Poll: The Best Effects In Movies?

[tkioz]

I'm currently having a debate with a friend of mine on the best special effects in movies. He claims that the bigger the better, the most spectacular wins, stuff like 2012; whereas I claim he best effects are the ones you don't notice, that blend in with the story, for example the Hobbits in the Lord of the Rings movies.

I never once thought "wow that looks cool" when seeing a 5 foot something actor looking 4 foot, whereas when I saw things like LA falling into the sea in 2012 it was so distracting, so fake, no matter how well done it broke you out of the narrative.

What do you think? Subtle or Awe-Inspiring?

 

[Condor219]

The "big events" are more spectactular, of course; they're the ones you notice and appreciate.
*see: City folding over in Inception*

But I think the BETTER effects would be subtle. They characterize movies and shape the scene, they allow writers and producers to tell a better story, and they make the entire movie a whole lot better than any one huge effect ever could.

 

[Vault101]

I'm currently having a debate with a friend of mine on the best special effects in movies. He claims that the bigger the better, the most spectacular wins, stuff like 2012; whereas I claim he best effects are the ones you don't notice, that blend in with the story, for example the Hobbits in the Lord of the Rings movies.

I never once thought "wow that looks cool" when seeing a 5 foot something actor looking 4 foot, whereas when I saw things like LA falling into the sea in 2012 it was so distracting, so fake, no matter how well done it broke you out of the narrative.

What do you think? Subtle or Awe-Inspiring?

well it always depends on what your going for...

one thing that springs to mind is the monster "Dren" from splice

I think it was part make-up part CGI (but I cant tell for sure which is a good thing) anyway she sort of takes advantage of the uncanney valley...shes human but also an animal and she makes yyou nervous because while she can be all sweet your also acre shes going to flip out and do somthing horrible (that poor poor cat..)

alot of people found the darkseekers in I am ledgend laughable because of the obvious CGI...but at the time I found them terrifying, more than people in make-up and I couldnt exactally explain why

and I realise now it was because of the uncanney valley

 

[bobtheorc]

Big Impressive effects often begin to look dated after a while, I think the subtler ones can stand the test of time more.

 

[Mr. Froggy]

I don't think the quality of special effects should be based on size. There are several good examples for use of special effects for both large and small uses. Like 'Jurassic Park', that movie is old but it had great special effects, much better than in movies like 'Transformers', and it uses a lot of special effects. The same with 'Inception' and 'District 9', let's not forget 'Avatar'; they all really a lot in special effects but the SE doesn't get in the way of the movie itself. I'd say that good special effects enhance the movie, whether the special effects are the focus of it or just a small part.

 

[gorfias]

I can appreciate minimalist effects, but something like "Avatar" is truly an amazing achievment. And I often forgot I was watching animation rather than flesh and blood blue people.

Give me more.

"If less is more, think how much more of more will be!"

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

Definitely the ones you never notice or that don't look out of place. They're the best because they're not in-your-face and don't detract from the story.

"If less is more, think how much more of more will be!"

I don't know who said that, but an example of "more" would be the Star Wars prequels, and they didn't work.

 

[The Night Shade]

A combination of Subtle and Deceiving Ex

Terminator 2 when arnold shoots the t-1000 in the chest it blows up,that is a puppet not cgi which is amazing because it looked so good and it fooled a lot of people

 

[ciancon]

I'm not sure how to classify my favourite effects, but it'd probably be under "Gore".
That not to say that i love blood spewing from every orifice, but it's good to see things that haven't been done too often.

For instance, the mouth-cut in Pan's Labyrinth. Or the ankle-cut in Kill Bill.
Oh and the end of the lance sticking out of the knight's neck in episode four of Game Of Thrones was AWESOME!!!!

 

[William MacKay]

I'm currently having a debate with a friend of mine on the best special effects in movies. He claims that the bigger the better, the most spectacular wins, stuff like 2012; whereas I claim he best effects are the ones you don't notice, that blend in with the story, for example the Hobbits in the Lord of the Rings movies.

I never once thought "wow that looks cool" when seeing a 5 foot something actor looking 4 foot, whereas when I saw things like LA falling into the sea in 2012 it was so distracting, so fake, no matter how well done it broke you out of the narrative.

What do you think? Subtle or Awe-Inspiring?

the hobbits in LOTR are awesome because they arent CG.

 

[tkioz]

I'm currently having a debate with a friend of mine on the best special effects in movies. He claims that the bigger the better, the most spectacular wins, stuff like 2012; whereas I claim he best effects are the ones you don't notice, that blend in with the story, for example the Hobbits in the Lord of the Rings movies.

I never once thought "wow that looks cool" when seeing a 5 foot something actor looking 4 foot, whereas when I saw things like LA falling into the sea in 2012 it was so distracting, so fake, no matter how well done it broke you out of the narrative.

What do you think? Subtle or Awe-Inspiring?

the hobbits in LOTR are awesome because they arent CG.

While they weren't CGI, they were an effect. Models are effects, makeup is effects, at least that's how I view it.

 

[gorfias]

Definitely the ones you never notice or that don't look out of place. They're the best because they're not in-your-face and don't detract from the story.

"If less is more, think how much more of more will be!"

I don't know who said that, but an example of "more" would be the Star Wars prequels, and they didn't work.

I think it was Frazier Crane, and, I think it is a funny line.

I don't think the special effects detracted from the Star Wars prequels. The script and direction often failed. If anything, the eye popping eye candy made much of them tolerable. I for one can watch Jango Fett in action repeatedly, even though the Clone Wars was my least favorite of the series.

Like I wrote before, I can appreciate creativity where a budget and technology are lacking.

Example: netflix streaming: Ink (2009) by Jamin Winans.

 

[RatRace123]

I like effects where CG is only used for things you absolutely can not do in a realistic scenario and even then only when it's done really good.
The best effects are subtle ones I think, or ones that only add minor touch ups.

 

[nukethetuna]

Well, the hobbits weren't actually CGI or scaling or even splicing in most cases, just perspective trickery, hence why it looked so natural.

Same with this, which still looks pretty awesome, despite its age.

 

[DirtyMagic]

The subtle effects in Black Swan.
Only if you pay REALLY good attention you'll notice them.
And they WILL send shivers down your spine. So yeah, that's pretty much the best, isn't it?

Then again, you can't really go wrong with an all out popcorn-gnawing CGI extravaganza sometimes.