Quoting Calidain:

Quote:
Here is a modern version of what I am talking about...Jurassic Park!!!  Upon seeing JP at the age of 24 I remember sitting with my Dad and we both thought how great the movie was, the dinasaurs looked incredibly real to us then.  That movie is 14 years old now and no longer draws the same reaction from me simply because of how far CGI has come, but I still enjoy the movie!!!

and don't forget too with JP,, that it had true DTS CD-rom audio that was played back in the threatre along side the film track itself.., I believe most or some of the theatres equipped had this additional audio playback as well as the optical soundtrack in dolby surround on the film itself. This DTS track absolutely blew me away as the theatre rumbled with those dinosaurs roaring..
This was no Earthquake (1974) with the then subwoofers under the seats..
and Jason and the Argonauts??  Yes it was exciting,, but to me not as exciting as the precursor to that film  5 years before with 7th Voyage of Sinbad.,  same Harryhausen stop action effects blew me away as well , but today when I do view these films I have the satisifaction of those memories that captivated me and others to the edge of the seat.
When Bonnie and Clyde was released in 67, I was absolutley SHOCKED, and mesmorized  at the violence at the end of the film., and then Peckinpah's Wild Bunch. year later  put a cherry on top of that.
But to see that style of gunfire today with  films like Private Ryan and Flags of our Fathers etc., todays shootem ups can be/could be  done with class and fortitude. ( no more slow motion, or do they still have slow motion?? )   

So bottom line, if you lived in a cave for 50 years and then saw for the 1st time any one one of these fine films in order you would be amazed until the next one came out, etc etc..

Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
It's all still in the eye of the beholder, however.  While I understand the creativity of Citizen Kane and recognize it as one of the best (if no the best) films ever made, I still don't like it.  Same reaction to that Christmas move with Jimmy Stewart and the "every time a bell rings an angel gets his wings" line.

Bah HumBug !!!

Quoting DJ Doena:

Quote:
I've never seen Citizen Kane and don't intend to. Am I now an unworthy person?

Yep!

Quoting JonM:

Quote:
Quoting Kathy:

Quote:
I grew up loving Ray Harryhausen special effects which I'm sure some of today's "young whippersnappers" would feel are outdated and unworthy of watching.

Well when I was a kid (1980s), I remember seeing Jason and the Argonauts and loving the fight with the skeletons. I knew they were puppets of course, but that didn't stop me being terrified by their grins and the horrible clacking noise. There was something tangible and substantial about them. The Mummy Returns had similar things and they were bloody awful. For what it's worth, I though most of the effects for The Mummy Returns were horrendously bad. Especially the pygmies.

And for that matter, Ray's work easily outshines almost everything in the Kong remake, apart from Kong himself. The dinosaur stampede I just found odd. I really enjoyed the film, I have to say, but it brings up an interesting point.

Why is it that when I watched stop motion stuff, like Clash of the Titans, Sinbad or The Argonauts, I knew it was an effect, but didn't care? Yet when a poor CGI shot comes on, it's like a slap in the face and can spoil the film.

I think it's because you know that stop motion is painstaking work that takes great care. But I have a sense that while CGI takes similar skill, I associate bad CGI with sheer laziness. Take the new Kong. The title character was an amazing creation that was absolutely convincing, but it's almost like they couldn't be bothered with the dinosaurs in the stampede. Maybe just too ambitious, but I'm still sulking because in other shots you know they are capable of jaw dropping quality.

I think you're completely wrong about the dinosaur stampede sequence.  I have watched the new Kong at least a dozen times, paying particular attention to the CGI sequences.  They are not quite as good as Kong himself, but then they don't need to be.  Those sequences take place at breakneck speed in relation to the story.  I could detect no artifacting or other faults interfacing with the real footage of the actors and the set at the speed the action takes place at. 

Part of the problem today is that we have gotten too sophisticated for our own good.  For a long time, film makers upped the ante on special effects so that every blockbuster that came along was bigger, fancier, more, more, more, etc., than its predecessors.  That forced our level of expectations so high that anything short of perfect was considered poorly done; when in fact even low end CGI of today blows away most special effects from 25 years ago.

Consider:  New cameras and techniques had to be invented for "2001: A Space Odyssey".  Same thing for the original "Star Wars." We've built on that technology for thirty years, and the best of today is so far beyond the best of then that it's hard for people to go back and watch the older movies and really enjoy them because we know how they were made.

Back when Ray Harryhausen was working his magic, most of us were kids, and we didn't give a damn about the "how" - all we cared about was the story, and whether or not it was exciting or scary, etc. We were able to suspend belief and become part of the movie.  People need to learn how to do that again today as adults.  In the case of Kong, I think the new one is much better than the original. For all that, I still love the 1933 version and its look and feel, because it takes me back to when I was kid seeing it for the first time because I still remember how it felt even after more than 50 years.

Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
I think you're completely wrong about the dinosaur stampede sequence.  I have watched the new Kong at least a dozen times, paying particular attention to the CGI sequences.  They are not quite as good as Kong himself, but then they don't need to be.  Those sequences take place at breakneck speed in relation to the story.  I could detect no artifacting or other faults interfacing with the real footage of the actors and the set at the speed the action takes place at.

Techinically you are correct. But I felt there was almost no relation between the actors and the danger. When the smaller raptors(?) try to snap at the humans, in between the legs, I thought they looked like a montage.

That said, I was being flippant to make a point. In truth, the new Kong is probably only guilty of ambition getting ahead of ability. A bit like Empire Strikes Back. Before the Special Edition, the ships had a hazy, cut-out appearance against the daylight or snow. They'd got away with a lot because normally it was a black background.