Pretty amazing? More like mind blowing. I honestly think it still works, particularly if you think of it as a just what is - a simulation. There's a number of modern games that go for this very aesthetic - flat shaded polygons.
I am honestly a bit annoyed that they crapped on this CGI sequence without even mentioning it’s one of the first ever CGI scenes in movies and it’s the first thing produced by PIXAR.
The genesis wave effect was actually a simulation within the movie. It could be argued that the poor effect was due to the limitations of the computer being used to display the simulation. That's how I perceived it when I watch the movie
DT's Digital Den oh yeah it looks like a futuristic PowerPoint, which works for me in the scene and doesn’t break immersion (like the macrovirus for example)
@@dtsdigitalden5023 Yea, it does. It's a simulation for presentation purposes. It isn't SUPPOSED to look real. Dr. Marcus had more important things to do than concern herself with the special effects of her presentation.
The Genesis Wave was cutting edge back in its day. It’s widely heralded as the first completely CGI sequence in a film, and was created using fractal geometry. If you’re gonna do top 10 lists like this you need to weight them in terms of the technology that’s available at the time. It’s an absolute travesty for that scene to be on this list. Shame on you Trek Culture. You’ve failed the Kobayashi Maru
That "Genesis" effect was quite good for an 80's movie of any kind. You can't compare the tech from then to now. Its like comparing the practical effects from TOS to even TNG to present the props/effects.
I absolutely agree. The Genesis was sequence was amazing graphics for its day. Also, I don't think that sequence was meant to depict live action but was showing a "simulation" of the genesis wave. Putting this fact into context I would say this scene still holds up. Don't mess with Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. Lol
Absolutely. Not only was the Genesis Effect the first completely CGI sequence, and the first fractal-generated landscape in film history; but the ILM group that did this was spun-off to form Pixar just a few years later.
The way they make the holograms hides the flaws. They don't give them a lot of long, freeflowing hair, because that would give them away. Even the Minuette hologram that has long hair, but it doesn't move.
You can not judge special effects that were revolutionary for being literally among the first of their kind FORTY YEARS AGO against what is currently possible. It may not seem like a big deal now due to decades of technological advancement, but The Genesis Wave was genuinely impressive to audiences in 1982. Special effects are bad when the filmmakers don't have the right combination of time, money, resources, skill, or talent necessary to pull them off. Calling effects that were good for their time "bad" because they can't measure up to today is just shallow.
@@MeWrecks He apologized for throwing shade at a great movie while insisting the Genesis effect was bad. I just think that there's a difference between what is bad, and what was great for it's time but dated.
@@DanceMonkeychg That effect was state of the art for its time, employing fractal landscape generations and particle systems - I agree its more a case of being dated than bad.
Engage Nerd Rage: ST:V had poor quality visual effects -- but they were NOT "CGI". Most were practical effects. ST:II Genesis Effect was groundbreaking using new techniques and it was NOT intended to be realistic visual -- it was intended to be an illustration.
Wasn't the Genesis Wave an animation as part of a presentation Kirk was watching? (A presentation that even said they've not yet done it on a planet?) That's like holding up the Death Star attack briefing in Star Wars with its stick animations as an example of terrible CGI
Yes, it was an animated presentation to Starfleet for the purpose of garnering support and funding. We all knew this was exactly what we were looking at while viewing it in the theater. Yep, I'm that old...
@@KHR0M3K0R4N It was also implied that the simulation was holographic, and in-canon the holographic technology of 2285 was about as primitive as the CGI technology of 1982.
They were a type of demo reel of what it "COULD" do. It was a promotional film to sell their product. I have worked with companies that have created the same. It is ridiculous that they attack this classic, beyond the possibility that they want a back lash or simply hire lazy writers. Top 10 lists are only good when there is available surveys made.. And these folks don't have that information because they make up the data.
I had to pause the video, sit back, and take a very deep breath at that. Something I admittedly had to do a few times, less intensely, earlier in the film, but wow, that moment...
Consider me triggered about the Genesis wave effect in TWOK and TVH. For one, it was one of the very first cgi shots in a movie ever. Second. Remember what we are seeing here. We aren’t seeing the actual genesis wave destroying an actual planet. We are watching a simulation of the genesis effect. In essence a power point presentation. And in that context it looks perfect.
@@SC-mq1eh IT WASN'T SUPPOSED TO HOLD UP!!! omfg... you're missing the point to just be a troll... what you're constantly saying is like saying "well the rick and morty storyboards weren't as good as the actual show" the genesis simulation was that.. A SIMULATION quick PoC simulations done today arn't photorealistic either. its why you rarely get to see a show pilot on television.. because when you're doing something just to show an example you arn't going for the best in universe the genesis simulation was exactly as it would be today.. it's like "oh well minecraft is horrible because of how great no mans sky is compared to it" leaving out that minecraft is mostly just a PoC and has never actually been a "final product"
The mountains in the Genesis wave scene was the first time people could create realistic mountains from CGI. It took a new fractal equation to be able to do it.
Given that the Genesis Wave was a) an animation to demonstrate how the device worked and b) dated from the dawn of CG as a means of creating special effects, it gets a pass. Poor choice to put this in the countdown.
The CGI baby from the remastered TNG episode “Galaxy’s Child” is the worst CGI I’ve ever seen on Star Trek, it’s far worse than the original episode’s CGI.
Oh man, if you want to ever see a Heartbreaking CGI remastering, get ahold of (no really don't) the newer BluRay version of "From the Earth to the Moon". The CGI space Flight in the original miniseries was stunning. But it was 720P. They farmed out the redo to some cheap outfit and it now looks like Bad Video Game cutscenes.
Here's the question: who cares? Yeah, old CGI is bad, what do you expect? Plus, most of this is made for television with very little budget in the 90s and early 2000s. Don't blame people with ambition and the lack of the means to achieve them. If it weren't for these early pioneers in CGI, then we wouldn't have the technical achievements that can made today. If it bothers you that much, then blame the era and people with imagination.
I do think a lot of CGI in the 2000s was unnecessary in the sense that they could have done things differently or with practical effects that would make the scenes 1000x better visually. CGI was just not at the stage yet where it could be used reliably, especially with real actors. It was largely a misplaced hypetrain that unfortunately didn't pan out in a lot of scenarios, and I'm not limiting this only to ST, plenty of shows and movies were guilty of this. Hell, even The Thing that came out in 2011 would have done better with practical effects which they were originally planning on doing. Its a matter of not properly knowing the limitations of what they can realistically accomplish and being a bit too overconfident.
@@Destin5258: I read somewhere that in The Thing, much of it was done with stop-motion animation, as used by the animator of the original King Kong and Earth versus the Flying Saucers, along with many sci-fi/monster movies (Harryhousen, iirc)
@@jacklow9611 In the first one, yeah thats absolutely true. They used a lot of stop motion with practical effects. They were going to do the same with the sequel, in fact they DID do the same thing for the sequel; but then the studio executives said they wanted it done with CGI after they had already created and shot the scenes with the practical effects, so they just overlayed it with CGI which ended up making it look even worse.
The Star Trek II Genesis part? Are you stupid? The company that produced that produced something very groundbreaking for its day and would _later be known as Pixar!!!_ Judge that sequence for the eyes of its day! For its day, it was incredible! To truly judge CGI, it has to look bad even for the age it was created in. You cannot fault CGI that was excellent for the period in the past it was produced, if you look at it through modern eyes. Modern eyes can only say that "it hasn't aged well."
