Practical vs CGI: Why Horror Fans Still Crave Real Effects

When John Carpenter's The Thing was released in 1982, Rob Bottin's practical effects were so disturbing that critics accused the film of gratuitous gore. Four decades later, those same effects are celebrated as pinnacles of the craft—while countless CGI creatures from the intervening years have aged into digital embarrassments. This pattern raises a question that divides horror fans: why do practical effects endure while CGI often fails to frighten?

Our brains evolved to read physical reality. When we see a practical creature—even a clearly artificial one—light interacts with it the same way it interacts with everything else in frame. Shadows fall correctly, surfaces reflect naturally, and movements carry real weight. CGI, no matter how sophisticated, often betrays itself through subtle wrongness our subconscious detects even when we can't articulate what's off.

When actors perform opposite practical effects, their terror is often genuine. The cast of Alien famously didn't know what to expect from the chestburster scene—their screams are real. Compare this to performances against tennis balls on sticks that will become monsters in post-production. Even the best actors struggle to manufacture authentic fear of the imaginary.

Practical effects masters like Rick Baker, Tom Savini, and Screaming Mad George were artists who brought singular visions to their creatures. Each had distinctive styles as recognizable as any painter's brushwork. Modern CGI, while technically impressive, often feels homogenized—the same software, the same rendering techniques, the same studio pipelines producing interchangeable monsters.

CGI isn't inherently inferior—it's often misused. The technology excels at enhancing practical work rather than replacing it. The best modern horror films use CGI to extend practical effects, remove wires and rigs, or add impossible elements to real foundations. Hereditary's most disturbing imagery combines practical and digital seamlessly. The key is treating CGI as a tool rather than a replacement for tangible craftsmanship.

Horror has seen a practical effects renaissance in recent years. Films like Terrifier, Harbinger Down, and the Void explicitly marketed their practical approaches to eager fans. Studios have noticed—even big-budget productions increasingly blend practical creature work with digital augmentation rather than going fully virtual.

The practical vs. CGI debate presents a false binary. The most effective approach combines both technologies strategically. Build what you can physically, enhance digitally where necessary, and always prioritize what serves the story and scares. The audience doesn't care how the effect was achieved—they care whether it terrifies them. The smartest filmmakers use every tool available to ensure it does.