Would you watch a re-release with all the practical effects and minimal cgi?

Would you watch a re-release with all the practical effects and minimal cgi?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=fBzpT7VmSaU
youtube.com/watch?v=fBzpT7VmSaU
monsterlegacy.net/2013/03/03/the-thing-pilot-alien-creature-deleted-fired/
youtube.com/watch?v=dcoOJVG8geU
youtube.com/watch?v=OH3VeUiud7c
twitter.com/AnonBabble

they shifted over to CGI because test audiences just laughed at the amateurish practical effects.

No. The Thing could've easily made it back to some major continent if it stayed in stealth mode during the helicopter ride instead of exposing itself through a Swede.

It's not that bad of a movie t b h. Solid 6/10, might be a 7 if it had good practicals.

False. That's the excuse. The truth is that the CGI studio they had a deal with was going to sue them if they didn't give them the contract for that movie.

They should've used CGI touch-ups to subtly fix all of the glaring flaws of the practical effects. Going full CGI was completely retarded.

>if you don't give us work we'll sue you

... Yea, is much more plausible.

Source?

test audiences laugh at all practical effects

No because it's still an awful movie and a completely unnecessary remake, regardless of this "muh practical effects vs cgi" shit only redditors could ever care about.

>remake
You mean prequel.

Because they were fucking plebs who have been brought up to accept shitty CGI as the pinnacle of special effects.
Anything real just doesn't compute with their stunted brains.
I'd pay top dollar to see the original version.
I mean come on, these are the sort of people who greenlit Captain America.

...

I would rent it but I wouldn't pay money to see it in theater. The CGI version of the film is a 5/10, the practical effects would probably bump it up to a 6/10 or 7/10 but that's it. The fundamental flaw of the film is it takes way too much from John Carpenter's original. It's supposed to be a prequel but it feels like a remake.

"""Prequel"""

The problem with amateur work is the only way to fix it is to replace it entirely.

>73944525
>73946021

You need to provide an actual argument on why their practical effects were amateur material. There's enough footage of them testing it out there to show that's not the case at all.

But I'm sure you're just baiting for (You)s

butthurt cgifag detected

How do you know it was amateur? All of the on set images of the practical effects look great.

You mean all the ones where the actors are more laughing than screaming?

I'm feeling generous. Have a few more, pal.

Now you aren't even trying.

Yes.

The prequel holds up I don't care what purists claim.

>actors can't act
>blame it on the effects

Not really, though. I thought it worked cleverly with the fact that The Thing cannot imitate non-organic matter, subverting the idea that they were going to run blood test like in the original.

>takes place before previous film
>literally says this is the dog and these are the burnt swedes you see in the previous film
LOL REMAKE REMAKE
you faggots....

yes

why are test audiences still a thing?

What the fuck are 'test audiences' anyway? Who are they comprised of? How does one become part of a test audience?

You stupid fucking faggots.
youtube.com/watch?v=fBzpT7VmSaU
Watch around 0:34 and tell me that shit doesn't look better than what we see in the film.
It makes me uncomfortable just watching it. If this scene had been practical it would have been on par with Carpenter's film.
How these guys didn't wrap hands with the cunt who shat all over their hard work is beyond me.

I don't care about the fx. I want the original proposed ending/stinger restored. The Thing gets out to the Russian camp and out into the world. While the events are happening in Carpenter's movie, it's already happening everywhere else. They're even more doomed than they think are.

It doesn't. Not all practical effects are created equal.

Holy shit, source?
That would've added a whole new layer to the original upon rewatching.

get your eyes checked m8

>laughing at 0:28
youtube.com/watch?v=fBzpT7VmSaU

Even when it's obvious that's it's fake, it's horrifying.

Why has nobody contacted the director about this.
Does he have a Twitter or something?

What the fuck were they thinking going with the CGI? Goddamn it's like they have literal retards running things
>although, if the sony leaks are any indicator.....

Absolutely!
It's just a matter of time, that it will get a re-release

>What the fuck are 'test audiences' anyway?
Children of the producers

Not even kidding

>mfw they even CGI'd the ice block thing's insides during the autopsy scene for no fucking reason

Was there some CGI quota they had to meet or some shit?

No because I didn't find anything in the script interesting at all.

Despite the same building blocks as Carpenter's movie they failed to make it tense, scary, exciting, mysterious... anything really.

And that final part in the alien spaceship is straight out of a made-for-tv syfy movie.

Something is fishy about that.
It was so massively unnecessary to change the effects to CGI.

Thank you, based god

They're Norwegians Mac.

source, my man

They had to go with CGI because apparently the crew didn't set up the lighting properly and a lot of the shoots with practical effects turned out like shit.

By the time the realized the extent of the problem it was too late to go back and reshoot everything. So they had to do CGI just to finish the movie.

If is right I bet it was a final 'fuck you' to the practical effects team.

I see the space-ship part as a shitton of wasted opportunities.

The original ending was a lot different, they added a lot of cgi there to change the plot because the execs thought it as too dark

Do a google for the directors comments on this, he wasn't happy with it either

Fuck no outside of the cgi it was still a bad movie
iirc up until the third act its a beat for beat remake of Carpenters movie just with shittier acting, characters and directing. Then the rest of the movie is retarded. It's actually such a fucking stupid movie, it reeks of a bunch of inexperienced kids making a tribute to Carpenters The Thing. It should have been a student film at some college film festival, not a huge release thing
I don't care how much studio meddling went into the final production, your first mistake was trying to soft-remake The Thing. You're not John Carpenter, you'll never reach the mastery his remake did, what the fuck are you doing making an almost 1:1 'prequel'

Who wins?

monsterlegacy.net/2013/03/03/the-thing-pilot-alien-creature-deleted-fired/

The thing must kill the creature it wants to imitade first, but nothing can kill a Xenomorph.

