Subject: Re: Critic says TV superhero franchise better than big-screen version
On 12/3/2017 7:54 AM, hector wrote:
> On 3/12/2017 1:45 PM, Michael OConnor wrote:
>>> I've come to the realization that movies are actually better if real
>>> presence of special effects takes precedence over fake cgi ones, I mean
>>> like having people in suits or something. It's true.
>> The only way you could do it with the Hulk, is if you get a massively
>> built guy like Lou Ferrigno and make him up green and stuff, and use
>> CGI to grow him on screen, to make him look about ten feet tall
>> instead of about six feet tall, and distort and enhance his features a
>> little here and there to make him look like the Hulk, and put him
>> amongst the other actors at normal size, and make it look real. It
>> can be done with special effects, or else they would be doing stuff
>> like that already.
>> A guy in a Hulk suit looks like a guy in a suit playing Godzilla or
>> King Kong. Cheesy and phony.
> One major problem with CGI is when they make their animated facsimile
> physically active and the laws of physics aren't quite accurate enough,
> and it looks like a cartoon figure. Happens a lot with Spiderman.
Yes...and WONDER WOMAN turned into a cartoon figure about half way
through her movie, too.
As for HULK, I actually think the Lou Ferrigno version worked better in
a lot of ways because he was still real instead of a cartoon character.
That being said, the latest rendition of HULK is a lot better than the
past couple of CGI reboots.