I have a problem with movie special effects.

[Deja Q]

When the movie/tv show is released, it is hyped as having the newest and best effects.

5 years later, same program is spat on for having cheap, crap effects.

HELLO? How about character and plot?

Are we a nation of babies fed on eye candy?

[Not_Giving_Up]

1. We are indeed

In some cases though, the breakthroughs in technology are heralded when the movie is new. George Lucas was inventing technology as he went with the original Star Wars movies, but when you watch them now, some of the shots seem cheesy. Still a good story though!

[Archae]

2. Apparently so.

Remember in 1991, Terminator 2, the "Liquid Metal" terminator?

They use that same stuff in ads now.

The original Star Trek was state-of-the-art for TV in the 60's.
Nowadays it looks corny and even fake.

It's nothing new, either.
Just go back to the 1930's and watch a "Flash Gordon" serial.

[Deja Q]

3. The original Trek was done on a shoestring budget, pilot aside.

Compared to 1953's "The War of the Worlds", anyway. The Enterprise shots are very grainy; the result of multiple generations of film used to create the effects. Even in 1960s standards, Trek would have been better if it was given a bigger budget. But it worked for the time.

[salvorhardin]

4. Eye candy is nice

and can help us tell stories that we weren't able to tell before but even years later when that eye candy is old and tired the film can still be fresh and relevant if it has plot and character. That is why Citizen Kane, Forbidden Planet, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Doctor Who and even Babylon 5** remain classics. We care about the characters and what happens to them.

This is also why Final Fantasy -- the movie (http://imdb.com/title/tt0173840) -- sucks and yet Final Fantasy III -- the video game (http://eyesonff.com/ff3/index.shtml) -- does not.

** Just picking names off the top of my head. Don't mean to exclude anyone's favorite.