Why CGI?

[EternalMaster]

In some cases, the studio either MUST use CGI... or just forget about having the character on screen at all.

A human in green make-up and prosthetics would look ******ed on screen nowadays. This isn't the 1980's. This is 2008. Certain characters can only really be done in CGI because using a person in heavy make-up and prosthetics would look ******ed.

So if you think the CGI on someone like Hulk doesn't look good enough, you would basically need to say, "They should wait until the CGI is good enough."

There are no reasonable alternatives.

Personally, I think the CGI works fine in some cases. In other cases, CGI is used too much.

For example: the Blade movies. Blade looked fantastic in all of the live-action fight scenes. The worst moments were when they used CGI instead of simple wore work. Maybe the CGI was cheaper to do... but it also looked cheap on the screen.

 

[Arach Knight]

CGI works best for characters like the Hulk. Just look at how disappointing The Juggernaut was in X3. No where near as large and no where near the correct proportions. And they used a mix of prosthetics and CGI. Hulk is supposed to be 10 feet tall minimum and about 800 pounds. There is no real actor that can portray it.

 

[GhostPoet]

CGI works best for characters like the Hulk. Just look at how disappointing The Juggernaut was in X3. No where near as large and no where near the correct proportions. And they used a mix of prosthetics and CGI. Hulk is supposed to be 10 feet tall minimum and about 800 pounds. There is no real actor that can portray it.

Well said.
And I kind of think Apocalypse should be CGI...simply because of how hard it would be to find a decent actor that could look that imposing.

 

[shapeshifter]

Well said.
And I kind of think Apocalypse should be CGI...simply because of how hard it would be to find a decent actor that could look that imposing.

I agree on Apoc. I could see Darkseid being a man in a costume with add ons. Seeing him like that might even add to his dominating personality, but Apoc would only really work as a CG character. His powers are to varied, the prosthetics and puppetry alone would fill a warehouse if they tried to do it.
Who else do you guys think would only work as a CG?
Omega Red?
Mr. Sinister?
I know ghost Rider, though if they wanted to set Nicholas Cage's head on fire I would support it. He might find it hard to act through all of the smoke though.

 

[ANTOINE X]

That's my point Antoine X
Yeah use some CGI,some Prostetics and some Special effects (camera tricks)like LOTR,League of Extraordinary Gentleman and 300.
Like you have above from 300.Everyone keeps assuming that I'm trying to say.Just have some built guy painted green.That's not what I am saying.Mr.Hyde was played by the same guy who Played Dr.Jekell alot of people don't know that and he is tiny but he is layered up in prostetics.They then use some kind of special effect to make him huge.So if you start with a big guy already and work from there.Also his hands were out of proprtion but again they were prostetic actually robotic of some sort.Use someone big,add prostetics,use special effects like LOTR and then enhance everything via CGI.
Of course this won't work for every scene.That's where CGI comes in.Mix it up keep us guessing it adds to the illusion.The Only time a Magician asttounds you is when you don't know how the trick is being done even though you know it's not real.Once you know the secret the illussion becomes fake and losses the effect.Just like CGI.Someone said if you act like it's not CGI you will enjoy it.
NO!!!It's up to the studio to fool me to pull it off .That's what I am paying for.That's no excuse,Then why not have puppets and pretend their not puppets.Although I respect this persons opinion I don't agree.To me the Hulk looks fake and worse than the first one.People are going to like this one because their is more action.Altough the first one wasn't 100% it was far better than this one this one looks like rubber and his anotomy is terrible.Either way both failed to deliver.

Probably with in less than 15 years cgi will come to a point we wont see the difference between a real and a fake human. But right now there s still have work to do.Like I said before the animation is still 'cartoonish'ih'. I wouldn't say the first hulk was better than the new one but I agree 100% with you when you said that a good special effect is when nobody see the the difference between what real and what's not.

 

[IRON_Lad]

You're ****ing joking right?

You're saying you would rather have this(the special ed looking guy from LoEG):

ThanTHIS

And How can you say this looks fake?

 

[Hmarrs]

Probably with in less than 15 years cgi will come to a point we wont see the difference between a real and a fake human. But right now there s still have work to do.Like I said before the animation is still 'cartoonish'ih'. I wouldn't say the first hulk was better than the new one but I agree 100% with you when you said that a good special effect is when nobody see the the difference between what real and what's not.

I know I am going to get slack for what I am about to say but here goes...
I honestly think that people hated the first Hulk so much that it clouds their judgement.They hate the site of the old Hulk so that in their mind anything is better.But if you take a step back and be honest I think people's opinion would be different.Look and be honest.

