+LXXXV imperfect doesn't mean can't get right. CGI was still very new in terms of putting scenes and main characters together just right. Look at Avatar - a movie masterpiece almost completely CG. That was accomplished but there are still movies that can't even put together a good 5 minute CG effect together. And that's in 2016. Imagine how it was from 2000-2005. There was a reason movies like Lord of the Rings were considered masterpieces. They were the Michael Jordan's and every one else could only try and imitate.
+Teren Kowatsch It just needed insane amounts of money and people who were completely onboard with going all out with the effects, just look at Jurassic Park's CGI, that still holds up and it was one of the first. Most movies just got lazy with it and ended up with shit.
Matrix fight scene was and still is legendary. Nothing like that was ever attempted before. Get your shit together mojo. You are starting to piss people off
The idea and concept of this scene was and is brilliant. The execution not so much. There are several takes where I don't really see the need to use a CG Keanu instead of the real one and his seemingly wax-modelled face is the most distracting thing there
There are always different ways of doing things. Any attempt can be made to make the final product better or in other words, things can always be done in a better way. Although, this is highly subjective as one person's 'better' is not necessarily the same as the other persons.
***** Yeah but what I'm saying is that I actually liked all the effects in matrix...To me they were all great, and especially this scene to me was EPIC.
I agree. But it's early 2000's and realistic human CGI really wasn't the best. I do find this a bit ironic though as the CGI scenes during the Burly Brawl were better than the live action wire effects.
Syntax BananaZ what i don't get is why people demand realistic cgi in a non-realistic film in the first place. i mean cgi exists to do stuff that is impossible in real life so why demand realism from something that can't ever be real anyway.
Just to be clear, we’re talking about The Matrix *Reloaded.* But yeah, the Agent Smiths just looked like a bunch of balloon people with no weight or effect of gravity. They look too flimsy to be real.
+Mace Dawg in the opening of the video it says these films had massive budgets and shouldn't have settled for poor cgi. spy kids is made by the same people who made sharkboy and lavagirl, so there's literally no standards, bar could not possibly be lower for spy kids
To everyone's reaction to your ridiculous WTF comment.. @Tylor Pewdi would say: ...I DON'T CARE... What I would say: ...WHO GIVES A FLYIN FUCK... What my band mates would say: haha Lolis but ..FUCK YOUR WEBSITE MINES BETTER.. in the back ground look if they got Asains Bitches..??.. -u- What my homies would say: ...I DON'T.. GIVE AH.. !!FUCK!!... What my home girls say: ....YOU LONELY ASS MOTHERFUCKER.... My niggas: ...DAMN DOG QUIT JERKIN YO SHIT YOU STOP THAT RIGHNOW AN FIND YOSELF A REAL GURL... What white Girls say: OMG EWW LOSER.... What white Guys say: ..WOW YOU POOR PATHETIC LOSER.. What black Girls say: ...OMG MY NIGGAH YOU LONELY ASS FUCK... What black Guys say: FUCK OUT MY FACE WITH YOUR GAY SHIT what everyone would probably say Is that no one here gives a FUCK about your adult website we're talking about twilight and you pop out of nowhere and put "Best Adult Site for Hookup - tinyurl. com/o25fvee (all countries) really dude explore the world and find yourself a mate because websites are for losers poor lonely lonely ass losers
I disagree about The Matrix Reloaded because it was made in 2003 and that CGI was pretty good for that time but if The Matrix Reloaded used that kind of CGI now yes it could be on this list
@@gordonramsay6286 Exactly. Jurassic Park was released in 1992 and their CGI still holds up. Also, CGI isn’t just about how well the graphics are made but how it’s incorporated into the movie. Jurassic Park used animatronics for the close ups so it made the CGI parts relatively seamless. But in the Matrix Reloaded it goes from a few brief realistic fighting moves… to all of a sudden *_everyone_* is a balloon animal and can jump over buildings. Too ambitious.
Nah man, when I first saw it I thought to myself, why did they fuck up that scene, cause the rest of the movie looked good. It was terrible in comparison to the rest of the movie.
