Lounge of Tomorrow

Lounge of Tomorrow (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/index.php)
-   Beatnik (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Popular Mechanics Top 10 F/X Movies (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/showthread.php?t=4997)

Babette 01-02-2007 10:27 PM

Popular Mechanics Top 10 F/X Movies
 
It's that time of the year when all of the "Top 10" lists come out. I thought this one was an interesting timeline of special effects in movies.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...y/4206967.html

Cadaverous Pallor 01-02-2007 10:51 PM

Jurassic Park loses to Cliffhanger??? :mad: I get the concept, but still, you gotta be f'n kidding me.

BarTopDancer 01-02-2007 10:59 PM

I knew the Day After Tomorrow was good for something other than a campy end of the world flick.

Alex 01-02-2007 11:00 PM

In terms of total industrial impact it isn't such a stretch to think the advance in Cliffhanger has had a greater impact than Jurassic Park (digital removal occurs in movies across all genres while digital creatures are still pretty limited in their appearances).

The dinosaurs are definitely visually impressive though.

Kevy Baby 01-02-2007 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor (Post 112245)
Jurassic Park loses to Cliffhanger??? :mad: I get the concept, but still, you gotta be f'n kidding me.

JP didn't "lose" to Cliffhanger: it is a chronological listing from oldest to newest.

Alex 01-03-2007 08:06 AM

Not that it matters much then they need to swap Polar Express with The Day After Tomorrow. The latter was released six months before the former.

Cadaverous Pallor 01-03-2007 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby (Post 112254)
JP didn't "lose" to Cliffhanger: it is a chronological listing from oldest to newest.

Ok....I'd then say that "top 10" is a misleading title for it.

I also don't get why Polar Express is on here. It wasn't the first to use motion-capture, it just used it the most. Kind of the opposite of the reason Cliffhanger was included.

Hmm, don't know why this list makes me all negative.

innerSpaceman 01-03-2007 09:30 AM

Well then, to be technical about it, the use of computers to perform camera moves for optical effects is NOT a "digital" effect. Thus Star Wars is not legitimately included.

Alex 01-03-2007 10:33 AM

It is an effect that wouldn't be possible without the intervention of computers. Is there an industry definition of "digital" special effects?

CP, they had to list Polar Express because nobody wants to be reminded of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.

One thing I notice is how an emphasis on special effects and good movies seems to be somewhat exclusive. While many on the list are entertaining movies in a mindless way, there is only one that I would qualify as a good movie. And several that were absolutely abysmal.

Cadaverous Pallor 01-03-2007 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup (Post 112304)
CP, they had to list Polar Express because nobody wants to be reminded of [i]Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.

Heh. Or Jar Jar Binks, for that matter.

Gemini Cricket 01-03-2007 11:52 AM

I'm surprised that they didn't include "Willow" in there. It was one of the first times the morphing technique was used...

innerSpaceman 01-03-2007 08:15 PM

They mentioned it, but used T2 as the example because it was used much more extensively and proficiently.

And yes, the industry-standard of digital effect is an image that is created using a computer. Not an image that is captured optically with the aid of a computer.

If they wanted to call the list Best Computer FX, that would be fine. But they didn't. Star Wars had NO digital effects.

Alex 01-03-2007 08:49 PM

In that case I will now cancel the subscription to Popular Mechanics I had when I was a kid (I never did, I just stopped paying them).

Babette 01-03-2007 10:32 PM

OK folks, here's another one to stir the pot! Weapons anyone?
http://www.space.com/technology/top1...istory-10.html

Kevy Baby 01-03-2007 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babette (Post 112502)
OK folks, here's another one to stir the pot! Weapons anyone?
http://www.space.com/technology/top1...istory-10.html

You raker of muck!

Babette 01-04-2007 09:26 PM

amuck, amuck, amuck

Ghoulish Delight 01-04-2007 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babette (Post 112735)
amuck, amuck, amuck

I'm ashamed to admit that I got that reference.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.