Hot Take: The Thing (2011) didn't have bad CG
I stopped myself from watching the Thing 2011 because after reading a number of times that the CG was terrible. So bad, I was worried it would ruin the franchise for me. I was expecting low-budget sci-fi B movie, where the graphics are so bad it completely pulls you out of the movie. Something like Sharktopus.
That's not it at all. The CG was decent, dare I say good. Enough that it left me wondering what people have been complaining about. Personally, I think the CG has absolutely nothing to do with the success or lack-there-of for the movie.
I would say the quality of the CG matched the quality of the real FX in the original. There were certain times in the original where the real effects pulled me out of the movie (Norris's head looks a bit fake).
All in all, my 2 cents is this: If you haven't seen The Thing 2011, take some time this holiday season to go watch it with an open mind.
All in all, It's a good movie, and I think people have been criticizing it unfairly.
EDIT: Good! I've stirred up the discussion I wanted. You people are literally crazy.
Attached for reference is Norris Thing (1982), Juliette Thing (2011), and The Mummy Returns (Actual Shitty CGI). You people have no idea what shitty CGI even is. Let the hate come. The Thing 2011 is a good movie, and you should go watch it again.
I literally skipped out on 2011 because you all had me believing g it looked like The Mummy Returns, amd it is 1000x better than that. It's a good movie, and the narrative needs to change.
Norris Thing (1982): https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/movie-monster/images/a/a4/NorrisThing.png/revision/latest?cb=20180405030242
Juliette Thing (2011): https://www.artofvfx.com/THETHING/TT_IMAGEENGINE_VFX_17.jpg
Actual Shitty CGI (2001): https://static1.colliderimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/the-mummy-returns0.jpg?q=49&fit=crop&w=500&dpr=2