Cartoonish Visual Effects!

[Nate6]

You'd think that with time, CGI would improve and evolve, and, for a large part, it has. You can do almost anything with CGI now, and it's faster and easier for filmmakers and studios to use. That should be a good thing. But I wonder that if, along with these vast improvements, the engineers of our wonderful Hollywood entertainment have gotten lazy and/or cheap. For example, in the wonderful film Spider-Man, when the CGI superhero glided from building to building with his webbing helping him, he looked like something straight out of some sort of video game system, instead of a real, flesh and blood person. In Harry Potter and the Sorceror's (Philosopher's) Stone, the troll that Harry, Hermione, and Ron encounter in the washroom seems as if it was just cut-and-pasted directly from a computer. And we won't get into talking about Scooby-Doo in the film based on his name. These are only three examples, there are more. Now, some people will tell me to loosen up, it's only entertainment, relax. But for me to enjoy entertainment, there has to be at least some level of true craftsmanship in it, and I know I'm not the only one. Now, this is not a statement that applies to all films. Many movies' effects are seamless in their execution and they are better for having these scenes in them. For example, I thought the CGI in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring were very good, for the most part. It's just another qualm I have with that business called show.

Nate.

[Cyclonus]

I know, sometimes I wish they never invented CGI! The special effects in the climax of Spawn were so bad it was laughable. I seem to remember the ones in The Mummy Returns were kinda fake-looking at times as well.

[Gregorious8]

The CGI of the Scorpion King in The Mummy Returns was one of the worst ever. Every time I see that it makes me sick to my stomach.

[edonline]

I thought the effects in Spiderman were actually very good and some of the better usage of them from recent films. The scenes where he was swinging through the city, actually made me feel a littel queasy from the "motion". Some of the more straight-forward action films like The Scorpion King seem to have more cheesy CGI effects.

[Cyclonus]

Okay, sometimes I just don't know. Look at the "mouth-flies" in The Green Mile, I really don't know how they could pull that off otherwise.

[boggie]

The "jello man" ending to Blade (where the dude swells up and explodes) was absolutely pathetic.

[APzombie]

I think the cgi AI army system for the Lord of the Rings Trilogy is the best thing to come since the dinosours in Jurrasic Park!

[Common Sense Man]

I agree that CGI can do almost anything now.

But you have to remember that cost is the key issue and it seems like the movie studios just don't want to shell out the bucks for the good stuff.

Look at HP, or Spiderman to see how low cost effects can hurt a movie.

Then look at Minority Report for basically flawless integration of effects.

Or Jurassic Park for that matter a movie that is years old.

It is all about the time and money spent and some studios just don't care to spend either, as long as they get your buck.

Out.........................

[Jerk Shapiro]

A prime example:

Star Wars: Episode 2

Back in the 70's and 80's...the creatures were robots and puppets.

Now, there so fake it is pathetic.

Just bring back the puppets!

[Horror whore]

Yes, cartoony effects do make some movies seem very bad. I think when characters jump or ride on the CGI creatures that makes it worse. When Legolas jumps on the cave troll in LotR, that looks very cartoony, same when Harry Potter is lifted by the troll. The only time I'd say that there has been a successful scene like this is when Obi-Wan, Anakin, and Padme rode that rhino-ish thing in the arena scene of AotC....

[Big Pudge]

the worst was the end of MUMMY RETURNS w/ the rocks face on the big scorpion monster.

but also bad was BLADE II some of the fighting had visual effects CLEARLY taken from the computer and made it look REAL bad!

[Sunshine]

I for one thought that the Blade 2 visual effects were pretty cool. That fight at the beginning looked like the Mortal Kombat game, and I just thought it looked good.

[El Bracamonti]

the absulte worst cgi in a movie, was in the mummy returns, and in american psycho 2. the fire at the end was the most fake that anything has ever been. spiderman was lousy too!

[HM Murdock]

Harry Potter really enoyed me. The Troll scene and the bit where that kid fell off his flying broom looked crap. I also agree about The Mummy Returns. The Rock's face looks better in the SmackDown games than it did on the screen.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Common Sense Man


Look at HP, or Spiderman to see how low cost effects can hurt a movie.




