The Thing Prequel

Discussion in 'General' started by SEANVALEN, Sep 15, 2008.

  1. aoiookami

    aoiookami Demon Fetishist

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Messages:
    2,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Endsville, Canada
    Yeah agreed, I never had any real doubt the majority of it would be CGI, just my original point was in response to how those who worked on this movie were boasting about the practical effects, and how smartly and limited the CGI would be used, when the bulk of what I've seen so far is average/below average looking CGI.
     
  2. JGrendel

    JGrendel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,888
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Olds Alberta Canada
    Well & really of course they're gonna boast about the practical effects, it's not like they're gonna boast about they're crappy CGI.
     
  3. The Chaostar

    The Chaostar Johnny Hallyday forever

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2000
    Messages:
    4,290
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Hell-as
    Actually it is real.
     
  4. JGrendel

    JGrendel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,888
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Olds Alberta Canada
    No!!! The hell you say!!! lol
     
  5. halloweennight

    halloweennight New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just watched the original. One of the best special effects in a horror movie that was ever made. They really used their brains comming up with ways of realism. The mutations/transformations were unreal. nothing quite like it in any film i've ever seen. I would say the resident evil games may have been inspired by these transforations from this classic. As far as cgi goes. I hate all cgi. Though it can be tolerable if it is very limited. When people say there are things you can't do without it, that is just not true. They just aren't using their brains or immagination. If you really want to be creative you can make it happen. I also think good movies could still be made, but it is very unlikely. I've seen a few after 2000, but not many. I think around 97 98 is when the movie industry really really started to change. Another thing i find funny... Jurassic park was made in 1993. Great Movie. The non cgi special effects were out of this world. I will say though the cgi in that movie is way better than the cgi in most movies today. This was 18 years ago. Why did the cgi get worse?
     
  6. Steel76

    Steel76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2010
    Messages:
    2,669
    Likes Received:
    1,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sweden
    You DO know that stop-motion creatures are just animated puppets and not real :D ;)

    Seriously, Yes, stop-motion is shot in camera, BUT, it doesn´t exactly look anymore real than CGI. Sure stop-motion is sweet and has a charm, but looking more real? No fucking way.

    If CGI was the only way to make that creature run towards the camera in the corridor, then why not use it instead of limiting everything?

    If special FX didn´t evolve, then we would still be where it was at the beginning at the 20th century.

    I bet people that grew up on "The Thing from Another World" thought the 1982 remake was nothing but a spectacle in SFX aswell ;)

    Stop-motion, CGI, what ever works to tell the damn story.

    If I did a monster movie, I would go as far as possible with animatronics and practical, but no way I would limit myself to it, if I needed a spectacular chase scene with the monster.

    And to be honest, I LOVE the original, it´s one of my top 5 movies of all time. But even though the practical FX are AMAZING, they DO look a bit stiff and plastic at times. The spider head doesn´t exactly look real when it runs across the floor, as the spider feets isn´t even touching it. Plus when they burn it, someone is just shaking the burning head on a stick, etc. ;)

    As Phil Tippet said in an interview, around the time before they did Jurassic Park, they had pretty much reached the limit to what you could do with animatronics/practical, and without CGI, Jurassic Park wouldn´t exactly been as spectacular as it turned out.

    I got NOTHING against CGI, as long as it´s not on PS2/Sy-FY Channel level, and the CGI in The Thing is WAY better than that.

    So stop being so damn negative, folks, and just enjoy the damn movie for what it is, a fuckin´ MONSTER MOVIE ;)

    Can´t wait to see the prequel and 1982 movie as a double feature :)
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2011
  7. aoiookami

    aoiookami Demon Fetishist

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Messages:
    2,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Endsville, Canada
    Regarding stop motion; I can't even think of the last modern movie I've seen use this technique that wasn't a feature like Coreline or Corpse Bride etc., but I have no doubt it would look comparable or even better and more real than alot of CGI we see today, given, it IS done with real, tangible puppets. The fact that the At At battle scene in Star Wars 30 years ago looks better than some CGI we see today says something.. And after stuff like Coreline, I don't doubt we could see some impressive use of it given todays technology. Of course, speaking from experience no one today would pay traditional animators enough to test the theory. I would love to see it come back though.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2011
  8. Hellbilly

    Hellbilly Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2001
    Messages:
    14,180
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    38
    According to Universal-Europe the R-Rated version of The Thing prequel passed German movie censors untouched. They gave it the youth-friendly "16" rating - which equals a PG-13, kind of.
    German censors are usually very strict when it comes to violence in movies but they didn't seem to have a problem with The Thing.
     
