kkoie
First Post
Wayside said:
Since when is lack of ability an excuse for poor work? Just cause they can't make an awesome looking Hulk doesn't mean I can't whine about it! Anyway, it doesn't look any worse than LotR or Episode II. I'm still surprised by Blade II's having outdone all of these movies when it came to believable cgi of the actors in fight scenes. It's looking like Matrix Reloaded will disappoint here too, but I'm betting on the big screen it will hardly be noticeable. Just don't watch it on a monitor..
Hulk still looks great though. The insane displays of raw power are just too fun to watch.
Its not poor work. Thats my point. The problem is, too many people who do not understand how CGI works or how its put together are comparing it to real life.
Films like Blade II's CGI succeed because there isn't that much of it compared to movies like Star Wars. They probably kept their CGI to an absolute minimum, both for effectiveness, and cost. I would think mainly cost. CGI is more expensive than any other part of film.
I think that CGI was the best way to go, to create the HULK they were looking for. I suppose they could've used other techniques, but some of the things that have been done in just the trailers, would still require a full CGI character. I think it's best to have only the CGI character, rather than a mix of that and some painted man. Otherwise the differnse between the real actor, and the full CGI character, would be too obvious. This way, its seemless all the way through the film.
OF all the film discussions I've been in, I've yet to participate in one where somebody doesn't whines that the CGI is lousy. Time and again I believe its due to ignorance of the medium, and expectations that it look as good as real life. A 100% CGI character has a way to go before it mimics real life to the point where people can no longer tell the differnse.
Last edited: