Maybe I’m just a cranky old man anymore, but, today’s computer graphic special effects look so fake to me.
Maybe I was more in awe of the dated special effects of old shows and movies, such as the original Star Trek and Star Wars, because I wondered how they did the special effects. In any case, today’s computer graphics look so obviously fake to me. Also, I think they depend more today on dazzling us with special effects, rather than a good solid storyline.
Saw some program one time (SNL? SCTV? something else?) where two characters were talking about special effects in some movie (and this would've been in the 1980s) trying to distinguish between "bad fakey" and "good fakey" effects.
I think ultimately it comes down to the exhilaration an audience gets from the sequence. The Ray Harryhausen stop motion effects are obviously "not real" but then again the creatures that have come to life are "unreal" as well. Hong Kong action films of the 80s and 90s use a lot of trampolines and wires to depict people running in midair, making incredible leaps, etc. but the overall effort has a delirious effect on audiences.
Computer effects can leave an audience cold (the camera eye never stops moving and it is obvious that you are watching a "realistic" computer cartoon). as well. Hong Kong action films of the 80s and 90s use a lot of trampolines and wires to depict people running in midair, making incredible leaps, etc. but the overall effort has a delirious effect on audiences.
Computer effects can leave an audience cold (the camera eye never stops moving and it is obvious that you are watching a computer cartoon.
The rule of thumb is, "does it look cool?"
Case in point: "Avatar" vs "District9". D9 was dirt cheap compared to Avatar and it pwned Avatar. Far less CGI in D9 and a good adult story vs Cameron's commielibenvirowacko entirely derivative aqnd predictable wet dream.