Um, actually, putting the Genesis demonstration here does make you a bit of an @$$. Sure, by today's standards, it's awful. But back when Star Trek II first came out? Literally nothing could look better.
OK this is the problem with younger reviewers. To give yourself any validation when reviewing something nearly 40 years old you need to view it from the standpoint of when it was made. Not compare it to today's standards. That's like taking Jaws and saying "Jaws?.. It was OK, but the Meg, now that's a shark!" When star trek 2 was released that was cutting edge. View it as that.
@@SC-mq1eh I didn't mean it's the best. I'm saying it was the best when it was released. Review it as it was meant to be watched. If you watch superman the movie you wouldn't review the effects as terrible effects as at the time they were cutting edge. Do they look silly today? Of course, but this why this doesn't fit in this list. The enterprise and voyager cg are fine to include as those specific episodes and bad CGI stand out among other episodes of great CG.
@@andrewblake2297 i mean i think its been acknowledged the genesis sequence was cutting edge - and the SWs prequels cgi were too - just too far ahead of their time
This. And the Voyager stuff was nearly 25 years ago, on a weekly tv show budget. I mean, think about that. In 1995 when Voyager started, Windows 95 just came out, most people were using 486 PC's running around 50-60 MHz (That's MEGAhertz, not Giga, kids) with 4 MB of RAM. I'm sure the people making stuff for Voyager had top-of-the-line rigs, so probably Pentium Pros, with 8-16 MB RAM running around 300 MHz. And they didn't have graphics cards with these amazing 3D-rendering GPUs back then, most of the work was done by the CPU. You could have a whole room filled with these, and their combined power would be less than the phone you now have in your hand. They might have have had a few Silicon Graphics workstations, those were the top of the line, used for feature films, like $30-40k each. Those would have had a lot more RAM (probably 128-256 MB), but still only a 200-400 MHz processor. As bad as the Voyager CGI might look today, it was very impressive for the time. Also, people were watching these on old analog SD televisions, and the quality of those screens would have greatly masked those low-res textures they're using.
That Genesis effect was from "thirty-eight" years ago so it was jaw dropping at the time. Nothing will make you look more disrespectful than mocking effects that were so impressive at the time that most fans still love them to this day.
I think also it is kind of unforgivable from him to bring up today's standards to effects from an era where CGI was nothing but brand new and experimental. Of course it is bad compared to what is possible today. But for that time it was marvelous. And honestly what do we expect from a presentation and that is what the genesis wave was. Doesn't have to be realistic as long as you understand the technological aspects behind it and I think they got it. Sorry for that long text just wanted to say a lot
You're comparing today's CGI with 40 years ago. When it came out, that was the most detailed, stunning CGI effect ever seen and helped prove CGI was a valid option to traditional special effects. Why don't you compare the look of PONG while you're at it.
recently I was watching the Wrath of Khan with my son who remarked about how bad the CGI was. Only he was talking about the starships so I had to explain to him that they weren't CGI, which didn't seem to compute for him. He was thrown by the idea that they could do effects without a computer...
Almost every one of these, with a few exceptions looked good at the time. Yeah they don’t look as good as cgi today but most were leaps ahead of what other shows were doing at the time.
The Gorn Captain from arena got away with out drawing any blood. Just drop the temperature in a Star ship an the Gorn will fall asleep. Heat it up and he will wake up.
Hey, in the 1960’s the Gorn had me riveted to my seat! It’s all perspective of what was possible at the time, I still like the TOS Gorn episode to this day
@@theAverageJoe25 ha, had to google transdoshan but your right they are similar. I was lucky enough to meet the old guy who was the stunt man in the gorn costume in the original TOS episode, quite the character and very outspoken he was more proud of his stuntman work on Gunsmoke but as he spoke I was thinking nobody wants autographed photos of you on the Gunsmoke set, all these people are here almost 50 years later because of your one appearance on TOS
Already dislike this new host on his feedback of genesis wave alone and switched off. Its was the first cgi clip ever used but its in a recording presentation, not a special effect. Show this newbies the door!
I was going to speak out about Marcus trashing the Genesis wave effect from WoK but i see that other commenters have already beat me to it. I'll just say that in 1982 when I first saw it, it looked amazing on that theater screen.
You mean most stories that people don't even remember because they were actually rather pedestrian and mediocre most of the time? Do people not realize that best stories list has always been the same couple of episodes? Star Trek hits great highs that are indeed incredibly memorable, but a large portion of the franchise is largely forgettable and repetitive. It's only the great episodes that people remember and talk about. So really, they had some good stories, the really memorable ones, but plenty of it is just meh
Best TV Star Trek CGI 1. Voyager Landing 2. the ruins of the Vaudwar Planet on Voyager 3. the epic dominion battles in DS9 4. Species 742 was good in Voyager 5. Voyagers the Aquatic Planet, all of that episode actually was awesome 6. Voth Ship interior in VOY ep "Distant Origin" 7. Voyager Crashing in "Timeless" 8. Enterprise , scene with invisible mines 9. TNG Sun flyovers 10. Crystalline Entity in TNGs "Datalore" 11. The Shrunken Runabout in DS9 12. the Klingon Religious ship from Discovery. 13. DS9's later Rendering of the Badlands in season 6 or 7
Critical observations from your video: 1. The CGI sequence from Wrath of Khan was the first full CGI sequence in a major motion picture. Saying that it is bad is like saying the first time you walk was bad. Of course it is bad, it’s the first time it’s done. It is unfair to compare that sequence to today’s standards. What do you expect from computers in 1982? 2. There was no Computer Generated Imagery in Star Trek V. They used primarily rear projection, who was cheaper and less effective than blue screen compositing that ILM used in Star Wars in the 70/80s and in the previous Star Trek films. Neither techniques use CGI. The “god” effects scene in the finished film used a device called a beam splitter. Any effect Shatner insisted on with the rockmen most likely would not have used CGI, which at the time CGI was expense and Star Trek V had budget issues. 3. I agree that the CGI you talk about in Voyager is not the best from the show, but you talk about it as if the animators had the rendering and processing capabilities we have today. Granted, they tried something beyond the capability of the 1990s, but in that decade the CGI of those episodes would be average, not terrible. Talking about it as if it is the worst CGI is like saying we should criticize people in the Middle Ages for not understanding orbital flight mechanics. They hadn’t figured it out yet. The other thing you should consider about the effects of Voyager was that the TVs of the 90s were not the 4K HD TVs of today. So, CGI animators did not have to render the effects at the same level of detail that we need today because the Standard Definition televisions would have covered up the issues. So, it's easy to criticize it now when we have better displays. 4. If you truly want to talk about these sequences as being the worst CGI, at least try harder to put it in the context of the time period these sequences were created. It is easy to criticize animators of the past when you do not consider limitations in technology and the time it takes to make CGI sequences. Computers of the 80s, 90s, 2000s, and 2010s are insanely different from decade to decade. Comparing them is like comparing apples to oranges to prunes to pineapples. When you state that “studios should learn to put proper budget into CGI” you are not taking into account that budget is not the only limitation faced by Star Trek creators in previous decades. There were moments where you tried to put the cgi in perspective the decade (like how you said the monster in Voyager was lower quality than effects we had already seen in the show to date) but then you return to comparing it to today’s standards. 5. Or, just start the video by saying "we are going to unfairly compare all Star Trek CGI to today's standards... as a joke... for fun... just because." That's totally fine. Not everything in this video has these critical issues, but it appears there could have been a little more care to provide context to the Star Trek CGI discussion. Hopefully this will improve as the TrekCulture channel continues to grow.
