MovieChat Forums > Logan's Run (1976) Discussion > Do the effects still hold up?

Do the effects still hold up?


I haven't seen this movie in eons, like 30 years or more. I'm going to try get it n dvd. I'm just wondering how well do the effects hold up in this day and age?

reply

While this is a great movie, the effects are a bit dated. The thing I found most distracting was the sound effects. The echo-y beeping sounds that were common in the sci-fi of the day sound a little hokey to me.

I would love to see a modern remake of this movie.

reply

Really the special effects don't hold up too well. You can almost always see whe miniatures are being used.
However some of the sets are quite well done. I believe that much of it was filmed in a mall in Texas!

reply

They don't, not really. But then again it wasn't an effects movie. Lots of miniatures, matte paintings, old practical techniques.

This is why Star Wars, only a year later, and being made at the same time as LR, was such a stunning movie.

But LR has a charm that allows you to look past any clunky effects. It's more of an ideas movie and in that respect it still holds up well. It's not deep science fiction (read the book for that, which is quite different) but it holds an endless fascination for me.

reply

Wisely put

reply

It's dated. At a scifi convention way back in the 70s in San Francisco, the guys who did Star Wars were asked what they thought when they saw the FX for Logan's run. Their reply was that they hoped their special effects wouldn't look like those. Everyone laughed.

No joke.

The effects for Logan's Run have never held up, even when the film was released, but the story is pretty compelling. The one matte painting they use is pretty decent, but the rest are easily forgotten.

reply

The effects were blown out of the water just a year after Logan's Run came out. Star Wars looks way better and much more timeless than this movie. And I'm talking about the SW-theatrical cut, not the crappy "special" editions.

When you put the two side by side, it's hard to believe they came out within a year of each other.

The miniature shots of the city look like they were done using one of those "scenery-boards" used by model railroad-enthusiasts. The robot near the end looks like something out of a 50s B-movie.



S.

reply

I am in the minority on this but yes to me they do hold up. The reason I say this is because the special effects in this movie convey what is going on...that is the only thing that counts to me.... I really like the futuristic movies from the 70s...furniture is cool, the structures are awesome and I love the clothes in these movies for obvious reasons. When movies now have a futuristic theme....It's usually dark, cold and gray....especially dark.

reply

I tend to agree. I suppose it depends on one's criteria for judging the special effects. If effects conveyed what's going on, then it has served its purpose. However, that's not enough for a lot of today's movie-audience when effects have to be utterly convincing, otherwise it gets picked apart on discussion forums like this.

reply

No, it doesn't. But much like those old black and white Flash Gordon episodes in the 50's. It's the nostalgia.


I am the Alpha and the Omoxus. The Omoxus and the Omega

reply

"Flash Gordon" was from the '30s.

reply

For the most part...no.

But that isn't to say they weren't impressive.

The model work was great.

The overgrown, decrepit Washington D.C. was rather convincing.

The Carousel sequence is still as creepy as all get out.

reply

Yeah, I agree that the SFX are a mixed bag. But I think the Sandmen’s blasters, the hologram of Logan and plastic surgery robot are still pretty impressive.

Overall I think the movie holds up pretty well. I like the movie’s asthetic.

reply