VFX Artists React to Bad & Great HALLOWEEN CGi
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2024
- Check out our website! ► www.corridordi...
CONSIDER SUBSCRIBING ► bit.ly/Subscrib...
Watch Season 5 From Beginning ► bit.ly/Crew_Se...
This Episode ►
Morpheus, Captain Phasmatoad, and a Playmobile Knight sit down to discuss some of the best and worst VFX in your favorite Hollywood horror films! Happy Halloween!
FOLLOW ►
Instagram: bit.ly/_Corrido...
Sub-Reddit: bit.ly/_Corrido...
SUPPORT ►
Join Our Website: bit.ly/Crew_Me...
Buy Merch: bit.ly/Corridor...
OUR GEAR & PARTNERS ►
Most Used Equipment: bit.ly/Corridor...
Perfect Camera: bhpho.to/2FJpQmR
Puget Systems Computers: bit.ly/PC_Puget...
ActionVFX - bit.ly/TheBest...
MUSIC ►
Epidemic: bit.ly/Corridor... click this link for a free month!
Check out Savants Music! ► bit.ly/Savant_M...
Thanks for watching er'body! If you want to watch this entire show from the beginning you can do that here ►
ua-cam.com/video/_4WrKeoeZhk/v-deo.html
Good night 🤣
Hey, I'm literally the person that did the VFX shot for the Indy Mogul video, I'm also the person they show pulling the rope. It was a lot of fun. You can actually see the door change to a different door when it slams, that was the one thing I couldn't quite get done in time. Pretty cool to see them praise my work on this show alongside some real top level effects.
Wait, really?
AWESOME
@@madarauchiha-lt3mz Yep, that's me. I worked on Indy Mogul for many years. That video was part of a series of interstitials we made for Epix, that were eventually put on the youtube channel.
@@nooneimportant77 that's pretty cool, did u work on any other big projects
@@madarauchiha-lt3mz I worked on almost every Indy Mogul from like 2008 to... 2013? Hard to remember exactly. I worked on lots of other videos made by Next New Networks at the same time as well. Not sure I'd call much of it "big" though haha.
*The scariest visual effects* are the ones in Cats.
100% agree
I had forgotten about its existence. Why you gotta do me like this man!
So not superman's top lip ?
Even scarier is the version where all the cats have buttholes.
That is the scariest movie of this decade
I saw the Ring in 5th grade and could barely sleep for three months. Even unplugged my TV in my room and hoped for the best.
But hey the effects were good!
I watched it at a friends house when I was 10 and had to go home at 2am. Then I couldn’t sleep in my own bed for 2 weeks. But now I don’t get scared by movies so 💁🏻♀️
It scarred me for years as a kid. If I was alone in a room with a CRT TV and it was turned off, I could scare myself to death thinking about it turning on, the image of the well, and the little girl crawling out of the screen. Day or night, didn't matter. The mere horror of the thought made me quake with fear. CRT televisions scared me to death for a long time. While it wasn't as good as the first one, the opening scene of the second Ring movie was just as terrifying.
I still can't turn the light off in my room lol and I'm 17. It was after my mum showed me the 1st and 2nd ones as a little kid.
@@wa6280 sry but ur mom is afwul
Every time I lost reception on my cable I shit a brick because of that film. Static became terrifying.
It's painful to know that all that practical footage from 2011's The Thing is locked away somewhere, probably never to see the light of day.
amalgamated has upload some of them here on UA-cam including some footage of the actual end scene with "the pilot"
Yeah poor practical effects the greedy producers hid them away from humanity.
Watch the movie Harbringer Down, the same team made the effects in that one. Not the best movie, but the practical effects are awesome.
they should recat to the flim/movie miss peregrine's home for peculiar children.
Release the practical cut!
The Thing remake mostly just breaks my heart to think about. Imagine putting SO much work into those props, only to have the studio be like "nah lets cover that up with CG"
or 5G
It would be really nice if they would actually release it with the practical effects put back in.
The thing 2011 Is not a remake it is a prequel
@@megababybackrib its almost the same as the '82 film, plot is nearly identical
@@RYNO2511 Have you watched the full film? Because the ending makes it perfectly clear that it's a prequel and it's not even supposed to be a twist.
Clint; He doesn't watch movies, but when he does he'll know everything about it
Except the 2011 the thing was not a remake, it's a prequel
@@Bluenosedwill1 to be fair. Did he say he watched it?
I'm still pissed about how they scrapped most of the practical effects in the 2011 version of the thing.
Forget the Snyder Cut, we need the Amalgamated Stitch!
Same, that movie existed because they demoed it to a test audience
Here's to hoping for a third remake with lessons learned.
@@MattJett ..that would make sense if the 2011 version was a remake, Except it was a prequel to John Carpenter's movie
cant believe they made the practical stuff for the thing remake and then decided to redo all this with CGI...such a waste of money tho
That's producers for you. They're the Karens of film.
@@halvarianknight4477 even from a corporate standpoint tho. the stuff is already done, the money is already spend. noh make it again....for the same amount.... just stipid tho xD xD
Yeah to be honest watch the film the CGI actually looks bad like really bad like take into account that they had it easy because they had reference models to go by but even then like you can tell it was done quick and fast , I felt if they would still used the shots with practical effects and just enhanced the film with some CGI it would of been amazing
That studio should have done the Practical effects release as a dvd special combo pack.
@@unherolike They still might now that people want it.
“I’m Storm-Toad.” I woulda gone with “Toadtrooper”, but that’s just me.
Yahoo D2
why does toadtrooper sound like something sexual
Do you know what happens to a Toad when it gets struck by lightning?
