cgi). they simply had him jump from rooftop to rooftop and that to me is not the example that gives me faith in a similar hulk. The force prospective works somewhat. Notice how the giant from 300 didnt seem to have too much same camera screen time with leonidas. They went back and forth in editing(which worked for that scene). You want that jolting with the hulk? Then we got Hyde entanglement after being caught. Gotta say that perspective didnt look too awesome(but i didnt care i enjoyed hyde).

The hulk is about his powerful feats. You want the hulks top feat to be lifting a tree out the ground? fine lets get a man in a suit. You want the hulk ripping apart tanks and earning a full military strike in response, then you get cgi in the building. The real hulk can not function as a man in suit. he would be slow and would not be able to do the feats in real time filming(slow mo to the rescue). The running down the street between the two giants. Hey some of you may cringe, i found it exciting. A forced perspective man in suit just wouldnt fit for the scene. Changing the world around the actor is great for somethings but cgi gets to keep the real world and put in something incredible......hulk

Some characters would benefit from more real life people. Spiderman could use that for fight scenes. Force them to be more inventive. But if you want the actions in the comics to come to life, cgi is needed. Some characters are too unreal for them to be translated though makeup.

 

[GhostPoet]

it's so funny how people keep ragging on CGI, but they fail to mention how horrible dated robotics and puppets look, even in somewhat recent films.

 

[Arach Knight]

you pic looses some of its effectiveness because he is standing next to Marvel's resident half pint.
the only way to make it worst would be to have him standing by Puck.

Not really. You must not be old enough to go into a bar. Bars are fairly high up. At least below the rib cage on the average male human (5'9-5'10). Wolverine is short...but not in the realm of Puck, who is actually dwarven in size. Wolverine is about 5'4. So standing on top of a bar would bring him to a height of over 8 feet...and Juggernaut was still shown to be taller. As a matter of fact, if you measure the bar and compare it to Wolverine, it comes up to his pectoral muscles. While the bar only comes up to Juggernauts knee-cap. I think the image conveys the point just fine. I could have used other solo photos of Juggernaut, but they provided no sort of scale. The picture I chose, conveyed a scale with other people and objects. Which only further cements why Vinnie Jones in prosthetics, was not as good an idea as Vinnie Jones with CGI.

 

[ANTOINE X]

it's so funny how people keep ragging on CGI, but they fail to mention how horrible dated robotics and puppets look, even in somewhat recent films.

Yes but at the time there was no other alternative. Today we have many ways to play with sfx not only cgi. I was really happy that a movie like 300 brings new flavor to sfx.

 

[BoredGuy]

the only time i could see a guy in a suit is for up close shots, but i think they wanted to maintain some hints of ed norton in the face, the way they did for bana... it's not quite as noticeable, but if they had a guy in a suit for close-ups, there would be no consistency, which also kills believability(worse than poor physics if you ask me) so i say this nothing....