Subject: Re: Critic says TV superhero franchise better than big-screen version
In article <email@example.com>, Obveeus<Obveeus@aol.com> wrote:
>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.
Surprisingly, the current Thor movie is the best Hulk showcase we've ever had.
What's not in Columbia anymore..