1982 live effects vs 2011 CGI effects - The Thing (2011) Discussion

[–] merlinmunstache 8 years ago

I understand (although don't agree) why they used CGI over practical effects. I'' not an expert, but I would imagine that CGI costs the same, if not more as practical. However, CGI would be added in post production, speeding up the actual production. Also in this fickle age of Hollywood, with *beep* for brains executives. The makers would have been under instruction to make this big flamboyant creature that smashes and wreaks havoc at every reveal. I feel they we damed if they do, damned if they don't. I wouldn't have minded as much, if they'd slowed the thing down a bit. It was always frantic in the original when exposed, but not so fast.

reply

[–] scochs-1 8 years ago

1982 special FX were such a land mark for a lot of years. Brilliant!

Now, I don't hate all of the FX in 2011's film, just some of the transitions. Of course CGI without all of the slop and goo was very noticeable.

NOTE: The practical effects that were shown were pretty F'n great BTW.

I thought what the CGI in this film did do was show some of the explosively violent possibilities that the Thing could act out on. I did like some of the pure CG monsters - Split Face was epic. Julia (or what ever) once fully transformed was pretty nasty. Helicopter dude was cool, but the initial transition was kooky. And end boss guy - turned into something cool, but that initial scene - Holy F*Kc Tards - DUMB.

Keep in mind, I didn't know this at 1st, but after buying the 2016 (SHOUT!) 1982 The Thing Blu Ray (yes, I'll accept my $100; not really) JC had an unprecedented year or so of special effects pre-production. That's just Rob Bottin going crazy with his imagination and tools, before the movie was made. From what I understand - NO ONE GETS THAT MUCH TIME TO DO THIS BEFORE A MOVIE ANYMORE. Sorry for yelling.

IMDB - Because some Trolls need more than just a bridge

reply

[–] snowleopard 8 years ago

You are correct there.

Recall also that when Carpenter saw Bottin's final models on set for the first time he was worried that they wouldn't work. But Bottin assured him they would, and he and his team went to work with Dean Cundy and John Lloyd (and the rest of the art, camera and grip/lighting crews) to get the shots just right, and it did indeed work to great effect.

reply

[–] LCAWC 8 years ago

Yeah, early in production the crew was under the impression that CGI would be used as "patches" for the practical effects, to correct and fill in little things that the practical effects were missing. Unfortunately, the studio interfered and hated the practical effects and demanded CGI be used to cover them up and so the poor CGI artists basically got given a deadline for an excessive amount of CGI that was far too soon, and the end result showed.

reply

[–] [deleted] a year ago

1. That's subjective.
2. There is more to movies than effects.

It's quite clear many people only seem to like The Thing (1982) because it's gory.

It's telling that when people are comparing these two movies that the two biggest arguments in favor of the 1982 movie are;
- The effects are better.
- There were no stinky girls in it.

High brow criticisms here.

In any case everyone says The Thing (1982) has the best special FX in horror movie history. So what shame is there is not measuring up to the literal best? Does The Thing have one-over every other horror movie ever because their FX aren't as good?

The truth is people just pick a side and make shit up to argue in it's favor. One of my all time favorites is when people slam The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) for having cinematography that's too good and for having a cast that's too attractive. Good lord! "This movie is worse than the original because it's better than the original in several metrics."

reply

[–] [deleted] a year ago

On the topic of TCM (2003), I find the cinematography complaints even more grating because the director of cinematography was literally Daniel Pearl the cinematographer of the 1974 original. Put some respect on his work!

It would be like if John Carpenter directed a remake of Halloween (1978) and people slammed it for being 'too well directed' compared to the original. Baffling 'criticisms'.

reply

[–] e3e34ifj (1912) a year ago

Anyone whose sole criticisms for the 2011 version is "the CGI is bad" and "there are women in it" shouldn't be listened to. It seems you don't like the 82, and I'm sorry it didn't click with you, but trust us, gore is not the reason why it's in the Top 250. You didn't notice the cinematography, the pacing, the atmosphere, the way Carpenter brilliantly threads suspense? THOSE are the reasons why the 82 film is hailed so highly. If gore were all that mattered, The Evil Dead and every shlocky straight-to-video B-movie from the 80's would be in the Top 250.

