Support NeoGAF

[Mr. Poolman]

Obviously the razor bats in this shot from Spider-Man are CGI. But so is Spidey.

I realized it on my 1st viewing, looked off to me, something about the speed.

And no, I don't think the Spider-Man movie CGI has aged well.

 

[Catdaddy]

Close Encounters of the Third Kind the mothership scene still wows me and still one of my fav movies of all time. Probably not true CGI but still for the time.

 

[DJKhaled]

I wonder how people will feel about Avatar in like another 10 or 20 years, it was mind blowing at the time but it's CGI usage was so high I just don't know if it will look dated as shit.

 

[Garlador]

I wonder how people will feel about Avatar in like another 10 or 20 years, it was mind blowing at the time but it's CGI usage was so high I just don't know if it will look dated as shit.

Movies tend to age in parts. Some parts will remain really impressive for a very long time, while certain scenes, moments, or characters will age faster.

For example, I already think Sigourney Weaver's avatar looks quite a bit more dated than the others in certain scenes. A bit more "Polar Express uncanny valley".

 

[wetwired]

The Edgar Roach in Men in Black

I had a friend whose parents would always be travelling and brought home a VHS copy of Men in Black from Asia months before it was even heard of. It had incomplete special effects, this scene if I recall correctly was a ball on a stick. It was years before I actually saw the final version.

 

[sarcastor]

The Fifth Element - 1997

Shit will look good forever.

I'm pretty sure those buildings are practical sets, yo.

 

[dragonyeuw]

doesnt need to be the WHOLE movie, can even be one scene which is good whilst the rest sucks.

I've always been fond of this example

I think it looks great.

Movie = spawn

That's one series I wouldn't mind being rebooted, since we're on this comic film craze.

 

[DeathoftheEndless]

The CGI in Van Helsing is still surprisingly good, even though the movie sucks.

 

[Easy_D]

Jurassic Park during the night scenes. Not only the dinos are CGI (and animatronics), but some of the vehicles are too!

Blew my mind to bits when I was shown how the car the T-Rex crushes was CGI all along. Such a shame those day-time segments have aged so poorly in comparison.

 

[Ric Flair]

I had a friend whose parents would always be travelling and brought home a VHS copy of Men in Black from Asia months before it was even heard of. It had incomplete special effects, this scene if I recall correctly was a ball on a stick. It was years before I actually saw the final version.

Dude! I would love to watch something like this, do you know if there's a name or something like that to look it up?

 

[Onemic]

Jurassic Park, The Thread

 

[forgeforsaken]

City of Lost Children for the most part holds up and used a lot of CGI

 

[Lord Error]

Not a movie, but whenever the subject of great CGI comes up, I immediately think of Bjork's All Is Full of Love video from 1999.

Although some in the comments mention the robot bodies aren't CGI.

That's one of my all time favorite videos/songs/visuals. Cunningham was really something. I believe that faces, and moving robot parts are CG, but torsos I think are not. There's a making of video somewhere.

Not CGI.

That particular scene no (although they may have done a cg paint over on the face, I'm not sure). But there's a head healing scene after that which is CG and doesn't look bad at all. I'm trying to find it now. I remember in that scene they cleverly had the T-1000's eyes move as he's healing so that draws your attention from observing the metal healing detail in close (where the CG-ness would be the most obvious).

 

[The Beard]

The Fifth Element - 1997


Shit will look good forever.

Nah, the flying cars look bad, and the whole taxi cab scene looked fake as hell on day one.

 

[John Rabbit]

Jurassic Park is definitely starting to show it's age, specifically any of the daytime stuff. The texture on the brontosaurus in the initial big reveal scene looks pretty lame now.

 

[Sephzilla]

Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park are my picks.

The only CGI effect in Jurassic Park that really shows its age in my opinion is the Brontosaurus

 

[Muppet of a Man]

I'm about 99% sure that's a practical effect.

Good practical effects will always be better.

 

[Azure Dream]

Toy Story 1995

Still looks amazing considering it was being made with 1994 computers !

I'm having trouble getting confirmation, but I heard that they went back to rerender the film for the 2009 3D release (and 2D rerelease), they updated some of the rougher-looking textures. That doesn't detract from your point, but I think the version in wide release now isn't quite the same as the 1995 one.

