awful special F/X... - Jumanji (1995) Discussion

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheGreatGeekGod 10 years ago

Don't forget the plant with bug antennas, that still looks great.

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOckVenom86 11 years ago

I disagree. This actually did win best special effects at the Saturn Awards along with best supporting actress for Bonnie Hunt. I think she deserved to win.

"You want me to roll 6,000 of these!? What? Should I quit my job!?" George Costanza, Seinfeld

reply

[–] britika 11 years ago

Ummm, you do realize that this was made in 1995?! I know that by today's standards it might look funny but back then the graphics were cutting edge and looked really good. Heck, I still think the graphics in this movie look good and not something to complain about.

reply

[–] arcticmonkeys1987 11 years ago

I remember the big song and dance they made about the CGI when this was first released. Going by the trailer at the time it made it looked really good. Makes me fell old actually thinking about it.

reply

[–] melinda2001 10 years ago

I was working in the industry at the time and saw previews and descriptions of the CGI and it was quite state-of-the-art at the time. I agree it looks really cheesy by today's standards.

reply

[–] Geeky Randy 10 years ago

Even for 1995, the SFX weren't that great. Yeah, I agree with OP. Bad effects, but otherwise entertaining.

Votes: 2,978
Reviews: 193 (http://www.imdb.com/user/ur0756238/comments)

reply

[–] patrick_bateman_90056 9 years ago

In all fairness, "Jurassic Park" set an impossibly high bar that any number of movies struggled to reach a similar level of. I think the first movie to reach that bar was arguably "Independence Day".

reply

[–] roofall 9 years ago

Right, except the "bar" isn't really a bar... It's not James Cameron, those people did not design and program special software and/or hardware to film... It's a question of paying enough for the right software, plugins, specialists teams (companies) to make the effects, etc., etc.

That's why, when there is cheap CGI in movies EVERYWHERE - those fools in charge of making them should, either, NOT use CGI, or pay for something better... Always a low automatic grade, with a movie with bad CGI... Like Apple/Macintosh, trying to sell us outdated /underpowered hardware for top $$.

http://i.media-imdb.com/images/warning_small.png

Posting Quotas Are In Place
Please wait: 00:01

reply

[–] ComicNerd 10 years ago

The movies effects were bad in 1995 but it's not so much the actual animation but the compitising and lighting were off.

reply

[–] behamut 9 years ago

Agreed. I was 15 when it came out and remember seeing in theaters. Even then I found the special effects to be jarring and unconvincing. Everything just looked off.

reply

[–] MrT1979 10 years ago

I put this on for my son to watch, as soon as i seen the special effects i just cringed. I could have made monkeys look more real than that on my mac.

Bitches Leave

reply

[–] jon_combo 10 years ago

Your Mac from pre-1995?

reply

[–] Stratego (30578) 4 years ago

Yes, especially the monkeys looked awful!

reply

[–] SilverCentri2009 10 years ago

Never bothered me, I just look at it the same way whenever I watch practical effects in pre CGI horror films, it adds to the surrealism. You have animals coming out of a game, rampaging through a house.

Passengers will refrain from killing my soul! ~Bus Driver Stu Benedict

reply

[–] sage2112 10 years ago

Agreed - very awful. As bad as CGI looks today, it looked all the worse in its infancy. Soon there will be movies made again that tout the lack of CGI and will be appreciated - kinda like how vinyl and tube amps are being appreciated.

reply