Worst/Hated use of CGI in movies

[victor hugo]

SUPERMAN RETURNS.

/end thread

How is it that Superman: The Movie, which was made in the late 70s, looks more practical than a film in 2006? A big waste of money. Smallville, which is on a television budget, is also better.

idk but i'm pretty sure at least half of those shots are practical/green screen shots.

 

[dark_b]

i htink every shot here is CGI. maybe the one where he flys above the water

 

[xwolverine2]

i mean, by just looking at the screencaps, yes I would say that they look like a Playstation game. But they move so fast in the movie, that I guess it doesn't matter. Unless there were closeups of the CGI model.

i wish playstation had those graphics

 

[The Navigator]

The digital locales in the SW prequels were overused to the nth degree and obnoxious, since half of those could easily be practical w/ some cgi tweaking, especially in geonosis.

 

[StrainedEyes]

I don't know how someone would concider that bad CGI. Of course its not perfect but this came out in 2003 and it is VERY hard to make a photorealistic CG human face.

If you can notice most of "The best CGI" today are CGI of inhuman charecters: ala transformers, king kong, gollum from LOTR, etc

I think that shot is fantastic. I don't know why Symbiotic listed it as really bad cgi.

 

[patrickbateman]

SUPERMAN RETURNS.

/end thread

How is it that Superman: The Movie, which was made in the late 70s, looks more practical than a film in 2006? A big waste of money. Smallville, which is on a television budget, is also better.

really can never figure out why bryan went with cgi when he could use the real guy in those scenes

 

[p4poetic]

keep it mind..that this isn't just the 'bad CGI thread'.

This is the thread for CGI being misused. Just also point out why you think it's bad and why practical effect should have done the job instead.
I just don't agree on certain thing that people have mentioned, like Two-Face in Dark Knight. You HAD to use CGI. So this is not a place to condemn this technology but rather, trying to see the good out of it.

For example, in Angels & Demons, they used a fake looking greenscreen for the Vatican instead of building a practical set.

That's what I'm saying. The CGI effects in SR were unnecessary. Who in their right mind CGIs Superman flying???

 

[Tony Stark]

The whole Battle Droid conveyor belt scene in Attack of the Clones.

 

[JaD]

That's what I'm saying. The CGI effects in SR were unnecessary. Who in their right mind CGIs Superman flying???

So you can have amazing clips like this of Superman flying. I made this .gif several months back for my own pleasure because I thought it was one of the most beautiful shots of Superman flying on film.

Spoiler

You can't please everyone though, right? *shrug*

If you're only speaking about closeup shots of Brandon then I can maybe agree with you on one, which was him landing on New Krypton to confront Lex. That to me looked pretty goofy/bad. Everything else to me throughout was pretty damn good, especially (how could you put this in your post!?! ) the shot of him pushing the plane away near the exhaust

Spoiler

 

[[A]]

all these screencaps look like a videogame

 

[DrawingBlanks]

The tank from the Dr. Manhattan origin sequence in Watchmen.

 

[[A]]

The tank from the Dr. Manhattan origin sequence in Watchmen.

Dr Manhattan's clothes in the dressing up for the interview scene..

 

[That-Guy]

Pretty much every action sequence in Transporter 2, especially that plane crash at the end. God, what a horrible movie.

 

[EdRyder]

The digital locales in the SW prequels were overused to the nth degree and obnoxious, since half of those could easily be practical w/ some cgi tweaking, especially in geonosis.

What was CG on Geonosis?(Maybe you have your planets confused) The droid factory conveyor belt sequence? IMHO it only looked fake when CG Jango landed to capture Anakin.

 

[luke1234]

So you can have amazing clips like this of Superman flying. I made this .gif several months back for my own pleasure because I thought it was one of the most beautiful shots of Superman flying on film.

Spoiler

You can't please everyone though, right? *shrug*

If you're only speaking about closeup shots of Brandon then I can maybe agree with you on one, which was him landing on New Krypton to confront Lex. That to me looked pretty goofy/bad. Everything else to me throughout was pretty damn good, especially (how could you put this in your post!?! ) the shot of him pushing the plane away near the exhaust

Spoiler

i have to agree with you on that, I thought all the flying scenes were handled spectacularly except for the one when hes going up for sunlight and maybe 2 seconds of the plane rescue. other then that i thought they did an amazing job with the way the flying scenes played out.

