I do appreciate their concern, my uncle had me watching the first alien movie when I was like 6 and my dad had me watching Evil Dead when I was about 12
Lars is the one badass you need on your side when you fight The Thing. His character creation was perfect for tieing into the previous film. The could have just made him a cardboard character, but they made him real, likeable and just as determined as the demon he was hunting.
@@KthulhuXxx Lovecraft would've loved the cosmic horror element and effects. The original monster featured a vegetable man-creature, not a shapeshifter. This remake gave us a bit more of a look at the original Lovecraft-like cosmic alien, reminiscent of his tentacled gods, the Old Ones.
It's a different adaptation of the novella "Who Goes There?" As such, there's more of an understanding and acceptance of differences in interpretation from the page to the screen. It's why the recent It films aren't a remake of the 90s miniseries, and why it's easier to appreciate what each version got right and wrong about the book, to see what they valued and chose to express in one way or another, and how faithfully they did so, in one way or another. Whereas, for example, something like the remake of A Nightmare on Elm St is judged much more harshly for its failings, because there's less to interpret and more opportunity to fail where the original succeeded. An adaptation will never be completely accurate to the creator's vision and the audience's imagination, so different adaptations can both have unique value from a unique interpretation. But a remake has a hard time adding anything that makes it worth existing as a remake, with it also being incredibly and inevitably easy to change and lose what worked and was loved about the original.
See this is why you always need someone who speaks Norwegian in your group. When the crazy guy in the beginning is shouting at them he’s telling them to get away from it and that it’s imitating a dog. We would’ve been long gone by then 😂
I like how they found a new way to identify who might be replicated, i've wondered about the whole organic/inorganic absorption ever since i first saw it in theaters.
I made it to 45. But then I got a cavity in one of my wisdom teeth, and the dentist said pulling it was easiest. So one cavity, one fewer wisdom teeth. Gotta up my oral hygiene game, to keep the record there...
We didn't all tune in for that. And , honestly. if thats the highlight of this show. i won't be subscribing. The stupid inane remarks of the closet cowboy didn't help.
7:46 your appreciation for the glacier jusst gave me a great memory of taking a tour through one in I _think_ the French Alps. It was a week long school trip, first time abroad, 14 years old, everyone having teen crushes everywhere lol. It wss an amazing tour through a carved out glacier complete with whole rooms with sculpted ice furniture. I'm glad for that flashback!
This movie doesn't deserve the hate it gets. I thought it was good and it blends seamlessly with the beginning of the 1981 movie. If they had only went the practical effects that they had originally filmed, it would have been better. There's no way you can follow up the practical effects of Carpenter's movie with CGI. There's just no comparison on which looks better. Other than that, the story was good, and the cast was solid.
It woulda been a lot better if set entirely with the Norwegian team, in Norwegian language and finished with the helicopter chasing after the dog/thing. THEN it would have been seamless.
I'm also quite fond of it, because it's such an homage to the 'original' and I really don't hate the CGI. The biggest problem I think is that the Carpenter movie already had a prequel: the scenes where they visit the other base. That was already such an elegant way of setting up what would happen, and then we got to see those same outcomes play out at the US base. The prequel really is redundant as a result. Still, I will always love that bit where the dude's skull cracks under his skin. Even as someone who has worked in (and will always champion) practical FX, that shot is fantastic.
Nope. Well ( no offense ) you can't argue taste if you enjoyed it excellent! But for me not even close to the OG especially as they replaced the great looking practical fx with CGI.
Nope! Sorry it deserves the hate. And not just about the CGI. Please explain these 5 plotholes to me: 1) If the Ship was still working then why did the Thing leave the ship? 2) Science lady and Lars disabled all the vehicles... except these two! 3) I actuslly like the fillings explanation but the earring explanation makes no sense. Why? The thing is wearing clothes and shoes, but it can't wear a hanging ring?! 4) Instead of going back to camp to check on Lars she just disappears. 5) Instead of knowing about the American weather and research station, which should be common knowledge for the Americans, she goes the Russian camp... in the 80s... during the Cold War....
The really sad thing is the original ending got cut... where Studio ADI made a full sized giant alien pilot who is the race that made the saucer. They covered it up with the neon blue Tetris effect at the end. The creature would have then transformed into a Thingified version for the final chase. It's on their TH-cam videos that go way more in depth than the official disc. They made their own homage to the original with a little indie film called Harbinger Down, mainly out of being upset about their practical effects being cut.
I've been watching a lot of your videos and I just love Mrs. Movies reactions! Especially when her language gets spicy! Your little one is adorable! Much love from Windsor, Ontario Canada!💗
I saw Jeff Goldblum on his Hot Ones episode and I can't remember how it came up but he's 71 and has never had a cavity. So if anybody could be the Thing, I could definitely see it being Jeff Goldblum. lol
@@NefariousKoelit is unironically hard to never ever have one. Even if you eat incredibly healthy and follow proper dental health. Genes have a lot to do with it as well I think.
@@CrazeeAdam - Yeah, a lot is to do with genes, I expect. Also likely some degree of childhood diet and prevention. I definitely got lucky in this case.
