CGTalk - Universal Studio promises final version of The Hulk will not look as cheesy as the tr

xzevlin

06-11-2003, 09:28 AM

A non-animator friend of mine today told me that she didn't understand why they'd make a movie with an animated Hulk and not a body builder in green paint like in the old tv show. I've heard it from a couple of other people I know too. Usually when a big fx movie comes out, I hear animators complain about the quality of the effects and non-animators barely noticing what was an effect and what wasn't. This is the first time that I'm hearing alot of animators say it looks great, and average every day movie fans complain that the effects look lousy.

I think it could be the same reason Final Fantasy didn't make a bigger splash on it's opening weekend. People aren't ready to see a movie with a photoreal CG lead character, and because they know what they are seeing isn't real, they are reminding themselves over and over that it's all fake, insteading of suspending disbelief and watching it for the story.

I go nuts everytime I see the commercial. It's the Hulk ripping stuff up and bouncing around just like I imagined he was doing everytime I read the comic. If its really good, I'm going to go see it a few times just to make up for all those people that for whatever reason would rather see a paint-covered guy grunting and tossing over trash cans.

xynaria

06-11-2003, 09:54 AM

I've only seen a couple of trailers and impressed wasn't the first thought that sprang to mind when I saw them .. and I have a lot of respect for Ang Lee as a film maker. If the trailers are not considered up to par or representative then why release them. I really do hope it's good but those trailers left a distinctly opposite impression on me. There again a lot of people liked the Matrix so there's no accounting for *cough* 'taste' :D

verbal007

06-11-2003, 10:17 AM

I'm kinda sick hearing complaints about the effects in this movie. Granted, I haven't seen it yet... but from what we can all see from the trailor... well... I think it looks pretty damn good. For those that say it's "crap", well... you find me a monster that weights a few tons and can jump a mile with each leap... and we'll do a comparison.

As for comparing to the CG of Final Fantasy, well... at least we don't have to compete with real live humans. Plus, since there isn't a human counterpart... and it is an ENTRELY CG character, there shouldn't be any nasty transitions from CG to liveaction and back again *cough* Reloaded *cough*.

I dunno... I'm geeked. Nowadays I keep my expectations low... but I still have a little bit of hope for this one... besides, this is GOOD for the comic book industry.

- Jeremy

Gentle Fury

06-11-2003, 12:45 PM

But the damage may have been done. Ain't It Cool (www.aint-it-cool-news.com), whose bad buzz has known to derail would-be blockbusters (see Rollerball)

HA HA HA.............yeah, like aicn was responsible for Rollerball sucking...... that is a silly article.

ghopper

06-11-2003, 01:10 PM

jennifer is gonna be in it, that's reason enough for me to watch it ;)

tjnyc

06-11-2003, 02:32 PM

I went to a test screening for the Hulk a month or so ago, and I have to say that the first 2/3 was boring, slow moving drama basically, I actually doozed off a couple of times, the last 1/3 is the best part. The CG Hulk is hard to judge, his movements are unrealistic, but doesn't come off as CGI. I guess since he reflects something that is unreal his movements and actions should be as well. The facial expressions was impressive, but lack dynamic range which Gollum had in spades. The only thing I didn't find so convincing was the green skin, I couldn't figure out if they wanted to make it look realistic, yet keep it's comic book look and feel, it just didn't come out right, IMHO. All in all, the effects were very cool, the CGI Hulk was definitely impressive, but I didn't get the same feeling watching the CGI Hulk like when I watched the CGI Gollum in which I completly forgot that the CGI character was CGI and just enjoyed the great performance.

BTW, I am sure the movie will be re-edited from the one I saw.

heavyness

06-11-2003, 02:56 PM

i can't believe they are judging the film just on a early leaked version. if anyone gets there hands on early beta copies of games, they know not to judge anything because the simple fact they will be fixed before it's done. and you can't judge a movie on trailers either. as we've seen, the same scenes in trailers might not make it to the final version. matrix and star wars were both done just DAYS before they were released. as anyone in the CG industry knows, a simple color correction pass over some CG will make it look that much better.

and don't start me on ain't-it-cool-news, the guy should learn how to make a web page before anything else [font to big]. and with all his fanboys, he can simply flame away on anything he wants, even if it's a good movie [he might just be mad at someone].

whatever....

