Actual, handmade art and films are why so many of us look back on the 80’s nostalgically, whether it’s the Muppets, or Freddy’s handmade makeup and practical effects, or the Goonies’ crew building a whole-ass pirate ship on a soundstage. Practical effects will always be 100% better than CGI or some crap spat out by an LLM.
This was 1961 which is definitely not the ‘80s. However, I get your point; practical effects may have been — and were often — jank, but it was real and tangible and I loved it, warts and all.
The movie is called Deadly Friend. I wouldn’t necessarily recommend taking the time to watch the whole thing just for the gif moment. It is totally ‘80s cheese, if you are into that sort of thing.
Edit: I’m looking at what community I have posted in and realizing I probably could and should have picked literally any scene from Mary Poppins but I didn’t and now you all have to watch a watermelon in a wig explode.
My theory is that since practical effects ultimately rely on physics of the world we occupy, that despite their unpolished look, they feel more real. The hyper realistic, but completely reality breaking effects of today just hit the same way cartoons do.
Speaking of cartoons, I love finding the shortcuts that animators would take, there’s something so artistic about how they did it.
I am just so much more engaged when I can watch a movie while also trying to figure out how they pulled off an effect.
The line has blurred enough for make it difficult to draw a clean line between true practical effects and special effects. Visual effects studios can and do merge real photography with digital rendering or retouching. Over 20 years ago, Andy Serkis had to don a special motion capture suit to play Gollum in the Lord of the Rings movies, but the advances since then now allow for more subtle (or less subtle) transformation of characters. The Mandalorian made extensive use of digitally rendered scenes actually projected on set so that the reflections and actor interactions feel more real in a computer-generated environment.
And of course, actual movie editing tricks have always been around, where cuts and multiple takes can create real footage presented in a fictional sequence: a single actor playing twins/doppelgangers by simply filming each side’s lines separately, and then editing them together. Plus things like costume design and wardrobe, set design, props, etc.
The effectiveness of all these tricks do depend a lot on the skill and effort of the people involved, and that often means budget (including time). Rush jobs, or farming the work out to cheaper/less skilled workers, on any of these mean that corners will be cut and the end result will be less convincing, regardless of actual method.
Nah, I mean that even thought they look so picture perfect, my brain just doesn’t see them as real, and parks them in the same category as a cartoon.
Whereas a practical effect, might look hilariously bad, but sometime a jello filled, papier-mache head exploding, is the perfect amount of gore to make me wince.
Same here. I occasionally look back at 80s stuff and even the limited animation stuff of the era still made me realize that a whole army of people had to draw all of these by hand. So even if some stuff was ‘bad’ due to time and budget constraints, the sheer effort they had to put in was incredible.
For me I use AI for one thing only: furry porn, and stupid furry porn at that. I did write stories and novels before the Trump gang fucked with my creativity in ways I dont want to talk about. Using AI for any serious creative purpose is insulting to me.
Actual, handmade art and films are why so many of us look back on the 80’s nostalgically, whether it’s the Muppets, or Freddy’s handmade makeup and practical effects, or the Goonies’ crew building a whole-ass pirate ship on a soundstage. Practical effects will always be 100% better than CGI or some crap spat out by an LLM.
The reason why so many people look on the 80s nostalgically is because they were children or teens during the 80s.
And had virtually no responsibility, with tons of free time, and friends, and play.
This was 1961 which is definitely not the ‘80s. However, I get your point; practical effects may have been — and were often — jank, but it was real and tangible and I loved it, warts and all.
Sauce on that gif por favor?
The movie is called Deadly Friend. I wouldn’t necessarily recommend taking the time to watch the whole thing just for the gif moment. It is totally ‘80s cheese, if you are into that sort of thing.
Edit: I’m looking at what community I have posted in and realizing I probably could and should have picked literally any scene from Mary Poppins but I didn’t and now you all have to watch a watermelon in a wig explode.
My theory is that since practical effects ultimately rely on physics of the world we occupy, that despite their unpolished look, they feel more real. The hyper realistic, but completely reality breaking effects of today just hit the same way cartoons do.
Speaking of cartoons, I love finding the shortcuts that animators would take, there’s something so artistic about how they did it.
I am just so much more engaged when I can watch a movie while also trying to figure out how they pulled off an effect.
The line has blurred enough for make it difficult to draw a clean line between true practical effects and special effects. Visual effects studios can and do merge real photography with digital rendering or retouching. Over 20 years ago, Andy Serkis had to don a special motion capture suit to play Gollum in the Lord of the Rings movies, but the advances since then now allow for more subtle (or less subtle) transformation of characters. The Mandalorian made extensive use of digitally rendered scenes actually projected on set so that the reflections and actor interactions feel more real in a computer-generated environment.
And of course, actual movie editing tricks have always been around, where cuts and multiple takes can create real footage presented in a fictional sequence: a single actor playing twins/doppelgangers by simply filming each side’s lines separately, and then editing them together. Plus things like costume design and wardrobe, set design, props, etc.
The effectiveness of all these tricks do depend a lot on the skill and effort of the people involved, and that often means budget (including time). Rush jobs, or farming the work out to cheaper/less skilled workers, on any of these mean that corners will be cut and the end result will be less convincing, regardless of actual method.
*just don’t hit
Nah, I mean that even thought they look so picture perfect, my brain just doesn’t see them as real, and parks them in the same category as a cartoon.
Whereas a practical effect, might look hilariously bad, but sometime a jello filled, papier-mache head exploding, is the perfect amount of gore to make me wince.
OK, I can appreciate that phenomenon.
Facts, it’s why the thing is still my favorite horror movie.
Same here. I occasionally look back at 80s stuff and even the limited animation stuff of the era still made me realize that a whole army of people had to draw all of these by hand. So even if some stuff was ‘bad’ due to time and budget constraints, the sheer effort they had to put in was incredible.
For me I use AI for one thing only: furry porn, and stupid furry porn at that. I did write stories and novels before the Trump gang fucked with my creativity in ways I dont want to talk about. Using AI for any serious creative purpose is insulting to me.
Bunch of old people here in the comments
And young ones too. Also, the middle-aged.