The Thing 2011: How It Looked With Amalgamated Dynamics' Practical Effects & Why They Weren’t Used

I made a video a little while ago comparing 1982’s The Thing to the prequel in 2011, specifically looking at practical effects and arguing that Carpenter’s film was far superior with its effects from Rob Bottin, versus the 2011 film which had most of its effects either replaced or overlayed with CGI.
This is a follow up but here I’m looking at what The Thing 2011 could have looked like and in the second half of the video, why practical effects were removed. Alec Gillis and Tom Woodruff are Amalgamated Dynamics, the special effects studio that work with animatronics and other practical effects, and are well known for their work with Tremors, Mars Attacks, Alien Vs Predator, and many more. They were clearly very disappointed by The Thing 2011, so made Harbinger Down. But were those changes the fault of Matthijs van Heijningen, then director? Matthijs van Heijningen and Eric Heisserer, were both very keen to use practical effects originally, so why were those effects so deeply undermined?
More info on Carpenter's The Thing's effects: • Rob Bottin's Special E...
Studio ADI - I am Legend
• I AM LEGEND Make-Up De...
Eric Heisserer Interview:
bloody-disgusting.com/news/26758
Amalgamated Dynamic's Behind The Scenes Footage:
• THING ADI Creature Wor...
Patreon: / georgrockallschmidt

[@Kaucukovnik666]

Videogames sacrifice interactivity and responsiveness in order to be more 'cinematic', while movies are trying to offer instant action and over the top effects that suit games so well. Why is there an increasing number of games about character drama and movies about city blocks being leveled? As if both media were unaware of their own strengths, trying to capitalize on each others' success.

[@kristobaz2474]

+2Sophista2 can't agree more, games like The Witcher, Mass Effect and Dragon Age are all some of my faves

[@omegastar19]

This is a very limited view of video games. There is no reason why video games cannot also include character drama. Rather, movies are limited to such things as character drama, while video games can have both interactivity AND character drama at the same time. Its not an 'either this or that' situation.

[@ChrisSmith-yw6tn]

I'm sorry but a big part of the reason I don't play many video games anymore is because of the story driven stuff. I don't play or remember games for character and plots, I remember them based on fun factor. A lot of the games with "good" stories I find dull and uninteresting. Plot snobs are ruining it for everyone.

[@OttoVonGarfield]

Yooka "silence the customers" Laylee, the most horrifying use of nostalgia for money since mighty No. 9.

[@ProjectV6]

Yeah, look at Age Of Ultron compared to Borderlands 2, Ultron was a Handsome Jack minus the depth and natural humor, Age Of Ultron ripped off of BL2 with the whole city in the sky thing also. Movies keep copying video games, and you are completely immersed in the video games because everything is consistent in the world while you can see Chris Evans or whoever in the A2 and when CG is put in for the action scenes, you can tell. Making it not an experience, but a film. While Borderlands 2 was awesomely epic and emotionally chaotic while Age Of Ultron just tried to copy everything BL2 did but came out like fucking trash.

[@yds2m]

the animatronics were absolutely horrifying, whilst the CG really didn't look that scary to me

[@stoned466]

Very true, you can't beat old fashioned special effects.

[@annax3136]

@@stoned466 agreed

[@CrazyPangolinLady]

Practical can be fast, twitchy. You know it has weight, the lighting is always realistic. You can make it gross and gooey.

[@MyJourneyConcludes]

Animatronics look like silly puppets and plastic. CG and practical can both look shitty and unrealistic. It depends on the filmmaking (lighting, scene composition and so on).

[@dacsus]

@@stoned466 you should check this: Why CG Sucks (Except It Doesn't) kzbin.info/www/bejne/mH2ZmaNud7B1aJY

[@sneepsnorp3801]

I think CGI should be used when you can’t do something with practical effects It just makes more sense to me

[@8bitPotatoPC-544]

Cgi is good when the camera is far to make the movement more fluent. And practical is good when the creature/character is near to make it more realistic. Take for example the first jurrasic park.

[@sunnyvaledrunk6688]

CGI should be only used in conjunction with practical effects for more realism. But with a lower budget I think it's hard to achieve that...I think a show like The Walking Dead was able to achieve perfect effects because of their insane budget and their is consistency across hours and hours of footage. And their use of practical effects and CGI merging is what makes the zombies so believable and it's Greg Nicotero, so that's almost a given that it's going to be top-notch. It's like comparing apples to oranges anyways though. The consistency between the Thing from 1982 and the prequel is unfortunately just not there.

[@ellentaylor6883]

That what the dark crystal age of resistance did which is great.

[@dvt1393]

@Raw Engineer Why can't they be used in tandem? Why does it have to be one or the other? If they'd done what they originally were going to use the CG for, which is "enhance" the practical effects instead of completely replace them, it would have been the best of both worlds. It would have blended the practical effects in to the world and made them more polished and believable. Instead, it was the worst of both worlds, with rushed and cheap CG overlayed on top of the practical effects. That way nobody won.

[@jakelangley624]

Dumbass, hank killed you in my ending

[@DrewPicklesTheDark]

"It looked a bit like an 80s movie, actually, which for some people is really special, but perhaps not in 2010, 2011. So we enhanced it with CG." Who exactly did you think the audience watching this was going to be?

[@hailhydreigon2700]

He was obviously saying that tongue-in-cheek. They all wanted the movie to be mostly practical effects, but the studio made the CG changes without any of the original crew's knowledge. And yes, they were pissed, but they couldn't say anything or they'd lose their paychecks.

[@NoBody-lj5xh]

@@hailhydreigon2700 Yeah, its like saying this thing that exists in the Star Wars universe feels too much like Star Wars. The Fuck?

[@a-maxcoin7549]

Even back then many did not appreciate or like the way the '82 movie was made, John Carpenter said in an interview. Nothing has changed.

[@NoBody-lj5xh]

@@a-maxcoin7549 Sure, but they talked shit about it because it claimed to be related to a movie it was nothing like. Now they are bitching about it being too alike with the movie they are supposed to be taking cues from. See the change?

[@a-maxcoin7549]

​@@NoBody-lj5xh I think it's politics. So to me nothing has changed really.

[@billjoe7036]

The real footage of the combined body in the beginning looks so real, I would be creeped out just being around that thing on set. It looks a lot better than the CGI

[@HowardWimshurst]

Was there a guy talking in this video? I was hypnotised by the lava lamp

[@MyJONY13]

i cant remember when the lava lamp was talking about that

[@Lumibear.]

So was I because it’s running backwards.

[@ProxyDoug]

He's just a very realistic animation.

[@KraisonFrameworks]

Maybe you should animate that lava lamp. Seems like an interesting character.

[@Jayden-jo3su]

same i was just like " oh yeah you right *stares at lamp*"

[@boblowes]

Would be interesting to see a director's cut of "The Thing" (2011), and have the practical effects untouched by CG, or at least some minor enhancement, rather than full-blown replacement.

[@niallreid7664]

Yes! Great idea.

[@Vynzent]

They ought to re-release it. There's bound to be a copy out there before all the digital edits were made, and they just have to add very little (like the legs for the animatronics). The movie really is not bad, it just needs better effects.

[@nonameman7114]

@@Vynzentagreed. If it weren’t for the overuse of CGI I think a lot of fans would’ve considered it a great addition to the The Thing’s story.

[@whitezombified]

"it looked like an 80s movie" Tfw a prequel to the thing looked like an 80s movie. I'm fucking shocked

[@lqcrow]

"It's stupid enough to be a studio decision." Oy. That's so spot on it hurts.

[@kylevanwagn3r]

It's pretty disheartening to see how much they had done with animatronics, just to have it done over with CGI. The creature designs were all top notch, and while The Thing (2011) was not bad, it could have been another classic if they had stuck with practical effects.

[@GeorgRockallSchmidt]

You're totally right Kyle - the way I see it is if they'd have stuck with the practical effects and marketed it right, it could have been the rebirth of a subgenre. Now, maybe in an alternate universe...

