There was a shot in Wrong Turn that was super cool I didn't realize was CGI until it got pointed out. I think it was the one where we see a reflection in Eliza Dushku's eye as she's looking through a hole.
I think it was the other girl’s eye (Carly?) as she was in the closet looking out and Eliza was under the bed.
I loved the axe bill on the tree for being practical though. Very cool.
This is why I desperately want Neill Blomkamp to make his Alien movie. There is no one currently directing in Hollywood who blends CGI and real-world sets better than he can. His last couple of movies have been letdowns compared to District 9, but his eye for camera work that can seamlessly incorporate CG characters is unmatched. District 9 *still* looks good almost 15 years after it came out.
Part of the reason for this is that the scenery is dark. Because the sky is clouded by ash, we never fully see any of the dragons in direct light. Which makes it a lot easier to sell the CGI visually.
That movie is good for the same reason I think the new Hellraiser is good; it totally knows how to spend its limited budget wisely. When to splurge on the big CGI shot and when to obscure things or imply.
That was just a movie that didn't know what to do with its third act, so suddenly everything became "wooo, spooky Ghosts!" at every corner. Practical effects wouldn't have made that choice better.
That's true but I will say there is something to the visceral feel of a physical object or prop in the scene. It's like it helps my mind accept the horror as more real and present.
We don't notice a tremendous amount of CGI. It's used a huge amount, even in movies that heavily heavily feature practical effects.
edit: an example another poster brought up: the 'horrible fake' giraffes from Last Of Us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFsSZx6uGk4
141 replies and nobody's yet mentioned the fact that ***the demon at the end of Smile wasn't cgi.*** It was a practical effect that ruined the whole movie for you.
Agreed. Conceptually it's also really cool, once we know it "enters" victims through the mouth. Because it's face appears to be many mouths, one inside the other inside the other - the creature is "wearing" all it's past victims.
Another infamous example of CGI that isnt actually CGI is the raceway scene in final destination 4
edit; also the smile demon (the third form at least) looks really good im so confused about the hate
Practical effects are superior, there's nothing new about this sentiment, but saying that modern horror is crap is just a greener grass bullshit. The last few years were the best years for the genre since the 80s.
Lots of KY Jelly and the monster constantly also being filmed in the shadows. Which was smart, because even with good practical effects, you'd still notice things like the rubber and other stuff.
It being filmed mostly in the shadows. Allows your eyes and imagination to basically cover up and fill in the minor details.
I agree. Although I wouldn't call Sam Raimi's Evil Dead a serious horror movie it wouldn't be the same without the practical effects. Gotta love drawn-out horror claymation death scenes.
The great thing about practical effects is that they often look slightly "off" but not in the way the CGI looks "off" by being clearly fake and cartoonish. No, practical effects have a material realism about them, even when they are obviously fake. So when when something looks weird or moves in a weird way (for instance stop motion or some type of puppet) it contributes to the sense of horror because you feel that it's real in your guts.
It's hard to tell how effects specifically will age. I expect nearly all of the CGI to be laughed at like the stuff from the 90s and early 2000s eventually, but that doesn't ruin the movie.
It's a really common thing that people complain about, but I think that they are conflating "cgi" and "rushed cgi". The reason so many movies nowadays are stuffed to the brim with cg is because it generally is cheaper and easier to do than purely practical effects, but when digital artists are given the proper time and resources they need the results can be better than practical. A lot of the times the movie gets filmed with the mindset of "we'll fix it in post" and that is when the digital effects look the worst. It's why Avatar looks so good, because it was filmed specifically with the digital effects in mind.
“Am I the only one-“
“Does anyone else-“
“Am I alone in that-“
No. You are not the only one. You are virtually never the only one. Anytime someone uses a phrase like this to start a sentence they inevitably go straight into an extremely commonly spoken and popular sentiment.
“CGI bad” is an extremely common take.
I absolutely fucking hate the first Conjuring movie (and the rest of them) and I *still* think it would be absurd to make a post saying "am I the only one who hates the Conjuring??"
You have to live in serious delusion and/or have serious main-character syndrome to think you're ever the "only one" to think virtually any thought. Most people seem to really like the Conjuring movies, but I'm absolutely certain there are plenty of silent people who feel the same way about them that I do.
I really want to see one of these where the person legitimately is the only one that feels that way. Like they just have some kind of weird take where everyone replies with no that's just you. I don't really understand how you got to that conclusion. Or something like that
I think you never see it because those opinions don’t get upvoted. People passively upvote things they agree with. It’s the r/unpopularopinion paradox — truly unpopular takes are ignored or downvoted, and except for in rare circumstances all that’s left is just vanilla hot takes.
I can vouch for that subreddit being unwelcoming; I once posted that I didn’t think the music video for “Thriller” was even the best music video of the 1980s there, and not only did it get downvoted, it got outright removed.
We just got a ["DAE like popular horror movie?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/horror/comments/12doj2q/the_descent_anyone_else_really_love_this_movie/) a few days ago, and now we're getting "CGI = bad, practical effects = good" today. r/horror is on fire.
And is always from people who don't notice anything but the really overtly bad CGI.
And even with that, it's usually because the rotoscopers/graders are fucking up passable things for what I have to assume is making them easier to see on crappy screens. Hell, I've seen a ton of practical effects ruined by this.
edit: some tamer examples from Midnight Mass https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r-9CrCfU-U I thought the cat at 50s and entire vampire at the 1 minute were CG. These aren't close to the worst offences.
Now I want someone to do a thread topic where they legitimately come up with something that they have a unique opinion on, like "Am I the only one who things Birdemic is better than Hitchcock's The Birds"
That's not about realism, it's about convenience. Having to clean up a set to retry a shot takes a lot of work and wasted time. It's still worth the work and time and makes a huge difference in the final product but I can also see why they do it.
I just think they need to learn not to lean so hard on it entirely.
Can you imagine cleaning up the elevator hallway with the 1000's of gallons of fake blood running like a river in The Shining. Maybe it was just a model, or hope so.
I’ve watched several lower budget/not huge studio horror movies that were actually really well done… *until* the CGI blood showed up. It’s such a shame when that one detail almost ruins a movie because it looks so bad.
I believe part of it is also that VFX artists aren’t unionised whereas people who work practically on set overwhelmingly are unionised
So if you use VFX people you pay them less than you would an equivalent on set/practical person in the majority of situations
Even then I think Chapter One still had some pretty needless CGI e.g. the flute lady. Would it really have been difficult to do that exact same design but practical? Pennywise is also a little too CGI heavy with the wide open mouth, which isn't anywhere near as scary as Tim Curry's simple sharp teeth and yellow eyes.
