The most horrible CGI in a mainstream film...

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

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!

that shot looked like it was rendered real time straight out of a 1998 videogame

[fommes 154]

oh contrare.

Huh

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.

I think you're confusing two things here. You have Merkel's point, showing off with the camera moves when using CGI; and what Cuaron is doing, which is drawing attention to the medium itself, indeed like intentionally reminding you that you are watching a film (for example the shots where it goes through windows etc.).

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

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....

Or, you know, that it's a film. And how are the movements ridiculous? I find them extraordinary - particularly aerial shots of the spiral staircase (it looks like a clock) and the moving through the clock tower shots. These are physically moving with the characters, it's not like it's focusing on nothing.

I also disagree that Cuaron drew attention to the FX in PoA. I thought he game them enough focus that they seemed natural and organic, just as much a part of the world as the various characters. GoF on the other hand, irked me. Every single piece of CGI in that film was drawn attention to, whether by crowds "oohing", Hermione's eyebrows jumping around (not that that didn't happen a lot anyway) or a stupid line like "there's something you don't see every day". Bah, I'm cranky just thinking about that movie.

[Romão 2,274]

Unrealistic camera movements are like the camera going straight in the mouth of a roaring beast. Or lingering forever over a miniature. The best way to sell a CGI creature is to shoot it through a person's point of view

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

On Gollum: I think it's one of the finest achievements in CG creatures.

Again, it's hard to get a CG object to look real in harsh sunlight, and in the scene right after the first fight in the beginning, where Frodo tells Gollum he must lead them to the black gate, he didn't look 100% real.

But once the schizo scene comes up, you are totally drawn in by this character, and you start to really care for him as a dramatic factor in the movie. Further flaws in the effects work no longer matter, as you now care about this guy (contrary to 95% of the cartoony CG characters in Star Wars).

[robthehand 3]

With Gollum, I think Andy Serkis' voice and movements make it so interesting that I really don't care whether the CGI is great or not - obviously it has to be quite good - but beyond that, with a performance like that, it doesn't matter to me.

[Richard Penna 3,716]

I agree with the Scorpion King (videogame quality easily) and the Air Force One crash scene - they're both embarrassingly bad

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Exactly. How it's based off an actor's performance helps a lot in selling this thing as a dramatic character. Much better than over-animating creatures and putting them in with actors staring blankly at orange tennis balls. It's what made AotC look like a poor re-doing of Who Framed Roger Rabbit (which has great integration between animation and live-action, btw)

[ymenard 54]

Why is a movement of camera unrealistic anyway? What is realistic and what is not? Is it because that real-life camera has to be static, that CG shots have to be too? There's no rule about that. So one points out some unrealistic move, yet praises Fincher's work with his CGI camera movement. There is _no_ absolute rule in what a camera is allowed to do.

Anyway, how can a camera shot be unrealistic in say, a sci-fi movie in space??? That's illogical. You have to dissociate the medium with the content, but still consider both at the same level of importance in movie making.

Gee what would you have said in the new-wave era "Oh no the camera shakes! that's unrealistic!" because you had the habit of static and pan shots.

[A24 4,359]

Interesting points, ymenard. But I think the aspect Merkel refers to is a mental one. Crazy camera movements are artistically no problem but it's the zany camera movement that might make us aware that what we are seeing is not possible.

Having said that, haven't we also seen crazy camera movements with traditional FX in TESB? Remember the asteroid scene where the Falcon parks in the belly of a space dinosaur? Are absurd camera movements accepted when CGI isn't involved?

Alex

[Romão 2,274]

I refer to impossible close-ups of the animal's mouth or a very common practice of having the creature come roaring towards the camera and it gets so close we can see the mouth's inside. You can't do that with real creatures. You just can't.

[futuremartymcfly 0]

another horrible sequence imo is the Hulk's transformation and then when he is attacked by those horrible looking CGI dogs.

Reunion and the dig begins

[pixie_twinkle 48]

Why is a movement of camera unrealistic anyway?  What is realistic and what is not?  Is it because that real-life camera has to be static, that CG shots have to be too?  There's no rule about that.  So one points out some unrealistic move, yet praises Fincher's work with his CGI camera movement.  There is _no_ absolute rule in what a camera is allowed to do.  

Anyway, how can a camera shot be unrealistic in say, a sci-fi movie in space???  That's illogical.  You have to dissociate the medium with the content, but still consider both at the same level of importance in movie making.

Gee what would you have said in the new-wave era "Oh no the camera shakes! that's unrealistic!" because you had the habit of static and pan shots.