The Genesis Wave scene was one of the 1st CGI moments in film ever. For the time it was truly groundbreaking and amazing. Just because it’s old isn’t a reason to say it’s bad. Time is never kind to CGI. The creators knew it wasn’t realistic and that’s why it was a simulation in universe. Was there CGI in the Final Frontier? Can it even be included just for it’s effects?
One thing to remember, in the days of The Wrath of Kahn, we didn't have these fancy flat-screen TV's with 4K capability. We had those old CRT TV's. So quality wasn't as good then and was hard to see then. The movie wasn't originally made for our fancy TV's of today.
Hey. Maybe you can help me. I'm trying to remember the name of a movie, and I saw your reference to The Last Starfighter. The plot is that earth is involved in an war with insectiod aliens (if memory serves). The story follows one character, a teen boy, through military training. Hes found to be some kind of prodigy, able to see patterns in what looks like the randomized swarms used by the aliens to attack. He realised, watching footage, that they tend to swarm around a control ship. This brings the attention of some upper military officials, and the boy meets a hero of the humans with the same abilities (spoiler alert) who was supposedly killed in an attack by the aliens. The movie climaxes (spoiler alert again) with a training program, where the main character wins the day, protecting the Giant Human Weapon Ship that will end life on the alien planet. I remember he sacrificed troop transports, meant to land on the surface for a land battle, to keep a shield of AI fighters around Giant Human Weapon Ship, and won the simulation. (Spoiler alert) it turns out it was an actual battle, the aliens are dead, along with the troops in the transports, and yay humans... kinda. I think the movie shares a name with the main character but I cant remember. Any ideas? Thanks either way.
Jesus, your putting nearly 40 year old CGI to today's standards. Some of that was ground breaking for the time or makes sense for the situation (Genesis simulation... key word simulation, ie never intended to look real). As well if there was no one to do these CGI's then we would never have the level of CGI we have now. Artists need to practice their talent in shows like these to get better at the art. If we didn't have that level then we would have had it now. The only thing in that entire list I can agree with was the wide shot in enterprise where they just should have avoid zooming in on the models.
Do remember in 1982 in this first came out, when I first saw it on the big screen it looked fabulous because we had not seen CGI on this level. Today it looks rather elementary. but in this day and age, it was stunning.
You're judging Wrath of Khan by standards of today. When I first saw the Genesis Effect, I almost cried. It was pure rapture for me. I'd never seen anything like it! More recent effects that are more sophisticated look so artificial that they leave me cold.
To reference your first point, the Genesis CGI in Star Trek II: it was a demo animation. There was no reason to believe it should have been “perfect” or “more realistic” because it was a *demo* in a proposal grant application. It was never used as a realistic documentation of any actual effect of the Genesis Wave. So your first argument was bogus. I stopped watching there and then.
The genesis scene was literally the very first scene in a movie that was entirely CGI, it was a revolutionary moment in film history... how could you!?
The CGI in Star Trek II was literally one of the first ever used in a movie and it was still pretty new technology at the time so you can't say it's bad because there was nothing else to compare it to.
The metamorphosis of that creature in STV was so shocking that I didn’t notice any bad CGI. The same with the macro viruses. They were creepy too. I guess looking too critically ruins the show for some while the rest just enjoy the ride.
Can't agree with the Genesis wave!!!! Also, keep in mind that they were wat watching a simulation of it on screen and not in real life. Come on guys!!!!
The real failure in that transformation scene from In the Flesh is the movement of that blanket. Bad CGI creatures are a dime a dozen, but the motion indicates that the CG artists thought the blanket was ALIVE, because it is not doing THAT as a response to that transformation. The physics are just super wonky. Still, I'll take most of the fx on this list over the bulk of the remastered TOS fx.
The genesis effect was an animated simulation to show off to project leaders. Only meant to get the point across to the higher ups (and probable investors) and not meant to be a photo real sequence. It looks exactly like a visualization an engineer would create, not a fancy 3d artist.
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home will forever be the best Star Trek film, the Final Frontier has the best direction, to me. I really loved Shatner's style of directing. The story was laughable, but I really liked the whole style of the film.
Kid..... when were you born.....? We thought it was amazing back in 1982...... I was 19 at the time and we had Blade Runner, The Thing, we had some great Movies back then really pushing the envelope ..... be serious, one had to be there to appreciate it.
I was born in 1988. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is one of my absolute favorite movies of all time. The Genesis Wave demonstration, which is clearly a demonstration, still holds up for me. In fact, having grown up to see this CG technology be born, grow, and develop as it did, I just facepalm at a lot of this video. Hell, imagine the look on some of these people's faces when you point out to them that a lot of special effects were optical editing, not computer graphics...
For 1982, the Genesis effect video was stunning CG. You have to evaluate these things relative to what else was being done at the time. You could not have done something that did all this did with practical effects. Also, keep in mind that this was a simulation within the film's story. It was not supposed to look photorealistic.
For the TV Shows in particular, at the time, you could get away with some of the CGI fails. The show was meant to be watched on a 480p TV probably no bigger than 20 inches, about 8-10 feet away from the screen. TOS was filmed with Film, so they could broadcast it in high resolution, only for the sets to look even more fake then it did back in the 1960s with a rather blurry Color TV. The Movies, on the other hand, had less of an excuse, but at the time, CGI even bad CGI was really awe-inspiring, given the often fluid animations and different camera angles.
Have to say, there are some advantages to age. Firstly, I remember watching the Origin Series episodes on all their 144p or 240p glory on old CRT tvs. Secondly, given my age and where I grew up, I became accustomed to poor quality effects and sets, having seen all the original series Dr Who. Funny looking macro viruses and everything else on this list really does pale in comparison to while episodes shot on a flat white set (Mind Robber) or with "jungle vines" that are clearly vacuum cleaner hoses (Face of Evil).
As a validation for some previous comments about the Genesis Wave scene from Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan, the questionable CGI WAS intended to be animation, as Dr Marcus explains during the video as Kirk, Spock and McCoy watch, the Genesis probe had not yet been tested on a moon and "...the reformed moon, simulated here, represents the merest fraction...", so in the actual words of Dr Marcus herself, the scene of the Genisis EFFECT (not Wave, the Genisis Wave was what Kirks son referred to the anomaly on Spock's scanner) was in fact an animated simulation. So in retrospect, the animation was designed to look like an animation for a demostratitive purpose so it fulfilled the visual needs of the audience to understand it was actually a representation, not the actual Genisis Probe in action. C'mon Trek Culture, your better than that. C
I liked the look of the Gorn when I watched Enterprise in 2019. When I watched Voyager back in 2018, I thought the CGI looked great considering it was a late 90's and early 00's show. But yes, for today's standards they don't look as good as 2020 CGI's, but you've got to give them respect for their hard work in trying!
I've always accepted the CGI in Trek as the best of their time and the resulting clunkiness as a necessary price, the only instance of jarring CGI I remember is the zero gravity Klingon blood in The Undiscovered Country.
I hate and love the Macrophage episode of Voyager. It seemed to go on for 2 hours, but I loved how badass it made Janeway look. After Picard, I hope we get a young Janeway series; thinking season one is her posting before getting her own ship; then just pure, gritty character growth.
