Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Even More CGI

"I'lllll killllllllllUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!! "
- Dr. Blair


Click below for the new and CGI-loaded trailer for The Thing remake:


Looks like they went George Lucas on it.

15 comments:

Aron said...

This made me cry - the finest practical effects movie ever made followed up by . . . this. How come nobody is speaking Norwegian?!? My brain hurts now.

Rot said...

Yeah, why not just make up a totally different movie? So tired of this pattern.

At the very LEAST, this will serve as an advertisement for the original film.

That's what I have to keep telling myself.

Ghastly said...

Carpenter's version is a classic. It still gives me the heebie jeebies . . .

Jon said...

CGI could be used for good. Why does no one in Hollywood seem to understand that? Perfectly valid tool for film making. Wonderful potential. But it's repeatedly made to create eye sores like Jar Jar Binks, the theatrical ending of "Paranormal Activity", Gollum-looking vampires in "I Am Legend", and mockeries of classic movies like "The Thing".

Here's an idea: use CGI with a velvet glove instead of a gauntleted fist. Use it in conjunction with prosthetics, puppets, and robotics. And, while you're at it, write a NEW screenplay.

Man. I wanted to like this film. I was rooting for it. Could have been a cool story. The CGI effects don't even look half bad, it's just that they are clearly using it to recreate some of the scenes in the original and that just rubs me the wrong way.

I love video games but I don't want to pay $10 to sit in a theater and watch one for two hours.

GoneferalinID said...

I just put the 1951 and 1982 versions in my queue. I've only seen the snippets of the original that were in Halloween, and the very end. Yes, I was raised under a rock.

Anonymous said...

Jeremy said: Nothing is sacred anymore. This kind of thing throws me into a movie nerd rage.

bean said...

You nailed it, Jon.

Chris Evangelista said...

this movie wouldn't bother me so much if it were treated like a prequel--which the filmmakers keep claiming it is--but it's clearly just a remake. i mean, it's called THE THING for crying out loud. If this were a true prequel that would mean THE THING is followed by THE THING.

And yes, CGI can really ruin things. Especially CGI blood, which I'm seeing more and more of. It's like people get shot/stabbed/whatever, and cartoon rivers fly out of them.

Anonymous said...

Not even sure I want to see it as a curiosity -- the star wars prequels killed star wars for me. Darth Vader as whiny backstreet boy? An Obi-Wan who doesn't remember the droids once he's an old man? Not to mention the 10,000 other plot holes! Don't get me started... anyway... ummm... yeah... thing 2011 trailers leavin' me cold.

Interestingly, this will only serve to underscore how classic Carpenter's film is.

~Randy

JHMDF said...

Dang it... I almost believed them when the said they would try to keep it close to the original.... looks like they were lying.

K.O. said...

Totally agree with Jon and with Rot's statement that at least this film will draw attention to the original masterpiece.

Marrow said...

Well, I think it looks pretty sweet.
And scary.

MorbidMariah said...

Hm. Totally turned off hy the overuse of CGI. I'll be skipping this one and rewatching the Carpenter's The Thing.

Marrow said...

I just watched the original for the first time (Rot's reccommendation). The effects were the best I've seen in a movie. EVER. Especially when Norris's severed head dragged itself across the floor with a tentacle. Truly incredible stuff.

After watching the original, I went backed and viewed this trailer again. With a long and melancholy sigh.

This could have been a decent horror flick, if it was not associated with Mr. Carpenter's classic. CGI vs. latex, animatronics and true skill.

It just doesn't stand a chance.

Anonymous said...

"Jon said: I love video games but I don't want to pay $10 to sit in a theater and watch one for two hours."

Amen to that. I've been saying this since the late 90's...

~ Michael