- Post
- #225922
- Topic
- Fox France confirms the French OOT release >NOT< to be anamorphic
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225922/action/topic#225922
- Time
Originally posted by: andy_k_250
That's basically the point I was trying to make with my signature. Except I don't know if you get a visceral thrill seeing Yoda bumping around his little house, but at least he looks like he is actually filling that physical space.
I love The Road Warrior too - can you imagine how crappy it would be done with CGI?
Originally posted by: Mike O
Look at Robocop. The ED-209 stop motion may look dated, but the practical effects by Rob Bottin on Robocop himself are as impressive as ever. An American Werewolf in London is still arguably the best werewolf transformation ever filmed (CGI can seem to get werewolves right), Alien is as breathtaking and terrifying as it ever was, and the full-body shot of the queen in James Cameron's Aliens is more impressive than anything in the prequel trilogy. CGI, when used carefully, is an interesting tool. But that doesn't mean that older effects techniques have no merit. One one hand, filmakers can now create anything that they can imagine. On the other, this means that they might not stop to think outside the box. An excellent review for The Road Warrior that I once read put it best. There is a certain visceral thrill that one can only get by banging two objects together, and CG can't replace that.
Why is it that a little green muppet from 1980 looks more realistic and lifelike than the best CGI that the 21st century has to offer? What does this say about the state of modern "special" effects?
Look at Robocop. The ED-209 stop motion may look dated, but the practical effects by Rob Bottin on Robocop himself are as impressive as ever. An American Werewolf in London is still arguably the best werewolf transformation ever filmed (CGI can seem to get werewolves right), Alien is as breathtaking and terrifying as it ever was, and the full-body shot of the queen in James Cameron's Aliens is more impressive than anything in the prequel trilogy. CGI, when used carefully, is an interesting tool. But that doesn't mean that older effects techniques have no merit. One one hand, filmakers can now create anything that they can imagine. On the other, this means that they might not stop to think outside the box. An excellent review for The Road Warrior that I once read put it best. There is a certain visceral thrill that one can only get by banging two objects together, and CG can't replace that.
That's basically the point I was trying to make with my signature. Except I don't know if you get a visceral thrill seeing Yoda bumping around his little house, but at least he looks like he is actually filling that physical space.
I love The Road Warrior too - can you imagine how crappy it would be done with CGI?
Yes, but Yoda is a fully-fledged character. He exists for the purpose of moving the narrative forward. He has a complete backstory and he develops. Jar-Jar doesn't actually do much, good bad, or indifferent. He's just sort of there. And I'm still waiting for the SE DVD of The Road Warrior. It is unquestionably one of the best action films ever made. That final car chase thrills me no matter how many times I see it, which has been quite a few now.