Honestly, I remember liking Enterprise's rendering of the Gorn when I first saw it. I don't remember the fight with Archer standing out to me as particularly bad. It all just seems like pretty typical CGI for television at the time.
Regarding the Genesis-Wave scene: it was also not meant as a "real" scene, but it was a presentation how the wave WOULD look like, if released on a planet. So basically this was meant to be a sales pitch, not an actual happening scene...
Highly unfair characterization, what you forget is 99.9% of viewers were using CRT or low def rear projection TVs. The CGI looked top notch on those. Only after the conversion to HD and digital were the inadequacies noticed.
Look at the year it was done, every thing has to have a start and it's unfair that you compare the genius wave with modern cgi. We didn't have the tech to make it much better then that yet. My God look at computers in general. I guess one has to have lived through this period to understand. Life has stages of progress, this was the begining of that and now you who grew up in the area of flawless CGI, and 5G cell phones want to down look at a time when most people didn't even have a cell phone. Look at the time and compare it to what was out then, but you can't compere that CGI to now, sorry it's not even Fair. This is like comparing the original star trek to Voyager as far as open credits. Can you even????? NO they didn't have the ability in the 60s to do it any better. But you are comparing the wave to modern CGI....no you can't. Sorry man, this is a insult to those artists who did the shot in the first place. The most advanced movie done with computers of that time was Tron. You might as well compare Tron to Tron legacy while your at it. Look at what they had to work with before you give any opinions.
Yes! It made this video really frustrating to watch. I'm only 21, so I grew up with better CGI. I love Star Trek for many reasons, but I think one factor is that I can see it as a product of its time, both visually and with regard to content, and from there can appreciate how progressive it could be.
@@annabelleschunk684 I so glad you see that, so many young people today look it like how could this be so bad. Everything has it's beginning. Respect those who showed us the way Thanks for your comment
I actually thought and think the original 60s Gorn looks fine! For the time, it was pretty awesome, and I think it still stands up pretty well, all things considered.
I always assumed the Genesis Wave footage in Wrath of Khan was meant to be a scientific simulation presented purely for the purpose of illustrating a concept, rather than being intended to be a cinema quality realistic depiction. The movie made it clear that a planet-wide test of the project hadn't been accomplished yet, and it'd be a waste of resources for a science team that's just trying to sell the concept of its idea to render it with photo realistic detail. The simulation gets the point across perfectly and I'd actually take issue with it if it was more polished specifically because that would mean that the science team wasted resources on making it pretty when they could have allocated those resources into more science instead. Sure, it looks dated as far as CGI goes in general, but I think they actually managed to nail how 3D simulations could be used in the future to illustrate scientific concepts. We're basically there today except now we can do it in real time on home PCs instead of needing months of rendering on dedicated supercomputers.
To be perfectly honest, seeing the Genesis Wave in Wrath of Khan 38 years ago looked pretty amazing.
KEEEENNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!
When it came out, it was pretty good. Maybe it hasn't aged well, but it did the trick in 1982.
@@colinp2238 This comment needs more appreciation! 😃
Pretty amazing? More like mind blowing. I honestly think it still works, particularly if you think of it as a just what is - a simulation. There's a number of modern games that go for this very aesthetic - flat shaded polygons.
I am honestly a bit annoyed that they crapped on this CGI sequence without even mentioning it’s one of the first ever CGI scenes in movies and it’s the first thing produced by PIXAR.
The genesis wave effect was actually a simulation within the movie. It could be argued that the poor effect was due to the limitations of the computer being used to display the simulation. That's how I perceived it when I watch the movie
I see it the exact same way.
That's fair. But it doesn't change how it looks.
DT's Digital Den oh yeah it looks like a futuristic PowerPoint, which works for me in the scene and doesn’t break immersion (like the macrovirus for example)
@@dtsdigitalden5023 Yea, it does. It's a simulation for presentation purposes. It isn't SUPPOSED to look real. Dr. Marcus had more important things to do than concern herself with the special effects of her presentation.
My argument exactly.
The Genesis Wave was cutting edge back in its day. It’s widely heralded as the first completely CGI sequence in a film, and was created using fractal geometry. If you’re gonna do top 10 lists like this you need to weight them in terms of the technology that’s available at the time. It’s an absolute travesty for that scene to be on this list. Shame on you Trek Culture. You’ve failed the Kobayashi Maru
That "Genesis" effect was quite good for an 80's movie of any kind. You can't compare the tech from then to now. Its like comparing the practical effects from TOS to even TNG to present the props/effects.
I absolutely agree. The Genesis was sequence was amazing graphics for its day. Also, I don't think that sequence was meant to depict live action but was showing a "simulation" of the genesis wave. Putting this fact into context I would say this scene still holds up. Don't mess with Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. Lol
Absolutely. Not only was the Genesis Effect the first completely CGI sequence, and the first fractal-generated landscape in film history; but the ILM group that did this was spun-off to form Pixar just a few years later.
Also Voyger and Enterprise were early 2000s shows with TV budgets. Can't blame tgem for their cgi...
I always see the wave as computer generated images from the ships computer. So it looks just perfect.
The Doctor looks almost real, very nice cgi.
LOL
The way they make the holograms hides the flaws. They don't give them a lot of long, freeflowing hair, because that would give them away. Even the Minuette hologram that has long hair, but it doesn't move.
Lmao
Cute
Probably not to the host of this video. He would call it "dated and laughable".
You can not judge special effects that were revolutionary for being literally among the first of their kind FORTY YEARS AGO against what is currently possible. It may not seem like a big deal now due to decades of technological advancement, but The Genesis Wave was genuinely impressive to audiences in 1982. Special effects are bad when the filmmakers don't have the right combination of time, money, resources, skill, or talent necessary to pull them off. Calling effects that were good for their time "bad" because they can't measure up to today is just shallow.
He virtually apologized at the beginning cut the man some slack bro!
@@MeWrecks He apologized for throwing shade at a great movie while insisting the Genesis effect was bad. I just think that there's a difference between what is bad, and what was great for it's time but dated.
@@DanceMonkeychg looks like I'm in over my head with a proper trekky!
Peace bro :)
thank you
@@DanceMonkeychg That effect was state of the art for its time, employing fractal landscape generations and particle systems - I agree its more a case of being dated than bad.
Ah yes, “Star Trek Episode II: Attack of the Clones.” Everyone’s favorite!
Hence the facepalm.
Do these guys even listen to these Before they post them? It's obvious that No One was listening on the set. . . shoddy. . .
Utter blasphemy....to confuse a child's story with actual Sci-Fi.
Star Trek Episode 2: The Wrath of Jar-Jar
@@rationalmuscle HAHAHAHAHAHAH look at that Trekkie, he's angry.
Engage Nerd Rage: ST:V had poor quality visual effects -- but they were NOT "CGI". Most were practical effects. ST:II Genesis Effect was groundbreaking using new techniques and it was NOT intended to be realistic visual -- it was intended to be an illustration.
Yes, I couldn't say it better. You're damn right.
that CGI was amazing for 1982
Wasn't the Genesis Wave an animation as part of a presentation Kirk was watching? (A presentation that even said they've not yet done it on a planet?) That's like holding up the Death Star attack briefing in Star Wars with its stick animations as an example of terrible CGI
Yes. And thet was the first piece of animation ever created for a motion picture by Pixar. For your knowledge.
Yeah, it was intended as a presentation to Starfleet. So, in universe it's supposed to be CG.
