Go Back   Colonial Fleets > BATTLESTAR GALACTICA DISCUSSION AREA > The Last Battlestar......Galactica!
Notices
The Last Battlestar......Galactica! For discussions about the ORIGINAL series
What Dreams May Come!

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old June 21st, 2003, 04:45 AM   #1
Titon
Retired or am I?
 
Titon's Avatar
 


Special Effects Artist
Battlestar Galactica 2003
COMMAND INSIGNIACoFounder
Colonial Fleets

Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,802

Cool Boring 'Hulk' an unconvincing mess.

For the last couple of weeks i've seen the previews for Universal's upcoming Hulk movie. From the first day that i seen the cgi character of the Hulk i shuddered from the very site of it, and i *work* in this field. There's a time for cgi folks and then there's this mess. I've been reading mostly negative reviews about the Hulk but i came across a review that fit's this upcoming movie to a tee. Way to go Universal, another one in the tank.

*shakes head*.

Here's the review. I posted it here because of the higher traffic in the discussion area. Enjoy.

Boring 'Hulk' an unconvincing mess

Chris Hewitt
St. Paul Pioneer Press
Published: Friday, June 20, 2003


Anger is the new black. This season, it goes with everything: It's what unites Adam Sandler and Jack Nicholson in "Anger Management"; it's the theme of Metallica's CD, "Saint Anger"; it's the result of a virus in the upcoming "28 Days Later"; and it's what makes our hero get all green and sinewy in the movie version of the comic book (and TV series), "The Hulk." It's also what some audiences may feel when they fork over 8 bucks for this boring, unconvincing mess.

It doesn't start out that way. The opening scenes fill us in on the Bruce Banner/Hulk mythology. He's a scientist whose DNA has been altered so that his bottled-up feelings come out when he gets mad and he becomes a Shrek-hued muscleman (just as in the TV series, the sudden bulk-ups leave his shirts in shreds and his pants intact). Director Ang Lee transforms the exposition, usually the dullest part of any story, into something fascinating by using comic book-style fades and split-screens to make the early scenes fluid and exhilarating.

Then, he sucks the fun out of movie. More precisely, psychology sucks it out. Back when they made "Batman," it seemed like a good idea to investigate a superhero's dark side, to show the pain of being different along with the joyful, pulpy thrill of it. But now, superhero movies have gone too far in the opposite direction. It's all angst, all navel-gazing, all the time, and "The Hulk" can't possibly support that because the navel that's being gazed at is a cartoon navel.

The deal is that comic book movies want to be taken seriously. That's why Eric Bana, who plays Bruce Banner, and Jennifer Connelly, who plays his colleague/love interest, act here with the hushed, respectful murmuring of morticians. That's why the images in the movie are desaturated so that the brightest color is Sam Elliott's tan (he plays Connelly's dad). That's why it's actually fun to watch Nick Nolte's dreadful performance as Banner's mad-scientist dad. He's hammy, and it might have been wiser to cast an actor who's not so immediately believable as a wasted, homeless nutcase, but at least he gives us something to look at.

Speaking of looking, the big question about "The Hulk" is how the computer-generated title character looks. The answer is that he's pretty good and not good enough. The computer-generated Gollum in "The Two Towers" was a success because he was beautifully acted and sparingly used, but this entire movie rests on a character who is not expressive and who (unlike, say, Nemo, in "Finding Nemo") has to compete with realistic backdrops that make him look even faker.

The more "The Hulk" strives for realism, the less it achieves it. When the characters get all "Oprah" on us, yakking about repressed memory syndrome and the damage their daddies did to them, it doesn't fit with anything else in the movie. Especially since we're being asked to register the emotional pain of what is, essentially, a cartoon who, when he's not blabbing about finding his identity, spends most of his time playing leap-frog with Utah.

OK, we get it. It's not easy being green. But surely it's a little bit fun, too. Banner alludes to the fun elements of being supersized and depicting that would have done the movie a lot of good, but Lee's humorless movie has no time for fun. It makes you wonder why he wanted to make this film in the first place. And it makes you wonder if "The Hulk" is destined to make audiences good and mad.
__________________
www.colonialfleets.com
THE ART OF GALACTICA!
Titon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2003, 08:32 AM   #2
jewels
Stablemaster, Livery Ship
 
jewels's Avatar
 


FORUM STAFFFleet Modertor
Colonial Fleets

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Wandering Indiana
Posts: 5,100


Default

Hewitt's "anger is the new black" comment sort of strikes a chord with the Lee, Tigh, and Kara characters in the abomination also. Perhaps all of Hollywood needs to get out of the psychoanalysts' offices and out in to the real world a bit. The real world that comic books are an escape from.

