|
|
Post by Catman on Jul 5, 2020 20:50:43 GMT
There is no movie so bad that it cannot be made worse by adding Mickey Rooney to the cast.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 5, 2020 20:52:10 GMT
Nick Adams was one of the greatest actors of his generation Sophie Loren is ugly Lucy Lawless could have been a big action movie star From the mid 70s onward, the main stars of movies have been spfx technicians.
What about the thousands of movies since the mid '70s that have no special effects or very minimal special effects? |
|
|
|
Post by bravomailer on Jul 5, 2020 20:53:13 GMT
Planet of the Apes (original - 8/10 on IMDb) is very bad. Never seen a sequel or remake.
Johnny Guitar is the worst film ever made that, by virtue of having a good director and cast, can lay claim to being a good film.
The Star Wars Trilogy is mediocre at best. Never seen anything past the first three.
|
|
|
|
Post by theravenking on Jul 5, 2020 21:03:50 GMT
As far as Pixar is concerned, Toy Story 4 and Ratatouille are pretty overrated. Brave is criminally underrated. I haven't seen Toy Story 4 and I thought Ratatouille was solid but nothing special. I really liked Brave too. |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jul 5, 2020 21:04:45 GMT
What about the thousands of movies since the mid '70s that have no special effects or very minimal special effects? Not if you are talking blockbusters which is usually considered the most important genre after 1975. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 5, 2020 21:16:30 GMT
What about the thousands of movies since the mid '70s that have no special effects or very minimal special effects? Not if you are talking blockbusters which is usually considered the most important genre after 1975.Money wise, sure. Critically, no. Most Oscar contenders aren't special effects heavy movies and 99% of the ones that are, use the special effects to tell the story more convincingly. Comic books do not have special effects, but in order to tell those stories in movie form, special effects are vital. Overuse of special effects is a different matter and I agree about movies that replace story with special effects. There are too many of these now. The majority of movies that are released every year are not special effects heavy. This is just a fact. |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jul 5, 2020 21:24:51 GMT
The majority of movies that are released every year are not special effects heavy. This is just a fact.
The media is fond of saying that the blockbuster changed cinema and rules the box office--ok so if it rules, then the star is the spfx person. By their own standards of importance, the spfx person is the star of Hollywood after 1975 (though it started earlier--Dick Smith was the most important individual on the Exorcist, and the Godfather was considered groundbreaking for the makeup on Brando as well as the Caan execution).
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 5, 2020 21:27:33 GMT
The majority of movies that are released every year are not special effects heavy. This is just a fact.
The media is fond of saying that the blockbuster changed cinema and rules the box office--ok so if it rules, then the star is the spfx person. By their own standards of importance, the spfx person is the star of Hollywood after 1975 (though it started earlier--Dick Smith was the most important individual on the Exorcist, and the Godfather was considered groundbreaking for the makeup on Brando as well as the Caan execution).
I don't care what they think. They fact is that the MAJORITY of movies are not special effects heavy. I just counted. Of the 200+ movies released theatrically and on Netflix in the U.S. in 2019, only 35 are special effects heavy. Some blockbusters aren't even special effects heavy, like The Dark Knight. That movie has more talking than action. Saying that the special effects person on The Godfather and The Exorcist is the most important aspect of the movie is nonsense. Or are you just against any story that needs good effects in order to tell the story convincingly? Those movies are great because of story and acting, not effects. Sci-fi movies have always used special effects, so don't act like this is something new. Does King Kong (1933) not rely on special effects to tell the story? Does Frankenstein (1931) not rely on make-up effects to tell the story as convincingly as possible? I can go on and on. Car chases in classic era movies where the background is a moving screen etc. That is a special effect. |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jul 5, 2020 21:41:18 GMT
I don't care what they think. They fact is that the MAJORITY of movies are not special effects heavy. I just counted. Of the 200+ movies released theatrically and on Netflix in the U.S. in 2019, only 35 are special effects heavy. Some blockbusters aren't even special effects heavy, like The Dark Knight. That movie has more talking than action. You might as well also include amateur films--they would have very little spfx too. But since I said the focus is Hollywood, the net is thrown just too wide. I am not talking about quantity, I am talking about Hollywood and what gets the most media attention, repeat discussions, business focus. If you want to use the standard of how much film is shot, then fine, but it is too broad.
