What older movies made a good use of either side stepping special effects or have effects that somehow still hold up today? Why are they good movies?

  • lime!@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    2001 a space odyssey’s effects are completely practical, which make sense since it came out before the first moon landing. it’s all physical models and cut-out photographs being moved in stop-motion, or huge rotating sets to simulate centrifugal gravity, or colored film being spun over a set of rollers.

    personally i think it’s worth it to watch it for the effects alone, which is just as well because its influence is such that it has been eclipsed story-wise by things that came after it and so feels a bit shallow.

      • leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Nonsense. Kubrick hated travelling. He filmed it in London, like Fullmetal Jacket.

        Being a perfectionist, though, he had NASA land astronauts on the moon to take reference pictures for the backgrounds.

        In exchange for filming it NASA gave him the lens he used to film Barry Lyndon’s candlelit scenes.

    • CaptainPedantic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 days ago

      Gotta agree with this. The only effect that doesn’t look 100% real is when the space stewardess walks up the walls to deliver food to the cockpit of Aries moon lander. Everything else looks amazing.

      And don’t watch it in 480p on a phone screen. If you can, get yourself the 4K Blu-Ray version (the copy I ripped is 72 gigabytes. Yes it’s worth it).

      • magnetosphere@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 days ago

        She’s walking funny on purpose. Those are meant to be some kind of velcro or magnetic slippers she’s wearing. She’s walking carefully because she doesn’t want to go drifting around in microgravity while carrying a tray of food.

        That’s my interpretation, anyway.

        • ripcord@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          That’s very plausible, but it still doesn’t work well and looks silly IMO. The storytelling doesn’t quite work there.

          Edit: Also the little shuffle still doesn’t make sense to me even with your framing. I’d still expect her to take somewhat larger, less awkward steps. And sway a little less. Except the room is rotating around her.

    • Zaphod@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I tried watching this movie but couldn’t get further than 20-30min. I was just bored out of my mind. None of the sci-fi or story elements were interesting enough to keep me engaged.
      It might be a good movie but I think it’s just not for me

      • lime!@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        it’s very slow and esoteric, it was criticised for it even at the time. if you approach it as a demonstration of pre-digital film techniques, and try to figure out how things were done, it may hold your attention longer. if you’re into that sort of thing.

    • adhocfungus@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      Don’t forget they lost Best Costume to Planet Of The Apes because the mimes they hired to play the monkeys were so convincing they were assumed by many to be real.

    • magnetosphere@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      This film is my go-to whenever anyone mentions visual effects. If I were a director, this would be my gold standard for absolutely timeless effects.