This has probably been covered before, but watching old movies one is struck by how bad the special efects were - toy trains going off styrofoam mountains, toy ships getting splashed by fake bombs, aliens in rubber suits The british were particulay bad at this, with films such as “Dam Busters”
Did people back then think, “wow how did they do that incredible effect”, or as now, “how embarrassingly silly it looks”? Will people in 20 years time look back at the present special effects and laugh?
Let me ask, do you laugh at embarrasingly bad effects in modern movies like The Scorpion King, and hell, the whole Mummy series?
Just like today most people went along with really bad effects if they carried the story. Actually, some of the most effective special effects I’ve seen were in older movies- was there ever a more believable space ship than in 2001?
Back then, people were a lot more stupid.
I agree that when I first saw 2001, star wars etc the special effects were amazing. I wonder if I saw the same films now on a big screen whether I would be so impressed - I doubt it
I had the chance to see 2001 on a big screen just a while back. The effects are just as impressive. Knowing what to look for now, you can see a little hard-edge on the still photos matted against the the star fields, and in some of the shots inside the moon station the mattes are a little shaky. But still, they’re much better than in Star Wars where you can actually SEE the travelling mattes, and which was made quite a bit later.
Whippersnappers! We knew the difference between a state of the art special effect and a cheesy effect. Go rent a video of a big budget movie like Forbidden Planet or Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, then watch an episode of the old Superman TV series. Youll see the differences immediately. What makes you think we couldn’t?
It’s my understanding that the visible garbage mattes are an artifact of video transfer, due to contrast differences or something. They should not have been evident in the theater. Of course, now it’s impossible to tell, since most of the FX in “Star Wars” have been recomposited digitally for the Special Editions.
its like this i think: When i was a kid and saw Clash of the Titans, i was terrified, cuz i had no reference, and cuz they were trying to do something i’d never seen. I was impressed.
Flash forward 15 years to now, I am an adult, i see Attack of the Clones, and while we marvel at “wow, i’ve never seen special effects that cool”, lets not DELUDE ourselves into pretending that they look real. They look really pretty, but i’m not going to mistake CGI physics and physiology for live action anytime soon. And, i’m not going to mistake the wonderful renderings of Coruscant for location photography either.
As cool as we think it is, it ultimately is prettier than it is realistic, and until something else comes a long thats slightly closer to realistic, we will just be impressed with what we have. But in 20 years, i guarantee you, all of us will be responding to some kids post somewhere asking “Geez, did people in 2002 know how bad thier CGI looked?”
2001 still does rock though… which i think is a testament to the idea than in Special Effects, taste and subtlety and implication go a long way towards helping us suspend our disbelief.
CJ
Believe it or not, there was a time when great movies could have few if any special effects. The Third Man, The Searchers, Bonnie and Clyde, Nashville, The Godfather. How was this possible?
We certainly noticed.
I was SO disappointed with the parting of the Red Sea in Cecil B de Mille’s “Ten Commandments”. “Look, there’s black lines around parts of the sea!” Especially after all the dramatic build-up, it was laughable.
And standard in any movie where people drove a car were plenty of cheesy-looking, out-of-focus rear-projection shots.
However, there was also some wonderful matte work that movie-goers never even noticed. Many of the interiors in “Gone With The Wind”, for example, were tiny paintings on glass, fixed in front of the camera. Same with Citizen Kane.
And “Elephant Walk” has a most convincing scene of elephants bursting through the wall of a house and threatening Elizabeth Taylor’s life. Better than much of “Jumanji”, that’s for sure.
Redboss
I don’t know. How?
Gee, could it be because the focus in those movies was on the ACTING?
I think so.
Just for teh record, the buildings of Coruscant are all almost exclusively models, and not CGI rendered at all.
Most of the digital elements are animated aliens, compositing, and the editing processes. Spacecraft and sets were either real or models.
You mean there aren’t giant spiders living on the moon?
Aw, man…
Check back in thirty years when people will be saying, “Geez, you thought those effects in Attack of the Clones were good? Were you unconscious when you watched it?” 
GuanoLad
I was under the impression that most of the sets were CGI. At very least, I’m quite certain that most of the scenes were shot on blue screen, and the sets, whether CGI, or models, or Matte Paintings or whatever, were imposed later. So maybe not CGI, but definitely “special effects”.
Guano, I’m not trying to be argumentative, but do you have a reference (i hate to say site, as it sounds beligerant, and we’re talking about star wars, ferchristsake :)) about the space ships being models? they look waay to digital to me to have been models. and if the were… how did they film them? Stop Motion? Slow Motion? I find that sorta hard to believe.
sincerely and curiously
CJ
Real spacecraft, eh?
Well, yeah. You mean, you weren’t aware of George Lucas’s extensive fleet of spacecraft? What do you think he does with all that money, buy llamas?
You must have been watching his crappy 1956 remake. Take a look at the 1923 original! Much better special effects. Much better movie. And take a look at some of George Melies’ special effects from 100 years ago—some of 'em still haven’t been bettered.
Certainly, there were good effects and lousy effects, depending on the budget of the movie and/or the type of effect.
Take Jason and the Argonauts, for instance. The scene of Poseidon holding apart the clashing rocks looked, as we would’ve termed it as adolescents then, “fakey”. But the skeleton army, and the harpies, were spectacular by '60s standards–and still hold up well.