Official "Van Helsing" Discussion Thread - Page 2

do you know how much, it'd cost for them, to go back and do that? this isnt as easy as 1,2,3.

I would have to agree.. If that really is Mr. Hyde, why do they have to turn him into some huge hulking creature? The CGI looks really bad..

I actually like what they've done with Mr Hyde, and the up high view of old London.

could be mistaken but I think there's also a very quick glimpse of Hyde swinging monkey bars style towards Jackman (when Jackman has got his back towards camera and takes out that spinning disc weapon thingy)

Weird, I really dig how he looks with that freaky huge head. Of all the stuff in the trailer Hyde was the only monster that looked a bit creepy. I don't think you have a problem with the CGI but with the design.

Another 10-15 million dollars tops IMO. The film grossed over 200 million in the US and another 400+ million overseas. Surely they must save the CGI stuff they do after they incorporate them into the film. So is it really too much too ask to have half a dozen guys work a few more weeks on those lousy effects so that the film will at least not hurt the eyes of the people who will pick up the DVD, making Universal a few hundred million dollars more? But they probably thought: "What the hell, it did well enough in theaters, why bother, people eat it up no matter how bad it looks!"

I doubt it because what you see in the background is London and not Paris ...

And Quasimodo was a good guy IIRC, he even got his own Di$ney feature ...

I don't get a lot of people bitching about CGI.

People apparently complain about the Hulk CGI which was amazing. I thought Hyde in LXG was pretty amazing too.

Your complaining you can tell it's cgi. Maybe because it's like a 12 foot giant with arms as thick as three men? Or would you have liked them to hire an actor exactly like that

I am not a great CGI fan by any means. But when your dealing with monsters, I don't know how you can say it doesn't look "real". What's your frame of reference? You call your buddy Joel, who happens to be a werewolf, over and compare?

CGI will NEVER look real, simply because of it's nature. It will always look like it has just been inserted into a scene.

I would have prefered practical effects , for sure, I think we all would because it makes it feel more tangiable. But Christ, people, what do you want out of CGI? They CAN'T make it look real. They can't make a seven foot wolf man look real. They can't make a huge giant look real.

I agree that in Mummy Returns, it was pretty crappy. But honestly, here I feel (like in The Hulk and LXG) that they have done the best they could for that subject. How do you make a wolfman look real?

What you should be concerned about is everything else. If the story is THAT engaging, or action or whatever, if your having fun watching the movie, the CGI should not be an issue.

I'm sorry, it just feels that people want to complain about anything. I'm no more fond of CGI than any of you, but you gotta realise, there are limits on stuff like this how good it can be done.

CGI is a tool, it's not the driving force behind the movie.

I blame American Werewolf in Paris.

Still, there's the new Ginger Snaps stuff and Cursed to look forward to. Surely they can't all be using CGI werewolves.

And the more I see that trailer, the more I'm actually looking forward to this movie. I think the inclusion of freaky Mr Hyde up there over London won me over.

I guess I see your point. But what was bad about the LXG Hyde? and Hulk? I don't see it to be honest.

I am totally with you on that point, believe me.

However, convincing CGI is an oxymoron. CGI is still annimation, albiet computer annimation. It just cannot fit in a "live" scene.
Also, how can you possibly be convinced to buy like a hulking green giant? Like the seventies series did?

I mean as cool as you may think the LOTR battle scenes are, you can still tell they are blatantly CGI, so still unconvincing.

You can automatically tell when something is CGI, so it could be argued it will never be convincing.

I agree with you, practical effects should still be the way to go as they seem tangiable in the scene. But with CGI, there is only so much they can do to make it convincing.

