lilmac Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 FX heavy films that don't use ILM (Avatar being the exception). See Lord of the Rings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 FX heavy films that don't use ILM (Avatar being the exception). See Lord of the Rings.That might've been true in the 80s, but it really hasn't been since the early/mid-90s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainJackSparrow Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Finding Nemo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainJackSparrow Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Gravity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 ^^ Now you're just being a post whore. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainJackSparrow Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Well to be honest, Finding Nemo wasn't as good as I remembered it to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainJackSparrow Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Poltergeist. And Close Encounter of the Third Kind. And Batman 1989. All those movies suck IMO, but I would have probably liked them when they first came out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webslinger Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Finding Nemo has aged just fine. The animation isn't quite as sharp as the CGI standard these days, but the themes about familial bonds are still potent, and the excitement among even twentysomethings when the sequel was announced earlier this year is evidence enough that it's still beloved for the most part. If there's any big hit from 10 years ago that feels really dated now, it's Bringing Down the House. Although it maintains guilty pleasure status for me, the slang and the way two of the characters so nonchalantly drop one of the big no-no homophobic slurs date it pretty squarely to the early-'00s. All that's missing is a mention of the war in Iraq... which got underway while the movie was still #1 at the box office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 CLOSE ENCOUNTERS is an all-time classic. That being said, for being a VFX-heavy blockbuster, it's definitely aimed at a slightly older crowd than most spectacle movies (especially these days). 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilmac Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 That might've been true in the 80s, but it really hasn't been since the early/mid-90s. I was really referring to WETA which I think is overrated and still riding the success of gollem. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Stingray Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 The original Superman movies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LexJoker Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Pretty obvious candidate but Wrath of Khan has not aged well at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloneWars Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 I think effects wise, Gravity will really hold up, but I can see others feeling like it is boring in 20 years time and not appreciating it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Marvel Fanboy Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 All VFX drived movies age quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Poltergeist. And Close Encounter of the Third Kind. And Batman 1989. All those movies suck IMO, but I would have probably liked them when they first came out. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 The original Superman movies. And yet they were visuals wonders when they were first made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rukaio101 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Pretty obvious candidate but Wrath of Khan has not aged well at all. Couldn't disagree more. While the effects in WoK aren't spectacular they're far from being particularly bad and everything else about the movie (story, characters, etc) more than holds up. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Gittes Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 I saw the first two Superman films with Reeve for the first time this year and enjoyed them just fine - hell, more than most comic book movies of the past few years. I wouldn't say they've aged any worse than Jaws or Star Wars or Close Encounters. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Stingray Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Way too campy, which some might find charming, but I think its too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webslinger Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Even with their campiness, I love the first two Superman movies. They may be campy, but they have heart and they remain quite entertaining. I'll take them over Man of Steel any day of the week. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
