Top 50 movie special effects shots

[suttercain]

Using stumble upon I came across this really nice list of "Top 50 movie special effects shots". Most of which also have videos attached to the scene described.

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/177951/top_50_movie_special_effects_shots.html

Some of the highlights for me were:
47: Saving Private Ryan (1998) - Bullets in the water.
42: The Abyss (1989) - loss of tension.
35: Transformers (2007) - Slow-motion motorway pursuit.
22: Dawn Of The Dead (2004) - The chaos sets in.
19: Back To The Future Part II (1989) - Landing the DeLorean at night.
17: The Road To Perdition (2002) - Entering Chicago.
15: The Last Starfighter (1984) - Starfighter leaves orbit.
6: The Birds (1963) - Destruction of Capitol Oil garage.
4: The Lost World (1997) - T-Rex takes a drink.
1: Jurassic Park (1992) - T-Rex investigates the light.

[The Zapper]

I saw this list too. I wasn't all that impressed.

[ultramandingo]

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/9919/triptothemoontq3.jpg[/URL]

[Asmith]

All those choices seem very whiz-bang.
But I like my special effects a little quieter. Like from Forest Gump, the butterflies launching out of the field of flowers. Or the way dappled shadows were played over two characters to fit the sentiment of their conversation. (Shame Gump was such a horrible film though. No SFX could improve the story).

For a bit more brash SFX, I'd have gone the Jurasic Park seeing long necked dinos eating trees for the very first time. Non-threatening, no T-Rex, no teeth. Just beauty and wonder.

And for way over the top SFX, I'd go with Close Encounters space ship landing. Awe inspiring. And all model based too!

Of interesting note, Tron, that 80s leader in computer graphic SFX was not considered for an Oscar for its effects as the judges felt that by using computers instead of models, their work didn't really count. Times have changed...

[the goddamn batman]

Interesting that there's no Lord of the Rings on that list... unless I missed it.

[Stressfactor]

Sorry, but the 'bullets in the water' bit is, to borrow a phrase from the Brits, bollocks.

My dad worked for Winchester Western making bullets he often got to see them test fired. Mythbusters also covered this one awhile back. Most bullets will shatter on impact with water. You would have to be firing at JUST the right angle and with a pretty damn high caliber weapon to actually get the bullet past the surface tension of the water. Even with a high caliber weapon the bullets don't get very far before losing their momentum.

Water. It's tough stuff. That's why people who jump off bridges die.

[Wolf-Man]

The opening of the original Star Wars, where the giant Star Destroyer comes over the top of the camera.

[Asmith]

Sorry, but the 'bullets in the water' bit is, to borrow a phrase from the Brits, bollocks.

My dad worked for Winchester Western making bullets he often got to see them test fired. Mythbusters also covered this one awhile back. Most bullets will shatter on impact with water. You would have to be firing at JUST the right angle and with a pretty damn high caliber weapon to actually get the bullet past the surface tension of the water. Even with a high caliber weapon the bullets don't get very far before losing their momentum.

Water. It's tough stuff. That's why people who jump off bridges die.
I didn't know that! Cool, I've learnt something. Though bullets in water always looks pretty nifty.

I suppose it's a bit like how movies always have bullets sending off sparks when they hit things, metal, concrete, stone, wood... bullets, generally speaking, doesn't spark.

Or when an actor gets shot with a handgun he gets sent flying back about 8 feet... usually through a window. That's a hell of a powerful hand gun... hard to believe it doesn't break the shooters arm off...

The opening of the original Star Wars, where the giant Star Destroyer comes over the top of the camera.

Another truly great model shot!

[GozertheGozarian]

Sorry, but the 'bullets in the water' bit is, to borrow a phrase from the Brits, bollocks.

My dad worked for Winchester Western making bullets he often got to see them test fired. Mythbusters also covered this one awhile back. Most bullets will shatter on impact with water. You would have to be firing at JUST the right angle and with a pretty damn high caliber weapon to actually get the bullet past the surface tension of the water. Even with a high caliber weapon the bullets don't get very far before losing their momentum.

Water. It's tough stuff. That's why people who jump off bridges die.
High speed, high calibre disintigrates on impact. Lower muzzle velocity penetrates better.

[GozertheGozarian]

I didn't know that! Cool, I've learnt something. Though bullets in water always looks pretty nifty.

I suppose it's a bit like how movies always have bullets sending off sparks when they hit things, metal, concrete, stone, wood... bullets, generally speaking, doesn't spark.

