The Thing (2011)

[SuperSaiyan4Godzilla]

As long as the CG looks better then practical effects there should be no problem. I genuinely don't like CGI unless it's Jurassic Park/Avatar good. What irks me is the JP was made 18 years ago and it's effects are still better then most films today.

Demanding that level of CGI is like demanding Del Toro quality special effects from any film using practical effects. Can't be done. Not with budgets.

[PopInPicsPresents]

It's been 18+ years. Effects today should look much better then the ones used in JP or at least be on par.

[SuperSaiyan4Godzilla]

It's been 18+ years. Effects today should look much better then the ones used in JP or at least be on par.

Eh. The CGI still holds, but it doesn't look that good in certain parts.

That said, most major Hollywood films have CGI that is on par, if not a little better/lesser than Jurassic Park.

Either way, budgets must be taken into considerations. With some budgets, you'll either get crappy CGI or crappy practical. It doesn't matter either way.

CGI just takes less time and, usually, less money.

[Hellspawn28]

I think CG is a great tool but I think practical effects are just better since they hand build and feel much better. I like it if they do a mix between both like in the 1998 remake of Mighty Joe Young, Lord of the Rings and the Hellboy films for example. Still no reason for this movie looks half-ass since they push it back to October 2011 to work on it longer seeing that it originally had a April 2011 release date!

[Gyaos]

Doesnt CGI take MORE time? I remember in the Transformers (2007) special features they said it took an entire day to render one frame of animation.

Then again animating a shapeshifting monster is easier than animating a transforming robot with thousands apon thousands of moving parts.

[SuperSaiyan4Godzilla]

I think CG is a great tool but I think practical effects are just better since they hand build and feel much better. I like it if they do a mix between both like in the 1998 remake of Mighty Joe Young, Lord of the Rings and the Hellboy films for example. Still no reason for this movie looks half-ass since they push it back to October 2011 to work on it longer seeing that it originally had a April 2011 release date!

I honestly don't understand why you guys are saying the SPFX are that bad...Because they aren't. You're acting like they threw an Asylum film at you.

It seems that you guys are butthurt because they went with the more pragmatic way of making this film. Which I don't blame them.

And honestly? Some of the parts in the original look hilarious. The dog scene provides some chuckles for me. Those effects are dated. I can see right through them if I felt like being that dickish. But I'm not. They spfx are good. But not every shot in the film is the toe-curling orgasm you make them out to be.

Frank, Transformers has a lot more layers than the typical CGI animation.

[zilla103192]

the CG doesn't even look that bad. I think people are just hating on the CG because Carpenter's film is so well known for it's practical effects.

[Hellspawn28]

People are bashing it because it looks bad. First Contact came out 15 years eariler then this film did and I thought it still look much better.

[SuperSaiyan4Godzilla]

People are bashing it because it looks bad. First Contact came out 15 years eariler then this film did and I thought it still look much better.

I call bullocks on that statement.

[Gawdziller]

Not questioning the quality of First Contact, which is hands down my favorite Trek movie, but how in the hell is it even comparable to the Thing? Is it because both have spaceships? Buh?

There weren't many skin texture effects in First Contact. And there weren't many shots of the ship in the Thing. So, by what point does this comparison even begin? I can see how Jurassic Park is somewhat relevant, but wha...?

[RedZillaKing]

Yes, yes. I see very good examples of CGI and practical effects with their inherent flaws in both examples.

What flaws are there in the Carpenter example? It's all real materials that looks real because it's real. The transformations in Thing '11 just look cartoony to me.

[zilla103192]

Hellspawn, it's all in the budget.

If I give you 10 million dollars to make a movie and tell you to include CGI, it's not going to look NEAR as good as a movie that has CGI with a 50 million dollar budget.

I think the CG looks alot better then people are making it out to be.

[Goji]

I'll have to watch the 2011 film again on Blu-ray to really be able to tell, but I do recall the the CGI looking a little lackluster at times. Not "bad", but I definitely recall saying to myself "this doesn't look quite like Hollywood-level CG..".

It's sad really, because CG and practical effects can be used in conjunction with each other with fantastic results, but that's almost never done unfortunately. JURASSIC PARK is still one of the best examples of that (Not talking about the quality of CG, just the blending of the two techniques). GAMERA 3 is another one which combined the two successfully and that had a much, much smaller budget than JP did.

From what I understand, a lot of the SPX in THE THING '11 were first done via animatronics, but was then was glossed over with CG. I'd love to see the raw footage of that, though It wouldn't surprise me though if none of that footage is on the BD/DVD release.

[Hellspawn28]

There weren't many skin texture effects in First Contact. And there weren't many shots of the ship in the Thing. So, by what point does this comparison even begin?

I remember The Borg effects look very nice and better then the creature effects in this film. I guess I should have stick with a more modern example like District 9 which has a smaller budget then this movie and it look better. The bad CG is not the reason why I thought this movie was dull, it lack the pacing, atmosphere and characters that the 1982 movie did.

[RedZillaKing]

http://www.outpost31.com/books/who.txt

A little treat for fans of both films. The story may seem familiar.

[Mitchal]

Not questioning the quality of First Contact, which is hands down my favorite Trek movie

What's wrong with you?

[Gojisan866]

RZK, "Who Goes There?" was the basis for the original '50s film in the first place. I've been meaning to read it... Never got around to looking it up, though... I'll be sure to finally do so at some point this weekend...

[Goji]

It's been a while since I've read it, but "Who Goes There?" is a lot more similar to Carpenter's film than the THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD. For that reason alone, the '82 film doesn't even feel like much of a remake. More like a more proper adaptation, if you ask me.

[RedZillaKing]

I agree completely. I never cared for The Thing From Another World. The story is freakin' awesome, if awkwardly written at times. The one thing the Carpenter film never touched on was the telepathy.

[kaiju115]

For the most part the prequel was ok, it's certainly not as good as both the 1951 classic, or the John Carpenter remake, but is still fun to watch. Tell you what though, I sure hope that new Ridley Scott movie Prometheus turns real good.