Kudos to Evil Dead remake for no CGI!

[mysoulisswallowed]

Hi everyone, new member here. I love how the remake had no CGI in it at all. Bravo to Fede Alvarez.
One of the big reasons I love the original Evil Dead Trilogy is cause of the awesome incredible special effects! Their as awe inspriing as The Chin himself.
Just wanted to see what your thoughts were guys on CGI vs practical effects.
For instance - I did love Cabin in the Woods , don't get me wrong it was awesome, but the CGI they used on the monsters did bring it down a notch for sure. they just looked so fake.

 

[Names_Ash_Housewares]

Welcome! although I did love the practical work in the film, It did have some CGI, the girl on fire at the beginning wasn't a practical effect.

 

[Swofty]

I think elemental CGI is awesome and a welcome addition to cinematography .... CG fire, forests, tornados etc are on a par if not superceeding the work of the great mat artists like Albert Whitman ( his static glass paintings for Hitchcock on The Birds, Marnie etc and later his work on The Thing are seemless still to this day) .... other than that, when exectuted properly by the people at the top of their game, close up physical F/X, make-ups and props etc almost always still look better shot 'in camera'. CG close-up make-ups still look fake because it's hard to trick the human eye to things we've all seen in real life ... blood, bruises and wounds. The danger with CG in close up work is that it's typicaly limited to what the machine can do instead of being limited to the imagination of the artist so can become derivative if abused ..

 

[Elise41]

Welcome! although I did love the practical work in the film, It did have some CGI, the girl on fire at the beginning wasn't a practical effect.

Yep, which is why I chuckled when I could tell from the trailer alone and all this boasting no CGI seemed to me just a ploy to fill in seats in the theater. They could have said very little CGI but I guess boasting that there was none sounded better for marketing.

 

[Swofty]

[quote author=Names_Ash_Housewares link=topic=1067.msg7396#msg7396 date=1369440671]
Welcome! although I did love the practical work in the film, It did have some CGI, the girl on fire at the beginning wasn't a practical effect.

Yep, which is why I chuckled when I could tell from the trailer alone and all this boasting no CGI seemed to me just a ploy to fill in seats in the theater. They could have said very little CGI but I guess boasting that there was none sounded better for marketing.
[/quote]

True enough about the marketing sell, though I'd still rather see a CG burning person than a bad 80's chunky firesuit stunt guy shot. That shot in Carpenter's The Thing (and I have to bring that movie up again as the practical F/X movie that all other practical F/X films should still be judged by), burning guy that looked like and still looks like, well, someone in a fire retardant suit waving their arms about a bit. The only fake looking effect in the whole movie.

 

[TheLostInSpace456]

I think elemental CGI is awesome and a welcome addition to cinematography .... CG fire, forests, tornados etc are on a par if not superceeding the work of the great mat artists like Albert Whitman ( his static glass paintings for Hitchcock on The Birds, Marnie etc and later his work on The Thing are seemless still to this day) .... other than that, when exectuted properly by the people at the top of their game, close up physical F/X, make-ups and props etc almost always still look better shot 'in camera'. CG close-up make-ups still look fake because it's hard to trick the human eye to things we've all seen in real life ... blood, bruises and wounds. The danger with CG in close up work is that it's typicaly limited to what the machine can do instead of being limited to the imagination of the artist so can become derivative if abused ..

I agree with you very much on your opinion CGI annoys me because it looks really unnatural and can make the entire movie have a bad reputation such as a film made back in 1999 called Reptilian where they didn't give a damn about the visual effects and the movie has suffered terribly also some big ones don't care like the matrix cant remember which film it was but there CGI was that bad the characters look like they were made out of plasticine

 

[Swofty]

For me, it's like a magic trick ... it's all about misdirection so the more tricks you have up ylour sleeve, CGI, practical F/X, editing, acting and always the most underated of all, the sound and music .. if any of those out way the others in a movie, you'll be watching crap. 

 

[Nick el Ass]

I wouldn't advocate lighting little girls on fire... for a movie, or otherwise. As I have said before I give credit to the crew for using as little cgi as humanly possible. It is something most rely on way too often now days, and it is kind of a cop out. Go back to basics.

 

[Swofty]

....I wouldn't advocate lighting little girls on fire... for a movie, or otherwise....

Not even just one?....

Human CGI works well sometimes (but yeah, usually it's like giving a ten year old a gun) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4LzG3XZMUA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW-ZPTW4_IU

 

[AshTray]

Iam all about the prosthetics and practical special fx make up in movies its like you know its a fale arm gettin chopped off but it looks so much more lifelike than a cgi limb or cgi blood...
Im actually lookin into going to school for such n cant wait cuze since i wad a kid ive messed around makin fake limbs n sawin em off lol

And yea i think we can spare a few little girls to set on fire....

 

[Swofty]

The best advice is to go to art school, learn how to work in different mediums, learn light and shadow etc .. but most people can't be bothered with all that and want to jump straight into making splatter F/X .. I can't reccomend these Tom Savini books highly enough. They're very expensive now so buy the second hand copys (because they'll just end up splattered with paint and latex anyway if you're using them like a cookery book. Mine are lovingly trashed) :

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_7/275-9119294-5392604?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=grande+illusions&sprefix=grande+%2Cstripbooks%2C268

The Bible of film, theatre and television make-up books is Richard Corson's Stage Make-up. That book still teaches you pretty much everything a college could teach you other than the recent progressions in practical F/X make-up such as foam gelatin appliances ..