Godspell closing seen here, corner-turning scene at 8:00.
I once wrote to director David Greene, and he said that when filming those empty-looking Manhattan scenes, there would usually be crowds standing behind barricades just out of camera frame.
This is what I came to mention. When I saw it a few years ago I was constantly thinking, “How did they DO that?!?”
In Werewolf of London (1935), the protagonist strides along a row of columns–and as he passes behind each column, he gets a bit more wolflike. Very simple, very clever, very effective.
I’ve seen pictures of the filming of Breakfast at Tiffany’s, specifically the iconic scene of Audrey Hepburn at dawn, staring into the windows at Tiffany all alone…except for the crowds six-heads deep that extend for blocks in either diirection, behind barricades, just outside lens-view!
And I just imagine the SFX that went into 28 Days Later (& Weeks Later as well) to make central London look deserted!
This is one of my favorites, because I love shots of Manhattan. I figured this is what they must have done (along with a lot of Suday shooting on Wall Street), simply because there’s no other way to do it. I particularly like the Times Square scene (shot upward to the Bulova Watch billboard, probably the only way anymore to get a deserted-looking Times Square, outside of building your own, or CGI) and the scene with John the Baptist/Judas in the swimming pool in the penthouse, which must have used carefully checked angles to avoid getting any street traffic.
Not sure I’d call it “Special Effects”, though, except in the most liberal sense.
They did this one in an old Twilight Zone episode, too – the one with the Devil in captivity.
A heck of a lot easier on the actor than having to hold still forever while Jack Pierce slowly builds up a full makeup job on you.
I would call it a special effect because they are scenes specifically created by using a camera in such a way as to create an illusion, and cause something unreal to appear real. It may not be as flashy as a battle between X-wing fighters & rebel ships in outer space, but it IS a camera/film-related effect nonetheless, one that could not be generated in another medium such as live theater.
I forgot how amazing that scene is. That’s special effects as art.
I came here to mention King Kong, and the “Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite” sequence in 2001, so I guess my work here is done.
The hurricane scene in Hurricane (1937) has never been bettered.
Oh come on! There’s a date of expiration on this stuff. :rolleyes:
Yeesh, my mother and father saw it in theaters while she was pregnant (with me), and I’m turning twenty-five this Sunday! 
As to the OP: Count me as another one who thinks the original versions of the Star Wars trilogy’s spaceships (in spite of the unrealistic way they move) are still pretty damn impressive.
I’d also throw in Jurassic Park if no one’s mentioned it. I saw it about a year back and was surprised how well the dinosaurs hold up. Generally speaking, CGI effects tend not to age that well, in my experience.
laughs out loud at self :smack:
Why, oh why do I keep adding a year to my age?
I’ll be twenty-four this Sunday. I was born in '83.
PS. Seriously, I’ve been doing that ever since I turned 22. I haven’t the foggiest idea why.
Agreed; the plane crash isn’t very good. But that movie has one of my all-time favorite special effects shots. There’s a long shot of Indy, Willie and Short Round emerging from a mine tunnel and finding themselves on a sheer cliff. This was done with a set and an ordinary matte painting … but the filmmakers added a slight rocking motion to give viewers the subliminal impression that the scene was filmed from a helicopter. Brilliant touch.
I actually thought the same thing when I watched the movie again about a year ago (having been utterly obsessed with it when I was eight years old). The dinosaurs in that movie really do hold up quite well, when most CGI before that really, really doesn’t.
The liquid metal Terminator from Terminator 2, for instance, isn’t too bad because they were pretty clever in regard to how they used him. But there are some scenes that have him doing stuff that looks so goofy it takes me out of the movie.
It’s funny, I’ve come to think of pre-digital special effects as part of the inherent cinematic quality that old movies have: it adds to their charm, reminds you that these are works of art, not samples from life, which would be boring.
But Mizoguchi’s* The Lady of Musashino*, 1951, has a process scene which took my breath away with its realism. The story begins during WWII–probably one of the earliest Japanese films to depict the war. From the title estate, Musashino, we can see to the horizon, where the American airplanes are firebombing Tokyo. I tell you, there’s absolutely no visual clue to suggest that the scene wasn’t filmed during the actual bombing. I’ve never noticed such a seamless process shot it any old film. I don’t know whether it was miniatures, or rear projection, or double exposure, or what, but it was absolutely flawless.
But its special effects don’t hold up well, which is the point of this thread. There are very little stop motion or process shots that are worth their salt from any stage of cinema.
The “computer” effects for “The Guide” in the old TV series of Hitchhikers Guide - the “babelfish” sequence in particular - are still breathtakingly good when you consider that there wasn’t a pixel in sight: they were all painstakingly hand-animated, right down to the scrolling lines of text, and yet the illusion that this was the screen display of a tiny electronic device {well, tiny for 1981} was absolutely perfect. It still knocks the “The Guide” from the recent movie version into a cocked hat.
Well, Happy Birthday, ya little punk kid. (Grumble, grumble, grumble.)
Myself, the special effects in *Plan 9 from Outer Space * continue to wow me.
Your eyes must be blind to magic. Harryhausen’s Dynamotion had, and still has, magic.
From this time forward, we meet only as enemies.
Another vote for Metropolis, especially the shots of the city. It has never been bettered. It utterly destroys other big future city shots. I can even forgive the biplanes flying around the sky.
I don’t know about that, I’ve seen lots of movies that try to use gorillas, and until PJ’s remake, I don’t think I’ve seen one that managed to be more realistic than the original Kong. Most movie gorillas are absolutely pathetic.