| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
ryanbrennan |
|||
|
Which do you think are the best special effects movies from each decade? Start as early in the history of film as you like. Your choices can reflect genuine
achievement, historical importance, or just favorites.
|
|||
ryanbrennan |
|||
|
Let's kick off from the beginning. Starting at the dawn of cinema we'd surely have to choose the films of Georges Melies, the father of movie special
effects. Although many of these effects were carry overs from his theatrical experience, he did introduce various motion picture effects techniques for the
first time, some of which, in updated form, continue to be used. And his films, 100 and more years later, are still quite charming and entertaining to watch.
They've still got that sense of wonder about them. They were also effects driven films, Melies being well aware that spectacle can be enthralling by
itself.
|
|||
bipolarber |
|||
|
Silent era: "Metropolis" "The Woman in the Moon" "The Lost World"
Early Talkies: "Noah's Ark" "Topper" "King Kong" The 40's: "Dr. Cyclops" "Gone With the Wind" " Citizen Kane" "The Ten Commandments" The 50's: "War of the Worlds" "Forbidden Planet" "20,000 Leauges Under the Sea" "7th Voyage of Sinbad" " The 60's: "Time Machine" "2001" The 70's: "Silent Running" "The Hindenburg" "Earthquake" "The Andromeda Strain" "Star Wars" "Close Encounters" "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" "Alien" 1980's "Empire Strikes Back" "Return of the Jedi" "1941" "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan" "Terminator" "Aliens" |
|||
ryanbrennan |
|||
Silent era: "Metropolis" "The Woman in the Moon" "The Lost World"It's been awhile since I've seen THE WOMAN IN THE MOON but I'd agree that METROPOLIS and THE LOST WORLD are two of the high points of Silent film special effects, arguably the top two. Both films are effects driven, the first film practically wall-to-wall effects while the second achieves the same distinction once the explorers get on top of the plateau. Other films were augmented with special effects. With these two films the effects were the end-all, be-all. Some other notables of the silent era that I would include would be C.B. DeMilles's THE TEN COMMANDMENTS for the parting of the Red Sea. A huge difference in the techniques employed to achieve the effect compared to the color remake. But still quite impressive. Another contender would be BEN-HUR. The chariot race arena with it's hanging miniature and tiny fake people is a spectacular effect. Is it KING OF KINGS that has the collapse of a huge arched building? SHERLOCK JR. has some amazing effects. Douglas Fairbanks' THE THIEF OF BAGDAD and ROBIN HOOD have some nice matte paintings. WINGS has some very well done miniatures. Another film with some interesting effects is LITTLE ORPHANT ANNIE (1918). In this film there are several sequences in which Annie tells stories to a group of rapt children. These tales are designed to frighten the children by warning them of what happens to youngsters who disobey their parents or forget to say their prayers. The oft repeated moral is "The gobble-uns will git ya if ya don't watch out!" Most of the effects work is simple double exposure or carefully designed dissolves. These effects allow the goblins to whisk children away, flying past and over trains to their hideaway where a young 'un is dropped into a boiling pot. Another shot looks like it took a page out of Melies' book. A long table stretches across the frame. On either end are kids waiting to get at the food in the bowls laid out before them. Behind the table is a sort of proscenium, the actors grouped in front of it on either end while the center area is totally black. In a moment, we see tiny people climbing in and out of the bowls. Then they appear to climb down the back of the table out of camera sight. This shot is either a simple double exposure or it's forced perspective, the actors actually on another part of the stage set in the extreme background. Regardless, it's cleverly done. |
|||
bipolarber |
|||
|
Well, I never said these choices were easy, ryan...
We could also talk about "The Golem" from the silent era, or "Wings" (where they actually crashed planes, and intercut from the live one to the one held up by a crane) Or how about the Buster Keaton classic, "The Big Blow?" Perhaps one of the best examples of physical effects in existence! The silents were incredibly creative... they had to be! No one had established the "film language" yet... and the techniques we use commonly today were the stuff of wildest dreams. |
|||
ryanbrennan |
|||
|
And this is the thread in which to do it. We can cover the subject in as much detail as we wish, or just hit the high points. Makes no matter, we've got
the room. I'd enjoy hearing any thoughts you have on the art and on specific examples.
