Comments on: Top Ten Worst CGI Animals Ever!

By: tim

tim — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:22:39 +0000

I like the chaos fox, even on the big screen. Was still hammy and surreal enough to work. But i may lay claim to being the biggest cgi hater. How many films has it ruined, and not just through single bad decisions like the croc in Eraser. I’m talking things like the wolfman jumping off a building in the new movie or countless other weightless atrocities from films where practical effects and suggestion would go so much further. When done near perfectly (and i can count few that match JP1/2, or War of the Worlds), it costs such a huge chunk of the budget and creative talent it’s only ever going to be a rare occurrence. In the old days, effects workers were creative, practical problem solving artists. Now CGI guys are mostly computer geeks going through the motions, exercising hardware and software. And if they make the new Gremlins movie cgi (and worse, 3D) I might quit ever seeing effects films again.
Avatar. Now don’t get me started.

By: Mitch

Mitch — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 03:54:59 +0000

I think the No Country For Old Men clip is fine. Haters.

By: GeigerCounter

GeigerCounter — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:23:02 +0000

JP and Jumanji were effects-driven films whereas the crocodile in Eraser seems like a last minute decision in an action movie. But ok, you are right.

The fifth season of Lost had some pretty good CG though.

By: Justin

Justin — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:05:14 +0000

Yeah…I’m gonna still blame ERASER. Reason being, JURASSIC PARK came out in 1993 and it had far superior CGI. JUMANJI came out a year earlier in ’95 and even THE STUPIDS in ’96 had better effects. Yeah. I’m putting THE STUPIDS effects work over everything on this list.

By: GeigerCounter

GeigerCounter — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:01:21 +0000

A twitchy animatronic fox would have been way better for Antichrist. I think it would enhance the surreal tone.

But can we really blame Eraser? It was back in 1996. Not completely terrible CG in that year, but nothing special either.

By: Justin

Justin — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:00:45 +0000

Mega Shark Vs. Giant Octopus was a genre we chose to leave out. With most all SyFy Channel movies and animal vs. animal films, they are made to be campy and cheesy looking. We could easily do another list of titles like those: MANSQUITO, ICE SPIDERS, etc., but we decided to do animals in movies that, for the most part, were not the center of attention. So, like in ERASER or LET THE RIGHT ONE IN the Croc and Cat were not the main theme of the movie. Given, ROGUE, DEEP BLUE SEA and SNAKES ON A PLANE break that rule because they are all killer animal movies, but they were all just so incredibly bad looking that we had to put them on the list.

Nathan- Bubastis was totally one that came to mind, but he’s not really a real creature so we decided to leave him off the list.

By: Hal F

Hal F — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:51:54 +0000

Was ‘Mega Shark V Giant Octopus’ too realistic? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa7ck5mcd1o

By: Nathan

Nathan — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:16:48 +0000

Great list! Maybe this is too easy, but does Jar Jar Binks count? How about those buffalo-looking things that Anakin rode around in Attack of the Clones?

Another one that comes to mind is Ozymandias’ lynx from Watchmen. Then again, how they’d do that without CGI, I’m not sure…