I prefer the older style alot more. Theres just something about CGI that just dosnt do anything for me. I cant put my finger on what it is exactly. Just something that kinda turns me away.

The way things are going it woulnt be long before whole movie are made on computers and they'll be no need for actors.

Agreed as well


but straight CGI is also very effective [ Spiderman movies..LOTR movies ]

Hey I grew up on stop motion animation, and while I'll admit...its a bit dated, Ray Harryhausen and the like were pioneers and I love all his stuff but its time to move on.

Give it time and it will all come together.

Even though it looks dated today, it scared movie audiences out of their seats in its day.

But yes, it had its fair share of time and exposure. Like the others who said it in this thread, CGI and makeup together would be an exciting combo.

And also dont forget, CGI is expensive too...and also takes a lot of time and patience to perfect. Unlike filmmakers to totally rely on CGI, a healthy dose of make-up and prosthetics in today's cinema could enhance its credibility a LOT more.

Exactly, and we have far too many low budget films using it so poorly because they can't invest the money or time that it ruins the image of this very helpful tool.

And low-budget movies of yesteryears had very effective make-up effects which added to their atmosphere. (Just thinking of the budget spent on making Halloween, for instance)

Filmmakers today should take a leaf out of their older counterparts' books and use make-up effects effectively. A movie doesnt have to rely totally on CGI (whether expensive OR cheap) to get the necessary reaction from the audiences.

The best example of a perfect blend IMO would be An American Werewolf in London.

Well, being a special effects guy who does both physical and digital effects, I would say, special effects technology is an onward march, and each new innovation sort of adds to the tapestry. There are good and bad applications of everything. A GREAT CG effect, and one I don't think has been topped in some ways, is the "half-melted Billy" effect in "Deep Rising"...it's done mostly with CG "makeup" applied to the actor, and it is beautifully done. I think it redefines what makeup "is" in the digital age.

the make up and prosthetics back then for me, are what makes them scary. They haven't all been done that well so they just look...not quite right and films such as the thing and dead alive with all the slime, tearing and messed up faces make them register in your brain as simply wrong and that's what makes them scarier for me.

Ya know, if we look at make-up and prostetics of now, versus CGI i'd choose the make-up and prostetics. IT just seems to work better, especially when they use fake blood instead of just adding it in with CGI. Like, if anybody has seen the Day of the Dead remake, though I doubt it because its not supposed to be out until the 8th of april, then they would agree that CGI may be good but its not gonna cut it as of right now. Also.... with zombie movies you don't expect zombies to be able to crawl on the ceilings.... you'll know what I mean when you see Day of the Dead, which fails in comparison to the original.

Right on! You hit the nail on the head!

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/f...annyLou2-4.jpg

Countess Marya

I can appreciate both, if done well. I do usually prefer the old way of doing things, it looks better and its just more fun. But I don't mind CGI if it is not ridiculously over done, like the CGI nightmare that is Van Helsing. :rolleyes: