My nomination would be the Star Wars OT. I would go back and remove most of the CGI that was later added that Lucas thought made it better.
Movies with aged CGI
6,766 Views |
83 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by jetescamilla
Yeah, he definitely got enamored with it and then added a bunch of crappy effects that weren't needed. I think the only thing they did with that that I liked was I'm pretty sure they made the light saber blades look the same as the new movies.
YouBet said:
My nomination would be the Star Wars OT. I would go back and remove most of the CGI that was later added that Lucas thought made it better.
Adding Jabba into Mos Eisley is the perfect example of, "They were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should"
That has to be the worst CGI idea ever. Primarily because they thought they were improving something that had already existed for 20 years.I Have Spoken said:YouBet said:
My nomination would be the Star Wars OT. I would go back and remove most of the CGI that was later added that Lucas thought made it better.
Adding Jabba into Mos Eisley is the perfect example of, "They were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should"
I said "they", but we all know they were just doing the bidding of the one who signed the checks.
My yoda "What you did there see it I do" picture apparently offended AWS.
The original Anaconda had some pretty bad CGI, but I found this doozy on YouTube. The only thing better than the snake is the appearance of the Hoff.
Howard the Duck.
The giant cockroach just didn't look good even though it scared the crap out of me as a kid.
The giant cockroach just didn't look good even though it scared the crap out of me as a kid.
I think Gollum himself still plays, but his interaction with the tangible environment doesn't. The way they sort of bend the ground / grass when his feet touch the ground is pretty weird.
A significant portion of the stuff done in the late 90s and early 2000s is bad. I think people were comparing it to animation instead of reality, and it was really good animation but really bad reality. Lots of uncanny valley, mismatched lighting, and surfaces that lacked the detail to look real because they couldn't render fast enough.
The movies that did it well still had a ton of practical effects and put a lot of care into maintaining consistency with reality and spending the time / money to do it right.
The movies that did it well still had a ton of practical effects and put a lot of care into maintaining consistency with reality and spending the time / money to do it right.
TXAG 05 said:Brian Earl Spilner said:
Oh I know. Plus the TRex being seen mostly at night and in the rain, with an animatronic on the close-ups. But it's still so good. Admittedly the first shot of the brontosaur does look bad today, but the iconic John Williams score over it makes you forgive that.
They were Brachiosaurs and it still looks great.
I love JP, but it doesn't.
rhutton125 said:
I always hated this scene, and I feel like I was the only one. The CGI just didn't hold up for me even in 2003.
I remember liking it at the time but pretty quickly thereafter realized how bad the CGI was on DVD.
Luckily the rest of the action scenes in the movie make up for it.
That's the scene that I think of when people mention bad CGI.
IF you don't even know it was a brachiosaurus, your opinion is void.Brian Earl Spilner said:TXAG 05 said:Brian Earl Spilner said:
Oh I know. Plus the TRex being seen mostly at night and in the rain, with an animatronic on the close-ups. But it's still so good. Admittedly the first shot of the brontosaur does look bad today, but the iconic John Williams score over it makes you forgive that.
They were Brachiosaurs and it still looks great.
I love JP, but it doesn't.
Scorpion King in Mummy Returns for me.
When's the last time you saw it?
Looks good in long shots. The first close-up shot, you can see the bad texture of the skin.
Looks good in long shots. The first close-up shot, you can see the bad texture of the skin.
That said, it's beyond impressive that most of the rest of the movie still holds up next to current day CGI.
Wednesday.Brian Earl Spilner said:
When's the last time you saw it?
Ulrich said:
I think Gollum himself still plays, but his interaction with the tangible environment doesn't. The way they sort of bend the ground / grass when his feet touch the ground is pretty weird.
The character is awesome for sure. The CGI is just a product of its time.
Fat Bib Fortuna said:Wednesday.Brian Earl Spilner said:
When's the last time you saw it?
Of 1993?
Quincey P. Morris said:Ulrich said:
I think Gollum himself still plays, but his interaction with the tangible environment doesn't. The way they sort of bend the ground / grass when his feet touch the ground is pretty weird.
The character is awesome for sure. The CGI is just a product of its time.
The CGI was a massive leap at the time.
Maybe I'm biased to think it still looks great because it's one of my favorites and I don't watch a ton of movies nowadays.
Independence Day
It absolutely was. Gollum in particular looks dated at this point though. The cave trolls in Moria are similar. They don't look bad, just a little dated.
Rivendale looks pretty fake with my 2021 eyes.
Is that near Rivendell?
Brian Earl Spilner said:
Is that near Rivendell?
Haha. Just saw what I posted.
Did I miss robocop in the previous posts?
The Debt said:
Did I miss robocop in the previous posts?
Flag on the play. (ED-209 was filmed with stop motion).
No idea how this will hold up over time but it's very well done.
Pretty much all of Independence Day is miniatures.Ag_07 said:
Independence Day
Ghostbusters
Formerly Willy Wonka
0 CGI. All practical effects.Willy Wonka said:
Ghostbusters
I'd say Peter Jackson's King Kong, but it really hasn't aged.
It looked terrible the day it came out.
It looked terrible the day it came out.
Here's a really good explanation of why Jurassic park holds up well. Combo of real and CGI.jokershady said:
The quality of CGI shifts still a lot with today's films so re-doing it might not make it that much better.
Look at the T-Rex scene in Jurassic park (1993) and compare that to Tobey maguire running on the rooftops in Spider-Man (2002) to moff tarkin in rogue one (2016)……I say that while all 3 films had some groundbreaking effects at the time, Jurassic park holds up the best and its not close…..
way too many factors in my opinion that affect cgi so re-doing it won't necessarily make it better
Why was there a switch to CGI in movies when puppetry looks great and movies with puppets still hold up?
[url=https://thetaoofscreenwriting.quora.com/Why-was-there-a-switch-to-CGI-in-movies-when-puppetry-looks-great-and-movies-with-puppets-still-hold-up][/url]
Why was there a switch to CGI in movies when puppetry looks great and movies with puppets still hold up?
[url=https://thetaoofscreenwriting.quora.com/Why-was-there-a-switch-to-CGI-in-movies-when-puppetry-looks-great-and-movies-with-puppets-still-hold-up][/url]
Movement. Let's look at what I feel is the greatest puppetry character ever created Yoda (created and performed by Frank Oz).
To this day, Yoda still feels like a living, breathing character to me, despite knowing the behind-the-scenes truth that during each shot, Frank Oz had his hand and arm up Yoda's rear end.
To capture any movement, a special elevated set was necessary.
This allowed Oz the ability to make it seem like Yoda was walking. But it always had to be a medium or close-up shot of Yoda. It could never be a wide shot unless there was some creative camouflaging of the set design.
When George Lucas decided to create characters via CGI in the prequels, we got more movement but lost that realistic texture.
It was the best CGI we had seen to that point, but it still looked like CGI. However, the characters could have more dynamic movement with full body shots via a wide frame.
You couldn't have had Yoda in a lightsaber duel without CGI.
The best example of balance (not the Force) is present within Steven Spielberg's Jurassic Park (ironically shot 7 years before the first prequel).
That film balanced traditional animatronics (advanced puppetry) and CG.
They created a full-size T-Rex for some shots.
And then used CGI for movement shots (and wider shots).
And the results were near-seamless.
Moving forward, I believe that's the best route to take. Balance. Use CGI for movement shots and be able to spend more time on making them look more real because there will be fewer CGI shots to undertake when traditional practical effects are utilized as well.
Featured Stories
See All
UntoldSpirit
WARNING FOR COMFORT SUITES ON TEXAS FOR FOOTBALL SEASON
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
39