The Thing (2011) Why It Didn't Work
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2024
- (Amended 10-14-16)
Ladies and Gentleman I received some constructive criticism from D F who pointed out that the 2011 "The Thing" was indeed a prequel and not a remake. I apologize for any confusion that my description may have caused. In fact, I should have given more recognition to the direction of the 2011 film which took great artistic chances and in no way resembled the John Carpenter film. This film is not a remake, a reboot, or a rebootquel, it is in a category all by itself.
This film is a prime example of why remakes and reboots shouldn't happen. Which is ironic because the 1982 film was a remake. Well then lets just say don't remake John Carpenter movies and leave it at that.
Copyright Disclaimer - This video contains copyrighted images and sound. But it is an educational study and falls under the "fair use" provisions of copyright law and the first amendment to critique and discuss.
That music from the original still gives me chills.
Same
It always made me feel like the Goblin song from Dawn of the Dead 78
Yup, that and The Shining score.
@@yasmin8851 I swear to god there was a scene in The Thing that had music ripped straight from the Shining.
The main problem with the thing is that the thing doesn't act like the thing. It's supposed to lay low as long as it can escape, when it's on the helicopter in the beginning of the film it has already won, but for some reason it has to show itself and from that moment on it's almost always in the open attacking when it doesn't need to. If they'd gotten this part of the alien right, I might have forgiven the shitty cgi
Shani Van Neck It would make sense if you look at it in the sense that The Thing, when openly attacking the humans at the Norwegian camp, figures out that it wasn't wise to do...so by the time it reaches the American camp it begins trying to hide itself and only attacks when discovered (the other dogs in the kennel, Bennings before he could fully assimilate, MacReady's blood test, when Blair's ship is found.)
I hate the CGI, but overall Thing 2011 didn't totally suck...but of course any prequel or sequel to Carpenter's Thing 1982 is going to fall short. That movie is an undeniable classic.
The Thing in this movie is incredibly photogenic. It reminds me of the arcade style shooter games like House of the Haunted Dead, where the monsters are so eager to show you how scary you are. BOOGY WOOGY WOO LOOK HOW SCARY I AM RAWR I SMASH AND KEEL PPL SEE? It's so low brow.
I don't care what you believe, Skycrusher, or don't believe. I was simply trying to make some kind of sense out of why the alien openly attacks humans in the 2011 version and hides itself in the 1982 version. It has nothing to do with it being fucking retarded. Maybe it survived for thousands of years by imitating other life forms that didn't have the ingenuity of humans. Let's assume the Norwegian camp encounter is it's first contact with humans. Maybe it just exposed itself to the other beings and bulldozed them, but it finds out that Earthlings fight back with fire and explosives and shit when it shows itself... so by the time it hits the U.S. camp as the dog it's gonna lay low. Yeah, it learned something. Not too far fetched. Not saying it's right or wrong, just trying to fix the prequels' fuck up in story continuity.
btw, not a Halo Gen kid... my first video game was Pong.
You thought the movie sucked. That's fine. I happen to like it, that's fine too. It's not a great movie, but a nice take on the 82 version and the events that happened just prior to it. The CGI did suck, I will agree with that.
I'm glad the movie was made, for what it's worth. Even if it didn't live up to my expectations.
Except...the alien is a shapeshifter and stealth normally comes as part of the package. The producers of the film just wanted to appeal to the lowest denominator - loads of gore, fire, bullets - less emphasis on script, characters, eeriness etc
John Carpenter should've directed the prequel!
ricomajestic absolutely. That’s the only person that should of done it
Yeah and maybe there probably wouldn't be as much CGI in the movie and maybe even more better story line and why these things(no pun intended) would make more sense and why the speed on the things would be a bit more slower
@@megancook8095 There would be the same amount of CGI. Fuckin production layered cgi over the practical effects and the team were only notified of it until AFTER the premier.
In a place where there is nothing... they found... shitty CGI
BcallingDB Hahaha! I love it dude! Funny!
BcallingDB LMFAO. So right.
Oh god.
Look at the shot of the monster under the building in the dark its real FX and it looks awesome. The rest is shitty CG
The reason The Thing 2011 didn't work is, We already had a great Thing movie.
Can't you also say that The Thing from 1982 doesn't work by that logic? I don't believe that at all, but I'm just going by your logic.
@@TheOneTheyCallFrost if only you knew that there was already another Thing movie in the 1950s
I remember the characters, the building in tension, how the monster had to smartly react due to its "eating/morphing" characterics, claustrophobia, the intensity in the old one. For the 2011 : can't relate to any of the characters, no building in tension, the monster is somehow too "fast" : it's missing the whole interesting "who is who" dilemna, CG of course... Conclusion : my heartbeat was flat, like Norris, through the entire movie...
Yeah the guys who made the practical animatronics and puppets were really pissed about them being stiffed over.
they made it pretty clear how they felt in interviews and forums and stuff. let's just say, they had very little kind words to the Corporate Heads who fucked em
Sorta the same thing that happened to Rick Baker on The Wolfman...it was supposed to be his chance to one up his own work on American Werewolf, but the studio stepped all over him with the shitty CGI. I'm usually a big fan of director Joe Johnston, but if he's the one who voted for digital over practical then he was just plain wrong...
This movie tried its best, but this fucking studio interference took a shit on the effect's team hard work on the practical effects. The strength of the movie was supposed to be the monster, but thanks to whoever the fuck the studio was, destroyed any appreciation and potential the movie wanted to show us.
If only they would have kept CGI as support for practical effects, instead of replacing ALL of the practical effects with CGI 100%. Big Mistake.
