As someone who occasionally works with CGI, that sort of attitude makes me want to tear my luxurious, non-mad hair out.
CGI has its place, but ideally, it ought to be utilised in a way which supplements the physical on-set elements, as opposed to outright replacing them. If a shot can be achieved practically, within reason, then that’s preferable. Without doubt, CGI is absolutely a tool which involves great skill to be executed well but it’s also a tool which is all too often overused within modern filmmaking. Sadly, all too often within the landscape of today’s movies, CGI is employed out of sheer laziness. Can’t be bothered to do it on set? Let the computer monkeys worry about it later.
At the very least, I think that when it comes to creature features and the horror genre on the whole, as a general rule of thumb, practical effects cannot be beaten. Fear is rooted in the tangible. We’re frightened by that which exists, even if it only exists as a puppet. As an example, it’s why stop-motion is inherently creepy; because the jerkiness of the animation is offset by the fact that the eye sees it as a real thing, because it’s a real object which exists within the real world; it’s the uncanny valley effect working in a manner which is to its own benefit. One of the worst things that ever happened to the horror genre was the advent of CGI.
It’s why the rat monkey in
Braindead is as creepy as fuck and why the monsters within the recent
It adaptation are as laughable as fuck. I’m not scared by a videogame cutscene in the same way that I am by something tangible; something which I can touch and therefore, something which can equally potentially touch and even subconsciously, potentially harm me. If one can film something practically on-set, then darn well do it and if something can only be depicted via CGI, then maybe question whether it should even be depicted at all. Just because one
can put something onscreen, doesn’t necessarily mean that one should. Creatively speaking, quite often limitations are a good thing.
A further example of the intrusion of CGI within the horror genre is that of blood splatter, which tends to be mostly computer generated nowadays; using a computer to simulate something which is intrinsically random. The human eye picks up on that. The mind is a complex thing and cannot be so easily fooled. All the algorithms in the world can’t truly capture the random nature of nature itself. You simply can’t beat a good old fashioned squib. When I see a practical effect, even if it looks hokey, I can see that it’s something which exists within the real world. Whereas all too often with CGI effects, all I see is ones and zeros.
Having said that, the best effect is the one which you don’t notice. On that note, the best CGI that I’ve ever seen is within David Fincher’s
Zodiac (recreating period appropriate locations) and I only ever knew that it was CGI because I watched the ‘making of’ documentary on the Blu-Ray. However, a lot of people will tell you that the best CGI is Gollum in
The Lord of the Rings or the vistas and creatures in James Cameron’s
Avatar. I look at those examples and all I see is egregious fakery. My eye knows, upon an intrinsic level, that what I’m seeing was not on set and is instead something stored in binary data on a hard drive. There’s a cognitive disconnect there, which makes it difficult to suspend one’s disbelief.
Ultimately, I just find there to be something a tad detached about even the best of CGI creatures; something vaguely cold and clinical. Such CGI effects are fundamentally intangible and whilst it’s undeniably art, it’s not art which I particularly care for, as subjective as that may be. At least not in the same way that I’ve had tingles of sheer delight sent down my spine when seeing the original stop motion skeleton for King Kong, or a full sized replica of H.R. Giger’s Alien, when visiting film museums. What am I going to do for CGI art? Hook up a USB stick?
I gaze at the practical effects in
The Thing with awe. I admire the craft; the hands which physically sculputured every wrinkle and detail. I cannot say the same for creatures rendered via software and a million mouse clicks, even though I respect the talent and skill involved in creating them. CGI has its place and is an invaluable tool, but it should never come at the cost of filming practical effects whenever possible.
...it really is just a tool now, like anything else in film making. It is all down to the talents of the people using the tools. It allows you to tell stories and create things that just aren't possible with practical effects. Just because it is misused by people doesn't make it bad. There's plenty of shit practical effects out there as well.
And just for the record, this is absolutely true. I’m not claiming that all practical effects are automatically superior to all CGI effects. Merely that if it can be done practically, to a reasonable standard, then it ought to be done as so. You can’t beat reality; the interaction of light; that tangible quality. CGI is an emulation of reality. When and where one can, it’s preferable to make use of reality, rather than to emulate it.
CGI gave us
Uhhhhh, mate. That’s a puppet. Piss poor designs can be executed via either CGI or practical effects.
Blair was funny. I'll kill yeeeeww!
I adore that line reading. Makes me laugh every time.
I like to think neither of them were infected at the end.
The Thing is a part of John Carpenter’s “Apocalyptic Trilogy” for a reason, the key word being “apocalyptic”. At least one of them was infected and as a result, the world is doomed. The whole film is one big chess game and MacReady responds to losing the game, both at the start and the end of the narrative, by resorting to the bottle. There’s no happily ever after to be found here. The world is well and truly fucked.
Also, the The Thing's head-spider looks comically rubbish. And no, I am not fucking kidding. You can tell it's real and you can also tell that it's trundling along on wheels.
Whilst this is true, the ludicrous nature of the effect only adds to a the absurdity of the “you’ve got to be fucking kidding” gag. Palmer’s line wouldn’t be nearly as funny without the head-things little legs scuttling away in such a silly manner. That and Gary’s “I’d rather not spend the rest of this Winter tied to this fucking couch” line provide the biggest laughs in the entire film. Both are exemplary examples of masterfully relieving the tension of the situation with humour.
