Trailer For Computer Error: The Worst Of CGI

[Brendon Connelly]

I just saw a reference to a trailer for the compilation Computer Error: The Worst of CGI in the subheadline of an article named How Computers Killed the Movies and, despite not agreeing with that proposition on at least two counts, thought I'd check it out for myself.

And, boy, there really has been some awful CG, hasn't there?

Here's the trailer:



I'd have gone with How Some People With Bad Taste, Limited Budgets Or Insufficient Skills Made Some Awful Shots, myself. Looks like it's not only bad workmen who will lay the blame on tools.

Now, Computer Error isn't a film but a special event taking place at the Alamo Drafthouse Ritz on January 31st, where the amassed can join together in hoots of derision. I'm sure a great time will be had by all.

[rohrmuller]

Bad quality indeed, but in all fairness, many of those shots were in the 'youth'* of CG when that was the absolute best that could be achieved for the time. Comparing those to the likes of say Avatar, now is very much like comparing the coloring of comics in the 90ies with today.

*By 'youth' I mean when CG became a normal part of films.

[Monetta]

Hitler was CGI the whole time? Mind blown!

[Thad]

I'd have gone with How Some People With Bad Taste, Limited Budgets Or Insufficient Skills Made Some Awful Shots, myself.

We get it: you're bad at titles.

Bad quality indeed, but in all fairness, many of those shots were in the 'youth'* of CG when that was the absolute best that could be achieved for the time. Comparing those to the likes of say Avatar, now is very much like comparing the coloring of comics in the 90ies with today.

But comparing them to Jurassic Park and Terminator 2 is fair game.

[rohrmuller]

That is a valid point, but take into consideration that neither JP or T2 had any over-lengthy bits of CGI in them and they both still hold up because they mixed in a lot of practical SFX. I have very fond memories of JP (heck, it's probably the only thing I still remember from that age) but it's not pitch-perfect CGI, still. The running with/from the gallimimus flock/herd sequence could very well be added to the trailer above. Only most people choose to just focus on the T-rex when they refer to JP's awesome CGI (which it is, I admit).

[arseface]

Watched Jurassic Park a couple of months ago and was blown away by how well the CGI has aged. The integration of the practical effects and computer work was seamless. Some of the T-1000 sequences in T2 look a bit ropy nowadays, but at the time they were mindblowing.

Lots of Jar Jar in that trailer - I don't think the CGI work was bad, per se. It's just the general hatred of the character - he's become an embodiment of all George's faults and follies. For me, the worst CGI in the prequels is the face mapping of Christopher Lee in the lightsabre duel at the end of AotClones.

[Shonborn]

I'm pretty sure that clip from Drag Me to Hell was practical.

[Tonebone]

Watched Jurassic Park a couple of months ago and was blown away by how well the CGI has aged. The integration of the practical effects and computer work was seamless. Some of the T-1000 sequences in T2 look a bit ropy nowadays, but at the time they were mindblowing.

Agree with the admiration for JP... that's the difference a great director makes. He was essentially working with the rubber shark from Jaws all over again, something that is ALMOST as good as reality, unless you look at it for too long.

I think CG Spidey is not deserving of this list. There is SO much worse out there, even stuff from this year. I think the thing on Spider-Man that screamed CG was the fact that you could not possibly move along with him in that manor with a real camera.

[Birmy]

I think CG Spidey is not deserving of this list. There is SO much worse out there, even stuff from this year. I think the thing on Spider-Man that screamed CG was the fact that you could not possibly move along with him in that manor with a real camera.

Yeah, I watched that trailer thinking, "That Spidey shot has no place in here." Moreover, I'll agree that it's unfair to expect movies using infant CGI effects to have the same quality as today (or, to keep it relative, to compare today's CG to ten, or even five years from now). I mean, for example, Blade, from 1998? Their minds were probably still blown from T2's liquid dynamics shots just a few years earlier, let alone concerned/had the tech to make the blood look "realistic."

[FitzTheRuke]

One of the reasons for the criticism is to point out that some of those shots could have been done better in earlier eras without CG. The filmmakers could use CG so they did with poor results. The reason Jurassic Park was so good is that they only used CG where it was the best tool for the job, and used animatronics and other tricks when it suited.

I can think of a whole lot of far worse CG than the examples. Anyone remember the terrible attack-fish in Waterworld? Yoda flipping around in his lightsabre duel was a lot worse than Jar Jar. (And could have been handled much better by Frank Oz with a Muppet with no CG needed.)

Heck, even Titanic has a long-pan shot in which the Captain walks out of his cabin with terrible jerky-CG movement (luckily quickly cut to an actual shot of Bernard Hill - saving it almost in time.) and Cameron is considered a master of CG use.

I think a critical eye ought to agree that the use of CG is great and important in film - but it ought to be done well, and only done when it's the best tool for the job. Sometimes the "old way" of doing a scene is still the better way.