2 ms·
Agreed, but to be fair, the comparison is also with high profile "modern" movies. "The Thing" to most people today is not "one of the greatest movies" but a ho
by the_af 5y ago
Agreed, but to be fair, the comparison is also with high profile "modern" movies.
"The Thing" to most people today is not "one of the greatest movies" but a horror classic and -- visual quality wise -- on par with "Phantom Menace" or "Jurassic Park", if not worse.
I think the criticism is valid: that the physicality of classic SFX is still mostly unmatched by CGI, and the eye and mind notice this.
- carlob 5y ago> Agreed, but to be fair, the comparison is also with high profile "modern" movies. Mostly sequels, remakes, reboots or nth installments of a franchise.
- the_af 5y agoCarpenter's The Thing is also a remake. So? I don't think this matters much.
- carlob 5y agoYou're not under the impression that most big budget movies nowadays are just attempts at milking the same character or universe to the maximum possible extent?
- the_af 5y agoI am, but at the same time I'm reminded it's always been like this. But isn't it an entirely separate conversation? Of course CGI hasn't "ruined the movies", that part of the title is hyperbole. But the actual conversation about practical SFX vs CGI doesn't have much to do with originality, I think.
- zardo 5y ago'The Thing' wasn't greenlit because it used existing IP with a guaranteed audience. It's just a short story that recieved two very different adaptations 30 years apart.
- alisonkisk 5y ago
- zardo 5y agoOne thing practical effects shots have going for them is that at their worst it still looks like something physically there with the actors. CGI looks at it's worst like it's painted on top of the scene.