Think it's a little unfair to include Lawnmower Man and Howard the Duck as they were made in the earliest days of CGI. More experimental than dedicated. Especially Lawnmower Man. I remember when it came out and feel pretty safe in saying that that's what we all thought Virtual Reality would look like.
Lawnmower man looked great when it came out. It really shouldn't be on this list. Howard the duck I'm not even sure was cgi more like decals, for lack of a better word, were just added to the film in post.
@@GrimmShadowsII yeah I'm pretty sure it was mostly the same "scratching" techniques that they used for the lightsabers in Star Wars. Essentially hand drawn on each frame.
I don't care how bad the cgi was. I fucking love The Mummy and The Mummy Returns. They are both just perfect fun movies. Both are easily a billion times better then the Tom Cruise Mummy movie.
Vítor Carvalho I don’t get it. I’m usually all aboard the hate train but it doesn’t look good but I don’t understand why everyone is freaking out like they are. I honestly don’t see it.
Jurassic Park came out one year after Lawnmower Man. Keep that in mind when talking about "CG of the era". Granted, Lawnmower Man wasn't aiming for photorealism, but still.
@@asterix811 The first three Star Wars movies had absoutely zero CGI, so I don't see how that's relevant. ILM's state of the art CGI in 1992 was the glass knight in Young Indiana Jones. Lawnmower man was not quite as good as that, but definitely in that ballpark. CGI wasn't introduced in Star Wars until around the turn of the century when Lucas released the original movies with those CGI overlays. When Lawnmower man came out, nobody thought that the CGI was bad, because that was what CGI looked like at the time.
Johnny Skyfire but isn’t Lawnmower Man supposed to look “digital”? I feel like the intent was to look like our perception of virtual reality in the early 90’s. I think the CGI was appropriate.
Do not try and see the CGI, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth...there is no CGI. Then you'll see that it is not the CGI that you see, it is only yourself.
@@PrivateCustard We're talking about insanely different budgets here bud. Petition to revoke pass... revoked! And Jurassic Park was also experimenting with an entirely new concept for CGI, why? Because they could afford it. REVOKED x 2!
@@SlevinCCX It's still bad CGI in a time when it could have looked much better. The list doesn't have anything to do with the budget only the quality of the CGI.
@@DamienDrake I've noticed that myself. I got in an argument with someon because they insisted all the effects in the original star wars trilogy was cgi and I had to explain to them why they were wrong and what rotoscoping and optical effects were.
Honerable mentions: Catwoman from Catwoman Enchantress from Suicide Squad Cyborg from Justice League Steppenwolf from Justice League Hulk from Hulk (2003)
@@cookscreativecorner I've seen both Suicide Squad and JL in HD and wouldn't say they look bad thoughout the entire films but in certain parts of the films. For example : Enchantress - when she's fully formed at the top of the building the CGI looked pretty bad. Cyborg - mainly during action sequences, in particular the last act of the film where the team were heading towards Steppenwolf. Steppenwolf - is not even worth debating. His close up shots reveal how bad the CGI really is. Even DC fans have complained about this!
Ugh, Cyborg looked so horrible. He didn't need CGI cybernetics, just use practical effects! Even my six year old thought his action figures looked more realistic.
I still didn't think any of them looked bad. I am a DC fan, as well as a Marvel fan, and I love both the MCU and DCEU equally. I've seen far worse CGI, like in the Fantastic Four reboot and Batman and Robin.
In some defence of Lawnmower Man, this was very early in the development of computers and their application to visual effects. I'd put this lower on the list for this fact. The real crime in this movie is that it had nothing to do with the Stephen King short story.
@@danthemeegs8751 To some degree we have to take into account wether it was bad for its time or lists such as this will only end up being a list of films from the earliest days of CGI. Because that stuff will almost always be worse than even the worse of more current CGI.
Regardless of when it came out, it was intended to look like poor CGI. It most definitely dose and, therefore, should not be included. It really would not have made sense, in context, if it looked like a real person, or even quality graphics.
Including Lawnmower Man is silly: it was such early days that we all thought waiting eight hours to render a bouncing sphere on our PCs was cool. Crude polygons and rough texture-mapping was the aesthetic in those days. Just look at all the techno videos from the 90s: that stuff was cutting edge.
@@skyliner3367 I distinctly remember the overhead CGI shots of Titanic being criticized at the time for being unconvincing, particularly the figures strolling on deck, but the overall production was so beautiful and real and painstaking that people forgave it.
