Yes, Sam Jackson's death in Deep Blue Sea is horrific (horrifically AWESOME!). With that and Shark Attack 3 to open things up, I had a feeling that they might be onto something fun. Then I read on...and realized that whoever wrote this article has never watched the SciFi Channel on a Saturday night (though I'm not sure if that says more about me or Chris Hicks).
It's one thing if you want to stick to scenes in big budget movies like Watchmen or Transformers and that sort of movie. That's a whole different discussion. But when you start off by mentioning a couple of low budget shark movies, well, they just can't compete. A movie like The Matrix has a lot more money to work with than the likes of Shark Attack 3. It's not a level playing field. And it's unfair to lump them into the same category.
Besides...if you want to talk about bad CGI? Let's start by taking a look at something like Attack of the Sabertooth.
![]() |
![]() |
That's from the friggin movie! A movie like Transformers puts more effort into an animatic!
And you want to talk about surfing? Die Another Day has not-a-goram-thing on Escape From L.A.
Do you really think that any thing about this looks better than what the accomplished in Die Another Day? Come on, dude!
Or, let's look at Event Horizon:
Do you really think that the opening sequence full of shitty looking floating debris looks better than anything in Lord of the Rings? And don't even get me started on Johnny Mnemonic or Lawnmower Man and their all CGI depictions of the interweb.
And let's be fucking honest, the only reason the effects looked bad in King Kong was because of how much Peter Jackson and Weta Workshop accomplished on LotR. Sure, the dinosaurs weren't the best CGI effects, but the damn monkey looked amazing.
The Wachowskis, the Bays, the Bruckheimers in this world will never put out the kind of movies that are chock full of bad effects and pure awesome-osity that the Lions Gates, Nu Images and Asylums will.
It's just a different mentality.
And not just among the film makers. As a viewer, I go into something like The Matrix with certain expectations. I expect to see something to write home about. When I pop in something like Raging Sharks, I expect to get a good chuckle and maybe be entertained for a few minutes. So, when I see a goofy alien, or a bad CGI shark, I laugh. I make fun of it. And while I may expect it to be bad, that doesn't mean that it's more inexcusable for a big budget movie to have a little shoddy CGI in it. Hell no. After seeing what people are doing on average home computers and with little money, I expect MORE out of the low budget flicks. When you have all the money in the world to spend on your movie, you damn well better hire the best. When you're on a shoestring, it's about getting the biggest bang for your buck. And when you don't...when you get something that looks like it was made using the airbrush in MS Paint...that's the CGI to get offended by.
Les · 837 weeks ago
Levene · 837 weeks ago
smacdonn 39p · 837 weeks ago
Adam W · 837 weeks ago
Eric · 837 weeks ago
kate · 837 weeks ago
Evilize · 837 weeks ago
JON · 837 weeks ago
Moviebuff · 837 weeks ago
Mike · 837 weeks ago
smacdonn 39p · 837 weeks ago
Mike · 837 weeks ago
smacdonn 39p · 837 weeks ago
Mike · 837 weeks ago
smacdonn 39p · 837 weeks ago
Cameron · 837 weeks ago
Xerxestireirondada · 837 weeks ago
Kevin · 837 weeks ago
I don't expect as much from low budget films, and as long as the story is good, I can forgive some bad effects. I agree that big budget blockbusters should have the best effects and anything less is inexcusable.
And to Mike, the only problem I had with the prequels was Jabba the Hutt. I could have done better with some play-do and a green screen.
TJH · 837 weeks ago
Para 3: "It's one thing if you want to stick to scenes in big budget movies like Watchmen or Transformers and that sort of movie. That's a whole different discussion. But when you start off by mentioning a couple of low budget shark movies, well, they just can't compete. A movie like The Matrix has a lot more money to work with than the likes of Shark Attack 3. It's not a level playing field. And it's unfair to lump them into the same category. "
Para 12: "...that doesn't mean that it's more inexcusable for a big budget movie to have a little shoddy CGI in it. Hell no. After seeing what people are doing on average home computers and with little money, I expect MORE out of the low budget flicks."
First you say it's unfair to lump them in the same category (initially implying that you should cut the low-budgets a break), then you say you actually hold low-budgets to a higher standard. Which is it?
kate · 836 weeks ago
Jim · 836 weeks ago
Then (for some reason) I went to the theater and sat through 'A Sound Of Thunder', the time travel tale that thankfully had very little to do with the favorite old Bradbury short story that inspired it.
Terrible flick with thunderingly bad CGI effects. Cheesy, just wretched.
Seeing it done so poorly managed to give me a new appreciation for movies that use the process to better effect.
allmobitools · 296 weeks ago