Which 'older' CGI/ Visual FX still hold up really well today?

[TheWildWhelk]

Seeing as this week is the 30th anniversary of Arnold's Total Recall (Paul Verhoeven and science fiction are a perfect match) i still think the majority of the film holds up incredibly well. It's also arguably the last great model effects film before the CG era, which won a Special Achievement award.

[ChainsawJedi]

Originally Posted by Crispy0009

The thing I HATE in film now is when they blow up a car using cgi and it looks SOOOOOO fake.

Well, of course, but aren't there an equal amount of films that feature CGI vehicles being blown up that look "SOOOOOO" realistic? I'm not an expert on such scenes but I imagine the answer to my question would be "yes".

[levcore]

[CreasyBear]

As far as "older" CGI, A.I.: Artificial Intelligence and Minority Report look like they were made yesterday. Spielberg is the master!

[singhcr]

Total Recall and Starship Troopers are solid examples.

I would also add Independence Day to the list as it had a mix of practical and CG that still holds up today.

I also like the ED-209 effects in Robocop.

I echo the others here who enjoy the '90s CG because it was used at a relative minimum and often combined with practical effects. A lot of modern movies have tons of CG that is not terribly realistic with respects to weight, etc.

[thedevilhimself]

Good answers in this thread.
I'll add Disclosure and Johnny Mnemonic, baldly `90s effects that would be totally overorchestrated today even if within a retro context.
Generally pre 2000s stuff fits my eye better because the actors seemed to get to fully interact with it, before the LOTR tennis ball stuff. Of course what's being done now is totally effective if not totally interesting.

[ChainsawJedi]

Originally Posted by thedevilhimself

Generally pre 2000s stuff fits my eye better because the actors seemed to get to fully interact with it, before the LOTR tennis ball stuff.

That's the fault of the actors, not the CGI. I remember Sir Christopher Lee talking about acting opposite something that isn't there (he was either discussing his role in Star Wars or TLOTR) and he remarked that many times he had acted opposite actors who also may as well have not been there! Acting is imagination and from the very start, you're taught how to perform with things that aren't physically there. It surprised me that noted thespian Sir Ian McKellen had something of a breakdown (or it might have been a hissy fit) during the making of The Hobbit because of all the greenscreen being used. I'd have thought such an esteemed theatrical performer would've sailed through such an experience.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by ChainsawJedi

I'd have thought such an esteemed theatrical performer would've sailed through such an experience.

You'd think theatre actors would breeze through talking to a tennis ball on a stick, considering they often work with such minimalistic sets, to the point where it's just them in darkness.

I wonder if it's a director or prep thing?

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by chip75

You'd think theatre actors would breeze through talking to a tennis ball on a stick, considering they often work with such minimalistic sets, to the point where it's just them in darkness.

I wonder if it's a director or prep thing?

But even on minimal sets your costar is there. Acting teachers always talk about, “acting is reacting”. A lot of actors don’t like acting with just a tennis ball. The tennis ball isn’t giving you any energy and you are just reacting to a script person reading the dialogue in a flat voice showing no emotion.

[spider-neil]

I think the problem is film makers are using ALL CG. Do as much of the effects in camera and then use CG to enhance. I certainly think film sets should all be partially there if no other reason than to get better performances from actors.

[Ironhorse75]

I recommend checking out Corridor Crew's VFX Artists React series on Youtube. Quick 15 minute videos that discuss fan recommended vfx shots (good and bad) in cinema.

Here is their latest video:

VFX Artists React to Bad & Great CGi 28 - YouTube

[Monterey Jack]

Dark City still looks great.

[j_sazin]

Revenge of the Sith is baffling how great it looks in 2020, especially stuff like General Grievous.
Also, the CGI on Davy Jones and his crew in POTC 2 & 3 are something else!

[thedevilhimself]

Originally Posted by ChainsawJedi

That's the fault of the actors, not the CGI. I remember Sir Christopher Lee talking about acting opposite something that isn't there (he was either discussing his role in Star Wars or TLOTR) and he remarked that many times he had acted opposite actors who also may as well have not been there! Acting is imagination and from the very start, you're taught how to perform with things that aren't physically there.

Originally Posted by chip75

I wonder if it's a director or prep thing?

Between these two posts I think it's pretty much covered. Compare any old movie where background mayhem is filled in separately from the actors, for example The Hurricane. There should still be that level of grounding, that the actors know where every added visual will be in the final product, and then add sixty five years of advancement to your expectations. Essentially, if you can't for certain beat what people were making with fans and models in the black and white era, including the performers' ability to interact, you should reassess your approach.
Obviously a lot of modern CGI is worth it (Gravity has excellent interaction), but when it's not truly necessary I'd prefer to see the actors placed front and center, with leeway to try their own ideas and improvise physically. As you can imagine I don't watch the modern breed of superhero flick.

[TheWildWhelk]

Originally Posted by j_sazin

Revenge of the Sith is baffling how great it looks in 2020, especially stuff like General Grievous.
Also, the CGI on Davy Jones and his crew in POTC 2 & 3 are something else!

Davy Jones was a perfect combination of creating a photo-realistic character and combining it with absolutely flawless motion capture alongside the actor's recorded performance. Davy Jones still looks more convincing than a shedload of the CG characters in Avatar...

[toddly6666]

Just watched Devil's Advocate the other day and the demon lady face changes still scare the crap out of me but the finale of Keanu shooting, Pacino and daughter flaming up, and Keanu sprouting wings scene was sort of eeeeeeeee, didnt age too well.

[j_sazin]

Originally Posted by TheWildWhelk

Davy Jones was a perfect combination of creating a photo-realistic character and combining it with absolutely flawless motion capture alongside the actor's recorded performance. Davy Jones still looks more convincing than a shedload of the CG characters in Avatar...

Truly awesome to watch, again can’t believe those are 15 year-old VFX too.

[spider-neil]

I'm sure this has been said but the scene where the T-1000 cracks the helicopter windscreen with its helmet and POURS itself into the cockpit. AMAZING looking effect and 100% still holds up today. I was blown the **** away the first time I saw that.

[TheWildWhelk]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

I'm sure this has been said but the scene where the T-1000 cracks the helicopter windscreen with its helmet and POURS itself into the cockpit. AMAZING looking effect and 100% still holds up today. I was blown the **** away the first time I saw that.

The T-1000 effects scenes were kind of the reason that Terminator 2 was basically so damn expensive, with even producer Gale Ann Hurd agog at how much Jim Cameron had spent on it. She joked about how she went back to see where the money had gone and it was all accounted for.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

But even on minimal sets your costar is there. Acting teachers always talk about, “acting is reacting”. A lot of actors don’t like acting with just a tennis ball. The tennis ball isn’t giving you any energy and you are just reacting to a script person reading the dialogue in a flat voice showing no emotion.

That wouldn't be much different from their audition, we're they'd have their opposite sides read to them plainly. I think it may be just down to the actor. Sir Patrick Stewart played over 40 parts by himself for A Christmas Carol.

Actors often give great stage performances with very little stimuli, they have to. I wonder if they go from stage productions and have a romantic notion of movie making and it's a culture shock, when they're shown a set that's a green room with a guy in a gimp suit holding a tennis ball ...