damn, that looks pretty fun

Look good but I do hope the CG doenst turn out to be that bad. It looks like the stuff from LXG

I think it looked good. At the very least it isnt a sequel to something I've already seen.

My wife is a big Hugh Jackman fan and was telling me about this last night. Seems kind of interesting so I will probably end up seeing it with her (whether I want to or not :) )

just watched the trailer last night
both kate and jackman have a great costum design
and some of the set pieces look pretty cool
the CGI may not be the best but hopefully the finished product will be more polished,
looks like an entertaining flick

Despite the fact that I'm sure this movie wont be the throwback to Deep Rising I'm hoping for, it sure looks like a lot of fun so I'm definitely seeing it regardless of the rating.

Oh and this marks the secondmovie that has made me find Kate Beckinsale smoking hot (Underworld being the first). :drool:

My thoughts exactly. I really like HJ though. Should be a run popcorn movie. Won't beat Spiderman though.

Just saw the preview. Looks like great fun IMO.

Saw the trailer. Looks pretty awful.
Kind of like outtakes from LXG.
Lots of groans from the audience.
I'm sure this film will be a hit.
Safe, cgi filled "fun".

Looks like a sure buy Dvd; not sure that I'll catch it in the theaters, though.

Saw the Superbowl shots....looked really bad....which is too bad..I like the idea and the House of Frankenstein, all-star monster concept.

Wolfman looks terrible...like the Hulk or worse. The harpy like character might be alright though.

I have to watch this kind of movie, but it will be a rental. Wifey will watch cause of Hugh, but she is really looking forward to Viggo in Hidalgo!

Although the movie itself may not look too great, the trailer in 5.1 surround HD during the Super Bowl was pretty sweet. :up:

The Superbowl spot was more or less to raise a wide awareness. The lackluster FX will be touched up some, but if you look at Stephen Sommers other movies, he really just gets them to the point where they're somewhat believable.

(Remember the Scorpion King and the Anubis army.)

looks sweet!

Good grief, do you people bitch about CG all the time? I mean for f**k's sake. Get over it. I see nothing wrong with the CG, especially since the EFFECTS ARE NOT FINISHED! CG is not perfect. The people making the CG are human beings, and thus are not perfect. So deal with it.

Yeah, like you'd know the difference between good and bad special effects! You're gonna bitch regardless.

Yeah, and those of you who said the Hulk effects were terrible have been summarily shot down by experts in the vfx industry who have given it all sorts of praise, calling it one of the great technical achievements in the industry. It also received a number of VES awards including the best CG character. It also made the final round of the Oscars bakeoff. To bad those people know a thousand times more about effects than you do.

Bitching about CG is so cliched. Get over it. No movie has ever had completely perfect effects. Not Star Wars, not LOTR, not anything. That doesn't mean the effects were great.

Heck, the effects in Hellboy were worse than anything in this trailer. Then again those effects probably aren't finished. Same goes for Troy. I saw some truly bad stuff in that.


Um, you obviously don't know the story on Mummy Returns. The production ran over budget before the effects were completed to the level they wanted them. The studio would not give them any more money. So some of the effects were not completed to their absolute best.

I still think the Hulk looks like crap, regardless of what the experts say. He looks fake. It's mainly that they imposed him on real back grounds, rather than doing actors on blue screens and having CG backgrounds (ala Star Wars or LOTR) which makes the cgi characters blend in much better IMO.

Sure the effects aren't finished, but people said the same thing about the Hulk when the earlier trailers/TV spots looked terrible, IMO they improved the CGI little, if any, from then to the finished product.

Are we really complaining about the CGI in this movie? This is a stupid, B movie monster mash! Not to mention that sure, you can tell these effects are CG, but are there no people in this world who actually enjoy special effects? I mean, there's no way to do this over the top crazy stuff save for this way at the present time, and quite frankly it seems to fit right in for this tone and material.

I just get frustrated...there's so much complaining about special effects, even when those effects are...without a doubt...the best anyone could achieve. Want to see a better looking Hulk? I doubt you could...

