I read an article about how terrifying Frankenstein was back in 1931 for audiences. It was 100% on rotten tomatoes for years until recently, but not that that matters because I feel Rotten Tomatoes can be overrated.
Audiences gasped when Boris Karloff backed into the room and turned to reveal his face and then they zoomed in.
The only special effects were really the make up, which was iconic, and the lighting. And both were perfected so well to make the Monster look real. Although it was way different from the novel, it gave you a sense of a realism that most films these days don't.
For example, when I saw the Hobbit movies I was most excited to see how they did Smaug. I think he turned out fantastic and Benedict Cumberbatch nailed how intelligent, but psychopathic Smaug was, even if in the book he was a little more playful as a treasure holding predator.
Now that years have past, for example, I feel that Frankenstein from 1931 is an ultimate 'monster', even though in the book Frankenstein's creation was highly intelligent and well spoken and read unlike the playful yet violent version of Boris Karloff.
Reason is that audiences react more to realism and practical effects more than CGI. Granted, it's hard to make a dragon look real without CGI, but Stan Winston's Dinosaurs of Jurassic Park look ultra realistic as models and robots and the original Jurassic Park holds up as one of the greatest films ever because you feel that those Dinosaurs could be real. Later installments you just feel that they're fake.
Frankenstein of 1931 was a real actor in a real suit with real make up and lighting with liberties from the books, as was the Hobbit and Jurassic Park as well, but you could feel that pain, violence, anger, childlike mentality of him in the movie; which is both tragic and also timeless.
The fact that when you think of Boris Karloff's version and face as Frankenstein's creation when you think of it and not how Mary Shelley described him in her novel should validate the power of practical real effects over excessive CGI in films. Audiences want to experience a sense of realism in a setting distant from their own, whether it's a fantasy setting, time setting, location, or whatnot. A lot of potentially great films have been devalued because of the lack of practical effects and promoting a sense of realism, which is what audiences want. To feel the story and for its characters, not be entertained by over the top computer graphics.
Bedlam featuring boris Karloff is a classic but can’t get hold of . Bride of Frankenstein is great . Joe …they are not bolts on his neck …they’re electrodes ….like you can bolt a head on …doh
I read an article about how terrifying Frankenstein was back in 1931 for audiences. It was 100% on rotten tomatoes for years until recently, but not that that matters because I feel Rotten Tomatoes can be overrated.
Audiences gasped when Boris Karloff backed into the room and turned to reveal his face and then they zoomed in.
The only special effects were really the make up, which was iconic, and the lighting. And both were perfected so well to make the Monster look real. Although it was way different from the novel, it gave you a sense of a realism that most films these days don't.
For example, when I saw the Hobbit movies I was most excited to see how they did Smaug. I think he turned out fantastic and Benedict Cumberbatch nailed how intelligent, but psychopathic Smaug was, even if in the book he was a little more playful as a treasure holding predator.
Now that years have past, for example, I feel that Frankenstein from 1931 is an ultimate 'monster', even though in the book Frankenstein's creation was highly intelligent and well spoken and read unlike the playful yet violent version of Boris Karloff.
Reason is that audiences react more to realism and practical effects more than CGI. Granted, it's hard to make a dragon look real without CGI, but Stan Winston's Dinosaurs of Jurassic Park look ultra realistic as models and robots and the original Jurassic Park holds up as one of the greatest films ever because you feel that those Dinosaurs could be real. Later installments you just feel that they're fake.
Frankenstein of 1931 was a real actor in a real suit with real make up and lighting with liberties from the books, as was the Hobbit and Jurassic Park as well, but you could feel that pain, violence, anger, childlike mentality of him in the movie; which is both tragic and also timeless.
The fact that when you think of Boris Karloff's version and face as Frankenstein's creation when you think of it and not how Mary Shelley described him in her novel should validate the power of practical real effects over excessive CGI in films. Audiences want to experience a sense of realism in a setting distant from their own, whether it's a fantasy setting, time setting, location, or whatnot. A lot of potentially great films have been devalued because of the lack of practical effects and promoting a sense of realism, which is what audiences want. To feel the story and for its characters, not be entertained by over the top computer graphics.
My brain see’s CGI as a cartoon,almost.
Bedlam featuring boris Karloff is a classic but can’t get hold of . Bride of Frankenstein is great . Joe …they are not bolts on his neck …they’re electrodes ….like you can bolt a head on …doh
Joe talking about the wrong Lon Chaney … how to show prep
To really appreciate Star Wars, you need to live through all of the pretentious, depressing films that were the rule for the previous six years.