I've always been a big fan of 70s and 80s horror, but for the most part modern horror has trouble catching my interest. I often find myself asking why that is. Is it because the common horror tropes have become stale and overdone? Maybe, but I still find older horror movies I haven't seen with those same cliches that I thoroughly enjoy, like Xtro. Is it because the addition of the PG-13 rating in 1984 made violence and extreme horror less appealing to studios looking to make profit? That's a large part of it, but even M-rated films from the past decade often lack the spark that draws me in. I've come to conclude that practical effects, rather than CGI, is that spark - capable of raising a film with mediocre writing to an enjoyable experience.
There are a few direct and indirect reasons why practical effects make a film superior to one made with digital effects:
Although CGI is becoming increasingly realistic, it still hasn't reached 1:1 likeness with real life. Something as small as a diffwrence in lighting between the set and the digital model can break immersion into the film. Additionally, less profitable genres like horror simply don't have the budget to use state-of-the-art effects resulting in obviously-animated visuals
Immersion is an important aspect of horror. Even if CGI reaches a point of true 1:1 likeness with the real world, showing its interactions on set with a high degree of believability (following the laws of physics, having an approriate weightiness) is a task only dedicated directors are able to get right. Even when the use of CGI has no effect on the set, such as a CGI character who only interacts verbally with the actors, maintaining immersion is more difficult. Some of my favorite actors regardless of genre are method actors. A set with green screened backgrounds and digital characters is less immersive for such actors, and, as a result, less immersive for the audience
Creating practical effects is a time-consuming and detail-oriented task. But once completed, a tangible prop provides a real sense of pride to those involved. Passion is a key ingredient to any great film, and physical props provide fuel for that passion. A director is able to get the shots he wants rather than relying on animators in post-production. An actor is able to intetact with the real world rather than digital effects interacting with a directionless actor. Results are tangible, and so is the pride for the product.
No, digital effects are a continually-improving technology and do have a place in cinema. They allow for visuals never possible in the real world to be seen on the big screen. But they should be used sparingly. Rather than being used as a tool for the replacement of practical effects, they should be reserved as supplements for what cannot be achieved practically. Rather than praising Rogue One for it's use of near-realistic CGI, we should be praising movies like Krampus for choosing to reserve CGI for only a small fraction of its effects. In a perfect world, however, movies such as Krampus would not be praised for their use of practical effects - they would be the standard.
