Movie Special FX

Tusky

K just watched one of my fav horror/gore movies there - John Carpenters " The Thing" (1982) and was wondering how many of yea out there prefer the make up style special effects of old to the computer generated effects now a days ?

I have to say the Thing which is quite old now kicks arse outa any modern day horror films in terms of gore and special effects(would advice the horror fans in you to see ti pronto), movies like "An american werewolf in London" (1981) with the famous shape shifting scene and then back to old peter jackson movies like "brain dead" and "Bad taste" I think the make up in them films looks far better than now a days and they were LOW BUDGET ! The zombies in "Braindead" are better than the ones in Rez evil IMO, ok they look a bit dodgy but sure with modern make up or whatever it could look 10 times better,

Obviously when making V.large monsters and battles computer effects are needed but i dont like the way fimls are going Allmost all of star wars sets are generated - surely this also takes away form the actors performances too when acting on front of blue screen,

Recently heard that Martin Scorsese had built a set for "gangs of new york" to dublicate the new york of old,he was real prowd of it- and when George Lucas came to see it he said somthign like " why do you bother ? you can do this kind of thing on computer now a days"

feel free to call me a willy head or hurl abuse but as a big movie fan just felt i should say it

p.s sorry for the spelling mistakes i wrote this in a bit of a rush

DeVore

If you can tell the difference in the end product then Scorsese is right. If you cant then Lucas is right.

Horses for courses is my opinion...


DeV.

Tusky

im not saying "gangs of new york" is better than "star wars" lol far from it, think u missed the point :P

exiztone

Well, I havn't seen Gangs of New York so I couldn't make a comparison.
I feel that you can indeed tell the difference, especially in the atmosphere from computer generated scenes, sets characters and the artwork of the physical creation won't die away too soon.
I feel computers aren't advanced enough yet to create... exactly what you imagine, but for every big movie that uses film that uses computer effects to the extreme (like Star Wars) we are taking a step forward into such possibilities

Karl Hungus

It's funny, I was just watching Blade 2. The mouth opening of the reapers was quite seemless, and I think as far as SFX fests go, it's definetly one of the best.

But when watching the extras in LOTR, I was suprised to see how much of it was done with miniatures, and real sets. I was shocked to know that Isenguard was completey 'real'. And that there's so much of the film that was CGI that I hadn't even realised.

There are definetly films today that NEED to be computer generated.
Gladiator was a great film.

But one thing I absolutely despise is when a film-maker would go and use CGI just for the sake of using CGI. Lucas, stand up. I was also watching the film 'Panic Room' a few months ago, and I remember that there was just so many un-needed CGI shots in the film, that it was almost to the point of being ridiculous!

Something has to be said for great sets though.
Enemy At The Gates is a truly fantastic film, with amazing sets.

But I also love good old-school low budget mess afairs.
The good old Stop-motion of the 70's 80's were fantastic!
First Evil Dead film was great in this respect.

I wonder, did people have the same reservations about the likes of 'Jason And The Argonaughts' and the Sinbad movies, as they do about CGI films these days? I really wonder.

Tusky

some good points angelwhore - and i agree of course some films like matrix and gladiator NEED alot of cgi ect and im a massive fan of evil dead - have 1 and 2 on dvd have still to get army though !

c0ke

Well developers of new horror movies can go overboard the the special fx and think more is better, but ends up looking cheesy as hell. The old movies, the gore could look cheesy but because they're usually low-budget movies most audience don't pay much attention to it (ie Bad taste)

I have to go with the old movie FX are better than the new CG FX (For Horror Movies)

Karl Hungus

I've got 2, and AoD here, I've get to get 1 on DVD. Had them all on VHS already, so I wasn't too quick about snapping them up, except for AoD's Special Edition. Might pick up the first one again, as I've been aching to watch it again, and I dont wanna bother with the VHS.

But as far as Resident Evil goes, I find that it's not a real zombie movie at all, but more of a bastard pop-version of a zombie movie. So all lavish CGI comes with that.

Go and get the film Return Of The Living Dead 3.
You should be able to pick it up on DVD for nothing in HMV.
That has some unbeleivably stomach-churning make-up effects and gore.
Far better than Res.