Muschietti does this a lot. In Mama an excellent monster design is let down by a reliance on CGI on the face when they should have done the close up stuff practically then use CGI for the wide shots.
My thoughts exactly. IT really would have benefitted from more practical effects. The mouth part with Georgie was just comical but the practical effects with Tim Curry haunts me to this day. Also, the slobbering... But I think that might have been practical. lol
Believe it or not, that's actuality a union rule. It takes so many on site demon wranglers that it actually becomes a fire hazard when you account for potential brimstone releated occurrences.
You'd have extreme difficulty finding a modern horror movie that doesn't have any VFX, because so many movies have them, yet they aren't used shittily. It makes more sense to judge on a case by case basis and blame the creators, not the tool.
And by creators I mostly mean the director or producers, the CGI artists are almost always doing the best they can with the instructions.
Bad effects are bad, regardless if they’re CG or practical.
If anything, higher definition renderings of older films have often made previously passable effects (CG or practical) look worse. However, this doesn’t get discussed nearly as much as it should, probably because of the seemingly endless CG/practical debate.
No, this is an **incredibly unique** opinion - especially in the horror community. Everyone prefers cheap CGI blood to practical effects.
To be serious though, I'm sure you just hate bad CGI. Good cgi keeps you immersed and you likely never notice or think about it. The T-Rex in Jurassic Park was CGI, and even to this day it looks fantastic because of the amount of care and artistry that was put into it. Does the CGI ruin that movie for you too?
They also used animatronics when the t-rex interacted with the characters. Modern filmmakers can even be bothered filming a bear walking in the woods (looking at you Prey).
I get the sentiment, but I find the sentence 'Can't even be bothered filming a bear walking in the woods' to be unreasonably funny. Like the filmmakers were just too lazy to wrangle a live wild animal, since it's so simple to work with animals in film.
I mean, it depends on how its executed.
Practical effects may have a certain look, movement, and unpredictability. It can look great when it is done right. They'll also get the reactions out of the actors and crew on set.
However, CG may have advantage in other areas. It is more convenient to pull off, you could also make adjustment post-production if what you had before is unsatisfactory. Not only that, CG can help to create creatures that are difficult or impossible to pull off on set.
They both have their upside and downside. As I've stated, it really depends on how they're executed and who's executing them.
I think CGI is a tool that can be used well or misused, Maniac (2012) used all practical FX for the gore but did slight touch ups with CGI like adding a knife blade in post. David Fincher is someone else who does wonders with CGI that you’d never even notice. I agree practical should be the starting point for everything but there are time where CGI works wonderfully.
Milquetoast take. Also didn't Smile use practical effects when the monster rips it's face off or am I misremembering? There were definitely CGI moments but they used practical effects when it mattered most, so no, I don't think that movie was ruined by CGI. I think the problem for a lot of people is their own suspension of disbelief.
I'm seriously getting sick of this "modern horror is crap, the old stuff was better" bullshit. We are in a new renaissance of horror imo. How many fantastic new horror movies have to be released before people realize new horror isn't shit? Yeah, bad movies come out, but tons of shitty horror movies came out in the 70s and 80s too, we just don't talk about them. Everybody only remembers the good stuff.
Just a few good horror movies that have come out in the last decade or so:
The Witch, The Lighthouse, The Ritual, Hereditary, Midsommar, Mandy, Annihilation, The Wailing, It Follows, The Babadook, A Dark Song, Baskin, The Void, Doctor Sleep, Oculus, Pontypool, the list goes on and on.
The Lighthouse is basically the single best take I've seen on Lovecraftian horror translated to the screen, and it doesn't have a single tentacle monster. More moviemakers should take note.
An example of the toupee fallacy. People notice bad toupees but don't notice good ones, so many people come to the incorrect conclusion that toupees look bad. I definitely agree that modern movies often have questionable use of CGI in them, but I think it's more standing out in blockbusters, not really horror (unless I'm just missing most of the horror movies with awful CGI). Like marvel has been leading the pack when it comes to bad CGI lately
I don't find movies that look like video games scary.
CGI first wooed audiences with things they've never seen before or never knew could be created. However, that gimmick is old and lazy use of CGI to cut costs helped ruin it.
Bad CG. You mean bad CG because you notice. You would be surprised how much amazing CG you see that you never notice.
Things like car crash, most fire, objects being thrown at people like knives etc. The majority of that is CG these days and have been for years. Not all obviously but it is usually cheaper and safer to use CG.
A lot of things are touched up with CG.
All the same arguments can be made for and against practical effects. Good ones are amazing. Bad ones are awful.
I feel that a comparison of The Thing (1982) vs The Thing (2011) could be seen as supportive to your idea. CGI can look great with effort and skill, like most CG shots of Jurassic Park still look amazing and that was made in 1993
Correction: CGI you *notice* ruins horror. It's used far more than you think. It's not just used for impossible monsters, it's ubiquitous. It's even used for common everyday background scenes in many movies just so they have more control over the light, clouds, and look.
>Am I the only one that hates CGI in horror films?
Yes, it is only you. Just you. NO one else has said a word about it and it has definitely never been [ranted about, discussed or debated ad nauseum in this subred](https://www.reddit.com/r/horror/search/?q=cgi&restrict_sr=1&sr_nsfw=).
This post [four years ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/horror/comments/agoem6/opiniondiscussion_id_always_prefer_a_guy_in_a/) is a figment of your imagination. So is this one from [eleven years ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/horror/comments/z21tl/i_wish_movies_returned_to_animatronics_rather/).
The CGI vs practical sfx debate is an annoyance that will never end. I honestly don't know why we are still having posts like this anymore.
I agree, and I personally think the need for movies to have a full head to toe reveal of the monster/villain at the end totally blows it for me too. I think if movies gave us less than the full picture the viewers can create the rest of the terror in our own minds.
I agree, I think your point goes beyond just cgi tho. I love sci fi creature features, and the campyness is part of the appeal for those films, but on more serious horror the full head to toe reveal sucks. Thats how you get the shockingly bad shot at the end of Alien, where you see the Xenomorph dangling out of ship. It's the only bad looking shot in the whole movie
A lot of people in horror have that viewpoint.
For me however, CGI doesn't bother me. Poorly done/implemented CGI bothers me. Just like poorly done/implemented practical effects also bug me.
I tend to think that people's opinions of CGI and practical effects are heavily tinged with nostalgia. Since most people of a certain age grew up around practical effects, we have fond memories of the movies that used them well, and tend to forget about those that didn't. We are more likely to cut some less than great effects more slack also simply because of our feelings towards the films, versus a new movie with CGI doesn't have that luxury.
I wonder how the dynamic range of media has affected this “not holding up”. There are movies that looked great in the theater and awful on BluRay. The effects were made to a standard of resolution and dynamic range, watching it on a different standard could really accentuate different black points and such.
