ok this is a bit strange but why is it that special effects don't help movies surpass the golden oldies, i got thinking about this when i was watching "the day the earth stood still" (a movie i love) and thought that even though the special effects a lame by todays standards the movie still kicks ass when compared with some of todays films. so the question is do special effects matter, if a movie has a great script and cast but ****ty special effects whould it still do business? do filmakers depend too much on special effects that don't really help a movie to greatness?

Good question. Special effects have become the tool that Hollywood hopes to keep its audience with. The greater the spectacle the larger the audience turning up to watch it. This competition has been escalating with the rise of the independent and digital technology. It is now cheaper to make a feature film than at any other time, using a semi pro dv cam and a home pc to edit on.

This necessity to reclaim the market with effects has meant that they have become the predominant factor within many productions and only a few directors are able to master the use of them. John Carpenter's The Thing is probably the finest use of physical effect within cinema and Peter Jackson has raised the use of CGI to such a high level we may never see it bested. (yes even Narnia nd Harry Potter are gonna have some trouble achieving that level of verisimilitude)

yeah PJ has become one of the special effect kings and gives a good example of how to use effects to improve a movie someone like George Lucas could learn somthing.

Jackson did it with a mix of CGI and miniatures......which Lucas can't seem to grasp

sadly i think that most americans that go to see movies prefer large specticle CGI crammed movies. otherwise those movies wouldn't make so much money. There isn't as much money in good quality movies with no CGI

PJ also uses CGI when it's needed not just to add some effect that isn't required and is only in the pic because the director thought it was neat.

I really think it's because CG is now seen as the easy way out of doing anything, even if it's more expensive. Stunts which would have once been done by stuntmen, sets which would have once been miniatures, destruction which would have once been real...all CG.

This leaves movies lacking a certain realistic feel, because CG just isn't there yet. Even if it is, and in certain cases, CG performs wonderfully, you can usually tell in an actor's performance that the huge monster/natural disaster/explosion that they're near isn't actually there. I like to look at Jurassic Park, which was a groundbreaking film as far as CG goes, and watch how it's used there.

Pretty sparingly. The T-rex attack scenes seem so real because half of the shots are a real model. I never once doubted the reality of Jurassic Park when I was younger, because...well, I don't know, it just works. So basically, I think that Daytrip's right in saying that it's the mixture of CG and miniatures that works.

special effects take away the focus of the story in a movie.. too much special effects drown a good story

I think some movie makers think that people would rather see bright shiny lights and explosions, instead of an actual storyline, or good acting.

Star Wars Revenge of the Sith.... oh my god were most of the special effects bad... bad bad BAD.

Er, yeh. They are.

I think, like many have said, that the industry is trying to make effects heavy spectaculars to woo an audience. Doing things digitally has just been the hot-trend, sure the only way to get better with the tool of CGI is to push it further, but convincing effects can be achieved just as effectively using conventional/optical/photo-chemical means that are a whole heck cheaper.
I subscribe to the 'if there is no way to do it in camera, use CGI'.
As was said of special effects supervisor John Bruno (Titanic, T2, True Lies) on AVP, if he could catch a real Predator and breed real Aliens, that is the film he would do. Failing that, men in suits and animatronics, when that can't be used, perhaps CGI augmentation like adding an Alien's tail, and only after all avenues have been completely exhausted and no model, suit or animatronic solution can be found, would he use CGI. THAT is the way a film should be made.

For example; War Of The Worlds is a great example of great effects, but no substantial story or meat and potatoes action like the source material either! A pure summer effects film. That's all.
Spider-man in contrast is story heavy, like the source material. Especially SPM2, where the highlights of the early years of the character are played out alongside the complimenting effects. Sure, it's fantasy, but story doesn't take a back seat.