Special Effects: What will WOW you?

 As a kid, I saw the original “War of the Worlds” on cable. I loved it, but I knew that even though the effects were great for the time, the filmmakers were very limited in the scale of destruction they could show. What would a real alien invasion, with mass destruction, look like?

Likewise, the Superman TV show didn’t have the tech or budget to show Supes really flying.  Wouldn’t it be COOL to see Superman really flying?
   

So as I grew up in the 80s, I got to see it all.  And then some. 

- Real spaceships in Star Wars (not hanging from strings)

- Superman flying for real

- Dinosaurs in Jurassic Park (big, mean and scary, not models or men in rubber suits)

- Liquid man in Terminator 2

- Toy Story animation

- Bullet time in the Matrix

- Forrest Gump interacting with historical figures

- Jar Jar / Gollum (convincing animated character interacting with real actors)

- Titanic really sinking (not an obvious model)

- Realistic mass destruction (any Roland Emmerich movie)

 

I know some of these effects haven’t aged well compared to today’s standards, but I think most were quantum leaps for their times.

 

Today, the effects are as good as ever (though I still prefer practical effects).  But I’m not as excited as I used to be.  I’d always wanted to see real Transformers. They looked great, but felt like “the next step” instead of something really groundbreaking.  Maybe we’ve been too spoiled with CGI.  Have we really seen it all?  With the proliferation of CGI, I can’t think of any effect than can’t be done with a typical blockbuster budget. 

My questions to you:

What effects do YOU really want to see? 

 

For what effects would you hire a babysitter and pay full price on opening night?

What effects have previously not been practical, or possible, except in your imagination?

 

I'd like to see special effects slow down and not be so kinetic. Very often, images on screen move by so fast and scenes are so crowded that I don't know what I am looking at. Part of the problem is editing, of course, but I'm thinking of movies like Independence Day (the dogfight at the end) or even Revenge of the Sith (the opening scene), where there is simply too much going on. I much prefer the effect in the original Star Wars or even Return of the Jedi. Jedi is a good example: there is a lot going on, crowded frames and plenty of moving objects, but it is much easier for the eye to follow.

What I would like to see are alien landscapes. Think Star Trek TOS but with today's rendering effects. Too many "alien planets" in sci fi movies don't look all that alien. Take a look at something like The Cage or Where No Man Has Gone Before (TOS pilots): As primitive (by today's standards) as those were, that looked like the frontier.

I guess what I am saying is that special effects should be used to create visual beauty and interest, instead of trying to be the track for the next roller coaster ride.

I want CGI to look real. It doesn't really matter to me if it's a big effect or not. I was as wowed by some of the effects in 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button' and 'Zodiac' than the more obvious Davy Jones in the 'Pirates' movies or 'King Kong'. I still don't see the terrible effects in that last one, even on Blu-ray. Kong looks amazing, the entire recreated New York City looks incredible.
I guess it has to be believable to me, or has some realism to it.

The best effects in a movie are those that are employed to serve the story.  The form and substance of how they are carried out is of secondary importance to me.  If the effect is enhancing a story moment, instead of distracting or detracting from it, those are the ones I treasure the most.

Movies dont have good effects any more. It's all computer games now. I'd pay to see a movie with good effects, that is what I'd pay for.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button wowed me last.  Like many here, special effects don't seem special anymore.  It is the creativity behind their use and the effect on the audience that is relevant.  Special effects have primarily become spectacle effects these days.  There is nothing wrong with using effects that way, especially when done creatively and in service of a good film (Iron Man).  It just seems to be overwhelmingly the norm.

In smaller budgets, I love watching Sunshine and The Fountain for their effects.

I think an obvious CG shot is as fake as alot of obvious model shots in older movies. They're just fake in a different ways. I don't see how one fake shot is any better than the other fake shot. Where CG has exceeded models and traditional matte paintings is when you don't notice it.

its interesting re-watching older films to see how things have changed

I have spent the past few nights watching the 4 Alien films

Aliens still looked stunning, apart from 2 special effects:

SPOILER ALERT!!!




