Young Sherlock Holmes deserves mention for GGI
This site has FX history (this link is starting at 1960, but there are earlier entries
https://www.filmsite.org/visualeffects8.html
Brian
Sometimes you can find what you want on TCM:
http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/278807/Big-Clock-The-Movie-Clip-Open-36-Hours-Ago.html
One of my favorites in this category if just for the irony is the wireframe glider computer view of the landscape of NYC in the movie Escape From New York. Since computers of the time couldn’t even render a simple image like this they ended up building an illuminated wire model and moving a camera through it.
In short, they faked Computer graphics with a practical effect.
One of my favorite non-CGI effects is the ED-209 law enforcement droid in RoboCop (1987). It was done stop-motion style by Phil Tippett. The RoboCop costume was well done too. (RoboCop is one of my favorite movies to rewatch so I might be biased in these answers.)
Yeah, great movie. I seen the trailer and thought it looked ridiculous for some reason. Had to be pretty well dragged to go see it but what a pleasant surprise.
I didn’t do much directly on Tron, most of my involvement was just in getting efficient use out of our machines. More important though, in a sense I became the model for Kevin Flynn, the cool hip computer programmer instead of the nerdy guy being imagined. When people say I look like Jeff Bridges I say “Actually, it’s Jeff Bridges that looks like me”.
In an interesting coincidence there’s a current thread about Fortran, the Synthavision software used for all our CGI was written in Fortran, and we ended up using a SEL computer that had been optimized for Fortran execution.
In the emerging video game and PC world at the time it worked out quite well that way, with the movie graphics matching the most common technology at the time.
I love being fooled by matte paintings. Ben Kenobi turning off the tractor beam in “Star Wars” was kinda obvious. Butch and Sundance jumping into a matte painted gorge (the “Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit” scene), took me by complete surprise when I discovered it a couple years ago, after watching that movie 4204 times. Forced perspective is nifty, too.
I’ll agree with those who said the work by Ray Harryhausen, and, of course, his mentor Willis O’Brien (The Lost World, King Kong, Son of Kong, Mighty Joe Young…)
I’ll also agree about the stuff from Forbidden Planet, although the scenes that I think stand up best are the outer space scenes.
And I still think that the scenes of Gort – especially the raising of his visor and the “laser” beams shooting fro it – from the original The Day the Earth Stood Still STILL look absolutely wonderful. The scenes of Lock Martin in that aluminized leather robot costume look INFINITELY better than the CGI scenes of Gort in the 2008 remake. If I were to replace any scenes with modern CGI, they’d be the 2008 CGI scenes from the remake.
But if I were to choose the best non-CGI scenes from a pre-CGI movie they’d be the spaceflight scenes from 2001: A Space Odyssey. These still look superb. Better, in fact, than the parallel CGI-aided scenes from Peter Hyams’ film 2010. The scenes of the PanAm Shuttle docking with the double-barreled space station undoubtedly influenced the scenes of the Millennium Falcon being tractor-beamed into the Death Star in Star Wars; And the spherical Lunar ship landing at the moon base are impressive as hell. a half century later.
This was my first thought as well.
I can’t put a hard date on pre/post-CGI. In the original Star Wars, computer generated effects were used for small touches, like the previously mentioned wire-frame Death Star schematic, and the targeting computers on the fighters.
They were cutting edge technology, and didn’t dominate the movie; 99% of the effects in movies like Star Wars and STII: TWOK (laser/phaser blasts, space ships zooming about, etc) were done with models and such. Backdrops were painted mattes. Laser effects were hand painted (or something like) on each frame of film negative, like animation.
Maybe Jurassic Park is the dividing line, but I can’t say for certain.
This may help.
Something I learned about in another thread recently. In The Wizard of Oz there is a moment where Dorothy steps from her sepia world into the full colour world of Oz. Achieved by making a sepia set, with a sepia dress, and then filming it in colour. A pretty nice effect for the time.
They did the same thing in Megaforce, a wonderfully awful film.
Not exactly what the OP is looking for, but this is fascinating, and FUCKING AWESOME:
It’s compiled raw footage from the set of Fury Road, showing how much of the stunts in the film were totally real; CGI was primarily used just to erase stuff like safety lines and crew members. They really were chasing each other through the desert, flipping vehicles and blowing shit up.
