8 Movie Special Effects You Won't Believe Aren't CGI

The year was 1992, and digital effects were on the rise, with Jurassic Park and the aforementioned Terminator 2 changing the game forever. Francis Ford Coppola was in the process of making the gothic masterpiece Bram Stoker's Dracula while Keanu Reeves was simultaneously working on ruining the very same masterpiece.

Come on, act! At least move an eyebrow!
The big-budget project was to have a stylized, surreal look in every frame. The studio, going through a CG craze, dropped its top visual effects artists in the director's lap so they could paint everything in pixels and Phantom Menace that shit.
In response, Coppola fired every one of them and replaced them with his 29-year-old son, Roman. The result is a movie with effects that were 100 percent done "in camera." That is, what you see is what they shot. It doesn't sound that impressive at first, but then you start looking at the kind of shots they needed to get. What on the page was to be as simple as Reeves taking a train ride, wound up looking like this in the movie:

That's a shot out the window of the train where we see Gary Oldman's stare, hovering in the clouds for some reason. To get that, they actually filmed a model landscape moving with the eyes projected on it, then projected the whole thing in back of Reeves sitting in the train. It's a projection of a projection on a projection. And that was a piece of cake compared with this:

Normally, this book-train montage shot would be a cinch: You shoot your train, shoot your book and put it all together in the computer.
Fuck that! To get that shot, they actually built a model train and a gigantic book. Then they filmed it. What you see is what was actually there.

For those who haven't seen this film, all you need to know is that a large portion of it takes place inside Jim Carrey's deteriorating psyche as he is reliving old memories that are being simultaneously erased. The result is that as he goes through his own degrading memories, they skip around like a scratched CD, creating an extremely disjointed and surreal world where characters and settings rapidly pop in and out with no rhyme or reason.

In some ways, its the most accurate portrayal of therapy we've ever seen.
For example, at one point Carrey's character, Joel, is having a fight with his girlfriend (Kate Winslet), who walks angrily into the bathroom only to completely disappear and transport into the kitchen, then transport to the front door before leaving -- all within the same shot.
Later, Joel walks in on ... himself, talking with the doctor who is later responsible for the memory wipe.

In a blink, the shot then turns from Joel to the doctor ...

... and then to another Joel, the Joel who is in the memory itself.

This keeps happening, back and forth, as the scene unfolds.
Once more, this doesn't seem like a big deal if you can just make a real Jim Carrey interact with a CGI Jim Carrey. This method is probably how the shots would have been done for this scene if Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind had been directed by someone less insane than Michel Gondry.
Instead, Gondry relied on his theater background and insisted on pulling off the illusion using a technique known as "making his actors run and change costume really, really fast."

Above: Michel Gondry, quirking out with Jim Carrey.
No, really. For that scene where Kate Winslet seems to inexplicably appear in two separate rooms, they put a trap door in the bathroom and had her book it over to the kitchen before the camera got there -- then used a double as she left through the door.
The double Jim Carrey shot was actually much more excruciating. To create two Joels, Carrey would change his wardrobe and demeanor whenever the camera panned away from him and run to the other side of the set to play the other part as quickly as possible. It took so many takes to accomplish that Gondry and Carrey actually had an on-set argument about it because the actor didn't think it could be physically done. The strange thing is, we're pretty sure we still agree with Carrey there.

Making an actor fly or float or do Matrix-style kung fu is the oldest Hollywood trick in the book. Step 1, hang the actor from cables. Step 2, remove the cables from the finished shot, which these days can be done digitally.
So when they needed the actors to float around in the zero gravity of space in Apollo 13, it seemed pretty simple. Either do the wire trick, or hell, just composite in the actors with CGI entirely.

But NASA stepped in and said, "Look, we put dudes on the moon. Did you read about that? We can do anything. And what you need is to just get rid of this whole gravity thing."
Enter a special craft they affectionately call "The Vomit Comet." It's NASA's own KC-135 airplane designed to do one thing and one thing alone: Create a zero-G environment right here on Earth.
To accomplish this, the plane does a series of parabolic arcs, which is a fancy way of saying that it goes up and down really fast.

This action causes a brief window of complete weightlessness for anybody lucky enough to be on board. It's used as a training program for astronauts, but for Apollo 13, it was turned into the soundstage.
It took a mind-numbing 600 or so arcs to complete all the shooting. So when you watch that film again, concentrate on the faces of the actors during those shots of weightlessness and note that their looks of pants-shitting excitement are completely genuine.

Just another shot of Bill Paxton not acting.
But before you go envying them too much, remember the plane's "Vomit Comet" nickname. Look at the high-speed dives and climbs of the aircraft and imagine you're inside it, and three or four burritos are inside you. It ain't pretty.

You're probably wondering how anything from a film made in 1981 could possibly be confused as CGI. Well, they did have computer-generated images back then; they just looked terrible. Like this shot, which is supposed to be from Snake's glider's computer as he is descending on the futuristic apocalyptic cityscape that is 1997 New York City:

See? 80s graphics, man.
Believe it or not, what you see there was extremely cutting-edge for the time. In fact, it was so cutting-edge that it was completely out of the question given the film's budget. But John Carpenter wanted this high-tech graphic to appear in the film -- after all, it's supposed to be 1997! So they had to find a way to do that shot of computer graphics without using computer graphics.

For the sequel, they had to find a way to do the whole film without using a plot.
So they grabbed their model of New York, which had been used for various other shots, and bought a roll of green tape and a black light. That's it -- this cutting-edge effect was done with five bucks and a trip to the hardware store.