 

[The Navigator]

What was CG on Geonosis?(Maybe you have your planets confused) The droid factory conveyor belt sequence? IMHO it only looked fake when CG Jango landed to capture Anakin.

The whole goddamn stadium/arena/whatever. All the actors had to work with was a sand-covered circle some thirty feet across with blue screens. How hard would it be, really, to find a canyon (I know America has a few), or something equally servicable, and stage the action scenes in that, adding (much less) CGI in later to cover the gaps?

 

[luke1234]

The whole goddamn stadium/arena/whatever. All the actors had to work with was a sand-covered circle some thirty feet across with blue screens. How hard would it be, really, to find a canyon (I know America has a few), or something equally servicable, and stage the action scenes in that, adding (much less) CGI in later to cover the gaps?

thats just one of many questions you can ask mr. lucas

like why oh why were the clone troopers cgi!?!! still pisses me off till this day!

 

[The Navigator]

Pretty much every action sequence in Transporter 2, especially that plane crash at the end. God, what a horrible movie.

Good call.

 

[EdRyder]

The whole goddamn stadium/arena/whatever. All the actors had to work with was a sand-covered circle some thirty feet across with blue screens. How hard would it be, really, to find a canyon (I know America has a few), or something equally servicable, and stage the action scenes in that, adding (much less) CGI in later to cover the gaps?

?? Dude, the arena was a model. The actors were shot on greenscreen with the pillars.
The exterior castle when Obi Wan enters is a model, the entire Arena,the bleachers, the balcony , all practical model or a "bigature"(and a quite beautiful one IMHO) The action filmed was just composited in post.

It probably just looks over CG-ified to your eye from all the Geonosian spectators.

 

[Octoberist]

the problem I have with Greenscreen is the exterior shots. It feels like you're inside and while that 'arena' scene was fine, but it felt very artificial. In other words, I didn't feel like I was there; whereas in the swamp set in Empire Strikes Back worked so well.

 

[dark_b]

The whole goddamn stadium/arena/whatever. All the actors had to work with was a sand-covered circle some thirty feet across with blue screens. How hard would it be, really, to find a canyon (I know America has a few), or something equally servicable, and stage the action scenes in that, adding (much less) CGI in later to cover the gaps?

are you aware how hard is it to light a whole enviorment outside and control it? how expensive it is to have all the equipment outside ?

you are aware that when it comes to fantasy enviorments that its better and cheaper to film inside?

i guess not

 

[The Navigator]

are you aware how hard is it to light a whole enviorment outside and control it? how expensive it is to have all the equipment outside ?

you are aware that when it comes to fantasy enviorments that its better and cheaper to film inside?

i guess not

Cheaper, yes. Easier, sure. Better, debatable.

 

[dark_b]

the problem I have with Greenscreen is the exterior shots. It feels like you're inside and while that 'arena' scene was fine, but it felt very artificial. In other words, I didn't feel like I was there; whereas in the swamp set in Empire Strikes Back worked so well.

the swamp set looked like a swamp set IMO.very fake. the lighting was very artificial. you could see how they positioned the lights above the actors. how how the lighting was way to bright for trees.
the sky was cloudy plus a lot of trees. the shadows should be super soft. very ambient like. but it was not. but i dont complain because it was the 80's. a very good movie also IMO.
but real? not to me.

compare this to filming King Kong. PJ used better lights and better use of the real set. they were very smart. and it looked better.

 

[dark_b]

Cheaper, yes. Easier, sure. Better, debatable.

of course. its your opinion.

 

[Octoberist]

I think my point is that at least it's physical.

I don't hate greenscreen, but it shouldn't be used for everything. That's why I actually admire the movie I hate the most, THE PHANTOM MENACE. At least they used sets. I would sets (with CGI enhancements) over total greenscreen anyday, if possible.

Even though 300 was cost effective, it was highly stylized. Now if they made more movies like that, only thinking that it'll be cheaper and trendy, then they're doing greenscreen for the wrong reasons.