Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CGI Gone Awry: The Worst Special Effects of the Computer-Generated Era

Last response: in Video Games
Share
August 30, 2006 12:57:30 PM

Special effects have come a long way in the last 20 years. And unfortunately, they\'ve also set us back. Computer-generated imagery (CGI) has been used in film for nearly two decades, but a string of poor films and cheesy effects has made CGI a four-letter word for many. Here\'s a list of the worst offenders.
August 30, 2006 2:00:33 PM

Really funny article. Although at the bad cgi animals in movies part I expected to see the likes of The Exorcist: Beginning, the horrible horrible Hyenas in the movie along with the rest of the subpar special effects. I really wanted to like this movie... but only some of the scenes were believable.
August 30, 2006 2:03:08 PM

You should stick to writing about computer hardware.
August 30, 2006 2:14:06 PM

I read and liked your story. I saw all of the movies that were mentioned and i agree with you on the bad parts. I dont really own an expensive tv but I had always wondered if those movies looked better on high definition tv's.
the movie charlie and the chocolate factory has to show some hope and gain respect for cgi. it's really amazing and i can't spot hardly anything wrong in it.
Drew carey's green screen show (improv) was on comedy central for awhile.
The league of extraordinary gentlemen was good up until hyde had to fight the other (cgi) transformed guy after he drank too much of jekylls potion. the actor who played dr jekyll had to wear a suit and spend hours in makeup then fight a poor looking cgi character.
great reading the little known fact about Streisand's former hair stylist haha. I like going to the IMDB and reading about movie goofs and trivia.


*edited. i removed the part about the oompa loompa because it was just mean.
August 30, 2006 3:32:15 PM

My favorite is still from "Along came a Spider." The movie overall is pretty decent (althought highly cliche') and has NO NEED for CGI, but they had to start it out with the corvette crash from hell?!?
August 30, 2006 3:37:11 PM

Quote:
I read and liked your story. I saw all of the movies that were mentioned and i agree with you on the bad parts. I dont really own an expensive tv but I had always wondered if those movies looked better on high definition tv's.
the movie charlie and the chocolate factory has to show some hope and gain respect for cgi. it's really amazing and i can't spot hardly anything wrong in it.
Drew carey's green screen show (improv) was on comedy central for awhile.
The league of extraordinary gentlemen was good up until hyde had to fight the other (cgi) transformed guy after he drank too much of jekylls potion. the actor who played dr jekyll had to wear a suit and spend hours in makeup then fight a poor looking cgi character.
great reading the little known fact about Streisand's former hair stylist haha. I like going to the IMDB and reading about movie goofs and trivia.


*edited. i removed the part about the oompa loompa because it was just mean.


Well as for C&TCF, I remember interviews with Johnny Depp & The Director, and both were impressed with the actual stages because almost everything was real, But yea Ive seen the movie with my daughter and it does have very good special effects.

IMHO, I don't think you can generate ANYTHING with fur to look realistic.

I thought I was the only one that thought that Spiderman shouldn't have been SO SGI'd. There were a few scenes were it wasn't completely necessary.
August 30, 2006 3:50:34 PM

I'm a little surprised that Star Wars: Episode 3 didn't make the list. For the most part, the film's CGI's are excellent. However, the final scene between Obi Wan and Anakin, specifically when they're fighting in the lava, looked horrible. It was almost show stopping in my opinion.
August 30, 2006 4:41:33 PM

Why isn't the new King Kong on anyone's list???!!!

They used too much motion blur when Ann was being whipped around for a full minute (and in other fast scenes) with such force that it would have killed her the first time she switched directions. With real film, the motion would look choppy. (Horrible use of filmwork too. 24fps can't track so much motion.) They even screwed up a blue-screen effect near the end, and you can see some of the color reflecting on the leading lady. I could probably name more, but being such a terrible movie, I try to forget as much of it as possible. Who could possibly believe a gorilla (even that size of one) could break a t-rex jaw by ripping it open. Even if he did accomplish that, why would the t-rex die?
August 30, 2006 5:00:36 PM

Quote:
I read and liked your story. I saw all of the movies that were mentioned and i agree with you on the bad parts. I dont really own an expensive tv but I had always wondered if those movies looked better on high definition tv's.
the movie charlie and the chocolate factory has to show some hope and gain respect for cgi. it's really amazing and i can't spot hardly anything wrong in it.
Drew carey's green screen show (improv) was on comedy central for awhile.
The league of extraordinary gentlemen was good up until hyde had to fight the other (cgi) transformed guy after he drank too much of jekylls potion. the actor who played dr jekyll had to wear a suit and spend hours in makeup then fight a poor looking cgi character.
great reading the little known fact about Streisand's former hair stylist haha. I like going to the IMDB and reading about movie goofs and trivia.


