![large_cQPSZGl3trccI9pEL2nbLnDoOap[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/eRAOdIi.jpg "large_cQPSZGl3trccI9pEL2nbLnDoOap[1].jpg")
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.
>>70120379
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).
>>70120547
>>70120683
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.
>>70121210
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.
>>70121396
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.
>>70121464
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
>>70120379
It was meh for me up until the very last scene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGwVfV69ssk
>>70121210
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.
>>70121675
Shit. Ninja'd
>>70120379
> 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
>>70120379
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)
>>70120379
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).
>>70122766
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.
>>70122766
>>70122891
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.
>>70122891
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.
>>70121210
>>70121396
>>70121785
>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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBzpT7VmSaU
>>70122972
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.
>>70123163
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
>>70122974
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.
>>70120379
If you saw the first one don't see the prequel
it will ruin everything for you
>>70120379
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.
>>70123163
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3InKKZ2JYcY
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
>>70123262
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
>>70123299
More of this, less of everyone being english or american, less of everyone being hot 20-something year olds, more character development.
>>70120379
>How is the remake?
It's a remake. That should tell you all you need to know.
>>70123362
>Those stupid fucking dinosaur teeth in the CGI
>>70123403
John Carpenters was a remake
They deleted THIS SCENE
The fucking retards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj_57s-8y9w
This would have been an effective scene too
>>70123430
It was a re-adaptation that payed homage to a previous adaptation.
>>70120379
>How is the remake
I do not remember a thing from it.
And I can clearly tell evens in the original movie/remake.
>>70123434
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.
>>70123454
>re-adaption
So a remake
>>70123499
That's like saying Dredd is a remake of Judge Dredd.
Factually wrong.
>>70120379
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)
>>70123526
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.
>>70123454
>>70123403
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBzpT7VmSaU
>>70123596
We're talking about Carpenter's
>>70123526
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.
>>70123499
Carpenters story is based on the short story snd not the shitty 60's movie. Get your facts straight.
>>70123623
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.
>>70123697
That wasn't me.
I'm the guy who said it was another adaptation
>>70123686
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.
>>70123680
It was a great interview though with Kurt Russell.
I particularly like the fact that the cast discussed all this stuff.
>>70123785
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.
>>70123680
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
>>70123680
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?
>>70123875
Where has he ever said that? I have only ever read him saying the exact opposite
>>70123875
It did feel like that with Norris like when he had heartpain several times without anyone around.
>>70123954
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.
>>70124058
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.
>>70123920
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.
>>70123920
>>70124428
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
>>70124484
also i clicked wrong people, but it still applies
>>70124428
>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
>>70124427
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.
>>70124564
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.
>>70124484
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.
>>70121210
>>70121785
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.
>>70124635
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...
>>70120379
it's very forgettable
>>70122733
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.
>>70124689
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
>>70124677
I posted the video earlier in the thread. I thought it was the producers that wanted CGI.
>>70124663
Once you explain it the situation's robbed of any spooks.
>>70124677
> I watched it for MEW if I'm being honest
You are literally part of the problem
>>70124730
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
>>70124663
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
>>70124677
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).
>>70120379
It's really not as bad as everyone says. It's perfectly fine for one watch
>>70124730
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:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kurt-russell-the-thing-theory_us_56883db0e4b014efe0daaaff
“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.
>>70123434
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.
>>70124741
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
>>70124754
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.
![1443587391460[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/gjBuq7H.png "1443587391460[1].png")
>>70123163
>>70123362
>mfw
>>70124854
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.
>>70123163
MFW
>>70122733
>the studio execs wanting a more video game look
they wanted to get that WACRAFT going
>>70124914
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.
>>70125059
>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!
>>70125059
>maybe it looked shit in motion
As in every CG ever?
>>70125123
Touché.
>>70121210
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, >>70121450
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?
Anyone remembers some 90s horror movie set in the north pole about some satanic cult, or demonic possession? It was somewhat inspired by The Thing (outpost, paranoia, etc.).
I'm in the mood for some polar horror/mystery right now.
>>70125268
I don't know what movie you're talking about, but it kinda sounds like 30 Days of Night but that was made in 2007.