Or when an actor gets shot with a handgun he gets sent flying back about 8 feet... usually through a window. That's a hell of a powerful hand gun... hard to believe it doesn't break the shooters arm off...



Another truly great model shot!
Mythbusters covered those too. One of the movie myth episodes.

[the goddamn batman]

Water. It's tough stuff. That's why people who jump off bridges die.

yeah it's harder than hitting concrete... or so I've been told. More dense or something? I don't remember.

Bottom line: don't fuck with water.

[2-4-5_Trioxin]

I cant believe they didnt include somethings from like clash of titans as it had alot of really good stuff in its day.

Or hell the boulder scene from raiders of the lost ark still is more exciting and better looking than any 100 million dollar action movie made today.

[Stressfactor]

High speed, high calibre disintigrates on impact. Lower muzzle velocity penetrates better.

True. If you really wanted to shoot someone in the water a Civil War or even Revolutionary War era weapon would be a better bet. Of course, again, they don't get very far before they loose momentum.

With that "Saving Private Ryan" bit there is really no WAY those bullets would do that to people. I mean, go through the water, go through human body mass and come out the other side? *shakes head at the stupidity*

Course, like I said, I had a dad.... I actually used to have an illegal hollow point bullet on my keychain. Winchester Western started making a hollow point called a Black Talon back years ago. then the gov't outlawed Hollow Points except to law enforcement agencies or the military. My dad took one of the early Black Talons -- a .45 calibre if I remember correctly -- off the assembly line before it had the firing pin put in. He put a cotter pin with a keychain loop in place of the firing pin and gave it to me.

He also had some of the spent Black Talons -- showing what they looked like after they had been fired into something. He got to see the Black Talon fired into a tank of water, ballistics gel, and into a human-sim dummy dressed in average clothes. I'll spare you what he described the dummy looking like afte the bullet went into it.

He actually described a lot of bullet test firings to me... we used to watch movies on TV quite often and seeing a lot of what Hollywood got wrong really drove him crazy.

[GozertheGozarian]

Black talons? Those things are ugly. Heard some nasty stories involving those things before they were banned.

[Cyke]

Were the soldiers in Saving Private Ryan really that far deep underwater? I saw the Mythbusters episode as well, and I thought the bullets could still work up to a certain depth. But eh, I'm neither a soldier nor a scientist (that's right, society. I'm useless.).

[suttercain]

Sorry, but the 'bullets in the water' bit is, to borrow a phrase from the Brits, bollocks.


I didn't know that! Cool, I've learnt something. Though bullets in water always looks pretty nifty.


I didn't know that either. Here is a pretty cool youtube video that almost looks like the Bourne bullets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRqYJvtZVJY&feature=related

[Stressfactor]

Black talons? Those things are ugly. Heard some nasty stories involving those things before they were banned.

Yep. Nasty. Like I said, my dad described what the human-sim dummy looked like after the bullet had gone into it. Of course, if anyone had heard the coversation they might have wondered what a guy was doing telling his young daughter this stuff.

I carried the keychain around just for a kind of conversation piece. Usually someone would notice it and the dialogue would go a bit like this:

"Is that a bullet?"
"Yep. Hollow point."
"Seriously? That is a REAL hollow point bullet?!"
"Yes."
"So, like, I could put that in a gun and fire it?"
"No. Because it doesn't have a firing pin."

I eventually took it off my key chain because it was getting a bit battered and scratched looking. Don't know where it got to now but I've probably got it around somewhere.

Dad had a plain, old, classic rifle bullet on a keychain for himself that he carried for years.

I know, he sounds like a gun nut but honestly we never had a gun in the house, not ever, and he never went hunting.

[Stressfactor]

Were the soldiers in Saving Private Ryan really that far deep underwater? I saw the Mythbusters episode as well, and I thought the bullets could still work up to a certain depth. But eh, I'm neither a soldier nor a scientist (that's right, society. I'm useless.).
It's hard to tell from the clip how deep underwater they are and I've only seen bits and parts of the movie and never that particular scene.

As Gozer mentioned lower muzzle velocity bullets penetrated deeper, the higher velocity stuff shattered on the surface. I'm no expert on WW II weapons but I would imagine that the muzzle velocity was probably pretty high on those guns. Depending on how far the bullets traveled, though, before impacting the water they MIGHT have been slow enough to penetrate the surface and if the men were VERY close to the surface and if the water was VERY churned up -- breaking the surface tension then, theoretically, the bullets might make impact.