>nothing can kill a xenomorph
>implying

Well, the thing certantly can't.
The acid blood would is a major bummer.

That's great! Thanks for posting that :-)

I still think the prequel version could have been better, cgi aside, the plot moved way too quickly compared to the 1982 version (which built up the tension a lot better I thought)

The (very) end was quite good in the sense that you were left with "what is she going to do?" But it was still no where near the original quality wise.

the xenomorph isn't technically organic, good luck assimilating that.

>mfw this is one of the computer effects crew still butthurt because practical > CGI

me on the right

I didn't even see the 2011 film. I only saw the original about a fortnight ago.

Is it worth taking a look at?

Its excellent and anyone who says otherwise is a retard. They used their budget very wisely and the cgi is just as unnerving and grotesque as the animatronics, although it will obviously have a very different feel

Don't spoil the memory

yeah, suck a dick contrarian.

Literally hundreds of Xenos were murdered by humans. All Thing has to do get a big riffle and shoot the damn bug. Or, it can take a shape of some random space monster it assimilated somewhere far away. The Thing wins easily.

I'm getting mixed signals here

No, it tries to explain things that didn't need to be explained.

The only good part is the ending scene, which is the same as the 82 intro.

It can't spoil the original. It has its moments, when monsters attack without warning, when everything is a pure horror of victim that realises the situation.

see

The music was GOOD and you can't argue with it

youtube.com/watch?v=dcoOJVG8geU

There weren't any animatronics because some retard thought it's be a good idea to cover it all in PS2-tier CGI.

Watch it if you're curious. It isn't terrible, but it doesn't have the same paranoid ambience the original has (a way to identify assimilated people is thrown right away), the characters aren't memorable and the human antagonist comes off as a retard.

It's a typical sci fi horror movie with no charm on it.

They also cut one version of the monster from the movie - the pilot
youtube.com/watch?v=OH3VeUiud7c

>(a way to identify assimilated people is thrown right away)
Literally why?

i'd probably watch it again either way for MEW

Good practical is better than good CGI. But the original effects in the prequel/remake/reboot/what-the-fuck-ever were not an example of "good practical." They were an example of amateur practical. As there are no veteran practical effects artists working in hollywood.

So in response to test audience reactions, they had a choice. Release the movie as it was (which would have the added effect of tainting the legacy of practical effects), fire the shitheads they originally hired and reshoot the entire movie, or redo the effects with CGI.

Since they chose the latter, the movie's original version enters a Schrodinger's box where the quality of the effects are simultaneously great and shitty enough the studio felt they needed to be redone entirely.

But, idiot, I'm not talking about assimilation, you idiot you, I'm talking about simply shooting or burning the fucking bug. Are you literally fucked in the brain?

Don't. Just don't.

You can't undo the disappointment.

Would it fix the film's series of events that play out like a remake instead of a prequel?

No? Then no. I'll just watch Carpenter's version.

My guess is that they had to rush it in. There really wasn't a mystery build up. Movie's first half tries to explain everything, and the second half is when all hell breaks loose. The tonal shit is very noticeable.

The only positive thing about the movie.

Image Engine employee detected.
Stick to animating robots and mech suits, you couldn't animate flesh to save your life.

Recommend me more body horror movies
Chinese cartoons are fine too

No, I just skimmed your post because anyone who says the thing would win is unequivocally wrong.
If you want to throw technology into the mix, the thing, in its hubris, would likely exhaust all its options with the various shapes it could take before considering using tech for offensive purposes, giving the xenos time to figure out they can only hurt it by burning it and sabotage the facility, thus killing the thing.

>amateur
Follow the link in this post and return enlightened.

>five minutes of people who are laughing rather than screaming while a bunch of millennials talk about how great they are at practical effects

... you're literally retarded, aren't you.

When was the last time they made a monster movie since 2011 ? Something phisical and menacing, not this ghost paranormal demon obsessed curse crap with children they keep making

>not being able to tell the difference between joy/fear
Pure autism.

... the intial screengrab of the fucking video has a perfect example of exactly what I'm talking about. The actor can't stop laughing long enough to look afraid, no matter how wide he opens his mouth.

Because you know what sells?

Men running around in fucking capes.

Honestly I hold my head in shame at today's youth.

I dunno dude, in the film he seems pretty scared when he's screaming "get it off me". You sure you're not just autistic?

source?

so was Childs the Thing?

Ironic, because I couldn't help but laugh during the Avengers because of how shitty the CGI was.

This.

fucking newfag trash

I want practical effects more than anything.

We're looking at the same image, right?

(You)

reddit

Who's afraid of the boogeyman?

>Hi mellodge, The decision to replace PFX with CGI usually happens at the studio level. Many directors we've worked with prefer the look of Practical, but are over-ridden by the studio. There's an understandable concern by execs that they'll have to pay for an effect twice. Once to build/shoot it practical, then again when they replace it digitally. Now that films have shorter prep scheds, it might not be until test screenings when story problems reveal themselves. By then there's no time to re build/re shoot the PFX. CG offers a more flexible way to patch holes and make 'corrections' that could have been pre-empted by proper planning. CG artists aren't happy about not being given enough time to their jobs properly. It's a lose-lose for everyone, especially the audience.

In youtube comments