>>70125263
It doesn't look like it for now. Maybe in a few years, if people keep asking for it?
>>70125340
It wasn't 30 Days. There was only a few characters in the whole movie (2 or3). One of the only thing I remember about the movie is a pentagram on a inside wall of the station drawn in blood.
30DoN was good. Could have been better, but it's worth a rewatch.
How is the sequel? I love Mia Kirshner, but that movie doesn,t look that good.
>>70125499
The Last Winter?
>>70125340
Brilliant film as well except for the cheesy ending.
>>70121450
>It's disappointing the lead was an American female
Step the fuck back. I havent seen it, why the fucking christ is an American woman in a Norwegian base that is in the literally middle of nowhere where the only way to get there is by organized transport, expeditions/research cells in unclaimed land DOES NOT allow female members in their teams, because it creates division and distraction among men that potentially compromises their work, this is a real thing. How do they explain that? What the fuck is that shit, did they really not think people would be interested in the movie unless an American was the lead character? And that a woman had to be in the movie somewhere? Im full fucking mad and confused.
>>70125795
It's set in a norwegian camp but literally half the cast are americans and english - the norwegians take a back seat.
There isn't any explanation beyond somehow this 20 year old hot american girl is the best in her field of alien research or some shit. There is also another hot girl in the facility who does nothing.
All the americans are the main characters, the norwegians just get btfo.
Yes it is shit.
>>70124427
That would detract from the feel of the original movie.
Making it inconsistent and unpredictable maintained suspense.
The moment you let the audience understand your monster is the moment it stops being terrifying.
>>70125695
That was a dumb movie.
>>70121513
>he was the only one with common sense in the group
>>70126044
I liked it, I know people hate the monster at the end but it all worked for me.
>>70124739
I think you might be right, but I remember reading somewhere that the practical's didn't go over well with the test audience.
>>70124748I know ;_;
In all honesty, I probably watched it out of curiosity/love for the 80's version than anything else.
>>70124760
Tbph I'd prefer that reason to the ones they gave. If it has to "look like a video game" versus being badass practical effects that are already developed, we're in trouble.
>>70124831I love the way I smashed a priceless guitar unknowingly for a fucking movie
What did he mean by this?
>>70125059
I might actually believe this if the CGI didn't look so shitty, and we actually have vid of the practicals that looks fucking awesome.
>>70125340
Great movie, but what >>70125725 said. They sorta botched the ending. Fucking awesome atmosphere. That buildup. That isolation. That hopelessness.That killing little girl vamps.
In the spirit of the thread, I should comment on the fact that it relied too much on CGI. Creature design and intro was goat, though.
Everything about the 1982 movie just trumps the new movie.
Acting, gore and violence, set pieces, characters, monster transformations, mystery, shocks and sheer paranoia. It's fucking glorious film making.
>>70126477
Poster is one of the best as well. New film didn't get it so just shoved the alien hand from the first film on it.
>>70125725
>>70126384
Why you don´t like the ending? Because of its execution? It seemed pretty logical and acceptable to me. I mean, a happy ending would have been bullshit.
>>70126585
For me it just seemed too unoriginal. I agree that it was better than a happy ending, but something about it just seemed too predictable. I barely paid attention to the second one (it's shit), but the ending actually surprised me.
It's one of the few movies I own a hardcopy of though, so that should say something about my feelings about it. Such a great, original, horrifying take on an old mythos.
>>70123875
>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.
MacReady is not the Thing, not even at the end.
It's time to post cool things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT7AH4JyuNs
I watched the remake prequel thing a few weeks after the first time I watched the 1982 one
I turned it off halfway through, and I've only done that to one or two other movies in my whole life
so boring
>>70127270
I think that's what makes it fun. Personally, I really doubt he is up until the end which I still don't know, but there's no definitive answer.
Sorta like The Shining, even if there's nothing there people still find shit.
>>70127336
I remember that the weird hippy green tea guy from Community and MEW are in it, and that's pretty much it. Very forgettable, and the producers only have themselves to blame.
I wish others would take the hint.
>>70127341
Rob Ager's explanation of who's human at the end is really solid and I recommend it every time the issue is brought up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SppG-I_Dhxw
>>70126585
The floating away in the wind was just a bit corny.
