*Most influential visual-effects movie?
CraigTHX
Other than 2001 and Star Wars, what do most people consider to be the most
influential movie in terms of visual-effects?
My vote goes to Terminator 2:Judgment Day (It STILL looks
state-of-the-art!)
-------------------
Crai...@aol.com (Craig W. Thomas)
"The ability to upgrade your modem is insignificant next to the power of the force."
--Darth Vader at a USRobotics conference.
Chancellor Ross Wyman
CraigTHX (crai...@aol.com) wrote:
: Other than 2001 and Star Wars, what do most people consider to be the most
: influential movie in terms of visual-effects?
: My vote goes to Terminator 2:Judgment Day (It STILL looks
: state-of-the-art!)
There are two that I can think of immediately off the top of my head. One
is Tron, which endeavoured to introduce the use of computer-generated
images into film. This wasn't considered a success but the idea was
still there and in "The Abyss", they incorporated the CGI "water" effect
that was taken a step further in T2 to include morphing effects. So,
using these three movies, you can sort of trace a history of the
development of CGI visual-effects, which in my opinion, is one of the true
breakthroughs in visual-effects. Of course, the development is still
continuining with films like Jurassic Park, Dragonheart (bad movie, great
effects), Twister, etc.
Another film that I just suddenly thought of was Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
While it may be a different style of visual effects, it still was
extremely influential on the idea of making objects that exist interact
with objects that don't.
Chance
Brian Siano
Kimball Kinnison wrote:
>
> >CraigTHX (crai...@aol.com) wrote:
> >: Other than 2001 and Star Wars, what do most people consider to be the most
> >: influential movie in terms of visual-effects?
> >
>
>
> In nearly every interview I've ever read with people doing SFX for a
> living, they say that seeing that film for the first time so hooked
> them that they had to pursue SFX for their life's work.
YES: Extremely good choice. After the three films listed above,
the only one I can think of that comes close in terms of influence
would be Fritz Lang's _Metropolis_. But, it ain't close to _King
Kong_'s impact.
Frankly, as far as watershed effects films go, _2001_'s the
Big Kahuna, followed by _Star Wars_ and _King Kong_. (I'd put a nice
mention in for George Pal's _War of the Worlds_ and De Mille's
_The Ten Commandments_, but that is reaching a bit.)
--
Brian Siano - si...@cceb.med.upenn.edu
"Life is a continuous process of pain, anguish, loneliness, and despair.
However, we cannot let the occasional flashes of joy and happiness
distract us from this fact."
-- Brian Siano
Kimball Kinnison
D
Also Forbidden Planet (1956) was very revolutionary at the time
of its release.
Kimball Kinnison
>: Other than 2001 and Star Wars, what do most people consider to be the most
>: influential movie in terms of visual-effects?
>
I wonder if another answer might be the 1931 'Frankenstein'.
I've read interviews with Rick Baker and Stan Winston where they both
said something to the effect that they spent a lot of their childhoods
attempting to duplicate Jack Pierce's make-up.
I'm sure if you asked Dick Smith, Tom Savini, Kevin Yagher, KNB,
Rob Bottin, et al, they would say that they were very influenced by
that film.
SFX today would be a lot less that it is today without their
contributions.
bbowm...@aol.com
Don't forget Blade Runner, Willow (morphing), Young Sherlock Holmes (CGI
character), Planet of the Apes (prosthetic make up), Friday the 13th (just
to get a rise out of you all ;), Last Starfighter (more CGI)
These really are the cornerstones and foundations of modern special
effects. I didn't even mention Harryhausen (sp?) or anything before 1970.
Brad Bowman
Digital Artist
Manuel Alducin
As far as CGI FX goes, my vote goes for Star Trek 2, first time the use
of realistic (almost) CGI effects in the Genesis secuence. Thats when
Pixar was still part of ILM. As for classic movies lets not forget the
"Trip to the Moon" by Melies, the father of all FX movies at the turn of
the century.
ilm
indiana jones
Chancellor Ross Wyman <cha...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote in article
<5cmnsa$30p$1...@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu>...
> CraigTHX (crai...@aol.com) wrote:
> : Other than 2001 and Star Wars, what do most people consider to be the
most
> : influential movie in terms of visual-effects?
>
Christopher Schulte
> >Other than 2001 and Star Wars, what do most people consider to be the most
> >influential movie in terms of visual-effects?
>
> >My vote goes to Terminator 2:Judgment Day (It STILL looks
> >state-of-the-art!)
>
> models, mattes, etc. Of course, the really cool films are the old
> Harryhausen flicks where you know there were no computers to help. I
> personally find them more incredible than any modern CGI stuff, because I
> don't know how the hell they did some of the things they managed in-camera!
The origianal King Kong is what really set off what I think we mean by
visual effects here. Of course, some of the best effects are not
technilogically difficult.
