She Hulk Disney Plus Series--Not Much News

TwiceOnThursdays wrote: Since Hulk is mo-capped, I'd be surprised if She-Hulk isn't.  One of the things they do well with CGI Hulk is getting Ruffalo's human emotions onto the Hulk face.  My only worry is "how much does that cost?

Hopefully Disney will ask Uncle Scrooge to chip in. 

Going with the Slott run as you describe it Twice, might be a way for the to keep the budget in check for sure.  May be the way they are heading with it.

A CGI She-Hulk at the quality of Hulk in the films will cast a BOMB to produce (especially on a TV series schedule - rendering CGI ain't the fastest thing )

However, having said that, if any company can afford to do it, Disney is probably one of the very few that could.

Wonder if they will follow the original Bill Bixby formula, and have Jen for most of the episode, and She-Hulk appears once or twice per episode for an action scene?

Peace.

/K

So much time has passed since the Bixby show that it could be updated without looking like they were re-treading old ground.  A quirky thing to do might be to update it: have She-Hulk handle most of the episode but she must change back to Jen for short, but crucial to the plot, instances.  Such as court appearances, visits to the legal library, etc.

I take what you are saying Lfan, and thats pretty much my point.  If any production company had the money to produce that quality of CGI, its Disney.

Having worked with 3D, the quality (and time) that went into producing Ruffalo's Hulk is INSANE.  Even though we still see it as CGI, the quality, along with Thanos, is pretty much up there with the best of the best tbh.

Granted, the technology now exists, which will speed things up.  However, it is still a time and labor intensive production (just look at the CGI artists in the credits  )

Using CGI in superhero shows is not new for sure.  The Flash for example, uses quite a bit of it.  Some of it looks good (the 3D model of Barry for example), a lot of it looks....well, lets say ropey.  I'm sure Disney will be spending a LOT more money on it.

Curious to see how it looks for sure.

I like your idea Agent00Soul.  The idea of flipping the formula could be an interesting twist.

Peace.

/K

kikass2014 wrote: Going with the Slott run as you describe it Twice, might be a way for the to keep the budget in check for sure.  May be the way they are heading with it.

A CGI She-Hulk at the quality of Hulk in the films will cast a BOMB to produce (especially on a TV series schedule - rendering CGI ain't the fastest thing )

However, having said that, if any company can afford to do it, Disney is probably one of the very few that could.

Wonder if they will follow the original Bill Bixby formula, and have Jen for most of the episode, and She-Hulk appears once or twice per episode for an action scene?

Peace.

/K

I think the Hulk is one of the top CGI costs in the MCU movies overall.  I went looking and looking over this list, it seems to indicate that is true. (though I don't know what their source for this was.)

screenrant.com/mcu-most-unbelievably-exp...cenes-marvel-movies/

The only other consistent entry is de-aging actors.

But the Hulk (and having the Hulk BE hulk by tearing shit up) shows up on this list.  And worse, they do a GREAT Job of bringing Ruffalo through, but I think She-Hulk will require "great job +1" to do right (she needs to be better).  There is probably going to be someone's job that is just "Boob Physics".

Or at least I HOPE someone's job has to be Boob Physics.

OTH, what takes a lot of time (and thus $$) to render in 2012 (Avengers 1 level HUlk) is now a lot cheaper since computers are a shit-load faster, the software is much better, AND the marvel digital effects houses have gotten better at using it.

Marvel/Disney CGI houses have gotten REALLY good.  Compare 2015 AofUltron vs 2017 Justice League or WW.  The CGI battles at the end look almost comical vs what the MCU pulls off.  (Just talking technically here, not plot, etc).

But ... you're right still a  lot of $$$$$.   I guess the mouse does have it.  And I'd hope they'd have done some test renders even before picking an Actress.  A "can we even do this" test.

The worst part is getting the first render is costly.  Iron Man is mostly digital now if I understand correctly (RDJ mostly wears some cgi markers).    But getting that Iron Man or Hulk designed and tweaked JUST RIGHT isn't cheap... and the reward for doing that right is paying the costs and time to render it all out.

Though I was surprised to find that the Mandalorian used a lot of in-camera Virtual sets.  There is a GIANT LCD screen behind the actors and it renders out the scene and moves in time with the camera/actor.  Then you film it all in one go with some practical elements in front. They even use VR units to "Scout" virtual locations.  The shit they're now pulling off routinely for TV Shows used to be impossible.