Hurt?

Harry Potter made $90 million in it's first weekend and Spiderman has grossed over $400 million. I don't think the troll was as bad people are making it out on this post, and believe it or not, I haven't seen Spiderman, but just from the various trailers I saw I wasn't exactly disappointed.


My true irk with CGI is when it's used as a creative crutch, because to me, the most awful use of CGI in a film was the Haunting. That movie just screamed to me, "Forget audience imagination, we're just gonna pummel them with cheesy effect after cheesy effect".

In essence rendering the audience as involved in the film as Britney Spears is in her albums. If I want to sit ineffectually somewhere I can do that at home for free!

[the movie guy]

Anyone else agree with me that Steven Spielberg films have the best visual effects shots in them?

First came Jurassic Park.
Then The Lost World.
Then A.I.
Now Minority Report.

These are all filled to the brim with visual effects shots, and they are, BY FAR, the best I have seen... And Jurassic Park's were made back in nineteen-ninety fucking two!!!

LOTR's effects were good too but, on the small screen, some of them show pretty badly.

How about that fucking Gollum thing though in The Two Towers? Now THAT'S cool.

(As for The Mummy Returns... I laughed for about three days straight when they showed the close up of The Rock. Same with Harry Potter getting tossed around by that horrible looking troll.)

[ANTBond007]

About Star Wars -- you can pick puppets that look decent but are very fake in terms of movement, or semi-realistic looking CGI that moves genuinely.

[darkface]

I agree 'The Movie Guy' about Speilberg, he can do wonders with visual effects, and he tends not to abuse it either, he rely's on the story for the focal point, not the Visual effects.

[Nate6]

Steven Spielberg's effects are amazing - those little spider-robots things from Minority Report were genius, not fake-looking at all.

[Cyclonus]

Here's an interesting take: sometimes intentionally bad visual effects can actually add to a movie's charm. Take a look at the "rat monkey" in Dead Alive. They must have made it so cheesy-looking on purpose, and it's hilarious. I laughed my ass off when it made its appearance.

[James Logan]

If the special effects fit the movie's atmosphere, then it's fine. For instance some flicks call for cartoonish visuals. But if they're cartoonish just because they're bad, then it's true, I'm sick of it too. But we can't exactly do anything about it now can we? :)

[Tom Samborski]

The reason why the CGI in some movies is so shitty is because of budget. Sometimes a studio doesn't have enough cash to make really good CGI, so they have to do the best they can to do smart spending on effects, which sometimes has a bad result.

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

...for the most part, I agree. Special-effects can look bad, and they can look good. Wow. Now, other than overstating the obvious, I do have a few comments to make.

Whore; the scene where Anakin, Padme, and Obi-Wan ride the 'rhino-thing', in Attack of the Clones, is the actors being filmed on a blue-screen, and as such, is not entirely comparable to Harry being handled by the Troll, and Legolas jumping on the troll. A more comparable effect would be Anakin riding on that 'space-cow'. Oh, and I remember reading a article about Hayden/Anakin getting 'saddle-legs', or whatever the hell is it called when you ride a bull/horse/whatever.

Also, I liked the effects in SM very much. I think the fact that they werent 100% realisitic, added to the comic-book atmosphere.

Oh, and another thing - one complaint that has always bugged me about Fellowship of the Ring, is that the CGI building, pillars, villages, looked fake. Now, this may come as a shock, but Orthanc, Bara-dur, Rivendell, Lothlorien, Moria, the pillars of the Argonath, Minas Tirith - they are all miniatures. Not a single shot of them in the film is CGI. That complaint is most prevalent concerning the Mines of Moria. I have heard so many people say that the pillars looked really fake, when in fact, they were HUGE miniatures. So,...yeah.

[Horror whore]

Originally posted by Dumb-Fokker-**
Whore; the scene where Anakin, Padme, and Obi-Wan ride the 'rhino-thing', in Attack of the Clones, is the actors being filmed on a blue-screen, and as such, is not entirely comparable to Harry being handled by the Troll, and Legolas jumping on the troll. A more comparable effect would be Anakin riding on that 'space-cow'. Oh, and I remember reading a article about Hayden/Anakin getting 'saddle-legs', or whatever the hell is it called when you ride a bull/horse/whatever.


