Good Bad Flicks: Exploring The Thing
- Thread starter CecilT
- Start date
Jeez, between this, Warcraft, 47 Ronin, and Dracula Untold, Universal certainly is bad with Executive Meddling. It feels like it's nearing 20th Century Fox levels of it.
Man, what I would give to see that movie with the practical FX all in...
...
Some money, I guess, is what I'm saying. A reasonable amount of money.
For what it's worth, I'd go to the theater to see it.
...
Some money, I guess, is what I'm saying. A reasonable amount of money.
For what it's worth, I'd go to the theater to see it.
Harbinger Down was kind of a mess also. But arguably better than the Thing remake. At least they let it be rated R. Could you imagine a PG 13 Thing with no blood?...ahem Robocop....
I didn't hate the remake but it could have been so much better, and when tetris alien showed up it totally broke any sense of immersion
I didn't hate the remake but it could have been so much better, and when tetris alien showed up it totally broke any sense of immersion
The Thing can't catch a break can it? Every time I hear about how the 80s version was panned at the time and how the prequel's wonderful practical effects were scrubbed over with bland cgi it just makes me depressed.
It was odd because in the beginning, they gave them full control to make the movie they wanted. Then, once they delivered the studio panicked.TheScorpion said:
The 47 Ronin story is insane. They movie was complete and they made them reshoot scenes with Keanu to insert him into the film. Then they wondered why the movie didn't make sense?! I swear I think the folks in charge of studios do this to see how much they can screw something up.
I think the problem was, it was Alec Gillis' first time directing. He's a brilliant FX guy with tons of experience in the industry but maybe writing, directing, producing, and overseeing the FX may have been a bit much for a first time at the helm. Also, the budget was a fraction of a lot of the films they worked on so they did have to cut some corners. Still, it was a cool experiment and I hope they can do another.rembrandtqeinstein said:
Maybe the execs who saw it wet their pants, and ordered the changes because it was too scaryCecilT said:
i didnt hate the 2011 version but i was certainly upset with the amount of CG used, were the original had only practical. amazing how a studio can be so stupid and and ruin the entire movie because of some stupid decision, mostly because of financial reasons and then they get upset that people complain about it and the movie fails. and the worst part of it is; they still dont learn from it.
Frustrating that I always thought the anti-cgi crowd were sort of reverse snobs. Then, I think it was Movie Bob, said of this movie that it shows just how wrong CGI can go. That you have to frame practical effects so that they work. CGI, composition seems to matter less and the film makers get lazy, not composing shots with any art at all, making the film less scary.Quellist said:Fuck! I read all the stuff about the prequel having mostly practical effects and just assumed it was studio lies when i saw the movie. To know there is a workprint out there but not to be able to see it
NOW I find out, these guy did have practical effects! Makes me want to see a director's cut ASAP.
Wow, seeing those practical effects compared to the finished product makes me really sad. I don't think It would ever have been a work of art, but it would have been nice to see the original vision.