Captain Toad
Or....wait for it. .. LaserToad
I feel like this is the first VFX Artist react where Clint's actually seen any of the films
Clint knows a lot of Hong Kong actions films.
Lmaooo true
Lol it’s because these are actually good movies 😆
@@garretta4911 he hasn't seen Marvel movies.....
Be fair - he's usually seen *some* of the films. He just doesn't do marvel (/comics?) movies, he's allowed to like what he likes!
"I'm the Matrix"
Yea, it probably would have a man bun
And a hipster beard.
Looks Pewd to me XD
@@dlbutters7164 What makes a beard 'hipster' though? It just looks like a normal beard to me.
@@shirosenshiesq You're a hipster.
@@dlbutters7164 How do you figure that?
This has probably been mentioned in the comments already but fun fact about the Ring:
In the original Japanese movie, Ringu, the actress who played Sadako (Samara in the American remake) was a kabuki trained actress. So all her unsettling, twitchy movements were actually Kabuki techniques meant to imply "monster" or "ghost." They also filmed everything she did--crawling out of the tv, shuffling out of the well, climbing, everything--backwards to give her that creepy effect. It's cool that the American remake actually kept some of those techniques for their own scenes.
Nice.
Japan trading effects and choreography with the US.
I guess it was just cheaper. 😉
Original so good
Whoa,thanks for info!;)
Ringu Sadako scared me more than the US Version..but my husband said the US version is scarier (in terms of jumpscare..I guess I can agree) but that Sadako crawling out of the well seriously traumatized me😭😅
Niko's "Um" is the best Halloween costume of 2020
I thought he looked like Elmer Fudd from “What’s Opera Doc” (Kill the Wabbit)
He's the good knight 😂
@@STormnNormn2027 qq
They should’ve did in invisible man in 1930 the first one That one blew my mind how they made him and has a invisiblein 1930
I can relate to his costume, in fact just yesterday on my twitch RPG table halloween sort of special, I was a "generic adventurer" hahaha.
I'd pay to see: "Artists react to bad and great sound design."
I wouldn't pay, but I would like to see (hear) it.
Yoooooo
Lord of the Rings has to be in there especially the Balrog audio effect
Yooooo that would be great
i wanted to give you an upvote but it's at 420 and who am i to mess around with that
Studio: "[the practical effects] look too much like an 80's movie."
Also studio: (greenlights a soft remake of an 80's masterpiece with legendary practical effects)
Honestly, I would love to see a practical cut of the thing 2011
@@jackmazeika5594 Same here
#releasethepracticalcut
I know, it's almost like the studio heads are doing way too many drugs to make rational decisions from one day to the next.
@@eroticpanda1 i think that about so many decisions , not just cinema, also video games, tv series.. etc etc.
The dog transformation scene in The Thing literally inspired my love for body horror & VFX as a child. This movie changed my life.
Hit us up with some movie recommendations Damien. If you found The Thing as an inspiration, I'm sure I will appreciate your taste in film. Anything come out in the past ten years you thought was really good?
@@jackallenproductions As far as practical body horror goes I can't think of much in the past 10 years that hits the spot.
"Annihilation" from Alex Garland has some great body horror moments and a lot of interesting themes. "Life" is a solid Alien/The Thing love letter but doesn't break much new ground.
Other movies like "RAW" and "Possessor" are great but a bit too experimental for some.
There's also an upcoming sci-fi horror from Neill Blomkamp ,"Demonic", that looks promising.
Unfortunately the days of practical effects-heavy movies are mostly gone. Sure recent movies like "The Void" and "Harbringer Down" exist but I didn't think they were particularly good outside the creature effects.
The 82 Thing is a million times better on every level. It was disappointing to know that they replaced all the practical effects with CGI but there were more issues to it than that. My main issue with the 2011 Thing is that it felt like the aliens weren't even trying to blend in with the group. They would always expose themselves so the 2011 lost the "suspense" that the original had. 82 Thing you're always wondering who could be "the thing" where as the 2011 version always gave that away, it just never had any tension.
Exactly. Well said.
The fans have had theories about that. One is that The Thing exposes itself in some spots to create chaos and force them to split up. Usually, when it exposed itself, there were too many people huddled together, making it impossible to perform the imitation process.
Another one is that people theorize that The Thing wasn't use to humans yet. It was learning their patterns. It was trying to figure out what is the best way of going about assimilating this race. So when it finally came to the camp in the '82 movie, it was a bit more experienced.
That does make a little sense though, it as it feeds back into the 1982 version that the thing has realised it's got to be more cautious this time round.
Not defending the 2011 version as the 1982 version is clearly superior. I remember watching it about 12/13 years old I think when it came ITV one night as a premiere (anyone remember Late Night Late?) recording it on VHS ,actually being afraid of something on the telly for the first time ever and then watching it all day on VHS the next day freeze framing where certain shots were just to appreciate how damn awesome it was.
Perhaps the Thing learned from it's mistakes, so by the time ol' Kurt Russell and friends unleashed it again, it was more sneaky.
@@LLEntertainmentChannel Was just rewatching clips from the 2011 version and my god the people are really stupid too.
You guys should really take a look at the Netflix show "Love, Death, Robots." It has some crazy visuals and storytelling
They definitely should do that
yessss
YES
yeah they should
Agree ^^
You guys should do a CGI robots episode, or at least take a look at "RealSteel" the Zoo fight, and the final fight
Oooh a robot episode would be cool! They need to do the 2018 lost in space robot too
RealSteel is an awesome movie
They've already done pacific rim
Have they reacted to I am Mother?, if not that could go into the robot vfx/practical as well
I would cry
The Thing (Carpenter) version has incredible usage of paranoia and tension. The gradual sowing of distrust of literally ANYONE around you; that’s arguably the film’s greatest ‘effect’.