I'm glad I wasn't interested in that movie. I actually saw a positive review in our local paper... made me wonder if Cox Enterprises (they own many of the community papers and Dayton Daily News here) had a stake in V-U.

Jewels
__________________
"We feel free when we escape – even if it be but from the frying pan to the fire." Mozzie on White Collar

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one." Malcolm Reynolds [/color]

"We don't dictate to countries, we liberate countries." Mitt Romney [/color]
jewels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2003, 08:55 AM   #3
Lt.Starbuck
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

Thumbs down I have to agree

I have to agree with you. I had high hopes for this movie to turn out well,but I see a big green hulk cartoon and not great computer FX. I have heard mixed reviews on the movie,but no one has made any comments on the FX ,or the lack of or poor quality of them. I will see this movie,but do not have high hopes.

Last edited by Lt.Starbuck; June 21st, 2003 at 09:01 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2003, 10:27 AM   #4
AslanC
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

Default

Looks like we have another Daredevil on our hands.

How do you screw up a Hulk movie?

I mean come on the formula is simple.

"Don't get me angry, you wouldn't like me when I'm angry."

They get him angry.

GRRRR....ARRRGG.... HULK SMASH!!!!"

repeat.

This is not rocket science folks.

Superman 2 works because Superman throws down with guys who chuck busses at him, etc... but I digress

As for the psycho-analysis thing Jewels, most of Western civilization spent the 90s being told that they were damaged and nothing was their fault, so don't just blame these writers, blame Oprah and Donnahue and the rest of that stuff as well.

Like Chris Rock says, "Whatever happend to crazy?"

  Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2003, 06:18 PM   #5
jjrakman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

Default HULK SUCK BAD!

If there was a story here I couldn't find it. Everytime I was just abput to lose myself in the movie, one of those damned split screen scenes would pop up where everything looked like the opening sequence of Dallas every ten minutes which totally thre me out of the story. And then those extreme close ups of peoples faces, instead of following the storyline I just kept thinking, boy, Sam Elliot and Nick Nolte should see a dermotologist.
  Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2003, 07:23 PM   #6
thomas7g
out there somewhere
 
thomas7g's Avatar
 
COMMAND INSIGNIAFormer Admin (ret)
Colonial Fleets
BattlestarGalactica-Fleets.com
Owner
Ship Of Lights Forum

Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: The Ship Of Lights
Posts: 5,517


Default

First of all...JJRAKMAN HAS THE MOST FIGHTENING AVATAR I'VE SEEN IN A LONG TIME!!!!!!


But back to the movie....it SUCKS.

UNIVERSAL TANKS IT AGAIN!!!

The problem is again not the original concept, but how Universal executes it. The plot sucks. The story sucks. Its lame. It don't make a hell lotta sense especially near the end. Obviously you have a successful property here. Hulk has been around alot longer than me. But Universal-Vivendi once again proves you can **** up a good thing.

I thought Banner was pretty uninteresting. Give an mediocre actor bad lines, bad direction and well... don't expect Oscar callibur performance. Banner was boring. How can you make a guy who turns into a green raging Behemouth uninteresting? WEll..I don't know...but they did it.

And the ending...MY GOD, it seems that anyone can just suck on a live wire and turn into a SUPERPOWERED Hero or Villian! Superpowered people are crawling out of the woodwork!

And the Hulk himself.... he sucks.

He has the right proportions but ...well... he looks like a computer generated image. He looks more like something out of Toy Story than a believable real character. His skin looks funny. Not real. And his moves are often awkward and has that weird CG flow. Sometimes kinda ultrasmooth bouncyish. Or overdone.

The biggest problem in the movie is that the Hulk himself (like the actor that plays Banner) shows no real emotion. I mean he technically snarls and growls...but you never feel the emotion. The Hulk doesn't have that viciousness in his expression that he has in the comics. The face is boring.


Save your hard earned cash. This movie is barely a rental. No wonder Universal was so upset when advanced copy hit the internet. people might actually find out the movie sucks BEFORE they spend money on it!
__________________
The Ship of Lights -- A fun place for enjoying all things Battlestar Galactica


"There is a meaning for wings that can not fly!
Its a precious memory of when you once flew in the sky."
thomas7g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2003, 12:19 PM   #7
LadyImmortal
Bad Email Address
 
LadyImmortal's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: South of Wisconsin
Posts: 551


Default

I'm kind of not surprised about the CGI.

