Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   She-Hulk fans can now rest easy. New trailer has dropped with (as expected) improved CGI   (thedirect.com) divider line
    More: Spiffy, Fantastic Four, Marvel Comics, Avengers, John Byrne, Better, Hulk, Howard the Duck, The Incredible Hulk  
•       •       •

1526 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 27 May 2022 at 8:42 AM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



43 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-05-27 5:54:49 AM  
It was pretty bad when the CGI looked like it was done by a noob messing around with Daz Studio.
 
2022-05-27 7:02:11 AM  
I am sure CGI is still pretty hard, so why doesn't everyone saddle up to Steven Spielburg and ask him HOW THOSE FARKING DINOSAURS FROM 1993 STILL LOOK SO REAL?!
 
2022-05-27 7:17:32 AM  

Sorelian's Ghost: I am sure CGI is still pretty hard, so why doesn't everyone saddle up to Steven Spielburg and ask him HOW THOSE FARKING DINOSAURS FROM 1993 STILL LOOK SO REAL?!


A lot of them were practical, that's why.
 
2022-05-27 7:36:10 AM  

adamgreeney: Sorelian's Ghost: I am sure CGI is still pretty hard, so why doesn't everyone saddle up to Steven Spielburg and ask him HOW THOSE FARKING DINOSAURS FROM 1993 STILL LOOK SO REAL?!

A lot of them were practical, that's why.


I know he used puppets and animatronics, but some of the iconic scenes like all of the herbivores in the giant tracking shot all done through CGI as well as a number of other sequences where CGI was the only option the whole thing looks seamless.
 
2022-05-27 7:50:44 AM  

Sorelian's Ghost: adamgreeney: Sorelian's Ghost: I am sure CGI is still pretty hard, so why doesn't everyone saddle up to Steven Spielburg and ask him HOW THOSE FARKING DINOSAURS FROM 1993 STILL LOOK SO REAL?!

A lot of them were practical, that's why.

I know he used puppets and animatronics, but some of the iconic scenes like all of the herbivores in the giant tracking shot all done through CGI as well as a number of other sequences where CGI was the only option the whole thing looks seamless.


I think the key is use as much practical as you can, then use all your CGI budget to make your big shots look farking perfect. When all your shots are CGI, you spread the VFX crew too thing and you have to cut corners.

At least, that's my theory.
 
2022-05-27 8:30:46 AM  

Sorelian's Ghost: I know he used puppets and animatronics, but some of the iconic scenes like all of the herbivores in the giant tracking shot all done through CGI as well as a number of other sequences where CGI was the only option the whole thing looks seamless.


Yeah, but some of those original shots show their age. In the version of the shot you're talking about, for instance, there was this weird ripple effect in the skin of the quadrupeds that looked off even when it was new (it's been largely eliminated in the remasters).

I rarely complain about "bad" cgi because 1) it's really hard to do, especially for active living things, and 2) imo most complaints about bad cgi is just a subconscious admission by your brain that what you're seeing isn't real.  People rarely complain about bad background CGI because it's usually seamless and thus easy to suspend your disbelief compared to accepting a giant 12 limbed antediluvian horror that you know can't exist.  I think with She-Hulk, people were surprised that Disney released the Polar Express version of the trailer given how good the effects have gotten with the Hulk.
 
2022-05-27 8:46:16 AM  
She-Hulk still looks nothing like Jennifer Walters/Tatiana Maslany.  Hulk looks like Mark Ruffalo. There is no logical reason her hair gets straight and her face completely changes shape.
 
2022-05-27 9:00:31 AM  

MindStalker: She-Hulk still looks nothing like Jennifer Walters/Tatiana Maslany.  Hulk looks like Mark Ruffalo. There is no logical reason her hair gets straight and her face completely changes shape.


That's just going in line with her changes in the comics. That's what Jennifer's alter-ego looks like.

The important thing to remember is that Bruce's transformation to Savage Hulk / Mr. Fixit / etc. are all aspects of his Dissociative Identity Disorder. Hulk is his alter that he developed, subconsciously, to cope with abuse as a child and the gamma experiment (and Super Soldier serum in the MCU) gave his alter a physical presence as well as a psychological profile. Him learning to become "Professor Hulk" was his way of integrating his alter with his primary persona (integration of the alters is one method of dealing with D.I.D.)