*edited. i removed the part about the oompa loompa because it was just mean.


Well as for C&TCF, I remember interviews with Johnny Depp & The Director, and both were impressed with the actual stages because almost everything was real, But yea Ive seen the movie with my daughter and it does have very good special effects.

IMHO, I don't think you can generate ANYTHING with fur to look realistic.

I thought I was the only one that thought that Spiderman shouldn't have been SO SGI'd. There were a few scenes were it wasn't completely necessary.

I disagree with you on the fur thing...Chronicles of Narnia: "the thing, another thing and the other thing" had a lot of CGI and, well, the lion looked a lot real.

PS - Garfield movies should have entered this article
August 30, 2006 5:02:30 PM

Quote:
I'm a little surprised that Star Wars: Episode 3 didn't make the list. For the most part, the film's CGI's are excellent. However, the final scene between Obi Wan and Anakin, specifically when they're fighting in the lava, looked horrible. It was almost show stopping in my opinion.


Well, you'd have to add Episode 1 and 2 too...they all have lame parts (not only on effects unfortunately).
August 30, 2006 5:03:31 PM

Quote:
Why isn't the new King Kong on anyone's list???!!!

They used too much motion blur when Ann was being whipped around for a full minute (and in other fast scenes) with such force that it would have killed her the first time she switched directions. With real film, the motion would look choppy. (Horrible use of filmwork too. 24fps can't track so much motion.) They even screwed up a blue-screen effect near the end, and you can see some of the color reflecting on the leading lady. I could probably name more, but being such a terrible movie, I try to forget as much of it as possible. Who could possibly believe a gorilla (even that size of one) could break a t-rex jaw by ripping it open. Even if he did accomplish that, why would the t-rex die?


Because he mentioned he wouldn't include B-Movies on the article ;) 

:lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
August 30, 2006 8:34:12 PM

I agree that the 3 starwars prequels should have been on the list. The only reason I can think of that they weren't is because they would have filled up nearly every category. I mean they did have some awesome effects, but there were so many terrible ones as well, especially in ep1.
August 30, 2006 8:34:22 PM

I didn't mind the "puffy" Hulk at all. I do think the dogs were silly though.

A movie that stands out to me was "Lost in Space", that little whatever it was creature they added wasn't even coloured right for the scenes creating a horrible looking CGI character that made no sense at all. Now imho that was the WORST example of CGI I had seen in a long time.
August 30, 2006 8:58:39 PM

The one CGI effect that actually almost made me cry in sadness was seeing what they did to Yoda ... I had fond memories of Yoda from Return of the Jedi and The Empire Strikes Back, and the marvelous job that made a puppet a belivable lively character. The old one couldn t fly and jump around everywhere, but the new one has no soul ...
August 30, 2006 10:29:53 PM

Hmmmm I guess you have to put things in perspective. I have seen a lot of movies in my life with a lot of cheesy special effects. Now a days if things are not cutting edge and perfect and don't pass as the real deal they are written off as bad but (WHAT ABOUT THE STORY). I remember seeing the first star wars movie when it cam out in 76-77 not sure of the year but I was 11 and I thought that was the greatest movie ever. I felt that way about a lot of movies that I saw as a kid. Now when I look back at them you see the cheesy special effects but that did not matter because the story was good. Just like video games if they are good they are good graphics don't have to be the best. Now I watch a lot of these new disney and pixar animation movies with my daughter and a couple that I saw had great graphics but the stroy was not that good. "don't judge a book buy its cover"
August 30, 2006 11:34:22 PM

Quote:
"don't judge a book buy its cover"


Unless the cover is really shiny, then it MUST be good.
August 31, 2006 12:43:30 AM

I have to agree with most of what you wrote in your article. However, I do believe you make one glaring omission: Star Wars: Episodes 1, 2, and 3! OK- so that's 3 omissions!

I mean seriously, Lucas went overboard making all of those stupid droids and other effects that I can't even watch these movies at all anymore. When I saw episode 3 in the theatres, I was like JESUS FUCKING CHRIST- END IT NOW!

