Today's CGI vs Make-up Effects of the 70s-80s

[_____V_____]

A particular reply in my Deaths tournament thread got me thinking...has today's CGI really killed the scare factor which was so dominant in 70s and 80s horror cinema?


Day of the Dead most deffinitly!..I wish these effects where still used...computers have wrecked the horror industry in some ways!

Well I do agree...to an extent. But look at it this way, CGI has brought a lot of stuff to the screen that make-up and prosthetics could not. Yet somehow the scare-factor of the 70s and 80s still dominate...and are unmatched till now. So, its a bit of a head-tails situation.


In more ways than one, CGI has been a single big contributor to the genre of late. But, the movies of the Golden Age which depended solely on prosthetics and make-up had a better scare-effect on the audiences.

What say, folks?

[missmacabre]

Movies from the 70's are especially scary for me. I get so shakey watching Suspiria or Tenebre. I miss the prosthetics, the glorious amounts of fake blood!

Doing effects like that are so fun too. You have to put so much more work into it that way. Molding wax, blending makeup, it's hard work and it's so much fun. I just think movies should stick with a majority of the effects being makeup and if you have an idea you can't acomplish with makeup then you use CGI.

[Disease]

Cgi, generally move quick which takes away the scare factor, video games have never scared me, this deffinatley is a huge downfall in the genre we love...

[GorePhobia]

Obviously all the old make-up and prosthetics make movies great and seem more realistic but I do also enjoy CGI stuff if they can pull it off and make it not look choppy or obvious that it's CGI.

[Doc Faustus]

This question is like "chicken parmesan sandwich or nutrients from a tube?"

[knife_fight]

prosthetics, miniatures, and all practical effects look real because they are real. CGI looks fake because it is fake.

Give me latex or give me death...
or should that be "and give me death" heh heh heh.... :confused:

[Despare]

While I prefer old school effects I do see CGI progressing to a point where the two are indistinguishable (except maybe because of a bad actor's performance). It'll just take time.

[paws the great]

I think CGI is fine when used to enhance prosthetics or make-up.

[Roderick Usher]

I think CGI is fine when used to enhance prosthetics or make-up.

agreed

it is a wonderful tool for enhancing a make-up effect, not a substitute for make-up effects

[massacre man]

It depends on the movie, two recent examples:

Cloverfield-Yes, it worked well for the giant monster.

I Am Legend-No, good movie but the mutants looked like shit to me, I'd have preferred make-up.

[Staplez]

I prefer the older style alot more. Theres just something about CGI that just dosnt do anything for me. I cant put my finger on what it is exactly. Just something that kinda turns me away.

The way things are going it woulnt be long before whole movie are made on computers and they'll be no need for actors.

[newb]

I think CGI is fine when used to enhance prosthetics or make-up.

Agreed as well


but straight CGI is also very effective [ Spiderman movies..LOTR movies ]

Hey I grew up on stop motion animation, and while I'll admit...its a bit dated, Ray Harryhausen and the like were pioneers and I love all his stuff but its time to move on.

Give it time and it will all come together.

[_____V_____]

Hey I grew up on stop motion animation, and while I'll admit...its a bit dated, Ray Harryhausen and the like were pioneers and I love all his stuff but its time to move on.

Even though it looks dated today, it scared movie audiences out of their seats in its day.

But yes, it had its fair share of time and exposure. Like the others who said it in this thread, CGI and makeup together would be an exciting combo.

And also dont forget, CGI is expensive too...and also takes a lot of time and patience to perfect. Unlike filmmakers to totally rely on CGI, a healthy dose of make-up and prosthetics in today's cinema could enhance its credibility a LOT more.

[Despare]

And also dont forget, CGI is expensive too...

Exactly, and we have far too many low budget films using it so poorly because they can't invest the money or time that it ruins the image of this very helpful tool.

[_____V_____]

Exactly, and we have far too many low budget films using it so poorly because they can't invest the money or time that it ruins the image of this very helpful tool.

And low-budget movies of yesteryears had very effective make-up effects which added to their atmosphere. (Just thinking of the budget spent on making Halloween, for instance)

Filmmakers today should take a leaf out of their older counterparts' books and use make-up effects effectively. A movie doesnt have to rely totally on CGI (whether expensive OR cheap) to get the necessary reaction from the audiences.

The best example of a perfect blend IMO would be An American Werewolf in London.

[crabapple]

Well, being a special effects guy who does both physical and digital effects, I would say, special effects technology is an onward march, and each new innovation sort of adds to the tapestry. There are good and bad applications of everything. A GREAT CG effect, and one I don't think has been topped in some ways, is the "half-melted Billy" effect in "Deep Rising"...it's done mostly with CG "makeup" applied to the actor, and it is beautifully done. I think it redefines what makeup "is" in the digital age.

[ferretchucker]

the make up and prosthetics back then for me, are what makes them scary. They haven't all been done that well so they just look...not quite right and films such as the thing and dead alive with all the slime, tearing and messed up faces make them register in your brain as simply wrong and that's what makes them scarier for me.

[Psycom5k]

Ya know, if we look at make-up and prostetics of now, versus CGI i'd choose the make-up and prostetics. IT just seems to work better, especially when they use fake blood instead of just adding it in with CGI. Like, if anybody has seen the Day of the Dead remake, though I doubt it because its not supposed to be out until the 8th of april, then they would agree that CGI may be good but its not gonna cut it as of right now. Also.... with zombie movies you don't expect zombies to be able to crawl on the ceilings.... you'll know what I mean when you see Day of the Dead, which fails in comparison to the original.

[Marya Zaleska]

prosthetics, miniatures, and all practical effects look real because they are real. CGI looks fake because it is fake.

Give me latex or give me death...
or should that be "and give me death" heh heh heh.... :confused:

Right on! You hit the nail on the head!

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff213/buckybeau/LouisGreerAsGrannyLou2-4.jpg

Countess Marya

[jenna26]

I can appreciate both, if done well. I do usually prefer the old way of doing things, it looks better and its just more fun. But I don't mind CGI if it is not ridiculously over done, like the CGI nightmare that is Van Helsing. :rolleyes:

[_____V_____]

the CGI nightmare that is Van Helsing. :rolleyes:

You watched that TOO?:eek:



:D

[jenna26]

You watched that TOO?:eek:



:D

Okay, that one was totally not my fault....other people were watching it, and I couldn't leave. I figured, what the hell? I have regretted that decision ever since......:rolleyes: ;)

[crabapple]

I watched it too! :eek: No, I did not watch it too! :eek: I, uh....I had a FRIEND who watched it! :eek: :eek: :rolleyes:

[_____V_____]

lmao...okay, okay...

Let's list that under both of your "guilty pleasures", shall we? Just to ease on the consciences...;)

[Doc Faustus]

My brother dragged me to that. I got even by pointing out all the literary inconsistencies. He was cracking up for half the movie.