CGI Good vs Bad- examples?

The worst case I can remember was the prequel to The Thing.

The Thing prequel, wasn't Bad, but could have been better. It was wreched a bit due to rushed last-minute changes, so the CGI guys had to scramble in places and it shows.

The early CGI work in Tim Burton's BATMAN, well, it's good for the era, but there's some huge flaws in it, but again, consider it was early days...

The CGI work in ALIEN 3 holds up ok, but in some places, it's painfully obvious.

Rogue One, the de-aged Princess Leia...with the grey pallor, yeah, right there, serious flaw.

The Matrix Reloaded, the guy in the battleframe in the scene where the Nebuchadnezzar comes through the gate near the start of the film...the muzzles of the battleframe's guns basically look 'solid', kind of an 'oops' as well as the herky-jerky movement of it.

BWW- interesting that the best examples are fairly old. Personally, I try to suspend belief. I have noticed that the best CGI seems to be in dark rainy places- Jurassic Park still holds up in that regard imo. RS mentioned that the Transformers had really good CGI but he stated that he just didn't have the patience for it- gotta love those old school folks!

I get the feeling that some will never be happy with CGI.

///

Godzilla: King of the Monsters The last Godzilla movie I saw was 1998 I think- where it ended with seeing a football stadium filled with eggs? Anyway, there was good CGI there but one horribly pixilated part near the end. I think it had some dark wet scenes too that looked really good. It is interesting since I have read from game designers that realistic water effects are among the most difficult to convincingly achieve.

The best example of CGI for me would probably be "Jurassic Park", the worst example is the movie "Reptillian".

///

Godzilla: King of the Monsters

I liked the movie and re watched the last scene (I haven't seen it since 2000 and the eggs scene I mentioned must have been from a different Godzilla movie?). I think it is why I haven't followed the franchise since too- watching us take down a majestic creature like that- one we conjured up- makes me a little more sympathetic to David and the Engineers wanting to take us out.

EDIT- I was thinking about the baby attack scene where there were lots of eggs- been a long time! Are newer movies as good or better?

I think I would put the last couple Planet of the Apes in there as good CGI.

OH, SPECIES, the CGI Sil creature in the climactic battle...yeah, pretty painful CGI.

RS, he loves Practical and I admit, as good as CGI is, Practical Fx still have the edge, and take less time :D

The 'Godzilla' movie where it ended with being entangled in the bridge...a Good monster movie...but wasn't Godzilla, not to me.
To me there's One G-zilla, and I love him. :) The most recent movie, I loved how he just crashed out for a nap after the battle, everyone thinks OMG he's dead...Nope. :)

Jurassic park, yeah, holds up quite well, gotta say.

dk I agree "Planet of the Apes" is an excellent example of good cgi. I liked the cgi in "The Day After Tomorrow", "Mad Max Fury Road", "Titanic", "Rogue One", "Guardians of the Galaxy", "Ex Machina".

Bad cgi is to me the one that looks fake like "The Scorpion King", "Kong Skull Island", "Guardians of the Galaxy 2"

And you have some that are a mix bag like "Artificial Intelligence", "Transformers", "The Force Awakens", "Prometheus"

Blackwinter-witch

The 'Godzilla' movie where it ended with being entangled in the bridge

That was 1998 and pretty good imo although about 15 years since I saw it.

I heard of two examples involving cgi in Alien Covenant in scenes that actually not necessarily needed it, resulting in less than optimal results. One involving a fire, the other a severed head.

 And this quote from Ridley Scott himself might explain these problems: "You are constantly redrawing. It will evolve digitally on set"

For AC, I would not have noticed the CGI flaw when the whatevermorph was climbing down a ladder unless an alert member showed it in slowmo on repeat lol!

Jurassic Park....hands down best to date....the technology was in its infancy in 1992, only certain shots have CGI, blended to practical effects and puppetry .... Worst has to be ever single movie on the SciFy Channel

Well someone told me that that guy at times looks like he is made of "chocolate" lol

dk

It is a good movie, the 1998 'Godzilla', by itself it stands up very well. I quite enjoy it, although I de-couple my mind from Godzilla when watching it.
Problem is they tied it to a well-known Franchise, and folks expected a Godzilla movie, which it really wasn't.

joylitt

They can always spruce things up for the Director's Cut and we KNOW that's coming :D

 Blackwinter-witch Hopefully :-)

Slab_bay "Jurassic park" was a combination of animatronics and cgi that's why the monsters have more "presence"

Slab_bay Sy fi- yeah they have some stinkers! The last one I saw had spiders infected by radioactive material and raided a ski resort- climbing down chimneys and chasing people down the slopes lol! I think Lee Majors might have been in it. It was so bad that you had to see it once to see how bad a movie could be and wonder why it was even funded! The effects were laughable too.

joylitt

Trust The Ridley. :)

OH...BAD modern CGI...
Avalanche Sharks.
Still, pretty creative, gotta say.

Sharknado?! I If that is what you mean I just can't do it!

Maybe one reason why some of the better CGI is in the dark is because they might not have to worry as much about casting shadows?

In few words bad cgi happens when you don't have enough money or when you don't know how to work with your budget or when you are a lazy cgi artist :-)

Bad CGI: the Star Wars prequels are some of the worst CGI. it's very obvious because it's completely fantastical for the most part. And EVERYTHING is CGI except the human actors. It looks very flat. It has the effect of a 70's TV Sci-Fi show with the human actors clearly layered over artifial backgrounds. I think anything we're fictional places, creatures, people are portrayed in daylight situations the CGI has to be top draw otherwise it stands out like a sore thumb and looks like a computer game.

Good CGI: Used subtly things work a lot better. Real world locations that are already believable so blend in well. Your mind excepts them more readily. A great example is, another Ridley Scott film, Gladiator. Loads of CGI in that but it was for the most part quite subtle and blended very well. CGI also blends better and is more effective when shrouded in darkness or back light. Some decent examples of this on War of the Worlds. The back lit tripod that comes out of the ground in the middle of the day, with the sun behind, becomes a stark sillehoute. If the light sunlight was shining right on it (i.e. Behind the camera position shining towards the subject) suddenly you need a lot more detail and it's more obvious your looking at a CGI object.

The bottom lime for me is that subtle, stark CGI works a lot easier. Well lit, close to camera CGI looks like a dogs dinner unless it's absolutely amazing, believable, state of the art work. I think the new Planet of the Apes films have some of the best examples of this I've seen. Amazing lighting, texturing, motion capture. It's very impressive and I think will age well as a result. Most companies, if they tried this, would fall flat and the film would look crap as a result as the CGI would be obvious, which I think always detracts massively and is detrimental, if not totally destructive, to a movie overall. The Dog Alien on the ceiling in Alien 3 is an example. It looked like a reflective blob with mirrored appendages. Truly awful.

Here is another question- can you forgive bad CGI at the expense of a good story/acting? I certainly could.

///

I definitely can. But as a lot of people say bad cgi can "Take you out of the story". I am against using cgi just for the sake of it. cgi blood? come on! or cgi fire? that is lazy

Sorry if I sound like an old fart, but I still think old BW Twilight Zone still kicks butt over a lot of stuff today. Effects were minimal but story and acting were king in those days. Not knocking current movies, but I can easily forgive technical things if the story and actors are good and can sell it. Ex Machina is a good example. The effects were good but not mind blowing but the story and acting sold it.

Yeah I think I ccould DK.