GRMac13

06-11-2003, 05:30 PM

I am reminded of that scene from "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back." You know the one, where Ben Affleck's character shows Jay and Bob the website "moviepoop-chute.com." That's pretty much what aicn is. It's a place for pimply 12 year-olds and disgruntled geeks to vent about films they haven't seen, based on rumors they can't prove and the popular opinion of their message-board counter-parts. The funny part is that the majority of the ranters are probably going to see this movie regardless, because even they know how stupid it is to judge a film based on a low-resolution rough cut that was never intended for public viewing. Besides, someone that refuses to see a film based on a critic or wanna-be reviewer's opinion has some serious self-esteem issues. People need to learn to think for themselves. You can get enough info about a film from the trailers (sometimes too much info) to decide if it's worth the $8.50.

Oh, and another thing that is really starting to piss me off is all the bitching about CG in movies. Not so much from people on this board, because most people here are experienced CG artists, and know plenty about what it takes to produce these films. So any critiques made here can serve the purpose of advancing the art form by pointing out errors or areas that could have been improved. However, I can't stand it when average movie-goers say things like "oh it looked totally fake" or "there's too much CG!" I think there is a very simple reason for the backlash in the movie-going public against CG, and it's largely the studio's fault. They are too quick to reveal the fact that X amount of a movie contains CG-FX. 9 times out of 10, the public goes into the movie knowing what's CG and what's not because they've seen it on shows like "Access Hollywood" and "Entertainment Tonight" or it's been spread all over the internet like a plague. It ruins the "magic" of the movies for alot of people. In the past, before CG, most FX were done using traditional techniques such as stop-motion, matte paintings, scale models, etc. but the majority public was unaware of these techniques. The FX in those older movies looks archaic compared to those in many of todays CG-laden films, but they served their purpose and people were entertained, because there was a "suspension of disbelief." Nowadays, you can't go into a film and "suspend disbelief" because for the 3 months before the film was released you were bombarded with information on how certain things were done. IMO, it's the same as going to see a magic show. How entertaining would it be if before you saw the show, the magician came out and showed you exactly which techniques he used to perform all his tricks? When you left, the first thing you'd probably say would be "oh it looked totally fake!"

Of course, all this exposition by the studios about CG being used in films is directly related to marketing. I think after "Jurassic Park" studios began releasing information on films that contained CG because people were so blown away by the dinos, that they figured they could sell films on the simple fact that they contained CG FX. Another example of Hollywood greed backfiring. Hopefully the studios will learn their lesson and be a bit more tight-lipped when it comes to revealing thier whole bag of tricks. At least until the film runs it's course, so people can enjoy it without knowing the every secret behind the scenes. It's time to bring back movie magic.

Sorry for the rant, I just needed to get that off my chest.

Array

06-11-2003, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by ghopper
jennifer is gonna be in it, that's reason enough for me to watch it ;)

Ass to ass!!!!

Infinity3d4life

06-11-2003, 06:30 PM

God that really bothers me that some people would rather pay money to go and TRY to pick out CG effects rather than just enjoy a movie.. Concerning the Hulk I think it would look totally stupid to have a 4ft bodybuilder ( as most of them are not tall at all) play the hulk.. Even when the Matrix was released all i heard about was how unrealistic the cg effects were in the flick, but if we all take a step off our cloud high pedestals we could remember that not too many years ago this type of stuff wasn't possible..The effects are only going to get better.. And judging from the Hulk that time is coming soon.. Just check out the muscles tensing, and trembling underneath that green skin.. Even if they did have an actor play the part of the Hulk, they would have to create a Digital double for the jumping sequences.. Even then we would still have people still picking out shit to diss the movie...:annoyed: I personally can't wait to see it.. It will be an accomplishment for sure...

Oh and one more thing.. besides the Matrix most Digital doubles are only in the shot for a couple of seconds at the most.. I applaud any studio that is willing to try to up the bar by throwing in a cg stand in for an entire fight sequence, and more so a full movie...

