My cousin works as a technician at a base in Antarctica and he says this movie is pretty accurate - except for the alien. Every Christmas the whole crew gather and watch The Thing.
The keys and the blood is easily explained. When Windows was with Bennings in the storage room you hear them talking and Bennings tells Windows to "get the keys from Gary." Windows leaves and when he returns to see Bennings you hear something fall. This is Windows DROPPING THE KEYS. It was made purposely loud so people would hear it. This means 'The Thing' just had to take the keys from the floor, unlock the fridge, destroy the blood and go join the group. In fact if you watch the scene outside you'll see SOMEONE arriving a little later than the others.....
And of course showing the UFO in the VERY FIRST PICTURE of the film 😅. I guess the producers didnt trust the American audiences intellect to get the plot, like when they see the footage of the Norwegians digging up the UFO 😅
The dog was played by a half-dog, half-wolf hybrid named Jed, and the film crew said that he played all of his parts eerily well and was extremely calm and well-behaved on set, but the moment he'd get uncomfortable, he would suddenly take on that creepy, still stare that you can see in the movie
Not every one. I've seen exactly ONE person say something along the lines of "Why? Why is he doing that? Maybe he knows there's something wrong with the dog...".
Even seeing it for the first time, it's pretty obvious something is going to be wrong with the dog, so why do they get so offended? Either hamming it up for reaction or actually slow, lol
Your acknowledgement of how stressful the situation is and how everyone’s behavior is understandable is something insanely lacking in most people that watch horror movies. I’ve heard someone describe why it is people think they’re smarter than the characters/the characters are dumb. _“Movie watching is a passive activity that allows you to think and consider multiple options. The pressure of a situation can f**k with your decision making process”_ -Griffin Newman, actor and cohost of the Blank Check podcast I’ve been in stressful situations and not been able to think straight to make better decisions, and they were nowhere near life threatening. I can only imagine how overwhelmed someone is with that.
First reaction to The Thing that actually put thought into *why* the Norwegians were shooting at the dog, instead of immediately jumping to "Oh no, poor doggy!" And that level of curiosity continued throughout. Well done!
Well... they already knew the basic outline of the plot. If it's an alien movie, and random people are desperately trying to kill a dog, then... yeah. Most reactors go in not knowing what the movie's about
Well, the girls are both Bright, but I think they may have known a bit more about the movie than most reactors. The girl on the left freely admitted to having explored this type stuff online. Hard to miss some of the “surprises” in the Thing when you are looking for that stuff online.
41:17 - the "breath theory"... It is easily debunked by "Bennings Death" (at 21:16 here)... When Bennings/Thing "screams" you can clearly see its breath. The bottom line is that every "theory" (breath in the cold, gleam in someone's eye, the missing/switched jacket on Childs) doesn't hold up under scrutiny. There is no "tell" as to who is who. It is the brilliance of this film that will still debate about it over 40 years later!
@kevinburton3948 John Carpenter has said that he didn't do any deep thinking on the story as it pertains to the order of infections. At first I didn't believe him but after considering Palmer suddenly flying up to the ceiling and sticking to it, which made no physical sense, that's when I started believing John Carpenter. Everyone unwrapped the burnt Norwegian's body without gloves. So any one of them could have been the first to be infected in that scene. But Blair's second autopsy, the one of the dogs, you can see him come into physical contact with the corpse on his bare forearm just above the rubber gloves he was wearing. So, if I had to put my own spin on who was infected first I would choose Blair. Storytelling in film back then (I did see this movie in the theater when it first came out), that had such an ambiguous ending was often intentional by writers. It made moviegoers use their own brains to come up with the ending they preferred and there was no wrong answer. Therefore, for me, neither Childs nor MacReady was infected at the end. They simply froze to death when the fire died down. That could change if I ever actually had the opportunity to write and film a sequel.
There are multiple instances of the thing replicating parts of the host that weren’t there in real life in Addition to not being able to replicate metal.
@@Whoo_Boy You and I are completely on the same page when it comes to the infections. I too believe Blair was first despite the "shadow on the wall" looking most like Norris. I've been watching this film since the early 80s as well (but not in the theatre- I was only 12 when it came out). I also believe that Childs and Mac were the only two human survivors. In 2023 I got to meet Keith David at a horror convention in Niagara Falls (Canada). I shared with him my thoughts on "who is who" at the end. They are both human. These two have been at each other's throats throughout the entire film. Childs is Mac's opposition. And they were both willing to kill each other- Mac threatening to shoot Childs and Childs allowing Mac to freeze to death outside. But by the end, all that animosity for each other is gone- Mac's offer of the whisky is not a final test- it is an olive branch. They have finally put aside all their hate and distrust. You can hear it in Childs' voice when he asks, "Well... What do we do?" They know that although they will not survive, they have saved Humanity. This is our "happy ending." The entire time I was explaining this to Keith David, he had this growing smile on his face. When I was finished he reached out and shook my hand. While it might not have been definitive, it was good enough for me.
What's funny is there was a video game sequel in 2002, picks up right where this left off--and they just announced it's getting a remaster for release later this year!
My interpretation of them sharing the drink at the end is that they both (or the one human) knows that if either one of them is the thing, then they already failed, because the remaining human would not have the strenght and equipment left to deafeat a thing on his own. And as any human left alive is doomed to freeze to death anyways, there is no reason to bother with the safety precautions anymore, and they both know it.
I also saw a theory that the bottle was filled with gas as they had been burning and blowing everything up and he gave it to him to see if he would drink it and if it was gas he just drank it no issue proving he is a thing.
@@EclipseStrife Keith David has stated that both actors were told they were human at the end. The gasoline thing was given credence because Carpenter thought it was great when he heard it, but it was not his original idea or intention.
@@W2theG Yeah, that's similar to how Quentin Tarantino enjoys reading fan theories about what's in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, but the real answer is that there is no real answer. When he and Roger Avary wrote the original script, they wrote it as diamonds (specifically, the diamonds from the Reservoir Dogs heist), but then decided that was too predictable and decided to leave it undefined, even for themselves, figuring the viewer's imagination could conjure up something way more valuable than anything they could actually show you. Ofc, some people came up with the "Marcellus Wallace's soul" theory and that's just nonsense. Avary is on record as saying that he hates that theory and thinks it's dumb. He told Roger Ebert in 1997, "Somebody had the bright idea (which I think was a mistake) of putting an orange lightbulb in there. Suddenly what could have been anything became anything supernatural."
@@W2theG Keith David said that he doesn't know if he was it or not. Discusses it near the end of this interview before he starts talking about They Live! th-cam.com/video/iY5N9d645po/w-d-xo.html
Here's the thing (no pun intended): The dog infected Norris first (the shadow had short, curly hair--which is Norris); his underwear was the set Nauls found in the kitchen. Blair got infected from the autopsy (he touched his eraser to his lips). Norris likely infected Palmer at some point (Windows found his underwear), and one of them (likely Blair) grabbed the keys when Windows dropped them after the Bennings attack and destroyed the blood. Since Blair could get in and out of a locked room, he snuck back into base and cut the power to sneak out to MacReady's shack--but Fuchs saw him. Blair dropped the clothes outside and ambushed Fuchs, who probably burned himself to avoid assimilation. Blair then finished framing MacReady and deliberately left the lights on to attract attention before going back to the shed. Palmer was always in the presence of the group so he couldn't move about or do anything. Blair was able to skulk around in the dark. Blair likely broke in through the broken supply room window and assimilated Childs (who may have opened the door to try to get away). He says he thought he saw Blair outside--which is impossible because Blair was inside and going into the generator room when Childs walked out. Thing-Childs probably knew the generator room was next which is why the POV shot looks down at the door before going to the exit. John Carpenter says that one of the 2 guys is The Thing, but he's refused to say who it is. So one of them is The Thing. Dean Cundey says it's Childs because he says he deliberately didn't put highlights in the eyes of the actors who were Things; John Carpenter has shot this down, but probably because he wants to preserve the mystery. Wilford Brimley (Blair) was the only actor who didn't go to location, so he's not in any outdoor shots; that's why Blair is often missing. The 2011 version is prequel: it shows the Norwegian camp. It isn't necessary and there's a few continuity errors. It's not unwatchable, but it IS cringey because it was superimposed onto the on-set practical effects. So they made the FX on set and the studio decided to re-do them with CGI in post. That's why the CGI is so controversial.
It’s very underrated. Seemed to turn people off by using the same title, which was definitely lazy. But it explains what happened to the Norwegian team.
the 2011 film is not a remake, it's a prequel and ends right before this one starts. This film is a technically a retelling of the 1951 film The Thing from Another World, albeit much much better.
Stop being a Spoiler dumb Ass. It's actually a great reaction When people think it is a remake. I've seen two reaction channels watch the 2011 versions thinking its a remake & the Ending blows their Mind. Stop spoiling things for these Reactors and let them experience these movies for themselves. Whether it's a bad movie or Not let them see for themselves.
There is a prequel called "The Thing (2011)" where we see the team of Norwegians who found the thing and everything that happened at its base before it. And as a matter of fact, there are comics and a video game that are sequels to this movie, but the video game and the comics are not connected, each one is a different sequel.
Thank you so much for realizing Blair was trying to prevent the Thing from spreading by sabotaging the helicopter and communications. So many reactors miss that. The Thing 2011 is a prequel about what happened at the Norwegian base. People were mad they didn't use practical effects but it's a solid horror movie. This is supposed to make you paranoid and someone said it's an inspiration for the game Among Us 😉
The production wanted to leave it practical as a throwback and the studio insisted on CGI for the wow factor. Wrong choice studio! Also, not a fan of them changing the extraction from the ice block. What happens in the film would not leave the ice tub behind. A careful extraction as the original film intended to have portrayed would have.
