A Time Before CGI - A thread where we sperg about the good old days of special effects

[Puddleduck]

I recently saw some gifs from Little Shop of Horrors and holy shit there is not a better argument on Earth for practical effects.

I can kind of see why Frank Oz wanted to direct this movie. I was always impressed with the puppetry and I still can't wrap my head around how they did a lot of the big Audrey II effects.

Have y'all seen the original ending for Little Shop, which was changed due to test audiences wanting a happy ending? It's spectacular.

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

I remember seeing the black & white workprint of it on YouTube some time back, if that's what you're asking.

To think the guy who helped out with the effects on this movie would wind up producing these effects not a few years after:

 

[Puddleduck]

I remember seeing the black & white workprint of it on YouTube some time back, if that's what you're asking

Nono, the thing I linked is from the recent Director's Cut DVD, in color and fully finished!

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

Nono, the thing I linked is from the recent Director's Cut DVD, in color and fully finished!

Well it's the first I've seen the Director's Cut version.

 

[Replicant Sasquatch]

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory actually had minimal special effects. They were definitely there, but were minimized as much as possible. The chocolate room was actually entirely real, even the waterfall. The squirrels were mostly real too (they actually did have to train real squirrels), aside from a few seconds of footage that were pure CGI. Here's a making-of playlist.

The Star Wars Prequels also had quite a lot of physical sets and practical effects on it. Perfect example is Anakin's bedroom in Phantom Menace:

All that shit is actually there. Now I know this set gets some shit since it's comically obvious they bought one of those plastic ball scoops from Wal-Mart and painted it silver for no reason but at least it's physically present. All the toys and knick-knacks are real, and it looks good for the most part. The PT is filled with sets like this, but most of them got completely obscured by the pointless cluttering of shit they added in with computers in post-production.

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

And, if we're being honest here, some of those puppets look like complete crap.

When people praise Lucas for OT'ing a CGI Yoda into the film, you know you screwed up your puppets.

 

[Replicant Sasquatch]

And, if we're being honest here, some of those puppets look like complete crap.

When people praise Lucas for OT'ing a CGI Yoda into the film, you know you screwed up your puppets.

The problem with TPM puppet Yoda's weirdness was they were using modern camera technology on an 80s style muppet. But at least it was physically there. CGI Yoda honestly looked worse because he clearly wasn't actually there.

 

[Kari Kamiya]

I'm shocked, shocked that Who Framed Roger Rabbit? hasn't been mentioned yet. But at the same time, it was just a little relieving it wasn't the first movie brought up. So no need to go into more detail, just the title itself is enough.

My favorite make-up practical effect will probably forever be Robin Williams as Mrs. Doubtfire. I literally only saw the movie for the first time this year (and saw it twice now), and I remember seeing promotional material as a kid and thinking Mrs. Doubtfire was an actual old woman, but nope, it's allllll real.

Honestly, the entire of the "Could you make me a woman?" sequence alone is just fantastic.

 

[The Decimator]

David Cronenberg’s Videodrome is an excellent, yet underrated, film. There’s one scene in particular that holds up extremely well, and is still terrifying all these years later:

[SPOILER="Spoilered for your sanity "

[/SPOILER]

 

[Duncan Hills Coffee]

David Cronenberg’s Videodrome is an excellent, yet underrated, film. There’s one scene in particular that holds up extremely well, and is still terrifying all these years later:

[SPOILER="Spoilered for your sanity " View attachment 573364 View attachment 573366 View attachment 573367 View attachment 573368 View attachment 573369 View attachment 573370 View attachment 573371 View attachment 573372 [/SPOILER]

Might wanna fix the spoiler there.

 

[RumblyTumbly]

I'm an 80s kid, sure, but to me, nothing will beat painstakingly creating something and putting it infront of the camera to create the effect.

I don't want to turn my nose down to CGI, because when used right, it can be amazing (Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, and even the recent Planet of the Apes films) but creating the image on a computer just doesn't have the same magic to it that puppetry, animatronics, rubber masks and other physical tools do.

