Live-action Hulk: CGI or actor?

[Fenster]

I meant to include this debate in my thread about the first Hulk movie, but it slipped my mind.

A year or two back I read a small blurb in Entertainment Weekly called "Obsessed Fan of the Week" or something like that, where they would salute a person who was really, really into a particular pop culture piece, sometimes obscure and sometimes not. These were the fans that went all out.

Anyway, one week they showed a Hulk fan with his room full of Hulk figures, posters, etc. He said that while he was glad that a new Hulk movie was being made, he was very unhappy that the Hulk would again be portrayed by a CGI and not a real person. "If I wanted to see a cartoon, I'd watch TV on Saturday morning," the guy said (or something like that.)

The thing is, I don't see how you could believably have the Hulk portrayed by an actor. Yes it worked on the TV show, but the TV Hulk was nowhere near as big or strong as his comics counterpart. They used camera angles and the like to portray him as being taller than he really was (IIRC he was supposed to be seven feet tall or taller, and Lou Ferrigno is 6'5" or something). Plus the TV Hulk never had to face enemies or do feats like the comics Hulk. For the TV Hulk it was showing off for him to lift the back end of a car; in the comics and the Ang Lee movie the Hulk tosses around tanks (among other things.)

Then there's the issue of how it would look to have a person in the make-up. I read that in the Fantastic Four movies, the Thing was originally supposed to be CGI but Michael Chiklis (the actor playing him) convinced the producers to have him wear orange make-up and prosthetics, etc., instead. No offense to those who liked it, but I thought it looked ridiculous. (I haven't seen the second movie, but from the commercials and trailers it doesn't seem they did any better in that one.)

I guess I could see maybe if you had a real world champion bodybuilder with bulging muscles and veins it could look somewhat believable, but not for a whole movie.

Finally, I think you just have to have a certain suspension of disbelief when it comes to watching any movie, TV show, etc. Just my $.02.

[Kutulu]

I meant to include this debate in my thread about the first Hulk movie, but it slipped my mind.

A year or two back I read a small blurb in Entertainment Weekly called "Obsessed Fan of the Week" or something like that, where they would salute a person who was really, really into a particular pop culture piece, sometimes obscure and sometimes not. These were the fans that went all out.

Anyway, one week they showed a Hulk fan with his room full of Hulk figures, posters, etc. He said that while he was glad that a new Hulk movie was being made, he was very unhappy that the Hulk would again be portrayed by a CGI and not a real person. "If I wanted to see a cartoon, I'd watch TV on Saturday morning," the guy said (or something like that.)

The thing is, I don't see how you could believably have the Hulk portrayed by an actor. Yes it worked on the TV show, but the TV Hulk was nowhere near as big or strong as his comics counterpart. They used camera angles and the like to portray him as being taller than he really was (IIRC he was supposed to be seven feet tall or taller, and Lou Ferrigno is 6'5" or something). Plus the TV Hulk never had to face enemies or do feats like the comics Hulk. For the TV Hulk it was showing off for him to lift the back end of a car; in the comics and the Ang Lee movie the Hulk tosses around tanks (among other things.)

Then there's the issue of how it would look to have a person in the make-up. I read that in the Fantastic Four movies, the Thing was originally supposed to be CGI but Michael Chiklis (the actor playing him) convinced the producers to have him wear orange make-up and prosthetics, etc., instead. No offense to those who liked it, but I thought it looked ridiculous. (I haven't seen the second movie, but from the commercials and trailers it doesn't seem they did any better in that one.)

I guess I could see maybe if you had a real world champion bodybuilder with bulging muscles and veins it could look somewhat believable, but not for a whole movie.

Finally, I think you just have to have a certain suspension of disbelief when it comes to watching any movie, TV show, etc. Just my $.02.

There is no way you could possibly represent the Hulk as he is shown in the comics without complex CGI.

[SUB-ZERO MKA]

I think the hulk would look way too small and kind of corny if he was done by an actor. CGI is the way to go.

[psm]

I don't see why you couldn't combine both techniques (actor and cgi). I mean if we can have hobbits why can't we have the hulk. Regardless, I'm cool with either as long as it is consistent and well done.