I remember watching the interview on the special effects artists after they watched the 2011 Thing. There were some serious hurt feelings there. These guys were pissed because of it. They even went into it not knowing they slapped there CGI crap all over there work. I feel really bad for them. They did all this work for nothing.
to much of an 80's movie therefore their work was rendered inferior...
sad day for them...
its a literally spit on Johns carpenters version considering it has hit the legendary standard of practical effects.
would only imagine how the movie would've looked without so much CGI.
And I have to disagree with corridor on this that the CGI looked good lol
i literally yelled "WHAT?!" when i found out/saw the video that practical effects were initially intended for the prequel, especially after seeing how insanely good they were. finding out why the studio went with the CG direction broke my heart. i can only imagine how the practical effects artists felt when they found out.
"The studio and the producers said it looks too much like an 80's movie."
Ah yes, this sequel to a movie beloved for its 80's effects looks like it has 80's effects, I can see why they're concerned nobody will like it. How out of touch can you be ...
Never underestimate the ability of Hollywood execs to be totally out of touch
whats sad is how good the practical effects looked....damn man
The remake of the 80's movie that was a remake of a 50's movie. This was the law of diminishing returns in full force.
Please god tell me there’s a practical release
@Blue Fox under socialism, if the film industry even existed, it would be controlled by the government. Does that sound like a better option to you?
And those indie studios you say show the flaws of capitalism? Under socialism they would be illegal.
"It looks like an 80's movie"
You mean like the prequel to said 80's movie? They should have kept the practical stuff.
JC's Thing is hands-down my favorite horror movie of all time with CITW 2nd. That the 2011 remake actually had practicals only to be replaced with CG because the studio thought it looked too much like one of the most revered scary movies ever only serves to illustrate that the studios have no idea what they're doing. Three words: Disney Live-Action Remakes. (Maybe that's four words...)
Indie is where it's at.
@@pdahandyman well I think you might have the best director in the world, do practical effects, but if it is expected to be a blockbuster, you always are going to have tons of suits and investors and shareholders pushing their dumb agenda and force a director to replace practical effects "because it look cooler yo". To clarify your statement, It s not blockbuster directors that suck, or indie directors that are better, it s the blockbuster industry that is rotten and indie industry that is sane. Look at all them shitty "girls only remakes". Another shareholder idea of a good movie. No sane director with talent would want to direct that. Two words. Cash grabs
It's another great example of how Hollywood producers aren't artists, they're businessmen.
The difference in the “Thing” movies is that the 82 version holds up today, almost 30 years later, the prequel although pretty good, sadly already looks dated and will not stand the test of time. They should do a re-release with the practical effects version, i bet it would be 10x better!
they should recat to the flim/movie miss peregrine's home for peculiar children.
The ring coming in and out of tv’s kinda scared tf outta me when I was younger.
I had nightmares for weeks when I first saw that as a kid
I still don't like it cause I hate horror shit
Idk why I'm watching this video
@@nighpaw4651 FACT
You aren’t the only one.
it's a remake of the original Japanese film.
"It looks too much like an 80s movie" Do you know how INFURIATING that is‽
@Baxi Tabaxi Yeah, because I totally said "Modern thing bad". Read my comment again and revise your claims. "It looks too much like an 80s movie" is an attack on other methods of filmmaking. What I said about that attack has nothing to do with modern methods. If you want to make the argument that I criticized computer generated imagery, then you're the one who's wrong.
I was only saying that it is disrespectful and unfair to put aside the craftsmanship that went into making the practical effects just because it resembles the source material too much.
By immediately interpreting my words as "Blah blah blah", you're deluding yourself into the impression that I disapprove of CGI, which I don't. You just can't seem to actually listen to those with reason.
@@user-lynKx i felt that the producers wanted to catch that "WOW" factor the 82 The Thing caught with their practical effect but it's CG like, "yeah you like that? guess what its CGI!! No practical" and i guess it didnt work out
@Baxi Tabaxi The VFX artists on this channel said in this very video that the practical effects of the '82 Thing were better than the CGI in the 2011 remake and even talked about how good the discarded practical effects of the 2011 film were. They went on to say that CGI at the end of the day is a high quality "cartoon"
The best thing would be a balance between practical and digital based on what the two methods are best at, cost effectiveness and what produces the most realistic result. Like real world fire wind, explosions, miniatures, rear projection, stunt work and squibs for blood spurts...models and prosthetics for things that are supposed to be alive and gore etc. The Transformers movies are really good at balancing practical and digital.
Here's a good article that says that the battle between practical and digital isn't even a real thing anyway....lwlies.com/articles/cgi-practical-effects-hollywood-filmmaking-techniques/
@Baxi Tabaxi Get over your insecurities.
@Baxi Tabaxi Projecting, making assumptions and making a fool out of yourself.
Learn reading comprehension next time. You made a lot of assumptions there, and looked like an ass I'm the process
I remember talking to a guy that was a practical effects artist on the remake and he told me about dealing with the producers. Everything was designed so that from the angle they were to be shot at they were invisible before they revealed to be a creature.
But the producers kept saying "what if we want to shoot from this other angle?" and decided that was a necessity rather than just planning out shots perfectly. I think we know how well that worked out.
The remake of which movie though?
Er, sorry - prequel-remake from 2011. Sorry.
@@andrebrynkus2055 what movie though -_-
@@SahilP2648 Argh, I failed again. The Thing. I guess I didn't think about it with the context.
I always love seeing the ''prison'' scene in Cabin in the Woods, the fact that the people behind that movie put SCP 173 in it just shows the respect they have for horror that they'd feel a semi-unknown monster would fit well in their scene.
