Was anyone else disappointed by the nuclear explosion in this film? The way they described it, I was anticipating something similar to a nuclear fireball----like the sun. Instead we have what looks like a dull brown cloud of paint expanding in a vat of liquid. I'm surprised the studio let that one pass.
shareYou have to remember this movie was made in 1956 long before our modern computer generated special effects like what George Lucas did for the re-issue of Star Wars. Incidentally when Disney made "The Black Hole" in the late 70's they did use paint in a vat of liquid with back lighting to create the effect of the Black Hole itself. Or so I understand.
Exactly. The effects were typical of mid-level 50s sci-fi films, i.e., pretty good for the time. They did what the available technology and budget allowed for, and it works well enough.
Lucas should have left Star Wars alone. Why he, Spielberg and some others keep insisting on screwing around with their movies and changing them for no reason whatsoever (other than that they now have computers that can manufacture more stuff to insert on the screen) is beyond me. Lucas fell victim to the usual vacuous mindset that thinks that more is somehow better -- in this case, more spaceships, more monsters, more of everything. Unfortunately, mindless excess is not "better", just junk food for the eyes of people who need to be force-fed images instead of thinking about the film.
Or shall we acquire the rights to SITS and juice it up with state-of-the-art computer effects to improve it?!