Page 18 of 21 FirstFirst ... 81415161718192021 LastLast
Results 256 to 270 of 305
  1. #256
    Standing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    16,860

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 80sbaby View Post
    But it's not. The "bad CGI" is being a bit overblown.
    I'm just going by what my eyes tell me. I saw the trailer and immediately thought "uncanny valley." I hadn't seen anyone's reaction to the trailer, I wasn't spoiled by other comments. That was my immediate reaction.

    Granted, I'm watching it on youtube and the compression might not favour the video. But having seen Maslany in ORPHAN BLACK and PERRY MASON, there was something missing from her face that was in all those other roles.

    And it's not texture--unless by texture they mean all the little micro-expressions on her face. I don't care if her hair looks plastic or her skin looks rubbery--I accept that as the Hulk in her. But it's the facial muscles that I need to see to read her emotions.

    From what I understand, they put dots on the face of the actors and then the imaging tracks those dots. But it seems like they would miss a lot of information that way and then have to create the expressions on their own. I guess if they are really good at it and study the actor, they can replicate those expressions through computer art. But it's not really the original performance of the actor that we're seeing.

    It seems like there should be a simpler way to do this. Such as filming Maslany, processing the film to make her face green and then adding some effects to that face to make it more Hulk and grafting that onto the body of the stunt double.
    "If heaven had a creek, it would be this one."

  2. #257
    Incredible Member Mark Trail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    535

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 80sbaby View Post
    But it's not. The "bad CGI" is being a bit overblown.
    We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. As others have pointed out, the bad CGI isn't allowing her full range of facial expressions to really come through.

  3. #258
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,220

    Default

    Honestly, the only real issue I have with the CGI is her hair. I realize she has gigantic '80s hair in the comics, too, but it looks even more dated CG.
    Keep in mind that you have about as much chance of changing my mind as I do of changing yours.

  4. #259
    Amazing Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2021
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Trail View Post
    We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. As others have pointed out, the bad CGI isn't allowing her full range of facial expressions to really come through.
    Do people think that the cgi on the Hulk who is in the same show and in scenes together with She Hulk is also bad? Itís the same vfx teams doing both. Obviously they have had more time perfecting Hulk and his look. I would argue that this first iteration of She Hulk looks way better than the first iterations of the Hulk.

    This isnít bad cgi. The cgi work is being done by some of the best teams in the industry. Give an example of a female actors face being recreated in cgi that looks better. The problem is that the closer you get to realistic faces the more you run into the uncanny valley. If this is where they are starting I canít wait to see where they are after a few iterations. At some point they wonít need human actors at all and these will cease to be live action productions.

  5. #260
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    86,959

    Default

    I can never understand why people were expecting practical effects for She-Hulk.

    Yeah, she looks more "human" than Hulk but she's still meant to be far taller than any normal human woman and capable of feats that you could only really pull off with someone in CG. She's meant to look like an inhuman green goddess next to normal people.

  6. #261
    Amazing Member
    Join Date
    May 2021
    Posts
    77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    I can never understand why people were expecting practical effects for She-Hulk.

    Yeah, she looks more "human" than Hulk but she's still meant to be far taller than any normal human woman and capable of feats that you could only really pull off with someone in CG. She's meant to look like an inhuman green goddess next to normal people.
    True. I mean there are not really that much at least 7 foot tall actresses that would fit the role. CGI is the only real option for She-Hulk. The only thing more impossible to cast would be Game of Thrones trying to cast the Mountain with his book height of around 8 feet.

    And regarding the "bad" CGI I saw a video of John Campea that showed that Disney updated it to make it look better.
    I think I will wait until the show starts with finished effects to say how "bad" they are. But I am more looking for the story or characters in something than special effects.

  7. #262
    Spectacular Member James Cameron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZeroBG82 View Post
    They went the CGI route because they want the character to be played a decent actress. Or, in this case, a great one. Who is like 5'2". So you're either going CG, or you're bringing in some kind of wrestler/body builder stand in to do the She-Hulk scenes, and completely sacrificing the acting component. One of those leaves your brilliant performer in the driver's seat, the other one doesn't.

    People like to bring up the old Hulk show, but the only acting Ferrigno had to do in that was look intimidating, growl, and flex. I don't want to undersell how good he was at doing those things, but it's not exactly brilliant character work.
    It's She Hulk. Why would they need to bring in a body builder stand in? You don't need 2 different actors, just make her green.

    The issue is they are using CGI for their personal convenience, not as an art form. And that's clear just from how horrible she looks.

  8. #263
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Cameron View Post
    It's She Hulk. Why would they need to bring in a body builder stand in? You don't need 2 different actors, just make her green.

    The issue is they are using CGI for their personal convenience, not as an art form. And that's clear just from how horrible she looks.

    She looks fine to me. I have no problem with how she looks. I don't even see how people can say that she looks like Fiona in Shrek. The only similarity that She-Hulk and Fiona have is that both are green women.

    The Hulk is CGI, and so it makes sense for She-Hulk to be CGI with her being around 6 ft 6.

    This is the 21st Century any way. I don't want any 70s, 80s special effects that I experienced as a kid watching the Incredible Hulk series. Special effects were limited back then. That's not the problem now in the 21st Century that we live.

    I am very sure that I am not the only one that has those views.
    I created a thread about Dick Grayson/Nightwing and Koriand'r/Starfire. It is to acknowledge and honor their iconic and popular relationship.

    I created a fan page about Peter Parker/Spider-Man and Mary Jane Watson. This page is for all the Spider-Marriage fans.

