pauljeremiah
Gold Member
The Giant Claw
"It's a big as a battleship."
but that wasn't CG, that was a puppet from Mexico.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
What movie's visual effects have aged the poorest?
- Thread starter Dalek
- Start date
- Status
but that wasn't CG, that was a puppet from Mexico.
hendersonhank
Member
Are these joke posts? Tron looks badass to this day.
how do you know turning into a dog wouldn't look exactly like that if it would be possible?
I'm not saying every shot is perfectly convincing, but in general isn't the thing still considered pretty much the holy grail of practical effects? I saw it twice in the last couple of years in cinema and it still has a ton of impact.
Devilinthiscity
Member
Attack of the Clones
This looks like early ps2 levels of CG. That whole plastic look on everything is just weird looking.
Yeah, I vividly remember thinking the CG people and clothing in that part looked bad right on release day. It also didn't help that the fight just went on and on. Probably the most disappointing effect in a high profile movie release for me, me and my friends were so hyped at the cinema.I remember thinking this looked terrible when it first came out.
Attack of the Clones
I literally went in my head why is he posting a Clone Wars gif. Wow that is bad.
Magic Mushroom
Member
Obvious CG or not, I still dig the crazyness of the Burly Brawl.
FairFriend
Member
I disagree. Animatronics really didn't get any better, they were replaced (unfortunately, imo) by cgi. The Thing and Lifeforce are still spectacular. There are things to consider beyond photorealism, like craftmanship.
SictorVullivan
Member
Attack of the Clones
Yeah this one wins it for me I think.
The thing with animatronics and other kinds of practical effects is that the people working on the film were generally much more aware about the limits of what they could reasonably show off. So they adapted the whole filmmaking process with camera angles, lighting, etc to work in conjunction with that.
A lot of CGI probably ends up poor because it's always added in post, and that makes it less likely that they properly plan the whole process in advance.
Entire scenes in Fury Road were made this way. Right down to re-posing actors limbs to make their pose more dramatic (in the "suicide leaping spear dude" sequence for example). Very little CGI, but tons and tons of compositing.
Nothing wrong with the technique (or any film making technique for that matter) so long as the director knows its limitations, and the FX crew are skilled at their jobs.
FairFriend
Member
Absolutely, you were forced to think about how to hide the weaknesseas while nowadays I can't help but thinking that directors simply say "whatever, we'll do it somehow with computer graphics".
Attack of the Clones
/thread
Isn't a lot of the effects practical, like the mangalores faces?
Violence Jack
Member
The Professional - Golgo 13
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJxPjUo5-cI
I know it's old, but they didn't need to use CGI for this scene. It would've been fine if it were animated like the rest of the film was.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJxPjUo5-cI
I know it's old, but they didn't need to use CGI for this scene. It would've been fine if it were animated like the rest of the film was.
Rktk
Member
Is that Clone Wars gif from the actual movie? I thought it was from a game cutscene or something?
[edit] someone asked the same thing... wow.
VFX are there for an audience, the audience has opinions on what they look like, get over yourself.
[edit] someone asked the same thing... wow.
VFX are there for an audience, the audience has opinions on what they look like, get over yourself.
MrCunningham
Member
This scene was a last minute addition that was made out of two silver spray painted pieces of styrofoam, a red laser pointer, crumpled up aluminum foil and smoke from a lit cigarette. No lie.
And also, even though it is an older movie... I would have to nominate the CGI in Escape from LA: https://youtu.be/d3aD9zpME3I?t=101
Yeah it looked bad then too, but even still, this movie has aged worse than the original 1981 Escape from New York.
PdotMichael
Banned
I love the fact how the commercials are still fresh and readable after so many years.
The movie company accountant.
Twilight Gap
Member
ayyy
backflip10019
Member
Oh shit, Bill Burr!
somebody edit in a small child at the top of the hill in the background
The movie was in production stages at that time ... not the version we end up seeing.
So since it is a movie set in future, they made what future movies people would be watching =P
No way that physics was not mentioned as pretty bad at the time of release
They were supposed to look like that. It was a style. To be clear I'm only talking about the first 2.
That is not noticeable when in motion.
It's hit and miss. Dog thing was fantastic, head-thing was so so and the stomach thing was pretty bad.
