Gollem in The lord of the Rings movie looked real, even though there is no such thing in real life.
The little elf critter in Harry Potter 2, watshisname, looked real as well.
For that matter, the CGI dionsaurs in all theee Jurassic Park movies looked estremely realistic.
From what I have seen of the trailers for the Hulk, the title character looks like a cartoon and not a realistic computer generated image.
I have no problem whatsoever with CG, as long as it doesn’t look like CG. There’s good computer graphics and bad computer graphics, and what little I’ve seen of The Hulk looks pretty bad to me, right up there (or down there, as the case may be) with the title snake in Anaconda and the werewolves in An American Werewolf in Paris.
Thats true, but the Hulk simply looks silly, anyway, and his scenes aren’t mostly done at night.
Actually thjough, I saw the newer trailers and they seem to look pretty well done. I though the early ones looked really unrealistic, too, but now it seems MUCH improved.
They used a LOT of animatronics in that one. Not totally, but significantly.
The car really bugs me. A big part of the charm of the story is that it all takes place in Victorian England, so a super car just seems like typical Hollywood overkill. But I can live with that.
Some of the ideas are actually pretty cool. Adding Tom Sawyer and Dorian Grey is pretty clever, as long as it doesn’t get overloaded with characters. (I predict Nemo will have zero time for character development).
But my biggest problem, just based on the trailers, is with the characters of Allan Quartermain and Mina Murray. In the comic, Allan is not the “leader” of the League; it’s Mina. He’s no longer a kick-ass action hero, he’s a once-great man who was destroyed by years of opium addiction and relies on Mina to bring him out of that. She has no super-powers, she’s only an extremely strong-willed and confident woman who has survived horrible things. That’s one of the key dynamics of the comic book, not just Mina’s relationship with Quartermain, but the way that all of the other characters react to her. In the movie, they seemed to be reduced just to “action hero” and “vampire,” which are great for action scenes and effects shots, but lousy for depth and subtlety. And if they needed a character to kick ass, they’ve got Mr. Hyde already.
Part of why the comic works so well is because it contrasts so many things against each other: a stuffy Victorian way of telling a story that incorporates all kinds of “adult” concepts; and a pulpy, absurd concept set against characters who have genuine emotions and mature relationships with each other. (Nemo’s reaction to racism, the Jekyll/Hyde relationship and Hyde’s respect of Mina, Allan’s age and self-doubt, Allan & Mina’s relationship). There’s a lot going on there – in fact, I think it’s Moore’s best work, much better than Watchmen – that looks as if it’s been lost to make a summer blockbuster.
But at least they dropped that “LXG” nonsense. One thing, though, which is a spoiler for those who haven’t read up to the current issue of Volume 2 of the comic:
If they don’t make The Invisible Man a bad guy in the movie, I’m going to be seriously pissed. Even the original movie managed to get that part of the character right – he’s NOT a hero.
I’m definitely going to the the Pirates movie. Because, seriously? Johnny Depp = hot. The other details are unimportant.
The other ones… I think the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen concept sounds really cool. If it’s pulled off well, I’ll definitely go see. But I’ve heard some bad things about it, so it all depends on the press.
The other 2? I’ll go see 'em if I have some spare cash, probably. I like Ang Lee, so the Hulk is cool, and if T3 gets some decent reviews I’ll probably check it out.