Modern films rely too heavily on CGI (computer generated imagery). It’s a common complaint among movie buffs, especially those old enough to have lived through the 80s, when techniques, pioneered in the 30s and 40s, had evolved to the point where the effects were so realistic and awe-inspiring that they left audiences wondering, “How’d they do that?” This, along with the explosion of genre magazines like Fangoria, Starlog, and Cinefantastique, which gave fans a glimpse behind the scenes, ushered in an era where practical SFX reigned supreme, and the artists behind them were like rock stars in Hollywood.

MOVIEWEB VIDEO OF THE DAY

Generally speaking, practical effects are special effects created live, in front of the camera, as opposed to during post-production. This can include props, models, vehicles, stunts, animatronics, make-up/prosthetics, and puppetry. While these types of effects were used in all types of films, it was genre films that allowed artists the most creative freedom. These indelible illusions, which had always been an integral part of visual storytelling, had gone from a facilitator of selling the perception of horror, the fantastical or the otherworldly, to a primary factor in the marketing and promotion of a film and inspired a fanbase to whom the effects and effects artists often appealed more than the films for which they were created.

The Heyday of Practical SFX

     Hoya Productions

Whether it was Linda Blair’s demonic head-spinning scene in William Friedkin’s The Exorcist (compliments of effects legend Dick Smith), Chris Walas’ exploding head in David Cronenberg’s Scanners, the stomach-churning realism of Tom Savini’s gore effects in George Romero’s Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead, the one-two-punch of Rick Baker’s groundbreaking werewolf effects in John Landis’ American Werewolf in London, Rob Bottin’s werewolf effects in The Howling (both still the benchmarks for werewolf effects in movies), Bottin’s work on John Carpenter’s The Thing, or the collective efforts of various practical methods on popular franchises from Star Wars (which also used early CGI) and Star Trek to Ghostbusters and Men in Black, just to name a few — audiences marveled at the technical wizardry on display, and diehard fans relished the chance to see their favorite effects artist’s latest work.

Behind the scenes, advancements were being made by leaps and bounds as artists like 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, strived, through healthy competition, to outdo each-other’s work from film-to-film.

As awe-inspiring as these creations may have been, there were still limitations. Effects 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 blocking required to hide wires or seams or puppeteers, or the time required to reset or make adjustments to a prosthetic or an animatronic between takes.

Change in Visual Effects in the 90s

     Tri-Star Pictures

Although first used in the 1973 film Westworld, it wasn’t until the appearance of the infamous, liquid metal T-1000 in James Cameron’s Terminator 2, and the life-like 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 aforementioned creations were accomplished through a marriage of practical effects and CGI.

From the mid-90s through to the early-2000s, CGI became the preferred visual effects medium from a studio standpoint. Rather than taking cues from films like Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park and a few other films that had seamlessly blended the two mediums, studios went all-in on CGI, and often with questionable results. Sometimes studios even went as far as overriding filmmakers who had touted the use of practical effects in their upcoming projects. Wes Craven’s 2005 film Cursed was one of the more egregious examples of this practice, as outlined by Screen Rant. The film was supposed to “reinvent the werewolf genre” according to Dimension Films co-founder Bob Weinstein. 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’s The Thing prequel, directed by Dutch filmmaker Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. In keeping with the John Carpenter classic’s revolutionary use of practical effects 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 Bloody Disgusting, the film’s writer Eric Heisserer stated, “I got this job, going in with the firm, fervid belief that no CGI should ever be in this movie. That it should be all practical.” The film was actually shot using Amalgamated Dynamic’s practical creations, only for them to be drastically over-layed with CGI in post-production.

CGI vs Practical SFX

     Marvel Studios / Disney

While generally more expensive than practical effects, CGI allows filmmakers more freedom of movement in terms of camera placement when shooting a rendered creation. Furthermore, it enables world-building without the cost of constructing expensive sets. The explosion of superhero films over the past two decades have greatly benefited from these examples. Also, as it’s done in post-production, CGI doesn’t require multiple takes and considerable set-up time.

However, this all comes at the expense of the real-world tangibility and weight of practical effects. And from an actor’s standpoint, the ability to act against a physical creation as opposed to a tennis ball or a green screen often leads to a more organic performance. That tangibility plays an important role in selling the overall effect. For all the freedom that CGI allows, the end-result often feels as if it exists on a separate plane from the actors involved, which robs the intended outcome of the effect of a certain degree of authenticity in the audience’s eyes.

     Warner Bros.

Thankfully, practical effects having been making a comeback in recent years. Established directors such as Christopher Nolan, J.J. Abrams, George Miller, Colin Trevorrow, Bryan Singer, and Leigh Whannel have stressed the significance of practical effects, with Whannel going as far as to remark, in an interview with Vulture, “I love, and I’ve always loved, contained sci-fi films that utilize practical effects. I feel like the human eye can tell when something is actually in the frame and when it was inserted digitally later.”

There’s no doubt that CGI is an essential tool in creating illusions and vast new worlds limited only by the human imagination, but rather than relying on it as the sole means of creating an effect, films like The Dark Knight, Mad Max: Fury Road, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Jurassic World, and the X-Men films have shown us that its use, in conjunction with practical effects, usually produces the best results.