Now that it's October, it's the perfect time to dive into the debate that continues to haunt filmmakers and horror enthusiasts alike: practical effects vs. special effects (SFX). Both techniques have their merits and can evoke terror in unique ways, but what sets them apart, and how do filmmakers decide which to use in their productions? Let's explore these two approaches in horror, with some chilling examples.
Practical Effects: Tangible Terror
Practical effects, the time-honored craft of creating physical effects on set, have been a cornerstone of horror cinema for decades. From the unnerving blood splatter in The Evil Dead (1981) to the grotesque creature work in The Thing (1982), practical effects offer a visceral, hands-on approach to fear. Their appeal lies in the authenticity they bring to the screen—what you see is what was physically created.
The Thing, 1982
Tom Savini, a legendary practical effects artist known for his work on Friday the 13th (1980), believes the tangibility of practical effects gives audiences something real to fear. “You can’t beat the reality of practical effects,” Savini says. “It grounds the film, and when the blood splatters, you can almost feel it.”
Practical effects create a stronger connection between the viewer and the scene because everything feels plausible. There's a certain weight and depth to blood, monsters, and makeup that CGI can't always capture. This is why The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) still horrifies audiences today, with its bone-chilling realism.
Special Effects: The Digital Nightmare
On the other side of the spectrum, special effects—or digital effects (CGI)—have transformed the way we experience horror. The allure of special effects lies in the freedom it gives filmmakers to push the boundaries of imagination, creating otherworldly monsters and terrifying scenarios that would be impossible to replicate with practical effects alone.
Films like It Chapter Two (2019) and The Conjuring series have expertly used CGI to craft scenes that blend the supernatural with stark realism. Pennywise the Clown’s shape-shifting form in It would have been hard to achieve with only practical effects, while The Conjuring series uses special effects to heighten paranormal activity, offering scares that no practical trickery could achieve.
The Conjouring, Image courtesy of Warner Bros.
Richard Bluff, the visual effects supervisor behind The Mandalorian and Doctor Strange, notes that the strength of special effects lies in their ability to bend reality. “You can manipulate physics and create visual scenarios that are beyond human capability. But the key to effective horror is balancing that with grounded elements to keep it believable,” says Bluff.
A Perfect Pairing: Hybrid Horror
As technology has evolved, many filmmakers have discovered that the most effective horror lies not in choosing between practical and special effects, but in combining them. By blending the real with the digital, horror films can evoke a deep sense of unease and fear.
Take A Quiet Place (2018), for example. Director John Krasinski used both practical and special effects to create the terrifying creatures that hunt by sound. The film's combination of realistic settings with CGI-enhanced monsters made for a gripping, tense experience. The monsters were initially sketched out and brought to life with practical models, but their final forms were enhanced digitally to create movements and details that couldn’t be achieved practically.
In The Haunting of Hill House (2018), the series' creators used practical effects for the ghostly figures lurking in the background of scenes, while relying on CGI for more dynamic supernatural elements. The mixture of both heightened the tension without drawing too much attention to the digital elements.
The Haunting of Hill House, 2018
The Fear Factor: When to Choose Practical vs Special Effects
So, how do filmmakers decide when to use practical effects or lean on special effects in horror productions?
It often comes down to budget, timeline, and the desired impact. Practical effects are usually preferred for creating tactile scares that feel grounded in reality. They work well for intimate scenes where a small, specific fear needs to be amplified—like a haunted house with creaky doors or eerie makeup on a possessed character.
Special effects, however, are often used when the story demands something outlandish or otherworldly, such as larger-than-life creatures, supernatural events, or epic environments. Horror films like Crimson Peak (2015) showcase lavish haunted houses and gothic monsters that simply couldn’t be done with practical effects alone.
Conclusion: Which Scare is Scarier?
Whether through the visceral impact of practical effects or the awe-inspiring creativity of special effects, horror filmmakers have endless tools to make audiences jump out of their seats. While practical effects bring realism and a physical presence that unnerves, special effects take viewers into the surreal and supernatural, reminding us that fear knows no limits.
Ultimately, the scariest horror films—those that linger in our minds long after the credits roll—are the ones that marry both techniques to heighten fear and keep the audience guessing. So this Halloween, as you watch the latest horror flick, pay close attention to how the filmmakers blend these two forms of terror to keep you on the edge of your seat.
Which type of effect do you find scarier?
For more tips and tricks from industry professionals or to find production resources, visit ProductionHUB for the latest insights into film production.
Comments
There are no comments on this blog post.