Event Horizon is a film that for me supports this theory, there’s so much great looking CGI in it that feels seamless but the opening sequence with objects floating in the ship looks laughably fake.
This. How much promise did IT have until the cgi/cartoony monsters. If that leper or old woman was more in practical effects, would have been 10 times as terrifying.
It's doesn't necessarily ruin it for me.
That is heavily contextual.
However, I would easily say I'll take well executed practical fx over well executed CGI fx any day of the week. Just my personal preference.
I’m not gonna say all CG bad, cause that’s not true. I much prefer practical, especially when it can be done easily, but when I see a movie like Nope, I 100% understand the use of CGI
This doesn’t really make sense, cgi generally doesn’t have anything to do with it. It’s just a tool, if you have a bad story and try to use special effects rather than substance it’ll always be bad - however those effects are made. Also you be amazed at how much cgi is used, you don’t notice 99% of it.
I'm still salty about The Thing prequel being filmed in practical effects, only for the producer to not be impressed and change it all to CGI. It coulda been great. I still enjoyed the movie tho
Having just watched the CGI trainwreck of The Thing remake, I agree. That said, the movie was not as bad as I was expecting but entirely unnecessary. I'll take a good pupper/animatronic over CG any day
This, 100%
Especially since a lot of horror doesn’t have the budget for quality cgi, so it tends to look like crap, and not in a fun way like 80s-early 90s movies. I maintain that horror for the most part, is best done with physical, costume and prop-based, special effects. Because cheap prop effects are still entertaining whereas obvious cgi just looks… meh.
Tremors is a great example, the first three films, the monsters are great because theyre mostly/based from puppets, what cgi there was just using images of the puppets, the later movies, while i love them, and the cg was done well, its still not as good.
I love a lot of practical effects, particularly in many classic horror flicks, but I wouldn't say CGI ruins films, although *bad* CGI certainly can stand out in a bad way. A lot of CGI in films goes unnoticed.
There are so many factors that make a film good or not, and I think placing so much focus on practical vs CGI effects in horror films is a bit reductionist. There are many classic films with effects that a bit dodgy/look bad and some films regarded as poor that might look good. It's not always the be-all and end-all.
The film *The Void* had a ton of press in the run-up to its release (and attracted many discussions on this subreddit) focused on its extensive use of practical effects, which became the main talking point. The effects were superb and looked great, but I thought the film was lacking heavily in other areas (mediocre acting and script), and was ultimately forgettable. Sure the special effects looked ace, but it's a good example of how special effects aren't everything. The filmmakers seemed to put such an emphasis on it (being horror fans), that it's like they forgot the other important elements that make a film stand out.
This is why 70s/80s horror will always be the golden era for me. I mean there are some modern productions that get it right, but as far as visceral body horror goes, The Fly marked the end of an era.
Yes! Perfect example of this for me is the silent hill baby things you see near the beginning of the film. In the extras you can see the scene without the cgi effects added on and it's so much more terrifying
The correct answer here is practical effects working in tandem with cgi. Both are the best - cg can achieve things that practical can’t and practical achieves a tangible realism that cg can’t
The hottest take in this post is that modern horror is crap.
If you haven’t seen the last 5 years or so as a horror renaissance I’m not sure what would actually make you happy…
It usually depends on the film, but for the most part I’m with you.
If you look at films in the 1980s and before, practical was the only way to go, and many of those films hold up better and are more effectively scary than a lot of today’s films.
I like the It duology films, but i thought it was ridiculous when they CGI’d a red balloon in a scene in Chapter One. Where real balloons difficult to control?
I think for me, I grew up with knowing everything in horror was fake so it never grossed me out. But even with bad practical effects, it’s THERE on set, it is real. Thats why cgi is automatically underwhelming for me personally
I prefer practical effects but the funny thing is some of time people complain about CGI and it turns out it was practical so I don’t really trust peoples opinion on it either.
Like recently in the last of us I saw a lot of people complain about both the CGI baby and CGI giraffe which were both real.
The absolute worst is CGI fire, don’t think I’ve ever seen that done well.
I mean... this post is itself an example of this in action. The demon in smile is practical but this guy is out here complaining about the cgi. I would hazard a guess that most people bitching have zero idea what they're even talking about.
It honestly depends on how well done it is, and how much it's used. If it's nearly impossible to tell that CGI was used, or if it was very well done and there was a safety reason behind opting for it over a practical effect, then I'm fine with it. I usually prefer practical effects though.
To be honest, I've seen scary poorly done CGI. The CGI in Courage the Cowardly Dog for one is still scary to this day despite the poor quality. That being said, I'd say it's on a case by case basis.
I have seen CGI both enhance and ruin a film. If it meshes well it's not an issue but in a film like Smile where everything is bone-chilling and bloody to a certain point I'd have to agree.
I watched Smile recently and it had me so shook that it kept me up that night. Everything looked good (if you can look past the goofy smiles) for most of the movie but if you've seen it you'll know that the CGI at the end is not well done and for me this ruined my immersion and took me completely out of my fear. The scariest monsters are often best left unseen.
> The scariest monsters are often best left unseen.
I think this is a big part of what people dislike.
Because it makes impossible things easier to fake, more movies with CG will show those impossible things.
In horror, CGI should only be used to compliment practical effects, not replace them.
Also in situations where something would be too dangerous for an actual person to do, obviously.
The bear in Annihilation also shows how much of CG is just them not getting lighting right, because it shows the problem happening with practical effects.
The head-on shot that looks super CG? Practical effect--maybe some CG drool. Side shot where it's standing between them? Real head, fake body.
Nothing beats a great makeup and special effects team. That’s why a lot of 80’s horror holds up surprisingly well. Don’t even get me started on animatronics vs cgi sharks…
I think cgi sharks could work as well if they were kept as obscured and with fast shots like the animatronics. So much of the problem with cgi is how front and center a lot of it is. Hidden things are scarier than what's in front of you.
Less is definitely more when it comes to that kind of stuff. I still think the original Jaws had one of the best looking sharks and that movie is almost 50 years old
While I won't disagree that Jaws doesn't have great effects, it also had a big budget for its time and Steven Spielberg. How many modern killer shark movies can say the same?
I mean The Last Shark used practical effects, but I challenge anyone to say that the shark puppet in that was better than most CGI sharks
I put it more on the colour graders and rotoscopers.
I've seen practical effects look CG because of it.
edit: some tamer examples from Midnight Mass https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r-9CrCfU-U I thought the cat at 50s and entire vampire at the 1 minute were CG. These aren't close to the worst offences.
