lol, REAL movies don't ever use these kinds of bad effects. They still use real fire. In truly good movies, CGI is really only used where physical effects would look fake or otherwise impossible to achieve.
Don't bash CGI by taking one of the stupidest examples of it you can find. Go down the list of academy award winners for best visual effects and see how much better they get as the years become more recent. CGI haters: owned.
CGI haters owned? Sorry but you didn't "own" anybody. CGI sucks, but CGI can be good if used sparingly. Terminator 2 used CGI with the metallic gel and it was good, not over used. Jurassic Park used a good balance between CGI and animatronics, it wasn't over used. It's when CGI is overused, or used for the most minuscule things is when it gets bad. Films like Transformers, Star Wars prequels, and Avatar may have looked "good", but at the same time looked fake and ridiculous.
@ace19901227 Well, I'd honestly love to see how good movies like Transformers or Avatar would have been without CGI involved. Transformers is a blockbuster, designed for teens to enjoy to big explosions, but even so - would you rather they used stop-motion robot toys? How would that look more realistic at all?
Star Wars may have been overdone, but it looks no more fake than the puppets from the originals.
Avatar? Come on, you can't even tell that's CGI - even if you look for it.
You proved my point. Transformers - b/c movies today rely so much on CGI they ask themselves how can we film this? O ya CGI. Back then people really had to be smart and creative in order to make a scene or movie. CGI looks no more fake than puppets? WHAT?! Compare CGI Jabba to puppet Jabba which one looks and feels real? With the puppets, it make look fake at first but after a while it's like it becomes real, CGI always looks like CGI. Avatar - I can tell, anyone with eyes can.
@ace19901227 Well, movies like Transformers simply would not exist 20 years ago, for better or worse. CGI allows for more dynamic worlds that weren't possible in the past.
Sorry, but puppets are puppets. CGI Jabba at least moves more realistically and interactively.
As for Avatar, can you tell that all of the shots are CGI? Including the shots over the tree canopies? If that looks fake, then so do the trees outside your window...
The Transformers part may be true, but it doesn't make up for the complete overuse of it.
That comment about CGI Jabba is utter bullshit, the CGI movement is unnatural and like most CGI looked absolutely fake. Puppets are in the same family as animatronics, in Jurassic Park animatronics had reached their greatest and then we just stopped and started using CGI, why? It's not better technology it's called being lazy.
Avatar looked fake, again I have eyes and a brain.
@ace19901227 It is overused, but at the same time, there are kind of high standards to flashy effects and explosions etc. these days. If summer blockbusters didn't pack an overwhelming amount of "cool effects" nobody would see them.
Animatronics are great, but like GCI, they can be good and bad. There are tons of older movies with terrible animetronics and puppetry, but you don't seem to complain about those.
Those films that aren't done lazily feature solid and believable CGI.
I guarantee that you've at some point in your life seen a movie where you were watching some CGI and didn't even realize it was fake. Usually things like cities and stuff are mixed - real shots but enhanced by a ton of CGI - and they look perfectly real.
Yea because it would have gotten a freakin academy award if not for that fire, have any of you talking shit even seen the movie? They wanted to use CGI, so they did, much like they made the rest of the movie
Special effects used to really be optical illusions. The thing that you would see on screen would have actually had to exist, but you were seeing it outside of it's element. There was such a peculiar charm in those old fashioned effects. Who doesn't enjoy watching King Kong? It's sheer delight to behold. Just like you know the Mona Lisa isn't going to start laughing, you know Kong's not real. But, it's so beautiful. Why do things HAVE to look real? CGI now stands for Crappy Graphics Insert.
@TenderTrap86 i agree. also, it's rare that cgi ever looks real. i'd rather have something real in front of the camera that an animation of computer graphics.
cgi sucks big time. especially when there's not a big budget. It doesn't look real or gory or brutal at all. It's just bites and bytes. So sad, that even Romero started using bad cgi.
CGI is okay if done well like in Avatar or Lord of the Rings, but that's mainly because they have huge budgets and better effects teams. I prefer the older methods (puppets, stop-motion, trick photography, make-up etc). SOme movies liek Tron and Dragonheart were revolutionary for the time becasue of it, but I don't think they remain as good looking as before while Harryhausen's stop motion still looks great. Plus CGI fire is just downright pathetic. Did these idiots ever hear of stunt doubles?!
Not sure dude, Titanic cgi was understated and well done, by all accounts Avatar is exceptional, Aliens didn't have any, and The Abyss and Terminator 2 still hold up to this day, which is stunning since they are so old now.
I think Cameron is the perfect example of how to use good CGI. Lucas is like the anti-christ.
I've also read and heard many people talk about cgi will catch up and look more realistic than real actual models. Now how in the hell can something computer generated ever look like something really real. Something real that you eyes can see like a model ship etc?
Have you seen the film Moon? In that they use models, and at one point they look really crappy. But only once. If it was a CGI moonscape I'd know it was totally fake right from the outset.
Some directors like Lucas have a big hard on over pointless CGI tech, while guys like Cameron and (usually) Speilberg only do it to enhance their movies, such as Jurassic Park, Titanic, and (hopefully) Avatar.
cgi sucks when it's overused in a movie with real actors as opposed to a movie that is entirely CG created. I don't care what anyone says, the CG blood in 300 looks like shit. It's time to go back to the days of practical effects and set design with CG used in post production. Basically, hard R action and horror films should return to using tried and tested gory special effects.
Totally right buddy, did you see the new Indiana Jones film? The CGI was horrible, and totally unnecessary. Same with many action films. Die Hard 4 used it and I hated that movie- the others didnt use it so why did they have to? The only CGI I have seen which looks aaaaallmost genuine is from the transformers films. Every single other movie that has CGI I can spot it right away. For any monster or alien movies men in suits are much better- they add a reality and a genuine scaryness.
Yeah, CG is good for small things, like for example Two-Face's burns in The Dark Knight, but movies like Indiana Jones: KOTCS just beat the audience to death with it. Its just the director not wanting to pay for pyrotechnics or on location filming
Uh, no. Transformers is a god awful film, no matter how good its CGI. If you enjoyed it, you need to die in a fire.
I agree about Indy 4 though. That jungle chase was blurry beyond belief; I don't care how many hours went into it, the whole atmosphere looked fake and shit.
The only CGI I don't mind is in the original Jurassic Park.
They claim it's because of costs yet they use it so much and when it becomes high to produce they will bitch about that. Hollywood is always bitching about cost, but yet spends a lot of money unnecessarily.
It isn't just extremely low budget films. CGI looks cheesy, fake, and out of place in almost every single, non animation, film it appears. It's pretty much only plausible as augmentation for actual effects or in a few Spielberg/Dreamworks films.
Remember when movies used REAL fire? Because there's such stuff as flame retardant gel, heat resistant material, and someone to yell "douse'em!" and make people with fire extinguishers run out and hose the stuntmen down? Would that REALLY have cost more then this crap fire effect?
Bluesit32, I think something to do with insurance costs is probably responsible. Sometimes it is a condition of the financiers that no one on the production may do such dangerous stunts.
@Bluesit32 SOOO true...like all the classic 80s movies..like mad max..that shit was real..all those cars racing and crashing..no computer bullshit effects..
I Am Legend is a book from like the 40s or 50s, Romero said it's where he got his idea for Night of the Living Dead except the vampires became zombies.
So he made a mistake... don't call him a pinhead (or ANYTHING for that matter). He didn't insult anyone, he didn't try to step on your "perfect" toes, he made a mistake.
This was the first film with Matthew McGrory, the guy who played "Tiny" in "House of 1000 corpses" and "The devil's rejects"... in this film he looks like Tiny...
watch?v=Y4ABHh3JBpc&feature=channel_video_title
EtienneLF 4 months ago
lol, REAL movies don't ever use these kinds of bad effects. They still use real fire. In truly good movies, CGI is really only used where physical effects would look fake or otherwise impossible to achieve.
