Worst/Hated use of CGI in movies

[Dragon]

What's funny about this discussion is that the wide-ranging opinions make it clear that CGI quality, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Another is that many of the films getting complaints weren't overall that great as films. Thus it's likely that alot of the CGI gripes are based on displeasure with the films themselves, whereas folks are willing to forgive shaky CGI in good movies. Straight-up, it's all fake looking.

Finally, in alot of cases the complaints seem to be based on cynicism over CGI, because we know too much about it. Revealing the man behind the curtain ruins the magic. But knowing that there's no such thing as perfect CGI (Just as constructed effects weren't perfect either), all the griping becomes pointless. Either you have shots with flawed CGI or you don't have the shots at all. You can gripe about Superman Return's flying, but the flying wasn't realistic in the other Superman films either. You could for example easily see they used a doll for wide shots. The comparison between the CG dinosaurs in Jurassic Park versus King Kong is unfair since the JP dinos don't engage in as elaborate and extended battle scenes as KK. So, while they could make a Superman film where he doesn't fly at all, I think that would be a bigger disappointment than iffy CG.

 

[terry78]

It's basically nostalgia coupled with the coolness factor of not liking the latest technology.

 

[Jager X]

You just can't have as much detail without the CG there. It needed to be done. They only did little in prosthetics. It would of looked silly. You can't tear into somebody's jaw and make a bone and muscle out of it and make it funcionanble and scary at the same time.

And I wouldn't call Nolan's world realistic. It's plausible. They call it realistic just to get the point across.

here the thing, they did not NEED to tear into his jaw. iirc dent was scarred by fire not acid. the fire could not have eaten away at his flesh in the time it took for the flames to be extinguised. in all honesty, i think batman forever's two-face is superior to TDK's in the face department. the ONLY flaw with tommy lee jones's scarring was the fact that it was purple instead of a burned skintone. it would have been better if the TDK crew just went the route of the schumacher film and used makeup. they just decided to go over the top with his design and it was unneccessary, not the worst cgi, but definately misused.

 

[Jager X]

What's funny about this discussion is that the wide-ranging opinions make it clear that CGI quality, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Another is that many of the films getting complaints weren't overall that great as films. Thus it's likely that alot of the CGI gripes are based on displeasure with the films themselves, whereas folks are willing to forgive shaky CGI in good movies. Straight-up, it's all fake looking.

Finally, in alot of cases the complaints seem to be based on cynicism over CGI, because we know too much about it. Revealing the man behind the curtain ruins the magic. But knowing that there's no such thing as perfect CGI (Just as constructed effects weren't perfect either), all the griping becomes pointless. Either you have shots with flawed CGI or you don't have the shots at all. You can gripe about Superman Return's flying, but the flying wasn't realistic in the other Superman films either. You could for example easily see they used a doll for wide shots. The comparison between the CG dinosaurs in Jurassic Park versus King Kong is unfair since the JP dinos don't engage in as elaborate and extended battle scenes as KK. So, while they could make a Superman film where he doesn't fly at all, I think that would be a bigger disappointment than iffy CG.

the true purpose of threads like this tend to get lost among those itching to criticize something. the point, i thought, was to talk about how cgi is misused in film. truthfully, it had gotten to a point in hollywood where the most practical and simple scenes in a movie are riddled with cgi instead of good ol fashioned stuntwork and effects.

 

[BATZARRO WWD]

As for 2 Face, frankly it felt obviously CG, though that did not bother me. It would have looked better as makeup, or at least partly makeup. And it wasn't even that much fire, wich should probably have burned his eye if it was that fiery.

 

[hitmanyr2k]

I'm not going through the entire thread to look but surely someone must have mentioned the very end of Deep Impact where they're rebuilding the White House lol.

 

[Dragon]

the true purpose of threads like this tend to get lost among those itching to criticize something. the point, i thought, was to talk about how cgi is misused in film. truthfully, it had gotten to a point in hollywood where the most practical and simple scenes in a movie are riddled with cgi instead of good ol fashioned stuntwork and effects.

And I agree with this completely. No question there is a misuse of CGI. There's also ill-concieved CG sequences, poorly executed sequences.. Just as all of these points apply to the overall films themselves. For example, in Daredevil during the final fight with Bullseye, when they used the CG DD to make a somersault that hundreds of stuntmen/gymnasts could've pulled off. I also think that despite my enjoying of the Spidey films, they use far too much CG.