The entire movie had very impressive CGI, but the stampede scene was just a little off. And it wasn't entirely because of the CGI, it just didn't work with the human interactions! It didn't click, didn't feel like the actors where actually immerged n involved in the scene. The Director, actors, Green screens, the plot and animations and how the scene was shot all had a bit of influence on how it turned out imo. I loved that movie and most it's effects but that whole scene felt a little too greenscreeny!!
I will put here The Hobbit - The battle of the 5 armies (War scene). As a Tolkien fan and a LOTR huge fan, i was sooo disappointet on how the cgi fucked up The hobbit trilogy in terms of war, too much cgi, compared to The battle of helms deep or the charge of the rohirrim fot LOTR, The hobbit war scenes suck.
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies was released in 17 December 2014, the video was uploaded on 15 August 2013, so there is no way The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies could be in there... do you people even watch the release date?
MascaMD Good point. Also The Hobbit is nowhere near as bad in CGI as any of these films, it certainly isn't perfect but it sure as he'll isn't one of the top 10 worst CGI. Weta is one of the best companies for CGI. Although of course some blame goes to everyone involved, I believe the quality was lower due to the short notice on the 2 part film being made into a trilogy.. Azog was one of the last CGI changes in the first Hobbit and he looked absolutely amazing, Dain, elves, Gandalf and some others however did have terrible CG animation.
New theory on Matrix: Reloaded's Smiths Brawl shitty CGI. As the fight drags on and Smith replicates even further, RAM on the whole system becomes overencumbered and, unable to purge, keeps dropping image quality to being able to keep performance
Actually it shouldn't be on the list at all since they broke their own rule. It was an independent movie not a hollywood blockbuster and had half the budget of the second lowest budget movie in the list, Along Came a Spider.
GUYS REMEMBER THESE ARE JUST OPINIONS Id say King Kong and Matrix was underrated Considering King Kong was made in 2005 and they didint have the same features and budget to make it better also it had some very very cool scenes and its not supposed to be very realistic it’s supposed to have merciless since it had LITERAL DINOS Id say in my opinion King Kong was pretty good the only bad scenes was the Apatasaurous Stampede
I read about that, apparently they did try to get actors with makeup to be the monsters, but because of what their infection did to their bodies, they breathe extremely rapidly, and actors that tried to do that ended up hyperventilating, so they decided to just CGI them up. I'm okay with it, since they had Mike Patton do the sounds all of them make.
@@dragon_bro_0 ummm have you seen the amazing bulk? yeah you haven't right? please don't watch it ,birdemic looks like heaven came down to bless you compared to amazing bulk which looks like the deepest layer of hell came to shit all over you
ginger4201 I highly agree #1 deserves the top spot, and yes the CGI was bad even for its time. I remember seeing that in a movie, and thinking, "They can't be serious." They turned Dwayne Johnson into a fucking Final Fantasy CGI face! It stood out so much from everything else in the film, that it was glaring! Furthermore, the director's had the nerve to zoom in on this face and regard him as the final villain/obstacle/boss/whatever. It's also a shame because the set pieces and everything else felt like triple-budget quality, and then you just see that crappy CGI face and the whole movie feels like one big joke, leading up to the Rock's face as the punchline.
ginger4201 False. These are just movies with bad CGI *even* for their time. Go watch the infamous T-Rex scene of the original Jurassic Park. Yes, there were animatronics used in some shots, but all the shots of the dinosaur walking are CGI and THAT even to this day looks pretty great and 100% better than any of these effects. There's a part in that scene where the T-Rex, after flipping over the SUV vehicle with the kids inside, begins to chomp at the underneath of the car and then it takes a bite of the rubber on the wheel. The T-Rex is CGI there and looks really dang good, but forget that: That *SUV* was CGI, in that shot! The movies on this list were made in the 2000's and even up to 2008. Jurassic Park was made in 1993, which means the software was existing in at latest 1992. That's *more* than a decade! Go watch that whole sequence then come back and tell us with a straight face that these movies were using the best they had for their era and budget.
***** Not everybody had the money or the talent to make their movies look like Jurassic Park, that is true. But the movies on this top 10 list DID, that was the criteria needed to be on the list in the first place. They had sufficient budgets to do it justice. Many of them had larger budgets even than Jurassic park, or even the same amount (with inflation calculated into it). You have to just face the fact that the reason these visuals were bad was because people dropped the ball. Because professionals were not professional. It's not that hard to understand.