The most interesting thing (no pun intended) about these movies, The Thing 1982 The Thing 2011 and the 1951 version is that after the last plane leaves the Amundson-Scott Station at the South Polo, leaving the winter over crew there, the initiations is to watch a marathon of all three films. They, of course have an extensive library of movies for the occupants of the station.
@@raven2435 the whole movie was pretty much marketed as a remake. Even down to having the same exact title. So no it was not given away at all. I saw this in theaters opening day and no one was expecting it to be a prequel. We all gasped.
We used to have tourist flights to Antarctica until one slammed into the side of Mt. Erebus. In the original short story ("Who Goes There?") there's a very atmospheric, creepy scene where the future first victim is set to watch over the ice block and has his back to it - he can hear the drip, drip of the ice slowly melting as his imagination goes wild, and then the sound changes as it escapes from the block and its feet(?) hit the floor. And that's the end of him.
You guys are great, cute children love the interruptions. I lost my dad shortly before the release of this movie. He loved the first film and we always speculated what happened before that movie. Your channel is so great 👍 I'll request a movie for you both!! Thanks for reminding me of my dad. 😢
They watched closely not only 1982 The Thing, but also anime Parasyte. Another thing is in 1982 The Thing stayed low. Now it's a king of intrigs from very start.
It gets a lot of hate, but personally i love it. Despite the stupid decision by the studio executives to cover most of the practical effects with CGI, i thought it was an excellent story. Maybe one day they will re-release it with all the CGI removed. I'd love to see that.
I watched some of the practical effects... Im happy they went with CGI... Honestly the practical effects looked so fucking fake and trash the CGI was a defenite upgrade...
@@warlorddk2070 CGI is faker and even more trash BECAUSE ITS NOT REAL! A practical effect puppet can 100% be scary and more authentic, and the fact this movie bombed because of the cgi, shows the truth in this!
@NecramoniumVideo Listen I am a big fan of practical effects okay? I get your frustration that studios tend to leave practical behind for trahs CGI... But lets be real the reason this movie failed was because people expected practical and there is a certain prestige and nostalgia in practical effects its sorta like stage shows where you can see the prop and backdrops if you look to the side... Its amazing what people can do with it sometimes achieving real looking products that feel more grounded than CGI. Its amazing how cool the effects were in the original im not saying the effects in the orignal were bad im saying the practical effects on this movie before the change were TRASH... Beyond repair level of bad... Some of it might have worked but my god some of the shots were just highschool project level bad... CGI was better in this case 100% which I say as a practical FX fan... Sure people like to pretend its because the CGI was bad looking people hated it... But the real reason is much more complicated... Promoting no CGI just to make it CGI... Americans disliking subtitles/foreign films, the brewing hatred towards CGI and the clear prestige in old fashion movie making instead of looking at the end product and what works.... All these things and more plus the fact that The thing was already pretty much a niche cult classic with a fanbase very much overlapping with the practical effects nerds me included... It all added up to the disliking of this movie but seperating this from the orignal and this is a great watch... @NecramoniumVideo Listen I am a big fan of practical effects okay? I get your frustration that studios tend to leave practical behind for trahs CGI... But lets be real the reason this movie failed was because people expected practical and there is a certain prestige and nostalgia in practical effects its sorta like stage shows where you can see the prop and backdrops if you look to the side... Its amazing what people can do with it sometimes achieving real looking products that feel more grounded than CGI. Its amazing how cool the effects were in the original im not saying the effects in the orignal were bad im saying the practical effects on this movie before the change were TRASH... Beyond repair level of bad... Some of it might have worked but my god some of the shots were just highschool project level bad... CGI was better in this case 100% which I say as a practical FX fan... Sure people like to pretend its because the CGI was bad looking people hated it... But the real reason is much more complicated... Promoting no CGI just to make it CGI... Americans disliking subtitles/foreign films, the brewing hatred towards CGI and the clear prestige in old fashion movie making instead of looking at the end product and what works.... All these things and more plus the fact that The thing was already pretty much a niche cult classic with a fanbase very much overlapping with the practical effects nerds me included... It all added up to the disliking of this movie but seperating this from the orignal and this is a great watch...
I think the mention of the Russian base is indeed to link it into the game as in that the player take command of a US rescue team sent to the outpost from 80's The Thing before finding out at the 2011 base that a team from a nearby Russian base had secretly visited both infected bases and took all the infected remains back with them which leads you heading said base only to find it to is infected XD
In the Dark Horse mini comic series the Russians take the Things remains aboard a submarine. The SyFy channel actually had a 10 or 12 part mini series planned as a sequel around 2005-06 where the Russians get the remains and bring them back to a lab in Siberia and all hell breaks loose and they gotta call in the Americans for help stopping the infection spreading worldwide. It was canned at the last minute before production sadly. You can read about it on certain horror websites and TH-cam videos. Search SyFy Thing series or something like that
There’s an audio book version of Peter Watts short story “The Things” here on TH-cam. Told from the point of view the Thing during Carpenter’s movie. The Thing is as terrified of us as we are of it. That’s as far as I go, without giving away spoilers, but the story is quite good.
You guys and 'Dasha Reacts', are wearing me out with the "That's What She Said" comments. I don't know why it never gets old..but it's funny every time - in an exhausting kind of way, LOL.
