<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Horror Craft - vo.rs</title><link>https://vo.rs/tags/horror-craft/</link><description>Latest from the Horror Craft desk at vo.rs.</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en</language><copyright>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.</copyright><lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Nov 2023 13:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://vo.rs/tags/horror-craft/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>What Latex Knows That Pixels Don't: Practical Effects vs CGI</title><link>https://vo.rs/screen/what-latex-knows-that-pixels-dont-practical-effects-vs-cgi/</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Watch Rob Bottin&amp;rsquo;s creature work in &lt;em&gt;The Thing&lt;/em&gt; (1982) beside almost any digital monster of the last decade and the older film wins on a metric that has nothing to do with nostalgia. The dog-thing splitting open, the defibrillator scene, the head that sprouts legs and scuttles away: these were built out of latex, mechanics, gelatine and enough karo syrup to drown a small town, and they still make audiences flinch forty years on. A great deal of expensive digital horror from the 2010s already looks dated. The gap is not a matter of taste or of one era being braver. It is physics, and understanding the physics tells you when to reach for the rubber and when the render is genuinely the better tool.&lt;/p&gt;</description><pubDate>Sat, 18 Nov 2023 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>