let's critisiza him

L!on · 06-25-2008, 12:20 AM

does he looks in proportion?

n88tr · 06-25-2008, 11:27 AM

i was thinking his arms were a little short, esp the forearms. He has a lot more striation then the previous hulk movie, that's for sure.

KM · 06-25-2008, 12:21 PM

His tri's are lacking. Should prob bring those up lmao. Monster.

**mr_bhana** · 06-25-2008, 12:47 PM

His fingers need a lil more muscle..

**Kaboom** · 06-25-2008, 12:51 PM

Ok I need to work with him on his tris youre right bro they are lacking lol

maverick_76 · 06-25-2008, 07:08 PM

Yeah I would have to say that the arms are a little short. But that makes your arm girth look bigger, the shorter your arms are. Plus I think the only reason this hulk has more striations is because computer graphics technology has gotten better, they can map his skin more realistically, give it more hills and valleys.

SDMF_1 · 06-29-2008, 02:28 AM

zero tris and he needs abit more lat work

**Julio** · 06-29-2008, 03:37 AM

i don't criticize the hulk by his body. I only criticize him by the destruction he leaves behind.

**Thomas_Rivera** · 06-29-2008, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by julio40

i don't criticize the hulk by his body. I only criticize him by the destruction he leaves behind.

ARRRRRRRRRU

**Demon Knight** · 06-29-2008, 04:18 AM

Hmm, how about a leg shot? Gotta see those wheels.

I think his chest lacks girth and I agree on the Tri's. Still, I wouldn't say it to his face

n88tr · 06-30-2008, 11:50 AM

The Hulk is just basically big, but he's not even as ripped as Branch Warren. The calves look big but have no definition, ditto on the smallness of his tris. A bigger peak on the bis would be nice to see too.

IronWarrior-07 · 06-30-2008, 10:31 PM

The 2003 is bigger, but less defined. better proportioned tho.