Jump to content

Dated Special Effects, Set Design or Concepts in Sci-fi


Recommended Posts

I fail to see how a planet consisting solely of a desert with no standing bodies of water -- Tatooine -- could support a wide variety of fauna as well as sentient humanoids.

Well Tattooine could have had water in the past and desertised slowly over million years... and the creatures who lived there adapted to it. Many animals from the sahara drink water from the plants or animals they eat and the moist that condensates over things in the morning. And there are clouds in the sky so some water in the planet there is... it could rain once in a while, like in real deserts.

And water can be found under the earth, excavating wells, the tuskens could well have some like the people who live in the desert in pour planet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 184
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh rubbish, you're just apologizing for George.

On Earth, life began in the oceans, and eventually moved to the deserts because life does that: it fills every ecological niche where it is possible to survive. But only in the oceans were the conditions right for life to actually begin.

Humans are that special form of life that is willing to learn to live anywhere at all possible, especially if it's possible to find fortune, spiritual satisfaction, or just enough elbow room to raise a family. The monkeys didn't climb out of the trees in the desert; they got there on foot, liked it, and stayed.

The other thing to realize that Earth's deserts are never more than a few hundred miles from the nearest ocean or rainforest, which can eventually provide life-giving water in the form of rain or via pipe or pump. That's not true on Tatooine. It only looks possible with its pretty blue sky and puffy clouds because Star Wars was filmed on Earth!

I admit that if I want to bash Lucas for being lazy with Tatooine's ecology, then I should also bash Frank Herbert for creating Arrakis and claiming that it too could support plants, animals, and people on its barren landscape. George just never goes into any kind of historical detail on Tatooine* to explain whether a prehistoric ocean, long since evaporated or sunken, first seeded life on the planet, and just enough liquid water remained to attract people looking for a way to make a buck, farm the vapor, or avoid Imperial entanglements.

* KOTOR 1 does, but it's not primary canon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit that if I want to bash Lucas for being lazy with Tatooine's ecology, then I should also bash Frank Herbert for creating Arrakis and claiming that it too could support plants, animals, and people on its barren landscape.

If I remember it correctly, current changed Arrakis didn't support shit, other than the sandworm cycle (which doesn't make sense but it's cool). The presence of other things is due to terraforming actions. Arrakis' original life had disappeared with most of its water.

Arrakis is similar to what we could have if we reduced Venus' atmosphere to around 100 kPa and braked icy bodies on the top of it to provide humidity, plus some Mars-styled dunes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your memory is pretty good.

Arrakis' water is trapped deep underground by the sandtrout, making the planet habitable for the large sandworms for whom water is lethal, but little else. Sparse grasses do grow as the Fremen try to terraform the planet over generations, and small animals dwell on the surface like desert mice -- remember, Muad'Dib is the Fremen word for that critter. But people are not indigenous to Arrakis, since the storyline of Herbert's first novel takes place about 20,000 years in our own future. All the people in the Dune saga have a common homeworld -- Earth. This one. It's only when Paul's second son takes the sandtrout onto his body that the liquid water in all the Fremen sietches and deep underground is released, turning Arrakis into a verdant paradise hostile to shai halud. The balance is restored upon the death of the God Emperor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My beautiful thread!

Steef, I read somewhere that Destination Moon had some accurate stuff for its time, and Robert Heinlein worked on it. I haven't seen it but you asked. :)

Edit: Actually I just found the entire film on Youtube. A quick look reminds me of Tintin!

Now to think about it, Hergé performed wonderfully, other than a pair of misinterpretations here and there of the material he researched. Very rocket-punk. (well it wasn't rocket-punk then, back then it would be kind of hard...)

I think the suits would be white today (lol and in the 60's), for emphasis on avoiding overheating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

um russian cosmonauts wore orange suit, didnt they?

Maybe you mean this http://en.wikipedia..../SK-1_spacesuit I think it was for landing.

Depends on the purpose. The Moon reflects a LOT of sunlight. Also some Russian models are more similar to a personal mini-spacecraft (I'm thinking Orlan type suits), more so than the EMU styled suits so maybe they have more elaborate cooling systems. I dunno.

I think the typical orange suit you see is used during launch and reentry and they use that color for visual reasons. http://en.wikipedia....rew_Escape_Suit Other than this I'm not finding any orange space suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we need to make a distinction. Films that meant to look futuristic (Star Wars, Alien, Logan's Run, ...) and those that don't (Jurassic Park, Westworld, Contact, ... )

Logan's Run really looks silly now. Did it ever look good?