Wait where was 173 in the shot I need to see this
is it confirmed? looks too vague for me
I love the fact that one of the insect aliens from starship troopers is in it
17:18 I'm already so excited but absolutely horrified. I assume this was Peter. Again.
Oh yea it smells like him
hahaha, yep, feels like his style.
As good as they all are doing stuff, they're as good picking nice and talented people, and with Peter they hit the spot.
That's literally the first thing that came to my mind. Has to be him.
Oh hi Ciarán
Peter's not a bird, silly.
"It LOoks too Much like an 80s Movie!"
You are making A Sequel, TO AN 80S MOVIE.
Prequel actually so ya know... even more reason to be 80s
I'd fcking pay to watch a finished practical version of that movie.
💯💯💯
@@cessare2467 FUCKIN, SAME
I seriously don't get why there seems to be so many producers and studio higher ups that seemingly don't get movies or give a crap about them. Want people to go and watch you movie? Make it stand out! Hollywood has made this mistake so many times in the past and they never, ever learn. It's just so frustrating....
"If you havent watched the thing, PLEASE go watch it"
Me who was shivering while watching this vid: "no"
It's a classic
Ah yes the classic "OH I LOVE HORROR MOVIES BUT I DONT WANNA BE SCARED BY THEM"
@@somethingwithultra7231 Some of us prefer to rationalize this phenomena as "I appreciate horror's artistry and ability to evoke strong emotions, but I value being able to fall asleep more"
I’m watching it tonight
@@somethingwithultra7231 Also, this commenter didn't indicate they like horror movies to begin with. I don't like horror movies, but I watched the video because I like their breakdowns.
Oh man, I remember watching the ring for the first time. No joke my phone rang right as the film ended and I literally pissed myself.
Wren sounds misleading, saying it as if the first "Paranormal Activity" alone grossed $890 million, but no, that's the box office figure for the whole franchise of 6 movies.
The first one earned $194 million in theatres, which is still very impressive, but I'd like to keep the facts straight.
Just want to emphasize this comment. The ENTIRE franchise grossed $890M.
"Ackchewally....."
@@aidanbrown7795 Are you mocking me for pointing out a mistake and trying to fix it?
@@NicKeLas Yes, yes he is. Welcome to the internet.
@Daniel Hall I am one of them and I kind of do. So yeah.
"Looks too much like an 80's movie"
THAT'S THE POINT! Cripes, studio execs are dumb.
They screwed themselves by making it CGI. It didn't even make back it's own budget.
They advertised it everywhere as an authentic 80s style practical effects movie, wimped out last minute and replaced it all with CGI, people went to see it expecting one thing found another, told everyone it was crap, and word of mouth stopped others coming.
Deserved really.
Yep, really dumb decision. And it´s a pity, the movie is pretty enjoyable. The practical effects would tie to the original way better plus help the public get immersed in the movie.
Seriously, they literally saw the single greatest selling point of the film as a weakness. Absolute stupidity. Those physical props and puppets looked incredible.
@@The_Curious_Cat I actually thought the script was good, really respectful to the original and very cleverly thought out, if you can get past the worst really obviously fake effects (and at times not brilliant acting), the story is great.
WHYYYY THEY COVERED UP THE THING EFFECTS??, God it looked so damn extreme
@Little White Rabbit true, but as a prequel I think it perfectly connected to 2 films
@@macscars115 It did well at showing how and where things happened like how the axe was in the wall. Other than that it's a pretty meh movie especially compared to the first. They were making a sequel to one of the best movies for practical effects and completely didn't understand the audience. Also the story is trash. People still analyse the first movie trying to figure out when and what order people were assimilated and whether Childs and Macready were assimilated. They had none of that in the sequel. There was no tension or misdirection.
@Смерть ОМОНа в Беларуси Stfu
@@MrDayday112 you don't just got a point, you got THE point, Carpenter's The Thing had tension. The prequel was meh, with meh writing, meh FXs and meh acting. But to be fair, the steaks were too high, they could not deliver the quality expected and here we are. Pretty much what happens to a lot of sequels/prequels for a classic movie.
So “the cabin in the woods” is essentially an SCP movie
No, its a meta breakdown of horror as of all. It depicts a company making different horror scenerios involving sterotypical horror characters (like a stoner and final girl) with a stereotypical monster in order to please the gods. In the scenario the movie follows two people manage to get to the company. Its basically a breakdown of what audience demands from a horror movie.
Cool
@@kjone5086 yes yes everyone knows that.
we also know is that its the closest thing to an SCP movie. So yes, its basically an SCP movie regardless of intention.
@@ihaveaplan.ijustneedmoney.9777 Nah, the closest thing to an scp movie is literally any SCP fan film.
@KJONE r/wooosh
In memory of Sir Sean Connery, please do an Office Connery. Competitions can involve Bond, Highlander fights, etc.
Wait he's dead???
@@austinlove8821 Died just today. Peacefully, in his sleep. Very, very sad day.
Needs more upvotes!
What they did with The Thing prequel was criminal.
Yeah those fucking producers smh
criminal was not using the real props because they looked reaal nasty, i dont think thats a terrible movie, its just not good as the old one
They didn’t mention that the amputee in the Thing is wearing a mask of the actor’s face. Amazing stuff.
"They had to make these special ropes" aka someone on the production team was SUPER into bondage.
Exactly my thought when seeing it.
If they were into bondage at all they'd know how to tie a knot that didn't collapse down on the limb when pulled on. You don't need special ropes for that.
Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance. Masterclass combination of practical/CGI
Seconded. That show was insanely well put together. They clearly put a significant amount of thought into what they could do for real and what would be better served by CG.