I did not know that Not that the new LotR preview is out I can compare the "space-cow"* scene to whatever the hell those things they were riding on in the TT preview are. In Star Wars when Anakin is on the "space-cow" he likes cartoony, but it could have been much much worse. The "space-cow" looked fine though. In the TT preview (I can't remember who was riding those things) the person riding the cratue looked extremely good, like he was actually there. But the things they were riding looked really, really cartoonish. I'm sure that those effects are still being worked on and hopefully are much much more realistic when the actual movie comes out...

*Are they really called space-cows?!

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Well, thats what I called them. And as for the creatures they were riding ( 'Wargs' ) - I too thought they looked cartoony, but when I saw it on the big screen with Red Dragon, they looked incredible. So,...yeah.

[cereal killer]

My problem with the use of CGI is that in most low budget films they use CGI fire instead of the real thing and that pisses me off because it looks so fake it's pathetic.

[APzombie]

I think that the modles of flying cars in L.A. shown in Blade Runner are much better eye candy (and a hell of a lot more realistic) than the flying cars in courisant shown in Episode II: Attack of the Clones...

[ANTBond007]

Yeah, CGI fire does look very fake.

And Dumb-Fokker, it's the huge miniature's that's part of the problem with LOTR's otherwise excellent FX. They look to be at a different resolution as everything else. To be honest, I have no problem with the Mines of Moria, but a lot of the Orthanc stuff just looks... weird.

Take for instance Gandalf's arrival at Isengard, with Saruman slowly moving down the steps. Gandalf and Saruman look to be at a slightly higher resolution than the tower itself. This problem is also visible in that shot from the Two Towers trailer, with Saruman rallying the Uruk-hai.

[Jason Voorhees]

Originally posted by the movie guy
Anyone else agree with me that Steven Spielberg films have the best visual effects shots in them?


(As for The Mummy Returns... I laughed for about three days straight when they showed the close up of The Rock. Same with Harry Potter getting tossed around by that horrible looking troll.)

Well, Spielberg is so lauded and popular that he pretty much has carte blanche as far as budget goes, which shows in his films.

I agree about the Mummy Returns, Jesus that was pathetic.

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Although I hadnt noticed the resolution aspect yet, I still think that alot of peoples complaints about the 'CGI enviroments' are signs that alot of people are too used to CGI, and think everything looks fake now. Oh well,....

[LAW]

First off, don't get me wrong, I loved Fellowship of the Ring. What I did notice was when the Crebain (large spy crows of Saruman) are making their descent into Isengard's caverns to tell him of the Fellowship's whereabouts, it looks so fake. If you have the DVD take a slow-mo look at it. As the birds are flying by Orcs with torches and such, you can see the Orcs sliding to and fro on the ground instead of standing still as they should be. It is too obvious that they were placed on a moving point of view track of film even though it is a fast moving shot. Also when Aragorn and Frodo are leaning the broken staircase in Moria in order to jump to safety, when they are finally coming towards the others, it is obviously fake between them and the background.

The Two Towers has promised to be a much better achievement in all aspects. Let's hope so. Nothing could be worse than Gollum turing out like Jar Jar.

[A Canadian ThereWolf]

Just to bring up some other piss poor visual effects;
How lousy were the werewolves in An American Werewolf In Paris?!?
Or the Dragons in Dungeons & Dragons? Cripes Dragonheart was made five years before "D&D" and those effects were amazing in comparison!

They were both so laughable that if the Razzies had an award for Worst Visual Effects, these films would surley take 'em home!!!

[Jewbo]

i hate cgi to death. u can always tell whan summin is cgi. harry potters was so bad esp that 3 headed dog. and i also hated it in blade 2 and spider man.

[lily25]

Originally posted by APzombie
I think that the modles of flying cars in L.A. shown in Blade Runner are much better eye candy (and a hell of a lot more realistic) than the flying cars in courisant shown in Episode II: Attack of the Clones...

