Filmstalker: Cloverfield photo shows more bad CGI

This is the second shot of Cloverfield I've seen that shows some really bad CGI, I'm hoping that the money for the good computer generated effects has been spent on the big shots we really see and these bad CGI shots are all part of TV footage or shaky cam moments.

Amongst all the Cloverfield hype that is doing to so well to raise the film's profile, there are a couple of really dubious shots.

First was the video of the collapsing oil platform, and now there's this photo of a stricken tanker that seems to be collapsing in on itself.

The first video clip can still be seen on Filmstalker, and this latest photo can be seen over on HorrorMovies.ca.

I think it's fair to say that the other footage we've seen of the Cloverfield effects to date have been looking really good – the bridge collapsing, the attack on what could be the monster, the explosion and the flying Statue of Liberty head, it all looks really good.

I guess what we're looking at is just bad CGI on some second unit shots.

Add a comment

Track comments made to this post with co.mments

Your Name:

Your Email:

Your URL:

Remember my details?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

Site Navigation

Promotion

Comments

That picture really is quite awful. It looks more oil-painting than photo-realistic CGI. Fingers crossed there aren't too many poor effects like this, but coupled with the oil rig footage I'm having my doubts.

Is it a sudden new trend for "big blockbuster movies" to have weak CGI?

Posted by: James (The Artist Formally Known As Spidey1703) | January 16, 2008 12:39 AM

Argh... some people just don't get it. This picture and the video you mentioned have NOTHING to with the movie. They are part of the viral campaign. The viral campaign is being done by an advertising agency on a very low budget and is not being handled by a profession visual effects studio like the movie.

Posted by: Kyle | January 16, 2008 7:59 AM

Let me throw that back to you "Argh... some people just don't get it"

I'd be having words with the advertising agency.

This is the audience view of the film, it doesn't come with a warning saying "please bear in mind this might look rubbish but the rest of the film won't", or "this isn't actually from the film, but we'll use it to sell it to you anyway".

Would you advertise champagne by giving people free tastings of cava? Gucci products with the cheap knock off's from some dodgy market?

No, this is the point at which the customer sees the product that they are potentially buying. They are seeing a sample of the actual product that they will invest time and money in, so offering them a half hearted attempt isn't the best marketing plan.

Posted by: Richard Brunton | January 16, 2008 8:28 AM

Does CGI not look better in moving imagery anyway? Perhaps it may only be a fraction of a second in the movie and they didn't need to spend wads of cash on it (investing in the monster instead). Still, perhaps not the best way to market the film -although it got a filmstalker story and some folk talking about it!

Posted by: Dave Morrow | January 16, 2008 11:52 AM

My mother always told me to put my best foot forward - I imagined this would also be the case for studio execs.

WB even put out the BEST of I Am Legend's CGI in the trailers.

Posted by: James (The Artist Formally Known As Spidey1703) | January 16, 2008 7:54 PM

Well I have just come home from watching Cloverfield and I can assure you there is no bad CGI and its a bloody awesome movie!

Posted by: Firebug Productions | January 17, 2008 7:52 AM