MovieChat Forums > Into the Storm (2014) Discussion > Why does Twister look better?

Why does Twister look better?

posted 10 years ago by kccarmea-94-361025
79 replies | jump to latest

I haven't seen it but I have seen the trailer and I cannot believe that a movie made in 2014 looks way worse than a movie made in 1996. The tornadoes in this film looks so fake. A problem with movies today is that they rely too much on CGI because it's cheaper. If you look at Twister, the tornadoes look much, much better. Hell, the Wizard of Oz (1939) tornado looks better than the tornadoes in this movie. The sad part is that there is a generation of kids going to see this movie who have never seen Twister.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kccarmea-94-361025 10 years ago

That is the theater making it sound cool, but the CGI including the helicopter crash, are just too heavily CGI. Look at twister when they actually dropped trucks and crap in the road, a real house rolled into the road.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nicols 10 years ago

The visual effects in Into the Storm are much better than Twister, though having said that Twister still holds up pretty good considering its age. The effects on the aftermath showing the destruction left behind were also better in Into the Storm.

The sound effects are better in Twister, and overall Twister is a much better movie.

[–] michaeluk26 10 years ago

Agreed. I was blown away how accurate they got the tornado characteristics in Into the Storm.

Haters gonna hate

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] teoftx 10 years ago

Well the real life TIV weighs more than seven tons so....

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] appyyh 9 years ago

I totally agree with you. Movies are make-believe escapism, produced merely for entertainment and to make money. Those viewers nit-picking for realism probably would not like Batman, Superman, James Bond, etc, either. All I look for in a good movie is that it would engage me throughout. And I find the reconciliation between the father and sons storyline quite touching, a subject matter not usually touched upon by most movies.

[–] AJSMOM-2 10 years ago

I saw this movie yesterday and it was great! The tornadoes were awesome and I enjoyed the acting. The tornado scenes blow Twister away!

[–] mwaldeck2003 10 years ago

I agree! People say the acting was bad And the twisters looked "fake". Well, its a movie. It wasn't actual 'real' twisters. The movie Twister was good for the time it came out and still a classic. I thought the effects and sounds were better in this movie.

[–] kccarmea-94-361025 10 years ago

Thats the point. They rely too much on "awesome special effects" to distract you from the lack of character and story.

[–] asteriK 10 years ago

What on earth are you talking about. First you say that they rely too much on CGI which makes the tornadoes to fake... after that you say they rely too much on CGI that it takes attention away from the story & characters (I agree that the storyline, characters & dialogue are quite horrid in this film btw)...

The tornadoes in twister where CGI as well btw. I honestly fail to see what you're trying to get across with the Twister comparison.

[–] popeyesucks 10 years ago

Why does Twister look better?

Because Helen Hunt's character was a recently unattached blonde while the obscure female lead in this movie was a brunette with a kid, thus killing the male viewers' fantasy of getting it on with her, unless they are MILF fans.

Because, as alluded to above, Twister had known stars while this movie had "who the F are they?" for actors.

Benoit killed 2x as many w/o a gun than Belcher did with one/S&W fighting climate change since 1852

[–] kccarmea-94-361025 10 years ago

good point

[–] nammage 8 years ago

That's crap. Guys fantasise about almost every female they're physically (or otherwise) attracted to. They don't care if they're married fictionally, or in reality, or with actual or pretend kids. That's what's good about fantasizing: you, yourself, can edit to your own specifications.

-Nam

I am on the road less traveled...

[–] neuronboy 10 years ago

Twister had more "heart" in it. Better actors and better visuals like atmosphere and cloud formations, etc. This movie was just bland in its overall look. Some of the tornados scenes were "cool" but they didn't look they could be real because they seemed over the top. Thats my opinion. Twister had some ridiculous stuff in it too but overall a lot better picture than this.

[–] tony-sobon 10 years ago

Twister had more "heart" in it. Better actors and better visuals like atmosphere and cloud formations, etc. This movie was just bland in its overall look. Some of the tornados scenes were "cool" but they didn't look they could be real because they seemed over the top. Thats my opinion. Twister had some ridiculous stuff in it too but overall a lot better picture than this.

I agree. And will add , Twister action sences almost 20 years later still look good. Into the storm CGI is so heavy handed it looks like a video game.

[–] mozee 10 years ago

I agree. And will add , Twister action sences almost 20 years later still look good. Into the storm CGI is so heavy handed it looks like a video game.

I despise that about modern films

It's why the likes of Terminator 2 still looks better and more real than the majority of movies today

[–] Symarip 10 years ago

But Terminator 2 used tons of CGI as well. It's just a tool, nothing more, and it depends on the programmers to make it look good.

[–] shadrack 10 years ago

The tornadoes in Twister were CGI too. The problem isn't CGI. The problem is bad CGI.

Go look at Apollo 13. There isn't a single frame of documentary footage in that movie -- the effects are mostly CGI, and you don't even notice because it's good CGI.

[–] FourthYear 10 years ago

Soooooo you're complaining about a movie, speaking about characters and effects, that you haven't seen?

Good God, kid, get away from the internet.

[–] cblountt 10 years ago

Actually the special effects in this movie are quite good. Better than the movie Twister I think. The sound is also well done. In a good movie theater, you will "feel" the roar of the tornadoes. Reminded me of the old Sensurround days.

[–] DeltonP 10 years ago

Like most of the folks here who've actually seen the movie, I enjoyed the SFX in Into the Storm even more than Twister which I watched at least three times, the first time in theaters as I did with the new Storm. None of the actors are the equal of Bill Paxton, Helen Hunt or Philip Seymour Hoffman, but I wasn't expecting that. I went to the cinema wanting to see some nasty tornado action, and this film delivered it in spades!

8/10

[–] nakedgirl 10 years ago

that's what they spent the money on