>>70125059
>Maybe it looked shit in motion
watch the goddamn video
it looks fucking epic in the goddamn motion
>>70127581
>he did it BECAUSE!
so many fucking assumptions
this is really silly
>>70127581
His assumptions about Childs running off in the snowstorm is a bit off considering MacReady told him if he sees Blair he should roast him in case they don't return with him.
>>70129027
If he comes BACK without them. He already mentioned why was it unlike Childs to go blind into the snow.
>>70125937
God you are fucking dumb
She doesn't research aliens
You fucking retard
Did you even watch the fucking movie
>>70129096
ya, while childs is the hotheaded aggressive dude and most of the camp has been killed off
its more than likely he would run off
at least he omitted the fake foam assumptions which so many idiots like
>>70125059
Something tells me they were worried about how it would've been perceived as everyone is so accustomed to CGI effects these days regardless off how shit they may look. Almost like it has to have it in there just to do well at the box office because the average Transformers dreg who forgets about whole thing a day later wouldn't appreciate the effects.
>>70125795
Her reasons for being there are completely logical, clearly established, and it DOES in fact create division in the Norway crew.
>>70129096
It was unlike him but what the hell do you expect a person to do when he might realize that Blair might have fucked everyone up aside him? I wouldn't sit there and wait for someone dead to return when I got the chance to fuck up Blair up.
>>70129153
He's acting cool under pressure like when Mac cocks and points a gun to his head. Besides, if he's the hothead then why did he want Mac-thing to freeze outside when he had the chance to blow him up together with Norris and Palmer?
>>70129200
Because that's what you'd do, not Childs.
>>70129266
because they were inside together as a team, thinking all of them are okay
not standing alone by a door while the handful of survivors being who knows where, and seeing 'the enemy'
besides i dont like
>MACREADY GIVES HIM A DRINK AND BURNS HIM ITS LIKE THE CHESS
to me that was foreshadowing how MacReady would rather burn the whole camp down than watch the thing cheat its way by imitating going to general population
We are confronted with two issues here during the Childs running out into the snowstorm thing.
First if he wasn't infected what did he see run outside? It couldn't be Blair because the stairs down to the generator room where right next to where Childs was standing.
It makes sense for Childs to have gotten infected right there considering moments after Childs left the hallway which made way for Blair to fuck said generator up. There's no way Childs would have missed anyone going down there.
>>70129424
>because they were inside together as a team, thinking all of them are okay
>not standing alone by a door while the handful of survivors being who knows where, and seeing 'the enemy'
This is bullshit - the team WANTED to burn Mac down yet it was Childs who held them back. Later on the team already thought they were fucked when they thought Mac was going to kill them all when he had them at gun/TNT point yet Childs kept his cool.
Why did he do all that? Because he doesn't take unnecessary risks.
>MACREADY GIVES HIM A DRINK AND BURNS HIM ITS LIKE THE CHESS
It makes sense and I have no reason to not trust him when he makes a claim that it was more explicit in the script.
>you havent seen it in years, maybe a decade
>its a long cool night, perfect for the movie, so you decide to rewatch it
>remember the atmosphere, some of the stuff
>completely forgot the defibrillator scene
>absolutely freak out at the scene
why is it so godly bros?
alsostream when?
I'll just leave these here.
OP: as you've undoubtedly gathered, the 2011 film is generally disliked, and based on this majority, you can safely skip it.
That said, I am of the minority opinion that it's a solid flick, so I'll offer an alternative view. I saw 2011 in the theater, ended up liking it much better than I had expected, and I usually hate it when CGI trumps practical effects. I actually had a moment or two of personal dread (in the good, somewhat expected horror movie way) while watching; finally, none of the characters seemed to me to be shoehorned in, or out-of-place, although MEW does become a /bit/ of a Mary Sue, but this is natural to the role of a lead.
I also don't agree with the criticism that there's any meaningful romantic/distracting subtext. When you actually watch the movie and pay attention, there's no such theme; this is imagined by /tv/ users who want another reason to hate the movie. There are one or two /slight/ sex jokes within the first ten minutes (which is perfectly appropriate banter given the circumstances), and that's the extent of it. The American pilot and MEW stay fairly close to each other at points in the movie, but as they're both fish out of water among a bunch of Norwegians, this is to be expected.