I think the opening model shot from Logan's Run still looks amazing.

You guys are right: "Logan's Run" is probably the most kitch-looking of all "Sci Fi" movies, but it's great fun to watch!

The opening shot is still pretty good, I agree, especially with the score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read many of the posts here, not all, but I'm still laughing at the notion that Star Wars looks so 70's while Empire looks 80's.

Empire was shot in the 70's and looks terrific, as does Star Wars.

Empire's sets are impressive, but none moreso than the carbonite chamber set. It is the single most spectacular set in the Star Wars universe. The sequence that begin's Luke and Vader's duel in Empire is the total package. A masterful blend of art direction, cinematography, editing, acting, directing, and scoring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read many of the posts here, not all, but I'm still laughing at the notion that Star Wars looks so 70's while Empire looks 80's.

Empire was shot in the 70's and looks terrific, as does Star Wars.

Yes, but you can clearly see the difference between the '70s look of Star Wars and a more timesless look of Empire. That's the real difference, Empire doesn't look '80s, it looks timeless. The Terminator, Aliens, Starship Troopers, Total Recall look '80s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Alien, a '70s movie, looks more modern (or less 'dated') than anything Verhoeven did in the '80s or the '90s. Verhoeven's movies remind me of cheap sci-fi titles which you could find in video rental stores during the '80s. You know, the ones you never wanted to see.

The Fifth Element is from 1997 and that I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except the quality of effects, it looks '80s in just about everything ... style, aesthetics, lighting, sets, ... I'm surprised that it's made in 1997.

189669.1010.A.jpg

That poster is unknown to me. I can see why you rooted it out though - to support your argument.

Starship-Troopers.jpg

That's the poster most people are familiar with. Starship Troopers does not look eighties at all. It couldn't look more nineties if it tried.

2241654YbaW%2BS0Nk9IrXO0QCnIQawdIBHTqZL2AId_hyIjlV1i5vlLma%2BInCuf%2BWGyZGONpFG54BcGDKzs2m9EcdXUIwQ.jpg

600full-starship-troopers-screenshot.jpg

3e8cdf9fb3fe2e2b0c4a1a848e05eca9.jpg

The film shares a very similar aesthetic to other sci-fi of the era. Stargate, Star Trek: Voyager and even seaQuest DSV. Nineties pulp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like a mishmash of 80s and 90s. Either way, not timeless or anything.

A movie like Empire Strikes Back has aged very well. Only some of the hairstyles and wardrobe may appear to have originated from its era. Since they adjusted the snow battle, that scene is perfect for all time. Well, except the colors are all screwed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quint, you sorta posted the same photo over and over again. But it doesn't matter, the colors, the video look, the Marine suits that are a bad, almost spoofy copy of the Marines in Aliens, which is from 1986. Last time I saw Aliens it reminded me of Starship Troopers.That's why both movies looks so damn eighties to me. Thanks for making my case. How this strikes you as very '90s is a mystery to me.

Actually, it's not a mystery to me. These are the precious movies from your childhood and you consider them untouchable and holy. You are letting nostalgia get in the way of good judgement. Either way, the photos prove the dated look.

paxton.jpg

In fact, Aliens (1986) looks less dated than Starship Troopers (1997).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're wrong about Starship Troopers looking like an eightees movie (it parodies one at best, but it's unmistakably a product of the nineties), if you can't see it it's because you're going blind, seriously - you're talking shit here, and you're wrong in your assumption that it's a movie from my "precious childhood". I was 20 and sharing a student's bedsit with a girlfriend at the time.

Frankly, I find it amusing that someone who considers themselves a connoisseur of filmic aesthetics (oh how he does!) evidently can't tell their arse from their elbow when it comes to daft sci-fi schlock-fest Starship Troopers.

Anyway, if the debate is to continue I suggest you pursue a different line of attack than the subjective attachment one you just came at me with, since you aimed far wide of the mark with that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's precisely because I look at the overall production design that I thought it was '80s. Look at Aliens ... now look at Starship Troopers. It belongs to the same period and style. I'm gonna repeat it, it even looks more dated than Aliens (as if it's a caricature version of the look). If I was blind, I wouldn't care for these things. I still wonder why you think it's very '90s. What other '90s productions are you thinking of? How can you look at your posted photos and say, this is so 1997?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I already said, I'm not talking about the effects but the production design: art design, sets, lighting ... the look of the film.

