CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › CHUD LIST - THE WORST CGI IN HISTORY - DAY 5
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CHUD LIST - THE WORST CGI IN HISTORY - DAY 5

post #1 of 54
5/27/10 at 8:06pm
Thread Starter 
http://chud.com/articles/articles/23...Y-5/Page1.html

I apologize for never linking the E.T. one. Maybe you want to discuss that here too, so I may read all your thoughts.
Reply
post #2 of 54
5/27/10 at 8:09pm
Very interesting non obvious choice.
Reply
post #3 of 54
5/27/10 at 8:15pm
I hated 300 but I can't say I see anything particularly wrong in those photos. The first few in the list were great because there was video to show exactly what you guys have issue with... the photos and gifs aren't really cutting it and I'm not really planning on doing any CSI on it any time soon. Anyone else feel the same?

(As for E.T.; The background stuff (the moon, city lights) and the ship didn't bother me too much but anything where they animated E.T. was "Play-Doh" terrible. At least Spielberg didn't go all Lucas-ego on us and keep the original out of our hands when he released the revamped version on DVD. He even let us have it for free!)
Reply
post #4 of 54
5/27/10 at 8:22pm
Elisabeth historically the Persians were taller than Greeks, FYI. Alexander the Great is speculated to have been 4'8" tall (I think that's nonsense but some people say it, all the same. )
Reply
post #5 of 54
5/27/10 at 8:23pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
Elisabeth historically the Persians were taller than Greeks, FYI. Alexander the Great is speculated to have been 4'8" tall (I think that's nonsense but some people say it, all the same. )
I carry my degree in European history, Kate. I don't think the Persians were 7 feet tall in comparison to any Greek.
Reply
post #6 of 54
5/27/10 at 8:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elisabeth Rappe View Post
I carry my degree in European history, Kate. I don't think the Persians were 7 feet tall in comparison to any Greek.
Good point but I don't see how adding an extra foot of height difference between the Persian and Greek king is somehow more egregious than a 50 foot tall elephant. Isn't that also a legitimate use of heightened CGI?


EDIT: Either way I think the effect is bad. I like your write up, I am just addressing the decision to make him that huge
Reply
post #7 of 54
5/27/10 at 8:28pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Q View Post
I hated 300 but I can't say I see anything particularly wrong in those photos. The first few in the list were great because there was video to show exactly what you guys have issue with... the photos and gifs aren't really cutting it and I'm not really planning on doing any CSI on it any time soon. Anyone else feel the same?

(As for E.T.; The background stuff (the moon, city lights) and the ship didn't bother me too much but anything where they animated E.T. was "Play-Doh" terrible. At least Spielberg didn't go all Lucas-ego on us and keep the original out of our hands when he released the revamped version on DVD. He even let us have it for free!)

I'll see if we can add some video. It was my understanding we were trying to steer clear of using clips, but I'll see what I can do.

I kind of assumed that CHUD readers would be able to remember the scene without the aid of YouTube or CSI tactics.
Reply
post #8 of 54
5/27/10 at 8:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elisabeth Rappe View Post
I'll see if we can add some video. It was my understanding we were trying to steer clear of using clips, but I'll see what I can do.

I kind of assumed that CHUD readers would be able to remember the scene without the aid of YouTube or CSI tactics.
There were animated GIFs for the WOLVERINE entry. It was fun but not necessary, I think that you're right that most of us remember the effects in question
Reply
post #9 of 54
5/27/10 at 8:32pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
Good point but I don't see how adding an extra foot of height difference between the Persian and Greek king is somehow more egregious than a 50 foot tall elephant. Isn't that also a legitimate use of heightened CGI?


EDIT: Either way I think the effect is bad. I like your write up, I am just addressing the decision to make him that huge
But you are talking about an animal that the average Spartan or Greek may not be that familiar with -- and in the mythic way the story is being told, it's the largest elephant or rhino of all time. It's also reflective of the art I've seen. Generally animals are sort of outlandishly sized in Greek art, either very big or very small.

