Reply With QuoteI totally want to see this, but I have to say, the Hulk CGI from what I saw looks pretty weak, especially the shot of his face.
Pick your speed:
http://www.universalpictures.com/asx...v_300k_wmv.asx
http://www.universalpictures.com/asx...v_128k_wmv.asx
http://www.universalpictures.com/asx...v_056k_wmv.asx
looks better than I could of imagined.
I totally want to see this, but I have to say, the Hulk CGI from what I saw looks pretty weak, especially the shot of his face.
None of those seem to work for me, but I take it that's the commercial that's going to run during the Super Bowl?Originally Posted by Rob_Merritt
I could not get them to work either. But who wants to see the Hulk when we have Ben Affleck as DareDevil!!!None of those seem to work for me, but I take it that's the commercial that's going to run during the Super Bowl?
Pretty much the server got hammered and died. :(
There were similar comments about Gollum in the first TTT trailers, but I think most people agree that Gollum turned out to be very believable. It just takes a few seconds for your brain to accept the CGI as real, which the split-second glimpses of the Hulk in the trailer don't give you. I bet suspension of disbelief will not be a problem with the CGI big guy.
INCOMING!
Lawsuit.
Children run into nuclear reactors trying to get irradiated with gamma radiation and becoming super-strong savage monsters. Parents allege that the government let them down when it refused notify them of the dangers of allowing their children go on a violent crusade to bring down a nuclear reactor. In the eyes of many analysts, with the current laws and butchering of the constitution, the government's case looks grim.
No CGI character has ever looked realistic to me. I always think "Man, this crap's gonna look like Jason and the Argonauts in five or six years."
No CGI character has ever looked realistic to me. I always think "Man, this crap's gonna look like Jason and the Argonauts in five or six years."
Really? Did you see Jurassic Park when it was released? I thought that was pretty unbelievable.
er, as in you really believed it was good, right? Unbelievable is the wrong word for an exchange about whether CGI is effective. ;)
I hope you forgot the smiley.
I was excited about The Hulk. Eric Bana + Ang Lee seems like a good combination. But that trailer was sort of silly.
I did. Ben Affleck is ass.I hope you forgot the smiley.
I was excited about The Hulk. Eric Bana + Ang Lee seems like a good combination. But that trailer was sort of silly.
I don't remember Gollum being in the TTT trailers, at least in a fully visible manner, but I never found him unrealistic in the short glimpses shown in FotR. I can see your point, though -- these shots were much quicker, but I'd argue that even a still photo of Gollum from the film looks quite realistic, whereas the Hulk depicted in the trailer had a smooth, almost non-descript face. I figure it might have been intended, though, to keep with the "comic book character" feel -- it was closer to the animation in Spider-Man than TTT.
What I want to know is:
WHERE DOES HE GET PURPLE PANTS IN THE YEAR 2003? Looks like the Hulk is indeed wearing the traditional ripped purple pants.
I don't know of too many gay fashion boutiques in the middle of the New Mexico desert. And honey, believe me, I've looked.
Goodwill.
Here's another trailer URL if you still can't wait for Superbowl:
http://www.mariomilitia.com/hulk_tv_300k.asf
This on is dead too. :(
Worked fine for me an hour ago -- but does appear to be down now.
Does no one care that it is all CGI action sequences a la Spiderman? It seems so obviously faked. I did not think the origianl X-Men movie waas that full of CGI and I really enjoyed it. It really puts me off. Matrix: Reloaded OTOH.......can-not-wait!!!
Meh. M-e-h. I'm no movie purist, as long as something entertaining is happening onscreen I'm happy. Hulk swinging a tank hammer throw style would be pretty hard to do WITHOUT CGI, and looks cool enough for me to be happy it's in the movie. What I'm afraid of: whatever romantic sub-plot they jam into the movie. I can't wait for the inevitable 'You're a monster but I see such kindness in your eyes, who is TRULY the monster hmmmmmmm????' scene.
Just what I want: to go to the movies and be chastised for persecuting the Hulk.
I'm no purist either Cap'n. And I know, of course, none of the feats they perform are possible, but the ...ummm.... fakiness of it all just reminds me I am sitting in a padded chair in a theater and what is onscreen is all done with computers. Not a single human in the scene. I guess CGI to accent a scene is OK with me, but when they are entirely comprised of CGI sequences they are not for me.
I totally agree, except for the Final Fantasy movie. I can accept a movie which is entirely CGI (although that one could have had a much better script), but flicks like Spiderman which shift from interesting actors to non-interesting CGI "thespians" rocking out implausibly don't float my boat. The best analogy I can think of is that watching a movie with these all-CGI action sequences is like going to see a sequenced synthesizer concert, where all the notes are already programmed into a computer. You don't get to experience the thrill of seeing an actual human accomplish something difficult and amazing. It lessens the impact and excitement considerably.
CGI is just today's Ray Harryhausen stop-motion. I was touched when his Cyclops was killed by the dragon, or when the giant Neanderthal in "Sinbad & the Eye of the Tiger" sacrificed himself to save Sinbad and crew from the titular tiger... so I can buy Spider-Man webswinging or the Hulk hammer/tank throwing in today's CGI. I can wish it all looked as good as Jurrasic Park or Lord of the Rings, but like Spider-Man, the Hulk trailer makes it look like they got the pose/poise of the character just about right. I can fill in the rest with my head. It's all excelsior to me.
I'm with you Bub, I can usually--oooooh, Matrix!
Saw the Hulk trailer during the Super Bowl.
That animation looks like shit. End of story.
Speaking of the newest Matrix trailer, with the guy stomping on the hood of the moving car, can someone explain how come it's not possible to make stuff like that look at all like it's obeying physical laws? Is it just because we're not familiar with dudes crushing cars by landing on them, or what? It's so rare to find CGI objects that look like they're affected by gravity -- another recent case in point are those cat-horses or whatever in Two Towers that looked like they were drawn onto the film a la Roger Rabbit. Now that I think about it, I think Roger Rabbit's "gravity" was more believable.
re: Hulk Trailer
Jennifer Connelly is soooo good looking. :)
Totally agreed.
If you want to look at that shot frame-by-frame, go to http://www.whatisthematrix.com, and click on the Superbowl trailer link. You can pause the Quicktime and roll the playback head slowly across the scene. From doing so, here are my two conclusions about why it doesn't look realistic:
1) If you freeze-frame it and scrub through the shot, you'll notice the agent dude jumping on the car is, for most of it, in much sharper focus, and lit with more contrast than the car. That separates him from the scene.
2) As you mentioned, if a person that size jumps on the hood of a car, they are not going to crush it and make it flip over. It can't look natural or realistic because that's not what's going to happen if you put that amount of weight the hood of a car.
That nit-picking aside, I just noticed what the trailer was really trying to tell me: both Matrix sequels are coming out THIS YEAR! Awesome.
Posting Permissions