[@luisa.belmares5716]

I don't know if this happend because the script it wasn't finished or what, but it's a shame. Originally CG will enhance practical effects and transformations. But it seems that producers change their minds about the creature design in post-production. So at the end, almost every shot was replaced with digital effects. pixologic.com/interview/image-engine/the-thing/2/

[@ziggenplays1208]

Georg Rockall-Schmidt you look like del toro

[@edward18517]

IT doesn't matter if it's practical or CGI as long as it's good. You can make anything look good through any means if you put enough effort into it.

[@drstrangelove9525]

Kyle VanWagner the studios forced them to have the practical effects to be glossed over with CGI

[@six2make4]

Practical effects can usually hold their charm for decades, even if you are like, "yeah, that obviously looks a bit silly" it usually don't take you out of the movie the same way old or bad CGI does.

[@Christopherianmatt]

Interesting to think that in a studio vault somewhere, a version of the Thing 2011 sits with practical effects, waiting for a special edition release. If they want to recoup their losses on the property, they should release to theaters a special edition practical effects version of the Thing 2011, followed by the Thing 1982 as a double feature. That will get the fans back into theaters.

[@thereportoftheweek787]

That would involve a Hollywood producer admitting they made a bad call and swallowing their pride. Not happening 😂

[@horrorfanandy4647]

@@thereportoftheweek787 With that being said, the Snyder Cut *did* happen… _after extensive lobbying from fans and actors and the original director…_ ehhh maybe you’re right 😂

[@idiot_city5244]

It's such an ace in the hole idea it's mind boggling they refuse to do it

[@SHOPxDAxWHOPPER]

We should start a petition to have the studio release a cut of the movie that is more in line with their original vision. We could use kickstarter or something along those lines! I feel like there is a pretty substantial number of people who would love The Thing 2011 if its effects were more in line with the 1982 version...

[@nowone666]

imo Mad Max: Fury Road had the best usage of CGI with practical effects i've ever seen

[@PumperKrickel]

It was so good I never even noticed it, except for the sandstorm of course.

[@SuzakuX]

Nutshell Peacock shitposting How about Wolf of Wallstreet? Most people don't even realize how many of those shots had FX.

[@nowone666]

wolf of wallstreet is fine too i guess, but it didn't really mix up CG with practical so much as it just had good after effects.

[@dankwarmouse6248]

I'd throw District 9 up there too. What's amazing about District 9 is that they don't draw all the attention of the shot to the CGI. The alien spacecraft is just another part of the scene, not a "HEY GUYS LOOK WHAT WE DID" focal point. And within the context of the movie it makes a lot of sense too. The ship has been there for 25 years (I think) so it's started to blend in with the background.

[@miguelpereira9859]

DankWarMouse The animation of the aliens is pretty bad tho. But I love the shit out of the movie

[@Jebu911]

I think Terminator 2 has a great mix of cgi and practical effects.

[@MadGeorgeProductions]

Although it's more practical than most realize. Same goes for Jurassic Park.

[@tobyscustoms4813]

Mad George actually the cgi dinosaurs in the original Jurassic Park have more screen time than the animatronics. But saying this the cgi holds up to this day because they put the work in to begin with

[@tobyscustoms4813]

Brian Welch they did not scan the life size model of the T-rex and this is why the model and the cgi one look so different

[@tobyscustoms4813]

To be honest I was only thinking of the T-Rex and the cgi model had way more screen time than the actual animatronic one and I prefer the cgi models shape over the animatronic one it looks meaner

[@iancruz6617]

A lot of it is obvious cgi cough t 1000 cough, for people with low IQ and common sense and living under rock the revolve of cgi in the 90's was start something amazing and today time ppl don't even put enough effort on and lay the cgi todybis garbafe and hardly looks amazing.

[@TheMediatorOfChaos]

The insanity of stating that the practical effects looked dated so they had to change it to basically Xbox 360 graphics... I don't hate the movie, but man, waste of a movie.

[@bubblegumxo]

Lol, I mean the 360 WAS the current console when this came out 🤣. But yeah that IS a problem with CG, it's CONSTANTLY improving, and it QUICKLY becomes "dated" looking.

[@JeffreyHeesch]

It's really sad, and when you watch that interview, you can actually hear the one guy almost getting a little choked up when he starts talking about the CGI edits. And then the interview blurbs from the director basically boil down to "It looked like some old 80's movie, and that's no good when you're making a movie based off of an old 80's movie," and "the original picture would have been very pleasing to a small number of people, so we decided to change it so that it pleases nobody and will be completely forgotten almost immediately upon release."

[@SirBlackReeds]

The director's plan was to use CGI to cover up the blemishes that were present.

[@rynemcgriffin1752]

Jeffrey Heesch And to an extent, I can understand that sentiment. You have to appease your general audience first or else you have no audience.

[@doublemonkey4833]

@Crow No, "The Thing" (2011) is a direct prequel to "The Thing" (1982). "The Thing" (1982) is a sort-of remake of "The Thing from Another World" (1951) but more based on the 1938 novella "Who Goes There?" which "The Thing from Another World" was also based on. Basically "The Thing" (2011) is not a remake of anything.

[@Wildmilly]

@Raw Engineer They weren't good in the original "The Thing From Another World" that came out in 1951?

[@Wildmilly]

@Raw Engineer That's the first movie made based off of the book that is the original source material for all of the other movies

[@YangSunWoo]

The counter argument is that bad CG is always noticed because it's so jarring against the realistic aspects of the film. Most of the really good CG is never noticed by the audience because of how well integrated it is. I think there's a place for good CG and also for good practical effects.

[@GeorgRockallSchmidt]

I agree, there's definitely a place for good CGI and I don't have anything against it, I just don't want good practical effects to be superseded by bad CG.

[@michaeltaylor684]

YangSunWoo I think Mad Max:Fury Road is a perfect example of the balance between practical effects and CG. When movies get the just right its truly amazing.

[@webmasale]

Nostalgia Critic made a very good video about it

[@SuperAabbcc123456]

Michael Taylor almost all of mad max was real. The only things they added were flamed here and there but even then most flames were still real.

[@ThrillJunky500]

SuperAabbcc123456 actually there is a lot more CGI in Mad Max than people realize. The difference is that a lot of the ACTION is practical which is what CG stuggles with. There's tons of CG backgrounds, lighting, and sometimes cars in the big shots showing lots of vehicles. It knew the strengths and weaknesses of both practical amd CG

[@Redhunteur2]

Putting wonky CG over great practical effects feels like coating a diamond with 14K gold.

[@TboneTenEighties]

Or shit

[@AntSwift1]

Gold>Diamond

[@MrPobanz]

Yeah that analogy was pretty awful... similar to the cgi in a certain movie.

[@Redhunteur2]

@@MrPobanz Do you speak in cogent sentences at all? Cuz that would be pretty neat.

[@MrPobanz]

@@Redhunteur2 No native english speaker, what does "cogent" and "cuz" mean? Guess you're none either so let me explain: by comparing cgi with gold and practical effects with diamonds (which have less inherent value than gold and only seem "valuable" because of artificially inflated prices- *cough* De Beers *cough*), would mean that "worthless" practical effects (diamonds) were coated with valuable cgi (gold). Unless your intention was to argue in favor of cgi over practical effects, your analogy is rubbish.

[@noahnickman3379]

Georg: *making great points about CGI* Me: mmmmmmm lava lamp

[@exquisitecorpse__]

I like lava lamps.

[@ShoppingBored]

Makes me want to buy one

[@avengingfox6863]

The difference between video games and CGI in movies is the contrast. A video game is entirely CGI, so the CGI will naturally blend in. The mind of the viewer can see it with consistency. If you put a real person inside of a game, it would look very odd because even photorealistic video games look different. The reverse is true of movies. The movies that are not entirely CGI will look strange if you put CGI in them because we can see the contrast. We can see what is organic and of the physical world and what is rendered.

