I’ll still have to disagree with you, ScriptAnalyst. I think there have been plenty of movies in the past with a lot of action that today would be shown with lots of CGI whose special effects are not even close to the realism of CGI today and which still really affect me. The fact that they might or might not have poor effects never bothers me. In fact, I don’t even know whether or not they do. A few examples…
Aliens
Raiders of the Lost Ark
The Road Warrior
A Bridge Too Far
Jaws
The fact is, they’re simply very well-made films. If they have a bad effect here or there, you don’t notice because you’re sucked into the story.
Come to think of it, it could also be that they’re so well-made that when there WAS an effect that couldn’t be reproduced realistically, the filmmakers found creative ways around it. Honestly, if you can’t find ways to draw your audience in without breaking the spell and having them say “hey wait a second…” then maybe you should choose to make a different movie.
Alien, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Jaws all had outstanding special effects especially for their time. Hell, I’d say the effects in Alien and Jaws are still more realistic and consistent than Spidey. Which just goes to show even in our digitally advanced age of filmmaking conventional special effects (miniatures, costumes, makeup, wirework, matte paintings, etc.) still have their place. IMhO, TPM, LOTR, and The Matrix are good examples of films that blend digital and conventional effects seamlessly. Spider-man is not; it’s a decent film, a fun film, but the seams show on this flick like a leotard on Rush Limbaugh.
I’m not sure why you say you’re disagreeing with me, when you’re basically restating opinions I offered earlier in this thread:
Me: “To answer the original question, people rave about bad CGI effects because they’re in style at the moment. Also, it’s possible that people are being swept up by the rest of the film and thus are ignoring the weaknesses in the effects.”
You: “The fact is, they’re simply very well-made films. If they have a bad effect here or there, you don’t notice because you’re sucked into the story.”
If we are trying to answer the original question (“why do people rave about bad special effects”), then both you and I are giving essentially the same answer: If you like a film overall, you tend to forgive the flaws in the visual effects.
As for the rest of your post, you seem to be making some kind of tortured argument that CGI effects today are better but that people find fault with them anyway because the films themselves are not so good – exactly the opposite of what this thread is about.
Your argument especially irrelevant here, because the film that sparked the thread is SPIDER-MAN, which has gotten good reviews for its characterization, performances, and story. I haven’t heard anyone declare it a masterpiece, but the consensus for the most part is that it is strong in the areas one doesn’t expect these kinds of films to be strong in.
So when I see problems in the film’s CGI, it’s because the effects could have been better, not because of something else wrong with the film.
I’m not sure why you say you’re disagreeing with me, when you’re basically restating opinions I offered earlier in this thread:
Me: “To answer the original question, people rave about bad CGI effects because they’re in style at the moment. Also, it’s possible that people are being swept up by the rest of the film and thus are ignoring the weaknesses in the effects.”
You: “The fact is, they’re simply very well-made films. If they have a bad effect here or there, you don’t notice because you’re sucked into the story.”
If we are trying to answer the original question (“why do people rave about bad special effects”), then both you and I are giving essentially the same answer: If you like a film overall, you tend to forgive the flaws in the visual effects.
As for the rest of your post, you seem to be making some kind of tortured argument that CGI effects today are better but that people find fault with them anyway because the films themselves are not so good – exactly the opposite of what this thread is about.
Your argument especially irrelevant here, because the film that sparked the thread is SPIDER-MAN, which has gotten good reviews for its characterization, performances, and story. I haven’t heard anyone declare it a masterpiece, but the consensus for the most part is that it is strong in the areas one doesn’t expect these kinds of films to be strong in.
So when I see problems in the film’s CGI, it’s because the effects could have been better, not because of something else wrong with the film.
I will agree that the scene of Peter Parker first learning to crawl up a wall was pretty bad. It really reminded me of the fx in the 60’s Batman tv series.
Overall I was very satisfied with the Spiderman fx.
