Really, what was the last major movie with bad CGI? It seems to me that we’ve had nothing but amazing (for the time) since Jurassic Park.
Crap, I wish I wouldn’t have seen this thread. I figured they wouldn’t let anyone see him until the movie was out ala Jurassic Park but now that I know I can see him I don’t know if I should. I’m honestly half tempted to watch the Super Bowl now.
Well, he’ll be called Bruce Banner.
Anyways, the only TV thing people want is the end music, which I’m certain won’t be happening (but you never know). Lou Ferrigno makes a cameo, I think. And in the ad/trailer that has been mentioned, there is a line spoken that’s somewhat familiar.
I must say Eric Bana’s accent is very good too.
I saw the Super Bowl ad, and if you ask me, he didn’t look that great. He looked very obviously CGI, IMHO. He did look a lot like Shrek.
Wow the close up shot looks amazing. If the rest of him is like that, then he might be the best looking CGI character yet.
On a side note, Im tired of people who are always complaining about CGI not looking relistic. Stop knit picking and enjoy it! CGI may not be perfect (yet) but its getting there. Think how far visual graphics have come since movies were invented. Its pretty damn incredible if you ask me.
I don’t think I was nit picking. I’ve seen some good CGI, and good CGI looks good. I don’t think this is good CGI. I think it looked like pretty crappy CGI. But that’s just MHO. As stated above.
I think its silly to expected all CGI to look 100% realistic. As long as skin textures and movement looks 90% believable I think that is all we will get out of computers.
They are trying to make something that is not real, and never was real, look like it is real. Who knows what the “real” Hulk looks like?
No one.
I think he looks great. Purple pants and all.
I agree with Smeghead. I was not impressed. And there has been a LOT of bad CGI since Jurrasic Park. If you notice, for those movies that have really good CGI, whatever they are animating starts off as a model which is photographed, input into a computer, and animated that way. That’s why the dinos inJP, the dragon in Dragon Heart, and Gollum in LotR looked so good.
The problem is, a lot of people nowadays simply create the creature in the computer, which makes it look flat and lame. Personally, that’s what it looks like they did with the Hulk. His face moved too fluidly, and in the scene where he spins the tank, he moved WAY too quick. But, he is the Hulk, so I’m guessing super strength leads to super speed, so I’ll let that one slide. The good thing is, most crappy CGI still looks really good on the big screen, so I’ll definitely get around to seeing it.
Well what major films did you think had bad CGI, so I know how likely I am to agree with you?
Smeghead, I wasnt trying to single you out individually. I was talking about people in general knit picking with CGI.
I agree with El Elvis Rojo about Gollum, he was done very well. My parents didnt even relize he was CGI until I told them about it.
Did anyone see the ad for the new Bruce Willis movie? There’s your example of bad CGI right there. He plays an army guy sent to rescue some doctor and the area gets overrun with rebels. In the commercial there was a wide sweeping shot of obviously CGI Somali rebels walking across the underbrush with rifles. Stiff, repetitive animation, slightly out-of-place characters. It looked like somebody’s first day with Poser.
The example of bad CGI that popped into my head was the Scorpion King during the last fight in Mummy 2. He looked more like something from a 3 year old computer game than an effect in a major movie.
Don’t forget, folks, the CGI’s not done for Hulk yet. This is still missing a lot of processing.
Both new Star Wars movies, to start with.
Thanks Faustina for the Mummy 2 reference, and for the memory refreshing name. I always have trouble when put on the spot to think of somehing, but your name reminded me of a perfect example:
Faust = devil = hell = SPAWN.
Admittadely, it did have some neat things (I liked the way his mask grew on and off), but EVERY bit involved with Hell, Spawn’s cape, and especially Malbogia were complete crap.
And as amazingly stunning as the movies were, both Lord of the Rings movies had some obvious flaws (god, I’m going to get it for that one). Gollum looked GREAT, the Balrog was stupendous, and a lot of the other little bits they did were very well done. I liked how they used computer imaging to make normal sized actors seem smaller than they were, but it was blatently obvious in many parts (the clearest example is when Sam and Frodo are captured by the men from Gondor and are taken to the cave; they walk all choppy, they’re incredibly overlit, and they obviously aren’t on the same plane of existance as the men walking in front of them).
Also, Star Wars…well, pick one. Half the crap put into the original movies is incredibly hard to swallow. After growing up watching Jabba as a big puppet, to see his flat, nearly two dimensional counterpart in Episode 4 is insulting. And watch any CGI’d shot of the Falcon and compare it to the original shots. The originals were shots of models; the remakes were done completely by computers; the new shots make it look like the ship has accordian capabilities to make it’s depth grow and shrink. And Jar Jar…yeah, most people hate him because he’s just an annoying ass character, but what really bugs me with him is what bugs me with most CGI characters…the idea that, in order to make them look realistic, they have to be in CONSTANT MOTION! He’s always wabbling around, swinging his arms, or his ears and vest are flowing around, even when he’s inside away from anything resembling a draft.
Again, I admit there are some impressive CGI characters out there, but I’m sure if you looked into them, they all started with models and were manipulated from that. They’re really more like updated stop motion photography.
Damn you asterion for stealing my thunder 
I didn’t think the CGI looked nearly as good as the Matrix commercial during the Super Bowl. But it might get better in the final movie.
So there’s still hope. I agree with Smeghead. I thought that the Hulk looked too much like a cartoon. Compare him to Gollum and the Balrog from LOTR. Those are great CGI. I didn’t notice anything wrong with Frodo and Sam, so the CGI couldn’t be too bad with them.
Really bad CGI- Scooby Doo.
'Nuff Said.
I agree that the commercial showing Hulk was not as great as I thought it would be. We’ll see when the movie comes out.
And re: Daredevil?
Ben Affleck and Michael Clarke Duncan. Who cares about plot and stuff? Gets drool cup ready