Poll: More impressive practical effects?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
The Evil Dead (1981)
50.00%
2 50.00%
A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
50.00%
2 50.00%
Total 4 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Better practical effects: The Evil Dead or ANOES1
#1
Both films used practical effects but which was more impressive for it's time?

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
or
The Evil Dead (1981)
CHRIS HARTLEY
[Image: tumblr_o0os4fvb2O1rkxk2ho8_250.gif][Image: tumblr_o0os4fvb2O1rkxk2ho7_250.gif][Image: tumblr_o0os4fvb2O1rkxk2ho1_250.gif]
[Image: tumblr_o0os4fvb2O1rkxk2ho6_250.gif][Image: tumblr_o0os4fvb2O1rkxk2ho3_250.gif][Image: tumblr_o0os4fvb2O1rkxk2ho5_250.gif]
Reply
#2
NOES by FAR. It's insane what they pulled off for so little money.
[Image: zcS5rlI.png?1]
[Image: tumblr_ov0cubBf6t1r3ykuvo6_r1_400.gif][Image: tumblr_ov0cubBf6t1r3ykuvo5_r1_400.gif][Image: tumblr_ov0cubBf6t1r3ykuvo7_r1_400.gif]
[Image: tumblr_ov0cubBf6t1r3ykuvo1_400.gif][Image: tumblr_ov0cubBf6t1r3ykuvo2_400.gif][Image: tumblr_ov0cubBf6t1r3ykuvo4_400.gif]

[Image: pnGk9h2.png?1]
Reply
#3
Nightmare, mainly for Tina’s death and the blood geyser. Even if that ending kill is terrible.
[Image: w9H9Sbv.png?1]
[Image: tumblr-mtyxnqci-MP1sn3euyo3-250.gif][Image: tumblr-mtyxnqci-MP1sn3euyo4-250.gif][Image: tumblr-mtyxnqci-MP1sn3euyo1-250.gif]
[Image: tumblr-mtyxnqci-MP1sn3euyo5-250.gif][Image: tumblr-mtyxnqci-MP1sn3euyo8-250.gif][Image: tumblr-mtyxnqci-MP1sn3euyo6-250.gif]
We have a payload to deliver to the heart of our nearest star. We are delivering that payload cause that star is dying and, if it dies, we die, everything dies. So that is our mission, there is nothing, literally nothing, more important than completing our mission. End of story.

Reply
#4
(03-23-2019, 09:44 PM)TheCheetahwings Wrote: NOES by FAR. It's insane what they pulled off for so little money.

Huh? NOES cost 1.8M to make whereas ED cost 350,000. 

I'm going with ED, super underrated already
[Image: dd682dfa969884b87dc8b31c49a8864ffdcb23b9.gifv][Image: d3415a07e3fbe6d63d5e2de412788f56de11bb8e.gifv][Image: 8dc48d6674bad809d8da65021d8c156717f600bf.gifv]
[Image: 5651acbca1fa25a005e4c450888748be9ea0aec6.gifv][Image: 2b7efeb6f6aeb6b4640a9e39db4f3adcb9ceb1f2.gifv][Image: 6097e41e5e7b152bfb337a83332a95b375b8d9b6.gifv]

Took a few years to soak up the tears
But look at her now, watch her go...
Reply
#5
(03-24-2019, 03:53 PM)GoneWasAnyTrace Wrote:
(03-23-2019, 09:44 PM)TheCheetahwings Wrote: NOES by FAR. It's insane what they pulled off for so little money.

Huh? NOES cost 1.8M to make whereas ED cost 350,000. 

I'm going with ED, super underrated already

Both are low budgets, though ED is microbudget. Nothing in ED is close to what ANOES pulled off with Glen and Tina, though.
[Image: w9H9Sbv.png?1]
[Image: tumblr-mtyxnqci-MP1sn3euyo3-250.gif][Image: tumblr-mtyxnqci-MP1sn3euyo4-250.gif][Image: tumblr-mtyxnqci-MP1sn3euyo1-250.gif]
[Image: tumblr-mtyxnqci-MP1sn3euyo5-250.gif][Image: tumblr-mtyxnqci-MP1sn3euyo8-250.gif][Image: tumblr-mtyxnqci-MP1sn3euyo6-250.gif]
We have a payload to deliver to the heart of our nearest star. We are delivering that payload cause that star is dying and, if it dies, we die, everything dies. So that is our mission, there is nothing, literally nothing, more important than completing our mission. End of story.

Reply
#6
(03-24-2019, 03:53 PM)GoneWasAnyTrace Wrote:
(03-23-2019, 09:44 PM)TheCheetahwings Wrote: NOES by FAR. It's insane what they pulled off for so little money.

Huh? NOES cost 1.8M to make whereas ED cost 350,000. 

