Do bad visual effects ruin sic fi for you?

[MacLeod]

A good story can overcome poor effects, however it doesn't matter how good your effects are they can't make up for a good story.

To me the battle at the end of ROTJ, looks far more realastic than the battle at the start of ROTS. One was done with models the other in a computer.

As for DW, B7 etc.. yes the effets look bad by todays standards but you have to judge them by what they were competing against. In the case of Space: 1999 some of those shows had American backing so they had a larger budget.

 

[G2309]

I'm watching dr who the web planet from the 60s. highly enjoyable special effects don't damage it the least. I like seeing o shows to see how creative they were and how hard they tried to make good visuals. You just have to enjoy them.
I also prefer physical effects to computer. Feels more tangiable and more of an effort.although i also recognise people work hard on cgi.

 

[captcalhoun]

it's not the old-time FX that annoy me, it's the crappy science. sometimes it's just so glaring it makes me want to weep. most of the time, i can ignore it.

the only time bad FX have spoiled anything for me is the Rock/Scorpion King monster at the end of The Mummy Returns. the jackal soldiers at the start were great, but the monster was abominable. it's like they ran out of money... i've seen user-created player models for Quake 3 that looked better.

 

[Gepard]

it's like they ran out of money...

IIRC, they did. Or, at least, they ran out of time. I'm going off memory here, so it my be wrong, but I seem to recall ILM found their schedule compressed and had to do that whole Scorpion King sequence in about four weeks. The original plan was to film the Rock dong Matrix-style wirework for the upper body, then blend him with a CG scorpion torso and claws; they went with an all-CG solution in part because it was much faster to do. Most of the FX work at the end of the film is pretty bad; the pyramid in the jungle looks terrible, too.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

CGI dates faster for me than old-fashioned VFX.

I watched Star Trek TMP: DE the other day again, and found that the original 1979 FX stood up brilliantly, the upgraded CG elements, not so much.

The story was just the same though.

It's because CGI is so patently and obviously unreal, and the pace of change in terms of the FX is so rapid, that what was cutting edge 5 years ago, becomes medium budget TV today. I watch the Star Wars prequels, and I feel like I'm watching software, at certain points there isn't a live element on screen at all, especially in AOTC and ROTS. In situations like that, as soon as the FX dates, the movie dates, and we wind up in a situation where the OT is timeless, but the prequels aren't.

 

[Frontier]

Ruin? No.

Hinder? A bit.

Take the Original Trek. The VFX don't ruin it. But it hinders a smidgen. I can choke such down though. What really bugs me is the moments when the 1960s seep in. Uhura saying "I'm frightened captain" or any of the backwards attitudes towards women that they managed to escape with elasticities. Dialogue as well; Kirk tells Kand "go to the devil" because of the censors not allowing the word "hell" which has always bugged me.

VFX is eye-candy. Would it be best if they where awesome? Sure. But... if you *need* it to enjoy something... well, I'd be sorry to be you lol.

 

[G2309]

it's not the old-time FX that annoy me, it's the crappy science. sometimes it's just so glaring it makes me want to weep. most of the time, i can ignore it.

It's best not to mention real scinece if they don't know what they're talking about. I don't mind old shows geting it wrong if things have been discovered since then.

 

[G2309]

it's not the old-time FX that annoy me, it's the crappy science. sometimes it's just so glaring it makes me want to weep. most of the time, i can ignore it.

It's best not to reference real science if they dont know what they're talking about. I don't mind old shows if it's something that's been learned since it was made.

 

[Whofan]

Original Doctor Who's FX does improve a bit in the 80s. Some (not all) of the model shots and old CG in the Colin Baker and Sylvestor McCoy eras still look kind of good today. era Unfortunately, that's when the quality of the scripts starts to stink.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Not really. I mean, I grew up on monsters in rubber suits and paper-mache dinosaurs, so I just kind of snicker when kids these days complain that the latest high-tech CGI creation isn't photorealistic enough. I mean, I was watching WAR OF THE COLOSSAL BEAST again a few nights ago, and the 50's era SFX didn't bother me a bit.

Exactly so.

The effects work in Forbidden Planet still enthralls me every time I watch the movie. Not a damned thing in the flick looks "real," either...but it's real to me.

