How is the remake (in the guise of a prequel)? I just saw the original with my wife, for the first time. I've seen it a few times, obviously, it was her first time, and the act of watching it made me remember they're doing this with another beloved 80's movie. But that's the thing, the Thing remake/prequel came and went and nobody regards it, if I can read the room.
How is it?
Pathetic attempt to do a remake by framing it as a prequel.
Also instead of physical gore effects it's all cgi.
Other than that I can't remember shit about it.
Watchable. The CGI effects kill most of the fun factor. Script has some clever bits, but otherwise mediocre.
All in all an okay prequel/remake that is not raping the legacy of the original (does not gives anything extra to it though).
Thank you. So, they CGI'd the shit up?
Also, it doesn't add anything? I think that's interesting. I wouldn't expect people in the position to make this movie to show such restraint.
It's basically the Star Wars prequel. Unconvincing CGI effects and a need to explain how everything got set up for the next movie. Also they try to raise the stakes in a really goofy way in the third act. But overall the story beats felt pretty much the same. It's like deja vu except you feel like it was better the first time around
I actually liked it.
It showed a lot of attention to detail and effort, the CGI, as already mentioned, brought the movie down but not to an un-watchable amount. It's disappointing the lead was an American female, but I guess it's what sells.
Now you're making me want to watch it out of morbid curiosity. I probably won't, but you're trying.
Alright.
It had a Swede who didn't speak a word of English and stayed silent for most of the movie, and he was the best character.
You can tell that the creators were really big fans of the original (they even had practical monster effects but had to go with CGI for some reason) but it just feels unnecessary. It's not a bad movie though. Decent flick, just can't live up to Carpenter's kino
It was meh for me up until the very last scene.
youtube.com
From what I had heard they actually did use physical effects but then for whatever reason CGI'd over them
Same deal as the Hobbit movies and that white Orc.
Shit. Ninja'd
> Bad acting with a diverse american cast inexplicably.
> Thing has lost any threat as makes sure it gets in 10 minutes of gory screentime before it ever attacks
> Ending is over the top rubbish
> CGI, as said, is awful
> Plot is a repeat and with none of the suspense
Good points:
> Split-face thing is great, almost all the good scenes involve it
> The test for things is well done
It's interesting in that it's the stuff that happened leading up to them killing the guy chasing after the thing in the brginning
I don't remember the ending, did the woman survive?
If OP is going to watch it best not to give any spoilers, even if uninteresting
For everyone mentioning the CG, the company that made the practical effects actually made a lengthy video explaining what happened and why all of their practical effects were covered in CGI. Basically, it boiled down to the studio execs wanting a more video game look and liking the ability to change whatever they wanted in post in case they were unhappy. I shit you not though, the video game look thing was a real statement. The dudes were crushed though and proceeded to make their own film (Harbinger Down. A love letter to Alien and the Thing that even has Lance Henriksen, but unfortunately the effects guy had never directed a film before so it turned out pretty shitty)
It is pretty bad overall imo. The thing is not a subtle infiltraitor, but just another run of the mill splatter monster (made in horrible GC)(at least it looks like that).
I don't think the problems were with the thing not infiltrating - if anything there was more in the prequel of the thing actually acting personable and pretending to be people. I'd say the issue was there was no dread around it - some people just became things, we barely knew who the people were or cared, didnt seem to be much order and then suddenly in the mess hall it all goes to shit and its a slasher from there on out.
I saw an interesting fan theory that kind of said the Thing was just a newborn in the prequel so it lashed out more and in the Carpenter film, it's learned it has to be more subtle to survive. I know that wasn't the intention of the filmmakers, but I like that theory.
What I meant was that in the prequal, the Thing is just another splatter monster. In the original the paranoia hit maximum levels (for me at least).
And that is probably also because the characters in the original where better established and more relatable.
>be practical effect artist
>work your ass on your dream, looking in awe at The Thing as your god, almost for free, doesnt matter, this is what everyone here wants to do
>put your love sweat and tears, your soul into the work
>watch execs fuck you over and your works butchered by shitty forgettable CGI
If it had piloted a spaceship or at least infected an alien crew im sure it was smart enough to understand deceit. Though its still a good fan theory, definitely better than the filmmakers intention.
Jesus those practical effects are good. They wouldn't have saved the movie, but would have made it a hell of a lot better.
The brute Norwegian was fun
Yeah, the original went for a brooding, isolated tone - with a cold but relatable cast. The prequel had an out of place hot 19 year old american putting the norwegians in their place, unnecessary hints of romance and the tone was never depressed and hopeless.