LOL Agreed! ...and all they had to do is spend a little more time on it (maybe a month, tops) and it would have been much better! I'm assuming it was finished in a rush to get it out in time for it's release!
Skip Ad Well, the little gremlin-like warrior guys looked pretty good... actually, it just needs some contrast and color saturation work... that alone would make it a lot better looking! Still a great flick! :-)
+Evil CM Punk No, Jaws III was 1983. It was a practical effect. Early 80's CGI was Tron (1982) and The Last Starfighter (1984), they weren't rendering sharks in 1983... Even bad ones...
I haven't seen Ultraviolet, but that clip you showed was HIDEOUS. And I'm the kind of guy who can let bad effects slide, but that looked like a PS2 cutscene, and not a very good one. The Scorpion King, well with a film like that, you could defend the CG by saying he's an overworldly demon, so maybe he shouldn't look fully real. It's an excuse, but you could say it. There is nooooo excusing Ultraviolet's motorcycle chase, that's the real world, look real dammit.
well the bike was riding on walls, soo it isn't exactly real world, although when i saw ultraviolet i liked it.. but that was it, not a film worth mentioning thou
In the book they’re both, the living vampire dead and the zombie dead-dead. The film infuriated me as it’s my fave book and they just tore it to pieces
@@snachmyweave4806 ah haven't heard that take yet! Didn't know there was a book, everyone just talks about the movie. Were there more parts that you didn't like?or did just that aspect ruin the whole film for you? I mean, the amount of story you can put in a book is sm more yk, one movie could never realistically cover it, so just enjoy it yk.
Oh come on number 10? That scene was as legendary as the whole first movie! Mojo is seeing this through hindsight goggles. You gotta look at it from the perspective when it first came out.
The scene was badass and I still think it was one of the coolest things in the movie... But it looked awful. It still does. The Path Of Neo video game looked pretty much the same and it was a PS2 game.
The Matrix? are you kidding me dude? It has the best special effect of any movie ever made. I don't see any movie with even-close effects to the Matrix. considering its more than 10 years old.
I think with the Matrix, it's the only movie I know of where you can give the lower quality effects a pass, because it fits with the aspect of the movie taking place inside a computerized universe. It's like, there's so many Agent Smiths in one place, so the computer has a hard time loading them all correctly; so it has to lower the quality to compensate. It's a little like how TRON had some issues in the printing process when the back-lighting was composited in, and certain frames came back over-exposed. But director Steven Lisberger kept the bad frames because it fit with the computer world sparking and bleeping and doing other little things in the background.
Not sure the problem's with the Agent Smiths, but with Gumby Neo. At least, that's what I felt looked wrong with the scene when I first saw it in the theater.
The agents and neo are in the same area, have you played mmo wih a shitty pc, don't mind your character in a over populated area you have to lower the visual quality otherwise you wont even move therefore you char will also look horrible.
George Bell A computer of any kind can have issues with glitches and corrupted encoding if it suddenly creates multiple versions of the same guy. It's like if in a video game, you're shooting down a bunch of random enemies, but one guy can't die because he keeps popping back up again and again and again. Imagine if that glitch was expanded to include an entire room-full of the same character, all with the same code that describes who he is and where he is, and imagine that none of them can die. Now the computer becomes confused as hell, just trying to make sense of the duplicate code required to make dozens of the same guy appear in the same room. I'll admit, I don't know if that explanation is entirely accurate. But I've seen similar things happen in videos about horrible game glitches, and they certainly don't allow the computer to run efficiently, or even work at all. So seeing the Agent Smith clones reduced in resolution still makes some sense, I think. It doesn't excuse the computer animators from doing a low-quality job on the film, but within the film's narrative, there's still an argument to be made for why it still looks like it makes sense.
When these movies came out, I never really thought that any of these effects were necessarily bad. I guess as technology moves on up, so does our standards of what it brings.
Deceiving list mainly because most of the movies on this list are when CGI was still at that stage where making things realistic was almost impossible. But for its time it was considered good.
Vermalgab Boom the first matrix movie was one of the biggest mistakes... look at the year it was made -_- - Production would have been at around 2000. Go and take a look at pc games from that time.
That's not true at all. The effects in Jurassic park are more impressive than anything on this list, and it was also made several years earlier than all of the movies listed. Like he said, they all have respectable or large budgets, with the exception of Ultraviolet.
