it's easy to forget just how bad some of the work is
and some of it is rather good too. the ships breaking atmosphere, the life size practical stuff, some of that is really good. but like 75% of it is pretty rough shit. the canyon dogfight between will smith and that alien fighter looks straight out of a 50s b-movie. and so much of the model work is like that. it's shocking on a revisit. and it's not an age thing, it's bad for its time and its budget
big disc ship breaking through is all-time formative cinema going experience. can't remember the bad effects you're talking about, guess I have to watch it again
and i guess this thread is a weird way of saying that so much of this movie's appeal isn't the spectacle, at all. and while that appeal is limited it's interesting to think about how this movie made 800 million with a spectacle that shitty
no way. especially the way it's cut together? i mean bad filmmaking and editing plays a big part here but i guess if this doesn't convince, watch any of the big ship to ship battles and then watch something like return of the jedi as a direct comparison - it's rough
shark week wrote:idk, i have 0 issues with those special effects and i'd say i explicitly prefer them to current action films
i think a lot of us prefer models but there was a point in the mid 90s during the transition to CG where model work fell off, hard. at least for a handful of a big films
endoskeleton wrote: no way. especially the way it's cut together? i mean bad filmmaking and editing plays a big part here but i guess if this doesn't convince, watch any of the big ship to ship battles and then watch something like return of the jedi as a direct comparison - it's rough
endoskeleton wrote: no way. especially the way it's cut together? i mean bad filmmaking and editing plays a big part here but i guess if this doesn't convince, watch any of the big ship to ship battles and then watch something like return of the jedi as a direct comparison - it's rough
it looks like all the 90s james bond movies
which suffered exactly the same fate, sadly. as much as i love goldeneye there's some rough model work in there. though at least it's better directed than it is here, usually
for as good as the practical alien puppet looks when will KOs the thing and then especially later during the autopsy, you've got basically the same puppet after a rough recovery day somewhere as the pilot of whatever of the mothership during the climax
but while i'm not saying it was on purpose I absolutely think it's one of the reasons this film succeeds wildly tbh. like the whole charm of this film is that it's a goofy ass b movie with enough budget for will smith
the giant saucers look kinda nice, honestly, and again them breaking through atmosphere is really good work overall
but then it's like there are effects in escape from new york that look better than some of this stuff on a fraction of the budget and i wonder where some of that budget went. movie set some records for number of effects shots at the time, though, so maybe everyone was just stretched thin to hit a deadline
The ID4 Monument is a time capsule placed in Rachel, Nevada by the producers of Independence Day, which filmed some scenes in Rachel, in 1996.[1] The time capsule is installed in front of the Little A’Le’Inn and is intended to be open in 2050.
i like this movie. i find it charming for reasons much of the board probably does, even legitimately good in a few moments. but i don't think it's hard to see how rough some of the work is, even if you find it charming
i don't think this becomes a discussion of practical effects versus cgi because even in its time it wasn't a high water mark for special effects. it was just hyped through the roof, put together rapidly and you can see all the corners cut. i doubt emmerich had much input on many of the effects shots and it really shows, i think.
whereas you put it next to something like ROTJ's space battle climax and you can see the collaboration and care onscreen. this desire to get a sense of movement, composition and three dimensionality from these 2d layers of composited model shots. all the tricks that movie borrowed from traditional 2d animation to create depth and presence. so that even when it's rough, it works cinematically
you get so little of that in independence day beyond the first 30 minutes or so
i don't think you have to know anything about this stuff to see when it works and when it doesn't, at least in terms of filmmaking. i think anyone with eyes could see what a mess of space and movement some of the big battles are, whether you enjoy the movie despite this or not