Just practice for The Thing (1982)
For all you fans of The Thing (1982)
This is the movie used the same special effects crew.
Of course, I'm not telling you something you don't already know..
.
For all you fans of The Thing (1982)
This is the movie used the same special effects crew.
Of course, I'm not telling you something you don't already know..
.
It's better than the usual bullshit from the alt-right that gets spewed here.
sharewell , theres no blacks or women* to get upset about in this film
so the Alt right will skim over this particular moviechat page.
The woman is white, strictly love interest , and indeed gets her tits out in the shower , so the alt right mysogynists are satified that she's in her place.
Hey, I have to agree with them on those two spectacular points.
share"Muh alt right"
shareI miss practical effects ( unfortunately that's what they're calling them these days). CG rarely looks any different from a video game.
shareYes there is something to be said about a REAL object on film.
The Thing(1982) in my opinion was it's high water mark.
Much too expensive to use nowadays.
"Much too expensive to use nowadays."
And yet, they did make (extremely well done) practical effects for the 2011 remake/prequel and even shot the film with them in it... but decided to ditch them for CGI at the last minute. So apparently, not only a question of money.
Interesting didn't know that. The ship was the most interesting thing about the remake.
shareI'm not entirely certain the CGI is what makes the 2011 film inferior to Carpenter's masterpiece, but here's a glimpse of what could've been...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBzpT7VmSaU&list=PLR9WUo3tIVnYx5Xxw2op9QL-VUQ2BknEf&ab_channel=studioADI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HhRV1BV1pQ&ab_channel=studioADI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH3VeUiud7c
but decided to ditch them for CGI at the last minute. So apparently, not only a question of money.
interesting ...
I dont agree with the "OLD practical effects are the best!" crowd.
I think CGI can be better .
But its cheap and accessible and can look shit done badly (same as the old way really)
It just depends how much effort is put in,
some people seem to object to CGI on principle , no matter how well its done.
"I dont agree with the "OLD practical effects are the best!" crowd."
Agreed. Me neither.
In fact, I don't care much about the effects (whether "practical" or not) if a film is well written and directed, and doesn't insult its audience's intelligence.
But when effects are the "raison d'être" of a film, and the film is built around them (like 2011's The Thing), they better be f*cking good.
I ADORE American Werewolf in London, but could never get into The Thing by John Carpenter, despite the awesome and terrifying practical effects. The Thing is an example where the effects overwhelm the lacklustre story.
Didn't mean to offend fans of this movie.
Just pointing out the evolution of the special effects crew.