After watching the magnificent 1940 classic The Thief of Bagdad, I read a few reviews and came across one person saying this:
[quote]The special effects aren't up to today's standards[/quote]
Quite frankly the effects in this film give me a euphoria unlike most plastic fantasy films of today. Some people really have trouble adapting to the times and struggle to relate to how we came into our times with our technology and influence swapping..
Not only is it important to highly regard anything that had a massive impact with technology use for purposes of inducing a real out of body experience, rather than "blinding lights" and meaningless "boasting" of what they can do with software.
I would rather see something done authentically in a time before ours than to see something done without any real cinematic intent.
What do people think? Is keeping "current" that important?
Saying "The special effects aren't up to today's standards" about an old movie is completely dumb.
There is literally no reason to criticize a movie like that, because apparently in those years it was all they could do. It would make sense to say that about a movie made nowdays, that doesn't live up to today's standards. Its really interesting to watch old special effects, learn how they were done etc. and I find it incredibly stupid to bash them because today we have super computers that do everything automatically.
If you have the technology, you may as well use it. There's not much point sticking with rickety painted backdrops and Ray Harryhausen style special effects if the technology to make stuff more realistic exists.
Obviously there's a limit, where gaudy CGI scenes and characters start to detract from the actual story. Take Lord of the Rings / The Hobbit as an example. In LotR, all the orcs and uruk-hai were guys in costumes and makeup, and they looked brilliant. In The Hobbit, most of the orcs (even those that feature prominently on-screen) are actors dolled up with CGI, and it's a very noticeable difference.
Advancing technology should be used to make movies look realistic, but it shouldn't just be used for the sake of it.
Speaking from a horror perspective, I am a very big believer in physical effects > CGI and whatnot. Even if some physical fake blood can look overly cheesy, it's still way better than any CGI blood. I think that's what horror is sort of about, finding the creative ways to create the effects that you need in order to make it scary. Somehow the element that it was actually recreated makes it that much scarier as well. Take something like the Evil Dead remake. While the movie itself is unnecessary, they're sticking to physical effects like the ones enforced in the original. That is what horror film making should be, at least in my opinion.
[QUOTE=AutomataReturns;39408141]Speaking from a horror perspective, I am a very big believer in physical effects > CGI and whatnot. Even if some physical fake blood can look overly cheesy, it's still way better than any CGI blood. I think that's what horror is sort of about, finding the creative ways to create the effects that you need in order to make it scary. Somehow the element that it was actually recreated makes it that much scarier as well. Take something like the Evil Dead remake. While the movie itself is unnecessary, they're sticking to physical effects like the ones enforced in the original. That is what horror film making should be, at least in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, in horror especially using CGI can ruin a scene.
I personally love seeing stop motion being used in horror movies, it gives whatever is being animated an unnatural look, while at the same time making it look more real, and more creepy.
If they look good/believable, I can't argue their use.
I'd love to see a new Star Wars done entirely with practical special effects.
Today, we can make these highly detailed realistic CG models but the second they start to move, you would know immediately that they're CGI. In terms of capturing the image, we're almost there but not even close in reproducing believable motion
[img]http://i.imgur.com/4qL6Gh.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Rong;39409978]Today, we can make these highly detailed realistic CG models but the second they start to move, you would know immediately that they're CGI. In terms of capturing the image, we're almost there but not even close in reproducing believable motion[/QUOTE]
Arnold in Terminator Salvation was pretty damn believable, but then again it was only the head that was CGI, the body was real
[QUOTE=Joazzz;39411183]Arnold in Terminator Salvation was pretty damn believable, but then again it was only the head that was CGI, the body was real[/QUOTE]
no it wasn't, that was one of the corniest uses of CGI I've ever seen.
I personally think CGI crippled the science-fiction (horror as well) genre for a while.
I haven't seen any science-fiction films that truly impressed me visually since Blade Runner.
[QUOTE=AK'z;39411349]no it wasn't, that was one of the [B]corniest uses of CGI I've ever seen[/B].[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2011/11/tron-1.jpg[/IMG]
CGI Jeff Bridges would like a word with you.
[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;39415862][IMG]http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2011/11/tron-1.jpg[/IMG]
CGI Jeff Bridges would like a word with you.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but he WAS supposed to be virtual
Except CGI Jeff Bridges was in the real world at the start of the movie.
[QUOTE=AK'z;39411349]no it wasn't, that was one of the corniest uses of CGI I've ever seen.[/QUOTE]opinions, good sir
[QUOTE=Cl0cK;39414848]I personally think CGI crippled the science-fiction (horror as well) genre for a while.