The thing is, though, that after losing enough velocity traveling to go INTO the water, then losing even more velocity even traveling just a few inches underwater (and from the clip it looked like these guys were at least a foot under water), then losing even MORE velocity by impacting human meat there is no WAY that bullet would have still had enough momentum to go out the other side of the soldiers' bodies.

It was special effect gore and shock value for a scene that really didn't need any. Enough soldiers died from bullets and grenades and mortar shells.

[GozertheGozarian]

Three feet. That's all the further you need to be for nearly any modern firearm to be nonlethal.

[Stressfactor]

I didn't know that either. Here is a pretty cool youtube video that almost looks like the Bourne bullets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRqYJvtZVJY&feature=related

Related to that: Here is a Discovery Channel piece on researchers at MIT who are working on making bullets that CAN go underwater without going off course, fragmenting, or losing so much velocity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLT7rOrL_a8&feature=related

Although I'm not sure WHY all this time is being invested to make a bullet that can be shot at something or someone underwater when there already exist weapons that will do the job much more efficiently.

[Stressfactor]

Three feet. That's all the further you need to be for nearly any modern firearm to be nonlethal.
And for several of them even less so.

Also, as the Discovery channel clip I posted above shows, bullets tend to start veering off course and skipping when the impact the water. So that was another place where the Saving Private Ryan clip is wrong -- you will notice that the bullets travel through the water in a perfectly straight trajectory.

Eh, what it all boils down to is that Hollywood can be stupid. Gun recoils that miraculously don't break shoulders, bullets that bounce OFF cars instead of plowing through them (despite the fact that cars have been more tinfoil than sheet metal for decades), people getting shot through the shoulder and yet it's treated like 'just a flesh wound', etc.

[GozertheGozarian]

And for several of them even less so.

Like the .50. That was crazy.

[Cyke]

Related to that: Here is a Discovery Channel piece on researchers at MIT who are working on making bullets that CAN go underwater without going off course, fragmenting, or losing so much velocity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLT7rOrL_a8&feature=related

Although I'm not sure WHY all this time is being invested to make a bullet that can be shot at something or someone underwater when there already exist weapons that will do the job much more efficiently.

Because spear guns have no effect on James Bond and Race Bannon?

[StoneGold]

The last minute or of the first Spider-Man movie.

[Jared]

I don't know where it is on that list, (I'm sure it must be somewhere) but I never really got what was so amazing about the Bullet Time shots in The Matrix. Don't get me wrong, it looked cool, but just from watching the movie I never would have assumed it was somehow groundbreaking. "It's slow motion with the camera moving around, and some CG bullets added, big deal." Of course they actually had to invent a whole new system to do that, with dozens of cameras firing in sequence all around the subject...I never got why. I thought Deacon Frost dodging the bullets in Blade a couple years earlier was one of the coolest things I ever saw on film.

[The Zapper]

I don't remember seeing Matrix bullet time being on the list, and I agree that it's vastly overrated.

[Cyke]

I don't know where it is on that list, (I'm sure it must be somewhere) but I never really got what was so amazing about the Bullet Time shots in The Matrix. Don't get me wrong, it looked cool, but just from watching the movie I never would have assumed it was somehow groundbreaking. "It's slow motion with the camera moving around, and some CG bullets added, big deal." Of course they actually had to invent a whole new system to do that, with dozens of cameras firing in sequence all around the subject...I never got why. I thought Deacon Frost dodging the bullets in Blade a couple years earlier was one of the coolest things I ever saw on film.

Actually, I think the whole Matrix-bullet time effect was invented for a GAP television commercial campaign (and if it wasn't invented for those ads, they still predate the Matrix), and the only innovative thing the Matrix team did was apply that technology for the big screen and for action scenes. That could be why it's not on the list (if it was ever considered to be in the top 50, that is).

[Asmith]

Eh, what it all boils down to is that Hollywood can be stupid. Gun recoils that miraculously don't break shoulders, bullets that bounce OFF cars instead of plowing through them (despite the fact that cars have been more tinfoil than sheet metal for decades), people getting shot through the shoulder and yet it's treated like 'just a flesh wound', etc.

How many times have we seen the hero survive a hail of automatic rifle fire by hiding behind a couch? I mean what is the back of a couch made of?? Two bits of cloth and 5 inches of loose wadding?