[@garicrewsen1128]

^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^

[@bdayboy2376]

Avenging Fox and

[@brycerothschadl]

randomguy8196 There's a difference between using cgi in the background and replacing the monster in a horror film with cgi

[@billdavis7577]

randomguy8196 Overuse of cgi is the problem. If concealed properly it works. I mean look at the Justice League movie. Albeit a small use, but jarring nonetheless. That removal of the moustache completely took me out of any scene with Superman. Although the movie as a whole really wasn’t that good either.

[@luckydominguez2654]

randomguy8196 My Dude, there´s a difference between a CGI enhanced backround but filmed WITH ACTUAL landscapes, citys, models, etc, and a completely rendered world, Using CGI to make a landscape look more "pretty" is fine anytime they don´t make it look like the backround of Skyrim. CGI use is not the problem when is used to the extents were practical effects can´t go, like Jurassic Park or Terminator 2, but we obviously see a big difference when we have to watch and full world of CGI juat to add more action to the mass.

[@ATWDigital]

CG is a very specific tool, like a hammer. It is good for certain uses, but when you wish to saw a board a hammer is useless. Jurassic park still holds up to this day, because they only used CG when practical effects were impossible.

[@Pac0Master]

Good CG when used properly can be amazing Just like Bad Practical Effect can look horrible. So yeah, it highly depends on the quality of the work and where it's used

[@SuzakuX]

Pac0 Master This is just what I wanted to say. There's a lot of tremendous CGI work out there -- especially for digital matte painting -- which is completely seamless. So many of the backdrops in modern film and television are CGI or enhanced with it, and nobody notices. The issue isn't practical vs CGI so much as good CGI vs bad CGI. Like, the flip side is a movie like Warcraft, which Universal also mucked up. The CGI in that movie is more believable than the live action stuff; the mo-capped actors are more emotive, while most of the practical props look fake.

[@johngddr5288]

Thank you!!! Its not a black and white issue, which most of the commenters here seem to think... No one notices good CG, just as much as no one notices good practical effects.

[@GrassValleyGreg]

Yes, CGI is best used as polish.

[@johngddr5288]

+GrassValleyGreg It depends.

[@Spindler2007]

The studio's decision to replace the practical effects with CGI was not only a big middle finger to Amalgamated Dynamics but also a big middle finger to the fans who loved the 1982 movie of The Thing.

[@Valkinsenn]

And, of course, (4 years later) there's a flipside to that coin, also: the CGI team for this movie also got screwed over pretty bad by the studio, too. One thing studios, and even certain filmmakers, more often than not fail to realize is that, although CGI has come a long way, there's still quite a bit that goes into getting a CGI VFX shot to look convincing. Like with practical effects, it takes a lot of thinking, planning, work, and time to get right, all of which are monumental to the final product. As has been indicated here and elsewhere, this movie _was_ planned to use primarily practical effects that would be strategically supplemented with CGI at various points. _However,_ according to the movie's IMDb trivia, director Matthijs van Heijningen ended up getting overridden at the studio level, who demanded ADI's practical effects work get _completely_ replaced by CGI. As you can imagine, the production team hadn't planned for that at all, and were forced to scramble in order to acquiesce to the studio's unrealistic demands. Consequently, the movie's release date got pushed back, meaning the production team went over budget, and the vast majority of practical and animatronic effects, rather than being supplemented by CGI wherever needed, ended up getting completely covered up by them, the vast majority of which was clearly rushed. What makes it even more painful is that Image Engine did a breakdown of the movie's visual effects, and it's quite obvious which ones were planned to be practical, and which ones were planned to be CGI. Those that were planned for either approach, and actually made it into the final product as intended, actually look fantastic. Pretty much everything else... not so much.

[@johnskilling7019]

"CGI is usually about 5X as expensive as top-of-the-line animatronics" I always thought it was the other way around. Interesting! I saw the original a few years after it came out when I was about 5 or 6 years old. The scene where the guy gets his hands bit off when doing CPR with the paddles...that visual of the stomach opening up and turning into a giant set of shark-like jaws...man that fucked me up something awful. I didn't cry or anything, but Jesus Christ almighty that was disturbing. I've yet to see the 2011 movie, probably because I'm still scared shitless from the first one.

[@blackbleach9864]

that lava lamp is CGI

[@insomniacs5138]

black bleach lmao

[@nooostop4664]

black bleach :o now I think about it ....the light effects are on the wrong side of the dude

[@pppaybackkk]

It's running backwards too. Once I noticed that, I had a hard time listening to him.

[@JaggedBird]

black bleach just me or does it look more full than usual

[@infinitesimotel]

Its cheaper that way. Electricity is vastly overpriced in the UK

[@kingofsting19]

The problem with CGI is that it looks unnatural, but in a clean way, and not so much in a grotesque way. Ironically, I think the animatronic looks nicer and scarier than the CGI that they went with. It not only looks more like a real person, but the fact that it does look so much like a person adds to the horror when it starts to invoke uncanny valley. If they had to have CGI in that scene, they should've at least saved it until right as their faces were starting to fuse together.

[@Jebu911]

Most movies have good CGI but only when the CGI isnt the focal point of the shot. Lot of CGI backgrounds look excellent in movies like in the new mad max.

[@antoinea.9791]

nah, every movie has pretty much cgi and when its well done its unnoticable. The best effects are a mix between practical and cg

[@magentalizard1250]

The CGI was the right choice.

[@IncognitoSprax]

That’s an issue with lighting

[@thefran901]

​@@magentalizard1250 Nah, look at 1:57 you can tell it's a CGI face and it breaks the immersion.

[@Atypical71]

I had a chance to see some practical FX pictures from a buddy that worked on the movie. To say the final result is heartbreaking is a serious understatement.

[@ScottBarrettihq]

The definitive answer to this is: the CG vs Practical argument is pointless, as it has nothing to do with the underlying problem. If CG was absolutely indistinguishable from practical, and it almost is (certainly can be), then there would be no reasonable complaint. The CG 'problem' is that is sometimes done in a way that is clearly 'too CG' and that takes a viewer out of the immersion. CG is responsible for background replacement in many cases, but you never hear anyone complain about that because in most cases, the audience is unaware something is shot in studio vs on the white house lawn. When the blends are seamless then they allow the story and immersion to prevail, which is ultimately the most important thing. The audience of any movie must, beyond a doubt, be able to 'believe' what they are seeing is a 'documentation' of actual events. In a movie like The Thing, we ARE seeing something unreal, so whatever tools, CG or practical BEST portray that... thing... are what is needed. If what looks the most believable is a garden hose on a string, then that's the right answer. If what ultimately convinces your audience of what they are seeing is real is a CG garden hose, then THAT is the right answer. Computers are tools like silcone latex RTX and red dye #5 and caro syrup. Pick the right one to keep the audience present in your story.

[@Snotnarok]

I agree with this. Many are too quick to say CG is bad, I've seen this a lot in the scifi community who will insist that something like say, Star Trek was a lot better and more believable because of the physical models. Meanwhile, the budget for the physical models and how hard it was to wrestle with some of them genuinely 100% limited what they had to use & hurt some shots & forced reuse of many, many shots. Cut to a few years ahead with something like DS9 vs TNG they were able to make more believable battles or at the very lest more INTERESTING shots because they weren't limited by the cumbersome models or the budget as much. Yes some shots look worse and you can tell which ones are CG, but even something like Star Wars when they redid some of the space battles of the 70's version ...Some shots, SOME, shots, look better. Whether they move better or they were able to get a more interesting/closer angle. But many hop on the hate, it doesn't look real or it's not good enough. When, if you can mix the two, or one simply works better because it allows more freedom it works! If it works, it works. For the Thing's prequel it was ...a mess across the board, the CG wasn't great but it was more than that, the way the Thing acted was so far off it didn't fit the theme established in the 80s version. Even if it was practical effects...it wouldn't have been great, maybe it would have looked slightly better in ways but it still would have been flawed and been competing against a movie that set a very, very high bar.

