Badmovies.org Forum

There are many ways to make a monster on the big screen. Which form of SFX is truly the best at bringing creatures to life?

At first I thought the title was "Best type of Creature SEX". I'm glad I was wrong.

Stop Motion, BTW.

Thanks for making me realise what thoughts the title might unintentionally provoke. It's now been changed to FX.

Was Medusa stop motion or an animatronic puppet from Clash Of The Titans 1983? Maybe a mix of both?

(http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/7227/image00001gf.jpg) (http://img59.imageshack.us/i/image00001gf.jpg/)

I voted all 5 since I think they all have their place.

Personally, I think the most creative artists are those that have lots of tools in their toolboxes and know how to apply those tools in various settings.  Shoehorning effects where they look out of place is certainly a problem (and the issue I think most people have with CGI), but making a visual effect look "understated" is a skill that requires (again, in my opinion) the flexibility to use the tool for the job.

I've done (for personal, amateur projects) stop motion animation and CGI, and I know that both are VERY hard to get to look right.  That said, my daughter and I did a stop motion of one of her stuffed animals, a colorful alligator, eating another (a small stuffed elephant) that, though very short, turned out very cool.  We also did a bit of a stuffed sheep like it was talking/telling a story that we could dub over some voice work that turned out nice.

I have extremely limited experience with make-up effects (mostly stuff like Halloween costumes), and again, I hold in very high regard those that can make these look good on film.

So, I guess I see the art of visual effects as a whole with different components, not as competing techniques in an "either - or" dichotomy.

I just watched that scene recently. I am almost certain it's all stop motion.

Stop motion. Animatronics/puppets. Rubber Suits. All work for me.

I'm not totally anti-CGI, but I voted for all the other options 'cause I love all the old techniques.  Effects are far more memorable to me when they have a genuine physical presence.  Even when they're kind of poor and hokey they can retain some charm or at least stimulate the imagination.

It really depends.  With a man sized/shaped creature, makeup and prosthetics can be extremely effective.  If you've got something that's not man sized/shaped, then animatronics and puppets can look really good.  Guys in rubber suits almost always tend to look cheesy, but there's nothing wrong with that.  Even CGI has its place.  I've seen a guy in a rubber suit with CGI legs, which created an interesting and unexpected look.  Normally though it looks fake as all get-out, even if they put a whole lot of money into it.  Stop motion can be pretty cool, at least there's something real in front of the camera.

I voted for them all except CGI which to me is just too many cooks in the kitchen and it's just way too overdone. I prefer the the more individualistic expression allowed for in the other forms...I know CGI does have its place and can be done well but to me, I cannot think of too many individual CGI characters who truly left me feeling like that's a character...not the way Godzilla, the Ymir, King Kong, The Wolf Man or Robocop does...

all of the creatures in Clash of the Titans are stop motion. They were created and animated by none other than the legendary Ray Harryhausen.

Yeah, I had to vote for all five.  The all have their place in movie history and modern films as well. (Even stop motion animation). 

A lot of people bash on CG!, but movies like Jurrasic Park would not have worked as well without it.  And while I may not haver liked the movie Avatar for its story that much, I can certainly appreciate the artistry that went into its creation.  Another fun thing about CGI is now with plenty of animation software avalible, even free ones like Blender or DAZ studio, and movie software on being sold with computers plenty of amaturs can start creating movies.  They won't have to worry about cost and can focus on creating and improving their work.  A digital artist named Steve Stone said that as people got more comfortable with computers, they started giving up the tricks and focused on what really made art good like form and compostion.   

Still puppets and suit make it better when interations with live people are required.  Again Jurrasic Park had some animatroics for cetain senes and the Hellboy movies have some of the best suit work of recent times I can remember.

I didn't vote for CGI because it is now being used and abused like crazy. It really is a cheap way to get noticed. Sure some movies have some good CGI, like Jurassic Park or District 9, or the likes of Wall-E, but, for the most part, It really doesn't work, as in you can see the computer outlines or like a 64-bit computer generated car model (cough Fast and furious 4 cough), but it really depends on the artistic value and the realism of the character interactions.

Animatronics/Suits all the way!

Thank God for Walt Disney and the people who made Godzilla, without them movie making might not be where its at today!

My favorite is animatronic/puppet, but I think the best way to achieve great looking creatures is to mix and match them all. A perfect example is the first Jurassic Park, which used animatronic and cgi (to shade and smooth out the rough edges).

