Originally posted by h1a8
About 100m.
Surtur's head was about 4-5 Hulk heights in length. Hulk is about 2.6m tall.
From there you would get the 100m estimate.
....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnHauyl5t44
Minute 0:05...Does that look like 100m to you???
I mean, he is kneeling over mountains! not even standing!
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnHauyl5t44
Minute 0:05...Does that look like 100m to you???
I mean, he is kneeling over mountains! not even standing!
Lol, we are talking about when Hulk first punched Surtur. He grew more after that initial hit.
Originally posted by h1a8
But they did not scale Surtur to be 800m. They were not thinking about exact height when creating him.
He just threw out a random number AFTER the fact.But all of that is irrelevant. If Hulk (2.6m tall) was stated by one of the FX people to be 20.6m then who do we believe? Are lying eyes or the FX person?
I never made the argument. I am reserving my opinion til arguments are done. However, I find this kind of disingenuous coming from someone who has always claimed that writer's intent > on screen "feats". Because, hey here's a QUANTIFIED writer's intent (seeing as how the directors gave the artists the measurements then wanted) right there straight from people who are first hand witnesses to what the writers intended that contradicts what is shown on screen, why are you refusing to accept it?
All SM has to do is scale the Asgardian Castle and quantify its height. Once he does that, then both of you have a quantified frame of reference that are equally as valid. Then, (IMO) he can use the artist's comments to tip the validity balance in his favor. Don't you agree?
Originally posted by Nibedicus
I never made the argument. I am reserving my opinion til arguments are done. However, I find this kind of disingenuous coming from someone who has always claimed that writer's intent > on screen "feats". Because, hey here's a QUANTIFIED writer's intent (seeing as how the directors gave the artists the measurements then wanted) right there straight from people who are first hand witnesses to what the writers intended that contradicts what is shown on screen, why are you refusing to accept it?All SM has to do is scale the Asgardian Castle and quantify its height. Once he does that, then both of you have a quantified frame of reference that are equally as valid. Then, (IMO) he can use the artist's comments to tip the validity balance in his favor. Don't you agree?
You must read my earlier posts. I proved that it wasn't intent at all.
Plus interviews aren't allowed.
Originally posted by h1a8
You must read my earlier posts. I proved that it wasn't intent at all.
Plus interviews aren't allowed.
I did, I don't see where you "proved" it wasn't intent. Show me where you think you did so.
Yes, those are the rules, that is why I am not arguing it, but my point was on the consistency of your own logic. SFX teams are assigned quantified measurements by the director and they implement it. CGI as a medium is extremely precise (when artistic license isn't used in favor of drama instead of precision) because they do scaling digitally. This is factually as close to writer's intent as you can possibly get with zero ambiguity. Were you actually consistent, you would consider this as gospel.
But of course, you'd run to the rules because you don't like it. It's predictable of you.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
I did, I don't see where you "proved" it wasn't intent. Show me where you think you did so.Yes, those are the rules, that is why I am not arguing it, but my point was on the consistency of your own logic. SFX teams are assigned quantified measurements by the director and they implement it. CGI as a medium is extremely precise (when artistic license isn't used in favor of drama instead of precision) because they do scaling digitally. This is factually as close to writer's intent as you can possibly get with zero ambiguity. Were you actually consistent, you would consider this as gospel.
But of course, you'd run to the rules because you don't like it. It's predictable of you.
Agreed, and here is proof that H1 has never followed the rules
Originally posted by h1a8
Batman's visual speed is slow. He's doing things far faster than what we see him. In other words, he's faster than what's shown.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Agreed, and here is proof that H1 has never followed the rules
Originally posted by Nibedicus
I did, I don't see where you "proved" it wasn't intent. Show me where you think you did so.Yes, those are the rules, that is why I am not arguing it, but my point was on the consistency of your own logic. SFX teams are assigned quantified measurements by the director and they implement it. CGI as a medium is extremely precise (when artistic license isn't used in favor of drama instead of precision) because they do scaling digitally. This is factually as close to writer's intent as you can possibly get with zero ambiguity. Were you actually consistent, you would consider this as gospel.
But of course, you'd run to the rules because you don't like it. It's predictable of you.
If you were creating Surtur then do you initially plan how tall he would be (in an actual number)? No, you just create him to be as tall as you visually need him to be (you are not thinking about numbers).
Why didn't FX team intend on Surtur being 800m? Because when Hulk struck him, Surtur's head was shown to be about 4-5 Hulk heights. This leads to a height of around 100m. This is 700% off. Therefore, either the measurements were not extremely precise or the creators were not thinking about numbers when they created him. The former doesn't make much sense because of the tremendous error, so we must have the latter.
