View Full Version : makeup or special Effects Graphics
NECRO666
11-10-2005, 09:14 PM
What do you people think is better makeup or graphics. I like old school so i'm a makeup person. i think makeup if done right is 100times better than graph. they are tons of horror films that use graphics and it sucks. Compare the Transformation on Americen WearWolf in london to today movies that use CGI instead. hands down the makeup is better. Yea CGI is cheaper but it looks like shit. Tom savini is the last great american makeup artist ever, once he goes I feel sorry for horror films.
The STE
11-10-2005, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by NECRO666
What do you people think is better makeup or graphics. I like old school so i'm a makeup person. i think makeup if done right is 100times better than graph. they are tons of horror films that use graphics and it sucks. Compare the Transformation on Americen WearWolf in london to today movies that use CGI instead. hands down the makeup is better. Yea CGI is cheaper but it looks like shit. Tom savini is the last great american makeup artist ever, once he goes I feel sorry for horror films.
what about Stan Winston?
pinkfloyd45769
11-10-2005, 09:20 PM
I say makeup! I dont think all gaphics are bad, but the older films looked better.
scouse mac
11-11-2005, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by The STE
what about Stan Winston?
If you hadn't said his name I would have. When you think of all the great creature effects of the past twenty years or more, Stan is the man.
In answer to the original question, i prefer make-up but there will always be a place for cgi if its used sparingly.
noctuary
11-11-2005, 07:23 AM
I've said it before, but I might as well repeat. I don't care for CGI at all. I've seen a few cases where it was used well, but the fact remains that even the very best CGI looks fake compared to old-fashioned makeup and puppetry. If I wanted to see CGI, I'd play a video game, not watch a movie.
The STE
11-11-2005, 01:53 PM
no, the absolute BEST CGI doesn't look fake. I saw a CGI shot in a fairly recent movie that I didn't know was a CGI shot until I listened to the commentary for the movie. It's just that most of the time, what they use CGI for is stuff where you KNOW it's gonna be CGI.
NECRO666
11-11-2005, 08:39 PM
When I seen day of the dead about 99% was CGI now if done right yes it dose look gool, but it's like crack people getting a fixen every 5min. Stan Winston or Tom Savini ect it dosn't matter makup will be history and stupid CGI will take over. How about Altered States that movie had good makup effect. Rember that guy's arm when it started to twisted weird. Altered_States (http://videodetective.com/trailer-preview.asp?PublishedID=363257)
NECRO666
11-11-2005, 08:40 PM
altered States
alkytrio666
11-11-2005, 09:43 PM
Make-up. For a perfect example, look at Exorcist and The Exorcist: The Beginning.
The one that was made 30 years earlier was much more startling than the shitty effects in "Beginning".
pinkfloyd45769
11-12-2005, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by alkytrio666
Make-up. For a perfect example, look at Exorcist and The Exorcist: The Beginning.
The one that was made 30 years earlier was much more startling than the shitty effects in "Beginning". I agree!
slasherman
11-12-2005, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by NECRO666
makup will be history and stupid CGI will take over.
..dont think so...
NECRO666
11-12-2005, 03:48 PM
The Exorcist about every movie that do demons taken over people is ripping off the Exorcist in how they do it. I hate the last exorcist movie only the 1rst was better. How about the Thing (John Carpenter) now that had good makeup. When Kurt Russell lived in springfield, Ma my family knew them, but he was like 5 years old and they moved away. kurt russell will never say he was born in springfield. lol
doctor satan
11-13-2005, 03:22 AM
FX over CGI anyday a lot of that stuff in LOTD looked exactly what it was cheap CGI. And how come no ones mentioned Rob Bottin?
ItsAlive75
11-13-2005, 02:06 PM
I like CGI in pretty much anything but horror movies.
Jester
11-14-2005, 03:42 PM
When it comes to horror, everything needs to be as realistic looking as possible in order to make it seem real.
alkytrio666
11-14-2005, 05:36 PM
P.S. Why the hell is this in 'Upcoming'?
ItsAlive75
11-14-2005, 06:04 PM
Cuz CGI is still "up and coming".
I got nothin'.
I prefer practical F/X/make-up most of the time. CG has its place for things that could not be done any other way. I find the mix of the two to be the best. A pracitical creature replaced with CGI when it is climbing or running, but they have to match. Too often they try to build CG models with no real world reference. The T-rex in Jurrassic Park still amazes me. Why has CGI gotten worse?
Amalthea
11-15-2005, 03:03 AM
I have voted for CGI.
zomb5150
11-15-2005, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by ItsAlive75
I like CGI in pretty much anything but horror movies.
I think that CGI is especially effective in hardcore porn films.:D
Angra
11-15-2005, 08:31 AM
CGI didn´t help the new star wars trilogy one bit. Still too much cartoon over it, in my opinion. Sure it was possible to make some great panoramas over cities, landscapes and such stuff, but the monsters and weird beings just wasn´t convincing. The CGI effects just ain´t good enough for a serious movie..... Yet.
But i´m sure they will be.... soon. Very soon.