Look at this,you mean to tell me this doesn't look more real????

Compared to that.
That look's stupid.He looks like a cartoon.

Look at him that first hulk was beast.

All they had to do was bring down his height he was perfect.
Look at this,look at his hands they look like rubber and they not anotomically correct.They look like they have been twisted all the way around or somthing.

Look at this look at his chest it's caved in and ******ed.

I didn't like the 2003 and Hulk but the Hulk design was far,far better.

 

[ANTOINE X]

The new Hulk is better than the old one but can you say thats the best we can do? I don't think so

 

[Hmarrs]

The new Hulk is better than the old one but can you say thats the best we can do? I don't think so

So you find the second one more believable?

 

[ANTOINE X]

I know I am going to get slack for what I am about to say but here goes...
I honestly think that people hated the first Hulk so much that it clouds their judgement.They hate the site of the old Hulk so that in their mind anything is better.But if you take a step back and be honest I think people's opinion would be different.Look and be honest.

Look at this,you mean to tell me this doesn't look more real????

Compared to that.
That look's stupid.He looks like a cartoon.

Look at him that first hulk was beast.

All they had to do was bring down his height he was perfect.
Look at this,look at his hands they look like rubber and they not anotomically correct.They look like they have been twisted all the way around or somthing.

Look at this look at his chest it's caved in and ******ed.

I didn't like the 2003 and Hulk but the Hulk design was far ,far better.

Actually I 'm one of the few people who liked Hulk 1. I saw it 3 times at the theater. The close-up scenes of Hulk in Hulk 1 were quite impressive but the part in the desert where he was jumping and running like super-mario was cool but not realistic. I hope we don't have that same problem in Hulk2. I'm not an anti-cgi I just don't wont cgi to be the superstar in a movie. I remember when the Matrix 360 rotation fx(what ever the name is) was shown for the first time it was special. Than they start doing the matrix thing everywhere! in commercials on TV.I m' afraid it's the same thing with Cgi today and it's not even perfect...

 

[jaymes_e06]

The first one was weak! This Hulk is menacing!

 

[Hmarrs]

This doesn't look more Anotomically correct to you?

 

[ANTOINE X]

So you find the second one more believable?

My Problem with the first Hulk is not the modeling. At some time(close-up) he really look real but the main problem is he looked like shrek! The first Hulk was too soft for me and they fix that pretty well with the new one. He look more like Hulk compare to the old one but both Hulks need work in term of facial expression and animation.

 

[Hmarrs]

The first one was weak! This Hulk is menacing!

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

 

[Hmarrs]

My Problem with the first Hulk is not the modeling. At some time(close-up) he really look real but the main problem is he looked like shrek! The first Hulk was too soft for me and they fix that pretty well with the new one. He look more like Hulk compare to the old one but both Hulks need work in term of facial expression and animation.

Okay that's fair Antoine but the first one had me at times believing he was real.At times I said.But the new one yes he's meaner and all but he looks cartoonish to me and his anotomy is way off.Look at his hands in that picture where he roaring.Look at his wrist that's impossible.Look at his chest in that other picture at least the first one was anotomically correct as far as the Hulks proportion go anyway.Don't you think?

 

[Hmarrs]

Okay look at it this way their was an artist named Rob Liefield.I'm sure you remeber him.I hated his artwork all his characters were anotomic disasters.Just aweful.But he had a way of drawing his characters mean and stuff so people ate that stuff up.Don't you think that's what happening here.People want to see the Hulk smash things and be mean
that they are willing to comprimise the quality of the CGI design.I'm not saying the first Hulk was perfect but I would love to see that Hulk be mean and duke it out with the Abomination more that this one.
Antoine what do you think?

 

[ANTOINE X]

Okay that's fair Antoine but the first one had me at times believing he was real.At times I said.But the new one yes he's meaner and all but he looks cartoonish to me and his anotomy is way off.Look at his hands in that picture where he roaring.Look at his wrist that's impossible.Look at his chest in that other picture at least the first one was anotomically correct as far as the Hulks proportion go anyway.Don't you think?

Well the mix of the 2 Hulk is maybe the solution. The first Hulk look soft but its skin texture and muscles are human like.Also with the sand dirt on him make him a bit more realistic. On the other side the new one look more menacing but its muscle are too sharp and the skin texture too 'glossy'.

 

[Hmarrs]

Well the mix of the 2 Hulk is maybe the solution. The first Hulk look soft but its skin texture and muscles are human like.Also with the sand dirt on him make him a bit more realistic. On the other side the new one look more menacing but its muscle are too sharp and the skin texture too 'glossy'.

