Does CGI make horror movies not as scary ?

[Brazoo]

No... it IS a crutch for lack of skill and creativity. I can't even tell you how many films I've worked in the past 15 years, where I've asked a director on set how we were going to shoot something, and the reply was; "We're not. This will be a CG sequence..." That always meant to ME, that they couldn't figure out how to do it practically. Also, a lot of "directors" these days, are not on set guys. They prefer to make as much of the film as they can in post production, where they can sit in a dark room, where the pressure of a crew, actors and producers expecting you to make the friggin' movie isn't present. This means far more guys these days are using CG instead of practical methods.

I honestly feel that this is not only a result of inadequacy talent wise, but of the whole personal electronics, iphone, myspace, twitter, nonsense that is making this generation very socially inept when it comes to being with AND WORKING WITH actual people instead of sitting at a keyboard or staring into a cell phone.

It's really sad, but I do honestly feel that very soon, the public will revolt and realize that all these movies that are being forced down their throats are garbage, and the real cream will again rise to the top.

SC

I don't think we really disagree about this in general, but I have seen some imaginative uses of CG too.

I don't see why it can't be a totally viable creative tool in the right hands - it's just usually in the wrong hands.

[Mikey]

Space movies are a good example

No new space movie ever uses model ships anymore

Today they are all CGI

Why ?

Does CGI ships look better ?

IMO, no

They do it because it's easier and cheaper.

[Cmonster]

I don't think we really disagree about this in general, but I have seen some imaginative uses of CG too.I don't see why it can't be a totally viable creative tool in the right hands - it's just usually in the wrong hands.

Agreed. Kind of what I meant...

SC

[Goblin19]

I've given up on most modern horror movies. CG is just part of the reason. I think the CG is just lazy, not inherently scary, but if done right, it wouldn't bother me. The bigger issue is they seem to churn these out for the teenage crowd and don't seem to give a hoot about the quality of the movies. I think the CG is just more a reflection of their lack of care for the story and buildng true scares.

[torgospizza]

Living in the CGI age, does it seem to make horror movies not as scary ?

Yes, to a degree. How I think it ruins horror is that after we're seeing stuff like the new Clash of the Titans kraken or Cloverfield on a fairly regular basis, how are we supposed to wet our pants over Cthulu, f.ex.? It would almost take an ingenious director to just overcome the effects to deliver the otherworldly creepiness that is necessary for a story of that type. I mean, to be truly frightening and not just Jurassic Park with an alien octopus giant.

[Brazoo]

Yes, to a degree. How I think it ruins horror is that after we're seeing stuff like the new Clash of the Titans kraken or Cloverfield on a fairly regular basis, how are we supposed to wet our pants over Cthulu, f.ex.? It would almost take an ingenious director to just overcome the effects to deliver the otherworldly creepiness that is necessary for a story of that type. I mean, to be truly frightening and not just Jurassic Park with an alien octopus giant.

I was thinking about "Clash of the Titans" when this thread started. I haven't seen the original in years, but in the original version the Medusa scenes were really suspenseful for me. The fact that she was so deadly, but barely moved actually made her seem more powerful in my mind, and really added to the scene.

In the new one she's flying around like she's in the Matrix - and aside from many other things that were wrong with the remake - it really struck me how action scenes are actually more limited now. It's like there's only one note on the scale or something.

[Joe90]

One of my favourite horror movies is the 1963 original of The Haunting. The most they reveal on screen is a closed door bending under the weight of the malevolent entity on the other side. Everything else is hinted at or built up through the film's narrative. The Shining is another one.

I find the most unnerving horror movies allow the viewer's imagination to concoct their own worst fear.

[kingdom warrior]

One of my favourite horror movies is the 1963 original of The Haunting. The most they reveal on screen is a closed door bending under the weight of the malevolent entity on the other side. Everything else is hinted at or built up through the film's narrative. The Shining is another one.

I find the most unnerving horror movies allow the viewer's imagination to concoct their own worst fear.

