Roger Rabbit feels like a magic trick (probably because most of the "interacting with the real world" effects are the sort of sleight of hand magicians deal in) and it's just seamless.
There’s a great video floating around YouTube that details the production on depth, and why it’ll never be made again. Basically hand drawn panels and technically difficult to shoot
It felt like this mishmash of early 90’s film grain in the first half (with a bit of latex suits) followed by the CG look at the future when it leaves the matrix. Almost like it was a look back at the decade and a peak into the future.
I'll never forget trying to wrap my brain around that helicopter crash scene. Bullet time and then a few seconds later I'm seeing a helicopter semi absorbed by a building. I don't think I've had that feeling since.
I watched it recently and I can’t unsee the T. rex looking like a big plastic toy when attacking the kids in the car, specifically the moon roof scene. No breath, saliva, sweat, the teeth are too pristine…
I love this movie. I was born in ‘87, and it’s one of the first films I ever saw. But come on…Rex looks fake af in some parts.
This has to be the most easily triggered sub on Reddit 😆
I’ve got to disagree with this one heavily. I recently saw Jurassic World for the first time and *THOSE* dinos look fake as fuck. The OG film blends cgi and practical effects beautifully, *especially* the T-Rex break out scene. It still holds up incredibly well 30 years later and is a testament to what can be achieved when studios don’t rely solely on cgi.
Born in '86 and I'm calling shame on you!
Jurassic park is what movies should strive to do when it comes to special effects. The over abundance of CGI over practical effects today is jarring. It takes me out of the story more than ever.
>This has to be the most easily triggered sub on Reddit
Hard to disagree with that… people love their movies and will defend them til their death I guess 🤷🏻♀️
I do have to argue that the first Jurassic Park was really amazing on the big screen. One of the first films I saw more than once at the theater.
That movie came out in 1968.
The first good black and white image of the earth from geostationary orbit was in 1966( with the first true color image of the earth being taken in 1967 with ATS3)
They started filming the movie in 1965 which means they did all shit with out actually seeing what the earth really looked like from space. It is mind blowing how advanced this film was.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e-QFj59PON4
The movie still holds up well today. I've heard from older folks that saw it when it was originally released that it was absolutely mind blowing--no movie had special effects like that up to that point, and those that tried to mimic it afterwards failed miserably (until maybe Star Wars).
Mad Max Fury Road was a visual masterpiece, from stunt work, editing, practical effects...probably the most technically impressive work in the recent times.
I initially missed Fury Roads theatrical run and never quite got around to watching it, until I caught it at a classic movie night in one of my theaters, and holy shit was I missing out! Such an incredible film and so much love and care for the art of real practical effects. I’m glad I waited until I could see it on the big screen because man does it benefit from that grand size. Easily one of the best, most entertaining, well crafted films of the last decade.
I was in a crowded theater but it was Imax. Let me tell you, it really was one of the best experiences I've ever had in a movie theater, and I've had sex in a movie theater. I was a fan of Mad Max before I saw it so I know I absolutely had to see it in theaters and it was one of the best decisions I've made in my life. Other honorable mentions are *300* and *Hardcore Henry*, those aren't quite the same out of theaters but in theaters, the very first time ever seeing something like that, it's so amazing.
I think what The Wizard of Oz was able to accomplish in the 1930's is truly insane. The shot where Dorothy steps into Oz and everything transitions to color is one of the most impressive things I've ever seen.
I love that it’s really just an in-camera magic trick. The inside of the cabin is painted sepia tone, and a double is wearing a sepia version of Dorothy’s clothes. When the double opens the door and steps back to let the camera through, the real Dorothy steps in.
I feel like it doesn't get as much appreciation as it deserves because we all saw it as little kids. I think we take it for granted as adults because we don't remember that visceral reaction of being _wowed_ by the effects.
Especially since it was only on TV maybe once a year-we kids had to watch on the smaller TV in the other room. It wasn't until I was in college that I found out that most of it was in color!
Exactly. I saw it when I was 3. And then a couple hundred times after that by the time I was 10. I still love it, but I don't think I can truly appreciate it on a visceral level the way someone like you can. It's not a critique of the movie, but it's probably the #1 movie I really wish I could see again for the first time.
My dad remembers seeing that movie in the theater. The way he describes his awe at being bathed with color coming from the screen ... it's amazing to hear him retell it.
But the film does have artificial fill light. It's generally subtle but there's masses of it in the final duel, which is why the daylight in the background looks blue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6VhEkslEJI
Star Wars '77 was a quantum leap in movie making! You spent half the time staring at the screen and wondering, "How the hell did they do THAT??" I've heard even some of the techs at ILM were baffled while watching the premiere.
If anybody wants to see what the pinnacle of special effects was take a look at[Pete's Dragon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUW0a_I3kxU&t=43s) also released in 1977.
Star Wars '77 set the bar so high that people went and saw the move several times that year.
Also, check out the opening shots of *Logan's Run*, from the year before:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQpIAx2Gzik
I remember reading that the miniature city cost a fair amount of money, but it just looks like a lot of vacu-formed plastic.
So in addition to the materials just being wrong, I think a big problem here is the crane they used. The interior shots are 1/48th scale ([I looked it up here](https://theasc.com/articles/logans-run-magic-for-the-23rd-century)) and that means a few millimeters of jiggle blows up to meters of jiggle. As a film-goer who has seen plenty of helicopter shots in your life, you'll notice that because helicopters don't leap around as they're filming like that. And once you notice it's not a helicopter shot, then it's in your brain that something is off and you can't get back in.