Think about it, guys - for the really good CGI effects they usually take at least a year to perfect them and make them great.

They didn't even START the CGI for the Hulk until ~Nov, 2002 - before that there was still a rumor going about that they were looking for an 'actor' to play Hulk.

To me, if you wanna make a realistic character of ANY kind with all CGI - take a couple of years and do it right.

--Rhonda
LadyImmortal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2003, 06:00 PM   #8
originalsinner
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

Unhappy CGI Over kill!

Locus did it with Star Wars Ep.1-2, and Godzilla, Now its being done with the Hulk, I rather watch the tv show, Mr Mcgee dont make me angee!
  Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2003, 07:54 PM   #9
SeoulWind
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

Default

Well, I'm glad I haven't seen the Hulk yet! Now I won't!

Some of the comments in this thread about psyco-analysis and anger really apply to how I feel about the new BSG. I don't want to see people with scewed up relationships who are angry at their fathers or addicted to sex or repressing guilt over doing something stupid like passing an inadequate warrior through training because they are involved. I can see people with problems like those (more or less) every day, what fun is that?

Mark Snyder
Seoul, Korea
  Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2003, 08:24 PM   #10
BST
Snowball, My Angel Baby
 
BST's Avatar
 
COMMAND INSIGNIAAdmin
Colonial Fleets

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Somewhere across the heavens... aka Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 9,102


Default

Exactly, Seoul Wind.

If "these" people want "reality", they should just flip on the news. The news hasn't been re-imagined yet, but the weather, ...if only....



BST
BST is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2003, 10:40 AM   #11
Hito
Bad Email Address
 
Hito's Avatar
 
Veteran
Fleets Warrior

Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: PAX Amerikana
Posts: 396

Default

This reviewer is apparently mainlining Heroin through both arms at once.
Or at the very least is smoking some bad crack.

Obviously he like others who didn’t get this movie went in to it expecting 45 to 90 minets of "HULK SMASH" and were not prepared to do any thinking.
But I knew Ang Lee was going to bring a thoughtful element to the piece that would add a third dimension (no pun intended) to the Hulk mythos, and except for the tank throwing Lee also managed to portray the Hulk’s awesome strength and managed to not make it cheesy.
Much in the same way Singer was able to bring that realistic feel to X-Men while remaining truer to the source material than Singer did.

Of course the Hulk was going to be about anger.
Duh that is what the hulk has always been about.
In the series Bill Bixby’s Banner sought to fid himself of human anger but wound up instead releasing a creature that was rage incarnate.
In Lee’s movie the Hulk was the physical manifestation of Banners psychological pain.
Pure childhood angst augmented by gamma-powered strength.

The people who didn’t find that the Hulk character emotive must have been watching the other Hulk movie that was out, because even knowing what to look for and reading all the early criticisms of the CG I was convinced.
Also the reviewer must have been among the unobservant that didn’t notice that when Hulk fought the gamma dogs he did indeed burst out of his jeans…
Later on when he had to fight in the daytime they came up with a contrivance to keep him in decent for the kiddies.
Hito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2003, 10:40 AM   #12
Hito
Bad Email Address
 
Hito's Avatar
 
Veteran
Fleets Warrior

Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: PAX Amerikana
Posts: 396

Default

This all sounds like a lot of bashing Mr. Lee’s work because bad feelings over Galactica and not because of the actual merit of the piece.

Quote:
Originally posted by LadyImmortal
I'm kind of not surprised about the CGI.

Think about it, guys - for the really good CGI effects they usually take at least a year to perfect them and make them great.

They didn't even START the CGI for the Hulk until ~Nov, 2002 - before that there was still a rumor going about that they were looking for an 'actor' to play Hulk.

To me, if you wanna make a realistic character of ANY kind with all CGI - take a couple of years and do it right.

--Rhonda
Ang Lee had been testing the technology and considering his options long before then.




Quote:
Originally posted by thomas7g
But back to the movie....it SUCKS.

UNIVERSAL TANKS IT AGAIN!!!

The problem is again not the original concept, but how Universal executes it. The plot sucks. The story sucks. Its lame. It don't make a hell lotta sense especially near the end. Obviously you have a successful property here. Hulk has been around alot longer than me. But Universal-Vivendi once again proves you can **** up a good thing.