@@verisimilitude8660The practical effects are obviously amazing in the original, but it’s clear they wanted to have more movement with the thing this time around and practical made that harder to do I do believe they had some practical in there mixed in though maybe for like one or two scenes, it would have been nice if they maybe did a bit more, but I don’t mind the CGI
its based on a novella by John w,. campbell written in 1938 entitled who goes there ! there is an earlier film based on it , the thing from another world , from 1958 , James arness plays the part of the creature !
10:00 How did they cut the block out?? I understand that they would cut down into the ice however far they would need (looks like about 2-3 feet) but how would they have cut out the BOTTOM of the cube?
When Kate was asked how long it would take to extract the creature in ice, she responded maybe half a day, ASSUMING YOU HAVE THE PROPER EQUIPMENT. My guess is that the "viewing audience" never actually saw what this equipment was, but one must assume they had what was needed for the "extraction". After all, they knew beforehand that there was a specimen in the ice and would have brought everything needed for an expedition of this sort. Good question though. Cheers.
They actually made all the monster scenes with practical effects but the studio decided to overlap all of it in cgi in post production without telling the sfx and director.
You're being nice. This was trash. Good concept making it a prequel, but they dropped the ball in the endzone. Bad CGI, bad acting overall except for Mary Elizabeth Winstead and the dog.
One thing that I always think about contact with Aliens is like: if we already have so many problems with virus and bacteria that are from our planet imagine what would happen if an Alien came and introduce a bacteria/virus that is aggressive for us. We would be so screwed !!
Like the way native populations were decimated by new bugs back in the day. It depends on how similar our physiologies would be. Most of the buggies we have are specific to certain species at least to an extent, like how our pets don't catch our colds and vice versa.
6:15 you know what Mrs movies you would DEFINITELY survive a horror movie though 😭😭😂 Edit ; if they mad a horror movie for yall it would be so short 😭😂🩷
I watched this twice in theaters before my deployment. I liked it very much. Of course it's not as good as the original but it's still enjoyable. They took the same film and did it in a different way. no blood test but they had the filling test. And now we know Childs was human in the end of the 1982 film because he still had his earring in his right ear
well according to Carpenter, childs wasnt human. But following the narrative of the popular idea, the thing may have learn how to avoid some mistakes. Like been less aggressive and more stealth... probably with childs it learn some small details..
I know most ppl 💩 on this movie, but I enjoy it. The two things that REALLY grinds my gears: 1. They include the original practical Thing FX monsters in the special features. They actually worked & looked GOOD! But some exec at the Top went, "Na, put CGI over everything". 2. The very least they could have done, stick a beard on the end credit helicopter pilot, and find a damn husky who's markings match the original wolf dog. If you're going to lead us straight into footage from the original, those are two things that really would have sold it a lot better.
I first saw her in a campy MTV movie called Monster Island back in the 80s.Class trip to a tropical island,giant bugs,Adam West(TVs Batman)as a lone scientist,a lost civilization...and Carmen Electra sings.Sounds really silly..and it is..but I found it very entertaining.
@@sugarbomb1346 the guy with the hand stuck in his face was not part of the assimilation of the thing and the guy backing away. However after seeing windows turn during the blood test thing, I don't think it takes too long to start the process, but there indeed is a process and that's why it still was attached to its face and hadn't run off yet. It wasn't finished. Then again, this film didn't really do a good job, it almost was like a different alien. There were some interesting things, the non organic material getting excreted.
the reason they removed the practical effects is actually more stupid, the producers wanted the thing to be faster "like a videogame". The funniest thing about it is that the company that made the practical effects made their own The Thing-ish movie out of pettiness for having their work go to waste and not only it sucks but the effects aren't even that good.
27:29 The guy that was shooting at the dog at the beginning of the other one didn't wasn't speaking English, so at least HE was not one of the two guys that just returned from the helicopter crash.
You didn't see the final scene at the end during the credits. You can see the dog , the same dog of The thing 1982. And they tried to kill it from the helicopter. It is a prequel which explains what happened to the Norwegians.
The makers of this film were hardcore fans of the original practical effects and wanted to stay true to that but then a producer came in and said "the kids love cgi so make it cgi" so they painted over their already completed effects
Saw this is theatres when it came out, knew it was a prequel the entire time, so no idea why so many people think you spoiled the movie for the Mrs. But anywho, I love Eric Christian Olsen, who plays Adam. He's in one of my all time favourite movies Fired Up! 😂 and he's great in NCIS:LA
I have been wondering about that hat/headphone setup for a long time Mr. Movies. Was always curious if you'd cut through to fit them on, and now i know
😂😂 at the AMONG US refrence and visual! There is also a good sequel story in Dark Horse Comics, I think there was 3 different series 10-12 comics/graphic novels. This as well as The Blob deserve new sequel movies.
I know you were probably joking about getting a flamethrower but it is actually legal to own a flamethrower in most of the US, it's even legal to fill it with napalm (which is actually really easy to make at home)
I hope you get to react to the 1951 The Thing From Another World. Fun Fact: The "Thing" is played by James Arness of Gunsmoke, he's also the brother of Peter Graves who led the Mission Impossible team in the TV series.
There actually was a planned The Thing tv series, but before it went anywhere it was cancelled. I have no idea how you could turn the Thing into a television series but there were plans for one.
