ROTTEN TOMATOES: 20 CGI Classics - From T2 to Batman Begins to WALL-E Comments

20 CGI Classics - From T2 to Batman Begins to WALL-E

by Joe Utichi | August 11, 2008

Summary

We showcase 20 films which have employed Pixar's pioneering software RenderMan to create some of the last two decades' most visually-impressive movies. Back to Article

(1-169 of 169 posts) | Reply

stevegilpin writes:
on Aug 11 2008 10:17 AM

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone?
Okay, Rotten Tomatoes, PUT THE BONG DOWN!!!!!

(Reply to this)

mouse_clicker writes:
on Aug 11 2008 10:19 AM

Thank you so much for including Sunshine on the list. It was my second favorite movie of last year (behind Ratatouille), and was criminally overlooked. One of the few science fiction films to have extraordinary CG visuals and then the depth and content to back it all up.

(Reply to this)

HollywoodJack writes:
on Aug 11 2008 10:30 AM

i agree that Sunshine was visually beautiful and had a very good first half but I think the film was ruined in the second half. It turned into a slasher film. I guess we just disagree though.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Aug 11 2008 11:03 AM

I disagree on Gladiator. I've always had a problem with the CG in that movie. Even when I first saw it in the theater, I thought Rome looked terrible. I like the movie, but the CG wasn't even good for its time.

Glad to see Sunshine and Batman Begins on here. Those are 2 movies that used CG as it's meant to be used.

(Reply to this)

Tlin82180 writes:
on Aug 11 2008 11:28 AM

Surprised Transformers didn't make it.

I was severly dissappointed with the movie and its failure to bring back the magic of the cartoon.

But I can't deny the CG recreation of the robots was pretty cool. But whatever.

(Reply to this)

fartymagee writes:
on Aug 11 2008 12:00 PM

In reply to this comment (#1970955)
Maybe you should put your bong down and you glasses on so you can read the list

(Reply to this)

astrangefish writes:
on Aug 11 2008 12:51 PM

I disagree. If Beowulf, Day After Tomorrow and Attack of the Clones really did have stunning visuals then i would have been able to enjoy them on some level.
P.S. I'm sorry dude, if you think the robots in Transformers were good effects (small empty car transforming into gigantic chunky robot-said robot could have used said car for a hat or codpiece) when a CAR ADVERT had much better transforming effects years before, you are nuts.

(Reply to this)

Scorchy writes:
on Aug 11 2008 12:56 PM

Gladiator absolutely doesn't belong. The CGI was obvious and Rome itself looked absolutely horrible.

If you want to see an effective recreation of Rome that doesn't take center-stage, watch HBO's "Rome."

(Reply to this)

CoUcH ToMaToE DoUgIe writes:
on Aug 11 2008 01:51 PM

its amazing no matter how beautiful every Pixar film is, their

stories always leave the lasting memory. Thank you, Pixar for revolutionizing

the filming world. If only you could write the stories for some of these

idiot filmakers who constantly waste great opportunities. Still, i wish you

R.T. guys tarted with the Abyss, pretty amazing in every way in my opinion.

Still, big kudos for Cameron for making films that always impress us visually

and for the most part his story telling is pretty fantastic as well. You

know one of the films I think doesn't belong on this list is Begins. I loved

it and all, just don't think of it as a landmark film in Renderman effects.

If any superhero film belongs on this list because of impressive Renderman

effects, I would suggest Spider-man 2 or even Superman Returns more than

Begins. And I agree with, astrangefish, Transformers should never be on any

list of achievement, including visual effects. Not saying it wasn't grand

but thanks to the idiotic camera direction of Bay, any achievement is lost.

(Reply to this)

trgdr777 writes:
on Aug 11 2008 02:12 PM

I wouldn't include Gladiator, The Day After Tomorrow, or War of the Worlds. None of those were very convincing for their time in my opinion.

I think Transformers deserves it (if we're basing this list on special effects rather than acting or storytelling) because few people realize how hard it is to make something animated look convincingly large. Plus I can only imagine how many reflections they had to worry about.

Also, even though I didn't like the Pirates sequels very much, I thought Davey Jones was a really cool (mostly) CG character.

(Reply to this)

Warheart1188 writes:
on Aug 11 2008 02:52 PM

Where's Tranformers???!!! That's a CGI masterpiece! (and that's the only thing that movie has going for it)

They should replace Final Fantasy: Spirits Within with the much better FF VII: Advent Children.

And honestly, Gladiator? The Day After Tomorrow?? Come on! They should've put the 2nd Pirates of the Caribbean movie instead of the first because Davy Jones is the most realistic CG character I've ever seen. Batman Begins? Not too much CGI there. Gotham was built on a set, not a computer. They used CGI sparsely.

The Spider-Man series has some great CGI. Why weren't any of those there?? Hell, I don't care what anybody thinks of the Hulk movies, but that's a damn good looking CGI Hulk they've used.

(Reply to this)

FullMelson writes:
on Aug 11 2008 02:53 PM

Glad to see my favorite action film of all time made #1...seriously if you go back and look at T2 today it still holds up and the movie is nearly 20 years old.

And while I understand that here on RT all thing Nolan must be praised you've got to be kidding me by adding Begins to this list the effects were on par with most done today and there was nothing revolutionary CGI wise in the film.

Either of the Spiderman films would have been a more deserving choice as you
you couldn't have truly realized the charater without those scenes of him swinging through the city...not to mention the fight between Spidey and Doc Ock was one of the best uses of CGI in years.

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Aug 11 2008 02:55 PM

I agree on the Transformers bit. I thoroughly enjoyed that and was righteously P*SSED when f#cking 'Golden Compass' won for best visuals (!?!?!?!) at the Oscars.

Nice list. I'm glad they didn't try to put a 'ranking' order on it. That would've killed the whole thing.

(Reply to this)

Racer Z writes:
on Aug 11 2008 02:58 PM

"Unfortunately his sense of storytelling had clearly falled off the tracks by that point."

Falled?

You know, if you're going to degenerate into yet another anti-Lucas tirade regarding his script-writing and sense of storytelling, it might do your credibility well to at least know how to write yourself.

Not to mention the fact that every film on this list owes a debt to Lucas and ILM's R&D. At least attempt to show SOME respect!

(Reply to this)

vitajex writes:
on Aug 11 2008 03:01 PM

Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children is quite a bit better than The Spirits Within.

How could we possibly overlook the original, the first film to ever feature extensive use of CGI? The grand-daddy of ALL CGI films?

"Tron"

(Reply to this)

dalonoman writes:
on Aug 11 2008 03:04 PM

Get rid of Gladiator, and put Transformers on (yes the movie itself was trash- but I thought the CG absolutley saved it- imagine the movie with half *** CG- Think about it... think about it.... terrible isn't it?)

(Reply to this)

rle4lunch writes:
on Aug 11 2008 03:09 PM

I think that the War of the Worlds storm scenes were terrific. Much moreso than NYC frozen. As for Harry Potter, the only one of those that have impressed me (only slightly though) was the most recent one released. The fight scene at the end was quite stunning.

(Reply to this)

vitajex writes:
on Aug 11 2008 03:11 PM

Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children is quite a bit better than The Spirits Within.

How could we possibly overlook the original, the first film to ever feature extensive use of CGI? The grand-daddy of ALL CGI films?

"Tron"

(Reply to this)

vitajex writes:
on Aug 11 2008 03:14 PM

In reply to this comment (#1971786)
Firstly, respect was shown by including Lucas' film on the list.

As far as not being able to criticize...

I can't carve a canoe out of a tree, but if someone else does and it sinks? I think I have a right to say the canoe stank.

(Reply to this)

Joe Utichi writes:
on Aug 11 2008 03:30 PM

Racer Z: Oops, I'd like to say the n and the d keys are quite close to each other, but I think this is a case of writing too quickly and missing it on the read-through. It should, of course, read "fallen."

As for our anti-Lucas tirade, it's more a fun pop at the general impression most have of the prequel trilogy - of course Pixar wouldn't even exist were it not for Lucas' first steps so there's no doubting his contribution.

Though, let's be honest, the critics of Lucas' writing have very little to say about his spelling or grammar...

FullMelson: Please note, while Terminator would appear to be at number one, this is actually a chronological list. We didn't want to play favourites, particularly given how much innovation there's been in this industry over these last 20 years, so instead we chose to simply list the films by year so you can get a sense of that evolution. Though we also didn't choose one movie from each year, preferring instead to choose multiple movies from some years.