[@damsen978]

Yeah i think the same, agreed. CGI has gotten this bad image because of horrible cases in different movies, but when there is a really well done implementation of this on a movie, people wouldn't even notice it, we only notice CGI when it's bad. This is why it's compared to practical effects, because those who see the bad CGI think that practical effects do a better job than them, and of course they would do, because it's BAD CGI, that's the point. I think both can do a very good job depending on the case, but i personally like it the most when they mix the two, using CGI when it's impossible to do with practical effects, and probably vice-versa.

[@why_i_game]

I love good CG. However, the majority of modern CG used on big budget films is not good special effects. It looks fake. I can not get immersed if what I am watching is not consistent. I don't care if it looks real, I care about consistency. Lots of my favourite movies are heavily stylised with effects, but they are consistent throughout. Everything looks as it should. If I can't believe in what I'm wathcing on screen, there's not much point to watching. I am literally sitting in my seat shaking my head at how awful bad and fake the CG overlayed on something is. It's like people from today don't know how the real world physically behaves? How can people put up with uncanny valley 3D meat suits sliding around an actor's body in a big budget movie? The movements almost always look fake. They should stick to enhancing practical, not recreating reality in CG (because they clearly can't do it yet).

[@garyhill2740]

Practical effects are often far from flawless, or even documentary realistic, but when done well they can still be immersive, and they have an aesthetic quality that many people enjoy. That is what much of the potential audience for the thing 2011 desired and were expecting. By way of comparison, more recent portrayals of the Star Wars characters Yoda may be more flawless and realistic, but many fans of the series prefer the look of the practical Yoda from the Empire Strikes back. That preference will not be erased by the CGI Yoda being the best CGI possible. So, in effect, you address one of two flaws with the 2011 film. The CGI wasn't very good, very true. That doesn't change the fact that over reliance on CGI was probably the wrong choice for this particular film in the first place.

[@Corn_Pone_Flicks]

@@garyhill2740 I think one of the main differences is that even when practical effects don't quite nail it, they still, for obvious reasons, look like real objects that were shot with the same camera as everything else. A model spaceship might not look as big or detailed as it should, but it still looks like a physical object. CG that doesn't quite nail it looks unreal in a way that clashes with its surroundings. Also, I think what CG is or is not convincing seems to vary more between viewers, and I think video games may have a lot to do with this. People who play games a lot are used to seeing CG very often, and thus may become much better at picking it out. I don't game, and on many occasions have heard people complain about CG effects I thought looked great or didn't even notice were CG at all. In this particular instance, I do think the practical effects demonstrated for the 2011 Thing look fantastic, and should not have been jettisoned. They look more consistent with the film to which this is a prequel. It's also a case of not understanding your core audience; horror fans overwhelmingly prefer practical effects...just ask one.

[@johnnyle8018]

I love the 1982 effects. It's more grotesque.

[@icycold7732]

Makes zero sense🤦🏼‍♂️

[@oaksynia7353]

@@icycold7732 how does it not?

[@ditditlord5153]

@@icycold7732ur dumb

[@coolwolf5425]

@@icycold7732 doesnt even explain as to why

[@oaksynia7353]

@Elias Håkansson i disagree

[@ThegamingStand]

You look like a cross between Quentin Tarantino and Dante from Clerks, it's mildly unsettling.

[@dtg610420]

adasdasd dude I've been thinking this for months!!!

[@joshuacarrig9370]

This is incredible

[@robotsaysbeebooboop]

Lmao

[@robotsaysbeebooboop]

I thought he looks like btk killer Dennis Rader

[@jasonwhyttes1679]

His eyebrows are angry with the world.

[@porcu12345]

The practical effect of the two men joined together looked way more believable than the quite poor CGI version.

[@catalystv7520]

The CGI absolutely ruined it, doesn’t look real at all. It’s already dated.

[@waisinet]

It looked already dated when it came out..

[@tobyscustoms4813]

waisinet exactly I thought it was bad when I saw it in the cinema

[@waisinet]

@@tobyscustoms4813 two things I didn't like: the cgi and the ending. I very much enjoyed the rest of the movie, including the references to the original.

[@tobyscustoms4813]

waisinet I enjoyed it as well but the cgi even when it released was below average for the time

[@waisinet]

@@tobyscustoms4813 a shame if you look at movies like terminator 2, jurassic Park and lord of the rings and what they did by combining practical effects and cgi

[@nikolassummers7092]

Shouldn't it look 80s, considering it is a prequel to an 80s Movie!

[@IPFreelly604]

Nah, no one remembers that. "The Thing" is the new hotness.

[@kpllc4209]

Tell that to George Lucas

[@clickycal]

^or Ridley Scott.

[@magentalizard1250]

That's dumb fucking logic.

[@MrFrankFurter]

@@magentalizard1250 so you watch both movies in order and the effects don't match. Its you whi has the dumb fucking knowledge. Maybe you work for a cgi company.

[@DinoGoodley]

I think Jar Jar is a really compelling character.

[@biznubizzness4783]

Dino Goodley m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/mKuQhJSDqp2eadk Jar jar is the key.

[@Godzillafan1980]

MY ASS is more compelling then jar jar binks

[@jorgepeterbarton]

he compels me to go out killing at night

[@uncannyvalley2350]

Said my 5 yr old

[@thedevilsadvocate8766]

Jar Jar is a Sith.

[@gutz3115]

The first animatronic was genuinely terrifying. The cgi replacement looked plastically which really took me out of the movie scene

[@ransax]

That scene was so stupid. The Thing doesn't just instantly fuse with people. They established that in the original. It takes time for the Thing to absorb and replicate an organism. That's why it almost always caught people when they were alone.

[@bruh_oly1370]

Your right , it just morphed him instantaneously, that contradicts the subtle takeover of the host. The guy should of been intravenously taken over or through his nostrils before changing immediately. It was odd

[@ransax]

@@bruh_oly1370 It didn't even work like that. They were first fully absorbed and then replicated. It was even flatly stated. They are dead before the replications are created.

[@DuelaDent52]

ransax Don’t the Things only occur when the Thing doesn’t fully consume someone?

[@Cenindo]

Blair "fused" pretty quickly with his last onscreen victim, I'd say.

[@swagdaddydiego6643]

We should also remember that the Norwegian encounter was the things first encounter with people. Logically, it wouldn’t fully know how to take us. And, it didn’t become him, it just fused with him so that it could kill him and become him later. It actually didn’t instantly become him.

[@narutofan9tf]

CGI is only good when you assume it's not there

[@renovski8992]

LittleFilms well said

[@shanenonwolfe4109]

Or when its the best of the best

[@milestiller665]

Shanenon Wolfe Yeah. CGI only works if you don’t know it’s CGI.

[@Johny40Se7en]

That's really good way to put it. Like when it's subtle and you can't tell if it's used.

[@colmcq]

Exactly

[@scottchambers926]

As someone who has dedicated his life to studying film and trying to crack the industry because he watched Jurassic Park as a 5 year old. I'm citing that film as an example. I would argue that's when CGI has improved a film. As a Father of a 6 year old obsessed with Dinosaurs I've seen JP more than I've seen the inside of my eyelids. The CGI (though the odd shot is slightly dated) is sparingly used and works the best because it's blended in with the many real practical effects. Spielberg, ILM and Stan Winston were wise enough to know that CGI was only meant to be used for action not possible by practical or in camera effects. I don't think they intended for film makers to be lazy and use it for everything or for studios to assume audiences preferred the aesthetic to practical. It shouldn't be a case of picking one or the other it should be a case of knowing when to use either one to create the best effect. What ever happened to film makers knowing that less is more with CGI and using elements like real smoke, light and rain to paste over the seams of CGI when on set. Now nearly every thing is in harsh brightly lit environments. Gareth Edwards to some extent at least knows how to use CGI (monsters, Godzilla) for obvious reasons. Let's hope he teaches Hollywood a few lessons.