Also, we think there was a tiny guy with a tiny roll of tape inside every Virtual Boy.
David Bell is a freelance writer and video editor. You can read some of his work here.
The secrets don't stop here, learn more in the brand new Cracked.com book! And once you get that book, make sure you take a picture of yourself with it, then upload it to our Facebook fan page for a chance to win $250!
For more on special effects, check out The 5 Miserable VFX Jobs That Make Movies Possible and 6 Hilarious Special Effects From Turkish Cinema.
And stop by Linkstorm because it will help you forget that today is Monday.
And don't forget to follow us on Facebook and Twitter to get sexy, sexy jokes sent straight to your news feed.
Do you have an idea in mind that would make a great article? Then sign up for our writers workshop! Do you possess expert skills in image creation and manipulation? Mediocre? Even rudimentary? Are you frightened by MS Paint and simply have a funny idea? You can create an infograpic and you could be on the front page of Cracked.com tomorrow!








Ooooh, love Escape From New York!!!
Replyi wont regret this but can someone do avatar without CGI? it would be exciting as balls
ReplyIt's called Ferngully.
I think you mean Dances With Wolves. IN SPACE.
It still never ceases to amaze me the kind of things that go into making a big movie.
ReplyThe unfortunate thing is that I DID actually think about the "they're not three feet tall" fact of Lord of the Rings: when they're boarding the ship to take them to the Elves' "afterlife," around the end of the last film, their Bilbo is played by a little person. But when walking up the gangplank, he bobs his head from side to side, and does other movements that make it clear that it's not Ian Holm. Also, I think the wig doesn't match. It was a moment like when Captain Kirk used to have unconvincing stunt doubles with different hair in the old Star Treks.
ReplyIt is a shame, because yes, I DIDN'T have any idea about the techniques mentioned in the article above, and yes, they're very impressive!
Most of this stil pales in comparison with Zeman's trick work in front of the camera. Man, the guy was a genious
Replyyou know that the whole crappy CGI is gonna get worse.so trying to complain about it when no one important enough is going to listen is just a waste of precious time.
ReplyCougarchats,C0M is a popular cougar dating site that makes your online dating journey fun and exciting. The cougars and young men at Cougarchats,C0M are seeking for friendship, dates, romance and even marriage
Replylooking for dates, figs, and chestnuts? Whoa
Not to mention, the "birth of the universe" sequences in Tree of Life.
ReplyWhat about the finale in Road Warrior? Absolutely amazing.
ReplyThis is so cool and I find that those movie makers who didn't rely on CGI and put real efforts to make it real, usually ended up making a better movie..
ReplyMost of the old scifi movies like terminator 1-2 still look more believable than most modern scifi movies like transformer
The Transformer movies makes you feel like you're about to have an epileptic seizure while watching them.
This is f*****g amazing... just blew my mind!
ReplyI adore Bram Stoker's Dracula!
ReplyI want to be a CGIist as a career, I've applied for a Special Effects course next year. But personally...I HATE unnecessary CG. If it can be done practically and affordably..then it should be done that way. I'm sick of seeing poor computer animation is so many films these days, props to these guys mentioned above.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesI do work in visual effects for a living and I feel the same.
The Mist comes to mind. I loved the movie and all, but the CGI in it was horrendous. It was like watching Jumanji
Bless you sir. When it's good, it is very very good; but when it is bad, it is like Troy (I think it was), where the CGI armies, meant to impress, instead just look like milling ants and impart an air of complete boredom to the battle scene.
Walking with dinosaurs - mostly puppets, most realistic dinosaurs on TV. Nuff said.
ReplyOh please, they OBVIOUSLY got the budget for a Flux Capacitor.
When will hollywood learn that SO many effects can be done practically and don't HAVE to be done on the computer?? I still go back to the first Alien. Practical effects everywhere: looked amazing.
ReplyAnd pants shittingly terrifying.
"a bloat of fanboys". Like it. :)
ReplyIn The Fellowship of the Ring, there is one scene where the forced perspective w/ moving camera technique actually screws up: when Gandalf and Frodo are in Bag End's kitchen discussing The One Ring after they finally identify it for what it is. The half of the table where Ian McKellen is sitting must've run over something on the floor, because for the briefest second, everything on that half of the table quivers just enough to be noticeable.
ReplyShit, I thought that was there a-purpose, to show the power of the Ring, or some such. Let's all get high 'n' watch the extended edition, with commentary on.
How about Inception's folding buildings? Not CGI either! Nolan is the man!
ReplyIn the first Harrry Potter the candles that were in the Great Hall; real candles, hanging on strings with actual fire. :) I love it when movies don't use cgi, the outcome is often more interesting and real looking
Reply Hide All See All 5 RepliesNot sure if joking or just retarded.
i vote retarded.
Please explain how one hangs a lit candle on a flammable string?
by using 2 or more strings at angles rather than one from straight above.
Fishing wire isn't flammable. Floatinggirl is correct - it's mentioned in the making of portion on the DvD.
In the Parent Trap I think it's a all Lindsay Lohan. It doesn't credit anybody else and most of the shots can be done with one actor and someone who has ginger hair.
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesThe original, not the Lindsey Lohan Parent Trap, used twins fooool!
Yeah...the original was Hayley Mills and only Hayley Mills. There was no twin and that was back in the 60s, "fooool".
Oh yeah? How 'bout the one with the Olsen twins? HAHA! Got ya!
Is there an Olsen twins Parent Trap?