Lars didn't miss the dog in either movie. No-one ever considers that the dog is A SHAPESHIFTER! Bullets probably would have no effect. MacReady never actually drank from that bottle.
They did, until the studio decided to CGI over every single practical effect in post production without telling the team that made the practical effects until they've seen it at the premiere. Also they used the original footage to do so, so there is no way of a practical effect directors cut.
Try looking for the Thing-ish type film the practical effects guys made with their stuff. It looked horrible. So, no, i dont think it would've been better received 🤣🤣
@@sugarbomb1346 that movie was made to show off the animatronics that the other studio covered up with zero cgi. Nobody said they couldn't use cgi to enhance the animatronics, to add a condensation effect around their mouths, add more slime, blood, tiny tentacles, or whatever.
Always liked this movie especially if you watch it back to back. With the new rule about only absorbing bio matter, this movie does (somewhat) prove that Childs from the original was not The Thing. If you look at him, he has his earring at the end.
thats always the funny part about this and the old school movie, if you spoke the language....you were good to go for the whole movie hahaa within the first 8 minutes or so
Im telling this to a few of my favorite movie reviewers.. soo who ever does it first.. Nobody has reviewed the movie "Brain Scan".. with Edward Furlong. Kid from Terminator 2..... Good movie
The struggle of trying not to traumatize your curious children.
Yes, I was young when I asked my parents "Can I watch The Thing?" And they let me. And I had trouble falling asleep for the rest of my life. :D
I was the kid that always got yelled at for coming in when anything “not suitable” was on the TV
I do appreciate their concern, my uncle had me watching the first alien movie when I was like 6 and my dad had me watching Evil Dead when I was about 12
I was born in 1976
I watched
HALLOWEEN 1978
when I was 5 years old
I watched
FRIDAY the 13th part 1 & 2
when I was 7 years old
@@andrewblanchard2398 I...think your math is a little off?
Lars is the one badass you need on your side when you fight The Thing. His character creation was perfect for tieing into the previous film. The could have just made him a cardboard character, but they made him real, likeable and just as determined as the demon he was hunting.
What gets me though, Lars disappeared just before the climax and then shows up when it’s all over. What happened to him when it all went down?
@@Tweezymane He was told to share the screen with the other actors. After all, it is called, "The Thing", not "Lars". lol. Ze americans tied him up.
Who saw 1954's "The Thing from Another World"? This was the original film before John Carpenter's remake in 1982.
1951
I really don[t' consider Carpenter's film a remake. It was far more faithful to the original short story than the '51 film.
@@KthulhuXxx Lovecraft would've loved the cosmic horror element and effects. The original monster featured a vegetable man-creature, not a shapeshifter. This remake gave us a bit more of a look at the original Lovecraft-like cosmic alien, reminiscent of his tentacled gods, the Old Ones.
It's a different adaptation of the novella "Who Goes There?" As such, there's more of an understanding and acceptance of differences in interpretation from the page to the screen. It's why the recent It films aren't a remake of the 90s miniseries, and why it's easier to appreciate what each version got right and wrong about the book, to see what they valued and chose to express in one way or another, and how faithfully they did so, in one way or another. Whereas, for example, something like the remake of A Nightmare on Elm St is judged much more harshly for its failings, because there's less to interpret and more opportunity to fail where the original succeeded. An adaptation will never be completely accurate to the creator's vision and the audience's imagination, so different adaptations can both have unique value from a unique interpretation. But a remake has a hard time adding anything that makes it worth existing as a remake, with it also being incredibly and inevitably easy to change and lose what worked and was loved about the original.
It's still a scary movie, especially with the stuntman walking around on fire.
See this is why you always need someone who speaks Norwegian in your group. When the crazy guy in the beginning is shouting at them he’s telling them to get away from it and that it’s imitating a dog.
We would’ve been long gone by then 😂
The studio thought nobody was going to go to a monster movie with no CGI, so they made them go over it.
I like how they found a new way to identify who might be replicated, i've wondered about the whole organic/inorganic absorption ever since i first saw it in theaters.
I turn 50 this year, and I've never had a cavity and also have all my wisdom teeth. We're out here. Among you.
I made it to 45. But then I got a cavity in one of my wisdom teeth, and the dentist said pulling it was easiest. So one cavity, one fewer wisdom teeth. Gotta up my oral hygiene game, to keep the record there...
Got to 38.
41
😆 @ "This is a big thing" 15:32 (The irony)
honestly, the best thing about your reactions are the wholesome moments when your kids come in. It just gives a much more real sense to the channel.
We didn't all tune in for that. And , honestly. if thats the highlight of this show. i won't be subscribing. The stupid inane remarks of the closet cowboy didn't help.
Now you need to check out The Thing From Another World (1951).
FINE THEN
7:46 your appreciation for the glacier jusst gave me a great memory of taking a tour through one in I _think_ the French Alps. It was a week long school trip, first time abroad, 14 years old, everyone having teen crushes everywhere lol. It wss an amazing tour through a carved out glacier complete with whole rooms with sculpted ice furniture. I'm glad for that flashback!
