What do ya think? Gotta admit the space fx in Starfighter look worse than most modern day video games.
hardercore
09-02-06, 12:43 AM
Star Wars Episodes IV-VI.
Just Kidding.
natevines
09-02-06, 12:57 AM
I disagree. It would make it a different film if it had good, believable CGI. This and TRON I appreciate for their old school, '80s CGI. Makes me so nostalgic!
hindolio
09-02-06, 01:42 AM
I disagree. It would make it a different film if it had good, believable CGI. This and TRON I appreciate for their old school, '80s CGI. Makes me so nostalgic!
tron is timeless dood :D2:
SINGLE104
09-02-06, 01:50 AM
The Last Starfighter
What do ya think? Gotta admit the space fx in Starfighter look worse than most modern day video games.
Well considering 1984, (twenty two years ago) when the movie was made, high tech special effects being produced in films today, were not yet invented, as compared to advanced modern day computer generated technology.
PatrickMcCart
09-02-06, 01:53 AM
Sh! The Octopus
PopcornTreeCt
09-02-06, 01:57 AM
Ghostbusters
hiccup
09-02-06, 01:59 AM
Besides UltraViolet needing a total overhaul, the CGI definitely should have been done better, especially for what is being put out there now.
Filmmaker
09-02-06, 09:31 AM
The Last Starfighter
What do ya think? Gotta admit the space fx in Starfighter look worse than most modern day video games.
I disagree 100%; there's a "je ne sais quoi" quality to this type of CGI (similar to the opening credits of AMAZING STORIES that I've been watching on DVD recently) that's been lost in the advance of CGI evolution that I really love and would hate to see go.
Giantrobo
09-02-06, 10:06 AM
The most recent Godzilla movies had some cgi but a lot of it was crappy looking and could use an overhaul. You would think the the Japanese would be ahead of the pack with CGI but I guess not.
SINGLE104
09-02-06, 11:23 AM
The most recent Godzilla movies had some cgi but a lot of it was crappy looking and could use an overhaul. You would think the the Japanese would be ahead of the pack with CGI but I guess not.
What Filmmaker has insinuated above, this would drastically ruin the film's original cinematography of it's era.
alfredog1976
09-02-06, 11:31 AM
Clash Of The Titans
gryffinmaster
09-02-06, 11:33 AM
Ghostbusters
You know, the technology they used for the Ghosbuster flicks was pretty sharp, imho. I think the way they crafted the creatures gives them more of a "tangible" feel to them. :shrug:
Neeb
09-02-06, 12:24 PM
Dune. 1984 version. If only so they wouldn't have to use the same three FX shots. What did happen to the FX budget?
Of course, I'd like David Lynch to come back and recut the thing...
maingon
09-02-06, 01:38 PM
Ghostbusters
I dont know about this one, some stuff could use CGI to get the black lines around some of the creatures and ghost, but most of it is pretty perfect the Lady ghost in the libary is still well done, and the marshmallow man I think when you first see him walking down the street still looks fantastic and that has held up very welll over the years.
zombiezilla
09-02-06, 03:34 PM
Clash Of The Titans
I will hunt down and make very sorry anyone who dares lay a finger on ANY Harryhausen effects with the intent to "upgrade" them with CGI.
Mondo Kane
09-02-06, 03:55 PM
The most recent Godzilla movies had some cgi but a lot of it was crappy looking and could use an overhaul. You would think the the Japanese would be ahead of the pack with CGI but I guess not.
That same thought went through my mind when I was watching Godzilla 2000!
I've been calling out Clash of the Titans for awhile now, and after seeing Davy Jones in POTC2, there's still hope that CG can actually fool a viewer these days.
DRG
09-02-06, 10:41 PM
I wouldn't mind if they redid some of the effects in The Terminator just so it doesn't look so obviously low budget compared to the big budget sequels. Namely I'm thinking of the Arnie eyeball surgery scene, but the endoskeleton at the end could use a makeover as well. Of course this is with the assurance the new version would not replace the old one, just supplement it.
SINGLE104
09-02-06, 10:59 PM
Clash Of The Titans
Clash of the Titans is perfect just the way it is, along with the old Sinbad fantasy/mythology classics as well.
