i have to agree this looks alot better then olriginal...

That's awesome! He looks a lot more BAMF here than in the movie...sadness.

ILM should be embarrassed...or at least hire this guy for the sequel

yay! you posted it! printing a copy of that on photo paper for my wall man. that looks so badass.

Hmmm... I don't know man... He looks more like a giant frog to me. Frog SMASH!

Looks good. But do keep in mind that the Hulk moves in a movie and motion is hard to animate.

I don't think that looks better at all.

But can the artist make him move, interact, etc etc well? Or as soon as motion is added, it will crap itself? Without an animation, this is just useless.

I don't know, the Hulk in the new film looks exactly how I always imagined the Hulk. I liked the Ang Lee one because it was different but I think the new one looks more true to the comics.
Still, this is impressive for an "amateur".

I guess I'm the only person in the world who noticed minimal if any differences between Ang Lee's Hulk, Edward Norton's Hulk and even this Hulk. It's a big, buff green guy.

Personally, I think it would have added significant resonance to the movie if they went the Hellboy route instead of CGI.

This is a good job, but it is a lot easier to make a single rendered image of something that a 3D one that is used for animation purposes and have to move around and do stuff... i think the one in the new move is pretty good, but i will reserve final judgment when i see it on the big screen

Im gonna have to agree w/ the ppl bringing up the animation aspect....3d imaging is one thing...animation is a whole different ball park

sensational headline does not a good post make. Yeah this Hulk does look cool in a single images and shadowed sunken eyes, but I bet the minute you light those puppies up and put some animation on him he falls apart

this is waaay cool and it has elements which are bettr than the new hulk, but i also think the shade of green is all rong and muscles dnt like proportiante

hulk is basically the uber human!...and this doesnt look tht human if u get me

HWEVR its its 'incredible' for an amateur even tho he cant eb an amateur with these skills!

well one this is dope, no doubt. However this has been photoshoped and it's one frame vs. a 2 hr movie from multiple angles. Let's keep this in mind.

Glad to see people are taking this for what it is....a static image. Although it's an AMAZING model....it's standing by itself and not moving.

The real point of comparison would be to put it in the same pose and composit it into the same background as the movie Hulk. After that, move that sucker.

THEN you'll be able to make an informed decision on whether it's the better design.

I think people are having a lot of problems with the new Hulk for two reasons. One, the skin...which many are saying looks "plastic".

Google a couple images of ripped bodybuilders and tell me what their skin looks like....Shiny? Yup. Veiny? Yup.

Two, the eyes. They were going for that look they had in the TV show with the contacts....but I think here it detracts from the realism of the design.

But again...show me a 9 ft, supermuscled, green monster with huge hands and feet and glowing eyes that looks "real".....

the arms seem silghtly too big - to me - but other than that this is waaaaaaaay better than what the hollywood folks came up with.

I think the face looks great.

not as good as either movie version.

Hot damn! That looks great. Make the Hulk's hair green and more straggly and I'm sold.

Hey dopiest,

I've got a comparison pic of the 3 different versions side by side at my site and if you look at them all together the differences are VERY apparent.

Vic

His neck looks thicker... ok?

The Hulk is a huge green man, what exactly are people expecting that is making them so dissapointed with the film interpretations?

His traps are way too big. Looks cool otherwise...

Holy shit,

That does look great. Love that he looks more "monsterous" in the face area too. The giant traps also give him a more weighted and non-human feel. The artist chose a "great" green coloring for the skin. That's one thing I don't like about either movie versions. The green on the film versions look really powdery and pale. This actually looks like what I think green skin should look like. With yellows and oranges in the joint areas and under the thin parts of the skin.

Why are you guys bringing up animation in defense for the film version? The model itself is under discussion here. And this is what it's about, the design. You guys also make it sound that creating a 3d model of this caliber is easy as pie. This kind of detail takes a while to do. It's not something that was whipped up the night before. I can also bet that if the artist spent this much time on the model itself it's most likely animation-ready too.


Also, fanboy d, ILM didn't do the Hulk for the second film. R&H did.

Peter or for those interested. Here's the original CGSociety thread he posted them in: http://tinyurl.com/5a5kr5

And the artists' website: http://tinyurl.com/687gw3


Check out his "humanized" Hellboy.

Hollywood just ain't trying no more. Sad, very sad.

the hulk on a diet. http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k69/giloosh99...

some1 stated looks like a frog...i would agree with comment, for ideas look at bodybuilders ronnie coleman jay cutler use there bodies enlarge it...

iky10,

Actually he did base this models physique on body-builders. If you go to the CG forums link. He has a WIP of the model and he references body-builders he took inspiration from.

Badass photo!
Check out Edward Norton's replacement for the Hulk -you'll never guess!!! Roll your mouse over the photo to reveal!

http://www.derober.com/2008/05/16/edward-norton...

Most of you seem confused.

This model is high quality, yes. But when animation is done in movies and computer games etc, a low poly version of said model is created. Animating that hulk would be as easy as animating the version in the movie.

The problem comes with the rendertime it takes to create each frame. I dont know how long that image took to render, but I wouldnt be surprised if it was 3 or 4 hours, even on a fairly new quad core with plenty of ram.

Now that res is alot higher than you would need for even a High Def movie at 1920x1080pixals.

