Special effects | Film, Music, and Radio | Club Dahlia

[READ ONLY ARCHIVE]

Please consider registering
guest

Log In

Lost password?
Advanced Search:

— Forum Scope —



— Match —



— Forum Options —




Wildcard usage:
*  matches any number of characters    %  matches exactly one character

Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Special effects
May 15, 2011
1:22 pm
empirestate
Member
Forum Posts: 44
Member Since:
April 3, 2011
Offline

We all know the special effects back then were nonexistant. I mean I remember the movies as a child where the people would be skiing down a mountain, by just standing there in the skis and then having a backdrop. Do you think this has any effect on whether the movie is good or bad? I don't know if it does or not. I have to say, a lot of these newer movies from today are very good.

May 15, 2011
1:53 pm
Scarlett
Member
Forum Posts: 69
Member Since:
April 11, 2011
Offline

Sometimes I love watching old movies just for the interesting (or nonexistent) special effects. I think that it's all by the standards of the time. For the 1940s I think no special effects were necessary for a film to be good. By today's standards, a newer film needs to have effects that at least match others to be good. I guess it depends on what takes you of the film too. Bad special effects in newer films will distract me from the story, but not so much in older films where I expect it more.

May 15, 2011
4:58 pm
JazzyDame
Member
Forum Posts: 45
Member Since:
May 8, 2011
Offline

Scarlett said:

Sometimes I love watching old movies just for the interesting (or nonexistent) special effects. I think that it's all by the standards of the time. For the 1940s I think no special effects were necessary for a film to be good. By today's standards, a newer film needs to have effects that at least match others to be good. I guess it depends on what takes you of the film too. Bad special effects in newer films will distract me from the story, but not so much in older films where I expect it more.


 

I agree, Scarlett…I, too, enjoy old movies for their lack of special effects.  In such classics, the strength of the film and its plot relies solely upon the qulaity of its actors and their interpretation of the script.  The quality of these films relies more heavily upon nuanced elements of the characters--their expressions, their timing, their gestures and body language--as well as their chemistry with other actors in the film.  There just seems to be so much more "substance" to a classic film with little or no special effects;  some of today's films have nothing but special effects and yet a very thin, unconvincing story line.  I think I just tend to prefer films with a good story and superb performances by actors.  An example would be The King's Speech.  No special effects…just solid acting with a meaningful story. 

May 16, 2011
12:31 pm
empirestate
Member
Forum Posts: 44
Member Since:
April 3, 2011
Offline

That's a good point Jazzy. I never thought of The King's Speech. I guess a point I forgot to make is that even old movies back then which were about action did not have any special effects, and we still liked them.

May 17, 2011
7:25 am
FlorrieMay
Member
Forum Posts: 70
Member Since:
April 12, 2011
Offline

It's fun watching something like "The Mummy" or "The Monster from the Swamp" where the heroine is running as fast as she can and the "monster" is chasing her very slowly yet he is always just behind her!

Forum Timezone: America/New_York

Most Users Ever Online: 25

Currently Online:
3 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

FlorrieMay: 70

Scarlett: 69

JazzyDame: 45

empirestate: 44

Zootsuit: 41

Memories: 39

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 442

Moderators: 0

Admins: 0

Forum Stats:

Groups: 2

Forums: 4

Topics: 104

Posts: 541

Newest Members:

Administrators: