Do bad visual effects ruin sic fi for you?

[Starkers]

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.

Hey come on Brian Blessed was only in the show once! And Cally is quite quiet so I don't get that

As for pre RTD Who and cg, the opening shot of Trial of a Timelord featuring the Tardis being captured by the Timelords is really nifty for the time- I don't know if it was CG however but it's really impressive (again for the time).

And obviously colin's outfit was entirely computer generated, nothing like that could exist in real life.

 

[Dream]

I refuse to watch any Sci Fi movies released before May 25, 1977.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Most of the ones with stories and any smattering of speculation are right out, then?

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

As for pre RTD Who and cg, the opening shot of Trial of a Timelord featuring the Tardis being captured by the Timelords is really nifty for the time- I don't know if it was CG however but it's really impressive (again for the time).

Model work and motion control was probably used, but 1986 is far too early for the BBC to be using CG.

And obviously colin's outfit was entirely computer generated, nothing like that could exist in real life.

ETA TOAT sequence:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9w2P4_-Ggo[/yt]

 

[Whofan]

I think the shot of the Time Lord station in Trial was a model, although the beam and the spinning TARDIS might've been CG.

Unfortunately, that effects shot is pretty much what they used most of the FX budget on for Trial. This is especially clear in the Vervoids segment, where the ship model FX is pretty cruddy.


I think Time And The Rani (At least at the beginning and with the bubble traps) and Rememberance of the Daleks have some CG elements, and the latter has an impressive look at the Dalek mothership to open it. Unfortunately, the former is one of WHO's worst stories and apart from the OK model and CG work, the sets and location shooting-in a quarry-are poor.



Granted, I personally think that even in the New series there's some dated or bad FX here and there, especially in Eccleston's season.

 

[auntiehill]

I really don't care about effects. It's the characters, the acting, the dialogue and the actual story that grabs me. Special effects just frame the back-drop. Good effects are nice, but not necessary. I grew up on The Prisoner, Blake's 7, and Tom Baker's Doctor Who. They were already out of date when I saw them, but I didn't care. Hell, by the time I first saw TOS, it had been in reruns for YEARS. It certainly didn't hold up to Star Wars (and similar things of that time) but I watched it because it was a)a show set in space, and I couldn't get enough of those and b) it had some interesting stories and characters.

When I got a bit older, I fell completely in love with Blake's 7, and that show had an effects budget of about 50 dollars. But what was fascinating to me were the characters--especially Avon. He was a good guy, but really didn't want to be. He and Blake, the idealistic leader, had these wonderful one-liners--a feeling of constant tension and a strange respect. That's what made me love it. The fact that their special effects sucked beyond belief was completely irrelevant.

 

[MacLeod]

In the case of B7 it has a great ending, I would have been around 9 when it first aired and I still remember it. Can't say that of many shows from when I was that age.

Look at some of the Supermarionation shows from the sixties like Thunderbirds, yes you can see the strings but that doesn't matter.

Take too sixties shows, Star Trek and Lost in Space, I think most would agree that overall ST was the better show. The question is why? Better acted, better scripts, better SFX? A combination of all?

 

[JarodRussell]

Bad CG effects are worse than bad model shots in my opinion. Some shots in Superman Returns where Superdude was obviously CG made me cringe, but shots of Christopher Reeve hanging in front of an obvious bluescreen/backprojection don't bother me in the least.

 

[zakkrusz]

Re: Do bad visual effects ruin sci fi for you?

No. The story and characters are all that matter.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Different kinds of shots, different problems - if we're talking about, say, a spaceship shot then bad model work bothers me more than bad CG...reason being that the failures of the model shot are more often matters of perspective and/or motion, which looks more fake to me than texture mapping or lighting that's not 100% persuasive.

Washed-out, grainy rear project can be distracting, but bad blue/green screen is always wince-inducing.

 

[stj]

The FX rarely bother me. The absence of blood in murders more and more shrieks glorification of violence but that's not the same thing. Nor is the real problem I have more and more, which is boredom with the design.

In the movie Thor for example Jotunheim and Asgard seemed horribly uninmaginative. The only visual thrill in the movie was the astronomy shots in the journey to Asgard. The first half of Thor was barely watchable because the overall impression was so banal.

On the other hand, 2001 was enthralling even though part of their FX were a black box (literally) and false color tints of embryological photographs. It was because the design had a conviction.

Or, this being a Trek board, Star Trek may have had a garish color palette to show off the transition to color TV, but the design of Enterprise, which didn't copy either a rocket or a flying saucer. The bright colors have dated but the originality of the Enterprise design, never.

 

[Broccoli]

Usually not. But it really depends on the effect and how it is being used. For example, in Die Another Day, there is some surprisingly bad green screen effects at the beginning of the film (when Bond is fighting on the hovercraft). I should clarify that I think it is a green screen effect - I don't know for sure. However, it always pulls me out of the otherwise enjoyable film.

If it is an older movie, expectations are different, so the "weaker" effects don't bother me.

