Author Topic: Incredible Hulk Movie Audition (Read 17293 times)

bmacsys · « **Reply #25 on:** April 30, 2007, 01:37:12 PM »

Quote from: knny187 on April 26, 2007, 02:51:16 PM

I didn't have a problem with the computer animation

there was things they couldn't do unless it was

The cgi wasn't the problem in the first movie. The script and wooden acting by Bana and Connelly were.

leaky_frog · « **Reply #26 on:** May 02, 2007, 04:12:25 PM »

I'd love to see a little guy, e.g. Columbu-type as the hulk- Big Chest and back, Squat body, kind of stumpy.

FloridaMuscle · « **Reply #27 on:** May 02, 2007, 07:24:06 PM »

Yeah ..as a bodybuilder it would be great to see someone like jay or ronnie as the hulk..but the last one was computer generated.I think the audience is expecting more than a normal human being on screen. Im sure they will go computer generated again...they wont risk the box office profits on a character as popular and original as the Hulk

Condor · « **Reply #28 on:** May 02, 2007, 08:17:40 PM »

Quote from: leaky_frog on May 02, 2007, 04:12:25 PM

I'd love to see a little guy, e.g. Columbu-type as the hulk- Big Chest and back, Squat body, kind of stumpy.

that would be great for the thing, not the hulk though.

DarthNemesis21 · « **Reply #29 on:** May 03, 2007, 11:43:50 AM »

I dont care how they do it.
Live action dose have a more realisitc feel to it.
The ships in the original star wars.(models)Had more of a real feel to them,Then the CGI in the last one's.Chewbaca(live) Jar Jar Binks(CGI)
which looked more realistic?

I just pray to GOD it's not a llllllooooonnngggg,drawn out script.I'm begging please!!! :'(More action,less phycolgical/back story B.S. ARHG!!!

The Dream · « **Reply #30 on:** May 14, 2007, 04:50:05 AM »

How could you not want the hulk to be real person??? I love CGI but I am not impressed by a cheesy ass looking hulk...anyone with a half a brain knows that a bodybuilder would look a hundred times better...if you want to see a cartoon then make a cartoon, but this is a movie and it should be a human interperetation of the character...I am a big comic book fan too, and two of the biggest disgraces i've ever seen are the casting of wolverine and superman...whoever the casting directors where for these movies should never work again...the look of the hero is 95% of who they are, comic books were always more than anything a visual media...

Condor · « **Reply #31 on:** May 14, 2007, 12:02:03 PM »

Quote from: The Dream on May 14, 2007, 04:50:05 AM

How could you not want the hulk to be real person??? I love CGI but I am not impressed by a cheesy ass looking hulk...anyone with a half a brain knows that a bodybuilder would look a hundred times better...if you want to see a cartoon then make a cartoon, but this is a movie and it should be a human interperetation of the character...I am a big comic book fan too, and two of the biggest disgraces i've ever seen are the casting of wolverine and superman...whoever the casting directors where for these movies should never work again...the look of the hero is 95% of who they are, comic books were always more than anything a visual media...

Granted, I was quite shocked when they cast Jackman as Wolvie, considering Jackman's like 6'1" and wolvie should be about 5'3", but you have to admit he did a great interpretation of the character, pretty much all you would want in his personality. It's almost as if he channeled Clint Eastwood in some way, and I've always felt that Eastwood would be quite similar to Wolvie.

tu_holmes · « **Reply #32 on:** May 14, 2007, 12:07:02 PM »

CGI Hulk all the way... You have to CGI him... he isn't believable as "Hulk" if he's just a human.

pumpster · « **Reply #33 on:** May 18, 2007, 09:17:00 AM »

Quote from: DarthNemesis21 on May 03, 2007, 11:43:50 AM

I dont care how they do it.
Live action dose have a more realisitc feel to it.
The ships in the original star wars.(models)Had more of a real feel to them,Then the CGI in the last one's.Chewbaca(live) Jar Jar Binks(CGI)
which looked more realistic?

Of course CGI was a major problem for large portions of the potential audience and is a big reason why it won't be repeated.

pumpster · « **Reply #34 on:** May 18, 2007, 09:24:20 AM »

Quote from: tu_holmes on May 14, 2007, 12:07:02 PM

CGI Hulk all the way... You have to CGI him... he isn't believable as "Hulk" if he's just a human.

Nice theory but no one i can remember had any problem with Ferrigno, whereas lots had probs with CGI immediately, which is akin to cartoons and kids in the minds of many.

As far as the limitations of using a human being, it might take more effort & money but that can be worked around and looks a hell of a lot better. CGI's just a way to save money and make production easier.

tu_holmes · « **Reply #35 on:** May 18, 2007, 01:52:24 PM »

Quote from: pumpster on May 18, 2007, 09:24:20 AM

Nice theory but no one i can remember had any problem with Ferrigno, whereas lots had probs with CGI immediately, which is akin to cartoons and kids in the minds of many.

