Monster of the Day #745

Updated on August 7, 2013 By Ken Begg 27 Comments

I’ve often thought all the texturing and such CGI allows is one reason kids don’t love monsters as much. There’s a lot to be said for how simplicity of form captures the imagination.

Oh, please those movies such, and rare good monster movie these days are often gorefest that aren’t appropriate for kids to start with.

Pin It



Related Posts

  • Flangepart

    Ah. It’s ‘narrow whiplike creatures’ week for MoD. Cute.

  • SteveWD

    I think the ability for CGI to put anything on screen that film makers want has taken away from creativity and making effects shots really “count”.

    An example that comes to mind is the shot where the Kraken first rises from the ocean at the end of the original Clash of the Titans. It’s one of my all time favorite effects shots. The claws reach up and grab the rocks and the Kraken pulls up. The golden sky, the almost perfect matching/compositing of the elements and the scale of the water. The shot probably only lasts maybe 5-6 seconds but it sticks in your head (at least in mine – it may help that I first saw it in the theater when I was 10) and is awesome.

    Contrast that with the remake where we get minutes and minutes of screen time for the CGI Kraken and it’s just a big ol’ forgettable mess. I’m pretty sure every frame of it is exactly what the film maker wanted.

    Limitations force creativity which can lead to awesomeness. I would love to see a new movie with all of today’s technology at it’s disposal shot with the philosophy of ‘could I shoot this with a real camera?’ or at least ‘does this shot look/move like it was shot with a real camera?’.

  • Ken_Begg

    “Limitations force creativity which can lead to awesomeness.”

    Everyone in Hollywood should have that etched into their foreheads. I always said if I could make one rule for Hollywood, it’s that every third movie anyone makes must be made for under $500,000 and with a ten day schedule.

  • Gamera977

    Well for ‘Titans’ at least Harryhasen’s creations are so packed with character that each one is memorable. The remake had monsters so bland I don’t really remember any of them all that well. The only CGI creations I really have liked are Reepicheep from the ‘Narnia’ movies and Gollum from ‘TLotR’ films- and there I think they’d have worked better with Andy Serkis (sp?) in make-up and costume instead of the CGI Gollum.
    As Eric pointed out on his post I loved ‘Pacific Rim’ but think it would have been better with guys in suits instead. After it I’ve went back and started going though a bunch of my Gojira movies and frankly I find the costume work in the later ones to look more realistic and believable than the CGI in ‘PR’. That’s just me though.
    And yes Hollywood could learn something from Roger Corman, he could film a better movie off the catering bill from many of the recent blockbusters.

  • Flangepart

    Like the comment about the Harryhasen Karken’s entrence. The prof. showed the need to keep the creatures personal. The best Godzilla flicks know that.

    If ya can’t relate on some emotional level, it’s just a screenshot.

  • The Rev.

    This looks like the titular monster from Behemoth, your typical crap-ass Siffy movie. That thing was a slog. Only the last five or so minutes were any fun, and that’s mostly because they threw any plausibility they had right out the window and just went full-out bonkers. It wasn’t nearly enough to save it, though, and I recommend you not even bother with it.

  • Rock Baker

    Back in the early days of the rise of CGI, I pointed to the Godzilla franchise noting that the destruction seen in those films had a sense of reality about it because the destruction was real. Miniature, but real. One can also look to the energy and creativity of Derek Meddings vs the modern so-much-going-on-it’s-hard-to-watch disaster effects. Another plus, of course, to those earlier examples is THAT THEY HELD THE CAMERA STILL SO YOU COULD APPRECIATE THE CRAFTSMANSHIP INVOLVED!!!!

  • Rock Baker

    “rare good monster movie these days are often gorefest that aren’t appropriate for kids to start with.”

    I’m sure there are other films like this, but this makes me think maybe you’re referencing HYPOTHERMIA, a recent throwback to 80’s horror/monster movies. I can’t say I was expecting a 60’s-type gill-man when I put that one into the machine!

  • zombiewhacker

    “Could I shoot this with a real camera?”
    The moment you realize that the shot your watching isn’t real, the wow factor is lost. The entire point of a special effect is to fool an audience into thinking what they’re seeing is real.
    Umm, right?
    Animatronics were used so successfully in the first Jurassic Park that when the film did sneak in a CGI effect for certain shots, you accepted it automatically… in the sense that you believed what you were watching occupied real physical space (not that you thought you were looking at a real T-rex!).
    Go to Youtube and pull up the “Feed Me Seymour” and “Mean Green Mother” musical numbers from the Little Shop of Horrors remake. The puppet/FX work there is astonishing. It’s so good you can actually read Audrey II’s lips when he’s (it’s?) speaking.
    I guess it helps that they had puppetmaster Frank Oz at the helm.
    I shake my head at the fact that even car chases in movies these days are often CGI-rendered. Why? They’re CARS, for frigging sake! I Am Legend had CGI zombies. Why?
    For the love of all that’s unholy… WHY???!!!!

