Special effects should stay a bit naff

[G2309]

This theme may have been posted before but I haven't seen it.



I see a lot of complaints around about some of the unrealistic special effects. This is Dr Who. That's part of the charm. I actually like it less when they try to do something epic. Such as have thousands of Daleks fly around.
Even if they had the budget (which they don't) they should keep it a bit cheesey.
Besides if they worried about it too much they would have to scale down a lot of stories to focus all their money into making a few episodes look good.

 

[Captain Pike]

Yes...

[dramatic pause]

... and no.

I kind of agree that an element of the appeal of the old show was sometimes the crappyness of the special fx. And by that, I don't really mean crappy - often times they were remarkably inventive and sometimes quite effective.

However, the effects were never 'naff' by design. It's always been a side effect of the low budget the show was made on.

I don't think they should go out of their way to make effects look silly - particularly on the new series. In this modern age of computer wizardry where boffins can conjure up some pretty remarkable SFX without spending millions doing so, audience expectations in this area are naturally quite high and so there is little charm to be found in ropey looking CGI (or indeed in makeup or any modern SFX).

Doesn't mean they can't have fun with it though. But it should, at the very least, approach professional.

 

[Venardhi]

The best balance is to make sure the effects, no matter how well done, contain an element of cheese. A photorealistic monster doesn't have to be more serious or more realistic just because the rendering software and skill of the animators got better.

 

[Brent]

Puppets over computer graphics, it'll make all the difference, and IMO sometimes CGI graphics are more cheesy looking anyway, it just doesn't seem real, especially with a low budget. I'd prefer they use puppets and real props whenever possible, it worked out real well for Farscape.

 

[starsuperion]

Puppets over computer graphics, it'll make all the difference, and IMO sometimes CGI graphics are more cheesy looking anyway, it just doesn't seem real, especially with a low budget. I'd prefer they use puppets and real props whenever possible, it worked out real well for Farscape.

QFT

I agree completely...

I mean if you want a great example of crappy CGI. scorpion King definitely takes the cake.. or go back and look at old school TNG..some of those effect were just in bad need of being updated..

 

[Starkers]

Model spaceships still seem more real to me than CG ones. Which isn't to say I don't like CG, but I think it was very obvious--for example--in the Trek films when they went from a model Ent-E, to a CG one.

Mostly the new series effects are brilliant...but not always. The monster in the Lazarous Experiment is awful. Seriously they could have made Gatiss wear a furry suit and a mask and it would have looked better (or at least equally as bad!)

 

[HappyDayRiot]

^ Model shots do look better than CGI. Just look at Red Dwarf.

 

[Shazam!]

I think they need more men in monster suits.

 

[G2309]

Puppets over computer graphics, it'll make all the difference, and IMO sometimes CGI graphics are more cheesy looking anyway, it just doesn't seem real, especially with a low budget. I'd prefer they use puppets and real props whenever possible, it worked out real well for Farscape.

I absolutely agree, cgi should be used to enhance effects for the most part. That why I prefer films like Lord of the Rings that still used a lot of models, over films like star wars prequels

 

[23skidoo]

I must be blind as a bat, or have no taste, because I think the SFX in the new series have been brilliant and outstripping virtually everything on American TV. I will sidestep a moment to allow the Abzorbaloff to lumber past and off the cliff, but considering that episode was supposed to be a spoof anyway. Even the rhino-headed Judoon look OK to me.

I think the notion that the original DW had bad SFX (by 2010 standards), ergo the new version has bad SFX by default is sort of like saying that Kirk says "Beam me up Scotty" in every episode of Star Trek. It's a stereotype that doesn't bear closer scrutiny.

You want cheesy special effects (and I say this with affection because I like the show and think it actually looks nicely retro), check out the new V which is the most "chromakey"-ed series I've seen since The Starlost.

Alex

 

[davejames]

Yeah I keep seeing complaints about the CGI this year, but frankly the CGI has always looked a bit cartoonish on this show (the werewolf or Slitheen certainly weren't any better rendered than the recent space-fish).

It all works well enough for me though.

 

[diankra]

Doctor Who should always be over-stretching, FX-wise: trying to do a bit too much, but going for it anyway (because sometimes it works).

 

[EnderAKH]

Yeah I keep seeing complaints about the CGI this year, but frankly the CGI has always looked a bit cartoonish on this show (the werewolf or Slitheen certainly weren't any better rendered than the recent space-fish).

It all works well enough for me though.

Or what about the Lazarus critter in the Lazarus Experiment?

 

[Mr. Adventure]

^ Model shots do look better than CGI. Just look at Red Dwarf.

Good model shots can definitely be better than bad CG.

 

[G2309]

^ Model shots do look better than CGI. Just look at Red Dwarf.

Good model shots can definitely be better than bad CG.

Yeh but its got to the point where cg can be cheaper.