@Pickie They said they were going to use CG but only to extend the practical effects. The director was said to have "a million images" on his laptop of John Carpenter's The Thing in order to make sure he got things right. But yeah, I too both anticipate and dread the new movie.
Elle_Lowel said: The cinematronics had to have been top tier.
They were. Every effect was practical, every prop was real (as in it existed in the real world and not some cheating CG *cough* Avatar *cough*), which made it all the more creepy.
The rendering process is not impressive in the least bit. I've seen a rendering farm in person. Effects that physically exist are far and away better then computer graphics.
The rendering is cheap. It's the modeling, rigging, animating and such that is expensive. A render farm can churn out billions of polygons, but it's up to people to make something cool out of those polygons. Realistic skin textures, realistic cloth/hair physics and complete lighting with multiple sources, fluid body movement (even considering mo-cap), colored reflections and both sharp & soft shadows are all extremely complex problems that have had thousands of man-hours spent. The Making Of might not be as impressive, but it's just as hard.
The only cheap CG is the one that looks cheap.
Do note that I have the outmost respect for any and all special-effect creators, be they through models, animatronics or CG. I'm just annoyed people relegate the latter to third-class because it's somehow "cheaper" or "easier".
RiderFan said: @Pickie They said they were going to use CG but only to extend the practical effects. The director was said to have "a million images" on his laptop of John Carpenter's The Thing in order to make sure he got things right. But yeah, I too both anticipate and dread the new movie.
I just spoke to a friend who got to watch the screening of the Thing last week, and unfortunately it's not looking good for fans of the original. He also said the CGI looks horrendous, and if they did use any practical effects, it was masked up by the CGI.
I guess shouldn't be surprised considering the low budget the movie has, but damn. Major disappointment, and all expectations gone when I go to see it tomorrow night.
Saw the thing prequel friday night. From a personal stand point, it was....average at best. To be fair, JC's the thing is an extremely tough act to follow in the sense that they did more with less. My guess they wanted the creature to do more in this flick but turned out to be more of a spectacle than a terror. Far as CGI goes, I can understand people complaining that there was too much, but horrible? Nah man, sit in front of a Syfy original movie and then you'll understand what bad CG is.