Bladerunner's effects still amaze me, as do those of Alien. However, I watched Aliens the other day on TBS or something and the some of the effects on board the military transport were so bad. Remember those yellow loader-robot machines that Ripley knew how to use - I don't know what they were called...It almost hurt to watch they looked so bunk. But I still love that movie anyway.

[HM Murdock]

The worst special effects I have ever seen are in Casper: A Sprited Begining. Sure this was a kids movie but still the ghost effects were pure crap. It looks as if they were done using a kids computer program.

[Square Eyes]

I thought the Lord of the Rings effects were good. Spiderman's were rubbish. Has anyone seen anything from the Hulk yet? I dread to think what that will look like. The most annoying CGIs for me was the "bonus" footage in the Star Wars movies. You have the original fx and then suddenly there's some naff cartoon thing that stands out a mile....so bad :mad:

[Rocco]

First off, Spiderman was a terrible movie, it was reminiscant of a Power Rangers episode, and the animation was just cheese ball.

But being a fellow 3D Animator, I can appreciate the work that goes into these creatures. But, that doesn't mean they're great, or even believable, most of it is pure crap. Like The Mummy Returns, god, that makes my want to kill all of those involved with the production. What the fuck were they thinking? It makes me want to projectile vomit.

[APzombie]

One of the greatest shots in The Fellowship of the Ring is when Gandlof first enters Biblo's house, he is seen with his huge hat and long walking stick, in the same shot, Biblo walks up grabs the hat and stick and places them aside, the camera moves without cuting the shot and it is seen much larger in Ians hands.... I am so amazed at that shot!

[Michael_myers]

The dinoasurs in JP3.

[the movie guy]

What about the dinosaurs in JP3? Good? bad?

Are you just trying to raise your post count quickly? (Like I'm doing with THIS post... ;) j/k)

[Jim H]

A lot of films have CGI badly spliced in. The textures and lighting never seems to match as well, I can almost always spot CGI. I wish they had less CGI in the Star Wars films, the lack of puppets makes it lose some of the charm. The robot puppets were better anyways..


"Remember those yellow loader-robot machines that Ripley knew how to use - I don't know what they were called...It almost hurt to watch they looked so bunk."

Eh? It was a real machine, though it had wires and controls coming out of it. What was wrong with it? It is called a Power Loader by the way, they exist (though they are different then in Aliens, of course) in real life. Some of the ones in real life are what are known as Waldos, from a Heinlein novel. They move based on your arms motions, ala Aliens.

[Son Gohan]

I agree strongly for anyone who said that Spiderman had terrible CGI, cause it DID! When his jumping from building to (first discovers his powers) building - that looked really bad. I also hated the end scene with those massive jumps his doing through the streets. That looked really video gamish.

Here's a few other bad ones:

Die Another Day: The surfing scene.....BHAHAHAHAAHAHHA!

Resident Evil

Brother Hood of Wolf

[Cyclonus]

Okay, I just downloaded the trailer for Terminator 3. Looks like a good action flick, but what bothers me is that it's clearly gonna be a bit CGI-heavy. To be honest, I fear that it will end up being "cartoony" or something, unlike the first two, which felt very real to me. Anyone else know what I'm trying to get at here?

[Nate6]

Originally posted by Cyclonus
Okay, I just downloaded the trailer for Terminator 3. Looks like a good action flick, but what bothers me is that it's clearly gonna be a bit CGI-heavy. To be honest, I fear that it will end up being "cartoony" or something, unlike the first two, which felt very real to me. Anyone else know what I'm trying to get at here?

Certainly. I saw the trailer on Access Hollywood and I immediately thought the same thing as you. I hope that it doesn't get all videogamey and cartoony with the CGI, it'd be nice to have as much realism as possible with a film such as this.

[Jim H]

Of course it'll be CGI heavy. Terminator 2 was quite possibly the FIRST CGI heavy movie. Tron/The Last Starfighter don't count.

[rushmore beauty]

Cartoony visuals never really bothered me, but it really depends on the movie. The Mummy Returns (4/10) had cartoony visuals, but they fit the film (effects were shitty, so was the movie). Spider-Man (8/10) had wicked effects and although they were sometimes cartoony, they fit the movie because it is based on a comic/cartoon. Ditto for Blade and Blade II (both 8/10).