ryutaro's mama
Member
Lawnmower Man
Mortal Kombat (specifically Reptile)
Mortal Kombat (specifically Reptile)
-
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
If you like this sort of thing, the American Cinematographer has some really interesting contemporary articles about the production of the OT star wars movies. Very interesting reading about the change from "seat-of-the-pants, inventing weird contraptions and new techniques to get the job done" attitude they had for ANH, through to the "super-powerful all guns-blazing, no expense spared" attitude for ROTJ.
https://www.theasc.com/magazine/starwars/
There's also such a thing as bad animatronics, too. I can think of tons of films where the creature effects look horribly stilted because there's this bad easing as the creatures move from pose to pose.
In contrast to some answers here, I think the issue is really the late 1990s/early 2000s films. Post-Jurassic Park there was a slow overtaking of CG being used everywhere by the end of the decade, even when it wasn't yet good enough to pass. Even at the time the CG Neo in the Matrix sequels and the Rock-monster in The Mummy Returns weren't up to snuff.
I think it's also a matter of us knowing intrinsically what's "real". It's not just the CG effects, it's that this "camera" is whipping around with no weight and doing impossible angles and moves that we never saw in conventional effects-driven movies, or it's shaking with artificial movement added in post which is night-and-day difference in feeling from actual in-camera movement.
Whereas most visual effects people don't realize are visual effects (like sky replacement or matte extensions) are often invisible to the eye because they don't draw attention to themselves, they're designed to be seamless and fit in with traditional filmmaking techniques.
That reminds me, in ROTJ, there's green squares around a bunch of ships. They weren't so apparent on old TV broadcast or DVD but they stand out like a sore thumb on the BluRay. I'm just wondering why they never fixed that considering all the other stuff they messed with in the movies.
I watched Escape from LA the other day, it has some really cringeworthy shots.
The Snake and Peter Fonda greenscreen surfboard chase of Steve Buscemi on a Tom & Jerry looping CGI composite background is the most obvious example, but the most egregious shot to me was Snake exiting his infiltration vehicle on the beach. Like, all they had to do was build was a little capsule prop for Kurt Russell to get out of, and instead they film him mime-exiting from nothing and throw this this terrible Lawnmover Man CG prop over it.
The Snake and Peter Fonda greenscreen surfboard chase of Steve Buscemi on a Tom & Jerry looping CGI composite background is the most obvious example, but the most egregious shot to me was Snake exiting his infiltration vehicle on the beach. Like, all they had to do was build was a little capsule prop for Kurt Russell to get out of, and instead they film him mime-exiting from nothing and throw this this terrible Lawnmover Man CG prop over it.
crazyrabbits
Banned
The thing you have to realize is that Lucas has been saying this shit repeatedly for the last two decades. Just off the top of my head, I remember him saying that it would cost too much to remaster the original, unaltered films (despite people like Robert Harris offering to do it for free), saying he lost the original negatives when they did the Special Edition back in the 90s, continually fucking with his vision because he never truly considered it "complete", etc.
They absolutely had the money and resources to use practical effects, but Lucas has been enamored with digital effects ever since the 90s (some say because of Titanic's success). It's why the prequel trilogy always felt so lifeless.
gutter_trash
Banned
this thread delivers
Hello? This is Hailun!
Member
Interfectum
Member
Attack of the Clones
I'm sure there are worse examples but this wins purely due to the unintentional bait and switch.
You stated it was Attack of the Clones. I ignored that and assumed it was early Clone Wars TV footage.
gg lucas
Liquidsnake
Banned
Those saying Tron has me laughing out of my chair.............
AIR FORCE ONE crash had the worst CGI I have ever seen.
AIR FORCE ONE crash had the worst CGI I have ever seen.
Definitely, maybe...it's hard to judge, CGI monster The Rock looked bad even back then, so "aged badly" is relative when it was bad since day 0.
I think people saying spy kids are kinda not seeing the point, yes, the CGI looks cheap, but even back then i recall feeling it was never meant to look realistic at all, it was deliberatedly made to look like a cartoon in real life, you can argue it looks back, but i feel it looks exactly how it was meant to.
Razorback
Member
Prequels win this for me not because they have objectively the worst CGI but because It's Star Wars. They should be pushing the envelope when it comes to special effects. It's half the reason we watch these movies. Lucas created Industrial Light and Magic! They own all the talent and have all the money they could possibly need.
How on earth do these movies look like dogshit?!
How on earth do these movies look like dogshit?!
Lucas was surrounded by sycophants and his ex-wife left him.
i believe Spellbound won an academy award or something for best special effects
Attack of the Clones
:lol. You could tell me that's from the Clone Wars show and I would believe you.
All three Star Wars prequels have aged dreadfully.
I would say it's even worse in motion, since they don't move like humans but rather appear to have a plasticity more akin to silly-putty. Personally, it was fine in 2003, but these days I can tell exactly when the movie switches from live action to cartoon. The SFX in the Matrix sequels have aged horribly. Just like with the SW prequels, it's a case of needlessly abusing computer effects. There are several pointless close-ups of CGI faces in Reloaded and Revolutions.
