Modern movies rely too much on CGI (computer generated imagery). It’s a common complaint among movie buffs, especially those old enough to have lived through the 1980s, when techniques pioneered in the 1930s and 1940s had evolved to the point where the effects were so realistic and awe-inspiring that audiences were amazed. wondered, “How did they do that?” This, along with the explosion of genre magazines like Fangoria, Starlog, and Cinefantastique, which gave fans a behind-the-scenes look, ushered in an era when practicality SFX reigned supreme, and the artists behind them were like Hollywood rock stars.
Practical effects are generally special effects that are created live in front of the camera, as opposed to during post-production. This can include props, models, vehicles, stunts, animatronics, makeup/prosthetics and puppetry. While these kinds of effects were used in all kinds of movies, it was genre movies that gave artists the most creative freedom. These indelible illusions, which had always been an integral part of visual storytelling, had gone from being a facilitator of selling the perception of horror, the fantastic, or the otherworldly, into a primary factor in the marketing and promotion of a movie, inspiring a fan base that often appealed to the effects and effects artists more than the films they were made for.
The heyday of practical SFX
.jpeg)
Whether it was Linda Blair’s demonic head-spinning scene in William Friedkin’s the exorcist (compliments from effects legend Dick Smith), Chris Walas’s exploding head in David Cronenberg’s Scannersthe gut-wrenching realism of Tom Savini’s gore effects in George Romero’s Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Deadthe one-two punch of Rick Baker’s groundbreaking werewolf effects in John Landis’ American Werewolf in LondonRob Bottin’s werewolf effects in the crying (both still the benchmark for werewolf effects in movies), Bottin’s work on John Carpenter’s The thingor the collective efforts of various practical methods on popular franchises of Star Wars (which also used early CGI) and Star Trek until Ghostbusters and Men in blackjust to name a few, audiences marveled at the technical wizardry on display, and diehard fans reveled in the chance to see the latest work from their favorite effects artist.
Behind the scenes progress has been made in leaps and bounds with artists such as Tom Burman, Stan Winston, Steve Johnson, Kevin Yeager, Mark Shostrom, Screaming Mad George, Steve Wang, David Miller, Carl Fullerton, Greg Cannom, Alec Gillis, Tom Woodruff Jr. Howard Berger, Greg Nicoterro, John Carl Buechler, Randall William Cook, and Phil Tippet, among others, strove through healthy competition to outperform each other’s work from film to film.
As awe-inspiring as these creations were, there were still limitations. Effect artists were often at the mercy of real world physics, or the safety of the actor or actors during the performance of the effect, or the blockage needed to hide threads or seams or puppeteers, or the time it took to create the effect. reset or make adjustments to a prosthesis or animatronic between takes.
Change in visual effects in the 90s
Although first used in the 1973 film west worldit wasn’t until the infamous liquid metal T-1000 appeared in James Cameron’s Terminator 2and the lifelike dinosaurs in Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park, in 1991 and 1993 respectively, that the industry fully embraced CGI as a viable alternative to practical effects. Coincidentally, both of the aforementioned creations were accomplished through a marriage of practicality and CGI.
From the mid-1990s through the early 2000s, CGI became the preferred medium for visual effects from a studio standpoint. Instead of taking clues from movies like Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park and a few other films that had seamlessly blended the two mediums, studios went all in on CGI, often with questionable results. At times, studios went so far as to be the predominant filmmakers touting the use of practical effects in their upcoming projects. Wes Craven’s 2005 movie Accursed was one of the most egregious examples of this practice, as outlined by screen frenzy. Dimension Films founder Bob Weinstein said the film would “reinvent the werewolf genre.” Legendary, Academy Award-winning effects artist Rick Baker, the man behind the groundbreaking werewolf effects in American Werewolf in London, was even brought on board. But this claim never came to fruition.
Another example was 2011 The thing prequel, directed by Dutch filmmaker Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. In keeping with the revolutionary use of practical effects in the John Carpenter classic designed by legendary effects artist Rob Bottin, established effects house Amalgamated Dynamics was hired to design and create the film’s practical effects. In an interview with Damn disgusting, the film’s writer Eric Heisserer stated: “I got this job because I firmly believed that there should never be a CGI in this film. That it all has to be practical.” The film was actually shot using Amalgamated Dynamic’s hands-on creations, only to drastically overlay them with CGI during post-production.
CGI vs Practical SFX
While CGI is generally more expensive than practical effects, it gives filmmakers more freedom of movement in terms of camera placement when shooting a rendered creation. In addition, it allows world building without the expense of building expensive sets. The explosion of superhero movies over the past two decades has greatly benefited from these examples. In addition, since it is done in post-production, CGI does not require multiple takes and significant setup time.
However, this all comes at the cost of real-world tangibility and the weight of practical effects. And from an actor’s point of view, the ability to act against a physical creation as opposed to a tennis ball or green screen often leads to a more organic performance. That tangibility plays an important role in selling the total security. Despite all the freedom CGI offers, the end result often feels like it’s on a different plane from the actors involved, robbing the intended outcome of the effect of a degree of authenticity in the eyes of the audience.
Fortunately, practical effects have been making a comeback in recent years. Established directors such as Christopher Nolan, JJ Abrams, George Miller, Colin Trevorrow, Bryan Singer and Leigh Whannel have emphasized the importance of practical effects, and Whannel went so far as to point out in an interview with Vulture“I love, and have always loved, featured sci-fi movies that use practical effects. I feel like the human eye can tell when something is actually in the frame and when it’s been digitally inserted later.” .”
There is no doubt that CGI is an essential tool in creating illusions and vast new worlds limited only by the human imagination, but instead of relying on it as the sole means of creating an effect, movies like The Dark Knight, Mad Max: Fury Road, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Jurassic Worldand the X-Men movies have shown us that using them, combined with practical effects, usually produces the best results.