 

[Aggelos]

ILM's epic projects

http://www.ilm.com/vfx/twister/
http://www.ilm.com/vfx/the-lost-world-jurassic-park/
http://www.ilm.com/vfx/jumanji/
http://www.ilm.com/vfx/jurrasic-park-3/
http://www.ilm.com/vfx/the-abyss/
http://www.ilm.com/vfx/terminator-2-judgment-day/
http://www.ilm.com/vfx/jurassic-park/
http://www.ilm.com/vfx/the-mummy/



Do you guys think that those have CGI effects that have aged well?

http://digitaldomain.com/work/lake-placid/

http://digitaldomain.com/work/stealth/

 

[Fj0823]

The clones in AOTC look fantastic in lots of scenes.

And absolutely horrible in others...

 

[nhlducks35]

These are both obviously still super impressive (although man, Avatar is starting to look a little rough if you look at some of the environment work there. 7 years!) but it amazes me that we *still* can't quite make CGI models look like they're really interacting with ground. In motion and with good direction/quick cutting, we barely notice it in motion. But look at the T-Rex's foot, and the Na'vi's hand. They just don't look like they're truly touching the surface the character is meant to be resting on. The lighting just isn't complex enough. This is the next big hurdle that needs to be overcome with CGI for true photorealism. It's not a knock against these movies that it's noticeable (especially not for Jurassic Park, considering its age) but it's still crazy to me how much CGI characters stick out against backdrops still.

Take Gollum, for example. Considering The Two Towers is 14 years old now, Gollum is still incredibly impressive, particularly his expressiveness - but look at how awkward his hands and feet look in full-body shots (which are, wisely, avoided for the most part in the films):



Watch this scene and notice how well they hide it. It's a good thing they did, because in the brief moments where you can pause and look at how he interacts with the environment, the shadows just aren't believable in the slightest.

For a more recent example, check out how much TARS sticks out in Interstellar, which I would venture is one of the best looking films of 2014:

TARS isn't even CGI tho

 

[~Kinggi~]

I know everyone hates the Bay, but Pearl Harbor legit looks amazing even today.

 

[Schlorgan]

Independence Day, especially if you compare it to The Rock and Air Force One which both came out the same year.

 

[WhiteRabbitEXE]

Independence Day, especially if you compare it to The Rock and Air Force One which both came out the same year.

What parts though? Because ID4 used a shit-ton of practical effects.

 

[Schlorgan]

What parts though? Because ID4 used a shit-ton of practical effects.

Mostly some plane/ship stuff. It's really seamless. This sequence is a good example:
http://i.imgur.com/W2anMGlh.gif

The practical stuff (especially with the alien) still looks incredible, and makes Resurgence that much more disappointing.

 

[Gattsu25]

Ahh, "Master and Commander"

While it's not that old, the CG in this movie was mostly just invisible. I simply didn't even realize that I was looking at CG so much of the time.

 

[NealMcCauley]

I know everyone hates the Bay, but Pearl Harbor legit looks amazing even today.

Apparently George Lucas told Bay he brought ILM into the 21st century. It really does hold up.

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

I don't think this can or ever will be topped for me as far as CG and CG characters go.
Davy Jones was a damn good character all around with incredible CG to back it up.

 

[Schlorgan]

From Spider-Man 2 (2004):

http://i.imgur.com/YEwrviFh.gif
http://i.imgur.com/f4fopqAh.gif
http://i.imgur.com/fo4wqkUh.gif
http://i.imgur.com/ew0K3ZWh.gif
http://i.imgur.com/DdzQDGoh.gif
http://i.imgur.com/wkKBq9rh.gif

I'd just post them to the thread, but they're all pretty big.

Spider-Man 2 is a weird one as it runs the full spectrum of CGI that holds up and CGI that doesn't.

 

[EatChildren]

The monumentally impressive combined effort of animatronics and CGI with intelligent use of lighting, framing, and editing makes the Tyrannosaurus Rex breakout sequence in Jurassic Park by far one of cinema's greatest, most timeless special effect accomplishments in my opinion.

This is 23 years old.

Every single time I watch this scene I am absolutely blown away by the attention to detail and believability of something so unreal.

 

[Sora the Cat]

King Kong (2005)

Some scenes were really awesome.

 

[Timu]

Man, some movies aged well!!!