Squirrel God
09-02-06, 11:08 PM
Gremlins.
SINGLE104
09-02-06, 11:25 PM
I wouldn't mind if they redid some of the effects in The Terminator just so it doesn't look so obviously low budget compared to the big budget sequels. Namely I'm thinking of the Arnie eyeball surgery scene, but the endoskeleton at the end could use a makeover as well. Of course this is with the assurance the new version would not replace the old one, just supplement it.
If this were to happen, the majority of the true die hard fans of The Teminator would much prefer the original movie, over a remake. It's authencity what make it so special. There are two sequels currently in exsistence, which features, new and improved CGI technology as a continuation of the story.
Suprmallet
09-03-06, 12:10 AM
Gremlins.
?!? The SFX in Gremlins are awesome! Obviously not as good as in Gremlins 2: The New Batch, but still very good.
Peep
09-03-06, 01:16 AM
Tron. That movie looked like crap 5 years after it was released.
I can't decide if I'd like to see that be done a bit better, or if I love it as it is just because of how crazy it looks. :lol:
MartinBlank
09-03-06, 01:31 AM
Star Wars Episodes IV-VI.
Just Kidding.
:lol:
Beat me too it.
Mondo Kane
09-03-06, 01:34 AM
Clash of the Titans is perfect just the way it is,
There's definetly some stuff that's held up like The Kraken and Bubo. But man, I've ALWAYS wanted to see a mechanical Medusa. And (Like I pointed out above with Davy Jones) there's proof that wonders could be fulfilled with a half/CG Medusa.
Giantrobo
09-03-06, 04:33 AM
What Filmmaker has insinuated above, this would drastically ruin the film's original cinematography of it's era.
Sure, maybe for SOME movies. But again, I said <b>"RECENT"</b> G-films. No need to go and oppose all the -OPINIONS- in this thread SINGLE104 . ;)
movielib
09-03-06, 08:57 AM
I disagree. It would make it a different film if it had good, believable CGI. This and TRON I appreciate for their old school, '80s CGI. Makes me so nostalgic!
I totally agree with you. Those effects are a big part of their charm. I wouldn't change a pixel.
I can't decide if I'd like to see that be done a bit better, or if I love it as it is just because of how crazy it looks. :lol:
Mogwai body mechanics aside, I'd have the shot redone to not take place in broad daylight (major plot snafu there, he he)!
I've been thinking seriously about this question and think I've finally found the perfect answer--a film that should possess state-of-the-art special effects but, even upon release, was derided for having bargain-basement-level effects, under par for what had been on display in the series prior and after. That film is...
But but but...that was part of the charm. It brought back a Nostalgic feeling for the 60's. :lol::p
I think if ALL cgi was done well then we wouldn't be having these constant bullshit CGI sucks/Old sfx rule debates. As it is, people see the worst examples and they get soured on just about all CGI.
Shazam
09-03-06, 04:46 PM
Ghostbusters just needs some matte line cleanup.
Squirrel God
09-03-06, 07:04 PM
?!? The SFX in Gremlins are awesome! Obviously not as good as in Gremlins 2: The New Batch, but still very good.
You've got to be kidding me. The effects look dated and very unrealistic by todays standards.
SINGLE104
09-03-06, 07:24 PM
You've got to be kidding me. The effects look dated and very unrealistic by todays standards.
That's to be expected. You must realize, Gremlins is twenty two years old.
Filmmaker
09-03-06, 07:48 PM
You've got to be kidding me. The effects look dated and very unrealistic by todays standards.
Disagreed.
Mr. Thames
09-03-06, 08:25 PM
I will hunt down and make very sorry anyone who dares lay a finger on ANY Harryhausen effects with the intent to "upgrade" them with CGI.
Ditto! Ray Harryhausen is da man!
Squirrel God
09-03-06, 08:43 PM
That's to be expected. You must realize, Gremlins is twenty two years old.
The title of this thread is:
"A Movie that Could Really use a CGI Make Over".