If ALL the Persians had been portrayed as 7 feet tall, then ok, the Greeks are selling them as monsters too. But they're not. And Xerxes' height differs depending on the scene.
Reply
post #10 of 54
5/27/10 at 8:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elisabeth Rappe View Post
But you are talking about an animal that the average Spartan or Greek may not be that familiar with -- and in the mythic way the story is being told, it's the largest elephant or rhino of all time. It's also reflective of the art I've seen. Generally animals are sort of outlandishly sized in Greek art, either very big or very small.
.
I just happened to think it worked in the context of the film. I don't think that that decision can be definitively declared bad the way the CGI for the effect they used is bad by any objective standard. It's a matter of opinion but I respect where you're coming from.

For the record, I don't care for the movie that much. This isn't the space for that discussion though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elisabeth Rappe View Post
If ALL the Persians had been portrayed as 7 feet tall, then ok, the Greeks are selling them as monsters too. But they're not. And Xerxes' height differs depending on the scene.

See, what bothers me about the film are the orge Persians and the animals that were not actually present at Thermopylae. If the film can have Greeks fighting middle earth orcs I don't see why a tall Xerxes is especially problematic. Anyway, I think the height thing was done mainly so Xerxes could rest his hands on Leonidas' shoulders in that creepy suggestive way. It's more about making a weird sexual advance at Leonidas than making a point about his height.
Reply
post #11 of 54
5/27/10 at 8:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elisabeth Rappe View Post
I'll see if we can add some video. It was my understanding we were trying to steer clear of using clips, but I'll see what I can do.

I kind of assumed that CHUD readers would be able to remember the scene without the aid of YouTube or CSI tactics.
I understand why you folks are shying away from the video embeds and appreciate the reply. I saw the movie once several years ago, thought the whole thing was visually lame and don't really remember those particular scenes being any more egregious than most of the film. It's been a while and I never really committed the flick to memory.
Reply
post #12 of 54
5/27/10 at 8:47pm
Yeah, this is the first miss in this list for me. Everything is so heightened and unreal in this film, that scene really didn't stand out for me as glaringly bad. And considering the entire film is Dilios giving a "Go kick their asses!" speech, of course Xerxes is seven feet tall and shoots bolts of lightning from his arse.
Reply
post #13 of 54
5/27/10 at 8:51pm
Id say thats the worst cgi in the movie...It's place on this list is a little suspect though. I'm sure 20 worse examples could be found.
Reply
post #14 of 54
5/27/10 at 8:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elisabeth Rappe View Post
I carry my degree in European history, Kate. I don't think the Persians were 7 feet tall in comparison to any Greek.
There were no Persians that were 7 feet tall? Either way, this depiction of Xerxes was a stylistic choice to make him look more intimidating and abnormal as a self-proclaimed god-child. The CGI in this film is not suppose to have a "realistic" look to begin with. In any case, the CGI is hardly THAT noticeable or bad, at least not enough to put on a top 10 list.
Reply
post #15 of 54
5/27/10 at 8:54pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
I just happened to think it worked in the context of the film. I don't think that that decision can be definitively declared bad the way the CGI for the effect they used is bad by any objective standard. It's a matter of opinion but I respect where you're coming from.

For the record, I don't care for the movie that much. This isn't the space for that discussion though.




See, what bothers me about the film are the orge Persians and the animals that were not actually present at Thermopylae. If the film can have Greeks fighting middle earth orcs I don't see why a tall Xerxes is especially problematic. Anyway, I think the height thing was done mainly so Xerxes could rest his hands on Leonidas' shoulders in that creepy suggestive way. It's more about making a weird sexual advance at Leonidas than making a point about his height.

It's not meant to be historically accurate. The Spartans didn't go to Thermopylae in leather underwear, either. It's Zack Snyder and Frank Miller's Thermopylae.

Whether the effect is good or bad doesn't really have any connection to the film's accuracy. The point of the list is what we writers think are bad effects, not whether or not those bad effects fought at Thermopylae.
Reply
post #16 of 54
5/27/10 at 8:57pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe View Post
There were no Persians that were 7 feet tall? Either way, this depiction of Xerxes was a stylistic choice to make him look more intimidating as a self-proclaimed god-child. The CGI in this film is not suppose to have a "realistic" look to begin with. In any case, the CGI is hardly THAT noticeable or bad, at least not enough to put on a top 10 list.
There may have been -- but come, given the nutrition of the time, I think people topped 6 feet if they were lucky.