[@GeorgRockallSchmidt]

That's a great example Scott - I think Jurassic Park holds up really well. You're absolutely right of course about it not being a case of picking one or the other when they can compliment each other so well if done properly.

[@myztazynizta]

The scene with the dying dino in Jurassic World felt and looked so out of place. Ther was so much "good enough" cg in that movie they should have used cg for that scene also.

[@mullaoslo]

thin soldier to me it was the opposite, the dying dino ,the raptor heads, and the baby dino that the little kid wont let go off when the pterodactyl attack happens where the only effects that looked good to me. The Isuckasaurus looked like shit, most of the dino action looked bad.. The only scene that made me forget the cgi was when my bottom bitch rexy made her grand entrence. I love her so much I didn't mind the cg, even though a shot of here getting battle ready with the old animatronic would be amazing as well.

[@PumperKrickel]

They´ll use more practical effects in Jurassic World 2.

[@jonskinner5664]

Agree completely about Jurassic park, some shots the cgi looks dated, but for me the scene where the t-rex first breaks out of its enclosure is still the best cgi scene ever.

[@Kardia_of_Rhodes]

Don't forget CGI follows the same rule as Practical Effects. "If it looks good, people won't notice."

[@UltimateQball]

Exactly. So many people think Practical Effects are always good and holds up. Like no there's alot of hot garbage practical effect movies too. Both CGI and Practical Effect can be done wrong and look like shit.

[@ianscomics]

I noticed

[@HobbNoblin]

I've been thinking for a while now that I'd really like to see more movies where the unreality of the CG is part of the point; like, even in the context of the story itself, the CG creature is specifically SUPPOSED to look surreal and spectral and not-quite-there, like it doesn't even belong in our universe. I remember "Annihilation" was really good for this. By contrast, using CG for something as tactile as a literal flesh-monster feels kinda like it's missing the whole point.

[@magnuskallas]

In Annihilation they did it the correct way using both CG and practicals... They could have done the same in The Thing but I think they kept in none of the original work.

[@MisaelKpo]

In my opinion the greatest fear was paranoia and deep hopelessness in both films. The horror of a flesh-monster works to cement the stakes, because we now the consequences of failing to survive. But I will argue that Annihilation has more of a cosmic horror quality. In The Thing we can define a monster with an objective, while in Annihilation we can't easily do the same. Yes, failing to survive in Annihilation will be bad, but we don't know even if it's possible to survive. What I'm trying to get at is that The Thing is much more grounded than Annihilation, and maybe that's the reason why surreal CGI works in favor of the latter.

[@HobbNoblin]

@@MisaelKpo Hit the nail on the head there, boss!

[@Howard_T_Duck]

This is exactly what I’ve been saying! Even in the context of the film, the CG makes it overall inconsistent, part of the whole charm of the original practical effects was just how unearthly and unnatural the creature moves. When you see it, moving smoother and rendered in the prequel, it just breaks the immersion. The studio even said “it looked too much like an 80s movie” which makes zero fucking sense as that should be the whole point, making it look like an 80s movie makes it feel like it truly is part of the same story.

[@irecordwithaphone1856]

​@@magnuskallasYes it was studio interference with the director's vision

[@RCAvhstape]

CG was great when it was new and was being used innovatively in films like Terminator 2 and The Abyss. When it became a crutch for lazy or cheap film-making and started showing up in every car commercial it got old real quick.

[@dacsus]

CG is still great, if ti is done right, it's indistinguishable from reality: Why CG Sucks (Except It Doesn't) kzbin.info/www/bejne/mH2ZmaNud7B1aJY

[@V0YAG3R]

@@dacsus Except it does 👌

[@dacsus]

@Kill Slug dude, that movie is from 1991, and imo, CGI for that time was great in that movie - and essentially served its purpose.

[@RCAvhstape]

@Kill Slug The CG in T2 was awesome, especially if you saw it fresh in 1992 when there had never been anything like that before. If I gave you nothing but a bunch of 80s tech, 80s software, and 80s knowledge and told you to create liquid metal Terminator for a film you could certainly do worse than they did.

[@RCAvhstape]

@Kill Slug I dunno, I've seen plenty of liquid metal robots in real life and it looks real to me.

[@abdool1972]

CGI is like an atomizer bottle that studios keep spraying in my face. I also find it distracting to see actors 'pretending' to see something when it isn't there. Only a handful of actors are able to pull it off convincingly.

[@GeorgRockallSchmidt]

You're totally right - even in the Star Wars prequels actors were saying how hard it was to react to nothing / green screen eyeline markers, so you'd have thought they'd have learnt. Also, next time someone asks if I've got something in my eye, I'll say it's just a bit of CGI left over from getting squirted in the face.

[@TheGeorgeD13]

Eh... just depends on how the CGI is used. Just look at the new Planet of the Apes movies... The CGI works very well and enhances the film to a whole new level.

[@abdool1972]

Yeah, the new ape movies are entertaining. In my view the extravagant monies spent on CGI could be better spent on practical sets, puppets and effects. It would improve the storytelling (acting). You could make four or five "practical" films for the money spent on these giant CGI films. If Jim Henson was still alive I believe practical effects would be more popular.

[@TheGeorgeD13]

Nah, Jim Henson wouldn't change anything. The thing is... it's EASIER to do CGI. Takes less effort. May usually cost more money (which really only depends on a case by case basis, but it is easier). And also... quite a few Studio Executives think that CGI looks better than practical. There are directors who know how to use CGI real environments quite well. Zack Snyder, Michael Bay, James Cameron, Matt Reeves, and a smattering of others, for example. But ultimately, I almost can never tell the difference between practical and CGI these days. I don't really see CGI as a bad thing and is often quite necessary for many big budget films.

[@abdool1972]

Lots of points to respond to so wall of text, sorry :) Jim Henson was a giant, I doubt that he wouldn't have had ANY effect on this move away from practical effects - nobody is making enough practical effects movies to give people an alternative. Sorry, but I'm not convinced that CGI takes less effort than practical. I studied digital character animation for many years and there is an staggering ammount of work involved. The computer doesn't do all the work for you. 8-12hr days - for months on end for a few moments of screen time. I believe hollywood would benefit from putting out less 250 million dollar duds like Superman vs. Batman and take a chance on new ideas by splitting that money up between five aspiring directors instead. This is how hollywood used to work. Lots of low budget experiments to find the next big thing.

[@mondelsson]

Practical effects always look better because they feel tangible. You can tell that they're there. CGI is used now because it's easy and the film suffers for that laziness.

[@nazarenomilohanich4883]

Are you kidding me? Did you even watched the video...?

[@dacsus]

CG can! look better than practical effects, thing is, if it is done right, it's indistinguishable from reality, so you even doesn't know, you're looking at them - how would you, for example, make the shape of Harry Dent face in Batman Dark Knight without cgi? Or Furiosa's hand? Or aliens, and whole nature in Avatar? And no, it is not easy task, because you need to know how to simulate real materials in any conditions. CG sucks only when it is done badly - exactly as practical effects. Check this: Why CG Sucks (Except It Doesn't) kzbin.info/www/bejne/mH2ZmaNud7B1aJY

[@pandagal9805]

I personally like practical effects more than CG, but there are times when CG can look practical

[@why_i_game]

@@dacsus I thought the jungle scenes in Avatar when watched in 3D were some of the nicest CG nature scenes I have ever seen in a movie... but I didn't for a moment feel that any of it was real. None of it passed the "glancing at a video, is it real" test. Nothing in Avatar looked believable, including the characters and plot. I enjoyed the film, but I was never "in" the film. I was more watching it from a technical achievement standpoint. I never cared about any of the characters at any point in the movie, except maybe the flying creature of the main character, I think I remember liking them. Movies like Terminator 2 or District 9, I was fully engaged for the entire length of the movie. Compared to about 5 minutes of engagement from the 2-3 hour long Avatar. Characters and plot first, practical effects next, CG effects for minor touch ups only, CG should never make it look less realistic -- but it often does.