Since we're starting at the "dawn" of special effects, Norman Dawn deserves recognition as the man who is generally credited with discovering and perfecting the concept of the glass painting and, later, matte painting. I recall that Raymond Fielding talks about him in his book on special effects but don't my copy at hand. Don't know that I've actually seen any film with his work in it, only photos of him working on paintings on location. Can anyone point me to some films which contain his paintings? I see a listing on IMDB for a Norman Dawn but can't be sure if it's the same man. The age seems right and he worked on films in the 'teens but there aren't many credits listed. Might Dawn be the next big special effects pioneer after Melies? |
|||
bipolarber |
|||
|
Hard to say. By the time Dawn was working on his glass shots, there was an explosion of effects work all around rthe world. The Germans, especially, seemed to
have an affinity for it. "Metropolis" with mirror shots by Eugene Shuufftan was probably about the same time. (and if you've ever seen
"Met" on the big screen, you know how undetectable they can be. "Beamsplitter" and "perspective miniatures" are still in use by
studios like the Skotacks. (sp?) Pop in your copy of the Abyss... see if you can spot the perspective shots in that film... or David Lynch's Dune...
|
|||
bipolarber |
|||
|
Which reminds me... Everyone seems to think that George Melies was the first man to create a "special effect." Such is no the case! G.A. Smith, and
Englishman who started out as a portrait photographer, was using double exposures for his early experimental movies a couple of years before Melies
accidentally created a jump cut between a carriage and a hearse, thus making the first "Bewitched"-style transformation.
BTW, if you are really interested in the history of special effects, you might hunt down a copy of "Movie Magic" by John Brosnan. I think it's the definative history of the art, at least up until the motion control revolution of the late 70's and early 80's. Perhaps by now, an updated edition is available. Mine is the original edition, which came out during the "disaster pic" fad of the 1970's. |
|||
ryanbrennan |
|||
Hard to say. By the time Dawn was working on his glass shots, there was an explosion of effects work all around rthe world. The Germans, especially, seemed to have an affinity for it. "Metropolis" with mirror shots by Eugene Shufftan was probably about the same time. Schufftan came along a bit later. He was only 14 years old when Dawn produced his first glass painting. At least according to Raymond Fielding in his book "The Techniques of Special Effects Cinematography," Dawn first used the glass shot technique in 1907 for the movie Missions of California. Because the technique had drawbacks, Barry Salt, in his book "Film Style & Technology: History & Analysis," says Dawn invented the glass matte shot that uses the matted, hold out technique in 1911. We know how futile it is to pinpoint the "first" anything in film so, whether Dawn was first or not, perhaps because he was the chief practioner of the art, it is his name which has been passed down through time. Similary, an Edison film, The Execution of Mary, Queen of Scots (1895), is the earliest extant film to use the stop-camera technique attributed to Melies though this example precedes him and G.A. Smith. Melies and Smith appear to be contemporaries who both began shooting films in 1896 and found their own ways. Undoubtedly they eventually saw each other's films. While Melies' films are charming, Smith was the total filmmaker, making contributions to the advance of cinema in editing, lighting, story structure, cinematography, etc. He is the more important filmmaker of the two, imho, so it is a shame that he is not better known, at least here in the U.S. Are his films available for rent or purchase? |
|||
ryanbrennan |
|||
|
The other night at the weekly Monster Kid Movie Maniacs of North Texas meeting at Arch Stanton's house we watched a condensed version of PERSEUS THE
INVINCIBLE (1963) under its THE SONS OF HERCULES syndication title MEDUSA VS. THE SON OF HERCULES. There are four things that are remarkable about this
peplum.