This movie doesn't deserve the hate it gets. I thought it was good and it blends seamlessly with the beginning of the 1981 movie. If they had only went the practical effects that they had originally filmed, it would have been better. There's no way you can follow up the practical effects of Carpenter's movie with CGI. There's just no comparison on which looks better. Other than that, the story was good, and the cast was solid.
It woulda been a lot better if set entirely with the Norwegian team, in Norwegian language and finished with the helicopter chasing after the dog/thing. THEN it would have been seamless.
I'm also quite fond of it, because it's such an homage to the 'original' and I really don't hate the CGI. The biggest problem I think is that the Carpenter movie already had a prequel: the scenes where they visit the other base. That was already such an elegant way of setting up what would happen, and then we got to see those same outcomes play out at the US base. The prequel really is redundant as a result.
Still, I will always love that bit where the dude's skull cracks under his skin. Even as someone who has worked in (and will always champion) practical FX, that shot is fantastic.
Nope. Well ( no offense ) you can't argue taste if you enjoyed it excellent! But for me not even close to the OG especially as they replaced the great looking practical fx with CGI.
people hate this movie?? weirdos
Nope! Sorry it deserves the hate. And not just about the CGI.
Please explain these 5 plotholes to me:
1) If the Ship was still working then why did the Thing leave the ship?
2) Science lady and Lars disabled all the vehicles... except these two!
3) I actuslly like the fillings explanation but the earring explanation makes no sense. Why? The thing is wearing clothes and shoes, but it can't wear a hanging ring?!
4) Instead of going back to camp to check on Lars she just disappears.
5) Instead of knowing about the American weather and research station, which should be common knowledge for the Americans, she goes the Russian camp... in the 80s... during the Cold War....
I was amazed to find out when I first watched this in theaters, that this was the prequel. Especially the ending.
The really sad thing is the original ending got cut... where Studio ADI made a full sized giant alien pilot who is the race that made the saucer. They covered it up with the neon blue Tetris effect at the end. The creature would have then transformed into a Thingified version for the final chase. It's on their TH-cam videos that go way more in depth than the official disc. They made their own homage to the original with a little indie film called Harbinger Down, mainly out of being upset about their practical effects being cut.
I've been watching a lot of your videos and I just love Mrs. Movies reactions! Especially when her language gets spicy! Your little one is adorable! Much love from Windsor, Ontario Canada!💗
I saw Jeff Goldblum on his Hot Ones episode and I can't remember how it came up but he's 71 and has never had a cavity. So if anybody could be the Thing, I could definitely see it being Jeff Goldblum. lol
I've never had a cavity at 49. Must be an alien.
@@NefariousKoelit is unironically hard to never ever have one. Even if you eat incredibly healthy and follow proper dental health. Genes have a lot to do with it as well I think.
@@CrazeeAdam - Yeah, a lot is to do with genes, I expect. Also likely some degree of childhood diet and prevention. I definitely got lucky in this case.
I just commented saying that I've also never had a cavity/filling and I'm 46 years old. I think that genetics definitely play a huge part.
The most interesting thing (no pun intended) about these movies, The Thing 1982 The Thing 2011 and the 1951 version is that after the last plane leaves the Amundson-Scott Station at the South Polo, leaving the winter over crew there, the initiations is to watch a marathon of all three films. They, of course have an extensive library of movies for the occupants of the station.
In what order?
@@donnaroo8042 I'm not sure but its in release order. They have all three in the library there.
You shouldn't have told her it was a prequel till the end when the dog starts running.
I mean that is kinda spoiled with them finding the UFO in the beginning. Lol.
They make it very obvious this is a prequel nothing to spoil my guy
@@raven2435 the whole movie was pretty much marketed as a remake. Even down to having the same exact title. So no it was not given away at all. I saw this in theaters opening day and no one was expecting it to be a prequel. We all gasped.
@@khughes1997no they don’t, boy.
ABSOLUTELY!!!
I WAS LIKE WTF DUDE
Distress beacon sound is the same one used in Sunshine (2007) for the Icarus 1. Y'all should check out that movie as well!
We used to have tourist flights to Antarctica until one slammed into the side of Mt. Erebus.
In the original short story ("Who Goes There?") there's a very atmospheric, creepy scene where the future first victim is set to watch over the ice block and has his back to it - he can hear the drip, drip of the ice slowly melting as his imagination goes wild, and then the sound changes as it escapes from the block and its feet(?) hit the floor. And that's the end of him.
You guys are great, cute children love the interruptions. I lost my dad shortly before the release of this movie. He loved the first film and we always speculated what happened before that movie. Your channel is so great 👍 I'll request a movie for you both!! Thanks for reminding me of my dad. 😢
They watched closely not only 1982 The Thing, but also anime Parasyte.
Another thing is in 1982 The Thing stayed low. Now it's a king of intrigs from very start.
Love parasyte the maxim anime series.
Remember "The Addams Family"? The hand that came out of the box was called "Thing".
The among us site gag was excellently placed and hilarious. You guys rock!
It gets a lot of hate, but personally i love it. Despite the stupid decision by the studio executives to cover most of the practical effects with CGI, i thought it was an excellent story. Maybe one day they will re-release it with all the CGI removed. I'd love to see that.
That would be a dream come true. The movie itself is awesome; it's just the CGI that destroys it.
