^^^ Your pic and link aren't working - at least they don't show up for me, (blue square w/question mark and the link says "forbidden").
If She-Hulk had been in the Avengers I have no doubt they would have gone the forced perspective/composite route. If they do She-Hulk in any Marvel film their first fear will be she looks too much like a female bodybuilder. They'll be afraid that look will turn audiences away. So if they do her motion capture and animate her she won't be muscular-probably not at all. Maybe in scenes where she really has to give whatever she's doing a lot of effort we'll see some muscles bulging. She's not overly muscular in the comics either. So they will probably film an actress for real.
Their second fear will be the dreaded uncanny valley which has thwarted films from Final Fantasy to Tin-Tin. The only really successful cgi- realistic character so far has been Gollum. I think people accepted him because he wasn't a good-guy but an emaciated, complex villain. He was not trying to be good-looking or heroic. People suspended their disbelief because they were distrustful of him and revolted by his appearance. A perfect way to turn the uncanny valley in your favor.
I wasn't impressed by the blue aliens in Avatar. They didn't look real to me but I gave it a pass because they were alien. When I see something alien I don't always question whether it's real enough. I realize Yoda was cgi in Attack and Revenge but it looks like Yoda from the `80's so I accepted it. I thought the green martians of John Carter were slightly better but still not quite real enough. The most chance for success is doing it forced perspective LOTR style. It would probably be cheaper and removes 2 big obstacles to making her believable. That could also allow for 1 actress to probably play both roles: Jen and She-Hulk.
"...at what point does the motion capture actress end and CG creation begin?" If they do it right we won't be able to tell and that would make it successful. The best effect is one that goes unnoticed.
If She-Hulk had been in the Avengers I have no doubt they would have gone the forced perspective/composite route. If they do She-Hulk in any Marvel film their first fear will be she looks too much like a female bodybuilder. They'll be afraid that look will turn audiences away. So if they do her motion capture and animate her she won't be muscular-probably not at all. Maybe in scenes where she really has to give whatever she's doing a lot of effort we'll see some muscles bulging. She's not overly muscular in the comics either. So they will probably film an actress for real.
Their second fear will be the dreaded uncanny valley which has thwarted films from Final Fantasy to Tin-Tin. The only really successful cgi- realistic character so far has been Gollum. I think people accepted him because he wasn't a good-guy but an emaciated, complex villain. He was not trying to be good-looking or heroic. People suspended their disbelief because they were distrustful of him and revolted by his appearance. A perfect way to turn the uncanny valley in your favor.
I wasn't impressed by the blue aliens in Avatar. They didn't look real to me but I gave it a pass because they were alien. When I see something alien I don't always question whether it's real enough. I realize Yoda was cgi in Attack and Revenge but it looks like Yoda from the `80's so I accepted it. I thought the green martians of John Carter were slightly better but still not quite real enough. The most chance for success is doing it forced perspective LOTR style. It would probably be cheaper and removes 2 big obstacles to making her believable. That could also allow for 1 actress to probably play both roles: Jen and She-Hulk.
"...at what point does the motion capture actress end and CG creation begin?" If they do it right we won't be able to tell and that would make it successful. The best effect is one that goes unnoticed.
Comment