[SweetVampireBuddha]

Then there's the issue of how it would look to have a person in the make-up. I read that in the Fantastic Four movies, the Thing was originally supposed to be CGI but Michael Chiklis (the actor playing him) convinced the producers to have him wear orange make-up and prosthetics, etc., instead. No offense to those who liked it, but I thought it looked ridiculous. (I haven't seen the second movie, but from the commercials and trailers it doesn't seem they did any better in that one.)


Unfortunately, the Thing looked just as stupid in the second movie as he did in the first. He really should have been cgi, imho.

I wonder what everyone thinks about the way the Hulk looks in this new version. I've heard that people aren't impressed with the Abomination but I, personally, was more underwhelmed by the look of the new Hulk. Seems to me that his head is way too small or maybe his neck is way too long... I liked the look of the Hulk in the last movie -- he looked like his comic book counterpart.

[The Ray]

The thing about the Thing (alliteration! Woot), is that that he was based on the Lee/Kirby Thing(heh!), which was modeled visually after Jack Kirby(with Mr. Fantastic playing Stan Lee). Jack was a very small, but tough Brooklyn jewish kid. He was about a head shorter than everyone in the room and that was who the Thing was modeled after. The film drew from that and…well, we have a short Thing. Wasn't used to great effect, since the films were camp-tastics.

[Drdmx]

I dont know that I mind the way Thing looked. I kind of want him to be the size he is in the current movies should Hulk and he ever meet. The Hulk should definitely maintain his size in his upcoming film.

[Preus]

For a live action movie, CGI is definitely the way to go as there is much more that can be done. If it's a live action TV show, I wouldn't mind seeing an actor in green make-up again but he'd have to be huge.

[Dorsai]

At one time, Lou Ferrigno competed at 300 lbs. That's probably about 290+ lbs of muscle considering how much bodyfat most competitive bodybuilders are sporting when on stage. When filming the Hulk, he was asked to always be close to competition shape but even assuming he was a bit smaller he would still have been close to 250 lbs if not larger.

Even a man as large and as muscular as Ferrigno still looked small compared to what most comic readers would imagine as the Hulk. With this particular character, CGI is probably a much better option.

[Preus]

Well, CGI is definitely the better option for a movie since people want to see a lot of destruction and big creature running around on a rampage. Take Ang Lee's Hulk for instance, he was 15 ft tall and a lot of people loved that aspect (I know I did).

[Grimm]

I think CGI with motion capture works well, like Doug Jones as Abe Sabien and Silver Surfer, or Andy Serkis with Gollum.

They did it with the first Hulk movie, I think Ang Lee did the motion capture? And I believe they are doing it again this time around.

I really wish they had done motion capture on the Thing, but I liked how they portrayed Ben in the movies so I was happy enough with that at least.

[Preus]

Then there's the issue of how it would look to have a person in the make-up. I read that in the Fantastic Four movies, the Thing was originally supposed to be CGI but Michael Chiklis (the actor playing him) convinced the producers to have him wear orange make-up and prosthetics, etc., instead. No offense to those who liked it, but I thought it looked ridiculous. (I haven't seen the second movie, but from the commercials and trailers it doesn't seem they did any better in that one.).

I completely disagree with this. Michael Chiklis in make-up and prosthetics as the Thing was perfect and it looked pretty believable to me. I don't think CGI is the way to go with everything. Just look at Underworld for instance. They used men in suits along with animatronics and the werewolves turned out to be perfect. Another example of how well make-up, prosthetics, and suits work well is in the Predator and Alien movies as even though they were only men in suits, they were still pulled off in a believable way. CGI isn't the way to go with everything.

[Preus]

I think CGI with motion capture works well, like Doug Jones as Abe Sabien and Silver Surfer, or Andy Serkis with Gollum.

They did it with the first Hulk movie, I think Ang Lee did the motion capture? And I believe they are doing it again this time around.

I really wish they had done motion capture on the Thing, but I liked how they portrayed Ben in the movies so I was happy enough with that at least.

Ang Lee looked ridiculous doing the motion capture, they should've gotten someone more experienced. If they did, we would've gotten a better fight with the dogs and better movements overall.

I'm still perfectly fine with characters like the Thing having been a man in make-up and prosthetics because of how well they turned out. Make-up and prosthetics is something that needs to be kept in the movie realm, CGI can't work well for everything. Many movies have proven that.

[MakeshiftHero]

With how he looks now compared to Ang Pee's piss poor movie, I'd say keep him CG for the next movies Hulk is in.

