PDA

View Full Version : CGI killing horror movies?


horrorsniped
02-18-2010, 08:21 AM
Reason why the 70's, 80s' and 90's produced great horror movies was because there was no CGI in the movies! All the costumes and sickening scenes were all done by the FX team. Number one movie to come to mind is John Carpenter's "The Thing" with Rob Bottin and his work creating all those monsters from his own hands. THATS WHAT HORROR IS ABOUT! Not this cheap ass crap that cuts costs and takes the "fright" out of the movies. I guess I am 1341st person to talk about this lol. I know one thing is for certain....I won't be running to see The Wolfman anytime soon :cool:

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TevQS4qgE_Q

Ferox13
02-18-2010, 09:12 AM
CGI/Make up was done pretty well in The Wolfman..

It wasn't over done and stuck to a design similar to Chaney's version..

CGI does really fall down when it comes to doing gore and blood..

neverending
02-18-2010, 09:39 AM
Your time frame is a bit off. The first movie to use cgi effects was Westworld, in 1973.

UngodlyWarlock
02-18-2010, 01:29 PM
Your time frame is a bit off. The first movie to use cgi effects was Westworld, in 1973.

Yeah, but it's pretty clear what he's talking about and he's not talking about that.

I agree with the OP, though...I don't understand how CGI blood in some of these B-movies lately is cheaper than just buying a gallon of stage blood and tossing it about. If you have a budget of 5 bucks, I'd still rather see cutaways and suggested kills than tons of CGI nonsense. It *can* be pulled off in some movies where a lot of money is dumped into it or if it's meant to be stylized like 300 or something, but most of the time it looks like bad CGI even for 1994.

Ferox13
02-18-2010, 02:00 PM
Yeah, but it's pretty clear what he's talking about and he's not talking about that.

I agree with the OP, though...I don't understand how CGI blood in some of these B-movies lately is cheaper than just buying a gallon of stage blood and tossing it about. If you have a budget of 5 bucks, I'd still rather see cutaways and suggested kills than tons of CGI nonsense. It *can* be pulled off in some movies where a lot of money is dumped into it or if it's meant to be stylized like 300 or something, but most of the time it looks like bad CGI even for 1994.

Actually I think he was refering to CGI monsters mostly...

I think the new King Kong. District 9 and the LOTR used CGI to great effect..

horrorsniped
02-18-2010, 02:49 PM
I should have been more specific since I didn't ask when the first time CGI was used in horror movies. Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, Exorcist, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Thing, Halloween, Candyman, Night-Return-Dawn-Day-of the living dead, etc.. All these great horror flicks had the real "feel" to it. Someone�s brains were torn off you felt the realism in it. I was sold time and time again. You appreciate all the work put into making the movie, especially with the FX teams. To be more specific, for me I never had to analyze a movie before and say,"Gee I wonder how long it took them to create that on computer" because everything was done hands-on which is why everything felt so real. Movies now where I see a computer made monster turns me off so much, this is why I started switching to Asian horror movies. Sure they are implementing some CGI but most movies are not which is why I say CGI is ruining American released horror movies. Every horror movie for the past 10 times I've seen in theaters has REALLY turned me off. Disappointed in every way. Dead Silence was the only new movie to catch my attention because the producers themselves have a mission which is to make movies without CGI.

However, this is my view and I believe threes a generation difference. I've been raised with special FX, not CGI.

neverending
02-18-2010, 03:01 PM
No, you didn't ask when cgi was first used, but I thought I would provide that info because you made this statement:

Reason why the 70's, 80s' and 90's produced great horror movies was because there was no CGI in the movies!

Which led me to velieve you were a bit confused, perhaps. Perhaps you should go see some indie low-budget films like Paranormal Activity or Home Movie, instead of mainstream product.

mosca
02-18-2010, 03:31 PM
I don't understand how CGI blood in some of these B-movies lately is cheaper than just buying a gallon of stage blood and tossing it about.

Because working with stage blood takes longer, and the longer the shoot the more money it costs. It's a real pain in the ass to wash the set and wardrobe for each take. Also, blood effects are rather easy cgi to pull off now. It took my editor less than forty minutes to add a simple effect to a film.

But, I agree that stage blood still looks better and should be used whenever cgi isn't needed.

UngodlyWarlock
02-18-2010, 09:00 PM
Because working with stage blood takes longer, and the longer the shoot the more money it costs. It's a real pain in the ass to wash the set and wardrobe for each take. Also, blood effects are rather easy cgi to pull off now. It took my editor less than forty minutes to add a simple effect to a film.