You make a good point in that some effekts will always obviously be CGI. Like dinosaurs or giant bugs or dragons. But they don't have to look like CGI. It is possible, even with today's technology, to created CGI effect that totally convince. As Ryan said, look at LOTR for a number of great examples where you could swear they somehow used 100 000 extras in a scene. There has been great invisible CGI work in crap like FORREST GUMP and TITANIC, films that quite deservedly got visual effects Oscars precisely because the effects were not noticable. But of course those films had the advantage of being set in the real world with aliens or dinosaurs or magic midgets. That meant that viewers were not looking for CGI stuff and thus overlooked it. It is now perfectly possible to create CGI animals when it would be too dangerous or costly to use real ones. I think as early as in 1995 with 12 MONKEYS there were very convincing CGI animals. In JUMANJI the effects were still noticable but they've that stuff down to a science now. There are a few things you have to do if you want to fool audiences. CGI creatures often move in unrealistic ways. Even if it's a fictional creature you have to try and make its movement look realistic. I thought the CGI bugs in STARSHIP TROOPERS more often than not were great in that respect, probably because the effects people modelled their movements after real insects. CGI doesn't have to stick out and scream "I'm a fancy effect!" at you but filmmakers/producers/studios often consciously make the effects obvious because they think cool effects sell the film and usually this hurts the film. CGI can disappear into the frame and be convincing. Most of the stuff in the VAN HELSING trailer is obvious, show-offy CGI that wants to be recognised as such. That's Sommer's style apparently.

Oh sorry. In that case I do agree that the other guy did look sloppy.

Maybe there will be dinosaurs or Martians in the inevitable VAN HELSING 2 ...

I predict only the greatest things for Helsing: First Blood part 6.

Personally I can't wait for the porn remake in which one "Huge Jerkman" fights against giant genitalia.

Whatever's you bag!

But seriously, since I have been filled with so much love and bias for this movie, I will try and keep things even and share some stuff I am worried about.

I am worried that not all of the monsters will have equal screentime. Well obviously they won't, but what I am worried about is that Frank and Wolfy won't be just glorified cameos.
I would have prefered that Van Helsing would be a trilogy, one with him vs the wolfman, then drac, then frank. I think they might try and rush it with this one, like they are trying to cram too much into one movie. I think that was originally the plan after the sucess of the first Mummy movie, or so I read somewhere. My memory's hazy about that.

That said, in my mind no one does the mindless monster mash better than Stephen Sommer's. I consider The Mummy and Deep Rising genre classics. It's Hugh Jackman. It's visually beautiful. It's Universal Monsters baby! It would be really hard for this movie to dissapoint me at this point.

Well, I think I have quite ecclectic tastes compared to most people but I think that's a good thing.

But I thought the Mummy was one of the most fun films. Ever. I'm not someone who expects a total masterpiece every time out, with deep meaning and themes behind them. This movie was honestly just pure fun for me. One of the best times I had in a theatre. I thought the charecters were over the top fun, and I actually liked all of them. I thought the humour was funny, and I like the atmosphere. I just thought it come together in one really fun time. It didn't have to have lots of gore and swearing, and I don't think a film needs that to become a classic or to be a good film. There are honestly not many films I can watch over and over again and still have the same sense of fun about them.

Deep Rising, again, fun. I thought it was a great idea excecuted quite well for it's budget. Some innovative death scenes from what I remember, and a really cool monster.

I can't really justify them, because I don't think as many people loved them and got as much out of them as I did. I know a lot of people disagree, but a film I can watch over and over and over and still feel the same way about is a rare thing.

I agree with you Firefly. This looks like fun pure and simple. I too would have liked Van Helsing to battle each creature in seperate movies, especially the Wolf Man.

Ok...I may start some shit here, but the cgi on Hyde in LXG was OK, but the submarine they had in that movie was some of the worst fx on a big budget movie I have ever seen. Secondly, ROTK has nearly flawless FX, but in my not so humble opinion TTT has shoddy FX work duriing some scenes, namely the big Wolves of Isengaard(or whatever) battle. Anybody who says the Wolf Man looks bad but loves TTT wolf battle needs thicker glasses. Now before you get all riled up, yes I like TTT so that has nothing to with the overall quality of the flick. So that should and likely will be the case for Van Helsing.

