As for Romanek (Allie and Dirk), the one that shot him to fame was "Are you gonna go my way" which spawned a million imitators. Other big ones were Scream ('bout as big as it gets), Bedtime Story, Devil's Haircut, Hella Good, Constant Craving and Cochise. That's all I can think of.

Thanks for the info Allie and half vader, and to DocPazuzu, I can't think of a more perfect fit for an Alien film than Chris Cunningham. I'm shivering just thinking of Window Licker or Rubber Johnny.

Setting that aside, the man does some good work. His NIN videos are fantastic. Still... I'd have been more pumped to hear Tarsem was on this.

Does that mean they weren't all incredible designs and fantastic achievements? Hell no (I worship those artists)! - But it's so damn hypocritical to willingly suspend your disbelief for these films where you're constantly aware of the limitations of the technology (not only that but just like stunt sequences they usually force the style of filming to be changed to accomodate the tech, which is arse-backwards) but not accord cg the same leeway. Be fair or stop whining like 5-year-olds.

You're going to see a lot of lousy cg for the next decade until a generation of directors come through who don't treat it as a novelty and an accompanying generation of writers come through who don't limit their imagination because of the crutch "we can't film that". Not to mention a generation of non-lazy producers who don't just leech off the work that's already been done for them (comics/interesting writing with arresting visuals). Even the technological debate itself is stupid and redundant. Mostly they're self-defeating because they say that the new tech's idiosyncracies are inferior - to the old tech's idiosyncracies! Generally they say they much prefer things like for example film grain (let me ignore film's other superior qualities for a second just to make a point) - which is a side-effect of chemical technology and not only that most directors have embraced its absence as soon as the next fine-grained/more 'grainless' stock came along! There's so much subjectivity and not enough objectivity both here and in the industry itself but it should always comes down to who's using the tools (new or old) and how well, and does it suit the tone of the film or the context of the scene. I've even had a few directors come to me and say, "But I've heard storyboarding sucks the life out fo a film". Sure, if the director is lousy and lets it overwhelm them or the board artist is lousy and can't board in the appropriate cinematic 'language'. Hitchcock didn't make crappy flicks because he boarded them so much! - An appropriate analogy for the current 'morphing of the noughties' pre-vis, or digital effects in general. I'm a bit surprised Romanek is anti in that statement. I know he'll shoot the shit out of it and it will look incredible but man, don't cut off your nose to spite your face. Somers is a fuckwit with his locked-on cg crazycam (it's not the cg that 'made' him do that move) and I know people are using that lazy reference because it's just the closest but look at stuff like say Children of Men where it's used sparingly and almost invisibly to help performance or Eternal sunshine where cg is completely in service to the tone and context of the scene. Or Phil Tippett's stuff where he went straight from being a stop-motion guy to being/running instantly one of the best cg studios because of his eye for detail, performance and design. It's great when the disciplines are combined like real miniatures and cg environments, or cg characters and miniature sets. If I have to say something about the new Star Wars movies, most of you didn't realise they used more miniatures in Ep.1 than the whole original trilogy! Which has nothing to do with the movie's general 'worth'.

As far as makeup goes at least the genius Rick Baker has some perspective on the whole thing. Like he says, the big limitation with makeup is that it's an additive process. You can't subtract from the face to gouge out a skeletal character or have a gaping hole or change the eyeline without long-way 'round tricks and complications that get in the way of the actual designand performance. Now Baker accomplished miracles in the same way as the Zen master Harryhausen knew which way the limbs of 5 different skeletons were moving or whether Medusa's multiple snakes were going fast or slow in his one-take wonders. Baker made an African-American guy into an old Jewish fella, and for crying out loud he took a guy with a big nose like Tim Roth and made him look ilke a squash-nosed ape! But he couldn't help the dark rims around the eyes of the Richard Simmons character from the black skin next to the eyeballs, and he sure would have loved to have some negative space to make Jack's (American Werewolf) disintegration more effective. I'm sorry to put words in his mouth like that but I hope I'm on the money there.

Many of you might not know that he's been fooling around with 3d sculpting for a while now and let me tell you it didn't take him long to overtake many techy-types because he's interested in the important stuff like composition and design and what cg can add to the process, not cg for it's own sake. Look at The Frighteners, where he used some great old-school tricks (the jawbone) combined with a bit of new stuff (the torso) to create something with personality and freedom of movement. Remember when he lost an oscar because the Academy didn't consider animatronics should be part of the Makeup Artists arsenal? Never mind the achievement!! That's how a lot of you guys sound. Like the Academy. It's ALL illusion.

