15 Beloved Animated Characters With Terrible CGI Updates

Sonic the HedgehogFans waited years for a Sonic film. The CGI Sonic looked nightmarish with weird proportions and scary human teeth. Fans hated it so much the studio moved the release date andchanged the designto please them.

The movie earned$319 millionworldwide. Ugly Sonic's original design reappeared in a meta appearance in the filmChip n’ Dale: Rescue Rangers.

Sebastian steals scenes with his thick accent and the song “Under The Sea” inThe Little MermaidHis animated version made him the funniest character; his expressive design worked well.

The live-action Sebastian might look more like a real crab. However, this version loses all expressiveness and charm. His movements are also slower, making him less of an undersea master of ceremonies and more like an old crab.

Yogi Bear remains a memorable Hanna-Barbera character. Thus, a live-action film for him seemed certain. WhenYogi Bearhappened, the CGI update showed many mistakes. This design only worked if the whole movie was computer generated. Putting this Yogi Bear in the real world fails because his fur, clothes, or 3D body do not look believable or realistic enough for his surroundings. Fans feel this way because the movie has a34% audience scoreon Rotten Tomatoes.

In theTransformersWheeljack is the Autobots' mad scientist who turns into a sports car. But inTransformers: Dark of the Moon, he looks like a robotic Albert Einstein, complete with a mustache and messy hair. Transformers CGI updates became out of control film after film, but here, the character's concept seems wrong.

The biggest question in the film is why a 10,000-year-old robot from another galaxy looked like a 20th-century scientist. This is significant in a movie featuring giant robots that transform into cars.

Another Disney Animated classic became live-action. This CGI version ofPinocchiodoesn't work. The wooden child's design feels unsettling next to real people. The animated character's charm and curiosity disappear in this update, making him sadder and more sinister, which Pinocchio kids do not enjoy. Disney likely knew they messed up when they released it on Disney+ instead of in theaters.

The Hulk always looks unrealistic in live-action. This occurs in its MCU version with modern technology, but in 2003’sHulk, directed by Ang Leedirected by Ang LeeThings are much worse. The movie shows characters avoiding seeing Bruce Banner (played by Eric Bana) get angry. Audiences also do not want to see it. When he turns green, a clumsy, small, slow slob appears instead. The character’s interaction with its surroundings proves the technology could not yet make a giant green guy with anger issues.

Garfield: The MovieThis film has many flaws. The titular character does not act like the animated cat who loves lasagna and hates Mondays. The biggest flaw is the character’s CGI design. Garfield is the only cat made by CGI in the film. It looks too shiny and lacks weight compared to everything else, making him look out of place.

Not even Bill Murray improvising can save the movie. This proves something went seriously wrong.

The Adventures of Rocky and BullwinkleThis classic cartoon started in 1959 and moved to a live-action adventure. The film is fun. Having Robert De Niro appear feels weird, though. The CGI versions of Rocky the Flying Squirrel and Bullwinkle make them look like 90s stuff.video game charactersThese characters do not relate to their real-life setting. Their bodies show almost no light change when they move. Worst of all, the poor CGI hinders the humor.

Animated cartoons from the '80s and '90s made kids want to be aTeenage Mutant Ninja TurtleEnter the CGI 2014Teenage Mutant Ninja TurtlesLeonardo and his brothers have overstuffed designs trying to show off their interests. The designs seem to ignore the original color bandanas and weapons. Near humans, these turtles look freakish and scary because they are too big and weird. This CGI design looks faker than the '90s live-action costumes, making it a CGI disaster.

The villain of the originalThe Lion KingScar was always going to be a big part of the live-action remake. The CGI photorealism of the whole film is striking. Yet, this version of Scar does not match the cartoon's original. The animated lion inspired by Jeremy Irons looked more imposing with a showier scar. He also felt more charismatic, as an animal who enjoyed villainy and thought he was the smartest lion. However good the CGI animation is, this new version could not compare to the original. This shows why traditional animation sometimes wins.

Anthropomorphic chipmunks sang songs in a cartoon TV series through the '60s and '80s. However, when the franchise got a live-action film, things went wrong. Alvin and his brothers stand out in the cartoon version. Their almost photorealistic CGI versions lose what made them interesting while still looking fake in a real setting. The script did not help either, in whatThe Guardian.Peter Bradshaw calledIt is a "brain-dead semi-animated family comedy."

The.Scooby-Doo, Where Are You! Adventures began in 1969 and gained fans across many generations. So, the studio made a live-action film. One problem shows: CGI Scooby-Doo fails. The people in charge could not decide if they wanted a dog that looked real or a drawing replica. This indecision results in a dog that is neither.

The mystery Scooby, Shaggy, and the Mystery Inc. team should have tried to solve is how the studio let this strange version enter theaters.

The 1981.Smurfs. animated TV series.These clever blue characters go on adventures around their small village, and the 1981 animated TV series still hold a special place in many people’s hearts. When Papa Smurf and the other Smurfs got a live-action movie, their CGI designs start a path to being mediocre.

If the whole film used computer generation, the characters would already seem odd. But mixing them with humans and showing the different sizes makes Papa Smurf, Brainy, Grouchy, and the others look like blue blobs. This makes fans of the original feel blue, not in the fun Smurfy way.

Disney has made live-action versions of its animated films for years. That explains why the retelling ofBeauty and the Beast.The CGI in the movie is not bad, but this Beast cannot match the original. The original was iconic.

The animated Beast feels regal, noble, and very expressive. Its CGI version feels more frightening and looks much flatter. These differences stop fans from feeling the same empathy for him and the love story they once did.

Christopher Robin.takes a similar approach to.Hook.its lead character used to be a fun kid and is now a boring, stressed-out adult. This film takes a bold approach, changing its animated characters into CGI stuffed toys.

Winnie the Pooh and his friends look too real yet feel fake. This creates an uncanny difference audiences cannot ignore. Winnie’s CGI version also lacks expression, showing dead eyes, making him less cute than the original cartoon.