The list is a lot longer than 10, by the way. Believe me, you'll get all the crappy CGI your heart desires...
Reply
post #17 of 54
5/27/10 at 8:59pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Q View Post
I understand why you folks are shying away from the video embeds and appreciate the reply. I saw the movie once several years ago, thought the whole thing was visually lame and don't really remember those particular scenes being any more egregious than most of the film. It's been a while and I never really committed the flick to memory.
I'm trying to add it. I'm also really bad at negotiating our software here. I put in a request, though.

If it doesn't get added, here, the CSI work for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gqt_gmbKE8g
Reply
post #18 of 54
5/27/10 at 9:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elisabeth Rappe View Post
It's not meant to be historically accurate. The Spartans didn't go to Thermopylae in leather underwear, either. It's Zack Snyder and Frank Miller's Thermopylae.

Whether the effect is good or bad doesn't really have any connection to the film's accuracy. The point of the list is what we writers think are bad effects, not whether or not those bad effects fought at Thermopylae...

(You might do well to ignore me, I have weird hang ups about ancient Greece)

While it's always great to see a film like ALEXANDER (where Alexander III of Macedon's armor was based on the Alexander Mosaic of Pompeii), I don't mind the uniform look of the leather outfits that Frank Millar came up with. It's very cool stylistically.

RE: Inaccuracy about the tactics and combatants at Thermopylae:

Inserting Rhinos bothers me. Ogres and mutants bother me. That stuff is way more present in Snyder's film than in the book.

All the one on one fighting and face offs really bother me. Spartans fought as a unit, and except for the 2 minute "cliff push" sequence you don't get that from the film.

Anyway, I think I'll just agree to disagree
Reply
post #19 of 54
5/27/10 at 9:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
Yeah, this is the first miss in this list for me. Everything is so heightened and unreal in this film, that scene really didn't stand out for me as glaringly bad. And considering the entire film is Dilios giving a "Go kick their asses!" speech, of course Xerxes is seven feet tall and shoots bolts of lightning from his arse.
Yeah I have to say, this strikes me more as taking issue with a creative, stylistic decision rather than just out and out bad CGI personally.
Reply
post #20 of 54
5/27/10 at 9:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elisabeth Rappe View Post
I'm trying to add it. I'm also really bad at negotiating our software here. I put in a request, though.

If it doesn't get added, here, the CSI work for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gqt_gmbKE8g
Much appreciated! Now I will relive the terrible. I know I could have looked it up myself, I just want to make sure I'm looking at what you have in mind when you write these up.

ETA: There is definitely something very "super-imposey" about that shot when in motion. It feels less like a CGI effect and more like an actor acting in front of rear projection. That said, there are about 100 other things that happen in that scene that I find worse than the effect. God, what an awful movie!
Reply
post #21 of 54
5/27/10 at 9:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post
Yeah I have to say, this strikes me more as taking issue with a creative, stylistic decision rather than just out and out bad CGI personally.
Same here. Never noticed anything wrong with the effect.
Reply
post #22 of 54
5/27/10 at 9:19pm
I have a question: Is the list agreed on by all the editors beforehand, and then you divide up who writes about what? Or do you just do your own thing and post it up independently? My question is not specific to this list, but rather all lists on CHUD. If you don't know, don't worry, I'm just curious
Reply
post #23 of 54
5/27/10 at 9:24pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post
Yeah I have to say, this strikes me more as taking issue with a creative, stylistic decision rather than just out and out bad CGI personally.
So you really can't tell it was superimposed, where Xerxes holds a blank dummy where Leonidas is computerized in?

Then ok, stylistic choice.
Reply
post #24 of 54
5/27/10 at 9:26pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
I have a question: Is the list agreed on by all the editors beforehand, and then you divide up who writes about what? Or do you just do your own thing and post it up independently? My question is not specific to this list, but rather all lists on CHUD. If you don't know, don't worry, I'm just curious
Well, I can only speak for this one, but we decided on it ahead of time. We're all doing our picks, but it's also a bit of a grab bag in order to keep it going.
Reply
post #25 of 54
5/27/10 at 9:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elisabeth Rappe View Post
So you really can't tell it was superimposed, where Xerxes holds a blank dummy where Leonidas is computerized in?