Re: Batman Begins - We really wanted to choose a superhero movie that used its CG sparingly. Spider-Man, The X-Men and Superman Returns all feature very powerful visuals, and it was a toss up, honestly, between Spider-Man and Begins, but for this particular item we wanted to showcase a film that didn't overdo the CG and yet was still able to tell a story on the scale demanded of a superhero movie.

It's funny that Gladiator and Batman Begins seem to be the sticking points, though, as they're both of our examples of movies that use CG effectively but sparingly. I know some have criticised the quality of the CG in both movies, but we really wanted to include on the list movies that weren't purely CG effects driven and, at least in my opinion, the work of both of those movies was pretty exceptional.

Re: Transformers - the robots looked great, but given that we already had Beowulf, Kong, Harry Potter 3 and War of the Worlds I wonder if we don't already have quite an exhibit of big-screen monsters, which the Transformers are but metal versions of, after all...

Perhaps Beowulf could have retired its place for Michael Bay's noise factory, though...

(Reply to this)

Joe Utichi writes:
on Aug 11 2008 03:36 PM

vitajex: Tron isn't on the list because it didn't employ Pixar's RenderMan according to Pixar's list (linked in the intro). The reason for the feature is to celebrate RenderMan, which is 20 years old this year.

Someone else mentioned The Abyss. We did throw in a couple of Cameron movies but we resisted The Abyss. For its considerable contribution we wanted to recognise it, and it did make use of the earliest incarnations of RenderMan but we strictly chose to feature movies from 1988 onwards, which is when RenderMan became "RenderMan" and which is the marker for our 20 years of RenderMan celebration.

Who ever thought I'd use the phrase RenderMan so many times in a day?

(Reply to this)

Minus writes:
on Aug 11 2008 03:42 PM

Ok here is my assessment of needed to be omitted films from this list.

1. Harry Potter
2. Batman Begins (Which I love, but not necessary for this list)
3. Wall E (Toy story says it all)
4. Nemo (Dido above comment)
5. Sunshine
6. War of the Worlds
7. Beowulf

Films that should have been included

1. Transformers
2. Tron
3. The Mummy

(Reply to this)

NTROST writes:
on Aug 11 2008 03:45 PM

RT has made a good list but a flawed list.

1.) Films such as "Batman Begins" & "Gladiator" are not CGI type films. Nolan barely uses any CGI as he is an avid believer of non-CGI usage. Most of his effects are models or just the real thing. Gladiator is not not remotely considered a CGI film. It's more known as being an epic film then a visual special effects film.

(I completely disagree with some who say the CGI in "Gladiator" is terrible let alone Rome in the film. If you want bad CGI film then go watch the Sci-Fi channel or hell, I can give you a sit of bad CGI film. Seriously, your opinion on this matter is very ill-judged.)

2.) How the hell do you NOT have "Transformers" on this list? seriously though, effects with the robots transforming were revolutionary especially the amount of rendered sessions it took in post-production to make it work.

(For all the haters who wanted those square robots from the cartoons get over it & please get off this hate Michael Bay bulls*** crap. It's getting old & the guy is an action director & that's what he is known for making an entertaining action flicks with the basic story development pattern (character, conflict, & conclusion). I mean what the hell do want out of kids cartoon? Citizen Kane? Seriously get over self-centered ways. Also execusing this film from a CGI list because of it's story or cinemaphotograpy is pure bias let alone ill-advise in the whole matter.)

3. I also disagree with some of the descriptions (info on the film) on the countdown list. But I guess that's more of opinion matter.

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Aug 11 2008 03:46 PM

In reply to this comment (#1971828)
No 2001?!??!?!?!?!?NO SIN CITY!?!??!?!?!?!?! I dont think War of The Worlds or Gladiator should be on the list, good special effects but nothing great. Yeah Transformers is defantely not a great movie but a pretty good one with dazzling effects.SIN CITY should definately be on the list, those effects created a whole new world.

(Reply to this)

EmmG389 writes:
on Aug 11 2008 03:53 PM

i'm surprised the mist isn't on there.

(Reply to this)

Joe Utichi writes:
on Aug 11 2008 04:02 PM

2001, Sin City and The Mist are all excluded because they aren't on Pixar's list of movies which have employed RenderMan, which is the purpose of the list.

http://renderman.pixar.com/products/whatsrenderman/movies.html

(Reply to this)

Archmage_Quintus writes:
on Aug 11 2008 04:05 PM

How come bashing Star Wars is everyone's favorite thing these days? What about the storytelling of the prequels was so bad? It is the same thing with Transformers (and Michael Bay in general): people want what the people making the movie aren't trying to give. Revenge of the Sith was not trying to have expertly written dialogue, but many fixate on the weak dialogue and refuse to look at what the movie did well. Feel free to look up any Star Wars movie and see that none of them are rotten, which is because there was not as much wrong with the prequels as everyone thinks. SW is just a victim of its own popularity because everyone scrutinizes so much, and of course, there is always the allure of being the cool kid who doesn't like what everyone else likes.

(Reply to this)

utkipp1 writes:
on Aug 11 2008 04:12 PM

I thought the cgi work in Begins was great. It also showed how cgi can be used to help tell a great story but used sparingly and only when needed (bats in the arkam scene)

(Reply to this)

frogboy writes:
on Aug 11 2008 04:18 PM

Both Transformers and the Golden Compass should have been included here. Their effects, while spectacular, have a way of being easily taken for granted a few minutes in. The amount of detail and seemingly tactile quality of the characters never faltered for a frame unlike Beowulf's beautiful, but mask-like motion capture faces that never quite got it right.

(Reply to this)

Manny Fraker writes:
on Aug 11 2008 04:48 PM

Wheres Transformers? Seriously, those CGI graphics were unbelievable. T2 is the greatest though.

(Reply to this)

rockclmbr6 writes:
on Aug 11 2008 05:02 PM

I would have replaced...something? with Children of Men. If you want a movie that makes the CGI almost unnoticeable, it'd be that one.

I'd give the best example in the movie, but it'd be a total spoiler...let's just say it's the most convincing CGI work I've ever seen.

Either way, this was a good list. I really need to see Sunshine.

(Reply to this)

TheCaptain of TeamLoyalty writes:
on Aug 11 2008 05:16 PM

Whoever bashed Gladiator know nothing about CGI, that movie is the best for using convincing yet subtle and lowkey CGI.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Aug 11 2008 05:58 PM

I bashed the CGI in Gladiator. They made Rome look like a video game cutscene. It was cold and stark and never matched up with the actual sets they built.

I think I know a little bit about CGI simply by being a movie-goer who was disappointed by the CGI when he saw it in the theaters.

And Batman Begins deserves a spot on the list because it uses CGI in useful ways, rather than attempting to cheat with it (which NEVER works).

(Reply to this)

Ultimale069 writes:
on Aug 11 2008 07:34 PM

Spiderman should never be considered for being anything great because everything about them was horrendous; story, acting, special effects- I said it when the first one just came out, and I glad time has vindicated me. It just took a few years for everyone to find out just how much sam raimi's **** stinks.

(Reply to this)

Luhrs8535 writes:
on Aug 11 2008 08:03 PM

Im surprised no one has mentioned 300...the entire movie was basically done in front of the green screen and relying all on CGI

(Reply to this)

mouse_clicker writes:
on Aug 11 2008 08:34 PM

HollywoodJack: Ugh, that's the go-to complaint about Sunshine I hear from everyone that didn't pay attention enough to the movie to understand where it went at the end. First of all, only one person gets directly killed by Pender. Second of all, you have to stop looking at Pender as a slasher flick horror villain and start looking at what he REPRESENTS. He's been staring at the sun for seven years, and he's come to revere it as a god. He's like a religious fanatic, overwhelmed by the cosmos rather than awed and humbled. Capa is awed and humbled, but not overwhelmed. The whole ending of the movie is like a metaphor for the beauty and ironic simplicity of the natural world. In fact, it's all represented visually in one shot when Capa sets off the bomb as the ship plunges into the sun. Watch Sunshine again, but this time think of it spiritually and metaphorically rather than as a sci-fi action film. That's where its real value lies.

Trgdr777: What are you talking about? War of the Worlds may have had a cheesy, unbelievable human story, but in terms of CG and sound design, it was absolutely the most convincing movie I've ever seen. I know I was not the only one that was terrified of the tripod foghorn noise for weeks after seeing that movie. Of course, it all fell apart when they actually showed the aliens, and they were pretty obviously CG, so I guess you have a point there. But leave that one little bit out of what was otherwise the best scene in the movie (aided by the only worthwhile performance, out of Tim Robbins), and it was wholly convincing.

(Reply to this)

fullmetalnek writes:
on Aug 11 2008 08:34 PM

Where's the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants?????

