The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Good special effects in films today are amazing.
In a relatively short space of time the use of computer graphics in films has become huge, with major advances in computer technology every year the effects are mind-blowing. But are new CG effects taking centre stage?
Certainly, film special effects of today a far cry from those crude effects seen in 50’s ‘B-Movies’, like The Blob. (Imagine what the ‘Blob’ could look like in the 21st century.)
It’s hard to believe that some of my favourite films, many only 10 or so years old contain no computer effects at all, and yet I still prefer them to many of the modern blockbusters.
Take the original Star Wars trilogy; those films still look visually amazing even by today’s standards (although many of the effects were jazzed up for the special edition release).
Compare those Star Wars films to Episode 1 and the soon to arrive Episode 2.
George Lucas had to wait until the late nineties to start on the prequels, because great CG effects were needed to complete his sci-fi vision.
But like millions of others, I prefer the originals. No amount of great CG wizardry can recreate Han Solo and Chewbacca. Can it???....
Terminator 2 was a major pioneer of CG effects in films.
Movie goers were left stunned a decade ago when the liquid metal ‘T-1000’ was on screen, morphing and generally being cool and metally.
Although it did have a vastly lower budget, the original now looks pretty unspectacular.
With ‘T3’ scheduled to arrive in 2003?? (With a supposedly massive budget), the possibilities for amazing robot effects are exciting.
Tron was another film that used cutting edge computer graphics that were a revelation in its time, and again, there are rumours of a possible sequel to that as well (possibly called Tron 2.0) which could use jaw dropping visual effects.
Like Tron before it, The Lawnmower man, though not one of my favourites, took the use of CG to new heights in creating a virtual world on the screen.
Hollow Man is a visually outstanding film, and compared to the older ‘invisible man’ films shows how far cg have come. The effects technicians on that film created amazingly detailed and complex skeletal and muscular systems to make Kevin Bacon’s ‘Sebastian Caine’ gradually vanish in front of our eyes.
Do great CG effects mean great movies?
Sure, Lord of the Rings, Gladiator etc are visually amazing and also very good films.
But you don’t always need CG effects to do the job.
2001: A Space Odyssey didn’t use any CG only models, and yet still remains one of the most awe inspiring cinematic eye candy you can see, thanks to talented model makers and amazing direction from Kubrick.
Films like Nightmare on Elm Street, Evil Dead, Robocop and The Thing only used make up effects, and yet still look amazing.
Dawn of the Dead still remains my favourite horror movie, and yet is only simple make up, orangey blood and a shopping mall.
The special edition version of E.T coming out soon is going to make use of new CG effects to help make the ugly little alien spud run and have better facial emotions and a better looking space craft etc, but should this be done or should we just leave old films as they are?
If Steven Spielberg decided to do a special edition of Jaws would he replace the scary rubber shark we all know and love into a mean and vicious CG shark??
Would difficult or dangerous stunts like Jackie chan’s clock tower fall in Project A be a thing of the past? CG effects would be used now I’m sure. Think of all those out of work stuntmen.
Planet of the Apes, no amount of great effects could improve upon the perfect 1968 original.
The future....
Entirely Computer generated movies like Toy Story 1 & 2 and Shrek amazed us, then Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within made the idea of the ‘virtual actor’ seem possible.
Could virtual actors be the future of film effects?
I wouldn’t of thought so, but an idea like being able to choose your favourite James Bond actor to be put into a new 007 adventure using CG effects could be cool (Roger Moore could live forever!)
Before The Phantom Menace came out, there were rumours that CG effects might be used to put a virtual and younger version of the late Alec Guinness’s face onto the body of Obi-Wan Kenobi.
Where do you think CG effects are going?
Are they playing too much of a part or are they allowing filmmakers to show us their true cinematic visions?
Or do you think films are too reliant on CG effects today?
Thanks for reading.
In a relatively short space of time the use of computer graphics in films has become huge, with major advances in computer technology every year the effects are mind-blowing. But are new CG effects taking centre stage?
Certainly, film special effects of today a far cry from those crude effects seen in 50’s ‘B-Movies’, like The Blob. (Imagine what the ‘Blob’ could look like in the 21st century.)
It’s hard to believe that some of my favourite films, many only 10 or so years old contain no computer effects at all, and yet I still prefer them to many of the modern blockbusters.
