Proxima Midnight not that they ever mention her name lol
To be fair Carrie Coon doesn't really do action so I can see why they chose CGI. I personally thought she looked fine.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Films in which CGI added nothing of worth (or was outright detrimental)
- Thread starter Funky Papa
- Start date
To be fair Carrie Coon doesn't really do action so I can see why they chose CGI. I personally thought she looked fine.
slo-mo pipe+helicopter spin was a reeeeaaallly bad choice to slow mo... what were they thinking.
I really want them to stop fully CG humans... it's so awkward. It IS good, but to pull off something we see everyday and not make it look uncanny is super fucking hard and....just not worth it
It worked for 2049 IMO because it just highlighted her artificiality. She was just a tool created by Wallace to manipulate Deckard emotionally, nothing more. Worthless to Wallace and a soulless facsimile to Deckard
Thank you, one of the best parts of one of the best movies of the decade.
whoops
James Bond - Die Another Day (2002):
Do generally bad films really fot the brief? This was nkt really detrimental when the rest was so poor.
I haven't seen the other movies, maybe your eyes got used to it, lol. She looked like a more awkward digital stephen merchant. But everything else was so thrilling it went away, only when they cut back to it, did I get heavenly sword vibes.
Oh well that's terrible if true.
Seconded. Both of these examples were so terrible and obvious it took me right out of the movie. The CG bug was the other thing in Blade Runner that I hated.
Billy Connolly, despite having filed all his scenes in full makeup and costume, was turned into a CGI creature in the final cut of the third Hobbit movie.
It was very odd, and stood out terribly. Which for that movie was something. He wasn't doing so well in those extra features I saw either. He'd been dealing with early stages of Parkinson's desease, and has had memory issues even then. I am guessing they filmed it, realized it wasn't usable, and instead CGI'd him.
I thought I Am Legend looked fantastic back in the day. It still looks fine imho.
The most distracting CGI I've ever seen is still Henry Cavill in Justice League. His upper lip is so bad.
The most distracting CGI I've ever seen is still Henry Cavill in Justice League. His upper lip is so bad.
Black Panther's CG suits.
Obviously you have to CG them for certain action scenes, but when the character has their mask off you could literally see where the cg suit was clipping through their neck.
It doesn't make any sense either since Civil War and Infinity War both had really good real suits.
Iron Man's suit in Infinity War was also not that great looking when his helmet was off.
I agree that CG faces still aren't really there (especially with how much Disney likes to push them for some reason). I'm sure it is possible to do them well, it's just that it probably takes an obscene amount of effort just to get a single CG human face looking good compared to just about everything else.
I actually didn't mind Leia in Rogue One mainly because it was very short and just a single word of dialog so you don't notice the weirdness of animation too much. But Tarkin... man was that a bad idea to have him in a full scene with another human character. His skin was so odd looking and the animation was so far into the uncanny valley. Maybe on a TV he looks better, but on a huge movie screen he was not good at all.
Obviously you have to CG them for certain action scenes, but when the character has their mask off you could literally see where the cg suit was clipping through their neck.
It doesn't make any sense either since Civil War and Infinity War both had really good real suits.
Iron Man's suit in Infinity War was also not that great looking when his helmet was off.
I agree that CG faces still aren't really there (especially with how much Disney likes to push them for some reason). I'm sure it is possible to do them well, it's just that it probably takes an obscene amount of effort just to get a single CG human face looking good compared to just about everything else.
I actually didn't mind Leia in Rogue One mainly because it was very short and just a single word of dialog so you don't notice the weirdness of animation too much. But Tarkin... man was that a bad idea to have him in a full scene with another human character. His skin was so odd looking and the animation was so far into the uncanny valley. Maybe on a TV he looks better, but on a huge movie screen he was not good at all.
Billy Connolly, despite having filed all his scenes in full makeup and costume, was turned into a CGI creature in the final cut of the third Hobbit movie.
Billy Conolly is really ill, he probably couldn't film.
It is and while that movie is terrible he is amazingly well cast as a dwarf king.
the wolves in The Day After Tomorrow are a prime offender, too. they looked bad on release, and it felt like for the most part they could have just used real wolf dogs or something
Came here to post this. Considering the orginals practical effect legacy and the fact they'd already made/shot practical stuff for the prequel it is head scratching to look at what we ended up getting.