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Aug 11 2008 08:46 PM

In reply to this comment (#1972769)
That's true! They had to make the same pair of pants fit America Ferrera and Blake Lively.

(Reply to this)

adu writes:
on Aug 11 2008 09:24 PM

Both War of the Worlds & King Kong had fanatatic CGI. The introduction & attack of the tripods was breath-taking, and in King Kong the fight with the 3 T-Rexes was spectacular to say the least!

(Reply to this)

TheCaptain of TeamLoyalty writes:
on Aug 11 2008 09:34 PM

So wait because you go to movies that makes you special? I work with CGI and am best friends with a CGI artist and if he says that it is awesome then it is awesome, if you thought it was cold that was the point, it was awe inspiring and cold because of the theme of the movie, moron.

(Reply to this)

mouse_clicker writes:
on Aug 11 2008 09:57 PM

"And Batman Begins deserves a spot on the list because it uses CGI in useful ways, rather than attempting to cheat with it (which NEVER works)."

Wait, CGI is ALWAYS cheating. That's the point of CGI! (Unless you're making a whole movie out of it, like Pixar.) CGI is for when it's not practical to physically reproduce something on screen, so you let the computer create what you hope is a reasonable facsimile. Now, I think I know what you meant, that lazy overuse of CGI, ala Star Wars or Indy 4, quickly breaks the cinematic mood, but any use of CGI is always going to be at some sort of loss of immersion. The trick is to just try and keep that loss to an absolute minimum.

(Reply to this)

utkipp1 writes:
on Aug 11 2008 09:58 PM

The best on there was Jurassic Park.

(Reply to this)

ivor1 writes:
on Aug 11 2008 10:22 PM

Thanks for the fine list of CGI achievements. I could add a few to the list myself. The first use of CGI was in the movie "The Last Starfighter" an altogether fun film. Looking back as the omissions I have to add one of my favorite movies, "Contact" masterful use of subtle CGI. Speaking of Zamikis, Polar Express was a wonderful movie, especially if viewed in the I-Max 3-D process. I am sooo sorry I missed Beowolf. Cameron's Abyss, and Aliens were both Jaw dropping good. The disintagration of the space craft at the beginning of "Pitch Black" was stunning, as was the rest of the film. Starship Troupers had amazing CGI work.
As far as subtle CGI work in adult films, I think "Stranger Then Fiction", and "Bee Season" demonstrated wit and sophistication.
Lost in your list are a number of fine foreign films, "The Island of Lost Children" "The Fifth Element" and even "Robocop" are worth honorable mention. I loved Nemo, but could have added the Ice Age series, Monsters Inc or Over the Hedge.
I caught an I-Max "semi" 3-D version of Superman Returns, limited use of 3-D but very effective in the set pieces. I found it very moving.
Hope you consider my humble suggestions.

(Reply to this)

TigerShinigami writes:
on Aug 11 2008 10:25 PM

I dearly believe 'Final Fantasy: Advent Childen' should be on the list. Entirely CG, and yet certain scenes could easily be mistaken for live action. Beowulf pales in comparison, and was made years later.

If special effects from the Harry Potter franchise is to be mentioned, the ones used in 'The Goblet of Fire' far out-weight the others. The flawless execution of the dragon, as well as the incredible under-water scenario that was created, makes it a CG spectacle even by the latest standards.

I'm surprised Transformers isn't on this list, as well. I remember reading how even the simplest movement of a hand required the animation of around 12 separate moving parts. The concept was something everyone laughed at before the movie release, and it was the entirely realistic portrayal that managed to make it suddenly so popular.

One movie I'm sort of surprised isn't on here is "The Mummy". Though not the best special effects compared to today's standards, I feel it was an important part of the evolution of CGI used in movies.

(Reply to this)

Floor Man writes:
on Aug 11 2008 10:49 PM

Okay, really. The Day After Tomorrow needs to be scratched and replaced with Pirates 2. Davy Jones (besides Gollum, who ties for this honor) is the most realistic CG character I've ever seen on screen. Oh, and he wants your soul-UH!

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Aug 12 2008 12:13 AM

Why no BLADE RUNNER?!?!?!?!?!

(Reply to this)

alsanali writes:
on Aug 12 2008 12:20 AM

Really, what do you people not understand about this being a list of RenderMan features??

Movies that CANNOT be on this list that people keep on talking about include Tron, Final Fantasy: Advent Children and just about everything that ivor1 mentioned.

Someone mentioned Children of Men which would've been a great addition to the list, I think. Also I think Fight Club should've been on the list since it used CGI to create style rather than actual content. And yeah, like everyone's saying, Transformers was damn pretty lookin' too.

(Reply to this)

fartymagee writes:
on Aug 12 2008 01:29 AM

In reply to this comment (#1972768)
You couldn't pay me to watch it again.

(Reply to this)

mouse_clicker writes:
on Aug 12 2008 01:59 AM

In reply to this comment (#1973122)
Wait, who are you again? Oh, right, you're the guy who turned around the other guy's bong joke! That was genius. I'm really glad we could have this little moment here where you respond to a post that wasn't directed at you. It's been fun.

(Reply to this)

Frank_from_NYC writes:
on Aug 12 2008 08:23 AM

Without picking out any movie to exclude from the present RT list, the two most notable films that are on Pixar's list and not this one are Beauty and the Beast (1991) and The Incredibles (2004). The former b/c it got Disney fully on board with computer animation, and the latter b/c it provided the best CGI humans (as opposed to bugs, animals, toys, etc.) up to that point in film.

(Reply to this)

RobertDowneyJr writes:
on Aug 12 2008 08:31 AM

Why wasn't the Abyss on the list. As having fantastic, ground breaking CGI for its day, whilst preceding T2 is a feat on its own.
Batman, although excellent, is not breath taking CGI. I'm not leaving the theater recalling the CGI.

(Reply to this)

trgdr777 writes:
on Aug 12 2008 09:54 AM

alsanali: Yeah people should read things carefully before posting...

mouse_clicker: Yeah I was referring to the aliens mostly in War of the Worlds, but there were also some other scenes where the CG was pretty obvious (mostly when light sources were involved). I agree that it had some great CG in there too, but I think other movies have done better and with greater consistency. Some of the issues I had with it were based on the compositing rather than the CG models themselves though.

I have to agree that the Incredibles was an amazing film with some of the best character animation ever, but I can see how they wouldn't have room for it on the list with the other Pixar films. I think it's already understood that Pixar films = excellence anyway.

Children of Men is another good one for the list though.

(Reply to this)

mouse_clicker writes:
on Aug 12 2008 10:27 AM

In reply to this comment (#1974060)
I don't remember Children of Men having CG in it. It's been a while since I watched it and I've only seen it a couple times, but I didn't think it used any. Where is it in the movie?

(Reply to this)

premierbaron writes:
on Aug 12 2008 01:53 PM

Transformers should have made it.
Also Independence Day. Very surprised as the visuals is what heavily pushed the film in its release in '96.
I think 300 had awesome effects, especially as it widely showed the green screen as Sin City didn't spread its appeal too far, despite it being in my top 10 list.
Even though it wasn't very good, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow i feel deserves a mention for its unique style and CGI set peices which could even give those today a run for its money. I felt it was too ahead for its time.
One last mention, Minority Report was great CGI, but i know it didn't deserve to be on the list.
And finally, THANKS RT FOR PUTTING SUNSHINE ON THE LIST!! ITS AMAZING!

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Aug 12 2008 02:13 PM

In reply to this comment (#1975887)
Sunshine is 'Amazing' if by 'Amazing' you mean:

Great Premise and cool movie that proceeded to shove itself up its own @ss in the last third of the movie.

..and 'yes', I read the posts earlier with people accusing other people of 'not understanding' it.
Here's what I didn't understand: They had a great, claustrophobic atmosphere, internally consistent characters and problems, and then they turned it into some freak show love-child of 2001 and Blade Runner, with megolomaniacle god/killer who can't be looked directly at-- in perhaps the most annoying and corny visual affect I've seen in the last few years. THEY HAD AN AMAZING MOVIE AND TRASHED IT.

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Aug 12 2008 02:15 PM

...sorry, that's 'megalomaniacle' with an 'o' not an 'a'.
(cuz I KNOW people on THIS website were going to call me out on it...)

(Reply to this)

ivor1 writes:
on Aug 12 2008 09:53 PM

So it has to be RenderMan to be CG? and where does one find a list of "Renderman" features? I always associated movie CG with any computer generated displays. If not, can you explain the difference between the sequences in AI, The Time Machine, or The Chronicles of Riddik, vs. The Day after Tomorrow, War of the Worlds or Star Wars.