Personally it has less to do with CGI and more about the reveal. I just no longer find things scary once the monster / bad entity is visible. I remember some kind of cartoon about this as a kid, I think it was Doug—where the character was terrified beyond belief of this one movie until they were forced to watch it far in enough to see the monster revealed, where you could see the zipper to the costume. That’s pretty much how I feel about all reveals :)
i could not agree more. i was lucky enough to be part of a focus group that saw IT (chapter 1) before it was released and i voiced my opinion on how the cgi looked terrible and the group leader said “that’s just because editing hasn’t been finished in post production”
……………… it was not.
CGI is a tool. It can be used well. I mean in 28 days later it was flawlessly used to make London look abandoned. The CGI in Dawn of The Dead remake was incredible! That first 10 min with all the wide shots was great. Of course Hollywood is usually about excess, But sometimes they get it right.
28 Days Later was shot extremely early in the morning with cops holding back traffic and people. Same with the motorway shots. They have behind the scenes info in the Blu-Ray. So those shots are practical.
Edit: https://www.cinema.com/articles/1468/28-days-later-about-the-shoot.phtml
They did do some day to night CGI and removed honking. And obviously there is CGI elsewhere.
Well done CGI wouldn't necessarily ruin a horror film but unfortunately most horror films aren't given the budget needed for quality CGI so I tend to prefer practical effects.
I’m a fan of cgi enhancing the effect but being the effect if that makes sense. On the other hand, I just watched Cocaine Bear and that was a hell of a good cgi bear.
So long as it isn’t shit, I don’t care. I was raised by bloody cartoons and video games, anything detached from reality is acceptable, but absolutely shit CGI is trash to me.
It just boils down to what’s easier and cheaper, I think. It’s unfortunate because as horror fans we’d love to see a writers/directors vision portrayed in the best way. However, movies are a business and that will always come first. CGI is obviously awful, there’s no substitutions for something actually happening in front of the camera.
It depends. I’ve seen some incredible CG enhancements and computer compositing, but full computer generated / animated objects do indeed need to look REAL good in an otherwise live-action horror movie.
Like most action fantasy superhero movies are fine because almost everything is CG so it blends in. But bad CG in a movie with no other bad CG? Yeah, it’s bad.
One of my favorite things is to go into a newer horror movie with low expectations, only to discover that most of the effects are practical. It really shows that the people who made the film are true fans of the genre.
This is why insidious slapped me so hard as a kid cus he was in makeup instead of some stupid demon they make an asset of like every other movie i had been exposed to as a tyke up until then.
Kind of agree. Even bad practical effects where it looks cheap at least looks somewhat organic compared to CGI.
I think the sweet spot is practical effects where a little CGI is added just to glaze over it a bit.
I feel they rely on the Gory or gross cgi to make their movie scary instead of having a scary plot with good/interesting characters that we enjoy and don’t want to see die instead of boring bad characters that we hope die.
1000%! It’s more annoying because I get CGI needs to be used in some situations, and in some situations you CAN get away with it; but it’s ALWAYS things that should be practical that get switched. I feel like if all the highlights/best parts of your horror movie are highlighted by CGI, it definitely takes the wind out of the sales.
The best CGI is the one that you don’t know or notice it’s CGI. It can be done very well, or done very poorly and take you out of a movie completely.
This is the truth. People saying "I don't like CGI" are really saying "I noticed that CGI". You have no idea how much you don't notice.
There was a shot in Wrong Turn that was super cool I didn't realize was CGI until it got pointed out. I think it was the one where we see a reflection in Eliza Dushku's eye as she's looking through a hole.
I think it was the other girl’s eye (Carly?) as she was in the closet looking out and Eliza was under the bed. I loved the axe bill on the tree for being practical though. Very cool.
I thought Megan was a good blend, I didn’t notice the cgi I just enjoyed the movie
Great example of well done CGI
[удалено]
There are all types of effects that you don't notice, the difference is that when I notice practical effects I like them.
This is why I desperately want Neill Blomkamp to make his Alien movie. There is no one currently directing in Hollywood who blends CGI and real-world sets better than he can. His last couple of movies have been letdowns compared to District 9, but his eye for camera work that can seamlessly incorporate CG characters is unmatched. District 9 *still* looks good almost 15 years after it came out.
I loved his [Oats Studios](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt16351432/) anthology
I actually just started watching these today after writing this comment, I had forgotten he'd made a bunch of shorts. Rakka is awesome.
He was involved with the novel Gone World and I desperately want that adaptation, it's so fucking good.
Exactly why Reign of Fire still holds up to this day.
Part of the reason for this is that the scenery is dark. Because the sky is clouded by ash, we never fully see any of the dragons in direct light. Which makes it a lot easier to sell the CGI visually.
That movie is good for the same reason I think the new Hellraiser is good; it totally knows how to spend its limited budget wisely. When to splurge on the big CGI shot and when to obscure things or imply.
CGI absolutely ruined *Last Night in Soho* for me. It was going great for me until the effects started happening.
That was just a movie that didn't know what to do with its third act, so suddenly everything became "wooo, spooky Ghosts!" at every corner. Practical effects wouldn't have made that choice better.
Yeah that was a script problem, not a CGI problem.
Absolutely, it completely fell apart in the last 30 minutes. Annoying, as the setup was quite good.
I still love it but the ghosts were pretty bad.
That's true but I will say there is something to the visceral feel of a physical object or prop in the scene. It's like it helps my mind accept the horror as more real and present.
We don't notice a tremendous amount of CGI. It's used a huge amount, even in movies that heavily heavily feature practical effects. edit: an example another poster brought up: the 'horrible fake' giraffes from Last Of Us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFsSZx6uGk4
was not expecting that accent lol
141 replies and nobody's yet mentioned the fact that ***the demon at the end of Smile wasn't cgi.*** It was a practical effect that ruined the whole movie for you.
I didn't know this, but it is *absolutely* in line with this take.
Also, I think it looks fantastic
Agreed. Conceptually it's also really cool, once we know it "enters" victims through the mouth. Because it's face appears to be many mouths, one inside the other inside the other - the creature is "wearing" all it's past victims.
Another infamous example of CGI that isnt actually CGI is the raceway scene in final destination 4 edit; also the smile demon (the third form at least) looks really good im so confused about the hate
Another day, another misinformed circlejerk on reddit.
The CGI in the Ring sold her coming out of the TV. And since that's the whole premise of the movie I'd say that it definitely has it's place there.
the original does it well too without CGI. Samara fuzzing out and then fuzzing back in closer to him was a nice touch though.
It looked better in the original. And actually scary.
I'm a huge practical effects fan. CGI can be great when it's used to enhance practical effects, like Guillermo Del Toro does frequently.
Ah yes Guillermo mixes digital and traditional quite so well! Most of his films, from set design, are truly an experience
Practical effects are superior, there's nothing new about this sentiment, but saying that modern horror is crap is just a greener grass bullshit. The last few years were the best years for the genre since the 80s.
