Scan barcode
helpfulsnowman's review against another edition
3.0
At the time of publication, this was how you learned this stuff: You had to apprentice and collaborate with a true master.
Today, it's a lot easier to learn basic techniques like mold making from the world wide interstellar net. Which means this book doesn't serve its original purpose quite as well, BUT it's a great time capsule and really brings the vibes of indie-ish horror filmmaking from the late 70's and early 80's, and it's quite a gem in that respect.
I go back and forth a lot on the whole thing about practical effects versus digital, and I think I've come up with a personal preference:
I always prefer practical, even when it doesn't look that good, BUT I think digital effects are totally acceptable when it comes to the question of safety. There are some stunts and stunt types, like being lit on fire, that are super impressive, but often appear in movies that don't warrant the risk, know what I mean? When you're doing a full-body burn and going for the record on a movie that has no plot and is just a generic slasher, you're putting a lot more into that movie than anyone else is, and that doesn't seem right to me.
The downside is that things like digital fires and explosions just never look super great, and it was always fun to see a HUGE explosion that was fucking real.
But I get it, it's a pretty dangerous thing to do, and doing it digitally, if it saves even a life, is pretty hard to shittalk.
That said, I wish there were fewer digital monster effects. We get so many monsters with elongated lower jaws now, and it's probably because that's a pretty easy effect. We get that generic monster face, and it's underwhelming.
I also think there are two skill sets: digital artistry and technical proficiency, that go into digital effects, and sometimes the artists have one skill or the other in a lot more bulk.
Which makes me think, maybe it'd be good to have artists create things in clay or miniature or matte painting, and then create digital versions. Maybe we'd be best off with hybrid styles.
Oh, well. Maybe those days are gone. Maybe Tom Savini will have to settle for going down in history as Sex Machine: The man with a penis gun.
Today, it's a lot easier to learn basic techniques like mold making from the world wide interstellar net. Which means this book doesn't serve its original purpose quite as well, BUT it's a great time capsule and really brings the vibes of indie-ish horror filmmaking from the late 70's and early 80's, and it's quite a gem in that respect.
I go back and forth a lot on the whole thing about practical effects versus digital, and I think I've come up with a personal preference:
I always prefer practical, even when it doesn't look that good, BUT I think digital effects are totally acceptable when it comes to the question of safety. There are some stunts and stunt types, like being lit on fire, that are super impressive, but often appear in movies that don't warrant the risk, know what I mean? When you're doing a full-body burn and going for the record on a movie that has no plot and is just a generic slasher, you're putting a lot more into that movie than anyone else is, and that doesn't seem right to me.
The downside is that things like digital fires and explosions just never look super great, and it was always fun to see a HUGE explosion that was fucking real.
But I get it, it's a pretty dangerous thing to do, and doing it digitally, if it saves even a life, is pretty hard to shittalk.
That said, I wish there were fewer digital monster effects. We get so many monsters with elongated lower jaws now, and it's probably because that's a pretty easy effect. We get that generic monster face, and it's underwhelming.
I also think there are two skill sets: digital artistry and technical proficiency, that go into digital effects, and sometimes the artists have one skill or the other in a lot more bulk.
Which makes me think, maybe it'd be good to have artists create things in clay or miniature or matte painting, and then create digital versions. Maybe we'd be best off with hybrid styles.
Oh, well. Maybe those days are gone. Maybe Tom Savini will have to settle for going down in history as Sex Machine: The man with a penis gun.
More...