Yes, it was an animated presentation to Starfleet for the purpose of garnering support and funding. We all knew this was exactly what we were looking at while viewing it in the theater. Yep, I'm that old...
@@KHR0M3K0R4N It was also implied that the simulation was holographic, and in-canon the holographic technology of 2285 was about as primitive as the CGI technology of 1982.
They were a type of demo reel of what it "COULD" do. It was a promotional film to sell their product. I have worked with companies that have created the same. It is ridiculous that they attack this classic, beyond the possibility that they want a back lash or simply hire lazy writers. Top 10 lists are only good when there is available surveys made.. And these folks don't have that information because they make up the data.
Ah yes, everyone’s FAVORITE Star Trek movie: ATTACK OF THE CLONES
I had to pause the video, sit back, and take a very deep breath at that. Something I admittedly had to do a few times, less intensely, earlier in the film, but wow, that moment...
Hehe...had to "rewind" just to make sure I heard him right. Serious faux pas from a trekspert
Cut him some slack, he must've said "Stat Trek" like a hundred times for this video alone, it rolls off his tongue now
Was about to write that too!
@@daKwolf I too had to rewind to make sure I heard what I thought I heard.
Consider me triggered about the Genesis wave effect in TWOK and TVH.
For one, it was one of the very first cgi shots in a movie ever.
Second. Remember what we are seeing here. We aren’t seeing the actual genesis wave destroying an actual planet.
We are watching a simulation of the genesis effect. In essence a power point presentation.
And in that context it looks perfect.
in that context, the atari 2600 graphics were awesome too
@jim stevens
the genesis scene and the other bad cgi were acknowledged for being cutting edge - but doesnt mean its held up
@@SC-mq1eh IT WASN'T SUPPOSED TO HOLD UP!!! omfg... you're missing the point to just be a troll... what you're constantly saying is like saying "well the rick and morty storyboards weren't as good as the actual show" the genesis simulation was that.. A SIMULATION quick PoC simulations done today arn't photorealistic either. its why you rarely get to see a show pilot on television.. because when you're doing something just to show an example you arn't going for the best
in universe the genesis simulation was exactly as it would be today..
it's like "oh well minecraft is horrible because of how great no mans sky is compared to it" leaving out that minecraft is mostly just a PoC and has never actually been a "final product"
@@Spekor
lol yeah thats always the hallmark of good scifi, how quick it ages!
@@SC-mq1eh .... we're not talking scifi.. we're talking general film creation..
The mountains in the Genesis wave scene was the first time people could create realistic mountains from CGI. It took a new fractal equation to be able to do it.
Given that the Genesis Wave was a) an animation to demonstrate how the device worked and b) dated from the dawn of CG as a means of creating special effects, it gets a pass. Poor choice to put this in the countdown.
The CGI baby from the remastered TNG episode “Galaxy’s Child” is the worst CGI I’ve ever seen on Star Trek, it’s far worse than the original episode’s CGI.
Not just me then…
Yea there were some really bad early stuff instead he jumps on some of the most memorable , in a good way.
Oh man, if you want to ever see a Heartbreaking CGI remastering, get ahold of (no really don't) the newer BluRay version of "From the Earth to the Moon". The CGI space Flight in the original miniseries was stunning. But it was 720P. They farmed out the redo to some cheap outfit and it now looks like Bad Video Game cutscenes.
It really was!
@@andrewtaylor940 That is still more real than the moon landings because they never happened.
Here's the question: who cares? Yeah, old CGI is bad, what do you expect? Plus, most of this is made for television with very little budget in the 90s and early 2000s. Don't blame people with ambition and the lack of the means to achieve them. If it weren't for these early pioneers in CGI, then we wouldn't have the technical achievements that can made today. If it bothers you that much, then blame the era and people with imagination.
I do think a lot of CGI in the 2000s was unnecessary in the sense that they could have done things differently or with practical effects that would make the scenes 1000x better visually. CGI was just not at the stage yet where it could be used reliably, especially with real actors. It was largely a misplaced hypetrain that unfortunately didn't pan out in a lot of scenarios, and I'm not limiting this only to ST, plenty of shows and movies were guilty of this. Hell, even The Thing that came out in 2011 would have done better with practical effects which they were originally planning on doing. Its a matter of not properly knowing the limitations of what they can realistically accomplish and being a bit too overconfident.
"I am limited by the technology of my time"
And don't forget the type of TV's we were watching then too. High definition flat-screen TV's weren't even thought of then.
@@Destin5258: I read somewhere that in The Thing, much of it was done with stop-motion animation, as used by the animator of the original King Kong and Earth versus the Flying Saucers, along with many sci-fi/monster movies (Harryhousen, iirc)
@@jacklow9611 In the first one, yeah thats absolutely true. They used a lot of stop motion with practical effects. They were going to do the same with the sequel, in fact they DID do the same thing for the sequel; but then the studio executives said they wanted it done with CGI after they had already created and shot the scenes with the practical effects, so they just overlayed it with CGI which ended up making it look even worse.
The Star Trek II Genesis part? Are you stupid? The company that produced that produced something very groundbreaking for its day and would _later be known as Pixar!!!_ Judge that sequence for the eyes of its day! For its day, it was incredible! To truly judge CGI, it has to look bad even for the age it was created in. You cannot fault CGI that was excellent for the period in the past it was produced, if you look at it through modern eyes. Modern eyes can only say that "it hasn't aged well."
ZeoViolet and if you consider what we are seeing is an in-universe simulation/animation it doesn’t matter that the effect doesn’t look “realistic”.
Um, actually, putting the Genesis demonstration here does make you a bit of an @$$. Sure, by today's standards, it's awful. But back when Star Trek II first came out? Literally nothing could look better.
all of tron looks just as good lol
@@Spekor All of Tron wasn't pure CGI either, it was a mix of mostly live action enhanced with CGI.
I think it still looks good!
I completely disagree about the Xindi Aquatics. They were beautifully rendered for the time and the interactions still stand up today.
OK this is the problem with younger reviewers.
To give yourself any validation when reviewing something nearly 40 years old you need to view it from the standpoint of when it was made. Not compare it to today's standards.
That's like taking Jaws and saying "Jaws?.. It was OK, but the Meg, now that's a shark!"
When star trek 2 was released that was cutting edge.
View it as that.
when the corvair was released it too was cutting edge - being 1st isnt always best
@@SC-mq1eh I didn't mean it's the best. I'm saying it was the best when it was released. Review it as it was meant to be watched. If you watch superman the movie you wouldn't review the effects as terrible effects as at the time they were cutting edge.
Do they look silly today? Of course, but this why this doesn't fit in this list.
The enterprise and voyager cg are fine to include as those specific episodes and bad CGI stand out among other episodes of great CG.
@@andrewblake2297
i mean i think its been acknowledged the genesis sequence was cutting edge - and the SWs prequels cgi were too - just too far ahead of their time
Andrew Blake agreed add 50 years old plus for TOS
This. And the Voyager stuff was nearly 25 years ago, on a weekly tv show budget. I mean, think about that. In 1995 when Voyager started, Windows 95 just came out, most people were using 486 PC's running around 50-60 MHz (That's MEGAhertz, not Giga, kids) with 4 MB of RAM. I'm sure the people making stuff for Voyager had top-of-the-line rigs, so probably Pentium Pros, with 8-16 MB RAM running around 300 MHz. And they didn't have graphics cards with these amazing 3D-rendering GPUs back then, most of the work was done by the CPU. You could have a whole room filled with these, and their combined power would be less than the phone you now have in your hand. They might have have had a few Silicon Graphics workstations, those were the top of the line, used for feature films, like $30-40k each. Those would have had a lot more RAM (probably 128-256 MB), but still only a 200-400 MHz processor. As bad as the Voyager CGI might look today, it was very impressive for the time. Also, people were watching these on old analog SD televisions, and the quality of those screens would have greatly masked those low-res textures they're using.