Why? It is just one step further from 'normal' editing where the best takes are connected. If you got a great performance from actor A in take 2, and a brilliant one from actor B in take 4, and you have the means to composite them together? And you can do it without the audience noticing? Why the hell not? It advances the quality of the movie...
I agree the morphing Anakin scène is very awkward, but it could well have been that Hayden made a very weird face during a good Palpatine-take or something. You never know. And, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't even have noticed it if nobody had pointed it out to you.
Getting 'shots' correctly on set isn't always as easy as it sounds, and for ages shots have been altered from the way they were filmed. And you should also know that even the most talented director can't really know if something works untill they are in the editing room (there is a reason why big movies often have reshoots or 'pick up' shoots scheduled in)
SonicMegaDrive
Member
I can still go back and watch Tron. There's a charm to it's special effects.
I could never stomach the stuff found in Jumanji, Spy Kids, Phantom Menace, Mummy, etc.
I could never stomach the stuff found in Jumanji, Spy Kids, Phantom Menace, Mummy, etc.
That gif from Attack of The Clones isn't even the worst CGI in that movie. In fact, compared to other scenes it's quite good:
This is by far the worst CGI in the film.
nkarafo
Member
IMO, there are very few films with CGI effects that look convincing. Even modern ones. In fact, i'd argue that many modern CGI fests look even faker than older movies trying to look convincing using CGI. Now they don't try to look convincing, they try to look impressive and flashy.
When CGI doesn't look like CGI or someone tells you that x scene was CGI and you didn't notice it the first time... that's when CGI is good.
When CGI doesn't look like CGI or someone tells you that x scene was CGI and you didn't notice it the first time... that's when CGI is good.
NOLA_Gaffer
Banned
If you have the DVD make sure you watch the "Making of" featurette. They put a RIDICULOUS amount of work into the effects on that movie, and I'm not just talking about the CGI stuff.
Chuckie
Member
Yes it is. Very much so. I remember seeing this in a theater thinking: What the hell is this?
well, our eyes get better and better at detecting what's CGI because we're not blinded by amazement anymore.
People thought the original King Kong movies looked 'lifelike' / 'real' ...
I think it's less about it looking "real" but about it "standing out" as artificial.
Jurassic Park's Brachiosaurus doesn't look particularly "real" anymore, but it doesn't really visually stand out in a disturbing way. It matches the rest of the film rather well.
It's why the bluescreened models of the Original Trilogy still look perfectly fine today, while anything they added in the Special Edition stands out like a sore thumb.
The bit I love is that the (still frame) film stock they used in one of the compositing stages varied between batches, and the batches were shuffled together before being used in production, which meant that when the frames were reassembled, the exposure would occasionally flicker to a brighter level. It was too late to fix it, so they added an *extra* SFX with a little bead of light zipping along a circuit in the background and added a "zzzzziip beep" sound effect, which made the overexposed frames look like they were the result of a bright light in the scene. Once you're aware of them, you see them happen all the time in the movie. Really adds to the atmosphere but was a complete accident
It was the logo of 2003's "Batman/Superman" comics series, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was used somewhere before that.
Yep, it was surprisingly noticeable at the theater. I kept trying to get into the scene but every cut to full CG Neo kept throwing me off. It was a legitimate disappointment at the time.
nkarafo
Member
I remember the first time i saw the movie back in 1993, i thought the brachiosaurus looked fake enough (but impressive nonetheless).
However the first T-Rex scene (where he cuts the fence and walks out, during the stormy night) still looks great and pretty convincing. Still a much more realistic scene compared to any scene in later JP movies.
NOLA_Gaffer
Banned
The bit I love is that the (still frame) film stock they used in one of the compositing stages varied between batches, and the batches were shuffled together before being used in production, which meant that when the frames were reassembled, the exposure would occasionally flicker to a brighter level. It was too late to fix it, so they added an *extra* SFX with a little bead of light zipping along a circuit in the background and added a "zzzzziip beep" sound effect, which made the overexposed frames look like they were the result of a bright light in the scene. Once you're aware of them, you see them happen all the time in the movie. Really adds to the atmosphere but was a complete accident
Yeah. I can only imagine the bricks that were shat when they first realized that their film was potentially unsalvagable.
- Status