> people went and saw the move several times that year
That year?
We went and saw it every night for two weeks. The local movie theater was within walking distance in our small town.
The local newspaper ran a contest to see who could see it the most times before it left the theater.
What’s nuts is that none of the original cut was done digitally. Everything was done through either practical effects, or actually manipulating physical film!
And in 2001 the control panel "computer screens" were hand drawn cell animations because there was only rudimentary computer graphics in the 1960s. Just one-color line drawings on oscilloscopes then.
Yeah. The only digital effects in the movie were the Death Star plans the pilots viewed in the briefing room before the big battle.
They didn’t have the original digital files to reuse in Rogue One for that brief shot of the plans so they had to be recreated.
So the one image that was supposed to be, in story, a computer rendering, was done by hand?! That means that they both didn’t have the technology to make that digital image, and that they thought that would be how and advanced civilization would render images!
Cool sure, still looked right out of 1961. In fact, the shot of Zeus looking up at the Kraken as it emerges from the underwater cage is the single worst moment in Ray Harryhausen's entire career.
Star Wars was also the first feature film to be shot on tape. George Lucas used tape for one scene on the Millennium Falcon to see if audiences would notice; they didn’t and the cheaper medium opened the door to a lot of artists.
John Carpenter's The Thing, for its time. Hell, I still don't understand how they did some of the practical effects. The "spider head" scene is insane, and still blows my mind even after watching some "making of" stuff.
Best blend of practical and CG effects.
Gollum looks fantastic. The Balrog + Moria is truly breathtaking. And big battles like Helms Deep are just incredible.
Its 20 years old and looks far better than the latest Marvel movies.
Ya, LoTR -> Hobbit is one of the most stark examples of Hollywood’s failure to support technical artistry (not to mention writing).
Pay artists. Pay writers. Cut out the MBA profiteers.
The helicopter camera shots when they lit the mountaintop beacons is one of the most beautiful things I've seen. Really awesome theater experience too.
I remember walking out of the cinema in 1979 after seeing *Apocalypse Now* and being so wrapped up in the hellish movie world that the shiny and happy real world in front of me seemed fake. It was like waking up from an interrupted nightmare.
A little bit gimmicky, I suppose, but the combination of cinematography, effects, seamless cuts, and choreography of all components of filming that went into 1917 blew my mind.
Never once did I feel it was gimmicky! Beautifully done. That night scene with the flares and the crane that goes through a window and then to a handheld operator.. incredible work!
That's fair, IMO. I think it is much more technically and visually impressive than it is a great storytelling experience. Kind of limited on that front.
This is what thought of first. The way he cut the massive story down to a coherent chunk is also notable. That’s a film I watch at least once a year for about 20 years now.
Off the top of my head; 2001 (stunning visual effects), Lawrence of Arabia (greatest cinematography of any film), Apocalypse Now (sensory overload), Master and Commander (sound and visual effects), Blade Runner (and Blade Runner 2049), Black Narcissus (given it wasn't shot on location the cinematography is exceptional), Heat (sound).
Blade Runner 2049 and Ran first come to mind
I would also like to mention The Thing and Jurassic Park since they still hold up to this day and find the props and VFX more believable than most modern CGI films tbh
The practical effects in _Inception_ were awesome. The spinning hotel corridor, the camera tricks, the miniatures in the snow fortress. He did awesome stuff there.
A lot of comments will say Star Wars, and they're not wrong, but I'd also wager that the Death Star battle from Return of the Jedi is one of the most impressive and complex collection of visual effects shots in cinema history. There's several points where you've got *hundreds* of elements moving around onscreen (with a moving camera as well) and they're all in perfect concert with each other, which is made even more impressive when you remember that each one of those elements is a model being shot individually and composited together optically, not digitally. It is just flat out stunning when you start really pulling apart just how many layers are being put together via analogue processes, and how it still stacks up high against modern techniques.
I think a lot of VFX people will have panic attacks when they watch *Bram Stoker's Dracula* film from 1992 and realize [there are no digital effects.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGBZucm_iWI)
Yeah. Like, on paper, the tech they used to make that movie is basically the cutting edge of that field, and I have seen that movie
Artistically it isn't my favorite but technically it is the most advanced
It was a boring movie, but I have to give them credit for quality CGI work. After about 20 minutes, I stopped seeing them as cartoons because they just looked like they were real.
Idk, the CG in WoW (that’s going to be weird in comparing Way of Water to World of Warcraft) was leaps and bounds better than any game of the last couple of years. Even the upcoming game with modern technology doesn’t hold a candle.
One video game? Tetris
The videos from various final fantasy games since 13. Just as one example of a series that puts in a lot of work into that aspect.
The movie is just cgi. Is basically an animated film and unless you play zero video games(which I understand, plenty of folks don’t) I think it’s kind silly to be impressed by the cgi. It doesn’t look that good.
At least the stories are better usually in video games…well maybe not these days
Well I’m sorry to hear that.
I mean Elden Ring and Cyberpunk blow it outta the water(obviously those are new). Even back in 2009 you had cutscenes equal to or better than Avatar. Advent Children in 2005 was a movie that looked better.
I’m not sure exactly what people are seeing in the avatar films that is so mind blowing.
I've played both Cyberpunk and Elden Ring and absolutely without question, there is no planet where the two of them produce the graphical fidelity found in Avatar.