The works of Ray Harryhausen, the Henson creature workshop, John Carpenter's The Thing, The Godzilla series, and even the original Star Wars series boasted some remarkable special effects achievements for their time and still look good to me today because there is that wonder and amazement there of "Oh wow, they made all this themselves! That's amazing!".

Overreliance on CGI today just heightens the "Assembly line" feel that a lot of movies have today.

 

[Replicant Sasquatch]

I'm an 80s kid, sure, but to me, nothing will beat painstakingly creating something and putting it infront of the camera to create the effect.

I don't want to turn my nose down to CGI, because when used right, it can be amazing (Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, and even the recent Planet of the Apes films) but creating the image on a computer just doesn't have the same magic to it that puppetry, animatronics, rubber masks and other physical tools do.

The works of Ray Harryhausen, the Henson creature workshop, John Carpenter's The Thing, The Godzilla series, and even the original Star Wars series boasted some remarkable special effects achievements for their time and still look good to me today because there is that wonder and amazement there of "Oh wow, they made all this themselves! That's amazing!".

Overreliance on CGI today just heightens the "Assembly line" feel that a lot of movies have today.

CGI can still have that touch though. Gollum was clearly an extremely painstaking effect for example.

 

[Kari Kamiya]

I don't want to turn my nose down to CGI, because when used right, it can be amazing (Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, and even the recent Planet of the Apes films) but creating the image on a computer just doesn't have the same magic to it that puppetry, animatronics, rubber masks and other physical tools do.

While true, there are times when I'm watching a CGI-animated film and I still get that magical feeling when I'm blown away at what they were able to accomplish. A recent example I can think of off the top of my head is Gantz:O. Yeah it's a movie, so it's going to have a budget and time thrown at it to make it look good, but this is an anime film after all. CGI in anime has quite the reputation of not being implemented well even in a theatrical film, so I was really impressed at how gorgeous the CG looks. A particular scene involving a gruesome transformation by one of the monsters into a rather complex model was a huge stand-out to me, 'cause rigging that beast must've been a nightmare. (Rigging in general is hard, I have a lot of respect for riggers.)

Spoiler: NSFW what the monster became

Don't know the name of it, so this is the best image I can find.

How it looks in the manga for comparison (small image, sorry):

 

[Raging Capybara]

The CGI in Zodiac astounded me for days. This scene is pure art:

It's all fake with the exception of the car.


Another masterpiece of CGI usage:

Computer graphics can be awesome too, but it's rarer because sped directors only want to make monsters with this technology instead of believable things.

 

[Francis E. Dec Esc.]

Another movie that has really good practical effects is Gremlins.

 

[omori]

Just. Wow. So much. If a movie wants to incoperate animated/cgi characters alongside irl the gotta consult this.

 

[AF 802]

I know they do it in children's movies to keep the sugar-rushed autistic children from losing attention.

But others, there's really no other excuse than just laziness.

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

Another movie that has really good practical effects is Gremlins.

I always thought Gremlins 2 had better effects than the original.

Not dissing the original's effects, but some of Mogwai shots in the first movie look stiff and almost like they're just puppeteering a plush toy in some scenes. The Gremlins themselves look fine.

 

[Francis E. Dec Esc.]

I always thought Gremlins 2 had better effects than the original.

Not dissing the original's effects, but some of Mogwai shots in the first movie look stiff and almost like they're just puppeteering a plush toy in some scenes. The Gremlins themselves look fine.

Post-production of the first movie was so hectic that they literally were just doing that. At one point during the theater scene, they had guys running around with five gremlin torsos nailed to a 2x4 just wiggling them.

The only effect in Gremlins 2 that didn't look quite right was when Gizmo dances in the lab, it's an obvious green-screened puppet.

 

[Guts Gets Some]

Not just in regard to special effects, but almost everything: writing, animation, effects and the like... how come everything is a million times more appealing 30+ years ago than today?

Did we already hit the pinnacle of evolution and are back on the decline?

Movies I loved as a kid that were practical still hold up and are essentially timeless verses the later films.

Example: I love Disney's The Love Bug from 1969; all practical camera stuff and it's still a lot of fun and would hold up today. Now look at Lindsey's remake/sequel in the mid 2000's, with all that awkward as hell CG that was dated probably even when it came out.