I hated Return of the Jedi, don't mind the remake of episode 4, and Empire is still the best of the series.
August 31, 2006 6:13:55 AM

Quote:
PS - Garfield movies should have entered this article

True... thats the worst EVER... i mean if it was all CG fine....but it was out of sync ALL the time....

as for the rest....
I like story lines....small CG errors and even some big ones can be made up for with a good story line....I had nothing against the spiderman movies... CG is still young so to speak..(but some errors are just lazy)....it will get better....though...they sure had some good movies before CG...Poseidon(1972) was quite good for an old movie thanks to the story...IT,the old starwars(4,5,6),star trek,and so many i just can't think of.... Total recal,running man,demolition man,back to the future 1,2 and 3(might have some old CG)...i just cant think of all the old movies i watch....I also watch the new ones.....

In the end i think every movie....no matter how bad the CG is will have it's fans...

PS. anyone wants some funny stuff....watch the evil dead movies :) 
August 31, 2006 7:10:20 AM

That was the most biased article I have ever read.

The general formula used was:

1) Find popular movie.
2) Insert own opinion about story and plot.
3) Rip-off said movie.

How can you possibly compare movies that were made in 1997 to modern day movies? It's like comparing Quake I to Quake VI...
August 31, 2006 7:31:19 AM

There ARE cases where a movie is just blown away by a bad case of CGI. As for Episode 1's cited scene (Jabba's scene), while it DID look tacky, well, the technology at the time wasn't what it is now, but come on! How can you expect someone to take VERY old roughs, completely edit out a character, then insert a new one without trouble? It's not the same as shooting a scene where you intend to insert some CGI! There's film quality first (it wasn't as good then as it is now), lights to take into account (they had to guess the positions of light sources at the time, instead of having marks), and just plain perspective troubles. Even now this scene could hardly be re-made better.

And now for my take on Alien: Alien 1 was based on the fear of the unknown Alien: Ripley was alone and unprepared to fight a very tough cookie: the alien.

Aliens: now, we enter slugfest, with a complete hive for Ripley to fight, but at least this time she has backup, weapons and a good reason to kick butt (and some frustration, too).

Alien 3 was, in my opinion, the worst of all of them: the interesting part (Ripley bearing an alien queen) isn't played on enough, and the movie sums itself up as two attemps to kill an alien and Ripley dying (her dive in the molten lead at the end alone qualifies as a BAD CGI moment: she looks absolutely fake. Seeing through the alien's eyes wasn't terribly good either).

Alien 4 (Resurrection) was intended from the start to be a dark comedy - Jeunet's specialty, and completely in line with his style in Delicatessen and City of Lost Children. Seen under that light, the movie is a success. Of course, if you were expecting the same slugfest as in 2 or the same chases you had in 3, then 4 wasn't for you.

Frankly, you had Space Horror in 1, Martian Slugfest in 2, Riddick's Mom in 3, that didn't leave much to explore for 4...

I'd like to add a movie: Daredevil. The hero's radar sense (while difficult to render visually) wasn't done terribly well.
August 31, 2006 12:34:39 PM

Quote:
PS - Garfield movies should have entered this article

True... thats the worst EVER... i mean if it was all CG fine....but it was out of sync ALL the time....

as for the rest....
I like story lines....small CG errors and even some big ones can be made up for with a good story line....I had nothing against the spiderman movies... CG is still young so to speak..(but some errors are just lazy)....it will get better....though...they sure had some good movies before CG...Poseidon(1972) was quite good for an old movie thanks to the story...IT,the old starwars(4,5,6),star trek,and so many i just can't think of.... Total recal,running man,demolition man,back to the future 1,2 and 3(might have some old CG)...i just cant think of all the old movies i watch....I also watch the new ones.....

In the end i think every movie....no matter how bad the CG is will have it's fans...

PS. anyone wants some funny stuff....watch the evil dead movies :) 

Yeah...Evil Dead are a great series!!!
August 31, 2006 1:54:06 PM

Great article.

In my opinion the worst offender in the list is George Lucas. He has a brilliant movie in 1977 with Star Wars with cutting edge effects. Then in 1997 he had a perfect opportunity to 'clean up' some of the effects with current cutting edge technology, which he did, but he decided to over reach by adding Jabba and Greedo shooting at Han. Both were clumsy and ill planned.

He should have known better...

He used to know better.
August 31, 2006 2:29:01 PM

I was waiting for this to be posted on.

I agree with most of what is being said bioth here and in the article, but there are a few things that you guys are leaving out that should not be ignored.