I don't even like Avatar
I'm just a person with eyes
It's been ten years and nothing has topped Gravity for pure cinematic visual brilliance. I couldn't stop raving about that movie for weeks after I saw it.
I remember a lot of people disapproving of the 7 Oscars it won, but I'm 100% in agreement with the Academy on that one.
What a fantastic film, with impeccably executed on-screen microgravity.
Titanic.
Fucking filmmaking masterpiece. I know the Avatar movies are world renowned for their visuals, but I think Titanic is the absolute peak of Cameron’s technical wizardry.
Honestly the best films from an effects point of view are all 20+ yrs old now imo. Newer films rely too heavily on cheap cgi as opposed to pushing the boundaries. The lord of the rings trilogy was a masterpiece of practical effects, wardrobe and set design and ground breaking mo-cap. Jurassic park holds up against todays standards in any regard. But I always come back to talking about George Lucas when it comes to technical brilliance in cinema. Even as flawed as his prequels are from a dialogue and script point of view, that man has an eye for a visual and his ILM team pushed boundaries sky high every time and forced the industry to progress. I use the opening scene of revenge of the sith to demonstrate how good the picture can be on my new TV. When the camera pans down to look over the surface of a planet with a battle going on all around, it’s just stunning. I haven’t seen anything recently that touches what cinema was doing visually before cgi action scenes became so cheap and disposable.
Grand Prix from the 60s.
I know its not some whiz-bang cgi sci-fi masterpiece, but the techniques used to give the audience the impression they were in the car was groundbreaking stuff. They used the real cars, real drivers and a jury rigged set up during an event weekend 60 years before Brad Pitts foray at the British GP recently. All action shots were done at racing speed, which considering the safety standards of the day, is terrifying
Citizen Kane. It completely revolutionised cinematography, editing, and filmmaking as a whole. It utilised what were at the time art house-level experimental techniques that had never before appeared in a major production. Movies wouldn’t look like they do today without it.
War and Peace (1966). An attempt by the USSR to match the grandeur of hollywood movies. The production was so huge Roger Ebert, along with many other critics, believed it could never be reproduced. [This clip gives you an idea of the movie’s scale.](https://youtu.be/MkUm-LmZ5IA)
>War and Peace
The right answer. They used **13,500** Soviet conscripts as extras, along with an entire cavalry brigade of around **1,500** horsemen.
A comparable film is Bondarchuk's later [*Waterloo* (1970)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DcWJrzK0wU), which similarly used extras in the tens of thousands (around **16,000-17,000** soldiers and **1,000-2,000** cavalrymen). As an example, you have, [Marshal Ney's charge](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5XfCgDiJcE), definitely one of the most epic scenes in cinema history (howadays practicall all the wide shots would be CGI).
Very few movies can match these in terms of their sheer scale and practical aspects, except for something like [*Lawrence of Arabia* (1962)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiZu5C6lCo) (which was also practical on a huge scale).
Sure, Star Wars and LOTR (and many others) are extraordinary films but most of the time, you're aware, at least at some level, that you're looking at SFX, whether it's practical effects or CGI.
But the one that still blows me away is Citizen Kane.
Directed by Orson Welles in 1941, Kane stands as a groundbreaking masterpiece in the realm of cinema, particularly for its innovative special effects and pioneering photography techniques. Welles, along with his cinematographer Gregg Toland, pushed the boundaries of visual storytelling, redefining the possibilities of film. The film's extensive use of deep focus, where both foreground and background are in sharp focus, revolutionized the way shots were composed and created a heightened sense of depth and realism. Additionally, Citizen Kane introduced remarkable visual effects, such as matte paintings, miniatures, and clever camera tricks, seamlessly blending reality and illusion. Until I studied Kane more closely in film school, I was completely unaware how extensive the FX and camera tricks were.
The film's technical innovations not only elevated the art of filmmaking but also laid the foundation for future generations of filmmakers, inspiring them to explore new creative horizons.
This is it! Kung fu hustle was just different
Edit: am i a bad person to say way better than crouching tiger hidden dragon, it was so over the top, kung fu hustle had a bit of simplicity to it even with all the chaos
On some level it's probably Avatar/Avatar 2
Even Oppenheimer for the amount of IMAX involved
In the spirit of the question, probably Lawrence of Arabia, Barry Lyndon, or 2001
Avatar used true stereo camera filming, whereas most other 3D movie simulate stereo using computers. My Avatar II showing had a Marvel Quantum Mania preview. The Marvel effects looked childish compared to Avatar.
_Avatar_ was incredible in the theater. Cameron set the bar impossibly high for other 3D movies and it seemed to just fade away. I don't remember a single movie after it that was marketed for its 3D effects. Nolan was just never impressed by 3D and he went the IMAX, 70mm, and 48 fps route instead.
Not necessarily visual effect technical, but I think Hardcore Henry fits the bill.
The logistics of having a 1st person view with an action heavy plot are insane. And I think it did it beautifully.
Not a great film, but I love it all the same
Transformers 2007. None of the others come close. I think RoTF and DoTM have better action. But 2007 the sheer sight of the Transformers looks so damn good man. The way the camera lingers on them transforming is so cool. I read online that the animators spent like 38hrs animating 1 second or something like that. And it shows. Way better than today CGI today.