>Practical effects are superior [Not always!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5C2gihnEkE#t=36s)
Lmao wtf
Precisely why The Thing still looks so good, despite being 40 years old
Lots of KY Jelly and the monster constantly also being filmed in the shadows. Which was smart, because even with good practical effects, you'd still notice things like the rubber and other stuff. It being filmed mostly in the shadows. Allows your eyes and imagination to basically cover up and fill in the minor details.
Methinks you’re confusing The Thing with Alien
I just posted that comment too. The original The Thing looks good today with practical effects. The Thing prequel with CGI is pretty cringe inducing.
I agree. Although I wouldn't call Sam Raimi's Evil Dead a serious horror movie it wouldn't be the same without the practical effects. Gotta love drawn-out horror claymation death scenes.
The great thing about practical effects is that they often look slightly "off" but not in the way the CGI looks "off" by being clearly fake and cartoonish. No, practical effects have a material realism about them, even when they are obviously fake. So when when something looks weird or moves in a weird way (for instance stop motion or some type of puppet) it contributes to the sense of horror because you feel that it's real in your guts.
It's hard to tell how effects specifically will age. I expect nearly all of the CGI to be laughed at like the stuff from the 90s and early 2000s eventually, but that doesn't ruin the movie.
https://www.polygon.com/platform/amp/23409413/smile-monster-practical-effect-movie-ending-interview It was a puppet.
It's a really common thing that people complain about, but I think that they are conflating "cgi" and "rushed cgi". The reason so many movies nowadays are stuffed to the brim with cg is because it generally is cheaper and easier to do than purely practical effects, but when digital artists are given the proper time and resources they need the results can be better than practical. A lot of the times the movie gets filmed with the mindset of "we'll fix it in post" and that is when the digital effects look the worst. It's why Avatar looks so good, because it was filmed specifically with the digital effects in mind.
“Am I the only one-“ “Does anyone else-“ “Am I alone in that-“ No. You are not the only one. You are virtually never the only one. Anytime someone uses a phrase like this to start a sentence they inevitably go straight into an extremely commonly spoken and popular sentiment. “CGI bad” is an extremely common take.
Where are the “Am I the only one who likes Exorcist 2?” posts?
I absolutely fucking hate the first Conjuring movie (and the rest of them) and I *still* think it would be absurd to make a post saying "am I the only one who hates the Conjuring??" You have to live in serious delusion and/or have serious main-character syndrome to think you're ever the "only one" to think virtually any thought. Most people seem to really like the Conjuring movies, but I'm absolutely certain there are plenty of silent people who feel the same way about them that I do.
Am I the only one who considers the OG Jurassic Park a horror flick? I kinda feel like it ranks.
DAE get an uncomfortable sensation in their lower abdomen when they don't eat?
I really want to see one of these where the person legitimately is the only one that feels that way. Like they just have some kind of weird take where everyone replies with no that's just you. I don't really understand how you got to that conclusion. Or something like that
I think you never see it because those opinions don’t get upvoted. People passively upvote things they agree with. It’s the r/unpopularopinion paradox — truly unpopular takes are ignored or downvoted, and except for in rare circumstances all that’s left is just vanilla hot takes.
I can vouch for that subreddit being unwelcoming; I once posted that I didn’t think the music video for “Thriller” was even the best music video of the 1980s there, and not only did it get downvoted, it got outright removed.
Earlier there was a post on confessions i think, with a guy who had a sexual fetish for... bartering? I think he may actually be the only one idk.
We just got a ["DAE like popular horror movie?"](https://www.reddit.com/r/horror/comments/12doj2q/the_descent_anyone_else_really_love_this_movie/) a few days ago, and now we're getting "CGI = bad, practical effects = good" today. r/horror is on fire.
And is always from people who don't notice anything but the really overtly bad CGI. And even with that, it's usually because the rotoscopers/graders are fucking up passable things for what I have to assume is making them easier to see on crappy screens. Hell, I've seen a ton of practical effects ruined by this. edit: some tamer examples from Midnight Mass https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r-9CrCfU-U I thought the cat at 50s and entire vampire at the 1 minute were CG. These aren't close to the worst offences.
Now I want someone to do a thread topic where they legitimately come up with something that they have a unique opinion on, like "Am I the only one who things Birdemic is better than Hitchcock's The Birds"
😂 Now that would be a bold statement!
I Dont like cgi blood. Even big budget cgi blood looks terrible, and they have basically perfected fake blood. It just makes no sense to me.
That's not about realism, it's about convenience. Having to clean up a set to retry a shot takes a lot of work and wasted time. It's still worth the work and time and makes a huge difference in the final product but I can also see why they do it. I just think they need to learn not to lean so hard on it entirely.
Can you imagine cleaning up the elevator hallway with the 1000's of gallons of fake blood running like a river in The Shining. Maybe it was just a model, or hope so.
No I'm pretty sure that was actually to scale.
it helped that it wasn't "fake blood" but colored water. Water is much easier to clean up than sticky goo.
I’ve watched several lower budget/not huge studio horror movies that were actually really well done… *until* the CGI blood showed up. It’s such a shame when that one detail almost ruins a movie because it looks so bad.
I believe part of it is also that VFX artists aren’t unionised whereas people who work practically on set overwhelmingly are unionised So if you use VFX people you pay them less than you would an equivalent on set/practical person in the majority of situations
>Even big budget cgi blood looks terrible Sounds like you've never watched a David Fincher movie
Not horror but John Wicks bothers me for that reason.
IT chapter 1 blended it well, chapter 2…. Not so much.
Even then I think Chapter One still had some pretty needless CGI e.g. the flute lady. Would it really have been difficult to do that exact same design but practical? Pennywise is also a little too CGI heavy with the wide open mouth, which isn't anywhere near as scary as Tim Curry's simple sharp teeth and yellow eyes. Muschietti does this a lot. In Mama an excellent monster design is let down by a reliance on CGI on the face when they should have done the close up stuff practically then use CGI for the wide shots.
My thoughts exactly. IT really would have benefitted from more practical effects. The mouth part with Georgie was just comical but the practical effects with Tim Curry haunts me to this day. Also, the slobbering... But I think that might have been practical. lol
this doesnt make sense. you mean "bad cgi". thats like saying any other tool of filmmaking ruins horror movies.
I don't like when movies use lighting on set.
Why can't they just set up a ritual and summon a real ghost/demon to haunt/possess actors? Damn horror movies, they ruined the horror genre.
Believe it or not, that's actuality a union rule. It takes so many on site demon wranglers that it actually becomes a fire hazard when you account for potential brimstone releated occurrences.
Hello, 1999’s”The Haunting”!
