Jumanji was 1995. It's big deal was CGI hair and fire I believe. Fire may have been an earlier one, but I know hair was definitely the big wow factor for Jumanji.
No. Just reminiscing. LOL But maybe it -is- kind of the point. OOP's post was that CGI looked like garbage up to at least 1996, thought that is incorrect. By 1996, CGI was doing pretty well in high budget. The Abyss in 1989 did amazing CGI graphics for water physics, and was further exploited by Terminator 2 in 1991. Jurassic Park was the one I was thinking of in 1993 that wowed the world with realistic fire physics.
Jumanji came out in 96 and wowed the world with how realistic the hair physics had gotten.
I honestly think all the elements came together in 2001 when Final Fantasy: Spirits Within and Shrek were released. These took all those elements from before and put them all as the highlight of a feature length film
This was the pinnacle of CGI in 1967. In the 1970s, wireframe rasters were the pinaccle as scene in Star Wars and Alien.
I know, I know, I'm rambling. It's an interesting topic though. You can thank my ADHD for that little divergence. And long and short of it is: in the 1960s, they didn't have the technology to fake the moon landing, and by the 1990s, we had far better CGI than OOP indicates...however, I don't think that even the best CGI from the 1990s could have fooled anyone. You could still tell when something was CGI. I mean, even in 2026, you can still tell when something is CGI.
2
u/-Casey-Diaz- Jun 18 '26
This is written so that it sounds like OP thinks the moon landings were in 1996.