I am maybe an ancient to a lot of members, in my belief that the term "Special Effects" were just that, Special, but not it would seem today, the CGI stuff just is not Special. I am going on a rant now, bear with me, my friend on here Andrew, thinks I hate Disney, not so,
I think the work of Disney, the best in animation, the early work being little Rembrandts, beautifully drawn and animated, by this I mean the Pinocchio's Bambi, Peter Pan, Disney lost it with films like Aladdin, Hercules etc, smart arse wise cracks etc, are NOT the films
I think Disney are loved for, but that is my observation. Believe it or not, I've actually had prints of Little Mermaid, ( part payment on a job) Aladdin, Lady & the Tramp bought by me brand new, watched twice, flogged on. A point of contention with me are the poor effects on Disney live action films, pantomime wires, dodgy back projection, and that awful saucer in the "Witch Mountain", which I had too on 16mm
Their greatest achievements were "20,000 Leagues Under The Sea", their first live action, but never bettered, a milestone, and "The Black Hole".
I know things move on, we now have stuff that look more real than the leaders of our countries, God do they need animating, but I digress, My favourite type of film in the FX, as if readers of this forum need reminding, is the Stop Motion kind, of which, apart from Danforth, Beswick, Allen etc, Harryhausen is the doyen of these films, a man alone whose work still creates in youngsters a state of wonder, years ago, these ancient movies keep kids enthralled, why, because they are timeless, they never age costume wise, the
dialogue is of the time, no smart remarks, and creatures that are not too fantastic as to never have been real. Now Andrew thinks we're "poles apart", not so, he has bought a film "Jack the Giant Killer", a very good fantasy film, created by its producer, who rejected
Harryhausen's Sinbad, then seen it was a success, made this, but with a young Jim Danforth, who had gleaned from Ray, how certain set ups were done, he was caught out on some scenes, but that apart, the film on 8mm, from Red Fox is superb, colour etc is top dollar,
the models are not so good, as Danforth himself explained, he didn't make them, but a nice film, the witches scenes are very good.
My admiration for men who worked in stop motion never falters, a skill not many have these days, a skill which will soon be forgotten,
hence my fierce loyalty to a master, "Our Ray"

I will 2nd that opinion Hugh. In particular I agree on what you say about the EARLY Disney films.
They are indeed masterpieces of their kind. I think Pinocchio was superb animation.
I really like Jack The Giant Killer and as for RAY'S work ... well he is a GOD of FX.

20000 leagues under the sea what a great film one of Disneys best,would love a 16mm copy but when I see one it always costs an arm and a leg........one day maybe.📽📽📽📽

I still watch the early ones from RKO King Kong, Mighty Joe Young and Son Of Hugh sorry Kong. It was Jason And The Argonauts seen during the summer holidays that got my interest going. I even tried it myself using some toys.

I tried to watch Clash Of The Titans (remake) bloody rubbish. Sure the scripts are computer generated too.

CGI used very lightly can be OK but it seems now there are some directors that just rely on it totally, the last film i watched in the cinema was Man of steel, the superman re launch, it started off OK but the scene where they knocked seven bells out of eachother just went on too long and so obviously nothing more than the CGI department indulging themselves. It will all go full circle im sure.

First of all Hugh, you are far from ancient in any aspect ;-). Second, I admire the stop-motion animation techniques myself. I was highly entertained by it as a kid and still am! As I have said many times on the forum, I'm not into films that heavily rely on CGIs. And yes, I've picked up on the smart alec tone in many, if not most, modern productions, especially in movies and shows geared at younger audiences. I don't think there's anything witty in that sort of humor. I think the acting and writing was often better in older productions as well. Characters were developed that the viewer actually cared about.

I happen to think "Woody" is a very endearing character Timothy...but then with a name like that, I guess I would wouldn't I!

I see myself as a lucky man in a way. I showed some great special FX films.
I have fond memories of showing some excellent 35mm prints of the following films during
my career as a Cinema Projectionist. Here are a few.
KING KONG ( 1933 ) a brand spanking new reprint.
THE 7TH VOYAGE OF SINBAD
THE GOLDEN VOYAGE OF SINBAD
SINBAD AND THE EYE OF THE TIGER
THE FIRST MEN IN THE MOON
VALLEY OF GWANGI
20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA

Howcome they never get fires, explosions and blood splatter right?

I thought they finally got it right on The Walking Dead, a superb series, but turns out that they used practical effects and set fire to s lake. Gives the series extra points in my book. They started with some bad CGI, but now it seems they chose the right path

Films with a lot of CGI effects seems to be about just that; the effects. I love old films who still know how to tell a story, and have the patience to serve a good dialog.

Right on Elvind!

Andrew, I have to agree with you on the "Toy Story" characters. They were endearing indeed. That's one film that I enjoyed the original, as well as each sequel. It actually got better with each sequel IMO. That's also one film that I didn't mind CGIs (but one of the few)!

Shrek was another similar character in my book. I found the modern day humour worked extremely well on young and old. Eddie Murphy playing Donkey was sensational!