I don't know where it is on that list, (I'm sure it must be somewhere) but I never really got what was so amazing about the Bullet Time shots in The Matrix. Don't get me wrong, it looked cool, but just from watching the movie I never would have assumed it was somehow groundbreaking. ... I thought Deacon Frost dodging the bullets in Blade a couple years earlier was one of the coolest things I ever saw on film.

I thought the kung-fu master dodging bullets in Remo: Unarmed and Dangerous, was the cat's whiskers. And all he did was twist side to side. Looked great.

[Cyke]

How many times have we seen the hero survive a hail of automatic rifle fire by hiding behind a couch? I mean what is the back of a couch made of?? Two bits of cloth and 5 inches of loose wadding?

That reminds me of this one action sequence in 24, where Jack Bauer is in a shootout with a would-be assassin inside someone's home. The assailant hides behind a corner while exchanging gunfire. Jack Bauer remembers that real life isn't a cliche and that house walls are made of drywall. He simply shoots through the wall, the bullet coming out of the perpendicular wall and hitting the assailant.

[Stressfactor]

That reminds me of this one action sequence in 24, where Jack Bauer is in a shootout with a would-be assassin inside someone's home. The assailant hides behind a corner while exchanging gunfire. Jack Bauer remembers that real life isn't a cliche and that house walls are made of drywall. He simply shoots through the wall, the bullet coming out of the perpendicular wall and hitting the assailant.
They used that in the pilot for the TV series "Burn Notice" as well two years ago. Although in that case Michael Weston had figured out where a guy would stand to open his door then he knocked on the door and when the guy went to answer it... BLAM!... right in the leg.

[Stressfactor]

One that really surprised me not to be on the list is the last sequence of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" -- I mean the "angels" suddenly turning ugly and all the Nazis' faces melting off -- the scene still looks impressive today.

Also, the Hoth battle in "Empire Strikes Back" -- mainly because, at the time it was done, most special effects guys in the business said that special effects couldn't be done against a white background -- it wouldn't work -- but Lucas did it anyway and it worked amazingly well for the time.

[DonC]

My pick for best special effects scene is the balcony scene in Superman: The Movie. Lois is talking to Superman after their "Can You Read My Mind" flight, then he flies off and--bam!--Clark Kent is at her apartment door. One continuous shot, with Christopher Reeve as both Superman and Clark. For years I wondered how they did that. Nowadays, with CGI and all that, it's easy. But back in 1979? I had no idea. That, to me, is a good effects shot. I was actually a little disappointed when I found out how it was done. "Superman" was preshot footage shown on a rear projection screen. Lois "talked" to him, then he flew away. Leaving Lois free to meet Clark at her door.

I also like the shots where you can't tell an effect is being used. There's a scene in Sin City where Nancy is talking to Marv, but Jessica Alba and Mickey Rourke both filmed their parts seperately.

[Black Atom]

And for several of them even less so.

Also, as the Discovery channel clip I posted above shows, bullets tend to start veering off course and skipping when the impact the water. So that was another place where the Saving Private Ryan clip is wrong -- you will notice that the bullets travel through the water in a perfectly straight trajectory.

Eh, what it all boils down to is that Hollywood can be stupid. Gun recoils that miraculously don't break shoulders, bullets that bounce OFF cars instead of plowing through them (despite the fact that cars have been more tinfoil than sheet metal for decades), people getting shot through the shoulder and yet it's treated like 'just a flesh wound', etc.

It's not really stupidity. The point of movies is not to educate you, but to entertain you. The guys that put effects together are engineers who have a pretty good understanding of how such things actually work. Their job is to make it look more interesting than it does in real life.

[Cyke]

They used that in the pilot for the TV series "Burn Notice" as well two years ago. Although in that case Michael Weston had figured out where a guy would stand to open his door then he knocked on the door and when the guy went to answer it... BLAM!... right in the leg.

Oh, hello! Another Burn Notice fan! The pleasure is all mine :)

[Stressfactor]

How can you not love a series that is part MacGyver, part James Bond, and all snarky, sarcastic humor with Bruce Campbell playing an ageing parody of himself?

Plus Jeffrey Donovan doing a LOT of scenes shirtless....... Mmmmm......

[Stressfactor]

It's not really stupidity. The point of movies is not to educate you, but to entertain you. The guys that put effects together are engineers who have a pretty good understanding of how such things actually work. Their job is to make it look more interesting than it does in real life.
The problem is, when they push the envelope too far then people can't believe it anymore and then you get eyerolls in place of enjoyment.

In some ways I think CGI has hurt Hollywood. As I said in conversation with a friend of mine once: "CGI allows directors to do so MUCH now that there are a lot of them out there who seem to do stuff because they CAN and don't stop to ask themselves whether or not they SHOULD."