I'm going with ED, super underrated already

I wasn't saying that NOES had a smaller budget, but for the budget it had they pulled off far more impressive effects. Let's not forget Freddy's face itself is an amazing feat, plus all the gore effects involving him (i instantly think of the disgusting slime he oozes out of his chest), the arms stretching (although simple is always effective). Rod's death is creatively disturbing yet simple, and of course Tina and Glen's are genuine masterpieces & art in of themselves. In general ED has a lot of great makeup and gore effects, but the level of creativity that went into NOES' is insane. The only real mishap is the ending.
[Image: zcS5rlI.png?1]
[Image: tumblr_ov0cubBf6t1r3ykuvo6_r1_400.gif][Image: tumblr_ov0cubBf6t1r3ykuvo5_r1_400.gif][Image: tumblr_ov0cubBf6t1r3ykuvo7_r1_400.gif]
[Image: tumblr_ov0cubBf6t1r3ykuvo1_400.gif][Image: tumblr_ov0cubBf6t1r3ykuvo2_400.gif][Image: tumblr_ov0cubBf6t1r3ykuvo4_400.gif]

[Image: pnGk9h2.png?1]
Reply
#7
(03-25-2019, 01:25 AM)TheCheetahwings Wrote:
(03-24-2019, 03:53 PM)GoneWasAnyTrace Wrote:
(03-23-2019, 09:44 PM)TheCheetahwings Wrote: NOES by FAR. It's insane what they pulled off for so little money.

Huh? NOES cost 1.8M to make whereas ED cost 350,000. 

I'm going with ED, super underrated already

I wasn't saying that NOES had a smaller budget, but for the budget it had they pulled off far more impressive effects. Let's not forget Freddy's face itself is an amazing feat, plus all the gore effects involving him (i instantly think of the disgusting slime he oozes out of his chest), the arms stretching (although simple is always effective). Rod's death is creatively disturbing yet simple, and of course Tina and Glen's are genuine masterpieces & art in of themselves. In general ED has a lot of great makeup and gore effects, but the level of creativity that went into NOES' is insane. The only real mishap is the ending.

I think ED also spread their effects evenly throughout the film and really capitalized every cent effectively. It may have not been Tina/Glen levels but the gore was quite effective and prominent throughout the whole film. The deadite's makeup was always on par as well. The stopmotion is a bit cheesy but it kinda makes me feel queasy. And is genuinely just as unique. Both films make a lot of stellar points
[Image: dd682dfa969884b87dc8b31c49a8864ffdcb23b9.gifv][Image: d3415a07e3fbe6d63d5e2de412788f56de11bb8e.gifv][Image: 8dc48d6674bad809d8da65021d8c156717f600bf.gifv]
[Image: 5651acbca1fa25a005e4c450888748be9ea0aec6.gifv][Image: 2b7efeb6f6aeb6b4640a9e39db4f3adcb9ceb1f2.gifv][Image: 6097e41e5e7b152bfb337a83332a95b375b8d9b6.gifv]

Took a few years to soak up the tears
But look at her now, watch her go...
Reply
#8
(03-25-2019, 05:49 AM)GoneWasAnyTrace Wrote:
(03-25-2019, 01:25 AM)TheCheetahwings Wrote:
(03-24-2019, 03:53 PM)GoneWasAnyTrace Wrote:
(03-23-2019, 09:44 PM)TheCheetahwings Wrote: NOES by FAR. It's insane what they pulled off for so little money.

Huh? NOES cost 1.8M to make whereas ED cost 350,000. 

I'm going with ED, super underrated already

I wasn't saying that NOES had a smaller budget, but for the budget it had they pulled off far more impressive effects. Let's not forget Freddy's face itself is an amazing feat, plus all the gore effects involving him (i instantly think of the disgusting slime he oozes out of his chest), the arms stretching (although simple is always effective). Rod's death is creatively disturbing yet simple, and of course Tina and Glen's are genuine masterpieces & art in of themselves. In general ED has a lot of great makeup and gore effects, but the level of creativity that went into NOES' is insane. The only real mishap is the ending.

I think ED also spread their effects evenly throughout the film and really capitalized every cent effectively. It may have not been Tina/Glen levels but the gore was quite effective and prominent throughout the whole film. The deadite's makeup was always on par as well. The stopmotion is a bit cheesy but it kinda makes me feel queasy. And is genuinely just as unique. Both films make a lot of stellar points

True, I think both films did an amazing job because they still live up to the times. My only issue with the effects in ED is the rape scene which feels kinda campy for a rape scene which should be more serious. I do love the stop motion though, especially on the infection thing which creeps me tf out.
[Image: zcS5rlI.png?1]
[Image: tumblr_ov0cubBf6t1r3ykuvo6_r1_400.gif][Image: tumblr_ov0cubBf6t1r3ykuvo5_r1_400.gif][Image: tumblr_ov0cubBf6t1r3ykuvo7_r1_400.gif]
[Image: tumblr_ov0cubBf6t1r3ykuvo1_400.gif][Image: tumblr_ov0cubBf6t1r3ykuvo2_400.gif][Image: tumblr_ov0cubBf6t1r3ykuvo4_400.gif]

[Image: pnGk9h2.png?1]
Reply
#9
(03-25-2019, 05:58 AM)TheCheetahwings Wrote:
(03-25-2019, 05:49 AM)GoneWasAnyTrace Wrote:
(03-25-2019, 01:25 AM)TheCheetahwings Wrote:
(03-24-2019, 03:53 PM)GoneWasAnyTrace Wrote:
(03-23-2019, 09:44 PM)TheCheetahwings Wrote: NOES by FAR. It's insane what they pulled off for so little money.