Interesting Facts: Norris is clearly exhibiting chest pain and all of the classic signs of a heart attack and cardiac arrest before he collapses. In the prequel to “The Thing”, they were able to identify people who had been imitated because the Things were only able to replicate organic matter and were therefore unable to duplicate inorganic matter, which meant that items such as pins inserted to hold together broken bones and fillings in your teeth would be missing in people that had been taken over. That would obviously be the case for anyone like Norris that had a pacemaker as well. They were thus able to identify who was a Thing and who was not by checking for fillings, etc… When the Thing imitates someone, it perfectly duplicates every cell with such precision than it actually retains the memories, knowledge, and personality of the individual it copies. Norris (the guy who’s chest bursts open, chopping off the doctor’s hands with its bear-trap teeth) had a bad heart, and very likely a peacemaker. When the Thing took him over and perfectly imitated him, it also faithfully recreated his heart defect, but not his pacemaker, which eventually caused Norris to suffer a heart attack for real during a high-stress moment. The Thing would have been happy to hide itself in a presumably “dead” body, but it couldn’t tolerate the electro-shocks from the defibrillator and was thus forced to reveal itself. Of course, the amazing scene where Norris’ head separates from his burning body, slides onto the floor, and pulls itself away, transforming into a crab/spider with his upside-down head as its body, and tries to crawl away unnoticed, is an iconic moment! (Incidentally, at the beginning of the movie, the spaceship was flying erratically because the crew was desperately trying to fight off the Things that were aboard their vessel and causing havoc. That’s why the spaceship attempted to make an emergency landing on the nearest planet and ended up crash landing in the Antarctic. Only one of the Things as survived the crash and made it out of the ship alive, only to freeze in the ice.)
The Thing from 2011, takes place in 1982. It takes place at the Norwegian scientific facility before the Thing destroys it. So it takes place a little before the movie we all love.
The guy who did the practical effects previously worked on a werewolf movie but that year the Oscar went to a colleague who also did a werewolf for An American Werewolf In London (which you have to react to!). So he was extremely motivated to give his best here, which he did. He worked continuously, living on candybars and sodas to such an extend that after the last day of shooting he went to a hospital to have himself checked out.
Bottin was Rick Baker's assistant. Baker was developing the air bladder effects for An American Werewolf in London. Bottin used some of what Baker developed in The Howling. Baker was said to be upset that Bottin used his technique in a movie that beat AAWIL to the theater.
The dog was played by Jed the Wolfdog, who also starred in White Fang and The Journey of Natty Gann, among others. He was VERY intelligent, and an excellent actor.
One of the best Sci-fi Horror Thriller Films ever made! It was not well received by critics upon release and that it bombed at the box office, making $19 million dollars against a $15 million dollar budget. However it's gained a cult following overtime and has been regarded as one of John Carpenter's best movies in his filmography The Dog Kennel Sequence was done by Oscar Winning VFX artist Stan Winston as Rob Bottin fell ill with a bleeding ulcer and heat exhaustion. Winston would receive "Special Thanks" at the rolling credits. The sounds of The Thing during its transformations were that of bears, pigs squealing, rattlesnakes, horses, and human screams played backwards or slowed down to make it sound otherworldly.
The thing about 2011 The Thing (haha see what I did there) is that it's a good movie bastardized by the studio in post production. First they got scared of how bleak the story was, so they forced the director to reshoot the beginning and the end, then they thought "hey, kids these days love cgi, let's make this already finished movie a cgi fest." Like, there were practical effects in the movie and, from what I understand, they looked great, but some suit had that stupid idea and the practical effects got virtually painted over with cgi. In a sense it's still a scary horror story but indead of a thing from outer space it's about Hollywood studio system. P.s: casting Mary Elizabeth Winstead as de-facto female Kurt Russell was wise, though. She's really good in it.
"What did this dog ever do to the Norwegians?!" So much Wow, I didn't realize you two hadn't seen this! It's always fun to watch people's first time reactions 😂
I was 12 years old when The Thing(1982) first came out in theaters. I didn't watch it until 1985 when it was released on VHS. To say that my first time watching it was a memorable one, would be a blatant understatement. Of all the gory/gammy/graphic/violent/sanguine scenes in the movie, the shot of the husky being tortured against the wall, completely covered in alien slime and worms, crying out in fear and pain..absolutely breaks my cold dead heart!!!💔!!! 42+ years now, it still does. THAT is how well done the now vintage practical VFX hold up to this day. Next to Halloween(1978) and The Fog(1980), it's my favorite John Carpenter horror movie. The Thing(2011) is a prequel to this version. It's worth checking out if you're so compelled.
Imagine everyone sticking together for protection, even on the toilet, with the door open and everyone watching n stuff. LoL Definitely a potential comedy sketch. :)
Fun fact: they were worried that the assimilation program was too advanced for the time and people wouldnt believe a computer would be capable of doing that. John Carpenter talks about it in the commentary of the dvd
I've always been happy to view the ending as ambiguous, but if there is something to interpret, I'm also willing to see Childs' acceptance of the offer of a drink as a giveaway that he's the thing, because they all agreed you shouldn't eat or drink after anyone else. The real Childs would have been suspicious of Mac's offer and wouldn't drink after him. And If you watch how the main theme music kicks in as he brings the bottle to his lips, it seems suggested.
28:30 the noose is there because Blair knows he's been infected and wanted to killer himself before it takes him over but he didn't have the time to do it he was taken over before he do.
Yes, Ennio Morricone composed the music for Cinema Paradiso, a movie that by the way, you should react on the channel, so more people know about it. For all movie lovers, Cinema Paradiso is a must see movie.
The Wolf-Dog who plays the Alien his name is Jed. My favorite animal actor. John Carpenter has said Jed was amazing to work with. Check out Jed's other performances in "The Journey of Natty Gann"(1985) and "White Fang"(1991).
@@Johnny_Socko The Journey of Natty Gann is sooooo underrated. A beautiful film. Ethan Hawke became very close to Jed on White Fang. He said if they taught an acting class on animals and how to act with one. Jed would be the prime example.
A really smart discussion at the end at about how and why people make the decisions they make in certain situations. I’d honestly never thought too much about how about how the lack of trust would influence the individuals within the crew to want to be on their own/away from others.
You are correct! Gloves aren't enough! Blair was most likely infected early on when handling the various remains of The Thing, hence why it took longer to take him over.
Theory #1: We don't visibly see Child's breath. Critics say that it's just a illusion from the lightning. Huge fans will say: Well the thing survived frozen in ice 100K years and died several times being partially burned. So air is NOT necessary for it to be alive. Theory #2: Mac gave Childs a molotov cocktail to drink and Childs accepted it and drank it. Crirics say: how could the thing fall for such a simple trick? Huge fans will say: why would Mac drink this bottle now when we have been seeing molotov cocktails everywhere? Maybe he was getting ready to take himself out. Theory #3: Childs trusts Mac completely after everything he has done. Why? Critics would say: this is looking too deeply into it. Fans say: This makes perfect sense because if you have a bacterial outbreak like this, you would never take something to drink or eat from others. Theory #5 Child's jacket apparently changes from the time he is watching the doors to the time he reunites with Mac. Critics: Again it could be illusion from the snow or something. Fans will say: Wright had that shot earlier that shows us that a jacket that was on the hook that looked very similar to the one Childs is wearing. John Carpenter told us to not be so desperate for a sad ending so he said that most likely they are both human.
All theories are easily debunked because the film was purposefully made to have no clues to spoil the ambiguous ending. So any clue one does see is either not a real clue, or an error. I'd also say, the 'critics' in your post are also fans of the film. That being said: Theory #1: We don't visibly see Child's breath. Just re-watch the scene. Mac is backlit by the burning base and Childs is not. Plus, if you look carefully you can see Childs does have visible breath...it's just not as easy to spot. And thirdly, Bennings is a Thing and also has visible breath. This is a non-issue. Theory #2: Mac gave Childs a molotov cocktail to drink and Childs accepted it and drank it. It's not a Molotov cocktail...it's a bottle of booze. A Molotov would be gas, and an assimilated Mac would know not to drink gas. A non-assimilated Mac wouldn't drink gas...freezing to death is relatively painless. Gasoline poisoning is not. There is no rational reason to go out that way. It would be rational if Mac wanted to cushion dying by drinking booze here. Theory #3: Childs trusts Mac completely after everything he has done. Why? If you look closely at Childs' flame thrower, you'll see the pilot light is out. So it's either not working or out of fuel...if Mac is a Thing, Childs is helpless. Plus, its obvious both Mac and Childs are in the process of freezing to death. At this point it doesn't matter. Like Mac says, there isn't a lot either can do about it at that point. Theory #4 Child's jacket apparently changes from the time he is watching the doors to the time he reunites with Mac. Nauls' coat also changes color...it gets covered in snow/frost when he cut Mac loose. Anyway, the shot of the empty area being proof anything is suspect since almost certainly it was only inserted there during editing. So it's either not true or a continuity error....especially because the film was made to have no clues as to who if anyone is a Thing at the end. The fact that the ending is perfectly ambiguous is part of what makes this film great.
If you're going to listen to anyone, listen to the man who actually directed the movie. He's said straight up that he has a real answer for himself but he's not telling. When asked about the theories, he's debunked them (including the breath one). Even the "gleam in the eyes" theory -- which originated with the movie's cinematographer, Dean Cundey, who said that there's a lighting in the eyes of human characters that you don't see when they're a Thing -- was shot down by Carpenter himself. In fact, Carpenter's response was "[Dean Cundey] doesn't know. He has no idea. He puts the lights up. He puts the lights up, and we were in the snow. He has no clue." When reminded that Cundey would see his response, Carpenter doubled down and said, "You tell him that. Tell him he's full of shit." So the "real answer" -- at least within the confines of the movie on screen -- is that there's no real answer. There are no clues to puzzle together. It's meant to be completely ambiguous so you leave the movie uncomfortable and uncertain, just like the characters. Anything else is just randos on the internet making guesses based on imagined connections between things that aren't connected. That being said, the video game of "The Thing" that came out a while ago does have answers. In it (SPOILERS), you find Childs frozen to death and a scan of his body tells you that he's human. At the end of the game Mac is the helicopter pilot who comes in and flies you out after the boss fight. Why is this important? Because John Carpenter has said that the game is canon.
