Official The Thing (2011) Trailer

by **walls** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 7:11 pm

Of course I will end up buying the Blu anyways. :roll:

I saw the Nightmare remake on BLU at Blockbuster for $6.99........... still didnt buy it. :lol:

by **Alien Redrum** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 9:30 pm

walls wrote:Aviod CGI???? Come on man, even head shots in Romero films are now CGI, Hollywood has found a cheaper way to make a monster. The original.....no wait......the original remake.......still holds up to this day with traditional effects. I dont have anything against CGI if its done well, as it makes some films ROCK. And this could have been a fun flick but if the CGI is "SYFY" distracting its gonna ruin it for me.

I was really hoping this was gonna be up there with the Chainsaw and Dawn remakes.

And the Romero headshots suck on all kinds of levels.

I agree, if used properly, CGI will rock. But not in the latest Romero films by a long shot.

Like regular effects, you need good coin to make CGI work.

by **DJBenz** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:48 pm

Alien Redrum wrote:Like regular effects, you need good coin to make CGI work.

I'm gonna disagree on that one. Look at the effects in Gareth Edwards' Monsters. All done with an Adobe product in his hotel room, and they look incredible. Cheap CGI can be made to work very well if the artist knows what he's doing.

by **Alien Redrum** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 1:23 am

DJBenz wrote:
Alien Redrum wrote:Like regular effects, you need good coin to make CGI work.

I'm gonna disagree on that one. Look at the effects in Gareth Edwards' Monsters. All done with an Adobe product in his hotel room, and they look incredible. Cheap CGI can be made to work very well if the artist knows what he's doing.

Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but for the most part, no. Most low-budget and many major budget films have less than desirable CGI. Generally, though, the bigger the budget, the more you can get out of it.

by **walls** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 1:40 am

Alien Redrum wrote:
walls wrote:Aviod CGI???? Come on man, even head shots in Romero films are now CGI, Hollywood has found a cheaper way to make a monster. The original.....no wait......the original remake.......still holds up to this day with traditional effects. I dont have anything against CGI if its done well, as it makes some films ROCK. And this could have been a fun flick but if the CGI is "SYFY" distracting its gonna ruin it for me.

I was really hoping this was gonna be up there with the Chainsaw and Dawn remakes.

And the Romero headshots suck on all kinds of levels.

I agree, if used properly, CGI will rock. But not in the latest Romero films by a long shot.

Like regular effects, you need good coin to make CGI work.

I was using thr Romero headshots as an example of studios cheaping out.

CGI has proven to be an excellent source of good movie special effects, Tranformers, no matter what anyone thinks of the film, could not have been done to the degree it was without CGI. But this one looks as though the studio isnt backing financially and is going for a quick proffit./

by **Alien Redrum** » Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:20 am

Ah! Gotcha. Yeah, those were horrid.

Transformers is a great example of CGI. Hell, even Jurassic Park still holds up.

by **walls** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:43 am

Isnt the first Jurassic the movie that started the CGI madness?? Or was it T2??

by **TGM** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:39 pm

walls wrote:Isnt the first Jurassic the movie that started the CGI madness?? Or was it T2??

I thought it was Tron or Young Sherlock Holmes

by **DJBenz** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:29 pm

I thought it was Die Hard 3.

by **Alien Redrum** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:59 pm

by **walls** » Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:49 pm

No I believe Die Hard 3 was all live action. :thumbsup:

by **Sham** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 4:31 am

TGM wrote:
walls wrote:Isnt the first Jurassic the movie that started the CGI madness?? Or was it T2??

Young Sherlock Holmes

Which, for having the first CG character 25+ years ago, still looks pretty good.

[youtube2]http://youtu.be/CT-qV41ovv4[/youtube2]

by **DJBenz** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:26 am

walls wrote:No I believe Die Hard 3 was all live action.

Looks like the CGI fooled you then. :thumbsup:

by **walls** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:57 am

DJBenz wrote:
walls wrote:No I believe Die Hard 3 was all live action.

Looks like the CGI fooled you then.

Especially the whole scene where the jet was chasing Willis around in the truck and they were shooting up L.A. Awsome that the city would allow that!

by **walls** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:58 am

Sham wrote:
TGM wrote:
walls wrote:Isnt the first Jurassic the movie that started the CGI madness?? Or was it T2??

Young Sherlock Holmes

Which, for having the first CG character 25+ years ago, still looks pretty good.

[youtube2]http://youtu.be/CT-qV41ovv4[/youtube2]

I havent seen this movie in years, from what I remember I think I liked it.