If you saw the first one don't see the prequel
it will ruin everything for you
subpar but acceptable
its one of a few movies where i just stop it before the end though, because the last scene can make some people dislike it alot more
the cgi is.... acceptable to bad, but the real travesty is that it was already 90% shot with practical effects, and test audiences said it "wasn't good enough" so they pasted in far worse cg effects over the practical
theres one or two really good characters, but sadly neither is "macready"
It's forgettable. Nothing extraordinary about this film.
I have infinite respect for practical effect artists. They put so much time, work and effort into amazing creations that usually only appear on screen for a few seconds or are half hidden by lighting.
Best scene
youtube.com
the producers werent convinced with the practical effects so they said to make the monsters "look more like a videogame" so it would sell better for some marketing reason
why producers and marketers ruin everything
Test audiences are worthless for anything other than action and drama. The original thing wasn't well received because your average cinema goer doesn't like horror unless it is popcorn "date movie" scares.
Not having a go at them at all, but they're not the sort of people to run actual horror by - you can't make a scary film that appeals to everyone. Just like all good comedies that break new ground will be badly received by a lot of people. Horror and comedy are subjective to a larger degree than other genres.
With jews you lose
More of this, less of everyone being english or american, less of everyone being hot 20-something year olds, more character development.
>How is the remake?
It's a remake. That should tell you all you need to know.
>Those stupid fucking dinosaur teeth in the CGI
John Carpenters was a remake
They deleted THIS SCENE
The fucking retards
youtube.com
This would have been an effective scene too
It was a re-adaptation that payed homage to a previous adaptation.
>How is the remake
I do not remember a thing from it.
And I can clearly tell evens in the original movie/remake.
That scene would be good, in a good movie - but when the actual film was about two young americans running around with a flamethrower killing all the things his suicidal fear and panic wouldn't even make sense.
Im glad they didnt waste this scene on the film that they released.
>re-adaption
So a remake
That's like saying Dredd is a remake of Judge Dredd.
Factually wrong.
The prequel is okay. The biggest issue is that they originally used a number of prosthetics and animatronics but test audiences found it too scary so to try and get more mainstream audiences they touched most of it up with CGI. It ends up fake and plastic.
It isn't bad. It is okay. I wish it was so bad it was a laugh but it is just okay. MEW is cute in it despite being so wrapped up.
Side note and interview on the first film:
>Do the guys that are infested know they are infested? Is it there conscience or the thing pretending to act like them? Or both (the thing controlling their mind, without them knowing).
Quint: Since we're out of time, let's end on MacReady. One of the things that intrigues me the most about the film you guys made, an aspect that's not touched upon really in the '50s film, is the concept of loss of identity. Do those taken over know they're copies?
Kurt Russell: Well, the name of the book is Who Goes There? It's just that. Who goes there?
Quint: There's a moment in the middle of the movie where Norris is a thing and is offered control of the all the weapons and turns it down. Is that an echo of the real Norris or a knowingly deceptive move by the thing?
Kurt Russell: No, he's just an imitation of himself. What does the movie have to say at the end? This is why there should be no sequel to it. The sequel is in the last line. The question ultimately has to be who goes there? Did this already happen and it succeeded and we are all just imitations living it out. That's the thing we can't figure out. We can't figure the God question out. You're never going to because you're just an imitation now, you're no longer the real thing. We had great conversations about this. It was a good group of guys.
(cont'd)
At the end of the movie, when that's possibly the reality... You and I are already sitting here talking about what has already happened that we can't do anything about, the only thing I think you could say is “Why don't we just sit here and see what happens?” (laughs) That is the sequel. That's the sequel, the prequel and everything else, guys!
I think it was really brilliantly done in terms of the way it was staged and acted and whatnot. It really is to me giving off the same beautifully sentimental, melancholy of Peggy Lee. Is that all there is? Then let's keep dancing! Let's break out the booze and have a ball.
Not to mention it's a prequel, why the fuck do people always call it a remake. It is a direct prequel to The Thing. Here's the 2011 practical effects.
We're talking about Carpenter's
Wish people would stop asking if the thing 'knows its a thing' or if the person thinks it's a person. It's fucking clear from the film and the innumerable times Carpenter has said it that the thing is just pretending and knows it is, there is no crappy "am i a thing?" The people get killed and copied.
