Most films these days have CGI in the background and it is so seamless that only people familiar with the actual location can notice it. There was one scene, just prior to the final showdown, where they showed Bill on his bike in front of the white tower previously seen on the postcard. Did anyone else think that was some SyFy level awful CGI? I mean, did they even need it? Why didn't they just cut that short scene?
shareHere's one of the most impressive uses of background CGI I've ever seen... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTUs7hDq2PA
If there's anywhere CGI should be inconspicuous, it's the background. Haven't seen IT yet, but the trailers made it look like it wouldn't need much CGI, if any... Too bad I keep hearing that the little bit used in the movie is very noticeable.
The CGI is way overdone. The house on Niebolt made me think of Monster House. Pennywise is more monster than clown. The leper is an over-exaggerated lanky dude. All of the settings felt too "epic-y" where you feel like the story takes place in a fantasy rather than an actual town you'd find in the real world, making the whole thing a little unrelatable. 90 percent of the shots are either low angle, tracking, or dutch angle shots, lessening its effectiveness in times when such shots were adequate. In all honesty, this movie passes as TV movie quality if it weren't for all fuck's and shit's the kids say throughout the film. But it has heart, so people generally give consent for its horror being mediocre and drenched in clichés and effects.
share