The Thing Thread

[Sylizar]

I found it incredibly terrifying.

I know it's all difference of opinion and whatnot, but how? The concept is terrifying sure, but I found the way it was done to be rather funny. Especially the teeth. I think the teeth are what ruined the whole part. Of course what followed was great, but still...

And Gazz, it's not so much that I don't want to see practical effects, it's just that I don't mind seeing CGi (which so many people hate for unescessary reasons). And I'd wait for the film. There may be tons of practical effects, they just may not be showing them yet. If it doesn't happen, well...then you can say you were right

[Gazz]

Don't get me wrong, I'm hoping that my misgivings with the footage so far remains with the advertising campaign and not with the film. I'm just feeling a little apprehensive that after months of being told that the effects in the film will be primarily practical, all we've been shown is CGI. Seems a little fishy to me but I'm simply hoping it's just a case of poor advertising.

[SpaceMarines]

I found it incredibly terrifying.

I know it's all difference of opinion and whatnot, but how? The concept is terrifying sure, but I found the way it was done to be rather funny. Especially the teeth. I think the teeth are what ruined the whole part. Of course what followed was great, but still...

It was just so unexpected. The sudden split in the stomach as the Doc's hands were coming down, completely catching him off guard, the jaws closing around his wrists, the amputations that followed... I just thought it was handled perfectly.

[Sylizar]

For me it wasn't the scene, it was the effects. The scene was handled perfectly, but like I said, those teeth, they just looked really fake to me.

[Alienseseses]

Don't get me wrong, I'm hoping that my misgivings with the footage so far remains with the advertising campaign and not with the film. I'm just feeling a little apprehensive that after months of being told that the effects in the film will be primarily practical, all we've been shown is CGI. Seems a little fishy to me but I'm simply hoping it's just a case of poor advertising.

Are we so sure it's CGI we're seeing all the time? Sure, some of it's clearly CGI (that face twitching in half) but some of it's really too fast to tell, isn't it? And the thing on the table looks practical. When it breaks out of the ice, it's CGI, we can tell. But we haven't seen too much of it so far.

[SpaceMarines]

For me it wasn't the scene, it was the effects. The scene was handled perfectly, but like I said, those teeth, they just looked really fake to me.

I thought the teeth were fine, personally. Looked like they had just formed out of the imitation ribcage and organs that had been in there.

[Gazz]

The "Money shots" I've seen thus far have been primarily CGI from what I can tell...

Spoiler

The shots of the splitting face, the morphing hand, the creature rising out of a fitting victim's chest (added after the first trailer), the tentacle punching through another victim's chest (as seen on the website), the picture of the woman with her head falling backwards out of a "thing" like body, the creature bursting out of the ice and the creature jumping through a window all certainly appear to feature noticeable CGI to me. There are shots of the creature that appear to be free of computer enhancement but those are primarily in silhouette or lacking in movement (ie. a carcass on an autopsy table). I guess i'm just stuck asking myself why after spending so long to convince us that the effects would be practical are they now relying on these CGI money shots to sell the film?

[close]

[Alienseseses]

Maybe because the practical shots are the ones that give the creature away more, and they don't want to show too much in the trailers?

[Gazz]

I'm sure the marketing folk have plenty of reasons why they're selling this practical effects driven film on the back of CGI money shots. I'll be sure to find out when the film's released but for me this marketing campaign has been just dreadful. Not only has it made me doubt the quality of the final film but I already know where, when and in who the creature will reveal itself and several of the film's key twists including what appears to be the film's ending. For a film that's supposed to be built around paranoia and suspense that seems awfully counterproductive in my opinion.

[Sabres21768]

This movie can't get here soon enough!

[OmegaZilla]

For me it wasn't the scene, it was the effects. The scene was handled perfectly, but like I said, those teeth, they just looked really fake to me.

I thought the teeth were fine, personally. Looked like they had just formed out of the imitation ribcage and organs that had been in there.

Agreed; that Thing worked out greatly.
The one effect they didn't achieve too well was Palmer-Thing thrashing Windows around - the latter was quite obviously a mannequin. But I can let that go, it's from the 80s and they got everything else superbly.

[SpaceMarines]

Yeah, part of me always laughs a little when that happens.

It's a very small part, though...

[chrisr232007]

Been seeing a lot of tv spots for this on fox during the football games and on spike.

[predxeno]

I'm considering watching the 1980s "The Thing", but I have a question first; how is it in regards to the movie "Signs"?

[Huol]

what planet are you from holy shit