Just my 2cents..

parallax

06-11-2003, 06:59 PM

GRMac13>

I very much agree. Some people should be banned from theatres nationwide :|
Especially the folks spraying comments like "Thats impossible" in a movie like the Matrix. Then your double stupid.
Those are the same people that think that CG is clipart that you can buy at your local grocer.

They give away far too much on those making-ofs'

malducin

06-11-2003, 07:23 PM

Actually I feel the other way around. If anything there are not enough good making-of things to dispell the widespread misconception. What is the general perception, that computers do the VFX. Many people must think computers have a render dino button or an animate alien key. You barely get a sense that theere are dozens of artists and technicians working tirelessly on this things. It doesn't matter it's on computers, it almost as handcrafterd as doing miniatures, props or costumes, just using a different tool.

And then there is the complaints when some of these movies fail: the VFX were not good, were too expensive, etc. nevermind that sometimes they pay an actor 20 million for a few months worth, but for the same amount of money they pay sometimes hundreds of artists over a year to come up with the only good parts in movies with dismal scripts.

And that is not counting the other misconceptions about filmmaking in general. Most studios start the promo campaigns for big movies more than a year in advance (witness Van Helsing and even one Bond movie).

Unortunately people won't care, they only care about the star, who are they dating or the scandal they are in.

Infinity3d4life

06-11-2003, 08:30 PM

I agree with you also malducin.. I have a DVD collection of around 5-600 dvds and i absolutely love the making of stuff.. It pisses me off when movies don't add that on to the dvd extras..

very much agree. Some people should be banned from theatres nationwide :|

Oh we see EYE TO EYE ON THAT for sure parallax

GRMac13

06-11-2003, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by Infinity3d4life
I agree with you also malducin.. I have a DVD collection of around 5-600 dvds and i absolutely love the making of stuff.. It pisses me off when movies don't add that on to the dvd extras..

Never said anything negative about DVD extras or making-ofs. My problem is with studios releasing info about the techniques used in a particular film before the film is even released in theaters. In essence they are attempting to sell the film based on the fact that it has "revolutionary" CG-FX or more CG FX than X or Y movie. Or that thier FX are going to "revolutionize" the industry. They hype it up to a point where the audience is almost expecting to be attacked by the HULK in thier theater seat. They create expectations that are impossible to fulfill. IMO, as far as the average movie-goer is concerned, they should be sold on a film based on the final product on the screen, not the technique they used to get that final product, whether it be CG or stop-motion or sock puppets. That's irrevlevant to the final product, the only thing that matters is if the film looks good, and can successfully entertain an audience. You can't expect people to suspend thier disbelief when you tell them in essence "hey, nothing you are about to see is real. Don't believe me? Well, check this out, here's how we did it...cool technique, huh?"

Again, take my magician analogy for example. If David Copperfield before each of his shows said, "Hey, I'm going to fool you into thinking that I made this helicopter disappear, but actually, what I am going to do is use this smoke over here, and these mirrors and..." When he does make the heli disappear, you're gonna sit there quite unimpressed, looking for where the smoke and mirrors come into play instead of just enjoying the illusion. It would be fine if he told you how the trick was done after the fact, because by then you would have been able to enjoy the show without the interference of inside knowledge.

Infinity3d4life

06-11-2003, 09:54 PM

Again i agree.. I misunderstood what i read.. I don't think that a movies selling point should be in what technolgy they used to make the effects, but what i'm looking for is the end result..

Ed Bittner

06-12-2003, 11:51 AM

In my humble opinion, FX are becoming so commonplace, films are so saturated, that the FX aren't the event anymore. I can remember a time when film was actually a storytelling medium. But now, everyone willing to drop a couple thousand dollars on some software can do FX at home on a Mac or PC. Also, I think the majority of the public has become "jaded" when it comes to FX. So I see the responsability going back to the film maker to tell an actual story.
Ed

Rumors

06-12-2003, 03:09 PM

http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/Movies/9911/18/web.secrets/knowles.jpg

If I hate your movie, it will bomb. I have power!
I really truly have power!

For real!

RobertoOrtiz

06-12-2003, 03:33 PM

And what does it matter if Harry Knowles is a fat guy?

Does the size of his waist invalidate his opinions?

And by the way, HE LIKED the movie.

