Thread: Do you like low budget special effects or "old school" special effects more than CGI?

well honestly half the time cgi is used to make scenery or enlarge battle numbers ....think lotr and 300 .....well what about films that do that without the bs technology ??
braveheart had alot of extras for battle scenes ,gone with the wind ,etc.....films used to be shot on location ....you want a desert got to tunisia ,snow go to the andes in winter , etc.....
i think those films that went that extra mile for their scenes and numbers worked out better ....gone with the wind may look as a poor quality to those who cant appreciate it ....but for its time it was innovative and original aswell as large budget compared to films before it ....the same can be said of the first true sci fi film metropolis.....watch those two films and compare their extroadinary sets and extras to those of more recent films ......even star wars compare the original trilogy to its inferior prequels .....i know i will always love the originals more

I always have. Especially the "old school" special effects when almost everything use to be latex, anamatronic, mechanical etc. When I see review of indie or B movies and the person says the special effects were crappy I go "Those effects were good", lol.

What's your opinion?

Special effects never make the movie. You can have the best special effects ever and if the storyline is weak the movie is going to suck.
I do agree though, something certainly is missing with the CGI effects. It just doesnt seem the same. I really dont know if has anything to do with what im saying about the movies in general just having a bad plot or what.

CGI looks cheap. I prefer to see the armies in Cleopatra or Ben Hur better than those in Lord of the Rings

CGI looks cheap. I prefer to see the armies in Cleopatra or Ben Hur better than those in Lord of the Rings