Totally agree....how bout Psycho the quick cuts the tightness of the shot and only the sound of the knife....probably one of the most terrifying scenes ever put on film....I remember after i saw that i was terrified to turn my back in the shower.......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VP5jEAP3K4

[Goblin19]

The Haunting is my favorite horror movie ever. I wouldn't even watch the remake.

[mego73]

When I see older movies', the ones that were really trying to stretch the envelope, I'm in more awe than I am in the most intricate CGI fests. Because these guys had to figure out how to do what they did either practically or optical/photochemically.

The flying scenes in Superman still kick my butt. The original Star Wars dive into the trench is incredible. They started out zooming into the matte painting and used a laser flash to switch to a model of the trench and it all looked seamless. In the older films, you get the sense of them knocking themselves out to get an effect right. I know that still happens with CGI, but it's not the same because there was no go to tool of a computer, those people really had to have an alchemy about what they did.

[Gorn Captain]

I think CG should be used as a last resort.
First try to do it on-set, or with models or whatever.
If all else fails, think about CG.

[ctc]

>The bigger issue is they seem to churn these out for the teenage crowd and don't seem to give a hoot about the quality of the movies.

Yeah, but that's how it's ALWAYS been. I grew up in the 80's, and was beaten over the head with how a plucky teen could save the day, save his girlfriend, save the community center, get the old folks to dance, defeat the monsters, and fight off the Russians. They didn't make those flicks for adults.... except maybe those that grew up in the 50's, when a plucky teen could save the day, save his girlfriend, save the community center....

>That always meant to ME, that they couldn't figure out how to do it practically

I don't think that's exactly fair. A crappy director is a crappy director regardless of what techniques they use, and there are a lot of things that work a lot better in CGI. Even with old school effects; once somebody did an effect one way, or framed a shot a certain way, or paced a scene a certain way; EVERYBODY started doing it. It's easier than thyinking stuff through whole-cloth.

>They do it because it's easier and cheaper.

Actually.... no on both counts. At least for now. CGI is VERY time consuming and labor intensive. (Unles you go all Flash....) I've been told that a lot of push for CGI comes from the execs, and that there's a notion that one day they'll be able to use it plug and play to churn movies out with no actors, effects crews, etc.

>They started out zooming into the matte painting and used a laser flash to switch to a model of the trench and it all looked seamless

.... but you're still WAY too aware of how it's done. I think THAT'S why so many of our crowd hate CGI; it seems like a cheat, like an unfair, improper way of doing things; when in reality it's just a different way.... but folks don't generally care for different so much. Sure, it can be an easy crutch, or a way to cop-out on your finished flick; but that's not new.

Don C.

[babycyclops]

I think the most successful uses of cg effects in films are when they are used in conjunction with practicle fx.
The best example is Pan's Labrynth. Make-up and suits, as well as props, merge seamlessly with the cg effects, and the artifice dissapears.
Movies that have all cg effects have to have REALLY interesting characters and stories to work.

[domino]

I have and always will be a fan of practical effects. It just seems more real to me. The work and effects that guys like Tom Savini, Dick Smith, Rob Bottin etc did just amazes me. Maybe I am just older and not scared as easily but these guys could make me jump out of my seat.

My biggest problem with CGI is the unnecessary over use of it. A recent example was with the Spartacus tv series. I enjoyed it but wow, the blood was so over the top that it ruined some scenes. It just seemed like they wanted to see how much CGI effects they could cram it. It would have been much more effective if toned down.

Like I said, maybe I am just old but this is my 2 cents.

[Cmonster]

I think the most successful uses of cg effects in films are when they are used in conjunction with practicle fx.
The best example is Pan's Labrynth. Make-up and suits, as well as props, merge seamlessly with the cg effects, and the artifice dissapears.

Correct. Look at "Jurassic Park", "Terminator 2" or "The Abyss"... Perfectly and effectively used CG with full scale dinos, puppets, mechanical FX. But then again, look at who directed those films; Spielberg and the master himself, Big Jim. So again, proving my point from my first post in this thread; It's all about the director.

SC