-R

JA-forreal

06-12-2003, 06:55 PM

Here are some impressions from adverage movie goers who first saw the cg hulk trailer,"What's that thing", "It looks like a giant rubber toy", "Hehehehehe". Seriously, the CG Hulk stinks, forreal. And he moves wayyyyyyyy to fast for his massive size. There are no second chances for the big screen, sorry.

Rumors

06-12-2003, 07:22 PM

No, it doesn't matter how big he is. I just think the whole aintitcoolnews thing is absurd. The too-large font on the web site, the haphazard layout of the site, the dubious content, and the unsual looking mastermind. It just all screams "this can't be real". But it is.

And I think it's funny.

malducin

06-12-2003, 07:53 PM

To me more than the audiences being jaded it actually becoming more cynical and fast food minded. After all in the 80s before tye advent of CG there were a slew of B-movies trying to cash in on the Star Wars and FX extravaganza. Who can forget such classics as Ice Pirates, Megaforce and The Sword and the Sorcerer. Sure they were cheezy but fun, but at least back then they didn't pertend to be the next best things, as many Summer movies now proclaim with their high budgets.

As far as the Hulk, you do know that for the trailers (like the Superbowl one) several shots were sped up for time constraints. Other were changed like him throwing the tank. And even though he'll move fast in the movie, that is sticking with the comic. Why not bitch about it to Stan Lee, <sarcasm>he is probably a hack, right </sarcasm>. Besides the studios are the ones screwing up trailers anyway. I was kind of pissed that Sony let a clue out on a TV trailer for the second twist of Identity, and how many times have studios used shots from the final moments of the film or the only good parts of stinking movies. Anyway too bad average movie goers are so ignorant about the making of movies.

As far as Harry Knowles, yes it doesn't matter how he looks. But even though he liked it, his other antics shoud be enough to kind discredit him. What about the Oscar fiasco (after which Ebert didn't want to have anything to do with him). Or when he pimped a screenplay but failed to mention that the guy was the infamous Moriarty. One of the regurlar contributors to his site was convicted of not only possesing stolen movies but even selling them (a rough cut of Mighty Joe Young). There is his whinning that he wanted people to buy him presents for his birthday. Plus the questionable practices when he has been dined and wined by studios, like the Armageddon set visit. he even boasted of seeing an alleged stolen work print of Attack of the Clones. One time he proclaimed o have seen or given the designs of ships and the like for Phantom Menace but to not display them, but as soon as some other site threatened to post them he had to be the big man and show them (and there was a huge hoopla with other movie websites about establishing a code of ethics, which of course went nowhere). And when he was a guest with Ben Stein and Bill Mahrer he could barely defend himself. Not to say he hasn't done any good, like exposing the utterly ridiculous way movie screening and polling are done and how films are changed afterwards for that in the most ridiculous ways. I rarely visit his site anymore, jsut when someone points somethnig interesting and usually it's to get a good laugh.

Back to your regularly scheduled program.

Steveyola

06-12-2003, 08:44 PM

It'll be fun you know that.Not top 5 stuff for the Summer,but real fun.you know it.:thumbsup: :beer:

NanoGator

06-12-2003, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by GRMac13
However, I can't stand it when average movie-goers say things like "oh it looked totally fake" or "there's too much CG!" I think there is a very simple reason for the backlash in the movie-going public against CG, and it's largely the studio's fault. They are too quick to reveal the fact that X amount of a movie contains CG-FX.

I don't think that's the problem. I mean, who watched Independence day and thought "man, that 15 mile long ship in the air must have taken years to build!"? The reason people bitch about it is that there's usually something seriously wrong with the effect that's jarring. Suddenly the suspension of disbelief is gone and they're snapped back into the theater. It's for exactly this reason that movie studios try like crazy to make sure that the movie cameras don't show up in reflective objects, you don't want to remind the audience it's a movie.

Episode 2 comes to mind. There was so much CG in that movie that virtually nothing looked real. From a technological perspective, there was a lot to appreciate about the movie. However, when it comes to trying to appreciate the movie itself, E2 really fell on its face. There was one scene in particular were one guy was saying "It looked like they were in a painting!". I studied that scene rather closely and figured out why he was saying that. It involved Yoda and Samuel L. Jackson walking down some corridor in a huge building. They walked from a bright area into a dark area, they clearly should have had a shadow crawl over them, but it didn't happen. It looked like two people slapped on top of a background plate.

