ThatStupidLion
Member
this scene is pretty awful - theres also a golden flag waving at one point and it just looks sooo bad... i could tell it was cg when the movie first came out even.
-
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
this scene is pretty awful - theres also a golden flag waving at one point and it just looks sooo bad... i could tell it was cg when the movie first came out even.
SchrodingerC
Member
Actually when you look at MD's nose and mouth, especially when he talks, you can tell something is not quite right.
I would agree with Terminator 1, mostly in the part where the T-100's face was damaged. That mask looked NOTHING like Arnold, looked like a pinch-faced Christopher Walken or something.
The T-100 Skeleton's movements were kind of hokey, but that worked since it was meant to be uncanny and frightful anyway.
The T-100 Skeleton's movements were kind of hokey, but that worked since it was meant to be uncanny and frightful anyway.
RoslindaleOne
Member
There were also a bunch of pointless scenes in that movie thanks to being a 3d film.Jaws 3.
the Spider Alien Gary Oldman from the same movie is pretty rough too
There are more examples/scenes, but this is already scary enough.
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHA
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
Well, we're talking 2002-04 type CG here, in which case I would believe it's probably the best they could do for a full-frame CG shot without any assistance with practical stuff at the time. Similarly, full-CG shots in Jurassic World look horrible because you can obviously tell it's a CG shot, thereby breaking believability, but the quality of the CG itself is not necessarily bad, which was something that was brought up over and over in the trailer threads for it. I think the Plinkett Prequel reviews pretty much already have said everything there is to say about it being an unnecessary CGI-fest, ruining both the movie and the viewer's experience of it. Even if there was a good movie under all that CG somewhere -there isn't-, you would way too distracted by all the crap to notice it.
Huh? Oh, I was positive they did something there. Well, fucked that up then. I do remember noticing it looking awkward ( so 'horrible' to my then teenage mind) on VHS rental in the 90s (pre-Resurrection). I actually like the movie though. When I comment on an effect or its particular aging, that doesn't mean I suddenly hate the effect or the movie, which goes to these quotes of my comment on The Thing '81 :
And I agree on pretty much all counts. I love The Thing, I think it's Carpenter's best and a great movie, and I love how every 'encounter' is framed differently for effect and everything (I've commented on this in a movie thread a year ago or so), and since I'm an '80s kid, I would never say "this looks bad", because I would be comparing to what was possible at the time, even if I had never seen the movie before today (like say, Halloween 1 & 3, The Fog, and Night of the Creeps that I only saw last year for the first time). I like to believe I'm a reasonable person in that regard. Alien and (OG) Star Wars are equally very well made movie where the effects are used and framed to create believability (and Terminator as well).
However, that is not what this thread was about, so pulling the creator-card like this one:
is completely irrelevant. Nobody cares how it was made because we don't need to know that when we're watching the movie. We're viewers, not makers. In fact, if we did, it would decrease our enjoyment of believability because we would know what we're looking at versus rolling with it and enjoying the movie (a -former- user here had a quote from Bruce Campbell on their blog where Campbell said that he see doesn't movies anymore, he sees actors, lighting, composition, etc. In video games, the same problem of understanding design was coined 'designeritis' by Ralph Koster in A Theory of Fun where a person can't help seeing every game as a 'rip-off' of another set of games because through playing many games they've gained too much understanding of the medium). Also, it's a product and it's sold to people on their viewing terms.
What we were (are) talking about is whether a particular effect shot, regardless of whether it is good or bad or how it is framed, has aged poorly. Any shot of miniatures for instances (Bond movies like Goldeneye or 70s movies has plenty of these) tends to age poorly because after a few years people automatically begin to be able to tell it's a miniature and the way it's put together doesn't help to maintain the illusion of it being a massive object. Reversed playback effects can also be detected but require a bit more background knowledge, as well as the mentioned front-projection in The Terminator. But the moment you see it, you can't suddenly unsee it (See Campbell). The illusion is broken, the effect revealed, and now it calls attention to itself for being an effect. Practical effects are kind of weird in this, because they are both obvious and 'ignored' at the same time. Any movie viewer knows that they are necessary, and will wilfully accept them for the sake of the movie, so they tend to last much longer, but not forever.