That being said, I usually hate when the creature is all cgi, but even those have their gems (SHARKTOPUS!!!).

I went with prosthetic and stop motion.
I like prosthetic because it allows the human element. Can you imagine the 1931 FRANKENSTIEN as rubber mask? Karloff would have had a hard time emoting if he looked like...I dunno...TEENAGE FRANKENSTEIN.
And as for stop motion....compare the 1933 KING KONG with the man in a suit KONGA. (Though Rick Baker did a pretty good job in a suit in the 1976 remake.The only good thing about that picture.) I did think the cgi in the new KING KONG was done very well,though. I guess I like the stop motion because...I dunno...I grew up on Harryhausens wonderful movies. I gotta soft spot for 'em.
BUT....rubber suits are fun...Paul Blaisdall's AIP creatures are classic!

For me, it depends entirely on the creature design and what the movie needs it to do. If it's human-sized and creeping around, a rubber suit/prosthetic can be very effective. Need a few shots of its decidedly un-human facial features contorting in ways no actor could make a mask move? Animatronics might be the way to go. Something huge or with an anatomy completely unlike a human's that's moving around a lot very quickly? CGI can make it look quite realistic. Looking to add some old-school charm to a creature that can't be played by a guy in a suit? Stop-motion's still a viable option.

No matter which FX route you go, it should be justified in the context of the story you want to tell. Does your futuristic sci-fi REALLY need that 10-storey tall robot? Is there any reason you can't use a smaller one? Is there even any reason to have that robot at all?

1) Rubber Suit (Funny)
2) Anything you don't notice.

Anything but CGI is cool to me, i mean theirs some times when CGI is done right, but even then you kno that its just a computerized image, i prefer it if theirs actualy something their for the actors to interact with even if it does make it look extremely cheesy.

I've always been more of a fan of the practical effects. No matter how crummy a suit or a puppet looks, I'd still prefer it over CGI.

I'll be honest though, CGI has impressed me in the past (i.e. Avatar, Jurassic Park and The Lord of the Rings trilogy). My only problems with computer generated creatures has to do with the way it moves. Texture-wise, normally the design is pretty cool, but the movement is often too fast or too smooth and it winds up looking too cartoonish. It's happened often where I feel like I'm looking at a videogame character instead of an actual creature.

I'm aware of the difficulties that come with trying to create a computer generated monster. But when it comes down to choose a technique: puppets win for me.

I also picked all five because like ulthar stated they all their place.

A lot of people come down on cgi, saying it looks fake. But there's also a lot of times where it goes unnoticed and feels seamless. If you go back you'll surely find horrible model work, stop motion work and make up. These tools are only as good and effective as the artists using them.

DEFINITLY stop motion! Courtesy of the one and only Ray Harryhausen! The Master behind the Ymir in 20 MILLION MILES TO EARTH, The Octopus (with 6 arms!) in IT CAME FROM BENEATH THE SEA,EARTH VS THE FLYING SAUCERS,The MYSTERIOUS ISLAND,JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS,the SINBAD movies-so many more...!

I have a dvd called the SCI FI BOYS-which is a history and biography of folks like us-GEEKS! The film is about the original geeks-Forry Ackerman,Ray Harryhausen,Ray Bradbury......our fore runners.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6S87YEklso

I love these guys. They made my childhood.  :smile:

Stop animation is king.  If you don't believe so watch "Jason and the Argonaughts."

CGI can be exquisite (Gollum animated onto Andy Serkis' motion capture, with Serkis' awesome voice, for example).    It can also just be glaringly artificial and tacky.

They can all be awesome in their place... but their place has to be in a well told story.

Much the same way that awesome graphics in a video game are one thing, but they cannot stand alone (must have a good story).

Yes sir, they certainly were.  Ray Harryhausen is a god among men in terms of creature animation. None before him, none after.  He also animated Jason And The Argonauts (1960's version)  the 70's era Sinbad movies,  the Ymir from 20 Million Miles To Earth, and one of my personal favorites,  The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms.

Me, I can't really say what my favorite is. Being raised on suit actors in Toho' Godzilla films, and the stop-motion actions from Hollywood, it's hard to pick one over the other.

It has its downsides, often more than naught they never have the same level of detail or movement as an actual living being. Go-motion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_motion was a really promising advancement for the field, sadly most of its stuff can be supplemented with computers nowadays.

It's hard to say what is my favorite.  I do prefer practical effects over CGI, though it's finally beginning to come into it's own.  I miss puppetry a lot.  You rarely see it anymore.