A century of visual effects

It's easy to get so caught up in discussions about CGI that we forget that visual effects have a long history in cinema. It's also easy to assume quite erroneously that digital imagery automatically outclasses anything done in earlier eras of cinema.

Those images from Thief of Baghdad (1940) and The Wizard of Oz (1939) still look mighty impressive. Meanwhile the dinosaurs in the first two clips from Jurassic Park now look scarcely more realistic than the clip from the original King Kong.

If the Tyrannosaurus rex in the third clip looks more real, it's probably because this part of the film used a combination of digital imagery and older-style animatronic technology, giving the dinosaur a more solid, physical appearance.

Digital FX technicians will tell that it's easier to come up with seamless effects when you're working from something physical, as opposed to building an image from scratch - especially when you're trying to create something with the kinetic complexity of a living creature.

Effects are usually at their most artfully achieved when they're totally invisible to the viewer - note the effectiveness of the streetscape painted in behind Naomi Watts in the clip from the Peter Jackson King Kong.

Not shown here, but a good example of this use of the technology, are the scenes depicting Gary Sinise's character minus legs in Forrest Gump (no, Sinise, did not undergo a double amputation before taking the role) .

For that reason I tend to distrust awards given for special effects. The only people who really understand the exact role of FX are often the people who worked on the movie.

The same goes for editing - you don't see the parts of an actor's performance that the editor has decided to reject. Those of us outside the editing suite can't possibly judge this crucial part of the editing process.

Video tip: ABC website