@@johnplaysgames3120 I would agree...and when Carpenter made the film, he said they worked extra hard to make sure there were no clues...that the goal was a real ambiguous ending. No sequel. No answers. And after Carpenter's film career fell apart, he changed his mind. Why? Because his film career fell apart, and he was willing to say and do whatever he could to make money. So I'll stick with what Carpenter intended when he made the film, not now when he's thrown his artistic integrity out the window so he can make his house payments.
@@Ocrilat You did a lot of great research for this answer and I like that. I think that the movie itself doesn't just ask its audience to question what they see, I think John Carpenter, when he made that movie m, downright demands the audience to question what they see or know. The movie begins with the theme when we see a dog being chased by a helicopter, you see A thing and and immediatly assume something only for the movie to reveal the really twisted reveal later. The ending is like Carpenter telling the audience: Do you see this? Two happy friends so happy that they survived? Is that what is real or is it something else? The game doesn't have to mean anything. I don't know how accurate a device can say a person is a thing, I mean that kind of ruins the point of the the thing and just turns it into generic alien. My point it: Childs could have been a thing and he froze up so the device says: well it looks just like a human when he froze. Also I have a very hard time believing Carpenter knew the ending and was like: "Oh yeah! That is canon... just like the comic books." Famous people will say whatever they need to to remain relevant. James Cameron has been saying that every Terminator movie after T2 is canon, just so he can help his friends (Arnold) and get his royalties. Do you think John Carpenter didn't get his royalties checks after he said that?
The dog creeped out people on set. Carpenter would give the handler instructions, then the handler would just say "got that?" and the dog would go and perform the instructions.
Actually, Howard Hawks directed the first film in the 1950's and it was called "The Thing from Another World." John Carpenter was tapped for the 1982 remake, and the rest is Hollywood history. The prequel with Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Joel Edgerton came out in 2011, and has much of the same atmosphre and foreboding and tension and of course body horror, but many people were soured on the use of CGI in place of practical effects, even though practical effects were used in a lot of shots for reference purposes. I've seen all 3 films, and the 2011 prequel I saw in theaters twice, it was a lot of fun. My date got massivel jumpscared during one scene, it was hilarious, there was popcorn everywhere! 2011 prequel explains exactly what happened at the Norwegian research base, how the creature got there and wreaked a lot of havoc, turned into the dog, escaped, and found its way to the Amreican outpost.
Yup, the studio thought the practical effects made the movie look old school & cheesy, when they were actually really good. You can find behind the scenes clips on youtube that show the original effects they had & they look great.
Fun fact: 27000 hours is roughly three years with change. Thats how long the organism would've taken to infect the entire human or animal population. Pretty terrifying. And now that I've typed it .... I think I actually want to see THAT movie! lol
Fun reaction. Love the crazy/incredible practical effects. 👍 27,000 hours is 1,125 days/approximately just over 3 years to infect entire planet. The 2011 movie is a prequel about the Norwegian camp. The CGI is not great, but go ahead and watch it if you're still curious. I'd still watch that reaction.
To be honest, the 2011 The Thing isn’t a remake but rather a prequel to the 1980s original. And they both connect pretty accurately. I’d advise watching both.
@larrygarcia6356 my bad, my guy; I only reacted to the word "original," which means the first, the one from which the story originated, and there is no 1980's "original." In any event, my original comment was not meant to be a slight toward you.
I have to say it: The intro with the spaceship, takes away a lot of the mystery. Interestingly enough, something very similar happens with Predator. I think that removing both intros from the beginning, both movies would have more suspense, and more mystery for the new viewers. And in the case of this movie, it would lead to a lot of speculation and references to Lovecraft and Mountains of Madness.
Came here for this. As someone who has read ‘Who Goes There?’ ‘At The Mountains Of Madness,’ the related comics, and tangential books like “The Lurker In The Lobby, and as someone who beat the sequel video game- thank you!😆I have a black, and white stock photo on my art studio wall of the cast of John Carpenter’s The Thing posed in costume in front of the US Antartica Base helicopter, and when visitors ask me who the men in the photo are I reply that it’s the only known photograph of John Carpenter’s THING!😅 ❤️☠️➕🤖
The interesting about this movie is that it is a "remake" of the 1951 classic "The Thing From Another World", and based on the 1938 novella 'Who Goes There?" They even recreated a shot in this 1982 version to smack of that 1951 movie. It is when they set the creature on fire and it busts through the wall and goes outside into the cold, on fire. That is a scene from the 1951 film. Also, in John Carpenter's other classic movie "Halloween" from 1978 (that had Jamie Lee Curtis in her first role) they are 'watching' the 1951 version on TV near the beginning of the movie. Now, in the 2022 movie "Halloween Ends", they are watching this 1982 version near the beginning of the movie.
Alternate endings...One,showed one of the dogs staring at the camp showing the audience that the Thing survived.Two,McCready is rescued and is tested for the Thing, and it's negative for the Thing.
The most disappointing thing about the 2011 Thing prequel is that they originally shot the movie with all practical effects but the studio made them redo it all with CGI because they thought it looked too "old school & cheesy", when it was in fact the exact opposite, it looked great. If you do watch it, look up the behind the scenes clips after as you get to see some of the great hand build effects they originally had. It's not the greatest movie, but I'd say it's worth a watch.
Yes so true, Studio ADI was/is their name (and most of the test footage is on TH-cam last I checked) they were so angry with how bad they got screwed over, that right afterwards they went on to make their own practical effects only horror movie themselves.
A true horror masterpiece! The atmosphere, suspense and practical scares all make this one of the best horror movies of all time! Plus, Kurt Russell is awesome.
The breath/gasoline theory is the dumbest blindly repeated thing on the internet. People don't pay attention. It's a PERFECT IMITATION. A perfect imitation would still have warm moist breath and know the difference between Scotch and gasoline. Mac and Childs are simply lit differently. Mac is right in front of the light from the fire. Childs is somewhat in shadow. Plus you can see Childs's breath when he first walks up. Don't know if they killed the entire Thing but I think it's pretty clear that they're both human and they froze to death.
Update: They didn't kill The Thing. Because there is a game. It's frustrating as hell but you should try it. It confirms MacReady and Childs froze to death. Can I get some promo dollars?
@@DrJohnnyFever. In The Thing game, Childs froze to death and the scanner you have confirms he was human. Mac didn't freeze, he's the chopper pilot at the end who helps you beat the end boss and flies you out.
I know this reaction was 2 months ago, But I just saw it. Another good trivia point is that "patient zero" (The first crew infected by the dog in shadow) was played by one of the film crew, specifically chosen because he didn't look like one of the cast, so you couldn't figure out who's shadow it was.
If you need lore: the 2011 film tells the story of the Norwegian camp and their discovery of the craft and the creature. Wanna know why that axe was stuck in the wall...?
Interesting note: There's a short story online, called 'Things', which tells the story from the perspective of the creature. It's definitely worth checking out!
There is an interesting sequel where Universal Studios made a Halloween Horror Nights maze many years ago from this movie where the rescue team come and get Childs and Mccreedy who are frozen and become encapsulated to a U.S. research facility, and then it starts all over again. Chaos takes over again. The Maze was called The Thing: Assimilation 2007. As a Fan of the Thing. I recommend the Thing 2011 there is more to the lore in this because it is a Prequel from this movie. Spoiler but not really the film ends where the 2 Norwegian get in the helicopter go up and start to shoot at the dog aka the Thing.
Technically, this movie was a remake of the 1951 movie THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD; however, Carpenter focused heavily on the REAL original story, 'Who Goes There?' by John Campbell - which the 1951 movie basically ignored, to its detriment.
I didn't read the original story so I don't know how accurate the 50s movie is, but It's a great movie by itself. The fact that the "monster" was barely shown and when it did it was always very shadowy is a trick that Ridley Scott also took to inspire suspense in Alien. Carpenter went full berserk and showed everything he could, different approach to the same kind of story.
@@JulioLeonFandinho The 1951 movie had its own strengths; however, the monster was just a monster. The original story and the Carpenter movie exploited the massive sense of paranoia to the extreme, which the 1951 movie (set during the height of the Cold War and communist panic) could have REALLY used.
@@clarencewalker3925 Didn't know that. It's uncommon for Carpenter also, his previous movies are more psychological. I suppose he saw himself with a bigger budget in his hands and his usual naughtiness and maybe thought what the hell, why not, let's try this
Wasn't expecting to get this in June, but seeing this pop up on my front page made my whole damned day! The Thing is on the shortlist of greatest horror films ever made, in my opinion
This is a remake of the 1951 movie The Thing from Another World. For '80s body horror with practical effects I would recommend the David Cronenberg movie Videodrome. He also directed a remake of The Fly, which is also excellent.
I always thought the 'heartbeat' score had been written by John Carpenter (known for writing the music for many of his films), which was so subtle, creepy and suspenseful. I was surprised to see that this simple soundtrack was written by Ennio Morricone, who is best known for his uniquely complex music soundtrack/score for "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly".