(Reply to this)

Joe Utichi writes:
on Aug 13 2008 12:32 AM

The reason for the list is that RenderMan, Pixar's rendering software which revolutionised CG (but is not the only product of its type) is 20 years old.

You can have CG without RenderMan, but that's not what this feature is about.

There is a list of all films which used RenderMan on Pixar's website, which is linked in the article's intro, and frequently in these comments.

(Reply to this)

rickxcx writes:
on Aug 13 2008 06:36 AM

THANK�S RT, YOU ALLWAYS HELP ME TO BEGIN MY DAY HAPPY AND CHEERFULL

(Reply to this)

Pleasuretown writes:
on Aug 13 2008 06:55 AM

Pixar is amazing. Every year they put out a film, it becomes one of my favorites. I've seen Wall-E twice, and i could see it again. I've seen Nemo, Ratatouille, and Cars countless times. (cars isn't as bad as people say, it's not amazing, but good.)

I agree with you Hollywood Jack, the first half of Sunshine was amazing. Stunning visuals, good concept, solid acting. Then it started to fall apart. Still, it was a wonderful suprise from last summer.

(Reply to this)

moriazbane writes:
on Aug 13 2008 12:39 PM

I thought Beowulfs' CGI killed the movie..besides the director. I wouldn't recommend watching it again, but if you do, look how badly the soldiers in the background move. Like early animation. Embarassing isn't it?
I thought "Shrek" would have looked perfectly at home on Beowulf, though possibly more realistic.

(Reply to this)

collex writes:
on Aug 13 2008 12:54 PM

There are some film I don't understand.

But how could you leave Sky Captain and the World of Tmorrow out? Sin City, 300 and other in the same vein would not be there if it wasn't for Sky Captain

And I love the retro-future look of the movie.

(Reply to this)

collex writes:
on Aug 13 2008 12:56 PM

There are some film I don't understand.

But how could you leave Sky Captain and the World of Tmorrow out? Sin City, 300 and other in the same vein would not be there if it wasn't for Sky Captain

And I love the retro-future look of the movie.

(Reply to this)

ivor1 writes:
on Aug 13 2008 09:42 PM

Thanks for the clarification Joe.

(Reply to this)

Doctor Spud writes:
on Aug 14 2008 11:59 AM

Okay, either get rid of The Day After Tomorrow or The Gladiator and replace it with Transformers. The whole movie looked absolutely awesome.

(Reply to this)

Doctor Spud writes:
on Aug 14 2008 12:02 PM

In reply to this comment (#1971782)
I totally agree! Transformers beat The Golden Compass fair and square.

(Reply to this)

Doctor Spud writes:
on Aug 14 2008 12:03 PM

In reply to this comment (#1971782)
I totally agree! Transformers beat The Golden Compass fair and square.

(Reply to this)

K7Leetha writes:
on Aug 16 2008 04:12 PM

War of the Worlds without question had some of the most (horrifically) beautiful CG, not because of the aliens, rather the extensive use of it and how flawless it looked.

(Reply to this)

LiquidPZA writes:
on Aug 18 2008 12:43 AM

In reply to this comment (#1971795)
Because TRON didn't use Pixar's Renderman software.

(Reply to this)

LiquidPZA writes:
on Aug 18 2008 12:55 AM

In reply to this comment (#1971786)
Actually, for a time, Pixar's base group WAS Lucasfilm's CG R&D department. Lucas just didn't share the vision of computer graphics making an impact in films. He had them create sound and film editing systems instead. He then made the brilliant move of selling the group to Steve Jobs for five million dollars. ILM was more or less a practical effects company at the time. So in the end, it's Lucas who owes an apology to Ed Catmull and the rest of Pixar's original group of brilliant minds, certainly not the other way around.

(Reply to this)

LiquidPZA writes:
on Aug 18 2008 01:01 AM

To be fair, I'll add that ILM is currently an amazing film effects company, even if by standing on the shoulders of giants.

(Reply to this)

LiquidPZA writes:
on Aug 18 2008 01:11 AM

In reply to this comment (#1974326)
It's subtle, but it's certainly there. (CG in city of men)

(Reply to this)

Scorpio82 writes:
on Aug 18 2008 08:05 AM

The list loses me after #12. The rest of them seem like generic graphic-heavy summer movies that really didn't set any new standards. If we're looking at pioneer movies, Young Sherlock Holmes, TRON, The Phantom Menace, and Sky Captain need to be in there. Otherwise, there's still movies like The Incredibles, Spider-man 2, The Abyss, and Transformers which were much more mind-blowing.

And while the story still sucks, "Advent Children" completely blows "Spirits Within" out of the water. It's the one mo-cap movie that breaks every law of physics and works creatively with the limitations of the green screen room. FF:TSW still gets brownie points for inventing the technology, I suppose.

Still not sure what "Batman Begins" is doing on there. Nolan only used CGI for the landscapes, monorail, and bats. Everything else was professional stuntwork and scale models, and that took up the real meat of the film.

(Reply to this)

Desiree writes:
on Aug 19 2008 05:20 AM

Good lord, is every poster here a complete moron? Can you read? The lists ISN'T a list of every innovative CGI film ever. It's a list of films from the last 20 years that have used RenderMan software. The next person that mentions Tron, Young Sherlock Holmes, Last Starfighter or The Abyss should have their internet privileges revoked because they are clearly illiterate.

As for Lucas-bashing, the man has never written good dialogue. Let's remember that he didn't write Empire Strikes Back, Retuurn of the Jedi or Raiders of the Lost Ark. He can't write dialogue. No film critic debates this point and the SW prequels proof this. There was a reason Lawrence Kasdan was brought on board for ESB and why it's generally considered the best of the bunch.

As for the list, my only questionable entry is Batman Begins, which while having nice subtle use of CGI simply isn't "defining" enough. Other Zemickis films such as Cast Away and Contact have much better use of "hidden" CGI.

My "forgotten" selection would be What Dreams May Come. Sure it's not a great film, but the look was completely original at the time, with the CGI used to make it appear the Robin Williams was living inside a real painting. Breath taking visuals. And since people keep touting unwatchable cr@p like Transformers, obviously, story is not what we are basis this list on.

(Reply to this)

loverhino writes:
on Aug 19 2008 07:01 AM

Hrrrmmm, looks like a pretty standard list I think. Plus, I'll admit I haven't seen a few of them. BUT, where's The Abyss, the 1st real example of morphing technology appearing on screen? Yup, indeed, the T1000 was amazing but the water tentacle had more "WOW!!" to it because it was unprecedented. Is The Abyss insignificant next to T2 & Titanic because it wasn't a big money-making machine? Also, why the heck is Batman Begins included? Chris Nolan has said countless times that he prefers miniatures to CGI every time & the Gotham his production team created for the flick was mostly done in miniature. Plus, criticism needs to be leveled at Jackson's King Kong, which was so overproduced & CGI-laden that it really diminished any enjoyment.

(Reply to this)

Desiree writes:
on Aug 19 2008 08:19 AM

LEARN TO READ!!!!!

the last 20 years.

The Abyss is older than 20 years now.

Internet privileges revoked

(Reply to this)

chamucamel writes:
on Aug 19 2008 09:03 AM

In reply to this comment (#1991026)
So, Desiree, please explain how 1989 is more than twenty years ago?

(Reply to this)

Desiree writes:
on Aug 19 2008 09:13 AM

In reply to this comment (#1991173)
did people read the comments before responding? the Abyss question was already covered.

from the guy who wrote the article:
Someone else mentioned The Abyss. We did throw in a couple of Cameron movies but we resisted The Abyss. For its considerable contribution we wanted to recognise it, and it did make use of the earliest incarnations of RenderMan but we strictly chose to feature movies from 1988 onwards, which is when RenderMan became "RenderMan" and which is the marker for our 20 years of RenderMan celebration.

so both he and I were wrong, as the film is from 1989 and thus eligible, but the answer was given already. Rather than looking like someone who didn't actually read what has been written, perhaps a correction would have gone over better than simple asking (for the dozenth time) "what about the Abyss?"

(Reply to this)

simplekindoflovely writes:
on Aug 19 2008 12:17 PM

Am I the only one who expected Sin City to make the list?

(Reply to this)

lauriemann writes:
on Aug 19 2008 12:31 PM

I agree with not including Gladiator, one of the most overrated movies ever. The CGI for the tiger was really awkward.

While I wasn't a complete fan of Golden Compass, I thought the CGI work in it was quite good.

Wasn't there a fair amount of subtle CGI in Crouching Tiger/Hidden Dragon?

