DEBATE BATTLE! CGI or NO CGI?

E-mail Subscription

Receive an e-mail notification of new posts on this site:

Horrorphile - February 2009

DEBATE BATTLE! CGI or NO CGI ... is that the question?

February 23rd 2009 00:12

I’m old school, but I do embrace the future. However when it comes to special effects in horror movies I’m a purist and a traditionalist; I’m more impressed by illusions when they are engineered and realized in front of the camera, not added in weeks, sometimes months, later by digital artists attempting to make something look convincingly real. For the most part there’s something intrinsically fake about CGI (computer generated imaging).

But I’d be narrow-minded, and hardly progressive, if I didn’t appreciate just how important, or at least just how spectacular, CGI can be in the right context. There are many, many movies where it would’ve been impossible to achieve the special effects without CGI. But I’m not here to discuss those movies.

James Cameron’s The Terminator (1984) used prosthetics, animatronics, miniatures, and stop-motion animation. These are all special effects achieved on set (mostly), in-front of the camera. It adds a palpable sense of realism. It adds a dimension that is no as apparent in Judgment Day, even if the sequel does possess some stunning set-pieces.

John Carpenter recognised the power of elaborate special effects makeup when he chose to remake The Thing From Another World (1951). He hired young gun Rob Bottin, a 23-year-old genius technician who had stolen some of Rick Baker’s thunder when The Howling (1981) was released several months ahead of An American Werewolf in London (1981). Bottin was given a large budget (for the time) to produce what would become some of the most startling special effects make-up work the genre has ever seen. All his grotesquely magnificent effects work for The Thing (1982) was done in-camera. What's the bet the upcoming prequel will feature mostly CGI work.

Of course if the movie was made now all that gruesome xenomorphing would be achieved through CGI, but it wouldn’t have nearly the same cinematic power, or the same visceral intensity. The same can be said of Neil Marshall’s Dog Soldiers (2002) vs. Len Wiseman’s Underworld (2003). The werewolves in Dog Soldiers were trained performers walking on stilts with huge full-body prosthetics and suits. The end result on screen was very effective. Marshall knew that with skillful editing, his werewolves would be terrifying. In the Underworld movies, especially in the most recent Rise of the Lycans (2009), much of the lycanthropy has been CGIed, and I wasn’t chilled in the slightest. The werewolves seemed only half-there. Their malevolent presence was muted.

George Romero’s Day of the Dead is a tour-de-force of special effects make-up work courtesy of magician Tom Savini (with a young Greg Nicotero as his protégé). The re-envisioning of the movie which came out last year; an utter travesty of an excuse, had virtually all its zombie and gore effects digitally rendered. The results were pitiful. Rob Zombie’s The Devil's Rejects (2005) used CGI for all its bullet wounds, and they looked dreadfully cheap. CGI blood does not convince me at all.

All these remakes are using CGI because it means fewer technicians on set, and thus less costing involved. Stop paying actors so much and bring back the special effects make-up technicians! Bring back the real fake blood! Bring back bladders! Bring back swabs! I’m a die-hard romantic; I wanna feel the agony and then the ecstasy!

I’ll admit there are instances were CGI is useful because trying to achieve the effect with prosthetics would not be very convincing. But at the end of the day if the budget is there and the technicians have the skill, the effect can be realised, and be convincing. Just ask Tom Savini, Rob Bottin, Rick Baker, Greg Nicotero, Dick Smith, Stan Winston (well, actually you can’t ask him, he’s dead now).

What do you think of the increasing use of CGI for basic effects work in horror movies?

101

Vote

Subscribe to this blog

Email this post to a friend

Go to the Orble Film Channel

Start your own blog

[ Link ]

Posted By: Bryn - Category: set-pieces

Related Posts:

Relate This Post

[ Previous - Shrooms ]

[ Next - The Machine Girl ]

Comments

8 Comments. [ Add A Comment ]

Comment by Damo

February 23rd 2009 02:54

I am reliably informed that in Shakespeare's time thy used pigs bladders filled with fake blood for stabbing scenes.
The unkindest cut of all.

CGI is just not there yet in terms of technology.
300 still looked fake in many parts.
However so too does a few scenes in The Thing.

Give it some time and CGI may catch up.
For real dreadful FX that mixes both try the Australian film Undead.

Comment by Bryn

February 23rd 2009 03:12

Horrorphile

Damo, I've seen Undead. What's happened to their Hollywood horror movie, Daybreakers they were shooting in Queensland? Is it having post-production problems. They were filming that ages ago.

Comment by Jason King

February 23rd 2009 07:16

Sydney Table
Salty Popcorn
Total Randomness

I am a big fan of CGI as long as they don't overdo it and make an entire CGI film. When I think about we wouldn't have had Gollum being so awesome without CGI but the effects in Alien, Aliens and Star Wars EpIV were sensational without it all together. As with most things I think balance is best. CGI should be used where directors cannot literally do the scene without it and not as a cop out to shortcuts and financial savings.

Comment by Bryn

February 23rd 2009 22:32

Horrorphile

Solid statement Jason. I'm with you.

Comment by random guy

November 26th 2009 22:38

the worst example of CGI ruining a film that i can think of is I AM LEGEND those zombie/vampire creatures were unconvincing they had an oppurtunity to create a creepy atmosphere but they completely screwed it up and the book deserved better .
I believe you shouldnt use CGI unless it's absolutely needed

Comment by Bryn

November 26th 2009 23:46

Horrorphile

random guy, I couldn't actually bring myself to watch the movie ... I love the novel. I agree, CGI should not be used unless absolutely necessary. Cheers!

Comment by Anonymous

January 20th 2010 01:06

CGI should be illegal in horror movies it should only be used for monsters and creating scenery nothing else

Comment by Bryn

January 20th 2010 04:16

Horrorphile

Anon, I quite agree, or for a gore effect that would otherwise look unconvincing (such as the cranial gastronomy in Hannibal)

[ Previous - Shrooms ]

[ Next - The Machine Girl ]

Add A Comment

To create a fully formatted comment please click here.

CLICK HERE TO LOGIN | CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Name or Orble Tag

Home Page (optional)

Comments

Notify me of replies

Notify extra people about this comment

Is this a private comment?

List the Email Addresses or Orble Tags of the people you would like to be notified about this comment

One per line max of 30

List the Email Addresses or Orble Tags of the people you would like to be notified about this private comment thread. Only the people in this list will be able to see or reply to your comment.

One per line max of 30

Your Name
(for the email going out to the above list, it can be different to your Orble Tag)

Your Email Address

(optional)

(required for reply notification)

Submit

February 2010

4 Posts

January 2010

12 Posts

December 2009

13 Posts