  9. #264
    Spectacular Member James Cameron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Starrius View Post
    She looks fine to me. I have no problem with how she looks. I don't even see how people can say that she looks like Fiona in Shrek. The only similarity that She-Hulk and Fiona have is that both are green women.

    The Hulk is CGI, and so it makes sense for She-Hulk to be CGI with her being around 6 ft 6.

    This is the 21st Century any way. I don't want any 70s, 80s special effects that I experienced as a kid watching the Incredible Hulk series. Special effects were limited back then. That's not the problem now in the 21st Century that we live.

    I am very sure not the only one that has those views.
    I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. This isn't a black and white thing. It's not either she's completely CGI or she isn't. The point is right now she is a completely digital creation, and she looks terrible, as in completely out of place with everything around her, she doesn't look like she's really in the environment. You may like it, and I'm really glad for that, but that doesn't make it good on any sort of technical level. What I'm trying to say, and what the article I shared says, is that this is demonstrative of how Disney/Marvel uses CGI in much of their work. Sometimes entire environments are created, entire rooms (the apartment in TWS for example is a completely digital environment) . She Hulk is relatively simple in my view. She is tall, muscular, but not as tall or muscular as the Hulk himself. I think it would look far better to use the bare minimum of CG effects to make her look taller and enhance muscle definition, and the rest be left to makeup and wardrobe folks, because she would look real and not like a completely animated character that is only partly rendered and doesn't fit in with the environment or the lighting. Even in the new Thor trailer, Jane's helmet is CGI, and I'm sure people are ready and armed with explanations on why that is, but how I see it is that Marvel/Disney sees how they can get away with paying very little to CG artists since much of them are not unionized, versus going through unions and paying for a real helmet prop or paying makeup and wardrobe people to create a real life She-Hulk.

    Makeup and minimal effects are way easier, and look better. It's not about special effects being more expansive, if they actually were using special effects in any sort of imaginative way, we would see it. They are using CGI to circumvent the "hassle" of paying artists what they deserve. If you can't see it that way, then I'm sorry, but don't act like I'm saying I want Incredible Hulk level "effects," that's not what I'm saying at all.

    I don't know what it is with people nowadays. Something not being CGI doesn't mean it's going to look worse than CGI, just because one technique is "more advanced" than the other. They are both forms of art and it's all about how they are being used. The Incredible Hulk's "effects" look dated not just because they are, but because it was a low budget TV show that faced even more budget cuts as it went on (like Hulk only being allowed to appear once per episode) and they were cranking out episodes. Just because Disney can fully animate a character without having to pay makeup and wardrobe artists doesn't mean they should.

    I guess it depends on how much you care about the character, or the artwork in general. To me, having a live action She Hulk would look better and also feel more meaningful, because that's just how I feel about (mostly) practical effects, versus this which looks like the average bland MCU CGI, and only reminds me how evil Hollywood is and how underpaid and overworked CG artists are.

  10. #265
    Amazing Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2021
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Cameron View Post
    It's She Hulk. Why would they need to bring in a body builder stand in? You don't need 2 different actors, just make her green.

    The issue is they are using CGI for their personal convenience, not as an art form. And that's clear just from how horrible she looks.
    Just make her green? They already do the green makeup thing with Gamora. Gamora looks cool but sheís no She Hulk nor is she meant to be. It takes more than making her green to have a convincing She Hulk.

  11. #266
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,588

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Cameron View Post
    It's She Hulk. Why would they need to bring in a body builder stand in? You don't need 2 different actors, just make her green.

    The issue is they are using CGI for their personal convenience, not as an art form. And that's clear just from how horrible she looks.
    So you're comfortable with a She-Hulk who is 5 foot 2?

  12. #267
    Spectacular Member James Cameron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HollowSage View Post
    Just make her green? They already do the green makeup thing with Gamora. Gamora looks cool but she’s no She Hulk nor is she meant to be. It takes more than making her green to have a convincing She Hulk.
    I never even mentioned Gamora, and she's an example of why they SHOULD have gone the practical route. There are so many combinations of effects they could have used that I simply cannot fathom how people think CGI is the only way they can portray her. They went the lazy route, or rather they just wanted to pay their artists as little as they could, since this is a Disney+ series and relatively low risk. It's cool if you like it, but that's still what it is.

  13. #268
    Spectacular Member James Cameron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZeroBG82 View Post
    So you're comfortable with a She-Hulk who is 5 foot 2?
    Again, it's not one or the other!!

    Have these MCU movies convinced you there are only two ways to do this? Are you seriously acting like pratical and digital effects have never been used simultaneously? Do you think there are no characters in all of media that have been made taller and more muscular without being turned completely animated?

    Please look beyond how these shows are just entertainment for you

  14. #269
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    86,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Cameron View Post
    It's She Hulk. Why would they need to bring in a body builder stand in? You don't need 2 different actors, just make her green.

    The issue is they are using CGI for their personal convenience, not as an art form. And that's clear just from how horrible she looks.
    I don't think it's purely from convenience so much as seeming like the more ideal way of capturing the character from the comics, for several reasons.

  15. #270
    Spectacular Member James Cameron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    I don't think it's purely from convenience so much as seeming like the more ideal way of capturing the character from the comics, for several reasons.
    Not convinced, because they could have easily done that with minimal digital effects and makeup, and the MCU has done this constantly, made digital creations out of things that could have been practical, but aren't because they can do it for far cheaper with folks who aren't part of unions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •