Monday, April 09, 2007

Worst CGI ever ?

This is quality CG work ! :)

13 comments:

allen said...

O man that was horrible...I laughed hard when I saw that. WOW!

Jim said...

Hahahaha!
Love it, Andrew!

Andrew Glazebrook said...

I wonder if it was ILM or WETA that did this shot ?! :D

mark said...

that was flawlessly pulled off. I had to watch it 17 times just to figure out what was CG and what has original raw footage. was the dust cloud real???

I. N. J. Culbard said...

Isn't it amazing what they can do these days?

Incredible.

Steve said...

Adobe Photoshop in the hands of a chimpanzee! Beware of puff balls in the American highway, folks!

Michael G Clark said...

Poor things, they probably had a budget of 500 dollars for the whole info ad. At least they gave some kid with an atari a few minutes work.

I've seen much worse - Timothy Hines 'HG Wells, War of the Worlds.' Now thats what I'm talkin' about.

Andrew Glazebrook said...

I think if they'd have thrown a toy car across some dirt and filmed it, it couldn't have looked any worse than the shot they've used here !!

allen said...

I have not seen Hines' WOTW but I have seen clips and it has made me realize that I could be completely blind and still make my film look better than his. I read on line where he released a director's cut that is a great deal shorter.

Andrew Glazebrook said...

He shot his War of the Worlds in Seattle, from what I've heard his London and UK scenes look about as authentic as shooting the Sahara desert in Iceland. The Visual Fx did look for the most part appalling ! The best thing I heard was the Big Beg/Westminster Tower appears as a stand alone building, it ain't even attached to the houses of Parliment, that's what I call doing your research ! IMDB also says - Throughout the film, Big Ben constantly reads 3:00, regardless of the actual time established elsewhere in any given scene.
Although in CGI long shots London is depicted as a Medieval city with dirt roads and gravel paths, in street scenes shot in Seattle clearly show the city as having concrete roads.
Much of the Architecture in the street scenes of "London" is, in fact, American; Brownstones, typical of U.S. cities (and definitely not British ones), are seen throughout the film and the in the UK, lamp posts terminating in square lanterns and topped with a hood to reflect light down upon the street have always been favored over the American-style spherical lamps seen in the film.

I. N. J. Culbard said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0USK68bDaI&mode

allen said...

From everything I've read about it it is a MUST see...it sounds like it could be a great drinking game movie.

Michael G Clark said...

Hines claimed that all the scenes were shot in England (in the 1620's possibly). It's little things like that and saying the budget was 40 million dollars and ILM did the cg that makes him such an arse. If he said he'd made the 3 hour film himself with some mates - he may have got some credit for attempting it.

My fave scene is the thunder child battle. It made me pee.