I really don’t get the henry cavill mustache scrutiny...i keep looking for the “obvious” and “terrible” cgi and i just can’t see it. Literally looks fine to me.
Basically his upper lip doesn't move, it's really only noticable on the close-up scenes if you're looking for it. Unless you watch blue ray on true high definition, then the blur is more noticeable.
That reasoning doesn't bear scrutiny. Young Sherlock Holmes had CGI in 1985 (which looks pretty good to this day). Star Trek II and Tron both utilized it in 1982. But the effects shown from Howard the Duck certainly aren't digital.
It wasn't CGI. Looks more like they just took video of an effect then put it over the base movie. I don't think Whatculture knows that not all movie effects are cgi.
@@chrisprescott2273 Many people honestly think the practical effects and composite shots used in films, even as far back as the 70s and 80s, are CGI. I guess it's the same deal with WhatCulture.
When The Lawnmower Man came out, that was about the best that could be done with computer graphics. Therefore, it made sense that Job would look like that, Jules.
I didn't notice it at all and even with them explicit mentioning it and showing scenes from the film I have to pause it and and look very closely to find anything out of place.
About the superman lip thing Cavil did have permission to shave it. It's just that WB didn't wanna pay for the reshoots that mission impossible would have had to do. Instead believing that it would be cheaper to just cgi the mustache out.
eeehmm what agreed. In fact the first Matrix was the 13th film EVER to use any kind of CGI and the first to use it at that scale. Not really fair to compare films that came 10 or 15 years later to it.
I think it was only an issue in Justice league, but thank you. I don't either. I think people are trying too hard to find issues instead of just enjoying the ride.
Lawnmower Man did not deserve to be on that list, because that was both a pinnacle of virtual reality technology at that time, and because of its compelling story. Also, to know they went on to make Red Dead Redemption? That just means they never stopped pushing forward. If anything, it only deserves a remake in the sense of cleaning up the CGI.
I disagree about Aladdin. I'm sure I went into the film with low expectations, which always helps, but I was pleasantly surprised by the live action treatment and wasn't taken out of the film by Will Smith's Genie at all. I thought he looked great.
I really don't notice that they cgi him not having a mustache i guess if your really trying hard to critique and insult a movie your always gonna find something wrong.
exactly... i usually just watch and enjoy but this last few years all they do is complain and judge. can't people watch stuff and enjoy. not everything can be perfect.
I think Howard the duck should get a little slack. a) it was a cheap movie b) when the movie was made computer processing power was measure in actual bytes so this would have taken quite a long time to render. So it's unfair to compare that with modern movies like Aladdin
Actually for the time howard the duck was big budget. Also while computers were used in a few scenes the scene in question I don't believe had any cgi in it and is more likely a practical optical effect.
For comparison: a movie which heavily used early CG effects "The Last Starfighter" came out about 2 years earlier. It required a ROOM full of the most advanced computers in existence at the time to have enough processing power... for effects that a 1990s video game could surpass.
They need to lay off live-action Aladdin for bad CGI. The problem is bad script. Will Smith’s humor and delivery just can’t compare to Robin Williams’. The shoes are just too big to fill.
The broadway stage show is absolutely magical, and the Genie manages to stand out from the animated version played by Robin Williams (and recast as Dan Castellaneta for Return of Jafar and the animated series). After his Big Never Had aFriend Like Me number he’s on the stage all exhausted and asking for a Tim Tam (chocolate biscuit, some lines were done to contain local references) while saying he’ll walk the exhaustion off.
the lawnmower man was made in 1992. they did the best they could with the tech available at the time. the CGI wasn't even meant to look lifelike (he was a virtual entity) the graphics in this virtual world looked a million times better than any virtual world that existed at the time. it was a great movie. its like saying the worst game graphics ever were in a ZX 81 game..... well DUH
Including Howard the Duck and other 80's movies isn't really fair. Even Lawn mower man is judging it a little hard. CG was in its infancy it all sucked to one degree or another compared to what we have now. There just wasn't the technology available. As proven by this list, it can still be a swing and a miss even when you have the right tools.
@@asterix811 The original version of Star Wars, the one that came out in 1977, didn't have any CGI, unless you count the wireframe shots of the Death Star trench that the rebels watched in their mission briefing.
Putting Lawnmower Man on this list is unfair. The film is from 1992, where expectations for CGI was understandably much lower . Also a little context is helpful here. The film was clear going for a Max Headroom aesthetic. And just about everybody knew that in 1992.
I dont even think the Howard the duck scene in question was cgi. It wasn't common to use computer effects at that time and it just looks like a rotoscoping effect.