On the other hand, I do know some people who can have issues with this. A good friend of mine is a huge "Star Trek" fan. Loves it. However (and somewhat ironically), he can't sit through an episode of the original series to save his life. He has trouble watching it. He's not 100% sure why, but thinks it is a collection of things from the dated effects to the different acting styles of the time.

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

I refuse to watch any Sci Fi movies released before May 25, 1977.

I hope you're kidding.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

On the other hand, I do know some people who can have issues with this. A good friend of mine is a huge "Star Trek" fan. Loves it. However (and somewhat ironically), he can't sit through an episode of the original series to save his life. He has trouble watching it. He's not 100% sure why, but thinks it is a collection of things from the dated effects to the different acting styles of the time.

I'm the same way. I HATE watching the Original Series, and yes, the bad effects, dated acting styles, and the sexism are dealbreakers.

But if you give me TOS novels, I'll read them happily. So it's not the stories or the characters that (most of the time) are the problem, but actually watching an episode of the series is most of the time totally excruciating. I find most older movies that way--even the supposed classic, The Wrath of Khan. Things start to get better by the time of The Voyage Home, and by the time of The Undiscovered Country, we truly have watchable Trek.

Old movies and TV shows in general just suck for unrealistic acting. Probably the oldest things I actually like are Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970) and All Quiet on the Western Front (1979, the TV movie version). That genre seems to have "arrived" sooner than many other types of movies due to the seriousness and realism demanded of historically-based war movies, so I actually like them. I think in general they were made to a much more exacting standard. Too much BS and reliance on Hollywood convention, and the numerous World War I and World War II vets alive at the time would've called them on it.

The first few seasons of TNG suck visually as well. As for DS9, there are some bad acting moments--but that series got off to a better start and I can actually watch most of it (except when Siddig hams it up worse than Shatner, as he did at the beginning of the series). But yeah...too much visual suck throws me right out of the story to the point where it grates on me. For old stuff, just hand me a book and I'll let my imagination take care of the effects.

auntiehill--Off topic, oh my, what an avatar! Did you just draw that? The whole database thing was so not your fault and I think we all understand that.

 

[Gojira]

Although I am an admitted FX junkie, I just love FX movies, it really doesn't bother me if they're bad as long as the story is good. If the story is bad but the FX are good I will be more forgiving. But even I have my limits.

 

[Andrew_Kearley]

Of course, I watched these shows the first time around, and there was nothing wrong with the special effects then. We didn't have such high expectations back then, plus tv screens were smaller and definition was poorer. The effects worked then, they sold the image. Part of that is because of the accepted interplay between programme and audience. TV as it was made in the 60s and 70s wasn't the same as making a film, it was closer to televised theatre - the effects are only there to represent the image and further the story, and the audience accepted that. It's when the actors are onscreen that's important.

Space: 1999 and UFO are different because they were shot as films for international export, and also had much more money to play with.

 

[Starkers]

Usually not. But it really depends on the effect and how it is being used. For example, in Die Another Day, there is some surprisingly bad green screen effects at the beginning of the film (when Bond is fighting on the hovercraft). I should clarify that I think it is a green screen effect - I don't know for sure. However, it always pulls me out of the otherwise enjoyable film.

I'd never heard that complaint of DAD before, people usually mention the parachute bit near the end. It is terrible, but I love it cos it's just such a stupid Bond moment. I've never noted anything off about the hovercraft fight but I'll pay close attention next time I watch it.

On the subject of Bond I do love that people are so conditioned to CG these days that they see it when it isn't even there. I once had to explain to someone that they really did roll an Aston in Casino Royale!

When I got a bit older, I fell completely in love with Blake's 7, and that show had an effects budget of about 50 dollars. But what was fascinating to me were the characters--especially Avon. He was a good guy, but really didn't want to be. He and Blake, the idealistic leader, had these wonderful one-liners--a feeling of constant tension and a strange respect. That's what made me love it. The fact that their special effects sucked beyond belief was completely irrelevant.

Yeah the character interactions are what really makes Blakes 7. That said I wouldn't say the effects were always terrible. Much as with Who occasionally they really worked miracles.

 

[spooky spice]

Nope, they don't ruin things for me

CGI dates faster for me than old-fashioned VFX.

This is true, you look back at older movies and it's just awful!

 

[G2309]

I'd rather watch the special effects of the original star war trilogy than the scrensaver style effects we got in the prequels.

 

[Broccoli]

Usually not. But it really depends on the effect and how it is being used. For example, in Die Another Day, there is some surprisingly bad green screen effects at the beginning of the film (when Bond is fighting on the hovercraft). I should clarify that I think it is a green screen effect - I don't know for sure. However, it always pulls me out of the otherwise enjoyable film.

I'd never heard that complaint of DAD before, people usually mention the parachute bit near the end. It is terrible, but I love it cos it's just such a stupid Bond moment. I've never noted anything off about the hovercraft fight but I'll pay close attention next time I watch it.

I could be wrong, of course. But something about the backgrounds (in the close-up shots) just seems off. If it was from the 80s and earlier, I wouldn't think twice. But with it being from 2002, it stood out.