OT: Films and Their Effects

[A. Flea]

I was talking to my friends today about the remake of "The Day The Earth Stood Still", and they said that it was okay, but the specail effects wre awesome. So to be curious, I asked them if they had seen the origional. They all said they hadn't and wouldn't want to, because the effects were 'prehistoric". I was asking them their opinions about the origional "King Kong", and they told told me it was boring bescuse the effects weren't good.

To me, this seemed very strange because I usually watch movies for the plot, even if they are Science Fiction and even then I don't pay attention to the special effects . Also, it seems that special effects have become very important to the Sci-Fi genere, almost more than plot.

In the early days of Cinemateering, many movies had very little to no special effects. It wasn't until the late '30's that special effects in movies became commonplace. After that, they grew more and more advanced until the anamatronics of the '80's and the CG of today.

I like special effects too, but when they are the focus of the movie, then it's kind of dumb to have them there.

Anyone else agree/disagree?

[jonmayo15]

Well personally, while I do enjoy the remakes of both films, the originals are better. If all a movie is is effects than its a poor, poor film.

[Glowworm]

Special effects are best when used in a way that they are not overpowering or threatening to take over the story or plot. Sometimes a movie can be terrible-no matter how great the special effects are.

[CueBallCat79]

I'd rather watch the original 1933 King Kong about a million times in a constant loop than watch the bloated Peter Jackson ego-stroke of a remake for a second time.

[A. Flea]

Meh. I'd disagree. I thought that Peter Jackson's Kong was okay, but it was wayyyyyyy to long for my tastes (3hrs plus!)

[J. J. Hunsecker]

I haven't seen the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still, and I'm not particularly interested in seeing it. Remakes of classics are pointless. If it was done successfully once, why do it again? (A few caveats: the 1978 remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers is great, and John Carpenter's remake of The Thing is closer to the book than the original was.) What I like about the original Day the Earth Stood Still is the stark, noirish lighting and cinematography, even if the effects look dated.

In terms of awe-inspiring visual effects, a film as old as Metropolis still holds up for me. I also think 2001: A Space Odyssey is groundbreaking in terms of visual effects, and that was made 40 years ago. Of course, I also enjoy these films for their stories, too.

Special effects are like any other aspect of filmmaking -- they should work towards a unified whole, in supporting the story of the film.

Though I prefer the original, I do like aspects of Peter Jackson's King Kong, even though it's too long. It's much better than the awful 1976 Dino DeLaurentis King Kong remake.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

I was talking to my friends today about the remake of "The Day The Earth Stood Still", and they said that it was okay, but the specail effects wre awesome. So to be curious, I asked them if they had seen the origional. They all said they hadn't and wouldn't want to, because the effects were 'prehistoric". I was asking them their opinions about the origional "King Kong", and they told told me it was boring bescuse the effects weren't good.
I'm going to guess that your friends are very young and probably didn't see the original version on TV as children, as most of us have. I think it makes a difference when one is exposed to the original version. When I was a kid, there was only one version of King Kong, The Thing, The Day the Earth Stood Still, etc.

[AndrewGilmore]

A film professor of mine put it very well when he said movies that rely on a lot of special effects to carry the plot "are not films, they're video games."

[wiley207]

A film professor of mine put it very well when he said movies that rely on a lot of special effects to carry the plot "are not films, they're video games."

Isn't that what the crappy "Son of the Mask" film basically was?

But on a similar subject, "The Mask" relied on mainly story, characters and events to move the plot along. The special effects were just the tasty side dish to the film :D The CGI used in it was VERY state-of-the-art for 1994, and lots of cool Tex Avery/Bob Clampett/Glen Kennedy -like animation come to life in a live-action world. My favorite special effect used in the film is when The Mask, when wooing the sexy Tina Carlyle at the Coco Bongo nightclub, he pulls a "Hound Hunters" (when that little dog briefly morphs into :wolfie:) in an awesome tribute to "Red Hot Riding Hood" when his head morphs into a howling 'toon wolf!
http://i423.photobucket.com/albums/pp316/wiley207/Miscellaneous%20stuff/StanleyasaWolf5.jpg
Then he bangs his head with a large mallet, complete with little animated stars rotating around his flattened wolf head before he goes back to normal. I bet to do this they just put one of those bluescreen/greenscreen masks over Jim Carrey, keyed out his now-hooded head and animated the wolf in its place. Like I said, this was very rare to see back in 1994, but today you could probably see it almost anywhere.

Just my two cents on this topic.

[mailman641]

I think most remakes are done just to make money, not re-telling a story to a new generation. One exception though would be Charlie and the Chocolate Facotry. I like both the original and remake. The remake had something the original didn't, a back story of Willy Wonka, so it wasn't just the same script read verbatim by different actors.

[wiley207]

I think most remakes are done just to make money, not re-telling a story to a new generation. One exception though would be Charlie and the Chocolate Facotry. I like both the original and remake. The remake had something the original didn't, a back story of Willy Wonka, so it wasn't just the same script read verbatim by different actors.