That Genesis effect was from "thirty-eight" years ago so it was jaw dropping at the time. Nothing will make you look more disrespectful than mocking effects that were so impressive at the time that most fans still love them to this day.
I almost don't even want to finish the video because of that horrible opening diatribe.
I think also it is kind of unforgivable from him to bring up today's standards to effects from an era where CGI was nothing but brand new and experimental. Of course it is bad compared to what is possible today. But for that time it was marvelous. And honestly what do we expect from a presentation and that is what the genesis wave was. Doesn't have to be realistic as long as you understand the technological aspects behind it and I think they got it. Sorry for that long text just wanted to say a lot
You're comparing today's CGI with 40 years ago. When it came out, that was the most detailed, stunning CGI effect ever seen and helped prove CGI was a valid option to traditional special effects. Why don't you compare the look of PONG while you're at it.
Pong is still my favorite computer game or video game/arcade game
They guy doent have a clue, it's what gave it iconic moments
recently I was watching the Wrath of Khan with my son who remarked about how bad the CGI was. Only he was talking about the starships so I had to explain to him that they weren't CGI, which didn't seem to compute for him. He was thrown by the idea that they could do effects without a computer...
Will Stikken funny my daughter had the same reaction to a black and white movie, she thought the tv was broken
@@harrydemkee912 It just make me realize how different the world our kids are growing up in is from the one I was reared in.
"Those ships look like plastic models!"
"That's because they are plastic models."
"Whaaaaat?!"
Will Stikken my daughters 31 and the world is far far different than even when she was little, seems like a blink of an eye to me though
Have him search up those ships during productions. He will be amazed.
Almost every one of these, with a few exceptions looked good at the time. Yeah they don’t look as good as cgi today but most were leaps ahead of what other shows were doing at the time.
I love the Picard facepalm when you say "Star Trek Episode II: Attack of the Clones"...lol
Small words from a small being, trying to attack what it doesn’t understand
Awesome comment
I get it!!!
The Gorn Captain from arena got away with out drawing any blood. Just drop the temperature in a Star ship an the Gorn will fall asleep. Heat it up and he will wake up.
Hey, in the 1960’s the Gorn had me riveted to my seat! It’s all perspective of what was possible at the time, I still like the TOS Gorn episode to this day
I gotta ask am I the only one that thinks the TOS Gorn look just a bit like trandoshans from Star Wars?
@@theAverageJoe25 ha, had to google transdoshan but your right they are similar. I was lucky enough to meet the old guy who was the stunt man in the gorn costume in the original TOS episode, quite the character and very outspoken he was more proud of his stuntman work on Gunsmoke but as he spoke I was thinking nobody wants autographed photos of you on the Gunsmoke set, all these people are here almost 50 years later because of your one appearance on TOS
Yup, TOS Gorn looked cool. Only CGI Gorn looked like a frog on steroids.
I mean seriously, whoever made that should _kermit suiCGIde._
Wow you are really taking the effects out of context from the time they were produced which is really unfair ...your tone of ridicule is unnecessary
He's really trying hard to convince us we should dislike these scenes 😂
Genesis wave was and still is a great scene, this guy is daft
I always thought it was good too.
Already dislike this new host on his feedback of genesis wave alone and switched off. Its was the first cgi clip ever used but its in a recording presentation, not a special effect. Show this newbies the door!
It was 1981. That was an enormous leap. That was the best they had.
Genesis wave was supposed to be a cig image in the movie not a real life image. So it's absolutely correct for the movie
Genesis Wave effect is a masterpiece of CGI. Bleeding edge for 1982.
I was going to speak out about Marcus trashing the Genesis wave effect from WoK but i see that other commenters have already beat me to it. I'll just say that in 1982 when I first saw it, it looked amazing on that theater screen.
Star Trek episode 2: Attack of the Clones. Perfect!
lol
For a nanosecond I wondered if I somehow missed a Star Trek movie over the last 40 years.
I cant decide if that was a joke or a mistake!
Of all the videos to make THAT mistake!
11:20 I had to rewind to check it lol
Older Trek may have had bad CGI, but at least they had good stories....
so write
Code of Honor wants to have a word with you... I still agree with you tho
*Cough* Spock's Brain
Just a general response. Yes, I know old Trek had some stinkers, but the overall quality was still higher.
You mean most stories that people don't even remember because they were actually rather pedestrian and mediocre most of the time? Do people not realize that best stories list has always been the same couple of episodes? Star Trek hits great highs that are indeed incredibly memorable, but a large portion of the franchise is largely forgettable and repetitive. It's only the great episodes that people remember and talk about. So really, they had some good stories, the really memorable ones, but plenty of it is just meh
Now we need 10 of the Best CGI Moments in Star Trek.
Best TV Star Trek CGI
1. Voyager Landing
2. the ruins of the Vaudwar Planet on Voyager
3. the epic dominion battles in DS9
4. Species 742 was good in Voyager
5. Voyagers the Aquatic Planet, all of that episode actually was awesome
6. Voth Ship interior in VOY ep "Distant Origin"
7. Voyager Crashing in "Timeless"
8. Enterprise , scene with invisible mines
9. TNG Sun flyovers
10. Crystalline Entity in TNGs "Datalore"
11. The Shrunken Runabout in DS9
12. the Klingon Religious ship from Discovery.
13. DS9's later Rendering of the Badlands in season 6 or 7
1:22 It's not supposed to be special fx, it's a simulation so it's perfectly fine and for when it was made, it's really good too.
Critical observations from your video:
1. The CGI sequence from Wrath of Khan was the first full CGI sequence in a major motion picture. Saying that it is bad is like saying the first time you walk was bad. Of course it is bad, it’s the first time it’s done. It is unfair to compare that sequence to today’s standards. What do you expect from computers in 1982?
2. There was no Computer Generated Imagery in Star Trek V. They used primarily rear projection, who was cheaper and less effective than blue screen compositing that ILM used in Star Wars in the 70/80s and in the previous Star Trek films. Neither techniques use CGI. The “god” effects scene in the finished film used a device called a beam splitter. Any effect Shatner insisted on with the rockmen most likely would not have used CGI, which at the time CGI was expense and Star Trek V had budget issues.
3. I agree that the CGI you talk about in Voyager is not the best from the show, but you talk about it as if the animators had the rendering and processing capabilities we have today. Granted, they tried something beyond the capability of the 1990s, but in that decade the CGI of those episodes would be average, not terrible. Talking about it as if it is the worst CGI is like saying we should criticize people in the Middle Ages for not understanding orbital flight mechanics. They hadn’t figured it out yet. The other thing you should consider about the effects of Voyager was that the TVs of the 90s were not the 4K HD TVs of today. So, CGI animators did not have to render the effects at the same level of detail that we need today because the Standard Definition televisions would have covered up the issues. So, it's easy to criticize it now when we have better displays.
