I thought you said this was bad?

I thought you said this was bad?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=JONsQiv6Rc4
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I thought this movie was ok, definetly not bad just not as good as the original. Shame they went with the CGI instead of the practical effects they made.

It disregards EVERYTHING Carpenters version made so great.

It was awful. Even if they kept the practical effects it still would have been shit. The Thing acts retarded the whole way through. If the ship was never broken why did the thing crawl out of it in the first place?

It's not utterly horrible, it's just that they were making a prequel to one of the greatest horror films in cinema's history, it was a really tall order.

Plus what they did regarding the special effects was plainly enraging, is right though, even with practical effects it would've still been a disappointment.

Such as?

>they make a big point of the thing not being able to replicate inorganic materials
>thus at the end Ramona Flowers realizes her partner is the thing because he isn't wearing the earring or necklace or whatever he always wears
>I guess that makes sense
>WAIT then how does the thing wear the same clothes as the host without any visible damage on them??
Movie just raised more questions than it answered

It stole the people's clothes. Duh.

I'll never stop being upset about this.

I felt like this story did not need to be told just like Rogue One, We already knew what happens did we really need to see how that axe got stuck in the wall? also adding women was also a detriment imo.

This was perfectly fine. The stuff in the original movie looks fake as fuck though.

>also adding women was also a detriment imo.

Why?

I disagree, the only effects that look campy in the original are the chest mouth scene and the head spider scene

>left
>looks fake as fuck, can even see the mould lines
>not any semblance of blood or flesh, just looks like plastic
>right
>looks realistic
>can even see where the skin tore

is this a joke?

I think you need glasses son, Left looks way more realistic, Right looks like a cutscene from a video game that came out 10 years ago

you didn't even try

Yeah but in the original when the thing takes someone over they find that person's clothes all fucked up. Also,
>steals their clothes
>can't steal their earrings and jewelry

rerelease w/ practical effects when?

>left looks way more realistic

if you think plastic, bright lights and absolutely no depth, showing that it truly is just a guy with something attached to his torso is """""""""""""""realistic""""""""""" then you need to go outside

cmon man you gonna have to bait harder than that

>tfw summer

Reminder that THIS was supposed to be the Thing in the practical effects version. Thank God someone told them how retarded it was and it was scrapped

I know right? look at how terrible this looks! I've scene better CGI in species!

>Behind the scenes footage with no processing vs. Final product

it's like you're stupid and you dont even realize it

this was the pilot for the ufo, the thing took over this alien and changed it's appearance to this design

Did you even see the original first? There is no point for the sequel to exist

compared to this

>can see the saliva and fluids inside
>it's not just some guy wearing a mask or a sculpture
>has full range of movement

Good job killing your 'argument'

Both look good in their own way.

>sequel
>remake

fucking hell

It's not bad, worth watching. People here just shit on it a lot, because it's no where near as good as the original.

I haven't seen it, but from what I have seen it does not appear to be as good as the "original". Nothing I have seen of it has made me want to see it. THat's all I can say.

That said, I am saddened by this because from what I've seen of the production I do believe there was a lot of genuine effort put into the film. I respect that even if the end product didn't live up to my hopes.

I guess technically it's a prequel, definitely not a remake tho

did you make this with photoshop or is that actually in the movie?

It's not "technically" a prequel it is a fucking prequel you mongoloid.

That's how I felt years and years ago when people first started talking about a prequel set at the Norwegian camp. I always thought the idea was folly because from a thematic standpoint Carpenter's film was already showing us exactly that. In fact, the Norwegian Camp is just the Outpost 31 set after it has been burned down. That is obviously an efficient use of special effects and set design, but from a thematic standpoint it also makes sense and brings the whole film full circle.

>Norwegians dig up Thing
>It thaws and vanishes
>In secret, it starts assimilating people but is eventually discovered
>The camp occupants become terrified and paranoid as they try to flush it out
>In the end the survivors burn down the camp to flush it out and then chase after it


I think it was Rob Ager who pointed out that the film might been a little better if the nationality and language divide had been exploited by the plot.

However I still think it was just a totally unnecessary film.

