I used to think that I was against CGI. But then I saw this movie. Make-up and forced perspective can't even come close to recreating the weirdness of the original
De-aging technology or re-casting would've been better choices
I am not exaggerating when I say that this movie feels like a hobbit is going on a killing spree
Talking about CGI, I don’t watch many new movies at all, and I mean maybe a handful after 2010. I did watch this because I am a fan of the original, and I was taken aback by all the CGI. Everything was so unrealistic, the blood, fire, snow, smoke, you name it. Was this just bad CGI or are most new movies filmed like this?
shareWow that's very few movies. I watch a lot, and yes that's the norm now and it's lame
Straight-to-streaming has changed the movie industry a lot. Fires and explosions in movies have regressed tremendously since the 80s and 90s
It's not fun if things aren't actually burning
Oh well. I guess it’s just validation for me to stick to my normal 60s-90s. I did enjoy the twist though. 😀
shareI have learned to accept CGI.
I prefer practical, but it is what it is. CGI is cost effective and risk free. It's the future and won't be going anywhere.
Some younger viewers look at old school horror and consider the practical effects as hokey and poor, with them actually preferring CGI, believe it or not. Sometimes it's just a matter of what you're used to.
Some of the FX in A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) for example are quite poor and hokey looking (the elongated arms, the final scare where the mother is pulled back into the house) but people never really mention it. It's given a pass as it was a low budget Horror film from the mid-80s.
I personally think some people are too harsh on low budget films, such as this, it's in essence a made-for-tv film. Expectations need to be tempered.
I'd also recommend giving newer films more chances. Every film is different and not every modern film is a CGI-fest. Some younger viewers swear of all 'old' films which I also don't get (they will often watch one or two 80s films and not like either so disregard the entire decade and previous decades of films), and it's common for people to never watch foreign language films. You only rob yourself of the experience of seeing many fantastic films. But hey, to each their own.
People have shat on the final shot of Nightmare on Elm Street for DECADES. It's not given a pass at all
shareIt hasn't stopped ANOES from being one of the most beloved horror films of all time. Which is my point. A film can have flaws and be embraced in spite of them.
This film may have a few iffy CGI moments but I'll allow it and don't agree with throwing it under the bus for the sake of a few issues.
I find people are very uneven with regards to their criticisms. I've seen people slam Evil Dead (2013) for poor acting only to recommend people watch The Evil Dead (1981) instead...as if it's an acting masterclass. People are pretty fickle. If they like a film they'll forgive a lot, if they don't like a film for some reason (say anti-remake bias, or they consider it 'woke') they will nitpick and find any issue to tear it down.
I didn't think this was a bad movie, my comments were about CGI in general. That doesn't mean that all practical effects always look great, but explosions and fire are not the same as prosthetics or contraptions
Fire either looks real or it doesn't. I'm not saying that CGI fire doesn't have a place in movies, it is safer and sometimes it's a small enough scene that it's not a big deal
In my OP I even said I would have preferred CGI over the camera tricks they used to make the actress appear short. But in many movies the CGI looks cheap and fake and they don't even bother trying to use lighting to disguise it
To clarify my comments aren't directed at you, more towards general audiences. I'm just rambling here.