>>113614056Basically what
>>113614139 said. The aesthetics, atmosphere, and world in general are still nothing like what's been done since, but the pacing is awful, the dialogue is awkward and corny, and there's just a lot of running around with nothing being done.
All that being said, I have a huge amount of respect for it, both for the creative vision and all the effort that was put into making it come to life. Hell, the CGI scenes it was famous for were made on hardware so low-tech that they couldn't even see as much as a wireframe when they were animating it - they had to jot down the exact XYZ coords, tilt, and facing direction for every object on a sheet of paper, and plan out the entire scene in their heads. This means that for every object in the scene, they had to write down 6 numbers for every individual frame, all while being able to preview none of it, after which they'd hand it off to the computer guys and pray it looked good.
In fact, nobody ever knew what the final product was going to look like until it was done - the liveaction was shot in greenscreen and they had to handpaint like, 3 different layers to achieve the gray skin+glowing lights effect for every frame, and 90% of the movie is made up of handpainted backgrounds anyways, as opposed to CGI. It was a miracle that it came out looking as good as it did at that time.
