SFX...when was the sweet spot?

[AlexCrowley 0]

So, thinking about computer graphics and my recent forays into sfx software.......

I realized recently that special effects are currently HORRIBLE. With very rare exceptions I cannot think of a decent digital special effect that didnt make me think 'wow, nice computer graphics'.

With the exception of perhaps the digital spiderman in the second movie I cannot think of a solid fx shot in recent films (except obviously stylized ones) that surpass the physical models used in the 80s and 90s (and even some modern films).

Beyond the usual rash of bullshit - I was was wondering if anyone else had noticed how crap fx have become since the influx of digital.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[turtlespeed 226]

Some of the DFX in Lost In Space were short and impressive and then some were not.

But The overlays and such were cool.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jheadley 0]

Yea I've too noticed that a lot of times using puppets and stuff like that actually looks better than CGI. The wolves/hyenas or whatever they were in Exorcist : The Beginning I remember to be especially terrible looking.

Gollum in Lord of the Rings was pretty good though.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Yea I've too noticed that a lot of times using puppets and stuff like that actually looks better than CGI. The wolves/hyenas or whatever they were in Exorcist : The Beginning I remember to be especially terrible looking.

Gollum in Lord of the Rings was pretty good though.

Yoda in Episode 2 was cool.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[AlexCrowley 0]

good call on Gollum, although it's worth remembering that Pete Jackson did a great deal of his own work with fx, miniatures and models on his early movies and seems to apply a lot of that philosophy on his big budget films - a great deal of LOTR fx were in camera for live action.

Context can be another issue. I'm having trouble with the new season of 24 because whomever is the new sound engineer has decided to TURN THE MUSIC SOUNDTRACK UP TO FULL VOLUME SO IT SOUNDS LIKE A VIDEO GAME.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Not particularly, although it's worth noting that the Fx guys talked about early yoda's being too lifelike, it wasnt until they modelled all the limitations of the original model that yoda came to life (like the wobbly ears, "puppet" movement etc), the original renderings were 'like a small green man'.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[PhreeZone 20]

Some of the effects on Battlestar Galatica are extremely well done, they do a pretty nice job of blending models, CG and every other trick in the bag to make it flow on a Television show budget.

About the peak for me was at that introduction of Jurrasic Park. It was clear what was models and what wasn't. Ever since then (minus LOTR) I have'nt been overly impressed with too much in the movies.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Kid_Icarus 0]

I have a theory on that. I feel that the eye will always know what is real. Star wars, the original... original original.. not the redone shit... was awesome and still is. They were real. Real explosions. Real sets. Real models. The eye know that those objects exist. When you add CGi shit... the first instant thought is .. computer graphics... then "wow!" or "that looks like shit" Even Spaceballs was cool. I guess i'm just a fan of the models...

________________________________________
"What What.....

[AlexCrowley 0]

no, I tend to agree with you. I think it's not only that the physical has those imperfections that register as 'real' but that the things interacting with them behave differently.

Strangely I see a great deal of current CGI like Ray Harryhausen movies, actors acting to nothing. The difference was that Harryhausen's models had a great deal of personality (which is why we remember them as his films rather than the directors).

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

no, I tend to agree with you. I think it's not only that the physical has those imperfections that register as 'real' but that the things interacting with them behave differently.

Strangely I see a great deal of current CGI like Ray Harryhausen movies, actors acting to nothing. The difference was that Harryhausen's models had a great deal of personality (which is why we remember them as his films rather than the directors).

Worst I have seen in a while -

http://www.skycaptain.com/

Really REALLY horrible

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[mcneill79 0]

Quote

SFX...when was the sweet spot?

I totally misread this

[kingbunky 3]

Quote

Quote

SFX...when was the sweet spot?

I totally misread this

i was wondering if anyone else had.

"Hang on a sec, the young'uns are throwin' beer cans at a golf cart."
MB4252 TDS699
killing threads since 2001

[lawrocket 3]

I don't like them either, but they are cheaper and easier to do than to build models, etc.

Which is why they are used. Heck, I still prefer vinyl over CDs, so I am a luddite, I guess.

My wife is hotter than your wife.