This complaint has nothing to do with over-hype about CG effects. The real complaint here was that the execution was flawed. Did anybody complain about Toy Story looking fake? Finding Nemo? No. Granted, they weren't really trying to look real, just believable. And if today's movie studios would think a little harder about that, then they probably would have chosen the green-painted body-builder to be the Hulk.

You know, for all the complaints about movies using 'too much cg', nobody seems to keep track about the effects that don't get complained about. Everybody hated Jar Jar, right? What about the battle droids? I don't remember anybody complaining about them other than 'Roger Roger'. They were quite believable. They were animated/mocapped very well. The renderings were spot on. There was very little that was startling about them. I think the big big reason for this is that CG is finally to the point that metal can be rendered quite convincingly. Wish the same could be said for ogranic beings, but we'll get there eventually. I have to say, though, Gollum was quite impressive in that area. He was quite convincing.

Heh I wonder if anybody complained that "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" was too animated?

xynaria

06-12-2003, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by NanoGator
I don't think that's the problem. I mean, who watched Independence day and thought "man, that 15 mile long ship in the air must have taken years to build!"? The reason people bitch about it is that there's usually something seriously wrong with the effect that's jarring. Suddenly the suspension of disbelief is gone and they're snapped back into the theater.

Maybe in the actual movie .. it might just work but with the Hulk, for me it just hasn't found a feasible level of operating. I don't know the comic very well, but working in a comic is one thing and working in a live action film is another.....in the trailer the closer he looks and acts to human, the more willing I am to go along with it.... but no matter how developed his powers, gravity is gravity and he'd be subjected to it. A flying Suoerman is something far easier to accept than a huge heavy creature jumping ridiculously high in the air and running along the sides of canyons at a speed many cars couldn't manage ..these scenes just don't seem to do so with a spell that convinces here. Dunno maybe if it seemed to have more irony it would work better but I really do find what I've seen unwatchable and even though all the other franchises, Superman , Batman etc have hit some pretty low ebbs, in the main, I've not winced as much when seeing them as the trailers for this. I actually really do hope I'm wrong. :)

malducin

06-12-2003, 10:56 PM

Well to be fair a lot of people hated Jar Jar for his role, not hor the way he was animated, rendered and composited. Funny thing, some of the attacks were so personal as if Jar Jar was a real being, which in a way is a testament to how real and alive it looked. Personally I don't hate him and I know a lot of people tht don't either, this whole hate thing seemed more like a very vocal subset of the audience, enhanced by the media coverage.

I agree with most of the gist of what you said NanoGator. You never heard such complaints before the 90s.

I do disagree with the perception of organic creatures. To me we have reached a point that for many cases many creatures have achieved the pinaccle and look alive and real onscreen. You don't hear people that the JP dinos look bad. What about other characters like Draco, Mighty Joe Young, Dobby or Stuart Little? Then again even the people that should know better make silly comments, like when Rick McCallum said that Yoda from Ep. 2 was their first true CG actor, nevermind all the characters ILM had done previously. Now if you prefer the acting/script of a character over another, that's fine but that shouldn't have any bearing on how wellit was accomplished. It's too bad because then people dismiss stuff like Dobby, Stuart Little or Margolo for no apparent reason.

GRMac13

06-13-2003, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by NanoGator
This complaint has nothing to do with over-hype about CG effects. The real complaint here was that the execution was flawed. Did anybody complain about Toy Story looking fake? Finding Nemo? No. Granted, they weren't really trying to look real, just believable. And if today's movie studios would think a little harder about that, then they probably would have chosen the green-painted body-builder to be the Hulk.