IIRC, the studio did not want Carpenter to score this film for whatever reason. So Carpenter agreed to hire the legendary Morricone, which pleased the studio very much. And then Morricone wrote a score in the style of John Carpenter. Genius. 😄
I have the thing ost and most of that soundtrack wasn't even in the movie. Just a few bits, when Blair doing the projections on his computer and the main theme; which sounds a lot like something carpenter would do. Funny watching the hateful eight and hearing two unused thing tracks.
The Thing (2011) is a prequal. The Thing (1980) is a remake of 1950's "The Thing From Another World" and THAT movie is based on a novella from 1932 entitled "Who Goes There?" Hard to believe this type of horror was written almost 100 years ago.
@@brandonflorida1092 I know, but to call it a direct remake is to cheapen the work that Carpenter and Bottin put in. My point is that Carpenter went more along the original al story than by Hawke's film.
So happy i got on TH-cam and you two popped up in my feed. I always loved watching your reactions on the old channel....well if I'm being honest i only wayvh yalls reactions. I'm happy your back. Granted I'm severally late in saying that since it's been four months. But like cheech said in Ghostbusters "better late then never".
The 2011 movie is a prequel, and tbh it gets it's hard criticism for the fact they shot everything with practical effects like this one, but the studio didn't like it and made them change everything practical to cgi, as if there isn't enough full cgi movies even back then, so it loses it's real feeling, like in this what you see is something really in camera, and it gives it a certain weighty, realness. That's really the only thing, the story and everything else is fine, and even introduces a little new lore that the fandom has accepted as canon (won't spoil it for you) even if it does kind of not line up with the original, like obviously Carpenter wasn't thinking in a couple decades a new movie would be made from his story, so the new lore is kind of their own making.
rare horror movie where no one is a moron and every character constantly makes smart decisions. and they constantly lose while acting like actual smart humans. big reason it's the best movie ever.
They made stupid decisions all the time lol. Like going in pairs is stupid, or Mac splitting up with the guy to go up to his cabin, instead of just all three of them going up there to deal with whatever is inside.
It's so nice to see you guys doing something in my interest range again like in the White Noise" days. Great reaction to a great movie! Thank you! John Carpenter loved the 1951 "The Thing From Another World," so he remade it and because of the improved technology by 1982 was able to make it closer to the original story "Who Goes There" by John W. Campbell Jr. This movie was the absolute pinnacle of practical effects before use of CGI was widespread. Composer Ennio Morricone, who is most famous for the Clint Eastwood "Dollars Trilogy" and "Once Upon a Time in the West," was not allowed to see the movie when he wrote the score, so he just gave them a sort of kit. Personally, I like the 2011 prequel. I know what people complain about, but I enjoyed it.
The 2011 movie is a prequel, detailing the events at the Norwegian base. If you were curious what happened to the guy frozen in his chair, or why there's an axe embed in that one door, then you should watch it. It also was done using practical effects, but the execs freaked out that everything was going to CGI and this movie would suddenly seem old and outdated, so they painted over the practical effects with CGI. Finally, in regards to the theories regarding the ending, there is a way throughout the movie to know who is infected by looking at their eyes. However, Carpenter specifically said to not use the "tell" in the final scene to avoid giving any definitive answers. People can claim "they know", but it can only be their believe, as the filmmakers went out of their way to remove any definitive answers.
There are several bits of evidence that Childs may be the remaining thing/alien at the end. Jackets seemingly changing position on the hooks etc. But my favourite is simply this - if Childs was still human, would he have accepted a swig from the bottle MacReady was drinking from only seconds earlier? At the start of the film MacReady thinks he's beaten the chess computer but then it wins, so he kills it by pouring his drink into it. I think MacReady was testing Childs by giving him the drink and potentially had some dynamic left to finish him off. (Although I'm not sure blasting bits of alien all over the camp is the best way to remove the threat). Movie love symbolism like that. When doing art/cinema critical writing, one of the first things you look at is the use of recurring objects/ideas. Often writers can't resist a bit of foreshadowing.
Director John Carpenter said he thought he made it obvious who was the thing at the end of the movie and if you rewatch the end and pay closer attention you'll notice that while Mac Ready and Childs are talking to each other the only one with mist coming out of his mouth is Mac Ready in sub zero temperatures.
I first saw this on cable during Memorial Day Weekend 1983. I was 12. It scared the hell out of me; the paranoia was worse than the gore. And then I had dreams about The Thing for the next decade where it was in my neighborhood, school, whatever. Now _that's_ an effective horror movie. I love it today; just brilliant filmmaking. Glad you're back doing movies. You two are good at this.
You guys should follow this up with the 2011 version. It's not a remake and gets a bad rap just because of its CGI use, but it is actually a quality film.
iirc, it's theorised at the end that Mac doesn't have booze in the flask, but he filled it with gasoline, and notices that Childs drinks without knowing the taste because he's now the Thing.
The only problem with that theory is that the Thing seems to replicate people perfectly (including memories)...so why would a person just chug down some gasoline? It doesn't make any sense.
@@eddhardy1054it's a nonsense idea from people who like to think they know something others don't. There are no clues that Carpenter inserted into the film.
You can see Childs’ breath. Because of the lighting behind him it’s not as prevalent but it’s there. Especially on the BluRay. Besides, go back to the death of the Bennings Thing. He had plenty of breath. The Thing duplicates everything, even a bad heart. So it would imitate taste buds and sense of smell so it would know gasoline from J&B. Even though I can’t tell the difference
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
Such a wholesome movie. 12 men suffering from extreme boredom until a cute dog arrives to liven things up.
12 bored men .. a classic 😅
😂
If you’re cold they’re cold.
Bring them inside.
react to
WARRIOR 2011
That should have been on the back of all the vhs/dvd boxes.
My cousin works as a technician at a base in Antarctica and he says this movie is pretty accurate - except for the alien. Every Christmas the whole crew gather and watch The Thing.
I always thought they were a bit under dressed for the first week of winter, and the buildings seemed pretty flimsy.
Okay Folks you heard it here it's official The Thing is a Christmas movie.
@@GrantWaller.-hf6jn ....For those snowed in.. :)
Have you performed a blood test on your cousin recently?
This movie was directed in Alaska.
The keys and the blood is easily explained. When Windows was with Bennings in the storage room you hear them talking and Bennings tells Windows to "get the keys from Gary." Windows leaves and when he returns to see Bennings you hear something fall. This is Windows DROPPING THE KEYS. It was made purposely loud so people would hear it. This means 'The Thing' just had to take the keys from the floor, unlock the fridge, destroy the blood and go join the group. In fact if you watch the scene outside you'll see SOMEONE arriving a little later than the others.....
One fun fact: the gunman screaming at the beginning of the movie basically gives away the entire plot - but only if you speak Norwegian.
Or Swedish. :)
@@lazyhominid Thanks, MacReady. 🙂
I saw one Norwegian reactor watch this. Knowing the dialogue didn't really affect how much she liked the flick.
The Swedes??
And of course showing the UFO in the VERY FIRST PICTURE of the film 😅. I guess the producers didnt trust the American audiences intellect to get the plot, like when they see the footage of the Norwegians digging up the UFO 😅
The dog was played by a half-dog, half-wolf hybrid named Jed, and the film crew said that he played all of his parts eerily well and was extremely calm and well-behaved on set, but the moment he'd get uncomfortable, he would suddenly take on that creepy, still stare that you can see in the movie
Jed was also White Fang with Ethan Hawke.
he died in 1995, a high age for dog like this
@@Sandblstr I always wondered if that was the same dog..thankx for that info. ( I think I'll watch it tonight..it's a great movie!)
@@Sandblstr was he? thats cool. i liked that movie too
@@76marex I understand that he was born in a shelter, so it's great that he got to do a lot in his life.
"In Antarctica, no one can hear you scream." is a fantastic tagline.
I prefer, "In Antarctica only the penguins can hear you scream!"
Great but I think the origin tagline is more ominous. "Man is the warmest place to hide"
'Oh no, don't shoot at the dog'. Ten minutes later 'OMG, KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!' - Every first time reactor, ever.
Not every one. I've seen exactly ONE person say something along the lines of "Why? Why is he doing that? Maybe he knows there's something wrong with the dog...".
@@VestinVestin Me too, sometimes there are people who are suspicious of the dog
@@VestinVestin I saw one reactor who's fluent in Norwegian and was able to understand what the rifleman was saying at the start of the film.
every single reaction there is a dude who posts this exact line for likes i'm guessing.
I always find it amusing when first-timers get upset when they're shooting at a dog in the beginning
_...while barely flinching to a person getting shot._
First they like save the dog save the dog then KIILL THE DOG!
Yup. Once the thing's head splits open, everyone goes from "oh cute doggo!" to "KILL IT WITH FIRE!" in record time.
Even seeing it for the first time, it's pretty obvious something is going to be wrong with the dog, so why do they get so offended? Either hamming it up for reaction or actually slow, lol
100% So far
Your acknowledgement of how stressful the situation is and how everyone’s behavior is understandable is something insanely lacking in most people that watch horror movies. I’ve heard someone describe why it is people think they’re smarter than the characters/the characters are dumb.
_“Movie watching is a passive activity that allows you to think and consider multiple options. The pressure of a situation can f**k with your decision making process”_ -Griffin Newman, actor and cohost of the Blank Check podcast
I’ve been in stressful situations and not been able to think straight to make better decisions, and they were nowhere near life threatening. I can only imagine how overwhelmed someone is with that.
100%, very well said. Always glad to run into another Blankie in the wild :D
@@Dylan_Platt eyy!
First reaction to The Thing that actually put thought into *why* the Norwegians were shooting at the dog, instead of immediately jumping to "Oh no, poor doggy!" And that level of curiosity continued throughout. Well done!
Well... they already knew the basic outline of the plot. If it's an alien movie, and random people are desperately trying to kill a dog, then... yeah. Most reactors go in not knowing what the movie's about
@@Eidlones The slim few who speak or know Norwegian, on the other hand, are put on there toes.
