Quote:
Originally Posted by mosca
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.