(Reply to this)

Desiree writes:
on Aug 19 2008 01:31 PM

In reply to this comment (#1991183)
no, the rest of the illiterate people who didn't read the list of eligible films already asked about this one too.

(Reply to this)

chris.sonofskywalker writes:
on Aug 19 2008 03:36 PM

Batman Begins was not really a CGI movie. I think there are MAYBE 25-20 shots in the whole movie, not even a lot of wire removal as a lot of the wires are actually used as plot points. Also, Return of the King's CGI was obvious where Fellowships was subtle and soothing and shouldn't be on the list either. Also, why is Revenge of the Sith on here instead of the Phantom Menace? A couple of movies they left out: Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow or Sin City, for pioneering techniques that would later lead to another movie that was missing here, 300. Each one of those movies plays to a limited audience, but all were much more CGI driven than Batman was. Another movie missing, albeit another that I don't actually like, is Starship Troopers, which was pretty amazing for its day and pushed a lot of action movies towards the CGI realm (Not really a good development, but an important one)

(Reply to this)

enidlala writes:
on Aug 19 2008 05:29 PM

WHAAAT?! How can you not have INDEPENDENCE DAY on here?! This is an outrage!!! You have Emmerich's THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW but not INDEPENDENCE DAY?! What about TRANSFORMERS??? Am I blind?! I must be blind!?! Dear Lord! :)
www.plasticla.blogspot.com

(Reply to this)

archstanton16 writes:
on Aug 19 2008 06:20 PM

New York City underwater in A.I. is absolutely breathtaking.

(Reply to this)

smitty112485 writes:
on Aug 19 2008 06:42 PM

Sorry, but Transformers SHOULD be on this list. You could easily drop The Day After Tomorrow for Transformers.

(Reply to this)

jfiney writes:
on Aug 19 2008 07:18 PM

A movie that I have always considered beautiful and very ahead of its time CGI wise is Armageddon. How come no one has even thought to mention it??? The effects, although made in 1998, were phenomenal and are better than a lot of stuff today because of how well it was used. Almost every effect in that movie (except for smoke, which has only become photoreal recently) is completely realistic and beautiful, and I really think it should have been included. It came after Titanic, and the effects are better in Armageddon, and came before the Matrix, but the effects were better. It definitely defined the new scale of disaster movies better and well before the Day After Tomorrow, and I feel like it should have had a mention. It also managed to be a very good movie story-wise for Michael Bay. I would also say Independence Day should be on the list, but I'm pretty sure all the amazing effects in that were model-based, not CGI

(Reply to this)

jfiney writes:
on Aug 19 2008 07:19 PM

A movie that I have always considered beautiful and very ahead of its time CGI wise is Armageddon. How come no one has even thought to mention it??? The effects, although made in 1998, were phenomenal and are better than a lot of stuff today because of how well it was used. Almost every effect in that movie (except for smoke, which has only become photoreal recently) is completely realistic and beautiful, and I really think it should have been included. It came after Titanic, and the effects are better in Armageddon, and came before the Matrix, but the effects were better. It definitely defined the new scale of disaster movies better and well before the Day After Tomorrow, and I feel like it should have had a mention. It also managed to be a very good movie story-wise for Michael Bay. I would also say Independence Day should be on the list, but I'm pretty sure all the amazing effects in that were model-based, not CGI

(Reply to this)

jfiney writes:
on Aug 19 2008 07:25 PM

A movie that I have always considered beautiful and very ahead of its time CGI wise is Armageddon. How come no one has even thought to mention it??? The effects, although made in 1998, were phenomenal and are better than a lot of stuff today because of how well it was used. Almost every effect in that movie (except for smoke, which has only become photoreal recently) is completely realistic and beautiful, and I really think it should have been included. It came after Titanic, and the effects are better in Armageddon, and came before the Matrix, but the effects were better. It definitely defined the new scale of disaster movies better and well before the Day After Tomorrow, and I feel like it should have had a mention. It also managed to be a very good movie story-wise for Michael Bay. I would also say Independence Day should be on the list, but I'm pretty sure all the amazing effects in that were model-based, not CGI

(Reply to this)

jfiney writes:
on Aug 19 2008 07:28 PM

In reply to this comment (#1991963)
Hey, enidlala, I would love Independence Day on here too, but all of the effects in that are done with models, not CGI, so it can't really count. I mean, the big beams of light that blow stuff up are CGI, but that's it. If that stuff was allowed, the the original star wars movie and the first two Alien movies should have been on here too, but they're not. I definitely think Armageddon should be on here though...

(Reply to this)

Superzone writes:
on Aug 19 2008 07:41 PM

In reply to this comment (#1971786)
Well said. Lucas seriously doesn't deserve all the crap he gets. It pisses me off.

(Reply to this)

imhavingwensbaby writes:
on Aug 19 2008 07:55 PM

In reply to this comment (#1970955)
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was the English name of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

(Reply to this)

JohnnyJonJon writes:
on Aug 19 2008 08:11 PM

It's a pretty good list, but I am surprised to not see a feature on the Abyss. It had pretty revolutionary effects for its time, and the cinematography was amazing. I would've also liked to see Total Recall mentioned. The CG was amazing, and it was the only film that year recognized for its achievement in visual effects by the Academy. Otherwise, good list.

(Reply to this)

Islander writes:
on Aug 19 2008 08:20 PM

THANK YOU for including "Sunshine"!! That movie was so severely underlooked at its release, and I missed it in theaters, much to my dismay. Then I saw it on DVD, and I was totally blown away! Why didn't it get more recognition? Because it was a British film? Not only were the visuals amazing, but the story was intense, and the characters were so commendably brave that, despite their disastrous situation, I really wanted to BE them--just so I could do something so noble! That's definitely on my DVD wait list (i.e. I can't buy a million DVD's at once, but it's on there, and I'm buying it one day or another)

(Reply to this)

Islander writes:
on Aug 19 2008 08:21 PM

THANK YOU for including "Sunshine"!! That movie was so severely underlooked at its release, and I missed it in theaters, much to my dismay. Then I saw it on DVD, and I was totally blown away! Why didn't it get more recognition? Because it was a British film? Not only were the visuals amazing, but the story was intense, and the characters were so commendably brave that, despite their disastrous situation, I really wanted to BE them--just so I could do something so noble! That's definitely on my DVD wait list (i.e. I can't buy a million DVD's at once, but it's on there, and I'm buying it one day or another)

(Reply to this)

Mr. Butler writes:
on Aug 19 2008 08:58 PM

300?

(Reply to this)

banditwhore writes:
on Aug 19 2008 09:02 PM

In reply to this comment (#1971795)
a good point, but the list only includes the graphics engine that pixar developed, which came out years after tron was released.

(Reply to this)

banditwhore writes:
on Aug 19 2008 09:04 PM

In reply to this comment (#1971795)
a good point, but the list only includes the graphics engine that pixar developed, which came out years after tron was released.

(Reply to this)

ninja13 writes:
on Aug 19 2008 09:26 PM

The T-1000 is amazing to this day and earned it's place. But I was quite disappointed (and a bit shocked) to see that neither 300 or Kung Fu Hustle made it. I thought the REVENGE OF THE SITH cg was kind of cheesy and and extremely overloaded (they made R2-d2 CGI). I also liked Yoda more as a puppet. Oh yeah, and what about Aslan from the lion the witch and the wardrobe or the beavers.
And why does everyone hate Transformers, it was terrific.

(Reply to this)

CBhabitue writes:
on Aug 19 2008 10:50 PM

I have no idea why CGI twenty years ago looked more realistic than some of the CGI used today.

Props to Chris Nolan for actually shooting many of the TDK action scenes, as opposed to plopping down in front of the computer instead. Many of the scenes (truck flip, hospital blowing up) were actual live-shot sequences, and I think they would have been a lot less impressive had they been CGI. Audiences can tell, you know. And it's uber-refreshing to see a real stunt pulled off, instead of feeling like you're watching a video game instead.

(Reply to this)

CBhabitue writes:
on Aug 19 2008 11:00 PM

Oh yeah, and Revenge of the Sith? It was easily the most CGI-overdone film in the last decade. I thought it was overall better than the first two prequels, but the result was so sleek and fake that it felt too far away. I missed the grounded effects of the original Star Wars.

(Reply to this)

hoolaman writes:
on Aug 19 2008 11:13 PM

It's fairly pointless to put a pure CG animation in a list of this sort. Making a cartoon with CGI is no doubt long and hard, but the end result only has to be consistent with it's own visual style. The true test is subtly integrating CGI with real footage, animatronics and sets to give at least suspend disbelief, if not fool the viewer into thinking they are looking at a real scene or character.

