I like the old. The new is still good but some movies rely way to heavily on cgi. When it comes to like blood I think visual and physical effects beat CGI anyday.

I don't think horror is about realism. CGI imposes realism on a genre that's naturally expressionistic and sort of weird. Savini and Screaming Mad George gore is great because it's unreal, but it gives the impression of gore. And the impression is all you need. You know you're watching a movie, you know you're in an unrealistic world, so let it be what it is. If anything, excessive realism gets in the way and damages the otherworldly vibe.

I may be missing/or misunderstanding what you're saying but I think a lot of ppl's point is that CGI gore isn't realistic at all. Firstly the technology doesn't seem to ge good enough to reproduce the the real thing. Ths physics/mechanics just don't look right..

Also I think rather than 'imposes realism on a genre', in many cases its exaggerated it to the nth degree...Look at the hyper gore of films/shows such as Ninja Assassin/300 and Sparticus (I know these aren't strictly horror but they verge on Fantasy which sort has similar charactistics that you mention)...

I love old school Ray harry Housen but I looking forward to the new Clash of the Titans too...A lot of new effects have been greatly improved since CGI and are far better than the use of Mattes/Stop motion etc etc..

I do feel gore has a war to go....Bullet squibs can almost immediatelly be spotted when they're replaced by CGI - so i feel blood and gore needs to improvesome what so its better than the old scool exploding squibs and butcher shop offal :-)

I wonder how Tom Savini felt on the set of LOTD and seeing alot of his trade replaced by the computer....

Good thread....

LOTR has some of the best CGI imo.

for blood effects I thought Rambo did the CGI excellent.

I agree films like that would have been so hard to do in the past....I thought the prawns in District 9 were well done too..

Rambo was ok - it still looked too unreal to me...

Good CGI is when you don't notice it as such...

I prefer the old style physical effects over CGI. I got nothing aganst CGI and no doubt its got plenty of advantages over physical effects, I'd just rather see Bottin's style of physical effects than CIG. Aesthetically its more fun to see how they pull some of those effects off than CGI, for me at least. The effects in films like The Thing, Phantasm, The Howling might not always be perfect, but its easier to identify with the creativity and way more entertaining.

Same goes for all the other aspects like blood and gore or pyrotechnics. I'd rather see physical over CGI. I guess its cheaper to do a CGI explosion, but I'd rather see the real thing.

I almost forgave it in Ninja Assassin as it fitted in with the overall cheesiness of the film...

or Tom Savini shooting himself in the face:

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...S/HEADSHOT.gif

The use of CGI is just a sign of the times. It might make some movies better or some worse but its gonna get used in most horror/sci fi weather we like it or not. Its also what makes the older movies special. Some of the old school gore was way ahead of its time and some of it.....well now we watch it to get a good laugh. Bottom line is now directors and producers have a definitive fork in the road on which kind of gore or special effects to put in the movie. Either way the plot/story/atmosphere and characters should be able to put good or bad effects on the back burner. Well most of the time anyway.

Didn't Van Damme kick the eye outta a stunman on Cyborg to make it look more real...

They shot Bruce Lees son too...