The first Star Trek movie shows that expensive effects should not
replace decent editing.
Paul Dossett
CraigTHX (crai...@aol.com) said:
>Other than 2001 and Star Wars, what do most people consider to be the most
>influential movie in terms of visual-effects?
>My vote goes to Terminator 2:Judgment Day (It STILL looks
>state-of-the-art!)
I pick City of Lost Children. An incredible combination of computer imagery,
models, mattes, etc. Of course, the really cool films are the old
Harryhausen flicks where you know there were no computers to help. I
personally find them more incredible than any modern CGI stuff, because I
don't know how the hell they did some of the things they managed in-camera!
--
Paul Dossett | Sony STR-665 receiver, Pioneer CLD-D925 laserdisc, Sony
-------------| SLV-X822 VCR, Mitsubishi DiVA 33" TV, *CRAP* L/R speakers,
Melbourne OZ | Richter Unicorn centre and Hydra surrounds, Monster i/c.
Amiga 2000/40| astr...@netspace.net.au |http://netspace.net.au/~astroboy/
CGIArtist
Winsor McCay's "Gerty The Trained Dinosaur" (1909) sparked traditional
animation combined with live action which eventually lead to rotoscoping
and the cgi we know today. The original 1933 "King Kong" should rate up
there. It inspired Harryhausen, who influenced so many others in the
industry.
just my two cents on a tuff question
Frank Fruscello
Hieroglyfx
Say what you will. I love Raiders of the Lost Ark. It and Star Wars and
2001 are the reason I now run the HieroglyFX Studio. Long live George
Lucas.
Darris Dobbs
HieroglyFX Design
Thaddeus J. Beier
It's funny to see many other people say the same thing, that
"It's because of <some movie> that I got into the business". I thought
that I was the only one! For me it was Star Wars. I thought that
it was all computer graphics animation, so that's what I wanted to
do!
I was misinformed, of course, but it worked out for the best, anyway.
-- Thaddeus Beier th...@hammerhead.com
Visual Effects Supervisor 408) 287-6770
Hammerhead Productions http://www.got.net/people/thad
mco...@earthlink.net
I'm shocked nobody has really mentioned JURASSIC PARK as an
influencial movie. It's only a few years old, but from a technical
stanpoint its the single greatest FX revolution in over a generation, AT
LEAST as great as 2001 A SPace Oddesy, and far more than Star Wars.
Star Wars was a great movie, but from book i have read, actualy the
motion controll camera had it's beginnings with a cruder system invented
by Doug Trumbull for 2001 and Silent Running.
Although there has been great CGI FX for over a decade, from Young
Sherlock Holmes, to the Abyss alien to the T-1000, they were all fantasy
characters with a sense of unreality. Jurrasic Park was the very first
time CGI had ever been done to attempt true photorealism with the
dinosaurs, and making seamless cuts between CGI and the anamatronics. A
lot of commercial software routines we take for granted from inverse
kinematics, to compositing to 3d paint programs were invented by ILM for
that movie. It was one of the very first if not the first movie to have
all it's visual effects done entirely digital, and the first movie with
true digital quality sound.
Brian Siano
When we talk of a "most influential" film, we ought to ask ourselves
"in what _way_ is such-and-such influential?" For example, if we
were talking about the most influential film ever, we'd have to talk
about
_Citizen Kane_, for lots of reasons: it's inspired so many filmmakers,
its striking style, lots of technical achievements (Gregg Toland's
deep focus), etc., but then someone might argue that any notable enough
predecesor-- Griffith's _Birth of a Nation_, for example-- should hold
precedence for having been 'the first."
So okay, visual effects. One could use a sort of flow-chart
kind of logic, and say that Georges Melies and Winsor McCay hold the
honors: Melies for his fantasies and camera tricks, and McCay for
his striking animation, and all else flows from these two.
The problem with such arguments is that it treats what we're
looking at as a kind of growing tower, with the earliest elements
being the foundation, and future refinements being merely on the
"shoulders of giants." By this argument, an effects film like
_Fantastic Voyage_ is "more" influential than _Jurassic Park_
or _2001_.
This is not exactly the case: it's more like dozens of
people working on their various projects, noticing what other people
do, and being influenced by each other. Sometimes someone's work
gets noticed a _lot_, either because of its skill, its visionary
uniqueness and profundity (like _Citizen Kane), or simply because
it's so _massive_ in some way that others can't help but notice it
(like _The Ten Commandments_ or _Gone with the Wind_).
Also, the way in which someone's work influences people
matters a great deal. Is the innovation a new technique, a new tool,
or a new style? (Or, has the artist developed a new design for a
brush or has he invented Impressionism?) And has the film inspired
a lot of others go do similar things?