Don't bash CGI by taking one of the stupidest examples of it you can find. Go down the list of academy award winners for best visual effects and see how much better they get as the years become more recent. CGI haters: owned.
darkwoodmovies 6 months ago
@darkwoodmovies
CGI haters owned? Sorry but you didn't "own" anybody. CGI sucks, but CGI can be good if used sparingly. Terminator 2 used CGI with the metallic gel and it was good, not over used. Jurassic Park used a good balance between CGI and animatronics, it wasn't over used. It's when CGI is overused, or used for the most minuscule things is when it gets bad. Films like Transformers, Star Wars prequels, and Avatar may have looked "good", but at the same time looked fake and ridiculous.
ace19901227 4 months ago
@ace19901227 Well, I'd honestly love to see how good movies like Transformers or Avatar would have been without CGI involved. Transformers is a blockbuster, designed for teens to enjoy to big explosions, but even so - would you rather they used stop-motion robot toys? How would that look more realistic at all?
Star Wars may have been overdone, but it looks no more fake than the puppets from the originals.
Avatar? Come on, you can't even tell that's CGI - even if you look for it.
darkwoodmovies 4 months ago
@darkwoodmovies
You proved my point. Transformers - b/c movies today rely so much on CGI they ask themselves how can we film this? O ya CGI. Back then people really had to be smart and creative in order to make a scene or movie. CGI looks no more fake than puppets? WHAT?! Compare CGI Jabba to puppet Jabba which one looks and feels real? With the puppets, it make look fake at first but after a while it's like it becomes real, CGI always looks like CGI. Avatar - I can tell, anyone with eyes can.
ace19901227 4 months ago
@ace19901227 Well, movies like Transformers simply would not exist 20 years ago, for better or worse. CGI allows for more dynamic worlds that weren't possible in the past.
Sorry, but puppets are puppets. CGI Jabba at least moves more realistically and interactively.
As for Avatar, can you tell that all of the shots are CGI? Including the shots over the tree canopies? If that looks fake, then so do the trees outside your window...
darkwoodmovies 4 months ago
@darkwoodmovies
The Transformers part may be true, but it doesn't make up for the complete overuse of it.
That comment about CGI Jabba is utter bullshit, the CGI movement is unnatural and like most CGI looked absolutely fake. Puppets are in the same family as animatronics, in Jurassic Park animatronics had reached their greatest and then we just stopped and started using CGI, why? It's not better technology it's called being lazy.
Avatar looked fake, again I have eyes and a brain.
ace19901227 4 months ago
@ace19901227 It is overused, but at the same time, there are kind of high standards to flashy effects and explosions etc. these days. If summer blockbusters didn't pack an overwhelming amount of "cool effects" nobody would see them.
Animatronics are great, but like GCI, they can be good and bad. There are tons of older movies with terrible animetronics and puppetry, but you don't seem to complain about those.
Those films that aren't done lazily feature solid and believable CGI.
darkwoodmovies 4 months ago
I guarantee that you've at some point in your life seen a movie where you were watching some CGI and didn't even realize it was fake. Usually things like cities and stuff are mixed - real shots but enhanced by a ton of CGI - and they look perfectly real.
darkwoodmovies 4 months ago
They might as well have the zombies yell out 'Oh no! It's fire, our only weakness!!!'
odd32 7 months ago
I think in this case the acting is worse than the cgi.
Leatherbubba 8 months ago
Yep, CGI does suck. And judging by the looks of this clip strobe lights ain't the greatest things on earth either.
MontagTheMagician 9 months ago
cgi is gay
NewDisneySucksHard 1 year ago
I love how the guy doesn't actually throw the bottle, you just see his hand move forward and then cuts to a bottle hitting the ground at 0:26
Wiialator 1 year ago
@Wiialator LOL you're right, you can see his fucking arm stop mid-throw.
truthwillbetoldjig 11 months ago
Yea because it would have gotten a freakin academy award if not for that fire, have any of you talking shit even seen the movie? They wanted to use CGI, so they did, much like they made the rest of the movie
angelhatesyou75217 1 year ago
Special effects used to really be optical illusions. The thing that you would see on screen would have actually had to exist, but you were seeing it outside of it's element. There was such a peculiar charm in those old fashioned effects. Who doesn't enjoy watching King Kong? It's sheer delight to behold. Just like you know the Mona Lisa isn't going to start laughing, you know Kong's not real. But, it's so beautiful. Why do things HAVE to look real? CGI now stands for Crappy Graphics Insert.
