look at the world around us. Back in the 70’s if you were waiting for
the movie to start and the bucket of popcorn grew eyes and started
dancing around the counter top assisted by a reanimated bag of Skittles
you’d puke in your hat and call a ventriloquist, a priest, and a burly
cop six weeks from retirement to come deal with it. Now we can’t flip
through the channels without seeing a seemingly living 2,000 foot robot
whipping up a lather in his 17,000 foot shower or a muffin writhing out
of some bitch’s grasp as she does a walk-and-talk about menopause being a
real pisser. Superman
made us believe a man could fly but it wasn’t until The Revenge of the Sith
that we could believe that Christopher Lee had both Jedi Powers and
Phase-Shift Parkinsons.
CGI is an amazing tool that many
filmmakers wield like a digital Mjolnir,
creating worlds and creatures that take our breath away. Unfortunately
through the years some have used it as a scythe, slashing our dreams and
severing that muscle that connects our sexual pleasure organs to the
muscle that tells our mind we’re really good at using our sexual
pleasure organs. The result is oblivion.
So with that we bring you CHUD’s
latest glorious list. The twenty worst instances of CGI in movie
history. In no order. Well, except the order we decide to do them.
Brought to you by Elisabeth Rappe
THE OFFENDER: 300 (2007)
THE
SCENE: There’s a lot of wonky CGI in 300, but I give the rhino and the elephants a pass because they’re what I think of as “heightened CGI.” It’s not meant to look photoreal. These are the outlandish creatures you meet on a Greek frieze, and so they look it. No, the major offender is when Xerxes decides to get up close and personal with King Leonidas. (Not that could blame him, we’ve seen that ass.) In order to symbolically show the Persians had bigger “army” than the Greeks, Xerxes becomes a giant. A really lousy CGI giant.
WHERE IT
ALL GOES WRONG: On the drawing board. Look, you have arrows that blot out the sun. You see “but a fraction of Xerxes’ army” drown in a thunderous ocean. We observe miles upon miles of tents and campfires that threaten to overwhelm the musclebound Spartans. By now, the audience gets it. Do you really need to say “I don’t think they do. Let’s make Xerxes a fucking giant.”
All right, so you want to get all symbolic. I can respect that. So spend a little extra money — tell the cast they can’t spray tan that day or something — and make sure it looks really good. Make sure we can’t see the ugly edges where you superimposed them together. Also, make sure that you’re consistent. When Xerxes is hanging out in the tent with all his deformed Persian ladies, he should also seem to tower above them. Instead, he seems to be the size of your average man again. I guess he has access to Alice in Wonderland mushrooms.
HOW IT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE PRACTICALLY: With forced perspective. From what I remember from the special features, Gerard Butler and Rodrigo Santoro were never in the same room together. They shot the scenes separately, and special effects teams put them together, taking care to enlarge Santoro. (There’s no way to write about this without sounding like I’m writing a porn manual, is there?) The scene pictured below suggests there was some forced perspective used, I’m unsure. Santoro still looks freakish, like he’s been run through a computer and spat out again. Contrast it to The Lord of the Rings, which is a fine example of how you can make average sized men like Viggo Mortensen and Ian McKellen look much, much bigger than their hobbit friends. Realistically so, too, no giant, rubbery hands fondling Spartan shoulders.

HOW BAD
IS IT? You tell me. I think it’s laughable. When I saw the film at BNAT 8, I thought it was a rough cut. I was sure the tender embrace of Xerxes and Leonidas would be cleaned up by the following March. But it wasn’t. And it’s a shame. 300 is a film that’s pretty phenomenal to look at. (And I’m not just talking about the calves, the thighs, and the 8 packs.) You know none of it looks exactly real, but you can appreciate the artistry that went into it. This is one scene that jumps out and reminds you it’s all fake, fake, fake.
Day 2: An American Werewolf in Paris
Day 3: E.T. The Extra Terrestrial 20th Anniversary
Day 4: X-Men Origins: Wolverine
Day 5: 300






46 comments
I don't like you any more, Elisabeth Rappe. Not one bit!
