The Hulk That Almost Was -- Aaron Sims' Concept Art
Filed under: Action, New Releases, Universal, Comic/Superhero/Geek, Remakes and Sequels, Images
Now that most of us have digested our showings of The Incredible Hulk (sans me, because now I can't find anyone to go with), I thought you might like a look at some concept art produced by the talented Aaron Sims. (It is also a rather timely piece, as Sims was one of Stan Winston's proteges, and co-founder of his studio.) Normally, I only give such things a cursory "Oh, cool" glance, but I find these quite fascinating, because one of my biggest complaints about any Hulk movie is how they render him. He just never looks real, which surprises me in a post Gollum and Davy Jones world. I know they have the technology to make him look, well, incredible. But no one ever seems to utilize it. Now, I still haven't seen the film, so you all will have to tell me if he looks better than in the clips and TV spots I have seen.
And that brings me to Sims' concept art. I saw these on XSI Base, where there is an in-depth look at Hulk and Abomination's creation, and was immediately struck at how real Hulk looked. I thought they were photographs of actual models, but a glance through Sims' site says they are digital. I recommend visiting it to see full-length versions of these photos, particularly my favorite, the Sad Hulk pictured above. Now, I confess I am clueless when it comes to the special effects process, and whether or not the depth of Sims' art could be used in onscreen action. But I find myself wondering why the Hulk looks so bright and shiny in the movie, but so textured and real here. And there is something I find much more appealing about the rejected Hulks (especially the non-growling ones) than the look that ended up onscreen. If he had looked more like this, would the film have been even bigger? Or do you prefer the Hulk that you saw onscreen?
[via io9.com]
Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams Reunite for 'Mission Impossible 4'
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-19-2008 @ 9:27AM
CG Jung said...
That concept art does look really cool, with the exception of Abomination's missing ears. I would guess that this version of Hulk would be too horrifying to market to the kiddies when it's time to roll out the merchandise. There was probably some focus group that decided that a bright green Hulk is more appealing than an avacado green one.
Reply
6-19-2008 @ 12:05PM
Woody Tanaka said...
"He just never looks real, which surprises me in a post Gollum and Davy Jones world. I know they have the technology to make him look, well, incredible. But no one ever seems to utilize it."
The reason why the CGI looks fake is because the animators don't know anything about physics. Humans have an instinctive knowledge of how things are supposed to move in real life. When you find CGI to be fake looking (see, e.g., the creatures in "I Am Legend", some shots of King Kong, some of the shots of the robots in "I Robot") it is often because the animators make things do react in a way that violates the laws of physics (usually by not understanding mass and inertia). You may not be able to pinpoint exactly why, but it just looks fake.
For example, a gorilla the size of King Kong would not move the same way (nor be the same shape) that a normal-sized gorilla would. You can't just "scale it up" and expect it to look right.
Another example is a shot in the Hulk trailer (and maybe in the movie, too, although I've not seen it.). The Hulk rips a car in half and holds each half at his sides. If you look closely, these two pieces move back and forth a bit, because the Hulk's arms and hands aren't still. However, these pieces of the car would have so much mass and inertia, that they would not have moved like they did, regardless of how strong the Hulk is. (try shaking a bowling ball back and forth, and you'll get the idea.) You see that and instinctively know that the only way they could move the way they do is if they were made of paper mache. So it looks fake.
If a CGI company wants to stand out, it should require its animators get an education in basic physics.
Reply
6-19-2008 @ 1:05PM
Richard Carlton said...
Woody,
I'm not so sure I would put the blame directly on the animators themselves. The animators working on films like these (the Hulk, and the others you've mentioned as well) have done a spectacular job, and I can assure you that they know a thing or two about physics and human motion if they've got jobs at studios like ILM or Rhythm & Hues. Also keep in mind that all these shots are most likely a combination of both keyframed animation and motion capture, which in itself helps bring forth natural movements and the laws of physics.
In this film, though, both the Hulk and the Abomination are animated extremely well; and I can assure you its a very long, delicate process. They both react differently to their different weight, and even their environments. For another example of a shot done right, check out the scene in Iron Man where he blows up the tank and walks off. There are a ton of subtle weight issues there that make that shot absolutely stunning.
But I do understand your concerns about physics in animation. A few years back, that Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within film that came out had a ton of weight issues with the characters. It looked unreal. And maybe it all comes down to the Uncanny Valley theory, where there's only a certain extent to which life can be faked without it being just plain creepy. So while I understand your criticism, I think you may have been a little harsh in saying, "The reason why the CGI looks fake is because the animators don't know anything about physics." Just something to keep in mind next time you see a film like this.
6-19-2008 @ 12:57PM
Mourge said...
Woody's got a good point there, but on the other hand...
As my instructor pointed out in my data visualization/3d graphics class in college, sometimes even making things look 'real' doesn't make them look real. Pixar supposedly originally messed around with much more accurate physics models in 'toy story' and ditched it in favor of a more cartoony sort, because it just wasn't as appealing.