I thought Banner was pretty uninteresting. Give an mediocre actor bad lines, bad direction and well... don't expect Oscar callibur performance. Banner was boring. How can you make a guy who turns into a green raging Behemouth uninteresting? WEll..I don't know...but they did it.
Ang Lee is anything but a bad director.


Quote:
Originally posted by thomas7g

And the ending...MY GOD, it seems that anyone can just suck on a live wire and turn into a SUPERPOWERED Hero or Villian! Superpowered people are crawling out of the woodwork!
I hardly think that a grand total of two super powered people is enough to characterize the film as having them “crawling out of the woodwork”.
What did you think? That there would be no super powered things for The Hulk to throw down with?

He was the Absoarbing Man from the comics.
Did you miss the first half of the movie that sets up the elder banner as the potential superpowered villan, or the bit where his abilities first manafest?

Quote:
Originally posted by thomas7g

And the Hulk himself.... he sucks.

He has the right proportions but ...well... he looks like a computer generated image. He looks more like something out of Toy Story than a believable real character. His skin looks funny. Not real. And his moves are often awkward and has that weird CG flow. Sometimes kinda ultrasmooth bouncyish. Or overdone.
Ok The Hulk is not as realistic as Buzz Lightyear.
Come on Thomas I know you know better than that.
Hulk was a lot better than the CG actors from Spiderman and Matrix2 but not as good as Gollum.
But he is far from an anthropomorphic cartoon recreatin like Shrek or Toy Story
Hito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2003, 03:58 PM   #13
Cosmic Cleric
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

Default Hito called it right on this one

Guys/Gals,

Gotta say that Hito is right on this one. Perhaps Hulk is not the only one who needs anger management?

All kidding aside, I saw the movie yesterday with my son and his friend, and we all liked it. I grew up watching The Hulk TV show, and thought the movie stayed true to the show's "style/theme".

To use an analogy, if you walked into the theater expecting "football", you are going to be disappointed. If you are a "baseball" fan, then you'll love it.

Finally, I am very angry at Sci Fi too over BSG. I got censored when I suggested that the clones may be somebodies "employees", so I know what Sci Fi is all about. But don't let that anger blind you to what really is true. It will make people not listen to you.

Apologies to anyone who I may have offended with this. That was not my intention.

Peace.

-end-
  Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2003, 04:36 PM   #14
RGrant
Shuttle Pilot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 66

Default

My brother and his friend saw The Hulk, and while they're certainly in the target audience, neither of them liked it. As neither of them know anything about what's going on in the world of Battlestar Galactica, I don't think their disapproval of the Hulk has anything to do with Moore, Hammer or Universal. I'm sure they also have no idea BG was even made by Universal.

Moral of the story? It's possible, just possible, that the people here are being honest in their opinions of The Hulk. In a way, it's almost impossible for them to say they don't like it, because other people will just assume it's an overreaction due to the Universal/BG situation. Of course, everyone has different opinions. Even though the CGI didn't look that realistic to me in the previews, I'm looking forward to Hulk for its psychological level and subtext about anger, because I can be an angry guy sometimes. Sometimes I even lash out at other people when their opinions are different than mine. Don't worry. I'm working on it.
RGrant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2003, 06:11 PM   #15
jjrakman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

Default

I don't think my disliking of it had anything to do with BSG. As far as the Hulk itself, I think it probably looked as good as they were able to make it. And I didn't really have a problem with the movie other than what I said, I really disliked the split screens and extreme close ups. They were too distracting from the story and made it harder to follow. But I don't like directing styles that are too stylized in anything, I think it distracts from the story. Simple classic directing styles are always the best.
  Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2003, 10:06 PM   #16
StallionCornell
Shuttle Pilot
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Somewhere Else, USA
Posts: 23

Default

Just saw it. I consider it a noble failure.

I love Ang Lee. Crouching Tiger is magnificent, but the first film I saw of his that I just adored was - don't laugh - Sense and Sensibility. No flying people, no green monsters - just compelling characters. This guy uses actors well, and he is driven by relationships and personal connections, with a thoughtful look at isolation and loneliness. The Ice Storm was also magnificent in this respect.

Which brings us to why Hulk failed.

Lee's heart was in the relationships - Bruce and David, Bruce and Betty, Betty and the General. It was actually a very small, intimate character study. Except that you also had 15-foot tall green guys, hulk dogs, and a silly, overblown finale that was out of place in this movie as it would have been in a Merchant Ivory picture. Lee was ill-suited to this material. He didn't really seem interested in making things go boom.