I would say it's even worse in motion, since they don't move like humans but rather appear to have a plasticity more akin to silly-putty. Personally, it was fine in 2003, but these days I can tell exactly when the movie switches from live action to cartoon. The SFX in the Matrix sequels have aged horribly. Just like with the SW prequels, it's a case of needlessly abusing computer effects. There are several pointless close-ups of CGI faces in Reloaded and Revolutions.
Those saying Tron has me laughing out of my chair.............
AIR FORCE ONE crash had the worst CGI I have ever seen.
Yep Tron still looks great to me.
And Air Force One looks worse than the crashes on the Air Disasters TV show, which certainly has way less money in the special effects budget.
Cute Dragon Here
Member
For some reason the "bad/poorly aged CG" shots are kind of endearing to me. They somehow evoke the "old video game console CG FMV" vibes...
Drilbit777
Member
Spawn needs a real R rated adaption. That disaster of a movie doesn't even come close to represent spawn.
lazer_bean
Member
Yeah no way on the OT. Just watched them and they aged great, aside from a few scenes here and there (mainly ROTJ).
I'd actually say I'm goddamn surprised how good it looks, 40 years later.
This movie was an abomination from day one. There was a shit tonne of criticisms about the special effects when it came out.
I forgot how awful that looked. And now I see that the villain from Die Another Day...
is Flint from Black Sails
The melting gold was bloody awful and it stood out REALLY bad when watched in 3D.
Me too. I was thinking "That looks fine for a cartoon aesthetic" but if that's from the movies, bleh.
What are you talking about?
Looks absolutely fine.
That doesn't count.
It looked terrible on release.
Nerdkiller
Membeur
They never replaced the Alien with any CG. I never got how people saw the puppet as such, it doesn't even look remotely computer generated at all. It's more a result of awkward compositing.
I feel as though there are some bits that stick out a fair bit. Mainly involving matte paintings where there's people in the shot. Really sticks out due to the lack of depth. Same can be said in 2001 in the opening Africa shots with the front projected backgrounds. Everything else is fantastic, though and still hold up (helped that was because they used the multiple exposure method of compositing, so there were no visible matte lines around the craft).
In fairness to this crappy movie, remember that this was a 3D movie. I remember because I saw it in 3D at a theater when I was a kid. Damn, I'm old.
This was due to the failed Wolfgang Petersen Batman vs. Superman project. When I Am Legend was filming it had been announced in 2002. Thankfully it was later scrapped.
It's mainly the compositing in Alien 3 which is awful. What with those cartoony edges/outlines.
SpookyFries
Member
Damn. I didn't even think twice about this when I saw the movie. I'm sure in 5 years we'll all be talking about how shitty it looks
Calamari41
41 > 38
Attack of the Clones
This looks so bad that I thought you were straight-out lying to us, to the point where I looked up the scene on YouTube in order to expose you. But there it is.
I'm remember seeing pics of the new effects for the BluRay releases of star wars ie... R2D2 now hiding behind rocks in a new hope, jabbas palace doors made to look bigger.... And they looked bad...you could see where they photoshopped and repeated the same textures. Anyone post the pics? I'm on mobile.
I would love to see the cg redone on this to see how much things have improved.
I would love to see the cg redone on this to see how much things have improved.
Attack of the Clones
yeah
shit's incredible. pretty sure they didnt build one single armor
pixelation
Member
The CGI Mask in Halloween H20.
Is that real?... why?...
I disagree. And I also come fresh from a marathon of all the movies.
A lot of the practical sets in the OT feel very fake and flimsy, like everything is made of cardboard. Machines like the AT AT and AT ST look extremely fragile. They don't look sturdy or powerful at all. Stop motion is also very noticeably and looks weird.
I appreciate practical effects for their time, but today they look incredibly fake. There are exceptions regarding the sets, of course. I've always loved how the furnace in Cloud City looks, for example. But the city itself looks incredibly fake and staged.
seventynine
Member
Filmmaking is a trick. It's all about the application of the trickery and in The Phamtom Menace it wasn't done very well. There's nothing inherently wrong with that technique.
I didn't know that. Interesting. I'll add that David Fincher has been using that form of editing since Fight Club and nobody was the wiser until he and his editors spoke about it. Indeed it was used extensively in The Social Network and his editors won the Oscar that year.
I thought that aged in real-time.
My pick:
I remember very well the thinkpieces that the computer will replace the actors very soon because Toy Story was so goodlooking.
Jaws 3.
even better in gif form. so awful.
I did the same. I remember being pretty impressed when I saw it as a kid, but now those soldiers and their machinery look like plastic.
Strangelove77
Member
I can't agree with the Toy Story movies. The art style is cartoony and the animation is still fantastic. It was never attempting realism. It's more cartoon than cg relic to me.
Nerd_Incognito
Member
brotherbean
Member
Jaws 3.
I...I hadn't seen this since I was a kid and now I'm embarrassed that kid-me thought this was an ok part of an ok movie. My life is such a sham.
Osukaa
Member
Your comment is awesome lol got me laughing.
- Status