The original 1933 King Kong is filled with extremely complex special effects scenes, with multiple layers of effects work. They even invented many new techniques to make the film. If you compare it with The Lost World, only eight years earlier, the improvement is startling.
Take a look at this shot of the crew landing on Skull Island. There’s live motion of the surf and the boats landing, but there’s the glass painting of the Island with its mountains and the Wall, And superimposed on it are the silhouettes of flying birds.
in the scene where he fights the giant “snake” (actually a long plesiosaur – you can se the flippers if you look closely) in the cave has:
-animated models of Kong and the “snake”
-miniature rear projection of Ann
-miniature rear projection of Jack Driscoll
–glass painting of cave interior
- superimposed “vapor” rising from water
Compare that with The Lost World:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huoitHFVaBgBeing a movie buff, I’ve watched a gazillion of 'em, and I’ve pretty much watched all the sci-fi movies from the fifties that were notable for their not-so-special effects. In fact, much of it was god-awful. But the 1953 movie (and original) War of the Worlds was a wonderful exception for its time. First of all, it was in color, which made it stand out from most of the sci-fi movies of that decade. On top of that, the special effects were pretty much a whole level above what was being done at that time.
My favorite scene is when the initial nest is complete, and the 3 machines rise up to face the American soldiers that had completely encircled them. The ensuing battle was pretty cool.
Oh, I would like to complement the movie for being realistic in that there is no conceivable way we could achieve a military victory over such a technologically advanced race. To think that would be like believing the combined British Fleet and Spanish Armada could defeat the 7th fleet of today. I love Will Smith, but “Independence Day” is ridiculous.
I’m reminded of all the computer graphics in the original **Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy **television show…which weren’t computer graphics, just standard animation designed to look like computer graphics.
Purists complained about the martian machines not being “tripods”, as in the movie. George Pal actual DID make them tripods – sorta. They shot scenes with electrical discharges making three “feet” extending from beneath the saucers to the ground. You can actually see them in one scene, but they’re not extremely visible, and they’re absent from most of the film.
I actually would have preferred if it had been shot as a period piece, set in Victorian England rather than updated to the then-present and shifted to the US. Ray Harryhausen had started workin on tials for such a version, using stop-motion animation. I think that would’ve been great – stop motion “strobing” gives a wonderful mechanical motion effect – look at the ATAT Imperial Walkers in The Empire Strikes Back. But George Pal beat him to the screen, so it was not to be.
Here’s some of his test footage – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa2OCI_M4zo
[quote=“CalMeacham, post:75, topic:832137”]
The original 1933 King Kong is filled with extremely complex special effects scenes, with multiple layers of effects work. They even invented many new techniques to make the film. If you compare it with The Lost World, only eight years earlier, the improvement is startling.
Take a look at this shot of the crew landing on Skull Island. There’s live motion of the surf and the boats landing, but there’s the glass painting of the Island with its mountains and the Wall, And superimposed on it are the silhouettes of flying birds.
in the scene where he fights the giant “snake” (actually a long plesiosaur – you can se the flippers if you look closely) in the cave has:
-animated models of Kong and the “snake”
-miniature rear projection of Ann
-miniature rear projection of Jack Driscoll
–glass painting of cave interior
- superimposed “vapor” rising from water
Compare that with The Lost World:
[/QUOTE]Kong is simply the measure for all effects that followed it. The Lost World was just practice for O’Brien, it took his skills combined with Cooper’s to give this masterpiece to the world. CGI can make moving images out of numbers, but the computers don’t bring the characters to life. That task requires skilled animators who can take a tiny model of a giant ape and cross one line to make it come to life, and in addition cross another line and imbue the beast with humanity.
Seconding all the acclaim for King Kong and anything by Harryhausen.
Another spectacular train wreck, in which a real train was wrecked: Lawrence of Arabia.
My entry: The Guns of Navarone. The first 90 minutes is dreary, but I’ll watch the ending – once Peck & Niven get inside the gun room – every chance I get. The actual explosion, and guns tumbling into the Mediterranean, is spectacular.