-the matte painting of the Sulaco's hanger as the Marines are readying for battle (its very obvious compared to the live action foreground)

-the dropship entering the planet's atmosphere (the cromakey looks terrible)

at the time I originally watched this film, I did not notice these issues

I falsely remembered a scene with Ripley driving the power loader on the Sulaco whilst helping the Marines prepare for the drop to the planet, as looking fake, but it still looked good today

but today, movie effects are usually seamless, transparent and subtle, you don't get that "jarring" visual that stands out and ruins the suspension of disbelief

If i was the film maker (James Cameron) doing a Blu-Ray edition, I would re-edit the film to remove those scenes as the rest of the Aliens film looks brilliant (real and gritty), even by today's standards

there is a stunning model effect of the dropship powering through the clouds and being buffeted by rain, that is enough to telegraph the feeling of the drop

What will wow me? A great story that goes somewhere, sincere characters with specific goals and desires whom you care about, smart photography with a sense of professionalism, a prominent and supplemental score, and the general charm of a classic film containing an authentic sense of magic and innocence.

Special effects what?

story is everything - computer games are going through this problem too, of the technology running away with the product and the story coming in a weak second

I absolutely loved playing computer games, for many years on different platforms, until I got to the point where the stories in the movies I watch were always more interesting than anything happening in a game


modern effects that have wowed me?

I would say the re-imagined Battlestar Galatica tv show, and the Serenity movie (both effects done by the same effects people)

incredibly gritty, realistic and involving - the space battles were stunning

the use of fast zooms, bad framing and focus really gave the viewer a "sense of being" there - in one of the documentaries about BSG the producers said the effects were designed to give the appearance that the action was being filmed by a camera man (like a reality show!)

Ah, the "reality" of "bad film." 

I don't go to the movies to see bad film-making -- fundamentally, a movie-experience shouldn't be that dissimilar to a stage-experience.  And no-body goes to the theater to see people "being real."  Heck, if they did that, there'd be no opera — ever!

To me, it seems like the unheard-of "special effect" now would be to make a film where they actually use a mix of long and medium shots, instead of just close and extreme-close shots, where the shot-length might be measured in seconds or fractional minutes rather than frames.  Let us see the story you're creating!

And if the effect, whatever it might be, can't hold up to being on-screen for 20 seconds, well, then, do it over, or get rid of it! 

I can't remember what it was, but just recently, I saw the opening of a film (walked out of the room) where it was all hand-held, shot with a medium-long lens (no more than about a 5-degree field of view) that was being garden-hosed around.  I couldn't stand it; it was making me sick.  Not shakey-cam, like Blair Witch, but just some idiots hosing the camera around.  No sense of story-telling, or even attempting to show the story.

That and the effects should be... integrated.  One of the things I liked about Contact was how some of the effects were seamless.  One of the things I disliked about Contact was the "ride through the wormholes."  If you took a razor-blade and cut most of it out, no one would notice.  I don't particularly like roller-coasters, and I'm not sure why they decided I needed to ride one in the theater for a few minutes.

Leo

Bradley - Your list mirrors my experience. I am impressed with intriguing and innovative ways to use effects. When Fincher moved the camera through the kettle's handle in Panic Room, that struck me as a creative way to use effects. I was impressed with how Battlestar Galactica created a docu-style to the visual effects, and how seamless the effects were in Cloverfield...But it has been a while since I have been in awe of a visual effect.

Fincher's use of FX always impresses me.  Some of the shots in Panic Room, the overhead tracking of the taxi in Zodiac, etc.  The first thing that comes to mind is the lengthy single take shots in Children of Men, in particular the scene in the car.

"The first thing that comes to mind is the lengthy single take shots in Children of Men, in particular the scene in the car."

thanks for the reminder - a stunning film

there are a number of long shots - the car scene as you mentioned (which required a very ingenious camera rig), the opening scene with the terrorist bombing of a coffee shop in London, and several long shots during the awesome final battle in the refugee camp

the co-ordination to make that last battle coherent must have been mindblowing

the entire Children of Men movie had a sense of reality and grit that really sucked the viewer in, without any special effects being apparent

Not really special FX more makeup, but I loved the makeup on The Curious case of Benjamin Button.
Before I saw the movie I wondered how they could make it possible to take 1 actor and let him go from old men to infant.
After I saw the movie I was impressed how believable it was.

 I think this is an interesting question. I took some time to think about it, and I don't think there's ever been a special effect that's wowed me. There have been many shots that wow me, and many of those are wholly made up of special effects -- but that's the point, it's not the special effect that wows me it's the design of the shot.