You're right in that the complaint itself wasn't about there being too much "hype" over the CG, the complaint was about the CG itself. My point is that the reason your average movie-goer is so aware of the CG (and is complaining about it) in the first place is because the studios are pointing out where the CG is in the shot. If the effect isn't flawless (which virtually none are), it's going to be noticeable, if the effect isn't even finished which Universal claims is the case with the HULK rough-draft, it's going to be even more noticeable. My point is that since the HULK went into production until the day it's released, all we have been hearing is that the HULK character is going to be a CG creation. Anyone who walks into the theater is going to know the creature they are seeing is a CG effect, and it'll ruin the experience for many of them. The same goes for Star Wars Episode 1, all you heard was that the movie was 90% or whatever CG, so the majority of the audience went into that film knowing that most of what they were seeing was created digitally. That's uneccessary information for an audience. When the original Star Wars came out, nobody complained about the FX, people just accepted them and enjoyed the films without over-analysing the realism of this puppet or the believabilty of that stop-motion animation. That's because the majority of the audience had no clue what techniques were used to create the FX. The film was promoted for it's story, action and excitement, not for the fact that had the largest number of minatures than any other film. That's the way it should be, IMO. Studios need to stop using the FX as the main selling point for films because people will expect way more than you can give them. Unfortunately it's probably too late now, because the public has been so bombarded by this "CG-hype" that even practical FX are going to be mistaken for CG by cynical viewers.

BTW, about the Pixar thing...I think the main reason people dont complain about thier films looking "fake" is because they go into the theater knowing the films are animated because they are promoted as animated films. Also, Pixar's films are done is a clearly unrealistic "cartoony" style, and the studio doesn't oversell their FX to the audience, choosing instead to focus their campaign on the film's characters and story. Unlike the Matrix where the main selling point was the "revolutionary" FX.

Joviex

06-14-2003, 04:20 PM

All this anger.... leading you all to suffering.

Well, I watched the bootleg a few weeks back, and I must say, the only real reason I watched was for story, since that is what all movies are essentially about, and if that don't sell John-Q public, nothing else will.

With that, it was excellent. Whomever said 2/3 drama and slow, partially true, but it is a frigging comic book come to movie. Very well done, and his (Ang Lee) comic like telling comes across most excellently.

As for effects, way better than the trailer, even the unfinished ones, not sure why they pumped out a few crappy trailers.

THe only thing that has been bothering me, the overkill of hulk everywhere. THis movie will do well, no doubt, but alot of my non-industry mates have been saying how they are already sick of seeing green everywhere.... like St. Pats day for a month.

Hype is going strong, and the movie does deliver something along the lines of warrented, but that is me, seeing it for what it is, and not what most people do, and investment of 5-12$ that better damn payoff.

NanoGator

06-14-2003, 06:12 PM

the only real reason I watched was for story, since that is what all movies are essentially about

*Nitpick* A movie can have a bad story and make up for it by having characters that people really like.

Just wanted to mention that because I really think that's why the X-Men movies have been a success. Paraphrase the plot in either of them and they sound weak, but when you watch it unfold, it's easy to get involved in what happens to the characters. :)

Okie, I'm done preaching. I just got a little annoyed with some friends of mine recently that didn't like Nemsis because they didn't like the plot, and completely ignored the dialog in it.

kiaran

06-14-2003, 11:17 PM

And what does it matter if Harry Knowles is a fat guy?
'Rumor' never even mentioned in his post that Harry Knowles is fat. Apparently it does matter, for some people.

Joe2003

06-15-2003, 06:40 AM

Here's the new TV commercial everyone seems to be raving about. How anyone could think these FX are bad is beyond me. It's clear that there are many internet buffoons that just have it in for this film. The Hulk looks incredible.

http://home.mindspring.com/~greengoliath/Hulk%20Short.mpeg

Here's a new pic.

http://www.hulkmovie.com/vb/attachment.php?postid=20908

As for the workprint, I've seen about a 3 minute clip of it, and the video and audio quality is very bad. My cousin says the bootleg is covered with unfinished FX work throughout the film, some so glaring that it is instantly noticeable. He also said none of Elfman's score was included, and half the workprint didn't even have final sound FX.

By the way, the Yahoo article assumes internet chatters make up a large percentage of the audience at movies. WRONG! The people that log onto the internet and chat about movies, as well as going to movie sites, makes up less than 1% of everyone that goes to the movies. 99% of the people that will see the Hulk haven't heard these morons slamming this movie on the internet. 99% of the movie public doesn't even know about the bootleg workprint.