Take the original Star Wars trilogy; those films still look visually amazing even by today’s standards (although many of the effects were jazzed up for the special edition release).
Compare those Star Wars films to Episode 1 and the soon to arrive Episode 2.
George Lucas had to wait until the late nineties to start on the prequels, because great CG effects were needed to complete his sci-fi vision.
But like millions of others, I prefer the originals. No amount of great CG wizardry can recreate Han Solo and Chewbacca. Can it???....
Terminator 2 was a major pioneer of CG effects in films.
Movie goers were left stunned a decade ago when the liquid metal ‘T-1000’ was on screen, morphing and generally being cool and metally.
Although it did have a vastly lower budget, the original now looks pretty unspectacular.
With ‘T3’ scheduled to arrive in 2003?? (With a supposedly massive budget), the possibilities for amazing robot effects are exciting.
Tron was another film that used cutting edge computer graphics that were a revelation in its time, and again, there are rumours of a possible sequel to that as well (possibly called Tron 2.0) which could use jaw dropping visual effects.
Like Tron before it, The Lawnmower man, though not one of my favourites, took the use of CG to new heights in creating a virtual world on the screen.
Hollow Man is a visually outstanding film, and compared to the older ‘invisible man’ films shows how far cg have come. The effects technicians on that film created amazingly detailed and complex skeletal and muscular systems to make Kevin Bacon’s ‘Sebastian Caine’ gradually vanish in front of our eyes.
Do great CG effects mean great movies?
Sure, Lord of the Rings, Gladiator etc are visually amazing and also very good films.
But you don’t always need CG effects to do the job.
2001: A Space Odyssey didn’t use any CG only models, and yet still remains one of the most awe inspiring cinematic eye candy you can see, thanks to talented model makers and amazing direction from Kubrick.
Films like Nightmare on Elm Street, Evil Dead, Robocop and The Thing only used make up effects, and yet still look amazing.
Dawn of the Dead still remains my favourite horror movie, and yet is only simple make up, orangey blood and a shopping mall.
The special edition version of E.T coming out soon is going to make use of new CG effects to help make the ugly little alien spud run and have better facial emotions and a better looking space craft etc, but should this be done or should we just leave old films as they are?
If Steven Spielberg decided to do a special edition of Jaws would he replace the scary rubber shark we all know and love into a mean and vicious CG shark??
Would difficult or dangerous stunts like Jackie chan’s clock tower fall in Project A be a thing of the past? CG effects would be used now I’m sure. Think of all those out of work stuntmen.
Planet of the Apes, no amount of great effects could improve upon the perfect 1968 original.
The future....
Entirely Computer generated movies like Toy Story 1 & 2 and Shrek amazed us, then Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within made the idea of the ‘virtual actor’ seem possible.
Could virtual actors be the future of film effects?
I wouldn’t of thought so, but an idea like being able to choose your favourite James Bond actor to be put into a new 007 adventure using CG effects could be cool (Roger Moore could live forever!)
Before The Phantom Menace came out, there were rumours that CG effects might be used to put a virtual and younger version of the late Alec Guinness’s face onto the body of Obi-Wan Kenobi.
Where do you think CG effects are going?
Are they playing too much of a part or are they allowing filmmakers to show us their true cinematic visions?
Or do you think films are too reliant on CG effects today?
Thanks for reading.
There is a mistake that people make. Just because a film makes use of good technology, it doesn't make a good film. e.g. The Mummy 2, The One, Bedazzeled, Romeo Must Die, Charlie's Angels, i could go on forever.
Any way. Films that you mentioned such as T2, Lord of the Rings and Gladiator are normally made well films, with good SFX put in as a bonus.
Films that are made by technology are normally dull and rubbish. Films that are made by truely skilled directors are much better.
In conclusion, GC is a bonus in films it is not and should never be a driving force for making the film.
Any way. Films that you mentioned such as T2, Lord of the Rings and Gladiator are normally made well films, with good SFX put in as a bonus.
Films that are made by technology are normally dull and rubbish. Films that are made by truely skilled directors are much better.
In conclusion, GC is a bonus in films it is not and should never be a driving force for making the film.
When CG effects are done right, we see a good end product up on the cinema screen. I thought the CG in Gladiator were very good, creating amazing Roman colloseums and cities etc.
But take The Mummy Returns for example, the CG was a much poorer standard than the original and therefore many or even most of the effects looked fake. Not good for the audience.