[@dacsus]

@@why_i_game because you knew it was not real.

[@CineStructure]

The difference is absolutely incredible! The practical effects just look SO much better than the CGI layers that were added/replaced the original effects. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. With the budget that they had, I'm not sure how it went so poorly. By 2011, there were some decent digital effects being done in film.

[@mynameachef8614]

i just spent 10 minutes watching a video about 2 movies i havent watched, and effects that i dont care about you sir are a great videomaker

[@dtg610420]

MyName AChef me too

[@kidthebilly7766]

GO WATCH THE THING (1982) it's literally the greatest horror film of all time.

[@Mrspiderman20014]

You need to watch the John carpenter version, it's fucking amazing, the suspense is out fucking standing, the atmosphere is also *fucking* fantastic, and the acting.......Fuck yeah it's good, watch that shit!

[@jonskinner5664]

the original is up there with the best horror movies of all time, when someone mentions horror my mind goes to the shining, exorcist and the thing.

[@KoolRanch]

Hello Reggie

[@mightisright]

The main reason the effects look so good in the 80's The Thing is that the guy who did it was crazy and obsessed and worked around the clock for months. The Thing 2011 was just a throw away by hired guns.

[@jamestomato1744]

And apparently the people hired to do the practical effects, people who actually put time and effort into their work, were shafted to make way for CGI use instead. Since they're clearly displeased with the fact that they're work had nothing to show for it in the final product.

[@Ducktaro]

@@jamestomato1744 and to make it worst they didn't know there work was going into the trash until they saw the movie on the premiere

[@jamestomato1744]

@@Ducktaro Yea, I know. That's messed up if you ask me. Like, they said that many of the people who worked on the effects went through depression afterwards.

[@shealupkes]

uh no the 2011 thing was hand crafted in front of and behind the camera entirely by fans of john carpenter's masterpiece, save for cutting out the puppet arms and adding more tentacles if it was meant to show up on screen they made it, the ps3 edition we got in the release was made by the studio so last second noone in AD knew until the premiere

[@LordVader1094]

@@shealupkes What's this about a PS3 edition?

[@xxmattoxx93]

When I first heard first heard that they were going to make a prequel to The Thing I was generally excited to see how that would turn out because 1.Being a fan of the original and 2. I've always wondered what really happened to the first team that Discovered it. When it came out and most of the alien scenes were CGI...I wasn't surprised I was just sad. But I think what really disappointed me was finding out later that They were intently going to use practical effects but ended up replacing basically 99% of it with CGI. Like seriously?! All that hard work they went through and it didn't even make the final cut?! The least they could've done was Keep the practical facts and use a little bit of digital improvement on them for tentacles movement or something. Needless to say although I did enjoy the movie I still would have loved to have seen originally with the practical effects they intended to use.

[@irecordwithaphone1856]

They wanted to use the practical effects, but studio interference stopped them from it. Never underestimate the ability of suits in Hollywood from ruining a movie or a director's vision

[@vorpal120]

The two recent movies that have CGI that looked great are Annihilation (extreme) and Ex Machina (subtle). But for amazing 80s-like special effects look no further than the 2016 film The Void. Reminds me a lot of the 1982's The Thing.

[@joesmoe71]

I kept waiting for the blobs in the lava lamp to form tentacles and attack him

[@drakewhite2660]

Did you notice the lamp is in reverse, at least partially, kinda threw me for a loop

[@sydandpie146]

i couldnt stop looking at it like "theres no way that isn't reversed"

[@joesmoe71]

@Tolynee HAHAHAHA!!

[@bradderzpartridge]

Best comment ever commented

[@spartan456]

I saw The Thing 2011 when I was still in high school, and I remember leaving the theater really upset at how much they screwed up with the movie. Before going to see it I remember watching John Carpenter's version with my group of friends, we were all really excited to see the new one. What a fucking let down that was. Seeing that animatronic dual headed monstrosity at 1:40 is a really shocking depiction of what this movie could have been. They'd have had to shoot a lot of things a bit differently to make it work, but even in that short clip where you can clearly see it's all fake, it still looks remarkably real. Way better than the CG we ended up getting. What's really bizarre to me is how bad the CG company fucked up. I thought District 9's CG looked pretty incredible, even to this day MUCH of it still holds up, so it's really weird that the same company to do that CG did so badly here. I guess it just looks so awful in this movie because it was originally filmed with the intentions of practical effects, and then that ideology shifted halfway into production.

[@Sphere723]

The key to CG quality is simply time. It's no longer really about tools and personnel. Bad CG these days is just due to a lack of time/budget. And obviously The 2011 The Thing was a rush job done after the fact.

[@rossspeight-burns7216]

I would love to see more studios try and use practical effects more often in a movie and not rely on the more expensive option that doesn't age well most of the time cgi

[@CaptainCocaine]

"It looked a bit like at 80s movie" Ok? That's exactly what you should have been going for, especially as a _prequel_ to an 80s movie! Those "80s movie" practical effects looked 1000 times better than your garbage 2011 CGI.

[@Saint5963]

Yeah, they were going for that, but the studio said it looked like shit and "enhanced" the scenes with CGI at the last second

[@IHateYoutubeHandlesVeryMuch]

@Elias Håkansson I'm gonna assume you're speaking specifically about comparing the original "The Thing" and its prequel, and not the broad spectrum of cinema as a whole. Stupid like in disfigured? That's probably the point, considering that they were meant to look uncanny and disturbing as fuck for fear-factor. I took a look at some of the faces of the monsters in the prequel, and they don't really have that disturbing factor at all. Probably would still scare a young child, but that's about it.

[@tomandryanlol]

Fantastic video. I think CGI is great when it supplements practical effects. The best example is the LOTR movies, while the Hobbit trilogy is a good example of CGI overuse. In 2011, making a movie as effects intensive as The Thing with 'only' practical effects was naive I think. It should've been both, with CGI enhancing the practical effects and being used for more difficult shots, with high amounts of fast movement (something which is hard to do convincingly with animatronics). Ultimately, I think movies have to be shot and edited with the effects used in mind. This is what makes most of Jurassic Park and LOTR hold up so well.

[@GeorgRockallSchmidt]

Naive is a good word I think. I honestly think Heijningen was quite sincere going into the film, and his (comparative) inexperience may have been a factor. Maybe a much more experienced director could have pulled off a 90% practical effects job. Jurassic Park and LOTR are great examples, and I think one key difference between them and The Thing 2011 is the meticulous planning - I bet Spielberg / Jackson and their producers pretty much knew exactly what the film was going to look like before they even called action. Not so sure that was the case for The Thing, for many reasons.

[@MrJenssen]

Terminator 2, Mad Max: Fury Road and the LOTR-trilogy. I believe those are the only movies I've seen where I felt the CG made the movie better than it otherwise would have been.

[@GeorgRockallSchmidt]

Yeah they certainly got it right with T2 - they did a lot of it with practical and CG together. I still think the scene with Robert Patrick and Arnie meeting for the first time, and the resulting damage to the T1000, holds up very well.

[@MrJenssen]

Don't even know what to say to you. You literally speak untruth. Fury Road's CGI was not at all "mostly background". Almost every single shot in the entire movie is edited in post production with some amount of CGI. Just search it up on KZbin, there's tons of videos on it. LOTR had CGI in the foreground too. Shelob, Gollum, the cave trolls, the Ents, entire armies in the wide shots of every battle and tons of other things. And Terminator 2's CGI was as close to "objectively" good as you can get, for its time. It was revolutionary. The movie won Oscars for its special effects, and the CGI was part of it. For a movie to have computer-generated effects looking like that in 1992 is nothing short of astounding.

[@myztazynizta]

Every shit in Fury Road was edited in post production... to change the background and lighting with a lot of CGI.