I think it's safe to assume most of us are '80s / '90s kids and so we grew up on a norm of 'ignore the effect' since there wasn't really an alternative. But I suspect '70s people would do the same to miniatures where 'we' would no longer do that. Similarly, I've seen plenty of 2000-born kids refer to practical effects as dated because they don't have to accept them as a norm. And this will get worse over time. Full-frame CG effects show this on high-speed because the technology has been developed within the last few decades, and so even movies made a decade ago or even more recently can be said to look terrible and dated (though the first tend to become the second).
Speaking of miniatures: that crash from In Time mentioned above should get a good laugh out of everyone, because everyone can tell what that is (someone also mentioned Independence Day, which is probably on the same merit, despite 'us' ignoring those miniatures). But the exact same scene might occur in a '70s movie and we would say it's the best they could do, but it's still a dated effect now, on account of it being an effect that now draws attention to itself for being one.
That was what I implicitly assumed we would all understand as proper ageing versus 'just being bad'. The Jaws 3 shark is just bad, but while the effect of that absolutely awful CG monkey in Lost in Space may not technically be bad at the time (I think it kinda was though), it is of course THE example, aside from the prequels, of an effect that immediately and irreversibly draws attention to itself for being an effect and horribly dated in terms of believability.
So to summarize for people with 'ain't got no time on the internet' (which is weird, you're weird): Is the The Thing a great movie? Absolutely. Does it have great practical effects for its day and age? The best. Can I watch the movie today while ignoring that certain effects (the dog) are effects? No, not anymore. That age has passed, and that's what I meant by ageing. It doesn't ruin the movie or make it bad. And now I'm done with this wall of text and ready to smash some computers.
The Shadow
Member
CLU's face in TRON: Legacy. I mean, the rest of the movie still looks fine.
I think even in 2010 people were put off and going "uncanny valley," but it was made extra jarring to me after being surprisingly impressed by Ant-Man 'de-aging' Michael Douglas and even Arnold in Terminator Genisys.
Honestly, I thought it looked really good and seemed to fit the Tron world. It only looked out of place in that scene from 1989. Should have kept him in the dark because it did not look good in natural lighting.
I was gobsmacked by the T-800 in Terminator Genesys. Pretty seemless.
Mixolydian
Member
Original spiderman roof running scene.
brianmcdoogle
Member
I think part of the problem is some of this stuff isn't that bad within the context of the movie, when not in a still photo where you can scan it for several seconds/minutes to nitpick, and when it isn't a gif that loops (again, allowing for nitpicking). Like, that Jurassic Park scene with the Brachiosaurus just posted is fine in the movie. Yes, it looks old, but you still get the sense of weight and scale.
I'm not saying all of the stuff in this thread is passable or good, because most of it is bad, but I just think context is important.
I'm not saying all of the stuff in this thread is passable or good, because most of it is bad, but I just think context is important.
CLU's face in TRON: Legacy. I mean, the rest of the movie still looks fine.
I think even in 2010 people were put off and going "uncanny valley," but it was made extra jarring to me after being surprisingly impressed by Ant-Man 'de-aging' Michael Douglas and even Arnold in Terminator Genisys.
This was intentional, but it still was really bothersome.
adamsappel
Member
Like every scene in King Kong, it just goes on and on. I swear you could cut a half-hour from that film if you just trimmed every slow zoom on someone's face.
MrCunningham
Member
I think the long arms were suppose to create a sense of forced perspective, but it ended up backfiring on them. But I agree that this always looked hilariously bad. I still love the stop motion and matte paintings of Robocop though.
The English Conquistador
Member
DarkArterialGore
Member
That ain't Wesley Snipes, it's his stunt double.
It was half truth half sarcasm, I try to suspend all disbelief as much as possible during movies, makes them a Mich better experience...
Blue Crush - back then kate bosworth's copypasta was a bit off. looking at it again, it feels like a joke in comparison to any random e3 gaf gif!
oh my gaaaad
John Kowalski
Banned
Blue Crush - back then kate bosworth's copypasta was a bit off. looking at it again, it feels like a joke in comparison to any random e3 gaf gif!
I've never noticed that holy shit!
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
That also looks terrible.
this scene is pretty awful - theres also a golden flag waving at one point and it just looks sooo bad... i could tell it was cg when the movie first came out even.
