MovieChat Forums > Hulk (2003) Discussion > The effects WERE horrible

The effects WERE horrible

posted 9 years ago by MadeofBocote
2 replies | jump to latest

When the gamma rays hit him and his father...they did that pseudo negative effect, that I can do in Microsoft Paint. I've seen way better effects in movies earlier than this, such as Reign of Fire. And don't get me started on the gamma bubble in the lake.

The HULK CGI wasn't bad at all.

All in all, the movie bored me. I had heard so many bad things about this movie, and while it wasn't horrible, it definitely wasn't exciting.

His father was just...infuriating. A selfish, evil 2-dimensional dude. I prefer my psychos to...care about someone, anyone. He cared about nobody but himself.

And the lake scene was incestuous at best. And if didn't help that they went to a scene where he kissed his son on the lips. I am not straight, but I guess I have a problem with parents kissing their children on the lips. Maybe it is a hypersexualized society for me to see something wrong with that. Oh well.

Anyway, it wasn't as HORRIBLE as people said, but I can see why people wouldn't like it. I think having Abomination would've been a better plot, as the conflict between Betty and her father would've actually had stakes.

I also thought the scene where he sat in the chair across from his father..and he started crying..very wooden and cringe-worthy.

Maybe Eric Bana is talented, but this role...I didn't feel his conflict come across. If anything, Jennifer Connely was more convincing.

About to check out the 2008 reboot and maybe I will like that more. Maybe I won't.

[–] Splarne 9 years ago

How interesting.

[–] Xaeden 8 years ago

When the gamma rays hit him and his father...they did that pseudo negative effect, that I can do in Microsoft Paint. I've seen way better effects in movies earlier than this, such as Reign of Fire. And don't get me started on the gamma bubble in the lake.

The HULK CGI wasn't bad at all.

What people don't seem to understand about CGI use in movies is that it's not as simple as just utilizing the best techniques and technology available at the time. The quality of the CGI we see is also dependent on time and money so it's natural to have featured elements that they devote lots of resources to and then smaller elements that are done more quickly. For example, people were complaining about the quality of a scene in the Hobbit movies where elves on horseback come out of Rivendell and they couldn't seem to understand why it wasn't as well done as Smaug was. However, it's because Smaug was well done that less time and money was available for other parts of the movies. If everything was given the same level of attention then we would have gotten lower quality versions of Smaug and other featured moments.

The same applies here. It was because their main character shifted into a CGI construct for significant portions of the movie and because they were trying to put their best possible foot forward with its look that they had to cut corners elsewhere. Whatever CGI use that you saw in prior films that was better was able to allocate a different amount of resources to its own featured moments.