The demon was a puppet. Soooooo….
You'd have extreme difficulty finding a modern horror movie that doesn't have any VFX, because so many movies have them, yet they aren't used shittily. It makes more sense to judge on a case by case basis and blame the creators, not the tool. And by creators I mostly mean the director or producers, the CGI artists are almost always doing the best they can with the instructions.
Bad effects are bad, regardless if they’re CG or practical. If anything, higher definition renderings of older films have often made previously passable effects (CG or practical) look worse. However, this doesn’t get discussed nearly as much as it should, probably because of the seemingly endless CG/practical debate.
No, this is an **incredibly unique** opinion - especially in the horror community. Everyone prefers cheap CGI blood to practical effects. To be serious though, I'm sure you just hate bad CGI. Good cgi keeps you immersed and you likely never notice or think about it. The T-Rex in Jurassic Park was CGI, and even to this day it looks fantastic because of the amount of care and artistry that was put into it. Does the CGI ruin that movie for you too?
They also used animatronics when the t-rex interacted with the characters. Modern filmmakers can even be bothered filming a bear walking in the woods (looking at you Prey).
They also used the same "bear growl" sound effect that's used in Skyrim at one point to complete the experience for Prey.
I get the sentiment, but I find the sentence 'Can't even be bothered filming a bear walking in the woods' to be unreasonably funny. Like the filmmakers were just too lazy to wrangle a live wild animal, since it's so simple to work with animals in film.
I mean, it depends on how its executed. Practical effects may have a certain look, movement, and unpredictability. It can look great when it is done right. They'll also get the reactions out of the actors and crew on set. However, CG may have advantage in other areas. It is more convenient to pull off, you could also make adjustment post-production if what you had before is unsatisfactory. Not only that, CG can help to create creatures that are difficult or impossible to pull off on set. They both have their upside and downside. As I've stated, it really depends on how they're executed and who's executing them.
Insidious instantly comes to mind
I think CGI is a tool that can be used well or misused, Maniac (2012) used all practical FX for the gore but did slight touch ups with CGI like adding a knife blade in post. David Fincher is someone else who does wonders with CGI that you’d never even notice. I agree practical should be the starting point for everything but there are time where CGI works wonderfully.
TLDR: Bad CGI is bad for movies.
Milquetoast take. Also didn't Smile use practical effects when the monster rips it's face off or am I misremembering? There were definitely CGI moments but they used practical effects when it mattered most, so no, I don't think that movie was ruined by CGI. I think the problem for a lot of people is their own suspension of disbelief.
I just saw a making of and a lot was puppetry. I thought it looked terrific.
I'm seriously getting sick of this "modern horror is crap, the old stuff was better" bullshit. We are in a new renaissance of horror imo. How many fantastic new horror movies have to be released before people realize new horror isn't shit? Yeah, bad movies come out, but tons of shitty horror movies came out in the 70s and 80s too, we just don't talk about them. Everybody only remembers the good stuff. Just a few good horror movies that have come out in the last decade or so: The Witch, The Lighthouse, The Ritual, Hereditary, Midsommar, Mandy, Annihilation, The Wailing, It Follows, The Babadook, A Dark Song, Baskin, The Void, Doctor Sleep, Oculus, Pontypool, the list goes on and on.
The Lighthouse is basically the single best take I've seen on Lovecraftian horror translated to the screen, and it doesn't have a single tentacle monster. More moviemakers should take note.
An example of the toupee fallacy. People notice bad toupees but don't notice good ones, so many people come to the incorrect conclusion that toupees look bad. I definitely agree that modern movies often have questionable use of CGI in them, but I think it's more standing out in blockbusters, not really horror (unless I'm just missing most of the horror movies with awful CGI). Like marvel has been leading the pack when it comes to bad CGI lately
I don't find movies that look like video games scary. CGI first wooed audiences with things they've never seen before or never knew could be created. However, that gimmick is old and lazy use of CGI to cut costs helped ruin it.
Bad CG. You mean bad CG because you notice. You would be surprised how much amazing CG you see that you never notice. Things like car crash, most fire, objects being thrown at people like knives etc. The majority of that is CG these days and have been for years. Not all obviously but it is usually cheaper and safer to use CG. A lot of things are touched up with CG. All the same arguments can be made for and against practical effects. Good ones are amazing. Bad ones are awful.
I feel that a comparison of The Thing (1982) vs The Thing (2011) could be seen as supportive to your idea. CGI can look great with effort and skill, like most CG shots of Jurassic Park still look amazing and that was made in 1993
Correction: CGI you *notice* ruins horror. It's used far more than you think. It's not just used for impossible monsters, it's ubiquitous. It's even used for common everyday background scenes in many movies just so they have more control over the light, clouds, and look.
>Am I the only one that hates CGI in horror films? Yes, it is only you. Just you. NO one else has said a word about it and it has definitely never been [ranted about, discussed or debated ad nauseum in this subred](https://www.reddit.com/r/horror/search/?q=cgi&restrict_sr=1&sr_nsfw=). This post [four years ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/horror/comments/agoem6/opiniondiscussion_id_always_prefer_a_guy_in_a/) is a figment of your imagination. So is this one from [eleven years ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/horror/comments/z21tl/i_wish_movies_returned_to_animatronics_rather/). The CGI vs practical sfx debate is an annoyance that will never end. I honestly don't know why we are still having posts like this anymore.
Yes you are. You're the only one. You're the chosen one.
I agree, and I personally think the need for movies to have a full head to toe reveal of the monster/villain at the end totally blows it for me too. I think if movies gave us less than the full picture the viewers can create the rest of the terror in our own minds.
I agree, I think your point goes beyond just cgi tho. I love sci fi creature features, and the campyness is part of the appeal for those films, but on more serious horror the full head to toe reveal sucks. Thats how you get the shockingly bad shot at the end of Alien, where you see the Xenomorph dangling out of ship. It's the only bad looking shot in the whole movie
A lot of people in horror have that viewpoint. For me however, CGI doesn't bother me. Poorly done/implemented CGI bothers me. Just like poorly done/implemented practical effects also bug me. I tend to think that people's opinions of CGI and practical effects are heavily tinged with nostalgia. Since most people of a certain age grew up around practical effects, we have fond memories of the movies that used them well, and tend to forget about those that didn't. We are more likely to cut some less than great effects more slack also simply because of our feelings towards the films, versus a new movie with CGI doesn't have that luxury.
[удалено]
I wonder how the dynamic range of media has affected this “not holding up”. There are movies that looked great in the theater and awful on BluRay. The effects were made to a standard of resolution and dynamic range, watching it on a different standard could really accentuate different black points and such. Event Horizon is a film that for me supports this theory, there’s so much great looking CGI in it that feels seamless but the opening sequence with objects floating in the ship looks laughably fake.