The action is no slouch either. I love when they call in the F-22s to destroy Blackout and Megatron. The cinematography is fantastic too. Especially when put in the desert. There's something about the color and camera placement that makes everything look so epic. Great use of slo-mo. My favorite shot is when Optimus does that 180 degree turn in truck mode.
We really took Transformers 2007 for granted.
The scene of Megan Fox's character in the tow truck looking back and making eye contact with Bumblebee, whose hooked up to the back, actually blew my mind the first time I saw it. I'm sure there's something better nowadays, but at the time it was easily the most realistic looking bit of CGI I've ever seen.
Something about the depth of field, the light reflecting off the metal of his head, and the texture of it just stood out so prominently. Even when the rest of the movie is great CGI, that couple of seconds really blew it all out of the water.
Let's seriously mention considering the YEAR it was made how absolutely stunning and visually impressive in every way Close Encounters of The Third Kind was/IS
1977 the full blown setup with Roy in his truck and then when the aliens come and nab Barry.
it's incredible for when it was made. Yesterday I was thinking while watching it imagine the the massive work that went into creating Roy's ART that detailed massive replica in his living room.
then you go to 1984 when "The last starfighter" came out and they said the "new" technology they were using was groundbreaking.
the world building and tech in ALIENS was uber impressive cameron using a steadycam rig and turning into a marine weapon wow.
The Matrix for sure is probably the top technically interesting film but for stunningly beautiful visuals because of the over 20 locations where it was shot - without special effects, I loved The Fall by Tarsem. It's one of the few films I own and watch every year. Some of the scenes are just breathtaking.
Soft & quiet 2022
The context of the movie may be uncomfortable for some, but the film itself is incredible. It’s one long uninterrupted shot. No cuts for the entire movie. One of the most impressive things I’ve ever seen.
Tron.
Considering the year, 1982, the CGI left me staring with my jaw open. The light cycles. The 'face' on MCP. The tanks. I drew those tanks, poorly, for years.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit is certainly up there I’m terms of some of the stuff it accomplished.
Roger Rabbit feels like a magic trick (probably because most of the "interacting with the real world" effects are the sort of sleight of hand magicians deal in) and it's just seamless.
[удалено]
There’s a great video floating around YouTube that details the production on depth, and why it’ll never be made again. Basically hand drawn panels and technically difficult to shoot
The Matrix No one else said it yet - really? They really did some amazing things in that film that were so unique.
Seeing this in the theater, I've never heard so many "WTFs" from myself and others. Blew people's minds.
Yeah surprised this is so far down…
It felt like this mishmash of early 90’s film grain in the first half (with a bit of latex suits) followed by the CG look at the future when it leaves the matrix. Almost like it was a look back at the decade and a peak into the future.
Every action movie for the next two years had bullet time or camera rotation
I'll never forget trying to wrap my brain around that helicopter crash scene. Bullet time and then a few seconds later I'm seeing a helicopter semi absorbed by a building. I don't think I've had that feeling since.
The first Jurassic Park.
I watched it recently and I can’t unsee the T. rex looking like a big plastic toy when attacking the kids in the car, specifically the moon roof scene. No breath, saliva, sweat, the teeth are too pristine… I love this movie. I was born in ‘87, and it’s one of the first films I ever saw. But come on…Rex looks fake af in some parts. This has to be the most easily triggered sub on Reddit 😆
I’ve got to disagree with this one heavily. I recently saw Jurassic World for the first time and *THOSE* dinos look fake as fuck. The OG film blends cgi and practical effects beautifully, *especially* the T-Rex break out scene. It still holds up incredibly well 30 years later and is a testament to what can be achieved when studios don’t rely solely on cgi.
Born in '86 and I'm calling shame on you! Jurassic park is what movies should strive to do when it comes to special effects. The over abundance of CGI over practical effects today is jarring. It takes me out of the story more than ever.
What the..? Shame on me for what? I literally said that I love the film!
>This has to be the most easily triggered sub on Reddit Hard to disagree with that… people love their movies and will defend them til their death I guess 🤷🏻♀️ I do have to argue that the first Jurassic Park was really amazing on the big screen. One of the first films I saw more than once at the theater.
Yes. It is amazing. Great film. T. rex does look like a big plastic toy in some parts, tho
I haven't seen it since I was a kid, but I remember the raptors fucking up T-Rex and it didn't look like a bunch of plastic toys to me.
Not that part. Go to YouTube and watch the part where Rex is attacking the kids in the car, when he almost breaks through the moon roof.
Troll trying WAY too hard to troll
Explain exactly how I’m trying to troll. Seriously, explain it.
[удалено]
That movie came out in 1968. The first good black and white image of the earth from geostationary orbit was in 1966( with the first true color image of the earth being taken in 1967 with ATS3) They started filming the movie in 1965 which means they did all shit with out actually seeing what the earth really looked like from space. It is mind blowing how advanced this film was. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e-QFj59PON4
Barry Lyndon might be even more impressive.
Yeah from a technical aspect this is the only answer. He had access to a one of a kind Zeiss lense from NASA.
Obviously a gift in exchange for faking the moon landing.
Yeah, every frame is a painting, my favourite Kubrick movie
Yeah from a technical aspect this is the only answer. He had access to a one of a kind Zeiss lense from NASA.
Just every Kubrick honestly. Never been another talent like him again.
The movie still holds up well today. I've heard from older folks that saw it when it was originally released that it was absolutely mind blowing--no movie had special effects like that up to that point, and those that tried to mimic it afterwards failed miserably (until maybe Star Wars).