I was lucky enough to have seen Carpenter's The Thing in the theaters when it was released (early 20s at the time). I still remember my wife and I sitting in an (unfortunately) mostly empty theater (and this was in the Bay Area of California), and everyone's jaws literally dropping to the floor, and everyone leaving the theater as the credits rolled in stunned silence - I IMMEDIATELY fell in love with this movie, and it is one of my favorites of all time!
I did not "hate" the 2011 The Thing, but I also did not see it in the theater, deciding to wait until I could purchase and watch it on Amazon. I agree with your critique, but would add one thing regarding the characters - for me, the most enjoyable part of the prequel is when they were singing and dancing together. That scene did more to make the characters "real" to me than anything else in the movie (to clarify - they were nowhere as good as Carpenter's characterizations - I'm simply pointing out the scene I enjoyed the most in the 2011 version).
Thank you for making your video.
Thanks Stevan.
The bad side of being born in 1978...
+I. C. Monteiro lol, what's that suppose to mean?
That I was a child when the movie was in theaters.
I saw the 82' film too in the theater and had two teen lesbians making out two seats in front of me and had trouble watching the film and them LOL. I must say the 82' version was very different than most horror films I seen since the genre was Friday the 13th and seen Escape from NY a year or so before so was a Carpenter fan . The 2011 was an okay film , it had flaws like the ship was supposed to had been blown up by thermite bombs but in the2011 film it was in good shape . I didn't see it in the theater either but bought the DVD/ Bluray on sale and found the end satisfying .
You pretty much nailed it. This movie lacked the paranoia that Carpenters had, due to the poor character development. The plot hole regarding the spaceship is unforgivable, and the damn cgi is garbage. It's such a shame. If they had only consulted Carpenter for this project, or Rob Bottin.
To be fair, Carpenter's recent movie(The Ward) was trash and could arguable be worse than the Thing 2011.
They should have Consulted Rob and John for the project but like the uploader said, the people working on the effects for the film had a lot of there work replaced with CGI to start with so unlikely that would have changed much. What I think they should have done and would have been cool, is hire both Rob Bottin AND Rick Baker to work effects on the film, the rules. they can't use effects that were around after 1986. NO CGI PERMITTED, and they'd just would not show what they feel looked silly, because a lot of what makes 80's films so good, they never show too much, a lot of things are hidden in darkness.
If they would have did that and made the film look like from the era too. It could have been sold as a great horror film.
That said I'm still glad the did it, I ALWAYS wondered what happened to the Norwegians in the first movie, how everything went down.
Granted a movie with that Special Effects team would have been pricey and cool to see.
The CGI was bad, but the movie lacks on everything, including logic.
I'm suppose to believe the thing could have restart his ship all this time but instead it purposely send a signal and bury itself into the snow so 800 thousand years later another intelligent specie would find it? That is fucking dumb
Jonathan
According to the comics(which both films are based on),The Thing actually had hands,eyes,and mouth so...it is definitely possible that they have controlled the spaceships.
Besides,the Thing itself wasn't inside the crashed spaceship but aliens who had the virus(aka The Thing)...
It's also possible that the alien who had the virus used the spaceship to,send a signal.I mean,what else could the alien have used?The Thing was actually kinda intelligent if you read the comics,I can tell you haven't.
@@whyismylifeweird4251 I have read the comics. They are pretty. But they too ignore the logic of assimilation as defined by the movie.
best thing about this movie = LARS
Lars is a God, i liked his character a lot. And now i'm sad knowing he died at the american base
And Kate
I said the same thing.
@@jackmedlock5888 Kate was terrible. Over the top, flawless, perfection. Boring.
@@guanoguy4800 Mary Sue
I love how people talk about budget yet CGI costs more than Practical Effects
No it doesn't
Don't really care much for CGI, especially for this movie. But one of the "drawbacks" of practical effects is that they are time consuming in construction and to use in shooting a scene on location, Time was something that was a luxury for Carpenter and Rob Bottin. They had one year to plan, shoot, and edit the movie for theatrical release. Whereas director Van Heijningen was given barely half of that time to complete The Thing'11.
Exactly. It just proves their lazy.
@@frizen9328 - Well yeah...but that was after the fact. They intended on using practical effects...tried it...didnt work..so they had to go to CGI...at least so they thought!
@@arthurhall8238 Seems they were forced to go for CGI effects:
"There's no getting around it: the CGI effects found in The Thing 2011 look really, really bad. This is made all the more frustrating by the fact that the actual creature designs are inspired, and would look right at home around the tentacled monstrosities found in John Carpenter's The Thing. The designs were created by Amalgamated Dynamics (or Studio ADI), a prominent effects house founded by Tom Woodruff Jr and Alec Gillis, proteges of effects icon Stan Winston. Originally though, they weren't just designing the creatures. Studio ADI actually created a ton of amazing looking animatronic monsters for the prequel, and the film was shot with those practical effects intact.
In interviews given prior to The Thing 2011's release, director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. and writer Eric Heisserer boasted about how proud they were of the prequel going practical, with only slight CGI enhancements made to Studio ADI's creations. That was until Universal demanded the film undergo heavy reshoots, including a new ending, and that new CGI effects be overlaid on top of the existing practical effects, effectively erasing them."
One big problem that knocked me out of the story was that the 2011 wanted a more "inclusive" cast and put women in the film, even making an American woman the lead. This grinds gears because the American outpost in the 1982 film has only men because of the harsh conditions. This would be like making a prequel to a Civil War film...and setting it during World War II.
There were a whole lot of other problems with the prequel, obviously, but this is one thing nobody ever brings up.
