# Movies with seemingly pointless CGI or special FX **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 15, 2008, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-with-seemingly-pointless-cgi-or-special-fx/433629 "2008-01-15T17:49:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Dante](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dante/32/9673_2.png) [@Dante](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dante)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2008, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-with-seemingly-pointless-cgi-or-special-fx/433629/41 "2008-01-17T17:57:59Z")
I totally agree with _I Am Legend_, and it was the first thing we all mentioned coming out of the film. What the hell was the point of that? There’s countless examples of simple makeup effects that work much better. The female “zombie” on the table was just painfully poor. Whereas the effects for the crew of the Flying Dutchman in the second and third _Pirates of the Caribbean_ movies were absolutely necessary, and spectacularly done. ---
**Author:** ![well\_he\_s\_back](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/3ab097/32.png) [@well\_he\_s\_back](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/well_he_s_back)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2008, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-with-seemingly-pointless-cgi-or-special-fx/433629/42 "2008-01-17T18:54:32Z")
I think the computer imagery for Gollum was necessary for the LOTR films, but I can’t put my finger on why. I thought it was seamless and extremely well done, but I never really thought about whether it could have been done with “just” Andy Serkis and makeup. Would like to hear others’ thoughts on this. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2008, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-with-seemingly-pointless-cgi-or-special-fx/433629/43 "2008-01-17T19:04:33Z")
The one in LOTR that got me wasn’t Gollum, it was Saruman walking down a flight of stairs. In the first film, there was a quick shot of Saruman talking to Gandalf in front of some stairs, and it simply did not look real. I don’t know if it was the angularness of the staircase, or the way the shot was framed or what, but I didn’t believe for a second that there was a real staircase. What baffled me was that it couldn’t possibly cost that much to make one stupid staircase, you could even do it on a set, but the effect ruined the scene for me. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2008, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-with-seemingly-pointless-cgi-or-special-fx/433629/44 "2008-01-17T19:07:16Z")
There’s a moment in the junky thriller _What Lies Beneath_ where Harrison Ford and Michelle Pfeiffer are wrestling on the floor, and director Robert Zemeckis sends the camera zooming along at floor level toward them and suddenly _drops below the floor_ to look up at them from underneath, as if they’re on glass. It’s a very strange moment: the camera move looks odd, and it’s not until the climactic move that you realize the oddness is because the carpeting (and maybe the whole room) had to be composited in later. And the thing is: it adds _nothing at all_ to the scene. Just the opposite, actually; it’s distracting and weird and takes you out of the movie for a few seconds. It’s just Zemeckis, masturbating with his new toys, and offering a clue about the future direction of his career. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2008, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-with-seemingly-pointless-cgi-or-special-fx/433629/45 "2008-01-17T20:04:16Z")
Not visual, but musical: I was just watching the original **D.O.A.** – a very good film. But in the early segments, Edmund O’Brien keeps ogling a bunch of beautiful women and every time he does, the music track goes with a big wooo wooo wolf whistle to countersink the point home. Once might have been cute (though not necessary), but multiple times is just plain bad. Dimitry Tiomkin did the score, too. I assume he was told to do it, since he’s too skilled to resort to that. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2008, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-with-seemingly-pointless-cgi-or-special-fx/433629/46 "2008-01-17T20:18:38Z")
[QUOTE=squeegee] As I related in another thread, I once visited a guy who did TV FX work several years ago. He complained that some annoying percentage of the effects shots he did were to cover up mistakes by the film crew, like leaving a ladder on the set, which he’d carefully paint out. Not quite what you’re looking for, but it fits the spirit at least. [/QUOTE] I just watched _Ocean’s Eleven_ (the George Clooney/Steven Soderbergh version) the other day with the director’s commentary. He mentioned two effects shots like that. When Rusty and Saul are talking at the dog track, he wanted one dog to come in a distant last, but they couldn’t get a real dog to slow down enough. And when Yen slides into the cart and then flips the bird, in the original shot his hand was turned a bit to the side and you couldn’t see it well enough. ---
**Author:** ![Baldwin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baldwin/32/7264_2.png) [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2008, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-with-seemingly-pointless-cgi-or-special-fx/433629/47 "2008-01-17T20:36:33Z")
One last bit about _I am Legend_ (which really liked overall) – first glimpse we have of the infected, when they’re briefly illuminated by Neville’s flashlight in the bank building, is scary as hell and as far as I know didn’t require any CGI. So often, less is more. I really don’t think CGI has been great for horror films. The 1981 movie _An American Werewolf in London_ used innovative practical effects for its transformation scene. Some folks say they look cheesy now, but they sure worked at the time. When a sequel was done in 1997 (_An American Werewolf in Paris_), they used CGI for the transformation scenes, and it just makes no emotional impact at all. (Like with the aforementioned _Blade 2_: a fight scene begins with real action, then at some point it shifts and suddenly you realize you’re watching a cartoon; just takes you right out of the scene.) Imagine John Carpenter’s movie _The Thing_ done today; they’d use a ton of CGI, but could that have the same impact in the scene where a man’s chest _opens up into a pair of jaws, with ribs for teeth_, and _bites off both arms_ of the doctor who’s trying to use a defibrillator on him? That was a practical effect, using an amputee wearing a latex version of the actor’s head and a pair of false arms. People in the theatre jumped out of their seats. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2008, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-with-seemingly-pointless-cgi-or-special-fx/433629/48 "2008-01-17T22:33:40Z")