So how does this relate to visual effects? I think it means
that we can't say that, because a film had the first use of a
technique, it was therefore "more influential" than a film that
used it _well_. I don't know which film was the first to use
computer-generated graphics (_Tron_? _Star Trek 2_?), but I'd
argue that _The Abyss_ probably set the first, hey-this-can
really-simulate-reality standard.
Or, take _2001_. Some of its shots seem a bit dated (many of
the satellites in the "Blue Danube" sequence are flat-looking), but
they are simply breathtaking when seen in a movie theater. I can't
think of any film prior to _2001_ that inspired the kind of
nearly religious awe that that film did. (Considering Trumbull's
influence on the industry afterwards, it really is the first modern
effects film. Trumbull even credits it with inspiring his
3-D ride developments.)
Frankly, if I were to limit myself to less than five truly
influential effects films, I'd have to stick with three unquestionables:
_2001_, for sheer quality and profundity of use: _King Kong_, for
the creation of a wholly special-effects character, and its being
the standard-hbearer of stop-motion animation: and _Star Wars_,
simply because of its providing IL&M's birth, and the resulting
improvement in the industry's effects overall. After these three,
even CGI is just another brush.
David Rolston
cgia...@aol.com (CGIArtist) wrote:
>Winsor McCay's "Gerty The Trained Dinosaur" (1909) sparked traditional
>animation combined with live action which eventually lead to rotoscoping
>and the cgi we know today. The original 1933 "King Kong" should rate up
>there. It inspired Harryhausen, who influenced so many others in the
>industry.
Actually, Harryhausen was more than inspired by King Kong, He
eventually came to apprentice for Willis O'brien who was effects supe
for Kong on Mighty Joe Young, which from a stop motion standpoint is
one of the all time greats.
When I was a kid, the Ray Harryhausen movies were among my all time
favorites. I know that for a lot of the old time ILM'ers Harryhausen
was an idol as well. There's a picture of one of the monsters from
Seven Voyages of Sinbad signed by Ray up on the wall along with a
picture of Ray with a bunch of the guys, from what I remember.
For pure R.H. though, most people still marvel at the Skeleton scene
from Jason and the Argonauts.
In regards to influential fx films, I think you have to include two
Ridley Scott films: Alien and Blade Runner.
Brian Siano
David Rolston wrote:
>
> In regards to influential fx films, I think you have to include two
> Ridley Scott films: Alien and Blade Runner.
I'd have to disagree. Both were extremely influential in terms
of set design and concept-- how many film monsters have we seen
that don't have an echo of Giger's Alien? But the effects were more
or less a part of the overall design, and despite their astounding
quality on _Blade Runner_, I'd have to say that they weren't as
influential as others have been.
--
Chris Watts
mco...@earthlink.net asserted about Jurassic Park:
>
> It was one of the very first if not the first movie to have
> all it's visual effects done entirely digital, and the first movie
> with true digital quality sound.
Well, I'm sure there were lots of others that will say "me too" but
Muppet Chrismas Carol was "all-digital".
First in the states was probably The Hudsucker Proxy, courtesy of Mike
McAlister. About 60 shots, all digital, and the two FX opticals had
digital elements created in the computer but comped optically.
So there :)
chris
john
Brian Siano wrote:
> Frankly, if I were to limit myself to less than five truly
> influential effects films, I'd have to stick with three unquestionables:
> _2001_, for sheer quality and profundity of use: _King Kong_, for
> the creation of a wholly special-effects character, and its being
> the standard-hbearer of stop-motion animation: and _Star Wars_,
> simply because of its providing IL&M's birth, and the resulting
> improvement in the industry's effects overall. After these three,
> even CGI is just another brush.
>
>
I'm absolutly AMAZED that no one here has mentioned the work of George
Pal! Many of his films arn't available on video (if anyone knows where I
can get "The Conquest of Space" e-mail me). He brought blue screen up to
the modern era. Look at "The War of the Worlds" as the martians blow the
shit out of L.A.s City Hall (somthing someone should have done years ago
by the way), It's totally convincing, even when compared with modern
films. There was a doc a few years ago on him. I don't understand why his
films arn't held up there with Harryhausens.
I'm also glad to see people appreciate "The Abyss", I worked on the model
photography out in Simi Valley. What a great education in special
effects. We were able to see, over a period of days (or weeks) a shot get
built up, layer by layer. I think this was the last big movie that was
using the "Old Style" analog system, (optical printer/hold-out
mattes)also the best! Now everything is digital and done in a magic box.
I'm particularly impressed with the way the miniature work we did cuts so
seamlessly with the live action footage from a-unit. People are amazed
when I tell them that @ 60% of the underwater footage was shot in
miniature on a sound stage!
John Luker
Brian Siano
john wrote:
>
> Brian Siano wrote:
> > Frankly, if I were to limit myself to less than five truly
> > influential effects films, I'd have to stick with three unquestionables:
> > _2001_, for sheer quality and profundity of use: _King Kong_, for
> > the creation of a wholly special-effects character, and its being
> > the standard-hbearer of stop-motion animation: and _Star Wars_,
> > simply because of its providing IL&M's birth, and the resulting
> > improvement in the industry's effects overall. After these three,
> > even CGI is just another brush.
> >
> >
>
> I'm absolutly AMAZED that no one here has mentioned the work of George
> Pal! Many of his films arn't available on video (if anyone knows where I
> can get "The Conquest of Space" e-mail me). He brought blue screen up to
> the modern era. Look at "The War of the Worlds" as the martians blow the
> shit out of L.A.s City Hall (somthing someone should have done years ago
> by the way), It's totally convincing, even when compared with modern
> films. There was a doc a few years ago on him. I don't understand why his
> films arn't held up there with Harryhausens.
Hm, Good point: Pal's films are truly memorable, but I dunno
if I'd say they were as "influential" in the same sense that _Kong_
and _2001_ were. Great they were, classics they were, but... I
dunno, I still think the three I mentioned really did stand out
in terms of traceable influences on future generations.
(BTW, the Martian ships weren't bluescreen, as far as I've been
able to tell. A lot of the time they were suspended in miniature
landscapes. There was a lot of travelling matte stuff done in that film,
though I don't know if they specifically used bluescreen or not.)
--
Brian Siano - si...@cceb.med.upenn.edu
John Cleese... appeared Tuesday evening on
the Comedy Central network's "The Daily Show"
and took part in the show's ritual semi-serious
quiz, the Five Questions. Name your favorite
"Charlie's Angel," he was told.
"Noam Chomsky," he answered with a
satanic gleam in his eye.
Jeff Simon, "The Human Zoo," The Buffalo News,
Jan. 23rd, 1997
John Smith
On 28 Jan 1997 21:41:59 GMT, crai...@aol.com (CraigTHX) wrote:
>Other than 2001 and Star Wars, what do most people consider to be the most
>influential movie in terms of visual-effects?
>
>My vote goes to Terminator 2:Judgment Day (It STILL looks
>state-of-the-art!)
>
>-------------------
>Crai...@aol.com (Craig W. Thomas)
>
>"The ability to upgrade your modem is insignificant next to the power of the force."
> --Darth Vader at a USRobotics conference.
Some of the best that I can think of (not in order of priority! ;-)):
Forrest Gump
Back to the Future II
Total Recall
Innerspace
Terminator 2
The Abyss
Paul Mclane Irvine
On Fri, 07 Feb 1997 00:19:16 GMT, no_e...@geocities.com (John Smith)
wrote:
>On 28 Jan 1997 21:41:59 GMT, crai...@aol.com (CraigTHX) wrote:
>
>>Other than 2001 and Star Wars, what do most people consider to be the most
>>influential movie in terms of visual-effects?
>>
>>My vote goes to Terminator 2:Judgment Day (It STILL looks
>>state-of-the-art!)
>Some of the best that I can think of (not in order of priority! ;-)):
>Forrest Gump
>Back to the Future II
>Total Recall
>Innerspace
>Terminator 2
>The Abyss
I thought Jurrasic Park was fairly decent...
Apollo 13
T2
Backdraft
Return of the Jedi for cramming that many ships in one scene..
And for the time Superman was none too shabby.
And Toy Story ..OK its CG but its sets a standard for CG to follow...
Paul `Mclane` Irvine
----------------------
PC, PSX , Atari8bit & C64
&Tomb Raider Helpline :-)
Edenell
George Pal's influence was felt mainly in the 1950's. After his films
DESTINATION MOON and WAR OF THE WORLDS came all of the other space
voyaging and Technicolored alien destruction films. Many of the European
and Japanese science fiction films of the early '60's remind me of cheap
versions of DM and CONQUEST OF SPACE. Pal's integration of special
effects, story, and character development was truly unique and thereby
extremely difficult for anyone to copy.
Redbeard1
If you want to talk influencial, let's try "Forbidden Planet"
1st electronic music soundtrack
The underground scenes of the Krell city has been copied in movie and
TV for years, from Time Tunnel to Babylon 5
The earliest version of a robot with a sentient nature
The triumverate of the Captian, first Officer and the ship's doctor
The use of a major animation studio other than the movie's home base
(Disney over MGM)
Flying saucers that don't look like hub caps on wires
John McGinley
Redbeard1 <rob8...@pipeline.com> wrote in article
<5e6bmi$b...@camel5.mindspring.com>...
Let us not forget the Laser effects in Forbidden Planet which still hold up
pretty well today.
--
John McGinley
3D Modeler/Animator
Interplay Productions, Inc.
JMCG...@INTERPLAY.COM
HTTP://WWW.INTERPLAY.COM