Because I don't think we're allowed to anymore.
No, we just don't really care. Explain how the woman being in the movie ruins the fear
@@nate6360 the Carpenter movie made the hostile environment a character itself. The 2011 prequel, by easily flying in and out with women (at a time when there were only men at the American outpost), it lessens the dangerous, oppressive setting.
Production costs were around 35 million, sales were around 17 million? Fail.
Rotten Tomatoes top critics score of 27%? Fail.
Weak script, lack of character development, overuse of cgi, and studio interference? Fail.
This movie fails on so many levels. Mainly because of studio interference, impatience, and greed.
Is it just me or, can anyone else not take critics seriously??? Remember the old saying those who can't, teach!!!
Some of the greatest minds have been teachers! Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton were both university professors!
the critics are unfair and I cannot understand why. Much worse films are passed as masterpieces and this has mostly negative reviews. As far as box-office failure is concerned well sometimes you are at wrong end of the stick. but in think with time The (new) Thing will get its due from the fans if not the critics.
Excellent analysis. I also found the inside of the ship and that whole sequence to be god-awful.
We didnt need to see inside that ship. 🤦♂️
also, what were those floating cubes? they looked awful
@@davidkonevky7372 I'm not sure, but it sure was disappointing. Looked like a 90s cg render. All pixelated. Lmao. Then the main thing, with dudes face on it was terrible too. Wish the studio didnt overlap the practical effects. But oh well. 🤷♂️
Also the Thing creatures are completely incompetent at killing the lead character because she has plot armor. The "boss" one inside the ship should've just jumped on her after knocking her to the ground and assimilated her right there. Or just grabbed her and killed her like we see Blair Thing do to Garry in the 1982 film.
Me (and every sane effects team): Here's fifty bucks. Go to the local butcher and get me some pig guts.
Hollywood: (snorts $15,000 of coke) Fuck that shit! Here's $50 million. Go make us some shit CGI that audiences won't be fooled by for a second and will make the film look ridiculous and insulting to the 1982 classic. People will leave the theatres in droves and cost us millions! Totally sound investment, amirite? Right? Yeah, I'm right! I'm a fucking genius!!
i loved all The Thing movies even Howard Hawks titled The Thing From Another World in 1951.
it didn't work because of 4 things being absent...john carpenter,stan winston,rob bottin and the excellent cast of the 82 version.
Somebody re petition for the practical effects release of The Thing (2011)
I sign!
I love the 1982 and 2011 version. I think both were great.
Me too
I give the 2011 movie a 4.9/10 and 0.1+. Cuz sanders talks danish so 5/10
Rodzilla nah I haven’t seen it in a while
You never mentioned the girl in the end. She couldn't have been too far from the American camp. The movie should have not ended with her there.
The prequel will always be stuck in 2011 but I hope the Director releases his own cut with special effects and the unchanged story...
Have watched the 1982 version about 10 times. Have watched the 2011 version only once.
The amount of practical effects they erased and then replaced with CGI is unforgivable, and the thing isn't as subtle as before. You had to put the thing in a situation where it had the advantage or was desperate for it to start showing it's form, now it just seems to snap out of nowhere
It was Carpenter’s interview on letterman in June 1982 that got me interested. They showed the clip of the thing dog screaming from the kennel. I loved movies back then. It was always a surprise. They didn’t hype it for a year, you didn’t read spoilers on the net, they didn’t show everything in previews or interviews. You went in and got blown away with no spoilers. I saw it in a Vancouver theatre 3 times in summer 1982 with maybe ten other people there. The rest of the summer was spent seeing poltergeist, ET, Tron, Star Trek 2, blade runner. Then, in dec 1982, it hit video a few days before Christmas, and I saw it in a small, isolated farm house outside Edmonton, with a blizzard going on. Perfect ambiance.
My sentiments exactly. Prequels, in general, stink on ice. Whenever I hear there's a prequel being made, I just roll my eyes.
Dude your review is absolutely spot on ......
What's funny is that when the 1983 version came out, the reviews all basically unanimously said the characterization was bad. The acting of some the characters was good, but the characters themselves were bland and cliches. So it's pretty amusing to hear the 1982 version get such a new appreciation and those same flaws be given to the modern prequel
Two things that makes The Thing 2011a bit dumb for me:
1: When she told dude to look thru the microscope and dude said that it was impossible for the cells to be not dead. Stupid to say because the goddam thing had been frozen in the ice for 10s of thousands years, and he can’t believe that it can survive a little flame and imitate other cells? I believe all conventional thinking should be thrown out at that point.
2: At the end, inside the ship, the lady is dodging the huge thing by going into a confined space. The thing’s tentacles are inches from her head? Hell, am I to forget the fact that the thing, just frames earlier back at the camp, was able to self dismember its extremities and crawl around to attack the others?
Logical storytelling is a thing of the past, I suppose...
Ya that's why it's called...science fiction
@@odsonic what kind of reasoning is that??
@@darkphoenix00001 it means you don't have dissect every bit from a movie that's based on science fiction...otherwise you may as well spend the rest of your days going back to every sci film movie you've ever watched and write down the flaws
@@odsonic science fiction doesn't mean you completely throw logic and previously established knowledge out the window whenever it's convenient for the plot. in comparison, the 1982 film was much better in this regard.
@@darkphoenix00001 that's the problem ..people today compare too harshly with what they see nowadays...its all science..fiction ...means they can make up whatever they want..besides nobody does practical effects anymore or at least the way they did it back in the day ..in my opinion this movie and Dredd are 2 of the best re visits from my childhood
I'm 47 nowadays and I saw the 82 version at the Drive in , right after the Remakeish of Cat People too , way back then.
To me, the biggest problem of a prequel is that unless it's made by the original movie's creator, it's hard to base anything from the second part on the first part. For example: Childs had an earring on at the end of the movie...but as tempted as I may be, I can't say, "Well, that means Childs is human; the Thing can't replicate inorganic matter!" That criteria was mentioned in the 2011 movie. It makes scientific sense, but in 1982, John Carpenter probably wasn't thinking about that, so that most likely has no bearing in on who is or isn't the Thing in 1982.
I didn't like the characters, the writing, the monster transformations let alone the CGi that takes you out of the film because you know it isn't there and that most of the acting is fake unlike actors who actually interact with the actual vicera of practical effects, sometimes even getting that great first actual reaction shot where they don't even expect what will happen or what it will look like. They didn't do the remake any justice at all as it was a pure lazy script to make a buck like always. If any fan of the remake or original had any decent writing skills I'm certain they could have written a far better script. Remakes are just seed money, selling shit to shit eaters, movie makers have to move that capital to make capital which usually ends with just huge boondoggle incentives and ripping off film locations tax payer money. Either use the IP or lose it.
There is a really good analysis on why the cgi did not work in the 2011 film. There is a channel called rob ager/coallative learning(he has two channels). He discusses the make up, blood coloring, lighting, cgi lighting, the thing not being scary, the transformations not being intimidating enough.(one example is how the 1982 thing has jaws to show a strong bite force while in the prequel there are teeth in the design but these teeth are not attached to strong jaws.)
The Thing begins (in the middle) of the drama. Something which:
1. immediately helps to get us caught up in the action
2. Makes us start trying to figure out what is really going on (Aw, look at the cute dog. Huh, Why are they trying to kill it?) and how we arrived here
This movie also explains and discovers items from the past.
The prequel is the beginning - but it's already been explained in the first film. What is the "new stuff" that we will find out? Will it help to explain items that we found confusing in the first film somehow? Will it radically change how we perceived the first film?
The practical effects they made for this were amazing! Not as amazing as Rob Bodins work and its a shame it got replaced by cgi...and horrible cgi at that!
I'm so tired of everyone blaming bad movies for being bad because of CGI. CGI is a tool it can be good or bad and I get the misuse or overuse can hurt a movie but let's be realistic. We all love movies with shit special effects, both practical and computer. Story is 90% of what makes a movie and prequels and sequels have mostly the same stories as the original. That's why they are bad and CGI always becomes a whipping boy for lazy storytelling.
I agree. The story and writing of this film was fucking terrible. The Thing's portrayal was awful but even if it was good, it wouldn't have saved a terrible movie.
Nah i DEMAND good special effects in EVERY movie that has 'em. Power Rangers or bust...ZHOOSSSHHHH!!!!!! KAPOWWWWW!!!!! FIZZZLLEEEEE!!!! BOOOOOOOM!!!!!
kkknotcool very true.
It takes a while to produce cgi so yea to shit on it is just as lazy. American werewolf in lo don was praised for its special effects, but today we can produce practical effects so much better its laughable now.
He didnt blame cgi for being the only reason the movie was bad, he simple portrayed it as something that added to the overall poor quality of the movie.
I think you can get away with remaking films that were mediocre or that were not very popular with audiences the first time around. When you try to remake or make prequels to movies that are considered classics by moviegoers you are setting yourself up for failure. Remakes of Movies like the Thing and more recently Ghostbusters are pretty much impossible to do because moviegoers love and cherish these pieces and comparisons to the original films are unavoidable. All directors end up doing is rehashing the same scenes that audiences remember fondly from the original film which further leads moviegoers unhappiness with them. It really is a no-win situation.
Also The Thing and Ghostbusters were products of their time; a time when filmmakers didn't always have to pander to audiences and didn't have to deal with the terrible PG-13 rating. Critics during the 80's constantly complained about the quality of cinema during the decade and how much they wanted cinema to go back to the artistry of the 70's. But the irony is that most of those critics look at the 80's as a golden age now because of all of the terrible remakes and reboots today.
The only thing I liked about this movie is it ties into the first one at the end.
...at the end. Yes. The last 8 seconds of the film. That's what I found the most RIDICULOUS about this waste of film.
One thing I did like about the 2011 film, is that The Thing was faster, and more vicious. What's worse than knowing you're going to be taken-over? Knowing that you can't get away, if it chases you. *shiver*
I hope the film makers (of this film, and in general) learned a valuable lesson about using practical effects. I think, in hindsight, Rob Bottin should have won the Oscar for best special effects in 1983. I think they are unmatched, even to this day.
I agree completely with you
I thoroughly agree with your asessment, Sean McDougall. I saw The Thing back in 1982 in San Francisco at a movie theater in the neighborhood known as West portal. I was 14 or 15. I saw it with a group of highschool friends. All of us were riveted, grossed out, and thoroughly freaked out by what we had seen. It was the most compelling and spectacular horror film I'd ever seen. I've since watched it (since I purchased the DVD) numerous times and get as much delight from it as I did then. But nothing replaces that first time.
One thing that I thought was pretty stupid was the thing at the end not remembering that the guy it was imitating had an earring or which ear it was in. A thing is a perfect copy, including the memories of its victims. Would've made more sense and been more dramatic for the woman to torch him without being 100% sure that he was a thing.
