Top 10 CGI Special Effects
While watching some DVD special feature recently, I stumbled upon some effects/techniques I think we may be capable of achieving. There are quite a few, the coolest of which I think are:
-Blood Splatter Cannon- I’ve talked to wilson about this. What we would essentially do is create a large pvc pipe sized potato gun, which we would load with fake blood, torn pieces of cloth, and other light debris to create a blood stain behind a person, preferably against a wall or a white van or whatever.
-300 editing- Remember those badass long takes in 300 where they will show a particular character moving in a straight line killing all kinds of people while the camera moves and shakes and zooms like the kid with A.D.D. in Smokin’ Aces? That was accomplished using multiple (in 300’s case, it was 3) cameras held as close together as possible, then compiling the footage from all the cameras, but using the same take. Surely this would work with only 2 cameras (maybe even 1?), and stringing the footage together with whip pans and zooms.
Thinking about all these special effects made me decide to put together a list which is certainly bound to stir up plenty of dialogue, the Top 10 Live Action Motion Picture CGI Special Effects. For my list, I included, characters, objects, environments, and entire scenes, so really anything is game I think, but this particular list is limited to CGI effects, because I think it will be more divisive. I also tried to limit my choices to 1 selection per franchise. The top 5 are pretty standard, and I tried to switch it up and make some oddball choices for 6-10. In no particular order…
1. Gollum/Smeagol- The Two Towers/Return of the King
2. Zion’s Last Stand (squid invasion)- The Matrix Revolutions
3. The Venom Symbiote- Spider-Man 3
4. Davey Jones- Pirates of the Caribbean 2 &3
5. All of the Transformers- Transformers
6. Obi-Wan vs. Anakin/Yoda vs. Palpatine- Revenge of the Sith
7. Ministry of Magic Showdown- Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
8. San Francisco (harbor, corner of Washington & Cherry, TransAmerica Pyramid construction, etc)- Zodiac
9. Tony Stark’s interactive holograms- Iron Man
10. Department of Future Crime technology (spiders, vehicles, clear screens, weapons)- Minority Report
Honorable Mentions:
The Tripods- War of the Worlds
Normandy- Saving Private Ryan
Gotham City (Wayne Tower, elevated subway, The Narrows, etc.)- Batman Begins
Tyrannosaurus Rex- Jurassic Park (lots of Spielberg, anyone notice this?)
De-aging Professor X and Magneto- X-Men: The Last Stand
The Death of Corporate America (building demolitions)-Fight Club
I want the next list to be Practical Special Effects.
Josh
For practical effects, I would definitely say “Once Upon a Time in Mexico.” All of the gun effects (bullet holes and gun flashes are CGI), when they show Cheech Marin’s eyehole and Johnny Depp’s gouged-out eyes, etc. They did all of that on a much smaller budget than what Robert Rodriguez had for Sin City. I also like all of the ten-minute film school things he does as bonus material.
I also forgot to point out everything in your list is big-budget American movie. Not sure if you’ve seen any Japanese or Korean films lately but they do pretty good CGI on much smaller budgets.
I dig Rodriguez’ 10 minute film schools.
I had considered stuff like The Host or Day Watch or even Old Boy, but I wanted to stick to things most people would recognize.
When we make the practical effects list, mine is probably going to be 80 percent Robert Rodriguez. Between Desperado, Once Upon A Time In Mexico, his segment in Four Rooms, From Dusk till Dawn, Planet Terror, the first two Spy Kids, and Sin City it would be hard to list only 10 from each one of those, much less only pick ten total.
Once Upon a Time in Mexico did have some cool practical effects, but the editing was atrocious. It looked like they used a pair of scissors and a roll of scotch tape for gods sake…
Dobby from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is JUST as good as Gollum and you know it.
Dobby is very good, don’t get me wrong… but he’s no Gollum, and I think we all know that. Dobby is a very good CG character, but Gollum is fucking REAL.
Plus, in terms of my choice to represent HP, I chose the far more inventive Ministry of Magic sequence, with the Prophecy Room and the badass courtyard with the exploding glass and are you kidding me Voldemort vs. Dumbledore. Did you SEE that shit?! I mean, you own it, so I know you have, but seriously have you seen that shit.
I think you’re a nerd. And yes…I did see that shit.
1-5. All stuff i didn’t even know was CGI.
6. Gollum
7. Dobby
8. Davey Jones
9. The final battle between agent smith and neo
10. T-rex (JP)… although it wasn’t all CGI.
I think the next list should be top 10 worst CGI elements.
Yeah, I’m down for worst CGI too. Actually, top 10 worst things is something that needs to be explored more in general.
Dobby is good, and he’s held up really well over time, but Kreacher in Order of the Phoenix is considerably better looking than Dobby.
amendment 1. — King Kong
Also, why don’t you write more than half a list?