I watched some of the practical effects... Im happy they went with CGI... Honestly the practical effects looked so fucking fake and trash the CGI was a defenite upgrade...
@@warlorddk2070 You are probably the only person on this planet thinking like that :D
@@warlorddk2070 CGI is faker and even more trash BECAUSE ITS NOT REAL! A practical effect puppet can 100% be scary and more authentic, and the fact this movie bombed because of the cgi, shows the truth in this!
@NecramoniumVideo Listen I am a big fan of practical effects okay? I get your frustration that studios tend to leave practical behind for trahs CGI... But lets be real the reason this movie failed was because people expected practical and there is a certain prestige and nostalgia in practical effects its sorta like stage shows where you can see the prop and backdrops if you look to the side... Its amazing what people can do with it sometimes achieving real looking products that feel more grounded than CGI. Its amazing how cool the effects were in the original im not saying the effects in the orignal were bad im saying the practical effects on this movie before the change were TRASH... Beyond repair level of bad... Some of it might have worked but my god some of the shots were just highschool project level bad... CGI was better in this case 100% which I say as a practical FX fan... Sure people like to pretend its because the CGI was bad looking people hated it... But the real reason is much more complicated... Promoting no CGI just to make it CGI... Americans disliking subtitles/foreign films, the brewing hatred towards CGI and the clear prestige in old fashion movie making instead of looking at the end product and what works.... All these things and more plus the fact that The thing was already pretty much a niche cult classic with a fanbase very much overlapping with the practical effects nerds me included... It all added up to the disliking of this movie but seperating this from the orignal and this is a great watch... @NecramoniumVideo Listen I am a big fan of practical effects okay? I get your frustration that studios tend to leave practical behind for trahs CGI... But lets be real the reason this movie failed was because people expected practical and there is a certain prestige and nostalgia in practical effects its sorta like stage shows where you can see the prop and backdrops if you look to the side... Its amazing what people can do with it sometimes achieving real looking products that feel more grounded than CGI. Its amazing how cool the effects were in the original im not saying the effects in the orignal were bad im saying the practical effects on this movie before the change were TRASH... Beyond repair level of bad... Some of it might have worked but my god some of the shots were just highschool project level bad... CGI was better in this case 100% which I say as a practical FX fan... Sure people like to pretend its because the CGI was bad looking people hated it... But the real reason is much more complicated... Promoting no CGI just to make it CGI... Americans disliking subtitles/foreign films, the brewing hatred towards CGI and the clear prestige in old fashion movie making instead of looking at the end product and what works.... All these things and more plus the fact that The thing was already pretty much a niche cult classic with a fanbase very much overlapping with the practical effects nerds me included... It all added up to the disliking of this movie but seperating this from the orignal and this is a great watch...
I think the mention of the Russian base is indeed to link it into the game as in that the player take command of a US rescue team sent to the outpost from 80's The Thing before finding out at the 2011 base that a team from a nearby Russian base had secretly visited both infected bases and took all the infected remains back with them which leads you heading said base only to find it to is infected XD
In the Dark Horse mini comic series the Russians take the Things remains aboard a submarine. The SyFy channel actually had a 10 or 12 part mini series planned as a sequel around 2005-06 where the Russians get the remains and bring them back to a lab in Siberia and all hell breaks loose and they gotta call in the Americans for help stopping the infection spreading worldwide. It was canned at the last minute before production sadly. You can read about it on certain horror websites and TH-cam videos. Search SyFy Thing series or something like that
They could do a sequel with Russel and Winstead meeting at the Russia station 🤔
And they fall in love💞...till one day a French kiss goes terribly wrong
Oh. Please let this happen.
There’s an audio book version of Peter Watts short story “The Things” here on TH-cam. Told from the point of view the Thing during Carpenter’s movie. The Thing is as terrified of us as we are of it. That’s as far as I go, without giving away spoilers, but the story is quite good.
People who don’t know should not be told it’s a prequel. I didn’t know that and it made the movie so much better
You guys and 'Dasha Reacts', are wearing me out with the "That's What She Said" comments. I don't know why it never gets old..but it's funny every time - in an exhausting kind of way, LOL.
This movie gets complaints because of the CGI vs real effects of the 82' movie. BUT, the CGI is really good in this movie!
Why
The cgi is passable but not great especially compared to the practical effects in JC movie
@@verisimilitude8660The practical effects are obviously amazing in the original, but it’s clear they wanted to have more movement with the thing this time around and practical made that harder to do
I do believe they had some practical in there mixed in though maybe for like one or two scenes, it would have been nice if they maybe did a bit more, but I don’t mind the CGI
its based on a novella by John w,. campbell written in 1938 entitled who goes there ! there is an earlier film based on it , the thing from another world , from 1958 , James arness plays the part of the creature !
41:51 Looks like Luke Skywalker's Uncle Owen gets burnt to a crisp AGAIN.
10:00 How did they cut the block out?? I understand that they would cut down into the ice however far they would need (looks like about 2-3 feet) but how would they have cut out the BOTTOM of the cube?
When Kate was asked how long it would take to extract the creature in ice, she responded maybe half a day, ASSUMING YOU HAVE THE PROPER EQUIPMENT.