By far the worst CGI effect in TTT was that flying thing that attacked the midgets in the swamp.

When I think the CGI is bad, I don't think that the Hulk isn't a believable character.. I realize that its fantasy. I have no problem suspending disbelief. But the CGI still looks unrealistic to me.. The thing on the tower at the end of the Van Helsing trailer looked like a fucking cartoon to me.. It looked all shiny and plastic-y and not realistic like skin should.. Thats what I have a problem with.. I hate modern video games for the same reason.. The 3D looks like shit.. I prefer good old fashioned 2D shooters and side-scrollers over them any day.. the graphics look much better to me.

Unrealistic? How exactly does a giant, green man smashing things ever get "realistic"? And as for the thing looking like a cartoon, thats my point. It's still annimation, and annimation on a fictional charecter or monster is never gonna be totally, 100% believable. Like you could believe Gollumn is a real charecter. Good as the annimation is, it's still just annimation.

I can see your point of view, but for one thing, we are still months away from the release date, plenty of time to polish up.
Two, from what I saw of the trailer, you barely get a good view at the cgi charecters anyway. If your gonna have doubts about it, or whine about stuff, can't you find something better to bitch about? That's my problem. Too many people just seem to be TRYING to find stuff to whinge about.

"It's gonna be dumb!"

Well duh! It was NEVER going to be Shakespeare.

"CGI is bad!"

Your totally right. Months away from release, and the cgi I saw in between blinking of the five seconds shown looked CRAP.


"They ripped stuff off!"

It's got charecters from books invented over a century ago.

It's just it seems everyone is so NEGATIVE on everything.
Like I said earlier, I have concerns about the film, but it's not like I'm saying "oh it's gonna suck ass!".

Then again, if you want to be negative, it's your right to and I respect that.

If your gonna rip on the CGI, at least wait to see the movie. The trailer isn't always the final product. Things can be polished, tightened up.

To be honest, I am probably so defensive because I want this to be good, so I apologise for that. It's just that I notice an overwhelming amount of negativty on the boards, just for the sake of it. I am guilty of it too, sometimes. But darn it! Can't we try and not rip a movie to shreds based on a trailer?

Like someone said, a good trailer can represent a bad movie (I thought the Queen of the Damned trailer was awesome.....then I saw the movie ) and vice versa.


It just seems that sometimes you have to be an obscure movie by a cult director who it's "hip" to like to get full praise here sometimes.

I'm sorry if I sound defensive, I'm a bit tired because it's three am. Hope I didn't come off too harsh, and try not to take my comments too seriously or personal right now.

Wow, are you f'in serious?

I never said the Hulk was realistic.. But the CGI could be done in such a way so it doesn't look plastic and is more realistic looking. Thats all I said.

This is off topic but yeah I'm serious.. Why is that so hard to believe? I'd much rather play classic arcade games on MAME than 3D console games.. They look better and they're more fun to me.. I'm an artist myself and 2D drawn graphics just look better and seem to have more 'artistic' value to me.. I'm not saying all 3D games look like crap because I've seen some good ones and own a few.. The last console I bought was a Playstation but overall, I just don't like them, alot of the games I've seen have characters with square heads with a bitmap wrapped around them.. Maybe things have changed lately, I haven't kept up with the game market..

Anyway, getting back to the subject-
Take the Quiz

hey....wasn't the original frankenstein a monster with a kind heart? why the fuck would helsing be fighting him in the first place? He was misunderstood!!! He wasn't a killer or anything.....this movie sounds rediculous....wtf.... how can this movie be any good ....looks like a bunch of crap, mummy type rippoff shit.

But you just said in another thread that you liked Underworld, which is clearly a ripoff of movies such as Blade.

Bride's wings morphing into her gown, yea that was sweet.

Helsing's weapons, yea they were good too.

Beckinsale, thats always a sweet and good thing.

Hyde, yea nice rip from LXG, Alan Moore must be rollings his eyes at that one; even moreso than LXG.


