I wonder how it would have looked if it was made like a bouncy castle [bounce house?], and to implode it they just reversed the fan. That way it would have been easy to reinflate it for multiple takes.
THESE are the effects I wanted to get into as a boy. My dad simultaneously told me that I had no chance, yet the special effects on film was mostly done in London. I'm from Scotland. I could've made that trip. Also, "Don't do physics, it's too hard". Physics was my best subject, but family brainwashing made me not pursue it. Found out my dad never even TRIED. But he won the life lottery by marrying my mum and lives in paradise. Bitter is too weak a word....
I wanted to do it too, but I was always a bad student and couldn't go to college. By the time I thought about community college the world had pretty much transitioned to computer graphics anyway. There are practical models being used today but on a much smaller scale, so I scratch my itch by building models at home and going to events like Wonderfest.
Good for you, man. I haven't built miniature models in a while, but I make 1:1 scale prop weaponry and armour. 'Aliens' primarily(Pulse Rifle, Flamethrower) but I've made Star Wars blasters too. The rare commission or two, but it's mostly for me and learning new techniques, materials and skills. But I'm glad you still have the passion, my friend; that's the important part. Best of luck in all your ventures(and adventures 😊)
If you cheap out on practical effects, you might wind up with *no* effects, if you're not paying enough to cover the materials. Studios love low-balling CG effects companies, because they'll at least get *something*. It may look like shit, but they've at least got something to show for it.
Like scanners. It's always sunny talked about wanting to do a head explosion and they talked about how hard it was because you couldn't just shoot things with live shotgun rounds anymore
This is why Jurassic Park still holds up, even 30+ years later. CG was used for the shots they could never have gotten practically. CGI was used to *supplement* the different types of practical effects, not replace them.
It's also why I hate the remasters of the original Star Wars trilogy. Instead of using CGI to enhance the original practical effects, Lucas *replaced* the original effects with bad CG, and then inserted even worse CGI into shots that didn't need them.
JP stands as a testament to CG & PE done well. And I fully agree re Star Wars and would offer that modern CG has made movies measurably worse because they're sodden with excessively flashy "because we can" effects that are a distraction from the storyline. A crashed star destroyer in the distance on a desert world would have been fine on its own; flying a gratuitous dogfight through it was just dumb.
They thirst for it when it ought to just be implied without saying it. If someone asks for like and subscribe, especially before the video starts, I thumbs down the video and refuse to subscribe.
The people who make videos like this do so for a living usually. They make money off of views, so don't hate on people asking for some fairly effortless support.
I'm very choosy about subscribing to things, because I might like ONE video, but hate the rest, so I dint want inundated by a robotic moron deciding what I like. I watched ONE video on Nintendo(didn't like or dislike it) and I've been flooded with pokemon and game boy video. The algorithm has become militant - but with learning difficulties...
"Explosions are easy. Implosions... well, to do that, we had to make a deal with a demon. Fortunately, we already had done our research on demonology for the movie and knew the steps for the ritual to summon Pazusu."
It's still an, awesome effect and I think today it would look worse because they would just do it with CGI and while it might look "okay" you'd still know it was CG. If it was done practically you'd be wondering how they did it
Actually it's usually the opposite, and everyone just assumes CG when they can't figure out how it's done. The only way to know for sure it was practical is when they show how it was done.
I don't see why so many people are sour about CG though, especially if they can't tell its CG... it's a tool, and the proper way to do it is to use the tools that get you the best results.
That's why I love this movie so much. It gives you so much to be scared of. Clown dolls, evil trees, ghosts, dead bodies popping out of the ground. It's got it all.
Yeah, there was no PG-13 yet, and I'm pretty sure this would have been PG-13 bordering on R after they updated it in the 90's not sure about now. PG in the 80's was like, "Hey, we told you to figure it out."
I'm in the UK so I suspect it may have been a 15 rating over here. Remember the beginning of Raiders of the Lost Ark? What happens to Alfred Molina's character, pretty sure that film was a PG lol
Surely a big part of the reason this sort of thing is done almost exclusively by CGI these days is that it is, in some sense, easier? And therefore quicker and cheaper. These are all considerations that a film studio has to take into account.
To be fair, modeling a house, making sure the dimensions match the "real" version, making and applying textures, figuring out how the sections would "break" apart and get "crushed", then animating it, is the opposite of easy.
Sure, I didn't mean to imply that it's a simple task that anyone could do (although at the same time, I bet it's constantly getting easier, especially with the widespread availability of AI).
What I meant was more that anyone undertaking this kind of task on a computer will be using a standard set of tools that they've learned to use, that many people will have used before. Whereas for something like this, I expect the SFX guys had to come up with these techniques from scratch.
The industry standards graphics packages are analogous to the industry standard saws, screwdrivers, workbenches, lights, cameras, and other tools and machinery they used in the 80s. Everyone has access to them. Doesn't mean everyone is capable of understanding how to use them to produce professional results.