Meanwhile, Jennifer didn't have D.I.D. and her alter-ego She-Hulk is more a reflection of what she wants to be, deep down. Normally, she was a small, meek, mousy woman who lacked confidence and wanted better hair, longer legs, bigger boobs, firmer thighs, a more model-like face, etc., and when she became She-Hulk she manifested those desires into her She-Hulk persona, who unlike Hulk, was not a completely separate alter/persona, but just Jennifer herself in a different body.

So Jennifer looks like she wants to look. Savage Hulk looked like what child-Bruce's abused mind wished he was like (big, strong, monstrous) in order to protect himself from his monstrous, abusive father. Professor Hulk looks like Bruce with the best features of the Hulk integrated into his appearance and form.
 
2022-05-27 9:13:27 AM  
DAT ASS!!
 
2022-05-27 9:20:46 AM  
So, Disney is trying the Sonic gambit?
 
2022-05-27 10:01:29 AM  
The gaming community used to have a term for this. Bullshots.

It's easy to make a still image look glossier. But it's not until you see it in motion can you truly judge it.
 
2022-05-27 10:48:30 AM  

Gleeman: So, Disney is trying the Sonic gambit?


More like they're doing what everyone who isn't a knee-jerk reactionary knew would be the case from the start, i.e. working on effects right up until release. This is standard stuff.

It's far from the first time they'd had dodgy CGI in a trailer. A wonky Spider-Man in the Infinity War trailer, for example, among others.

The whole Sonic meltdown was because people hated the design. Aside from a handful of people, few were saying She-Hulk's design was bad, only that the effects looked unfinished (because they were and still are).

This is all much ado about nothing.
 
2022-05-27 10:58:14 AM  

Sorelian's Ghost: adamgreeney: Sorelian's Ghost: I am sure CGI is still pretty hard, so why doesn't everyone saddle up to Steven Spielburg and ask him HOW THOSE FARKING DINOSAURS FROM 1993 STILL LOOK SO REAL?!

A lot of them were practical, that's why.

I know he used puppets and animatronics, but some of the iconic scenes like all of the herbivores in the giant tracking shot all done through CGI as well as a number of other sequences where CGI was the only option the whole thing looks seamless.


One reason was they had stop-motion animators like Phil Tippett teach the CGI guys how things move, how their weight is distributed, how their weight and bodies shift, that the CGI felt real and organic.

One of the biggest problems with most CGI today is they have no experience or understanding of mass or inertia or body structure other than what's pre-programmed in whatever program they're using to do their animation and it is usually flawed.
 
2022-05-27 11:06:33 AM  
They final got enough Nvidia cards to finish the rendering farm?
 
2022-05-27 11:16:07 AM  
?????
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-05-27 11:40:09 AM  
THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!111
 
2022-05-27 11:47:15 AM  

shoegaze99: More like they're doing what everyone who isn't a knee-jerk reactionary knew would be the case from the start, i.e. working on effects right up until release. This is standard stuff.

It's far from the first time they'd had dodgy CGI in a trailer. A wonky Spider-Man in the Infinity War trailer, for example, among others.


True, but it's also not unheard of for projects to be pushed forward too quickly because of scheduling, and the bad CGI in the trailers doesn't get fixed before release.

Cats was a notorious CGI disaster, and so was Justice League. The effects in the Black Panther trailer only hinted at how bad the overall effects were in the full movie. Bad CGI still happens in modern blockbusters, and there's no guarantee that they'll go back and fix everything after the ads get a negative response. We can't even say for certain if they've polished everything up in She-Hulk. We're just looking at an improved trailer, not the finished series.
 
2022-05-27 12:02:31 PM  

Sorelian's Ghost: I am sure CGI is still pretty hard, so why doesn't everyone saddle up to Steven Spielburg and ask him HOW THOSE FARKING DINOSAURS FROM 1993 STILL LOOK SO REAL?!


My theory is that when JP came out the FX industry realized how much money could be made with their work so they price that level of CGI at an astronomical level. Cheap ass studios refuse to pay it, instead opting for lower quality 'good enough' CGI because audiences are dumb and will still go to see it.
 