As far as the limitations of using a human being, it might take more effort & money but that can be worked around and looks a hell of a lot better. CGI's just a way to save money and make production easier.

Not really... Ang Lee spent ungodly amounts of money on the CGI this time out.

Also, the problem is that everyone is busy remembering Ferrigno in the first place... I liked the CGI version much better than the Ferrigno version... maybe I'm in the minority though.

pumpster · « **Reply #36 on:** May 18, 2007, 03:45:38 PM »

Quote from: tu_holmes on May 18, 2007, 01:52:24 PM

Not really... Ang Lee spent ungodly amounts of money on the CGI this time out.

Also, the problem is that everyone is busy remembering Ferrigno in the first place... I liked the CGI version much better than the Ferrigno version... maybe I'm in the minority though.

Spending $ on CGI doesn't mean it was expensive as the alternative.

tu_holmes · « **Reply #37 on:** May 18, 2007, 04:52:05 PM »

Quote from: pumpster on May 18, 2007, 03:45:38 PM

Spending $ on CGI doesn't mean it was expensive as the alternative.

I would say it was... the actors were not A list, so the budget wasn't on them... I don't have an itemized breakdown though.

Master Blaster · « **Reply #38 on:** June 20, 2007, 02:50:04 PM »

Quote from: pumpster on May 18, 2007, 09:17:00 AM

Of course CGI was a major problem for large portions of the potential audience and is a big reason why it won't be repeated.

Hulk will be all CGI

Production company will be Rythm and Hues: http://www.imdb.com/company/co0075252/

If you've seen there take on Aslan in Chronicles of Narnia, you would be impressed.

JediKnight · « **Reply #39 on:** June 20, 2007, 06:19:20 PM »

They used a real actor for the Fantastic Four guy, The Thing,,it could work for the Hulk. Paging Mr. Cutler.

Condor · « **Reply #40 on:** June 20, 2007, 06:52:37 PM »

Quote from: JediKnight on June 20, 2007, 06:19:20 PM

They used a real actor for the Fantastic Four guy, The Thing,,it could work for the Hulk. Paging Mr. Cutler.

Michael Chiklis.

IMDB is a wonderful thing.

onlyme · « **Reply #41 on:** June 20, 2007, 07:11:31 PM »

They start shooting soon. The guy I know whose nephew is being used for all the movements has left I think to start work. I didn't like the first one either. Usually I like watching those movies over and over and I just watched that one a couple times.

Monte71 · « **Reply #42 on:** July 06, 2007, 11:31:11 AM »

What about Markus Ruhl as the Hulk?

tu_holmes · « **Reply #43 on:** July 06, 2007, 03:39:37 PM »

Quote from: Master Blaster on June 20, 2007, 02:50:04 PM

Hulk will be all CGI

Production company will be Rythm and Hues: http://www.imdb.com/company/co0075252/

If you've seen there take on Aslan in Chronicles of Narnia, you would be impressed.

Yes, it will be all CGI and will be very similar to the first... which is great by me... I loved CGI Hulk... Big as a TANK and it looked believable to me. (as much as a 12 foot green person could)

pumpster · « **Reply #44 on:** July 06, 2007, 04:05:53 PM »

Ruhl as the Hulk would've been an excellent choice.

CGI basically ensures that it appeals mainly to younger kids.

Beefjake · « **Reply #45 on:** September 16, 2007, 05:02:29 AM »

I think some 7' feet strongman could be a good hulk. Hulk ain't that cut and he is supposed to be able to run and move around.

I agree on Jackman/Wolverine, tough that extra 8" should have been reduced from height and added to width!

Condor · « **Reply #46 on:** September 16, 2007, 08:24:22 AM »

Quote from: Beefjake on September 16, 2007, 05:02:29 AM

I think some 7' feet strongman could be a good hulk. Hulk ain't that cut and he is supposed to be able to run and move around.

I agree on Jackman/Wolverine, tough that extra 8" should have been reduced from height and added to width!

Yeah, you're right. Hulk ain't that cut.

Idiot. Read a comic once in a while.

Fatpanda · « **Reply #47 on:** September 16, 2007, 08:38:03 AM »

hahahahaha beefjake = owned

the cgi hulk was fine.

cgi didn't look cheesy in jurasic park, king kong, starwars. etc

the hulk needs to be bigger than any human could ever attain.

however, if the movie studio's were to hire mr o for the publicity rounds, that would be a good marketing tool imho.

Condor · « **Reply #48 on:** September 16, 2007, 10:30:50 AM »

You're exactly right. Even the most developed and huge bodybuilders would barely be able to look like an authentic captain america.

CGI is a necessity for true comic fans to buy into it.

bmacsys · « **Reply #49 on:** September 16, 2007, 05:32:23 PM »

Quote from: Condor on September 16, 2007, 10:30:50 AM

You're exactly right. Even the most developed and huge bodybuilders would barely be able to look like an authentic captain america.

CGI is a necessity for true comic fans to buy into it.

Anybody have any news on the movie? The release date is 6/08.