• 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.
I still can't figure out why they didn't just have the actual Rock's head on that thing.

Do filmmakers really believe CGI is anywhere near convincing as "real?"
 
Angry Grimace said:
I still can't figure out why they didn't just have the actual Rock's head on that thing.

Do filmmakers really believe CGI is anywhere near convincing as "real?"
Click to expand...
See my post above. The studio rushed the film and never let ILM finish their shots.
 
Watchmen`s cgi blood looked weird, specially in motion

y2xqp.jpg
 
DMczaf said:
nei.gif
Click to expand...

:lol my friends loved this bit when we were watching at the cinemas

the bit at the end when everything is swollowed up by jungle looks terrible too, bad for then to boot

neo saving morpheus from exploding truck was shit on this level too
 
rygel_season1.jpg


Rygel is unimpressed with these set of fakers.

Another one for Farscape, Rygel was by far one of my favourite characters, in some shots he was CG and he did tend to suck in those shots in terms of immersion.

Jeez I want to watch farscape again, such an awesome show. I wish the creators would do something new with sci fi instead of seeing these lost clones.


also +1 for the stupid fucking sound effects during burly brawl, it broke the entire scene for me.
 
ethic said:
I watched JP again a couple months ago. Still fantastic. The lame
computer-hacking stuff dates it, but still. The CG was fantastic.
Perfect combination of CG and Robots.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that is as current and up to date as hollywood gets with hacking.
 
idahoblue said:
Unfortunately that is as current and up to date as hollywood gets with hacking.
Click to expand...
Matrix Reloaded actually gets this one right with Trinity's use of Nmap and all.
 
XiaNaphryz said:
Matrix Reloaded actually gets this one right with Trinity's use of Nmap and all.
Click to expand...


Chloe O'brien can zoom in on a bomb and disarm it, patch you into the president while you're operating a trucker's radio, and of course find "the mole" in 20 minutes or less.
 
Angry Grimace said:
I still can't figure out why they didn't just have the actual Rock's head on that thing.

Do filmmakers really believe CGI is anywhere near convincing as "real?"
Click to expand...
People don't pay attention anyway.
 
Speevy said:
Chloe O'brien can zoom in on a bomb and disarm it, patch you into the president while you're operating a trucker's radio, and of course find "the mole" in 20 minutes or less.
Click to expand...

It's not her fault she's so good with opening sockets.
 
ethic said:
I watched JP again a couple months ago. Still fantastic. The lame
computer-hacking stuff dates it, but still. The CG was fantastic.
Perfect combination of CG and Robots.
Click to expand...
What fake computer hacking stuff?
 
Wait a minute, that shot of Wolverine actually made into the final film? The final released cut? How does something like that pass! It looks like he's having a go at the PS move or something!
 
Alien 3

The alien in this movie moves unnaturally and has this weird green tint to it. Yeah, the movie is a bit old, but I watched it recently and it was really jarring.
 
BTW guys, I just found your culprit.

David Weinstein.

Featured works are from: Starwars Episode 2 Attack of Clones, The Matrix Reloaded & Revolutions, Van Helsing, Dreamcatcher, The Mummy Returns as well as several personal development test.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoiW8rr9Tr4
 
Can anyone actually think of a movie where cgi of a lifelike character was used and it didn't look like shit?

Placing the facial structure of an actor onto a fictional cgi character (avatar) seems like the way to go.
 
Nafai1123 said:
Can anyone actually think of a movie where cgi of a lifelike character was used and it didn't look like shit?

Placing the facial structure of an actor onto a fictional cgi character (avatar) seems like the way to go.
Click to expand...


Gollum was fine at the time.
 
I remember seeing the Mummy Returns on video when it first came out. Personally I thought it looked awesome. It isn't fair to judge the CGI especially in this day and age but I found it believable; how are you meant to make mummies and their army look realistic? They have to have a certain "look" to them and I think the imagery actually helped reinforce the CGI into looking like something believable

The desert battle scene was awesome. And yea, there are some scenes in Spiderman which are even worst than that of MR.
 