I don’t see a big difference in quality with Gollum and Dobby. They look about the same to me…
I have to agree a lot with Wilson’s list on this one, 1-5 are things I didn’t know were CG. Otherwise its a bit like saying, on my list of top ten dictators, I guess Saddam wasn’t as bad as Mussolini, so I’ll put him on the list when there are undoubtedly much better dictators that I’ve never heard of because of their benevolence. If you can tell its CG, its failed as an effect. I eagerly await top ten worst and top ten practical effects. That said, no particular order.
lots of stuff - Forest Gump
Smeagol - LOTR(trilogy)
T-rex - JP1&2
lots of stuff - Pirates of the Caribbean
lots of stuff - Tron
T1000 - Terminator 2
King Kong - (new) King Kong
lots of stuff - Independence Day (I assume some of that was CG)
lots of stuff - Saving Private Ryan
The Wireframe Death Star plans and the targeting computers - Star Wars (1977)
NPO:
the bullet dodging scene in the matrix - but Tony, you say, that was a practical effect, they used wires and a shitload of still cameras - yes, i say, but it was shot completely in front of a greenscreen. im talking about the background that no one ever thought was fake. (goes along with what keenan and wilson were saying)
360′ explosion/ball-bearing sequence - Swordfish
the transformers - transformers
T-Rex hitting bus - The Lost Word: Jurassic Park
king kong vs. t-rex - King Kong
rocket impact knocking ethan hunt into car - MI3
the lightsaber: so wonderous, so inspiring that little glowing stick - Start Wars: Episode IV, A New Hope
face on the snake made of water coming out of the reflecting pool - Abyss
openning 3D flythrough of Jack’s apartment - Fight Club
A well transformed New York City - Cloverfield, I am Legend, Day After Tomorrow, A.I., Gangs of New York, Sky Captain…, War of the Worlds, Armageddon, Deep Impact, Independence Day, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, Resident Evil: Extinction.
I was going to put the MI3 stunt, and the 360′ bullet dodge on my practical effects list!?!?
And transformers on my worst CGI list…
and i thought they manually rotoscoped each frame of the film with scratches to create the lightsaber effect in A New Hope.
well the MI3 stunt would have looked pretty silly with the wire still there and without the explosion and preceding rocket, and I explained which part of the 360 bullet dodge i was talking about… which also would have looked silly without the bullets and in front of a green screen… and with the wires
transformers = awesome
and… huh? never knew that… makes sense though, yes… that is in fact the method they used. cool. scratch that from my list (no pun intended) add: Davey Jones - Pirates of the Caribbean 2 & 3
Hmmm… interesting. We both love those special effects sequences and recognize them as among some of the best, but for me what makes them awesome is the non-computer generated elements. And for you it is the computer generated parts of them?
I mean you have to admit when you think about these sequences what sticks out and what makes them great are the practical aspects…
Really there is nothing remarkable about the CG environment behind neo, nor the explosion or mission blowing ethan hunt into a car. Sure, their seamless integration is commendable.
But really what does it that our eyes are glued to the real actor in the scene doing amazing things.
Of course, I’ll admit that neither of the scenes in question would be the same, or even possible, without CGI. But those CGI finishing touches don’t make the scene, and by themselves don’t have a place on a top ten CGI special effects list, in my opinion.
I don’t think Tony likes the scene for it’s CGI elements, he likes it for the end result. He appreciates the CGI elements enough that he puts it in his top ten.
And there IS something remarkable about the photorealistic 3-D environment around Neo. There is also something remarkable in the fact that the 360 bullet dodge was shot on still cameras, and that CGI was used to blend the photos together into a moving picture. When I think about that scene, I don’t think it’s the practical aspects that make it great (and I think I can safely say that for 3/4ths of my list), it’s the fact that the camera seems to be moving impossibly fast while Neo is moving in slow motion.
what!! you said yourself, the effects you love the most are the effects you don’t see. i watched the special features of the matrix and realized (although i’m sure i would have figured it out if i had given it any thought) that neo was on a virtual set in that shot and it blew my mind. that scene went from being cool to spectacular for me and it inspired me to learn more about compositing. It was a special effect that contains Computer Generated Imagery, i’m not sure how you can question my choice as long as it meets that criteria.
But anyway, back to my original point, if you don’t realize these effects that occupy your top 5 are effects then chances are you aren’t looking at them… something else is garnering your attention. In “Lost” when Desmond goes back in time, they put a green wall in front of the street in new york that charlie is playing on in order to make it look older in post. i didnt know it until later when i watched the special features and it blew my mind, but i sure as hell wasn’t staring right at it the whole scene, i was watching the actors, and charley’s practical effects of looking like he actually knows how to play the guitar. that doesn’t make that Computer Generated effect any less amazing… in fact, and i thought this is what you and keenan were both saying, if anything, to me, it just makes it more amazing.