TenderTrap86 1 year ago
@TenderTrap86 i agree. also, it's rare that cgi ever looks real. i'd rather have something real in front of the camera that an animation of computer graphics.
convergeme220 10 months ago
omfg what a donkey shit xD
Zewe90 1 year ago
Hahaha, looks like it was all done on Sony Vegas
kc86er 1 year ago
Comment removed
Grunnow 1 year ago
cgi sucks big time. especially when there's not a big budget. It doesn't look real or gory or brutal at all. It's just bites and bytes. So sad, that even Romero started using bad cgi.
Extremmetzger 1 year ago
CGI is okay if done well like in Avatar or Lord of the Rings, but that's mainly because they have huge budgets and better effects teams. I prefer the older methods (puppets, stop-motion, trick photography, make-up etc). SOme movies liek Tron and Dragonheart were revolutionary for the time becasue of it, but I don't think they remain as good looking as before while Harryhausen's stop motion still looks great. Plus CGI fire is just downright pathetic. Did these idiots ever hear of stunt doubles?!
balrog13571 1 year ago
really a bad cgi... very very bad
19faster92 2 years ago
cgi is bollocks
DotsyOO7 2 years ago 14
Not sure dude, Titanic cgi was understated and well done, by all accounts Avatar is exceptional, Aliens didn't have any, and The Abyss and Terminator 2 still hold up to this day, which is stunning since they are so old now.
I think Cameron is the perfect example of how to use good CGI. Lucas is like the anti-christ.
Terminator 2 had better CGI than Crystal Skull.
Pentdad 2 years ago
I've only seen one movie that I absolutely loved the CGI of, and that was District 9. All the other CGI I've seen is lackluster at best.
shockerzapzap 2 years ago
I've also read and heard many people talk about cgi will catch up and look more realistic than real actual models. Now how in the hell can something computer generated ever look like something really real. Something real that you eyes can see like a model ship etc?
TVwriter23 2 years ago
Have you seen the film Moon? In that they use models, and at one point they look really crappy. But only once. If it was a CGI moonscape I'd know it was totally fake right from the outset.
Some directors like Lucas have a big hard on over pointless CGI tech, while guys like Cameron and (usually) Speilberg only do it to enhance their movies, such as Jurassic Park, Titanic, and (hopefully) Avatar.
Pentdad 2 years ago
cgi sucks when it's overused in a movie with real actors as opposed to a movie that is entirely CG created. I don't care what anyone says, the CG blood in 300 looks like shit. It's time to go back to the days of practical effects and set design with CG used in post production. Basically, hard R action and horror films should return to using tried and tested gory special effects.
mwells219 2 years ago 2
I hate how they complain about costs, but make overpriced crap fests!!!!
TVwriter23 2 years ago
FUCK CGI !
dedricthere 2 years ago 3
I can always spot cgi no matter how good it is. It really pushes the audience away from the story
perun1nj 2 years ago 3
Totally right buddy, did you see the new Indiana Jones film? The CGI was horrible, and totally unnecessary. Same with many action films. Die Hard 4 used it and I hated that movie- the others didnt use it so why did they have to? The only CGI I have seen which looks aaaaallmost genuine is from the transformers films. Every single other movie that has CGI I can spot it right away. For any monster or alien movies men in suits are much better- they add a reality and a genuine scaryness.
Pentdad 2 years ago 3
Yeah, CG is good for small things, like for example Two-Face's burns in The Dark Knight, but movies like Indiana Jones: KOTCS just beat the audience to death with it. Its just the director not wanting to pay for pyrotechnics or on location filming
perun1nj 2 years ago 4
Funny, as it usually ends up being more costly with CGI.
cloak211 2 years ago 2
I wish they do that in films. I think CG should be an extention or tool against other effects not totally replace them.
TVwriter23 2 years ago
Uh, no. Transformers is a god awful film, no matter how good its CGI. If you enjoyed it, you need to die in a fire.
I agree about Indy 4 though. That jungle chase was blurry beyond belief; I don't care how many hours went into it, the whole atmosphere looked fake and shit.
The only CGI I don't mind is in the original Jurassic Park.
mrgrazzt 2 years ago 2
They claim it's because of costs yet they use it so much and when it becomes high to produce they will bitch about that. Hollywood is always bitching about cost, but yet spends a lot of money unnecessarily.