2022-05-27 12:45:35 PM  

hamrag: Sorelian's Ghost: I am sure CGI is still pretty hard, so why doesn't everyone saddle up to Steven Spielburg and ask him HOW THOSE FARKING DINOSAURS FROM 1993 STILL LOOK SO REAL?!

My theory is that when JP came out the FX industry realized how much money could be made with their work so they price that level of CGI at an astronomical level. Cheap ass studios refuse to pay it, instead opting for lower quality 'good enough' CGI because audiences are dumb and will still go to see it.


I think Spielberg priced everything out, and figured it was cheaper to just clone the dinosaurs.  My guess is they are buried next to the set from The Ten Commandments, and won't that drive archaeologists crazy when they find them.
 
2022-05-27 1:11:12 PM  

Sorelian's Ghost: I am sure CGI is still pretty hard, so why doesn't everyone saddle up to Steven Spielburg and ask him HOW THOSE FARKING DINOSAURS FROM 1993 STILL LOOK SO REAL?!


Rose tinted memories. The animatronic ones still look great, but watch the clip of the stampede again.


Jurassic Park (1993) - They're Flocking This Way Scene (6/10) | Movieclips
Youtube nM-RPO10aPY


It looks magnificent for the time, but compared to today's cgi it looks very fake.
 
2022-05-27 1:13:25 PM  
I couldn't fap to the previous trailer. But this is doable.

J/K. Totally fapped last time too.
 
2022-05-27 1:26:24 PM  
Marvel Studios released the first trailer for She-Hulk: Attorney at Law on the show's Disney+ page, but this time, it features improved video quality in comparison to the compressed 1080p version uploaded on YouTube. This showcases a noticeable difference in the CG work done on this series after fans voiced complaints about the trailer's CGI upon its debut.

I don't think they did anything but change the compression on the trailer itself. At least that's how I am reading that. Which would mean that nothing got changed, because that's just a decision you make when you're uploading video, it wouldn't affect the final product.
 
2022-05-27 1:28:39 PM  

Sorelian's Ghost: I am sure CGI is still pretty hard, so why doesn't everyone saddle up to Steven Spielburg and ask him HOW THOSE FARKING DINOSAURS FROM 1993 STILL LOOK SO REAL?!


Probably because it's not a lot of close ups. Yes, there are close ups, but look at the difference in how you would shoot a bunch of animals, versus how you shoot a personal story with a lot of closeups and reaction shots. Also, keep in mind that we don't really know how their skin looked, so it's easier. With human skin, we can definitely tell when it looks fake.

But I agree, they were amazing, and still look good.
 
2022-05-27 1:35:03 PM  

dsmith42: Sorelian's Ghost: I am sure CGI is still pretty hard, so why doesn't everyone saddle up to Steven Spielburg and ask him HOW THOSE FARKING DINOSAURS FROM 1993 STILL LOOK SO REAL?!

Rose tinted memories. The animatronic ones still look great, but watch the clip of the stampede again.


[iFrame https://www.youtube.com/embed/nM-RPO10aPY?autoplay=1&widget_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&start=55&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&widgetid=1]

It looks magnificent for the time, but compared to today's cgi it looks very fake.


Compared to an SR71 the Spirit of st louis looks primitive too...but what they did with the technology at the time and budget it was astounding
 
2022-05-27 1:43:16 PM  

adamgreeney: Sorelian's Ghost: I am sure CGI is still pretty hard, so why doesn't everyone saddle up to Steven Spielburg and ask him HOW THOSE FARKING DINOSAURS FROM 1993 STILL LOOK SO REAL?!

A lot of them were practical, that's why.


And, as others have pointed out rose-tined glasses. They've held up great, yes, but the actual full CGI portions are not up to modern standards. Go back and watch, it looks good, but side-by-side with modern stuff and the difference is stark.

I've seen people argue that Jurassic Park's CGI is somehow better than today's. Those people are either ignorant or insane. For every example of bad modern CGI you see, you've seen thousands of others that looked so good, you didn't even notice. The tech is used ubiquitously at this point. Modern sets, wardrobe, backgrounds, weather. You name it.

Good example: The Wolf of Wall Street. Last movie you think of when you think CGI, but it's loaded with effects.

Modern creatures look amazing, too. I really dislike the Jurassic World movies, but effects wise, it's quite clear how far ahead they are from the original.

