The "hell" scenes are all a complete and utter joke. It looks like a Nintendo 64 video game.
And don't give me the time excuse, this came out the same year as "The Lost World: Jurassic Park.'
[deleted]
The way I hear it we weren't intended to see Hell at all initially, we'd have the Violator and then Jessica Priest as some kind of half-Spawn.
But that's just me.
Not just the hell scenes, but the effects on his cape were still pretty distracting.
The effects on the Violator did look pretty good, though.
Legitimately some of the worst CGI I've ever seen. They didn't even use anti-aliasing!
EVIL PINEAPPLES
Courage is being scared to death and saddling up anyway.
The CGI looks like it was from a "Asylum" produced film
"Look at banner Michael!" - GOB
This whole thread reeks of "I have no idea what I'm talking about"
Mal looked bad, the hell scenes were pretty bad but consider the budget and the year. If you can find a better example around that era that used CGI as often and had the SAME budget then go ahead, otherwise shut your mouth and go back to whatever hole you came from.
I pretty much agree with metallica1417.... I thought the cape effects were rather good and the costume effects still blow away some of today's lower budget CGI.. That being said, yes, Hell was weak but think of the enormity of that entire CGI mission at that time as well as the issue of budget. Over all there are many more movies to rank on for bad effects before this one....
Come now, my friend.
I think you and I have embarked on a pointless mission. The internet masses love to be incorrect yet spout their views as fact.
The effects were horrendous. If the studio couldn't afford to finance the whole hell sequence, they shouldn't have bothered. It ruins the film entirely. It seems that the entire budget was already spent on Spawn's suit, cape and other features plus the effects for Violator. The rest was an after thought and oh how it shows. Less is more, as they say. We didn't need to see a CGI Hell in order to understand the 'plot'. Malebolgia is thee worst movie creature ever to grace the silver screen. How anyone can defend it is beyond me.
"Just because you break into people's homes doesn't mean you need to look like a fu**ing burglar!"
Totally agree. I love this movie, the costume, cape, and Violator was straight from the comic book. A lot of people like to bash the CGI but forget about the budget and more importantly the year it was made. In my opinion I fell this movie was a bit before its time, cause I have no doubt that if this had been made now during this current comic book movie craze with the same high budgets that most of the other movies have been given and updated CGI this would've be a box office smash.
A boat that floats on water can also sink in it.share
if spawn had come out now, with the same script it used- the script that sounds like it was suited for a cheesy saturday morning cartoon- then, no, it would have still been terrible.
and if you don't have the budget for good cgi, then GET CREATIVE. it's what good film makers do.
the spawn animated series on HBO avoided showing hell and malebolgia- and it was all the better for it. the movie should have done the same.
spawn should have had a real cape. use large stunt capes in certain scenes if you have to, but the cgi cape was lousy. looking like the comic is only worthwhile if it doesn't look terrible.
violator was ok. at least they got creative there and used a puppet for certain shots. if they hadn't blown there budget on other things they could have polished the cgi on violator to make something truly memorable, despite the juvenile script.
I forgot about the script, cause it was another thing I didn't have any real gripes about it, but I don't doubt that the script would've been another thing to benefit from being made around time of this current comic book craze. Cause they are taking comic book movies a lot more serious now compared to when Spawn came out, now that Hollywood sees how much money can be made with them.
The Spawn movie was an origin movie so they had to show hell, maybe not Malebolgia but definitely hell.
I'll admit that the cape wasn't as great as it could be, but I don't think it was as bad as you and others make it out to be when you take everything in to consideration.
I was under the impression that the Violator was one of the things they spent the most money on.
A boat that floats on water can also sink in it.share
I saw Spawn recently on Encore. Yeah, the CGI when they go to hell is very weak. Some of the stuff with the armor and clown didn't look bad. Considering the budget plus it being made in 95-96, released in 97, it was probably the best they could do. Overall I would rate it as a 7/10. 5/10 is a little harsh.
mrjerkay.blogspot.com/
A lot of people like to bash the CGI but forget about the budget and more importantly the year it was made
Mimic
An American Werewolf in Paris
Darkman
All made in the same year or a lot earlier (1990 for Darkman) all with budgets equal or lesser than Spawn. All with better effects, acting & directing. Spawn wasn't really a low budget film. It was just made to look like one. Heck, Blade was made for a few million more!
You can't use Darkman as an example because the effects they went for were far simpler and easier to use practical effects rather than CGI, so not even in the same category.
Mimic used way less CGI hence they could spend more on those particular scenes and same goes for Werewolf in Paris.
Your move.
District 9 was produced for $30 million and has the bet CGI ever, tied with some other films. Spawn was produced for $10 million more and looked like *beep* compared to it's contemporaries.
share
District 9 is a 2009 movie. Like some of the above posters say, this movie was made in the 90's when all sorts of CGI resources was limited. Think internet... most connections were dial up if you are old enough to understand what they are.
"Seth Brundle: I've come here to say one magic word to you. Cheeseburger. "
Like I said, it's CGI was crap compared to it's contemporaries. D9 looked amazing for the time despite a small budget, even smaller than Spawn's. That's no excuse. Read please.
shareI agree on most of your points but if I laughed out loud at Mal in 1997 (not just nowadays), it's bad.
share[deleted]
I put this over Green Lantern, because Green Lantern had effects so bad that they couldn't even do a realistic building and its surrounding landscape right. I mean, buildings are real. Just film a building and it's landscape. No need for CGI. Plus, this was 1997. So...
share