[Hoss]

The problem is, when they push the envelope too far then people can't believe it anymore and then you get eyerolls in place of enjoyment.

In some ways I think CGI has hurt Hollywood. As I said in conversation with a friend of mine once: "CGI allows directors to do so MUCH now that there are a lot of them out there who seem to do stuff because they CAN and don't stop to ask themselves whether or not they SHOULD."

The moment you become aware something is CGI and not real can really break the emotional tension in a film. As much as I like Gladiator, there are a number of times that the movie just yanks you out because the CGI light on the Roman buildings isn't quite right. Of course, when they get it seemless like it appeared in Jurassic Park on the big screen it is priceless.

[Ontir]

The opening tracking shot in a Touch of Evil!

Just amazing! Around the town, up the wall, through the window and into the room - on location?!?

The Id Monster from Forbidden Planet.

The morphing T-1000 from T2.

That's my start.

[Sean Walsh]

For a bit more brash SFX, I'd have gone the Jurasic Park seeing long necked dinos eating trees for the very first time. Non-threatening, no T-Rex, no teeth. Just beauty and wonder.

That wasn't on the list? Well, forget clicking that link.

Of everything in the JP movies, THAT was the moment of pure perfection - it was the best way to first see them (any dino lover would wish they could see dinosaurs in that environment) and it was the best way to people reacting to seeing them.

[Black Atom]

The problem is, when they push the envelope too far then people can't believe it anymore and then you get eyerolls in place of enjoyment.

Yeah, but the average person doesn't have much practical experience with stuff like guns or explosions anyway, so you can push that envelope pretty far.

In some ways I think CGI has hurt Hollywood. As I said in conversation with a friend of mine once: "CGI allows directors to do so MUCH now that there are a lot of them out there who seem to do stuff because they CAN and don't stop to ask themselves whether or not they SHOULD."

Your friend is Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park?

Kidding. You're absolutely right, though.

[the goddamn batman]

Really guys? ARe we really discussing the reality of an effects shot?

Can we discuss flying Delorians next?:biggrin:

[jesse_custer]

This list is bollocks. T-Rex drinking water in the top 10? What the fuck.

[Asmith]

Really guys? ARe we really discussing the reality of an effects shot?

Can we discuss flying Delorians next?:biggrin:

The practical effects of the hover boards from Back to the Future II (which I just watched again yesterday) were very nice and convincing. Certainly better than the films green screen hover board effect shots which looked a bit too obviously fake.

The practical effect was done a varierty of ways. One of them being just hanging the actor on a wires and strapping the board to their foot. It looked fantastic and I (and thousand of others) have wanted a pretty pink Barbie Matel Hover Board ever since!

I'd like to see more practical effects over computer whiz-bang ones. Where possible. But it seems today that the first and only option is to do it CGI.

[Stressfactor]

That was one thing I appreciated about Nolan's "Batman Begins" -- he was determined to do as much as possible in practical effects and it really showed. I know there are TONS of people who disagree with me but I think large swaths of "Batman Begins" looked a lot better than large swaths of "Spider-Man" because you really could see the difference between the practical effects and the CGI.



P.S., NOT saying that "Spider-Man" was a bad movie -- just that I like the practical above the CGI and I think you can tell the difference a lot of times. For example, not long ago I went back and looked at the first of the Harry Potter movies and all those scenes with the kids zipping around on broomsticks? It's not even that old and already those scenes are ageing badly.

[the goddamn batman]

Agreed about Nolan and his desire to do as much as he can without CGI. The CG in TDK is pretty minimal... and I'm not sure I can spot what's what without having to think about how they'd have done that first.

The practical effects of the hover boards from Back to the Future II (which I just watched again yesterday) were very nice and convincing. Certainly better than the films green screen hover board effect shots which looked a bit too obviously fake.

The practical effect was done a varierty of ways. One of them being just hanging the actor on a wires and strapping the board to their foot. It looked fantastic and I (and thousand of others) have wanted a pretty pink Barbie Matel Hover Board ever since!



Dude, I totally watched it yesterday, too! Weird.

[the goddamn batman]

Also, Aliens is an SFX wonder. The Stan Winston commentary is mind blowing.

[jesse_custer]

There Will Be Blood's special effects were fucking spectacular (and oddly enough, underappreciated).

