Do bad visual effects ruin sic fi for you?
- Thread starter Gotham Central
- Start date
No, they don't... as a big classic movie fan I'm used to dodgy rear-projection and model work lol...
It may make me smile or wince, but it doesn't wreck a good story and acting for me. Just look at the other extreme, cool sfx and nothing much else, and you get the PT or Avatar...
It may make me smile or wince, but it doesn't wreck a good story and acting for me. Just look at the other extreme, cool sfx and nothing much else, and you get the PT or Avatar...
ah RJDiogenes you touch on the very core of how an VFX may ruin the storytelling experience for some or carry it to the next level for others if it gets the idea across enough.
Sometimes this is where I think standard definition does the job with an old TV show like TOS.
In a 2-year old post about the TOS-R season 1 Blu-ray the fine details became very noticeable and took you out of the storytelling and fiction. I think the 2004 TOS DVD sets were just fine. I even think the 1998 releases with 2-episodes per disc told the stories just fine as they were imagined for NTSC (486lines system) CRT TV sets in the mid-1960s not photorealistic 2x or 2.5x additional vertical resolution that the Blu-ray gives us showing all the fine details on the 35mm film negative that were never meant to be seen by the TV viewing audience in original broadcast or syndication.
Now when it comes to outer space ship exterior VFX in TOS, TNG, VOY, ENT more resolution is better. In season 3 & 4 of ENT you have 1080p resolution and the CGI models were created with the intention of being displayed in that resolution.
Lighting becomes a big thing at that point. A metallic surface looks a certain way with hard light in space. A painted surface looks another way with hard light in space.
I have seen some of the Babylon5 VFX and they were not great.
Some of the ENT season 3 VFX in space were really feature film quality for a TV show and raised the bar for a TV series with scenes set in space with ships on a TV budget. Once you see that on a TV series your expectations rise for the future episodes and other TV shows with VFX in space.
I felt on a 2009 TV series with a bunch of space exterior shots that the CGI VFX were really very realistic and looked great.
When I see a NBC movie of the week (even though they rarely make them now) the visual effects are so bad on these disaster telefilms that they are laughable. It's about the budget but yes bad VFX ruin storytelling on TV or film, regardless of scifi or not.
I don't like Babylon 5 but never have had any complaints about the effects - they were remarkable on TV at the time, and still are clearly amazingly designed and inventive despite not being realistic.
I personally have no problems with "bad" special effects, as long as the story is compelling, I'll sometimes laugh at older productions more interesting effects though, like when I watched Earthshock a few months back.
I also prefer model effects when it comes to starships and the like compared to CG creations as they look more "real". It's probably a silly thing to notice and or like, but I prefer the model effects of Enterprise in the earlier TOS films over the CG creation of Enterprise E in Insurrection or Enterprise in Star Trek 09 or the model work of the first four Star Wars films compared to the CG work on Clones and Sith.
My other half on the other hand, we sat down last night, flicked a few channels and came across The Arsenals of Freedom on one of the CBS channels on Sky and even though I was perfectly happy to sit down and watch it while eating our meal, she insisted that we change the channel for the sole reason that it looked dated and she couldn't take it seriously.
I also prefer model effects when it comes to starships and the like compared to CG creations as they look more "real". It's probably a silly thing to notice and or like, but I prefer the model effects of Enterprise in the earlier TOS films over the CG creation of Enterprise E in Insurrection or Enterprise in Star Trek 09 or the model work of the first four Star Wars films compared to the CG work on Clones and Sith.
My other half on the other hand, we sat down last night, flicked a few channels and came across The Arsenals of Freedom on one of the CBS channels on Sky and even though I was perfectly happy to sit down and watch it while eating our meal, she insisted that we change the channel for the sole reason that it looked dated and she couldn't take it seriously.
Well, that's where perceptions differ. The effects work in the older Trek movies doesn't look nearly as realistic to me as the effects in Star Trek 2009, regardless of the techniques used to achieve them.
Well, I'm a big fan of Blake's 7 which I watched for the first time a few years ago after hearing so much about it. In all honesty, its SFX is really, really bad. Hilariously so. I don't mind and see it as part of the charm but I can understand if someone finds it jarring. I think the SFX on 70s Doctor Who is much better, for the most part, though there are some sequences that are unintentionally funny.
So, in general, bad SFX doesn't ruin a story for me but I guess there could be cases where it does.
So, in general, bad SFX doesn't ruin a story for me but I guess there could be cases where it does.
Yep.
I have a hard time believing anyone who says it's only the story that counts and that VFX don't matter at all. I simply don't buy it. Star Trek 2009 with 5 inch models hanging on wires? Lord of the Rings with a really bad, jaggy, stop motion gollum without any facial expression other than mouth open, mouth closed? Seriously?
I felt the model work in the 2009 film Moon was so good along with the lighting that I felt it looked very realistic and made the story that much more believable and it could have been shot in the 1970s instead of 2008.
Pro model builders & filmmakers were hired for those FX sequences.
Well everyone working on Moon were professionals, weren't they?
Duncan Jones the director was first directorial feature film
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/47520
http://www.starwars.com/fans/rocks/20090619.html?page=3
He hired the best pretty much.
He was still a professional working on a professional film. But I see that your point was that the model makers were very experienced professionals. Good enough.
Well, believe it. I've watched enough shows with shitty SFX to know I don't care about them.
Poor FX + Poor Story = Time to get drunk and watch a fucking shark take out a 747
Winning!
Not exclusively, no...sometimes I can appreciate something as a product of it's time, or in some cases the material is good enough to absolve the production of some visual faults. However, when grading something, if they visuals are great and other elements aren't as good, then sometimes I'll rate it higher because of the good visuals. A recent example: Skyline, where the aliens and their bio-machines really LOOK alien and well realized...probably better to watch it with the sound off.
RAMA
RAMA