I don't get where he took new clothes 😅
We fortunate few who were old enough to go to the cinema in the early 80s... Alien, Bladerunner, The Thing, Escape From NY, Deer Hunter, The Shining, Apocalypse Now... some Things should be left intact where they emerged in space and time. Sadly they seldom are. However, personally I wanted more from each of these movies... perhaps I loved the characters and concepts in them too much. Sadly the reality in the hands of others falls short... I like the sequel as a standalone romp but agree with your take. Doubt I shall watch it as often as I have either of The Thing movies.
Never heard of Deer Hunter. Is it good?
Don't forget The Exorcist.
2:10 they forgot to add the gasoline cans next to the body.
Just a case of people expecting too much I thought the movie was good compared to other childhood revisit movies.
This will be a controversial opinion I am sure but there was an unspoken tension in having an all male cast. being isolated with a group of men in place where is no escape is terrifying!
This film needed a tragic ending or at least an indeterminate ending to have someone sailing off into the sunset in the thing is counter intuitive.
I hate subtitles but this movie needed to be all Norwegian actor to feel authentic.
"Also when you make a prequel, you cannot change anything that was made in the first film."
I wish someone had explained this to JJ Abrams before he fucked up the Star Trek universe.
The events taking place in the 1982 Thing is to show that what happened to Norvegians is now happening o Americans. That's the whole point of exploring Norvegian camp and then seeing how the events unfold back at their own base. Norvegian story did not need to be told, because it ruins the effect of the actual 1982 movie.
If you watch them back to back it does seem redundant; but there was a way that the prequel could have worked. If it showed the Thing alien actually making mistakes in the prequel like showing it self too much or trying to imitate people who weren't that important (non scientists and non pilots) then it could have been interesting. It would have shown that the alien is intelligent and is much smarter and deadlier when it gets to the American camp. And the prequel should have ended like Night of the Living dead where the hero is abruptly killed after surviving the monsters. The lead character should have been Lars and the last shot of the film should have been his body.
Sure, yeah - except, I wouldn't have gotten so (?) invested with this film as it's apparent from the opening scene (look and feel) what it'll be like (sub-par :))
Sean McDougall But the thing does make mistakes, just like you did making this video without actually watching the movie a bunch of times. The monster clearly makes a lot of mistakes and shows itself unneccisarily. Not even my grandma would miss that detail, so why would you?
There was originally practical effects, but it was removed at the end before release for cgi
Also at the end of the movie when the guy and girl go into the space ship and later when they both came out and she noticed his ear ring was gone, did you notice he was still wearing the same cloths? The Thing rips through your cloths as it takes you over. Oh sure it could of picked up the flame thrower but the cloths? No.
i have seen many prequels or sequels for movies many years later. even reboots, but one thing i can say is it stayed true to the original and showed all the scenes we said how did that happen. the style of the thing, it connected everything very well. only thing that was missing was the music. they didnt try to add to the story but follow its origins. how often does a movie franchise have a symbiotic connection. almost never.
The problem with some fans of previous versions is that they walk into the theater with a chip on their shoulder. I'm a fan of the original. I didn't expect much. I got more than I expected. It's not the classic of the original but it's not nothing.
Considering John Carpenter himself have stated that the video game, which not only he confirmed to be a sequel to his film but also a canon, and he's voice acting in the game, by the way, I don't see why the production or the writers of the prequel didn't contact John Carpenter first. I'm sure he would've love to be a part of the production of the prequel and help make it how it should've been.
I just started listening to your film reviews yesterday. You're pretty smart. You have some really cool things to say.
I'm a huge fan of the original "The Thing [from another world] and I wasn't crazy about the idea of a remake when I heard about it. I went to the theatre thinking it would probably suck but I'd stick it out anyway because I was a John Carpenter fan. Well, now I watch both films 2 or 3 times a year and the thing I really love about the remake is that it pretty much stuck to the short story "Who Goes There???" by John W. Campbell Jr. about a shapeshifting alien killing off a science crew in the antartic. Great novella by the way.
There is one other thing I thought worked quite well. The idea that the people who'd been turned into things didn't know until the thing asserted control. The scene where Juliette "Things" out and attacks Kate, has this nice beat where you see Juliette's expression as her body is changing...shes aware that her body is not her own, even while the thing that's taken her body is attacking her friends. That's pretty creepy as a concept.
They were originally going to have a different ending, with the pilot of the crashed ship being an alien that could have potentially been traveling and gathering lifeforms from other planets, and the original also had practical effects. But when it was sent to executives, it was sent back with the request to use CGI, and have a different ending. A good bit of what was wrong with the movie was done on the executive level, rather than the movie creators
John Carpenter's The Thing is still my favorite horror thriller. Kurt Russell is also one of my favorite actors. That goes way back to his Disney classics like The Computer Who Wore Tennis Shoes and The Strongest Man in the World. Although I do agree with the things you pointed out I saw the prequel as more of a tribute to the mastery of the 1982 version and therefore I wasn't as disappointed. I didn't go into it thinking it would be on the same level. I had held John Carpenter's interpretation in such high regard through so many other great films I just didn't conceive that as possible. I actually did see the original, The Thing From Another World, in a drive-in reshowing when I was a kid sometime in the late 60's or early 70's. I appreciate your thoughts though.
This was never going to live up to Carpenter's version- my favourite movie of all time. Probably turned out better than I expected, though most of your criticisms are valid enough. The parts that reference the 1982 version are my favourite bits- in fact, they're about the only bits I like!
Got to tell you. I enjoyed the hell out of the prequel and not one time was taken out by the cg. Reading dialogue always makes it harder to get to know the characters, especially if you have to watch what's going on. Real effects will always be more fun than cg but these were pretty fluid compared to werewolf morphing. Acting I enjoyed and the 82 version people hated at the time. I saw it, I was 16 and people were walking out saying it was a waste of money. Scared the crap out of my friend. Overhead seatbelts of the time fell on drive home and he went himself. Halloween every year I play both on my outdoor screen. Will always be a favorite.
