Blood

[fgadmin]

TheMarwood — 12 years ago(May 24, 2013 11:24 PM)

I'm personally getting sick of the fad of CGI blood. I can understand a film with a budget less than 10M using it, but this boasted a relatively mid sized budget.
It's lazy and the results are always as realistic as a cartoon - but this has little to do with budget than just laziness. Squibs and practical blood effects have obviously been around for decades from prestige studio films to the lowest Z-grade slasher made for under $100k. After Hill's idiotic director's cut of The Warriors complete with cartoon bookends to scenes - I expected loads of digital trickery in this film, so I find only his overuse of CG blood an actual bit of restraint on his part.

[fgadmin]

Defenseman13 — 12 years ago(July 16, 2013 07:28 PM)

Agree with everything above. Squibs look amazing, and CGI blood simply looks cartoonish.
http://us.imdb.com/board/22339870/

[fgadmin]

Max06 — 12 years ago(July 21, 2013 03:55 AM)

Add me to the voices. CGI blood looks fake and doesn't belong in action movies. I hate the trend.

[fgadmin]

TheFilmProphet — 12 years ago(May 24, 2013 11:40 PM)

Jason Statham's films and Stallone's feature heavy use of CGI in place of squibs. Its so painfully noticeable and distracting I feel like I'm watching a DSLR student project made by 18 year olds.

[fgadmin]

IMDb User

This message has been deleted.

[fgadmin]

famouspork — 12 years ago(July 07, 2013 11:52 PM)

Epic comment
'I HATE Illinois Nazis.'

[fgadmin]

Lt_Cobretti — 12 years ago(May 25, 2013 03:19 AM)

The worst part is they were using real squibs, but they ruined it by smearing beep red CGI smoke all over them. I guess it wasn't bloody enough for them, but even a bloodless hole in someone's clothes has more impact then cartoon blood spraying everywhere.

[fgadmin]

brightmidnight71 — 12 years ago(July 10, 2013 04:33 PM)

Agreed. The only time they should go with cgi blood is to enhance an otherwise impossible to film headshot or large caliber hits like the .50 cal damage in Rambo 4

[fgadmin]

clickbait — 10 years ago(February 05, 2016 03:10 PM)

If they could film headshots without CGI in the 80s the for sure can do it now as wellthey are just to lazy to do it, that is why its so much overuse of CGI bloodeasy to to do retakes.
~If the realistic details fails, the movie fails~

[fgadmin]

Ray_Tango — 12 years ago(July 21, 2013 01:15 PM)

I watched it again on Blu-Ray, and what gets me isn't the fact that it's merely just CGI blood. It's HORRIBLY rendered CGI blood. That's what irritates me the most. It takes you out of the action sequences.
One of the best 80s tribute channels:

[fgadmin]

ipacac22 — 12 years ago(August 13, 2013 08:16 PM)

Agreed. The ridiculous CGI blood marred what was an otherwise enjoyable action romp. The Expendables over did the CGI blood as well.
Utah! Get me two.

[fgadmin]

oceanmachine45 — 12 years ago(August 18, 2013 06:23 PM)

I dunno, I thought it looked good. I also liked the pink mist too and thought it was a more realistic addition that most movies don't have. After talking to friends that have been in wars, they've told me that you see a pink mist

[fgadmin]

tjorn1979 — 12 years ago(August 23, 2013 04:35 PM)

Yes more Django-esque squibs please instead of CGI.
When bullets meet meat, it's not a pretty sight.