But, I agree that stage blood still looks better and should be used whenever cgi isn't needed.

Ah, okay...that is a very good point. I hadn't thought of the clean-up aspect of it.

Still, as a fan of B-horror (I admit, I watch a lot of bad movies...intentionally at that) it's really irritating when even even the gore/kill scenes are not fun to look at. It's frustrating when the "bad" movies of the 80's often times end up being "better" than the bad movies of the present. I just figure in 20 years, they should be able to make better shitty movies than they used to, if you get my drift, haha. ;)

And it goes the same way with creatures, too. All of the movies on the Sci-Fi channel may be able to do more with CGI with having more interactivity between their creature and the actors (I'm thinking of all of these dragon/griffon/harpy/etc kinds of movies), but even something like the Overlord in Howard the Duck looks better to me than most of them and it's stop animation for crying out loud.

This isn't a hard rule, of course...there are some studios that really make their tight budgets work and I have no issue with big budget cgi, of course. I mainly have issues with the low budget movies mis-using it when they could probably make things more effective with less.

horrorsniped
02-19-2010, 05:49 PM
Hmmm....thats a real valid point of making a mess on the set and then washing clothes....however...I believe that if you truly believe in what you're doing, and if you have a passion for this than it's not really a pain in the ass if you know what I mean. But then of course the whole "cost-reduction" point will be brought up over and over again.

I mean the one thing that really makes me think when I bring this topic up is the movie "The Thing". I am not sure how well everyone knows this movie but EVERYTHING was done originally. The crew had to fly to ?Alaska? and build the whole set up in the mountains. When you watch the extra footage on the blue-ray DVD you see how everything was done. It's sensational! Truly something to appreciate.

mosca
02-19-2010, 06:00 PM
The crew had to fly to ?Alaska? and build the whole set up in the mountains.

British Columbia. However, I thought they did do some soundstage shoots in L.A.

fuglystick
02-19-2010, 06:07 PM
CGI is no more killing horror films than sound or Technicolor.

horrorsniped
02-19-2010, 06:12 PM
British Columbia. However, I thought they did do some soundstage shoots in L.A.

Opps...my bad. I totally forgot it's in B.C. To get to the actual site you do need to cross Alaska, thats what I remember. I wanted to go with this group that organizes the trip every 5 years(or 10?) and I remember them saying you need to get a US passport inorder to go with them.

mosca
02-19-2010, 07:32 PM
Here's a good article by Lisa Morton.

HAVE SPECIAL EFFECTS KILLED HORROR? (http://www.sff.net/people/lmorton/horrormag.html)

Ferox13
02-20-2010, 03:09 AM
Here's a good article by Lisa Morton.

HAVE SPECIAL EFFECTS KILLED HORROR? (http://www.sff.net/people/lmorton/horrormag.html)

Its funny thats it was written in '96 and is complaining about the use of old fashioned blood and prosthetics and the works of SMG and Savini.

I think the article is pretty shoddy over all and the author hand picks films to prove her point...Friday the 13th was hardy the deathknell of the horror film. There always been trashy expoitative horror and the extreme gore started long before SAvini and Friday the 13th hit the screens (HG Lewis anyone). Look at all the drive in and grind house fodder of the 70s...Granted FT13th did get more exposure..

I think the early 90's weren;t popular time for horror -though the were some decent films (In the Mouth of Madness, Frankenhooker, Brain dead, Cemetery Man, The Exorcist III and others might say (but not me) Interview with the Vampire.) i don't think this can be blamed on the oer use of special effects. i think its just the way films/genres run in cycles and it picked up again in '96/'97 when Scream hit the screens..

horrorsniped
02-21-2010, 04:38 PM
Its funny thats it was written in '96 and is complaining about the use of old fashioned blood and prosthetics and the works of SMG and Savini.

I think the article is pretty shoddy over all and the author hand picks films to prove her point...Friday the 13th was hardy the deathknell of the horror film. There always been trashy expoitative horror and the extreme gore started long before SAvini and Friday the 13th hit the screens (HG Lewis anyone). Look at all the drive in and grind house fodder of the 70s...Granted FT13th did get more exposure..

I think the early 90's weren;t popular time for horror -though the were some decent films (In the Mouth of Madness, Frankenhooker, Brain dead, Cemetery Man, The Exorcist III and others might say (but not me) Interview with the Vampire.) i don't think this can be blamed on the oer use of special effects. i think its just the way films/genres run in cycles and it picked up again in '96/'97 when Scream hit the screens..