I consider JC's The Thing to be my favourite film (and I'm a little bit precious about it too) and I was surprised by the amount of CGI I saw in the film given the noises the filmmakers made about using old skool techniques. That said, I enjoyed it for what it was. I think you are correct about the lack of characterisation (where the original excels) but am not sure what they could have done about that, other than remake the original with a small bunch of blokes getting ever more paranoid. It was always going to be a really tough gig for the writer.
Everyone keeps saying "it was because of CGI" And I agree, but alot of factors were involved aswell. Characters...none of them were memorable or likable. The plot was full of holes...Where is Kate and the 2 bobcats in the original 1982 film? The copy cat Macready was cringy., there wasn't an all Norwegian cast. Even with the Americans in the 2011 movie, they still didn't exploit the language barrier to add to the paranoia. All in all it SUCKED. John Carpenter should redo the prequel. He could call it: The Thing Lives!
Good review Sean. I rarely agree with the movie reviews on here because most of them pick at the most minor points and blow them out of all proportion, but your review here is pretty much spot on. Apart from the missing thermite sequence, there also the question of what happened to Winstead's character after she burned the one guy in the tractor. Presumably, we are to assume she allowed herself to freeze to death. I was also not impressed with the way most of the extensive animatronics were replaced or hidden by CGI effects. The 1982 film is so good precisely because the effects were actually there on the sets so the actors could react to them in real ways.
Thanks Andy and I definitely agree with you that the CGI hurt the film.
No worries :-)
Alright so the biggest gripes for me were the obvious lack of practical effects and the glaring plot hole of excluding the thermite scene with the ship. The exclusion of the ship being destroyed puts a huge dent in the continuity between the films and in a prequel where everything has to be exactly the same, they fucked that up. I support a prequel or a sequel to The Thing because it leaves enough story in the original to support either of those to happen, but extreme precaution needs to be taken when doing an extension of a masterpiece. At least with a sequel we could've gotten it from the rescue team's perspective.
Ennio morricone is a musical genius!!!! It’s crazy how different the music is from a Clint Eastwood movie, to The Thing, but they still move you just as strongly! & make the anti-hero just stick out!
I enjoyed all three movies. Yes, the original is in black and white. That is how the spaceship got melted in the ice...they tried to use thermite bombs to check it out but it didn't work. That dog scene at the end was a cool tie in to the begining of the 1982 movie.
It makes me so sad that they did the entire film with practical effects to keep more in spirit with the original, but then the big wigs made an executive decision to cover it all up with bad CGI. There's probably a version of the film out there before the CGI was added, where everything is practical (I honestly wouldn't mind seeing that someday). Had this film doubled down on the practical aspect, I could have forgiven it to an extent.
I actually rewatched it last night and felt that there was a decent movie in there, hidden beneath bad CGI and absurdist finale(altered completely from the director's cut). Epilogue, where she realizes that the Amercian pilot had turned, was also quite satisfying. Rewatching it, I actually noted that camera does make note of the earring he wore earlier, which is a quite subtle foreshadowing, and a clue for an attentive viewer.
I also was bummed out they didnt incorporate the team filming video and blowing up the ice to reveal the ship as it showed in the original the thing.
The big hole in the film to me is the guy's supposed assimilation at the end in the ship. Completely impossible to happen based on the presented situation. A rapid assimilation requires a violent one, meaning his clothes should have been shredded. The "benign" assimilation (the centipede hand taking over the Norwegian) required far more time than the scene allows for. Frankly, I like to entertain the idea that Kate accidentally killed a person and is questioning her actions while driving away.
John Carpenter's Apocalypse Trilogy is amongst the best trio of films ever made. The practical effects were fantastic and the mood and atmosphere complimented them perfectly. This film had some interesting ideas, such as the alien being unable to mimic metal implants, but the studios decision to go with American actors instead of an entirely Norwegian cast, and focus on special effects over practical made this film depressing. The emphasis on locating and exploring the Alien ship was also unwarranted.
I never understand why people find animatronics more "real" here. Okay, there is actually something there, and the 1982 movie was awesome!! Especially because I was so young and had not see anything like this before. But to me the practical fx looks just as fake as everything digital in the prequel. Then again, for me it is not about how "real" it seems, but about "joining the game". So I find both movies satisfying and entertaining. If I had to choose only one, I go for 1982-version ofc. It is a classic.
What made the original so scary and suspenseful was the fact you never really saw "The Thing" never knew who or what the thing was until it was already too late. I remember first seeing that movie when I was 8 years old and still 15 years later the only movie that can send a shiver up my spine every time I watch it. The movie is an absolute masterpiece
The biggest sin of all was to make the spacecraft serviceable which destroyed the premise of whole plot. If the craft could take off again, there was NO reason for the original "thing" to have evacced and gotten frozen. Why TF would it have been in the ice for 100,000 years if the alien could just have taken off again immediately and gone home or to a clime with animals/cave men to assimilate. 100000 years ago there was nothing on earth that could have resisted it.
In 1982 I was 9 yrs old when The Thing came out at the movies. My mom took my older brother and I to go see it. It scared the sh!t out of me. I did not make it through the movie. I walk out right before MacReady blew up Palmer. Now this is the best horror movie I have ever seen. The best ever made and the "LAST" scary movie ever made. The first time I saw this movie I remember thinking "Whats is going on? Who is the Thing?" The suspense of the blood teat. The mystery of who it the Thing and how and when did the Thing get that guy. The 2011 Thing had non of that. It had stupid looking cgi monsters and too mush of them and too soon. All you was some kind of human shape with lots of teeth, lots on tentacles, lots of claws. In the 1982 movie, Bennings gets attached. You see him coved in the goo and tentacles and then you see his hands are all jacked up out in the snow. That was perfect! That was all that was needed to have you thinking.. WTF! 1982 was a masterpiece. 2011 was a sad sad joke.
