|
Post by Flyboy on Nov 4, 2009 19:02:21 GMT -5
You would think that, but it turns out that practical effects are quite expensive. Jack Pierce, the man behind the original Frankenstein and Wolf-man makeups, was eventually let go from Universal because they didn't want to pay for three to six hours of makeup per character. One of his assistants eventually replaced him, one who could do it in half the time, albeit with a different process. Mark Shostrom did phenomenal work on Phantasm's II and III, but when the money ran out for Phantasm IV, they went with the much cheaper KNB (all of whom were his assistants but none of whom actually visited the P4 set) and the film's makeup effects suffered dearly. I think setting aside budget for practical effects is a wise investment because digital effects date the film to whatever technologies are prevalent at the time. Night, Dawn and Day are timeless films in a way that Land and Diary can never be, in my opinion. Well I'll be a son of a bitch. Haha. At this rate, I fear that someday we will lose practical effects altogether & filmmakers will use nothing but CGI. Film will truly be dead then. Also, Night, Dawn, & Day > Land & Diary It's a proven fact.
|
|
|
Post by omer135 on Nov 5, 2009 5:57:13 GMT -5
Well I'll be a son of a bitch. Haha. At this rate, I fear that someday we will lose practical effects altogether & filmmakers will use nothing but CGI. Film will truly be dead then. If the CGI technology keeps getting better, then it's fine to me. I think that we're very close to the day when CGI will be photo-realistic!
|
|
|
Post by Flyboy on Nov 5, 2009 7:32:20 GMT -5
Photo-realistic yet lifeless & dull. Dark days are ahead but for modern horror fans with horrid taste, the days are looking bright.
|
|
|
Post by dschoenike on Nov 5, 2009 15:37:05 GMT -5
While i like every film in the dead series, Day of the Dead i feel set the high standard for practicle effects, and Diary was the low point concerning cgi. Ive grow more fond of Land of the Dead for its mix of both practicle and cgi effects (minus the priest scence and bridge decapitation) Maybe with Land having a bigger budget, practicle effects cost was less of a concern. After rewatching the Survival trailer a few more times, im hoping the low quality cgi is the exception instead of the norm. I look forward to seeing it regardless, and will decide then, if it was any good.
|
|
|
Post by Flyboy on Nov 5, 2009 19:31:32 GMT -5
While i like every film in the dead series, Day of the Dead i feel set the high standard for practicle effects, and Diary was the low point concerning cgi. Ive grow more fond of Land of the Dead for its mix of both practicle and cgi effects (minus the priest scence and bridge decapitation) Maybe with Land having a bigger budget, practicle effects cost was less of a concern. After rewatching the Survival trailer a few more times, im hoping the low quality cgi is the exception instead of the norm. I look forward to seeing it regardless, and will decide then, if it was any good. I agree with you 100%. Day really did set the standards for practical effects. I'm still in awe with some of those effects because they're so well-executed. Land's practical effects were damn great but the CGI effects were very poor. Diary had some good practical effects too but their CGI effects sucked ass as well. Land was kind of the middle ground with its good practical effects & poor CGI effects. The effects were not as good as Days(or the previous installments) but were better than Diary's.
|
|
|
Post by The Dead Walk! on Mar 30, 2010 15:29:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by omer135 on Apr 5, 2010 6:01:29 GMT -5
Great Gore in the trailer!
|
|