The problem is when it gets to be people simply griping about the limits of CG as if there's a reasonable alternative. For example The Scorpion King that's been discussed here. Now, when I saw the film, my first thought was that making SK a half-man, half-scorpion was in-and-of itself not a very good idea. Maybe a better one would have been to make Johnson a scorpion-themed warrior with decaying skin. Maybe give him a giant scorpion or army of regular scorpions to control. Whatever. But as far as the creature itself- well, what were their options? To make a stop-motion character model, while inserting awkward close-ups where Johnson might be mounted on a mechanical scorpion body? None of this would look very convincing either. Or the baby Hellboy. I think labor standards (not to mention safety concerns ) prohibit coating a child's entire body in paint. So CG is what they had to work with.

 

[Octoberist]

the true purpose of threads like this tend to get lost among those itching to criticize something. the point, i thought, was to talk about how cgi is misused in film. truthfully, it had gotten to a point in hollywood where the most practical and simple scenes in a movie are riddled with cgi instead of good ol fashioned stuntwork and effects.

Thank you, Jager X, for the voice of reason.

I like CGI, but I didn't want this to be some random "I hate CGI" thread! I wanted good solid debates but not blind poop throwing.

 

[[A]]

hating CGI is silly

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea if it wasn't for CGI cinema wouldn't be where it is today, no doubt.

But it shouldn't be used as a short cut, which I think is a big problem today. Instead of putting real effort in to do a really visceral, practical stunt/effect, they just throw a load of CGI at it.

I look at films like The Thing and I honestly can say that CGI would of actually taken away from the experience of that film.

 

[dark_b]

good post.
it shouldnt be used as a short cut.

i hate it when i see interviews and directors and actors joke ''dont bother we will use CGI''.

you are on a f... set and you spend tons of money you better spend time and make it work. do they have a picnic in 2 hours that they dont need to bother with the shot?

one thing is also that now they dont spend a lot of time on filming. everything is rushed. they first set up the realese date. then they start working on the script and then they film. if it wouldnt be rushed then they wouldnt need CGI to fix their mistakes 4 months later.

 

[dark_b]

good post.
it shouldnt be used as a short cut.

i hate it when i see interviews and directors and actors joke ''dont bother we will use CGI''.

you are on a f... set and you spend tons of money you better spend time and make it work. do they have a picnic in 2 hours that they dont need to bother with the shot?

one thing is also that now they dont spend a lot of time on filming. everything is rushed. they first set up the realese date. then they start working on the script and then they film. if it wouldnt be rushed then they wouldnt need CGI to fix their mistakes 4 months later.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Thanks

And yea, it seems a lot of people also use it as a way to fix things when they have gotta rush. Movies are getting release dates right at the start of production these days, it's forcing these directors/producers to rush things.

 

[dark_b]

some studios should do what they did with Avatar and Prince of Persia. delay the movie for half or full year. its not like someone will die.

of course delaying GL to 2011 is to much(only because i want to see it faster heheheehhe)

 

[Ace of Knaves]

But at least we know a lot of time and real effort will go into GL now. It won't be rushed off the production line so to speak.

 

[dark_b]

But at least we know a lot of time and real effort will go into GL now. It won't be rushed off the production line so to speak.

like with ghost rider?

sometimes more time works and sometimes it doesnt. IMO

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I thought GR was a well put together film technically. But it was just completely the wrong direction and tone for Ghost Rider. It was too cheesy and light weight and had crappy villains. They could of done something special with Cage and Ghost Rider, something unique for comic book films, but decided to just make a cheesy popcorn flick aimed at kids.

 

[returntovoid]

It's funny that they aimed it at kids when kids don't know a thing about Ghost Rider.

 

[Wesley Dodds]

The clever ones do...

 

[dark_b]

I thought GR was a well put together film technically. But it was just completely the wrong direction and tone for Ghost Rider. It was too cheesy and light weight and had crappy villains. They could of done something special with Cage and Ghost Rider, something unique for comic book films, but decided to just make a cheesy popcorn flick aimed at kids.

not talking about the story or casting. i mean CGI. it was not bad CGI. sony imageworks build a good custom software for fire. very good. they used it also in beowulf.
i think the fire around ghost rider was good. but they only did good fire. everythign around it was bad IMO.

 

[returntovoid]

The CGI fire in Ghost Rider was done really well, IMO.

 

[[A]]

The skull wasn't very good.

 

[returntovoid]

The clever ones do...

Well, from what I know, most kids are familiar with Superman, Spiderman, Hulk and Batman.

The skull wasn't very good.

I thought the skull was fine.

 

[Wesley Dodds]

I thought the infected monsters from I Am Legend were so badly done they made an already bad movie about 100 times worse.

Why couldnt they've just been real people in make-up? Much more believable and definitely a lot scarier.

 

[[A]]

^ yeah, the CGI zombies make it look like a video game