I'll admit I was completely ignorant to the fact that Kevin Haney did the special effects for Basket Case...Hilarious.

Oh, and yes to more articles detailing practical effects work.

Er, your camera didn't happen to have a video mode did it? ;)

Quint, well done old chap.

I also second, third, or fourth the call for a series of AICN articles on Special Effects, flagging up particular innovations and FX heavy movies from the last few decades - I'd go as far as to nominate you, Quint, to produce them. What do you say? Tempted?

Also, Button does not really infringe on practical makeup FX at all in my opinion. Rick Baker has always said, and Greg Cannom who did Button's practical makeup would probably also tell you (if I'm not being too presumptuous) that makeup is an ADDITIVE process. You build up detail, and add to what's there. You can't be gouging bits out of an actor's face and body! And building the face or body up so you can then take away is often obvious enough to defeat the point (although little big man is a brilliant example of the best way to achieve it through practical means). Ironically it's Smith and Baker's genius in overcoming this intrinsic limitation that sets them apart. But there's Baker's story about Tim Roth on Burton's Planet of the Apes that illustrates the conundrum very neatly.

CG allows you to do subtractive/reductive effects in a more straightforward manner, without having to allow for the effect elsewhere on the actor's face or body. Benjamin button is an extremely old character where the fatty deposits and effects of ageing have shrunk the facial features back to the bone. As this shrinking/thin effect can't be done the same way practically, I don't think it's fair to say BB's cg/digital makeup takes away from practical makeup in that case.

And while Smith and Baker have come up with ingenious ways to overcome the "nose" problem with designs like the blurred guy above, the faceless chick, the aforementioned apes and the Grinch, I don't think there's anything wrong with Davy Jones and Voldemort using cg to eliminate the need to allow for the effect by building up other areas. Same with half robot Terminator heads and variations like the hammerhead guy from Pirates where his eyes are so close to the top of the skull. Rule of thumb is that your eyes are at the halfway point on your head. No way around that. I appreciate the magic of visual distraction that oldschool brilliantly provides, but that doesn't mean digital is wrong for doing it more straightforwardly. Both Baker's own Judge character from Jackson's The Frighteners and the Faun and the Creepy eyeless fat/thin man in Del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth are great examples of practical and digital makeup fx doing what each do best, in harmony. I just get funny (and probably all preachy) when people profess to loving these artistic/technical disciplines but their objectivity goes out the window, as in the tired old "oldschool rulez/cg sux" simpleminded vendetta that's been going on here forever. One thing that elevates guys like Baker and Muren is that they're NOT close-minded, and their openness to new possibilities is of course why they've made such huge strides and taken their respective types of FX into the future. Everyone here probably knows the story of how Baker was completely opposed by the old guard in pushing animatronics. It's EXACTLY the same analogy with cg makeup. Another analogy comes from John Lasseter, who said, "Computers don't create computer animation any more than a pencil creates pencil animation. What creates computer animation is the artist". And whether it's makeup, cg or whatever, it's all just a means to an end and that end is the CHARACTER, not the technique. Our love and dissection of the art of prosthetic effects is diametrically opposed to the concerns of filmmakers in creating a character or narrative by any/the best means possible (with the moderators of time, production logistics, practicality and budget). Which is fine, but many fans don't recognise/confuse that they're heading in one direction and we're heading in the other.

At the risk of making a goofy Dad joke to everyone in the Tb, don't cut off your noses to spite your faces. I'm not sure if that's ironic or muddies the metaphor, but it's still appropriate!

Cheers.

But you're right. For decades I've been hearing/seeing/reading my heros say "it's just a tool" and for decades fanboys keep somehow missing it. There's a reason why guys like Muren and Tippett are still making better effects with the same tools (mainly) as everyone else - what I don't think Quint quite gets is that they carry the same sort of lateral problem-solving that fascinates him about the old stuff across to the new mediums too. Just a tool indeed.

Sorry for all the posts. This event just made me all excited...

Oh and yeah +1 for that series please.

And yes, where's Tom Savini?