Special Effects today

[Dream Team]

I didn't know where to post this, since there is no longer a "generic" movie thread.

Anyway, I have noticed that my teenage daughter is so spoiled by technology that when we are watching any special effects scene, no matter how modern and state-of-the-art, she always says "that's bad CGI"  . I'm like "you have no idea how great it is compared to when I was your age".

What are the forumers' views on which movies have the absolute best, most realistic effects? I think Marvel is right up there.

[ozzy554]

While I prefer practical effects in movies, When CGI is done well it can look fantastic.

[T-ski]

wish they'd spend more time on stories then on the special effects. 

[Chino]

If you want a good story, read a book. Movies are meant to be a visual spectacle.

[King Postwhore]

If you want a good story, read a book. Movies are meant to be a visual spectacle.

My friend, that's not the point.  The OP is asking something completely different.


I love the Captain America : The Winter Solider because it blended the old school special affect with the new school CGI so perfectly.

[orcus116]

If you want a good story, read a book. Movies are meant to be a visual spectacle.

This explains a lot 

On topic, I do prefer practical effects but they can be crappy as well. The reliance on CGI for whole sets is more worrisome to me than its general use.

[ariich]

If you want a good story, read a book. Movies are meant to be a visual spectacle.

If you want a visual spectacle, you can see tech demos and other visual arts.

Movies, as an art form, essentially combine the two, to varying degrees. You might prefer visuals over story, while others prefer story over visuals.

For me, I'm somewhere in the middle, though for me "visuals" means the visual artistry/directing. In general, while I appreciate good effects, I don't really give that much of a crap about them.

[bosk1]

If you want a good story, read a book. Movies are meant to be a visual spectacle.

If you want a visual spectacle, you can see tech demos and other visual arts.

Or, if he wants a visual spectacle with subpar story, he can watch Avatar. 

[Calvin6s]

Or, if he wants a visual spectacle with subpar story, he can watch Avatar.

So I'm not the only one thought Avatar was not great?  It was cool when it came out.  Has reality caught up to it and now it is subpar?

But as far as which movie has the best CGI / Special FX, I usually don't watch movies taking those kind of mental notes.  So I honestly don't know.  No amount of CGI can save a poorly scripted/directed/acted movie.

[ariich]

Avatar definitely wasn't "cool" when it came out. Everyone agreed it looked amazing but a lot of people thought it was rubbish.

[Prog Snob]

Or, if he wants a visual spectacle with subpar story, he can watch Avatar.

So I'm not the only one thought Avatar was not great?  It was cool when it came out.  Has reality caught up to it and now it is subpar?

But as far as which movie has the best CGI / Special FX, I usually don't watch movies taking those kind of mental notes.  So I honestly don't know.  No amount of CGI can save a poorly scripted/directed/acted movie.

I never saw it and as of now have no desire to.  It might wind up being one of my favorite movies one day but for now the only blue people that get my attention are The Smurfs. 

If you want a good story, read a book. Movies are meant to be a visual spectacle.

This is just wrong altogether.  When you look at movies like Seven, The Usual Suspects, Good Will Hunting, Casablanca, Rocky, Chinatown, Citizen Kane, Dr. Strangelove, Fargo, The Sixth Sense, and the list goes on, you realize that a movie just being a visual spectacle that needs loads of overdone special effects is a flimsy argument. Movies are an expression of art and do not have to be weighed down by special effects just to be good.

[hefdaddy42]

For most modern big effects films, I find the most satisfying results come from a blend of practical effects and CGI.  The best examples, for me, come from the LOTR films, and many of the Marvel films, specifically Iron Man 3 - there is a feature on the Bluray detailing how they did the airplane passengers rescue scene, and it's amazing.

[Prog Snob]

For most modern big effects films, I find the most satisfying results come from a blend of practical effects and CGI.  The best examples, for me, come from the LOTR films, and many of the Marvel films, specifically Iron Man 3 - there is a feature on the Bluray detailing how they did the airplane passengers rescue scene, and it's amazing.

