I’ve heard a lot of people complaining about the computer generated Hulk in the new Incredible Hulk movie. Personally, I had no problems with the design in this upcoming movie or Ang Lee’s film from a couple years back. /Film reader Mark C sent over a fan created 3D rendering, which I even agree, looks better than the stuff we’ve seen in the current trailers. Sweden-based artist Jonas Thornqvist created this model using 3ds max, Mental Ray, and Photoshop.
Cool Stuff is a daily feature of slashfilm.com. Know of any geekarific creations or cool products which should be featured on Cool Stuff? E-Mail us at orfilms@gmail.com.
via: cgsociety.org
May 16th, 2008 at 4:14 am
i have to agree this looks alot better then olriginal…
May 16th, 2008 at 4:25 am
That’s awesome! He looks a lot more BAMF here than in the movie…sadness.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:38 am
ILM should be embarrassed…or at least hire this guy for the sequel
May 16th, 2008 at 5:00 am
yay! you posted it! printing a copy of that on photo paper for my wall man. that looks so badass.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:07 am
Hmmm… I don’t know man… He looks more like a giant frog to me. Frog SMASH!
May 16th, 2008 at 5:10 am
Looks good. But do keep in mind that the Hulk moves in a movie and motion is hard to animate.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:16 am
I don’t think that looks better at all.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:47 am
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.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:09 am
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”.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:30 am
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.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:24 am
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
May 16th, 2008 at 7:24 am
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
May 16th, 2008 at 8:09 am
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
May 16th, 2008 at 8:16 am
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!
May 16th, 2008 at 9:26 am
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.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:52 am
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”…..
May 16th, 2008 at 10:29 am
the arms seem silghtly too big - to me - but other than that this is waaaaaaaay better than what the hollywood folks came up with.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:40 am
I think the face looks great.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:52 am
not as good as either movie version.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Hot damn! That looks great. Make the Hulk’s hair green and more straggly and I’m sold.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:14 am
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
May 16th, 2008 at 11:32 am
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?
May 16th, 2008 at 11:33 am
His traps are way too big. Looks cool otherwise…
May 16th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
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.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
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.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Hollywood just ain’t trying no more. Sad, very sad.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
the hulk on a diet. http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k69/giloosh99/hulkfan2.jpg
May 16th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
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…
May 16th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
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.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
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-nortons-replacement-for-the-hulk/
May 16th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
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 1920×1080pixals.
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
May 16th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
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!
May 16th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
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.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
“so i can really say this is a good model for an amateur to come up with.”
Give me a fucking break there, Michelangelo.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Damn, i really have to agree, this one defenitily looks much better than the original. 0_0
May 16th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
For just a second I thought this awesome e really incredible HULK could be a very angry version of MARK WAHLBERG…
May 16th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
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.
:)
May 16th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
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.
May 17th, 2008 at 1:01 am
RS,
Thanks for the response :)
May 17th, 2008 at 3:50 am
@Fanboy,
Rhythm and Hues is actually the company that is doing SFX.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:57 am
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…
May 20th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
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.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:30 pm
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.
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:15 am
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
June 12th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
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.
July 5th, 2008 at 9:11 am
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!!
July 7th, 2008 at 11:33 am
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.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:13 am
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.