  9. SaviniFan

    SaviniFan I Have A Fetish

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    5,833
    Likes Received:
    451
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    On the cutting room floor.
    I think in most societies, sci-fi violence in film is tolerated much more than realistic depictions of violence like serial killer films. Just consider when Carpenter's "The Thing" came out. The MPAA was going hog wild on anything that even remotely resembled Friday the 13th, but The Thing contains all kinds of gruesome monsters and violence against the humans. I don't think I've even heard that anything was cut from the film to receive an "R" rating. The scene where the doctor has his hands bit off is very graphic, but if that was Jason chopping off his hands you can bet your ass some of it would have been cut to avoid an "X" rating.
     
  10. spawningblue

    spawningblue Deadite

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    5,068
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
    I'm still going to see this, but I admit, like others, I am a little less excited seeing the new trailer full of CGI. Especially considering they went on and on about how they were going for practical effects over CG. Maybe most of the CG used is in the trailer as the marketing people think that will sell over the practical effects. Either way I will be checking this out the first day and hoping for the best. And even though she is no Kurt Russell, I am a huge fan of Mary Elizabeth Winstead. Final Destination 3, Grindhouse, Black Christmas, Scott Pilgrim, Die Hard 4, The Ring 2, ect. She is seems to be the new cult queen.
     
  11. bigdaddyhorse

    bigdaddyhorse Detroit Hi-on

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    12,510
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Under a rock
    In it's defense, it should look a lot like the first one. It's the same setting as the first, with the same creature which does things the same way. We know this from the first film.

    Of course as we all know how it will end, one could ask "what's the point?" I still get chills when that dark theme music kicks in, so I'm in, CGI or not.
     
  12. shift

    shift Hot as shit!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,463
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    - TeXaS -
    All the discussion, wow.

    I just like to say "I'm going to check it out".

    Looks like it'll be a fun flick to check out!
     
  13. BloodMan

    BloodMan Kill Time B4 It Kills You

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,442
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    the Russian trailer shows "splitface" real good n' long-like!
     
  14. Severn

    Severn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Maryland
    For sure but the pre-production talks were all about how they were working with practical effects and how amazing they'd look. That's why when all this CG is shown that really makes the prior talk about practical effects just that, talk.
     
  15. Ash28M

    Ash28M Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,063
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Mississauga, ON, Canada
    I was surprised how effective this was. The CGI was also very well done, which was what I was worried about. Pretty good characters and atmosphere as well. My only complaint is that the score could of been more engulfing. Much better then expected.
     
  16. Zombie Dude

    Zombie Dude Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    Messages:
    7,099
    Likes Received:
    1,982
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    Saw this a few days ago and thought it was pretty awesome. I think my main complaint would be that the Thing creatures didn't look as creative as the original ones and that the ending didn't really play out long enough. There's all this build up and then the Thing is killed so easily.

    The scene before the credits I found confusing. Almost like what had happened was actually a mistake and miss-judgement.

    Then while the scene between the credits would make fans happy, I just found it confusing. I had no idea who those two Norwegian guys were in relation to this story, when they'd disappeared or how they's survived. Also, the shot of the guy who's cut his neck and wrists isn't explained, nor did I really know which character he was, leading to a bit of confusion.

    I'm hoping we get an extended version on dvd to flesh out the story a little more.
     
  17. burieddeep

    burieddeep Dr. Obrero

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,349
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Long Island
    Just came back from seeing it and thought it was pretty good. The ending between the credits is sure to make fans of the '82 version happy. I thought the film was more remake than prequel even though the ending fits nicely into the beginning of the Carpenter version. One scene with the monster at the end reminded me of the movie "From Beyond."
     
  18. NaturesMistake

    NaturesMistake Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    43
    It was a fun prequel, but at the same time, it can kill the awesome mystery the first one created. When we saw the Norwegian camp in the 82 film, we felt the insanity of the situation, "what the fuck happened here!?" The suspense was way better and the characters where much more memorable. This new film didn't have as many, "I turned the lights off at the cabin, but now they're on for some reason" moments. It was the little subtleties that elevated the original film. This new one was anything but subtle, however, the creature design was fantastic, and the scene in which we see what the Split face thing was and how it came to be was truly disturbing playing on the "violation/rape" theme of the original pretty well. This new film was much more a "popcorn" flick than Carpenter's film, but it was still enjoyable.
     
  19. DVDBone

    DVDBone Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2001
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I saw it on Friday and hated just about everything about it. There was an over-reliance on unconvincing CGI and that really drew me out of the story. Also as others have mentioned, it seemed like it wanted to be both a prequel and a remake. And I think it failed as both.
     
  20. Zombie Dude

    Zombie Dude Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    Messages:
    7,099
    Likes Received:
    1,982
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    Haha, now that you mention it, I thought that creature reminded me of something.

    I must also say that I wasn't too impressed by the cgi. It felt overused and wasn't that good.
     

Share This Page