The difference is, we still love the original because the movie is pure magic, so we're far more willing to suspend our disbelief when it comes to visuals.
 
2022-05-27 1:54:15 PM  

cocozilla: dsmith42: Sorelian's Ghost: I am sure CGI is still pretty hard, so why doesn't everyone saddle up to Steven Spielburg and ask him HOW THOSE FARKING DINOSAURS FROM 1993 STILL LOOK SO REAL?!

Rose tinted memories. The animatronic ones still look great, but watch the clip of the stampede again.


[iFrame https://www.youtube.com/embed/nM-RPO10aPY?autoplay=1&widget_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&start=55&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&widgetid=1]

It looks magnificent for the time, but compared to today's cgi it looks very fake.

Compared to an SR71 the Spirit of st louis looks primitive too...but what they did with the technology at the time and budget it was astounding


Sure, but the argument isn't that it wasn't impressive for its time -- you'll get universal agreement on that view, it's mind-blowing how good it was -- it's that it's somehow comparable to today's. It's like saying the Spirit of St. Louis is still the equal of the SR71.

That, of course, would be a ridiculous statement.
 
2022-05-27 1:55:17 PM  

dsmith42: Sorelian's Ghost: I am sure CGI is still pretty hard, so why doesn't everyone saddle up to Steven Spielburg and ask him HOW THOSE FARKING DINOSAURS FROM 1993 STILL LOOK SO REAL?!

Rose tinted memories. The animatronic ones still look great, but watch the clip of the stampede again.


[iFrame https://www.youtube.com/embed/nM-RPO10aPY?autoplay=1&widget_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&start=55&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&widgetid=1]

It looks magnificent for the time, but compared to today's cgi it looks very fake.


For the most part, it holds up well for me. What they did right was give a sense of mass to the animals (the shot where they're leaping over, stepping on the log -- they move the camera as if the ground is really shuddering, something a lot of other filmmakers get wrong and why so many other CG-creatures often appear weightless).

Where it falls apart is when the T. Rex shows up. Then it looks a lot like a video game cut scene.

A video game from maybe 2010, in a movie released in 1993, but by 2022 standards, not nearly as good. Compare it to the creight dragon in season 2 off The Mandalorian-- a completely imaginary animal that looks a lot more real by comparison.
 
2022-05-27 1:59:18 PM  
Here we go. And apparently it's krayt, not crieght. That's what I get for not checking Wookieepedia.

Mando & Cobb Vanth vs Krayt Dragon - The Mandalorian Season Two (2020)
Youtube d44pYhnwu58
 
2022-05-27 2:02:30 PM  

Darth Funjamin: dsmith42: Sorelian's Ghost: I am sure CGI is still pretty hard, so why doesn't everyone saddle up to Steven Spielburg and ask him HOW THOSE FARKING DINOSAURS FROM 1993 STILL LOOK SO REAL?!

Rose tinted memories. The animatronic ones still look great, but watch the clip of the stampede again.


[iFrame https://www.youtube.com/embed/nM-RPO10aPY?autoplay=1&widget_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&start=55&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&widgetid=1]

It looks magnificent for the time, but compared to today's cgi it looks very fake.

For the most part, it holds up well for me. What they did right was give a sense of mass to the animals (the shot where they're leaping over, stepping on the log -- they move the camera as if the ground is really shuddering, something a lot of other filmmakers get wrong and why so many other CG-creatures often appear weightless).

Where it falls apart is when the T. Rex shows up. Then it looks a lot like a video game cut scene.

A video game from maybe 2010, in a movie released in 1993, but by 2022 standards, not nearly as good. Compare it to the creight dragon in season 2 off The Mandalorian-- a completely imaginary animal that looks a lot more real by comparison.


I think one of the biggest things fixed for Jurassic Park was depth of field. CGFI used to look fake because everything was too sharp. There was no depth of field, everything was in focus. Movement, like you mention, was the other one. Before that, if they CG'd a bunch of creatures in a herd, they'd model one or three, and scatter them through the group. The herds looked natural, because that's what they modeled them after, real herds of animals out on the Savannah.

I think those were two of the biggest advances, and why it was such a mindfark at the time. I mean, it was enough of a wow factor, that the theater I saw ti in had the worst sound system, I've ever heard, and a 3" hole in the screen, and we were still blown away by the whole experience.
 
