"Jerry" <me@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3ef80768$0$30822$afc38c87@no-spam
> What crap. Great animation. Rest of it sucked. Pretty much.
>
I'm assuming you paid to discover this?
I could tell the movie sucked by the trailer.
"GPS" <GPS@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bdb2n4$qv80s$1@no-spam
> Don't be misled by the TV trailer. The CGI on screen looks much better!
>
Well, the CGI looked like crap on the trailer I saw in the cinema too.
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 08:14:15 GMT, Jim Fitbod wrote in aus.dvd:
>> Don't be misled by the TV trailer. The CGI on screen looks much
>> better!
>>
> Well, the CGI looked like crap on the trailer I saw in the cinema too.
The CGI in the trailer is probably 6 (or more) months older than the CGI
in the final cut of the film...
--
- Cods
pbqfjnyybc@no-spam
(un ROT-13 to e-mail)
> }Don't be misled by the TV trailer. The CGI on screen looks much better!
>
> It'd have to.
I just got back from seeing "Hulk", and IMHO anybody who bitches about the
CG imagery (sorry, but to me CGI is Common Gateway Interface) after seeing
the finished product is a fucking idiot!
The movie has it's flaws, but the CG hulk is most definitely not one of
them, the attention to detail is simply superb! Whine about Ang Lee's
directorial style all you want, the overuse of what are really nice
cross-fades and transitions, the overly comic look of the film, whatever,
but not the CG stuff, for god's sake, that *was* the best part of the film,
again, IMHO! ;-)
I'm still waiting for the whole '65-6 Marvel Super Heroes animated series to
be released on DVD.
That's where I'll get 'my' Hulk fix from.
--
---
The Unofficial Yes 2003 Australian Tour site:
http://ozguitar.50megs.com/index.htm
My main web-site:
http://homepages.tig.com.au/~avanstar
My mp3 site:
http://www.mp3.com.au/AlexVanStarrex/
My RealVideo site:
http://www.geocities.com/~avanstar/index.html
"Bob Byrne" <me@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bdgs4t$t4ah4$1@no-spam
>
> "Sir Pudgie" <nice@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > .......
> > The movie has it's flaws, but the CG hulk is most definitely not one of
> > them, the attention to detail is simply superb! Whine about .....
> > ..., the overly comic look of the film, whatever, .......
>
> Yes, you have to look at this film in the right context. The Hulk isn't
an
> action hero like Spiderman or The Phantom. I thought the Hulk looked
> terrible but then realised he is meant to look like the comic character..
> In this respect the finished product is excellent and the interaction with
> what look like real objects is quite amazing.
>
> --
> Bob
> <bbyrne@no-spam>
>
>
>
>
"Sir Pudgie" <nice@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3efae060$0$23112$5a62ac22@no-spam
> > }Don't be misled by the TV trailer. The CGI on screen looks much better!
> >
> > It'd have to.
>
> I just got back from seeing "Hulk", and IMHO anybody who bitches about the
> CG imagery (sorry, but to me CGI is Common Gateway Interface) after seeing
> the finished product is a fucking idiot!
>
> The movie has it's flaws, but the CG hulk is most definitely not one of
> them, the attention to detail is simply superb! Whine about Ang Lee's
> directorial style all you want, the overuse of what are really nice
> cross-fades and transitions, the overly comic look of the film, whatever,
> but not the CG stuff, for god's sake, that *was* the best part of the
film,
> again, IMHO! ;-)
>
>
I thought the CG was 100 times better than any other special effects
technique that could have been used. And that it happened to look very good
(in my opinion) was an added bonus. I mean, even if it had of ended up dodgy
looking (which it wasn't) it would have still looked much better than green
painted humans, or puppets, or whatever, for what they were trying to
achieve (and that's only if using other techniques would have been possible
to achieve what they wanted, which I can't see it being possible)
> Yes, you have to look at this film in the right context. The Hulk isn't
an
> action hero like Spiderman or The Phantom. I thought the Hulk looked
> terrible but then realised he is meant to look like the comic character..
