The horrible CGI almost killed this GREAT movie.. almost - I Am Legend (2007) Discussion

[–] CiDaprio 11 years ago

Especially the Infected and the dogs
Really badly made. Bad movements, bad skin, bad bad

reply

[–] wtdk123 11 years ago

It was made six years ago. The CGI was the best that they could do at the time. I suspect that the CGI "look" was also somewhat intended to give them an eerie unnatural look.
-"Honesty is the best policy, but insanity is a better defense." -Steve Landesberg

reply

[–] bobobis6 11 years ago

Jurassic Park was made in 1993. Enough said.

reply

[–] aeris882004 11 years ago

Animatronics, nuff said.

reply

[–] snikt_snakt 11 years ago

There were scenes with animatronics but there were also a ton of CGI scenes.

Jurassic Park is often credited as the first movie to show that CGI could be done well.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/04/the-i-jurassi c-park-i-period-how-cgi-dinosaurs-transformed-film-forever/274669/

"What the f-ck is the internet?" -Jay, Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back

reply

[–] KrustytheDude 10 years ago

Jurassic Park is often credited as the first movie to show that CGI could be done well.

I thought it was Terminator 2?

reply

[–] Krypteia1 8 years ago

Jurassic Park was made in 1993. Enough said.

There's a huge difference between rendering animals or dinosaurs in CGI, and rendering human or androform creatures.

FX teams can create photorealistic animals -- see the tiger in Life of Pi for a good example. Every shot where the tiger's in the frame alone features a real tiger, but every shot that has the actor interacting with the tiger features a CGI tiger.

So basically the CGI in that film is so good that audiences can't even tell the difference.

But human faces are much, much more difficult. There's the "uncanny valley" problem to overcome, and we spend our entire lives looking at other human faces, which means we notice even the tiniest things that are "off" about a CGI model.

reply

[–] kevinchengxin 11 years ago

The CGI was critisized even back then. But I do believe the special effects that made NYC appear vacant for years was pretty awesome

reply

[–] Shaftaire_of_Astora 10 years ago

I really enjoyed this film, but the CGI is far and away from the best they could do. oresticakuli's post was a great example.

reply

[–] terryperring104 9 years ago

...as long as unnatural and eerie look means, 'not actually in the room or captured by a camera' - because they looked ANIMATED.
Sorry to sound sarcastic, but I came here to moan about it. Bloody ruined the feel of the film. They really should have used actors and make-up.

reply

[–] twism128 9 years ago

The CGI was even poor at the time. Many of the reviews at the time pointed that out.

reply

[–] OsteRejen 8 years ago

Nah, it was a choice.
It's not so much about the CGI, but how it is used.
They could have taken far better directions with the CGI.
But they chose to make it look like a cheap video game.

reply

[–] nogodlover 7 years ago

What about Lord of the Rings (2001). It had great CGI.

reply

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zepptallica 11 years ago

agree. looked cartoooony

reply

[–] HockeyFan91 11 years ago

I understand why they did it. But I do not see the reason to make the infected parkour track stars. Actors would have been fine all in all it didnt ruin the movie once you got used to the infected and how they look it was good.

FCT

OHHH GOOOD FOR YOU!!

reply

[–] Meats_Of_Evil 11 years ago

I hated the CGI and I thought this movie would have been better if it was rated R.

reply

[–] MovieMaster95 11 years ago

Honestly I have no clue why they used CGI for the infected people. What's wrong with make-up effects on real actors. I can understand using CGI when they're jumping on walls and moving quickly but why simple stuff like the female on the lab desk or that long close up on one of the infected's face. It looked like a video game monster.

WINGED FREAK...Terrorizes?....Wait till they get a load of me...

reply

[–] col547 11 years ago

It's on in the UK right now, the CGI is terrible.

reply

[–] russ-205 11 years ago

Just finishing watching this and I forgot how bad the cgi was!

reply

[–] MovieMaster95 11 years ago

Yeah I was watching it when I made the post

WINGED FREAK...Terrorizes?....Wait till they get a load of me...

reply

[–] jronniboi2 11 years ago

I read that they computerized them because they figured that having real people constantly hyperventilating like that would make them pass out

reply

[–] ss454327-1 10 years ago

My main problem with this movie is that one minute you have Neville knock out one of these creatures with the butt of his gun and the next they are ramming head first into the side of his SUV and skidding it around without injuring themselves...OK sorry but where did physics go??? Also when the main bad guy starts banging his head on the plexi why didn't he get cut/bruised/knocked out?

reply

[–] dangerousdave2002 11 years ago

Agreed, to me CGI will never take over for up close shots for anything human/organic like, it didnt ruin the film for me though, I wasnt arsed, I was really concentrating on the story of Robert Neville.

Dangerous.

reply

[–] sat-elite 11 years ago

The same probem plagued (sic) Polar Express and that was made two years previously.

The characters in that film were as facially expressionless as the zombies.

reply

[–] smitty1941 11 years ago

Yes, totally. The deer, the lions, the dogs, the "zombies," everything was terrible. When will Hollywood learn?

reply

[–] last-c 11 years ago

I would hate it if they used real people. But i think what kills the illusion is the monsters' bulbous heads and horrible looking jaws/mouths. That wide stupid mouth of the alpha male made it difficult for me to take him seriously.

How many of you believe in telekinesis? Raise my hands.

reply

[–] da_hal 11 years ago

I would disagree. Everything except the cgi is what makes this movie great, the cgi doesn't pull it down. If it was a stage play, it still would work.

reply

[–] nocakeforyou 11 years ago

Come on, it's from 2007. You could get away with anything back then. After Avatar was released, it set a sort of invisible goal everyone had to work towards.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (14789810) 11 years ago

no it didnt.

you are imagining that.

As long as consumer pay for crappy CGI, it will remain.

http://www.imdb.com/list/rJuB9UoASlQ/

reply

[–] Madragora 11 years ago

Haha that is terribly true. People paid to see Twilight and the CGI was horrendous!! Even the last one, which had a larger budget. Comical!

reply

[–] oresticakuli 11 years ago

That's not true, these movies had great CGI in my opinion, all before 2007...

Jurassic Park: (1993)
The Mask: (1994)
Toy Story: (1995) CGI entirely, animation debut
Independence Day: (1996) also starring Will Smith
Titanic: (1997)
Armageddon: (1998)
The Matrix: (1999)
X-Men: (2000)
Pearl Harbor: (2001)
Spider-man: (2002)
Lord of The Rings: Return of the King (2003)
Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban: (2004)
King Kong: (2005)
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Transformers: (2007) 4 months before "I Am Legend"

reply

[–] stones78 10 years ago

Add Salem's Lot(1979)for non-cgi vampires that were much scarier than this mess of a film.

reply

[–] Arnie_Partition 9 years ago

Independence Day used a lot of models and animatronics though.

Point them with the sticky end.

reply

[–] reaseltbim 10 years ago

the problem isn't even that the CGI was so bad compared to Avatar, Which yeah I get it is a stupid comparison.

The Problem is that they DIDN'T need to use CGI in the first place. They could have used make up and some CGI for the face but have real actors in it.

The monters didn't need to be CGI, that's the biggest problem

reply

[–] Ithilfaen 11 years ago

The movie is as bad as the CGI. Casting and a tissue-paper-thin script made it a snoozey. I'd prefer a good script with great acting and bad CGI.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

reply