jake on 2003.07.30
at 07:08 pm
I read a story a couple days ago that oversimplified things and pretty much bothered me. By using the new Hulk movie as an example it discussed over the top special effects and the storylines that usually suffer as a result.
In the visual-effects community, ILM’s Hulk was seen as a major achievement: the life in the creature’s eyes, the way light played naturally off its skin, its synthesis into its surroundings, all were deemed first-rate. Film critics, however, panned not only the movie but ILM’s work. The monster didn’t look real. Case closed. Moviegoers must’ve agreed, because after a huge opening weekend, “The Hulk” died at the box office.
Hulk is a good movie. Spider-Man may have been better at this, but the character development was very good in the Hulk. You felt attached to the characters, even the big green guy himself. Using CGI the creators gave him facial expressions. In the scene where he saves Betty from the mutated dogs, he shows real life.
It is possible to say, well in general he doesn't look realistic at all. Just because he can make a sad face, doesn't mean he looks real doing it. Well news flash, he isn't real! He's a 15′ green behemoth! The reason he doesn't look realistic is because nothing like the Hulk exists in our world. It's impossible to make him look 100% real because we have no basis for him in our brains.
Movies are entertainment, we all need to suspend some disbelief. I'm tired of people not just relaxing and watching a movie for what it is.
Comments have been automatically disabled to curtail spam.