The first movie i noticed it, was the 1985 film “Young Sherlock Holmes”, a great movie btw. Maybe there were movies before that, where i didnt notice the CGI?
Star Wars? Others?
The wireframe models of the Death Star and the trench run were CGI.
ETA: an article
God i had forgot about that. Shame on me. I even played the Star Wars wire frame game in the arcades. Dumb me 
The movie that usually gets credit for first putting computer-generated images on screen in a mainstream movie (in contrast with scientific and small experimental movies that tinkered with the technology very early) is Westworld in 1973.
To show the robot gunslinger’s point of view, they took regular filmed scenes and used computer processing to generate pixelated images, frame by frame. This is certainly computer-generated imagery, so it qualifies.
However, it is not computer modeled, which is what’s usually meant when someone refers to CGI. Star Wars generally gets the credit for that.
You can see the Westworld effect in this video.
Eek, cgi in the 50s?? And even Hitcock. Wow
No, not exactly. Vertigo used a computer-controlled mechanism to physically inscribe shapes more precisely than a human animator could produce. You can argue the definition of “computer generated” but this seems to be stretching it a bit.
The first time i was shocked about the quality of CGI Was Young Sherlock Holmes, but the even greater shock, was seeing “Abyss” in cinema, what an experience!
Not quite sure what you are telling me here, sorry for my ignorance..
I mean the animation was physically drawn using a computer-controlled arm, rather than being rendered on screen.
You can see pictures of the apparatus here.
https://rhizome.org/editorial/2013/may/9/did-vertigo-introduce-computer-graphics-cinema/
Ay that is what im looking for, thank you!
It’s not the first movie with CGI, but, had it been finished, it would have been the first completely CGI movie.
It’s The Works, which was in production from 1979 to 196. I saw some frames from it in the magazine Cinefantastique during that period. It would’ve been impressive, with a robotic ant and other machines. I suspect it would’ve ended up looking a lot like Tron (1982), which used computer-generated but human-finished images and a lot of heavily processed real-life footage. The Works would’ve all been done by computer.
Oh i had all about forgot Tron, which i also saw at the Cinema, And played the arcade game. How weird of me to forget that. Perhaps it was a forgettable movie.
My college roommates and I purposely went to see Tron because it was heavily advertised as being the first movie with significant CGI incorporated. We were very into video arcade games, so it was a natural draw for us.
Forgettable movie.
I beg to differ. Its look was unique, and the notion of “going into the software” was just beginning to be explored in the 1980s.
Disney apparently thought it interesting enough to a lot of people that they not only followed up with Tron: Legacy in 2010 (has it really been that long?) and are making Tron: Ares , scheduled to be released this October.
Agree. It’s narratively quite clunky, but conceptually it’s way ahead of its time. And the fact that people remember it and even occasionally still watch it is an argument against it being “forgettable.” I mean, if you want really forgettable movies, Disney released stuff like Unidentified Flying Oddball, The Cat from Outer Space, and the Witch Mountain movies in the couple of years before Tron, and ain’t nobody going back and rewatching or discussing those.
However, the animations in Tron were produced individually frame by frame as strictly 2D generated imagery rather than as a continuously animated motion sequence (that is to say, each frame was rendered as a static image rather than from computer generated models with algorithmically controlled motion) and was almost exclusively used for distance shots. There was not ability at the time to digitize (with adequate resolution) and composite en scene any kind of footage with human figures so all of the animated scenes are separate from any filmed scenes, and it shows.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan arguably has the first and longest (somewhat) photorealistic animation for the time when Kirk and crew view the classified video of the Genesis Project (as opposed to wireframe animation overlays such as in Return of the Jedi), although it is intended in the film to be a computer-generated simulation. This wasn’t the first such animation—Lucasfilm had done similar CGI animations for JPL—but probably the first in a feature film.
The Last Starfighter is generally taken to be the first fully CGI ‘photorealistic’ animated scenes of ‘live action’ (that is, scenes that actually occur in the world of the film rather than as a simulation within it), and comprise a significant amount of screen time as all of the space battle sequences. They’re pretty bad by modern standards and basically look like first pass rendering of crudely faceted models but it did actually use ray tracing to get shadows and reflections correct rather than as a ‘flat’ image or simple primitives.
Young Sherlock Holmes (already mentioned) was the first fully digitally composited feature film with interactive live action and CGI elements, and The Flight of the Navigator (an otherwise forgettable movie) was the first with reflective composited CGI. By the late ‘Eighties CGI had become an industry onto its own right and completely photorealistic compositing with sophisticated optical effects and motion capture like that in The Abyss were possible (with enough budget and James Cameron-like obsessiveness to detail).
Stranger
My memory is ILM created Morphing tech to do the shape changing scene in Willow and it debuted there. They then perfected it with T2.
The still photo renderings I have seen for The Last Starfighter (published in Cinefantastique when the film came out) look gorgeous – not cartoony like the images in the film. I can only conclude that they had to do some budget cutting at some point, and were forced to use “good enough” images instead of the closer to photorealistic images they were cpable of producing. The same folks made a pitch to Lucas to do the special effects for future Star Wars movies. The renderings of the X-wings they did looked damned good, but, again, it’s not clear they would have looked that good onscreen. Lucas did, of course, use CGI for his Special EDition and later for the “first” trilogy (starting with Episode 1), but that was after quite a bit of time had passed, and computing costs came down.
I had always heard it was Star Trek 2: Wrath of Kahn for the Genesis overview. I think the distinction is that the computer generated the planet landscape imagery rather than just a tool for animation.
Futureworld (1976) used set-dressing CGI, utilizing footage from a CG short film made in 1972.