Yes, absolutely loved that show.
Desperately hoping the series gets picked up by another studio, the effects were literal art.
Absolutely!!!! Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance is the perfect example of blending practical and CGI. Finding the right balance between the two is difficult, but worth it!
and yet Netflix cancelled it and keeps Cuties on air.
The actress who played Samara in the Ring, grew up in my home town. We used to watch her sing karaoke all the time before she started acting. She also did some voice work for Lilo and Stitch
I love John Carpenter's The Thing. Such a great movie and the effects still hold up pretty well. I also enjoyed the 2011 prequel, but the biggest detractor, in the 2011 movie, was the rushed VFX. If they would have used the practical/CG blend it would have been right up there with Carpenter's film. The film makers watched Carpenter's again and again to match all the details so the movies line perfectly.
whats sad is that the people who worked on the film actually wanted to use practical effects, but the studio pushed them into using cgi
Fun fact about Blair witch: There’s a scene when they’re running away and she screams “What is that?!”, the camera man forgot to pan to the actor chasing them to their left and they just never redid it.
Weren’t there no camera men tho. I read that she reacted to a dude in the distance wearing longjohns.
That's a myth. The actual way they made the film was having the actors use the actors. Originally they would've cut to a shot made of CGI where they show the Blair witch in post production, however they decided it would be a stupid idea because it would kill the ambiguity of the fil.
"It looks too much like an 80s movie"
It looks too good. No one will believe this is new. Make it look like crap
I've always wondered how much that added to the budget. It couldn't have been cheap to replace all of those effects, especially in 2011.
@@Celticelery It's got to suck to put in all the time, effort, planning, and heart into a project just to have your work covered up because 'we're going to have to use CGI anyways to blend it in, so lets just use all CGI'. I felt so bad for those guys. They did a whole video about how they got screwed. The film had so much potential.
Even in this video, the short clips of the actual practical effects of the new The Thing are incredibly unsettling; then seeing the actual movie with CGI crap all over, gets no reaction out of me. It's so upsetting, that they did this to the movie.
John Carpenters “The Thing” is definitely better. Can y’all do a “Stranger Things” episode?
Though the 2011 movie was a prequel.
Troin it is
@@adamdasilva5061 Good thing you know (no pun intended).
The remake wasn't that good
They ruined the 2011 prequel when they took all the great practical effects out, just my opinion
After the effects of the thing from 2011 were replaced with CGI, ADI decided to make their own fully practical low budget monster movie called Harbinger Down. You guys should check that out.
That low budget really shows though.
@@GeminiWoods I don't think they even had $250k for the hole thing, so I'm honestly amazed at what they did. But I guess it does make a point that ONLY practical effects might not be the answer either.
“What are you Niko?”
“Um.............”
A knight of very few words
yes
Ned Kelly
The best thing about Birdemic is the trailer: "Meet Natalie, a beautiful young fashion model driven by P A S S I O N"
Hol up
There was no greater insult to the legacy of The Thing than when those cowardly hack producers did to the prequel. They didn't even have the decency to tell the practical effects team what they'd done until the premiere of the movie. Imagine being the practical effects team going in to see your work on screen, and instead seeing just the shonkiest CGI awkardly shopped in where it used to be. I gotta disagree, it doesn't look good, it looked fake and dated, whereas if they'd kept the excellent practical work and just enhanced it with CGI then it would have looked good and there would at least have been one redeeming quality of that movie.
WORD !
That helicopter scene with the cgi face has to be the most garbage thing I’ve ever seen in a movie
I felt like that either the helicopter face split our the double-person amalgamation would've easily matched the belly-cavity scene from the original, had they kept with the practical and minorly enhanced with VFX
Yeah if I were the practical effects team I'd have been pissed. All that work for nothing.
Yeah that was an unnecessary fail. It wasn't even a bad film generally.
The problem with defending The Thing 2011 **at all** is that quote: "It looks too much like an '80s movie."
The Thing 2011 was a literal prequel to The Thing 1982. The end of 2011 is literally the beginning of 1982. So it was SUPPOSED to look like a fucking '80s movie!!! Not going all-in on that premise was a total mistake and I think people would have liked it more if they had kept the practical effects for that reason alone.
Great point. The film makers really did miss a trick by replacing the practical effects.
@@TruueMetal Not the filmmakers, the studio (as usual). The filmmakers went into a great lengths to recreate the abandoned research site that we get to visit in the original movie and put a lot of effort into the practical effects too. Then the studio came, plastered CGI over everything and changed the ending too at last the second (hence why it's CGI is pretty bad if you've seen it). It still pisses me off because as, clearly not a fan of remakes and sequels 30 something years later, this one was actually pretty solid.
@@nicemimomisu Completely agree with what has been said in this thread. Also, the special effects studio made a movie where they reused the props from the thing and improved on some of the ideas, but it's a b-series movie with good practical effects. Hope someday they release the "practical effects cut version" and I'll gladly rewatch it.
It's one of the few modern continuations of old IP's that I like.
@@painfield what movie did they make with the props? I'd love to watch
@@tomt7986 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbinger_Down#Background
Not a great movie but good enough, even if just for the theme, effects, and as a plus Lance Henriksen's in it
11:03 I've watched this movie many times, but this is the first time that I ever noticed that the paddles actually generated a spark!
I literally imagined Wren in afro haircut, because of that hat
You should have seen his quarantine hair. It looked like a freaking weeping willow.
Tom Holland but a VFX artist and Wren.
15:37 looked so real. They should release a separate version of the film with practical effects!
Go watch Harbinger Down, it's not The Thing but it was the prosthetics from the 2011 movie remade into another one by the effects guys.
everyone: oh so youre like Neo from the Matrix?