Oh my god, I totally forgot!! Believe it or not this was part of my "to do list" and the fact that you mentioned "In the Mouth of Madness" I was going to go check downtown Montreal(where I live) to see if the last scene was filmed here. I think it was because there is this long/big government building at the end of the movie that looks IDENTICAL to the one downtown. I should check it out and post the pics here if anything.

ChronoGrl
02-22-2010, 07:01 PM
CGI is no more killing horror films than sound or Technicolor.

I have to agree...

Anyone remember how artfully done Jurassic Park was? Those dinosaurs were definitely scary AND the movie was ground-breaking with CGI.

I feel the same way about District 9. While we can argue as to whether or not this is actually "horror," it's undeniable how incredible those special effects are. That could not have been done without the aid of CGI.

I thought that The Frighteners was a blast and My Bloody Valentine 3D was the most fun I've had at a horror movie in the theater in a LONG time.

I'm not necessarily sure that CGI is "ruining" the horror genre... I think that, as always, there are good movies and bad, and it's not necessarily the special effects that are to blame.

Can someone list off horror films where CGI "ruined" them? I'm kind of curious about the examples that come with this accusation.

horrorsniped - What are some horror movies that use CGI that are just "ruined"?

horrorsniped
02-22-2010, 07:07 PM
I have to agree...

Anyone remember how artfully done Jurassic Park was? Those dinosaurs were definitely scary AND the movie was ground-breaking with CGI.

I feel the same way about District 9. While we can argue as to whether or not this is actually "horror," it's undeniable how incredible those special effects are. That could not have been done without the aid of CGI.

I'm not necessarily sure that CGI is "ruining" the horror genre... I think that, as always, there are good movies and bad, and it's not necessarily the special effects that are to blame.

Can someone list off horror films where CGI "ruined" them? I'm kind of curious about the examples that come with this accusation.

horrorsniped - What are some horror movies that use CGI that are just "ruined"?

You're absolutely right that there are good CGI horror movies and bad ones. But in my opinion there's a lot of bad ones.

American Releases

1. The eye
2. Boogyman
3. Shutter
4. The unborn
5. The Haunting in Connecticut


Just to name a few. The one I remembered the most was The Boogeyman. I was so hyped up for that one and I mean the beginning was awesome. It really kept you in, but then when you see the boogyman the first time walking up the stairs it was all computerized which ruined it for me.

neverending
02-22-2010, 07:18 PM
What ruined Boogeyman for me is that it's a crappy movie with a moronic script, terrible acting and no directorial pacing. Special effects would have been the last of my complaints.

ChronoGrl
02-22-2010, 07:23 PM
See, I don't think that CGI ruined those movies... They're just bad movies. Not even good special effects could have saved The Boogeyman. YEESH was that a painful movie to watch. I had to turn it off.

The Eye and Shutter were poorly-done and unnecessary remakes (especially considering how brilliant the originals were) - I would say bad acting coupled with a bad script made those two dogs, but not really the special effects.

The Unborn - I actually liked a lot of the imagery; the creepy dog, the twisted old man - That CGI looked really good, actually... But the story, plot, and writing were abysmal. Again, not really the special effects that ruined it; in that case, I think that it was over-directed mass produced garbage (and, MAN what was Gary Oldman doing in it???).

Haven't seen Haunting in Connecticut, but I haven't heard anything good about it either...

See, the only decent horror movie that comes to the front of my mind that was ruined by CGI was Blade. Not that the acting was that great, but for a horror action movie, it was pretty ground-breaking; it brought the concept of a raving vampire counter-culture onto the screen and had some pretty kickass action scenes that predated The Matrix... But the very end was just ridiculous and utterly laughable with the whirlwind of CGI blood... Apparently that was their second go at the ending, too, because their original concept was one of a giant CGI blood monster - LOL - booooooooooy how awful that would have been...

But anyway. The films mentioned are just bad movies. CGI didn't "ruin" them; poor writing and acting did. I still don't see a hardcore claim as to how CGI is "ruining" horror. I just don't. You can say that you prefer more "realistic" horror movies (i.e. I like the Asian Horror example; I prefer the concept of the more corporeal yūrei in The Grudge/Shutter/Rinne - that scares the CRAP out of me), but animatronics have their limits, too.