The most horrible CGI in a mainstream film...

[Sandor 799]

Alien3 comes to mind; the CGI alien looks absolutely ridiculous (it also looked silly back in 1992 by the way);

Waterworld had this shot of a CGI sea creature that is so bad that the same creature looked more realistic in the videogame!

The Relic had an almost equally insulting creature.

The monkeys from Jumanji.

Any more?

And it's not like those shots ROCKED when they were first released. People were already sick of bad CGI when Jumanji was released!

Hooray to the producers of Casino Royale! What a bold, artistically daring decision to avoid any CGI tempering!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,785]

The CGI dogs in Exorcist: The Beginning were pretty bad, along with almost everything else in that film apart from the thrilling climax.

[Greg1138 3]

Alien3 comes to mind; the CGI alien looks absolutely ridiculous (it also looked silly back in 1992 by the way);

The Alien in Alien 3 is not CGI - only the shadows were computer generated according to David Fincher, and then only for two short shots (the one where the alien is crawling on the ceiling, and one where we see it running through the corridors). The alien is either a puppet or stop-motion throughout.

Many of the blatant CG effects in Die Another Day grate.....particularly the "Supercar" going off the edge of the cliff and the following "surfing" sequence.....they were horrific on the big screen - they don't some off quite so badly on the small screen, but considering the technology available they really should have been an awful lot better, even if there were budgetary constraints.

[robthehand 3]

I'll have to say Die Another Day. It's so bad it's sort of surreal.

[A24 4,371]

Alien3 comes to mind; the CGI alien looks absolutely ridiculous (it also looked silly back in 1992 by the way);

The Alien in Alien 3 is not CGI - only the shadows were computer generated according to David Fincher, and then only for two short shots (the one where the alien is crawling on the ceiling, and one where we see it running through the corridors). The alien is either a puppet or stop-motion throughout.

Roald will say, "Yes, that's what I meant, the shadows are terrible!".

[Goldsmithfan 6]

Alien3 comes to mind; the CGI alien looks absolutely ridiculous (it also looked silly back in 1992 by the way);

The alien in Alien 3 was only CG in one shot (the one of its skull cracking). If you're referring to the footage of it running on the walls and ceiling, it's mo-motion, which they CREATED for that film so of course it's going to be a bit rough. In my opinion, it still looks better than all the blue-grey CG extravaganzas we have today (The Matrix Trilogy, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, King Kong, etc, etc, crap)

One thing that always looks fake is a computer generated person, especially when it's in a live action film and they throw it in because a stunt was too dangerous/complicated. (Harry Potter comes to mind as well as Return of the King and Starship Troopers)

Basically CGI should be a LAST RESORT. It doesn't have to conform to the laws of real physics and everything about it is artificial whereas stop-motion, go-motion, mo-motion, miniature effects, analog bluescreen, rear projection, front projection, analog matte paintings, film cell animation, makeup effects and practical effects all have the upper hand because there's a dimension of reality in each one.

Special effects used to be a smorgasbord of techniques, combining new and old techniques or inventing new things. Nowadays when you watch the Oscars and the award for special effects comes up, all you ever see is an image going from wireframe to 'realistic' CG imagery.

The effects of now look no better than the effects of twenty years ago. In fact, they're quite inferior. Everything looks cartoonish anymore! That's why it's probably so accepted. People aren't saying, "Whoa! That looks real." They're saying, "Whoa! That's totally over-the-top!" And it all is. Not for the better.

Films like Blade Runner, Alien, Star Trek III, RoboCop 2, the ORIGINAL THEATRICAL Star Wars trilogy, The Terminator, RoboCop, Gremlins, Tron, and Terminator 2 will all withstand the test of time much better than any of the garbage being pumped out today. Not only because the stories are much better (even RoboCop 2), but because their special effects were a smorgasbord. Sure, a few I mentioned utilized computer generated effects, but they used them artistically and when needed, unlike now when they use it for EVERYTHING. Again, not all of them have perfect effects by any means (the go-motion Murphy in RoboCop didn't look all that hot, the matte on the go-motion Terminator in T1 wasn't that finessed), but the point is that overall, they're worlds away from any of the crap coming out now.

Anyway, that's my CG rant. I'm not against its use, but I am against its overuse.