Yeah I gotcha so just take the first one and give him the dameaner of the second one.The look of the first one with personna of the second one.

 

[Arach Knight]

The new Hulk looks better. They meshed his comic book look, with a much more realistic physique. His chest isn't so robust, because he looks more like a giant in peak physical shape, as opposed to just being large and rounded like the 2003 Hulk.

Here is a photo of World War Hulk (Hulk at his angriest). You can see that he isn't barrel chested, but rather he has an ideal physique. It's moderate but powerful in its aesthetic.

Hulk is supposed to be large and monsterous, but he shouldn't just look like a walking barrel. The new Hulk just makes more sense, physically. I didn't like the fact that Banner wore elastic pants in the last film. That is just garbage. Hulk was always supposed to be able to fit in human pants, they would just rip and become skin tight (usually cutting off around his calves or at least some what below the pit of his knee). This Hulk accomplishes that, unlike summer time shorts Hulk from 2003.

And please don't call this movie The Incredible Hulk 2. This is an unrelated reboot (think Batman Begins). This is not a sequel. Universal had their shot and they screwed up. Now Marvel Studios is doing it right (hopefully).

 

[Nathan]

Ah, come on. Don't talk nonsense. I'm not gonna argue which Hulk version looks better, but the pants not ripping apart were always part of the suspension of disbelief. Realistically his pants should rip to shreds. Ang's elastic pants, you may not have liked them, actually made more sense.

 

[Hmarrs]

Well the mix of the 2 Hulk is maybe the solution. The first Hulk look soft but its skin texture and muscles are human like.Also with the sand dirt on him make him a bit more realistic. On the other side the new one look more menacing but its muscle are too sharp and the skin texture too 'glossy'.

Antoine I agree with you.

 

[ANTOINE X]

Hulk is supposed to be large and monsterous, but he shouldn't just look like a walking barrel. The new Hulk just makes more sense, physically. I didn't like the fact that Banner wore elastic pants in the last film. That is just garbage. Hulk was always supposed to be able to fit in human pants, they would just rip and become skin tight (usually cutting off around his calves or at least some what below the pit of his knee). This Hulk accomplishes that, unlike summer time shorts Hulk from 2003.

The new Hulk looks better. They meshed his comic book look, with a much more realistic physique. His chest isn't so robust, because he looks more like a giant in peak physical shape, as opposed to just being large and rounded like the 2003 Hulk.

You have a few points here. I forgot about the elastic purple pants in Hulk2003. They were unrealistic. Also the V shape of the Hulk 08 is better than the Hulk 03. But I still think that the skin texture is too glossy like a bodybuilder coming from a competition. Also the pectoral muscle are too sharp and almost symmetrical wich autmaticaly make it unrealistic.

That s why Cgi needs to be perfected in term of human character. that kind of problem wouldn't happen if they used a real person.

 

[Hmarrs]

Hulk is supposed to be large and monsterous, but he shouldn't just look like a walking barrel. The new Hulk just makes more sense, physically. I didn't like the fact that Banner wore elastic pants in the last film. That is just garbage. Hulk was always supposed to be able to fit in human pants, they would just rip and become skin tight (usually cutting off around his calves or at least some what below the pit of his knee). This Hulk accomplishes that, unlike summer time shorts Hulk from 2003.

The new Hulk looks better. They meshed his comic book look, with a much more realistic physique. His chest isn't so robust, because he looks more like a giant in peak physical shape, as opposed to just being large and rounded like the 2003 Hulk.

You have a few points here. I forgot about the elastic purple pants in Hulk2003. They were unrealistic. Also the V shape of the Hulk 08 is better than the Hulk 03. But I still think that the skin texture is too glossy like a bodybuilder coming from a competition. Also the pectoral muscle are too sharp and almost symmetrical wich autmaticaly make it unrealistic.

That s why Cgi needs to be perfected in term of human character. that kind of problem wouldn't happen if they used a real person.

Antoine I like the Bulkier Hulk hence the name Hulk.
Quick Antoine tell me what you think of his hands in that picture where he is growling.Don't they look like they have been twisted all the way around? I can't even get my hands to do that.

 

[Hmarrs]

Look at this.He looks like foam.Does he look solid to you?He looks squishy or rubbery.

 

[ANTOINE X]

Antoine I like the Bulkier Hulk hence the name Hulk.
Quick Antoine tell me what you think of his hands in that picture where he is growling.Don't they look like they have been twisted all the way around? I can't even get my hands to do that.

There is definitely a problem with the hands modeling. But if it was just the hands I could live with that. I Just don't think that CGI is complet in terms of human character.