Let me start by saying this is one of the most fantastic movies ever made:
And here is its prequel, which was okay:
When people (such as myself) were eagerly awaiting the prequel, there was a lot of concern because the 1982 movie is such a classic, and its grotesque, practical rubber and animatronic effects are so iconic and memorable. People wanted to know that the prequel would be made with the same amount of love and that the filmmakers would treat the IP with the respect it deserves.
I was particularly interested by the over the top assurance from people involved that CGI would only be used to enhance and augment lots of practical effects. They bent over backwards to assure people that practical effects would play a large part in the new film. When the film was released, as expected, CGI effects totally dominated. Of course people complained. The vehemence displayed in the criticism was astounding.
Here is my take on it:
I had quite low expectations of the prequel, mainly as a defense mechanism because the modern film industry eviscerated most of my beloved franchises in the last decade or so. I thought it was pretty meh, not bad, not good.
The main problem I have with it was not the graphics or the monster, it was that they didn't seem to understand what made original film so scary. For example, in Carpenter's film, the monster only reveals itself when it is attacked or has no choice. In the prequel, it voluntarily reveals itself all the time for the sake of a good computer graphics opportunity. Also, its plot was way too similar to the original, with ostensible changes to memorable scenes and blatant nods to fanboys for continuity with the original. Some problems I can forgive, others I cannot. Basically, it was not scary at all, and that is the most unforgivable problem.
With regards to the graphics, I actually thought they were quite good, and I am a graphics guy (I have written many raytracers and realtime graphics engines for games, not to mention being an amateur 2D and 3D artist myself, so it's not like I'm wowed by any old crap).
I find it funny that the people whining about the computer graphics in the prequel, are the same one lauding the realism of the practical effects in the original.
What happens there is that Norris-thing's chest opens to become a mouth and the teeth clamp around Dr. Cooper's arms. But when the doctor pulls back, his arms rip apart, very easily, far from the actual teeth. His bones break and his skin/muscle tear at the same place on both his arms simply by leaning backwards. And both spider heads are very well done but are clearly just rubber and wires.
Now obviously I am not trying to belittle the movie or Rob Bottin's effects. Not in the least, but if we are objectively arguing for realism, the prequel wins hands down.
The reason why old school practical effects are better than computer graphics is actually because of its limitations. With an animatronic puppet, one half of it is split open, with a bunch of people pulling wires or bundles of cables and controller boxes. This necessitates extreme closeups, dark lighting, quick cutaways, shaky action, etc. Fucking scary! However, in the age of newfangled 'puters, directors have no such limitation and can pull back and show a more realistic scene. Unfortunately this eliminates any horror and is mainly done for 'trailer porn' reasons. In Ridley Scott's "Alien", for example, everything is dark and you barely see the titular beast. It's one of the best film's ever made. By contrast, "Alien 4" has full body shots of aliens swimming, and has my vote for the worst movie ever made.
I thought the creature design of the Thing prequel was very cool, creative, detailed and realistic (well, as far as shapeshifting aliens can be).
And therein lies the problem.
I shouldn't be able to tell whether the graphics were good or not. I shouldn't be able to tell whether the creature was detailed and well-designed. I shouldn't even see the monster. In any film, if computer graphics are used, they should be almost invisible (such as in black swan). In any horror film, the monster should be hidden.
I LOVE alien design. My #1 fantasy job would be a xenobiologist on an alien world. I have given presentations about designing plausible aliens. 90% of the scifi and horror stories I write is about weird aliens/monsters. I giggle like a schoolboy when I see wonderfully grotesque, well designed, well thought out lifeforms. I love to see what the designers came up with for movies like Starship Troopers, or the kaiju in Pacific Rim, or my favourite book of all time, "Expedition" by Wayne Barlowe. However, for a film like The Thing, I will gush over the creature design in the bluray extras, not in the film itself. Goddammit!
Recently I watched "Mama", directed by Andrés Muschietti and produced by Guillermo del Toro (who is my kindred spirit regarding weird creatures). I really loved Muschietti's short film that is is based on. The movie was pretty good, up until the last 15 minutes or so, then it just turned awful. Really awful. The single biggest problem is that the showed Mama in all her ghoulish entirety.
One of my favourite jokes is this stupid kid's joke.
Q: What's red and invisible?
A: No tomatoes.
So to change it slightly:
Q: What is the scariest monster in a movie?
A: A fantastically designed, beautifully rendered, plausible, horrific, gruesome, offscreen one.
Here is an example of how it should be done (starts at 0:38):
Ignore the fact that this is not horror, and that Gollum will be seen completely in daylight in the next movie. The scene shown above is tremendulously creepy and if that kind of aesthetic was applied to a monster in a horror film, it would scare the crap out of me. But it's always too tempting to have a big reveal at the climax, "because we can" and it always spoils the fim. No execption. If you want, throw some money at me and I will make for you the coolest, scariest, underwear-soiling scifi horror there has ever been.
So, in conclusion, I would like to appeal to Hollywood regarding creatures in horror. Please please please, hide your monsters. By all means go ahead and use cutting-edge computer graphics, but it doesn't mean you should show everything. In fact, please don't. Just show us a tiny part in a darkened room at any one time. Let our imagination do the rest.
They are far, far scarier that way.
