CGI killing horror movies?

[mosca]

Originally Posted by horrorsniped

The crew had to fly to ?Alaska? and build the whole set up in the mountains.

British Columbia. However, I thought they did do some soundstage shoots in L.A.

[fuglystick]

CGI is no more killing horror films than sound or Technicolor.

[horrorsniped]

Originally Posted by mosca

British Columbia. However, I thought they did do some soundstage shoots in L.A.

Opps...my bad. I totally forgot it's in B.C. To get to the actual site you do need to cross Alaska, thats what I remember. I wanted to go with this group that organizes the trip every 5 years(or 10?) and I remember them saying you need to get a US passport inorder to go with them.

[mosca]

Here's a good article by Lisa Morton.

HAVE SPECIAL EFFECTS KILLED HORROR?

[Ferox13]

Originally Posted by mosca

Here's a good article by Lisa Morton.

HAVE SPECIAL EFFECTS KILLED HORROR?

Its funny thats it was written in '96 and is complaining about the use of old fashioned blood and prosthetics and the works of SMG and Savini.

I think the article is pretty shoddy over all and the author hand picks films to prove her point...Friday the 13th was hardy the deathknell of the horror film. There always been trashy expoitative horror and the extreme gore started long before SAvini and Friday the 13th hit the screens (HG Lewis anyone). Look at all the drive in and grind house fodder of the 70s...Granted FT13th did get more exposure..

I think the early 90's weren;t popular time for horror -though the were some decent films (In the Mouth of Madness, Frankenhooker, Brain dead, Cemetery Man, The Exorcist III and others might say (but not me) Interview with the Vampire.) i don't think this can be blamed on the oer use of special effects. i think its just the way films/genres run in cycles and it picked up again in '96/'97 when Scream hit the screens..

[horrorsniped]

Originally Posted by Ferox13

Its funny thats it was written in '96 and is complaining about the use of old fashioned blood and prosthetics and the works of SMG and Savini.

I think the article is pretty shoddy over all and the author hand picks films to prove her point...Friday the 13th was hardy the deathknell of the horror film. There always been trashy expoitative horror and the extreme gore started long before SAvini and Friday the 13th hit the screens (HG Lewis anyone). Look at all the drive in and grind house fodder of the 70s...Granted FT13th did get more exposure..

I think the early 90's weren;t popular time for horror -though the were some decent films (In the Mouth of Madness, Frankenhooker, Brain dead, Cemetery Man, The Exorcist III and others might say (but not me) Interview with the Vampire.) i don't think this can be blamed on the oer use of special effects. i think its just the way films/genres run in cycles and it picked up again in '96/'97 when Scream hit the screens..

Oh my god, I totally forgot!! Believe it or not this was part of my "to do list" and the fact that you mentioned "In the Mouth of Madness" I was going to go check downtown Montreal(where I live) to see if the last scene was filmed here. I think it was because there is this long/big government building at the end of the movie that looks IDENTICAL to the one downtown. I should check it out and post the pics here if anything.

[ChronoGrl]

Originally Posted by fuglystick

CGI is no more killing horror films than sound or Technicolor.

I have to agree...

Anyone remember how artfully done Jurassic Park was? Those dinosaurs were definitely scary AND the movie was ground-breaking with CGI.

I feel the same way about District 9. While we can argue as to whether or not this is actually "horror," it's undeniable how incredible those special effects are. That could not have been done without the aid of CGI.

I thought that The Frighteners was a blast and My Bloody Valentine 3D was the most fun I've had at a horror movie in the theater in a LONG time.

I'm not necessarily sure that CGI is "ruining" the horror genre... I think that, as always, there are good movies and bad, and it's not necessarily the special effects that are to blame.

Can someone list off horror films where CGI "ruined" them? I'm kind of curious about the examples that come with this accusation.

horrorsniped - What are some horror movies that use CGI that are just "ruined"?

[horrorsniped]

Originally Posted by ChronoGrl

I have to agree...

Anyone remember how artfully done Jurassic Park was? Those dinosaurs were definitely scary AND the movie was ground-breaking with CGI.

I feel the same way about District 9. While we can argue as to whether or not this is actually "horror," it's undeniable how incredible those special effects are. That could not have been done without the aid of CGI.

I'm not necessarily sure that CGI is "ruining" the horror genre... I think that, as always, there are good movies and bad, and it's not necessarily the special effects that are to blame.

Can someone list off horror films where CGI "ruined" them? I'm kind of curious about the examples that come with this accusation.

horrorsniped - What are some horror movies that use CGI that are just "ruined"?

You're absolutely right that there are good CGI horror movies and bad ones. But in my opinion there's a lot of bad ones.

American Releases

1. The eye
2. Boogyman
3. Shutter
4. The unborn
5. The Haunting in Connecticut


Just to name a few. The one I remembered the most was The Boogeyman. I was so hyped up for that one and I mean the beginning was awesome. It really kept you in, but then when you see the boogyman the first time walking up the stairs it was all computerized which ruined it for me.

[neverending]

What ruined Boogeyman for me is that it's a crappy movie with a moronic script, terrible acting and no directorial pacing. Special effects would have been the last of my complaints.

[ChronoGrl]

See, I don't think that CGI ruined those movies... They're just bad movies. Not even good special effects could have saved The Boogeyman. YEESH was that a painful movie to watch. I had to turn it off.

The Eye and Shutter were poorly-done and unnecessary remakes (especially considering how brilliant the originals were) - I would say bad acting coupled with a bad script made those two dogs, but not really the special effects.

The Unborn - I actually liked a lot of the imagery; the creepy dog, the twisted old man - That CGI looked really good, actually... But the story, plot, and writing were abysmal. Again, not really the special effects that ruined it; in that case, I think that it was over-directed mass produced garbage (and, MAN what was Gary Oldman doing in it???).

Haven't seen Haunting in Connecticut, but I haven't heard anything good about it either...

See, the only decent horror movie that comes to the front of my mind that was ruined by CGI was Blade. Not that the acting was that great, but for a horror action movie, it was pretty ground-breaking; it brought the concept of a raving vampire counter-culture onto the screen and had some pretty kickass action scenes that predated The Matrix... But the very end was just ridiculous and utterly laughable with the whirlwind of CGI blood... Apparently that was their second go at the ending, too, because their original concept was one of a giant CGI blood monster - LOL - booooooooooy how awful that would have been...

But anyway. The films mentioned are just bad movies. CGI didn't "ruin" them; poor writing and acting did. I still don't see a hardcore claim as to how CGI is "ruining" horror. I just don't. You can say that you prefer more "realistic" horror movies (i.e. I like the Asian Horror example; I prefer the concept of the more corporeal yūrei in The Grudge/Shutter/Rinne - that scares the CRAP out of me), but animatronics have their limits, too.