It also gets the nature of the Thing wrong: it is not an aggressive monster that rampages through people. It skulks and hides and manipulates. In fact, it is at its most vulnerable when exposed. In every case in Carpenter's film in which it was exposed it was killed. That is why it hides.

It is a spy and a secret agent; not Jason Vorhees.

...

What kind of movie is The thing? Is it fun and cool? Is it misteryous and little scary? Is it deep and makes you think?

What should I expect before watching it?

Which one?

Carpenter's version is a "Whodunit?" murder mystery + Alien

Just broke my suspension of disbelief, The research stations are remote, it would make sense that the Norweigians like the Americans would employ an all male crew as not only do you need less supplies, but it means noone is "showboating" for the females.

IRL the Thing from 1982 was an all male cast and crew and kurt russell and john agreed that it made it alot easier to work on.

I thought the writing nailed it considering its the same plot without it being a straight remake. they lead the story perfectly up to the original. It didnt leave me unsettled like the original did though where the effects I heard were a hot topic when it came out so I was expecting shit. they coulda done better cant claim practical woulda been better but can assume.

"First damn week of winter"

>Women can't be scientists

Got it, you're sexist. Moving on.

Practical effects.

When did i say that?

First goddamn week of winter."

It didn't think the earring was a big deal at the time. Maybe the guy struggled a bit and the earring came off. Or it knew it was supposed to have it, but just didn't put it on because it didn't know if the woman would notice, it's not like they ever conversed about it before.

Also it can consume you in more ways than one, it doesn't necessarily have to take your clothes off, MacReady just noticed that it tended to do so. That doesn't make it a guarantee that it'll tear your clothes off.

It the original, it tears through your clothes, they even say that in the film. That makes it a plot hole in this film

The original one

There is only two, right?

I don't like that the prequel implies the main character survived. A survivor escaping kind of undercuts Carpenter's film. It means there was a lot less at stake.

theres a really really old one its skippable

Technically Howard Hawk's "Thing from Another World" is the original that Carpenter based "The Thing" on, But it is not canon to the JC movies

ya cus they wanted a sequel if it succeeded.

There are three versions.

There was a version called "The Thing From Another World" made in the 1950's.

Carpenter's version came out in 1982, and was based on the same source material as the 1950's version. Though it pays homage to the 1950's version with its title font it isn't really a remake. More of a re-imagining of the same source material.

Then we have the 2010 version which is a prequel (and also kind of a remake) of Carpenter's version.
The source material for the movies is a short story called "Who Goes There?" you can find it online if you search for it. It's a good read. Was written in the 1930's, IIRC.

Carpenter did not base his film on that film. He based his film on the short story "Who Goes There?", the same source material that inspired Howard Hawk's film. He then kept the same title font and used a similar title as a homage to it.

Thats what i meant, He was inspired by the original to retell the Thing more closesl to the book

It's never made concrete that it absolutely has to. They also realize it could probably infect you if it got in your food, it wouldn't really have to tear through your clothes for that either.

It was an observation made by a drunk helicopter pilot, it was never tested.

Well, at the end though when it attacks Gary it shove its hand into his face and seems to insert something down his throat. Incapacitating him and it then presumably absorbs his biomass.

That does contradict the earlier statement that it rips through clothes. Though it is possible it does both depending on the situation.

After all, if it finds you sleeping it might rip into your longjons and insert it tentacles into other parts of your body. The more penetration it has the more of its cells it can flood you with and assimilate you more quickly.

If you watch the kennel scene you can see that some of the dogs are being assimilated by having multiple tentacles impale their bodies in multiple places.


I imagine it is something like this:

>rip into some body with its tentacles, tearing through clothing
>relatively fast assimilation


>or it can just invade orifices in your body, such as the mouth
>clothing isn't torn up, but the process is slower as the Thing cells are only entering the body from one location

My rationale is that the thing can infect you through small molecules like in food or just landing on you, but it would take a long time and your white blood cells would probably fight it.

That is the reason why in the film it has to basically turn inside out, in order to assimilate the victim quickly before others notice.

Makes sense to me because otherwise the Thing has nothing to fear, it could just send 20 little droplets into each person and the movie would be over.

Welcome to club minority, user. Just look at the awful contrast between the real skin and cgi skin. It's quite cheap looking.
youtube.com/watch?v=JONsQiv6Rc4
I don't think The Thing 2011 is a bad film, it's just very average and pointless.

