• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

I Hate CGI Blood

Mr Light

Admiral
Admiral
So I'm watching The Expendables and for the most part it's a "real" looking movie but then they gotta go with the CGI blood spurts which just look totally artificial. I see this all the time in movies now, this completely fake looking cartoony CGI blood. It just completely ruins the illusion of the movie.

It's particularly damning in horror movies. It's hard to get frightened in a horror movie when you see something very clearly and artificially overlaid onto the picture. I think it's the main reason I don't find movies as scary as I did 5-10 years ago.
 
Because the karo syrup blood and squibs of yesteryear was so convincingly real you believed they that they were really being shot?
 
I remember watching the Children of Dune miniseries. The part where Leto II karate-slashes the guy in the neck, and the blood just kind of disappears in midair. I agree with Mr. Light, real blood is a lot more convincing. CGI blood is always too shiny, or too globby, or otherwise obviously a simulated particle generated in cyberspace... but then I've seen some pretty bad real blood too.
 
Like anything involving special effects, be they digital or practical, it really depends on how it's done. Both can be used effectively or very very ineffectively. Practical squibs have the advantage of using actual liquid and so will (generally) behave in a believable fashion, whereas CG blood has to rely on simulation. The disadvantage of squibs of course is that it's messy so you get one take then have to wait quite a while (perhaps hours) while everything is cleaned up reset.

Most of the time "good" CG blood goes unnoticed because it's so good nobody realises it's CG at all. For an example of this check out the opening scene of Zodiac. It was shot with just the actors and some air-blasts, all the blood was inserted digitally and most people would never know.

Of course "bad" CG blood is quite obvious and seemingly a lot harder to forgive than bad practical effects.
 
They've also been doing practical effects for a much longer time so, unless you are intentionally making it look bad, there's very little excuse for it not looking mostly real.
 
I hate it too, and it's really bad in Horror films because to top it all off they use cheap cgi. Compare the evil dead films or any 80's gore fest with something like Romero's newer zombie films and it's obvious which is better.
 
At least it was clearly happening in the same physical world as the actors ;)

Movies involve suspension of disbelief, though. Medusa in the original Clash Of The Titans was clearly not in the same physical world as the actors...but it was brilliant and terrifying. At least to me.
 
At least it was clearly happening in the same physical world as the actors ;)

Movies involve suspension of disbelief, though. Medusa in the original Clash Of The Titans was clearly not in the same physical world as the actors...but it was brilliant and terrifying. At least to me.

This is true. But I've also wondered if it might have something to do with that 'uncanny valley' - Regardless of how convincing it may be, some part of our brain rejects it because subconsciously we know it's not 'real'. Like the difference between having a 'real' liquid (even if it's not real blood) and an animated liquid. Maybe our brains process CGI differently than physical effects, even though they're both fake?

...God that sounds silly now that I'm actually writing it.
 
The Expendables had PG-13 blood. But when they decided to make it R, that's when the CGI blood was added.
 
What it all really comes down to is money. Generally speaking, good effects work, be it practical or digital is always more expensive than bad effects work. When it comes to blood effects, even good practical effects are I imagine a fair bit cheaper than even bad CGI. As I said before, the reason why CG blood is used at all (aside from poor judgement and laziness) usually has to do with how much control the director wants over the shots and how much time they're willing/able to spend on a given scene. Again, like I said before, once you start letting off blood squibs, you're going to end up with a set full of actors and costumes covered in the stuff and if something went wrong, or the director wants another go at it then it could take *hours* to reset everything for a second take and every time this happens it's burning money with little footage to show for it. Alien and the Thing each had a very elaborate and gory practical effects shot that didn't go off as planned and sure enough, it took forever to reset. Luckily I think they both got it on the second take but crews aren't always so lucky.

With CGI blood you have total control and can just focus on the actors and the performance. Of course if you're David Fincher this works great because you have a respectable effects budget and a habit of doing LOTS of takes, plus it's just one or two shots. For a mid-to-low budget horror or action director it's not so good because (hypothetically) you have a whole movie full of hacky slashy or car chases and giant fireballs and you can only afford some D-grade effects house to quickly do all the bullet hits. Squibs might have looked better, sure, but the money saved on NOT doing multiple resets on every angle of the gore scenes made it a good business decision, if not a good creative one.

Bottom line, as I've often said to people who complain about CG; there's nothing inherently wrong with it, it's just another tool. Like any tool though, it can be misused or used as a crutch. When it's used properly you won't even know it was used at all (again, check out Zodiac.)
 
I seem to recall even Speilberg's CGI bullet wounds in Munich looked horribly fake, but I've only seen it once back in the day. I'm thinking of the scene where the naked girl gets shot (obviously nowhere to hide squibs on her though!)
 
So I'm watching The Expendables and for the most part it's a "real" looking movie but then they gotta go with the CGI blood spurts which just look totally artificial. I see this all the time in movies now, this completely fake looking cartoony CGI blood. It just completely ruins the illusion of the movie.

It's particularly damning in horror movies. It's hard to get frightened in a horror movie when you see something very clearly and artificially overlaid onto the picture. I think it's the main reason I don't find movies as scary as I did 5-10 years ago.
I thought the same thing while I was watching that movie. CGI is a good tool for doing things that can't be done convincingly in real life, but when it's not really necessary, and in fact less realistic, I just don't get that.
 
What Reverend said! CG is just a tool that can be used right or wrong/cheaply, but I get what the OP meant, just saw The Expandebles two days ago and the blood looks so fake, it completely takes you out of the movie.
 
Even this?

klingonblood.jpg


:D
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top