There have been plenty of epic, huge compositions that wow the hell out of me without a lick of visual effect tinkering. There's the great pullback over the train station in "Gone With the Wind", Lawrence prancing on the wrecked train in "Lawrence of Arabia", the final shot of Ethan walking through the door at the end of "The Searchers". All epic, big screen shots because of design rather than special effects.

But there have been many shots almost entirely comprised of visual effects that stun me, the opening shot of "Star Wars", the first shot of the full Brachiasaurus in "Jurassic Park", Jack and Rose riding the Titanic down on its final plunge. But these were great shots because of their design rather than the effects used to create them.

Take "Transformers" for instance. There's plenty of fantastic effects work in that movie -- but I can't remember even one epic shot or moment. It was just a jumble of CGI and noisy images (and for the record, I never saw the second movie).

Classic, epic images wow me. But they don't need visual effects to do it.

There's such great effects work in the Transformer movies (the sequel deserves to win the special effects Oscar this year) that it's a heartbreaker that those effects couldn't have been in a movie that wasn't otherwise terrible.

This is a case where the SPFX was truly special. Say what you will about the story, but the CGI facial animation really was the next big breakthrough for me. All of the shots featuring an older Benjamin were accomplished using a completely CGI animated head composited over the actors. Not just the scenes featuring a child-like Benjamin, but pretty much all the way until he starts to look like he's in his 50s. For instance the scenes where he goes to the brothel for the first time and also when he joins his real father for a drink all feature a completely computer animated head and face. This was the first film that truly crossed the "uncanny valley" for me. Stunning work.

Effect that are impressive and held up well: The original Planet of the Apes movies.  Sure the mouths are not as articulated as they could be but it is still damn impressive.

I wish I could say that the story in every movie I saw was the most important aspect, but I'd be lying. A lot of times I just like to see spectacle and views of worlds and characters that are just not possible with conventional techniques. That is why I have no problem with massive use of CGI in movies. CGI allows effects shots to be created that could never be done with models or any other real world technique. For example, take 2012. Is that going to be a "good" movie? Not likely. Is it going to be spectacular to look at? Yes. The JFK rolling over the White House looks spectacular. To me, there is no way that shot could have been done with models and still look even half as authentic as it does using CGI.

That shot is on a billboard that I see every day on my ride home. I hate it. It is exactly what special effects should not be. Authentic? Give me a break. What body of water is there near Pennsylvania Avenue that could hold an aircraft carrier? I'm very very tired of seeing effects used for nothing but destruction, especially that of our iconic buildings and monuments. Like I said earlier in this thread, give us something beautiful to look at.

Oh, and based on that shot and that billboard, I will never see the 2012 movie. It's repugnant.

To each their own. Authentic in a real world sense? No. Authentic within the context of an over-the-top disaster movie that shows a tidal wave washing over a mountain top monastery? Yes. I don't think the trailer even suggests that that aircraft carrier is moored anywhere near Pennsylvania avenue. As for destruction of iconic buildings and landmarks, it makes sense because those are the type icons that everyone is familiar with. They represent, in a nutshell, some of the human race's greatest accomplishments. Seeing them destroyed just amplifies the sense of civilization's destruction. Would anyone care if they showed some mundane roadside icon being wiped out? No.

Hell, I wish aircraft carriers would roll over the Victoria, BC and Ottawa, Ont legislatures for real. I would especially hope it happens while they were all sitting in there. Talk about the world's greatest housecleaning, but I digress. I have to disagree with your assertion that special effects should not be the type of thing being depicted in that JFK scene. That is exactly what special effects were created for, to depict visually what would otherwise be impossible to create in a full scale, real world sense. At least, that is one facet of special effects work and one that is immensely important in Hollywood movies.

a problem, that I think Edwin-S is trying to get at is being missed, is that "within context," there is a "realm of possibility."  And even in the movie-house, there is still that "realm."  AKA "Suspension of disbelief."  Well, relaxation.  

Then there are times when the movie makers go out of their way and do something wholly outrageous like rolling an air-craft carrier over the White House.  (Not something I'd look forward to -- I work on the National Mall about, what, 3 blocks away?!)  

Sometimes, it's something just wild-n-crazy like the carrier.  Other times it's something stupid, like in the Die Hard that wasn't shot at Dullas Airport, where he downs the bad guy's plane with it's own fuel-stream.  