But lets say even if you could render that out in half an hour per image. Thats 26 frames per second, so 26 x half an hour for just ONE second of footage. Even on a renderfarm that all adds up. Whereas youll prob find a frame of the film takes 10mins to render maybe?? all guess work admitedly but its the reason you wont see characters of this quality and detail in films for at least another few years yet :)

I've actually been following this project for a long time on cgsociety and it is amazing for what it is. A fan, in his spare time deciding to take on a personal project to use his skills on his chosed software.. Which just happens to be exactly what i use :P

RS,

What's more impressive is to see people creating such depth in 3d using 3dsmax. Not that I thought it was impossible with that software. But most people seem to be very Maya-centric and this model work he does is amazing.

But yes, this would be rather simple to animate. And I'd love to see it move!

i work with all those programs so i can really say this is a good model for an amateur to come up with.

But the face looks too old and i think "frog-like" because of how wide the mouth looks. but the eyes are a nice touch, although in the sunlight youre screwed.

"so i can really say this is a good model for an amateur to come up with."

Give me a fucking break there, Michelangelo.

Damn, i really have to agree, this one defenitily looks much better than the original. 0_0

For just a second I thought this awesome e really incredible HULK could be a very angry version of MARK WAHLBERG...

Captain Awesome,

3ds Max and Maya are very similar programs, not in how they work, but in what can be created from each. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, but the inability to create such depth is definately NOT 1 of them.

Maya has better character rigging & animation tools
Max has better modelling tools

I assure you, high quality CG work in films, TV adverts, high end architectural visualisations etc.. Can be created fairly easily in both if you have the know how. You will find though, in movies ppl tend to go with Maya and for Architecture (my field) the majority use Max.

For character modelling you will find most ppl use a program called Zbrush these days. Infact that thundercat model posted a cppl days ago looked like zbrush renders. You will also find zbrush is responsible for MOST CG characters in films over the last couple of yrs, for instance all the characters from pirates of the caribean 2 and 3.

:)

Ha! its funny because this indie artist created a more intense model, I'm not talking about cgi quality, but the form, style, and personality of the model has a more raw, and gritty feel to it. gotta give props when due.

RS,

Thanks for the response :)

@Fanboy,

Rhythm and Hues is actually the company that is doing SFX.

i agree with patch tan...looks lika a giant frog i mean. he hasnt a neck...and remember in the movie the hulk will move, runm jump, smash..and everything we love from him...and this is justn a picture...anyway i thing the design for the movie is better...just add some mor live green color, i think is so grey...

Lets have a fact recheck.....

1 - he's a not an amature.. he works in london as a pro VFX artist

2 - some scenes on modrn movies can take up 24 hours to render out a single frame (and you expect him to animate it so 50% of you can say its shit???? get fucking real) You think this guy is going to tie down a shit load of PC's just to prove a point?

3 - The guy has some top skills period.

So this isn't some kid from the street who has picked up a program but a guy who is as qualified as those at the big FX houses (in fact he works at one and worked at many others), who has done it as a 'personal project'.

This doesn't make it 'fan art.' My bet is this will appear in his next demo reel when he changes jobs.

Dude he has NO neck! WTF! As an artist who spends most of his time rendering the human form I'm saddened at the fact the artist put so much effort to make him have "real" skin texture and all the little bits of realism to NOT give him a neck. I appreciate the time and skill it took to do this, but dude give him a neck, please.

I don't mind either of the previous Hulks, but I like the FACE of this one more. It's how I envisioned it. The body/proportions.. dunno

That render is good but its static. The movie cg models have to move which is a harder task and takes more processing power. So to make a still image is easy.
I prefer ILM's hulk compared to the new movie.

I think this is how i imagined Hulk in a movie when i used to read comics!
I'm not saying that the two movie's Hulk aren't good, but this one is my Hulk, everyone has his own mind version of the colossus!!

For those that think it may take about ten minutes to render a single frame for hulk, consider this--a single frame in transformers took on average about 24 hours to render. They don't care how long it takes to render, only the end result. And I would not be surprised if that hulk model there was rigged and has a skeleton capable of animating. And if it has that, the only thing that might actually be lacking possibly be (unless he put the effort into it) a muscle system or a series of morphs for muscle flexing and joint deformers. Other than that I'd be willing to bet that model would have no problems standing next to the other two film models.

sorry but this dose not even come close to the movie hulks. dont know what your smoking. but this is nothing compared to the movie hulks. i feel they should combine the ang lee hulk and the norton hulk for the next films. where he grows the angrier he gets and has the ripped muscle look. combine the two. now that will be a perfect hulk in my opinion.
this is ok for an armature. but it dose look as such. armature.
nice art work though.

The model looks very nice, i mus say. But is it better than the movie?
HELL NO!! First of all, the very basic thing is that the Hulk should have at least a slight resemblance to the main actor, even if you don't take that into consideration the face itself doesn't look like it belongs to form of Humans..
But the guy did an amazing job, its just like the comic.
Many people pointed out that animating it is what decides its realism and i totally agree with that... Also, if you place this character in a scene with lights and natural elements it wont look that real.

Another thing that bothers me is that Bruce Banners entire body increases it size into monstrous proportions but his hair still remains short? This model should have had long hair, but i know that is very difficult to make, not saying what this guy is did is easy, its literally unbelievable..

But not better than the movie...

I like that a lot. I made a Hulk also, but way before the first movie came out and before I saw any realistic style Hulks sculptures. The only ones I saw were comic type sculptures. I wanted to make one that I would have liked to see in a movie if they made one and they made one a few years later. Here's a link to my Hulk statue on YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nkkj-fvPQ7k&fe...