2022-05-27 2:22:22 PM  
In general, CGI doesnt bother me. I feel like the critiques on it are a bit trendy. There could easily be drinking games based on how many times "practical effects" is used during a review. But given that I enjoy old Godzilla movies, I admit I dont attempt to raise my standards. If tis not glowing with blurry edges a la Alien 3 /happy
 
2022-05-27 2:51:17 PM  
Good... bad.... whatever.... the real question is: why didn't they just hire a big lady?
 
2022-05-27 3:07:08 PM  

shoegaze99: Aside from a handful of people, few were saying She-Hulk's design was bad, only that the effects looked unfinished (because they were and still are).

This is all much ado about nothing.


I did see a sizable number of people complain that she didn't look like an actual female bodybuilder, but... the wish fulfillment angle kind of puts that to rest.
 
2022-05-27 3:38:28 PM  

Mikey1969: Darth Funjamin: dsmith42: Sorelian's Ghost: I am sure CGI is still pretty hard, so why doesn't everyone saddle up to Steven Spielburg and ask him HOW THOSE FARKING DINOSAURS FROM 1993 STILL LOOK SO REAL?!

Rose tinted memories. The animatronic ones still look great, but watch the clip of the stampede again.


[iFrame https://www.youtube.com/embed/nM-RPO10aPY?autoplay=1&widget_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&start=55&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&widgetid=1]

It looks magnificent for the time, but compared to today's cgi it looks very fake.

For the most part, it holds up well for me. What they did right was give a sense of mass to the animals (the shot where they're leaping over, stepping on the log -- they move the camera as if the ground is really shuddering, something a lot of other filmmakers get wrong and why so many other CG-creatures often appear weightless).

Where it falls apart is when the T. Rex shows up. Then it looks a lot like a video game cut scene.

A video game from maybe 2010, in a movie released in 1993, but by 2022 standards, not nearly as good. Compare it to the creight dragon in season 2 off The Mandalorian-- a completely imaginary animal that looks a lot more real by comparison.

I think one of the biggest things fixed for Jurassic Park was depth of field. CGFI used to look fake because everything was too sharp. There was no depth of field, everything was in focus. Movement, like you mention, was the other one. Before that, if they CG'd a bunch of creatures in a herd, they'd model one or three, and scatter them through the group. The herds looked natural, because that's what they modeled them after, real herds of animals out on the Savannah.

I think those were two of the biggest advances, and why it was such a mindfark at the time. I mean, it was enough of a wow factor, that the theater I saw ti in had the worst sound system, I've ever heard, and a 3" hole in the screen, and we were still blown away by the whole experience.


Jurassic Park Theme Song (Melodica Cover)
Youtube -w-58hQ9dLk
 
2022-05-27 3:47:40 PM  

WilderKWight: MindStalker: She-Hulk still looks nothing like Jennifer Walters/Tatiana Maslany.  Hulk looks like Mark Ruffalo. There is no logical reason her hair gets straight and her face completely changes shape.

That's just going in line with her changes in the comics. That's what Jennifer's alter-ego looks like.

The important thing to remember is that Bruce's transformation to Savage Hulk / Mr. Fixit / etc. are all aspects of his Dissociative Identity Disorder. Hulk is his alter that he developed, subconsciously, to cope with abuse as a child and the gamma experiment (and Super Soldier serum in the MCU) gave his alter a physical presence as well as a psychological profile. Him learning to become "Professor Hulk" was his way of integrating his alter with his primary persona (integration of the alters is one method of dealing with D.I.D.)

Meanwhile, Jennifer didn't have D.I.D. and her alter-ego She-Hulk is more a reflection of what she wants to be, deep down. Normally, she was a small, meek, mousy woman who lacked confidence and wanted better hair, longer legs, bigger boobs, firmer thighs, a more model-like face, etc., and when she became She-Hulk she manifested those desires into her She-Hulk persona, who unlike Hulk, was not a completely separate alter/persona, but just Jennifer herself in a different body.

So Jennifer looks like she wants to look. Savage Hulk looked like what child-Bruce's abused mind wished he was like (big, strong, monstrous) in order to protect himself from his monstrous, abusive father. Professor Hulk looks like Bruce with the best features of the Hulk integrated into his appearance and form.