Is this from a trailer or something? I just looked at the scene on blu-ray and it doesn't look like that at all. Looks far better.
Polioliolio
Member
There was just a huge era of film around the 2000's that were simply atrocious and have all aged terribly.
Fuck CG. Give me rubber puppets all day, every day.
Fuck CG. Give me rubber puppets all day, every day.
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
Looking through this thread, I'm convinced Jackson was going for a retro late-90's early-00's vibe with The Hobbit trilogy. It was all on purpose!
Blue Crush - back then kate bosworth's copypasta was a bit off. looking at it again, it feels like a joke in comparison to any random e3 gaf gif!
Wow!
Carnby
Member
How about when The Elder Gods folded up Shinok into a Superman 2 cube? Lol.
Lys Skygge
Member
I think we have a winner! Legit laughing right now!Blue Crush - back then kate bosworth's copypasta was a bit off. looking at it again, it feels like a joke in comparison to any random e3 gaf gif!
Cow Mengde
Banned
I'm surprised by people saying Jumanji not holding up. Mainly because Jumanji didn't look good even back when it first came out. I remember seeing the commercial saying how it uses the same techniques as Jurassic Park. I scuffed at it thinking they were lying and using weaker computers to render the effects.
NekoFever
Member
Blue Crush - back then kate bosworth's copypasta was a bit off. looking at it again, it feels like a joke in comparison to any random e3 gaf gif!
Is that the one where the actual surfers are clearly guys with her head superimposed? I've never seen the movie; I just remember reading about it when it came out.
MrCunningham
Member
The rest of Jurassic Park holds up amazingly, that first T-Rex scenes and raptors.
JP aged like fine wine, except for the first dinosaur reveal scene, that brachiosaurus, when you watch it again in HD, it doesn't hold up well.
While I agree that the CG here has "aged", it still holds up better than so many of the other examples in this thread. There was still a lot of careful attention to detail applied to the lighting, animation and positioning of the camera that helps the scene overcome its technical limitations.
SoulUnison
Banned
there are clearly other winners, but always found this superlol
Is it just me or does his head...stretch subtly.
greycolumbus
The success of others absolutely infuriates me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbYMkY74ikA
Bad CGI is so unnerving that it loops around and kind of works. Kind of...
it's like when you release a rock turd
greycolumbus
The success of others absolutely infuriates me.
The rest of Jurassic Park holds up amazingly, that first T-Rex scenes and raptors.
JP aged like fine wine, except for the first dinosaur reveal scene, that brachiosaurus, when you watch it again in HD, it doesn't hold up well.
This is probably my favorite shot in the movie. Too bad it's ruined by the CG face swap. Lousy stunt double looking into the camera!
The worst bridge scene in the Hobbit movies wasn't even Legolas, it was this atrocity in the first one. I cringed at how horrible that looked in the theater.
Overall, I'd probably give the award to AotC though. A lot of the worst stuff can be forgiven due to low budgets, but not that.
Overall, I'd probably give the award to AotC though. A lot of the worst stuff can be forgiven due to low budgets, but not that.
xenorevlis
Member
Honestly, get over yourself. There are plenty of real-time and offline VFX artists like myself on GAF and you don't even need to know what we know about practical and CG effects to share what you feel has aged poorly.
If it bothers you so much how about not even post in the thread? It's not like people are at each other's throats in here. In fact a lot of interesting conversation is taking place about why some things looked the way they did, or their evolution across versions of the film.
DapperSloth
Member
You serious? It is still to this day one of the movies that has the most convincing practical effects. I watched it again last year, very creeped out by it, could not understand how they pulled it off. Fantastic. Just marvelous.
Saw The Thing (2011), and laughed at it. My god that CGI over the practical effects creatures was so so dumb. Sat there, absolutely NOT terrified at all, just yawning... Test audiences doesn't know a good effect if it hit them in the head.
A movie that has 30 years on its neck can still scare me, and a 4 year old movie almost made me fall asleep.
Various Artists
Banned
Lawnmower man was really bad.
Blueboys1306
Banned
That and the fact John Carpenter's film is a masterpiece (my fav film) whereas The Thing (2011) is not very good regardless of prac/cgi effects.
I remember this scene blowing my mind in the cinema. I'd say it's aged appropriately, not badly.
Already looked shitty when it came out. Like most examples in this thread.
- Status