MovieChat Forums > The Thing (2011) Discussion > CGI?

CGI?

posted 9 years ago by jezfernandez
2 replies | jump to latest

First off, Carpenter's film is one of my favourites and I was pleasantly surprised by this one. Nicely captured the same mood and the creature designs were really inventive. Watched it again on Blu-Ray last night, along with the making-of documentary.

I was really surprised at the quality of the practical effects in the documentary - they were phenomenal. Yet I would never have known there were practical effects at all in this movie. Maybe it was the CGI augmentation? Did anyone else find these top quality practical effects were wasted?

[–] werecow2003 9 years ago

Yes, absolutely. The practical effects looked amazing. The CGI was "meh" at best. In some scenes, the CGI just seems to have been overlaid on top of the practical effects for no conceivable reason, as if to give the middle finger to people who think CGI is still too much in the uncanny valley for movies like these. It's a real travesty, and it detracts substantially from my enjoyment of the movie (which was otherwise pretty good).

[–] kmags84 9 years ago

I'd give this no better than a 6.5 and it's solely because of the CGI ruining what could've been a reasonable film, faithful to the reasons why we love the original so much. It's not a BAD film. Just really upsetting and I completely understand why 'Harbinger Down' was made by the effects team. To pour your blood, sweat and tears into a film, all for the sake of the faithful fans that love Carpenters version and Rob Bottins unbelievable effects and have it stripped away, it's pretty messed up.