[@nimrodery]

LOTR didn't have any CGI. Except for all the CGI in it. - paraphrasing Dung Pie.

[@PumperKrickel]

I seem to remember a ton of scenes where a CGI Legolas does crazy jumpy shit. It´s been a while since I last saw those movies.

[@AkuTenshiiZero]

Y'know, looking at that merging scene from Thing 2011, I don't see how that couldn't be done practically. There are a few cuts where it is shown from different angles, and you can tell that those cuts and angles were planned with practicals in mind. Note how it happens in three main stages: The neck extension, the Thing head overlapping the actor, and the actual merging. Shot one is an easy one for a puppet. The second shot is clearly intended to obscure the merging process, so that when it cuts to angle three the actor can be made up with prosthetics to show a partly merged creature. I would say that at that point they would have used minimal CGI to merge them further. Cuts in these kinds of creature transformations are used to swap out puppets and makeup, pushing the illusion, it's an old staple of monster effects. The problem is the studio's lack of willingness to use a little misdirection to "hide the wires," or their lack of faith in the audience to buy into the trick. But we are willing to buy into it.

[@boopadoop385]

My god the practical effects were so good in the original that I was so freaked out when that guy's arms got bitten off. I've been watching special effects and behind the scenes in movies since I was a kid and couldn't piece together how they did it, and had to research it as soon as I finished the movie. And the fact,. that they used wax for the bones to make them snap and A PAIR OF ACTUAL AMPUTEE ARMS??? LIKE HOLY SHIT THAT'S DEDICATION

[@Vynzent]

The CGI of The Thing 2011 looks awful as fuck. Yes CGI has saved movies. Like Jurassic Park films, except Jurassic World. Not enough care went into Jurassic World's cgi. Mad Max: Fury Road, an amazing film and amazing looking, benefited greatly from CGI. They knew not to make costumes cgi, they knew that cgi should be a supporting technology to enhance the focus, which were real life people wearing real life costumes and real life props.

[@PumperKrickel]

The Jurassic Park movies used tons of animatronics, they really only added CGI for scenes where the whole animal had to be visible. The key is using it only when really necessary. JW barely had any animatronics, the eyes never got anything real to focus on. Apparently, they´ll change that in JW2.

[@Vynzent]

Those "only" scenes were several, and include key shots in the films, including the famous t-rex in the lobby end scene in JP1. Then came the increased use of herds and many dinos on screen at once in the sequels. I am aware of the animatronics (and I love the raptor legs suit in JP3 that was clever), but I stand with what I said. Cgi saved the Jurassic Park films. You could not get an animatronic velociraptor to jump around from place to place as fluidly and believably as with their use of cgi for it. Good luck even attempting to make a pteranadon fly and flail realistically with robotics and puppetry. I would not undermine the importance of cgi in Jurassic Park's success. With that said, the animatronics were just as important.

[@kahlzun]

Fury Road is a great example of how to use both effectively. Both enhancing the other.

[@dystopia47]

Plus I was embarrassed when I saw the new Peter Jackson movie effects

[@razzle2429]

​@Cyberdemon Mike Except JP's CGI really hasn't aged horribly at all. If anything, it's incredible that it still holds up so well, considering it came out in 1993. Sure, the CGI itself isn't as detailed as Jurassic World's CGI. But it's pointless to compare the two because there's a 22 year difference between the movies. The difference is that the original Jurassic Park knew it's limitations and worked to disguise them with puppetry and weather effects so you didn't quite notice the lack of texture on the dinosaur's skin or the fact that it sometimes didn't quite look like their feet were touching the ground, while Jurassic World just throws a bunch of CGI dinosaurs at the screen in full-view of everything, and hopes nobody will notice the fake uncanny-valley effect. That's why so many people say JW looks worse than JP. They don't LITERALLY mean the CGI itself is worse (because it's not). They mean they find the original movie more realistic because the limitations of the technology are well hidden enough that their brains aren't paying attention to the fakeness, they're paying attention to the story that is being told.

[@jeehoondevil]

Holy shit those practical effects look amazing!

[@pauljamilkowski3672]

This is so well put. Scary movies just don't scare anymore because CGI isn't usually scary. The Thing (original) is STILL one of the most disturbing movies I've ever seen because of the practical effects.

[@davidkonevky7372]

The thing about practical effects is that it leaves the details to the imagination, and while CGI can look more real on some parts, you can easily pinpoint when something seems off, and it ruins the experience as a whole.

[@MD_Builds]

Notice how the Lava Lamp is running backwards? :p Im a CG artist. And I totally agree with you. CG has its place but I love practical effects... And i agree that while sure some practical effects can be enhanced a bit with CG, it should be in such a small way that its not noticed. Sadly in this Thing they overdid the CG... and it just didnt look right at all. Its the dreaded phrase "will fix it in post" Shame because there animatronic work was great. Heres an example of where enhanced with CG worked... Star Wars Force Awakens. The Character Simon Pegg played in the first Act of the film on the Desert planet... Was mostly animatronic, but had CG to enhanced the facial moments... It was a good job that was not clearly CG... Another one is DeadPools face in the movie. Its a solid mask, that in CG is enhanced to give the comic eyebrow moments...

[@unclesporkums]

Good point, Mangy. Other CGI artists have made their voices known on comment posts for videos and articles like this, when people complain about the appearance or the movement physics, they chime in and say "Don't you think we KNOW that looks bad?" They try to voice these concerns to the director/producer, and are simply told to shut up and do their jobs.

[@Nami]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed the lava lamp being played in reverse.

[@htomerif]

I like the part where you said "CG" a dozen times. Its not dead yet.

[@junglsolja]

Great vid. For all who love the John Carpenter version, I highly recommend last year's Shout Factory Blu-ray release. The movie has never looked or sounded better and the extra features are beyond comprehensive.

[@bigcrackrock]

Ah shout/scream, it's close enough but yeah I watched it last October and what you say is true. I remember it taking me quite a while to get through the extras.

[@junglsolja]

Right. It's one of the best Collector Editions ever IMHO

[@iankelsall25]

of the top of my head, a flawless example of CGI would be in Logan, where his younger, evil counterpart is walking down the stairs glaring at logan. Its a fully cgi head of hugh jackman and it looks completely real, you don't sit there going, " ooh, that nice cgi" instead you are engrossed in the scene as you are meant to.

[@headlessspaceman5681]

Thanks for bringing the voices of the artists themselves into the discussion. Interesting that in the struggle between art and money, they both lost to The Thing prequel.

[@justinbrown191]

The FX specialists said it best, the audience have a savvy eye to tell the difference between digital over conventional.

[@miguelcabreracastro6968]

its pretty ez... exept for backrounds, cuz a lot of times we just asume that the backround is alredy cgi

[@arsenii_yavorskyi]

practical effects in the 2011 version look perfect and absolutely terrifying.

[@xebatansis]

Freddy Kruger's head split open at the end of The Dream Master. If it was possible over 30 years ago, why not now?

[@joseluiz7017]

The fact that you take the time to make such in depth videos is amazing. Love your channel I just recently subscribed

[@alexthorpe2522]

What I think is amazing is that Rob Bottin was only 22/23 when he did the effects for The Thing. To have honed his talents at such a young age is incredible

[@xen0bia]

In my opinion, CGI is mainly good for envrionmental effects. Look at Prometheus or Avatar for example, the landscapes of the planets look AMAZING, and you of course couldn't possibly build these things. Aliens, creatures, monsters and the like should ALWAYS be practical effects because they interact with the actors in the scene. That's why The Thing, Alien and Star Wars are great. It convinces our eyes that they are real, or at least standing right there, something CGI cannot do. Using only CGI in these instances nearly always look fake, we know the actors are looking at nothing and all tension is lost. CGI should be used sparringly only to slightly enhanced these elements and not be the primarly focus.