So what are you arguing? That because it's 22 years old it is beyond repair? :lol:
SINGLE104
09-03-06, 11:56 PM
The title of this thread is:
"A Movie that Could Really use a CGI Make Over".
So what are you arguing? That because it's 22 years old it is beyond repair? :lol:
:lol: Who's arguing Squirrel God? I was just making a comment. And how can a movie be repaired? I think you mean: remake.
Suprmallet
09-04-06, 12:19 AM
You've got to be kidding me. The effects look dated and very unrealistic by todays standards.
I completely disagree. I can easily watch Gremlins without thinking about the special effects looking fake. Actually, the only scene in the entirety of Gremlins that could be redone is the scene where the Gremlins storm the movie screen, as they're clearly using cell animation. And while it looks cool, it's completely out of place.
Squirrel God
09-04-06, 07:14 AM
:lol: Who's arguing Squirrel God? I was just making a comment. And how can a movie be repaired? I think you mean: remake.
I think you shouldn't have ducked when the joke was approaching your head.
I completely disagree. I can easily watch Gremlins without thinking about the special effects looking fake. Actually, the only scene in the entirety of Gremlins that could be redone is the scene where the Gremlins storm the movie screen, as they're clearly using cell animation. And while it looks cool, it's completely out of place.
While it's responsible for giving them character, the Mogwais all look too much like puppets rather than real creatures and I just can't get that out of my head when watching the film. It prevents me suspending my disbelief.
Filmmaker
09-04-06, 08:43 AM
While it's responsible for giving them character, the Mogwais all look too much like puppets rather than real creatures
The ratio of films that have successfully used CGI to make creatures look real is woefully tiny...
SINGLE104
09-04-06, 11:08 AM
While it's responsible for giving them character, the Mogwais all look too much like puppets rather than real creatures and I just can't get that out of my head when watching the film. It prevents me suspending my disbelief.
Actually, the Mogwais was not real creatures at all, they were a pleasant, gentle and a unique pet. The Gremlins were the creatures after their manifestation from the Mogwais, when the three forbidden rules were accidently broken.
Nick Danger
09-04-06, 11:39 AM
Muppets in Space. It looks like a bunch of puppets. They really need to be replaced with modern CGI, like Yoda was.
Giantrobo
09-04-06, 11:45 AM
The ratio of films that have successfully used CGI to make creatures look real is woefully tiny...
Yeah like I said, that's the problem. If it was all done well then it would be a different story.
Drexl
09-04-06, 11:59 AM
"CGI Makeover" would be an interesting reality show.
devilshalo
09-04-06, 02:51 PM
Sure, maybe for SOME movies. But again, I said <b>"RECENT"</b> G-films. No need to go and oppose all the -OPINIONS- in this thread SINGLE104 . ;)
I dunno.. I kinda chuckled and was surprised how well the digital Godzilla 2000 looked in Final Wars.
starman9000
09-04-06, 02:55 PM
The early Harry Potter movies could use some touching up.
TallGuyMe
09-04-06, 05:26 PM
Dreamscape ... great premise, lousy F/X
wm lopez
09-04-06, 06:46 PM
Spawn
Suprmallet
09-04-06, 07:23 PM
Muppets in Space. It looks like a bunch of puppets. They really need to be replaced with modern CGI, like Yoda was.
:lol:
Did no one else pick this up?
JordanGLC
09-04-06, 08:08 PM
The most recent Godzilla movies had some cgi but a lot of it was crappy looking and could use an overhaul. You would think the the Japanese would be ahead of the pack with CGI but I guess not.It's really more about budget and production time, not technical know-how. These movies are produced for the Japanese market first and foremost, and the potential box office could never justify an $80mil+ budget. Yoshimitsu Banno's production company has been trying to raise $30mil for it's 3D IMAX Godzilla movie. If this approximately 40 minute movie ever gets made, it will be the second most expensive movie with the name Godzilla in the title ever made (behind that 1998 debacle). And third place is a distant third. As for production time, these movies typically start shooting in the Spring and are released in the winter of the same year. Not much time for rendering photo-real level effects.