Meus Renaissance said:
I remember seeing the Mummy Returns on video when it first came out. Personally I thought it looked awesome. It isn't fair to judge the CGI especially in this day and age but I found it believable; how are you meant to make mummies and their army look realistic? They have to have a certain "look" to them and I think the imagery actually helped reinforce the CGI into looking like something believable

The desert battle scene was awesome. And yea, there are some scenes in Spiderman which are even worst than that of MR.
Click to expand...
It was awful CG when I was sitting in the theater in 2001 :/

Even the first Mummy: Back in 1999 the overuse of CG on a mummy was an awful idea. Should have been practical effects with CG to aid in the removal of limbs and such.
 
DrForester said:
Hail to the King

0630_10.GIF


It's almost 20 years old and still holds up, and stuff made now can still look fake.
Click to expand...

OMGWTF?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
 
Obviously, most of the examples in this thread are the bottom of the barrel when it comes to movie CGI, but I'm very interested to see how many of these CGI-heavy films end up aging.

Will they age as well as films with "old school" special effects, like Blade Runner? Should be interesting to see.
 
BertramCooper said:
Obviously, most of the examples in this thread are the bottom of the barrel when it comes to movie CGI, but I'm very interested to see how many of these CGI-heavy films end up aging.

Will they age as well as films with "old school" special effects, like Blade Runner? Should be interesting to see.
Click to expand...
To be fair, Blade Runner has received a lot of visual clean up and editing. The BR we see on Blu-Ray is nothing like what it was when it was released in theaters.

The Blu-Ray restoration of Blade Runner retroactively de-aged it imo.
 
Dead said:
To be fair, Blade Runner has received a lot of visual clean up and editing. The BR we see on Blu-Ray is nothing like what it was when it was released in theaters.

The Blu-Ray restoration of Blade Runner retroactively de-aged it imo.
Click to expand...
Very true, but the way they created some of the effects still astounds me.

The Tyrell headquarters is still mindblowingly amazing, almost three decades later.
 
ethic said:
I watched JP again a couple months ago. Still fantastic. The lame
computer-hacking stuff dates it, but still. The CG was fantastic.
Perfect combination of CG and Robots.
Click to expand...

I personally think the only scene that hasn't held up in time is the T-Rex chasing Ellie, Muldoon, and Malcolm in the jeep, but even that's not painful to look at.

Raist said:
Ok, I HAVE to see this movie. Title please?
Click to expand...

Somewhat positive it's Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus. You can watch it on Netflix Watch Instantly. I know I did...... :lol
 
The only FX shots in JP that look pretty questionable today are the T-Rex vs Gallimimus shots imo.

edit: yeah, reading that JP came out almost 20 years ago is quite the mindfuck :lol
 
Patricia Velasquez and Rachel Weisz make the movie. :D
 
Dead said:
The only FX shots in JP that look pretty questionable today are the T-Rex vs Gallimimus shots imo.

edit: yeah, reading that JP came out almost 20 years ago is quite the mindfuck :lol
Click to expand...
Yeah, but just the first film. The later JP movies looked pretty bad too..
 
Marty Chinn said:
I can't believe in this day and age, with a budget that they had, for such a primary effect such as his claws, that it could have ever possibly looked that bad. I'm just gasping at how terrible that was given that there should have been no reason for it ever to have been that bad.
Click to expand...
The worst aspect of it is the fact that their had already been three films where the claw effects had been done significantly better.

The sad part about the Mummy Returns CGI is that it doesn't just look horrible in retrospect. I remember thinking it was the worst CGI I had seen when I saw it in the theater.
 
QSIiy.jpg


Although considering the budget ($20 million) and it being a 1995 movie, I feel like I can't really crap on it. I don't remember really reacting to CGI Reptile as a ten-year-old though.

Although speaking of 1995 movies, anyone remember that scene in Die Hard with a Vegeance when the bomb goes off in the Catskill Aqueduct and McClane is chased by CGI water? :lol
 
Yeah, I definitely agree that Jurassic Park is still the most impressive use of CG (in relation to movie release time frames). For 1993 there had never been anything even remotely close and, even today, it still looks surprisingly great. I'd imagine part of this has to do with the careful mix between animatronics and CGI.

t-rex-jurassic-park.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Lee Cronin's The Mummy Official Trailer
21
653
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
1K
Days like these... replied
What has been the worst year of your adult life?
47
897
Baemono replied
Lee Cronin's The Mummy | Official Teaser Trailer (Blumhouse)
24
830
adamsapple replied
Top Bottom