And the 2005 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory film was more of a remake/adaptation of the original book, instead of a remake of the 1971 film. For example, in the 2005 film they were able to do the squirrels in the nut room, and they were able to show Wonka in Loompaland during a flashback sequence (I thought it was neat when that huge mosquito almost drained him of his blood until Wonka killed it), and I also liked how instead of making new lyrics for the Oompa Loompa songs, they actually used the lyrics from the original book, set to different kind of music styles (I like the "Veruca Salt" 60s bubblegum pop-esque song best). AND they even managed to keep Augustus Gloop German, and Veruca Salt being British. And they also showed the whole family moving into Wonka's factory like the book did (complete with the great glass elevator crashing through the roof of the house!) Of course, the book didn't have a backstory of Willy Wonka, but they decided to add it in so at least it would have a bigger difference from the book.

Overall, I like both films just the same, and I think the 2005 film did a better job adapting the original book than the 1971 film did.

[Magpie]

I prefer story over effects. CGI is fine if used with a light (discretionary) touch...but it seldom is. Some effects are spectacular for sure...but better if they don't call attention to themselves, and just move the story forward.

[cartoonfan4ever]

And the 2005 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory film was more of a remake/adaptation of the original book, instead of a remake of the 1971 film.

When I first saw the movie, I thought it was a remake of the 1971 film and thought this was one of the few times I liked the remake more than the original. But still, I like the 2005 version.

Normally I don't like the remakes. For example, I much prefer the 1933 King Kong to the one made in 2005. Like someone said to me once, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

[Ray Pointer]

I was talking to my friends today about the remake of "The Day The Earth Stood Still", and they said that it was okay, but the specail effects wre awesome. So to be curious, I asked them if they had seen the origional. They all said they hadn't and wouldn't want to, because the effects were 'prehistoric". I was asking them their opinions about the origional "King Kong", and they told told me it was boring bescuse the effects weren't good...
Anyone else agree/disagree?

First of all to call the effects in the original classics "prehistoric" is to blatantly ignore the history that made the present effects so "awesome."
To call anything that happened more than 25 years ago "prehistoric" is not only a gross misuse of the term, but also implies that time began in the present and anything that happed before never existed or doesn't matter.

The very issues behind the making of the original THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL stand as a documentation of American Social history post
World War II and the beginning of the Atomic Age. It is a also reflection of attitudes of the Cold War, and shows that even after nearly 60 years since the film was made, the same issues are still with us because we are still dealing with the egos and agendas of mankind. This has been the basis of all wars since the beginning of time.

While I have not seen the remake, I'd be interested in it simply to see how this story based on a 1950s conception was reworked to reflect contemporary issues. I am sure that once reworked, the same basic issues remained because the message of the original is still relevant. But I only wonder if the remake will have the same impact as the original. I have yet to see for myself. But to ignore the original altogether reminds us of the dangers of those who are ignorant of history, they are doomed to repeat it. While there is a sector that chooses to disregard older films such as this, interestingly, this remake is based on that older film. Hopefully the message of the original still communicates, and its purpose is that of the film's message which is its merit, not the execution of its Special Effects for their own sake.

[zavkram]

"Cinemateering"? No offense, but is that an actual word? Why not just say "film-making"?

OK, I'll stop splitting hairs now...

Anyway, I agree with the sentiment that a film that is mostly special effects is not a film but rather a video game. I forget who said this, and I'm probably paraphrasing here, but a good special effect should not call attention to itself.

I don't watch many contemporary films because most of them seem to be all flash and no substance. Yes, a number of films from the 30's through the 50's may have had "primitive" special effects by today's standards; but they also, for the most part, had better writing and better acting.

[Ray Pointer]

"Cinemateering"? No offense, but is that an actual word?
No, it's not.


Anyway, I agree with the sentiment that a film that is mostly special effects is not a film but rather a video game. I forget who said this, and I'm probably paraphrasing here, but a good special effect should not call attention to itself.


The idea came from Walt Disney. His statement was that the "effects should serve the story, not the other way around."

[J. J. Hunsecker]

The Day the Earth Stood Still was made for a low budget, and the effects reflect that. (It's mostly a moody film that takes place in interiors.) However, a big budget film like Forbidden Planet has effects that are still impressive, despite the fact that the film was made more than 50 years ago.
http://www.mr-miata.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/new-forbiden-planet-forbidden_planet-10.jpg

Another terrible remake to add to the list is The Manchurian Candidate, with Denzel Washington. I prefer the original directed by John Frankeheimer. His set-ups and compositions in the movie are clever and satirical.

[Ray Pointer]

[quote=J. J. Hunsecker;131417]The Day the Earth Stood Still was made for a low budget, and the effects reflect that. (It's mostly a moody film that takes place in interiors.) However, a big budget film like Forbidden Planet has effects that are still impressive, despite the fact that the film was made more than 50 years ago.

The fact that a film used a lot of interiors, which were necessary, does not necessarily label it "low budget." There have been color stills from THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL circulating at Comic Conventions that suggest that it was originally planned in color, but the special effects for color were too difficult at the time. Frankly, the film didn't need color, and use of black and white adds to the "moody" atmosphere that the film required. Remember also location shots were filmed in Washington D.C. "Low Bugets" do not allow for location shooting.

FORBIDDEN PLANET is another animal all together. But there were budget compromises made on it as well by filming in Eastman color instead of Techincolor. Many times the "illusion" of expense is often disguised by a clever use of the elements necessary. So the comparison of the two films
based on appearance alone can be deceptive, especially since FORBIDDEN PLANET was shot entirely on stages with a lot of art compositing.