Real effects VS computer effects

[Susan]

real effects vs computer effects:
Case in point: GODZILLA

one point for rubber suit man..who periodically appears in some of my favorite monster movies which require more from the imagination of the audience than quality effects



Post Edited (01-05-04 20:25)

[Scott]

JURASSIC PARK was good, but the sequels were just more of the original film and couldn't get into it to much. The original idea at the time of the insect preserved in amber was neat, but the effects wore off in more ways than one.

That American Godzilla with Broderick was one of the biggest let downs for me. They could have done the film without using the name of GODZILLA.

[Genetic Mishap]

Me, and some friends, still attest that the original Jurassic Park has some of the best CG effects ever. The use of lighting and practical effects worked in conjunction to earn it that title.

Ditto on the Aliens. Excellent work there- the animals are intended to be "biomechanical-insectoid", so that's a big plus for the puppeteers.

Another aspect that must be considered is the animation and thought given to the effect. JP's dinosaurs are animated quite nicely, while other monster movies animate the critters all wrong. Some examples include those "Walking with Dinosaurs" ripoffs that air on the Discovery Channel every 4 months or so. Those guys can't animate the dinosaurs worth a damn. Another example? Anaconda. Holy screaming hyperactive constrictors, Batman.

[Grumpy Guy]

Genetic  Mishap wrote:

Another
> example? Anaconda. Holy screaming hyperactive constrictors,
> Batman.
>

Yeah, didn't you just love that?  

A note to filmakers everywhere:  

SNAKES CANNOT SCREAM,
SHARKS CANNOT SWIM BACKWARD,
and HYPER-INTELLIGENCE DOES NOT MEAN KNOWLEDGE OF THINGS OUTSIDE YOUR POWERS OF PERCEPTION AND FRAME OF REFERENCE.

God, that stuff gives me the redass...

[BoyScoutKevin]

If this was a poll, I'd have to vote for "real effects." As far as "computer effects" have come, for the most part, they still look fake to me. I will make one exception, and that is for "Final Fantasy." In the end, I didn't care much for it, I thought the story was weak, but, when I first saw the trailer for it, I actually thought I was watching real actors on the screen. It had to be pointed out to me, I was watching computer generated characters.

[FearlessFreep]

A note to filmakers everywhere:

SNAKES CANNOT SCREAM,
SHARKS CANNOT SWIM BACKWARD,
and HYPER-INTELLIGENCE DOES NOT MEAN KNOWLEDGE OF THINGS OUTSIDE YOUR POWERS OF PERCEPTION AND FRAME OF REFERENCE.

In fairness, none of these are germane to using computer genrerated effects, just stupid filmmaking

[FearlessFreep]

As far as "computer effects" have come, for the most part, they still look fake to me.

Yeah,  dragging some fake rats stuck to a board in front of the camera is so much more realistic than, say, the creatures from "Pitch Black"  :)

I'm always amused by the 'more realistic' idea given that while some GC effects are  bad, some have been very good.  And while some 'traditional' effects have been good, some have been very...very bad

[StatCat]

It's all about real effects for me- even if they are bad (usually adding to my enjoyment of the film.)  CGI sucks

[JackFlack]

Well, when it comes to monsters in horror movies, I'm always a lot more scared of prosthetics and puppets than CG creatures.  CG monsters usually just look stupid and awkward, unless they are done REALLY well.  Low budget prosthetics/puppets are a lot more convincing than low budget CG.

However, CG is VERY good for rendering energy/light effects and stuff going on in the background as mentioned earlier.

While some of the effects in MIB2 like the worms was done well, other stuff just looked plain aweful, like the tentacles on the main villain.  They pretty much ruined the movie for me (that along with a lot of other p**s-poor stuff done in that film).