4. If you truly want to talk about these sequences as being the worst CGI, at least try harder to put it in the context of the time period these sequences were created. It is easy to criticize animators of the past when you do not consider limitations in technology and the time it takes to make CGI sequences. Computers of the 80s, 90s, 2000s, and 2010s are insanely different from decade to decade. Comparing them is like comparing apples to oranges to prunes to pineapples. When you state that “studios should learn to put proper budget into CGI” you are not taking into account that budget is not the only limitation faced by Star Trek creators in previous decades. There were moments where you tried to put the cgi in perspective the decade (like how you said the monster in Voyager was lower quality than effects we had already seen in the show to date) but then you return to comparing it to today’s standards.
5. Or, just start the video by saying "we are going to unfairly compare all Star Trek CGI to today's standards... as a joke... for fun... just because." That's totally fine.
Not everything in this video has these critical issues, but it appears there could have been a little more care to provide context to the Star Trek CGI discussion. Hopefully this will improve as the TrekCulture channel continues to grow.
The entire genesis wave was the first time something like that was ever done.
You've got a thumbs down for going after the Genesis Device. It's literally described in the story as a simulation.
I think species 8472, the macrovirus, and the Basics creature were great. Definitely didn’t take away from the episodes for me.
Boo this man. You lost me at the Genesis wave. It's amazing how well it holds up today despite being one of the earliest uses of CGI in film
The Genesis Wave scene was one of the 1st CGI moments in film ever. For the time it was truly groundbreaking and amazing. Just because it’s old isn’t a reason to say it’s bad. Time is never kind to CGI.
The creators knew it wasn’t realistic and that’s why it was a simulation in universe.
Was there CGI in the Final Frontier? Can it even be included just for it’s effects?
One thing to remember, in the days of The Wrath of Kahn, we didn't have these fancy flat-screen TV's with 4K capability. We had those old CRT TV's. So quality wasn't as good then and was hard to see then. The movie wasn't originally made for our fancy TV's of today.
I can only agree with half of these at best. I bet this guy would hate The Last Starfighter.
Hey. Maybe you can help me. I'm trying to remember the name of a movie, and I saw your reference to The Last Starfighter. The plot is that earth is involved in an war with insectiod aliens (if memory serves). The story follows one character, a teen boy, through military training. Hes found to be some kind of prodigy, able to see patterns in what looks like the randomized swarms used by the aliens to attack. He realised, watching footage, that they tend to swarm around a control ship. This brings the attention of some upper military officials, and the boy meets a hero of the humans with the same abilities (spoiler alert) who was supposedly killed in an attack by the aliens. The movie climaxes (spoiler alert again) with a training program, where the main character wins the day, protecting the Giant Human Weapon Ship that will end life on the alien planet. I remember he sacrificed troop transports, meant to land on the surface for a land battle, to keep a shield of AI fighters around Giant Human Weapon Ship, and won the simulation. (Spoiler alert) it turns out it was an actual battle, the aliens are dead, along with the troops in the transports, and yay humans... kinda. I think the movie shares a name with the main character but I cant remember. Any ideas? Thanks either way.
@@FokkeWulfe Sounds like Ender's Game.
@@nekonoko I believe you are right.
Wow, the presenters style is horrible. :/
At least he doesn't alternatively whisper then shout like some of them.
I went digging through the comments to find this, I knew It couldn't be just me. This guy is beyond annoying.
The Genesis wave was awesome back in its day. Even now it's not too sore on the eye.
Did you even know what CGI really means?
11:21. He says "Star Trek Ep2: Attack Of The Clones". 😂😂😂
I face palmed for real at that moment
@@cartwright8920 Same. 😂😂
@@cartwright8920 So did Picard...
Jesus, your putting nearly 40 year old CGI to today's standards. Some of that was ground breaking for the time or makes sense for the situation (Genesis simulation... key word simulation, ie never intended to look real). As well if there was no one to do these CGI's then we would never have the level of CGI we have now. Artists need to practice their talent in shows like these to get better at the art. If we didn't have that level then we would have had it now. The only thing in that entire list I can agree with was the wide shot in enterprise where they just should have avoid zooming in on the models.
Do remember in 1982 in this first came out, when I first saw it on the big screen it looked fabulous because we had not seen CGI on this level. Today it looks rather elementary. but in this day and age, it was stunning.
You're judging Wrath of Khan by standards of today. When I first saw the Genesis Effect, I almost cried. It was pure rapture for me. I'd never seen anything like it! More recent effects that are more sophisticated look so artificial that they leave me cold.
To reference your first point, the Genesis CGI in Star Trek II: it was a demo animation. There was no reason to believe it should have been “perfect” or “more realistic” because it was a *demo* in a proposal grant application. It was never used as a realistic documentation of any actual effect of the Genesis Wave.
So your first argument was bogus. I stopped watching there and then.
The genesis scene was literally the very first scene in a movie that was entirely CGI, it was a revolutionary moment in film history... how could you!?
The CGI in Star Trek II was literally one of the first ever used in a movie and it was still pretty new technology at the time so you can't say it's bad because there was nothing else to compare it to.
The metamorphosis of that creature in STV was so shocking that I didn’t notice any bad CGI. The same with the macro viruses. They were creepy too. I guess looking too critically ruins the show for some while the rest just enjoy the ride.
The Genesis scene in Wrath of Khan was actually the first ever full CGI film sequence.
Dude it was 1982, you could argue that it didn't age well buts that's it.
The Genesis Wave was amazing for it's day
Me: Oh. This looks interesting
*mocking cgi from TWoK which was made 38 years ago*
Me: Imma gonna stop right here
Can't agree with the Genesis wave!!!! Also, keep in mind that they were wat watching a simulation of it on screen and not in real life. Come on guys!!!!
Half the CG in Star Trek Picard should be on this list. The Federation fleet in the finale especially.
The CGI in WoK was amazing for it's time.
If this guy thinks the Genesis Wave is bad, he'll be APPALLED by Tron!
11:23 "... Geonosians from Star TREK episode 2 ..." Yah.
Narrator sounds like he actually hates Star Trek - series and movies.
He likes Discovery and Picard though......
Alan Flurey I don’t have cbs all access - I know about them but have not seen them lol. I don’t really care that much about them. ☮️
@@batgurrl i was refering to the Narrator my friend
Alan Flurey yes I know I was just throwing in my disinterest in them lol.
Nothing personal 🖖☮️
@@AlShas66 Like bats said, he hates Star Trek.
The real failure in that transformation scene from In the Flesh is the movement of that blanket. Bad CGI creatures are a dime a dozen, but the motion indicates that the CG artists thought the blanket was ALIVE, because it is not doing THAT as a response to that transformation. The physics are just super wonky.
Still, I'll take most of the fx on this list over the bulk of the remastered TOS fx.
The genesis effect was an animated simulation to show off to project leaders. Only meant to get the point across to the higher ups (and probable investors) and not meant to be a photo real sequence. It looks exactly like a visualization an engineer would create, not a fancy 3d artist.
I never realized until now how much I don’t give a shit about good effects in Star Trek 🤷🏼♂️
Same
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home will forever be the best Star Trek film, the Final Frontier has the best direction, to me. I really loved Shatner's style of directing. The story was laughable, but I really liked the whole style of the film.
The Xindi Aquatics look fine, they're pretty incredible looking. The Insectoids on the other hand...dear god.
This list shows why Star Trek never should have moved away from Studio Models. Enhance them with CGI okay, but not replace them.
Not a single entry from DS9 with Odo and his race seems like a huge oversight.
