Bad visual FX

My guess is that shot got through because it's what the director wanted-- a held-take crash that ends on a specific composition. Sure, the technique could have been better or different, but it would still be an obviously artificial shot because of the way it's blocked and staged.

 

A couple of years ago, I believe for the 30th anniversary issue of Cinefex, a number of leading FX people were interviewed and a recurring comment was that they never set out to make shots that violate the laws of physics but they're constantly instructed to deliver shots that do.

A pick and mix of shots / sequences that bothered me:

- The scorpion king at the end of the mummy returns - the classic example

- The burly brawl in the matrix reloaded - OK, maybe it's not awful, but it was kind of jarring when everyone turned into an Xbox character

- Falling Dick Jones at the end of Robocop...although I have affection for his stretchy arms

- CG Jabba in the first Star Wars special edition - it didn't even look like Jabba. And Han stepping on his tail looked awkward as heck

- The jungle chase in Kingdom of the crystal skull...why couldn't they have just filmed an actual chase in an actual jungle?

Here's the sad thing: They did, on location in Hawaii. And then they post-produced the hell out of it.

My point was that the shot was badly designed and would never have worked regardless of technical quality. Take the bit in Raiders of the Lost Ark when the German jeep gets run off a cliff-- sure it looks artificial, but it's a great moment and the wide angle provides a well-placed 'breather' for the sequence. Likewise, nobody makes fun of all the undercranked stuntwork in that chase because the action is so well thought-out.

Now here's a terrible shot:

 

But again, you can read vintage interviews where the FX guys talk about how they wrestled with the design, and it comes down to that-- if this was really happening in front of the camera, this isn't the way you'd shoot it.

That Wolvie FX shot has the power of over 200 gifs!

Pretty much EVERY f/x shot in INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE is unconvincing.  I'm not sure if it was a rush job or what, but there are way too many moments in there that look abyssmal. The first appearance of the blimp should have gotten someone fired.

 

eta: THIS shot -

 INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE Came out in 1989, that was a HUGE year for ILM. I would say that a lot of their work was either rushed or a lot of lesser talent had to work on it. But you are right, it had a lot of bad effects in it. But a lot of good matte shots as well. I would not made if they cleaned up the blue screening for the Blu Ray. But I'm sure Spielberg would be against that.

Every dodgy bit of compositing in Last Crusade is made up for with the bridge reveal at the end. Stunning.

The 90's was a bad time for CGI characters. Jar Jar Binks is a revelation compared to these monstrosities. And yes, they were terrible even in their time.

 

Lost in Space

 

 

Spawn

 

 

Anaconda

 

 

 

I thought I would never see VFX worse than Ultra Violet.

Then I watched A Sound of Thunder.

 

I bring this up only because a friend and I were talking about it over the weekend, but the Capcom-style fight in front of the floodlights in Blade 2 is just plain horrible.  On it's own, I'd probably just let it slide, but since the first proper reveal of the Reaper's jaws from the same film is still one of my fave FX shots to this day, I just can't.

I'll agree on on the leap-of-faith bridge reveal. That was a jaw dropper. Unfortunately, we still have the 'he chose poorly' rapid aging effect to laugh at.

This. Jesus, this. Some of those dialogue scenes where they're meant to be walking through a CG environment, and obviously walking on a treadmill... Just horrible.

 

STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER came out the same year as LAST CRUSADE. Now, the special effects in all of the TREK films are pretty inconsistent in quality, but the ones in V are particularly bad.
- Spock flying down the face of the mountain to catch Kirk.
- pretty much every space scene is laughable, but the one where the Bird-of-Prey shoots a torpedo and the Enterprise hits warp speed right before impact is stunning in its awfulness.
- the shuttlecraft flight down to the god planet.
- God.

Just shoddy work.

Every other bad effect is D- at worst compared to American Werewolf in Paris.

 

Wasn't there a CHUD series about this, with GIFs from this very film?

 

Ah, yes. And they took the GIFs out because Faraci was sensitive about accusations of piracy.