And in fact the Dark Knight is spfx heavy, but it is just not as fantasy-based. I would say the difference between the 70s-80s and now is that while the spfx person is still very important, they are now about as irreplaceable as actors were in the 1970s. There are no Harryhausens or Dykstras or Rick Bakers anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jul 5, 2020 21:50:27 GMT
You are delusional. Saying that the special effects person on The Godfather and The Exorcist is the most important aspect of the movie is insane nonsense. No it is just facts of artistic endeavor and achievement and your ignorance of film history is showing!
Yes, Willis O'Brien, Delgados, and co. were extremely important to the success of King Kong, and Jack Pierce was very important to the success of Frankenstein. No question about it. If there was no makeup on Karloff he would have problems.
All you have to do is take the FX out of the movie. How would the Exorcist do without the FX artist? Or the Godfather without the makeup and violence? Or Jaws without the shark?
You just take the FX for granted. The two streams of film are Melies and Lumiere--the fantasy and the documentary.
Modern commercial film is dominated by the Melies side. You could still appreciate the performances in Jaws but if there was no shark at all on display, a big part of the film would not exist. In cheaper horror or sf films, it may well be performance or story driven, especially if the fx is inferior, but not the case into the late 70s and beyond. It is just that these days, the acting and regular story stuff is so inconsequential--in the 70s there was still focus on it--but the fx side was going into pioneer overdrive. Showing things that people had never seen before.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 5, 2020 21:52:51 GMT
I don't care what they think. They fact is that the MAJORITY of movies are not special effects heavy. I just counted. Of the 200+ movies released theatrically and on Netflix in the U.S. in 2019, only 35 are special effects heavy. Some blockbusters aren't even special effects heavy, like The Dark Knight. That movie has more talking than action. You might as well also include amateur films--they would have very little spfx too. But since I said the focus is Hollywood, the net is thrown just too wide. I am not talking about quantity, I am talking about Hollywood and what gets the most media attention, repeat discussions, business focus. If you want to use the standard of how much film is shot, then fine, but it is too broad.
And in fact the Dark Knight is spfx heavy, but it is just not as fantasy-based. I would say the difference between the 70s-80s and now is that while the spfx person is still very important, they are now about as irreplaceable as actors were in the 1970s. There are no Harryhausens or Dykstras or Rick Bakers anymore.
You are missing the point. You are complaining about special effects on principle bringing up The Exorcist and The Godfather and The Dark Knight. Those movies are considered good because of the writing, overall directing and acting. Even most Hollywood movies aren't special effects heavy. I'd say maybe half and then half of that are movies that rely largely on special effects and have very little else to offer. Most Hollywood movie are mediocre compared to smaller movies whether they have special effects or not. The problem is that they are no longer interested in telling good stories. There are still Hollywood movies like Knives Out though. You seem to have a bias against the genres that need special effects to tell the story well. |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jul 5, 2020 21:56:11 GMT
You are missing the point. You are complaining about special effects on principle bringing up The Exorcist and The Godfather and The Dark Knight. Those movies are considered good because of the writing, overall directing and acting. Oh-you need to research the subject more. Go back to the 70s in articles and you will see that the draw for those films were the innovations in technology.
Regan throwing up in the priest's face--something never done before. Or spinning her head. You just take it for granted--like Max Von Sydow's old age makeup.
The selling point for Superman was "you will believe a man can fly." The selling point of ALIEN was Giger.
The Howling and American Werewolf was ENTIRELY about the transformation sequences.
The Thing? Hello? Rob Bottin?
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 5, 2020 21:59:34 GMT
You are delusional. Saying that the special effects person on The Godfather and The Exorcist is the most important aspect of the movie is insane nonsense. No it is just facts of artistic endeavor and achievement and your ignorance of film history is showing!