I try not to really judge a movie by a trailer in all honesty, b/c by nature I think trailers can be misleading, but good god, whats up with The WolfMan, this isn't Scooby-Doo folks.

I agree with Firefly that CG wont ever look perfect, but there are far better CG out there than what was in that trailer, but yea, maybe they'll polish it up and I'll eat my words.

Yes Frankenstein's creation is a monster with a heart. But if you remember the book he learned how to hate. He even started killing off the Dr. family. He turned to violence and was quite good at it.

If you want to go with Universal's classic films he started out with heart and was very child like. By the time we got to the 4th movie, Ghost of Frankenstein, he had become nothing but a killer. In the final film in the series he was under the control of Dracula.

So unless they are going to completely rewrite film history and Shelley's novel Frankenstein's monster is a creature that turns to murder. I don't know how this movie plays outs. I not going to say that it's going to be good or bad or tell you that you should go see it. But Frankenstein's creature kills people.

I wish for the same. I really liked the Mummy and Deep Rising and I like Sommers. I am concerned there maybe too much packed into the story too but I make no judgment.

My problem is with the overuse of CGI, not the technical quality necessarily although it can really be jarring. CGI seems to be used like a new toy in Sommers movies. I would rather CGI get used in ways that cannot be done with practical effects rather than replace practical effects. For example in the Mummy you get that huge face in the sandstorm. That was cool. CGI would seems to be the best way to achieve that effect. But then you had those cartoon scarabs running around, those weren't effective and they were overused. In VanHelsing maybe the deadite girl needs to be CGI to achieve the effect Sommers desired. But, with granted some limitations, couldn't the werewolf be a guy in costume? Is the pope going to be CGI too?

By the by my brother tells me that Hyde in LXG was a guy in costume. On the DVD features he said they showed the costume. I've blanked the film in my memory and have no real desire to watch it again to verify this. Can someone confirm?

LOTR films did a nice job I thought. Practical effects, positioning the camera and such were put to good use. Some thought and talent were necessary but it was worth it. It would not have been the same movie if every scene had the hobbits CGI'd against the life-sized actors. It is time consuming and expensive but VanHelsing seems to have been given a ton of money too.

Sommers seems to solve problems by throwing money at them. I work with several companies that do the same. Eventually the money going out exceeds the money coming in and much panic ensues. They are building a house of straw.

I'm a huge vampire fan..and I have to disagree with anyone who says that Underworld is a rip off of movies such as Blade. Blade was NOT the first vampire movie, I don't understand how really any movie can be a rip off of another. There will always be something that reminds you of another movie, that doesn't mean anyone was copying....why would anyone want do that in the first place? Makes no sense.

Underworld reminds me a lot of a vampire series I read (Anita Blake Series By Laurell Hamilton, to be exact)...it's almost, a carbon copy of the book...but that doesn't mean who ever made the story of Underworld was reading the freakin series or something.

*Shrugs*

Back to the subject at hand, I have been waiting for the damn Van Helsing trailer ever since before Underworld hit theatres because in the interviews I was reading with Kate Beckinsale, she had talked about it..and the ever since Bram Stockers Dracula and what not, I have been intrigued by all things vampires, so I knew this was a movie I had to see and couldn't wait to see the trailer. And now that I have seen it, I don't think this movie will dissapoint me, in the least. Well, most vamp movies don't, with the exception of Dracual 2000, cause that was just...horrid.

--Rachel

Would Heavily Influenced by Blade be a better description? I am not saying it is a bad thing. But I am saying that anyone who says VH is a ripoff of Mummy but can't see that Underworld and Blade have many similarities is full of it. That would be like saying Halloween had no influence on Friday the 13th, or Lethal Weapon vs. every other buddy cop movie. Was Blade the first movie with a Vampire Slayer, no. But to my knowledge at least, it was the first one to have slayers wearing shades and black leather coats and meeting in secret with the council of elders type shit. Maybe I wrong. Back to Van Helsing...

Amen to that. I hope Gerard will make a better Erik in "Phantom".