And we've seen tv movie standard films that have very poor cg effects which completely ruin the film.
But take The Mummy Returns for example, the CG was a much poorer standard than the original and therefore many or even most of the effects looked fake. Not good for the audience.
And we've seen tv movie standard films that have very poor cg effects which completely ruin the film.
What is weird is when u get a film that looks really new like, oh i don;t know, Hellbound:Hellraiser II, due to really good visual effects, (Blood, gore and make-up/costumes etc.) but has crap special effects (Lightning, explosions etc.). Now that just looks weird! Also, did u no that in Psycho, hitchcock thought that the stage blood looked un-realistic in black and white, so do you no wot he used? Chocolate syrup.
Man I was just about to post a topic about how BAD special effects are right now
Gladiator looked awful, everything was SO obviously CG
The only films out now which have realistic CG effects are Pearl Harbour, J Park 3 and Episode 1
Everything else - I can tell they're done on computers
Gladiator looked awful, everything was SO obviously CG
The only films out now which have realistic CG effects are Pearl Harbour, J Park 3 and Episode 1
Everything else - I can tell they're done on computers
Good special effects in films today are amazing.
In a relatively short space of time the use of computer graphics in films has become huge, with major advances in computer technology every year the effects are mind-blowing. But are new CG effects taking centre stage?
Certainly, film special effects of today a far cry from those crude effects seen in 50’s ‘B-Movies’, like The Blob. (Imagine what the ‘Blob’ could look like in the 21st century.)
It’s hard to believe that some of my favourite films, many only 10 or so years old contain no computer effects at all, and yet I still prefer them to many of the modern blockbusters.
Take the original Star Wars trilogy; those films still look visually amazing even by today’s standards (although many of the effects were jazzed up for the special edition release).
Compare those Star Wars films to Episode 1 and the soon to arrive Episode 2.
George Lucas had to wait until the late nineties to start on the prequels, because great CG effects were needed to complete his sci-fi vision.
But like millions of others, I prefer the originals. No amount of great CG wizardry can recreate Han Solo and Chewbacca. Can it???....
Terminator 2 was a major pioneer of CG effects in films.
Movie goers were left stunned a decade ago when the liquid metal ‘T-1000’ was on screen, morphing and generally being cool and metally.
Although it did have a vastly lower budget, the original now looks pretty unspectacular.
With ‘T3’ scheduled to arrive in 2003?? (With a supposedly massive budget), the possibilities for amazing robot effects are exciting.
Tron was another film that used cutting edge computer graphics that were a revelation in its time, and again, there are rumours of a possible sequel to that as well (possibly called Tron 2.0) which could use jaw dropping visual effects.
Like Tron before it, The Lawnmower man, though not one of my favourites, took the use of CG to new heights in creating a virtual world on the screen.
Hollow Man is a visually outstanding film, and compared to the older ‘invisible man’ films shows how far cg have come. The effects technicians on that film created amazingly detailed and complex skeletal and muscular systems to make Kevin Bacon’s ‘Sebastian Caine’ gradually vanish in front of our eyes.
Do great CG effects mean great movies?
Sure, Lord of the Rings, Gladiator etc are visually amazing and also very good films.
But you don’t always need CG effects to do the job.
2001: A Space Odyssey didn’t use any CG only models, and yet still remains one of the most awe inspiring cinematic eye candy you can see, thanks to talented model makers and amazing direction from Kubrick.
Films like Nightmare on Elm Street, Evil Dead, Robocop and The Thing only used make up effects, and yet still look amazing.
Dawn of the Dead still remains my favourite horror movie, and yet is only simple make up, orangey blood and a shopping mall.
The special edition version of E.T coming out soon is going to make use of new CG effects to help make the ugly little alien spud run and have better facial emotions and a better looking space craft etc, but should this be done or should we just leave old films as they are?
If Steven Spielberg decided to do a special edition of Jaws would he replace the scary rubber shark we all know and love into a mean and vicious CG shark??
Would difficult or dangerous stunts like Jackie chan’s clock tower fall in Project A be a thing of the past? CG effects would be used now I’m sure. Think of all those out of work stuntmen.
Planet of the Apes, no amount of great effects could improve upon the perfect 1968 original.
The future....
Entirely Computer generated movies like Toy Story 1 & 2 and Shrek amazed us, then Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within made the idea of the ‘virtual actor’ seem possible.
