I remember when this was released, most critics panned the movie but still praised the effects.
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — General Discussion
Hjernekrigen — 10 years ago(June 05, 2015 11:47 AM)
I remember when this was released, most critics panned the movie but still praised the effects.
But I also remember that even then I thought the effects were beep Remember, this came out four years AFTER
Jurassic Park
! It came out the same year as
The Lost World: Jurassic Park
,
Starship Troopers
and
Twister
. Compared to these other films, Anaconda looked like crap. 100,000 dollars spend on the effects for every SECOND of the snake(s) in the film, the trivia page says? Money out the window!
I even remember the studio having this
"making of the amazing ground-breaking special effects"
thing that was playing on TV, and yes, everyone seemed to be talking about how amazing the effects were. HOW?! The animatronic puppet snakes look like toys (thanks especially to the bad job on the snakes' eyes), and the computer snakes are equally fake-looking.
Please, fans of the Anaconda effects, tell me in what universe these effects are jaw-dropping - several years AFTER the great effects breakthrough of
Jurassic Park
, and compared to all other big effects movies released at the time? The critics seemed to think so.
"You never question that the snakes are real", "best creature effects put to film to date", "groundbreaking", "jawdropping", "completely realistic"
etc.
ARE people blind or what? The effects were BAD, even then! -
Coconut_Kaasa — 10 years ago(October 09, 2015 07:06 AM)
The animatronic snakes were not only an innovative game changer, but they still look amazing in this film today.
Some of the CGI is admittedly pretty bad, even for the time. Gary's deadly encounter in particular is out of place, without or without mixed with the other snake footage. Then there are other shots, such as the other snakes descent when Terri and Danny are tied up, that still look, as Westridge would put it, absolutely breathtaking.
My car is fast, my teeth is shiny, I tell all the girls they can kiss my heinie! -
swordfish_man — 10 years ago(December 07, 2015 03:10 PM)
Are the special effects that bad, like really? No, they're not.
I'm not sure if you just really dislike the movie and are using the special effects as a means to dis it some more, but the CGI (for its time) was quite impressive. There were only a few shots where the effects were obvious, but over-all, it was a solid effort.
If you really think they're that bad, please watch Anaconda 2, 3 and 4. Or any other snake movie (or monster movie for that fact) and compare the special effects. The original Anaconda's special effects hold up very well.
And yes, I'm a fan of this movie. I always watched it when I was younger, and I just revisited it again today for the first time in years and still enjoy it very much. It's at the top of my list of favorite B grade monster movies. -
swordfish_man — 10 years ago(December 28, 2015 07:16 PM)
.no, actually, they're really quite good.
If they made Anaconda now, it would be 100% CGI. At least they used puppets and animatronics for a more realistic look.
I think the effects are solid. Only with a few moments where continuity was broken.
And as for the big budget; did you see who they cast in the film? Pretty sure I know where most of the money went.
I remember the second movie coming out and they said they didn't want to cast big names so that most of their budget could go towards making the snake look real. Look how that turned out. -
amitynow — 10 years ago(February 10, 2016 03:26 PM)
I disagree with the OP and I don't see how you praise the Fx in twister but find anaconda to be terrible. As awesome a movie as twister is, the Fx have not aged well at all. Still a great movie though. Anacondas fx still hold up imo and I liked that they used a mix of cgi and animatronics. I miss the 90's when that was the normal way to approach special effects. Nowadays it's more like 97% cgi and maybe 3% practical fx if we're lucky.