There were no special effects in Lord of the Rings.  They actually went to a remote island and found a tribe of orcs living there peacefully.  The fell beasts were remnants of the dinosaur family living on Easter Island. 

[hefdaddy42]

That would explain it.

[Prog Snob]

There is always an explanation for something.  Oh, and Smaug is a real dragon.  I don't want to hear any nonsense that they don't exist.

[Kotowboy]

i love films that use CGi merely to enhance the picture. not to create it.

Interstellar for instance is *mostly* practical effects. No Green Screen AT ALL and CGI here and there to augment the visuals.

Obviously flying ships, Gargantua, Wormholes and gigantic waves are CGI but are mostly miniatures where possible.

I just think that makes everything feel real and "there".

When they're looking out of the ship and seeing Gargantua - the actors are literally seeing Gargantua because the ship is a set suspended

in front of several giant projector screens showing the actors what they would be seeing at that moment.

[Kotowboy]

Avatar definitely wasn't "cool" when it came out. Everyone agreed it looked amazing but a lot of people thought it was rubbish because it made so much money.

Slightly Fixed.

I think if Avatar came out and was a much smaller hit that made money but didn't become the #1 Grossing Film of All Time -

- people wouldn't be so quick to knock it.

Online - if something is wildly successful or popular - there's this weird trend where people have to "prove" that it is in fact "shit".

[T-ski]

all I remember from Avatar is watching it with my wife and having both of us say out loud. at pretty much the same time, what would happen in each upcoming scene.  complete copy and paste storyline, or as Rush would say, so much style without substance, so much stuff without style.

[Calvin6s]

Online - if something is wildly successful or popular - there's this weird trend where people have to "prove" that it is in fact "shit".

No.  It just wasn't good for me. 

[cramx3]

My only problem with special effects today is sometimes it is over used.  Some spots would be better off with actors in a costume than a CGI character. 

I remember as a kid watching old movies and thinking wow these special effects are terrible compared to what is out now... and now its the same thing except what was good before is crappy now and the cycle continues...

[Calvin6s]

I remember as a kid watching old movies and thinking wow these special effects are terrible compared to what is out now... and now its the same thing except what was good before is crappy now and the cycle continues...

And there it is.  That's called life experience.  You go through a couple cycles of that and you chill thereafter.  It is kind of like science, nutrition, etc.  When you are in high school, you bad mouth the past and say stupid things like "they just didn't know better back then.  Now we know."  Nope.  In 5-20 years you will be talking about the "we know better now" time as "we just didn't know better back then."  And you accept that "today" will be viewed as archaic a few years later.

[orcus116]

all I remember from Avatar is watching it with my wife and having both of us say out loud. at pretty much the same time, what would happen in each upcoming scene.  complete copy and paste storyline, or as Rush would say, so much style without substance, so much stuff without style.

Yeah that was pretty much my experience in the theater. The amount of money it made just baffles me because of how banal the movie was but that's not why I didn't like it.

[Zook]

Avatar definitely wasn't "cool" when it came out. Everyone agreed it looked amazing but a lot of people thought it was rubbish because it made so much money.

Slightly Fixed.

I think if Avatar came out and was a much smaller hit that made money but didn't become the #1 Grossing Film of All Time -

- people wouldn't be so quick to knock it.

Online - if something is wildly successful or popular - there's this weird trend where people have to "prove" that it is in fact "shit".

Can you stop having this ridiculous opinion please? You say this about a lot of things. I have yet to see Avatar because I just don't care. I'm sick of Frozen, but it was enjoyable when I saw it. That new short before Cinderella proved the franchise had already run its course, but I don't hate Frozen. I'm sure there are those who hate stuff for being popular, but that's not everyone. That's such a stupid way of thinking anyway. Not everyone is one of those Marvel VS DC fanboys who has to only like one brand for some reason, and shit all over something before even seeing it.