I thought the CGI wasn't all that bad, actually, but I've never seen CGI not look like CGI. I think, for instance, that Battlestar Galactica effects hold up pretty well over time because they were pictures of real ships, albeit miniatures.

Gollum is held up as the ideal, but marvelous though Gollum was, he still looked CGI. It's just the way it is. Two more years couldn't have fixed it, IMO. CGI works for me as set dressing or background images, but living things always look fake.

And, yes, the split screens were annoying as all git out.

No, the big thing this weekend is that I stayed up most of Saturday night to finish Harry Potter V. Just kids books? Meh.*































*(c) 2003, Tnagr Enetrprises
__________________
"Beans!"
StallionCornell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23rd, 2003, 10:25 PM   #17
Lt.Starbuck
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

Default

I did try to see the Hulk this weekend,but as fate would have it the projector went down hard. I did sit through the first 30 min which did not impress me at all. As the movie kept going off,I could hear differnt people talking most were saying the blank screen and the elevator music was better then the movie anyway. I might make my way back to it or just wait for the chance to rent it(no buying this one). T-3 is coming up and a new one that looks good "28 Days Later" So I am going with the popular vote and holding off on the Hulk.
  Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2003, 09:43 AM   #18
Hito
Bad Email Address
 
Hito's Avatar
 
Veteran
Fleets Warrior

Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: PAX Amerikana
Posts: 396

Default

Quote:
Originally posted by RGrant


Moral of the story? It's possible, just possible, that the people here are being honest in their opinions of The Hulk.
If you say so.
That is not the conclusion i have reached from my experience here from the last few months.


Quote:
Originally posted by StallionCornell

Which brings us to why Hulk failed.

Lee's heart was in the relationships - Bruce and David, Bruce and Betty, Betty and the General. It was actually a very small, intimate character study. Except that you also had 15-foot tall green guys, hulk dogs, and a silly, overblown finale that was out of place in this movie as it would have been in a Merchant Ivory picture. Lee was ill-suited to this material. He didn't really seem interested in making things go boom.

I thought the CGI wasn't all that bad, actually, but I've never seen CGI not look like CGI. I think, for instance, that Battlestar Galactica effects hold up pretty well over time because they were pictures of real ships, albeit miniatures.

Gollum is held up as the ideal, but marvelous though Gollum was, he still looked CGI. It's just the way it is. Two more years couldn't have fixed it, IMO. CGI works for me as set dressing or background images, but living things always look fake.

And, yes, the split screens were annoying as all git out.

No, the big thing this weekend is that I stayed up most of Saturday night to finish Harry Potter V. Just kids books? Meh.*

Thats exactly right.
I got the feeling that Lee was trying to take the superhero genre on sence and sencibility direction.
There were too many relationships to be explored in hulk to make it work as well as it did in CTHD tho.
Hito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 25th, 2003, 12:23 AM   #19
thomas7g
out there somewhere
 
thomas7g's Avatar
 
COMMAND INSIGNIAFormer Admin (ret)
Colonial Fleets
BattlestarGalactica-Fleets.com
Owner
Ship Of Lights Forum

Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: The Ship Of Lights
Posts: 5,517


Default

Quote:
Originally posted by RGrant


Moral of the story? It's possible, just possible, that the people here are being honest in their opinions of The Hulk.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hito
If you say so.
That is not the conclusion i have reached from my experience here from the last few months.
*SMACKS HITO!*



Alot of the problems that occurred was because BG2003 fans were purposely cloning fake members to infuriate the fans of the original show. So that caused the problem, the BSG2003 fans.

END of Discussion. Keep the thread on topic. Start a new thread if you guys want to continue on this tangent.

-your friendly neighborhood admin
__________________
The Ship of Lights -- A fun place for enjoying all things Battlestar Galactica


"There is a meaning for wings that can not fly!
Its a precious memory of when you once flew in the sky."
thomas7g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 25th, 2003, 08:11 AM   #20
dah66
Warrior
 
dah66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Beyond the heavens
Posts: 296

Default

Overall, I was disappointed. Still, I found it reasonably entertaining and was glad that I caught it on a big screen.

Here are my observations:

1. The build up to Banner hulking out was too low-key. I never felt like this guy had a raging beast buried beneath his calm exterior. For example, his first transformation was triggered by an actual physical confrontation. This would tick anyone off. We live in an angry society and they had a wonderful chance to comment on this. Instead of giving Banner "daddy issues" I think it would have been more compelling to have portrayed him as a normal guy that goes off after a really bad day. Maybe he could have been fired from his job for causing the gamma accident and then "hulked out" on the ride home after being repeatedly cut off. Yeah, the ultimate expression of road rage!