Clint: No
Everyone: oh so like uhh Morpheus?
Clint: No *I A M T H E M A T R I X*
To the person that's reading this:you're very intelligent and adorable human! Stay healthy during quarantine 🌈☁️My dream is 1k. I been struggling to get there any help is appreciated❤️❤️
@@Shadays_hair_nails_care the bots are getting crazy
@@Shadays_hair_nails_care lol nice copy paste on multiple comments #ibegforsubs
@@Shadays_hair_nails_care *BEGONE*
Matrix Man
I feel like when a monster is prosthetic you know it’s real, and even though you know it can’t hurt you, the fact that’s it’s real gives you that fear
Right? Like being on set of the thing 1982 would be fucking horrifying or being on set of aliens, you come back from a coffee break and a literal giant alien is there, sure it’s fake but it’s real and it looks horrifying
That movie still haunts my nightmares
Math algoritms for CG simulations, although improving year by year, are still far from perfectly replicate how things behave in reality.
Things like real ambience illumination, subtle minuscule skin and muscle movements, liquids, smoke, hair flow, cloth creases and deformations, etc. Etc.
Meanwhile the human eyes and brain are perfectly tuned to pick apart all these little details and immediately tell unconsciously when something is off.
Cabin in the wood is in my opinion how SCP foundation would look like, the horror characters are just anomalous individuals contained by SCP foundation and if u follow the scp universe, you know its full of horror, idk seeing all those horror characters trapped and monitored reminded me of SCP universe but i guess that's just my take on it
What's SCP?
@@liquidsnake321 google 'scp wiki'. It's a community driven repository of many made-up creatures
@@ella4406 made up?
@@megaflyization they're not real
@@ella4406 That's what they tell the public…
"They had to make special ropes"
Someone working on it knew their bondage
ok guys, theres 200 bucks missing from the budget and i see an asian dominatrix asleep on the couch. Anyone willing to explain this?
Uhmmmmm, it's.... foooooorrrr..... this scene i just came up with. Yes, that's it.
Wren: so who are you Niko??
Niko in the deepest voice posible:... I am the *KNIGHT*
He looks like he's from Monty Python and the Holy Grail
.
Sam: And I am the day!
He is obviously Pippin
Crazy fact: Rob Bottin was 22 when he did the thing special effects
I was literally about to comment “You should react to the thing” before I saw the vid! 😅
Rob Bottin is a god damned genius.
React to it again!!!
Yea same
Spooky!
I like both “The Thing”s, the 2011 films adds to the universe and story. That being said, John Carpenter’s The Thing is my favourite horror movie. It is just fantastic. It is so visceral and intense. Like Alien, it is a good movie before it is a horror movie. Plus it has Kurt Russell in.
Well said good sir. The 2011 thing added some great context being a prequel but the CGI really took me out of it where the OG thing was far more intense.
now just imagine if they used the awesome practical effects they already had ... somewhere in some damn vault there is nearly finished version of this film with MUCH better effects that would just need a little CG touch up to re-release ... and they wont do it simply because it would show jsut how MORONIC the decision to use rushed bad looking CGI to cover those awesome practical effects over ...
@@Asghaad yep, and from what I read, the special effect people found out about the change when they saw it in the movie opening. The SE studio made a movie where they reused the props from the thing but it's a b-series movie with good practical effects. The substitution of the practical effects with CGI was a great fuckup, as a fan of the Carpenter's The Thing hearing that the change was due to looking too 80's it's painful as I like the new version and the first thing that comes to mind to improve it is to get rid of most of the CGI and keep it more 80's effects. Funny thing is as a kid I was a big fan of what CG could bring, specially when the first Jurassic Park came out, and not so fond of certain practical effects, but with the overuse of CG nowadays they make me appreciate more the practical effects I dismissed back then.
The remake get too much hate. It was good.
"We're gonna make BIRDEMIC...kinda good"
Damn, I cannot WAIT.
By the way, Carpenter's THING remains the KING of practical effects flicks...
PERIOD.
Fun facts about The Thing:
1. All the “gel layer” is KY Jelly. They had buckets and buckets and buckets of KY on hand at all times.
2. The chemicals used in the neck to make it as stretchy were HIGHLY flammable, and the flames in the frame were an actual flame lit in front of the camera (think of a large flat lighter attached to the camera). They were sincerely concerned that they’d blow up all the whole set and still did that shot.
The Thing’s BTS and commentary are worth it
U did both "The Thing" movies, but you didn't do Harbinger Down. Should really check that one out
No joke should check it out^^
I came here to write this myself.
fancy seeing you here c:
Well Well Well. The monto man himself. It’s an honor sir.
Yes, definitely. Done by the same folks that did the practical effects (that got thrown away) in the Thing remake.
"I used to celebrate Halloween like you... then I took an arrow in the knee."
I watched so many UA-camrs react to The Thing, ALL of them said the same thing when they saw the dog at the beginning, "I hope nothing happens to that cute puppy!"
Well, and nothing did. It's _the puppy_ that happened to everybody else.
@@DarthBiomech this is so true.
Technically we never see anything happen to the puppy, because it happened before the beginning of the movie.
Nothing beats John Carpenter’s “The Thing”. I saw the prequel thinking “Cool, we get to see how the Norwegians got infected “ but I couldn’t get into the movie because the CGI was so off beat from the original practical effects that it completely destroyed the continuity of the films. The only redeemable aspect of the prequel was the end when the chopper is chasing the dog. That is really the only part that ties the two movies together and establishes any continuity. Rob Bottin is a freaking stud when it comes to special effects. He should have a case full of Oscars for his talent and craft.