Instead you could...I don't know...suspend your disbelief...and enjoy these movies? We're acting like these are Ed Wood quality effects with strings and painted paper plates. You guys must HATE stop motion, and any model work done before motion control must be AWFUL. Actually, how can you guys watch any special effect movie before the digital age cause I'll tell you, none of them look real. Not one.

Anyway, this looks fun. Sommers is good at making popcorn fodder, and this looks just like that. And since this movie doesn't have a stupid kid, and hopefully has some story as opposed to run run run (mummy returns i mean you!) then this could be a lot of fun.

All they needed, as I said above, is CGI backgrounds. It's easy to blend humans into CGI backgrounds, but it's (at this point) near impossible to put a CGI charcter into normal backgrounds without them sticking out like a sore thumb and looking incredibly fake.

As for effects being the best they can be, the effects in the hulk, and the current Van Hellsing spots are no where near as good and believable as the ones in Star Wars and LOTR IMO, so they're definitely not the best they could be IMO.

Bad special effects won't kill a movie for me, but if they are too fake they can take me out of the movie and keep me from getting as immersed.

You do realize that, to many people, THAT would look fake? I love the look of Star Wars, but I don't think it would be effective in conveying the realistic world that the Hulk presented. So no, that wouldn't have worked at all. Instead everything would've loked like CGI as opposed to a strange creature in the real world. Actually, have you ever seen a film that put a CG creature in a realistic CG environment? I haven't...

not to mention, real humans over CG backgrounds...sorry, it doesn't look anymore real than CG over real backgrounds. I like the look a lot, but for as many people who complain about the Hulk, many will complain about Star Wars...

I think they're both magnificent work at the head of the modern special effects era. I still promise you you could NOT use CGI backgrounds and have the look the Hulk has...

I agree. I reality, the Hulk just translates shitty to the big screen. He should have remained in comics IMO. He's just too unrealistic of a character to have in a real world setting. At least for me anyway, I just can't suspend my belief that far.

I don't think the CGI was that bad here, and I was among those who was unimpressed with the CGI in the Hulk Super Bowl ad. At this point I'd say the CGI at least looks better than that in the Mummy films and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and probably better than Spider Man as well. It's not Gollum level yet, but even in it's current state it's non-distracting to me, if not completely believable.

please show us a realistic rendition of a 10' tall, 1000 pound green guy mutated by a burst of radiation.

now, how exactly do you know the Hulk looks fake again?

j

For me, it's not exclusively about CGI.

Conceptually, having the Wolfman appear to be about 10 feet tall and 400 lbs and feral to the point of retaining very few facial human features bothers me to the point of disappointment.

Some of the respondents in the dialogue seem to advocate not having expectations or opinions about the director's conceptualizations or presentation of the character. I don't understand that position.

AFA the Hulk, I am somewhat guilty of speaking lazily. While there were certain scenes where the Hulk CGI depiction bothered me (mostly close-up emotional scenes with human actors involved), overall I had more issues with the story and character development that Ang Lee presented. I doubt that the Hulk CGI could have been done better, and I am sure it was state of the art. By the same token, I agree that Hulk is best suited to the comic medium.

Anyway, I will watch Van Helsing, and may enjoy it too, but that Wolfman's gonna bother the hell out of me. :) (While we're at it, I don't like the hat, the duster, or the souped-up crossbow either. Is this Van Helsing, or a Victorian Man With No Name? :P )

Really? I thought the wolf looked fantastic, easily one of the best looking werewolves I've seen. It reminded me of Jon Talbain from the Darkstalker games.

http://webpages.charter.net/shonntl/Talbain.jpg

http://webpages.charter.net/shonntl/Wolf.jpg

http://webpages.charter.net/shonntl/Wolf 2.jpg

Fair enough. Not familiar with the games, but to me, that looks like a (mutant/demon) wolf, not a Wolfman.

I'm more of a

http://assall.de/movie-prop/horror_new/pic_00.jpg



or even

http://www.angelfire.com/goth/vampieqs_web/Wolfman.jpg

guy.http://fantplastic.dreamers.com/tran...os/wolfman.jpg