Could virtual actors be the future of film effects?
I wouldn’t of thought so, but an idea like being able to choose your favourite James Bond actor to be put into a new 007 adventure using CG effects could be cool (Roger Moore could live forever!)
Before The Phantom Menace came out, there were rumours that CG effects might be used to put a virtual and younger version of the late Alec Guinness’s face onto the body of Obi-Wan Kenobi.
Where do you think CG effects are going?
Are they playing too much of a part or are they allowing filmmakers to show us their true cinematic visions?
Or do you think films are too reliant on CG effects today?
Thanks for reading.
In a relatively short space of time the use of computer graphics in films has become huge, with major advances in computer technology every year the effects are mind-blowing. But are new CG effects taking centre stage?
Certainly, film special effects of today a far cry from those crude effects seen in 50’s ‘B-Movies’, like The Blob. (Imagine what the ‘Blob’ could look like in the 21st century.)
It’s hard to believe that some of my favourite films, many only 10 or so years old contain no computer effects at all, and yet I still prefer them to many of the modern blockbusters.
Take the original Star Wars trilogy; those films still look visually amazing even by today’s standards (although many of the effects were jazzed up for the special edition release).
Compare those Star Wars films to Episode 1 and the soon to arrive Episode 2.
George Lucas had to wait until the late nineties to start on the prequels, because great CG effects were needed to complete his sci-fi vision.
But like millions of others, I prefer the originals. No amount of great CG wizardry can recreate Han Solo and Chewbacca. Can it???....
Terminator 2 was a major pioneer of CG effects in films.
Movie goers were left stunned a decade ago when the liquid metal ‘T-1000’ was on screen, morphing and generally being cool and metally.
Although it did have a vastly lower budget, the original now looks pretty unspectacular.
With ‘T3’ scheduled to arrive in 2003?? (With a supposedly massive budget), the possibilities for amazing robot effects are exciting.
Tron was another film that used cutting edge computer graphics that were a revelation in its time, and again, there are rumours of a possible sequel to that as well (possibly called Tron 2.0) which could use jaw dropping visual effects.
Like Tron before it, The Lawnmower man, though not one of my favourites, took the use of CG to new heights in creating a virtual world on the screen.
Hollow Man is a visually outstanding film, and compared to the older ‘invisible man’ films shows how far cg have come. The effects technicians on that film created amazingly detailed and complex skeletal and muscular systems to make Kevin Bacon’s ‘Sebastian Caine’ gradually vanish in front of our eyes.
Do great CG effects mean great movies?
Sure, Lord of the Rings, Gladiator etc are visually amazing and also very good films.
But you don’t always need CG effects to do the job.
2001: A Space Odyssey didn’t use any CG only models, and yet still remains one of the most awe inspiring cinematic eye candy you can see, thanks to talented model makers and amazing direction from Kubrick.
Films like Nightmare on Elm Street, Evil Dead, Robocop and The Thing only used make up effects, and yet still look amazing.
Dawn of the Dead still remains my favourite horror movie, and yet is only simple make up, orangey blood and a shopping mall.
The special edition version of E.T coming out soon is going to make use of new CG effects to help make the ugly little alien spud run and have better facial emotions and a better looking space craft etc, but should this be done or should we just leave old films as they are?
If Steven Spielberg decided to do a special edition of Jaws would he replace the scary rubber shark we all know and love into a mean and vicious CG shark??
Would difficult or dangerous stunts like Jackie chan’s clock tower fall in Project A be a thing of the past? CG effects would be used now I’m sure. Think of all those out of work stuntmen.
Planet of the Apes, no amount of great effects could improve upon the perfect 1968 original.
The future....
Entirely Computer generated movies like Toy Story 1 & 2 and Shrek amazed us, then Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within made the idea of the ‘virtual actor’ seem possible.
Could virtual actors be the future of film effects?
I wouldn’t of thought so, but an idea like being able to choose your favourite James Bond actor to be put into a new 007 adventure using CG effects could be cool (Roger Moore could live forever!)
Before The Phantom Menace came out, there were rumours that CG effects might be used to put a virtual and younger version of the late Alec Guinness’s face onto the body of Obi-Wan Kenobi.
Where do you think CG effects are going?
Are they playing too much of a part or are they allowing filmmakers to show us their true cinematic visions?
Or do you think films are too reliant on CG effects today?
Thanks for reading.