I don't think CGI is ready to portray a "living" lead character. It is probably something to do with the "uncanny valley" effect, but Gollum, Yoda, King Kong and *shudder* Jar Jar Binks were all absolute rubbish. In fact, Gollum ruined an otherwise excellent use of CGI for me in the LOTR series.

Terminator 2, no argument here, the movie still holds up as a great use of CGI.

Jurassic Park, also very well done, even by today's standards, although there was a sensible use of animatronics in there too.

Titanic, CGI was not it's strength at all. The excellent sets were the strong point, and some of the pure CGI scenes were quite poor.

Gladiator, others have noted that Rome looked like it was painted on the wall. In fact I've seen painted backdrops from the 50s that look better cf. Ben Hur.

As for the Star Wars prequels, god, what a great example of what not to do. I would be more inclined to lump them in with cut-scenes from a computer game, but to put them in the same company as even T2 from 1992 is just wrong.

(Reply to this)

Coyote22 writes:
on Aug 19 2008 11:29 PM

Transformers appeared as though some one had vomited CGI all over the screen then threw in a dizzying number of too close/shaky shots and a B-level storyline hoping no one would notice the nonsense story through the jumbled, too fast, computer-generated vomit. This movie offered nothing new to CGI and existed only to show case a bunch of dumb Michael Bay shots of robots tromping around in another dumb Bay produced story. I thought Two Towers (because of Gollum) merited a mention more than RTK because of its break through use of that technology.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Positive writes:
on Aug 20 2008 12:44 AM

Transformers used mostly Mental Ray, another global illumination renderer. Pixar's renderman package is taking a tad too much credit here for jump starting the CG special effects industry. There are actually several renderers that are used in feature films. Though Renderman is a massively used package it's also the most difficult to apply. Almost no one except feature VFX can even use it because of it's huge reliance on programming. You may say, "wow you are a big nerd for knowing that", and a) you'd be right but b)before Ed Catmull anoints himself a demigod, I thought you might like to know a little more. Shrug.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Positive writes:
on Aug 20 2008 12:47 AM

By the way,after looking through this list, half these movies did not use Renderman. Though the title seems to gear away from Renderman by just saying the top 20 CGI films........so shrug again.

(Reply to this)

funniestgames writes:
on Aug 20 2008 05:09 AM

What about Final Fantasy 7: Advent Children, it qualifies as a film. And the whole movie was CGI, so of the most impressive work i've seen. I think it should of made it. But still a great list, most of these movies deserve to be on this countdown. And to some people commenting, STOP HATING ON HARRY POTTER!

(Reply to this)

mrxerox writes:
on Aug 20 2008 06:27 AM

It makes me unhappy when people whine about "Speilberg's" ending to War of the Worlds. H.G. Wells' original novel had the exact same thing happen when the narrator discovered that his wife, who had been presumed dead since the beginning, actually escaped to a neighboring town and survived. I mean, the most unbelievable part of the movie is always that earthborne bacteria (which can rarely even travel between species, can somehow infect alien lifeforms)

(Reply to this)

vine-ripe790 writes:
on Aug 20 2008 08:35 AM

In reply to this comment (#1970955)
"Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" is the UK title for "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone"

(Reply to this)

insanemansam5 writes:
on Aug 20 2008 09:05 AM

What a weird list Batman Begins, Sunshine and the horrible Final Fantasy?

But no Sin City, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, 300, Ratatouille, Cars, X2, Spiderman 2, Star Wars Episode II, Transformers, or the matrix?

(Reply to this)

Desiree writes:
on Aug 20 2008 09:45 AM

300 is not eligible for this list!!!!!
neither is Sin City!!!!

try reading the article next time.

Internet privileges revoked

(Reply to this)

insanemansam5 writes:
on Aug 20 2008 09:58 AM

In reply to this comment (#1992796)
WTF are you talking about? The only qualification was that CGI be used in making the film this is the only description of what the films are "20 visual classics - in chronological order - that wouldn't exist today were it not for the software's creation..."

Last time I checked Sin City and 300 definitely "wouldn't exist today were it not for the software's creation" or at least not in their present state.

(Reply to this)

lakechuck writes:
on Aug 20 2008 11:43 AM

300 looks like it should be eligible while Sin City does not. http://renderman.pixar.com/products/whatsrenderman/movies.html

(Reply to this)

Laughing_bun writes:
on Aug 20 2008 11:46 AM

renderman isnt the only rendering solution... stop giving pixar so much credit

(Reply to this)

lakechuck writes:
on Aug 20 2008 11:50 AM

In reply to this comment (#1993161)
Agreed, but this list is specifically for renderman.

(Reply to this)

mv1334 writes:
on Aug 20 2008 12:07 PM

Where the hell is the Spidey films? The Spider-Man vs. Doc-Ock fight on the train scene was pure CGI perfection, it's one of the best fight scene in years!!

(Reply to this)

Sputnik99 writes:
on Aug 20 2008 12:16 PM

I vote for another list.
A lot of good movies are being ignored because they didn't use "Renderman".

(Reply to this)

marvel-fan writes:
on Aug 20 2008 12:17 PM

wtf?
why is beowolf on this?
half the movie looked like something off shrek.
plus the movie was just awful.
why isnt transformers on here?

(Reply to this)

mv1334 writes:
on Aug 20 2008 12:19 PM

The Polar Express, anyone? That had some of the best CGI animation i've ever seen, not only it was mind-blowing but the movie was amazing itself! This, Spider-Man 2, Ratatouille and Transformers should be on this list.

(Reply to this)

GrogorS writes:
on Aug 20 2008 01:02 PM

I really enjoyed your list. How about Master and Commander: Far Side of the World for subtle use of CGI. Most people don't even realize there was ANY CGI.

(Reply to this)

Goldhill writes:
on Aug 20 2008 01:11 PM

In reply to this comment (#1971795)
Because this is a list of films which used Renderman technology? Tron didn't as far as I know.

Re: Lord of The Rings. As impressive as FOTR and ROTK were I think the really ground-breaking work was the rendering of Gollum in The Two Towers. That film really showed how a CGI character could be an integral part of the narrative and interact fully with human actors. It also helped erase the nasty taste left by Jar Jar Binks. For that at least we should all be thankful.

(Reply to this)

Derbeste writes:
on Aug 20 2008 01:35 PM

A quick blurb to those bitching that Advent Children looks way better than Spirits Within...

Well DUH! Advent Children came out SEVERAL years later. It had BETTER look superior.

Spirits Within, however, much a much bigger JUMP for its time than Advent Children could hope to be. It's influence on the progression of CGI detail simply cannot be ignored.

(Reply to this)

AndyB. writes:
on Aug 20 2008 01:47 PM

While I get that you don't want franchise repeats too often in this list, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End or Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest DEFINITELY deserved a spot. The creation of Davy Jones and his undead crew (along with the amazing maelstrom sequence) was incredibly groundbreaking.

(Reply to this)

wafflesdiary writes:
on Aug 20 2008 04:05 PM

how abotu sky captain and the worl of tomorrow?
its one of the best movies i've ever seen, mainly for how great it looks.

(Reply to this)

caitriona18 writes:
on Aug 20 2008 05:09 PM

Where are Davy Jones and his kraken? Seriously. TAKE OUT 'GLADIATOR'!! It doesn't belong there. How could you leave out 'Dead Man's Chest'? And even 'The Two Towers'? You should also put in 'Minority Report' and '300' too. This list needs an 'honorable mention' section or something. 'At World's End' also at least needs to be mentioned. Looking at Pixar's list there are too many films that deserve a spot that don't get one. And who cares about trying to stay away from franchises; oh, and take out 'Return of the King' too. Please replace with 'Towers'.

(Reply to this)

liacin writes:
on Aug 20 2008 06:51 PM

No Ratatouille?? That's my favorite Pixar animated film yet (as far as the animation goes, tied with Nemo), the way it's animated to look like real film and the way the interior kitchen looks so breathtaking.. how can you forget it?

(Reply to this)

gsundt writes:
on Aug 20 2008 07:05 PM

In reply to this comment (#1977379)
To Joe Utichi - Kudos to you for sticking it through and correcting all these people who are like "HEY! Where's my Blade Runner?!?!" It's amazing how many people will ***** without having any idea what they are talking about.

(Reply to this)

edwardcioffi writes:
on Aug 20 2008 08:35 PM

I agree with most of the list, but I also think they missed Transformers.
I've seen some really poor film lists before from RT. This one isn't half bad.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Positive writes:
on Aug 21 2008 02:40 AM

Not putting Ratatouille on here is an obvious gaff. As well, such a silly list, when only including Renderman produced movies. It's creating far too much confusion for those not in the know.