Fun fact: It was Carrie Coon and I didn't recognize her at all
The wolves took me out of that movie so hard, especially when the rest looked so amazing (at the time)
I didn't mean the UI change to their fancy computers, but yeah this was a terrible idea. Cast aside some good work from talented artist's in lieu of a CG model that matched no one else in the film
OP
OP
People always call out the two poor CGI shots in I Am Legend, like that's representative of the whole movie. You do realize the entirety of the overgrown NYC landscape is CGI too, and is damn-near imperceptible, right? Any outdoor shot in I Am Legend is like 80% CG, and it never stands out aside from those two shots.
-- the sorting hat
-- all the scenes on the broom
-- the 3 headed dog thing
-- the minotaur
-- the back of Prof. Querrell's head
Those just so happen to be the most obvious things that should've been practical effects and the most egregious visuals.
The Thing prequel (2011). They did gorgeous, awesome, perfect practical effects for the movie.. but at the last minute the studio decided to replace it all with shitty CGI.
Also, I Am Legend was ruined by this.
The original looks much better. :/
Also, I Am Legend was ruined by this.
The original looks much better. :/
Certain cgi in many movies was unnecessary. A practical ares, steppenwolf, green lantern mask, and some other stuff that would have been simple to do practical or at the very least doable is what I usually think of when I think unnecessary cgi. Certainly justice league needed CG but you could have had a practical face for steppenwolf. Or throw an actual mask on Reynolds in green lantern
Came in to say I Am Legend. If it were guys in makeup the alternative cut would have been a fantastic movie. As it was it's still good but hampered by terrible rubbery dudes hopping around.
OP
OP
Way more than two. Quite literally every scene with the creatures in it.
So yeah, places in which there was no need to use CGI at all.
In the case of BR2049, the Rachel clone looking kind of uncanny was completely intentional.I really want them to stop fully CG humans... it's so awkward. It IS good, but to pull off something we see everyday and not make it look uncanny is super fucking hard and....just not worth it
The Hobbit films, especially Desolation of Smaug out of the two I've seen, were ridiculous in their use of CGI to the point of turning me off from ever watching Battle of the Five Armies. For every glorious shot of Smaug, there's the Barrel Ride, or a CG orc that in any of the LoTR films would be an amazing makeup showcase.
To make matters worse, the lighting combined with it all made it look aesthetically worse than those in LoTR, even if the Hobbit content was technically better.
Harry Potter is also guilty of being over indulgent. The first couple of films had awful CGI, but from that point they became increasingly obnoxious to the point of ruining the pacing or tone to focus on some distraction of effects.
Edit: And well that teaches me for putting off watching the new Blade Runner
To make matters worse, the lighting combined with it all made it look aesthetically worse than those in LoTR, even if the Hobbit content was technically better.
Harry Potter is also guilty of being over indulgent. The first couple of films had awful CGI, but from that point they became increasingly obnoxious to the point of ruining the pacing or tone to focus on some distraction of effects.
Edit: And well that teaches me for putting off watching the new Blade Runner
I don't GET that since all other people in the film look (and, well, are like people played by real people). I "get" the point, but it didn't sell it to me either; it just looked like awkward human CGI.
Billy Connolly being replaced with CGI made no sense to me. I get that he has Parkinson's and couldn't do a bunch of his scenes, but to replace everything, even the scenes he had filmed? That's just cold.
The Orcs/Goblins in The Hobbit trilogy being full CG was also some stupid cost cutting bullshit. What made it weirder was that some of the Orcs in Desolation of Smaug were actually people in costume, which only made the CG ones stand out more.
The Orcs/Goblins in The Hobbit trilogy being full CG was also some stupid cost cutting bullshit. What made it weirder was that some of the Orcs in Desolation of Smaug were actually people in costume, which only made the CG ones stand out more.
Hell, even if they didn't have the technology to do that at the time, they could have still used the CGI version for mid to long shots, and had Dwayne Johnson in make-up for close-ups. You could have easily just shot around the CGI and made it work just fine combining it with live action shots, but I imagine the hubris of, "We totally pulled it off! A completely convincing and life-like digital recreation of an actor! Let's showcase it!" won out in the end.
Eh, Rachel was very well done IMO. Miles ahead of what the VFX companies working for Disney did with Rogue One and Tron Legacy.
Black Panther (And marvel in general) has some awful CGI for the scale and $$ put in.
The spaceship is whatever. That animatiin in the climax of the film though.
The Thing 2011 is a personal insult to me. Over the top, fake looking CGI showed at every possible opportunity.
