• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

The Mummy Returns has some of the worst CGI I have ever seen

Status
Not open for further replies.
Atilac said:
No mention of the spider from Wild Wild West?
Click to expand...
No, because the spider actually looked somewhat real.

The Rock/Scorpion King looked horribly fake.

Also, even though I knew the Langoliers CGI was terrible, I still loved that damn movie. :lol
 
DMczaf said:
nei.gif
Click to expand...

That scene is classic. I remember my friends and I bursting out laughing in the theater when we saw that.
 
I was watching Independence Day recently and that has some awful CG. I remember thinking it looked realistic back in 1996, but now all I could do was laugh at most of the CG scenes.
 
megateto said:
Burly Brawl's worst offender was Neo's model, he seemed too stiff, rigid (and his hair looked wierd). I couldn't understand why they used the CG model for most of the fight, even when there were moments that seemed doable with real actors. Guess that even they seemed doable, they were not.
Click to expand...

Yup that was the main problem for me with the fight. They over used CG in that scene which ultimately detracted the overall impact of the fight. I would've preferred if they used real actors for the most part with small cuts to CG or just have real actors interact with CG models during some scenes of the fight. I personally think the character models still hold up well for the most part but the fight kind of fell flat when it went to complete CG since the change was so obvious.

Spiderman 3 on the other hand was complete shit. Other than the Sandman effects everything was pretty bad. I was really surprised since the first two films were decent but the character models in SM3 were just flat out terrible with some bad skin textures and laughable green screen work. I'm wondering if this was because the effects lead for the first two films didn't work on SM3 so perhaps that leadership and direction is what caused it or if they just got lazy.
 
I think my favorite part of the shot of the mummy running out to see the scorpian king is the ball of fire that happens as he runs out.
 
I think most of the people just wanted to forget Indy 4, because the CGI of that movie is awful...

*remembers the sword fighting in the jungle and the bouncing monkeys*

A-W-F-U-L
 
The Matrix Reloaded looked dated when the trailer hit, and Revolutions was even worse because they zoomed in on that awful Neo model in the final fight.
 
xlildragonxod said:
I'm pretty sure the people behind The Mummy Returns ran out of money at the end of their filming, thus the end looks like shit. Correct me if i'm wrong, memory is bad.
Click to expand...

I doubt that could be true just because movie scenes are virtually never filmed in the order that you see them on the screen.
 
FitzOfRage said:
I doubt that could be true just because movie scenes are virtually never filmed in the order that you see them on the screen.
Click to expand...
Maybe not at the end of their filming, but the quality of CG you get is pretty much defined by how much money and time you give the VFX studio. Even ILM won't be able to give you stellar visuals if you don't give them enough budget and time to work. So they may not have run out of budget, but they could've given the VFX budget the shaft.
 
Why did they model/animate The Rock's head instead of just compositing it in, I'll never understand. Would have been easier and probably 100x more convincing.
 
This is bad, but the worst CGI in a movie actually released in theatres hands down goes to Mortal Kombat 2. What a letdown that movie was... I mean you could actually see the green/blue screen stuff in some of the actors clothes.
 
Ceres said:
Best CGI ever:

2nqytjc.jpg

I mean, it almost looks like it could be a puppet.
Click to expand...

It's a shame that the industry moves towards to use CGI for everything, even if it looks tottally fake, instead of using practical effects like this.
 
master15 said:
Frankly I had more issues with the use of the "bowling ball" sound effect used when Neo throws a clone into the group then the effects itself.
Click to expand...

Or the part where he launches a Smith up and he floats lazily off screen. There were plenty of issues with Burly Brawl...the CGI was the least of the problems.
 
I'm reminded of the beaver thing that attacks Westley in The Princess Bride.

rous.bmp


I KNOW that if this movie was released today they could have used CGI instead of using a puppet and I KNOW it would have looked incredibly fake.

GAFers, promise me if any of you ever become a movie director you'll never use awful CGI in any of your movies.
 
There's a reason for that.

ILM was doing all the effects work on the film and they ran out of budget way before they thought they would so a lot of the cg was just left unfinished.
 
DMczaf said:
nei.gif
Click to expand...

Came in here to post this. Me and a bunch of other people saw this movie for the first time in a French class and when this scene happened the entire room busted out laughing.
 
Spiderman 1 has atrocious CG. Watch it again and look at Peter where he wearing his wrestling outfit, it's ridiculous how bad it looks

ANIMATRONIC PUPPETS FOR LIFE
 
mac said:
The alien in Mission to Mars was a disappointment both technical as well as artistically.


mission_to_mars-alien.gif



Even with a good texture that alien would still suck.



I don't know how fair it is to compare the effects of a 1995 made for TV movie but here we go.

langoliers.jpg


At least they had an excuse. For a sweet vid of the langoliers check out the link below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC7UvkEsMBE
Click to expand...


hahhhhahah the langoliers...this movie is like 3 and half hours long...soooo bad:lol :lol :lol :lol
 
msdstc said:
I'm pretty sure that is a puppet.
Click to expand...

It was a joke ;P
I would hope everyone would know the majority of stuff in Farscape was puppets considering it was produced by Jim Hensen Company.
 
Olivier said:
Ahahaha, I remember this! That was terribly lame, even for 1995. I mean, that was two years after Jurassic Park and for years after Terminator 2, FFS.
Click to expand...

Um, what were you expecting really? It's a made for tv movie and doesn't have the $100 million budgets of Jurassic Park or Terminator 2 in which both films using ILM tech revolutionize CGI tech forever, if you had the budget. A tv movie does not have that resource, even today with CGI advancements to match Jurassic Park and only a fews years later for The Langoliers, that's barely a step in regards to proper scaling of tech.
 
MickeyKnox said:
There's a reason for that.

ILM was doing all the effects work on the film and they ran out of budget way before they thought they would so a lot of the cg was just left unfinished.
Click to expand...
Seriously?
 
chubigans said:
Seriously?
Click to expand...


It certainly explains how it was so off compared to the first film's CGI work and integration, while not as abundant was till remarkably well integrated back in 1999.

The Mummy Returns really looked like they did too many scenes with CGI elements and didn't have enough time and budget to fully realize them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Lee Cronin's The Mummy Official Trailer
21
546
trikster40 replied
The worst commercials you've ever seen.
2
84
3K
Beretta replied
beets are the worst thing I ever tried
Opinion  2
58
846
Days like these... replied
What has been the worst year of your adult life?
47
779
Baemono replied
Lee Cronin's The Mummy | Official Teaser Trailer (Blumhouse)
24
688
adamsapple replied
Top Bottom