I know it's 10 months later but I just realized that it's the wet goo that really makes the difference for me. It's reflective of the surroundings but in a sticky textured way that must be a pain even for cg. But that's what draws me into the practical effects in these two movies comparison.
Y’all could spend a whole episode on Starship troopers. That movie still looks amazing today.
It pissed all over the book (on purpose), but I have to agree. Starship Troopers holds up.
@@613harbinger316 9
Wren putting his finger in Clint’s fist made me laugh out loud for some reason. Such a Wren thing to do
Hahaha no joke me too. I totally forgot I had done that until I saw it in the edit and I burst out laughing. Such a funny visual
Yo our man’s here
Video idea: corridor is making a video and one of the CG characters becomes self aware. He begins to fight back by exploiting CG "mistakes" to move around and fight. Video ends with him sitting at one of the computers after killing the entire office. And then he begins to create CG versions of the crew. And the cycle starts over. Kind of like an IRL version of animation vs. Animator.
To state the obvious, The Thing had not only amazing VFX, but great, believable characters who played off each other well. The blood test sequence is pure gold.
John Carpenter's "The Thing" is TONS better than the prequel that came out in 2011. In my opinion, they ruined that movie with all the cg.
The 2018 "The Thing" game (Among Us) is more fun though.
Supposedly they had the practical effects there, but some higher ups said the movie looked too old so they were forced to add cgi on top of it
Edit: Oh they talk about it towards the end lol
Authenticity goes a long way. Those practical effects they were implementing for the prequel looked miles better then that horrid cgi. Guess the studio wasn’t as passionate as the makers of the film and opted out for a cheap cgi fix, such a waste of resources.
Hi guys! This year (2020) is the centenary of film effects legend Ray Harryhausen. I’d love to see your take on his old school animation and Dynamation techniques. There are lots of applicable elements such as performance choreography, matching lighting, and little touches like handing over props between live action and animated characters to sell the reality. The clips I’d suggest are: the Skeleton fight from 7th Voyage of Sinbad, the Skeleton fight from Jason and the Argonauts, and the Medusa sequence from Clash of the Titans.
Seconded, those skeleton fights were amazing
Totally! These VFX scenes in the Greek mythology universe and also around the Arabian folk tales are the ones which introduced myself into the first taste of the artificial illusions.
Everybody gangsta until the ghosts start dancing in a Bollywood horror flick
IT LOOKED TOO MUCH LIKE AN 80s FILM. THAT WAS THEIR REASONING. Someone deserves to be fired.
Yeah exactly. It looks to much like a greatest horror movie decade film....idiots
The funny thing about FEAR is that the horror is like a well crafted side dish. It doesnt have anything to do with the gameplay but man they delivered it well.
FEAR legit scared the shit out of me, still does.
FEAR or Amnesia: Dark Descent? Which is scarier?
@John Russell FEAR no doubt. I think what FEAR did better than Amnesia, was it never took away your power. You could be powerful and badass with guns, doing gun fu slow mo antics and all of that was robbed away by something far more powerful than you that teared at your mind. The problem with Amnesia is it bred a genre of horror that will not die, that's not scary to me, to take away and limit my options in the genre and hide in a closet or hide away is boring. There is something gripping about FEAR that leaves a lasting impression in your mind. FEAR to me still terrifies me to this day and there are certain scenes buried in my head that are absolutely terrifying. I barely remember anything about Amnesia.
@@WulfLovelace I agree, when you give the player the ability to fight back the horror in some horror game, it improves a lot in the gameplay because it makes me angry that my only options are to run and hide like in outlast even tho most of the enemies are common people like me.
In FEAR you get that option, but sometimes ALMA is not attacking you physically, she's torturing your mind.
A good example is Dead Space, your enemies are the horror in the game, but if you wish to proceed you have to fight it.
“I don’t know what the hell’s in there, but it’s weird and looks like an 80’s movie, whatever it is.”
A nitpick i always had about the chest opening scene in "the thing" is that when the teeth clamp on his arms, the point where the skin and meat starts being torn apart is well above where the teeth are actually making contact.
Still a masterpiece, but to me that specific moment always looked like he got his arms stuck in there and then just ripped them away himself
Yes, the scene feels very grotesque and unsettling, but once you watch it a couple of times you realise that it doesnt make much sence.
Generally there are plrenty monster scenes that do not feel that much consistant or cohesive, but you still appreciate the movie for all the practical effects and for it's age...
Yeah, same, that would imply that the guy ripped his own arms with his own strength which I believe is impossible to do even if you're clamped.
But it's very convincing visually nonetheless and that's what art is all about.
Hey guys, please react to Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's end. Beckett death scene vfx shot.
That shot is awesome
Yes
You could also react to davy jones
It is like inception. But I do recognise that in at world's end non of the shipwreck interact with Beckett and that is kind of wierd.
That’s what I said, thanks for getting it noticed
It didn't feel like holloween till just NOW, thanks CC
"They had to use special rope tying techniques to not cut off her circulation"
(entire rope bunny community) "Well obviously"
Idk what that is
I am so glad you mentioned the hard work done for the practical effects for The Thing (2011) as I think too many people who saw that movie at the time and since it came out laid into it for the CGI work and compared it to the benchmark 1982 versions practical effects. It's a great travesty that all the hard practical work done for the 2011 version (which you showed) was effectively lost. I think the filmmakers on the 2011 version did everything right - they just got screwed over by the studio and now we'll likely never get to see the version of the movie that the director intended.
yooo the behind the scenes clip from the new the thing though O-O THAT looked incredible, i really wish they kept the practical effects already there and just added cg elements to it rather than redoing the whole thing, because the practical model looked SO GOOD
I got to see The Ring in theaters, and shortly after I left the theater with my friend, I reminded him that he had numerous unlabeled tapes at his house that we could totally browse for content. Surprisingly, he told me to go copulate with myself vigorously and proceeded to removed all mystery VHS tapes from his home.