>muh puppets are da best

no one cares about your fetish, quit trying to push it on people

Each Thing acts independently, it's only a hive mind when it's one physical entity. Things will fuck each other over to survive. If it splits apart each Thing gets it's own ambition and will plan shit differently.

Smaller amounts of a Thing tend to be stupider, what with the blood reacting the way it does because there's not enough of it to be really smart.

At least that's how I always interpreted it.

Go Away CGI apologist

No, I said it was pointless and unworthy of watching.

You're the same kind of fag that got upset when they replaced puppet yoda.

>They also realize it could probably infect you if it got in your food,

They speculate that is the case, anyway. I never liked the idea and I don't think it makes sense.

On a macro scale the Thing is vulnerable when it is transforming. So on the micro scale, the cellular scale, might it not be the same case? A Thing cell must attack and take over/duplicate a host cell. During that process it seems logical that the hosts immune system could detect and destroy the invading cells.

That would explain why it has to flood an organism with its own cells when it takes them over. Otherwise the assimilation process might never complete or fail completely. After all, if it only needed to infect you with one or a handful of cells then the dog at the beginning could have just licked everybody's hand. It could have done the same at the Norwegian camp. Just take over one guy and have him spit in the food or touch everyone.


I also think it makes sense that probably the smaller a Thing-organism is, the less intelligent it is. Probably it assimilates dust mites and things accidentally when it takes a person over, but the dust mites are so tiny that the immitation mites are no different from genuine dust mites.

That's why the blood sample reacts and give itself away when tested; it just isn't smart enough to hide.

This would also give the Thing motivation to try and assimilate larger organisms as well as organisms that already have intelligence. When it immitates a human brain it gains human intelligence.

Left is a set photo. Lit and shot in the right way this would look awesome.

Not at all, CGI has uses, So does practical effects hell just look at the new mad max movie, Practical effects when they can do it for real and CGI for the shit that is impossible / too difficult to do.

What i dislike is movies taking the easy way out and instead of trying to create realistic practicals they just make everything CG and it looks like weightless garbage.

The key is to have both and use them when needed

He's right.

Look at what fans managed to do with this to make it look amazing and better than the CGI version!

You mean those puppets that most effects artist ( even cgi artist ) praise and use as a template ? So yeah, I don't understand your point. Don't get it twisted, I love cgi...when it's done right. Sadly The Thing 2011 isn't one of those films. It has MOMENTS of good cgi. Nothing amazing

>tfw there are still people who don't realize the 2011 The Thing movie is a prequel to the events of the 1982 movie The Thing and that the 1982 movie is actually a remake of the 1951 movie " The Thing from Another World" both based on the book "Who goes There?" written in 1938.

And people still call it a remake.

...

Technically john carpenter based it on the book not the movie, The movie inspired him to retell the story properly

You mean those drawings that most effects artist ( even puppet artist ) praise and use as a template ? So yeah, I don't understand your point. Don't get it twisted, I love drawing...when it's done right. Sadly The Thing 2011 isn't one of those films. It has MOMENTS of good puppet. Nothing amazing

>Mindless shitposting
>Doesnt even have an argument anymore

What are you still doing here? Can you atleast namefag so everyone knows its you posting

>Literally the same guy in this thread saying all the stupid shit about the practical effects being worse than the CGI

>we want the Playstation 2 crowed

He's either autistic or thinks he's trolling hard. I'm not sure why user is even replying to him, unless he's replying to himself.

>literally one faggot that keeps talking about his raging hard on for puppets and keeps trying to justify his fetish

Just stop already

I disagree with one thing, I like how it shows the thing learned it can't just attack aggresive and needs to hide because every time it did it got wrecked

Well, chicken and egg argument I suppose.

I think the Things very nature as a shape-shifter implies a focus on subterfuge and infiltration; not wanton slaughter.

where's this from?

>174273-altered-beast-playstation-2-screenshot-with-eye-popping-graphics.jpg

Gee I fucking wonder.

These Fedora wearing g autismos are usually wrong about everything. Keep in mind most of them are 15 and can't into anything Practical.

CGI all the way for them.