Elisabeth gets my respect for choosing a film that otherwise gets a lot of love from this site. I can agree with her that just because I like the movie, doesn't mean it doesn't have technical flaws.
Uh, yeah. This argument is pretty weak. Everybody else has chimed in about this list missing the mark on a couple of occasions, so I guess this is gonna be mine. This is no catastrophe, it's not atrocious, it's not the worst of anything. Just because something doesn't look great does not make it the worst of anything, just pretty bad. Which is what this scene barely comes close to; pretty bad. Hope it's upwards and onwards for the rest of this list.
If this makes the list but Island of Dr. Moreau doesnt, I will have to give up on life.
You had me with E.T., but this one is just nitpicky.
Bad example is bad. This is a way too obscure, and minor, example of bad CGI. It was certainly not laugh out loud bad. Plenty scenes in Lord Of The Rings were worse even with the stand ins.
No, it's definitely flawed in execution. But conceptually I think that scene and "Xerxes in the Tent" fall into the different narrative streams the film plays with. When things get really weird it's because David Wenham's character has taken over the storytelling and is embroidering it at the campfire before the big rush into battle right at the end. All the monster monkey ninjas fall into his narrative too.
This gets a mention over the horrible CGI face peeling scene from Lord of Illusions?
Or maybe the terrible Walking Graboids in Tremors 2.
Or maybe even the stained glass knight from Young Sherlock, or is that a case of – it looks bad because its old. Nothing like the Scorpion King had been attempted before, I think it looked pretty cool….
Yeah, what Swearengen said. From Day 1 that film has been the poster child of this series.
CGI in this movie is terrible. Boring ass movie.
Liz, I think you missed the point with this list. It is for films with horrifically bad CGI, not for films that use CGI to create characters you think are “kinda silly”. Xerxes is ridiculously tall in the film, but that is how he appears in the graphic novel, which the film stays faithful too. Your beef is with the source material, not the film.
Will this sight ever hire a copy-editor?
Meh. There are far, far worse examples of CGI.
It is clear that this column is not serious and just tries to be provocative. No way 300 has the worst CGI. Weak, weak, weeeaaakkk….
Every scene involving people and painfully obvious CG backdrops in all Star Wars prequels. That is all.
If the awful animality fight from the end of "Mortal Kombat: Annihilation" doesn't make it on this list, then this list is not a good list.
This was a stupid entry in an otherwise great list so far. How could you pick Xerxes for this list over, a hundred far far worse possibilities? Take into account the theme of the film, the general look, the aesthetic, the effects were MEANT to look exaggerated and over the top. Xerxes didn't look terrible at all. He DID look silly yes, but that was kind of the point, as someone else said, it's how it was in the graphic novel.
Bad choice sorry. Very bad choice.
Seriously??!! What the FUCK!! This list has seriously been going downhill since the fantastic article on Day 1 (The Mummy Returns). 300 was MEANT to look like an over-the-top comic book on screen. There are HUNDREDS of movies with worse CGI than 300 that weren't trying to look like shit, but ended up doing so. Why not pick one of those films? I'm telling you the car crash in ALONG CAME A SPIDER, the deer attack in THE RING 2, the glacier surfing in DIE ANOTHER DAY, and every scene filmed for A SOUND OF THUNDER have lousier effects than 300. Terrible choice; the concept for this list is AMAZING, but with the exception of the first couple days, it really sucks. I really hope that it can redeem itself with the rest of the list.
I got no problem with this one I guess. But if you're going to go here, you should also include the electrical shocks that kill Bethany in Dogma. You guys can keep that one, it's a freebie.
GI Joe: Rise of Crap-bra better make the list, that was some terrible, terrible CGI. Given the director though not a huge surprise. Now Scarlett and the Baroness on the other hand…
A lot of touchy 300 fans here.
you can disagree, but 300 is a shallow piece of shit from a juvenile filmmaker. Sorry Devin. I'm sure you'll have a super awesome review of Sucker Punch.
I've never been able to reconcile the fact that Xerxes was played by fucking Paulo from Lost. You know what? Fuck 300 and everyone in it. Seriously.