Also, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake is okay at best. The cinematography being "too good" doesn't make the film mediocre, but rather a boring script and a lame climax. On the topic of that movie, it shouldn't have been a TCM movie. Needed to be its own thing. Part of what made the original 74 film so appealing and horrifying was that it was clearly made on a low budget, that it felt like a snuff film with real people. Stripping that away with a several-million budget, actors who look like supermodels, and pristine shooting conditions DOES take away from that horror. Yes, that is a very valid criticism. And the 74's cinematography is one of its best aspects.

reply

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Who says I don't like the 1982 movie? I do. I just like the 2011 equally as much.

That's not true. All anyone talks about with The Thing is how great the FX are, how much of a man crush they have on Kurt Russell and how awesome John Carpenter is for directing both The Thing and Halloween. People champion The Thing, The Fly and The Blob as examples of 'remakes done right'. They all have one major thing in common. They're gory practical FX laden remakes of older, tamer black-and-white flicks. That's why people love them.

The pacing isn't great, the cinematography is very good but nothing outrageous, the atmosphere is just okay (not a scary or tense movie at all and I say this as someone who first saw it when I was 12 or 13 years old. Halloween scared me half to death when I was 11, The Thing bored me first time around).

The Evil Dead has a 7.4 on IMDb which is outrageously high for an amatuerish production from 1981. It's got a very high rating due to nostalgia, reverence (it launched a franchise and the career of Sam Raimi) and the gore. The Evil Dead is regularly considered a top 25 horror movie of all time. The script is barebones, the acting is poor, the production values are cheap and dated. So yes. Gore is hugely important for many horror fans.

If TCM (2003) has a boring script and 'lame climax' then so does the 1974 movie. It has a superior screenplay, acting and production values over the 1974 movie.

reply

[–] e3e34ifj (1912) a year ago

I honestly can't think of anyone who has a mancrush on Kurt Russell, though I'm sure it's true because he is a handsome guy. My ex-girlfriend had a crush on him but that was more in his older sugar daddy days, like Bone Tomahawk. Never met a single person who based their admiration of The Thing around Russell, though. The funny thing is that the original versions of the Thing, Fly, and Blob are still very good movies, although The Blob has definitely become dated with its cast of 30-year-old high schoolers. Yes, the remakes are gory. However, they're also hailed because they did something much different and more ambitious with their original ideas. Gore may attract the cult nostalgia horror fanatics, but it isn't what reels in all the critics who love those movies.

"The pacing isn't great, the cinematography is very good but nothing outrageous, the atmosphere is just okay (not a scary or tense movie at all and I say this as someone who first saw it when I was 12 or 13 years old. Halloween scared me half to death when I was 11, The Thing bored me first time around)."

Sorry but we respectfully disagree here. I think The Thing 82's pacing is about as good as it gets for a horror film. Carpenter brilliantly allows his characters to come to conclusions that the audience also realizes at the same time. In most movies, we are usually a step or two ahead of the idiot characters who still haven't put the pieces together, but as soon as we realize something, so do they. You know, just as the characters know, that all hell is about to break lose. Also, the atmosphere the one thing the 82 film does immaculately, and I have a hard time grasping how someone wouldn't feel that frigid Antarctic air or the beautifully haunting blues and whites of the film's color palette.

Interesting that the film bored you as a kid. I saw a goreless TV edit at 14 and loved it. I'm not sure how or why the film could be considered boring.

reply

[–] e3e34ifj (1912) a year ago

The Shining, for example, is hailed as a marvel in horror but isn't all that bloody besides some brief bodies flashing and a tidal wave of blood, which is more cerebral than shocking. People like the 81 Evil Dead because it is a fun movie that shows off the techniques of low-budget cinema. The gore is a charm, sure, but I actually do find that movie to be genuinely disturbing. I've never really found it that fun, tbh. Some of the gore is too much for me, and WAY worse than The Thing.

I think you and I have different opinions on what makes a good horror film. If production values and acting were what mattered, Alien: Covenant would've been a masterpiece. That was one of the best-looking films of 2017 from what I recall, but the script made absolutely no sense and all the characters were total idiots. The 1974 TCM still terrifies me with very few drops of gore. The dinner sequence never fails to make me wince and it's practically bloodless, one of the best horror sequences of all time. People getting chopped up and splattering hyper-realistic chunky rust-colored blood doesn't scare me, it makes me roll my eyes. Sure, the people are sexier in the 2003 film but who cares about how nice Jessica Biel's ass is? Do I like her character? I've seen that movie 5 times and can't remember her name.

reply

[–] BKB (10100) a year ago

There's nothing to discuss because everything you just stated is true..

reply