Pros: 1. Wicked 70's style comic book transitions between scenes 2. Jennifer Connelly Cons: 1. Boring Story 2. Bad Casting 3. Bad CG 4. Not enough Jennifer Connelly I didn't think it would be possible to make a movie featuring THE HULK boring, but way to go Ang Lee, you're a genius.
I thought it was just as good as Spiderman, which I also liked. Superhero origin stories are always tricky to pull off since they can take a while to get going. I’m not sure why people are dumping on the CGI, were they expecting a body builder in green paint or Eric Banna in a latex muscle suit? I hope they make Ironman into a movie. It seems to have all the elements for a good screen adaptation.
I also liked Spiderman. I thought they used CG unnecessarily in that movie however. The building climb sequence could have easily been done live action. Also like the multi-agent fight sequence in Matrix Reloaded. I think Hollywood thinks they HAVE to put some CG in every big budget movie just to impress. And for a lot of people, it's the low-point of a movie. I agree. I didn't mind all the changes they made in X-Men to make it more accessible for unfamililiar viewers. There has to be a middle ground between entertaining and accurate. In all honesty, yes I would have prefered to see a wrestling in a latex suit, or a huge animatronic hulk, over the CG one they produced. Ironman would be a GREAT movie, easy on a small budget too. I'm not sure if the Punisher movie they're making will be good, the teaser looks cheesey. I haven't heard anything about the Fantastic Four movie yet. The movie I'm excitied to see now is Freddy vs. Jason.
i cant watch eric banner without thinking about him playing ray martain with his plastic hairPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm still dead set against seeing the Hulk. I've seen people at my college produce better CG than that. I kid you not. It looks terrible, like a kid drew on the final film with a green crayon! Spiderman just looked too fake for my liking. CG is ruining todays films! It's perfectly okay for films like Toy Story, Monsters Inc. and the like but todays films use CG where they don't have to. Someone already mentioned 2 Fast 2 Furious in another thread. Why where the cars computer animated, it's not like they're make believe Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And there was a Punisher film out some years ago, loosley based on the Marvel Comic starring Dolph Lundgren...you can guess how bad that film was. I can talk, I own it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm sorry but I don't agree with you. I've heard a lot of good htings about the Hulk, when I went to see it, it was amazing. Not the best movie ever, but well worth it.
OH GODDDDDDDDDDD hehehheheh POIDAPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! he rockedPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Spider-Man suffered from it's CGI, the animated Spider-Man himself looked like a bendy toy and his movements were all wrong, and far too grandiose, for some of those sweeping swings he'd have to have been attached to a ten mile tall building for the arc to work! The plot was OK, acting OK, CGI, sucky. Hulk. Oh dear. I'm not going to the cinema to see it, I'll wait for it to be released on DVD so it costs me less, as it already looks like a Turkey. He's shown throwing a tank, fer chrissakes. So a what, let's say 200kg Hulk can pick up an 8 tonne tank, and hurl it? Anybody heard of leverage? Equal and opposite reaction? Momentum? Recoil? Suspension of disbelief. Hard when they deliberately use CGI to depict stuff that's plainly impossible. It's supposed to be Science Fiction, and therefore grounded in the 'what if'. As movies go, 'Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon' worked really well, over the CGI fest that was Spider-Man, and they used wire work. So, having said that, why didn't they just get some wrestler, paint him green, and make him look bigger using CGI, like they made Hobbits look smaller? That might have been convincing.
I didn't think they used CG to make the hobbits smaller. I thought they had used two seperate sets to do filming. One normal set for the actual scene, and another duplicate set but oversized to film the 'smaller' actors?
You've instilled some hope back into me. I was really looking forward to this movie, and all I've heard is "BAD BAD BAD". I am not looking for some amazing movie, I'm just looking for some fun action and "HULK SMASH" scenes Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Now I may actually go see it. -AntonK
I swing both ways in my opinion of the Hulk. I found the CG a bit disappointing in places but, as a whole, I thought it definitely beat anything they could have done practically (in camera). A guy in a suit would have been ridiculous in the extreme and although great things can be done with animatronics it could never have achieved the fluidity of movement and expression that the character required. As for the story, Id have to call it adequate at best (especially the first half, calling it boring is being kind). Then again, thats the case in every comic crossover ive ever seen. I can say what made the movie for me (overall) in two words ... mutant poodle. you know a movie will be ok when a mutant poodle is involved.
kajolishot, Thats partly right, they did what you described but also used several other techniques depending on the requirements of a scene. From what i understand they also used blue screen (and/or green screen i can't remember for sure), "little people" (hobbit/dwarf size) and "big people" body doubles, moving forced perspective (a particularly cool trick in my opinion) as well as CG and likely others im not aware of. Basically every method in the book, I think thats why its so convincing, you never really know for sure what your looking at.