And at that point, it just kicks you in the reality so hard that there's nothing you can do but point and shout "Boo!" like the old woman. 

Many people making films seem to have lost sight of the fact that just because it's possible to present anything, doesn't mean that they should.  

Granted, sometimes they end up doing stupid things that "work" -- say, the end of True Lies, when they pop the missile through the building.  But given everything else that's happened, well, it's still in the range of plausible -- at least within that film's context.  (Seems to me, missiles tend to drop quite a bit before they light off their engines... be very tricky to be able to pull that shot off, methinks.)

Now, maybe in 2012, by the time you get to that scene, it's perfectly 'okay' for the film and it's context.  But yanking it out of context like that and plastering it on a billboard, well... "Boo!"  (Though I have to admit that the times I've seen it's trailer, I sort of thought "Boo!" about the whole thing.  But then I'm not a major disaster-film-fan, anyway.)

But I digress, and apparently am tired enough that I'm not thinking straight.

Leo

heh. I see already responded here.  Removed due to redundancy.

I might be biased on this because I've been watching the Trilogy all this week and so it's fresh in my mind, but Gollum remains one of the most impressive effects I've ever seen in a movie. To the point where you forgot get is an effect, which of course, was the point.

A year or two ago, I had watched the entire Star Wars Saga and for a effect standpoint (Say what you will about the character) Jar Jar has not stood the test of time at all. But Gollum has.

Thinking of Gollum always brings me to Jackson's King Kong too, and some of the facial work on that character creeps me out it's so real. It's the eyes!

I wonder if your problem with Jar Jar (as an effect,) might stem from the ears? 

A lot of his motion is lurch-y and abrupt (particularly in Phantom Menance,) and his ears don't seem to move right "with the rest of him."  That's not to say that his motion is overall "good," just that the ears seem to call out oddly.

I don't know how much of that might be that Gollum doesn't have ears (or, rather, big floppy ones,) and that the action could be relatively simple motion-capture, or if it's something more subtle than that.

(Come to think of it, I don't remember seeing: was Jar Jar motion-capture, or was there just a "reference actor" that the animators then generalized off of?)

Leo

This is totally of the subject but it's bugging the heck out of me; how can I make the forum jump me to the NEW post of a subscribed thread when I get the email notification? It always takes me to the very first page with the very first post. Especially annoying for multipage threads!

To the best of my recollection, Jar Jar was animated but they did use motion capture to get an idea of the way that the actor moved as the character.

The last film I saw that wowed me with it's effects was Cloverfield.

Considering what the budget was it is staggering what they did and best of all how real it all looked and i'm not only talking about the creature, the way they made me feel like I was on the Brooklyn Bridge as it was torn asunder or on the street as the head of the Statue of Liberty came hurtling out of the sky and crashing down the street, and don't even get me started on the street and city extensions...WOW!

I am still able to appreciate the greatness of effects, it's mind boggling what is involved in making the Autobots and Decepticons look like solid and photo-real metal with it's gleams, flashes and tracer flares from countless light sources. 

Michael Bay stated on the commentary for Revenge of the Fallen that his team of effects wizards were robbed of the Oscar that year and that the votes are in the hands of those who don't really look and try to understand what hard work is involved in bringing such images to the screen...I agree with him.

Also, IMO most CGI work in newer films tend to look very artificial as compared to CGI work from say 1993, the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park are staggering to look at, even more so than some of the dino shots in Jackson's King Kong or the organic creatures in the Star Wars prequels which tend to look like a blob of silicon with bump maps applied.

Not sure why that is but maybe it's because since ILM was just experimenting with bringing computer generated dinosaurs to the screen back then they put more effort into them whereas today maybe effects houses get a little lazy because CGI is so established?

Not sure if that holds water but it's just something i've noticed.

Even James Cameron's much celebrated new film Avatar leaves me cold with how things look, everything looks flat and cartoonish, maybe it's because everything except the actors are computer generated as compared to, again, Jurassic Park where very real looking dinosaurs were integrated into real locations. Avatar looks to me like a really cool looking PS3 game.

As for what I would like to see, that's tough as pretty much everything has been covered already in films from the past 20 years or so.

it'll take star trek TNG's holodeck or DS9's holosuites to truly wow me ;). we're not there yet.

or insert any of your fav. Matrix-like sci-fi franchise's simulated virtual world technology =).