TVwriter23 2 years ago
It isn't just extremely low budget films. CGI looks cheesy, fake, and out of place in almost every single, non animation, film it appears. It's pretty much only plausible as augmentation for actual effects or in a few Spielberg/Dreamworks films.
ShahidMiller 2 years ago
Remember when movies used REAL fire? Because there's such stuff as flame retardant gel, heat resistant material, and someone to yell "douse'em!" and make people with fire extinguishers run out and hose the stuntmen down? Would that REALLY have cost more then this crap fire effect?
Bluesit32 2 years ago 24
Bluesit32, I think something to do with insurance costs is probably responsible. Sometimes it is a condition of the financiers that no one on the production may do such dangerous stunts.
Irrenmann 2 years ago 3
@Bluesit32 SOOO true...like all the classic 80s movies..like mad max..that shit was real..all those cars racing and crashing..no computer bullshit effects..
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What a piece of crap
Carthsting 2 years ago
this is a very low budget flick, but it is funny, because it is so bad! it even admit's i, by having obviously bad effects!
MrCarnivour 2 years ago
Should have used correct lighting i.e simulated flames. Then it wouldn't look that bad.
sablesanctum 2 years ago
terrible cgi !!!!!
why dont they just actualy use fire ?
dannytonks09 3 years ago
so nobody gets hurt silly!!!! lol
lilrog0909 2 years ago
that didnt stopped stuntmen before
Carthsting 2 years ago
Damn!! Just......damn.
scifihunnybunny 3 years ago
fuck you asshole. Don't get pissed at me just because CGI sucks huge big dick.
80'S EFFECTS FOR THE WIN!
schloppy1999 3 years ago 4
Wow..looks so crappy.
Fuck CGI
schloppy1999 3 years ago 3
fuck you
automats1 3 years ago
so this is where I Am Legend got its idea from.
miike2744 3 years ago
I Am Legend is a book from like the 40s or 50s, Romero said it's where he got his idea for Night of the Living Dead except the vampires became zombies.
happypranksgiving 3 years ago
except its cgi was well made
jimron924 2 years ago
I do not know what is worst.. the CGI or the ultra bad sound!
Qberth4People0 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
That looked SO REAL!!!!
diestroduende 3 years ago
peopke on the internet do better
FreakofNouture 3 years ago
still better than the molotov scene in the day of the dead remake
bman101592 3 years ago
Everything's better than the Day Of The Dead remake!!
Deadmeatproductions 2 years ago
That's NOT CGI, that's called compositing! Sign up for film 101, pinhead!
tekarts 3 years ago
So he made a mistake... don't call him a pinhead (or ANYTHING for that matter). He didn't insult anyone, he didn't try to step on your "perfect" toes, he made a mistake.
Go stuff yourself down a garbage chute.
Tenebre81 3 years ago 5
Oops! Me Bad. Maybe I should pull a matte of a garbage chute and CGI myself in it?
tekarts 3 years ago
mabye you should asshole.
AbitLoco29 3 years ago 3
looks like cgi to me, dickwad!
RickyShoreSings 3 years ago
i didnt know there were so many zombie movies
TaCoMaN300 3 years ago
This was the first film with Matthew McGrory, the guy who played "Tiny" in "House of 1000 corpses" and "The devil's rejects"... in this film he looks like Tiny...
AcePumpkin87 4 years ago
wow, i could do better in ms paint!
totallyaffum 4 years ago
haha, the fire really looks stupid
kursk 4 years ago
way too hardcore for a fire.
patrickkitsan 4 years ago
LMAO WHAT A JOKE OF A MOVIE
laffizzle 4 years ago
Hahahahahahaha
Deadmeatproductions 4 years ago
seen a lot worse and a lot better
cornholiogringo 4 years ago
The fire was too much fake
crmantao 4 years ago
not really for a indie film and that kind of budget better than other indie zombie movies
4ffr3 4 years ago
awful ..just awful
relicuk 4 years ago
those were some authentic looking flames!
diestroduende 4 years ago
Holy wow that is the worst ever. Be better off just holding a lighter in front of the camera.
Hndshks 4 years ago
Wow, that fire sucks
Kurtallica 4 years ago