@@EidlonesUnless most reactors skipped the first minute, they know it is an alien movie.
Well, the girls are both Bright, but I think they may have known a bit more about the movie than most reactors. The girl on the left freely admitted to having explored this type stuff online. Hard to miss some of the “surprises” in the Thing when you are looking for that stuff online.
Yes that was great to see. Hayley literally guessed the Norwegians had a camp too and it was already toast.
41:17 - the "breath theory"... It is easily debunked by "Bennings Death" (at 21:16 here)... When Bennings/Thing "screams" you can clearly see its breath.
The bottom line is that every "theory" (breath in the cold, gleam in someone's eye, the missing/switched jacket on Childs) doesn't hold up under scrutiny. There is no "tell" as to who is who.
It is the brilliance of this film that will still debate about it over 40 years later!
You can also see Childs breath prior to that and Carpenter has said himself that it simply just didn't show up on camera very well.
@kevinburton3948 John Carpenter has said that he didn't do any deep thinking on the story as it pertains to the order of infections. At first I didn't believe him but after considering Palmer suddenly flying up to the ceiling and sticking to it, which made no physical sense, that's when I started believing John Carpenter. Everyone unwrapped the burnt Norwegian's body without gloves. So any one of them could have been the first to be infected in that scene. But Blair's second autopsy, the one of the dogs, you can see him come into physical contact with the corpse on his bare forearm just above the rubber gloves he was wearing. So, if I had to put my own spin on who was infected first I would choose Blair. Storytelling in film back then (I did see this movie in the theater when it first came out), that had such an ambiguous ending was often intentional by writers. It made moviegoers use their own brains to come up with the ending they preferred and there was no wrong answer. Therefore, for me, neither Childs nor MacReady was infected at the end. They simply froze to death when the fire died down. That could change if I ever actually had the opportunity to write and film a sequel.
There are multiple instances of the thing replicating parts of the host that weren’t there in real life in Addition to not being able to replicate metal.
@@Whoo_Boy You and I are completely on the same page when it comes to the infections. I too believe Blair was first despite the "shadow on the wall" looking most like Norris. I've been watching this film since the early 80s as well (but not in the theatre- I was only 12 when it came out).
I also believe that Childs and Mac were the only two human survivors. In 2023 I got to meet Keith David at a horror convention in Niagara Falls (Canada).
I shared with him my thoughts on "who is who" at the end. They are both human. These two have been at each other's throats throughout the entire film. Childs is Mac's opposition. And they were both willing to kill each other- Mac threatening to shoot Childs and Childs allowing Mac to freeze to death outside.
But by the end, all that animosity for each other is gone- Mac's offer of the whisky is not a final test- it is an olive branch. They have finally put aside all their hate and distrust. You can hear it in Childs' voice when he asks, "Well... What do we do?" They know that although they will not survive, they have saved Humanity.
This is our "happy ending."
The entire time I was explaining this to Keith David, he had this growing smile on his face. When I was finished he reached out and shook my hand. While it might not have been definitive, it was good enough for me.
@@LudusAurea That's from the prequel. While it might be your thing, the prequel was nonsense for me.
It's not a classic, it's a MASTERPIECE!!! 🤟😎
What's funny is there was a video game sequel in 2002, picks up right where this left off--and they just announced it's getting a remaster for release later this year!
19:00, 27,000 hours is 3 years from the time of the infection in the base to the outside world.
"The rest of the movie is gonna be fine in comparison to this...." LOL! Famous last words.
My interpretation of them sharing the drink at the end is that they both (or the one human) knows that if either one of them is the thing, then they already failed, because the remaining human would not have the strenght and equipment left to deafeat a thing on his own. And as any human left alive is doomed to freeze to death anyways, there is no reason to bother with the safety precautions anymore, and they both know it.
That is the intended meaning, but my God do people love to run with crazy theories about that scene.
I also saw a theory that the bottle was filled with gas as they had been burning and blowing everything up and he gave it to him to see if he would drink it and if it was gas he just drank it no issue proving he is a thing.
@@EclipseStrife Keith David has stated that both actors were told they were human at the end. The gasoline thing was given credence because Carpenter thought it was great when he heard it, but it was not his original idea or intention.
@@W2theG Yeah, that's similar to how Quentin Tarantino enjoys reading fan theories about what's in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, but the real answer is that there is no real answer. When he and Roger Avary wrote the original script, they wrote it as diamonds (specifically, the diamonds from the Reservoir Dogs heist), but then decided that was too predictable and decided to leave it undefined, even for themselves, figuring the viewer's imagination could conjure up something way more valuable than anything they could actually show you. Ofc, some people came up with the "Marcellus Wallace's soul" theory and that's just nonsense. Avary is on record as saying that he hates that theory and thinks it's dumb. He told Roger Ebert in 1997, "Somebody had the bright idea (which I think was a mistake) of putting an orange lightbulb in there. Suddenly what could have been anything became anything supernatural."
@@W2theG Keith David said that he doesn't know if he was it or not. Discusses it near the end of this interview before he starts talking about They Live!
th-cam.com/video/iY5N9d645po/w-d-xo.html
Here's the thing (no pun intended):
The dog infected Norris first (the shadow had short, curly hair--which is Norris); his underwear was the set Nauls found in the kitchen.
Blair got infected from the autopsy (he touched his eraser to his lips).
Norris likely infected Palmer at some point (Windows found his underwear), and one of them (likely Blair) grabbed the keys when Windows dropped them after the Bennings attack and destroyed the blood.
Since Blair could get in and out of a locked room, he snuck back into base and cut the power to sneak out to MacReady's shack--but Fuchs saw him. Blair dropped the clothes outside and ambushed Fuchs, who probably burned himself to avoid assimilation. Blair then finished framing MacReady and deliberately left the lights on to attract attention before going back to the shed.
Palmer was always in the presence of the group so he couldn't move about or do anything. Blair was able to skulk around in the dark.
Blair likely broke in through the broken supply room window and assimilated Childs (who may have opened the door to try to get away). He says he thought he saw Blair outside--which is impossible because Blair was inside and going into the generator room when Childs walked out. Thing-Childs probably knew the generator room was next which is why the POV shot looks down at the door before going to the exit.
John Carpenter says that one of the 2 guys is The Thing, but he's refused to say who it is. So one of them is The Thing. Dean Cundey says it's Childs because he says he deliberately didn't put highlights in the eyes of the actors who were Things; John Carpenter has shot this down, but probably because he wants to preserve the mystery.
Wilford Brimley (Blair) was the only actor who didn't go to location, so he's not in any outdoor shots; that's why Blair is often missing.
The 2011 version is prequel: it shows the Norwegian camp. It isn't necessary and there's a few continuity errors. It's not unwatchable, but it IS cringey because it was superimposed onto the on-set practical effects. So they made the FX on set and the studio decided to re-do them with CGI in post. That's why the CGI is so controversial.
The 2011 movie is both a prequel and an homage. Arguably it's traced over this movie but it introduces some new ideas to the canon. It's worth seeing
I wish more people knew that! Rather than incorrectly assuming it's a remake. Will rewatch fully.
I'm really hoping for a third film set on one of the Soviet antarctic bases :)
It’s very underrated. Seemed to turn people off by using the same title, which was definitely lazy. But it explains what happened to the Norwegian team.
27,000 hours is just over 3 years.
the 2011 film is not a remake, it's a prequel and ends right before this one starts. This film is a technically a retelling of the 1951 film The Thing from Another World, albeit much much better.
Yes it fits better with th e original book.
It's better if you go into it thinking it is a remake. Your comment is kind of a spoiler.
Ahhhh, well This info certainly makes me Much more inclined to watch the 2011 film... finally.
Stop being a Spoiler dumb Ass. It's actually a great reaction When people think it is a remake. I've seen two reaction channels watch the 2011 versions thinking its a remake & the Ending blows their Mind. Stop spoiling things for these Reactors and let them experience these movies for themselves. Whether it's a bad movie or Not let them see for themselves.
@@xensonar9652 if you dont like spoilers, stay off social media.... or the internet in general.
So glad that the two of you continued on to have your own channel. Looking forward to your reactions.
There is a prequel called "The Thing (2011)" where we see the team of Norwegians who found the thing and everything that happened at its base before it. And as a matter of fact, there are comics and a video game that are sequels to this movie, but the video game and the comics are not connected, each one is a different sequel.
Thank you so much for realizing Blair was trying to prevent the Thing from spreading by sabotaging the helicopter and communications. So many reactors miss that.
The Thing 2011 is a prequel about what happened at the Norwegian base. People were mad they didn't use practical effects but it's a solid horror movie.
This is supposed to make you paranoid and someone said it's an inspiration for the game Among Us 😉
Agreed. The other movie was good.
The production wanted to leave it practical as a throwback and the studio insisted on CGI for the wow factor. Wrong choice studio!
Also, not a fan of them changing the extraction from the ice block. What happens in the film would not leave the ice tub behind. A careful extraction as the original film intended to have portrayed would have.
They did use mostly practical.... then the studio apparently covered it all over with CGI.
@@itt23r good point. editing.
@@itt23r but now your post is. fyi.
Interesting Facts:
Norris is clearly exhibiting chest pain and all of the classic signs of a heart attack and cardiac arrest before he collapses.