What a load.
 
2022-05-27 4:44:12 PM  

Incorrigible Astronaut: I did see a sizable number of people complain that she didn't look like an actual female bodybuilder, but... the wish fulfillment angle kind of puts that to rest.


It would have been a nice nod to the old Incredible Hulk series if they'd hired a bodybuilder to play She-Hulk, and then they could have both Walters and She-Hulk appearing with each other at press junkets. But since She-Hulk only transforms in size, not mind or personality, it makes sense to have the same actress play both roles, and the comic book version of She-Hulk doesn't look much like a real bodybuilder either.
 
2022-05-27 6:44:28 PM  

paulleah: WilderKWight: MindStalker: She-Hulk still looks nothing like Jennifer Walters/Tatiana Maslany.  Hulk looks like Mark Ruffalo. There is no logical reason her hair gets straight and her face completely changes shape.

That's just going in line with her changes in the comics. That's what Jennifer's alter-ego looks like.

The important thing to remember is that Bruce's transformation to Savage Hulk / Mr. Fixit / etc. are all aspects of his Dissociative Identity Disorder. Hulk is his alter that he developed, subconsciously, to cope with abuse as a child and the gamma experiment (and Super Soldier serum in the MCU) gave his alter a physical presence as well as a psychological profile. Him learning to become "Professor Hulk" was his way of integrating his alter with his primary persona (integration of the alters is one method of dealing with D.I.D.)

Meanwhile, Jennifer didn't have D.I.D. and her alter-ego She-Hulk is more a reflection of what she wants to be, deep down. Normally, she was a small, meek, mousy woman who lacked confidence and wanted better hair, longer legs, bigger boobs, firmer thighs, a more model-like face, etc., and when she became She-Hulk she manifested those desires into her She-Hulk persona, who unlike Hulk, was not a completely separate alter/persona, but just Jennifer herself in a different body.

So Jennifer looks like she wants to look. Savage Hulk looked like what child-Bruce's abused mind wished he was like (big, strong, monstrous) in order to protect himself from his monstrous, abusive father. Professor Hulk looks like Bruce with the best features of the Hulk integrated into his appearance and form.

What a load.


No, this is 100% canon. Peter David got aaaaallllll up in Bruce Banner's psyche.

As much as I like Peter David, his Hulk wasn't appealing to me.
 
2022-05-27 6:47:15 PM  

TelemonianAjax: No, this is 100% canon. Peter David got aaaaallllll up in Bruce Banner's psyche.

As much as I like Peter David, his Hulk wasn't appealing to me.


Canon for a particular run of the comics doesn't make it canon for the MCU, of course. None of that counts unless they decide it does and write it into a screenplay.
 
2022-05-27 7:06:32 PM  

Sorelian's Ghost: adamgreeney: Sorelian's Ghost: I am sure CGI is still pretty hard, so why doesn't everyone saddle up to Steven Spielburg and ask him HOW THOSE FARKING DINOSAURS FROM 1993 STILL LOOK SO REAL?!

A lot of them were practical, that's why.

I know he used puppets and animatronics, but some of the iconic scenes like all of the herbivores in the giant tracking shot all done through CGI as well as a number of other sequences where CGI was the only option the whole thing looks seamless.


CGI is fine for backgrounds.  Mad Max Fury Road is beautiful. All the stunts and close ups were practical.

When your main character is CGI, it's always uncanny valley
 
2022-05-27 9:09:01 PM  

paulleah: WilderKWight: MindStalker: She-Hulk still looks nothing like Jennifer Walters/Tatiana Maslany.  Hulk looks like Mark Ruffalo. There is no logical reason her hair gets straight and her face completely changes shape.

That's just going in line with her changes in the comics. That's what Jennifer's alter-ego looks like.

The important thing to remember is that Bruce's transformation to Savage Hulk / Mr. Fixit / etc. are all aspects of his Dissociative Identity Disorder. Hulk is his alter that he developed, subconsciously, to cope with abuse as a child and the gamma experiment (and Super Soldier serum in the MCU) gave his alter a physical presence as well as a psychological profile. Him learning to become "Professor Hulk" was his way of integrating his alter with his primary persona (integration of the alters is one method of dealing with D.I.D.)