I’m not saying that the backgrounds in those scenes aren’t really great. And you’re right, they do exactly what I would want them to do, go unnoticed as CGI. They blend in, and draw the viewer into the reality of the story. But, there are sooooooo many realistic backgrounds in stuff, thousands of them I’m sure, that are just as good as those two backgrounds. But there aren’t a thousand action sequences just as good as those two… and that’s because it isn’t the bg that makes them great.
Maybe I’m just upset cuz I see those scenes as awesome examples of practical effects… like, as far as the matrix is concerned… I would never put any of the CGI 360 shots from the burly brawl on my CG list (even though the backgrounds are excellent I’m sure), but I loved the original practical (wires and actors) bullet time effect way better and was saving it for my practical list.
im not picking the background, im picking the special effect shot that contained CGI… the bullets were also fake, as were the trails the left behind them (which became sort of a Matrix trade mark) the wires holding real neo up were digitally painted out frame by frame by a digital matte artist, and as josh mentioned, the very way the shot was pieced together from digital still frames, was computer generated. It seems that in that scene, there was more computer generated imagery than otherwise. It doesn’t have to contain a 3D character to be a special effects CGI shot… as your list might suggest.
i would say the list of things done with a computer for the neo sequence is longer than the list of things done practically… maybe. But the real actor doing a real stunt is 85% at least, of the shot, and 100% of the focus. Making the sequence, as a whole, a practical effects sequence… to me at least.
“the bullet dodging scene in the matrix - but Tony, you say, that was a practical effect, they used wires and a shitload of still cameras - yes, i say, but it was shot completely in front of a greenscreen. im talking about the background that no one ever thought was fake. (goes along with what keenan and wilson were saying)” -quoted from your list… you appear to be “talking about the bg”
ok… we are obviously at a stale mate here. so i’ll change the subject. 100% of the focus really? you never once looked at the fake bullets? ok ok sorry… anyway. lets stop talking about things that shouldn’t be on my list and start talking about things that should be on everyone else’s… like the water snake entity in “The Abyss”. This movie came out in 1989 people… 1989. If you haven’t seen the scene I’m talking about, see it… youtube it or something. not only does it still stand up today but it was an important step in the integration of CGI elements into film. the movie cost 50 million to make, that is a shit-ton of money for back then. the effects shot in question was bid on by ILM and Pixar (a little known workstation company back then… they sold their 3D solution at the time, not their animation). ILM outbid Pixar of course but used pixar’s software to create the effect. Pixar halted sales of their workstations almost immediately afterward and began to focus on animation. You could almost credit this effect for giving us Pixar and ILM as we know them today. not only that, but the effect still holds up as sufficiently realistic. - without a doubt my number 1.
I’ve seen the scene you’re talking about, but I’ve never actually seen the movie, had I, I might have included it. But thats how I feel about T-1000, how can no one else have him on their list, come ON! And if we’re going for classics, um, hello, Tron anyone? Come on, it is the original (well, almost, but in my mind the first successful) movie to integrate CGI with live action. And the Death Star plans in A New Hope, that was light years ahead of its time!
The missle, explosion, wire removal, and drone that flies by after the hit all really make the scene, but that was one I was saving for my practical effects list. I think it can apply to either list.
King Kong was a big one I totally forgot about. I also forgot the Cloverfield monster, but honestly there wasn’t a ton of thought that went into my list.
Wilson, if you put Transformers on your worst CGI list, I will disown you. It’s obscene that you would even consider it. I don’t care if they have too many moving pieces or are too complicated to realistically transform the way they do, because they occupy and interact with their environment more impressively and realistically than 95% of all the CGI I’ve seen in my entire life. The transformers represent a level of quality that is virtually peerless.
And Keenan, I can see why you would say that if it looks fake, it’s failed as an effect, but I don’t agree. Technologically, we are at a point in time where “big budget Hollywood” (as my list was accurately described) is the only place that will pony up the money necessary to produce CGI that doesn’t look fake. We’ve been bombarded in the past decade with cheap CGI. Car commercials, music videos, even Hollywood films (Daredevil comes to mind, even though I like that movie) don’t have the budgets necessary to produce flawless CGI. I can think of a million practical effects that look fake, but they did a worthy enough job of creating an enduring image on film that I let it slide.