"he told me to go copulate with myself" LMFAO
In all honesty, Carpenter’s The Thing is just completely solid in that it shows you reality. Real blood, real pus, real green bubbles popping out of the neck, real skin ripping (well fake but still it was a real prop being ripped), real slime on the monsters, and it makes everything look real! That was what absolutely terrified me when I was younger. The Thing was my first real horror movie experience and I had nightmares for years about it!!! As I got older, I fell in LOVE with horror movies to experience the raw fear that comes with seeing people mutilated by the unknown and the beautiful little tidbits they would add to the movie that you would sometimes notice and wonder if other people saw what you saw (I.e, when Carpenter would put lights in the eyes of the people who weren’t “infected”). Also, I can’t remember which video it was, but there was a video on UA-cam that reviewed 2011’s The Thing and they made a very good point that I’ll never forget. Lighting was what truly killed the 2011 movie (not just the unrealistic CGI). The video showed that by simply staying with Carpenter’s DARKNESS of his movie, where you couldn’t see every little detail, it allowed for them to make the monsters look a lot more realistic because you couldn’t see any of the imperfections in the work. The video showed a few scenes in the 2011 movie, darkened down to where the CGI was not so “pronounced” and it looked IONS better. It helped to create a “realness factor”, that made the monsters look like they could actually be alive in our world and kill us. Which is what truly scares people. The idea that... could this be real? Could this really happen? That creates my fear. Anyway, I’m not some big reviewer, but that’s why I always enjoyed Carpenter’s version better, even if it was in the 80’s and how they could have made the 2011 version so much better by darkening their CGI so we couldn’t see all of the fakeness. Thank you for haunting my dreams for years The Thing!
That's exactly what I was thinking when watching this. If you pay attention to the lighting of the 80s movie it's almost always edge lit with a lot in the shadows. Then you see the 2011 version with every CG monsters perfectly evenly lit and it just looks bad and not horrific at all. To me the director and cinematographer are at fault too. Maybe producers don't like when their million dollars CGIs are hidden in the dark...lol
@@Blackd0nuts that totally makes sense, when they’re like, hey look at this amazing CGI we did!! Lol.
"I'm telling you, Niko, when you're ready, you won't have to render anything."
in regards to "The Thing", I did the same thing, watched 80's then 2000's. We laughed through the newest one and still had nightmares about the 80's one.
I remember watching The Thing when I was 15 on a sleep over in my friends house.... The power went out half way through the movie at 2 in the morning. He lives in a cottage in the Irish countryside about a mile from the nearest house. Most terrifying night of my life... What a great movie👌
Haha, Id like to know more about this story
Can imagine two 15 year olds cracking open a can of Monster and one of you saying. "Why don't we wait here a little while, see what happens'
Me: I don't believe in Superstitions
*Telephone immediately rings after watching The Ring*
Me: Yeah, am not answering that....
I always wondered if voicemail would counter it.
but it's your mom calling asking if you took out the chicken from the freezer 4 hours ago.
I really wish you guys were able to react to music videos. The Chemical Brothers' catalog of music videos are chock full of crazy shots. More specifically "Got to Keep On" and "Wide Open ft. Beck". I was very impressed with these videos. Especially "Wide Open". The whole thing seems so difficult to do, but then there was a scene with a mirror that kinda blew my mind. I highly recommend anyone to watch them and explore their other videos. They're all so different from each other. Every one of them is wild in one way or another.
Thanks for the recommendations internet stranger. Love the Chemical Brothers and those videos are fantastic. Wide Open is just a beautiful piece of art.
Don't forget how the music in John Carpenter's The Thing added such a dark foreboding feel to the movie. I still get chills just hearing it.
At least for Horror movies, Practical Effects is 100% better than CGI Horror movies.
I'd love to see a cut of the 2011 Thing with the practical effects restored - the team that did the effects tried super hard to match everything that Macready and the team from the 1981 Thing find when they arrive at the Norwegian base - the merged face corpse, the slit throat frozen blood guy in the chair, etc. It was intended to be a true prequel to the 1981 movie. But the CGI made people believe it was supposed to be a remake.
The O.G thing is my absolute favorite horror movie and my third favorite in general.
The 2011 remake was cool, but i personally felt cheated. When i found out what the studio did to the fx artists amd their hard work, i realized i wasn't alone.
2011 was still a great flick and the attention to detail, bridging the gaps from preq to seq, was masterfully done.
Im so happy that Clint is wearing his Adam Jensen costume.
"Looks too much like an 80s movie." THAT'S A GOOD THING, JFC.
The producers looked at the dummies made for the new Thing remake, and said "but it doesn't look convincing from this angle. It looks all fake", or words to that effect. Missing the point entirely that the director chooses which angles to show the dummies from.
They also said it looked "too much like something from the 80's" I'm convinced they wanted it to fail at that point.
Again, the 2011 movie was a prequel. The ending even makes it perfectly clear!
@@troin3925 Waiter... There's a tangential point in my soup...
@@smaakjeks I think troin is referring to how OP and corridor call it a remake when it is a prequel. It's like calling the star wars prequels remakes.
@@gingernytemare I am the OP. And, it had nothing to do with my point. It's the epitome of a "well actually" post.
Glad to see you love John Carpenter's 'The Thing' as much as we do! It's a practical effects masterpiece! So much so that we're going through and recreating effects from it in our Practical FX tutorial videos!