Just like in video games, if the interaction does not look right, it takes away from the reality of the environment. Shoot a rocket at a glass window in a warehouse and you only see an applied weapon hit "marker" and it really does no justice to it. You should have blown it away!

Same thing with movies. If the hulk leaves craters when he lands, he should also leave damage when he jumps. If he makes a ball of steel in the lab, it should not be deflected by a handrail (I just remember the ball feeling "light". Having no real mass. I know the Hulk is strong, but you can't treat it like a ping pong ball...)

Star wars? The major problems were that there was no plot in teh new ones, so tehre was nothing to lean on. Then you get floppie characters like Jar Jar fighting idiotic machines that fall apart when they have no power. Your main battle scene involves tow crews of computer graphics fighting each other and you really do not have any feeling for either...

But I digress from the original topic...

The key to CGI is OBEYING THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!!!

Also realizing that the more interaction you have with live characters and environments, the harder it will be to integrate them seemlessly.

Lessons should be taken from Japanese Anime and some other animated titles like Batman.

Cowboy Bebop has excelent interaction between CGI and animated cells, and the new one, Last Exile, is not bad either. But even they show one critical flaw in CGI. Reality. The more "real" something has to look, the harder it is to make it fit. Add things like skin, hair, teeth, and the inside of a non-monsterous mouth are hard to do right, and most fliks have failed miserably in this.

Realism is getting better, as shown in movies like FFVII, but they still look like cartoons, and they are still randomly ignoring physics for the sake of expediency and "WOW" factor.

As was mentioned, until they realize that CGI is a TOOL to be used and not the main course for a miovie to be built from, we will continue to see more 50' rabbits being pulled out of hats than realistic characters and places that take a second, or third viewing to pick out from the actual reality.
August 31, 2006 4:17:05 PM

Quote:
I was waiting for this to be posted on.

I agree with most of what is being said bioth here and in the article, but there are a few things that you guys are leaving out that should not be ignored.

Just like in video games, if the interaction does not look right, it takes away from the reality of the environment. Shoot a rocket at a glass window in a warehouse and you only see an applied weapon hit "marker" and it really does no justice to it. You should have blown it away!

Same thing with movies. If the hulk leaves craters when he lands, he should also leave damage when he jumps. If he makes a ball of steel in the lab, it should not be deflected by a handrail (I just remember the ball feeling "light". Having no real mass. I know the Hulk is strong, but you can't treat it like a ping pong ball...)

Star wars? The major problems were that there was no plot in teh new ones, so tehre was nothing to lean on. Then you get floppie characters like Jar Jar fighting idiotic machines that fall apart when they have no power. Your main battle scene involves tow crews of computer graphics fighting each other and you really do not have any feeling for either...

But I digress from the original topic...

The key to CGI is OBEYING THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!!!

Also realizing that the more interaction you have with live characters and environments, the harder it will be to integrate them seemlessly.

Lessons should be taken from Japanese Anime and some other animated titles like Batman.

Cowboy Bebop has excelent interaction between CGI and animated cells, and the new one, Last Exile, is not bad either. But even they show one critical flaw in CGI. Reality. The more "real" something has to look, the harder it is to make it fit. Add things like skin, hair, teeth, and the inside of a non-monsterous mouth are hard to do right, and most fliks have failed miserably in this.

Realism is getting better, as shown in movies like FFVII, but they still look like cartoons, and they are still randomly ignoring physics for the sake of expediency and "WOW" factor.

As was mentioned, until they realize that CGI is a TOOL to be used and not the main course for a miovie to be built from, we will continue to see more 50' rabbits being pulled out of hats than realistic characters and places that take a second, or third viewing to pick out from the actual reality.


Well, physics are important, but I think the discussion is more of a "CGI blends to the scene" than "CGI is physics-life-like". The big issue on discussing physics in a movie (and a different thing than in games) is that people don't expect to see reality on a movie, because there is no interactivity, no choices to be made by the viewer (in games, we are a part of the universe and want to be free to explore all the environment and possibilities of interacting with it - specially in simulators, where people aim to participate in a life-like environment), thus action films usually have fantastic scenes where physics are just ignored for the sakes of fun(i.e., James Bond and GoldenEye scene, where he jumps from a mountain after the plane has fallen and catches the plane in mid-air. That's just impossible for two reasons: the plane had fallen before he jumped and the plane is much more aerodynamical than a person).
August 31, 2006 4:45:17 PM

Quote:
Well, you'd have to add Episode 1 and 2 too...they all have lame parts


Plot, script, acting...
August 31, 2006 5:27:36 PM

Quote:
How can you possibly compare movies that were made in 1997 to modern day movies? It's like comparing Quake I to Quake VI...