And really, that trend only really applies to actual shit movies like Bayformers.

[cramx3]

Avatar was a fine movie, sure it was a ripoff story, but there isn't a whole lot of originality coming out of hollywood these days.  It was a fine movie, because it pushed the limits of what a movie could do.  I saw it in IMAX 3D and loved it, but I havent watched it since.  It was an enjoyable experience, but not a great movie for its story.

[orcus116]

How did it push limits? It was executed like your typical blockbuster movie.

[cramx3]

How did it push limits? It was executed like your typical blockbuster movie.

I had never seen any visuals like that in a movie before.  As far as I understand, Camaron used new filming tactics to make that movie. 

From wikipedia (which I understand should not be sourced as fact, but these quotes are sourced)

The film made extensive use of new motion capture filming techniques,[24] and was released for traditional viewing, 3D viewing (using the RealD 3D, Dolby 3D, XpanD 3D, and IMAX 3D formats), and for "4D" experiences in select South Korean theaters.[25] The stereoscopic filmmaking was touted as a breakthrough in cinematic technology.[26]

[ariich]

How did it push limits? It was executed like your typical blockbuster movie.

I believe he meant in terms of effects/technology, rather than story telling.

And yes, it was groundbreaking in that regard. But the story was so generic it was funny. Calling the rare mineral "unobtanium" caused me to literally laugh out loud. Overall I enjoyed the film, but it was not a cinematic masterpiece.

And I agree with Zook, some people will hate something just because it's popular, but I don't see any of that happening here. And as a general point, you could apply that to basically anything. Nobody bothers complaining about the obscure stuff, no matter how terrible it is, because nobody knows it anyway.

[Calvin6s]

Calling the rare mineral "unobtanium" caused me to literally laugh out loud. Overall I enjoyed the film, but it was not a cinematic masterpiece.

   same here.  And then I refused to let it take up any brain storage space, but now you went and cemented it in there.  I'd say that might be one of the most cringe worthy part of the movie, but I'm probably blocking out other stuff.  For the record, I didn't hate Avatar.  I just have absolutely no desire to ever see it again.

[hefdaddy42]

Yeah, the visuals are fantastic, but there is nothing else commendable about the film.  The story is generic, the acting is wooden, and the plot is fairly predictable.

If it didn't have visuals like it does, no one would care about it at all now.

[Kotowboy]

I like the direction too. The final big battle at the end is well shot and paced nicely.

I think the whole film is paced very well.

[ozzy554]

Avatar was the weirdest version of Pocahontas I have ever seen.

[cramx3]

How did it push limits? It was executed like your typical blockbuster movie.

I believe he meant in terms of effects/technology, rather than story telling.

And yes, it was groundbreaking in that regard. But the story was so generic it was funny. Calling the rare mineral "unobtanium" caused me to literally laugh out loud. Overall I enjoyed the film, but it was not a cinematic masterpiece.

Yes, that is what I meant... this is the Special Effects thread!  Anyway, yea the movie in terms of story and acting and whatnot was not that impressive.  I just liked it because it was one of the coolest movie theater experiences I have had.  Really amazing visuals, that is all it was to me which is why I can say I enjoyed the movie, but I wouldn't say it was good.

[ariich]

Avatar was the weirdest version of Pocahontas I have ever seen.

That's because it was only 60% Pocahontas. The other 40% was Fern Gully.

[Zantera]

I think the problem with special effects is that a lot of movies use too much of it. I think there is a perfect balance of practical and CGI, but a lot of movies seem to ignore the practical side and make it easier for themselves. Just compare the original Jurassic Park with Jurassic Park 3. The original still looks better.

[hefdaddy42]

Avatar was the weirdest version of Pocahontas I have ever seen.

That's because it was only 60% Pocahontas. The other 40% was Fern Gully.

Your percentages are off.  You are missing Dances With Wolves (although, it could be construed that the percentage for that film is embedded in the other two - but it came first).