 

[Gattsu25]

The monumentally impressive combined effort of animatronics and CGI with intelligent use of lighting, framing, and editing makes the Tyrannosaurus Rex breakout sequence in Jurassic Park by far one of cinema's greatest, most timeless special effect accomplishments in my opinion.

This is 23 years old.

Every single time I watch this scene I am absolutely blown away by the attention to detail and believability of something so unreal.

Third GIF is the one that looks the most real.

It's also an animatronic dino in that GIF

 

[TAJ]

I'm pretty sure those buildings are practical sets, yo.

They're miniatures, except when they're diving down in the cab and then they're CGI.

 

[DrNeroCF]

One of the many reasons Jurassic Park looks so good is the incredible animation. They worked with old school puppeteers using custom built puppets that translated their movements 1:1 to the 3D models (CG animators just weren't as experienced then) to make sure that all the animation was evocative and lively.

The raptors are obviously CG in the kitchen scene, but they move so well my brain barely cares at all because it's too busy focusing on their authentic and terrifying predatory presence.

The JP Bluray making of extras are ESSENTIAL viewing if you're fond of the film.

It clicked for me while I was watching an interview with Phil Tippett not too long ago, where he said the animators were creating data that the computer dudes thought was wrong, but looked great once the it was driving the dinos. I never actually see this brought up when everyone asks how does Jurassic Park hold up so well.


Since a lot of CGI in animation was brought up, I really love the CGI parts of Oliver and Company:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ombl8CBrrgY

Just blended so well, might actually be the choppiness that helps though, heh.

 

[Count Dookkake]

I love when youngsters confuse practical FX for CG.

 

[a Master Ninja]

Some odd choices in here for a thread with the words "old movies" in the title...

Andromeda Strain (1971)

Impressive as hell.

 

[hendersonhank]

I know it's not too old (7 years) but its CGI hasnt been topped. EVERYTHING is CGI.

Yeah, and it looks it.

 

[jet1911]

King Kong (2005)

Some scenes were really awesome.

Fuck that scene.

 

[MetroidPrimeRib]

Yeah its Jurassic Park 1 for me, some straight up wizardry on the levels of the original King Kong in there

 

[Cormano]

King Kong (2005)

Some scenes were really awesome.

That one still gives me nightmares.

 

[supermarioworldE]

This is probabaly the only impressive CGI shot in the whole movie (Anaconda, 1997).

 

[Schlorgan]

I love when youngsters confuse practical FX for CG.

I really like a good mix of the two, like the Raptors/T-Rex in Jurassic Park or Doc Ock’s tentacles in Spider-Man 2.

 

[World SkiFree]

I know everyone hates the Bay, but Pearl Harbor legit looks amazing even today.

Was planning to post Pearl Harbor but was going to ask how it has aged since it has been awhile since I've seen it.

 

[Schlorgan]

That one still gives me nightmares.

Same. Almost can't watch that movie just for that sequence.

 

[Lys Skygge]

King Kong (2005)

Thought I blocked this scene from my mind. Guess I'm having nightmares tonight!

Spoiler

I love PJs King Kong

 

[Sapiens]

Is there any behind the scenes out there for that shot? Would be interesting to see the process for something like that back in 1983.

Probably the same people responsible for the genesis device in Wrath of Khan - early Pixar peeps. Though, this is orders of magnitude less impressive that the genesis process from WoK, which came out a year earlier.

 

[Schlorgan]

Speaking of 2009 with Avatar, I think the CGI in District 9 and Star Trek hold up pretty well. If those can be considered "old."

I think the first Matrix still holds up perfectly, some things are a bit dated but it's easier to forgive since the movie takes place in a simulation..

The things that stand out to me from the first one are Trinity jumping with the camera going full 360 around her and the door that awkwardly bounces around when the lobby explodes. Otherwise, that movie looks great.

 

[Green Mamba]

Jurassic Park III's Pteranodons still hold up pretty well, especially in comparison to most of the rest of the CGI in the film.

 

[Shadowheart]

Ahh, "Master and Commander"

While it's not that old, the CG in this movie was mostly just invisible. I simply didn't even realize that I was looking at CG so much of the time.

What parts were CGI? I remember the movie having a good naval fight seen, but I didn't realize anything was CGI. If I had to guess, I would guess the obvious: the big ships in the distance, but what else?
I may want to re-watch it if it had good CGI that I didn't even notice. I love shit like that.