He looks much better and I think more believable. Of course most of what we have seen are just stills, with a couple seconds of him yelling and running. So even though we haven't seen him in action I still think that it would limit Hulk if you turn him into an actor.

In X-3 some people wanted Beast CG, but for Beast and the extent of his power I think he/"Fraiser" was perfect as beast. He doesn't have to toss tanks around, jump hundreds of feet into the air, fight... monster dogs *sigh*, all he did was hand to hand combat, jump around a bit and kicked ass.

I wouldn't mind seeing Thing as CG if they ever make another movie. I blame Michael for being greedy. But he did a good job at Thing so I'm in the middle of it.

[Preus]

Michael Chiklis was not greedy, he was simply a big fan of the Thing's character and thought it'd be a better experience for himself if he were to get into the make-up/prosthetics.

Btw, if we were to get a live action Hulk for a TV show, I'd like for this guy to portray him:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Khali.jpg/450px-Khali.jpg

[MakeshiftHero]

Michael Chiklis was not greedy, he was simply a big fan of the Thing's character and thought it'd be a better experience for himself if he were to get into the make-up/prosthetics.

Oh I had no idea. My bad, I just always assume that since the actors of comic movies always say "oh yeah i grew up reading the *insert comic book/character name here*" just to try to appeal to fans.

That's cool and real reasuring that he really wanted to act it out instead of just VO'ing Thing.

[Preus]

He's one of the few people who actually mean it when they say they read the comics. He even told his brother among other people that if a F4 movie was ever made, he was going to get the role. You can really believe him when he says he's a fan, unlike people like Julian McMahon who claims to be a big fan but didn't do that good of a job pulling off the character he was assigned.

[Edged Out]

I also think CGI is the way to go to give the Hulk all of his mass. My pops on the other hand, an old school Hulk tv series watcher, HATES the newer Hulk movie, and doesn't like what he saw in the newest movie's trailer. He is on the opposite side of the spectrum from what I think, because he believes it should be played by an actor and not the CGI. He doesn't read the comics though or anything like that, but that's just a case study.

[Fenster]

I liked the look of the Hulk in the last movie -- he looked like his comic book counterpart.

What I especially liked about him was I swear you could see Eric Bana in the Hulk's face. Did anyone else see that?

[Bulky Brent]

I believe it can work either way they have made successful movies with both CGI and actors.

[Fenster]

I completely disagree with this. Michael Chiklis in make-up and prosthetics as the Thing was perfect and it looked pretty believable to me. I don't think CGI is the way to go with everything. Just look at Underworld for instance. They used men in suits along with animatronics and the werewolves turned out to be perfect. Another example of how well make-up, prosthetics, and suits work well is in the Predator and Alien movies as even though they were only men in suits, they were still pulled off in a believable way. CGI isn't the way to go with everything.

Trust me, you're preaching to the choir when you tell me CGI doesn't always work. More often than not it sticks out like a sore thumb IMO. The new Star Wars films are a good example.

I also have to admit I was disappointed when I first saw Spider-Man in the theater, because to me all the CGI manipulation looked bogus, and I remember thinking "Maybe Spider-Man just can't be done properly in live action." I just didn't like how they made him move when he was flying through the air - didn't look natural or fluid. But I was probably being too nitpicky. I know it didn't bother me in the second and third films, at least not as much.

Plus he looked way better in the movie than he did in the TV series. :wink:

[Preus]

Trust me, you're preaching to the choir when you tell me CGI doesn't always work. More often than not it sticks out like a sore thumb IMO. The new Star Wars films are a good example.

I also have to admit I was disappointed when I first saw Spider-Man in the theater, because to me all the CGI manipulation looked bogus, and I remember thinking "Maybe Spider-Man just can't be done properly in live action." I just didn't like how they made him move when he was flying through the air - didn't look natural or fluid. But I was probably being too nitpicky. I know it didn't bother me in the second and third films, at least not as much.

Plus he looked way better in the movie than he did in the TV series. :wink:

Another good example is "I Am Legend", the CGI was pretty damn bad but the plot of the movie was good and is the only thing that saved the movie for me. That and Will Smith was the star of the movie.

In the first Spider-Man movie, the CGI wasn't too good but in the second and third movies, it got better. However, there seemed to be a lot of scenes where they could've used Tobey actually webslinging instead of using CGI.