One is the terrific music score. I'd love to get my hands on it but don't even know if it was ever released. Second, it has a really terrific Medusa. It looks like a larger-than-man tree. It's feet are little root-like tendrils that enable it to scuttle forward. It rears back and then leans forward as it moves in a very creepy manner. It has not arms, just a bunch of vines that wave about. It has no mouth and only one eye. I did see one snake for sure that makes up the gnarled "hair" of the creature. But this is just one fantastic visual and monster design. Third, there's a pretty good, life-size, mechanically articulated lake monster. A sort of sea serpent but not of gigantic stature, but larger than a man and his horse. Very well done for this sort of thing. It gives itself away a little bit in one shot when we can see that the "skin" is draped across the side of the creature and reaches the ground. This was done, no doubt, to hide the technicians within. But it's still a pretty cool "dragon." Fourth, and most impressive for me, is what looks like a colossal outdoor glass painting or painting done on some other kind of material. It is so big, and placed in such a manner, that actors can appear in front of it and then move deep into the shot without their heads or spears ever disappearing behind it. It is mounted between two sets of trees/shrubs which obscure the dividing lines between the real terrain and the "set." This is the valley of the Medusa. The painted portions expand the height of the scenery, adding huge rocky cliffs to the landscape below. There are also some "petrified" soldiers painted into it at the furthermost edge of the right hand side of the painting (which no doubt cut down on the number of "stone" soldiers that had to be manufactured for the shot). The effect has been set up in such a manner that the camera can freely pan from side to side and back again without the "matte" line shifting. The painting itself isn't so great and looks painted. But the cleverness of the overall effect design is impressive and I never tire of looking at this effect. |
|||
Jeffrey Allen Rydell |
|||
ryanbrennan wrote: You'll want to thank Mario Bava and Carlo Rambaldi.
- Jeff
|
|||
bipolarber |
|||
|
Well, a "glass shot" need not use glass per se... you can use just about any kind of rigid material that can be cut to shape, and that takes paint
fairly well. The difficulty is in seeing where to cut away at the joining edge. For instance, several of the matte shots in "The Golden Voyage of
Sinbad" were done on thin alunimum sheet, and then the dividing edge was cut away using heavy duty scissors. These shots were done by Spanish effects
artist Emilio Ruiz del Rio, who I think is every bit as good as Albert Whitlock. (Check out his perspective miniatures in David Lynch's "Dune"
sometime.) And certainly, using perspective miniatures in the same way as you would a glass shot has been around forever. They came almost at the same time as
the creation of the glass shot itself. Things to Come has some stunning examples of this.
The thing I like about glass/hanging miniatures is, anyone can do it. It really doesn't take a lot of expensive software to be able to do a convincing pan/tilt on a scene that employs them. (Just a homemade nodal mount for your tripod.) Miniatures, especially, can be convincing, since they automatically match lighting with the background scene, and offer the chances for a lot of "ineffible detail" to get worked into the shot. (All those little bits of bounce light, background life, and moving shadows that can really help hide the illusion.) |
|||
ryanbrennan |
|||
You'll want to thank Mario Bava and Carlo Rambaldi.Yes, perusing Tim Lucas' fantastic "All The Colors Of The Dark" I see that he spends several pages on this film. He confirms my thoughts on the Valley of the Medusa, explaining how Bava painted a cyclorama that extended the valley and included more stone statues. He also provides great color illustrations of the paintings and the creatures. He mentions that Rambaldi always wanted to operate his creations but didn't on this film. It is implied by the film's star Richard Harrison, a friend of Rambaldi, that the monsters were capable of much more sophisticated movements than appeared in the movie due to their being operated by others less adept in the art. I'm going to have to hunt down a full length version of this film, in 2.35:1 if possible. |
|||
bipolarber |
|||
|
The thing about CGI that makes it soooo very attractive to producers and directors: the flexibility of it. Whereas a lot of in-camera effects, and even
sophisticated blue screen work can have a "locked in" image on them, digital allows you to endlessly massage a scene until it's absolutely the
way the film makers want it. Just look at some of the shots done with the "enhanced" Star Trek episodes... 40 years on, and suddenly entire shots are
changed. (Look at the alteration of the cityscape in the "Wink of an Eye" episode, for a very eye-popping example.)
Sure, a low budget producer can go to a guy like Albert Whitlock, and have a latent image matte shot done... but if anything goes wrong with the held live action plates, then you are back to square one. If on the other hand, you shot your live action plates and combined the already processed image with that of a digital matte painting, you can play with it for months until it's perfect. And these days, the image degradation issue is pretty much moot. |
|||
ryanbrennan |
|||
|
Well, if you went to a guy like Albert Whitlock (1915-1999) I doubt that you'd have to worry that anything would go wrong. Or the Ellenshaws or Matthew
Yuricich. I bet Jim Danforth could still crank out a great matte painting without any problems. If you mean that there could be screw-ups nowadays then you
have a point. Since everything is being done digitally there are fewer matte artists working in the traditional manner. The old pros who could do this in
their sleep are almost all gone, leaving fewer experienced matte artists. And with fewer matte paintings being done the old way there are fewer opportunities
for anyone to get this sort of experience. It's a dying art.
