/hor/ - Horror General

Werewolf Edition

Last time on /hor/:

Attached: wolfman.png (585x862, 1.02M)

Attached: Bloody Hell.jpg (1280x720, 185.96K)

Attached: 1658315647410896.jpg (1000x1538, 157.79K)

Attached: monster.jpg (727x545, 49.85K)

How can a movie from 33 years ago look so much better than modern effects
Even movies with supposedly good budgets like capeshit have really jarring CGI

Attached: face melt.webm (720x400, 1.62M)

Attached: MV5BNTkxMjg5MDYtZDkyMS00NjFlLTk5YTItMWUyOTNkOTg4YmRhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNDk3NzU2MTQ@._V1_.jpg (1688x2500, 995.79K)

The reasons are complicated and many, but one of the big one's is CGI as a crutch, and not a tool. It's also far more ubiquitous and standards for it have fallen. Big budget CGI is outsourced to randos who work under 24/7 crunch time, and capeshit CGI is notoriously a fucking awful environment to work in, as tons of visual effects artists having been speaking out about recently. Nothing is given time to be finished due to release schedules and fucked up production methods where no one knows what's going on. There is no room for artistry and taking the time to really make an effect look well. Another reason is pre-CGI practical effects had to work under the limitations of budget and actual ability. The monster in that webm looks stuff as fuck, regardless of how detailed the model is, but you only see it for a second--this is the rule all practicals have to abide by, including the gold standard The Thing. See it for too long in good lighting, and the illusion is broken. Jurassic Park's CGI still holds up because it was practical effects values translated to digital: they thought about how something would look and move in real space, and replicated that in a computer instead of parts of a puppet or animatronic. They didn't treat it differently. Lastly there's a difference between tangible presence and digital, it's just impossible to fully 100% seamlessly recreate the random splatter and flow of physical gore. Sure you can make far more impressive visuals easily (CGI is a tool for doing when practical becomes, well, unpractical to do) but the way material objects move is different to animated.

It's not as simple as "old good new bad", it's "they literally will not let new be as good as it should be and now it's too late to save its reputation".

Alright, someone just give me a straightforward list of werewolf movies to watch. I never had much interest in them but I want to check some out this October. I've seen the Ginger Snaps movies, Dog Soldiers a long time ago, and that's probably it.

Wolfman 2010
The Howling
Howl (2015, no one seems to know this one)
An American Werewolf in London

strange days obviously isn't a horror film but gosh is this scene disturbing; ralph fiennes is wearing a device that lets him watch what another person has recorded and it's a brutal home-invasion murder in first-person view

Attached: strange1.jpg (1005x525, 50.77K)

give three examples of new is (also) good or stfu

specifically relating to gore

Is this good

Did you even read my fucking post you retard?

Yea his rant doesn't even make sense in terms of making his point. He basically said that cgi looks bad because people are lazy but that it could be theoretically good. Okay then do it right. Modern cgi looks terrible compared to practical effects

no

Yes, it's great. It does have bad cgi in a few places but it's 2001

Listen I knew reading is hard but you have to try. There are some pretty big words in there, but I know you'll get there eventually. For instance, the word "complicated" means that something isn't easy to get right away! I hope this hint helps you in your journey.

Watched picrel last night, and holy kino

Attached: 9369.jpg (1200x600, 41.77K)

>It's not as simple as old good new bad
>can't give an example of new looking good
>gets annoyed because people don't "get his point"

The Cursed (2021) is one of the best werewolf movies in a decade

in other news, why does the incantation suck so badly?
I'll go first
>they blow their load too early
>they try to visit EVERY found footage trope too quickly
>it doesn't pair flavours i.e. they went with bright colors and happy times straight into 'OO SPOOKY' quite often, I guess they assumed contrast would make something more shocking but to scare an audience you have to set a tone otherwise the payload is useless
I wanted to like it but I just couldn't, the actors
were fine though afaic and the general idea of the story was fine to begin with

*incantation
not 'the'

it was a different time

Attached: blub.webm (640x360, 476.22K)

No, we understand you just fine. You're saying it COULD, *hypothetically*, be good. It just all looks like shit because, uhhhhh, it's real hard, okay?
Well, okay? If it's so fucking much harder to get it good in the new way then doesn't that exactly mean that it's worse?

this was really quite good. not great but underrated. great cinematography

Oh you're actually retarded, sorry, I'll dumb it down:

Jurassic Park proved CGI could be good, but because everyone started to use CGI for everything, people got lazy and did not use the tricks that made Jurassic Park's CGI so good. Everyone got too used to CGI and it stopped being new and exciting. Big budget CGI is bad because the people who make it forced to work very very hard and this causes them to make bad CGI, but the people in charge don't care.

Practical effects people had nothing else to make effects out of, so they made puppets and robots, but these didn't look very good if you showed them too much, so they had to use their imaginations and make something that you would only show for a couple of seconds. They had to work around all the limits they had, like money.

CGI is used for many little things in movies you don't always notice, and this is interesting, but these are very small examples and not worth talking about. There are very few examples of good modern CGI, because there are a lot of problems with how people began to use it. CGI is cheap, so filmmakers only spend a little bit of money and time on it, when really they could spend a lot more and create very good effects.

Do you get it now, or are you just hopeless?

Tl;dr
Seethe, we get your point. Theoretical don't matter retard

user asked why old effects hold up more than new effects, I gave a bunch of reasons mostly relating to laziness and misuse, lamenting the fact you can actually make great CGI, but you two started sperging out instead for some reason because I didn't give good examples of modern CGI, when my whole point is you kind of can't. Holy fuck, learn to read.

Is the 4K version out yet? Is there a torrent?

>NO U MAD
Babby retard still doesn't get it, spouts buzzwords, more news at 11.

>typing pages to say cgi could be good but people don't want to invest the time required
>nooo! You don't get my point! Noooo!