Why modern special effects aren't very special anymore

Heh.. those two "Vertigo" shots are actually completely opposite from each other. The one from Goodfellas pulls the camera back while zooming in. The one from Jaws pushes the camera forward while zooming out. The second one is more useful in that kind of tense horror environment.

Children are far more forgiving of SFX anyway, I remember watching night rider as a teenager and thinking how cool it was when Kitt turbo boosted through a truck load of rocks, and then you watch it back today and it is so obviously a model.

For every special FX you think looks bad you probably missed ten you didn't realise were FX at all.

There is a huge difference in the standards that SFX are held to, especially on television.

30 years ago people were watching TV on little 10-20" glass screens with no VCRs/disc players/TiVo. There was no pausing and slo-mo replays. You saw something go by once and that was it. The network might replay the show one more time 6 months later. The production teams really weren't planning any farther than that. Syndication wasn't really affecting production habits yet. Widespread sales of TV shows on home video wasn't even in the conversation yet. Stuff just didn't need to stand up to the kind of scrutiny that it does now. Not only the SFX shots but even the editing perfection.

The same goes for movies before the 1990s, although the screen size wasn't as small. But the image quality/resolution was never really as high as it is today even on older 35mm film.




Yeah, stuff is better now.

It also costs a ton of money to make anything (even though CGI has finally started to help costs go down instead of up). Everyone complains that there are too many sequels/remakes. Why? Because the studios don't want to risk losses on original stuff. It's a double-edged sword. The risk-averse-ness even transfers to things like political/intellectual risks. No $200m superhero movie is going to risk something like a Confederate flag these days. Genuine controversy is only for "small" stuff now.

Look at South Park. "Quick & dirty" also makes it current-events relevant, original, and creative.

The quality of effects has indeed gotten very high. Are there some severe issues with CG being used wrong? Sure, and in my opinion it has the most to do with how the cameras are used (too pristine used to be a problem but we're getting out of that in recent years). Adding fire to a scene doesn't make it less realistic, but how you shoot it can.

I think the big reason why it doesn't impress us the same way anymore is because every one of these films is banking on being a visual spectacle. They all (for the most part) hit that mark so it's not special anymore. Take Jurassic Park for instance. A great film regardless of the effects but what really brought it to life and made us believe there were actual freaking dinosaurs on the screen was a good use of practical and CG effects. Those visuals are what sold the film. Would it do nearly as well if every film had the same level of visuals? No.

That's why to me a lot of these Marvel/DC movies just kind of blend together. All great effects, they certainly nail that, but the stories are all kind of... "meh". So unless there's a really great performance there like Ledger as the Joker nothing is standing out. The movies don't suck, and if even one of the more mediocre examples had come out 20 years ago they would have shattered box office records for the visuals alone.

The problem isn't the visuals, it's the sameness.

Yeah I don't think it's really the effects that are bringing on "the suck" of movies. It's the lack of great storytelling and compelling characters. I've seen some pretty mediocre practical effects movies that are great because the movie itself is just awesome on its own and wasn't riding on visual effects. I've gotten to the point now where I've pretty much seen every kind of visual thrown in my face during a trailer, that none of it impresses me anymore. I want to be captivated by the film and a bunch of shots of explosions and city-wrecking monsters isn't quite enough to get my butt in the seat.

Effects are supposed to support a film, not be the star of it, as too many films are doing these days.

Regarding the link Vivek posted: "There’s no doubt that more critical discussion is needed about vfx artistry. "

Isn't that exactly the type of conversations this "dumb" video has instigated regardless of it's conjecture?

And VFX artists shouldn't take offence to this video. What you all are doing with the tech these days is absolutely incredible!

The issue lies in the storytelling.

Like Michael Bergeron pointed out, Jurassic Park is a prime example. The VFX enhanced the experience, (BTW, did you know there are less than 5 minutes of actual CGI dinos in Jurassic Park? That's a fact.) but what made Jurassic Park really work is the original concept, (something we hadn't really seen before), and superb storytelling. Combine that with good acting and a real sense of fear. Take the T-Rex scene with the kids in the jeep which still stands out today as cinematic history. (Mostly practical BTW) You really fear for those kids! It was just done so well. The building of anticipation, they really took their time with it. You just don't see that much in blockbusters anymore these days. Everything is so fast paced. No time for dramatic pause.



Now compare that to what is basically the same scene in Jurassic World with the boys in the giant hamster ball. It just falls kinda flat. No real sense of fear. They drop out and run away, like a long ways, yet they still manage to outrun the Indominus rex and still have time to spend a couple seconds talking about jumping off the cliff before they actually do it. blah.

Part of it is also the way that F/X are often used, such that they emphasize their unreality. Like, the way a camera moves in certain CGI F/X shots is something that'd be basically impossible to do with a real camera. In some films, that's good, because the sense of unreality is part of the story. For example, in the Matrix, all of the 360 spinning freeze cam stuff works because it's happening within an unreal world, namely the Matrix itself. But to do this in a regular action film just because it looks cool is basically to lampshade the f/x and draw attention to how it isn't real. In the Jurassic Park example, the camera is used in such a way that the dino seems to really inhabit the shot (probably because some version of prop or practical effect did).

The other thing is, as has been said, an effect being in service to the story, rather than being an excuse for a story. That GotG reel bit upthread has some of the kinds of "The camera wouldn't do that" work in it...but it doesn't matter because you're busy enjoying the film. Why? Because it's a well-told story, and the f/x are being used in support of it, rather than in a "LOOK HOW COOL OUR F/X ARE" shot.

A much better video (less pretentious anyway) on some of the pitfalls of modern CG.

I think problems occur when CG doesn't attempt to replicate real-world filmmaking techniques. If the rest of your movie is shot from normal camera angles and the FX shots are all zipping around the place, in a way that no real camera could ever capture, it's going to look very jarring.