If in the movie they stated that Surtur is 800m then I would accept it. But they didn't. Therefore, writer's intent is what is shown. I believe that the FX member gave a random number since its impossible for professionals to make that large of an error. That's like trying to create Hulk to be 20.6m but visually create him at 2.6m. Impossible.
No, I am going by what the movie showed. It showed that Surtur was taller than the Asgardian Palace. You are purposely using the one instance where the movies scale was off because of artistic license in order to downplay Surtur's size. The link and quote I posted was brought up in a direct response to your fan-made BS calculations. It is not the basis of my argument
BTW, I like how you just told Nibedicus that the writer intention is what is shown, yet in the post I just quoted you specifically say that we should ignore what the movies show. You're a hypocrite.
Originally posted by h1a8
1) If you were creating Surtur then do you initially plan how tall he would be (in an actual number)? No, you just create him to be as tall as you visually need him to be (you are not thinking about numbers).2) Why didn't FX team intend on Surtur being 800m?
Because when Hulk struck him, Surtur's head was shown to be about 4-5 Hulk heights. This leads to a height of around 100m. This is 700% off. Therefore, either the measurements were not extremely precise or the creators were not thinking about numbers when they created him. The former doesn't make much sense because of the tremendous error, so we must have the latter.
If in the movie they stated that Surtur is 800m then I would accept it. But they didn't.
3) Therefore, writer's intent is what is shown. I believe that the FX member gave a random number since its impossible for professionals to make that large of an error. That's like trying to create Hulk to be 20.6m but visually create him at 2.6m. Impossible.
1) How does this make sense? Of course you plan how tall he is in order to communicate the sense of scale you need him to be in digital platform. What kind of logic is this?
2) They stated what their scaling is, there is no ambiguity to it and no possible alternative interpretation to it. It is, however, entirely possible that in editing, the director saw that Hulk looked like a flea and it either wouldn't look good or had poor dramatic impact, so they changed it. Or that the original scene with Hulk jumping on Surtur could have been an old clip they made just for the trailer and just re-used the assets before the final size was decided upon (we do this all the time in video editing and yes, I do marketing campaigns, part of what I do has me working with video editing when we do ads). Multiple things could have happened here.
There is no "tremendous error" here. They don't put together scenes with the intention of being 100% consistent just so some retard on a battle board doesn't lowball the character they're portraying, they make it to tell a story with maximum dramatic impact.
3) Again, here it is: Writer's intent quantified and without ambiguity from first hand accounts of people working on the movie. You either accept it or you don't. This will prove if you are a) consistent and credible or b) just one big fat liar who would do and say anything just so that he can lowball some fictional character in an online forum. Make your choice.
This is the typical mental gymnastics you usually go thru just so that you get to lowball character "feats" you don't like and why you have zero credibility. You are given zero ambiguity on writer's intent straight from the animator's mouths and you choose to just ignore it because you don't like it.
I'm not surprised, you've always been disingenouos. Just another one of your usual BS.
Originally posted by Nibedicus👆
1) How does this make sense? Of course you plan how tall he is in order to communicate the sense of scale you need him to be in digital platform. What kind of logic is this?2) They stated what their scaling is, there is no ambiguity to it and no possible alternative interpretation to it. It is, however, entirely possible that in editing, the director saw that Hulk looked like a flea and it either wouldn't look good or had poor dramatic impact, so they changed it. Or that the original scene with Hulk jumping on Surtur could have been an old clip they made just for the trailer and just re-used the assets before the final size was decided upon (we do this all the time in video editing and yes, I do marketing campaigns, part of what I do has me working with video editing when we do ads). Multiple things could have happened here.
There is no "tremendous error" here. They don't put together scenes with the intention of being 100% consistent just so some retard on a battle board doesn't lowball the character they're portraying, they make it to tell a story with maximum dramatic impact.
3) Again, here it is: Writer's intent quantified and without ambiguity from first hand accounts of people working on the movie. You either accept it or you don't. This will prove if you are a) consistent and credible or b) just one big fat liar who would do and say anything just so that he can lowball some fictional character in an online forum. Make your choice.
This is the typical mental gymnastics you usually go thru just so that you get to lowball character "feats" you don't like and why you have zero credibility. You are given zero ambiguity on writer's intent straight from the animator's mouths and you choose to just ignore it because you don't like it.
I'm not surprised, you've always been disingenouos. Just another one of your usual BS.