Howard the Duck wasn't cgi at all. All practical effects and hand-drawn rotoscoping. I have mad respect for it. Lawnmower Man gets a pass because it was emulating video game graphics and considering it was 1990 or so, wow is it great.
First Suicide Squad. RU-vid Rewind. Then Aladdin. Will Smurf is ruining his career. WILL SMURF!!!! I HAVE AN IDEA!!! Smurfs (2021) Live Action Reboot - Starring Will Smurf Watchmen (2024) Live Action Reboot - Starring Will Smith Avatar: The Animated Series - Starring Will Smith X-Men Origins: Nightcrawler - Starring Will Smith (Not Alan Cumming)
I loved Suicide Squad, and I thought he was the best part of the whole film, though I think there were many others, including Margot Robbie, the score, and the visuals.
Ummmmm you missed a few: Captain America 1 - Chris Evans' head on a child's body! The entire 3rd act of Black Panther! Mark Ruffalo in Infinity War! Oh wait, it's Marvel - you guys can't badmouth them.... made sure to include two DC movies though
this is the big prob with the internet. As soon as anything comes out movie related everybody comes out with their worthless opinions. And now Hollywood is starting to listen ...ugh
Nah, they're getting MORE woke! And censoring all negative press! And murdering critics who don't take their bribes! (oh wait, that last one starts next week... darn timelines are so hard to keep straight)
We need a part two to this, with 10 Additional Worst Times, including Ricardo Montalban in Spy Kids 3D, Jamie Kennedy in Son Of The Mask, Tom Hanks In The Polar Dead-Eye Express, and others.
I can't really agree with the Lawnmower Man. That's an example of CGI portraying CGI and also 90's CGI. It wasn't an actual attempt to mimic skin and bone.
Dude, take it easy! The Lawnmower Man was made in 1991! Plus, they pulled it off on 10 million dollars. Not just the CGI, the whole movie. Terminator 2 needed ten times that budget.
at then end of the day if they couldnt afford to make the film look good they shouldnt have made it in the first place, cant do it then just dont do it, if you do you should be open to critism
@@vjsm it wasn't "they couldn't afford", but rather they COULD into graphics. Like, come on, original Metal Gear Solid looked horrible, blocky polygons and characters with no eyes, but the point was what they did with what was available at the time. Lawnmower man was an absolute breakthrough, even though it took a whole decade to make movies with actually realistic CGI.
Well they said the live action trailer is official maybe they might try to re work it now due to hilarious back lash but b4 it was definitely officially the end product.
No one knows for sure it was unfinished and I doubt Disney would put the trailer out there either it unfinished. It's the official trailer...I'm petty sure it's just bad . Dont get worked up over it weirdo
@Ganz Bestimmt yes it does look bad. It looks horrid and the cast was chosen horribly. Thi was the one cartoon that they shouldnt have touched . I mean none needed to be remade AT ALLbut def not Aladdin
I feel like the genie in the Aladdin trailer was rushed because the first cast photos that came out showed Will Smith looking normal and people complained that he's not blue. So, they do a quick CGI recoloring for one scene to rush into the trailer to appease the complainers, only it winds up looking way worse. Also, the Beast from the live action Beauty and the Beast deserves a spot on this list, or at least a dis-honorable mention. He looks absolutely terrible.
@@ajpat9620 Whether the movie was well received or not, it doesn't change the fact that the CGI Beast looks terrible. They could have done a better job with practical costume and makeup effects, in my opinion.
@@mpolleys The CGI design of the Beast isn't f**king terrible. It was flawless and realistic. There also practical costumes being placed onto the CGI. The only thing that you're complaining was the character design, not the CGI. As a matter of fact, Beauty and the Beast remake is still well-received. It holds a 72% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, the same rating that Interstellar, and Ready Player One, received.
@@bcn1gh7h4wk The movie isn't fucking terrible, all right. The rating being presented as 72% and fresh at rotten tomatoes signifies it as decent and all right and not a failure. Even that rating is also being earned by other movies such as Ready Player One and Interstellar. You can say it terrible if the rating in rotten tomatoes falls within the 50s to 0 rating and are downright rotten.
What makes The Scorpion King look even worse is that The Mummy himself in Mummy mode in both the original and Returns looks so damn good, even now he holds up pretty well especially in the first film.
I really hope the new Aladdin movie bombs hard because sometime Hollywood needs to come up with something new.Will SMith is great but he's no Robin Williams his character cannot be replaced.