You’re making my point for me. If practical effects look at least as fake as CGI (which in many cases isn’t even true, they almost always look better), and cost a fraction to produce, why are we seeing SO MUCH crappy CGI? Even “good” CGI looks fake a lot of the time (lets all be honest with ourselves here, the Yoda puppet in Empire is WAY more believable than the CGI one in episodes 1-3). So until the technology catches up with practical effects, why ruin a movie for the sake of advancing technology by a year instead of letting it develop naturally at its own pace. All I’m asking is that movies provide me with the best product possible, and often, they don’t because there is this inflated sense of accomplishment if CGI is extensively used. For instance, in the case of Transformers excessively over the top CGI to the point of distracting from the coolness of what could have been. CGI shouldn’t be used for the sake of using CGI, they could have used CGI in Transformers to make robots that didn’t look fake, they could have looked like someone built giant robots and put them in the city, but because they could make them have a billion mind numbing moving parts they did, just because they can doesn’t mean they should.
Josh, earlier you said “I don’t think it’s the practical aspects that make it great (and I think I can safely say that for 3/4ths of my list), it’s the fact that the camera seems to be moving impossibly fast while Neo is moving in slow motion.”
I’ve just gotta say…
the way they achieved the effect of the “camera seeming to move impossibly fast around neo while he is moving in slow motion, ” was on a sound stage with a shit tone of still cameras, wires, and an actor…. not with computers. Without those practical parts all you have is a panorama shot of a roof-top. In the sequel they used purely computer generated imagery to achieve a similar effect… but I notice that those sequences do not appear on anyones list.
Without computers, you don’t even have a panorama shot. Without computers, all you have is a bunch of still shots.
Using CGI gives you a level of control that, in some cases, you can’t possibly have with a practical effect. Say I’m making Forrest Gump and I don’t want to spend hours and hours on set waiting for a feather to behave the way I want it to. The performance of the Yoda puppet can’t be tweaked and refined after it’s been filmed. In a lot of instances, it’s a matter of convenience, time, and control. If you have a bunch of studio suits breathing down your neck to wrap principal photography and meet your deadlines and stay under budget, it might be easier to get them off your back and just rely on CG later. That’s just the way the times are now- a lot of times you have to put up a fight just to convince the studio to use practical work. Not saying that’s the best approach, it’s just part of the game.
And the Transformers would have looked considerably less cool if they didn’t move as much as they do.
back to this argument huh?… well see i can see both sides. to me, the practical puppet yoda effect looks more like it is really in the scene than the 3D yoda… because he is… easy enough. but the puppet yoda, to me, has always looked like rubber with metal underneath of it. it moves very mechanically and the ears bounce lifelessly like rubber ears do. The life that the 3D brings to yoda’s face could never be acheived with puppetry and practical effects. so i like the animation better for the 3D yoda than the puppet yoda. nowadays, 3D blends seamlessly into real scenery, sometimes even replacing it, so my preference for practical effects for the purpose of photorealism is waning.
i agree that just because something can be done doesn’t mean it should be done, but i doubt that is the way they approached transformers… “hey the 3D software can handle a ton of moving parts… lets do that” in fact i have spoken with an supervising animator for ILM about the animation he did for transformers and he said, in certain scenes, every moving piece was keyframed… i doubt the animators or ILM would want to take on that much work just because they could. more than likely that was just Michael Bay’s interpretation of a low-budget Saturday morning cartoon. and call me crazy, but i believe he is entitled to that. I’m not sure you’re aware how it works… these people in these animation houses don’t say… hey, we have this cool new software that can do this, lets work it into a movie… more often than not, in fact, they end up writing proprietary software specifically for the job that is requested of them. So it’s the imaginations of the directors you should be protesting.
another little story. this animator i was talking to, said he animated the scene where black-out jumps transforms into the helicopter and takes off… he said he tried to stay true to the cartoon and just had him jump and transform… Michael Bay took a look at the shot and told him to make him do a backflip as he transforms… then (michael bay) liked the end result so much that he made them all flip as they transformed… the result… gratuitous flipping. and this animator had the wrong model for a flip so he had to hand key all the moving parts in blackout and actually transform him into the chopper in the software… pretty incredible.
anyway… i digress. puppets look better in the scene maybe but lack the life that 3D is able to bring. they each have their downfalls and I have come to prefer a 3D character over a puppet, if for no other reason than the performance he/she is able to bring to the film.
“3D blends seamlessly into real scenery, sometimes even replacing it, so my preference for practical effects for the purpose of photorealism is waning”
This simply isn’t true, I’d say 99% of the time I am immediately aware of CGI in a scene, thats the trouble.
“…it’s the imaginations of the directors you should be protesting.”
Oh, don’t worry, I’m blaming whoever has creative control of the project, if that includes the director, then they share the blame.
Basically, at this point, give me puppets and costumes every single time. I know its subjective, but thats just what I prefer. A costume has never ruined a scene for me, but CGI has, numerous times.
Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog.
Cheers! Sandra. R.