[Asmith]

That was one thing I appreciated about Nolan's "Batman Begins" -- he was determined to do as much as possible in practical effects and it really showed. I know there are TONS of people who disagree with me but I think large swaths of "Batman Begins" looked a lot better than large swaths of "Spider-Man" because you really could see the difference between the practical effects and the CGI.
I thought his choice to show Bats being dragged along by the monorail by dragging a stuntman via wire right down a city block long set of... um... a city block, looked great! I just don't believe that it would of looked as good if they'd gone into the computer to do that.

For example, not long ago I went back and looked at the first of the Harry Potter movies and all those scenes with the kids zipping around on broomsticks? It's not even that old and already those scenes are ageing badly.
I remember that the broomsticks were highly critised at the time. The ogre fight scene is pretty poor as well with the little cgi Harry.

Dude, I totally watched it yesterday, too! Weird.
Well just wait till you get to the third installment! It's the best of the entire series, don't cha' know...

[suttercain]

Anyone see the new trailer for the "Last House on the Left (http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/thelasthouseontheleft/hd/)" remake? A scene with a bullet into the water.

In other news this looks like shit.

[Stressfactor]

I thought his choice to show Bats being dragged along by the monorail by dragging a stuntman via wire right down a city block long set of... um... a city block, looked great! I just don't believe that it would of looked as good if they'd gone into the computer to do that. Yeah, that was awesome. I also liked that they actually flew Bale and his stuntman around on wires as well and for that scene where Batman got set on fire they actually set a stuntman on fire.


I remember that the broomsticks were highly critised at the time. The ogre fight scene is pretty poor as well with the little cgi Harry. Ooooh yeah, that's really ugly. In point of fact, a lot of the "magic" effects look bad now. About the only stuff that looks decent are some of the owl scenes with the CGI owls.

[Asmith]

Yeah, that was awesome. I also liked that they actually flew Bale and his stuntman around on wires as well and for that scene where Batman got set on fire they actually set a stuntman on fire.

There just isn't enough practical stunts these days. Take a look at the Star Wars prequels, or the Matrix sequels for that matter. Everytime they required a character to jump and leap about, they'd go to cgi. And it would look like it too.

The big Agent Smith fight in Matrix II, with the hundred odd cgi Agents attacking cgi Keanu, looked shocking. Like a relatively decent Playstation game cut scene. But the fight choreographer of that scene went on to do an almost blow by blow recreation of it in Kung-Fu Hussle, but this time with wire work and live actors. It was a cheap production but that fight looked spectacular!

CGI is a wonderful boon to film. Especially when used with a light touch - like several scenes in Forest Gump. But as realistic as it can look, nothing looks as real as reality. Well, as yet, anyway.

[kmeyers]

yeah it's harder than hitting concrete... or so I've been told. More dense or something? I don't remember.

Bottom line: don't fuck with water.

That's why you should always listen to Bruce Lee, and BE water.

[mgs]

Although I'm not sure WHY all this time is being invested to make a bullet that can be shot at something or someone underwater when there already exist weapons that will do the job much more efficiently.
I think it's odd that they are doing this. And I wonder about the, if any, questions the students have about making such a thing. I love shooting guns and stuff, but I mean, they are making something that can and will kill someone. What is their thinking on this? And how long will it be for the military to sell this to the rest of the world to kill?

Anyone see the new trailer for the "Last House on the Left (http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/thelasthouseontheleft/hd/)" remake? A scene with a bullet into the water.
as i've said on IMDB, I can't believe they are remaking this and making it seem like a redemptive story of overcoming tragedy...

[suttercain]

as i've said on IMDB, I can't believe they are remaking this and making it seem like a redemptive story of overcoming tragedy...

I just watched the original for the first time a couple months back and found it pretty tame for what I was expecting. All in all I found it pretty bad. The remake looks worse. Wes Craven seems to just remake his movies now. Sad.

[mgs]

oh, btw, though that list was okay, I liked they provided the links for actual scenes! :biggrin:

These days, though the big FX can be fun, I mostly enjoy some of the littler things, like the way the Hobbit's POV was shown in the Rings trilogy and in Conan the Barbarian, on the commentary, there was an FX with the background and all, and the director explained what he did.

This is something that I even catch nowadays in more modern shows and movies, that they obviously didn't care or know how to fix.

[mgs]

I just watched the original for the first time a couple months back and found it pretty tame for what I was expecting. All in all I found it pretty bad.
interesting...but I mean, I find the original TCM in a bit of the same way, but still I know their disturbing images are the best, over today's horror imaging....