Good point. My least favourite CG shot of all time isn't bad per se, but rather just completely at odds with the rest of the film until that point. It's the entry into Mos Eisley in the Star Wars special edition, 1997. The shots had all been either static or hand-held until that point, with very little use of smooth dolly shots. Then suddenly out of the blue we get this incredibly smooth, impossible shot where the camera lifts up about 50 metres so reveal the vast expanse of the spaceport. Now that ruins the film for me. It is just very poor decision-making on Lucas' part. The CG is fine in itself, but it takes the viewer right out of the film. CG just for the sake of CG, it in no way helps tell the story.

As for poorly rendered CG, I have to agree with the Harry Potter model on the back of the Troll. Look at his face! It is completely expressionless like a doll. And the bendy, rubbery movements are even worse.

The deer in Ring TwO were rather dodgy.

[ymenard 54]

Well it's not because real camera can't, that you shouldn't

If the director has always wished to have this close-up shot almost inside the mouth of an animal charging at you, and the only way he can do it is via CGI, I have absolutely no problem with that. Its the tool he has to use to make his vision to the screen. I mean Hitchcock did it with a knife right in your face in Psycho, why should we treat cinema a different way for a bear? Same for a 50-meter dolly shot over Mos Eisley... how is that much different than in "Once upon a time in the West", with that obvious dolly crane shot (or BTTF 3 lol) ? It's done faster, smoother. That's all.

There should be no limits to cinema. What some of us felt daring techniques back in the days, isn't anymore. And what some feel daring today, was already done in the past but at a lesser level.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Same for a 50-meter dolly shot over Mos Eisley... how is that much different than in "Once upon a time in the West", with that obvious dolly crane shot (or BTTF 3 lol) ?  It's done faster, smoother.  That's all.

Yes, but there is no such shot anywere in the rest of Star Wars, so it looks totally out of place.

[A24 4,359]

Yes, but there is no such shot anywere in the rest of Star Wars, so it looks totally out of place.

Everything Lucas tinkered with looks out of place. But let's not go there, at least not today.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

But the huge crane shots in both Once Upon a Time in the West and Back to the Future part III still contain some small flaws that you can never totally avoid in reality. The fluid motions one often finds in completely CG shots do not. They no longer feel real, like there was somebody physically moving the camera, but artificial, like a programmer putting in the speed and locations for the camera to travel, like in a video game.

[Richard Penna 3,716]

As for poorly rendered CG, I have to agree with the Harry Potter model on the back of the Troll. Look at his face! It is completely expressionless like a doll. And the bendy, rubbery movements are even worse.

I thought an awful lot of the CGI in HP:PS was crap, including, but not limited to:

- The shot where Neville on his broomstick bounces repeatedly off the stone wall.

- The aforementioned Potter model

- Some horrendous bluescreen shots in the quidditch match

- The colour changing banners in the hall at the end

The car flying over the train in CoS also bothers me. It just looks sooo composited, like the steam isn't being moved, and the shot from inside the car of Harry hanging isn't realistic - the angle of his arm makes it blatantly clear he's held up by wires.

I also thought that greasy waiter guy in AotC looked liked an animated oscar presenter - the physical interaction with Obi Wan was so forced. I know most of the CG in AotC is crap, but that particularly irritated me.

However, I'm very interested in the blending or CG and live action elements, so I'm always trying to find little mistakes and bad/obvious CG (which is pretty common these days). In other words we'd be here for days if I tried listing any moment I had problems with.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

Well it's not because real camera can't, that you shouldn't

If the director has always wished to have this close-up shot almost inside the mouth of an animal charging at you, and the only way he can do it is via CGI, I have absolutely no problem with that.

I find it OK when its done something in the vein of PoA where the camera moves through windows, mirrors and such but when it is done with wild camera circling around the action sequences, I think it just breaks the illusion and hence the sequence loses tensionn as the sense of danger has all but vanished. Just compare how Top Gun's aerial sequences compare with say, Stealth.

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

Speaking of bad HP CGI, I hate the mini-chess game between Harry and Ron. Apart from being the most hideous chess set ever, the effect is awful. Which is strange as the giant chess effects are reasonably good.

[nicholas 1]

I thought the effects in "Tron" were amazing. It was like Pak-Man had come to life.

[futuremartymcfly 0]

the original harry potter has quite a few bad special effects sequences, even when not involving CGI, like when harry sees voldemort in the forest and he the approaches harry, it looks just liked a tattered cloth on a hanger going up a string, and then the Centaur guy was also not very convincing.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

As for poorly rendered CG, I have to agree with the Harry Potter model on the back of the Troll. Look at his face! It is completely expressionless like a doll. And the bendy, rubbery movements are even worse.

I thought an awful lot of the CGI in HP:PS was crap, including, but not limited to:

- The colour changing banners in the hall at the end

whats wrong with that? i thought it was pretty nondescript. nothing special, nothing bad either.