It may not be that the animators do not know physics, it may be that they are choosing to willfully ignore physics in favor of making something that looks subjectively 'better'.
Reply
6-19-2008 @ 2:18PM
Woody Tanaka said...
"It may not be that the animators do not know physics, it may be that they are choosing to willfully ignore physics in favor of making something that looks subjectively 'better'."
But the point is that their aim is realism and their ignoring of the laws of physics makes the motion they are depicting to be objectively 'worse.' A "cartoony" animation is different, because we don't expect the physics to conform to the real world, so in something like "Toy Story" that is appropriate. But we're supposed to believe that Hulk and King Kong actually exist in our real world.
6-19-2008 @ 2:04PM
madgamer said...
The renders were certainly cool. It is worth mentioning though that with a static render you can do a lot more post processing work in photoshop, especially in regards to stuff that is traditionally problematic in CG (such as the mouth edges, eyes, hair, etc), than you could ever put into individual frames of a movie.. while keeping the CG-work time and cost effective anyway.
Reply
6-19-2008 @ 2:17PM
Woody Tanaka said...
Richard,
"I can assure you that they know a thing or two about physics and human motion "
Well, I regularly (and I mean regularly) see shots which are ruined by the failure to apply the proper physics, where simple fixes would have resolved the issue. Now I was probably too harsh on the animators, as it very well may be the directors who want things "more extreme" to the point where they look stupid.
"Also keep in mind that all these shots are most likely a combination of both key-framed animation and motion capture, which in itself helps bring forth natural movements and the laws of physics."
But motion capture, in my mind, is part of the problem and not the solution. If you are talking about a character that is roughly human sized, then that is one thing; motion capture is appropriate. But a 15 or 20 foot tall character simply has to move differently than a 5.5 or 6 foot character.
"They both react differently to their different weight, and even their environments."
But the issues aren't about weight, but about mass, acceleration and inertia. And conflating the former for the latter three is a big deal. Regardless of a thing's weight, it has mass that reacts a certain way under a specific circumstance.
"And maybe it all comes down to the Uncanny Valley theory, where there's only a certain extent to which life can be faked without it being just plain creepy."
I think there is truth to Uncanny Valley theory, but I think it's limited to looking creepy in the face. I'm talking about fake in the motion.
Reply
6-19-2008 @ 2:39PM
Jim said...
Certainly some of it comes down to budget and time. The CGI folks may very well HOW to make something look believable, but when pushed to meet a deadline, they may not be able to get it done even the way they want.
Beowulf comes to mind. The effects in that movie are wonderful, but there are some that stand out as just, well, aweful. The way the horses ran, for example, is unexcuseable. They had perfectly running CGI horses in the Lord of the Rings, so why do the horses in Beowulf look like stop motion animated clunky things? I don't think it's because the animators/graphic folks lacked the skills, because the rest of the movie is great. I think they focus on perfecting certain aspects, and when it comes to crunch time (i.e, the movie has to be finished) they do the best they can with the time they have. And actually, the same thing can even be said for the Lord of the Rings. Those wolf-like monsters that the orcs were riding when they attacked...those creatures look AWEFUl to me, especially compared to some of the other creatures in the triology (the cave troll is stunning, as are the whooly mammouths or whatever they are). I really think it's just that they ran out of time, or did a 'good enough' job on those particular creatures. The latest Hulk does indeed look sub-par to me. I saw the trailer and was like, "Man, this is not going to go over well with the fans." But I think that many fans actually overlooked that flaw (a poorly rendered Hulk) because the movie on a whole kicked some ass.
Just my two cents.
Reply
6-19-2008 @ 4:48PM
Elisabeth said...
I think you've nailed it, and LOTR is the perfect example. The Two Towers, actually, is full of uneven effects. The scene where Legolas grabs onto the horse's bridle -- did NO ONE notice that his arm bends contrary to the laws of physics? Even an elf doesn't have bendy bones. I also cringe every time I watch the scene with Sam and Frodo digitally shrunk and blue screened into the secret cave. You can see what I always call the "copy and paste" line.
I think, in the rush of getting a film done, they let things slip and they figure people are so engrossed in the movie that they won't notice. And 99% of the time, for 99% of the audience, that probably IS true. But it drives me crazy, because the fabric of the film slips for a second, and yanks me out of it. And I don't consider myself to be someone who really studies CGI or special effects. Maybe I am just more attuned to small details and my mind latches onto Legolas' arm, whereas other people go "OMG cool!!"
And frankly...I think even the most gifted special effects team falls prey to "OMG COOOOOL" every once and awhile. Physics be damned, Legolas is *going* to swing up on a horse!
The same goes for my other example, Davy Jones, in the POTC films. I can't really think of a spot that bugs me in Dead Man's Chest." But then most of the effects for "At World's End" were wretched, suggesting that they indeed ran short of time and money.