Stephen Dorff Quotes

I'm of a generation of director that came up understanding special effects.

Unless you're making Marvel movies, I think CGI usually suffers, especially in mid-budget-range horror movies where you see CGI.

My name is Raquel Welch. I am here for visual effects, and I have two of them.

Over 55% of all shots using animals in 'The Hobbit' are in fact computer generated; this includes horses, ponies, rabbits, hedgehogs, birds, deer, elk, mice, wild boars and wolves.

That's the trouble with anything which essentially has a lot of bits that are physically impossible: You're left, stuck, in the studio. And that's a shame. You're making a movie. You don't want it to stay put, you want it to be a movie - to move.

It's all about the special effects.

The thrill of doing visual effects doesn't exist.

We have an amazing team at ILM who can create fantastic effects.

Special effects are becoming more and more affordable and looking more and more like the real thing.

I think a lot of times, in a lot of modern-day movies, a lot of things are CGI, but so much of the stuff in 'Star Wars' is built and created by these artists.

Maybe 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona' didn't have a lot of visual effects in it, but most movies have some sort of visual effects.

I'm not a big fan of visual effects.

I think some of the special effects in Close Encounters hold up better than the new more expensive special effects is because they were better actually.

Ever since 'Star Wars,' there was a rash of how a movie was made. I remember that as a kid. I never really understood how movies were made until that movie, because it was such a technical accomplishment. Since then, you've seen more and more and more, for all different kinds of films, about what goes into the process.

I grew up watching movies and being amazed at the animatronics you'd see in stuff like 'The Dark Crystal,' and all those kinds of movies. So, I'm always enthralled with how they can make it all work, behind the scenes, with the visual effects.

The thing with computer-generated imagery is that it's an incredibly powerful tool for making better visual effects. But I believe in an absolute difference between animation and photography.

Truthfully, I don't know how those special effects people do it.

MPC, Moving Picture Company, they're really excellent, they did the majority of the effects.

'King Kong,' especially the first two acts of it, is a really good example of the use of miniatures mixed with digital characters and how convincing it was.

When they're good, there is nothing like a big film.

There's nothing worse than a dream sequence done all in post-production.

There were challenges with production because of the special effects. There are just some things that, although written, special effects just isn't able to do.

Technically, the green screen acting can be difficult because there's something worse than a tennis ball on the end of a stick; it's an Australian visual effects assistant running around a field with a cardboard dinosaur head on the end of a stick while wearing sandals.

When you're doing a film that has so many effects, you do a lot of it on green screen, and you can't see what that world is.

We're always striving to make Avatar look like a cinematic, live-action movie.