Special Effects, overrated?

[ríomhaire]

I think special effects are overrated in more than 1 respect. IMO the Vogons in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy couldn't have looked better if they were CGI.
I aslo think that films are paying too much attention to putting in special effects aswell, especialy when they sometimes they look rather terrible and people still say that they're fantastic(really annoying)

 

[lister]

why are they re-creating all the old movies, its frigging ruining everything.

 

[Loke]

Movies like Star Wars Episode 2 and 3 look rather fake with the fact that ~95% of both the movies are all CGI. It's like watching a Pixar movie imo.

 

[DEATH eVADER]

Movies like Star Wars Episode 2 and 3 look rather fake with the fact that ~95% of both the movies are all CGI. It's like watching a Pixar movie imo.

I noticed that as well, compared to a film like Serenity (which has a smaller SFX budget) George Lucas wasn't getting enough "Bang for his Buck"

 

[<RJMC>]

the last movie whit very good cg that I remenber was the lord of the rings,especially golum(the big eyed double personalty thing) was very realistic

and is true that almost everything looks more fake that real,I even consider some old movies hav better looking effects that most of the new ones

 

[Beerdude26]

why are they re-creating all the old movies, its frigging ruining everything.

Because our inspiration box is empty D:

 

[DEATH eVADER]

The reason why I thought that the CG in Episode III looked fake (especially in the fight seen at the beginning) was they didn't use lighting and shadows effectively. The two Jedi fighters, weaving in and out of each other was confusing because I didn't see any shadow interactions between the two, as a point of reference.

 

[ríomhaire]

the last movie whit very good cg that I remenber was the lord of the rings,especially golum(the big eyed double personalty thing) was very realistic

and is true that almost everything looks more fake that real,I even consider some old movies hav better looking effects that most of the new ones

Gollum looks good on his own but when you start comparing him to the rest of the world and the impact he has on the world, shadows, his feet not moving stones etc and it looses alot of the effect.

 

[Qonfused]

Special effects aren't special anymore. They're everywhere. But movies like War of the Worlds DESERVE to highlight theri special effects since they're amasing.

 

[DEATH eVADER]

Special effects aren't special anymore.

A list of alternative names

Interactive effects
Scientific effects
Physics effects
Illusion creation
Technical Wizardry
Witchcraft

or you could stick to CGI

 

[Space Farm]

It's just like anything else. Too much of something isn't a good thing.

Having said that it is needed though. Can you imagine Lord Of The Rings if CG wasn't available? Would you rather King Kong in a giant monkey suit? etc...

Also Speacial Effects means practical effects as well. I think you, ríomhaire, meant CGI effects.

 

[Que-Ever]

looking at the old star wars movies... I don't remember the last time I saw the actual, untouched-up versions, like from '77 and all that, but I see clips from them all over the place, and they looked really nice, and that was back when they used the models on wires still, right? like, that one little clip of an x-wing over the death star doing a sort of barrel roll that is in absolutely every TV spot ever created. It looks really, really nice, because the ship looks grungy, and dirty, the shadows, uh, correspond, I guess, and it just looks real. Nowadays, it's just... you can tell when CGI is being used, and where the special effects are. one thing that gives it away is taht everything looks... clean. I dunno, not like, shiny, new clean, but like, clear cut, that kind of clean. It's irritating. To me, at least. I think, if companies like THX or WETA or whatever, if they wanna do somehting that looks really cool, and really special special effects, they should make it look REAL, and not just intricate, detailed real, but actually real. It's hard for me to explain what I'm thinking, but I hope somebody gets it D:

 

[Stigmata]

Let's just start calling them Visual Post-Production Effects, and leave it at that. No confusion there.

 

[Dekstar]

Let's just start calling them Visual Post-Production Effects, and leave it at that. No confusion there.

Post is after the filming's done? I thought Pre was that


(lolQonfushens)

 

[satch919]

There are movies that rely on it too much. However, I think it is essential. The more studios use it, the more they'll understand it and we'll start seeing more realistic special effects.

 

[Direwolf]

Theres actually a lot of good special effects out there. The problem is that the good ones are invisible. So you only see the bad ones.

 

[kupocake]

It's kind of getting tiring going to see the latest live-action blockbuster, and feeling like you've actually just sat through a Computer Game cutscene. In King Kong's case, that's one BIG long cutscene. With special reference to Kong, I was actually shocked at how completely unnatural the CGI looked. I was amazed only that the technology hasn't actually progressed over the last few years. Just about everything was in CGI, and it was painfully easy to spot.

 

[Direwolf]

Hold on...we're talking about the same King Kong, right?

 

[<RJMC>]

since are people talking about king kong,is it good?
I liked the game

 

[DEATH eVADER]

since are people talking about king kong,is it good?
I liked the game

Its good to watch, they especially got the emotional expressions of Kong great. I just thought they could of taken an hour out of the 3 hour film.

 

[Glo-Boy]

There is a difference between special effects and visual effects