2. I didn't connect with the characters emotionally. Again, I believe this was due to the low-key approach to the material. There was just too much moping for my taste.

3. The ending felt tacked on. They could have ended the film after the confrontation with the military and I believe it would have made for a better movie. Also, there was too much CGI at the end. The emotional build up was through the interaction of real actors and the resolution to the conflict was played out with non emotive CGI.

4. Where the heck was the fun? Banner stated that he enjoyed "letting go" when becoming the Hulk, but I never saw this expressed. He did look happy when he was jumping with the wind in his face, but I don't equate jumping really high with emotional freedom.

I would have loved to have seen the Hulk smashing something other than military hardware. The military was portrayed as a faceless enemy. Also, these were just guys doing their job. Hard to enjoy watching the Hulk kick their butts when they aren't really at fault. Going back to the road rage example, I think an audience could relate to the Hulk pounding the crap out of some idiots SUV more so than watching him throw a tank through the air.

5. What was up with the A-Team and Dukes of Hazzard approach to the military conflict? Meaning, why did they keep showing that most of the soldiers were really fine after their helicopters or tanks were smashed? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I wanted to see death and carnage, I just thought that this approach was unrealistic and distracting. Perhaps, they didn't want to portray military casualties because of the current situation in Iraq.

6. The split screen effect worked fine at the beginning of the film but quickly became confusing and cluttered. This was especially true with the scenes involving helicopters (the horizon line was hard to distinguish from panel to panel).

I would recommend waiting for the video or catching a matinee. This is definitely not worth full price.

Thanks.

Dave
dah66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 25th, 2003, 09:02 AM   #21
oldwardaggit
You old war daggit!
 
oldwardaggit's Avatar
 
COMMAND INSIGNIAOwner/Webmaster
RadioGalactica

Join Date: May 2001
Location: canada
Posts: 988

Default

Ho Ho Ho
Green Giant. lol


Well I don't see why it should be such a surprise. It's not like Bruce didn't warn us. He said that we wouldn't like him if he got angry.

I guess he should have been more specific and said ( Don't make me angry. you wouldn't like me when I’m angry because I turn into shrek on acid with an uncontrollable urge to hop across the landscape like daffy duck with a hot foot.

Maybe what the Hulk was really saying all those years ago was,
"Don't make me" Ang Lee. lol

owd
__________________
Desanto and Larson, Larson and desanto.
Did you see that? I think the Giant just opened an eye.

OWD
oldwardaggit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 25th, 2003, 09:19 AM   #22
jjrakman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

Default

I think the Hulk looked pretty much as good as they could make it, but I think these were it's biggest problems:

1) Making a CGI image of a dinosaur or alien creature is far easier than making one of a human or humanoid figure. This is because without knowing it, everyone is an expert on how human beings move, interact with gravity, react to impacts, etc. We are experts on this because we spend lifetimes looking at humans all over the place, every day. So when there are small inconsistencies with movement or shape or otherwise, we can spot the most miniscule mistake from a mile away, in a human or humanoid CGI character.

2) I understand that they used the director for motion capture of the Hulk. If this is the case, it would explain why the Hulk seemed impossibly agile and dextrous. They should have used a person with alot of bulk to make the movements seem more "muscle bound", and less dextrous. Hell they could have even used Lou Ferigno for motion capture.
  Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BSG DVDs Advertised on Hulk Movie Muffit The Last Battlestar......Galactica! 15 December 10th, 2003 08:08 PM
Really really boring! Faust The Last Battlestar......Galactica! 1 December 9th, 2003 01:30 PM
Ready for Terminator to BURY the Hulk? thomas7g The Last Battlestar......Galactica! 5 July 5th, 2003 10:38 PM
Comparing Hulk remake to BG LucianG The Last Battlestar......Galactica! 9 February 16th, 2003 08:44 PM




So sez our Muffit!!!

For fans of the Classic Battlestar Galactica series



COPYRIGHT
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:52 PM. Contact the Fleet - Colonial Fleets - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.11, Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content and Graphics ©2000-Present Colonial Fleets
The Colonial Fleets Forums are run by Battlestar Galactica fans, paid for by Battlestar Galactica fans, for the enjoyment of fellow Battlestar Galactica fans.



©2000-2008 Colonial Fleets