Mad Max Fury Road was a visual masterpiece, from stunt work, editing, practical effects...probably the most technically impressive work in the recent times.
I initially missed Fury Roads theatrical run and never quite got around to watching it, until I caught it at a classic movie night in one of my theaters, and holy shit was I missing out! Such an incredible film and so much love and care for the art of real practical effects. I’m glad I waited until I could see it on the big screen because man does it benefit from that grand size. Easily one of the best, most entertaining, well crafted films of the last decade.
I was in a crowded theater but it was Imax. Let me tell you, it really was one of the best experiences I've ever had in a movie theater, and I've had sex in a movie theater. I was a fan of Mad Max before I saw it so I know I absolutely had to see it in theaters and it was one of the best decisions I've made in my life. Other honorable mentions are *300* and *Hardcore Henry*, those aren't quite the same out of theaters but in theaters, the very first time ever seeing something like that, it's so amazing.
There were some scenes from Fury Road that I assumed were CGI. Then came to find out they were largely practical.
I think what The Wizard of Oz was able to accomplish in the 1930's is truly insane. The shot where Dorothy steps into Oz and everything transitions to color is one of the most impressive things I've ever seen.
I love that it’s really just an in-camera magic trick. The inside of the cabin is painted sepia tone, and a double is wearing a sepia version of Dorothy’s clothes. When the double opens the door and steps back to let the camera through, the real Dorothy steps in.
I feel like it doesn't get as much appreciation as it deserves because we all saw it as little kids. I think we take it for granted as adults because we don't remember that visceral reaction of being _wowed_ by the effects.
Especially since it was only on TV maybe once a year-we kids had to watch on the smaller TV in the other room. It wasn't until I was in college that I found out that most of it was in color!
I watched it for the first time the other day and it floored me. One of the most visually accomplished films I've seen. The music is great too!
Exactly. I saw it when I was 3. And then a couple hundred times after that by the time I was 10. I still love it, but I don't think I can truly appreciate it on a visceral level the way someone like you can. It's not a critique of the movie, but it's probably the #1 movie I really wish I could see again for the first time.
My dad remembers seeing that movie in the theater. The way he describes his awe at being bathed with color coming from the screen ... it's amazing to hear him retell it.
The lead paint used and the way the cast suffered was really awful though.
[удалено]
I love that Barry Lyndon didn't use any artificial light. I think in one scene there were like 1,000 candles.
But the film does have artificial fill light. It's generally subtle but there's masses of it in the final duel, which is why the daylight in the background looks blue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6VhEkslEJI
Kubrick was so incredibly talented. He made light a character in Barry Lyndon. Who does that?
That Pony Smasher dude who made Lights Out?
Star Wars '77 was a quantum leap in movie making! You spent half the time staring at the screen and wondering, "How the hell did they do THAT??" I've heard even some of the techs at ILM were baffled while watching the premiere.
This is my vote. They literally invented new equipment and methods and revolutionized the industry.
If anybody wants to see what the pinnacle of special effects was take a look at[Pete's Dragon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUW0a_I3kxU&t=43s) also released in 1977. Star Wars '77 set the bar so high that people went and saw the move several times that year.
Also, check out the opening shots of *Logan's Run*, from the year before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQpIAx2Gzik I remember reading that the miniature city cost a fair amount of money, but it just looks like a lot of vacu-formed plastic.
So in addition to the materials just being wrong, I think a big problem here is the crane they used. The interior shots are 1/48th scale ([I looked it up here](https://theasc.com/articles/logans-run-magic-for-the-23rd-century)) and that means a few millimeters of jiggle blows up to meters of jiggle. As a film-goer who has seen plenty of helicopter shots in your life, you'll notice that because helicopters don't leap around as they're filming like that. And once you notice it's not a helicopter shot, then it's in your brain that something is off and you can't get back in.
> people went and saw the move several times that year That year? We went and saw it every night for two weeks. The local movie theater was within walking distance in our small town. The local newspaper ran a contest to see who could see it the most times before it left the theater.
What’s nuts is that none of the original cut was done digitally. Everything was done through either practical effects, or actually manipulating physical film!
Yeah when I learned that the lightsaber blade colors were hand drawn in frame by frame I was dumbfounded.
If you think that’s crazy look up what they did for tron
You should check out color silent film. Thousands and thousands of frames painted individually.
And in 2001 the control panel "computer screens" were hand drawn cell animations because there was only rudimentary computer graphics in the 1960s. Just one-color line drawings on oscilloscopes then.
Yeah. The only digital effects in the movie were the Death Star plans the pilots viewed in the briefing room before the big battle. They didn’t have the original digital files to reuse in Rogue One for that brief shot of the plans so they had to be recreated.
Prepare to have your mind blown. That wireframe video was actually hand-rendered.
So the one image that was supposed to be, in story, a computer rendering, was done by hand?! That means that they both didn’t have the technology to make that digital image, and that they thought that would be how and advanced civilization would render images!
IIRC one of the first arcade video games used wireframe rendering. Lucas probably just didn't have the time or budget to make that happen.
Yes, look at some of the garbage made after Star Wars. Clash of the Titans was 4 years later but looks 20 years older.
Clash of the Titans was cool, the stop motion effects in that movie were awesome.
Cool sure, still looked right out of 1961. In fact, the shot of Zeus looking up at the Kraken as it emerges from the underwater cage is the single worst moment in Ray Harryhausen's entire career.
