Dr Borgo wrote:
I agree. Well put Johnny.

Thank you Herr Borgo!



And I agreed about the CGI morphing werewolf. As done in VAN HELSING it looked exactly like what it is--a computerized effect. You can practically see the pixels shifting shape and being manipulated while viewing. What I think is so neat about AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON's transformation scene while it involves prosthetics and even robotic components to achieve the effect--because they're actual physical objects (and not digital information)--it also looks like a physical person (of some sort) with warped proportions...and seems as real as something as fantastic as a werewolf can be. Though I know it's a special effect it's so natural looking in execution I barely realize that it's an effect...something that I can't say for the werewolf in VAN HELSING (or that movies take on Mr. Hyde).In fact I'd say the transformation in AWIL is so good (and ground-breaking) it has yet to be matched in subsequent werewolf pictues.

I'm not anti-CGI at all, in fact I think it's neat tool. When used in good taste I believe it can yield effects so realistic that the naked eye could never notice. But when used in excess it looks overly digital--and quite jarring to an audience. While watching some CGI-fest at a family function recently my 9 year old cousin said of the movie's action sequences "that looks so fake". And I thought film enthusiasts were the only ones bothered by CGI!

Last Edited By: Johnny Staccato Aug 7 08 2:55 AM. Edited 4 times.