
Holy shit, CGI has changed the way we
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 David Oliver
THE OFFENDER: Lost In Space (1998)

THE
SCENE: This is one of those entries where it’s a character rather than a scene. It’s a cartoonish space monkey that didn’t happen to be palling around with neither Space Ghost nor the Wonder Twins: Blarp. So what’s so bad about this creature that likes space rations and families that can’t be bothered with getting GPS on their space Winnebago? Other than the fact that he’s a badly rendered character in a film which otherwise featured some pretty good special effects, not much. But like Amerie once said, it’s this one thing that’s got me trippin’.

“We appear to be near two large, D-class planetoids…”
I honestly don’t know what happened with Blarp. Such a poorly-rendered piece of animation, he almost threatened to take you out of the film whenever he was on screen (when the film itself didn’t threaten to do that). He would have looked more real if he’d remained the tennis ball on a stick that usually subs for a CGI character on set. Say what you want about Lost In Space, it did feature some pretty good set and production designs. The space spiders, although also not rendered to complete satisfaction, were suitably mean-looking things. But Blarp? He’s the worst example of bad CGI: a character that simply never looked real.
WHERE IT
ALL GOES WRONG:
It never went right with poor ole Blarp. He seems to be the victim of either budget shortfalls, last minute inclusion into the story or perhaps an effects company that couldn’t deliver what they promised. Leave us look at his basic design for a moment, shall we? Check out this pic:
BEEN DONE PRACTICALLY:
Easily:
CGI:

Non-CGI:

Seriously, though, Blarp didn’t necessarily need to be done practically, although a Muppet would have been very welcome here. He just needed to be done better. I think the majority of the special effects in Lost In Space were fine. The exterior shots of the Jupiter 2 in take off and the space stuff were good (although some probably hated that opening fight between West and the Global Sedition forces). The spiders were passable, and Spider Smith was as good as I think he could have been, considering he was a 15-foot-tall alien spider-man. Blarp’s deficiencies I think came down to time or dollars or both. But somewhere, someone along the line simply crapped the monkey cage on this one.
HOW BAD
IS
IT? When compared with the rest of the film, Blarp sticks out like a sore thumb on a monkey’s foot. Making use of the telepod reference once again, I believe I’ve deduced the origins of Blarp’s design:

IN
SUMMATION: Space monkeys are a dodgy bit of business. If you’re going to make use of said animal, make sure it’s done well. Otherwise the damned thing will shit on itself and toss the feces all over your movie.





17 comments
"He would have looked more real if he'd remained the tennis ball on a stick that usually subs for a CGI character on set" haha! — yeah, I remember this monstrosity (I mean both the character and the movie)
YES! Always hated this film, and this was among the most heinous things about it. Had totally forgotten about this piece of shit until you brought it back 3 minutes go.
Well done and go to hell.
I want to rag on this film… but in truth I was of the right age to fall completely in love with Lacey Chabert and the belly ring she was sporting in the opening scenes.
Blarp was completely extranious and had no purpose. He shouldn't have been in the film at all.
I am one of the minority who actually dig this film, Blarp and all. I think Blarp is hideous to look at it, and the only inclusion of him in the film was to make the movie more 'family friendly'. Actually love the space effects and the production design as a whole. I remember seeing this and being totally blown away by the sound design as well, and having A-list actors like William Hurt and Gary Oldman ham it up is pretty fun too. Also helping the movie was that it was so tonally dark, that the little mistake of Blarp helps lessen the blow of Dr. Smith being a dispicable person.
Narratively, Blarp was the most useless thing film. I'd say more useless then Jar Jar. At least Jar Jar had some part in the Episode 1 finale battle, but Blarp kept disapearing till I just forgot about him, and then the f**ker pops up again to piss me off.
Blarp aside, it's an underrated movie and truer to it's source than most remakes.
The crocodiles from "Eraser" need to be on this list. I'm pretty sure that the one guy who got eaten was just a character model with no details, ie he had no face.
Although pretty shitty, the CGI would have been forgiveable in this case if it weren't for the actual creature design. It simply doesn't look like it should exist in a physical universe. The eyes, for one thing, are so cartoonishly mis-shapen as to be completely worthless as… you know… eyes. I wonder if everyone looks super skinny to him.
I remember the PR for this film playing up what advanced technology they used for Blarp. What a joke! I did dig how Robot was done as a practical animatronic, though.
The sad thing is Blarp was a Muppet! I think it was Henson studios who did it and there was a physical muppet that they went back and covered with CG.
I remember a movie still featuring a large adult version of this creature. I think it was actually meant to be included in the future scenes? It's really just a bad bad concept that was unworkable. But the film as a whole is a bunch of terrible ideas. But as you mentioned, a lot of the other production values are very very high. Hopkins has the visuals, but he doesn't seem to have the metal to take his movies to the next level.
I believe there's some talk on the DVD of how Blarp was went to be a practical effect that didn't work, so they had to CGI him up at the last minute. Something like that. At any rate, a well-deserved choice!
Shitty CGI aside (and shitty film too), the final credits scene for Lost In Space, ROCKED. I STILL listen to that CD in the car.
Blarp was defiantly the worst part of the film, but I thought the film overall was enjoyable. At least until the last act. Loved Gary Oldman as Smith. I thought he was amazing in this. The weakest link besides the shit cgi whatevere the fuck, was Joey Tribbiani as the cocky pilot. He was more believeable as "Mac" in that goofy ass "Mac and Cheese" show from a while back.
One of the worst parts of a movie that had potential, but completely fell apart at the seams. Listen to the DVD commentary some day – it's basically 2 hours of the director explaining what went wrong and why.
The only good thing about this movie is Heather Graham in a skintight spacesuit. And there was nowhere near enough of that.
[url=http://www.invisalignsydney.com]Invisalign Sydney[/url]
[url=http://www.lookwhosblogging.com]Gourmet Food[/url]
[url=http://www.sydneycitydental.com.au]Cosmetic Dentist Sydney[/url]
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.