I wouldn't want Toho to abandon their traditional methods of miniatures and suitmation (I believe you feel the same way Giantrobo), but I have no problem with them blending in a little CG neither. Whatever works for the scene at hand. So far, I think 2002's Godzilla Against Mechagodzilla mixed in CG the most effectively and appropriately.
I kinda chuckled and was surprised how well the digital Godzilla 2000 looked in Final Wars.I'm trying to recall when Godzilla was not man-in-suit in that movie....
devilshalo
09-04-06, 11:03 PM
I'm trying to recall when Godzilla was not man-in-suit in that movie....
The US Godzilla was digital, the old school Godzilla was not (they faced each other in Final Wars).
JordanGLC
09-04-06, 11:45 PM
Oh OK, when you said "Godzilla 2000" I thought you meant the Japanese (real) one, since Godzilla 2000 is a Toho film. The Columbia TriStar Godzilla film came out in 1998.
UAIOE
09-05-06, 04:03 AM
The US Godzilla was digital, the old school Godzilla was not (they faced each other in Final Wars).
Yeah, that scene was the pinnacle of my geek delight.
A movie that needs a CG fix up?
Robocop! (j/k)
Maybe the water tenticle in "The Abyss". I get the feeling it was supposed to be clear instead of how it actually turned out.
Giantrobo
09-05-06, 05:45 AM
It's really more about budget and production time, not technical know-how. These movies are produced for the Japanese market first and foremost, and the potential box office could never justify an $80mil+ budget. Yoshimitsu Banno's production company has been trying to raise $30mil for it's 3D IMAX Godzilla movie. If this approximately 40 minute movie ever gets made, it will be the second most expensive movie with the name Godzilla in the title ever made (behind that 1998 debacle). And third place is a distant third. As for production time, these movies typically start shooting in the Spring and are released in the winter of the same year. Not much time for rendering photo-real level effects.
All that is fine and good but settling for shitty CGI in movies is precisely why people here and out in the real world bitch bitch bitch about CGI and hate it in general. It makes them nostlagiac for the often equally fake ane shitty looking conventional sfx of the past. I realize G-films are often geared towards kids in Japan but still, I believe G deserves better. But that's just me.
People can hate G98 all they want and I would be on their side to some degree. After all, call it what you want but that was NOT "Godzilla". ;) But that "Zilla" in that film was probably the best looking and most realistic "G" we've seen in years.
I wouldn't want Toho to abandon their traditional methods of miniatures and suitmation (I believe you feel the same way Giantrobo), but I have no problem with them blending in a little CG neither. Whatever works for the scene at hand. So far, I think 2002's Godzilla Against Mechagodzilla mixed in CG the most effectively and appropriately.
Fine. As long as it looks good. It's like TOHO treats "G" like a red headed stepchild.
Egon's Ghost
09-05-06, 02:31 PM
GhostbustersBoo-urns!! Great movies are great the way they are. I hate this crap.
DRG
09-06-06, 12:43 PM
If this were to happen, the majority of the true die hard fans of The Teminator would much prefer the original movie, over a remake. It's authencity what make it so special. There are two sequels currently in exsistence, which features, new and improved CGI technology as a continuation of the story.
I'm not suggesting a full-blown remake, just some minor fx tweaking here and there. Nothing overblown like the Star Wars editions, and nothing to change anything in the movie plotwise (making it so old lady Sarah Connor shoots Arnie first) or add or remove any elements currently in the shots (adding 20 extra CGI cops in the police station scene).
As a standalone movie I will always enjoy the film warts and all. All I'm suggesting is that I wouldn't mind having - as an alternative option - a version with minor tweaks to some of the lesser effects shots. Such a thing could potentially play better when watching this back to back with a sequel. I'm sorry, but that head surgery scene was a bad special effect even for 1984... Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter's fake Jason head was 10x more realistic and that wasn't exactly big budget for its time either. Again I wouldn't even want anything fancy or showy here, this isn't about incorporating WOW special effects, just to clean up the shots so they look more realistic and less distracting.
raven56706
09-06-06, 12:54 PM
Battlefield Earth
digidoh
09-06-06, 02:12 PM
Normally, I'd say leave the movies alone, although in another board I defended the use of CGI in the first Star Trek movie. But Star Trek V is a good candidate for a makeover, as well as Superman IV, on the grounds that the effects weren't as good as the previous films in the series.