[@ImVeryOriginal]

*cough*Jurassic Park*cough* Although in that case they not only mixed CGI with practical but, and I feel this is a factor that's often overlooked, meticulously studied the way dinosaurs probably would've moved and observed their closest animal counterparts like ostriches. Getting inspiration from nature and really figuring out how these creatures should move is, I feel, a big part of why the dinos are so convincing. It's also noteworthy that the effects were overseen and preplanned by Phil Tippett, a classic stop-motion animator. All of this gave the computer effects team a strong physical, tangible foundation to build on - as a result, even CGI creature shots in broad daylight still hold up to this day.

[@tulesg2008]

AMEN!! Well said.

[@beemerwt4185]

Around 4:00... That's just sad. He sounded so confident in the approach, but he also knew that some work had been done, he just didn't know to what extent... I can't even imagine how he felt to then see the movie, and how much of it had been replaced. What an utter shame.

[@emilemil1]

Replacing animatronics with CGI is only a bad idea if the CGI is poorly done. Nowadays we can make CGI creatures and humans that look damn near real, with something like realistic motion being just one of the aspects that CGI now does far better than puppets. But the CGI for The Thing was not up to par and made the monster look clearly fake, so going with practical effects was the better choice. Today though I think CGI should be used in most cases if the goal is pure quality. That of course also requires a good CGI studio, both to make sure that the CGI is of high quality and to keep the usage and style grounded in reality. Practical effects can still be used to achieve a certain aesthetic, and in many cases those effects are just as good as the CGI effects but come at a much lower cost, but objectively if the goal is absolute realism, good CGI is the way to go.

[@SirBlackReeds]

This comment should be pinned.

[@ericg1100]

emilemil1 | Nightcore except movies now like Infinity War parcel out different effects to different companies, so ILM can make Thanos look realistic, and then everything else looks shoddy at best when its given to less experienced effects companies

[@danstvguy]

Digital helped Jurassic Park ... and it wan't overused. Close-ups were practical. Hard to imagine how the long shots could have been practical without looking like toys.

[@SIenderplier]

Jurassic Park is a pretty stellar example of practical effects that still hold up today, that's pretty damn impressive if you ask me! :D

[@hailhydreigon2700]

Considering there's only 15 minutes of dinosaurs in the entire movie... and the running/full body dinosaurs were entirely CG- you might want to re-examine this comment. :b

[@darkmarv8045]

It had a tons of (great) cgi that movie.

[@miguelcabreracastro6968]

@@darkmarv8045 and bad ones... still love jurassic park...

[@darkmarv8045]

@@miguelcabreracastro6968 For a 1993 movie still good cgi, obviously now some scenes looks bad.

[@dobbear]

It would of been interesting to see the original vision for this movie, the use of practical and subtlety enhanced by CG, like how their releasing the Snyder Cut of Justice League.

[@makeahalo]

I'm stealing an old university friend's opinion here, but the original Jurassic Park movie (I just watched your video on that film series too Georg - it's a great vid!) was an absolutely brilliant example of blending BOTH CGI and practical effects. They both have strengths and weaknesses, and it was shown in Jurassic Park that you can artfully use both to tell a story. I agree actors (and audiences) respond very well to practical effects, and they can be nostalgic and expressive too, even during the instances where they don't look great or look old fashioned. I also think that CGI can really enhance things in a much more realistic direction when used with restraint. I suppose practical where possible, CGI where necessary is my preference. Whatever combination works in the full context of the film. Great videos by the way, I love your channel!

[@Muazen]

I despised the monsters in I am Legend almost as much as the altered ending. The design was basically a "rubber orc", and every time someone animates a rubber orc the one animation they always put in is the rubber orc opening its mouth really wide while its dumb little rubber jaw dangles below its lifeless head like a wet sock.

[@FlamestoneDragon]

everyone: listens to him, me: watches lava lamp

[@superdeluxesmell]

I like that your videos get enough views to make it likely that some decision makers in Hollywood probably see them. That’s good.

[@lunaloverich297]

You're content is really good and presented in a very professional way. That being said, your lava lamp doesn't blob around properly and it makes me want to cry

[@duhbghaill9306]

Was too distracted by the lava lamp images playing in reverse to hear what was said... :P

[@drifter402]

IT'S ALWAYS THE FUCKING TEST AUDIENCES

[@sunedssing8721]

I think animatronic monsters often movie very robotic, and it ruins the immersion. But if the CG is not done well, it can do the same. However CG has more possibilities for movement.

[@alexrennison8070]

Man. This movie wasn’t actually too bad, if they just stuck to the practical effects I believe it would hold a special place in the audience’s heart.

[@violet-kittychick]

I just watched The Thing (1982) the other night based on a boys advice and now I know there is a 2011 version I hopped onto iTunes and bought it instantly hey!! I loved the 1982 movie and the practical effects were pretty awesome even for 2019!!

[@Skycrusher]

"Ruined it with CGI" fixed it for you

[@LeifendethOfficial]

Excellent video! Like you, I didn't hate the 2011 prequel but you've opened my eyes to how much better it could have been.

[@VaderPopsVicodin10]

I really wouldn't mind seeing this re-released but with the CGI erased from the practical animatronic effects. They might even already have a completed film version in their vaults that they could easily release for those of us that prefer the weight of practical effects done by hand, over the weightless & subpar imaging completed by friggin computers.. a human touch over the cold computation of artificial processing. I'd pay to see it in a _heartbeat!_

[@GruntyGame]

Some CGI houses do great work. Industrial Light & Magic did a great job on transformers with the bots looking near photo realistic and reacting well with the live action characters. However I imagine skin and flesh is much tougher to replicate in CGI than metal.

[@Daniel-ri2dy]

Lololo no mate they looked good that was about it they didn't react well at all whenever something explodes there's waiting around before extras start to react because they're waiting for their que to react to something that isn't there it's horseshit

[@Tankerbell83]

Legend, with Tom Cruise and Tim Curry was an amazing film with practical effects. In my opinion, it's one of the greatest of it's time in the 80's. Tim Curry was Gold as the Devil.

[@llcdrdndgrbd]

Thanks for the next movie night suggestion you’re a chad

[@Dragonlochd0815]

Thank you, Sir. I need to see the practical effects version, it would be sooo much better. "The Thing" is one of my favorite horror movies, and one of the things that made it so perfect were the practical effects.

[@SebastianCoDe]

Im so sorry im late.... but this is the first video of this channel im watching... and im subscribing just for this. Keep up the good work!!

[@rineddy]

Pratical effects make scenes more gross :)

[@chonkyloreraccoon3686]

oh my scorpion king......that CG was gonna be in my mind for a while

[@chindleymuffin]

Nice reference to terrible CG. 😉😁

[@sosayweall_jpg]

i couldn't agree more with every single take here. Though.. I guess i would add that digital effects can be used along side practical in certain situations, such as Jurassic Park, for instance. Spielberg probably used way more CGI in the movie, but a lot of practical effects remained in it and the digital is also so good (for the time it was made) that it really wasn't that jarring at all, that was the perfect mix. The Thing though, doesn't really need to DO anything that unwieldy, like a giant dinosaur chasing a car. the '82 movie proved this. That's the rub, and why I agree so much with you. Great video, i know i'm late to the party but glad I found it. Cheers, m8!

[@TheAlecGillis]

kudos. this is perhaps one of the most accurate and balanced reporting on the making of the film.

[@xhag1x]

Thats a real shame i think the effects used in the 80 were wonderful and i still think they hold up to this day

[@jonbbaca5580]

I was really impressed with the CGI on the new Star Wars Rogue One. yes, even the dead characters brought back to life. The battle scenes were incredibly epic and looked so gorgeous on the big screen

[@liathurston813]

Are you having a laugh? Peter Cushing was so obviously CGI.

[@milowolfface9392]

I was under the belief, at least going by other outlets, that it was 1 specific producer who made the choice to replace everything with CG

[@dr.deadpool5959]

Practical effects is what made “Scary” movies “scary” compared to today, it makes you feel like it can actually be a real life thing which makes you shiver compared to CGI where you’re like, “oh cool”