Monday, March 16, 2009

Oh, I'll show you what bad CGI REALLY is!

Last week, Total Film posted an article on the 20 Worst Movie CGI Moments. And, in looking through the list...I have to wonder if they really know what bad CGI is.




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.

Comments (22)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Nice little article to start work with that. many thanks.
Worst CG-effect I can recall is the plane crashing in Air Force One. Especially for such a high profile movie, it's just shockingly bad.
2 replies · active 837 weeks ago
It's been so long since I saw Air Force One that I don't even remember that.
I completely agree, they must of already used all of the movies money and didn't have any left over for post production cgi, because for its time it was horrible, looks like one of the previsualization shots in the Star Wars behind the scenes
Filmmakers use the tools that they have at their disposal to tell the story, the story has to come first. Not everyone can afford top of the line graphics all the time. But even when they can, it is unfair to compare 'Event Horizon' or 'Deep Blue Sea' to 'Transformers' or 'The Lord of the Rings' Trilogy. Technology advances so quickly that even a few months can show a spectacular difference in what is possible. Comparing "older" films with newer ones with a focus on technology is simply unfair.
1 reply · active 837 weeks ago
while this is technically true, the fact of the matter is that if you can't afford the CGI, why not plan something else? Puppets anyone? You don't need spiffy graphics to make a movie work. If you have an ok movie, why not go with something basic?
Any1 ever seen Tyranosauras Wrecks. Now theres a fucken shit lookin movie
Matte paintings (or whateer the hell they were) at the end of Independence Day ruined the effects on an otherwise great movie. Did they run out of money after they brought the aliens down or what?
1 reply · active 837 weeks ago
If you are referring to the pictures of the alien ships crashed at different locations on Earth; they were real locations with the ships superimposed over them. From personal experience I can tell you that the one with Will Smith is the Bonneville Salt Flats on the Utah/Nevada border, and it was a very real picture. I have that picture on my living room wall - minus the burning hulk of an alien craft.
I'm surprised the Star Wars prequels didn't get mentioned.
5 replies · active 837 weeks ago
By whom? By me? By and large, the effects in the Star Wars prequels are very good. There are a few moments that are less than stellar, but in looking at them as a whole...there were a lot of great CGI moments. The good far outweighed the bad.
I suppose, but I thought the space ship battles were way too polished and when Qui-Gon had that conversation with the frog king (or whatever it was--I forget the name of their race), it seemed like he was talking to a wall and there was a CGI gelatinous puppet, like George Lucas took T-1000 technology to upgrade his animatronics or something.
To be fair, there hadn't been a lot of CGI characters at that time, so to have things not line up perfectly, I can under stand that.
I guess that's true. But then, I don't think the issue was whether the CGI was good or not but whether it should have been real makeup and animatronics instead of CGI. After seeing Farscape, I think George should have gone with old school technology.
Like Ian Malcolm said in Jurassic Park, "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." Of course he was talking about cloning dinosaurs, but I think the same applies here. Lucas tried like hell to move away from practical effects, and in the process lost a bit of the charm associated with those techniques.
I took the 20 Worst CGI Moments list to not necessarily be about the worst CGI ever put in film. Obviously, it is not. To me, the list was properly summarized in the Matrix blurb as, "The Golden Rule Of CGI: Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should." So perhaps the list is more appropriately titled 20 CGI Moments That Just Shouldn't Be But Are.
Xerxestireirondada's avatar

Xerxestireirondada · 837 weeks ago

I'm confused and rather depressed that people would actually claim that the effects in Kong were bad. People have a bizarre standard for "bad" anymore. Films like Kong and LOTR and others have effects that would have made people in 1980 poop out their colons in stunned disbelief, and now all people can do is complain that "eeh that's not good enough." I swear, we've become a culture of insatiable whiners.
I thought King Kong was great. Kong himself blew me away!
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.
Wait, I'm confused:

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?
1 reply · active 836 weeks ago
both. that's the beauty of this blog. or maybe you're just reading it wrong.
Sometime in the midst of the LOTR movies and other big-budget flicks with lots of big-budget CGI I began to feel really bored by the whole thing. Ho-hum, huge battle scene with tons of detail, looks impressive, but still doesn't look real. Special effects in general just seemed at the time to lose their appeal when it seemed like anything was possible if enough money was thrown at it.

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.
Very awesome. I look forward to seeing it grow.

Post a new comment

Comments by