Mewmus
Poltergeist is one of my absolute favorite movies. (Favorite is Aliens)
Justinprking
Thanks!! That’s super rad
qs7rzmffpp5772
God DAMN do I miss practical effects. https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTY1YjkxZmJlYXU0ZHhvOHk1OWFiY29pM3VvaWllNHZtNHNhMDdxMGJ2enFnOGVyaSZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/QWrClN3mlYtHO/giphy.mp4
FaithAlone
This movie got me hooked on horror and fantasy as a kid.
Lightsmith
Thats how i figured they would do it. Except adding shotguns
TheFastpaws
It is wild the stuff they could do.
SilverStarling
I wonder how it would have looked if it was made like a bouncy castle [bounce house?], and to implode it they just reversed the fan. That way it would have been easy to reinflate it for multiple takes.
ChareAndFlaff
That would technically implode, but the house would look like it was made of bouncy castle rubber, not wood.
Feralkyn
I wanna watch this but the subtitles... holy fuck they're annoying
jakobbp
TRIGGER WARNING FOR ITALIANS
JustAnotherRabidToaster
Mama Mia! Thatsa no way to treata da pasta!
7thor8thcaw
I imagine 100% that real Italians would respond this way.
k4y8hh2q282
Knowing how they did it makes this even more amazing.
XanderCorsaj
THESE are the effects I wanted to get into as a boy. My dad simultaneously told me that I had no chance, yet the special effects on film was mostly done in London. I'm from Scotland. I could've made that trip. Also, "Don't do physics, it's too hard". Physics was my best subject, but family brainwashing made me not pursue it. Found out my dad never even TRIED. But he won the life lottery by marrying my mum and lives in paradise. Bitter is too weak a word....
pgaulrapp
I wanted to do it too, but I was always a bad student and couldn't go to college. By the time I thought about community college the world had pretty much transitioned to computer graphics anyway. There are practical models being used today but on a much smaller scale, so I scratch my itch by building models at home and going to events like Wonderfest.
XanderCorsaj
Good for you, man. I haven't built miniature models in a while, but I make 1:1 scale prop weaponry and armour. 'Aliens' primarily(Pulse Rifle, Flamethrower) but I've made Star Wars blasters too. The rare commission or two, but it's mostly for me and learning new techniques, materials and skills. But I'm glad you still have the passion, my friend; that's the important part. Best of luck in all your ventures(and adventures 😊)
Shifuede
alexcoldt
Practical effects TODAY look so much fucking better. Studios just don't want to use them.
TI99Kitty
If you cheap out on practical effects, you might wind up with *no* effects, if you're not paying enough to cover the materials. Studios love low-balling CG effects companies, because they'll at least get *something*. It may look like shit, but they've at least got something to show for it.
ScaredSpitless
Its so much better seeing these BTS stories alongside the actual finished shot they produced.
CouldntCakeLess
TheMayorOfTittyCity
I love how complex and finely orchestrated the idea was and then also lets shoot it with shotguns.
BenHobson
Reminds me of a quote from a NASA video years ago. "This is crazy. It is the product of careful, rational thought, but it is still crazy."
astrangehop
You know what's cheaper than plastic or plaster skeletons in 1981? Real skeletons. From india.
friendsofsandwiches
special effects with shotgun.
pareidoliaperson
I really didn't see what the shot gun did.
MaintenanceGuyHere
American movie making
nanananananaananan
Yeehaw !
TheDoctorCrankenstein
Practical effects artistry is truly something else.
komradekristoph
https://youtu.be/6-7NDP8V-6A?si=kWmAaabn8K16-9hm
drollheim
DianNaoChong
Like scanners. It's always sunny talked about wanting to do a head explosion and they talked about how hard it was because you couldn't just shoot things with live shotgun rounds anymore
Gofdunk
Talk is cheap... Scan me
Blackfinity
Practical special effects for the win.
TI99Kitty
This is why Jurassic Park still holds up, even 30+ years later. CG was used for the shots they could never have gotten practically. CGI was used to *supplement* the different types of practical effects, not replace them.
It's also why I hate the remasters of the original Star Wars trilogy. Instead of using CGI to enhance the original practical effects, Lucas *replaced* the original effects with bad CG, and then inserted even worse CGI into shots that didn't need them.
Blackfinity
JP stands as a testament to CG & PE done well. And I fully agree re Star Wars and would offer that modern CG has made movies measurably worse because they're sodden with excessively flashy "because we can" effects that are a distraction from the storyline. A crashed star destroyer in the distance on a desert world would have been fine on its own; flying a gratuitous dogfight through it was just dumb.
getyourfruitoffmeyoudamndirtygrapes
...like and subscribe....
Isaveimages
Yep, I understand creators need to ask for that but it was... distracting to say the least.
getyourfruitoffmeyoudamndirtygrapes
They thirst for it when it ought to just be implied without saying it. If someone asks for like and subscribe, especially before the video starts, I thumbs down the video and refuse to subscribe.
OutboardOverlord
The "Like and subscribe" makes me actively go "Abso-fucking-lutely NOT".