[Ollie 1,062]

I forgot about the first HP film, the CGI effects were poor.

As far as Gollum in concerned he is one of the more realistic CGI characters created.

[ymenard 54]

But the huge crane shots in both Once Upon a Time in the West and Back to the Future part III still contain some small flaws that you can never totally avoid in reality. The fluid motions one often finds in completely CG shots do not. They no longer feel real, like there was somebody physically moving the camera, but artificial, like a programmer putting in the speed and locations for the camera to travel, like in a video game.

Yes that's exactly why modern CGI companies are slowly inputting chaotic movements and erratic features of real-life camera handling into their animation.

But then again, why is smooth a bad thing? If the director always wanted a smooth shot, why can't he have it, and why can't the viewer accept it? There's is nothing wrong with that, it's just a crane shot smoothed out. In the end there is an impossibility to find a bad thing about this. If CGI can do it, then be so. Anyway where do you draw the line between smooth and not? Just accept the entire spectrum of possibilities, from too-much--real to too-much-unreal

[Jeshopk 8]

I agree with the too-smooth crane shot thing. But there have always been problems with every type of special effect in history. I still watch "Clash of the Titans" and "The Brain that Wouldn't Die" as if they are new movies.

[pixie_twinkle 48]

I LOVE Clash of the Titans. The effects all look very magical to me. Not realistic, maybe, but magical. The only thing that bothers me a little is the difference in the speed of Pegasus' wings beating between the stop motion model, and the full size prop.

[Jeshopk 8]

The only thing that bothers me a little is the difference in the speed of Pegasus' wings beating between the stop motion model, and the full size prop.

Never noticed, but thinking about it, the full size prop has much slower wings! Hamlin! You devil! (blaming Hamlin instead of Harryhausen, since my inner child believes Perseus actually controls Pegasus' wing speed)

[pixie_twinkle 48]

The only thing that bothers me a little is the difference in the speed of Pegasus' wings beating between the stop motion model, and the full size prop.

Never noticed, but thinking about it, the full size prop has much slower wings! Hamlin! You devil! (blaming Hamlin instead of Harryhausen, since my inner child believes Perseus actually controls Pegasus' wing speed)

Yes, but only in close up!

Having said that, nothing can ruin the film for me. It's a real masterpiece of old-school film-making. What an amazing summer, 1981. The last great old-fashioned adventure from genius Harryhausen, butting heads with Spielberg's brand new, post-modern anti-hero Indiana Jones in Raiders. Summer 1981 truly was a clash of the titans. I saw both at the tender age of 11. And I got the posters!

[Jeshopk 8]

I remember seeing Empire Strikes back and Clash of the Titans metal lunch boxes everywhere when I was in 1st grade that year.

[pixie_twinkle 48]

I probably would have got one, except I was still quite happy with my Incredible Hulk lunchbox from 1978!

[A24 4,359]

Hmmm, I wonder, what is the worst CGI in a non-mainstream film?

[nightscape94 965]

If you've ever seen Schrader's Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist, which got the shaft by the studio, he had to insert CGI in scenes that he didn't really have the money for (he completed the film on his own). As a result, there are some hyenas and a snake that are hands down the worst CGI i've seen in a film. Though I feel sorry for Schrader, because there wasn't much he could do about it. He didn't have the time or the money to put in good effects, and it turns out to be laughably bad. The film was released in a limited theatrical run.

Tim

[Greg1138 3]

If you've ever seen Schrader's Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist, which got the shaft by the studio, he had to insert CGI in scenes that he didn't really have the money for (he completed the film on his own).  As a result, there are some hyenas and a snake that are hands down the worst CGI i've seen in a film.  Though I feel sorry for Schrader, because there wasn't much he could do about it.  He didn't have the time or the money to put in good effects, and it turns out to be laughably bad.  The film was released in a limited theatrical run.

Tim

....but is actually a better movie than the laughable "The Beginning"....all 5 Exorcist movies have been released in a boxed set in the UK, giving plenty of opportunities to compare the two.....

...the studio should have stuck with Schrader.....and he should now be allowed to finish the movie properly i.e. a decent effects budget, a decent score, some polishing....

Greg - who wonders what went wrong in the mini-series of "Mysterious Island" which I watched tonight...the CGI in that is utterley atrocious...yeah I know it's only a TV show, but a little effort would have been nice!!

[nightscape94 965]

If you've ever seen Schrader's Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist, which got the shaft by the studio, he had to insert CGI in scenes that he didn't really have the money for (he completed the film on his own).  As a result, there are some hyenas and a snake that are hands down the worst CGI i've seen in a film.  Though I feel sorry for Schrader, because there wasn't much he could do about it.  He didn't have the time or the money to put in good effects, and it turns out to be laughably bad.  The film was released in a limited theatrical run.

