Subject: Re: Critic says TV superhero franchise better than big-screen version
In message<f8is8sF66jsU2@mid.individual.net> Ted Nolan <tednolan><email@example.com> wrote:
> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, 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.
By the way, I think you might be the prettiest girl I've ever seen
outside the pages of a really filthy magazine