[QUOTE=Robot Arm] I just watched _Ocean’s Eleven_ (the George Clooney/Steven Soderbergh version) the other day with the director’s commentary. He mentioned two effects shots like that. When Rusty and Saul are talking at the dog track, he wanted one dog to come in a distant last, but they couldn’t get a real dog to slow down enough. And when Yen slides into the cart and then flips the bird, in the original shot his hand was turned a bit to the side and you couldn’t see it well enough. [/QUOTE] But both those instances seem like quite justifiable FX – those shots both fixed a problem, and someone watching the movie (probably) wouldn’t even be aware that it was CGI. OTOH, the second instance seems like something they could have just shot again – how hard is it to do a take with a guy jumping into a box, then flipping the bird? On the gripping hand, Brad was delivering lines during the take, so maybe its a more error prone shot getting the two actors to do the take correctly. Most likely, the “bad bird” wasn’t noticed until post. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2008, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-with-seemingly-pointless-cgi-or-special-fx/433629/49 "2008-01-17T22:40:07Z")
[QUOTE=Cervaise] It’s just Zemeckis, masturbating with his new toys, and offering a clue about the future direction of his career. [/QUOTE] ? Zemeckis has always been one to push the F/X envelope… well, at least since _Roger Rabbit_, that is. Not only RR but _Death Becomes Her_ and _Forrest Gump_ relied heavily on CGI effects. Probably _Contact_ as well, come to think about it. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2008, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-with-seemingly-pointless-cgi-or-special-fx/433629/50 "2008-01-17T23:02:18Z")
[QUOTE=squeegee] But both those instances seem like quite justifiable FX – those shots both fixed a problem, and someone watching the movie (probably) wouldn’t even be aware that it was CGI. OTOH, the second instance seems like something they could have just shot again – how hard is it to do a take with a guy jumping into a box, then flipping the bird? On the gripping hand, Brad was delivering lines during the take, so maybe its a more error prone shot getting the two actors to do the take correctly. Most likely, the “bad bird” wasn’t noticed until post. [/QUOTE] That’s almost exactly what I was thinking. Except the first time I saw it, without the commentary, something wasn’t quite right. Yen slides into the cart, ass-first and bent at the waist, and then when the arm comes out it reaches up way to high for where his shoulder must be. For that matter, we never see him climb out of the box. I don’t care how limber you are, it’s got to be tough to pull yourself up from that position. Interesting post about _Spider-Man_, **ianzin**. One thing in that movie never looked quite right to me. When Spider-Man is swinging from a web (he can do that, the song says so), he’s essentially a pendulum. There are rules for pendulums; the period of the swing is a function of the length. And shooting a web up to the cornice of a building is one long pendulum. Even accepting that he starts with some initial momentum, the swings were too fast; made it seem like there was no real weight or mass to his body. I know you said that totally natural effects don’t work, but I can’t help wondering what it would look like with the weight and gravity done strictly by the book. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2008, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-with-seemingly-pointless-cgi-or-special-fx/433629/51 "2008-01-17T23:31:52Z")
[QUOTE=Dante] I totally agree with _I Am Legend_, and it was the first thing we all mentioned coming out of the film. What the hell was the point of that? There’s countless examples of simple makeup effects that work much better. The female “zombie” on the table was just painfully poor. [/QUOTE] In the latest edition of Cinefex is this quote: > [@](#): > > The filmmakers opted to realize all the creature shots via 3D animation when it became clear that even skilled dancers, athletes, and stunt performers, could not execute behaviours with the speed and agility Lawrence (the Director) envisioned. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2008, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-with-seemingly-pointless-cgi-or-special-fx/433629/52 "2008-01-18T04:28:55Z")
[QUOTE=Robot Arm] I know you said that totally natural effects don’t work, but I can’t help wondering what it would look like with the weight and gravity done strictly by the book. [/QUOTE] Well, they did it by the book… by the comic book that is. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2008, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-with-seemingly-pointless-cgi-or-special-fx/433629/53 "2008-01-18T06:12:28Z")
> [@](#): > > The filmmakers opted to realize all the creature shots via 3D animation when it became clear that even skilled dancers, athletes, and stunt performers, could not execute behaviours with the speed and agility Lawrence (the Director) envisioned. Then I disagree with the director’s decision. I don’t think the zombie vampires needed superhuman quickness or wall-crawling ability to be scary. In fact, that aspect of the movie bugged me. The idea of a virus that turns its victims into wall-crawlers just seems silly. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-with-seemingly-pointless-cgi-or-special-fx/433629.md?page=2)