> In this respect the finished product is excellent and the interaction with
> what look like real objects is quite amazing.
That's right, what ppl have to remember when they're comparing it to the
'80s series with Lou Ferrigno is that at that time, that very series was
being ridiculed for having a "Hulk" character that looked so human, thus so
little like the comic! ;-)
"Alex Van Starrex" <avanstar@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bdh0o3$og7$1@no-spam
> I'm still waiting for the whole '65-6 Marvel Super Heroes animated series
to
> be released on DVD.
>
> That's where I'll get 'my' Hulk fix from.
Go, on see it at the theatre. You might like it... I though it was pretty
great. It's not Stan Lee's Hulk... It's Ang Lee's, it's different, but
unlike other superhero movies that made huge changes to the character, this
movie is actually good, and the changes are, I won't say for the better, but
they allow Ang Lee to tell the story he wanted to tell, using the Hulk as a
frame-work. And visually and physically, it IS the hulk of the comics,
pretty much, and you'll see things you've never seen except in your minds
eye.
It's the most straight-faced, serious attempt at any of these characters...
moreso than the X-Men films. And at the same time it's bizzare and surreal
and beautiful. Not everything works, but what does work far outweighs what
doesn't. In fact, it almost seems to have an Alan Moore type experimentality
to it... playing around with the boundaries of what can be done in a
"superhero" movie.
Honestly, if you're a fan of the medium of comics, and the medium of film,
and what can be done with each artform, and are curious to see what can be
done when they are combined moreso than they have been before, you owe it to
yourself to at least give it chance.
LH
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:23:26 +1000
Sir Pudgie wrote:
>
> This is something a lot of viewers who are not comic book readers will miss,
> they will see the PiP style work Lee has done and think "Brady Bunch",
> whereas what he really has really attempted to do, and in many respects
I'm guessing that the largest segment of the audience who watches this
movie is more likely to think "24" than "Brady Bunch" :)
Ray
"ray at cyron.id.au" <"ray at cyron.id.au"> wrote in message
news:3efd7a93_1@no-spam
> I'm guessing that the largest segment of the audience who watches this
> movie is more likely to think "24" than "Brady Bunch" :)
Yeah it's a lot like 24... and the Brady Bunch thing was only in the opening
titles anyway, not entire scenes.
But pretty much everyone has seen a comic panel layout before... it's not
going to be too hard for them to work it out, especially with the (silly,
misguided) use of a comic-style font in the opening credits and the full-on
comic style end credits. More interesting than the (I think slightly
overdone) multi-panel layouts are the interesting fades, wipes and morphs
from one scene to the next... the experienced comic reader could tell what
comic techniques they were based on, and how that transition would look if
it were in an actual comic.
Spoiler
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I hated talbot's death though, with the frozen figure and the white
outline... it was too blatant a comic technique and didn't suit the movie.
Same with some of the other transitions and editing techniques. It was all
admirable for Lee's boldness to experiment, though.
LH
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 14:08:41 GMT, Luke Hooft wrote in aus.dvd:
> Spoiler
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> I hated talbot's death though, with the frozen figure and the white
> outline... it was too blatant a comic technique and didn't suit the
> movie. Same with some of the other transitions and editing techniques.
> It was all admirable for Lee's boldness to experiment, though.
Yeah it was a bit dodgy, he was killed off a bit too easily, I think. I
still enjoyed the film, though.
--
- Cods
pbqfjnyybc@no-spam
(un ROT-13 to e-mail)
> I'm guessing that the largest segment of the audience who watches this
> movie is more likely to think "24" than "Brady Bunch" :)
I never watched "24", I didn't know they used such a technique there. :-)
I just couldn't be bothered regimenting myself to either watch or tape such
a blatantly serialised show each week for 24 weeks (not including the
inevitable breaks for sporting events)! Nor will I for ensuing series! ;-)