After viewing the trailer a few times...all I have to say is.

http://www.ileet.net/junk/badthread/badthread9.jpg

Jesus, didn't I tell you before to read posts before replying. :confused:

If you had, you see I stated that the hulk is just too unrealistic a character to be put in a realistic setting.

Thus the only option to make him look decent is to have cgi backgrounds, which would betray the story as no one's done a CGI background of the real world that I can recall.

Cool. Looking forward to it.

Actually that example only works for the Star Wars prequels. Most of the time CG characters in LOTR were imposed on real backgrounds. Sure sometimes they were imposed on miniatures on some CG created backgrounds but most of the time the backgrounds were real. So fake backgrounds are not what Hulk needed to look more "real". And he looked great, honestly. As great as a 10 to 15 foot tall green man will ever look when created on a computer.

I think the issue with CGI is quite simply...a design issue. With CGI, you can essentially attempt to create anything...the limitations are going away to the point anything is possible. But, anything doesn't always please everyone. The Hulk was a great special effect, but quite frankly not everyone was pleased with seeing a 15 foot tall green muscle man. The immediate reaction is that the effects work is poor, but I think the issue is...people just didn't care for how it looked. I did, others didn't.

The same goes for this film. These creatures move about in almost cartoony ways, are somewhat exageratted in their looks. They are patterned after a realistic look, instead they look more like slightly cartoonish exagerattions of the typical monster idea. Having enjoyed some of Sommers previous films, and loving a high production value B movie, am quite looking forward to this. But I can understand that these designs would not appeal to everyone. But we have to admit that the effects work is pretty good..I won't say top notch til I see the final prodcut, but they are pretty damn good.

But if you don't like the take they've gone with on these creatures, you should notice that it isn't the quality of the effects work...it's the way they are presented and the design that causes the problem. That's the only thing that makes sense to me, though I'm sure there are those who have no ability to suspend disbelief also.

Watched the TV Spot...Dracula looks cheap and stupid...Wolfman looks very very bad and cartooney...Frankenstein dont look too bad...

Have to disagree here, my one big complaint is with Frankenstein. Maybe it's because I'm a huge Frakenstein fan, but to me,that looked like Mr. Hyde out of LXG - which I thought looked terrible. You don't need CGI to make Frankenstein. As time as proven, you just need a somewhat buffed man, good actor and a great make-up crew. There is NO reason to make that character CGI, other than notion that everything should be CGI (which is wrong).

Can't say I'm happy with the direction they are taking Dracula either, but I won't complain about that. I'll focus on my utter disgust of the Frankenstein character.

Did we see the same trailer? Cos Frankenstein's Monster was not CG. Unless you mean the guy that tosses Van Helsing from that tall building. That was Mr. Hyde from the opening teaser of the movie. And, yes, Mr. Hyde is definitely CG.

I think you're reading to much into people's posts.

When I say "The CGI looks crappy" or whatever, I'm just saying I don't like the way it looks.

I don't know, nor give a shit, if it's good quality work technical-wise. I just care if it looks good to me or not.

I'm sure most others who bash a movies CGI are simply saying the same thing.

That's simply my point. It's not the CGI, it's just the look. Whether it be go motion, animation, or CGI, it's just the look. I just make this argument because many people act as though CGI is the bane of humanity, this tool that is ruining cinema. That had these people done these same effects another way, they'd be great.

I'm not saying anyone has to say they look good, I just want the CG bashing to stop...and for people to focus their attention on the desing matters...because that's where their hatred lies.

CGI is a great tool IMO, and it gets a lot of flack, a lot of time for nothing. The biggest laugh I got was reading that Hyde in LXG was one of the worst CGI effects the reader had ever seen. Funny cause, well, obviously they didn't know what a CG effect looks like then.

Well, some people think all CGI "looks bad" so they have the right to bash it.

I think it looks great sometimes (Star Wars, LOTR etc.) and terrible others (the Hulk). So I don't bash all CGI like some, just the movies in which it looks bad enough to me to ruin the film for me.

But in reality, everyone's opinion is valid, so it's kind of lame that your bashing people for expressing opinions that disagree with yours. Someone's free to say Hyde was one of the worst they had seen. He's probably exaggerating, but he's still entitled to that opinion.

I'm not bashing anyone. I'm just pointing out the hatred of CG when in fact, it isn't CG they hate. I pointed out Hyde in LXG because, well, he wasn't CGI. To call him a terrible looking CG creation when he was a real life prosthetic creation is what I'm referring to...he wasn't CG, but the reader bashed the character as being poor CG. A simple mistake, but nonetheless an inaccurate assessment.

I also find that the regard people hold for the effects in a movie are often times very related to the quality of the film. Lord of the Rings is not nearly as bashed for its effects work as Star Wars, and honestly I feel much of that criticism arises from the dislike of the film, not really the quality of the effects work. I'm not saying people are wrong for their assessment, I'm just hoping people analyze what they're critisizing before jumping on the CG bashwagon. I know I've seen plenty of bad CG effects that took me out of the film, and I'm in no position to tell people what to think on such a subjective matter. But I do feel many jump to the automatic conclusion that the CG is the major problem, without realizing that many many other factors exist that may cause those things not to work, or may be why they don't like it to begin with.

I mean is anyone "taken out of the film" when they watch the Rancor in Return of the Jedi, or King Kong in the 1930s classic? I mean, those things don't look even 1/10th as good as the modern CGI creations and quite frankly, I'm not sure how anyone could state they are...I mean that in the technical sense of course. But we still can enjoy those films, so I just question why modern effects work has to be perfect, but older films get a pass...nostalgia?

I'm not really bashing the CGI...its not great CGI but its not terrible...I'm bashing the designs of the monsters...they look terrible...