TheLordFoxington
The people who make videos like this do so for a living usually. They make money off of views, so don't hate on people asking for some fairly effortless support.
daychilde
I agree. Like and subscribe to this comment and you can support me on Patreon.
FuzzyX
Blame YouTube for that one by adding ranking up and financial gain.
XanderCorsaj
I'm very choosy about subscribing to things, because I might like ONE video, but hate the rest, so I dint want inundated by a robotic moron deciding what I like. I watched ONE video on Nintendo(didn't like or dislike it) and I've been flooded with pokemon and game boy video. The algorithm has become militant - but with learning difficulties...
CheeseB0t
Lycan subscribe https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1bHJpb3BtdnV6bzJ4M3d3bHZpOXd4bTBjNDd2cjFwbjQzN2tmcmdweiZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/tjBCnxr307sfmAwOtO/200w.webp
Cranbananarama
Same for many of us, but for the click-n-go viewing audience, it apparently works. Jingling keys and babies logic, I guess.
Septcanmat
Especially considering that the “original content” here is the shitty cropping and the subtitles. This is a clip from a Disney+ show about ILM.
CouldntCakeLess
Not even for more gourmet serving suggestions?!
CorGoBrrrr
https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1emZnbGl6NHFtM296b3lkejQ0OGhya2h3aHBlZW8xbm93bDVtdXVyMSZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/2lfllWGtBaXOSrErQb/200w.webp
AyatollahBahloni
For it's time, that was one hell of an effect. Great movie all the way around.
SirBonSama
"Explosions are easy. Implosions... well, to do that, we had to make a deal with a demon. Fortunately, we already had done our research on demonology for the movie and knew the steps for the ritual to summon Pazusu."
Colopty
"For its time"? The effect is still damn impressive by today's standards.
bitemark
It's still an, awesome effect and I think today it would look worse because they would just do it with CGI and while it might look "okay" you'd still know it was CG. If it was done practically you'd be wondering how they did it
iceynyo
Actually it's usually the opposite, and everyone just assumes CG when they can't figure out how it's done. The only way to know for sure it was practical is when they show how it was done.
iceynyo
I don't see why so many people are sour about CG though, especially if they can't tell its CG... it's a tool, and the proper way to do it is to use the tools that get you the best results.
bitemark
For me, when I can't tell, and it doesn't take me out of the movie, they did their job well :)
LeggoMySteggo
It's PG should be fine. 8 was to young for that one, pretty sure it was the start of my dislike for clowns.
Samthetrue
I'm pretty sure this is why my wife hates clowns and swimming pools.
I'm sure letting your kid watch it repeatedly at the age of six is fine.
Vergenbuurg
SauceySandwich
Or trees, swimming pools
SocoFox
I cannot sleep with the closet light on to this day.
unluckyandbored
I was 4. Can't watch scary stuff to this day.
MutantTurd
That's why I love this movie so much. It gives you so much to be scared of. Clown dolls, evil trees, ghosts, dead bodies popping out of the ground. It's got it all.
RFT42
Growing up, we had a guest room with a long walk-in closet and a large tree outside the window. For years I would not enter that room at night.
komradekristoph
PG with someone tearing their own face off 🤣
WhatisBug
Yeah, there was no PG-13 yet, and I'm pretty sure this would have been PG-13 bordering on R after they updated it in the 90's not sure about now. PG in the 80's was like, "Hey, we told you to figure it out."
komradekristoph
I'm in the UK so I suspect it may have been a 15 rating over here. Remember the beginning of Raiders of the Lost Ark? What happens to Alfred Molina's character, pretty sure that film was a PG lol
WhatisBug
Yep saw that one in the theatre. Saw Poltergeist on home rental or maybe TV movie
RoutemasterFlash
This is so much more impressive than just doing it on a computer.
[deleted]
[deleted]
RoutemasterFlash
Surely a big part of the reason this sort of thing is done almost exclusively by CGI these days is that it is, in some sense, easier? And therefore quicker and cheaper. These are all considerations that a film studio has to take into account.
modus0
To be fair, modeling a house, making sure the dimensions match the "real" version, making and applying textures, figuring out how the sections would "break" apart and get "crushed", then animating it, is the opposite of easy.
RoutemasterFlash
Sure, I didn't mean to imply that it's a simple task that anyone could do (although at the same time, I bet it's constantly getting easier, especially with the widespread availability of AI).
What I meant was more that anyone undertaking this kind of task on a computer will be using a standard set of tools that they've learned to use, that many people will have used before. Whereas for something like this, I expect the SFX guys had to come up with these techniques from scratch.
RoutemasterFlash
And not just think of them, but actually implement them too, by hand.
donpat
That's not how modern vfx works. Like at all.
RoutemasterFlash
How do you mean? You're surely not telling me there aren't industry-standard graphics packages that the studios use, right?
donpat
The industry standards graphics packages are analogous to the industry standard saws, screwdrivers, workbenches, lights, cameras, and other tools and machinery they used in the 80s. Everyone has access to them. Doesn't mean everyone is capable of understanding how to use them to produce professional results.