Elida Landry the dinosaurs in jurassic park weren't cgi. they were real-life models that they moved around on set. even the "currently-being-eaten" humans were replaced with models. no cgi :3
I agree with all the choices except the Matrix. It was really good special effects for the time and left me really wondering how it was done at the time it was made. It doesn't hold up now but it did then and that's what counts
I agree, I remember being blown away by the metal pole-walking-smiths'-faces scene when I was younger. I saw it recently and it didn't looked as cool, but I still think that it wasn't that bad.
Just cuz it's good for the time doesn't mean they should have done it... If the technology isn't there yet, they should have figured out something else to do. There's a full CGI fight scene against the ninja vampires in Blade II (one year earlier) that's also not great, but still better.
sloucho84 The Blade fight isn't better. The CG moments are very noticeable, despite them using silhouettes and darkness as a crutch. And nobody talks about that fight. People talk about The Matrix fight.
they are not ancient.. anything after 2005 deserves better cgi than scorpion king... And that ultra violet cgi is literally a 10 year old's work, u can see that there is no proffesionalism behind these scenes. Check lord of the rings and jurassic park 1, and watch how CGI PROFFESIONALS handle it in even older movies. Scorpion king is literally few years before the FREAKING AVENGERS!
I actually like the "bad" cgi from the ultraviolet movie. With movies like that where the entire opening is comic drawn style i don't really expect realism, but try to use my fantasy/imagination more. This makes it more enjoyable. If you think more like: "what im watching right now is *only* telling the story and leaves your imagination do the rest" instead of "it happened exactly like this...", then a lot of movies/scenes pass the obstacle of trying to be as realistic as possible. I'm also pretty sure that "Ultraviolet" didnt try to be realistic looking in the first place, if you consider the weird filter which makes the movie look weird and different. They really didnt try to hide it which makes it great in a different way. Now when a movie tries to be super realistic and fails with cgi then that is cringe worthy to me, which is basically 90% of what we have today.
easy to say that in 2018 thought. Matrix was one of the better movies for a very long time, while movies like ultraviolet was straight up shit as soon as they came out. As time passes the only movie which will stay dominent is basically lord of the rings.
how many better movies we had in 1999 in terms of cgi ? Can u even name more than 20? If not then matrix is one of the better movies for its time. Now its 2018, its unwatchable, like the rest in this list.
yea jurassic park is just 1 movie thought, i knew u would mention it since its the only movie u can mention. Now how many other movies we had which were better?
or maybe 2. The effects were bad, but since the whole movie was made this way the viewer could think of it as about some kind of stylisation. A shitty one, but still...and as for the mummy - the whole movie looked actually ok until this scene. I still remember facepalming as I saw it back then
Disagreeing with you , Matrix was revolutionary for its time, set a precedent for the use of CGI , The Mummy Returns was also an achievement for the CGI...
+Tokyo Gaijin Fucking lol, seriously? This isn't a list of "worst CGI effects for their time", it's a list of "CGI movie effects that look terrible nowadays". The fact that they were revolutionary for their time has absolutely nothing to do with it.
"Just to be clear, we're singling out the CGI from films with respectable or massive budgets that shouldn't have settled for second rate and unfinished looking effects." Nowhere does it say anything close to what you are.
That's exactly the problem. Photorealistic human CGI will never look perfect so they had no business putting a Cartoon Neo on the screen for 5 minutes straight. People know the difference between real actor and CGI cartoon and it destroys their suspension of disbelief. Much more so when they go from CGI and instantly cut to the real actors face. "Hey audience, you're not watching a CGI movie, remember" The fight was awesome. but they put waaaaay too much faith in how good their effects looked
Plus the movie was set in virtual reality for the most part, perhaps entirely if you believe some theories. Agent Smith was hacking the system basically, making it behave in ways it wasn't supposed to, and so was Neo. So to me it made perfect sense that things might look a little odd.
