The Thing(1982) 101 Reasons why latex is better than CGI

[Hans, wihout Franz]

And this one has every single one of them. Rob Bottom did a hell of a job on this one(no academy award, dam academy). CGI makers have wet dreams about making a monster a cool looking as the shapeshifter in the Thing. Actually Bottomhad to take a vacation after making the creatures in this one after wearing himself out(he actally was suffering from exhaustion after this one but dam did the work turn out fine). I also heard that Stan Winston helped. oh yeah, the movie is also my second favorite(only Hallowee was better) by Carpenter and a good remake but is closerto a sequal than a remake. Good Score by former Argento collaborator and spagehti westerner Ennio Morricone.

[the night watchman]

I don't think latex is better than CGI. I do agree that Bottin's (and Winston's) "real world" FX on "The Thing" were much better than CGI would have been, but that's because it was the right type of FX for the job. But think about "Jurassic Park" or Relic" or "Mimic." Those movies would have absolutely not worked without the excellent CGI FX. Or take Cronenberg's movie "Naked Lunch," which would have been much improved with some CGI, while his "Fly" on the other hand, is perfect with traditional animatronics and makeup.

I think CGI and latex are both useful, when used in the appropriate ways.

[teenkiller]

Bottin did do a hell of a job on this movie and I do prefer latex over CGI. I don't think CGI really belongs in a horror movie. At least not a lot of it. Well thats all for now GOoD JOURNEY my fellow schmoes.

[Romero&Juliet]

I hate the fact that CGI is getting so popular nowadays.......Imagine if all the new horror movies that came out were fucking computer screens!
FX in The Thing are some of the best out there.

[skantchweasel]

y'know, this is a matter i hold very close to my heart.
IMHO, CGI has its place, and unfortuantely its not in live action movies. 99.9% of the time, you can quite clearly tell that an object, or creature is computer generated which ruins an effect for me. Latex effects are there, real time, being filmed and are therefore indistinguishable from their surroundings, whereas CGI effects standout and look fake. TBH i prefer CGI to stop motion (apart from the Harryhausen skeletons - which were the shit!).
Also, correct me if im wrong, but wheres the art in getting a computer to design a creature, I dont really understand the amount of work which goes into it, but i understand it to be a bit, but at the end of the day, people like the aforementioned Stan Winston, Rob Bottin, Rick Baker, Dick Smith... these people actually made the creatures we saw on the screen - you look at the werewolf transformations in AWIL & the Howling... would they do that now or would they plump for a snazzy CGI transformation? I take my hat off to the creature designers of yesteryear for the miracles they performed on screen.

I have this arguement quite regularly with a non genre film fan friend of mine and it does go on... However, my answer to any of his statements, for the record is "Go see The Thing"

The Thing is in my mind a benchmark in totally rad monsters. A total classic and firmly situated near the top of my all time list... and the FX... to quote Palmer..

"you gotta be fuckin kiddin"

well said that man.

F*ck CGI!

[Romero&Juliet]

and another thing,
I dont know about you schmoes, but something that I've always loved about a horror movie is the ocasional monster that SO terrible, that its laughable.....with CGI, That phenomenon will be over... http://www.joblo.com/ubb/frown.gif

Boycott CGI!!
save the rubber monsters!!!

[bowieee]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Romero&Juliet:
and another thing,
I dont know about you schmoes, but something that I've always loved about a horror movie is the ocasional monster that SO terrible, that its laughable.....with CGI, That phenomenon will be over... http://www.joblo.com/ubb/frown.gif

Boycott CGI!!
save the rubber monsters!!! </font>

I don't know... CgI can still be laughable look at the transformation sequence in Bad Moon. Its a good film but that scene is just plain silly.

[Jewbo]

cgi is shit. we want savini.

[skweemkween]

Can't believe I missed this topic before!


It is refreshing to see all the many supporters of latex f/x people in horror. I couldn't agree more. While CGI's goal, it seems, has always been to duplicate living objects full range of motion to pinpoint accuracy, it has failed due to it's avoidance of realism.
Have you noticed, when an animal/monster, etc. moves, it's speed seems completely fantastic! All the objects seem to move or have motion like-liquid. How realistic is this?

As long as men like Savini keep educating the masses thru his school, like Joe Blasco and others, f/x people will, hopefully, break thru to the CGI market and prove them wrong. At least, I pray so, I fear the exinction of latex like I fear sorority sisters.

[Shadow Whisper]

As much as I agree that The Thing represents the best of analog FX, but it was not flawless. The movie was a series of well excuted FX untill the scene where the thing's tentecles burst up from the floor and steel the remote for explosives. The teentecels in that scene just reaked of claymation so badly I was half expecting frosty the snow man and rudolf the red nose raindeer from those old claymation christmas specials to walk on screen. Does that mean there are not CGI effects that I hate, of course not. The anubus warriors and scorpion king from the mummy returns. The licker's transformation scene in resident evil. Alien on the ladder and the alien climbing into escape pod in alien resurection. There are times however when you can not use latex. The origanl plan to do the under water scene in alien resurection was to have actors in the aliens costumes so the scene with mimimal FX. However the aliens costume was so unweildy under water all the actors in them could do is sink to the bottom. Having massive hords of non-humanoid monsters in a scene also forces a film maker to go with CGI; example starship troopers. Another example is if you have a scene where a creature grows back a limb CGI tends to work better than analog FX; Sil in Speices growing back her thumb vs swampthing growing back his arm.

And there are times when you need to use both. Example a humanoid sized monster gets hole the size of a coffee can blasted though it so that you could see whats behind it. Also the scene requires that the monster be moving and that there be a full view of its body. My veiw of the best appraoch for the FX would be as follows. Use makeup FX for the wound as if wound were not to be see trough. Build an animitronic of the torso or upper body with the wound channel built into it. I would first film a clean pass. Then I would film the actor with the wound makup doing the movements I wanted. Then film again with the animitronic moving through the same path as the actor (or as close as possible). Then latter I would digitaly combine the the actor the animtronic and the clean pass.

The recipe for good FX has never changed time, talent, and money. Between starwars and lord of the rings movies and pearl harbor most of the best CGI artits and FX houses were probaly tied up. Thus leaving just the worse ones to do the CGI FX for past couple of years.