In the prequel to “The Thing”, they were able to identify people who had been imitated because the Things were only able to replicate organic matter and were therefore unable to duplicate inorganic matter, which meant that items such as pins inserted to hold together broken bones and fillings in your teeth would be missing in people that had been taken over. That would obviously be the case for anyone like Norris that had a pacemaker as well. They were thus able to identify who was a Thing and who was not by checking for fillings, etc…
When the Thing imitates someone, it perfectly duplicates every cell with such precision than it actually retains the memories, knowledge, and personality of the individual it copies. Norris (the guy who’s chest bursts open, chopping off the doctor’s hands with its bear-trap teeth) had a bad heart, and very likely a peacemaker. When the Thing took him over and perfectly imitated him, it also faithfully recreated his heart defect, but not his pacemaker, which eventually caused Norris to suffer a heart attack for real during a high-stress moment. The Thing would have been happy to hide itself in a presumably “dead” body, but it couldn’t tolerate the electro-shocks from the defibrillator and was thus forced to reveal itself. Of course, the amazing scene where Norris’ head separates from his burning body, slides onto the floor, and pulls itself away, transforming into a crab/spider with his upside-down head as its body, and tries to crawl away unnoticed, is an iconic moment! (Incidentally, at the beginning of the movie, the spaceship was flying erratically because the crew was desperately trying to fight off the Things that were aboard their vessel and causing havoc. That’s why the spaceship attempted to make an emergency landing on the nearest planet and ended up crash landing in the Antarctic. Only one of the Things as survived the crash and made it out of the ship alive, only to freeze in the ice.)
And when Palmer delivers that you gotta be kidding line, he's a Thing himself.
The Sequel your talking about is actually a Prequel . It tells on the story of the Norwegians lab.
I love practical effects.
Agreed...works alot better than CGI in most cases.
They made the 2011 using practical effects and the studio made them replace it with CG. It could have been so amazing.
John Carpenter also did " Escape From New York " with Kurt Russell. And another John Carpenter movie is " They Live ".
The Thing from 2011, takes place in 1982. It takes place at the Norwegian scientific facility before the Thing destroys it. So it takes place a little before the movie we all love.
A prequel.
I think it was done pretty well and honors Carpenters Thing.
The guy who did the practical effects previously worked on a werewolf movie but that year the Oscar went to a colleague who also did a werewolf for An American Werewolf In London (which you have to react to!). So he was extremely motivated to give his best here, which he did. He worked continuously, living on candybars and sodas to such an extend that after the last day of shooting he went to a hospital to have himself checked out.
Bottin was Rick Baker's assistant. Baker was developing the air bladder effects for An American Werewolf in London. Bottin used some of what Baker developed in The Howling. Baker was said to be upset that Bottin used his technique in a movie that beat AAWIL to the theater.
The dog was played by Jed the Wolfdog, who also starred in White Fang and The Journey of Natty Gann, among others. He was VERY intelligent, and an excellent actor.
The alien's credo: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Heh heh! Stop it!
Lol
One of the best Sci-fi Horror Thriller Films ever made!
It was not well received by critics upon release and that it bombed at the box office, making $19 million dollars against a $15 million dollar budget.
However it's gained a cult following overtime and has been regarded as one of John Carpenter's best movies in his filmography
The Dog Kennel Sequence was done by Oscar Winning VFX artist Stan Winston as Rob Bottin fell ill with a bleeding ulcer and heat exhaustion. Winston would receive "Special Thanks" at the rolling credits.
The sounds of The Thing during its transformations were that of bears, pigs squealing, rattlesnakes, horses, and human screams played backwards or slowed down to make it sound otherworldly.
The thing about 2011 The Thing (haha see what I did there) is that it's a good movie bastardized by the studio in post production. First they got scared of how bleak the story was, so they forced the director to reshoot the beginning and the end, then they thought "hey, kids these days love cgi, let's make this already finished movie a cgi fest." Like, there were practical effects in the movie and, from what I understand, they looked great, but some suit had that stupid idea and the practical effects got virtually painted over with cgi. In a sense it's still a scary horror story but indead of a thing from outer space it's about Hollywood studio system.
P.s: casting Mary Elizabeth Winstead as de-facto female Kurt Russell was wise, though. She's really good in it.
Such a shame isn't it? It would have been a worthy prequel with practical effects as the rest of the movie is pretty good.
"What did this dog ever do to the Norwegians?!"
So much
Wow, I didn't realize you two hadn't seen this! It's always fun to watch people's first time reactions 😂
I was 12 years old when
The Thing(1982) first came out in theaters.
I didn't watch it until 1985 when it was
released on VHS. To say that my first time watching it was a memorable one, would be a blatant understatement.
Of all the gory/gammy/graphic/violent/sanguine scenes in the movie, the shot of the husky being tortured against the wall, completely covered in alien slime and worms, crying out in fear and pain..absolutely breaks my cold dead heart!!!💔!!!
42+ years now, it still does.
THAT is how well done the now vintage practical VFX hold up to this day.
Next to Halloween(1978) and The Fog(1980),
it's my favorite John Carpenter horror movie.
The Thing(2011) is a prequel to this
version. It's worth checking out if you're so compelled.
Imagine everyone sticking together for protection, even on the toilet, with the door open and everyone watching n stuff. LoL Definitely a potential comedy sketch. :)
"In Antarctica, nobody can hear you scream."
Penguin: "You guys hear somebody scream over there?
In Antarctica everybody can hear you scream when someone sneaks up behind you and rams an iceball down the back of your snowsuit.
@@BobCrabtree-ev4rz Absolutely hilarious. Thank you.
Fun fact: they were worried that the assimilation program was too advanced for the time and people wouldnt believe a computer would be capable of doing that. John Carpenter talks about it in the commentary of the dvd
This movie has always, and will always be my favourite movie
So this I clicked on the SECOND I saw it
I've always been happy to view the ending as ambiguous, but if there is something to interpret, I'm also willing to see Childs' acceptance of the offer of a drink as a giveaway that he's the thing, because they all agreed you shouldn't eat or drink after anyone else. The real Childs would have been suspicious of Mac's offer and wouldn't drink after him. And If you watch how the main theme music kicks in as he brings the bottle to his lips, it seems suggested.
I love how they picked Norris definitely the most unassuming guy out of the whole damn movie. What genius what fucking genius.
28:30 the noose is there because Blair knows he's been infected and wanted to killer himself before it takes him over but he didn't have the time to do it he was taken over before he do.
Yes, Ennio Morricone composed the music for Cinema Paradiso, a movie that by the way, you should react on the channel, so more people know about it.
For all movie lovers, Cinema Paradiso is a must see movie.
21:17 easily one of the most chilling shots/sounds I’ve ever heard
The Wolf-Dog who plays the Alien his name is Jed. My favorite animal actor. John Carpenter has said Jed was amazing to work with. Check out Jed's other performances in "The Journey of Natty Gann"(1985) and "White Fang"(1991).
I never knew that was Jed in those other movies! Explains a lot. I think that version of White Fang is overlooked.
@@Johnny_Socko The Journey of Natty Gann is sooooo underrated. A beautiful film. Ethan Hawke became very close to Jed on White Fang. He said if they taught an acting class on animals and how to act with one. Jed would be the prime example.
A really smart discussion at the end at about how and why people make the decisions they make in certain situations. I’d honestly never thought too much about how about how the lack of trust would influence the individuals within the crew to want to be on their own/away from others.
Stella - "the rest of the movie's gonna be fine in comparison to this"
Movie - "Hold my Norwegian beer"
You are correct! Gloves aren't enough! Blair was most likely infected early on when handling the various remains of The Thing, hence why it took longer to take him over.
Theory #1: We don't visibly see Child's breath.
Critics say that it's just a illusion from the lightning.
Huge fans will say: Well the thing survived frozen in ice 100K years and died several times being partially burned. So air is NOT necessary for it to be alive.
Theory #2: Mac gave Childs a molotov cocktail to drink and Childs accepted it and drank it.
Crirics say: how could the thing fall for such a simple trick?
Huge fans will say: why would Mac drink this bottle now when we have been seeing molotov cocktails everywhere? Maybe he was getting ready to take himself out.
Theory #3: Childs trusts Mac completely after everything he has done. Why?
Critics would say: this is looking too deeply into it.
Fans say: This makes perfect sense because if you have a bacterial outbreak like this, you would never take something to drink or eat from others.
Theory #5 Child's jacket apparently changes from the time he is watching the doors to the time he reunites with Mac.
Critics: Again it could be illusion from the snow or something.
Fans will say: Wright had that shot earlier that shows us that a jacket that was on the hook that looked very similar to the one Childs is wearing.
John Carpenter told us to not be so desperate for a sad ending so he said that most likely they are both human.
All theories are easily debunked because the film was purposefully made to have no clues to spoil the ambiguous ending. So any clue one does see is either not a real clue, or an error. I'd also say, the 'critics' in your post are also fans of the film. That being said:
Theory #1: We don't visibly see Child's breath.
Just re-watch the scene. Mac is backlit by the burning base and Childs is not. Plus, if you look carefully you can see Childs does have visible breath...it's just not as easy to spot. And thirdly, Bennings is a Thing and also has visible breath. This is a non-issue.
Theory #2: Mac gave Childs a molotov cocktail to drink and Childs accepted it and drank it.
It's not a Molotov cocktail...it's a bottle of booze. A Molotov would be gas, and an assimilated Mac would know not to drink gas. A non-assimilated Mac wouldn't drink gas...freezing to death is relatively painless. Gasoline poisoning is not. There is no rational reason to go out that way. It would be rational if Mac wanted to cushion dying by drinking booze here.
Theory #3: Childs trusts Mac completely after everything he has done. Why?
If you look closely at Childs' flame thrower, you'll see the pilot light is out. So it's either not working or out of fuel...if Mac is a Thing, Childs is helpless. Plus, its obvious both Mac and Childs are in the process of freezing to death. At this point it doesn't matter. Like Mac says, there isn't a lot either can do about it at that point.
Theory #4 Child's jacket apparently changes from the time he is watching the doors to the time he reunites with Mac.