Computers don't "generate" much of anything - textures or any other sort of art - without human designers or artists wielding the tools. It's true that in some applications the tools themselves are mathematical, but there's always a human artist or artists guiding the process relying upon their own aesthetic sensibilities.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Original Doctor Who's FX does improve a bit in the 80s. Some (not all) of the model shots and old CG in the Colin Baker and Sylvestor McCoy eras still look kind of good today. era Unfortunately, that's when the quality of the scripts starts to stink.

I agree with your points, but I doubt that there was any CG in DW before RTD's era (not counting alternate CG-generated effect sequences that were added to some of the DVDs). I'm willing to be corrected, of course.

 

[Whofan]

McCoy's opening sequence used some CG elements.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

McCoy's opening sequence used some CG elements.

Ah, okay, I guess I was thinking of CG being used for effects or as framing sequences in the stories themselves. Thanks.

Anyway, I'm also in the camp of "bad visual effects don't ruin sci-fi, for me, but bad scripts do". However, I notice that I'm much less tolerant of bad CG effects or bad science in contemporary sci-fi where there's little excuse.

 

[pimp]

I have had a few people not like Babylon 5 compared to DS9 simply Becuase they say the graphics/CGI is not up to scratch and it ruins the show for them. Personally I don't mind and I think B5 has some great CGI for it's time.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The effects of shows like TNG and DS9 are quite dated now, beautifully designed though they are. It's the nature of the beast.

 

[Kegg]

^
But Babylon 5, with a tighter budget than Deep Space Nine - and very early CGI - has dated more so. It's an understandable complaint, really, which goes far beyond SFX - from alien makeup to costumes to set design it's the clear inferior to the more financially flushed Star Trek space station show.

I've never been overly obsessed with VFX, but I've recently been trying to watch old episodes of Doctor Who and Blake's 7 since people rave about how good they are. I'm having a hard time enjoying the stories because the VFX, sets and general production design are really awful.

Funny. I have the reverse problem with Doctor Who and Blake's 7: They're incredibly boring stories. I watched four or five episodes of Blake's 7 and it was a struggle to keep awake through it. Glacially paced, bland characters, third-rate Orwellian police state stuff and drier than a desert. The dismal writing really sinks a show a lot quicker then its tacky SFX for me.

Gerry Anderson may not be deep but he has a gee whiz sensibility that generally makes him the more watchable British sci-fi TV guy over Terry Nation, really (although, must be said, more fun special effects too as a matter of course).

 

[Myasishchev]

The worst thing about DS9 is that background objects often tend not to move. The reason you're losing the war is because you only send two or three ships in at a time!

I think it's prettier than B5, but less on the basis that the effects are worse, but rather B5's visual aesthetic is. Except for the Shadow ships, which are beautiful.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

^
But Babylon 5, with a tighter budget than Deep Space Nine - and very early CGI - has dated more so.

Perhaps it's dated faster, but once these things aren't current there's a "time flattening" effect as far as I'm concerned; ie, if I'm not bothered by the effects in The Outer Limits and I like the effects in Forbidden Planet I've no reason to be critical of the CG in Babylon 5 - they're all just older, visually less sophisticated shows.

I watched four or five episodes of Blake's 7 and it was a struggle to keep awake through it. Glacially paced, bland characters, third-rate Orwellian police state stuff and drier than a desert.

I liked Blake's 7 but the stories certainly could be limited and repetitious. I wouldn't watch most of them again.

 

[Stevil2001]

Funny. I have the reverse problem with Doctor Who and Blake's 7: They're incredibly boring stories. I watched four or five episodes of Blake's 7 and it was a struggle to keep awake through it. Glacially paced, bland characters, third-rate Orwellian police state stuff and drier than a desert. The dismal writing really sinks a show a lot quicker then its tacky SFX for me.

I like Doctor Who, but I agree with you about Blake's 7. Every three episodes, it does something brilliant... but those moments are drowned out by BRIAN BLESSED and Cally.

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

Not really.

Repeated overuse of stock footage does though (see the original BSG or the constant recycling of Battle Beyond the Stars footage for lesser movies). Kind of makes the SFX shots boring and pointless.