The Thing VS The Thing: The Value of Practical Effects
6 replies, posted
Did a "The Thing" and "Thing" marathon with my wife last night and she pointed how the the "Thing" freaked her out even more than the the 2011 prequel because of the effects that were used in both films.
[video=youtube;dMCJVxnuGPI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMCJVxnuGPI[/video]
:wow:
The sequel (or "spin-off" as he calls it) vid:
[video=youtube;JyOu3j7CtoE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyOu3j7CtoE[/video]
The 2011 prequel was yet another big example of executive meddling behind the scenes.
I find with practical effects you do need to make sure you have a very talented team doing it or they can honestly look like complete shit.
I recall Prometheus using some practical effects but they actually looked worse than the CGI takes they'd done of the same scene.
[QUOTE=Dr. Kyuros;52449480]The sequel (or "spin-off" as he calls it) vid:
[video=youtube;JyOu3j7CtoE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyOu3j7CtoE[/video]
The 2011 prequel was yet another big example of executive meddling behind the scenes.[/QUOTE]
Damn I really like the idea of actual people in bodysuits and prosthetic makeup playing the dark seekers in "I Am Legend" instead of the CG they used. Those mock ups looked really good.
From StudioADI's official Youtube channel:
[video=youtube;OH3VeUiud7c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH3VeUiud7c[/video]
[video=youtube;fBzpT7VmSaU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBzpT7VmSaU[/video]
There was a lot of cool stuff that unfortunately didn't make it through the cutting room floor; kind of disappointed how Georg didn't show more than just snippets because this really can't be stressed enough.
Holy shit, some of those look close enough to real, especially the two-face dude and "griggs" was really impressive. If it weren't for the strings and whatnot, this shit'd be terrifying. Sad that their effort was more or less wasted.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;52450272]Holy shit, some of those look close enough to real, especially the two-face dude and "griggs" was really impressive. If it weren't for the strings and whatnot, this shit'd be terrifying. Sad that their effort was more or less wasted.[/QUOTE]
What's really truly sad about it is years ago the use of CG in films was unanimously agreed that it was to be a tool specifically for making the practical look better, not to replace it entirely. All of those props and models look amazing. The studio did nothing to make the practical effects work when resorting to CG, they replaced it entirely and it definitely shows.
The other thing is the studio came to the conclusion that they needed CG instead of practical effects when they showed a rough cut to a test audience. You can compare that to a test audience for video games. AKA, everybody in them is a fucking retard. Test audiences didn't react to certain things in a way the studio wanted them to, so instead of stepping back and thinking rationally, like "hmmm, maybe the practical effects guys need more time and more funding?" they said "let's replace it all with CG and be done".
The big problem is many movies are never really correctly planned anymore. By the time test showings happen any problems that show up that could be patched by CG get thrown to a CG team, and the CG team is brought in so late in production that they don't even know what they're supposed to do or what kind of style they should be going for. They literally end up with the shit end of the stick and have the least amount of time to put in any kind of work on the film, that is unless the movie is planned from the beginning to have CG. These issues that need to be patched up could have been rectified with proper planning and communication. It's all a huge mess really.
I would pay money for the rough cut they showed with the practical effects.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.