+Jaime Torres Nobody has said a word about "real dinosaurs", that's just a strawman argument that you brought up. What people actually wanted was more use of _animatronics,_ because there are times when animatronics in fact look better. For example, in "Jurassic Park", did you know that the sick Triceratops, the close-ups of the T.rex and the necks of the brachiosaurs were all animatronics? Check out those scenes again if you have forgotten them, and then try to tell me that they don't look convincing as hell. Oh, and the crowd of Agent Smiths in "The Matrix: Revolutions" was a bunch of actors with Mr. Smith masks. You probably didn't know that since it looked so incredibly convincing, but you can always check a "behind-the-scenes" video of that exact take here on RU-vid if you want proof of that. Simply search for "behind the scenes matrix agent smith cloning" and you have it.
What's tragic is that the suit looked awesome in concept art and drawings, but in live-action it looked awful. They should've just made the costume full on physical had the glowing effects be LEDs or CGI.
I really don't see how the I am Legend one is here. The creatures were meant to look deformed, and when I first watched it when I was younger, it terrified me.
This list is fucking bullshit. I am legend is only one i agree that they should´ve used real actors, but other than that, they all looked good when they came out, most of them almost 20 years ago and they look good now
Editor of this video has to realise something. He is judging the effects of old movies, matrix, ultraviolet.. calling them unfit not even for a video game. He has to understand that back then, this effects were pretty cool.. This is like judging in 2020 movies from 2001.
BTW this person also probably does not recognize timeline variations. It is like comparing Doom 2 with Battlefield 4. You don't go around saying doom 2 has bad graphics because when it came it there was nothing else like it and it was the best. When matrix came out, it fucking had the best cgi ever. Even that scene was amazing at the time. Now, if you compare it to avatar obviously it is gonna fall short. That is called the passage of time. Next thing you know, this guy is gonna list star wars in the worst cgi effects list.....
Sorry, you can't apply that example to MATRIX RELOADED - the original film relied on more practical effects than people realize - the famous 360 shot is actually created with multiple cameras, and not 100% CGI. In RELOADED, they thought the digital was good enough and they made the mistake so many filmmakers make in thinking that CGI can do ANYTHING! It can't - and that scene was unnecessary to go as long as it did - even at the time, it looked terrible. I watch JURASSIC PARK every few years, which was at least 5 years before MATRIX RELOADED, and the effects in that still look incredible, even today (minus the stampeded scene). MATRIX RELOADED had no excuse to look that bad. If you can't be convincing with your effect, then cut the effect.
nirdjha2000 indeed, developers got lazier by time, after cgi effects got popular in films, the best effects in amovie you can find are from the 70´s to 00´s and those excellent effects were product of a perfect make up work
The majority of these are fine imo. Leaving out big budget films was a mistake. Their overuse of cgi to the point where they can't make it all look good is the problem with Hollywood right now.
***** Well I watched the Matrix trilogy last year for the first time, I was 22 at the time and I was still fucking impressed. Not THE best I had ever seen, but definitely among the best. Far better than 90% of more recent movies. And besides being good, it had a unique appeal to it, a unique 'vibe', something that "better" movies nowadays might lack.
Dareios soieraD Simple stupid story? It has a magnificent scenario and imagination that makes it also a sci-fi. It is so stupid to talk about physics of effects and movie cause its not in real world that you can talk about physics at these scenes
Add in The Hobbit now. They ruined the orcs. The movie cost over 1 billion dollars and followed Lord of the Rings, which had some of the greatest special effects of all time. There's no excuse. Jackson went full George Lucas.
As for The Mummy Returns, the Scorpion King's face was the only downfall here. For 2001, the body cgi is actually pretty impressive. A bit more texture on the face, or simply using his real face would have made it perfect.
Compared to...what? That one scene did more to destroy the Matrix series as every other cited issue combined. The CGI artists barely even bothered to phone it in on that one.
***** I don't agree. The setting of the film has nothing to do with quality of CG effects. In fact its easier for being science fiction because it has a lot of architecture and non organic stuff, which is easier. Animating a character needs more work. UV is just ... gross. Should have been #1
The CGI Imhotep from the original "The Mummy" (1999) actually looks more realistic than the Scorpion King from the "The Mummy Returns" (2001). Look at the year's and you'll see why people were annoyed at it. It doesn't even look like Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson.v
this is the main reason I miss the old movies form the 80's where special effects were more practical, Hollywood is getting carried away with these half assed CGI attempts. CGI can work out very well sometimes, but other times...not so much. That is why I do all my own stunts.
