Unbearable CGI crap
Had to skip through it. Even the thing homage was useless. No threat whatsoever.
The first movie was alright though.
[deleted]
Sorry, dad.
share
MovieChat Forums > It Chapter Two (2019) Discussion > Unbearable CGI crap
[deleted]
the thing homage is one of the worst ideas i've see EVER in a film ...
didn't work at all - the rest of the CGI was shit at best
It wasn't a "Thing" homage, it was a reference to what Stan said earlier about the shower caps and "not getting spiders in your hair", and since Pennywise became a spider...!
The Stanley Spider didn't even look ANYTHING like the one in The Thing.
And to be honest, practical effects would cost more these days anyway. Are you suggesting that practical effects should supercede CGI, even if it's far less dramatic and far more cumbersome?
Dear Foebane, I suggest a new prescription.
shareIf it wasn't a Thing homage then why did they shoot it exactly like the spider head scene in the 1982 film? When you see the legs come out of the head it was shot from the back of the head in dark just like The Thing and then Richie says "You gotta be fucking kidding me!" just like Palmer did in the 82 film lol. It was totally an homage. "The Stanley Spider didn't even look anything like the one in The Thing."...… it doesn't have to, it's a homage but it still looked very close to it. It was both a reference to what Stan said and a homage to an 80's horror film..... it's blatantly obvious. You see references to 80's horror films all throughout the film so why not a homage?
shareOK then, by those standards, it IS an homage. I get the impression that you find it offensive.
Not offensive but kinda ironic. Honestly the spider head effect worked much better in the 1982 Thing than here where they are using much more modern advanced effects and a much bigger budget..... go figure.
shareFair enough. I don't know why the director included the homage in the first place, except maybe as foreshadowing for the final encounter with Spider Pennywise? Stanley was used as the Thing spider simply because earlier, in the Losers clubhouse, he suggested shower caps to the others to prevent spiders from getting into their hair, and they accepted whilst Richie didn't.
Well the line "You gotta be fucking kidding" and just the fact it was a spider head set off my homage detector so maybe that's what the director was going for subliminally IDK..... it was very odd. I watched it just last night for the first time. I don't think the book has that scene. I knew they would do Pennywise the spider at the end because that was always in the book, the book has references from movies from the 50's and just the culture because King is from that older Boomer generation.
share"Practical effects would cost more these days"..... not really. For little effects it wouldn't, they made practical effects on low budgets all through out the 70's/80's and still did some pretty convincing work so there's no excuse to over use CGI...… not everything needs CGI these days. Hollywood has just become lazy and uncreative, making the computer do everything for them.
shareMaybe. Concerning the Stanley Spider scene, when we see him in the fridge, it is in fact the real actor in a contorted position. I should know, I've seen the behind-the-scenes photos. I also think it's the real actor in his decapitated form, in make-up, but with a CGI neck stump, before the legs come out and the movement starts.
This movie has less CGI than people think it does, except from a few obvious examples, like the Stanley Spider running around.
I liked the movie overall but it gets a little weird with the CGI at times. I didn't mind the Paul Bunyan scene, CGI was the only way you could pull that off and it doesn't look that bad. The scene where he bites that little girl's face off was cool and creepy as fuck so the CGI can really work in some instance.
shareI mean, it really speaks to how good the CGI is if people mistake the practical effects as the "bad" part of CGI.
shareYou know, i really like these horrible CGI threads. You find so many people mistake practical effects for bad CGI just because they are looking for problems. It is then you realize that CGI has became so good people think real practical effects look inferior.
share