My guess is that the "viewing audience" never actually saw what this equipment was, but one must assume they had what was needed for the "extraction". After all, they knew beforehand that there was a specimen in the ice and would have brought everything needed for an expedition of this sort.
Good question though. Cheers.
They actually made all the monster scenes with practical effects but the studio decided to overlap all of it in cgi in post production without telling the sfx and director.
I love it when your kids make appearances! so cute!
Other than some questionable CGI, I actually quite like this one.
There are plenty of people with terrible taste like you I'm sure
I don't even think the CGI is questionable.. it's just not as good as the practical.
Oddly enough, there was a full practical version BUT the studio had it scrapped and the effects replaced with CGI.
You're being nice. This was trash. Good concept making it a prequel, but they dropped the ball in the endzone. Bad CGI, bad acting overall except for Mary Elizabeth Winstead and the dog.
@@mcentepede This was not trash at all. Let people enjoy things.
One thing that I always think about contact with Aliens is like: if we already have so many problems with virus and bacteria that are from our planet imagine what would happen if an Alien came and introduce a bacteria/virus that is aggressive for us. We would be so screwed !!
Like the way native populations were decimated by new bugs back in the day. It depends on how similar our physiologies would be. Most of the buggies we have are specific to certain species at least to an extent, like how our pets don't catch our colds and vice versa.
6:15 you know what Mrs movies you would DEFINITELY survive a horror movie though 😭😭😂
Edit ; if they mad a horror movie for yall it would be so short 😭😂🩷
Remember, during this film, McReady is playing PC chess... 🤔🥃
Great review to a great movie. Did you see the Alien head at 7:40, just as they were entering the ice cave?
I still haven't saw this version yet and I still have it in a 3 pack with the original and the John carpenter version
You're not missing anything.
I'd say it's worth a watch. Doesn't come remotely close to Carpenters though.
Who let the dogs out should play when your dog walks in, like your daughter’s applause.
Please no.
I watched this twice in theaters before my deployment. I liked it very much. Of course it's not as good as the original but it's still enjoyable. They took the same film and did it in a different way. no blood test but they had the filling test. And now we know Childs was human in the end of the 1982 film because he still had his earring in his right ear
well according to Carpenter, childs wasnt human. But following the narrative of the popular idea, the thing may have learn how to avoid some mistakes. Like been less aggressive and more stealth... probably with childs it learn some small details..
Joel Edgerton (Sam) is the Brother of Nash Edgerton, who was the producer of an Australian Crime Drama TV series, Mr Inbetween.
I know most ppl 💩 on this movie, but I enjoy it. The two things that REALLY grinds my gears:
1. They include the original practical Thing FX monsters in the special features. They actually worked & looked GOOD! But some exec at the Top went, "Na, put CGI over everything".
2. The very least they could have done, stick a beard on the end credit helicopter pilot, and find a damn husky who's markings match the original wolf dog. If you're going to lead us straight into footage from the original, those are two things that really would have sold it a lot better.
mary elizabeth winstead is so gorgeous. she's amazing in everything she's in. this, 10 cloverfield lane, smashed, scott pilgrim...
Death Proof and Final Destination 3 for me is when she was at her hottest but yeah she is gorgeous.
She's looking more and more like Sigourney Weaver in recent years. She can totally play Ripley's daughter in an Alien Isolation movie.
I first saw her in a campy MTV movie called Monster Island back in the 80s.Class trip to a tropical island,giant bugs,Adam West(TVs Batman)as a lone scientist,a lost civilization...and Carmen Electra sings.Sounds really silly..and it is..but I found it very entertaining.
Very true.
She also married a Jedi Knight.
You wouldn't know you're the thing in the sense that you would be dead. There is no surviving the digestion process
What about when it assimilate you like it did with the guy in this film
@@breakwoodhopper6739 which guy?
@@86leewis The one who became the two faced thing or the guy who had the hand thing stuck on his face.
@@sugarbomb1346 the guy with the hand stuck in his face was not part of the assimilation of the thing and the guy backing away. However after seeing windows turn during the blood test thing, I don't think it takes too long to start the process, but there indeed is a process and that's why it still was attached to its face and hadn't run off yet. It wasn't finished. Then again, this film didn't really do a good job, it almost was like a different alien. There were some interesting things, the non organic material getting excreted.
the reason they removed the practical effects is actually more stupid, the producers wanted the thing to be faster "like a videogame". The funniest thing about it is that the company that made the practical effects made their own The Thing-ish movie out of pettiness for having their work go to waste and not only it sucks but the effects aren't even that good.
27:29 The guy that was shooting at the dog at the beginning of the other one didn't wasn't speaking English, so at least HE was not one of the two guys that just returned from the helicopter crash.
You didn't see the final scene at the end during the credits. You can see the dog , the same dog of The thing 1982. And they tried to kill it from the helicopter. It is a prequel which explains what happened to the Norwegians.
Did you watch the video until the end? They watched all that
The makers of this film were hardcore fans of the original practical effects and wanted to stay true to that but then a producer came in and said "the kids love cgi so make it cgi" so they painted over their already completed effects
They used to call them the "Cleveland Cadavers".
Hey, I got the Mr. Eko reference! lol Only because I've recently been watching Lost (didn't watch any eps before).
