How come the special effects were so convincing in 1970 without CGI ? I could understand the amputated children's scenes (read the trivia), but what about cutting the woman's breast ?.. It's clear that the sword moves in flesh and no prothesis. What about the indian children who were overrun by horses in one take without editing ? I really hope to find a "making of" documentary for this film.
share
You didnt see the breast being actually cut right off so I think a dummy knife was used where when the handle is squeezed fake blood comes out the end.
"This sure is a bizarre sight in the middle of this *beep*
I also thought they did quite well with the special effects (except for the color of the blood). People have always been resourceful, when need be, but today it is probably cheaper to use the “CGI”. There have been other movies that seemed to be ahead of their time in respect to special effects. One that comes to mind is “Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid”, however, I can’t remember which version it was that I saw. I believe it was in the 80’s, the special effects were so good that some of the gun shots were done in slow motion with blood spurting everywhere and jumping a horse through a bank window was also done in slow motion, if I remember correctly.
shareI think you are thinking of The Long Riders. Butch Cassidy is certainly not that violent!
"This sure is a bizarre sight in the middle of this *beep*
Partly for the same reason that the creatures in Episodes 4, 5 and 6 of Star Wars looked so much more convincing without CGI*.
Back then, the effects departments had to be very creative and a few very talented individuals did some amazing things. I don't know exactly how this was done, but some of it is astounding, eh!!
*The other reason Star Wars creatures looked so much more realistic than the newer CGI ones is because they *were* real, albeit puppets, but with far greater depth, shadow, movement and texture than CGI can achieve even today in 2011!
The Spacehunter Forum:
http://spacehunter.phpbbhosts.co.uk/