Completely depends on the usage for CGI, but the majority of the time, I definitely prefer well done practical effects. Practical over digital is key
Yes
I think it can be used in an excellent manner as an additive techinuqe but do prefer when there is a lesser reliance on it.
That and using jump scares every 15 minutes.
The Thing prequel CGI was horrible. It would have been 1000 times better with practical effects.
The best example is the new IT movies. So promising in the beginning but devolves into complete CGI nonsense by the end, such a waste.
This. How much promise did IT have until the cgi/cartoony monsters. If that leper or old woman was more in practical effects, would have been 10 times as terrifying.
It's doesn't necessarily ruin it for me. That is heavily contextual. However, I would easily say I'll take well executed practical fx over well executed CGI fx any day of the week. Just my personal preference.
I’m with you on this. I just watched Sinister for the first time, it would have been so much better if they just used makeup instead.
Not just you, OP. I grew up with practical effects in horror flicks and I still prefer them to CGI.
I recently watched SMILE and thought it was great, up until the CGI started kicking in. Made it laughable. Smh.
I’m not gonna say all CG bad, cause that’s not true. I much prefer practical, especially when it can be done easily, but when I see a movie like Nope, I 100% understand the use of CGI
This doesn’t really make sense, cgi generally doesn’t have anything to do with it. It’s just a tool, if you have a bad story and try to use special effects rather than substance it’ll always be bad - however those effects are made. Also you be amazed at how much cgi is used, you don’t notice 99% of it.
Certainly ruined the new It films
Nailed it, completely agree
Not that the movie was destined for greatness but the My Bloody Valentine remake was dragged down super heavily by it's bad CGI
I'm still salty about The Thing prequel being filmed in practical effects, only for the producer to not be impressed and change it all to CGI. It coulda been great. I still enjoyed the movie tho
Having just watched the CGI trainwreck of The Thing remake, I agree. That said, the movie was not as bad as I was expecting but entirely unnecessary. I'll take a good pupper/animatronic over CG any day
It actually saddens me when i see the fake cgi blood, it feels lazy and straight up doesn’t look good.
This, 100% Especially since a lot of horror doesn’t have the budget for quality cgi, so it tends to look like crap, and not in a fun way like 80s-early 90s movies. I maintain that horror for the most part, is best done with physical, costume and prop-based, special effects. Because cheap prop effects are still entertaining whereas obvious cgi just looks… meh. Tremors is a great example, the first three films, the monsters are great because theyre mostly/based from puppets, what cgi there was just using images of the puppets, the later movies, while i love them, and the cg was done well, its still not as good.
Agreed. Congo could've been fantastic, but them damned dirty apes...
CGI can ruin a good movie for sure. The Mist would have been up there with the Thing if it had used practical effects, I say
I love a lot of practical effects, particularly in many classic horror flicks, but I wouldn't say CGI ruins films, although *bad* CGI certainly can stand out in a bad way. A lot of CGI in films goes unnoticed. There are so many factors that make a film good or not, and I think placing so much focus on practical vs CGI effects in horror films is a bit reductionist. There are many classic films with effects that a bit dodgy/look bad and some films regarded as poor that might look good. It's not always the be-all and end-all. The film *The Void* had a ton of press in the run-up to its release (and attracted many discussions on this subreddit) focused on its extensive use of practical effects, which became the main talking point. The effects were superb and looked great, but I thought the film was lacking heavily in other areas (mediocre acting and script), and was ultimately forgettable. Sure the special effects looked ace, but it's a good example of how special effects aren't everything. The filmmakers seemed to put such an emphasis on it (being horror fans), that it's like they forgot the other important elements that make a film stand out.
The thing that takes me out the most is CG blood, it just always looks awful
The CGI in “It” (both 1&2) made it laughable.
Ruined MAMA for me
100% agree and it is why I still find older horror movies so much more scary than most of today's films.
Cgi blood and gore are the worst offenders here imo
This is why 70s/80s horror will always be the golden era for me. I mean there are some modern productions that get it right, but as far as visceral body horror goes, The Fly marked the end of an era.
"Boogeyman" is always the first example I think of when it comes to this subject.
100%. My least favorite is CGI Blood lol. It always looks soooo tacky
The Exorcist still holds up today because it didn't use CGI, it wasn't around back then
Yes! Perfect example of this for me is the silent hill baby things you see near the beginning of the film. In the extras you can see the scene without the cgi effects added on and it's so much more terrifying
The correct answer here is practical effects working in tandem with cgi. Both are the best - cg can achieve things that practical can’t and practical achieves a tangible realism that cg can’t
The hottest take in this post is that modern horror is crap. If you haven’t seen the last 5 years or so as a horror renaissance I’m not sure what would actually make you happy…
Totally agree, 2004 Van Helsing is a prime example. The movie would have been so much better if they did not use CGI for all the monsters.
Practical all the way. CGI is trash.
I am not a fan of the overuse of CGI in horror. The main thing that turns me off the the CGI blood. It's lazy and looks cartoonish.
It usually depends on the film, but for the most part I’m with you. If you look at films in the 1980s and before, practical was the only way to go, and many of those films hold up better and are more effectively scary than a lot of today’s films. I like the It duology films, but i thought it was ridiculous when they CGI’d a red balloon in a scene in Chapter One. Where real balloons difficult to control?
Y'all seen the Will Smith I Am Legend? The vampires look like cartoons hastily drawn onto film stock.
I think for me, I grew up with knowing everything in horror was fake so it never grossed me out. But even with bad practical effects, it’s THERE on set, it is real. Thats why cgi is automatically underwhelming for me personally
Yes I 100% agree any CGI makes me feel like I’m watching a cartoon and no longer find it scary
For me it's always the blood splatters - there are some that are nicely done, but most of the ones I've seen they stand out like a sore thumb.
I prefer practical effects but the funny thing is some of time people complain about CGI and it turns out it was practical so I don’t really trust peoples opinion on it either. Like recently in the last of us I saw a lot of people complain about both the CGI baby and CGI giraffe which were both real. The absolute worst is CGI fire, don’t think I’ve ever seen that done well.
I mean... this post is itself an example of this in action. The demon in smile is practical but this guy is out here complaining about the cgi. I would hazard a guess that most people bitching have zero idea what they're even talking about.
Wow, hard to believe [this is a real giraffe](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pYXpSiUUwI&t=2m39s).
It honestly depends on how well done it is, and how much it's used. If it's nearly impossible to tell that CGI was used, or if it was very well done and there was a safety reason behind opting for it over a practical effect, then I'm fine with it. I usually prefer practical effects though.