Huh? NOES cost 1.8M to make whereas ED cost 350,000. 

I'm going with ED, super underrated already

I wasn't saying that NOES had a smaller budget, but for the budget it had they pulled off far more impressive effects. Let's not forget Freddy's face itself is an amazing feat, plus all the gore effects involving him (i instantly think of the disgusting slime he oozes out of his chest), the arms stretching (although simple is always effective). Rod's death is creatively disturbing yet simple, and of course Tina and Glen's are genuine masterpieces & art in of themselves. In general ED has a lot of great makeup and gore effects, but the level of creativity that went into NOES' is insane. The only real mishap is the ending.

I think ED also spread their effects evenly throughout the film and really capitalized every cent effectively. It may have not been Tina/Glen levels but the gore was quite effective and prominent throughout the whole film. The deadite's makeup was always on par as well. The stopmotion is a bit cheesy but it kinda makes me feel queasy. And is genuinely just as unique. Both films make a lot of stellar points

True, I think both films did an amazing job because they still live up to the times. My only issue with the effects in ED is the rape scene which feels kinda campy for a rape scene which should be more serious. I do love the stop motion though, especially on the infection thing which creeps me tf out.

ED also has those amazing camera shots to make up for what the budget lacks. The shot where Cheryl stands in the dark outside with the car lights on her giveup
[Image: dd682dfa969884b87dc8b31c49a8864ffdcb23b9.gifv][Image: d3415a07e3fbe6d63d5e2de412788f56de11bb8e.gifv][Image: 8dc48d6674bad809d8da65021d8c156717f600bf.gifv]
[Image: 5651acbca1fa25a005e4c450888748be9ea0aec6.gifv][Image: 2b7efeb6f6aeb6b4640a9e39db4f3adcb9ceb1f2.gifv][Image: 6097e41e5e7b152bfb337a83332a95b375b8d9b6.gifv]

Took a few years to soak up the tears
But look at her now, watch her go...
Reply
#10
(03-25-2019, 06:02 AM)GoneWasAnyTrace Wrote:
(03-25-2019, 05:58 AM)TheCheetahwings Wrote:
(03-25-2019, 05:49 AM)GoneWasAnyTrace Wrote:
(03-25-2019, 01:25 AM)TheCheetahwings Wrote:
(03-24-2019, 03:53 PM)GoneWasAnyTrace Wrote: Huh? NOES cost 1.8M to make whereas ED cost 350,000. 

I'm going with ED, super underrated already

I wasn't saying that NOES had a smaller budget, but for the budget it had they pulled off far more impressive effects. Let's not forget Freddy's face itself is an amazing feat, plus all the gore effects involving him (i instantly think of the disgusting slime he oozes out of his chest), the arms stretching (although simple is always effective). Rod's death is creatively disturbing yet simple, and of course Tina and Glen's are genuine masterpieces & art in of themselves. In general ED has a lot of great makeup and gore effects, but the level of creativity that went into NOES' is insane. The only real mishap is the ending.

I think ED also spread their effects evenly throughout the film and really capitalized every cent effectively. It may have not been Tina/Glen levels but the gore was quite effective and prominent throughout the whole film. The deadite's makeup was always on par as well. The stopmotion is a bit cheesy but it kinda makes me feel queasy. And is genuinely just as unique. Both films make a lot of stellar points

True, I think both films did an amazing job because they still live up to the times. My only issue with the effects in ED is the rape scene which feels kinda campy for a rape scene which should be more serious. I do love the stop motion though, especially on the infection thing which creeps me tf out.

ED also has those amazing camera shots to make up for what the budget lacks. The shot where Cheryl stands in the dark outside with the car lights on her giveup

The question is which had better practical effects, though. Not which had better camera shots
[Image: w9H9Sbv.png?1]
[Image: tumblr-mtyxnqci-MP1sn3euyo3-250.gif][Image: tumblr-mtyxnqci-MP1sn3euyo4-250.gif][Image: tumblr-mtyxnqci-MP1sn3euyo1-250.gif]
[Image: tumblr-mtyxnqci-MP1sn3euyo5-250.gif][Image: tumblr-mtyxnqci-MP1sn3euyo8-250.gif][Image: tumblr-mtyxnqci-MP1sn3euyo6-250.gif]
We have a payload to deliver to the heart of our nearest star. We are delivering that payload cause that star is dying and, if it dies, we die, everything dies. So that is our mission, there is nothing, literally nothing, more important than completing our mission. End of story.

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)