Or wrong idea that's very right.MichaelB wrote:"Make motion" double meaning.HerrSchreck wrote:Schreck smile bright now. Make gleam. Wipe tears. Schreck go lay on female now. Make motion.
Reader might get wrong idea.
Or right idea.
Or right idea that's very wrong.
I strongly disagree. I passionately hate CGI in almost all its forms and believe its ruining films (Sweeney Todd had absolutely NO business using CGI for anything). The Ang Lee Hulk looked like shit, and so does this one, but it comes to a point where you have to accept that Hollywood thinks this shit still looks good even though we're probably another decade (or more) away from actually doing it right. Jackson's use of it has been credible but there were moments in LOTR and Kong where you can easily tell he and his crew did not put as much work into certain shots or characters and it still looked fake. Lou Ferrigno is at least a real person and I'd take him painted green any day over this monstrosity that looks like one of King Kong's nose goblins.wattsup32 wrote:As to the CGI, this was one of the very few times I have walked away feeling like they DID get it right (other than Lord of the Rings, and you are so right that Jackson should always be brought on as a consultant on any CGI intensive film). The detail was spectacular on hulk, even if the character appeared mildly (but only mildly) cartoony. I don't know what could make it appear better. I certainly like that look better than an actual hulking human painted green and it certainly looks better than the best comic book artwork.
yes, it seems like you do hate it passionately.wpqx wrote:I strongly disagree. I passionately hate CGI in almost all its forms and believe its ruining films (Sweeney Todd had absolutely NO business using CGI for anything). The Ang Lee Hulk looked like shit, and so does this one, but it comes to a point where you have to accept that Hollywood thinks this shit still looks good even though we're probably another decade (or more) away from actually doing it right. Jackson's use of it has been credible but there were moments in LOTR and Kong where you can easily tell he and his crew did not put as much work into certain shots or characters and it still looked fake. Lou Ferrigno is at least a real person and I'd take him painted green any day over this monstrosity that looks like one of King Kong's nose goblins.
The scene that I remember the most for its spotty editing was at the end of the fight in the University and the transition to the next scene on the cave with Betty.wattsup32 wrote:I don't get what was wrong with the editing. Anyone care to explain?dx23 wrote:Besides the bad editing, the only other bad thing (actually really bad thing) is the CGI in the movie. Marvel and the producers of these films should really consult Peter Jackson on how to do credible CGI on a movie, because Hulk looks really bad. The Ang Lee version was bad, but this one took the cake in CGI roughness and lack of detail and realism.
As to the CGI, this was one of the very few times I have walked away feeling like they DID get it right (other than Lord of the Rings, and you are so right that Jackson should always be brought on as a consultant on any CGI intensive film). The detail was spectacular on hulk, even if the character appeared mildly (but only mildly) cartoony. I don't know what could make it appear better. I certainly like that look better than an actual hulking human painted green and it certainly looks better than the best comic book artwork.