Then ok, stylistic choice.
If this were Facebook I'd Like the fuck out of that little post.
Reply
post #26 of 54
5/27/10 at 9:34pm
This is the first miss for me too on this list. Is this the worst CGI moment in the film.. meh, I think the Rhino/Spear scene was ALOT worse, but that's just me, same goes for the wolf scene. But to put this on a list called "The Worst CGI in History" is insane. Unless this list is containing 5000 days worth of material, Xerzes and his perfectly polished nails shouldn't be anywhere close to making this list.

I also think his hieght wasn't supposed to just represent how much bigger his army was then Greece's. I think it was supposed to represent how his followers felt about him. His stature equated to his power. I mean, he was there god, correct?
Reply
post #27 of 54
5/27/10 at 10:42pm
In terms of CGI negatively affecting one's enjoyment of a film, I think the entirety of 300 could be included. It's definitely in the George Lucas/Robert Rodriguez school.

In fact both of those directors deserve a special section.
Reply
post #28 of 54
5/27/10 at 10:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elisabeth Rappe View Post
Well, I can only speak for this one, but we decided on it ahead of time. We're all doing our picks, but it's also a bit of a grab bag in order to keep it going.
Thanks for the info!
Reply
post #29 of 54
5/27/10 at 10:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elisabeth Rappe View Post
I apologize for never linking the E.T. one. Maybe you want to discuss that here too, so I may read all your thoughts.
Cool. What am I thinking of having for dinner?

On topic, yeah, that stuck out and as you point out, it didn't have any internal consistency. But then I'm not the world's biggest 300 fan either.
Reply
post #30 of 54
5/27/10 at 11:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elisabeth Rappe View Post
But you are talking about an animal that the average Spartan or Greek may not be that familiar with -- and in the mythic way the story is being told, it's the largest elephant or rhino of all time. It's also reflective of the art I've seen. Generally animals are sort of outlandishly sized in Greek art, either very big or very small.

If ALL the Persians had been portrayed as 7 feet tall, then ok, the Greeks are selling them as monsters too. But they're not. And Xerxes' height differs depending on the scene.
But don't most paintings of that time portray the King as a giant compared to his subjects in general, and foreigners in particular? I know Egyptian Pharaohs were often portrayed as giants squashing their enemies. That would fit in with the general mythic portrayals of the film.
Reply
post #31 of 54
5/27/10 at 11:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
(You might do well to ignore me
Elizabeth,

You just received a gift. Take it. Princess Wiki will never back down from her misguided knowledge of EVERYTHING.
Reply
post #32 of 54
5/28/10 at 12:41am
If I recall correctly Xerxes was a giant in Frank Miller's comic. Synder could've chosen to ignore that for the film, I suppose, but we know he was going for an almost literal visual adaptation across the board.

Anyway, I like the inclusion of non-obvious films like this for the list, and making things subjective - like E.T.. Skol. Though I do feel this one was maybe too subjective, focusing on creative decisions far more than the actual CG.
Reply
post #33 of 54
5/28/10 at 12:52am
Gotta agree with the "it's not that bad" crowd.
Reply
post #34 of 54
5/28/10 at 4:01am
Thread Starter 
I'm perversely glad to have created the first list item that was universally hated.

Though I fear there may be mass suicides in the general comments if we leave out one piece of crappy CGI.
Reply
post #35 of 54
5/28/10 at 4:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elisabeth Rappe View Post
I'm perversely glad to have created the first list item that was universally hated.

Though I fear there may be mass suicides in the general comments if we leave out one piece of crappy CGI.
I actually said:
Quote:

EDIT: Either way I think the effect is bad. I like your write up, I am just addressing the decision to make him that huge
So that's not quite universal hate, sorry to detract from your perverse glee.
Reply
post #36 of 54
5/28/10 at 4:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elisabeth Rappe View Post
I'm perversely glad to have created the first list item that was universally hated.

Though I fear there may be mass suicides in the general comments if we leave out one piece of crappy CGI.
Xerxes' bratwurst fingers fumbling on Leonidas' shoulders were kind of hilarious.