Yeah, totally understand what your saying..and I do agree. I thought people here were saying, story wise it was the same as some other movies...but yea, I do have to agree that certain aspects of movies (like you said about shades and leather coats) are influenced by others.

I liked Dracula 2000 and it's sequel Ascension. Regarding Ascension, thank god someone made Dracula less of the crappy
Anne Rice vamp, more sleek killing machine.

Yes, but if it truly was going to be "Dracula 2000", it should've been the story set in the present day. But that's just me.

So......the exact same story, just set today. No offense, but would there really be a point? I was glad it changed.

It wasn't that I hated Dracula 2000, it was just my least fave of every vamp movie I've ever seen. Dunno what it lacked, but it definetly lacked something, in my opinion. I wasn't like, pulled into the movie..lost in it's story and that's really what I like and look for in a vamp movie. They are my fave type of movies so I like it to be intriguing and all that good crap. Examples are: Interview With The Vampire, Underworld ..and yes, even Blade. Hell, I even love Once Bitten with Jim Carrey..it was atleast a good story,...I just felt Dracula 2000 lacked something it desperately needed.

yes, i did so what........ ? I can like ripoffs, as long as they are good ripoffs. the trailer looks 'ehhhhhhhh.......' besides, i said that comparison because "the mummy' was fucking lame. I have no idea how you can make a believeable story out of this unless you are in some kind of dream world. where the hell are you gonna have all these monsters in the same place? I don't know the idea sounds stupid.... and you know what? I'll probably still go see it, cause i'm curious to see how they do it. You can't base a movie on the trailer so i can't really bitch about it till after i see it. I'm just lowering my expectations now to get ready.

and i refered to the mummy because of the director (or whatever)

IMO Mummy is a better movie than Underworld. Other than Kate Beckinsale, you could not get me to watch that movie again. At least the first Mummy had a sense of fun and adventure, and did not take itself too seriously. Secondly, having Frankenstein, Dracula, and the Wolf-Man together is just as believable(not very) as werewolves and vampires having a hundreds of years old war raging on without humans noticing.

Agreed. Mummy just had everything, IMO, and just outgunned a lot of other movies in terms of pure fun. And I agree, you can accept werewolves and vampires in one setting, but throw one more monster into it and that's just too crazy?

to me yes it is!!!! so Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

seriously though, it just seems a little far fetched, for one, frankenstein was just one character in a story, he wasn't a species like a werewolf or a vampire.... now all of a sudden you are throwing him into some other completely random storyline.... you can do that with just any nameless werewolf or vampire, but with frankenstein? It seems like they are trying to be all slick with this movie. I can see doing it maybe for a horror comedy. Don't get me wrong, i'm not hating.....yet. I am just really wondering about this plot. Some ideas i like better than others.

I think it will be a Hollywood action/comedy. I don't see this as a horror movie at all, just like The Mummy wasn't a horror movie. It was an action/comedy also. I may still go see it. It looks like a "Monster Squad" for an older crowd.

Ow, stop bumping me jerk




I believe if I was 14 I'd be excited as hell to see this movie.

That being said, the 14 yr old in me is excited to see this movie.

Remember how when we were younger, and when Mortal Kombat was released, hyped, how excited were you? I went and saw it, loved it. I watch it now and Im like "what was I thinking".

This movie..like The Mummy...is not targeted towards the older, which explains why Van Helsing is fighting against Scooby Doo with pointy ears and claws.

Yeah I think this movie appeals more to the inner kid and whatnot.

Some of the best horror movies in history have been kid friendly- the original 30's series of movies weren't overly gory or anything, and they were fantastic.

Am I saying this is gonna live up to those? Not quality wise, but truth be told I will probably enjoy this more than most films I have ever seen if it's as good as I hope. I know it's not going to win an oscar for writing or anything, but as long as it's as fun as the first Mummy and Deep Rising, then it's all good.

One thing that distubed me though- in the Fangoria article they call him Gabriel Van Helsing? Am I missing something here?