Why did they scrap these amazing Practical Effects?!

Topic started by AssInAss on Feb. 2, 2012. Last post by StealthMaster86 3 months, 2 weeks ago.
Post by AssInAss (563 posts) See mini bio

It's almost criminal how these weren't used, or looked worse with the bad CGI.

If indie horror movies like Attack the Block are using actual practical effects with cool tricks, what's the excuse for not using practical FX? Most CGI creatures look awful or just hard to be horrified by e.g. Cloverfield, Super 8.

Post by jimjimman (38 posts) See mini bio

My point of view on this subject has always been that fake looking is fake looking. It doesn't matter if it's a solid object, or a computer-generated image, I will never actually believe what I'm looking at is real.

Post by AssInAss (563 posts) See mini bio

@jimjimman said:

My point of view on this subject has always been that fake looking is fake looking. It doesn't matter if it's a solid object, or a computer-generated image, I will never actually believe what I'm looking at is real.

I don't think realism is the issue, I find it's just easier to be horrified by practical makeup than CGI where in a second you notice something's wrong and end up not caring. As a counter-point, there are some few CGI monsters that do work, though. All the CGI creatures in The Mist (spiders with cauterising web strings WOW) creeped the shit out of me especially the one at the end, also the ones in King Kong.

Post by liquidmatt (5 posts) See mini bio

I'd have to agree that practical effects look a considerable deal better, eg. The Thing, Alien.

I would assume they were scrapped because it is cheaper and quicker, as well as more versatile to use CGI - you can do massive amounts of the same creature at once easily, and manipulate the model in ways that you may have to build an entirely new model for practical effects.

I would love the old style of effects to come back though, it feels like CGI is so overused these days anyway that anybody can clearly see it's computer generated, whereas with The Thing particularly, the physicality of all the effects to me makes them feel much more real.

Post by theodacourt (241 posts) See mini bio

Pretty sure it's about price and time. If Attack the Block's effects were solely practical then it would have looked dumb and to make something look realistic using solely practical effects would be expensive and time consuming, like the Thing. A mixture is probably the best bet, but then you might end up with Yoda in The Phantom Menace.

Post by NTM (69 posts) See mini bio

I hated that King Kong scene, that part where the kid grabs the machine gun and starts shooting the bugs perfectly off Jack while closing his eyes. Man, I disliked that film. And I dislike the mist as well, though the ending was a mix of greatness and shit.

Post by StealthMaster86 (219 posts) See mini bio

That looked incredible.

33 votes, 2.6 avg.
General Information Edit
Name The Thing
US Release Oct. 14, 2011
UK Release Dec. 2, 2011
AUS Release Oct. 13, 2011
Runtime 108
Language(s)
Add a new language
Genre(s)
Add a new genre
Theme(s)
Add a new theme
Rating R
Alias(es)
Top Rated Lists
Movies I've Seen a list of 1896 items by Zicdab
Movies I've Seen In 2011 a list of 114 items by Delta5A93
Race to 100 movies seen in 2011 a list of 101 items by Spongetwan
  • In today's dollars
    Domestic $16,918,095
    Foreign +2,027,674
  • = total worldwide gross $18,945,769
  • - a reported budget of $35,000,000
  • = a -45.9% net profit of $-16,054,231
Top Editors

Submissions can take several hours to be approved.

Save ChangesCancel