Tim

....but is actually a better movie than the laughable "The Beginning"....all 5 Exorcist movies have been released in a boxed set in the UK, giving plenty of opportunities to compare the two.....

...the studio should have stuck with Schrader.....and he should now be allowed to finish the movie properly i.e. a decent effects budget, a decent score, some polishing....

I certainly agree. I didn't mean that the CGI destroyed the film, it was just extremely noticeable. Schrader's film is by far better then Harlin's, and the studio proved to everyone that they're a bunch of knuckleheads.

In the end, however, there is only one Exocist.

Tim

[Luke Skywalker 1,799]

HPSS quidditch match is a pain to see. As is nearly all of the effects there.

Kamino exteriors bad cgi?

I still have to see realistic oceans and rain in any other movie since.

king kong´s (ocean) for example, is crap.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Kamino didn't look very realistic, it looked TOO good, which is a problem with most CGI.

[Luke Skywalker 1,799]

IMO it looked too good to be CGI.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

has anyone mentioned how fake Gollum looked in TTT.

this screams fake,

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Gollum is the most interesting and realistic CGI character in the movies to date.

The first one I actually believed as a character, even at moments when the effects were less then stellar.

[Luke Skywalker 1,799]

when the effects are less than stellar, it looses much realism.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The writing and the acting performance compensate to a large degree.

[batmanand 0]

Kamino's sea was excellent, IMO. The buildings and creatures? Not terrible, but not stellar.

[QMM 4]

You want high quality cgi and a movie that will shock audiences like never before?

I give you this

[Datameister 2,057]

I was actually pretty impressed with Gollum. For the most part, I found him to be visually very convincing.

I understand where you're coming from about artistic freedom, ymenard. Indeed, the whole point behind CGI is to expand artistic freedom and allow filmmakers to show audiences things that would be impossible or impractical to show another way. However, the last thing I want to be reminded of while watching a film is the fact that I'm watching a film. If the camera suddenly glides through a window pane without breaking it, my mind is distracted from the story and the characters--my focus shifts to the fact that there's some CGI in this shot. With PoA, this is perhaps slightly more permissable since it is a movie about magic, after all. But this was a definite distraction in some otherwise beautiful shots when I initially saw the movie.

Magical me, I feel the same way as you do about the CGI and camera moves in general in PoA. I wasn't trying to say that Cuaron intentionally put a focus on all the effects. All I meant to say was that those few shots with the camera passing through mirrors and windows were more distracting to me than they were intended to be.

[Anteeru 0]

I somehow disliked the use of CGI in the Lord of the Rings trilogy on some occasions. The use of them was quite cheesy (as for example when Denethor makes himself an end and the camera drives back from his body falling quite big in frame to the whole Minas Tirith model). As mentioned above, no viewer can say: they made that in live action. I appreciate the way Spielberg or Zemeckis use effects as coherent part of a shot, well done in Minority Report, What Lies Beneath, Contact or War of the Worlds. Quite the opposite are the (very expensive!) Spiderman-films. They lack attention to detail especially when it comes to animation of human beeings (such as Spiderman, the Goblin or Dock Ock) or the animation of natural phenomena (such as dust, smoke or fire). Although part two showed quite an improvement in visual effects, there were still some shots where you really start to believe that these ones were done lately in the process with quite a lack of time. On the other hand there are also a lot of satisfying shots. I think visual effects business' philosophy shouldn't be "What haven't we done yet?" but "Which of the things we have already done can be done better now?". I saw no improvement between the animation of water in Perfect Storm and the Genosis scenes in Attack of the Clones. War of the worlds on the other hand showed some nice improvements in the animation of dust and smoke when compared with Pearl Habor. And the better scenes of Lord of the Rings show: The best effect shots are those, who are based on a live action shot. Some model work in the trilogy was really amazing and it's always a god advice: What you do is what you get.

Greetings,

Matthias

[lordskylark 1]

The animation in that stupid Dungeons and Dragons movie was HORRIBLE!

~Sky

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

However, the last thing I want to be reminded of while watching a film is the fact that I'm watching a film.  If the camera suddenly glides through a window pane without breaking it, my mind is distracted from the story and the characters--

Citizen Kane has a shot like that.

[QMM 4]

Citizen Kane has a shot like that.

A couple of shots actually

[robthehand 3]

However, the last thing I want to be reminded of while watching a film is the fact that I'm watching a film.  If the camera suddenly glides through a window pane without breaking it, my mind is distracted from the story and the characters--

Citizen Kane has a shot like that.

As does High Anxiety... almost... LOL