  • SteveWD

    “The entire point of a special effect is to fool an audience into thinking what they’re seeing is real.”

    Nailed it! That point is so long gone from most modern effects work it is sad. Instead of convincing effects, we end up with “photo real” cartoons.

    ‘Audrey II’ is hands down one of the greatest special effects ever. BTW – if you have the chance check out the restored original ending on the directors cut blu-ray (it’s probably on youtube as well). It’s got some of the best miniature work I’ve ever seen.

  • Rock Baker

    Because it’s new and flashy.

    If what I heard is true, the Audrey II effects are even more impressive because they had to be performed and the film ran faster to compensate. This means Rick Moranis’ duets with the plant were actually acted at a slower pace and filmed to playback at a higher speed. I knew Rick was talented, but wow! There’s no clue of this speed issue in evidence!

  • Rock Baker

    That it does, but I can understand completely why they cut it. You’d think, though, they could have used the footage as a daydream when Seymour learns about the plan to mass market the creature.

  • SteveWD

    Cutting that footage must have really hurt. Usually when effects stuff gets cut, it seems to be a quality issue or a couldn’t quite finish it in time thing. This was finished, time consuming (I’ve heard the model unit worked about a year on it), and I’m sure very expensive work that was completely cut in the end………Ouch!!!!!

  • SteveWD

    I’ve heard the same and you just can’t tell by watching the movie. The effect is perfect. I’m guessing they undercranked the camera and slowed the music playback while Moranis performed. I’d love to see some behind the scenes of them shooting this.

  • The Rev.

    What was your take on it? I read about it over at Braineater’s blog (the delightfully titled “Brain Drops Keep Falling From My Head”) and he thought it was pretty meh. I think at best he said it was “okay.” I’ll probably watch it anyway just because I tend to watch anything Michael Rooker is in, but it’s not a high priority based on his ambivalence towards it.

  • joeybot

    If you just watch Moranis, every now and then you can tell. But you REALLY have to look. It’s amazing, I always wondered how they got that plant to be so lifelike until I learned that they undercranked, and then it made sense.

  • Rock Baker

    Even so, it was the right thing to do. As Oz noted, the test audience was really grooving on the film up until the last reel, then it became like “a deep freeze” and the film would have bombed terribly instead of becoming the smash hit it did with the new ending.

  • Rock Baker

    Well, for what they were going for, I thought they did a fine job. It really feels like something from about 1979/80 and the acting is pretty solid (Rooker is real treat, natch). It’s not a fantastic movie or anything, certainly no MUTANT, but far better than THE BEING. You sort of have to grade genre stuff on a curve, but I’d give it a B- I think. At worst, I’d give it a C+.

  • Rodford Smith

    Can you imagine what _Roger Rabbit_ would be like with CGI instead of real animation and stage effects?

  • Rock Baker

    My understanding is that we’re going to find out within the next couple of years…..

  • Rock Baker

    The good news is Bob Hoskins will be returning.

  • Eric Hinkle

    Hopefully Roger, Jessica, and the rest of the toons don’t end up looking like something from a J-horror movie.

  • Petoht

    To be fair, camera movement has nothing to do with how the effects are being done; that’s all on the director. Batman Begins had terrible fight scenes, and that was real people fighting.
    Conversely, Pacific Rim was two computer generated things fighting, but Del Toro knew to leave the camera alone so you could see what was happening. I also thought they did a pretty good job of giving the Jaegers weight.

  • Rock Baker

    I haven’t seen that one, but it would seem others are complaining about crazy camera shakes too. I did see SKYFALL and they decided to cut way down on the jitters that ruined much of the previous 007 epic.

  • The Rev.

    People are complaining about camera shakes in Pacific Rim? Other than a couple of shots in the heat of the main battle in Hong Kong, you can pretty much tell what’s happening at all times. It’s not shaky-cam heavy at all. Those people should try watching Dead Genesis and then shut up.

  • Rock Baker

    I meant in general, not pertaining to PACIFIC RIM. As noted, I haven’t seen that particular film. I have seen the two consecutive Bond epics, though, and as noted the motion sickness inducing camera moves have been toned way down.

  • The Rev.

    Ah, I misunderstood. I haven’t seen any of the Craig Bonds, so I can’t comment. DG was a damn bad movie, but the fact that the camera almost never stops moving the entire running time bumped it further down into the “Screw you, movie, I’m sorry I watched you” category. Too bad, because the premise (the only thing not bad about it) probably could’ve made an interesting movie.