Now you know how I felt when I found out they were remaking "Psycho".
The more I think about the prequel the more I dislike it. I would have forgiven the inclusion of english speakers if the other people who could speak english died or were taken over in the beginning leaving only the lead and a bunch of people who can't speak or understand english. That would have helped with the tension and continued the paranoia theme from the Carpenter version. But alas it didn't happen that way and we get yet another pointless remake (which it basically is).
The John Carpenter movie from the 80s is in the shadow of Howard Hawks original from the 1950s that Carpenter loves which is one of the best Sci Fi horror movies of all time. (No, I’m not a baby boomer, I am an Xennial that grew up in the 1980s.)
I can think of the one major problem with this film that almost no one else seems to bring up: it has absolutely NO reason to be made. Why? Because we know what happened to the Norwegians through the stuff that was found at the base as well as the video tapes they brought back from the base. Thus, the entire reason why the film was made is utterly superfluous.
The ultimate (and sadly permanent) problem is; Hollywood doesn't give two shits about quality, art or legacy. If they can film a gorilla squeezing a dog turd for $2.00 to make - and charge someone $5.00 to watch it...it's gonna get "green lit". The Thing (1982) was one of the 20 DVDs that went with me on several deployments. I can watch it over and over & still find things that are beautifully done. A true horror masterpiece. Great video, thanks.
Thanks for watching, sorry for the late reply. Also thank you for your service.
I like this guy's review. Straight and to the point without trying to be a funny guy. TH-cam is riddled with wannabe funny guy reviews. Refreshing.
The prequel side of the story should have been a small one told in flashbacks. The main part of the movie should have been a full blown sequel starring Kurt Russell, etc. I actually liked the new prequel, but it always leaves me wanting to watch John Carpenter's masterpiece. It creeps me out to this day. Many deleted scenes would have made the prequel a better movie. At the end of the day I wanted a sequel. I still want a sequel. The video game plot was a worthy attempt. A shame.
I disagree. I thought this was one of the better prequels to date. CGI could have been better but it didn't ruined the movie. I think you are over doing it with your criticism
I think there are a number of points missed here that need to be addressed in the comparison between Carpenter's 1982 "Thing" and the 2011 prequel. First, in Carpenter's version, with the exception of Bennings, Windows and Gary, "The Thing's" absorption of its victims is almost never seen and instead only suggested (ie. torn clothing, people missing for a time, etc). This creates the basis for paranoia in the film. Furthermore, absorption we do see are quite horrific. In the above two cases, we only see a brief glimpse of Bennings being absorbed in a very violent terrifying attack with gory blood covered tentacles swarming his body, penetrating his eyes and mouth. Windows too is first partially swallowed, then regurgitated on to the floor with his head semi-dissolved, covered in blood and gore. Now compare this to the CGI assimilation in the 2011 version - The Thing is constantly revealing itself and in its attacks we witness many of the transformations which obviously eliminates the guesswork of who's actually The Thing. Furthermore the absorption of victims is bloodless, gore-less and in some cases almost gentle - there's very little to terrify a viewer in these scenes. Consequently the 2011 version is devoid of the paranoia and gory horror that is the foundation of Carpenter's film.
Secondly, when Carpenter's Thing reveals itself, it never transforms into the same creature. As first seen, it's an amorphous tentacled, slimy, bloody mass with various odd dog/wolf body parts, squirting white viscous goo around. The second full reveal is less slimy but more gory, having Norris chest turn into a fanged maw biting Copper's arms off, then we witness the head separate from the body, forming a spider/crab like creature. In the third case Palmer's head dissolves in a mass of bloody gore, forming a venus-fly trap like head which consumes Windows. Finally, the Blair-Thing forms into something like a Lovcraftian Kaiju creature at the end of the movie. Now let's compare these to the 2011 remake: here we see nearly all "Things" appear in the following form: human face, head and legs retained, but torso transformed into a mass of dry bloodless teeth and flailing pink tentacles - this is unoriginal, not frightening and becomes quite repetitive after the first couple reveals.
There is also a more subtle characteristic in both films that set Carpenter's far above the 2011 remake. In Carpenter's version, all transformations, with the exception of Norris and the Blair Thing, start with the destruction of the face and or head. This first off is utterly horrific in itself, but furthermore indicates a loss of humanity. Psychologically, a face - dog included - defines a human's (or creature's) individuality. When Carpenter's "Thing" dissolves its face, it's subconsciously indicating a loss of the "self" and the transformation into "The Thing." Even in the case of Norris, where the face/head appears normal at first, the head/face eventually transforms into a grotesque caricature ( less obvious, at the end of the film with the demise of Garry, the Blair-Thing (untransformed) figuratively erases Garry's identity by smothering his face with its hand). In contrast, the 2011 remake we find all but one "Thing" retain its face. Here we have a serious but overlooked subtle flaw in the movie - the characters, in subconscious psychological terms, never actually turn into "The Thing."
So where Carpenter's film cleverly fosters paranoia and the horrific gory destruction of each assimilated character's individually, the 2011 prequel shows all its cards while we witness numerous bland, bloodless, transformations of "The Thing" as it chases generic characters around in a film devoid of the very "Things" that made the 1982 version a classic.