The only point of discussion is people slowly infected like Blair potentially - I reckon with the building of the noose he realized he was being taken over and considered killing himself. His destruction of the helicopter etc were certainly influenced by it as even if he had decent justification, he kept the parts.
Carpenters story is based on the short story snd not the shitty 60's movie. Get your facts straight.
The first guy says "It's a remake, that's all you need to know", then you turned it into about how Carpenter's was a remake. 2011 is not a remake.
The plot was alright. The characters and their interactions didn't feel as iconic or memorable as in the 80s one but they were still pretty decent.
The sfx are shit because they forced them to put cgi over everything at the last minute so, not only do we have dry cgi monster instead of viscous, slimy practical effects, but the cgi is not that good (and just aweful in the split-in-two scene).
Some of the action scenes felt a little too much like action movie scenes instead of horror movie action scene.
The resulting movie is a little above average, but very forgettable.
Sort of like the Evil Dead remake, but a little better because they didn't end with a bland 3rd act that was tonally different from the rest of the movie like ED did.
btw, a pretty decent low-budget movie that is very The Thing/Evil Dead is Dead Mary. I really enjoyed that one. Better than the ED remake.
That wasn't me.
I'm the guy who said it was another adaptation
Actually, some of the things in the Carpenter one are from the 50s movie and are not in the short story.
The more you know.
It was a great interview though with Kurt Russell.
I particularly like the fact that the cast discussed all this stuff.
Yeah, i also assume due to the cast answering that it wasn't some interview done in the last 5 years. I do like when the cast and crew like their work enough to engage with it and debate about it - hardly doubt you could talk to Mary Elizabeth Winstead about the mechanics of the thing.
The 2011 movie dropped the Pschological Thriller aspect in favor of action. Thats what mainly killed the movie for me the other part was The Thing behaving completely contrary to how it always behaved, both in the carpenter movie and book.
I really like the concept of the characters thinking that they could be the thing, while knowing as the viewer that its not possible. Just adds to the mental destabilization of the victims
Carpenter said that a Thing might not know it is a Thing before it reveals itself.
Would make the Blair thing make sense. Mac gives him a bottle that he infected with his saliva and next thing we know Blair is a Thing.
tl;dr thing Thing Thing thing thing
Do you think they played a prank on each ither during the 1982 filming like putting the Kennel Thing into someones room at night?
Where has he ever said that? I have only ever read him saying the exact opposite
It did feel like that with Norris like when he had heartpain several times without anyone around.
The thing had imitated his heart as well, so it makes sense that it had pain. The heart wouldn't kill it though so when it failed the thing was obviously still alive and kicking, they just fucked it up by using the defib. It may even have been using the heart attack as a way of getting out of everyone's sights.
Yeah it probably had to go passive and act dead because it would have to rearrange a lot in order to replace the heart and people around would notice all the movement under the skin. So it couldn't do much but what it did do.
In the crew's state I don't think they'd give him a second chance if he started spasming on the floor rebuilding his organs.
I can't find it on google (it was a long time ago and I only looked for 5 minutes).
I guess I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
But just because he said it doesn't mean much. The novelisation of the movie shots that idea down. But then again, the novelisation of Halloween had Micheal as the reicarnated soul of a disfigured Celt psycho teen, so...
The times for infection are always too inconsistent. The Thing was already a dog when he got to the US camp and still tries to assimilate all of the kennel dogs at once and takes a long time to do so. While other times it seems almost instantaneous.
There were some good, tense scenes, but it lacked the buildup and paranoia of the original. Every time the monster appears it's with a rousing BOOGABOOGABOOGA and he proceeds to trash shit for fifteen minutes while we wait for it to happen again.
Unlike most, I feel the people making it really had their hearts in the right place, but just couldn't capture the same feeling because they didn't realize what was so good abou the original. I still think it's a more than servicable sequel in this day in age.
i would note just because its anons arguing
carpenter said different things throughout his life about the movie, most specifically about childs and the ending
literally everyone in this thread (other than retards) could be right about what carpenter did or did not say, at different points in his career
also i clicked wrong people, but it still applies
>just couldn't capture the same feeling because they didn't realize what was so good abou the original.
>tfw Tarantinhack basically managed to make The H8ful 8 more like the The Thing than The Thing (2011) just because he used more original music and more Kurt Russel
Is it ever instantaneous? The quickest i can think of is windows and he gets burned before he is really taken over and even then the thing has him by the head for several seconds. All the others get killed and the thing has plenty of one on one time to finish and even clean up.
Huh, didn't realize that until just now. Hateful 8 would've been much better if it was confined to that room like a play throughout instead of jumping around like Tarantino does.
