Unbelievable that the producers of The Thing (2011) switched from amazing practical effects to CGI

>Unbelievable that the producers of The Thing (2011) switched from amazing practical effects to CGI.
Hollywood movies are just money laundering schemes... right?

Attached: 1648677754670[1].webm (490x360, 2.69M)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/3R8ASn25GLg
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

The practical effects look good; the actor should have been more animated though.

Put it down to poor directing.

I’d kill to see the original cut of this without the CGI shit

I don't want to be reminded of this because it feels like a bad dream I had. just letting my brain touch on the idea of dipshit artless execs crushing this incredible, passionate practical effort makes my head swim

Practical effects only look good on old film stock. Nowadays they look cheap and gimmicky. CGI was the right choice. There's a certain level of movements and versatility you can't get with practical effects.

That being said, the 1982 Thing pulled it off because they had the best team in the world.

Wait did they really? There are no practical effects in the movie? I could swear there are

This would be beyond retarded

in 2011 people didn't like practical effects.

The thing is they could combine practical and CGI instead of going full CGI

Thanks for the shit opinion, reddit.

Well, they're (retarded).

redditarded

holy shit that looks good, anymore?

youtu.be/3R8ASn25GLg

fuck now i want to see a Dead Space movie with these guys doing effects

looks fucking amazing

this

If only they kept the animatronic faces and cgi'd everything else

I believed this was tragic until the special effects team made the Void,
started well, turned into the special effects team masturbating on screen.

Why do retards think anything expensive is money laundering?

They can't imagine anyone spending money on something they don't like.

and people wander why hollywood is dying, between stifling creativity to save a shekel to pushing wokeism for ideology

>OMG I JUST FUCKING LOVE IMPRACTICAL AND EXPENSIVE PUPPETS

Attached: url.png (722x720, 32.73K)

It’s not an either/or in reality. And a solution based in one camp over another is stupid. CG seam hiding practical overall? A win. Practical basis for CG surface planning and lighting? Usually a more convincing result.

But this? This was a studio with asinine ideas and enough stroke to push people to do the worst possible thing for a movie built for the sole purpose of being an effects showcase.

>CGI supposed to be the most cost-effective approach
>movies costing x100 than they did 10 years ago
>despite being mostly composed of CGI
Seems like a jewish laundering scheme to me, yes.

Attached: Marvel CGI.jpg (399x396, 30.74K)

Of course some zoomer retarded showed up in the thread to shit in practical effects.

Lighting is equally critical. For horror movies, those practical effects do amazing in the darker lighting that 1982 Thing used. Thing prequel had way too much brightly lit moments.