(Reply to this)

Joe Utichi writes:
on Aug 21 2008 04:01 AM

Well it's nice to know the list is as popular as it is controversial. Perhaps we can make amends by thinking about some CG-centric lists that don't centre on Renderman.

(Reply to this)

Joe_12345 writes:
on Aug 21 2008 09:40 AM

In reply to this comment (#1971219)
Beowulf had easily among the most stunning CGI of all time, hands down, you're in the vast minority in thinking otherwise

(Reply to this)

iankusc writes:
on Aug 21 2008 10:37 AM

Bad list. Rotten Tomatoes usually publishes better, so I won't hold it against them. I'd like to offer "The Host" up. And Beowulf is trash, except for Crispin Glover. What was Zemekis thinking when he directed a scene that was all about "What ELSE can I use to hide Ray Winstone's Frank & Beans?"

(Reply to this)

iankusc writes:
on Aug 21 2008 11:51 AM

for your consideration:

Fight Club?

Forest Gump?

True Lies?

All great uses of the software outside of the kiddie or sci-fi genres....

(Reply to this)

vallette writes:
on Aug 21 2008 12:43 PM

Uh, neither "Tron" or "The Last Star Fighter" made the list? These are true classics because they helped define the entire concept of CGI and it's integration with live action. As far as modern movies go where's "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow"? Unlike most of the movies on the list Sky Captain convincingly combined live actors and a totally virtual world. I agree with stevegilpin; put the bong down.

(Reply to this)

vallette writes:
on Aug 21 2008 12:46 PM

Ok, my I should've RTFA. I missed the RenderMan reference. But maybe you should've titled it something like "20 RenderMan Classics", CGI is a generic term.

(Reply to this)

Alexcar writes:
on Aug 21 2008 01:09 PM

Thanks for putting Sunshine. Very good choice. War of the Worlds too. Alot of people didn't like that movie but the effects were astounding.

I'm just going to come in here and agree that Transformers belongs here. Gladiator, Day After Tomorrow, and Batman Begins do not.

As for everyone saying FF12: Advent Children was better that Spirits Within, I agree, but from the look of it they didn't use Renderman for that so I guess it doesn't qualify.

(Reply to this)

chuck9630 writes:
on Aug 21 2008 01:44 PM

Where's "Sin City"?

(Reply to this)

BauerPower24 writes:
on Aug 21 2008 02:04 PM

In reply to this comment (#1970955)
That IS the ORIGINAL title of the book... it was changed from Philosopher to Sorcerer when imported to America.

(Reply to this)

Geordie writes:
on Aug 21 2008 04:56 PM

Where is transformers? And Twister?

(Reply to this)

CaptainSiberia writes:
on Aug 21 2008 07:18 PM

You skipped over Shrek. How could you skip over Shrek? A landmark for animated films! Finally, people started catching on to how an animated film could be for both kids and adults! (I wish they'd take the next step and make a movie that proves to prejudiced American audiences that an animated film can be purely for adults.) Definitely, Shrek is a major oversite. Man, when the birds put the shawl on his shoulders, and then he shrugged it off, it was beautiful!

And where's The Incredibles? Brilliant story, beautiful hair! Man, you can get lost in that hair!

Free Willy... not really a landmark so much for its visual effects, but that was just about the last time Michael Jackson did something that was popular!

The Mask might deserve a place. It effectively used 3d animation to bring the world of Tex Avery to life, and it was one of Jim Carrey's best raucous comedy vehicles ever!

Jumanji, maybe. Just maybe.

Independence Day was another bad Roland Emmerich film, but still, that space ship that blotted out the sky, man!

Antz was certainly an important film to Pixar, who aimed to up the ante on that film when they made Shrek.

Star Wars III, which is the best of the prequels with a tone alternating between good and so bad it's good, may not deserve to be seen as a milestone as much as, perhaps, Episode I. Or even the Special Editions of the original three Star Wars, which were an infamous milestone but a milestone none the less. Yeah, that should have been in there.

Too bad Tron didn't use RenderMan. Hey, what did it use?

Gladiator belongs on the list, but not for the reason you think. Gladiator belongs here for the feat of using RenderMan to finish Oliver Reed's performance after he died during production. Also, the shaky, incoherent battle scenes in Gladiator totally sucked. And Ridley Scott needs to stop shooting ******y historical epics and get back to science fiction.

You talked about Final Fantasy, but you didn't even mention how unbelievably realistic the faces were in some shots! You'd swear you were looking at real people!

Was Prisoner of Azkaban really such a landmark? I didn't see that. (Yeah, I saw the film, but I didn't see the landmark.) Same goes for Batman Begins. Really, after a certain point, regular CGI had impressed us as much as it was going to, and it was annoying to hear people rave about their CGI. So by the time we got to films like Harry Potter III and Batman Begins, it took a lot to impress us. And how often in Batman Begins did you look at something and say, "That's CGI and it's done really well"? I don't think I said that at all.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon maybe? For its flying effects that inspired a long string of unsuccessful copycats?

War of the Worlds? Really? A film so inconsequential?

Sunshine? What stays with me about that film is some beautiful potential wasted with bad direction and an extremely stupid turn into monster movie territory. Ok, yes, it had some beautiful images. But I don't think it quite made it into the landmark bin. Maybe I would put Titan A.E. there instead, for its vibrant candy colors and general purdyness.

Beowulf? Haven't seen it yet, but I still think Polar Express deserves its place.

Given the large buzz surrounding Wall-E, I'll give it the place. (Haven't seen it yet, sorry.) But no Ratatouille? Ratatouille won an Oscar for its script! It's script! How many other digitally animated films have done that? Is there even a single one?

Are we quite sure we don't want The Abyss in here? Because I think we do.

Honorable mention for Sky Captain, just because it resurrected Laurence Olivier?

Maybe something for 300, which had stupid direction, stupid video game monsters, and a stupid subplot but still had an impressive visual look?

Maybe even Happy Feet, again for beautiful visuals.

And a Golden Raspberry to the digital animation in Star Wars: The Clone Wars.

(Reply to this)

CaptainSiberia writes:
on Aug 21 2008 07:50 PM

Oh, another thing. If you look at the digital effects in Terminator 2, they're still impressive today! They're that good because James Cameron put in the effort to do them right. (He even said that when he was making The Abyss, if something somewhere didn't look right, he had a secret weapon: an artist who would fix things on the 2-D level (in Photoshop, I think.)) Then after the impressiveness of the effects in T2 and Jurassic Park, we got legions of films with terrible CGI and excuses about computers not being powerful enough to make things look more real! Hollywood loved to hype up the effects, but only the idiots (read: a whole lot of people) cared. So yes, it is right that there should be such a big gap in recognized landmarks between Jurassic Park and Titanic. But still, we came to a point where realistic CGI stopped having landmarks so much. And it's one reason why I really thing Batman Begins and Prisoner of Azkaban don't belong on the list. By the time we got to them, we'd seen it all before. In fact, I'd say that right around the first Lord of the Rings, we started to not care anymore. (I stopped caring much earlier.) And then it was only the fantastic stuff, stuff that we knew didn't really exist, that was impressive. Yes, Finding Nemo, Shrek, The Incredibles. There's still some magic there when something completely digital looks so real you'd swear you could touch it.

It seems like digital effects are starting to lose their hype value. People have to be sold on good visuals and stories rather than the mere existence of special effects. Unfortunately, purely animated films haven't quite outgrown the age of hype; or, more accurately, Hollywood hasn't outgrown the age of hyping digitally animated films. So we get crap like Space Monkeys, and the studio doesn't seem to understand that we don't care anymore. And then Fly Me to the Moon comes along and boasts that it is a "groundbreaking 3-D animated adventure." Oh, look! 3-D animation! We can do that now? Groundbreaking my ***!

(Reply to this)

miggy85 writes:
on Aug 22 2008 02:22 AM

This list had a few hits, but far too many misses. I definately agree with #'s 1 to 3. Titanic should not be ahead of the Matrix. It wasn't anywhere near as revolutionary as the Matrix CGI was. Beowulf should've been higher. It was extremely different than any other CGI movie that we've seen. Plus where's 300? That movie used CGI to create every background. It was so cost effictive that more movies are going to do it now. For that matter where is Sin City? LOTR should not have been on there twice. The Fellowship's CGI was pretty much the same as ROTK's CGI. But by far the biggest miss was Day After Tommorow. WTF? Did you guys seriously watch that movie? Those wolves where the worst CGI effects that I've ever seen. War Of The Worlds was kinda cheap too. Harry Potter was not revolutionary either.