[robthehand 3]

Agreed. The idea that it should be use in a Bond film (which is - supposedly - based in reality), implies that a stunt-person can't do it, but James Bond apparently can. Sure. :roll:

[Sandor 799]

and then only for two short shots (the one where the alien is crawling on the ceiling, and one where we see it running through the corridors).

Those are the shots I meant.

[David Vincent 8]

The monkeys from Jumanji

Hi agree.

Any one see the sharks in this movie : Deep blue sea ?

[Jacck 23]

Some effects from the Second Charlie's Angels film are pretty bad.

[TIEfighter 0]

I also found the wolves from The Day after Tomorrow to be somewhat below modern standards...

[Ollie 1,069]

AOTC had very poor CGI effects. And before everyone starts whining this isn't a prequel bash, the film has poor visuals.

The Mummy Returns also has poor CGI.

[futuremartymcfly 0]

Any one see the sharks in this movie : Deep blue sea ?

Oh yes, that was a terrible CG effect, along with the croc from supercroc, or whatever that movie was called

[ChrisAfonso 188]

Agreed. The idea that it should be use in a Bond film (which is - supposedly - based in reality), implies that a stunt-person can't do it, but James Bond apparently can. Sure. :roll:

It implies that they get quite convincing (yeah, yeah, I know...) visual results without having to risk a man's life.

[Romão 2,276]

In recent Blockbusters, I think Batman Begins and WOTW were examples of great use of visual effects.

[TIEfighter 0]

In recent Blockbusters, I think Batman Begins and WOTW were examples of great use of visual effects.

Haven´t seen Batman Begins, but i agree with you on WOTW...i think those effects would have deserved the oscar way more than King Kong...but then again, this was not the only strange decision during the last oscar ceremony...

[batmanand 0]

Hedwig flying off Harry's arm in HP:PS is poor. Also, the unrealistically loud wing beating SFX ruins one of the best bits of music in the whole film!

[Sandor 799]

The Scorpion King from The Mummy Returns... How could I forget THAT one?

And Anakin "surfing" that huge ass in AOTC... dreadful...

[Greg1138 3]

In recent Blockbusters, I think Batman Begins and WOTW were examples of great use of visual effects.

I think the effects in Batman Begins were overkill.....

......but not enough to stop it being a great movie.....the effects didn't draw you out of what was going on on-screen, unlike Die Another Day, Jumanji and some others already mentioned....

[A24 4,371]

In recent Blockbusters, I think Batman Begins and WOTW were examples of great use of visual effects.

Batman Begins is made without CGI.

[robthehand 3]

Agreed. The idea that it should be use in a Bond film (which is - supposedly - based in reality), implies that a stunt-person can't do it, but James Bond apparently can. Sure. :roll:

It implies that they get quite convincing (yeah, yeah, I know...) visual results without having to risk a man's life.

You think the tidal wave scene was quite convincing?

They used real surfers at the start of the film, and that looked great.

[David Vincent 8]

The Scorpion King from The Mummy Returns... How could I forget THAT one?

And Anakin "surfing" that huge ass in AOTC... dreadful...

Now I remember a similar thing in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone with Harry on the head of the Troll.

I don't say it is poor (I'd like to do such effects by myself ), but it could have been better. The movements are not perfect.

[TIEfighter 0]

The Scorpion King from The Mummy Returns... How could I forget THAT one?

And Anakin "surfing" that huge ass in AOTC... dreadful...

Now I remember a similar thing in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone with Harry on the head of the Troll.

I don't say it is poor (I'd like to do such effects by myself ), but it could have been better. The movements are not perfect.

the troll of sorcerer´s stone is terrible in each shot it´s in

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

AOTC had very poor CGI effects. And before everyone starts whining this isn't a prequel bash, the film has poor visuals.

I dont think it was poor per se but they were probably just over ambitious with the humans in a 90% CG set bit. I mean, it was something which just hasnt been done before. Still, bits like the Coruscant chase looked great. The technology (and technique) very obviously matured by ROTS.

[Romão 2,276]

In recent Blockbusters, I think Batman Begins and WOTW were examples of great use of visual effects.

Batman Begins is made without CGI.

I know it was. I was talking about effects in General.

One of the reasons why I think WOTW and Jurassic Park look so convicing is not only the CGI itself. It's the camera angles. Some directors move the camera in the effects shots in such an unrealistic manner, you know that could have never been shot with real creatures or animals. Jurassic Park is shot exactly the same way it would be if they used real animals.

