Movies that look bad in HD

A

Arlette

New member
Just watched Star Wars : The Revenge of the Sith in a 720p HD format and have to say considering the movie was digitally shot, the CGI shots look bad. I hadnt noticed this before but in HD it stanRAB out.
For example theres a shots where the actors are walking up ramps to the ships or onto ships and appear to be walking on air, and a scene with the Clone soldiers the background actors look like plastic men.

Compaired to 300 which was shot against a green screen for nearly all the movie, even the obviously comic book style skylines looked miles better than the background shots in Star Wars.

Has anyone else noticed this or seen other movies that dont cut it in HD?
 
You need to see "Blade" in HD. The CGI is so bad I actually laughed out loud while viewing it. I've seen more convincing effects work done on Photoshop.

It's a million times worse then anything in Revenge of the Sith.

Blade has to be seen to be believed.

I would love to see "Superman IV" in HD. Now that would be heart attack inducing, because the effects in that are positively abysmal. The worst I've ever seen in a major motion picture in fact. Even worse then Star Trek V.

In the end, it all comes down to effects work being rushed during post-production to meet a release date, especially as films like Revenge of the Sith came out in 2005.

Spider-Man and The Chronicles of Narnia are other offenders.

The Lion in Narnia looks dreadful. That really doesn't surprise me actually, because when the effects team sold the idea to Disney they did so by showing them a short clip of a girl walking down the street with a CGI Lion that took them ages to do, and it looked brilliant as a result.

Then Disney went and brought the release date forward drastically and hurried everything along to the point of where the effects work suffered greatly. As soon as I learned of this, I knew the lion was going to look really bad, and I wasn't wrong.

Jurassic Park looks amazing in HD, and that came out in 1993.
 
but isnt it typical for HD to show up the majority of CGI effects as less than stellar wheras the grain of film stock and standard DVD kinda obscures their creation

HD and most big hollywood movies: inherently pointless if it oRABets the very conditions it i is shot and lit in for a specific reason of illusion

I know which I prefer
 
As I said "Jurassic Park" looks amazing.

I've seen many other blockbusters in HD that also look great. It's down to how well the effects were rendered in post. Simple as that.

Superman: The Movie is another one that looks great in HD. The large majority of its effects were done on film.

Where as Superman Returns were done digitally.......the effects look really fake, especially thouse of "plastic" Superman.
 
It seems that if a "human" is done in CGI it looks bad in HD. Just had a quick look at BLADE, not too bad but does stand out.

So I guess lazyness that the movies could get away with in a DVD or cinema release really show up now.
 
Watch the scene at the end where he takes on Deacon Frost and slices him in half. The biggest laugh out loud moment of the entire film.
 
The infected, the lions, the infected dogs, the deer etc all look pretty ropey in "I Am Legend". It is a shame when crappy CGI jars, because it can completely ruin the mood when enjoying a film.

Edit:

RegarRAB to CGI humans, how come it is possible to have convincing human characters in video games like "Half Life 2" (which is about 2-3 years old now, and is all rendered in real-time) yet in movies with huge budgets, and powerful computers pre-rendering their graphics the humans all look 'wrong'? There is an in-depth (ie I haven't read it all cos it's a bit dry) article on Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley about why we feel uneasy about things that almost look human.
 
Though havent seen it in HD yet but a really bad special effect that must have cost a bomb (though 10 years old) is the opening shots of the Titanic where the people on deck are clearly walking in the air............
Yeah the last bit in Blade is bad..... cant believe I stayed up to watch that again :yawn:
 
Unless they look at the effects again, I saw this on a Sky HD and was unimpressed, a HD or Blueray release wouldnt be that much different to be honest and a 1080i or p would show it even more.
 
When they put the original trilogy on dvd they gave the whole thing an overhaul,they will probably do the same for the HD release(whatever format it will be)
 
HD, easily. The big market for HD discs is always going to be the same as it is for DVD, and that's newly restored high quality versions of the classics/blockbusters/cult classics from the 70's, 80's and early 90's being available on the medium, before studios started turning to CGI to solve anything that was even minutely difficult to do practically. As I said, the studios are solely to blame for the poor quality of CG in films, and every time somebody questions this I bring them to the exact same evidence that is....

"Jurassic Park". ;)
 
Surely the further back you go, the worse the special effects will look - smaller budgets, poorer technology.

I'd guess (because it's what I'd do) that CGI has historically been done to look okay at normal cinema and DVD resolutions (because the better the effect, the more money it costs). Now stuff is appearing in HD, the joins are beginning to show.
 
I couldn't disagree more.

The effects in Superman: The Movie which came out in 1978 are far more convincing in HD then the effects in Superman Returns are.

Yet again, I mention "Jurassic Park".

To this day practically no film has topped the CGI work in that film.

A 1993 film.

Says it all really.

It's no different then comparing 1995's "Toy Story" to a more recent effort like "Madagascar".

Speaking purely on a rendering level; Madagascar looks awful compared to Toy Story.

Why? Because Toy Story wasn't simply rushed into production in order to meet a release date set by the studio.
 
Back
Top