CGI Isn't Scary

[she_died]

Am I the only one who is totally disenchanted by computer generated horror (I'm going to guess no, but I'm not certain)? I recently watched the US version of The Grudge, with the black wispy ghost thing, and I almost shat myself laughing... There's just something about CG that my mind doesn't BUY at all, and you really have to suspend belief to get into a horror flick. To me, seeing a Fulci eyeball gag, will always be creepier than seeing some impossible computer animated vivisection. I guess filmmakers are somewhat obligated to keep trying to make it work until CG is finally indistinguishable from reality, but for me it's ruined a lot of films.

[Doc Faustus]

I'd generally have to agree with you. I was very disappointed by the new Dawn of the Dead and the CGI zombies. Zombies are organic horror, as organic as it gets, and for them to be CGI'ed was a big disappointment. The last movie I liked with CGI was Sin City, and it was used for a very different purpose than it is in horror movies. And, the US Grudge is laughable. And boring.

[The_Return]

Im on the fence...

CGI, when used well, is great. Sin City, Sky Capitain...heck, it even looked good in Van Helsing. However, when it's used un-nessecairily [IE Mindhunters, The Grudge], it cheapens what could be a very good film.

Not that Grudge was that great anyway...but Mindhunters would have been alot better without the crappy CGI. Oh, Catwoman. BAD CGI in that one....yikes

[The STE]

I think the problem with CGI is that it's advanced to the point where it's "easy to do the effects", so they've gotten lazy and done things that look good enough, when if they put a little more effort into it the stuff would look great. The fact that the stuff is so easy to do now has made them, for the most part, lazy, which kindof negates the whole point of the technology that makes the effects easier to do in the first place.
I'm pretty sure there was some HORRIBLE grammar in there, but I'm not sure where exactly...

[no mulier]

CGI, as with any tool, is only as good as the person using it. And in this case, it is only as good as the filmmaker's vision for using it.

Van Helsing is one film that best illustrates one extreme. There's a story and some possibly interesting characters. Wrap it all around with CGI and you've got a movie? Of course...not. A glaring example of the CGI-nut gone wild.

The character of Gollum in The Lord of the Rings is something of a middle man. It's no too excessively CGI but the inertia is missing. It took me a while to notice this. Try it and see. The more you look, the more it becomes evident that no matter how well-made Gollum may be, his texture and movements is still a notch off.

The best example I can think of is in the use of CGI in Black Hawk Down. And here lies the other end of the CGI spectrum. The filmmaker's intention was to use the tool in order to enhance the film. It was so well-executed that I didn't even know CGI was used, until it was shown in one of the DVD's featurettes.

CGI-enhanced films? Knock yourselves out. Come to think of it, why don't they use old-fashioned "foam latex and kayro syrup" as bedlam23 says, and then enhance it with CGI.

CGI-monsters? I think they should really put in tons more effort, as The STE says, before it's modestly believable so as not to disrupt the film.

[The STE]

I agree with the practical effects gore enhanced with CGI. They could do things that they previously wouldn't be able to do because they'd have to hide tubes or something, and then erase any visible tubes or wires or anything with the CGI. If they can do it with the wire-fighting in kung fu movies, why not with the gore effects in horror movies?

[PR3SSUR3]

CGI is the curse of modern film (horror or otherwise), as while the imagery may do the job of tricking the viewer on the surface, the lack of getting-your-hands-dirty craft on display is disenchanting - and enchantment is exactly what we want from a fantasy film.

One could argue computer graphics still need blood sweat and tears to create, but simply manipulating pixels like they do mean CGI experts and their films will never be taken as seriously as work by prosthetic artists.

Movies like Star Wars are impressive and could not exist as they do without it, but CGI is creeping into the most everyday films in the form of blood splashes, car crashes and background landscapes and these stand out like a sore thumb.

Laziness, too, is a word that pops into mind here.

[PR3SSUR3]

And just to add, I find CGI gore utterly unconvincing and a total turn-off in a horror film.

New audiences might not see the problem with the increasingly outrageous possibilities now available, but more isn't always better.