[A24 4,371]

One of the reasons why I think WOTW and Jurassic Park look so convicing is not only the CGI itself. It's the camera angles. Some directors move the camera in the effects shots in such an unrealistic manner, you know that could have never been shot with real creatures or animals. Jurassic Park is shot exactly the same way it would be if they used real animals.

That's a very sharp observation, Merkel.

[Sandor 799]

Jurassic Park is shot exactly the same way it would be if they used real animals.

I think the raptors would have noticed the cameramen and crew Merkel.

[Datameister 2,097]

The point about camera movement is a good one. I thought much of the CGI in PoA, for instance, was pretty well-done. However, the ridiculous camera moves don't help the story along--they just remind you that the camera is a virtual one.

CGI can be a great boon to moviemakers, but when it becomes the main attraction, the resulting films can be catastrophic effect-fests. I felt like some of AOTC's CGI was rather poor, too--but that's what happens when you have a budget and a deadline but you cram hundreds of computer generated elements into every shot. The Kamino exterior shots struck me as VERY fake-looking, as did some of the Yoda shots and the shots inside the asteroid, just to mention a few.

ROTS had much better effects, in my opinion. Most of them were much more convincing, although some shots were still distractingly fake. (Mainly the shot of Yoda aboard the Tantive IV right before the opening shots on Mustafar and a couple of shots of R2 near the beginning.) I was very impressed with Grievous--there are many shots, particularly on Utapau, when he looks extremely convincing. It's much easier to pull off a convincing CGI robot than a living creature. Ahem...Jar Jar...

[David Vincent 8]

the troll of sorcerer´s stone is terrible in each shot it´s in

Right, I have nothing against the troll itself, it is about the rendition of Harry, his moves don't look realistic enough.

In fact, most of the bad done effects are about human renditions which is really understandable.

If you look carefully in Titanic, at the beginning before the captain says take her to the sea M. Murdock, you have a moving shot of the ship and see the Captain walking.

His movements are not perfect too. But the rest of the movie is terrific especially when the ship breaks in two parts !

[ashinyobject 0]

david, you have 666 posts. i hope that doesnt bother you.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,267]

[David Vincent 8]

david, you have 666 posts. i hope that doesnt bother you.

Exorcise me

[Ollie 1,069]

Just have someone check the back of your head........

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

the troll of sorcerer´s stone is terrible in each shot it´s in

Right, I have nothing against the troll itself, it is about the rendition of Harry, his moves don't look realistic enough.

In fact, most of the bad done effects are about human renditions which is really understandable.

If you look carefully in Titanic, at the beginning before the captain says take her to the sea M. Murdock, you have a moving shot of the ship and see the Captain walking.

His movements are not perfect too. But the rest of the movie is terrific especially when the ship breaks in two parts !

I recently re-watched Titanic and saw some of the behind-the-scenes stuff. There were VFX in there I had no idea of, even after seeing the film a dozen times (for instance, I never knew they never built the 1st class salon set).

Another thing about JP: the FX scene that holds up best is easily the main road attack. Why? Because it takes place at night. It's just a fact that CG objects are much easier to make look realistic in "night light" than in broad daylight.

Another rubbish CG effect: Air Force One crashing into the sea at the end of Air Force One. It just looks... unfinished.

- Marc, who thought Xander Berkeley was given quite a pair of lungs in the mixing of that scene.

[Ollie 1,069]

Forgot about that one.

Deep Rising has poor CGI.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

ROTS had much better effects, in my opinion.  Most of them were much more convincing, although some shots were still distractingly fake.  (Mainly the shot of Yoda aboard the Tantive IV right before the opening shots on Mustafar and a couple of shots of R2 near the beginning.)  I was very impressed with Grievous--there are many shots, particularly on Utapau, when he looks extremely convincing.  It's much easier to pull off a convincing CGI robot than a living creature.  Ahem...Jar Jar...

I think Yoda looked terrific in ROTS, especially the bit where he is walking with Obi Wan and Bail Organa in the Tantive IV. He just blended in sublimely there. Jar Jar looks a bit like a cartoon now mainly because the shader technology wasnt quite as advanced as it is today. AOTC probably had the lousy luck of having a deadline which made it impossible to incorporate the latest shaders which were just being introduced (I think something to this effect was mentioned somewhere on the ROTS commentary but just looking at the skin on Dobby in CoS is quite enough to verify this)

[Sandor 799]

Another rubbish CG effect: Air Force One crashing into the sea at the end of Air Force One. It just looks... unfinished.