Nauls' coat also changes color...it gets covered in snow/frost when he cut Mac loose. Anyway, the shot of the empty area being proof anything is suspect since almost certainly it was only inserted there during editing. So it's either not true or a continuity error....especially because the film was made to have no clues as to who if anyone is a Thing at the end.
The fact that the ending is perfectly ambiguous is part of what makes this film great.
If you're going to listen to anyone, listen to the man who actually directed the movie. He's said straight up that he has a real answer for himself but he's not telling. When asked about the theories, he's debunked them (including the breath one). Even the "gleam in the eyes" theory -- which originated with the movie's cinematographer, Dean Cundey, who said that there's a lighting in the eyes of human characters that you don't see when they're a Thing -- was shot down by Carpenter himself. In fact, Carpenter's response was "[Dean Cundey] doesn't know. He has no idea. He puts the lights up. He puts the lights up, and we were in the snow. He has no clue." When reminded that Cundey would see his response, Carpenter doubled down and said, "You tell him that. Tell him he's full of shit."
So the "real answer" -- at least within the confines of the movie on screen -- is that there's no real answer. There are no clues to puzzle together. It's meant to be completely ambiguous so you leave the movie uncomfortable and uncertain, just like the characters. Anything else is just randos on the internet making guesses based on imagined connections between things that aren't connected.
That being said, the video game of "The Thing" that came out a while ago does have answers. In it (SPOILERS), you find Childs frozen to death and a scan of his body tells you that he's human. At the end of the game Mac is the helicopter pilot who comes in and flies you out after the boss fight. Why is this important? Because John Carpenter has said that the game is canon.
@@johnplaysgames3120 I would agree...and when Carpenter made the film, he said they worked extra hard to make sure there were no clues...that the goal was a real ambiguous ending. No sequel. No answers.
And after Carpenter's film career fell apart, he changed his mind. Why? Because his film career fell apart, and he was willing to say and do whatever he could to make money. So I'll stick with what Carpenter intended when he made the film, not now when he's thrown his artistic integrity out the window so he can make his house payments.
@@Ocrilat You did a lot of great research for this answer and I like that.
I think that the movie itself doesn't just ask its audience to question what they see, I think John Carpenter, when he made that movie m, downright demands the audience to question what they see or know.
The movie begins with the theme when we see a dog being chased by a helicopter, you see A thing and and immediatly assume something only for the movie to reveal the really twisted reveal later. The ending is like Carpenter telling the audience: Do you see this? Two happy friends so happy that they survived? Is that what is real or is it something else?
The game doesn't have to mean anything. I don't know how accurate a device can say a person is a thing, I mean that kind of ruins the point of the the thing and just turns it into generic alien.
My point it: Childs could have been a thing and he froze up so the device says: well it looks just like a human when he froze.
Also I have a very hard time believing Carpenter knew the ending and was like: "Oh yeah! That is canon... just like the comic books." Famous people will say whatever they need to to remain relevant.
James Cameron has been saying that every Terminator movie after T2 is canon, just so he can help his friends (Arnold) and get his royalties.
Do you think John Carpenter didn't get his royalties checks after he said that?
My favorite horror/comedy of all time... Tucker and Dale Vs. Evil
Surprisingly entertaining and well done film. ❤
Fun fact: the dog won an Oscar for 'Best Supporting Actor', and was nominated for 'Best Co-Director'! 👀
At the Dog Oscars...
The dog creeped out people on set. Carpenter would give the handler instructions, then the handler would just say "got that?" and the dog would go and perform the instructions.
Also would like to point out that Mac's response to Childs is the same response he gave to the computer that checked him. He offered a drink.
Actually, Howard Hawks directed the first film in the 1950's and it was called "The Thing from Another World." John Carpenter was tapped for the 1982 remake, and the rest is Hollywood history. The prequel with Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Joel Edgerton came out in 2011, and has much of the same atmosphre and foreboding and tension and of course body horror, but many people were soured on the use of CGI in place of practical effects, even though practical effects were used in a lot of shots for reference purposes. I've seen all 3 films, and the 2011 prequel I saw in theaters twice, it was a lot of fun. My date got massivel jumpscared during one scene, it was hilarious, there was popcorn everywhere!
2011 prequel explains exactly what happened at the Norwegian research base, how the creature got there and wreaked a lot of havoc, turned into the dog, escaped, and found its way to the Amreican outpost.
The more recent "remake" is actually a direct prequel, showing the events that took place at the Norwegian base
My understanding of the prequel is that the studio interfered with the director and forced them to use CGI instead of relying on practical effects.
Yup, the studio thought the practical effects made the movie look old school & cheesy, when they were actually really good. You can find behind the scenes clips on youtube that show the original effects they had & they look great.
Fun fact: 27000 hours is roughly three years with change. Thats how long the organism would've taken to infect the entire human or animal population. Pretty terrifying. And now that I've typed it .... I think I actually want to see THAT movie! lol
There are comics that continue the story after this movie but I don't remember much
Fun reaction. Love the crazy/incredible practical effects. 👍
27,000 hours is 1,125 days/approximately just over 3 years to infect entire planet.
The 2011 movie is a prequel about the Norwegian camp. The CGI is not great, but go ahead and watch it if you're still curious. I'd still watch that reaction.
To be honest, the 2011 The Thing isn’t a remake but rather a prequel to the 1980s original. And they both connect pretty accurately. I’d advise watching both.
Tbh I didn't hate the 2011 that much.
The hate came from:
-Can't be compared to the OG.
-they started with practical but they decided to do with Cgi.
The Carpenter film isn't the original; the original came out in 1951 under the long title "The Thing from Another World".
@@richarddefortuna2252 that’s why I said 1980s original my guy. Meaning pertaining to the 2011 prequel. I know full well about the very first one.
@larrygarcia6356 my bad, my guy; I only reacted to the word "original," which means the first, the one from which the story originated, and there is no 1980's "original."
In any event, my original comment was not meant to be a slight toward you.
@@richarddefortuna2252 no worries, personally I like both the 80s one and its prequel but that’s me.
The prequel they made in 2011 is pretty good, you guys should watch it.
I have to say it:
The intro with the spaceship, takes away a lot of the mystery.
Interestingly enough, something very similar happens with Predator.
I think that removing both intros from the beginning, both movies would have more suspense, and more mystery for the new viewers.
And in the case of this movie, it would lead to a lot of speculation and references to Lovecraft and Mountains of Madness.
Came here for this. As someone who has read ‘Who Goes There?’ ‘At The Mountains Of Madness,’ the related comics, and tangential books like “The Lurker In The Lobby, and as someone who beat the sequel video game- thank you!😆I have a black, and white stock photo on my art studio wall of the cast of John Carpenter’s The Thing posed in costume in front of the US Antartica Base helicopter, and when visitors ask me who the men in the photo are I reply that it’s the only known photograph of John Carpenter’s THING!😅
❤️☠️➕🤖
The interesting about this movie is that it is a "remake" of the 1951 classic "The Thing From Another World", and based on the 1938 novella 'Who Goes There?" They even recreated a shot in this 1982 version to smack of that 1951 movie. It is when they set the creature on fire and it busts through the wall and goes outside into the cold, on fire. That is a scene from the 1951 film. Also, in John Carpenter's other classic movie "Halloween" from 1978 (that had Jamie Lee Curtis in her first role) they are 'watching' the 1951 version on TV near the beginning of the movie. Now, in the 2022 movie "Halloween Ends", they are watching this 1982 version near the beginning of the movie.
Alternate endings...One,showed one of the dogs staring at the camp showing the audience that the Thing survived.Two,McCready is rescued and is tested for the Thing, and it's negative for the Thing.
When The Thing takes over a person it's as smart as that person.
dog people would be the death of us all.
The most disappointing thing about the 2011 Thing prequel is that they originally shot the movie with all practical effects but the studio made them redo it all with CGI because they thought it looked too "old school & cheesy", when it was in fact the exact opposite, it looked great. If you do watch it, look up the behind the scenes clips after as you get to see some of the great hand build effects they originally had. It's not the greatest movie, but I'd say it's worth a watch.
Yes so true, Studio ADI was/is their name (and most of the test footage is on TH-cam last I checked) they were so angry with how bad they got screwed over, that right afterwards they went on to make their own practical effects only horror movie themselves.
A true horror masterpiece! The atmosphere, suspense and practical scares all make this one of the best horror movies of all time! Plus, Kurt Russell is awesome.
The dog in the corridor going into Norris' room and screen going black is movie making brilliance.👍
The breath/gasoline theory is the dumbest blindly repeated thing on the internet. People don't pay attention. It's a PERFECT IMITATION. A perfect imitation would still have warm moist breath and know the difference between Scotch and gasoline. Mac and Childs are simply lit differently. Mac is right in front of the light from the fire. Childs is somewhat in shadow. Plus you can see Childs's breath when he first walks up. Don't know if they killed the entire Thing but I think it's pretty clear that they're both human and they froze to death.
Idk why people think the thing can speak English but not know humans don't drink gas.
Update: They didn't kill The Thing. Because there is a game. It's frustrating as hell but you should try it. It confirms MacReady and Childs froze to death. Can I get some promo dollars?
@@DrJohnnyFever. In The Thing game, Childs froze to death and the scanner you have confirms he was human. Mac didn't freeze, he's the chopper pilot at the end who helps you beat the end boss and flies you out.
@@DrJohnnyFever. They just announced a remaster of it a few days ago
@@davidmathieson8661 That's right. Been a while.
I know this reaction was 2 months ago, But I just saw it. Another good trivia point is that "patient zero" (The first crew infected by the dog in shadow) was played by one of the film crew, specifically chosen because he didn't look like one of the cast, so you couldn't figure out who's shadow it was.
If you need lore: the 2011 film tells the story of the Norwegian camp and their discovery of the craft and the creature. Wanna know why that axe was stuck in the wall...?