ILM was completely booked for 1989 releases, so Final Frontier had to make do with an FX house in New York that had never done a feature film before. Add to that a screenwriters' strike, a locked release date, an untested director, a slashed budget and unrealistic expectations based on the success of Voyage Home and there was no way they could win.

 

 

The funny thing here is that, objectively, the effect was magnitudes more sophisticated and "realistic" than the melting head from Raiders. Again, context and editing is important.

See also the many Not Arnolds in Commando.

The questionable blue screen work in Raiders' "Well Of The Souls" is pretty jarring. So much so that it completely unravels the sense of "scary awe" that was clearly intended for the scene.

Here's a cool little article about those otherwise awesome "cloud tank" FX in 80s films.

Those Raiders shots looks perfect to me, but I love that effect and how it was used. I think it's a perfect fit for that scene. I dread to think of the kind of mess do for that now, it'd probably have that awful soft cgi look that plagues films like Constantine.

Isn't there something to the effects looking "off" for all the Indiana Jones films though? Isn't it slightly intentional to add the serial nature of the films? Even the jungle scene in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull looking like jungle scenes from the 1950's with obvious backdrops. 

To each, his own. It's always felt jarring to me because we're kind of lulled into this more naturalistic exterior beat that suddenly goes meta with a highly unnaturalistic/obviously filmed inside a studio blue screen night scene. This has always been the lone chink in the film's armor to me.

I quite honestly don't know how you expect that to be executed in any other way in 1980. It's perfect, how does it look any less real than another kind of VFX shot?

I've always wondered how a film that contains the sheer visual marvel that is the space battle over Endor can also contain some of the worst matte compositing ever when Luke fights the rancor.

Rear screen projection, maybe?

Hey, it was 1984, baby. Back then, that practical robot business played.

 

I love those storm shots, always assumed that they were a little more stylized because of the enormity of what Indy was doing - He's disturbing the Ark and essentially pissing God/Nature off, hence the storm.

 

 

So good:

 

This isn't rear-projection. It's a (brilliant) forced-perspective setup.

Incredible. Man, what I wouldn't give for a feature-length documentary on the making of that film.

The wide shots of the storm are fine, it's the closer shot of Indy walking towards the camera with the sky shifting in the background that fails. 

It's really not much different from a lot of bluescreen stuff from the era. Most of it was pretty obvious and didn't completely match up (Something that's been mostly forgotten in the age of digital matte line removal). Another memorable example was Marty and Doc seeming to float over the DeLorean's firey tracks in BTTF.

Is it too much to hope that's the end of the movie?

IIRC, on the commentary track of the Blade2 DVD, Guillermo del Toro admits that the fight looks crappy....it's actually pretty funny listening to him bag on the shot.

 

Nope, only about halfway through. At least they didn't total a real vintage Jag.

Quote:

They also didn't bother to composite in people.

 

All of the CGI for DEEP RISING is pretty terrible, and it's one of the reasons I've never understood the love it seems to get here (especially considering how many folks profess to love practical over ANY CGI). Whatever goodwill Sommers builds up with funny lines and self-parodying atmosphere is, for me, ruined by the utterly horrible digital tentacles and monster.

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen has many sins, but the worst is the appearance of the Nautilus en-route somewhere. Fake CGI water, fake no-detail sub - it's like a cutscene from a PS1 game.

Well, there's something to be said for bad CGI that crosses the line into great bad CGI, as in Shark Attack 3: Megalodon.

 

 

Jet-ski guy: PERFECTION.

 

Martin, SyFy movies are pretty much exempt from this thread. They all feature extraordinarily shitty CGI which does, as you say, approach transcendence for its very awfulness.

ETA: Holy crap, that clip is magnificent.

 

I think the CG is passable. And outweighed by the not-too-serious tone, pulpy feel, and fun performances. It's a SyFy Original style flick with some actual talent all around the camera. Plus, Jerry Goldsmith's score is great too. I'm a huge practical FX constituent round here, but this one never bothered me at all. The tentacles served their purpose. But by MUMMY RETURNS and VAN HELSING, Sommers went bonkers with his CG usage. Weightless and non-threatening and many times, here's the key for me, unnecessary.