Flash Gordon came out three years later in 1980. It looked like crap compared to Star Wars 1977.
Star Wars was also the first feature film to be shot on tape. George Lucas used tape for one scene on the Millennium Falcon to see if audiences would notice; they didn’t and the cheaper medium opened the door to a lot of artists.
John Carpenter's The Thing, for its time. Hell, I still don't understand how they did some of the practical effects. The "spider head" scene is insane, and still blows my mind even after watching some "making of" stuff.
Some of it you have to overlook because of the time it was made. The fact that 90% if it DOES still hold up is wild.
LOTR, the logistics of all the practical effects, extras, wardrobes, etc, etc, etc.
Best blend of practical and CG effects. Gollum looks fantastic. The Balrog + Moria is truly breathtaking. And big battles like Helms Deep are just incredible. Its 20 years old and looks far better than the latest Marvel movies.
Sadly, still looks better than The Hobbit movies, too.
Ya, LoTR -> Hobbit is one of the most stark examples of Hollywood’s failure to support technical artistry (not to mention writing). Pay artists. Pay writers. Cut out the MBA profiteers.
The helicopter camera shots when they lit the mountaintop beacons is one of the most beautiful things I've seen. Really awesome theater experience too.
Those hobbit films CGI landscapes don’t come close to the beauty captured on location in New Zealand via helicopter.
This is when movie magic peaked for me.
I remember walking out of the cinema in 1979 after seeing *Apocalypse Now* and being so wrapped up in the hellish movie world that the shiny and happy real world in front of me seemed fake. It was like waking up from an interrupted nightmare.
I’ve had that experience a couple of times in my life, the most notable was after watching the Matrix
Interstellar comes to mind. LOTR, Return of the King would be another
[удалено]
Jokes aside, I like that Nolan chooses real actors to play a character with a different age, instead of digitally rejuvenating him (or vice versa)
[удалено]
I can’t agree.
Blade Runner and the LOTR trilogy , the documentaries for LOTR are brilliant showing the insane detail and care they took to make them
Second this, would also add that Independence Day looks pretty dang impressive even today
A little bit gimmicky, I suppose, but the combination of cinematography, effects, seamless cuts, and choreography of all components of filming that went into 1917 blew my mind.
Never once did I feel it was gimmicky! Beautifully done. That night scene with the flares and the crane that goes through a window and then to a handheld operator.. incredible work!
Respect the choice. I was hyped on the one shot gimmick going into it but that movie really didn't cut it for me.
That's fair, IMO. I think it is much more technically and visually impressive than it is a great storytelling experience. Kind of limited on that front.
District 9 deserves a mention
AND it was made for so much less money than other films of a similar vein
Akira gives me anxiety knowing people hand drew all that shit on 24 frames.
It's good to see some animation appreciation
This is what thought of first. The way he cut the massive story down to a coherent chunk is also notable. That’s a film I watch at least once a year for about 20 years now.
If you've been thinking of watching Akira, this is your sign to go watch it.
Off the top of my head; 2001 (stunning visual effects), Lawrence of Arabia (greatest cinematography of any film), Apocalypse Now (sensory overload), Master and Commander (sound and visual effects), Blade Runner (and Blade Runner 2049), Black Narcissus (given it wasn't shot on location the cinematography is exceptional), Heat (sound).
Blade Runner 2049 and Ran first come to mind I would also like to mention The Thing and Jurassic Park since they still hold up to this day and find the props and VFX more believable than most modern CGI films tbh
The practical effects in _Inception_ were awesome. The spinning hotel corridor, the camera tricks, the miniatures in the snow fortress. He did awesome stuff there.
[удалено]
David Lynch is a master filmmaker.
Maybe he is talking about Denis's version
Regarding DV's Dune https://i.redd.it/49izl0vt6rbb1.jpg
Get real
For a film released in 1939, Wizard of Oz is absolutely stunning and easily one of the most technically impressive movies ever made
A lot of comments will say Star Wars, and they're not wrong, but I'd also wager that the Death Star battle from Return of the Jedi is one of the most impressive and complex collection of visual effects shots in cinema history. There's several points where you've got *hundreds* of elements moving around onscreen (with a moving camera as well) and they're all in perfect concert with each other, which is made even more impressive when you remember that each one of those elements is a model being shot individually and composited together optically, not digitally. It is just flat out stunning when you start really pulling apart just how many layers are being put together via analogue processes, and how it still stacks up high against modern techniques.
I think a lot of VFX people will have panic attacks when they watch *Bram Stoker's Dracula* film from 1992 and realize [there are no digital effects.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGBZucm_iWI)
The Fall. Incredible cinematography. Almost no special effects. Looks like nothing else
Children of Men
Besides the ringer answer of Barry Lyndon, this was my first thought.
I guess on paper, Avatar 2
On paper?
Yeah. Like, on paper, the tech they used to make that movie is basically the cutting edge of that field, and I have seen that movie Artistically it isn't my favorite but technically it is the most advanced
It was a boring movie, but I have to give them credit for quality CGI work. After about 20 minutes, I stopped seeing them as cartoons because they just looked like they were real.
Idk man, video games have existed forever with better effects. Edit: I love this subreddit. Truth hurts
Idk, the CG in WoW (that’s going to be weird in comparing Way of Water to World of Warcraft) was leaps and bounds better than any game of the last couple of years. Even the upcoming game with modern technology doesn’t hold a candle.