Interesting note: There's a short story online, called 'Things', which tells the story from the perspective of the creature.
It's definitely worth checking out!
I have been waiting forever for you two to do this!! I’m so excited to watch!,😁
There is an interesting sequel where Universal Studios made a Halloween Horror Nights maze many years ago from this movie where the rescue team come and get Childs and Mccreedy who are frozen and become encapsulated to a U.S. research facility, and then it starts all over again. Chaos takes over again. The Maze was called The Thing: Assimilation 2007. As a Fan of the Thing. I recommend the Thing 2011 there is more to the lore in this because it is a Prequel from this movie. Spoiler but not really the film ends where the 2 Norwegian get in the helicopter go up and start to shoot at the dog aka the Thing.
Technically, this movie was a remake of the 1951 movie THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD; however, Carpenter focused heavily on the REAL original story, 'Who Goes There?' by John Campbell - which the 1951 movie basically ignored, to its detriment.
I didn't read the original story so I don't know how accurate the 50s movie is, but It's a great movie by itself. The fact that the "monster" was barely shown and when it did it was always very shadowy is a trick that Ridley Scott also took to inspire suspense in Alien. Carpenter went full berserk and showed everything he could, different approach to the same kind of story.
@@JulioLeonFandinho The 1951 movie had its own strengths; however, the monster was just a monster. The original story and the Carpenter movie exploited the massive sense of paranoia to the extreme, which the 1951 movie (set during the height of the Cold War and communist panic) could have REALLY used.
@@JulioLeonFandinho Stephen King warned him about that. But, in John Carpenters own words, he said, "Being stupid, I said 'Let's try that!'"
@@clarencewalker3925
Didn't know that.
It's uncommon for Carpenter also, his previous movies are more psychological. I suppose he saw himself with a bigger budget in his hands and his usual naughtiness and maybe thought what the hell, why not, let's try this
"Who Goes There" was first published in 1938. It has been many years since I last read it.
Wasn't expecting to get this in June, but seeing this pop up on my front page made my whole damned day!
The Thing is on the shortlist of greatest horror films ever made, in my opinion
This is a remake of the 1951 movie The Thing from Another World.
For '80s body horror with practical effects I would recommend the David Cronenberg movie Videodrome. He also directed a remake of The Fly, which is also excellent.
Not an actual remake, just a more accurate transposition of the original story "Who goes there", by John W. Campbell Jr.
It's a re-adaptation of the same source material, not a remake of the previous film.
Points well taken.
27000 hours = 1125 days.
27000 hours = 160,714 weeks.
27000 hours = 36.961 months (average).
27000 hours = 3.08008 years (average).
I always thought the 'heartbeat' score had been written by John Carpenter (known for writing the music for many of his films), which was so subtle, creepy and suspenseful. I was surprised to see that this simple soundtrack was written by Ennio Morricone, who is best known for his uniquely complex music soundtrack/score for "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly".
IIRC, the studio did not want Carpenter to score this film for whatever reason. So Carpenter agreed to hire the legendary Morricone, which pleased the studio very much. And then Morricone wrote a score in the style of John Carpenter. Genius. 😄
I have the thing ost and most of that soundtrack wasn't even in the movie. Just a few bits, when Blair doing the projections on his computer and the main theme; which sounds a lot like something carpenter would do. Funny watching the hateful eight and hearing two unused thing tracks.
The Thing (2011) is a prequal. The Thing (1980) is a remake of 1950's "The Thing From Another World" and THAT movie is based on a novella from 1932 entitled "Who Goes There?" Hard to believe this type of horror was written almost 100 years ago.
“Watch the original!” is funny because this version is itself a remake.
The actual original was “The Thing From Another World” (1951).
Which sucks, TBH, unless you like carrot monsters lol
Not actually a remake, more of a more faithful adaption of the book. Much like the Jeff Bridges version of True Grit.
@@acidrain92 I mean they did their best lol
@@michaelmartin4874 Carpenter loved the 1951 film and it was the reason he wanted to do this one.
@@brandonflorida1092 I know, but to call it a direct remake is to cheapen the work that Carpenter and Bottin put in. My point is that Carpenter went more along the original al story than by Hawke's film.
So happy i got on TH-cam and you two popped up in my feed. I always loved watching your reactions on the old channel....well if I'm being honest i only wayvh yalls reactions. I'm happy your back. Granted I'm severally late in saying that since it's been four months. But like cheech said in Ghostbusters "better late then never".
The 2011 movie is a prequel, and tbh it gets it's hard criticism for the fact they shot everything with practical effects like this one, but the studio didn't like it and made them change everything practical to cgi, as if there isn't enough full cgi movies even back then, so it loses it's real feeling, like in this what you see is something really in camera, and it gives it a certain weighty, realness. That's really the only thing, the story and everything else is fine, and even introduces a little new lore that the fandom has accepted as canon (won't spoil it for you) even if it does kind of not line up with the original, like obviously Carpenter wasn't thinking in a couple decades a new movie would be made from his story, so the new lore is kind of their own making.
My favorite John Carpenter classic and yes he also did the original Halloween back in 1978.
rare horror movie where no one is a moron and every character constantly makes smart decisions.
and they constantly lose while acting like actual smart humans. big reason it's the best movie ever.
They made stupid decisions all the time lol. Like going in pairs is stupid, or Mac splitting up with the guy to go up to his cabin, instead of just all three of them going up there to deal with whatever is inside.
@@ChadVital thank you Chad
It's so nice to see you guys doing something in my interest range again like in the White Noise" days. Great reaction to a great movie! Thank you!
John Carpenter loved the 1951 "The Thing From Another World," so he remade it and because of the improved technology by 1982 was able to make it closer to the original story "Who Goes There" by John W. Campbell Jr.
This movie was the absolute pinnacle of practical effects before use of CGI was widespread.
Composer Ennio Morricone, who is most famous for the Clint Eastwood "Dollars Trilogy" and "Once Upon a Time in the West," was not allowed to see the movie when he wrote the score, so he just gave them a sort of kit.
Personally, I like the 2011 prequel. I know what people complain about, but I enjoyed it.
You're both so articulate. I love it
The 2011 movie is a prequel, detailing the events at the Norwegian base. If you were curious what happened to the guy frozen in his chair, or why there's an axe embed in that one door, then you should watch it. It also was done using practical effects, but the execs freaked out that everything was going to CGI and this movie would suddenly seem old and outdated, so they painted over the practical effects with CGI.
Finally, in regards to the theories regarding the ending, there is a way throughout the movie to know who is infected by looking at their eyes. However, Carpenter specifically said to not use the "tell" in the final scene to avoid giving any definitive answers. People can claim "they know", but it can only be their believe, as the filmmakers went out of their way to remove any definitive answers.
The girls are back in town.
"The Thing" is my favorite type of move, where you neve know more than the main character.
An alternate ending actually had McReady as the only survivor... and he tested to be human. Basically a happy ending. John Carpenter said...
"Nah.'
There are several bits of evidence that Childs may be the remaining thing/alien at the end. Jackets seemingly changing position on the hooks etc. But my favourite is simply this - if Childs was still human, would he have accepted a swig from the bottle MacReady was drinking from only seconds earlier?
At the start of the film MacReady thinks he's beaten the chess computer but then it wins, so he kills it by pouring his drink into it. I think MacReady was testing Childs by giving him the drink and potentially had some dynamic left to finish him off. (Although I'm not sure blasting bits of alien all over the camp is the best way to remove the threat).
Movie love symbolism like that. When doing art/cinema critical writing, one of the first things you look at is the use of recurring objects/ideas. Often writers can't resist a bit of foreshadowing.
27000 hours = 1125 days
In HD or 4K you can see Child's breath. You can also see Benning's breath just before he is set on fire, after he got infected.
Director John Carpenter said he thought he made it obvious who was the thing at the end of the movie and if you rewatch the end and pay closer attention you'll notice that while Mac Ready and Childs are talking to each other the only one with mist coming out of his mouth is Mac Ready in sub zero temperatures.
i dont understand why mist matters? breathing is breathing. you need air to make sound
The 2011 “The Thing “ is a prequel that shows us what happened at the other camp starring Mary Winstead! It’s a good movie!!
Please give the Star Trek franchise a chance.
Nah, man. Star Trek is not it.
I first saw this on cable during Memorial Day Weekend 1983. I was 12. It scared the hell out of me; the paranoia was worse than the gore. And then I had dreams about The Thing for the next decade where it was in my neighborhood, school, whatever. Now _that's_ an effective horror movie. I love it today; just brilliant filmmaking.
Glad you're back doing movies. You two are good at this.
You guys should follow this up with the 2011 version. It's not a remake and gets a bad rap just because of its CGI use, but it is actually a quality film.
iirc, it's theorised at the end that Mac doesn't have booze in the flask, but he filled it with gasoline, and notices that Childs drinks without knowing the taste because he's now the Thing.
Woah! That's an interesting theory.
The only problem with that theory is that the Thing seems to replicate people perfectly (including memories)...so why would a person just chug down some gasoline? It doesn't make any sense.
@@eddhardy1054it's a nonsense idea from people who like to think they know something others don't. There are no clues that Carpenter inserted into the film.
Yeah ,sharqane probably thinks the Earth is flat or a god pull's the strings of reality.... idiotic.
Sharqane probably thinks the Earth is flat and a god pull's the strings of reality, 1 more idiot born every second!
You can see Childs’ breath. Because of the lighting behind him it’s not as prevalent but it’s there. Especially on the BluRay. Besides, go back to the death of the Bennings Thing. He had plenty of breath.
The Thing duplicates everything, even a bad heart. So it would imitate taste buds and sense of smell so it would know gasoline from J&B.
Even though I can’t tell the difference