The score is so epic. Simple but perfect
12:08 I THINK you flinched HERE. LOL
I've been waiting for the cowboy hat to come off! Now I am completely. LOL.
18:50 ... 😂 that's nothing 😂
Sounds like swedes and norwegians lol yay. Your family is the cutest thing btw "what are you watching" " A scary thing" lol
"until that little fella pops out" thats what she said 🤔🫢
Saw this is theatres when it came out, knew it was a prequel the entire time, so no idea why so many people think you spoiled the movie for the Mrs. But anywho, I love Eric Christian Olsen, who plays Adam. He's in one of my all time favourite movies Fired Up! 😂 and he's great in NCIS:LA
Love this movie as a prequel to The Thing. Mary Elizabeth is great in it. And the story is great too
36:08 They have to leave the axe wall, so Kurt Russell can find it in the next movie.
There's supposed to be a new remake coming out, called 'Frozen Hell', by John Carpenter.
Never watched live before. This is fun!
When I was young! Adults had to ask for my help when it came to setting things up
Its the hand that escapes not the dog? Lol that's why there's A axe in the wall in original because of the hand lol
Love you both and all the wonderful viewers
We know what is under the ice. Antarctica was covered in vegetation/forests. The arctic also had a very mild climate.
I have been wondering about that hat/headphone setup for a long time Mr. Movies. Was always curious if you'd cut through to fit them on, and now i know
6:29 If it was supposed to be Kurt Russell, I think he would be wearing a sombrero.
This is a guilty pleasure. I do love this movie. When you guys get to Cheech and Chong, would you be called "You Me and the Doobies"?
I've been waiting for this reaction!
😂😂 at the AMONG US refrence and visual! There is also a good sequel story in Dark Horse Comics, I think there was 3 different series 10-12 comics/graphic novels. This as well as The Blob deserve new sequel movies.
Yup I actually bought those Dark Horse comics on eBay about 3-4 years ago.
In Ireland they call this 'Te Ting'.
Since you guys are doing remakes and og movies for may I would definitely suggest my bloody valentine and it's remake
I know you were probably joking about getting a flamethrower but it is actually legal to own a flamethrower in most of the US, it's even legal to fill it with napalm (which is actually really easy to make at home)
Tesla makes a flame thrower and there are at least 2 other companies that do as well. They're badass.
LOL your face on the thumbnail is just like the little girl "concerned" meme.
We should get a flamethrower- said “the dream wife”😂😂😂😂😂 …. Man-uhhh okay😍😍
I've got no fillings at 52 ... so I'm The Thing ...
Practical effects every time, but with horror films definitely practical like some of the stuff Tom Savini came up with is just amazing.
Mary Elizabeth Winstead is very underrated as a final girl in this, very fun and cool
In a really fun universe, all of the above happened on the same Antarctica:
1. The Thing
2. AvP
3. Monsterverse
4. Stargate SG1
Your daughter playing Switch, I approve. 👍
I hope you get to react to the 1951 The Thing From Another World. Fun Fact: The "Thing" is played by James Arness of Gunsmoke, he's also the brother of Peter Graves who led the Mission Impossible team in the TV series.
I like a mix. Use practical with CGI enhancements to spruce it up, but keep the practical at the core.
IMO 1 of the only movies that is close to as good as the original though it was a prequel, you get my drift
There actually was a planned The Thing tv series, but before it went anywhere it was cancelled. I have no idea how you could turn the Thing into a television series but there were plans for one.
Lars didn't miss the dog in either movie. No-one ever considers that the dog is A SHAPESHIFTER! Bullets probably would have no effect.
MacReady never actually drank from that bottle.
Mary is becoming a expert in killing aliens and driving off in the distance at night lol
I love this prequel 🙌
It's very underrated. Good movie!
I didn't think eyes could get that wide open.
If they used practical effects I think it would have been much much better received
They did, until the studio decided to CGI over every single practical effect in post production without telling the team that made the practical effects until they've seen it at the premiere. Also they used the original footage to do so, so there is no way of a practical effect directors cut.
blame the studio execs that forced them to cover the practical fx with cgi
Try looking for the Thing-ish type film the practical effects guys made with their stuff. It looked horrible. So, no, i dont think it would've been better received 🤣🤣
@@sugarbomb1346 that movie was made to show off the animatronics that the other studio covered up with zero cgi. Nobody said they couldn't use cgi to enhance the animatronics, to add a condensation effect around their mouths, add more slime, blood, tiny tentacles, or whatever.
just proves once agian studios don't understand their audience @@MrCrniVrag
Always liked this movie especially if you watch it back to back. With the new rule about only absorbing bio matter, this movie does (somewhat) prove that Childs from the original was not The Thing. If you look at him, he has his earring at the end.
thats always the funny part about this and the old school movie, if you spoke the language....you were good to go for the whole movie hahaa within the first 8 minutes or so
Im telling this to a few of my favorite movie reviewers.. soo who ever does it first.. Nobody has reviewed the movie "Brain Scan".. with Edward Furlong. Kid from Terminator 2..... Good movie
Remember the Kurt Russell doctor told him it’s been there one hundred thousand years
I hope they do release a version of the 2011 Prequel with all of the practical effects still in it.