New reviews have come in.

Hollywood Reporter
Variety
Roger Ebert
Richard Roeper
E!
CBS-TV
Aint It Cool News
Moviehole
Superhero Hype

Have all chimed in with positive to rave reviews and opinions on this film.

iBlue

06-15-2003, 07:05 AM

In other words, Universal smash.

:applause:

xynaria

06-15-2003, 08:23 AM

Joe 2003 .. what codec is that mpeg because nothing I have, which is most, will play it. :)

Solesurvivor

06-15-2003, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Array
Ass to ass!!!!

Amen :beer:

Joviex

06-15-2003, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Joe2003

As for the workprint, I've seen about a 3 minute clip of it, and the video and audio quality is very bad. My cousin says the bootleg is covered with unfinished FX work throughout the film, some so glaring that it is instantly noticeable. He also said none of Elfman's score was included, and half the workprint didn't even have final sound FX.

Thats not quite right. The one I watched has most of the score, 90% of the soundfx and 95% of the visual effects. Course, I assume this was a later workprint than what you saw.

Were those effects, even on a shit timecode pressed workprint good? A BIG GREEN HELL YEAH!

This will be a super blockbuster this year.

Now, I thought the story was fine, but, a few of my non-comic following friends thought otherwise. They said that there is a little slowness and lack of consistancy.

I honestly don't think so. But those are the hardest crits I've heard. They even said/say those effects were brilliant. So... Dunno what those cry babies are on about.

cgwolf

06-17-2003, 11:58 PM

Well my 2 cents. Following these posts - its seems like there is a backlash but to me there is no better way to portray the comic book Hulk in a realisitic way. Seeing a Lou Ferrigno bounce around would ruin this film in my opinon regardless of what type of effects they add because...THINK ABOUT IT there is NO real being that could possibly portray this creature.

Although I support the effects needed for this Hulk, I do have a few problems with the trailers Ive seen.

1. It could just be me, but his legs move way too fast for his mass and weight. I know he can run faster than most small cars, but this could have been animated with huge leg strides instead of making him look like Road Runner.

2. He looks too freakin big. When i first saw his head rise from the hole in the lab...I almost laughed my head off, because it looks so comical.(in the funny way) destroying the drama i thought, even though the Hulk does grow along with his level of rage. I also think his head should be a tad smaller than it appears here but I know that comic style would take away from the realism Ang probably wanted.

3. The tank swinging scene. Um, physics alone would not allow the weight of a tank to be tossed in such a way. Tanks are far too heavy. A turret can not support the tons of weight of a tank and would bend or break first regardless of whos throwing it.

Other than these minor issues, I think this movie will be incredible and I can appreciate the work of all those involved. Its gonna be great, and whats funny is that most of the anti-cg whiners will be the first in line because this will be the best portrayal of the comic Hulk ever.

wgreenlee1

06-18-2003, 05:27 AM

I doubt I will see it anyways...

Freakn hollywood has destroyed all the other comic book heros I had.
They always seem to put a sexual or socialist attitude spin on all of these characters,if youre into it I guess it ok.
All of these characters for me always had a clean living and high thinking stigma attached to them but Hollywood always seems to pervert everything they touch.

I guess I will wait for the CGTalk reviews to come pouring in to see if it still holds any intrest.

cgman27

06-18-2003, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by wgreenlee1
I doubt I will see it anyways...

Freakn hollywood has destroyed all the other comic book heros I had.
They always seem to put a sexual or socialist attitude spin on all of these characters,if youre into it I guess it ok.
All of these characters for me always had a clean living and high thinking stigma attached to them but Hollywood always seems to pervert everything they touch.

I guess I will wait for the CGTalk reviews to come pouring in to see if it still holds any intrest.

Take it from me man, I am the same way when dollywood perverts a good story. THis is a good one though, no taint on it.

I do wish all the naysayers would get a clue. These are movies after all, didn't know we were supposed to hold them up to the perfectly filtered light from the school of eternal bestowed knowledge.

If you are looking for great insight into all things in the universe, stick to the books, if you want great entertainment for the cheap (in this day and age -- perspective ppl) go to the movies, any movie.