[BatWing]

You forget that Spidey does some pretty unnatural poses in the comics, which of course look a bit unrealistic on film. But the effects became better and better with each film (the birth of Sandman in 3 as a good example).

[Preus]

Well, I do agree that CGI can be used for the more inhuman poses but I felt that it was used too much in regard to most of his movements. Just look at Underworld, that movie used a hell of a lot more real people in suits or make-up than CGI. In fact, the only time they even used CGI in that movie was to showcase the transformations and the look of the werewolves and vampires when they were mortally wounded. I believe that all movies should use CGI as little as possible because it makes it seem like whatever creature they're trying to bring to life is actually there and isn't a computer generated image. I'm watching the first AVP movie right now and I cannot begin to describe how much I loved them using men in suits. I love CGI but men/women in make-up, prosthetics, or suits is still where it's at. That's just my $0.02.

[Will.S]

I thought the Thing looked fine in the first (although a little too rubbery looking) and even better in the second but the character can work either as CG or using prosthetics & a suit. Mostly because artists inconsistently interpret Thing's size from almost Hulk's size to shorter/level with Reed's height but mostly wider and more bulky.

With Hulk I can't think of any other way to interpret the character that big and with his level of power without using CG but the CG HAS to look convincing and interact seamlessly with the real life actors. Height problems aside the first Hulk was pretty successful with this since he looked very human in his facial expressions and the texturing on his skin looked very realistic, especially in the San Fran parts:

http://www.supernegro.com/admin/wysiwyg/images/hulk.jpg

And here:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2007/04/16/hulk460.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v286/massai/hulk_before.jpg

The current movie look is pretty good but it doesn't seem to carry the same weight/mass that the Ang Lee film had and he looks almost a bit too ripped and cut up.

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/5268/72593316on4.th.jpg (http://img72.imageshack.us/my.php?image=72593316on4.jpg)

I do like that he looks more like the comics version of the Savage Hulk though and the CG nowadays should be able to match if not surpass Ang's Lee's CG Hulk which looked great. Hopefully they'll tweak the texture on his skin to look less plastic and the veins look more natural.

[Preus]

That's my exact problem with the Hulk in the 2003 movie, he looked too human. The Hulk isn't supposed to be human looking or even a human, he's supposed to be this all powerful beast that destroys anything in his wake.

[DaleKaleD]

All I will say on the matter is that looking at those images, yes there may be pore definition, but it looks like a latex piece, there is no real shape underneath it.

I think that once people see this one in action they will be extremely happy, lets face it every comic with the hulk drawn by a different artist has had a slightly different interpretation of his shape/proportions. Yes there are constants, and we all have the one that sticks out in our minds as the "True" Hulk, but there has been variation over the decades.

I think if a balance is drawn between realistic muscle movement, and cartoon action, that you end up with a good result. Something that connects to what you could see everyday, but doing things that you will never see.

[Will.S]

That's my exact problem with the Hulk in the 2003 movie, he looked too human. The Hulk isn't supposed to be human looking or even a human, he's supposed to be this all powerful beast that destroys anything in his wake.See, what you think is a negative I think is a plus. I thought that Ang's CG Hulk was able to emote incredibly well and still retain the Hulk look and feel, it's hard to pinpoint which Hulk he looks like though. Maybe closer to a Banner Hulk than the one in the current movie which looks more like the Sal Buscema version.

All I will say on the matter is that looking at those images, yes there may be pore definition, but it looks like a latex piece, there is no real shape underneath it..
It's not just that, it's the definition they gave him, the texturing, the detail put into the face and the environment around him, the weight that he carries when he's on screen. It's pretty much perfect once they get him down to the right scale.

[Preus]

There were times when the Hulk looked vicious (not monstrous) and he had that Hulk feel because he was smashing everything to bits but I still think that this Hulk has him beat and I haven't even seen him in action yet.

[SUB-ZERO MKA]

You forget that Spidey does some pretty unnatural poses in the comics, which of course look a bit unrealistic on film. But the effects became better and better with each film (the birth of Sandman in 3 as a good example).
That was probably the best scene in the movie by far

[Preus]

It is the best scene in the movie, no doubt. The CGI was incredible and it looked very real.

[1WEBHEAD]

CGI.

A real guy would look even cheesier.

