I just finished watching the 82 version only a few minutes ago, and I really don't see how those effects are anything signficantly realer looking than modern CG. Some of them are decent, and some of them aren't. For the most part they look like what they are---makeup with particularly fake looking blood.
THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews
- Thread starter Trekker4747
- Start date
I just finished watching the 82 version only a few minutes ago, and I really don't see how those effects are anything signficantly realer looking than modern CG. Some of them are decent, and some of them aren't. For the most part they look like what they are---makeup with particularly fake looking blood.
It was okay, I hold the j carpenter version in high regard though. I had a problem with the main female lead, She looked like she was in her early 20's, and she was the supposed "expert" in her field? casting someone older would have fixed that. Didn't care for how the "Thing" just broke out of the ice. The cgi was hit or miss, but really, the less we saw of the creature, the scarier it was. half of what made the original so amazing was the very real sense of paranoia you got. while it was cool that they showed alot of attention to detail in regard to the 82 movie, (axe in the door, we get to see who it was that slit his throat, how that "split faced" thing was where it was) I noticed in the 82 version, It was clearly shown that the Norwegians blew up the ice to expose the ship. In this version the ship melts the ice trying to take off. I did like how the ending with Lars and the other guy getting into the helicopter to chase down the dog though. All in all, it could have been a better movie.