Like I mentioned way back up the thread, I'm geeking out just hoping he'd do it (and I'm not trying to infer he is or may in any way) 'cause I reckon he'd use the old approach and supplement it with the new tech. to go beyond what he achieved in AW and blow everyone's socks off once again.

Don't limit your horizons people.

P.S. Sorry for the big rant but if you guys can whinge about it then I can too. Every now and then I need to get it off my chest - but 4.30am means time for bed!

However, based on how Universal wants their properties treated lately, I doubt they will care enough to stick with traditional depictions. I hope they prove me wrong.

Maybe , if it is good, Universal will think about some other 'period' horror flicks?

Can someone please erase the travesties of "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" and "Bram Stoker's Dracula" by actually FILMING THE BOOKS?

Childe that rocked. Not sure too many of the kids got it though.

Ashes. Yeah, part of the 2nd series, like I said up there (not in the monster one).

Jack, even camera shake is appropriate but yeah it rivals stupid use of cg at the moment. It was appropriate and used in the right context in United 93, but the same director went way overboard in the Bourne movie. The one scene in Batman begins where the bad guys are supposed to be disoriented and taken by surprise was appropriate, but after that not so much. 'In the trenches' war stuff? Sure. See? Context & tone, baby. It's not camera shake as a technique that's the problem, it's the stupid overuse of it.

Torture, I almost agree with you, and you're right that Bottin is a genius and is right there with Smith and Baker. Even his 'simple' stuff for Fincher is incredible and The Thing is just mindblowing (with a sense of humour!). Fair enough on the Baker/Bottin thing. It was a long time ago, and yeah I hope they've made up, but I've just never read anywhere that they've buried the hatchet which is why I thought it was pertinent. Anyway, I was surprised no-one said "Man in Suit!" earlier!

Not sure what you mean about perspective issues. CG can match a camera lens and perspective better than old school matte paintings ever could. Projection mapped digital paintings or digital set extentions are a fantastic inbetween that use the strengths of both. Is this what you were talking about? As for too slick of movement, it's not the cg that 'makes' it that way. I thing you're blaming the medium itself for the artist's work. It's the animator, and the same thing can be applied to traditional 2d animation, or the opposite problem applied to stop-motion and animatronics (which IS a problem inherent in those technologies that must be overcome). E.T. was phenominal, but you can't deny there was a lot of super-mechanical stuff going on which was just as obvious as slippery 3d. As for sense of weight, well sure the weight of it's own construction, but not necessarily the appropriate mass the creature should actually have. Besides this is an almost redundant argument when you factor in the lack of full body movement, which is every bit the millstone for animatronics that ease of movement is for 3d. No way does it negate the problems. The emphasis and problems themselves are just a bit different. The 'ball on a stick' thing is a bit redundant too. They're actors right? I don't care whether it's a old-fashioned comped-in stop-motion dragon or a digital beast, there's something wrong when an actor can't use their IMAGINATION. It's so much harder? What, like acting on stage? Please (directed at actors, not you). The issues of giving a good performance are just as relevant for the often multiple takes required by an animatronic character and all the technical issues on set can make it just as hard for the actor to give a good take, They might not have to imagine it, but they do have to maintain a sense of spontaneity which can be 'hard' over 30 takes. Both can lead to an uncovincing performance.

I completely agree about using the best of both/all worlds. The reality is that there are economies of scale and practicality, script requirements & scheduling etc. But you're right, it is the best. Thanks for the intelligent comments mate.

I just read in MakeUp Artist that Steve Johnson has either retired or had to close up shop (couldn't tell from the article). Too bad, as he/his team did some fantastic stuff. Weren't they the ones that did all the early tests and stuff on The Hulk (cg hataz love to ignore that they tried the old way and it didn't work for that one)? Or maybe it was Gillis and Woodruff. Or maybe it was KNB. Can you remember?

Yeah I miss those days too. The guys you listed are all incredible (as in super great, not as in 'not credible').

Unless I missed it, I'm amazed no-one has said WEREWOLVES GOTTA EAT yet. 'Cause they do!

And of course trailblazers William Tuttle, Jack Pierce and John Chambers. Hopefully the supposedly anti-cg posers (as in all the ones who proved my point about ignorant bashing) in this thread know exactly who those 3 guys are.