Why do the effects in Twister look more realistic than Into The Storm?


I went to Into the Storm with the mindset that with better CGI they could make a movie that is a modern Twister. I am a huge fan of Twister despite its faults. The tornadoes just seem like they are really there.

However, I never once got that feeling with Into the Storm. With the exception of the final tornado, none of them looked real. I could tell the whole time they were CGI. It also seemed like the whole movie was filmed on greenscreen, where I am pretty sure Twister was filmed on real locations.

What happened? How could a modern movie look WORSE than a 90's movie? Did Twister have a bigger budget? Any ideas would be great.

Also, off topic, I am new so if I posted this in the wrong area I apologize as it will not happen again.

Benefits of CGI becoming cheaper I'm afraid.

Anyone and his dog can make CG effects for next to nothing these days, which means quality has suffered massively.

Look at Jurassic Park in 1993, and then look at Jurassic Park 3 which was made near a decade later. It's the same problem.
Computer effects became just a tool to use, so the filmmakers just put some dinosaurs in some film and then sold it to the public... whereas in the first Jurassic Park they went for pushing the envelope and making them as perfect as possible.
Originally Posted by doubledenim
Garbage bag people fighting hippy love babies.

Bots gotta be bottin'

How could a modern movie look WORSE than a 90's movie? Did Twister have a bigger budget?
There is a website that I like to use for these sort of questions, it's called IMDB. Were I to assume that you already knew of this website, I could deduce that you must be too lazy to use it. So I will provide you with links

Into the storm


Each lists the estimated budget.
And yes I could go out and film myself a modern movie right now. and it could easily end up worse than a film from the 80s! because i don't have a team of professionals, a studio, star actors, etc.

Look, there is no need to be rude foster. I am new here like I said. I have indeed heard of IMDB, I just honestly didn't know about the budget page. I am sorry if my question somehow offended you. What I asked was a legitimate question. I went to see Into the Storm with an open mind hoping it would be good.

I was just trying to figure out why the effects look more fake than Twister. That is all.

Not seen Storm, but it's a shame to hear the effects are worse than Twister. I guess Rodent is right. Twister is great tho isn't it I remember seeing it at the cinema and being scared it seemed so realistic!

I have indeed heard of IMDB, I just honestly didn't know about the budget page.
Well now you have actually visited it, you're welcome for introducing you to this valuable resource

ahh **** sorry you didn't say thanks.
I misspoke saying you're welcome. sorry about that

I agree with everyone. It seems like people are relying more on CGI as an easy out instead of putting actual thought into it.

Foster, why are you being such an *******? I do appreciate you pointing that out, but I do NOT approve of being called lazy. I am not picking a fight with you and I don't understand why you are being a dick about this. I asked a simple question and it seems like everyone else is giving me reasonable answers.

Hmmm so no thank you and now you're name calling.
Who is actually the rude one here?

How do I ignore people on this site, I have no desire to talk to ingrates

I agree with everyone. It seems like people are relying more on CGI as an easy out instead of putting actual thought into it..
Are you a general fan of disaster films too? I loved Twister, and will always try and get to films like that in the cinema where they work the best. The Day After Tomorrow, 2012, Volcano...anything like that. Also if I read the words post apocalyptic then I'm there !
There's a few threads about special effects, there's a search facility in the top bar if you're looking for anything in particular.


Yes, Christine, I love disaster movies mostly from the 90's. But I like some 70's ones too. My top favorites are Armageddon, Twister, and Dante's Peak. Say what you want about Michael Bay (Armageddon) but his 90's work was awesome!

And others have said, the fx were better then than they are now.

Also, if you like Armageddon, try out Deep Impact.

Was released the same year, give or take, and is a clone war with Armageddon.

As I remember it, Deep Impact is a hell of a lot better than Armageddon, though liking Armageddon may mean that's not the case. I don't think Independence Day is a disaster film, but if you're just talking destruction, then yes, it'll work just fine.
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Master of My Domain
Armageddon is a badly edited, dizzy, incomprehensible film made as an excuse for Bay to try to stuff he does on Earth in space. On the other hand, Deep Impact is nothing close to a good film, though compared to the former it has a proper story and some okay performances.

Nighthawk, I thought the tornadoes at the end of each movie (you know, the huge ones) were really great-looking. I thought they were realistic. There were also some, I thought, in each movie, that weren't completely realistic-looking. In Twister, I thought the tornado/tornadoes that were on the lake that had the cow flying around in it was kind of phony-looking but the rest were pretty good.

By comparison, I think the one in Into the Storm that had the fire in it looked fairly phony. I guess what I'm getting at is that they probably saved most of their special effects/CGI budgets for the storms they really wanted to use their money for, ala the climactic storms.

What do you think? I love Twister more than I do Into the Storm, but I think both are fine entertainment. This despite the fact that I live in "Tornado Alley" in the U.S.!
"Miss Jean Louise, Mr. Arthur Radley."

Dadgumblah, For me, the fake looking one in Twister was the "jumper" on the hill. The buildup to that scene freaked me out as a child. But the twister itself seems not as powerful as the rest.

What did it for me in twister was that it looked like one big solid mass. And Jan de Bont did a good job of combining real locations and real effects with the cgi tornadoes. Into the storm seems like it was on a green screen every time the twisters appeared. It seems like they put less effort into trying to make things as realistic looking as De Bont did with Twister. It probably helps that De Bont already had experience with Speed that had mostly practical effects.

I do agree however that the last tornado in Into the Storm was pretty realistic looking and powerful. It was definitely comparable to the F5 from Twister. But otherwise, it just seemed like the tornadoes weren't the center of attention in Storm like they were Twister.