And Of Course Transformers should've been on this damn list. But I think the CGI was so realistic that RT thought they were real robots.

Plus one last little shout out. I really liked the CGI for the reaper in The Frightenersm, and although the movie sucked Godzilla had some cool CGI too. Although I guess compared to Jurassic Park it was pretty crappy considering it was like 7 years later.

(Reply to this)

miggy85 writes:
on Aug 22 2008 02:28 AM

Oh and CaptainSiberia,

Batman Begin's CGI was good because it's so realistic that you don't realize it's there.

Plus Crouching Tiger's flying effects are not done through CGI, they are done with strings and a pulley system. The most CGI used for that is the removing of the strings so you can't see them. Hardly landmark stuff.

Oh one last thing I'd like to add to my previous post. This list was also missing The Mask. That movie had some awesome CGI in it. I think there were quite revolutionary CGI effects in that movie.

(Reply to this)

thanatopsis70 writes:
on Aug 22 2008 02:43 AM

In reply to this comment (#1970955)
RT got the name of the original novel correct. RT does say "adaptation of." The name was changed for the U.S. novel, and movie adaptation.

(Reply to this)

miggy85 writes:
on Aug 22 2008 02:45 AM

Oh and CaptainSiberia,

Antz was not made by Pixar and niether was Shrek. Plus Shrek was not the first movie that showed us that animated movies could be for adults and kids, Toy Story was. Although Shrek did push the envolope a little.

(Reply to this)

Grey Home writes:
on Aug 22 2008 10:53 AM

In reply to this comment (#1970955)
This whole feature is written in the UK, you know, where JK Rowling is from, and where the book is titled "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone."

(Reply to this)

Grey Home writes:
on Aug 22 2008 10:54 AM

In reply to this comment (#1970955)
This whole feature is written in the UK, you know, where JK Rowling is from, and where the book is titled "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone."

(Reply to this)

Grey Home writes:
on Aug 22 2008 10:56 AM

This whole feature is written in the UK, you know, where JK Rowling is from, and where the book is titled "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone."

(Reply to this)

Grey Home writes:
on Aug 22 2008 10:57 AM

In reply to this comment (#1970955)
This whole feature is written in the UK, you know, where JK Rowling is from, and where the book is titled "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone."

(Reply to this)

FutureStunner writes:
on Aug 22 2008 11:47 AM

Thats the title it was originally given. They just changed it for the American version.

(Reply to this)

FutureStunner writes:
on Aug 22 2008 11:48 AM

Actually thats the title it was originally given. They just changed it for the American version.

(Reply to this)

Dups Mckracken writes:
on Aug 22 2008 05:53 PM

In reply to this comment (#1970955)
what is wrong with the philosopher's stone? a) it wasn't in the list (it was the prioner of azkaban) b) the philopher's stone is the actual name for the sorceror's stone,which is the american name of the book/movie...

(Reply to this)

FutureStunner writes:
on Aug 22 2008 09:46 PM

In reply to this comment (#1970955)
Thats what the book is called in England

(Reply to this)

elmokajaky writes:
on Aug 23 2008 12:01 PM

This list should have begun with Tron...

(Reply to this)

TruSake5 writes:
on Aug 23 2008 04:06 PM

You should've repeated yourself less by not mentioning movies that are based on trilogies and mentioned one of the classic ones like Predator

(Reply to this)

rsk_taker writes:
on Aug 24 2008 11:14 AM

jesus christ, why the F is this on 20 separate pages,

I'm done after 6, can't take this crap.

(Reply to this)

trenen writes:
on Aug 24 2008 12:31 PM

There are grip of movies that are more deserving than some of the ones that RT placed. Surf's Up I thought had some excellent CGI usage. PotC 2/3 should be on there hands down just for the fact that the rendering of Davy Jones was so incredible that even the most trained eyes in the industry thought that it was a man in a rubber suit, not a 100% CGI rendered character!

(Reply to this)

danielfrohlich writes:
on Aug 24 2008 01:23 PM

I still don't see how batman made this list, it seemed really thrown in there (same with a few other titles). I don't care if the reason was to include a film that used CG sparingly or not, you made a list called "20 CGI Classics," how is Batman even close to a CGI classic (or even great). Superman Returns, if nothing else, should have taken its place.

(Reply to this)

Anderton2 writes:
on Aug 24 2008 04:59 PM

Two films that I most definitely think should be here ara A.I. and Minority Report. Batman Begins is a great film, but doesn't belong on this list.

(Reply to this)

Joe Utichi writes:
on Aug 25 2008 05:03 PM

miggy85: The list isn't ranked - the movies are in chronological order of release. Though it's interesting that while we were putting the list together and thinking about how we MIGHT have ranked them, T2, Jurassic Park and Toy Story would probably have taken the top three places... I wonder what that says about the technology...

(Reply to this)

misterd writes:
on Aug 25 2008 09:07 PM

If you had to pick a superhero movie, you should have taken Spider-Man 3. Say what you will about the rest of the film (and I could have a heated argument with many of you, I suspect), but the birth of Sandman is one of the most powerful effects scenes I've ever seen.

I'd also have liked to see honorable mentions to Tron, Last Starfighter, Young Sherlock Holmes and The Abyss.

(Reply to this)

afarmer writes:
on Aug 29 2008 10:06 AM

In reply to this comment (#1970955)
That's the original British title of the book/movie. It was changed to Sorcerer's Stone when HP was published in America.

(Reply to this)

Mishmerized writes:
on Sep 01 2008 08:40 PM

Well, i'd say War of The Worlds should NOT be on that list, and why did you start with T2? Im sure there was some groundbreaking CG visuals before that...Tron? Ghostbusters? Predator? (whoops, actually they all suck compared to T2, so i see why now, hehe) I thought you missed out a whole lot too, Speed Racer? And why is Wall E on that list? its no better than Toy Story! Some to consider: Jumanji, Terminator 3, The Incredible Hulk, Deep Blue Sea, The Lawnmower Man, Virtuosity?

(Reply to this)

RuinerxxSINCITY writes:
on Sep 03 2008 08:20 AM

I think RT hit the nail on the head with the majority of these films, but still some picks are questionable. Mainly because they used minor amounts of CGI compared to several other films in existence. However, I can't deny this article has me agreeing much more then most of there other lists. Atleast they picked the right movies for the wrong reason instead of vice- versa as usual. Foe example, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone was a great film, and fantastic debut for the franchise. Still I don't think the minimal(compared to later films in the series) CGI used in it qualifies the movie for this list, but that is just my opinion.

(Reply to this)

zetabosio writes:
on Nov 07 2008 05:57 PM

I'm very happy with some of your suggestions. HP3 for me it's the best example when I want to explain how CGI should be used in a movie, which in a word is balanced. I'm also happy with you mentioning Sunshine and Final Fantasy. Just as Couch, I think The Abyss is the biggest miss of all, even though the movie doesn't match your criteria. Another big miss is Children Of Men, even though CGI was less used, it really pushes your brain as to when exactly use it, as opposed to George Lucas who thinks that it should be used at all times during the film. I even think that Jumanji has a bigger impact that any of the prequels of Star Wars. I don't agree with Batman Begins, it's just less average than a Spiderman movie. And since I didn't see Beowulf in 3D or IMAX (just the regular version), I don't entirely agree with its selection. I would of loved seeing The Incredibles in the list, since its action-sequences probably top any LOTR or Star Wars movie. And maybe The Minority Report.

(Reply to this)

zetabosio writes:
on Nov 07 2008 06:01 PM

In reply to this comment (#2013754)
It's a recount only from 20 years to this day. That's many movies from the 70s and 80s are not included. And the list is not about which sci-fi film is better, but about the use of CGI in a movie.

(Reply to this)

zetabosio writes:
on Nov 07 2008 06:06 PM

In reply to this comment (#1997020)
The list is in chronological order.

(Reply to this)

Tmurph824 writes:
on Dec 14 2008 09:32 PM

In reply to this comment (#1971509)
You are amazingly stupid.

(Reply to this)

peter v. writes:
on Apr 03 2009 04:17 AM

I'm glad you put Jurassic Park so high and also put in War of the Worlds. The only bad thing about WotW was the Alien probe. It looked quite horrible.

(Reply to this)

Rivera C. writes:
on Aug 22 2009 06:51 PM

In reply to this comment (#1992333)
You have got to be kidding. You're about the only person on this planet who thinks that King Kong (the actual ape, not the dinos) looks "absolute rubbish".

(Reply to this)

Related Links

WALL-E

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links