Yeah! That is the UBER-bad CGI effect shot! Totally forgot it!

[Olivier 5]

The Mummy Returns also has poor CGI.

Not "poor": awful. It would have been impressive in an early '90's video game, but it looked amateurish in such a big budget movie-- and all the more terrible as the mummy itself, starting in the first movie, was really well done, and there were nice effects moments, like the sand face.

[King Mark 3,631]

So,no one has seen Ultraviolet yet?

K.M.

[Greg1138 3]

Deep Rising has poor CGI.

Slight difference being that all of the movies do-far mentioned have been blockbuster movies with blockbuster budgets......Deep Rising wasn't - and I love the movie and can happily forgive the occasionaly dodgy effects......and I think maybe that most of it's nowhere near as bad as you remember it being.....

[Ollie 1,069]

Didn't say the movie was bad just the visuals.

[nightscape94 965]

The Relic had an almost equally insulting creature.

But that one shot of it coming down the stairs on fire is pretty cool.

Tim

[Jeshopk 8]

The space monkey in "Lost in Space" or the deer sequence in "The Ring TwO"

[nightscape94 965]

The rat in the beginning of Daredevil looked really bad too.

Tim

[Beowulf 4]

The CGI in "Kung Pow: Enter the Fist" is pretty bad, even though this is meant to be an extremely silly movie.

Or am I the only one here who has seen it?

[Greg1138 3]

Didn't say the movie was bad just the visuals.

But surely the ultimate "litmus test" for any effect - CG or otherwise - is whether or not it takes attention away from the film in general....isn't it?

Take Haskin's War of the Worlds - if you look at it objectively it had some piss-poor effects (as well as the blow-your-mind ones), but they were placed and done in such a way that it did not detract in the slightest from the movie as a whole - in which case the film ultimately served it's purpose (i.e. as a means of communication) without suffering....

Deep Rising I would say falls into the same category (though - ahem -not quite as good!) - the sometimes-cartoonlike effects do not detract from the fact that the movie is a spoof/adventure/toungue in cheek type thing....and therefore the film's impact remains unsullied.....

Case in point earlier in this thread.....Jumanji....the moment you see some of the effects, to all intents and purposes the movie is over and what is on-show becomes an FX-fest....not a movie - you are ripped out of the mood, narrative etc and the magic never comes comes back....the film has then failed in it's ultimate purpose (communication again....)

Do you see what I'm getting at? However you apply this "rule" - it works for every single movie mentioned so far in this thread.

Or am I talking shite?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

In recent Blockbusters, I think Batman Begins and WOTW were examples of great use of visual effects.

Batman Begins is made without CGI.

oh contrare.

the troll in LOTR is terrible, as is gollum, which is awful, dobby isn't much better.

[SomeNewGuy 0]

The cave troll was poorly done, as were the digital doubles in that scene (and many others), but on the whole I think they got Gollum right. There are some scenes where he just doesn't work (outside the black gate in TTT, for instance), but most of the time he's at the very least acceptable.

Dobby never stood out as poor to me, but I must confess that I haven't seen CoS in a long time.

The most atrocious attempt at CGI in the past 5 years was without a doubt the Scorpion King in The Mummy Returns. I really hope someone got fired over that piece of trash. It's a good thing that series never took itself seriously, otherwise it would have been entirely unwatchable.

Aside from those, a lot of AotC and Hellboy were crap.

Ai ya, almost forgot about the helmetless clones in RotS. Utterly disastrous.

Build a suit, George. It's not that hard.

[Datameister 2,097]

I forgot about the RotS clones. Those helmetless shots looked especially terrible on the big screen--on DVD, they're not as bad. Strangely enough, a lot of the fully-suited-up shots look great--there are some clone shots that truly look real, especially a lot of the in-battle stuff. Perhaps the helmetless shots were keyframed rather than mocaped like most of the battle action was.

[Panthera 0]

I know you are talking about worst CGI, but what about the best? The intro to The Day After Tomorrow was really good CGI in my opinion. Of course, lots of things have probably had better CGI, but I saw that movie on tv recently so its fresh in my mind.