Special Effects that are still impressive!?

[darkseid26]

2001: A Space Odyssey

 

[Dark Victory]

The sets from from Metropolis and M. still look great. I'd even say the original King Kong. The technology's aged, but the imagination hasn't.

 

[Dave McFly]

still holds up 14 years later, everything on that car is CGI except for the 'cockpit that will and tommy are sitting in.

 

[The Morningstar]

Yea, MiB had amazing SFX. A lot of it still holds up today. Who did the SFX for it? Must have been WETA or ILM?

 

[vanson]

just a litte side note:

special fx : practical effects - real stuff like the rotating corridor in inception.

visual fx : cgi stuff like wire removal,transforming cars etc..

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

There's a certain lack of tangibility that's fairly obvious when it comes to CG sets and backdrops. They always seem to feel flat and have a lack of depth and weight. A fairly obvious one off the top of my head is the St. Peter's Basilica sequence in Angels and Demons.

@Morningstar too
Oh yeah, the interiors of buildings, for sure they can look awful, the worst one that springs to mind is in Attack of the Clones when Yoda is floating on that little seat, talking to Obi-Wan and Mace Windu.

edit: I saw A&D at the pics, i didn't notice any CG interiors, i wasn't really looking out for them, and was surprised to read later they used a lot of them. CG does look a lot more convincing on the big screen though, so maybe i would have picked up on that if I had saw it on dvd. Or maybe not, lol.

 

[The Morningstar]

Oh god yea, looked like they were walking in a painting or something.

 

[tzarinna]

You've all mentioned some really good ones.
Here's one of my favorites.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbORCePOELE&feature=related

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Jurassic Park
Spider-Man trilogy, but MOSTLY SM2
Harry Potter has had awesome special effects, for the most part.
Star wars saga looks good, although some parts of the PT look crappy. (Boss Nass)
Batman / Returns
Jumanji
Honey, I shrunk the Kids

There's a ton of others, but I won't mention newer films. I only Go from 2005-back.

 

[Wolfwood]

Anything from the Thing is still awesome.

 

[brett66]

The sets from from Metropolis

and like others have mentioned; Jurassic Park dinos still look good, Blade Runner still looks great, 2001 as well, Alien, The Thing, Exorcist. Dr. Caligari is another one that I think still looks great today.

 

[Dave McFly]

Yea, MiB had amazing SFX. A lot of it still holds up today. Who did the SFX for it? Must have been WETA or ILM?

ILM did that, what ILM did not do Sony Imageworks did but ILM did the bulk of the visuals.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Older effects that impress me are ones that you assumed were cgi but were actually mostly practical. I think the t-1000 in t2 was actually about 80-90% practical effects compared to cgi. I was surprised when i found that out.

 

[Lighthouse]

1. The Thing
2. The Thing
3. The Thing

 

[TX85]

I'm looking at Total Recall now after a few years,A lot of it still looks f'n great great IMO!!

 

[dark_b]

suprised?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uNNQ9CC4A0

 

[redhawk23]

filmmakers today are far more quick to rely on CGI and computer effects rather than make the effort to devise traditional in camera effects that would very well result in more convincing and impressive effects.

Except that though there are quit a few gems from past decades, the vast majority of in camera effects, or those done with stop motion, or any effects ever are pure crap. Just as there is crappy cg, so ther has been cheap model work, poorly drawn matte paintings and shoddily sculpted latex masks. .
It's easy to look at, say, last year A-Team movie, with its crappy cgi poorly composited parachuting tank and then look at the effects in Blade Runner, and declare modern day directors as lazy, unimaginative, and overly dependent on cgi. But then of course you have to look at the large amount of crap that came out in the 1980's as well.
Laziness and bad filmmaking are the only constant in the film industry.
Yes if a film requires a plane explosion, many directors today would intinctively reach for a computer mouse. Could they do this in camera? Yes. Might it possibly be better than the digital solution? Maybe. Or maybe it will look as bad as much of the effects of the 1980's. Or maybe they know how to use cgi effectively
Just as there were true artists that used the tools of their times to create effects that stretched the limits of what is possible there are some that combine the resources available to them to produces some truly fine films. It is these films and these filmmakers that will be remembered and those films that will be discussed on messageboards that are beamed directly into our brains in the year 2040. The crap, as I said before, will fall away into the bargain bin of history.

You must also remember that many of those "traditional effects" were not always tradition, they came about from people trying new things, through trial and error and sure at least a few were an absolute gimmick when they were first implemented.

 

[Valaquen]

The Thing, and Alien and Aliens [that Queen!] 2001 and Blade Runner, and T2 as well.

 

[Ipodman]

Jurassic Park is the obvious winner... and Blade Runner definitely looks good even today...

 

[marvelman2006]

Titanic for the most part is still impressive, especially the shot of the boat leaving the harbor and sinking at the end.

The matrix as well as the sequels.

 

[chaseter]

Anything from the Thing is still awesome.

Not Wilford Brimley.

 

[Wolfwood]

He had the best special effects of them all, could hardly tell he had diabetes.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Except that though there are quit a few gems from past decades, the vast majority of in camera effects, or those done with stop motion, or any effects ever are pure crap. Just as there is crappy cg, so ther has been cheap model work, poorly drawn matte paintings and shoddily sculpted latex masks. .
It's easy to look at, say, last year A-Team movie, with its crappy cgi poorly composited parachuting tank and then look at the effects in Blade Runner, and declare modern day directors as lazy, unimaginative, and overly dependent on cgi. But then of course you have to look at the large amount of crap that came out in the 1980's as well.
Laziness and bad filmmaking are the only constant in the film industry.
Yes if a film requires a plane explosion, many directors today would intinctively reach for a computer mouse. Could they do this in camera? Yes. Might it possibly be better than the digital solution? Maybe. Or maybe it will look as bad as much of the effects of the 1980's. Or maybe they know how to use cgi effectively
Just as there were true artists that used the tools of their times to create effects that stretched the limits of what is possible there are some that combine the resources available to them to produces some truly fine films. It is these films and these filmmakers that will be remembered and those films that will be discussed on messageboards that are beamed directly into our brains in the year 2040. The crap, as I said before, will fall away into the bargain bin of history.

You must also remember that many of those "traditional effects" were not always tradition, they came about from people trying new things, through trial and error and sure at least a few were an absolute gimmick when they were first implemented.

traditional or CGI theres always gonna be the good and that bad. good CGI looks better than crappy traditional, of course. but i think good traditional effects always trump good CGI. but filmmakers today lack the ingenuity and drive to put that effort into it. it just sucks to me that people seem to think you cant make a film today without CGI.