Yes, Willis O'Brien, Delgados, and co. were extremely important to the success of King Kong, and Jack Pierce was very important to the success of Frankenstein. No question about it. If there was no makeup on Karloff he would have problems.
All you have to do is take the FX out of the movie. How would the Exorcist do without the FX artist? Or the Godfather without the makeup and violence? Or Jaws without the shark?
You just take the FX for granted. The two streams of film are Melies and Lumiere--the fantasy and the documentary.
Modern commercial film is dominated by the Melies side. You could still appreciate the performances in Jaws but if there was no shark at all on display, a big part of the film would not exist. In cheaper horror or sf films, it may well be performance or story driven, especially if the fx is inferior, but not the case into the late 70s and beyond. It is just that these days, the acting and regular story stuff is so inconsequential--in the 70s there was still focus on it--but the fx side was going into pioneer overdrive. Showing things that people had never seen before.
That is what I am saying. You have a bias against anything that needs effects to tell the story. It makes complete sense why filmmakers wanted to make use of these things, because from 1975 onward they had the ability to tell stories that they couldn't before. Wasn't the star of many 1960's movies the epic scope? The art direction, costumes etc.? Why were there so many westerns and film noirs back then? Same reason. Because they were popular and made money. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 5, 2020 22:02:31 GMT
You are missing the point. You are complaining about special effects on principle bringing up The Exorcist and The Godfather and The Dark Knight. Those movies are considered good because of the writing, overall directing and acting. Oh-you need to research the subject more. Go back to the 70s in articles and you will see that the draw for those films were the innovations in technology.
Regan throwing up in the priest's face--something never done before. Or spinning her head. You just take it for granted--like Max Von Sydow's old age makeup.
The selling point for Superman was "you will believe a man can fly." The selling point of ALIEN was Giger.
The Howling and American Werewolf was ENTIRELY about the transformation sequences.
The Thing? Hello? Rob Bottin?
I didn't say the selling point wasn't that. I said that they are still great movies regardless. It is when the selling point is all the movie has that becomes a problem. The selling point for movies in classic era Hollywood was the stars. The selling point is always what Hollywood has been about. Hollywood cares about money first and foremost. |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jul 5, 2020 22:16:39 GMT
That is what I am saying. You have a bias against anything that needs effects to tell the story. It makes complete sense why filmmakers wanted to make use of these things, because from 1975 onward they had the ability to tell stories that they couldn't before. Wasn't the star of many 1960's movies the epic scope? The art direction, costumes etc.? Why were there so many westerns and film noirs back then? Same reason. Because they were popular and made money. They had the ability to tell just about any story prior to the 1970s and they did, with the fx available by budget or the times.
A film like El Cid, the stars do drive a big part of the movie--but there's no technical innovations in there. They aren't really pushing the envelope except perhaps some of the battle scenes. But nothing so significant that it would override the performances.
Robert Shaw provided a big part of the success of Jaws, but he was still replaceable.
The fx people who made the shark were not. Only perhaps one or two other people in the world at the time could have attempted to make a mechanical shark.
There might have been a few people who could have come up with the innovations John Chambers did for POTA, but at that particular time, maybe they wouldn't have thought of it. By today's standards it isn't much, but at the time it was a big innovation, foam latex appliances that could be articulated by the performer's facial movements.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 5, 2020 22:25:46 GMT
That is what I am saying. You have a bias against anything that needs effects to tell the story. It makes complete sense why filmmakers wanted to make use of these things, because from 1975 onward they had the ability to tell stories that they couldn't before. Wasn't the star of many 1960's movies the epic scope? The art direction, costumes etc.? Why were there so many westerns and film noirs back then? Same reason. Because they were popular and made money. They had the ability to tell just about any story prior to the 1970s and they did, with the fx available by budget or the times.
A film like El Cid, the stars do drive a big part of the movie--but there's no technical innovations in there. They aren't really pushing the envelope except perhaps some of the battle scenes. But nothing so significant that it would override the performances.
Robert Shaw provided a big part of the success of Jaws, but he was still replaceable.
The fx people who made the shark were not. Only perhaps one or two other people in the world at the time could have attempted to make a mechanical shark.
There might have been a few people who could have come up with the innovations John Chambers did for POTA, but at that particular time, maybe they wouldn't have thought of it. By today's standards it isn't much, but at the time it was a big innovation, foam latex appliances that could be articulated by the performer's facial movements.
If I had a say, Hollywood would only focus on making good movies and many of the movies you seem to be complaining about are far better than their non-Hollywood counterparts and many of the special effects heavy movies are great movies imo. There are a lot of awful special effects heavy Hollywood movies and there are a lot of awful non-Hollywood movies as well, dating back long before Star Wars. I will give you that Hollywood is a lot more uneven in terms of quality movies now than it use to be. If a movie is good, a movie is good. If a movie is bad, a movie is bad. There are good and bad movies regardless of whether they have a lot of special effects or not. I consider The Lord of the Rings a great movie because of the story being told and the characters, not because of the visual effects. Though great effects can certainly add to why a movie is great imo. |
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,520
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Jul 5, 2020 22:45:13 GMT
Movies with an overabundance of CGI should have to be nominated under the "Best Animated film" tag
I half agree. I think that there should be a CGI category. I'm an animation fan so I don't want to clog up the animation category with CGI when there's hand drawn and stop motion films that would be overlooked since they're not done in the vein of live action. |
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jul 5, 2020 22:45:22 GMT
The thing that gets me about movies is that it's sometimes difficult to tell whether one will be regarded as a really good movie or a stinker.
Hollywood invests hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in collections of stinkers.
They just can't tell (sometimes) if something is good or if it's terrible.
The critics say it's incredibly good but the movie-going public doesn't like it.
Sometimes the critics say that the movie stinks but the movie-going public loves it.
It would drive me crazy to be in that business. 
|
|
angel
Sophomore
@angel
Posts: 275
Likes: 142
 
|
Post by angel on Jul 5, 2020 22:55:25 GMT
That is what I am saying. You have a bias against anything that needs effects to tell the story. It makes complete sense why filmmakers wanted to make use of these things, because from 1975 onward they had the ability to tell stories that they couldn't before. Wasn't the star of many 1960's movies the epic scope? The art direction, costumes etc.? Why were there so many westerns and film noirs back then? Same reason. Because they were popular and made money. They had the ability to tell just about any story prior to the 1970s and they did, with the fx available by budget or the times. Robert Shaw provided a big part of the success of Jaws, but he was still replaceable.
The fx people who made the shark were not. Only perhaps one or two other people in the world at the time could have attempted to make a mechanical shark. It's unfortunate you use Jaws as the example to make your point whose mechanical shark was famously the most troubled and dodgy aspect of the film, so troubled in fact, it's a large part of why it remained unseen for the first half of the film. But instead of diminishing the film, its absence instead elevated it allowing the real star (and the only irreplaceable character) - John Williams's score to come to the fore. Orson Welles always claimed the enemy of art is the absence of limitation and in that regard Jaws is a classic example. It's considered a masterpiece not because it had a mechanical shark but actually because for large parts of the film it lacked one! |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jul 5, 2020 23:08:00 GMT
It's unfortunate you use Jaws as the example to make your point whose mechanical shark was famously the most troubled and dodgy aspect of the film, so troubled in fact, it's a large part of why it remained unseen for the first half of the film. But instead of diminishing the film, its absence instead elevated it allowing the real star (and the only irreplaceable character) - John Williams's score to come to the fore. Orson Welles always claimed the enemy of art is the absence of limitation and in that regard Jaws is a classic example. It's considered a masterpiece not because it had a mechanical shark but actually because for large parts of the film it lacked one! Right I agree, but the fact that they filmed so many shark scenes shows how much they intended to show initially. They invested a lot in that shark, and at the time, perhaps only Rambaldi could have designed one unless they went for miniatures.
|
|
