Badmovies.org Forum

Okay, the trailer's all over the place now.

My first thought: "Jesus, all that's missing are visible sound effects. He just jumped off the damn comic book page. HE'S SWINGING A TANK. I think I just went."
Second thought: "...Thank God, he's wearing the purple pants."
Third thought: "He...he looks like Shrek...on steroids...wearing a bad rug."

Your thoughts?

Okay, the trailer's all over the place now.

I saw it during the superbowl and my first thought was that he CG Hulk was a bit weak. Then I stopped to think that if nor for CG they would probably have to use some combination of a guy in a suit and stop-motion, and both of those techniques have their own visual distractions so I guess the CG isn't really bad.  We seem to think that CG should be perfect so when it's not, we are disappointed, forgetting that more traditional techniques have their problems also.

However Gollum/Smeagol in "The Two Towers" and to some extent Jar-Jar Binks in "The Phantom Menace" have raised the bar of our expectations of CG characters interacting with live actors

I am basically an "anti CG" guy. CG effects have their place, but movies have become much too reliant on them. STAR WARS: EPISODE II was about 99% CG effects . . . so many effects that they became distracting. I can see the point of using CG effects for certain action scenes, science fiction, etc., but not to the point where they overwhelm the movie. For God's sake, they use CG effects to add clouds to blue skies, to add reflections on windows, etc. This is complete overkill.  Hollywood's geniuses have evolved from great filmmakers to computer nerds. I would prefer to watch a low-budget European vampire movie from 1973 any day!

amen

I mean, c'mon, they used Lou Ferrigno (sp?) to play the Hulk. I guess they can't use a bodybuilder to play the Hulk anymore, instead they use CG to make sure it looks fake.

I guess they can't use a bodybuilder to play the Hulk anymore

In the comics, Hulk was much bigger than Lou Ferrigno(sp?) or any body builder.  The Hulk in the TV series just looked like a bug guy painted green, not really The Hulk from the comics.

The human eye is hard to fool when it comes to 'realism' and attempts to make something 'fantastic' look 'real' usually come up short, whether your using a guy in a suit, or a puppet, or animatronics, or stop motion animation.  When try to reproduce something from a medium like drawing (comics, cartoons, whatever), where photrealism is not expected so you can do a lot of fantastical thing, into a medium like film where photorealism is the norm, you run into all sorts of contraints; and you either fail to reproduce the same results in the new medium (like the original Hulk and Spider Man TV shows) or you end up with something that the eye is telling you isn't quite right (like the movie Spider Man or the Hulk)

CG is new, and to a certain extent a lot of it does look fake, but then how many people were really fooled by Harryhausen's work into thinking it looked 'real'.  It just a different sort of 'looks fake' that was accepted and other than nostalgia, it wasn't any better and was arguably worse because not only did it look fake, but it was limited in what you could do.  

Now you have CG, which still looks fake, but at least is significantly less limiting in what you can portray.

Anyone read "Drawing comics the Marvel way"?
The exaggeration accepable in comics, indeed, does not relate to the  photorealisim of live action film.
Animation, on the other hand, like comic illistrations, are accepted, as the nature of the medium is expected to be "Figuative". Scott McCloud's book on how the comic image works in the human mind is a great foundation to seeing the differance between the two media.