I think the point here is that if the CG is going to look really bad, then alter the scene to avoid it. For Jabba, Lucas could simply have altered the scene a little to have Jabba stationary (assuming that moving him is the hard part) and then just use the same technology that was used in ROTJ to make Jabba. He looked awesome in Jedi, just like all of the characters in the original trilogy.

Why do we have to use CGI when there are alternate methods available? Sometimes CGI can be good (most space battles made lately have looked awesome), but many times it is not. The main example (in the Sci-FI realm) is when creating alien creatures. Many of these aliens would be easy enough to create a costume for and have an actor play it. It is just agravating that the easiest thing for directors to create without CGI is also the hardest thing to create with CGI, YET THEY KEEP DOING IT!!
August 31, 2006 7:57:41 PM

Quote:
Well, physics are important, but I think the discussion is more of a "CGI blends to the scene" than "CGI is physics-life-like".


I know what you are saying, but one of the things they have said about it is that the motion did not look right for some of the characters as well as other things.

If you model a real character, you have to make sure that all parts of them obey some simple laws or they will not FEEL real. If a guy jumps in the air and it takes him too long to come down, or the world does not interact right, it does not feel quite right.

The second thing is liek I hinted to just now. Interaction. Things in the world have to move right to the invisible characters you are plaing in them. That also goes for the fake world that they are a part of. You can't have the Hulk jump off the ground and not leave footprints in the asphalt from where he took off. I mean you CAN, but yuor brain has already registered, without conciously letting you know, that this is fake.

One good example of things not reacting well? In the Hulk, when he does the hand clap or foot stomp and all the cars go sliding down the hill in SF, it looks like the cars are almost on strings. It did not feel like a true shockwave to me, and it probably did not seem like it to most of you.

When things are done right, you do not have to tell yourself "It is a movie". Sometimes you have to conciously tell yourself "It is ONLY a movie" so you do not get too freaked out/caught up in it!!! ;) 

Interactivity is another one of the things that makes movies "feel" real without you really knowing why...

That is why even movies like Roger Rabbit gave you more of a feeling of being "real" than all these "super realistic CGI" things. Environmental interaction.

Quote:
The big issue on discussing physics in a movie (and a different thing than in games) is that people don't expect to see reality on a movie,


Yes they do, unless you tell them that one particular thing is different than the world they are living in. If you are watching a flik where the only thing in it that is different is one big super stong green guy, you do not want everything else to do whatever it wants in movie world. Otherwise you feel like you are watching more of a ride at Universal Studios Florida than actually looking through a window into another reality, just like ours, but with some interesting things happening.



Quote:
because there is no interactivity, no choices to be made by the viewer (in games, we are a part of the universe and want to be free to explore all the environment and possibilities of interacting with it - specially in simulators, where people aim to participate in a life-like environment), thus action films usually have fantastic scenes where physics are just ignored for the sakes of fun(i.e., James Bond and GoldenEye scene, where he jumps from a mountain after the plane has fallen and catches the plane in mid-air. That's just impossible for two reasons: the plane had fallen before he jumped and the plane is much more aerodynamical than a person).


First off, I was not trying to draw a direct comparison. I was only relating things that are impossible, that are not the focus of the film, that end up detracting from it.

When a glass window is impossible to break in a game, it reminds you that you are in a game. When a steel ball the size of a tank bounces around a room it reminds you that it is a movie. A ball that size would crush concrete, and take quite a bit to "motivate" it to move. If it wasn't gripped right, you would just tear off the outside layer like paper. Little things like this may be fine for someone who is just out to see a flik, but a REALLY good movie does not ignore all the little things...

I am just a little over sensitive to them, so I notice a lot of things conciously that other people register subconciously. I would consider myself the canary in the coalmine when it comes to poor stunts/special effects (one of my worst pet peeves is things like the car jump where the car is, at the rate it is rotating, landing nose-first on the pavement but yet it magically flattens itself out and is able to land and drive away...).

When CGI does the same, it bugs me.

As for texture quality and the like, they are STARTING to get better with it, but they are being much too ambitious and too quick trying to make a good realistic hybrid. It still works great for inanimate objects, and scenery, but people and critters are too dynamic to be made easily unless EVERYONE is made that way.