Personally, I cant wait for 28 Days Later to come out on DVD.
That, and Dog Soldiers Special Edition now in February.
Another great example of a fantastic low-budget movie.
The werewolves looked far, far cooler than if they'd be CGI.
Lets not forget An American Werewolf In Paris.
Actualy, lets forget that completey...

mike65

I'm definitly of the "old school", I like to see minatures rather than CGI, and gore effects done "for real" ie lots of capsules and makeup rather than optical effects.

When I was a kid I wanted to work in FX, thats what happens when you see films like Silent Running too young!

Mike.

Pigman II

Give me optical during its peak over todays digital anyday.

Digital will improve over time but right now it looks about as real as line-drawing as far as I'm concerned. Check out Star Wars Ep2 if you don't believe me.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Pigman II
Give me optical during its peak over todays digital anyday.

Digital will improve over time but right now it looks about as real as line-drawing as far as I'm concerned. Check out Star Wars Ep2 if you don't believe me.

For years, I was fascinated by special effects, and devoured pretty much any information I could get my hands on - as such, I'm pretty sure I've seen the gamut of special effects technology, from low to high. Personally speaking, I don't really have any problem with either of them or a preference one way or another - as many people have been saying, the best effects are those that you're barely aware of.

As someone has already mentioned, the idea of digital effects is still in its infancy. It would be more accurate to compare today's digital effects with those of Harryhausen, than say, those found in American Werewolf In London (although, I have to say, I was never overly fond of the transformation effect in that).

One of the main problems with digital effects is that it's able to create an image fifty miles wide, but only an inch deep - there doesn't appear to be much substance to the images created. This is the opposite of mechanical/optical effects, which can add a great deal of depth, but are limited in their ability to create a broad image (an example of this would be Army of Darkness. When the deadites march, they have lots of guys in full skeleton costumes at the back, with only a few full skeleton marionettes in the front - they were just too expensive to create). This is perhaps the last hurdle digital effects have to overcome before they will be completely undetectable in a film.

mike65

Originally posted by ObeyGiant


One of the main problems with digital effects is that it's able to create an image fifty miles wide, but only an inch deep - there doesn't appear to be much substance to the images created. This is the opposite of mechanical/optical effects, which can add a great deal of depth, but are limited in their ability to create a broad image (an example of this would be Army of Darkness. When the deadites march, they have lots of guys in full skeleton costumes at the back, with only a few full skeleton marionettes in the front - they were just too expensive to create). This is perhaps the last hurdle digital effects have to overcome before they will be completely undetectable in a film.

Very true, in the movie about tornandos, (was it called Twister?)
the failings of CGI are pretty obvious, one scene has a farm being shedded, a length fence lifts up and is thrown towards the road but not very conviningly it looked "flat". The only way to
get round ppl not beliving these scenes at the moment is fast cutting which just makes everything to hectic.

Just on fav SFX, I think the visuals in Blade Runner might be the best depiction of an urban setting so far...

Mike.

Tusky

I just watched Blade runner this week actually and i was take back by how litle it has aged, The city looks fantastic ! And some of the ideas such as the unbrellas were excellent, really breath taking stuff !

Also about to watch Batle Royal - saw it along time ago in cinema but cant remember it too well some great gore in it as far as i remember !

Gaz

Was a bit of a SFX nut a few years back and actually wanted to study it but thats a different story .... Im still a little undecided when it comes to CGI , when its done correctly with the right mix of minatures ie: LOTR its brilliant but when its done to the extent lucas uses it , i can see flaws

Now , maybe thats just technilogical limitations and over the coming years it will become flawless but it just seems alot of directors are taking the cgi route when a minature would have worked. Maybe its a cost thing , maybe not , movies seem to be more expensive now anyway.

Look at 2001 , i still think the space scene are on par with anything today ...

And if CGI is done bad it really ruins a film for me ...worst example i can thing of off the top of my head is "the mummy returns" , the scorpian king in that ruined the end of the movie for me.

MisterAnarchy

I gotta agree with Scorcese on this.
Lucas' films look fake and artificial.
If an action scene looks fake there is no suspense .
I think George Lucas has lost it.Well did he ever have it ?
He seems to be obsessed with special effects instead of writing a damn good script.
A nice balance between the old type and new type special effects is nice.