Too harsh a critique IMO. I grew up with the 82 movie and fully expected the prequel to fall short. But it had its moments. Homage to the original was exceptional. And they showed the inside of the ship which is something I always longed for. Perfect no. But come on give it some credit.
I believe it was Easwood who once said "Opinions are like assholes , everybody's got one". As for me I love both films and they go together. They did a good job with the prequel, it is what it is , get over it. Neither movie won an oscar , they are horror films made for those who love the genre.
you have right,my friend
Your opinion doesn't count. Thanks for playing the Internet... you LOSE!
metimoteo Well, opinions without a single hint of truth are lies.
david snyder I don't believe someone is braindead because they disagree with you.
Regardless of who directed it, whether it be Carpenter or not, the film had a 50/50 chance.
There have been many respected director who've pulled a Lucas, and went full digital effects.
Other times people simply weren't into a "better" film from the original director because what goes for scary now has changed based on the generation themselves.
Yes, Carpenter's work is amazing, but he made The Thing during a time when thrillers and space monster films weren't considered cheesy.
If he were to have directed it himself there still would've been a 50/50 chance of it being well received by movie goers and horror fans, based on the difference in what frightens horror fans today.
yes350yes When you say you liked that film, it doesn't say 'I have my own opinion', it says 'I have terrible taste in films'.
What made no sense was the thing just randomly explodes. In the original, it had logical reason. It transformed in the kennel because it was alone, it transformed as Bennings was because it was incomplete, it transformed as Norris and Palmer in self defense. This time, the thing just exposes itself a the worse of times, like in a room with 7 people who are mostly armed.
This prequel was ok and the ending was the best.
John Carpenter's The Thing a "remake"? hardly! no such film in 1951 called "The Thing", just The Thing from Another World. They are 2 very completely different films! it's actually a separate new adaptation of the 1938 book by John W Campbell and a more faithful adaptation. The Thing from Another World was just a typical 50's monster film that had little or no ties to the original book.
Johnlindsey289 Still considered a remake. Even though the 1982 version was more faithful to the book. That's like saying Charlie and the Chocolate Factory isn't a remake because it was a more faithful adaptation to the book. It's still a remake
Here's an idea: why not come up with an original concept for a film and go from there? Crazy, I know....
I love carpenters the thing. And I totally and hesitantly agree with your take on the prequel. Thank you for slapping me up side my head with the reality of the thing 2011. I wish they would have made a part two.
We now have learned enough about nanotechnology to understand that a creature like the Thing can exist. Let me call it the 'Recursive Instructional Nexus'; a supercomputer that can fit inside the nucleus of the cell. This would mean the entire history of several cultures could exist in this computer, and it could reproduce itself.
Interestingly enough, John Carpenter's The Thing flopped in the Theatres because it was outshined by E.T the Extra Terrestrial. It wasn't until the film hit VHS that it garnered a cult gathering for its writing, character acting and special effects. The 2011 Thing might do better over time, the real stigma however is the flaws it suffered in the hands of the producers, who were both easily confused in its test filming and wanted to push for CGI. Otherwise we would have gotten a pure practical effects horror film and even a cameo ending of the Thing's true form depicted in the 'Halt, who goes there' Novella the Thing is based on.
I think the most interesting idea was the language barrier helping to create paranoia, buy it could have been done better.
I liked the distrust factor in the 82 version...the alien is defeatable....but The Thing used mistrust as it's biggest weapon: why didn't Clark put the dog in the kennel (Blair was like wtf), who contaminated the blood: the Doc? Gary?, when the dog went into one of the crew quarters we saw one of member's silhouette, who was it (my friend and I always had an argument: I said it was Norris, he thinks its Palmer), who put the dirty clothes with McCready's name in the trash, at the end: McCready or Childs or neither...it goes on and on. It almost got to the point where the 1982 movie didn't actually need the Thing. The mistrust was the true enemy. But the characters had the brains to figure it out.
This movie didn't have none of those elements
Another problem with modern films is the camera work... you have all these crazy theatrical pulling shots and slow zooms and switching and etc. back then, most shots just showed what you gotta see and stood there or barely moved much. Just great acting & writing & plots. Not all this extra drama BS.
@4:15 I didn't even know about the Amalgamated thing-especially that they thought their practical effects would be used in preference to (the crappy) CGI, and didn't find out until the premiere. I find that upsetting. Actually, the VO says "in theatres," implying Amalgamated wasn't invited to the premiere. That's crappy too if it's true.
I remember seeing the original black and white version however having read the novel John Carpenter's version is more faithful to this . The 2011 Thing was ok but more effective when referencing certain points that anyone who saw JC's film would be aware of . It seemed far less distinctive when trying to tell its own story and stumbled around .
Exactly right,
I think they should have made a sequel instead, so they wouldn't make any mistakes with old information and allowing new stuff to fall into place.
They still have a chance for a sequel, just do it with 40% CGI and 60% hand made this time.
lol the prequel was so unmemorable, I forgot I even watched it
original is a fucking masterpiece
absolutely right that the nationalist theme would have been cool to explore
so many 80's movies have era defining political statements in them, it's awesome
Great video!
The original thing mostly relied on the paranoia and uncertainty between the characters. That feeling. _That_ horror.
Oh well, to each his own. I enjoyed it. I thought it was really good. I do agree with you on the CGI point. And I liked that fact that it couldn't imitate metal objects. But other than that, i loved this movie. And with the exception of the CGI, I thought this film did good justice to the 82 movie. And the way it ended was perfect. It brought you right to the beginning of Carpenter's film. Like I said, to each his own, but I loved it.