Imagine how differently the crew of the Nostromo might have acted should John Hurt had been wriggling around with nothing happening instead of those great bursts of fake blood and that slimy little puppet slowly emerging.

Come to think of it, remember how wobbly the Alien films became once the monster became CGI, in Alien3?

[Prelude95Si]

Personally I think that the only movie to really hold its own, in terms of CGI, to this day is Jurassic Park. For me that says a lot b/c that was early CGI, back when it was starting to get big.
But I think that b/c of how much CGI we've seen in movies today the effects are easy to pick-out. The first time I noticed bad CGI was in The Mummy Returns, when the Rock was half Scorpian. He looked like ASS!!! Even parts of Spider-Man look like obvious CGI, like the part when Parker is running to climb up the wall to chase after Uncle Ben's killer.
But, some of the more recent stuff that I think looks good is the stuff in STAR WARS, especially the droids, granted that it isn't hard to make droids look real they still looked great. I think the greatest effect in the STAR WARS prequals was General Greivous.
Then even though Fantastiv Four was kinda lame, Torch look ed great.

Speaking of FF, the Thing is a perfect example of how old fashioned make-up and props still can be a great tool for visual effects.

So CGI has its ups and downs.

[Minty]

Not too keen on the cgi effects in the upcoming Silent Hill movie, even though it's based on the computer game.

[ItsAlive75]

no muller made a great point. The CGI in a film is only going to be as good as the filmmakers want to make it. But it also has a lot to do with the audience the film is geared towards. Flicks like "Anaconda" and "The Mummy" are aimed more towards younger audiences than anything else. Young teenagers (for the most part) just want the cool action scenes and don't pay much attention to the quality of the CGI (Boogeyman is a good example).

One director who's taken quite a liking to CGI that I personally dispprove of is Steven Speilberg. Minority Report and War of the Worlds relied almost entirely on CGI, and both of those movies are pretty terrible. With Munich he was more focused on telling a story well, and the CGI effects are minimal to none.

[The Mothman]

I would say CGI pretty much ruined Land Of The Dead and Ichi The Killer. It looked so horribly fake in those two. I think that using makeup and artificial gore and all that is like an art, and betters a movie. thats why im into a whole bunch of underground ones, because they dont use CGI. you can also really appreciate what they did with the little budget that they had, and wonder about how they did the efffect.

[urgeok]

the worst example of CGI i've ever seen was in an otherwise decent movie : Zatôichi

i've also seen amazing CGI in dino and other big creature effects ..

i think the rule of thumb would be - use it when absolutely neccessary (an otherwise impossible shot) or not at all.

it shouldnt be a substitute for imagination - but there's no way in hell i want to see a dinosaur movie without it.

[Despare]

Zatoichi with that horrible cgi blood... bah still a good movie though. Same with Land of the Dead I liked it despite. For me effects don't matter as much because I can still watch a great 30s movie with awful special effects and love it just as much if not more as I do today. Hell, Army of Darkness has some awful effects but I don't care because I like the movie. I knock a few points off for bad cgi for sure but I could never let it stand in the way of a good movie.

[mothermold]

Originally posted by she_died
Am I the only one who is totally disenchanted by computer generated horror (I'm going to guess no, but I'm not certain)? I recently watched the US version of The Grudge, with the black wispy ghost thing, and I almost shat myself laughing... There's just something about CG that my mind doesn't BUY at all, and you really have to suspend belief to get into a horror flick. To me, seeing a Fulci eyeball gag, will always be creepier than seeing some impossible computer animated vivisection. I guess filmmakers are somewhat obligated to keep trying to make it work until CG is finally indistinguishable from reality, but for me it's ruined a lot of films.

i agree the american "grudge" stunk but i believe bad c.g. was the least of it's problems.

c.g. is just a tool...there's no way it can tell a story(despite what george lucas thinks)it's simply a means of fleshing it out.at it's best it's subtle and nuanced...hell maybe even a completely believable supporting character.at it's worst it's "american werewolf in paris" or something of that ilk.