Why have special effects gotten worse for some big budget films?

[D. Scott]

Some of the old school practical effects were amazing and the craftsmanship was some thing to be admired. Star wars, 2001, The Thing, And Dune are some great examples. I think some of today's CGI looks really good and gets better but is often overused. Sometimes less is more, Or the story gets "washed away....Like tears in the rain." : )

[mkpunk]

I think CGI is good so long as it don't look real in within the rules of the universe created in the film. For instance they have a gif of Spiderman who is known for being a contortionist in the comics so having him dodge and dive pumpkin bombs, electric blasts, sand and steel tenticnicles is realistic within the rules of the universe. Similarly they show Winter Solider Sparta kicking a S.H.I.E.L.D. technician into a quin-jet's engine for excessive violence but they forget to mention Winter Soldier was brainwashed just about 10 minutes earlier after he found out that Captain America was his old friend. Transformers in the cartoons showed that humans are not going to be hurt if they are caught by machines (somehow.) The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles throwing a foot clan through a train works, depending which rules of the turtles you go by as the original Turtles comic and the first movies were dark while the more widely known 1980's animated cartoon (where these turtles are mostly based off of) was more comedic. The Turtles movie took from both in ways.

As for CGI blood, if you are into bloodshed (I'm not despite being a hardcore wrestling fan) the splashes are more spectacular and controllable through CGI. I'd love to see practical effects return but if I am directing and/or producing it and I see say three failed attempts of using practical fake blood the way I want it, I'm going to post edit it in. This goes for puppet work. Watching some of the original Star Wars puppets that wasn't Yoda is almost 1978 Superman level effects or Japanese movie monster building crush bad. I mean we may knock the special edition edits but the Return of the Jedi bands and the sarlac pit were just horrid until they were redone.

[loves2read]

CGI can't really make a badly framed/thoughtout shot better--
it makes it worse
and many action films just go too fast for the action to be appreciated--
I guess they think we will be in awe of how great the special effects are--but the point is that we are not supposed to KNOW they are special effects
we are supposed to be able to suspend belief/disbelief and just accept what is on the screen as the story being told...

Jaws was great as long as we didn't really see the shark--
at that point in time special effects were not on same level as Spielburg's imagination
with ET and Close Encounters, different story since special effects were able to keep pace...

and I am so tired of green screens vs location shooting---
maybe it is budget driven but to me spend less on stars and crew and go on location

[travric]

You know I popped in Kubrick's '2001' made in the 60's. Have to say his use of the effects seem to stand up. He seemed to temper the 'awesomeness' found on today's screens. And his addition of music arguably enhanced the visual 'eye candy ' in his jaunt throughout the universe.

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by loves2read

CGI can't really make a badly framed/thoughtout shot better--
it makes it worse
and many action films just go too fast for the action to be appreciated--
I guess they think we will be in awe of how great the special effects are--but the point is that we are not supposed to KNOW they are special effects
we are supposed to be able to suspend belief/disbelief and just accept what is on the screen as the story being told...

Jaws was great as long as we didn't really see the shark--
at that point in time special effects were not on same level as Spielburg's imagination
with ET and Close Encounters, different story since special effects were able to keep pace...

and I am so tired of green screens vs location shooting---
maybe it is budget driven but to me spend less on stars and crew and go on location

The money issue and the star issue isn't always up to the director. Sometimes it is the studio having their say or an actor pulling out due to commitments. Say for Avengers, they shot in Cleveland and in green screen but Whedon only had so much control. Marvel Studio picked the budget. The budget would limit where to shoot say more on location (something they are doing more in Avengers: Age of Ultron) and what other actors could be brought in to round out the cast. Most of the cast was set due to existing movies but there were a few roles that weren't like say Maria Hill. In the previous Marvel Studios movies there was no Maria Hill so she needed to be cast. They casted Colbie Smolders for the role. Now let's say Jessica Biel was up for consideration too but when it came to contract, she wanted more than what they were willing to pay while Colbie was fine with her offer and took it. The studio also got rid of Edward Norton as Bruce Banner and replaced him with Mark Ruffalo due to the lack of promotion Norton did for the film. They also changed the Incredible Hulk to being a little smaller and better rendered due to the upgrades in CGI over 3 years since the Norton movie.

[travric]

Further on 'digital' effects...

I notice that when I go from watching say b&w film noirs from way back and then move to say a CGI film I'm struck in a way by the 'clean' images I see. My head then says is that 'life'? It sure doesn't look it. But on the other hand if we want to escape life through movies then well I can see it in that particular way...;-)...But I think I'm so used to 'grain' in film that I find the digital effect comes off so so fake when looked at. I guess I prefer when the image isn't so 'cleaned up' and the colors pop. Just my take.

[kanhawk]

Too much CGI to cut down costs. There was no F/X in this battle scene of Spartacus, but today it would be mostly F/X.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgywD3XJaWU

[oeccscclhjhn]

Lack of final cut by the director.