I suppose it depends on your definitions and thresholds for the amount of FX. Many Michael Ninn movies have had FX sequences, such as "Perfect". Private has had decent movies with really bad effects, such as the Uranus Experiment series. The "Sex City" series has some of the most effective use of the kinds of effects it employs.
Think Michael Ninn's movies are full of FX sequences, but it won't make a difference with a movie with an only sequence. It dependes on the influence of the whole film.
I knew a lot of you would say Pirates, but the "right" answer is Space Nuts. Pirates looked like a computer game...Space Nuts actually looked like something ILM had done.
well, I am not sure if you are strictly referring to CGI effects or not. There are many "digital FX" that are not CGI. I have always been partial to the bi-cameral brainfuck montage that appears in "Buttman Confidential". Basically, you take an image and then invert it three more times and superimpose all of the images on top of each other. This tends to make genitalia look like ultra-dimensional jelly fish. I suppose in the pre-digital era [70's] this could have been achieved by taking LSD and going to a peep show with a kaleidoscope.....
"Lovely to look upon, heaven to touch, a real damn shame they got to cost so much." 60 Posts 6/07
Posted - Aug 27 2007 : 11:03AM
What kind of worries me, is that, that explanation makes perfectly good sense to me. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Don't piss down my neck an' then tell me it's rainin'." Edited by - poobah9 on 8/27/2007 11:04:50 AM