Other famous sci-fi flicks from the nineties are Strange Days, Gattaca, The Fifth Element, Dark City, The Phantom Menace ... but with Starship, we're suddenly reliving the '80s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What other '90s productions are you thinking of? How can you look at your posted photos and say, this is so 1997?

The film shares a very similar aesthetic to other sci-fi of the era. Stargate, Star Trek: Voyager and even seaQuest DSV. Nineties pulp.

You sure about that blindness thing? ;)

But okay, for fun...

For starters, I don't remember seeing great big blatant cg set pieces (and creatures) anywhere in Aliens. That's one 'slight' distinction worth highlighting. I don't buy your approach that it's acceptable to conveniently overlook this MASSIVE element of the movie, sorry.

But looking at real world stuff, you know - the basic stuff; Rico's hair was very popular circa '97. In fact it's a style which some continue to wear to this day (unlike Reiser's Aliens bouffant)

stss1.png

starship-troopers-cast-and-actors-in-this-movie.jpg

Look at this font:

m00778_med_01.jpg

Cheesy nineties gameshow screen splash!

HD81_StarshipTroopers_PartyLarge.jpg

starship-troopers_480_poster.jpg

What is this, Beverly Hill 90210?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For starters, I don't remember seeing great big blatant cg set pieces (and creatures) anywhere in Aliens.

Are you sure about the blindness? I already said I don't include the effects, twice! His hairdo is '90s? Look at this picture of Total Recall:

15489-19864.gif

All clean and '80s like. Not the grunge look of the '90s.

Like this, for instance:

258180.1020.A.jpg

Starship-Troopers-starship-troopers-13578704-1024-768.jpg

Except for the stunningly looking Denise Richards here, everything is mega '80s. The list is endless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? Since when have you followed trends? I know exactly which hairstyles were the rage in 1997 - I was fucking obsessed with my hair back then! Believe me, I know.

Eighties:

paul_reiser_aliens.gif

Nineties:

starship-troopers-cast-and-actors-in-this-movie.jpg

Eighties:

paul_reiser_aliens.gif

Nineties:

starship-troopers-cast-and-actors-in-this-movie.jpg

Eighties:

paul_reiser_aliens.gif

Nineties:

starship-troopers-cast-and-actors-in-this-movie.jpg

Boyband Take That in 1997:

article-1093774-038AA5F30000044D-522_468x359.jpg

I mean, how much more clueless can you get in this thread? This has to be the most ridiculous dispute ever in the history of JWFan!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're both right about certain elements here. The Rico style was popular in the 80s and 90s. It's still doable today. Short to medium length on top combed over? That's a seriously basic hair style. In fact, there's something that works for Troopers in regards to dated stuff. Whereas the 80s toupee style from Aliens is bloody awful. I still get annoyed seeing Kirk with that thing on his head sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the effects in Poltergeist were pretty dated. Some still look great, but when that lady opened Carol Ann's door and all the stuff was flying around you could tell this was from the early 80s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that really dates "Aliens", is the graininess of the film, which James Cameron talks about in his commentary.

The one film that just doesen't age a day is "2001". In fact, it gets more and more prescient with each passing year, as do both "Brazil", and "Blade Runner".

Anyway, so what if these films look dated? They were made at a certain time, with all the advances, and the limitations of the day. Does anyone criticize "A Matter Of Life And Death" for looking dated (with, or without Technicolor!)?

I know what the thrust of this thread is, but I try to look through the technical inadequacies of a piece of work, and focus on the ideas that it is trying to convey. Those who don't even try to do that, should not be watching films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aliens looks like it was made on sub-standard film stock. I wonder why.

But it's the films mentality more then anything else that puts it in the 80's. Vietnam allegory, greedy 80's yuppies. It only needed tom Cruise in there somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one film that just doesen't age a day is "2001". In fact, it gets more and more prescient with each passing year, as do both "Brazil", and "Blade Runner".

Amen to that.

Anyway, so what if these films look dated? They were made at a certain time, with all the advances, and the limitations of the day. Does anyone criticize "A Matter Of Life And Death" for looking dated (with, or without Technicolor!)?

I don't think they're criticizing them, just pointing out if they look dated or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.