Will people of the future think we were impressed by CGI in The Mummy Returns?

Discussion in 'Mayberry Lounge' started by Dead Spirit of MMA, May 6, 2019.

  1. Dead Spirit of MMA

    Dead Spirit of MMA Blue Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2018
    Messages:
    773
    Likes Received:
    1,312
    The Hollywood mistakes thread got me thinking. Will people a few hundred years from now look back at something like The Mummy Returns, see that it was a big budget film in a popular franchise which made $433 million at the box office, and think that we were all impressed by it? Or will criticism of the effects last just as long and be just as prominent as the film itself? Maybe The Mummy Returns will be forgotten about, or just used as an example of CGI growing pains.

    [​IMG]

    I ask because we've all heard stories about people of the past being overly impressed by bad special effects or just film itself. There's that story about the early film Train Pulling into a Station/L'arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat about people running from the screen because they thought it was so realistic. That sounds like bullshit to me. History has a way of painting people of the past as gullible idiots. It'll no doubt happen to us, too.

    You've probably watched an old film at some point in your life and either said or heard it be said that "People back then thought this looked real." Will the same be said of The Mummy Returns?



    I'm kind of joking with the Mummy stuff, but is there a chance contemporary CGI-filled blockbusters will be thought of as appearing realistic to us by people of the future?
     
  2. No, they'll be too busy with the future race war.
     
  3. Crocop42

    Crocop42 Brown Belt

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,714
    Likes Received:
    3,720
    Location:
    Biff Tannen's Pleasure Paradise
    Earth is dead in 12 years. Watch the news!
     
  4. ShinkanPo

    ShinkanPo Coronalicious!

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2011
    Messages:
    29,072
    Likes Received:
    19,899
    Location:
    Strange realm
    Yeah they will think we have very very bad taste too.
     
  5. syct23

    syct23 ...ElipsisBelt...

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    Messages:
    20,499
    Likes Received:
    10,127
    Location:
    In The Sweat Lodge
    I didn't need the future to tell me this. I knew it sucked ass when I was watching it in theaters...
     
    Track Jipper likes this.
  6. ens189

    ens189 ELI-te Belt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    9,640
    Likes Received:
    3,998
    Location:
    Not apologizing
    Holy shit that was bad by Nintendo 64 standards.
     
  7. JAEGERX

    JAEGERX i stay blessed

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    14,378
    Likes Received:
    21,287
    the saddest thing is that The Rock or any huge movie stars has signed his image likeness rights on some insane contracts with agents, publicists, studio heads or whatever and when he dies they will own his image and will CGI him in movies without having to deal with him
     
  8. Thai Otoshi

    Thai Otoshi Gold Belt

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Messages:
    17,678
    Likes Received:
    6,649
    Location:
    ¬___¬
    No, ALL CGI will look like crap to them.

    "Do you believe they just sat there in big rooms looking at a large screen? They didn't even have neural interfaces!"

    In 30 years, you will BE the superhero. It'll put both movies and video games to shame.
     
  9. phoenixikki

    phoenixikki Black Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2012
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    12,235
    I saw this movie in cinema 2x and even back then CGI Rock looked fake as shit.
    Everything else was dope though.
     
  10. ookii

    ookii Red Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,696
    Likes Received:
    14,974
    I think the Rock should get plastic surgery to look like just so the movie's CGI would be remembered more fondly and ahead of its time
     
  11. A.A. Riggs

    A.A. Riggs sweet ... sweet meat!

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Messages:
    54,652
    Likes Received:
    58,489
    It would certainly explain all the extinct polar creatures.
     
  12. Michaelangelo

    Michaelangelo Okay USA Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    26,102
    Likes Received:
    47,001
    it was shit then and it’s shit now
     
  13. Not A Theist

    Not A Theist Purple Belt

    Joined:
    May 25, 2018
    Messages:
    1,955
    Likes Received:
    3,669
    I don't remember people at the time thinking it was all that bad, and rather just pretty average. Rendering a likeness of a real human being was pretty sketchy until not long ago and in 2001 the only CGI that looked even decent by today's standards was stuff that couldn't be compared to real life subject matter, or didn't have the complexities of muscles, an animal's movement, etc. Even groundbreaking films like Avatar looked a little weird in the movements and faces of the creatures, at times, 8 years later. The big exception (from 2001) was Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within and if I'm not mistaken the work that went into that rendering was *far* more intensive than anything else being done at the time.

    Stuff like this was happening in 2017:[​IMG]

    So I'd say that it's revisionist history to look back at a 2001 movie like The Mummy Returns and laugh at how we all thought it sucked... I'd say it was more a case of that we thought CGI sucked, but as far as this went it was pretty standard for rendering an actual person.
     
    Ikuza likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.