Meanwhile, Jennifer didn't have D.I.D. and her alter-ego She-Hulk is more a reflection of what she wants to be, deep down. Normally, she was a small, meek, mousy woman who lacked confidence and wanted better hair, longer legs, bigger boobs, firmer thighs, a more model-like face, etc., and when she became She-Hulk she manifested those desires into her She-Hulk persona, who unlike Hulk, was not a completely separate alter/persona, but just Jennifer herself in a different body.

So Jennifer looks like she wants to look. Savage Hulk looked like what child-Bruce's abused mind wished he was like (big, strong, monstrous) in order to protect himself from his monstrous, abusive father. Professor Hulk looks like Bruce with the best features of the Hulk integrated into his appearance and form.

What a load.


This is comic logic. It's, honestly, more developed than most hero backstories.

Most comics have only marginally less plot holes than the bible, which is appropriate when they are often echoing mythology.
 
2022-05-27 9:55:31 PM  

EdgeRunner: TelemonianAjax: No, this is 100% canon. Peter David got aaaaallllll up in Bruce Banner's psyche.

As much as I like Peter David, his Hulk wasn't appealing to me.

Canon for a particular run of the comics doesn't make it canon for the MCU, of course. None of that counts unless they decide it does and write it into a screenplay.


It's been accepted and extended by more or less every writer since. The recent Immortal Hulk series. The various versions of the Hulk are each aspects of Banner's fractured self, including a childlike innocent Hulk.

Immortal Hulk was a particularly good read. Lots of Body Horror to go with psychological stuff.
 
2022-05-27 10:01:27 PM  
It's like when the Civil War trailer CGI was terribad and it ended up being fixed by release.  Weird how a teaser isn't necessarily the finished product,
 
2022-05-27 11:20:50 PM  

likefunbutnot: EdgeRunner: TelemonianAjax: No, this is 100% canon. Peter David got aaaaallllll up in Bruce Banner's psyche.

As much as I like Peter David, his Hulk wasn't appealing to me.

Canon for a particular run of the comics doesn't make it canon for the MCU, of course. None of that counts unless they decide it does and write it into a screenplay.

It's been accepted and extended by more or less every writer since. The recent Immortal Hulk series. The various versions of the Hulk are each aspects of Banner's fractured self, including a childlike innocent Hulk.

Immortal Hulk was a particularly good read. Lots of Body Horror to go with psychological stuff.


Same goes for Thanos wiping out half the universe to impress the embodiment of Death. Every writer accepted that until the MCU rewrote it.

The live-action stuff is a different medium and the adaptations aren't sticking to the source material all that closely. So no, if they don't expressly include those details of the comic book Hulk/She-Hulk mythos, they aren't part of the MCU. They're picking and choosing what they use and freely inventing new stuff as well. It's no good saying "This is what the series is all about" until we've actually seen it. We don't know yet.
 
2022-05-28 1:08:13 AM  

Mentat: Sorelian's Ghost: I know he used puppets and animatronics, but some of the iconic scenes like all of the herbivores in the giant tracking shot all done through CGI as well as a number of other sequences where CGI was the only option the whole thing looks seamless.

Yeah, but some of those original shots show their age. In the version of the shot you're talking about, for instance, there was this weird ripple effect in the skin of the quadrupeds that looked off even when it was new (it's been largely eliminated in the remasters).

I rarely complain about "bad" cgi because 1) it's really hard to do, especially for active living things, and 2) imo most complaints about bad cgi is just a subconscious admission by your brain that what you're seeing isn't real.  People rarely complain about bad background CGI because it's usually seamless and thus easy to suspend your disbelief compared to accepting a giant 12 limbed antediluvian horror that you know can't exist.  I think with She-Hulk, people were surprised that Disney released the Polar Express version of the trailer given how good the effects have gotten with the Hulk.


I legit don't really care how bad the CG is as long as it's consistent. Then it's just an art style.

Sure if you go too far out if synch with your live action shots it can be no bueno, but I watched farking Beast Wars for fark's sake.

I was there when the "man" in your video game was a square block.

The human brain is great at turning random patterns of crap into "this means something". It's also great at "something is off there". But you can overcome the feeling of something being off with consistency.
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.