Are Special Effects in Movies Today Worse Than Ever?

Special effects have long been a mainstay in the craft of filmmaking. Every generation seems to produce another leap forward in the technology and ability to create on film a realistic depiction of something that is inherently impossible in
 reality. And it is that definition of the use of special effects that leads one to question if special effects in movies are currently at their worst level ever. In the past, Hollywood moviemakers turned to special effects only, or at least more often than not, when it was simply not within the realm of possibility to film the scene any other way. In other words, you couldn't just go out and find an enormously tall gorilla to play King Kong, nor you could make people fly or disappear. By contrast, in today's films scenes that would in the past have been created completely outside the camera are composed within a computer. There has always been an economic element to the decision to engage in a special effect, but today that decision trumps artistry every time.

Some will laugh at the suggestion that today's special effects are worse than ever, offering up cheesy 1950s science fiction films where the strings holding up the spaceship can be seen. How can those special effects compare to today's science fiction special effects? For one thing, those 1950s space operas were B-movies or worse. They had special effects budgets that even back then would have been less than just the salary of a big star like Liz Taylor or Rock Hudson. What most moviegoers today don't realize is that 90% of the movies they will watch in a theater this year would have been considered a B-movie fifty years ago. Spiderman, Pirates of the Caribbean and Harry Potter are all movies whose subject matter would have made them low-budget quickies back then. So to compare the special effects of low-budget movies to the special effects of today means you must take into consideration the budget allowance for those effects. And when you consider that today's special effects add tens of millions of dollars to production costs, those visible strings don't seem so bad.

 
Comments 1 - 10 of 14 Next >>
Comments
Type in Your Comments Below

One word: Gollum. If you've ever seen LOTR, you know that not ALL CGI effects are bad these days. Gollum is down-right CREEPY. And think about all the other special effects in those movies. Orlando Bloom jumping on that Oliphant, all the Hobbits, the different animals that don't really exist, on and on. In the long run, it's not only the CGI that causes the effects to be obvious, it's the camera and the actors and the lighting and half-a-dozen other things.

Posted on 03/22/2009 at 1:03:16 PM

Talk about missing the point you can't judge special effects objectively unless you didn't see the film when it was originally made. Oe unless you are watching two films running side by side. Show a 7 year old child alien today and he laughs all the way through because it is comparitively unrealistic. You watch it and you remember how scary it was at the time when it was the most realistic evil alien you had ever seen and therefore very scary because you were programed to suspend disbelief to a greater degree when watching films (because back then effects sucked compared to today). What happened is your imagination embelished what you saw. And thats what you remember your mind upgraded the special effects in memory. Thats how come Steven Kings books are scary, imagination. But if I show you a page of text is that good special effects?i nope. It's a piece of pulped up tree with ink on it.

Posted on 12/02/2008 at 11:12:57 AM

LOL. Of course comic book films would've been B-movies because we didn't have the special effects for it to be worth the serious producers doing it. You countered your own argument, what a moron.

Posted on 12/02/2008 at 10:12:59 AM

I think about movies like "Gremlins" and how terrible they would look if they were made today. CGI is good at helping effects, but when you make it the effect, it looks bad and dated very quickly.

Posted on 02/14/2008 at 9:02:29 AM

I'll agree that the utilization is the worst ever, certainly. Also that the demands have become insane. Less time and less money, with more effects each go around. And I love Peter Ellenshaw's work. He passed away this year. His son, Harrison and I have worked together in the past.

Posted on 02/13/2008 at 8:02:42 AM

"But you ain't got no legs, Lieutenant Dan." God, I could kick myself. How could I forget what may be the single most amazing special effect in movie history? Thanks for the reminder, Mark. And for the record, I don't really think special effects are worse than ever. I do think that the way they are utilized is the worst ever, however.

Posted on 02/13/2008 at 5:02:24 AM

Oh sure, now the comments show up. ;) Please delete those examples below of press the "post comment" button once too often with zeal. And another note: That Ellenshaw piece will probably be a while before it's published--considering I have about a dozen or more articles still sitting in the queue ahead of it...

Posted on 02/10/2008 at 4:02:43 AM

This thing isn't posting my comments for some reason (apologies if the last comment shows up multiple times)--but I just wanted to give a heads-up to an upcoming article I wrote on matte painter par excellence Peter Ellenshaw who worked mostly at Disney for decades. He's one of the most fascinating matte painters (and my favorite, bar none) from that era when matte work was a true creative vision from the paintbrush. Ellenshaw created that ethereal sheen we associate with Disney backgrounds (and fill-ins of exteriors and interior of houses and buildings). Hopefully I've provided some new insights into his life and work through my spin. I only wish he was written about more so the new generation can see the incredible skills put into films made before CGI. Ironically, Ellenshaw's son and daughter worked on early CGI feast "Tron", which put matte painters like Peter Ellenshaw out of a job or into retirement...

Posted on 02/10/2008 at 4:02:40 AM

This is an outstanding essay, Tim--though I agree with Mark's comment below that a CGI character is only as good as its animator. Maybe animators HAVE become lazy with the notion the computer will provide a personality. In a different era, the Nine Old Men at Disney would sit with a mirror and make faces into it (plus study live subjects for hours) just to find the right personality for a character they were developing by scratch. Creating a CGI character is almost as dimensional as a novelist creating a character--and at least novelists still have to do it the hard way...unless we have to add in those writer software programs that supposedly and successfully give creatively empty writers a head start. The art of creativity truly is lacking everywhere I'm afraid. Yet, as you said, the computer is still a fascinating tool that could be cracked open to even more amazing innovations if someone intellectually curious comes around to do just that. Those kind of people are rare right now...

Posted on 02/10/2008 at 4:02:52 AM

This is an outstanding essay, Tim--though I agree with Mark's comment below that a CGI character is only as good as its animator. Maybe animators HAVE become lazy with the notion the computer will provide a personality. In a different era, the Nine Old Men at Disney would sit with a mirror and make faces into it (plus study live subjects for hours) just to find the right personality for a character they were developing by scratch. Creating a CGI character is almost as dimensional as a novelist creating a character--and at least novelists still have to do it the hard way...unless we have to add in those writer software programs that supposedly and successfully give creatively empty writers a head start. The art of creativity truly is lacking everywhere I'm afraid. Yet, as you said, the computer is still a fascinating tool that could be cracked open to even more amazing innovations if someone intellectually curious comes around to do just that. Those kind of people are rare right now...

Posted on 02/10/2008 at 4:02:16 AM

Comments 1 - 10 of 14 Next >>