Give it 10 years... We will probably see another attempt like the other Final Fantasy Flik that tried being 100% CGI and a semi-realistic scenario...
September 1, 2006 4:36:44 PM

how can you nitpick with Spiderman and LOTR and just skip over the second and third Matrix movies?
September 1, 2006 4:59:37 PM

Quote:
how can you nitpick with Spiderman and LOTR and just skip over the second and third Matrix movies?


The 2nd and 3rd Matrix movies were just appalling in every sense. The CGI didn't ruin the movies.
September 1, 2006 5:30:48 PM

Quote:
how can you nitpick with Spiderman and LOTR and just skip over the second and third Matrix movies?


Good call. Don't know how those ones were missed. Especially after the pretty high quality visuals in the first movie in the trilogy.
September 2, 2006 12:04:05 PM

I agree with Llama man here the problem with those movies was not the CGI. It was mainly a bad (and I mean real bad) script issue.
September 2, 2006 12:20:45 PM

CGI is much older than stated in the article. The first movie to feature a lot of CGI was “wraith of Khan” or (I think). If I remember correctly CGI (in movies) first appeared in the 70s.
January 8, 2007 8:23:27 PM

I am not as critical as many of you... The only movie on the list that truly appalled me was Hulk. Of course, I have not seen all of the movies to make an over arching comment on your list...

BUT

One movie that made my skin crawl while watching it and even shudder at today was Blade II. I loved Blade I, thought it was great. Went to Blade II in the theatre and wondered what went so very wrong. To put it bluntly, I felt violated.

Great article by the way
January 9, 2007 1:12:45 PM

Quote:
... thus action films usually have fantastic scenes where physics are just ignored for the sakes of fun(i.e., James Bond and GoldenEye scene, where he jumps from a mountain after the plane has fallen and catches the plane in mid-air. That's just impossible for two reasons: the plane had fallen before he jumped and the plane is much more aerodynamical than a person).


Planes actually have much more lift than a person (which is why they can fly and you can't), so the scene is quite a bit more plausible than you might have thought initially. A human falling in low drag position (arms to sides, head down) can reach a higher terminal velocity than a plane ever would, since eventually the plane would begin to tumble, creating plenty of drag. The physics problem is that for the plane to slow down, it has to turn more parallel to the ground, which makes it fly horizontally away from a falling human, making it difficult to catch.
January 15, 2007 4:53:54 PM

Just on a hunch, I bet such a manouever would break the elderly Bond's arms. I very much doubt that he could approach the plane with the proper velocity to avoid breaking or dislocating parts of himself.

Note: I did no physics calculations here though. I may be wrong.
-cm
January 16, 2007 3:18:30 PM

The thing is, it is possible if the plain suddenly drops but a plain does not do that. The plain would in fact fly for a little before it went in to a vertical drop making the plain about 50 meters away from him when he decided to jump off the end of the cliff on his motor bike.
January 16, 2007 11:33:49 PM

Quote:
The thing is, it is possible if the plain suddenly drops but a plain does not do that. The plain would in fact fly for a little before it went in to a vertical drop making the plain about 50 meters away from him when he decided to jump off the end of the cliff on his motor bike.
\

Sigh.
I hate to be a nitpick...
ITS "PLANE"!! FREAKING "PLANE"! NOT "PLAIN", PLANE! OH MY FUHCKING GOD ITS PLANE PLANE PLANE PLANE PLANE PLANE!
-cm
January 17, 2007 7:10:44 AM

Blame my office copy of WORD2000 for it’s crappy spell checker on a typo :lol: 
January 17, 2007 12:27:15 PM

:? :oops: 
January 17, 2007 2:53:35 PM

:lol:  Someone else who still uses Word to spell check posts. I wish I had Firefox at work. :wink:
January 17, 2007 2:56:05 PM

Spelling isn't really that hard.
Ambidextrous.
Intransigance.
Contradictory.
Vermhisslesnitz.
-cm
January 17, 2007 5:06:08 PM

If only that was true :cry: 
January 17, 2007 6:02:17 PM

Yes it is.
antidisestablishmentarianism
floccinaucinihilipilification
pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis
teh
pwn
n00b
1337 h4x0rz

(Wow, Word actually knew the first two! 8O )
January 17, 2007 7:46:27 PM

Those words are over rated, man. They are just a combination of suffixes and prefixes but not all that difficult to spell.
-cm
January 17, 2007 8:20:31 PM

I hate you.
January 17, 2007 11:05:29 PM

:cry: 
-cm
!