And hated? No. That's civil disagreement. Check out the comment on any of Devin's Lost articles for actual hate.
Reply
post #37 of 54
5/28/10 at 4:27am
Yeah never noticed this scene as a dealbreaker. Weird choice.
Reply
post #38 of 54
5/28/10 at 9:56am
Gonna be an echo in here and say that I never caught the bad CG in these scenes. Only saw the movie the one time in the theater though. My friends and I were cracking up more at the "You will find... that I am kind" stuff while Xerxes puts his hands on Leo's shoudlers though.

I still find it hilarious that Xerxes is "Takes a shit guy" aka the much hated Paulo from Lost season 3.
Reply
post #39 of 54
5/28/10 at 10:41am
I never even noticed the CGI to tell you the truth... I was thinking the whole time "I want a Xerxes massage too!!!"...
Reply
post #40 of 54
5/28/10 at 10:52am
You should've picked the hunchback as the worst example of CGI, because I think we can all agree there's just no WAY you could fuck up practical makeup THAT bad. Right? Right?!


Ugh... this fucking movie.
Reply
post #41 of 54
5/28/10 at 10:55am
Based on that clip I'm really glad I've never seen that film all the way through, It looks terrible.

Edited to add, is there really a scene where it shows the soliders stabbing half dead people? Did they hire Monty Python for that bit or something.
Reply
post #42 of 54
5/28/10 at 11:12am
Yeah, this is a very strange inclusion. For one thing, it's not CGI, it's composite work. For another, it's not really all that bad.

Also, one of the many things I both love and hate about CHUD is that I can come here and find people bitching about what a terrible movie 300 is. Fucking crybabies, the lot of ya.
Reply
post #43 of 54
5/28/10 at 11:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Savage View Post
Edited to add, is there really a scene where it shows the soliders stabbing half dead people? Did they hire Monty Python for that bit or something.
It's considered merciful. And practical -- a wounded soldier might heal and come after you again some day. A dead one won't.
Reply
post #44 of 54
5/28/10 at 11:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Mal View Post
Also, one of the many things I both love and hate about CHUD is that I can come here and find people bitching about what a terrible movie 300 is. Fucking crybabies, the lot of ya.
It's better than SERENITY, I'll give it that much.
Reply
post #45 of 54
5/28/10 at 11:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post
It's better than SERENITY, I'll give it that much.
And "Behind the Mask: The Rise of Lesley Whatever"

Took some Chud advice and bought that POS. Haven't been that disspointed since Ghost Dad.
Reply
post #46 of 54
5/28/10 at 11:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
It's considered merciful. And practical -- a wounded soldier might heal and come after you again some day. A dead one won't.
I figured that was what it was about, but it just made me think of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grbSQ6O6kbs
Reply
post #47 of 54
5/28/10 at 11:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickP View Post
And "Behind the Mask: The Rise of Lesley Whatever"

Took some Chud advice and bought that POS. Haven't been that disspointed since Ghost Dad.
Oh you are so wrong it's not even funny.
Reply
post #48 of 54
5/28/10 at 11:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Savage View Post
Based on that clip I'm really glad I've never seen that film all the way through, It looks terrible.

Edited to add, is there really a scene where it shows the soliders stabbing half dead people? Did they hire Monty Python for that bit or something.
Leonidas is wandering around eating an apple after the first wave of soldiers comes at the Hot Gates, and they stab anyone still alive on the battlefield.

It's intentionally played for laughs, though, and it works.

And add me to the echo chamber: I still enjoy the hell out of the film, ridiculous as it is, but I know where the wonky CG is in this film, and Xerxes never struck me as the most glaring example. Especially since despite not being in the same room and all that, Butler is a fucking hoot in that scene.

Now, if you'd mentioned awkward, smoky poltergeist belly dance, however.....
Reply
post #49 of 54
5/28/10 at 11:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post
Oh you are so wrong it's not even funny.
PM me your address. I will send it to you. I need it OUT of my house.
Reply
post #50 of 54
5/28/10 at 11:51am
Already own a copy! Find a horror fan who hasn't seen it and give it to them. Or watch it again and again and again until you realise how great it is.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › CHUD LIST - THE WORST CGI IN HISTORY - DAY 5