Regardless, current film producers DO prefer CGI for the reasons you state, even if it costs a fortune. The ability to manipulate and make changes at the last minute, not to mention no noticeable loss of picture quality makes it hard to pass up. Of course, it doesn't necessarily look any more realistic or better than less sophisticated methods. |
|||
Wich2 |
|||
|
"Of course, it doesn't necessarily look any more realistic or better than less sophisticated methods."
Bingo - "The Trap," into which so many fall today. Yes, you can tweak all elements until you're happy; but if all (of the often, too many) artists don't have the design sense of a Whitlock, you end up with what still looks like a Beautiful Painting. (Exactly what the Ellenshaw-and-earlier-era folks all fought against!) It might be Digital Paint; it might even be Animated Paint; but too often, it just doesn't have Depth & Life. Best, -Craig W. |
|||
ryanbrennan |
|||
It might be Digital Paint; it might even be Animated Paint; but too often, it just doesn't have Depth & Life. Very true. It's interesting to look back at the work of Whitlock, a matte artist who was able to add various elements to his paintings to give them movement and the illusion of reality. The ultimate test, again, is if the work passes unnoticed as real. There is certainly a lot of Whitlock's work which doesn't pass this test but not because it isn't good. It doesn't pass the test because we know there couldn't be any other way of achieving the visual we're seeing without a special effect. For instance, Whitlock's beautiful aerial view in THE HINDENBURG in which the camera is shooting down at the Hindenburg with New York City below it in the background is breathtaking. But how could this be real? Similarly, his work on HISTORY OF THE WORLD PART 1 is equally stunning. But, just like GLADIATOR, which used CGI, we know that these productions didn't build huge replicas of Rome. On the other hand, Whitlock's paintings for Alfred Hitchcock's TORN CURTAIN go unnoticed because they are of common things that _could_ have been built as part of the sets. I doubt many folks notice his bridge and canyon painting in THE WAR WAGON because it's possible that they found a location and built a bridge. When CGI is used in this manner it will most likely pass unnoticed, too. I guess one of the things missing with CGI is the mystery. It was more of a guessing game in the old days. Is that a matte painting or a miniature? Maybe camera movement helps us figure out it's a miniature. Or the lack of camera movement. Then we're looking for matte lines where the illusion blends with reality. Can we see it? How is it hidden? When that actor passes over the matte line is there rotoscoping? Is stop motion used or cel animation to add a human to the shot? In today's films there's always one easy answer (even if it's incorrect): CGI. [Edited to correct HISTORY OF THE WORLD PART 1. Although there was a mock trailer, Mel Brooks never made Part 2. And why not?]
Last Edited By: ryanbrennan
07/23/08 6:57 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
Jeffrey Allen Rydell |
|||
ryanbrennan wrote:Ya don't say...
- Jeff
|
|||
bipolarber |
|||
|
As with any tools, the talent behind the camera... or the keyboard.. is what makes the difference. There are some CGI sequences out there, that I assure you,
you never even realized that they were computer generated... a few examples:
The Others: CGI fog that envelops Nicole Kidman, and the fog that hangs over the "haunted house" throughout the film... all CGI Master and Commander At the Far Side of the World: you don't REALLY think they got all those gorgeous shots of that ship during the storm on location, did you? Dave: the comedy about a presidential look-alike being pressed to fill in for the real president after he has a stroke, NOT the crappy comedy with Eddie Murphy... the production company never came close to the real White House. At all. We're all used to big, splashy effects in films. Things where entire worlds are being portrayed on screen. But now, CGI has gotten to the point where it's actually pretty cost effective to use even in low budget comedies. Take a look at Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, and listen to the director's commentary... there are lots of little CGI "sweeteners" going on in that film that you probably wouldn't think twice about.... stuff like bullet hits, vapor trails, wire removal, etc., etc.... CGI is becoming just another tool in the arsenal. |
|||
Wich2 |
|||
|
Bip, I sure agree that it's a useful tool; just that there's been a lot of mis/overuse of it!
The work of creating the title city in HBO's "ROME" was just the kind of good use you write of. Best, -Craig W. |
|||