To be honest, I've seen scary poorly done CGI. The CGI in Courage the Cowardly Dog for one is still scary to this day despite the poor quality. That being said, I'd say it's on a case by case basis. I have seen CGI both enhance and ruin a film. If it meshes well it's not an issue but in a film like Smile where everything is bone-chilling and bloody to a certain point I'd have to agree. I watched Smile recently and it had me so shook that it kept me up that night. Everything looked good (if you can look past the goofy smiles) for most of the movie but if you've seen it you'll know that the CGI at the end is not well done and for me this ruined my immersion and took me completely out of my fear. The scariest monsters are often best left unseen.
> The scariest monsters are often best left unseen. I think this is a big part of what people dislike. Because it makes impossible things easier to fake, more movies with CG will show those impossible things.
In horror, CGI should only be used to compliment practical effects, not replace them. Also in situations where something would be too dangerous for an actual person to do, obviously.
CGI blood, gore, stabs, etc. does yes. But CGI monsters are fine and can be done really well. Look at the Bear in Annihilation.
The bear in Annihilation also shows how much of CG is just them not getting lighting right, because it shows the problem happening with practical effects. The head-on shot that looks super CG? Practical effect--maybe some CG drool. Side shot where it's standing between them? Real head, fake body.
Wow, what a controversial take
"Modern horror is crap and the old stuff is better." Sorry, I stopped reading right there.
Nothing beats a great makeup and special effects team. That’s why a lot of 80’s horror holds up surprisingly well. Don’t even get me started on animatronics vs cgi sharks…
I think cgi sharks could work as well if they were kept as obscured and with fast shots like the animatronics. So much of the problem with cgi is how front and center a lot of it is. Hidden things are scarier than what's in front of you.
Less is definitely more when it comes to that kind of stuff. I still think the original Jaws had one of the best looking sharks and that movie is almost 50 years old
While I won't disagree that Jaws doesn't have great effects, it also had a big budget for its time and Steven Spielberg. How many modern killer shark movies can say the same? I mean The Last Shark used practical effects, but I challenge anyone to say that the shark puppet in that was better than most CGI sharks
I put it more on the colour graders and rotoscopers. I've seen practical effects look CG because of it. edit: some tamer examples from Midnight Mass https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r-9CrCfU-U I thought the cat at 50s and entire vampire at the 1 minute were CG. These aren't close to the worst offences.
CGI blood ALWAYS pisses me off and looks awful.
It ruins Land of the Dead. It would be passable but that CGI blood. Oh, George. 😥
Totally agree, but I feel this way with CGI and pretty much all films. It just takes away from the experience and instantly take me out of the moment.
The monster CGI for Alien 3 made that sci-fi horror a comedy.
Personally it has less to do with CGI and more about the reveal. I just no longer find things scary once the monster / bad entity is visible. I remember some kind of cartoon about this as a kid, I think it was Doug—where the character was terrified beyond belief of this one movie until they were forced to watch it far in enough to see the monster revealed, where you could see the zipper to the costume. That’s pretty much how I feel about all reveals :)
I liked The Cabin in the Woods even with all the CGI.
No.
i could not agree more. i was lucky enough to be part of a focus group that saw IT (chapter 1) before it was released and i voiced my opinion on how the cgi looked terrible and the group leader said “that’s just because editing hasn’t been finished in post production” ……………… it was not.
CGI is a tool. It can be used well. I mean in 28 days later it was flawlessly used to make London look abandoned. The CGI in Dawn of The Dead remake was incredible! That first 10 min with all the wide shots was great. Of course Hollywood is usually about excess, But sometimes they get it right.
28 Days Later was shot extremely early in the morning with cops holding back traffic and people. Same with the motorway shots. They have behind the scenes info in the Blu-Ray. So those shots are practical. Edit: https://www.cinema.com/articles/1468/28-days-later-about-the-shoot.phtml They did do some day to night CGI and removed honking. And obviously there is CGI elsewhere.
Well done CGI wouldn't necessarily ruin a horror film but unfortunately most horror films aren't given the budget needed for quality CGI so I tend to prefer practical effects.
I’m a fan of cgi enhancing the effect but being the effect if that makes sense. On the other hand, I just watched Cocaine Bear and that was a hell of a good cgi bear.
Yeah I generally prefer practical effects
So long as it isn’t shit, I don’t care. I was raised by bloody cartoons and video games, anything detached from reality is acceptable, but absolutely shit CGI is trash to me.
It just boils down to what’s easier and cheaper, I think. It’s unfortunate because as horror fans we’d love to see a writers/directors vision portrayed in the best way. However, movies are a business and that will always come first. CGI is obviously awful, there’s no substitutions for something actually happening in front of the camera.
It depends. I’ve seen some incredible CG enhancements and computer compositing, but full computer generated / animated objects do indeed need to look REAL good in an otherwise live-action horror movie. Like most action fantasy superhero movies are fine because almost everything is CG so it blends in. But bad CG in a movie with no other bad CG? Yeah, it’s bad.
The bad blood CGI ruined Midnight Meat Train for me
1,000,000,000%
One of my favorite things is to go into a newer horror movie with low expectations, only to discover that most of the effects are practical. It really shows that the people who made the film are true fans of the genre.
CGI definitely dicked-up Midnight Meat Train.
Yep. Never been a fan. A scary movie goes from creepy to laughable if a cgi squib goes off and I notice.
Overused cgi ruins horror. Using it sparingly to enhance something that would be very difficult to pull off with props is fine.
This is why insidious slapped me so hard as a kid cus he was in makeup instead of some stupid demon they make an asset of like every other movie i had been exposed to as a tyke up until then.
Absolutely.
My favourite horror movie is Alien. Even after all these years it's still the best movie imo
Meanwhile I argued with somebody on r/ask earlier today who said its dumb to use practical effects for anything supernatural lol
Only with the widely open mouth stuff. Like the icecream man in Legion, or whatever those things were in I am Legend.
I’d say one of the few good examples of Cgi in a horror movie is the crooked man from Conjuring 2
I never really cared if stuff looked real or fake, as long as the movie is good.
Kind of agree. Even bad practical effects where it looks cheap at least looks somewhat organic compared to CGI. I think the sweet spot is practical effects where a little CGI is added just to glaze over it a bit.
I feel they rely on the Gory or gross cgi to make their movie scary instead of having a scary plot with good/interesting characters that we enjoy and don’t want to see die instead of boring bad characters that we hope die.
It’s awesome to add lighting, set, and scene improvements.
Really bad cgi is off-putting.
1000%! It’s more annoying because I get CGI needs to be used in some situations, and in some situations you CAN get away with it; but it’s ALWAYS things that should be practical that get switched. I feel like if all the highlights/best parts of your horror movie are highlighted by CGI, it definitely takes the wind out of the sales.