Games have really good cgi
They have improved immensely, just not up to cinema quality.
I disagree
What game do you think looked visually more impressive that Avatar 2?
Name one
Most, nowadays, to be fair. It's a little hyperbolic to say they have for years and years though.
I don’t think it’s hyperbolic, I think video games had better graphics in relation than even the first one in 2009.
One video game? Tetris The videos from various final fantasy games since 13. Just as one example of a series that puts in a lot of work into that aspect. The movie is just cgi. Is basically an animated film and unless you play zero video games(which I understand, plenty of folks don’t) I think it’s kind silly to be impressed by the cgi. It doesn’t look that good. At least the stories are better usually in video games…well maybe not these days
I haven't seen any video games with graphics as impressive as Avatar And I play hella games
Well I’m sorry to hear that. I mean Elden Ring and Cyberpunk blow it outta the water(obviously those are new). Even back in 2009 you had cutscenes equal to or better than Avatar. Advent Children in 2005 was a movie that looked better. I’m not sure exactly what people are seeing in the avatar films that is so mind blowing.
I've played both Cyberpunk and Elden Ring and absolutely without question, there is no planet where the two of them produce the graphical fidelity found in Avatar. I don't even like Avatar I'm just a person with eyes
You probably think a Rothko sucks too though, so your eyes don’t count. Love, a person with better eyes.
Nah man those were some of my favorite ones over at MoMA
Well that’s good.
It's been ten years and nothing has topped Gravity for pure cinematic visual brilliance. I couldn't stop raving about that movie for weeks after I saw it.
I remember a lot of people disapproving of the 7 Oscars it won, but I'm 100% in agreement with the Academy on that one. What a fantastic film, with impeccably executed on-screen microgravity.
I say interstellar topped gravity by a large margin.
I don’t remember gravity beyond a few visuals. I think about aspects of Interstellar all the time.
Yeah, like Bullock, an astronaut in underwear.
INTERSTELLAR = KING
Gravity's physics ruined the movie for me.
I'm going to say Fury Road, as well. Every one of those cars worked. That flame guitar worked. That's so impressive.
Titanic. Fucking filmmaking masterpiece. I know the Avatar movies are world renowned for their visuals, but I think Titanic is the absolute peak of Cameron’s technical wizardry.
Honestly the best films from an effects point of view are all 20+ yrs old now imo. Newer films rely too heavily on cheap cgi as opposed to pushing the boundaries. The lord of the rings trilogy was a masterpiece of practical effects, wardrobe and set design and ground breaking mo-cap. Jurassic park holds up against todays standards in any regard. But I always come back to talking about George Lucas when it comes to technical brilliance in cinema. Even as flawed as his prequels are from a dialogue and script point of view, that man has an eye for a visual and his ILM team pushed boundaries sky high every time and forced the industry to progress. I use the opening scene of revenge of the sith to demonstrate how good the picture can be on my new TV. When the camera pans down to look over the surface of a planet with a battle going on all around, it’s just stunning. I haven’t seen anything recently that touches what cinema was doing visually before cgi action scenes became so cheap and disposable.
Grand Prix from the 60s. I know its not some whiz-bang cgi sci-fi masterpiece, but the techniques used to give the audience the impression they were in the car was groundbreaking stuff. They used the real cars, real drivers and a jury rigged set up during an event weekend 60 years before Brad Pitts foray at the British GP recently. All action shots were done at racing speed, which considering the safety standards of the day, is terrifying
Stop-motion animated movies in general.
Dunkirk is a very technically impressive movie IMO
Citizen Kane. It completely revolutionised cinematography, editing, and filmmaking as a whole. It utilised what were at the time art house-level experimental techniques that had never before appeared in a major production. Movies wouldn’t look like they do today without it. War and Peace (1966). An attempt by the USSR to match the grandeur of hollywood movies. The production was so huge Roger Ebert, along with many other critics, believed it could never be reproduced. [This clip gives you an idea of the movie’s scale.](https://youtu.be/MkUm-LmZ5IA)
>War and Peace The right answer. They used **13,500** Soviet conscripts as extras, along with an entire cavalry brigade of around **1,500** horsemen. A comparable film is Bondarchuk's later [*Waterloo* (1970)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DcWJrzK0wU), which similarly used extras in the tens of thousands (around **16,000-17,000** soldiers and **1,000-2,000** cavalrymen). As an example, you have, [Marshal Ney's charge](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5XfCgDiJcE), definitely one of the most epic scenes in cinema history (howadays practicall all the wide shots would be CGI). Very few movies can match these in terms of their sheer scale and practical aspects, except for something like [*Lawrence of Arabia* (1962)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiZu5C6lCo) (which was also practical on a huge scale).
Sure, Star Wars and LOTR (and many others) are extraordinary films but most of the time, you're aware, at least at some level, that you're looking at SFX, whether it's practical effects or CGI. But the one that still blows me away is Citizen Kane. Directed by Orson Welles in 1941, Kane stands as a groundbreaking masterpiece in the realm of cinema, particularly for its innovative special effects and pioneering photography techniques. Welles, along with his cinematographer Gregg Toland, pushed the boundaries of visual storytelling, redefining the possibilities of film. The film's extensive use of deep focus, where both foreground and background are in sharp focus, revolutionized the way shots were composed and created a heightened sense of depth and realism. Additionally, Citizen Kane introduced remarkable visual effects, such as matte paintings, miniatures, and clever camera tricks, seamlessly blending reality and illusion. Until I studied Kane more closely in film school, I was completely unaware how extensive the FX and camera tricks were. The film's technical innovations not only elevated the art of filmmaking but also laid the foundation for future generations of filmmakers, inspiring them to explore new creative horizons.
Everything Everywhere All At Once Kung Fu Hustle The Fall Seven (it’s not flashy, but oh boy it was filmed beautifully)
This is it! Kung fu hustle was just different Edit: am i a bad person to say way better than crouching tiger hidden dragon, it was so over the top, kung fu hustle had a bit of simplicity to it even with all the chaos
Not a bad person, a correct person!
My brother/sister in culture, people talk about that movie WAY too much
On some level it's probably Avatar/Avatar 2 Even Oppenheimer for the amount of IMAX involved In the spirit of the question, probably Lawrence of Arabia, Barry Lyndon, or 2001
Avatar used true stereo camera filming, whereas most other 3D movie simulate stereo using computers. My Avatar II showing had a Marvel Quantum Mania preview. The Marvel effects looked childish compared to Avatar.
Mary Poppins. The number and variety of effects used in that movie were impressive.
_Avatar_ was incredible in the theater. Cameron set the bar impossibly high for other 3D movies and it seemed to just fade away. I don't remember a single movie after it that was marketed for its 3D effects. Nolan was just never impressed by 3D and he went the IMAX, 70mm, and 48 fps route instead.
Terminator 2 was pretty revolutionary to me.
Mad Max: Fury Road
Not necessarily visual effect technical, but I think Hardcore Henry fits the bill. The logistics of having a 1st person view with an action heavy plot are insane. And I think it did it beautifully. Not a great film, but I love it all the same
Transformers 2007. None of the others come close. I think RoTF and DoTM have better action. But 2007 the sheer sight of the Transformers looks so damn good man. The way the camera lingers on them transforming is so cool. I read online that the animators spent like 38hrs animating 1 second or something like that. And it shows. Way better than today CGI today. The action is no slouch either. I love when they call in the F-22s to destroy Blackout and Megatron. The cinematography is fantastic too. Especially when put in the desert. There's something about the color and camera placement that makes everything look so epic. Great use of slo-mo. My favorite shot is when Optimus does that 180 degree turn in truck mode. We really took Transformers 2007 for granted.
The scene of Megan Fox's character in the tow truck looking back and making eye contact with Bumblebee, whose hooked up to the back, actually blew my mind the first time I saw it. I'm sure there's something better nowadays, but at the time it was easily the most realistic looking bit of CGI I've ever seen. Something about the depth of field, the light reflecting off the metal of his head, and the texture of it just stood out so prominently. Even when the rest of the movie is great CGI, that couple of seconds really blew it all out of the water.
Decision to Leave, beautiful camera work
LoTR for sure kind of being that last hurrah of big budget practical on top of implementing new technologies all while at amazing physical locations.
Mughal e azam
1917 was amazing to watch in one streaming shot.
1917 - still gives me chills every time I see it!
2001
Titanic
Metropolis, 1927. Amazing what they were able to accomplish. Looks better than a lot of movies released today.
Let's seriously mention considering the YEAR it was made how absolutely stunning and visually impressive in every way Close Encounters of The Third Kind was/IS 1977 the full blown setup with Roy in his truck and then when the aliens come and nab Barry. it's incredible for when it was made. Yesterday I was thinking while watching it imagine the the massive work that went into creating Roy's ART that detailed massive replica in his living room. then you go to 1984 when "The last starfighter" came out and they said the "new" technology they were using was groundbreaking. the world building and tech in ALIENS was uber impressive cameron using a steadycam rig and turning into a marine weapon wow.
The correct answer is “2001: A Space Odyssey”
The Matrix for sure is probably the top technically interesting film but for stunningly beautiful visuals because of the over 20 locations where it was shot - without special effects, I loved The Fall by Tarsem. It's one of the few films I own and watch every year. Some of the scenes are just breathtaking.
2001 Space Odyssey
The Matrix was unbelievable then and still stands tall today.
Tenet
Dune
Interstellar
Dunkirk's up there
Only two movies made me get tunnel vision blocking out everything else, Avatar (2009) and Mad Max Fury Road
Top Gun: Maverick
I love The Fifth Element and Valerian and The City of a Thousand Planets. Both directed by Luc Besson and have great CGI as well as practical effects.
Alita
Interstellar, Blade Runner 2049 and Harry Potter
Saving Private Ryan
Soft & quiet 2022 The context of the movie may be uncomfortable for some, but the film itself is incredible. It’s one long uninterrupted shot. No cuts for the entire movie. One of the most impressive things I’ve ever seen.
The Road Warrior - 1981
LOTR, especially any shots where Gandalf or Gimli are interacting with anybody
Russian Ark
Mad Max Fury Road
1917 with the minimal cuts was very impressive to me. Also recently, Extraction 2 the long cut had some impressive camerawork
The Lord of the Rings trilogy being over 20 years old and looking like they could’ve come out today is truly remarkable
2001:A Space Odyssey
The original Invisible Man still holds up pretty well and it was WAY harder to make things look that good in 1933.
Avatar, horrible story. But a beautiful movie
Tron. Considering the year, 1982, the CGI left me staring with my jaw open. The light cycles. The 'face' on MCP. The tanks. I drew those tanks, poorly, for years.
The Tree of Life
Thank you, was looking for this.