Monster of the Day #1104 Updated on February 25, 2015 By Ken Begg 13 Comments Uhm, I got nothing. I really like this movie, though. (Sorry, Rock.) Tweet Pin It Related PostsMonster of the Day #1645 (Oct 20, 2017) Monster of the Day #1644 (Oct 19, 2017) Monster of the Day #1643 (Oct 18, 2017) Monster of the Day #1642 (Oct 17, 2017) Monster of the Day #1641 (Oct 16, 2017) By Ken Begg http://jabootu.net Flangepart Yeah…now I think it…how did bugs that size get there, through concrete or at least asphalt, and not be noticed? See, this is what happens when ya start thinkin’… Gamera977 Don’t mean to come off somewhat weasely but I thought the movie was okay. Can’t say I loved it or hated it. Not sure why but to me older movies are just more fun. Ericb I was fun. Not bad for a cgi flick. I recently watched the new Thing prequel followed by Carpenter’s Thing. What I noticed most when I compared the two was not just how much more visceral Carpenter’s practical effects were but also how their comparative sparsity in the film made for much better atmosphere and drama. Wade Harrell I admit that these screen shots are making me want to watch the movie again. For all the CGI excess It gets points for at least rendering the spiders accurately, I actually know someone who supplied live spiders that they used as models for the digital renderings for this movie. They may have over did it with the action, but the creature design was very well done and retrained unlike the “spider” in a certain fantasy epic I could name! In the CGI age the two most common mistakes are over-designed monsters (and environments); and the tendency to cram too much action into every scene, to the point it becomes ridiculous. They at least got it half right! Eric Hinkle “And down, down, to Spider-town, You go, my lad!” Eric Hinkle The people of that town were just shockingly unobservant? That seems to be a common problem for people in horror movie universes. Rock Baker To each their own, Ken. I liked STAR TREK 5. (I’m not saying it’s a great movie or anything, but I found it entertaining.) The Rev. Where’s my apology, Ken? Jerk. As Wade mentioned above, I will say the designs for the spiders were great. The spiders from this and that one Harry Potter movie (“Chamber of Secrets,” I think) were definitely above the mean for CGI critters in that regard. bgbear_rnh and Scarecrow’s brain? Wade Harrell I think the main spider (Aragog) from HP was actually done with what we now call “practical effects”, in other words they built a huge spider puppet. I think they wanted it to have a real presence that’s hard to do with CGI. Flangepart In a lab in Tulsa, being given an overdose of coffee to get it trained for WIZARD OF OZ 3: Toto’s Revenge. bgbear_rnh Oh Toto, I do not think that is legal in Kansas The Rev. It’s been a while; that may be the case. I know they had a bunch of little CGI ones as well (and not-so-little, too) that were well-done.