I haven't seen any science-fiction films that truly impressed me visually since Blade Runner.[/QUOTE]
i know right, the magic of models and matte paintings just isn't there. i still sometimes wonder how some of the scenes in old sci-fi films (such as Blade Runner) were done, while in modern films you just KNOW that all the fancy stuff is just digital effects
except when it comes to animatronics. that shit still fools me and i'm glad for that:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1iVJExd5vA&feature=player_embedded[/media]
some of this is so amazing that i almost feel violated
[QUOTE=Mr._N;39409172]I'd love to see a new Star Wars done entirely with practical special effects.[/QUOTE]
go-motion walkers and droids please, could work if done properly
hell the original go-motion dinosaurs from the early stages of Jurassic Park were rather impressive
I'm just going to go ahead and post these videos here since they're pretty relevant and interesting.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHG2aao4CVk[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEmXA0Itv6A[/url]
Apparently embedding is disabled for these videos, so I'm just going to post them as links.
The problem with special effects (and I'm sure lotsa people already said this but fuck that I hate reading) is when they are used as a substitute to the story and not to complement the story.
[QUOTE=Zuimzado;39423776]The problem with special effects (and I'm sure lotsa people already said this but fuck that I hate reading) is when they are used as a substitute to the story and not to complement the story.[/QUOTE]transformers, independence day, godzilla, 2012, day after tomorrow...
[QUOTE=Joazzz;39423797]transformers, independence day, godzilla, 2012, day after tomorrow...[/QUOTE]
Don't know if you are agreeing with me, but those are good examples.
I mean, let's compare it to Jurassic Park. Was the T-Rex goddamn amazing? Yes. The scenes with the CGI T-Rex were balls to the walls awesome. But here's the thing: it was balls to the walls awesome not only because of the effects, but because of the story. There was build-up, there were characters we grew to love in that scene, and there was real danger and tension. It wasn't just "RAWR CGI" it was "oh my god oh shit that's real get the fuck out of there guys THAT FUCKING T-REX IS GONNA EAT YA".
yeh i'm agreeing with you
also, Terminator 2. animated liquid metal on the big screen for the first time in history. was it necessary? hell yes because otherwise the whole "shapeshifting invulnerable mercury monster" thing wouldn't have worked
and then Cameron's attitude did a 180 with Avatar. such a shame
oh cool thanks
The reason that real effects done the right way will almost always be better than CGI is because of the undeniable truth that what they made is actually [B]there[/B] in the scene. Whether or not you can tell it's an animatronic model is up to the artists that made it, but the one solid thing that will always ring true is that what they have is actually there, unlike in many CGI mishaps when they simply don't match the animation or the lighting perfectly to the scene. I mean, even in really well produced movies like King Kong, every time he picks the girl up it looks fairly fake. I mean, it's one of the better renditions of that sort of thing that I've seen, but you can clearly tell she's not actually in the grasp of a giant monkey. Now obviously with something like that again you don't exactly have much choice but it's clear that CGI still is not picture perfect. Imagine if in Alien instead of building a huge set piece for the room with the guy in the chair, they just decided to CGI the background (obviously impossible at the time, this is hypothetical). It simply would not have been the same.
fucking star wars prequels and their non-existing sets
[QUOTE=Zuimzado;39423808]Don't know if you are agreeing with me, but those are good examples.
I mean, let's compare it to Jurassic Park. Was the T-Rex goddamn amazing? Yes. The scenes with the CGI T-Rex were balls to the walls awesome. But here's the thing: it was balls to the walls awesome not only because of the effects, but because of the story. There was build-up, there were characters we grew to love in that scene, and there was real danger and tension. It wasn't just "RAWR CGI" it was "oh my god oh shit that's real get the fuck out of there guys THAT FUCKING T-REX IS GONNA EAT YA".[/QUOTE]
Or, in another instance, Gollum from LOTR and The Hobbit. Even the Prawns from District 9 are damn fine examples of that.
[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;39415862][IMG]http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2011/11/tron-1.jpg[/IMG]
CGI Jeff Bridges would like a word with you.[/QUOTE]
It only looks REALLY obvious in a still image. In motion it looked fine, just a little blurred.
Half a decade form now and that tech will be perfect and we'll never hire any new actors ever again.
How about other people they tried to make them look younger
[thumb]http://i.imgur.com/a9TofiA.jpg[/thumb]
[thumb]http://i.imgur.com/JIkP4tb.png[/thumb]
What about this
[img]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQQJl-bqnVVIHXk2NDthpduVrCfjdHMxSPWN5QhsolItabxHKo[/img]
took me long enough to find out who he was in the film
Dunno, recently saw Angels and Demons and the ending was completely ruined for me because of the terrible CGI.
In some other cases it looks pretty nice though. It is really rare when the real stuff can't quite capture the point, but most of the time real > CGI
[QUOTE=Dan2593;39464728]It only looks REALLY obvious in a still image. In motion it looked fine, just a little blurred.
Half a decade form now and that tech will be perfect and we'll never hire any new actors ever again.[/QUOTE]
He looked bad in motion too.
One of my favorite uses of SFX in film is the T-1000 in Terminator 2 because its not just used to make him look cool. It allowed the villain to do things you've never seen before and challenged the protagonists to find interesting ways to fight him.
Example at 1:30
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuiJBeC8mEk[/media]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.