And even if you just use She-Hulk for a few minutes each episode, by the end of a 8-13 episode series  she'll start approaching the MCU's Hulk screentime.   So yeah, I'm very curious about what they're gonna do and how much it'll cost.

I do wonder if some actors are now purposely picking CGI effects movies so someone will pay $$$$ to scan the crap out of them in their prime ... meaning 20-50 years from now they have some nice high-resolution files to work with making it much simpler to de-age them.

TwiceOnThursdays wrote: I do wonder if some actors are now purposely picking CGI effects movies so someone will pay $$$$ to scan the crap out of them in their prime ... meaning 20-50 years from now they have some nice high-resolution files to work with making it much simpler to de-age them.

Wow - yes!  Never considered that before...

Yeah, the tech used for the Mandalorian ("The Volume" i think its called) is really, REALLY impressive.  And its running on a fricking game engine (Unreal 5 i believe).

No doubt effects get cheaper and faster to produce as time goes on.  Totally agree with you Twice on the quality going back to the first Avengers movie and now.  Leagues apart

The trick is, doing locations, like for example The Mandolorian, is so so easy now.  3D tech now can render rocks, roads, buildings, cars, so good (and even on a very low budget) you probably wouldn't spot the difference between that and the real thing.  The trick has always been rendering humans, especially emoting human faces (the uncanny valley situation). 

This is the thing that takes time, tech and talent to overcome.  And with the MCU, Hulk and Thanos had the most effort put into them.  Not surprising as they were main characters.  And as you mention, Hulk took up the most in terms of CGI budget.  Will the show have that?  Maybe.  Its Disney after all.

I like the thought of someone working on the boob physics    Damn right that is an important bit of tech to get right

As for scans of actors, this is something that has been going on for a long time now.  I'm pretty sure they have scans of pretty much every major actor/actress on file by now.  The only thing that stops them from making complete movies, like has been mentioned, is time to render.  It is infinitely faster to film the real thing - and thus cheaper  

I remember reading an interview with Chris Nolan about Tenet.  There is a scene, its in the trailer so not a spoiler, where a 747 crashes into a building/hanger.  It turned out that it was CHEAPER to buy a real 747 and crash the thing for real, then to do it in CGI lol   Which gives some idea of how much good quality CGI costs  

Peace.

/K

They seem to have plans to give her a presence in the Marvel Universe.

www.imdb.com/video/vi2576269593?ref_=hm_...2&listId=ls081395803

That was a surprisingly useful catch-up for those unfamiliar with She-Hulk's history.

Malsany says the reports that she's been cast as She-Hulk are not true:

"That actually isn’t a real thing and it’s like a press release that’s gotten out of hand. It’s totally not — I’ve been connected to these things in the past and press has gotten onto it, but it’s not actually a thing, unfortunately."

www.thesudburystar.com/entertainment/loc...c0-ab92-75e41f78ba05

Well that is an interesting development.

I (like most others) was pretty convinced she had the role (even if she wouldn't have been my first pick).

Peace.

/K

lfan wrote: Yeah, that's really weird to say the least...

You'd think Marvel or SOMEONE would have shot down the rumor.  Wondering if they are still in negotiations....

ElF

I had through it weird there was NO offical annoucment from Disney.  No press release (etc) and marvel usually posts those annoucments too (and I get that stuff since I have a marvel.com account).

Her resonse is open enough that it could mean just that: there is no deal yet and until a deal is signed, it's just news "gotten out of hand".

It's quite possible that since a good portion of her acting is going to be through a CGI character she wants some say in how she looks.  After all she is going to give over a good chunk of her acting time for the next decade if she says yes (in return for a great big pile of cash and a huge bump in her noteriety).  But I would think she would want _some_ idea of how she is going to look FIRST.

First trailer

Looks like they gave Jennifer a bit more of an edgy Jessica Jones influence than her more mousy comic book version. 

Not bad for a fan made trailer  

The latest I've heard is the show "might" drop in November this year.  So probably won't see a trailer until late summer time at the earliest.

Though having said that, Eternals was supposed to come out LAST November, and not a single frame from that film has been released.  So who knows

Peace.

/K

You mean fake trailer

This is a fan made trailer. She Hulk footage has been taken from here:

Looks to be a fan trailer, not official.

Too bad - I liked some of what I saw. 

Kevin Feige told last day Shulkie filming will start by few weeks, probably second part of March, in Atlanta, fingers crossed!