(Species) And whole heartedly agreed !
Kid..... when were you born.....? We thought it was amazing back in 1982...... I was 19 at the time and we had Blade Runner, The Thing, we had some great Movies back then really pushing the envelope ..... be serious, one had to be there to appreciate it.
I was born in 1988. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is one of my absolute favorite movies of all time. The Genesis Wave demonstration, which is clearly a demonstration, still holds up for me. In fact, having grown up to see this CG technology be born, grow, and develop as it did, I just facepalm at a lot of this video. Hell, imagine the look on some of these people's faces when you point out to them that a lot of special effects were optical editing, not computer graphics...
I was really surprised when Xindi insectoid pulled Archer, didn`t expect them to be that strong.
For 1982, the Genesis effect video was stunning CG. You have to evaluate these things relative to what else was being done at the time. You could not have done something that did all this did with practical effects. Also, keep in mind that this was a simulation within the film's story. It was not supposed to look photorealistic.
11:20 Star Trek Episode 2 : Attack of the Clones????
How the hell did I miss that?!
11:19 you realize you said "star trek episode II attack of the clones" smh 🤦♂️
The Genesis wave simulation was cutting edge at the time. Being old doesn't make it bad.
For the TV Shows in particular, at the time, you could get away with some of the CGI fails. The show was meant to be watched on a 480p TV probably no bigger than 20 inches, about 8-10 feet away from the screen. TOS was filmed with Film, so they could broadcast it in high resolution, only for the sets to look even more fake then it did back in the 1960s with a rather blurry Color TV. The Movies, on the other hand, had less of an excuse, but at the time, CGI even bad CGI was really awe-inspiring, given the often fluid animations and different camera angles.
Star Trek Episode II attack of the clones??? yeah right, I guess. ;)
Have to say, there are some advantages to age. Firstly, I remember watching the Origin Series episodes on all their 144p or 240p glory on old CRT tvs. Secondly, given my age and where I grew up, I became accustomed to poor quality effects and sets, having seen all the original series Dr Who. Funny looking macro viruses and everything else on this list really does pale in comparison to while episodes shot on a flat white set (Mind Robber) or with "jungle vines" that are clearly vacuum cleaner hoses (Face of Evil).
As a validation for some previous comments about the Genesis Wave scene from Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan, the questionable CGI WAS intended to be animation, as Dr Marcus explains during the video as Kirk, Spock and McCoy watch, the Genesis probe had not yet been tested on a moon and "...the reformed moon, simulated here, represents the merest fraction...", so in the actual words of Dr Marcus herself, the scene of the Genisis EFFECT (not Wave, the Genisis Wave was what Kirks son referred to the anomaly on Spock's scanner) was in fact an animated simulation. So in retrospect, the animation was designed to look like an animation for a demostratitive purpose so it fulfilled the visual needs of the audience to understand it was actually a representation, not the actual Genisis Probe in action.
C'mon Trek Culture, your better than that.
C
The genesis wave invented the CAT scan. Seriously, it was absolute cutting edge at the time.
I liked the look of the Gorn when I watched Enterprise in 2019. When I watched Voyager back in 2018, I thought the CGI looked great considering it was a late 90's and early 00's show. But yes, for today's standards they don't look as good as 2020 CGI's, but you've got to give them respect for their hard work in trying!
I've always accepted the CGI in Trek as the best of their time and the resulting clunkiness as a necessary price, the only instance of jarring CGI I remember is the zero gravity Klingon blood in The Undiscovered Country.
I thought it was funny that they kept the magenta blood for Discovery's Klingons.
Keep in mind that Wrath of Khan was made in 1982 so it was awesome looking at the time.
I hate and love the Macrophage episode of Voyager. It seemed to go on for 2 hours, but I loved how badass it made Janeway look. After Picard, I hope we get a young Janeway series; thinking season one is her posting before getting her own ship; then just pure, gritty character growth.
This guy should be ashamed of himself, but I do find his use of language hilarious.
Dude!!! Stop nitpicking'' just enjoy it!!! Sheesh.....
Honestly, I remember liking Enterprise's rendering of the Gorn when I first saw it. I don't remember the fight with Archer standing out to me as particularly bad. It all just seems like pretty typical CGI for television at the time.
Regarding the Genesis-Wave scene: it was also not meant as a "real" scene, but it was a presentation how the wave WOULD look like, if released on a planet. So basically this was meant to be a sales pitch, not an actual happening scene...
Star Trek Episode II: Attack of the Clones?
"Photoshopped to death" is now my mantra.
Bad bad bad call on the gensis wave. That is the very first use of CGI in a movie. It's iconic
Highly unfair characterization, what you forget is 99.9% of viewers were using CRT or low def rear projection TVs. The CGI looked top notch on those. Only after the conversion to HD and digital were the inadequacies noticed.
A Brit giving an opinion on special effects? Really, Dr. Who, Blake’s 7. Enough said.
Look at the year it was done, every thing has to have a start and it's unfair that you compare the genius wave with modern cgi. We didn't have the tech to make it much better then that yet. My God look at computers in general. I guess one has to have lived through this period to understand. Life has stages of progress, this was the begining of that and now you who grew up in the area of flawless CGI, and 5G cell phones want to down look at a time when most people didn't even have a cell phone. Look at the time and compare it to what was out then, but you can't compere that CGI to now, sorry it's not even Fair. This is like comparing the original star trek to Voyager as far as open credits. Can you even????? NO they didn't have the ability in the 60s to do it any better. But you are comparing the wave to modern CGI....no you can't. Sorry man, this is a insult to those artists who did the shot in the first place. The most advanced movie done with computers of that time was Tron. You might as well compare Tron to Tron legacy while your at it. Look at what they had to work with before you give any opinions.
Yes! It made this video really frustrating to watch. I'm only 21, so I grew up with better CGI. I love Star Trek for many reasons, but I think one factor is that I can see it as a product of its time, both visually and with regard to content, and from there can appreciate how progressive it could be.
@@annabelleschunk684 I so glad you see that, so many young people today look it like how could this be so bad. Everything has it's beginning. Respect those who showed us the way
Thanks for your comment
Opening with what was a ground breaking scene at the time was not a great move.
I actually thought and think the original 60s Gorn looks fine! For the time, it was pretty awesome, and I think it still stands up pretty well, all things considered.
The second I read the title of this video I was like....#1 Star Trek: Enterprise-The Gorn. Nailed it!!!
Big Bang Theory had a better Gorn!
"No Gorn no, that's where I sit."
I always assumed the Genesis Wave footage in Wrath of Khan was meant to be a scientific simulation presented purely for the purpose of illustrating a concept, rather than being intended to be a cinema quality realistic depiction. The movie made it clear that a planet-wide test of the project hadn't been accomplished yet, and it'd be a waste of resources for a science team that's just trying to sell the concept of its idea to render it with photo realistic detail. The simulation gets the point across perfectly and I'd actually take issue with it if it was more polished specifically because that would mean that the science team wasted resources on making it pretty when they could have allocated those resources into more science instead.
Sure, it looks dated as far as CGI goes in general, but I think they actually managed to nail how 3D simulations could be used in the future to illustrate scientific concepts. We're basically there today except now we can do it in real time on home PCs instead of needing months of rendering on dedicated supercomputers.
The macrovirus thing looks almost the same as the rathtars in star wars lol
I’ve never seen Star Trek Episode 2: Attack of the Clones. Sounds good 😂