[DaleKaleD]

http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/theincrediblehulk/index.html

New Trailer up, should be showing with Iron Man when it comes out this week.
(you want the Trailer, not the Teaser)

Nice stuff all around, more footage for all of you to pour over, I am still thinking this is leaps above what was done for the first one.

[Jake V]

http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/theincrediblehulk/index.html

New Trailer up, should be showing with Iron Man when it comes out this week.
(you want the Trailer, not the Teaser)

Nice stuff all around, more footage for all of you to pour over, I am still thinking this is leaps above what was done for the first one.

They really seem to like the idea of Hulk fashioning gloves out of wrecked cars that the Ultimate Destruction game came up with.

And yeah, Hulk has to be CGI. You can't use LOTR camera tricks to make an actor Hulk sized. Hulk simply doesn't have the same body type as a normal man, no matter how big you try and make him.

[wolfblade]

he cut a tank in half with a chunk of flying metal in that trailer...get a man to do that convincingly, I think not...shouldnt emil have been killed being kicked by the hulk?

[Drdmx]

he cut a tank in half with a chunk of flying metal in that trailer...get a man to do that convincingly, I think not...shouldnt emil have been killed being kicked by the hulk?

Hulk doesn't kill, but you'd be surprised what you can live through. That gif was great that someone else created on that page. I like how he growls and gets angry just prior to that mud stomp.

[wolfblade]

Hulk doesn't kill, but you'd be surprised what you can live through. That gif was great that someone else created on that page. I like how he growls and gets angry just prior to that mud stomp.

in my mind I am thinking that kick was just a love tap, for the hulk that is. I know he dosent kill I am a massive hulk fan and I cant wait for this movie but everytime I see that kick I hear in my head..." madness"..." this is SPARTA!" and leonides kicking the messanger into the well its funy to think of the hulk saying " is that it?"..." hulk smash puny human!"

[DaleKaleD]

Don't take this as gospel, but I believe that that scene takes place after Blonsky starts his injections, as such he is starting to be "superhuman" but its not to the point where he transforms into his big ugly form. At least thats what makes sense to me.

[Drdmx]

in my mind I am thinking that kick was just a love tap, for the hulk that is. I know he dosent kill I am a massive hulk fan and I cant wait for this movie but everytime I see that kick I hear in my head..." madness"..." this is SPARTA!" and leonides kicking the messanger into the well its funy to think of the hulk saying " is that it?"..." hulk smash puny human!"

haha I thats hilarious. I knew that kick reminded me of something too!!! That's it! I just love the growl, seeing him build up anger before kicking him was just priceless. Vintage Hulk all the way. Couldnt be more psyched for the movie!

[juggling man]

I would prefer an actor to play the Hulk. Yes, an actor who is ten feet tall and weighs 700 lbs.

[steve2275]

cgi
which is what i wanted all transformers to be in bays movie

[Preus]

haha I thats hilarious. I knew that kick reminded me of something too!!! That's it! I just love the growl, seeing him build up anger before kicking him was just priceless. Vintage Hulk all the way. Couldnt be more psyched for the movie!

Yeah, that trailer got me back into the movie. I'm really hyped to see it, it's going to really be justice for the Hulk character.

[Venom Melendez]

Michael Chiklis was not greedy, he was simply a big fan of the Thing's character and thought it'd be a better experience for himself if he were to get into the make-up/prosthetics.

Btw, if we were to get a live action Hulk for a TV show, I'd like for this guy to portray him:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Khali.jpg/450px-Khali.jpg

Khali can't act...he can't even speak English and he's not that riped.

An animated series would work better honestly.

[Preus]

That English deal is just a gimmick for the WWE. I wouldn't doubt that he would know at least enough English to pull off this role. He's ripped enough to me, although he was more ripped during his bodybuilding days. Still, all he'd have to really do would be to work on his abs a bit more and at least get some halfway visible abs.

[Venom Melendez]

That English deal is just a gimmick for the WWE. I wouldn't doubt that he would know at least enough English to pull off this role. He's ripped enough to me, although he was more ripped during his bodybuilding days. Still, all he'd have to really do would be to work on his abs a bit more and at least get some halfway visible abs.


Actually, He really knows little english and even then you can hardly tell what he's saying and that's besides the fact that he can't his way out of paper bag. Keep the wrestlers in the ring the only wrestler that can also act is The Rock and he's now a full time actor.

I'd rather have actual actors in my T.V. shows. Just saying.