I think a shame about the movie is that Carpenter didn't make his mind up on anything - there is no real chronology of infection because the writers didn't make one.
I know a lot of people liked this and thinks it adds to the mystery, but I would personally have much preferred it if on repeat viewings you could work it out. Just for beilevability's sake there should be some in universe order.
It's quite sad, really. Apparently the (rather young) test audience did not enjoy the practical effects and wondered why it wasn't shiny like most CGI, so they scrapped all the practicals. You can look it up on youtube, they actually had some really great stuff.
Being a huge fan of the 80's one since I was young, I was wholly disappointed. From the previews I had a pretty good idea it was gonna be shit, but I watched it for MEW if I'm being honest.
Tarantula said that one major inspiration for H8 was The Thing. Maybe he didn't want to copy it too much? Fear of being called a hack again, or something, idk...
it's very forgettable
Yeah that wanting video game/CGI looks is probably the most soul-crushing thing I've ever read.
I guess we did this to ourselves, it's the price we pay for having an entire generation raised on CGI.
I know nothing about the film but quite like tarantino - in what way is it inspired by the thing? I might give it a watch
I posted the video earlier in the thread. I thought it was the producers that wanted CGI.
Once you explain it the situation's robbed of any spooks.
> I watched it for MEW if I'm being honest
You are literally part of the problem
Bunch of people trapped in one place by a lot of snow and then not trusting each other.
It even uses HUMANITY as part of the score
well specifically theres really only two "eras" of his opinions about what happened
him and the general consesous while filming the movie (most likely shared by the crew/actors) and him now (generally his opinions now lean toward the vague side not the "yes or no" side)
so really all he did was change his mind from clear answers to letting people debate about it
I heard (put your tin foil hat on) that it was because they had to give the CGI studio the work (something about the contract they have with them giving them a specific number of movies per year to work on).
It's really not as bad as everyone says. It's perfectly fine for one watch
The paranoia. Kurt Russell being in it. It's mostly inspired by the feel of the movie, not the alien/polar setting.
Kurt talks about it a little here:
huffingtonpost.com
“Hateful Eight“ director Quentin Tarantino revealed in interviews that “The Thing” was a big part of the inspiration for his new film, and Russell also reflected on the similarities between the two movies.
“Quentin’s movie is about paranoia, too,” he said, “It’s about being trapped and how things change in a room and how people begin to think different and hit the panic button or not. Where that paranoia comes from can be many, many, many different things. In the case of ‘The Hateful Eight,’ it comes from a lot of the different feelings that Civil War America offered at that time. I love the way Quentin deals with that matter,” said Russell.
That's pretty badass scene. He knew suicide was the human way to go, rather than let the whatever nightmarish form of the thing was going to absorb him.
Yeah i know a lot of people will disagree - but i think it could be completely obscure the first time, but that there should be an order to it. Otherwise its just invoking magic in order to make scares and I think good writing can make a situation logically consistent but also mysterious and scary.
A good example is the shadow at the start - if i recall its known that its meant to be palmer, but you dont know it at the time and its not any less scary for that fact.
Watchable, but pretty meh.
It lacked the art that went with the practical effects.
I WISH CGI WOULD JUST GO
Well i know the producers had a clear progression in their understanding. I think artists are prone to lazily saying "its what you take it to mean" when their art is well received.
>mfw
I think it makes the fact that this Thing is alien to us feel even more real.
We don't know how it thinks, what ir wants (beside the basic main goals of reaching civilisation/going back to sleep to be found later).
Why does it infect these people, in that order? Why does it wait to reveal itself? Why doesn't it act using human logic? Because it's an Alien.
MFW
>the studio execs wanting a more video game look
they wanted to get that WACRAFT going
Maybe it looked shit in motion?
Nah, I'm giving the execs too much credits. They wanted to give a big bucks contract to that cgi studio and keep most of it in their own pockets.
>ask for money to pay for practical effects
>keep a lot of it for yourself
>ask for more money to use cgi over the effects
>keep even more money for yourself
EXECS DID NOTHING WRONG!
>maybe it looked shit in motion
As in every CG ever?
Touché.
It does add a few bits, like the origin of the two head burn corpse they find and some shit at the end.
Watch it, it's not bad, I didn't mind the lead, I loved the language barrier between everyone and that she was scientist (as a nice contrast to Kurt's character who was just a regular guy)
Is there any chance in hell there will ever be a restored version with practical effects put back in?