I'm no die hard 300 fan (it's all style and no substance) but even I find this article to be nit-picky. There are plenty ofg reat choices out there for lambasting but this isn't one of them.
Shit I did not even know that this was a CGI scene…..oops!
That does seem to be one of the weakest examples of shit CGI. Yes it loosk abit forced and abit odd but its not fucking laughable by any means.
Same goes for wolverine yesterday, the fucking rancid bathroom scene was talked about in about 3 lines and the shitty stair scene was the bulk of the article.
And were is the cgi ninja cartoon rejects from blade 2, thats prime shit cgi. So shit even Del Toro hates it
there not rubber hands…hes standing on a box or something..but yeah it does look shit
Ms. Rappe you are indeed correct. Seeing this film on telly this week for the 1st time since it came out I also noted the strangeness when the hands were resting on the shoulders. Please ignore the chest-thumpers, your writing is a delight and your profile picture is still extremely aesthetically pleasing.
300 is a terrible movie and it can't be pointed out enough.
Yeah, hate to be that guy, but this is a weak entry.
Why not just go ahead and discuss the Star Wars: Special Edition you guys have the screen cap for?
Are these articles ever peer-reviewed? The title of this series is the worst CGI in film HISTORY. Now unless you're playing to hyperbole–and judging from some previous entries that certainly doesn't appear to be the case–this example makes little sense when you consider the scope you're aiming for. Either change the name of the article or reconsider your choices.
@#12: "site"
This should be removed, this isn't even CGI. It pretty much discounts the whole list. Congratulations on making yourself look stupid.
Who is this Elisabet?! Completely wrong slant on this film! WoW.
I call bullshit.
This column is getting worse by the day
300 was never about being subtle anyways, so who gives a flying fuck?
300? Really? Chud, You suck!
I know this is a bit redundant at this point, but this is hardly "the worst cgi in history".
Is it bad? Yes. The worst? Not even close. Just compare this to the entry about An American Werewolf in Paris.
IF this article was called "worst visual effects" or "worst compositing" in History then you'd at least be in the ball park with what we're looking at in the screen caps. but there's no CG characters here. Also, even if that was the case there's nothing so bad here to make note of. you're way off the mark by including this.
What a terrible addition to this list, Elisabeth you should be banned from contributing
This is a pretty bold choice. Don't mind the naysayers since 300 is like CHUD stroke material; movie geeks just love it despite the lack of quality. I remember those scenes (or that scene, it's been awhile) pulling me out of the movie. If you are looking at the fx out of context, that is the definition of bad CGI.
So when she trashes a film that Internet minds have decided is an abomination (E.T., Star Wars) it's all HELLS YEAH, but when she points out a weakness in the "almighty" 300 then she's way off the mark?? You guys never disappoint… or surprise.
Want to chime in with everybody else here. I'm no 300 apologist and I was surprised by this addition to the list. I could easily find 300 movies that have worse CGI than 300. Bad call.
<a href=http://azlebca.co.cc/page-44.php> проÑтитутки Площадь Гагарина </a>
<a href=http://tinancess.co.cc/doc_411.html> проÑтитутки Смела </a>
<a href=http://azlebca.co.cc/page_472.html> заказать проÑтитутку в нижнем новгороде </a>
<a href=http://reikema.co.cc/page_397.html> проÑтитутка Ðльза </a>
<a href=http://reikema.co.cc/page_139.php> проÑтитутки Отрадный </a>
[url=http://reikema.co.cc/samye-golye-prastitutki.html] шлюхи девочки по вызову проÑтитутки [/url]
[url=http://azlebca.co.cc/foto-prostitutki-polocka.php] проÑтитутки западного округа моÑквы [/url]
[url=http://reikema.co.cc/site-188.html] проÑтитутки моÑквы метро бибирево [/url]
[url=http://tinancess.co.cc/site-108.html] проÑтитутки Ñ ÑƒÑлугой бдÑм [/url]
[url=http://azlebca.co.cc/page-498.php] проÑтитутка Ðрина [/url]
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.