A movie that sprang to mind was the Chevy Chase comedy Memoirs of an Invisible Man. In many scenes, the audience was expected to imagine that Chase was invisible.
Artman
09-06-06, 02:16 PM
Conan the Barbarian
Sure of course the original effects are "special" in their own way, but in the spirit of this thread it gets the nod. A remastered soundtrack too.
orangerory
09-07-06, 12:48 AM
Krull
riley_dude
09-07-06, 01:01 AM
Damnation Alley.
Alvis
09-07-06, 09:46 PM
Mogwai body mechanics aside, I'd have the shot redone to not take place in broad daylight (major plot snafu there, he he)!
I've been thinking seriously about this question and think I've finally found the perfect answer--a film that should possess state-of-the-art special effects but, even upon release, was derided for having bargain-basement-level effects, under par for what had been on display in the series prior and after. That film is...
Then instead of having a pile of crap with shitty special effects, you'd have a pile of crap with good special effects. :)
Oh, and I own this dvd and love Star Trek, but this was a low point in the film series.
ScandalUMD
09-07-06, 10:22 PM
I think that there are some classic films that would justify a remake, but there's never a reason to go back and mess up a film. Films are products of their times and shouldn't be unmoored from their moments.
I think a remake of Ghostbusters could work well. The idea of a haunted New York, and the apocalyptic tenor of the film has a whole new relevance now that would make the sort of jokes you work around the subject kind of dark and edgy. Also, the longer run-times of movies these days could really be used to flesh out the rather interesting premise of the characters getting kicked out of academia and going into the private sector, and also, it could be used to mine the contrast between Venkman's cynicism and Stantz's enthusiasm. I think this stuff was cut out of the movies to make more room for the development of the relationship between Venkman and Dana Barrett. I also think the goofy Rick Moranis character, who was basically comic relief for a cast of comedians, was a bad idea in the first place.
Think Will Ferrell as Stantz, Owen Wilson or possibly Vince Vaughn as Venkman, Jason Schwartzman as Egon.
There could be a really interesting Wes Anderson version, a nifty Judd Apatow version, or a more straightforward Doug Liman version. Any of these could be really good.
ScandalUMD
09-07-06, 10:30 PM
Gremlins.
I say, leave 80's "Gremlins" alone, but find something cool and new for Joe Dante to do.
He got really ripped on for "Looney Tunes: Back in Action," but he fundamentally understood the characters, and his downfall was the studio pressure to make it family accessible and the attempt to try and keep the manic pace of the Looney Tunes going for a feature length.
I'd like to see Warners resurrect the Looney Tunes in new shorts presented before features. I bet a lot of famous writers and directors would be eager to take a crack at doing a Looney Tunes short (I want to see a Charlie Kaufman scripted, Spike Jonze directed Daffy Duck short), and this would be (a relatively cheap) something to get people who are waiting for DVD to come back to the movie theater.
Suprmallet
09-07-06, 11:10 PM
I agree that new Looney Tunes cartoons would be great, but Looney Tunes: Back In Action was easily the best anyone could have done for a feature, unless you count Gremlins 2, which is basically a Looney Tunes movie without having it star Looney Tunes characters (the opening not withstanding). Joe Dante more than any director in Hollywood understands what made Looney Tunes great and brought that expertise to the movie, which I still watch regularly.
UAIOE
09-07-06, 11:35 PM
Then instead of having a pile of crap with shitty special effects, you'd have a pile of crap with good special effects. :)
Just like most action movies of the late 90's! (and i like most late 90's action movies)
I'd agree for some Looney Toon shorts, but they really should have tone and humor similar to the old ones.
I recall seeing one that i think was from the late 80's or early 90's (cut away from any explosions of violence) but the funny part was Elmer, Bugs, & Daffy starting to get into thier "wabbit season, duck season" bit when Daffy brings it to a halt and says something like "Oh no, we're not doing this again."
Buy: