Open discussion about ILM and the magic they create. Also VFX and movies in general. Anyone can post topics here.

Moderator: malducin

User avatar
By vfx fan
#6415
Okay, here's a topic that I think will probably last a long time: What do you think were the most forgotten/underrated ILM features? As for me, I'd have to say that "Young Sherlock Holmes" is both the most forgotten and underrated feature that ILM has produced to this day. Other notable forgotten/underrated ILM movies would have to be:
  • "Innerspace"
  • "Death Becomes Her"
  • "Small Soldiers"
User avatar
By triplet
#6416
Ever heard of "The Meteor Man?"

Didn't think so. :smile:
User avatar
By vfx fan
#6417
Yes, I've heard of "Meteor Man," I've just not seen it! :razz:
User avatar
By vfx fan
#6418
I believe that Bruce Nicholson was the fx supervisor for "Meteor Man," yes?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: vfx fan on 2002-08-22 20:10 ]</font>
User avatar
By Shane
#6419
A double negative makes it a positive. The correct question would be "I believe Bruce Nicholson was the effects supervisor yes?"

:grin:

And yes, yes he was. Let me pull out my super-ultra-comprehensive list and come up with something.

EDIT:

I mentioned this to Kmart before, but how about Space Rangers? No? Yes? Yo? Nes?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Shane on 2002-08-22 18:52 ]</font>
User avatar
By boneheadfx
#6420
My vote goes to Akira Kurosawa's "Dreams".

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: boneheadfx on 2002-08-22 18:57 ]</font>
User avatar
By triplet
#6422
What about Radioland Murders?
User avatar
By vfx fan
#6424
On 2002-08-22 18:50, Shane wrote:
A double negative makes it a positive. The correct question would be "I believe Bruce Nicholson was the effects supervisor yes?"

Why, I don't know what you're talking about, Shane! I did put "yes!" Try looking again! :razz:
User avatar
By vfx fan
#6425
On 2002-08-22 19:54, triplet wrote:
What about Radioland Murders?

Yes, "Radioland Murders" could qualify as a forgotten movie, but not as an underrated movie, because as far as I'm concerned, the movie was overrated - and critics hated that movie. Imagine how bad it was!
User avatar
By The Cynic
#6432
I'd have to say BABYs DAY OUT. John Knoll was the supervisor. Barely anything has been written up about it. I remember the producers having to explain to the press that the baby in question was never in danger, that all the key scenes were in fact visual effects. For 1994, I think it was way ahead of its time. I'd like to see something written about it..
User avatar
By Frank666
#6438
I think "The Golden Child" belongs here, too. Quite underrates film with some great stuff from the great Ken Ralston.
User avatar
By Ahem
#6441
ILM did BABYS DAY OUT???
Last edited by Ahem on Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By vfx fan
#6446
Well, actually, I haven't seen the movie in quite a long time. Therefore I can't remember much of the fx.

I guess you can say "Impostor" was a forgotten ILM project - for the reason that it was a horrible movie, even though some of the fx were pretty good.
User avatar
By The Cynic
#6448
Ahem, where can I buy that crack you are smoking?

Baker did work on BABYs DAY OUT as well as ILM. While the movie itself wasn't much, the use of CG backgrounds was. I think a lot of what ILM does today was experimented on this film...

I haven't seen the film in a while, so perhaps it doesn't hold up that well. BUT, as I mentioned earlier, the film used techniques like taking a blue screened person (or baby in this case) and placing them in live action, miniature or CG backgrounds. I think this film, as well as RADIOLAND MURDERS, which filled in sets and backgrounds, and introduced the Sabre
compositing system, were groundbreaking.
If it were up to you, Ahem, John Knoll would have been fired. Knoll hasn't done much, has he? :smile:

JUMANJI is another example. Sure, the CG animals look a little 'off' at times, but it was the first time ILM tried CG animals that were not dinosaurs or ghosts. You need a project to try something new. I think these films did that...
_________________
The Cynic

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Cynic on 2002-08-23 10:34 ]</font>
User avatar
By Ahem
#6449
.
Last edited by Ahem on Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By EwanMagic
#6452
On 2002-08-22 19:54, triplet wrote:
What about Radioland Murders?


Ground Breaking in FX history.

"Digitally Image-processing".

Aead of Titanic, Lucas can use the digital technology in RM to do Titanice in 1995 already.
User avatar
By EwanMagic
#6453

JUMANJI is another example. Sure, the CG animals look a little 'off' at times, but it was the first time ILM tried CG animals that were not dinosaurs or ghosts. You need a project to try something new. I think these films did that...
_________________
The Cynic

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Cynic on 2002-08-23 10:34 ]</font>


I think JUMANJI has the BEST CG animals at that time.

Maybe no one try full CG animal before that ,and ILM try to creat that first.
Sure it didn't look 100% like real animal ,but they are best CG animals at that time (besides the monkey-s).
User avatar
By Shane
#6454
I don't want anything he's smokin' as it's destroying his mind!

:razz:

Pull out an old Bond flick Ahem and chill out.
By Kmart
#6455
On 2002-08-23 11:28, EwanMagic wrote:

JUMANJI is another example. Sure, the CG animals look a little 'off' at times, but it was the first time ILM tried CG animals that were not dinosaurs or ghosts. You need a project to try something new. I think these films did that...
_________________
The Cynic

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Cynic on 2002-08-23 10:34 ]</font>


I think JUMANJI has the BEST CG animals at that time.

Maybe no one try full CG animal before that ,and ILM try to creat that first.
Sure it didn't look 100% like real animal ,but they are best CG animals at that time (besides the monkey-s).



It wasn't real enough to get me to see the movie, then or now. The trailers showed the beasts to look distractingly awful, no matter how successful the technical execution was, it was just a joke in appearance.

This is one of those shows that has the second kind of cgi, at least according to the filing system in my mind ... there's computer genearated imagery (that's the good stuff) and then there's computer graphic illustration (which is the cartoony crap.)

When an effect keeps me from seeing a movie, there has to be something really wrong with the effect (or something really wrong with me, which is an equally good bet I suppose ... I never did even bother to catch Spidey or Ep 2, mainly due to the number of shots in ads that fell into that 'computer graphic illustration' category of mine.)
User avatar
By Shane
#6456
Well, since we're on Jumanji let me pipe in. I remember Ralston mentioned in Cinefex about trying to find the right middle-ground for the monkeys in the film. He didn't seem completely satisfied they'd achieved that goal.

The problem with Jumaji is some of the animals seem to be modeled and animated in a naturalistic manner, while the monkeys are more stylized.

There are other parts of the film where the animal's integration into the background plates doesn't look right.

My favorite shots from the film are the house splitting apart and the vine taking the Police car and crushing it.

For a film three years in the making,the plate photography was shot way back in early '94, the effects are hit and miss.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Shane on 2002-08-23 12:15 ]</font>