I'm about to re-post some other big charts of both movies, OP. If for whatever reason you don't want 2011 to be any more spoiled than this thread has already done, just don't read them: I'm not going to bother to tag them.
Fun fact: The Thing has been realized as at least three movies (wiki tangentially suggests others), two of which share an internally consistent fictional universe.
These three movies were released in almost -exact 30-year intervals:
The Thing From Another World (Hawks/Nyby, 1951)
The Thing (Carpenter, 1982)
The Thing (Van Heijningen, 2011)
The original short story, by John W. Campbell Jr, was originally published in 1938, almost 80 years ago. This is an /old/ story idea, much older than a lot of sci-fi we consume in movie format today!
Orson Welles' War of the Worlds broadcast also took place the evening before Halloween, 1938, just weeks after Who Goes There? had been published in August. There's an 80 year anniversary of some important SF coming up, is the point.
Unlike other Carpenter remakes, you can tell it was made respectfully and sincerely, rather than insulting and cheap cash-grabs. But perhaps that's also its problem; its so respectful that it doesn't take any risks and ultimately just feels soulless, sterile. It lacks the weirdness and angry vulgarity of Carpenter that are inherently 80's. It makes you realize how minimalistic and pure his filmmaking style was by comparison to today's standards, which add too much stuff, try to explain and rationalize everything, without understanding that it's the opposite of effective storytelling.
>>70123769
>>70123686
Carpenter's homages are pretty clever. The "it already happened" Norwegian camp is a hidden reference to the original. The footage from the camp is actually a shot for shot remake of various scenes from the older version. So the 80's film could actually be seen as a semi-sequel of the 50's (besides the creature being different and the camp not being Norwegian).
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST
the original is so goddamn good
all the stuff from the half on is about the practical effect, i cant possibly love and admire it more
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUbclpxMyYs
>>70123165
The director confirmed that theory a while back I think.
It was REALLY fucking bad and completely missed/fucked up the tone of the original.
I saw some people on /tv/ defending it a year or so back and it blew my fucking mind. It's so fucking horrible.
>>70130140
Whatever copy boy put this ad together had absolutely no idea, kek
He was sitting at his desk with some old chintzy 70's/80s pattern on the walls outside his office, cutting together some simple ad copy for leaflets, trade magazines, Variety. He observed that the chronological release dates for this bunch coincidentally (and nicely) produced a list that was in alphabetical order -all except for that Dark Crystal, which was jus as well since it was the most unwieldy logo. I'll add some bottom-matter to offset, he thought. Okay, nice. That's a nice modern advertisement.
He himself hated SF/Fantasy. This was just a day job. These will all be forgotten within two years, he thought.
>>70125268
Sometimes they come back... for more.
Really bad Stephen King film.
>>70123362
Who the fuck thinks the right actually looks better?
Fucking why?
>>70123362
wow thats sad
cucked by the cgi jew
>>70123875
It flew a fucking space craft. It's obviously intelligent enough to understand what it is.
What are some other good films that primarily feature horrifying, warped monstrosities?
GIRL POWER!
>>70132673
>hear about a Thing re-make
>prequel to take place at the Norwegian camp
>American woman to be the protaganist.....at the fucking NORWEGIAN camp!
Instantly dropped, and will never be viewed, as it's already a piece of shit due to the decision to try and force some bitch into the story
>>70120379
Poor script.
Execution seemed boring and generic.
Maybe the only scene that was well-made was the ending epilogue scene that ties into the John Carpenter movie.
>MEW was just in a group of 2 people, and the other person turned into a Thing monster and attacked her
>10 minutes later, MEW tells everyone that the Thing can imitate anyone, and that there's still at least one of them among the group, so it's really dangerous
>So next she fucking tells everyone to split up into groups of 2 people
>Next scene is literally her and another guy alone in a truck
>The Thing shoots tentacles out and instantly wounds or instantly kills people the whole movie
>But at the end it just smacks MEW around or grabs her by the leg and drags her
>>70125951
>The moment you let the audience understand your monster is the moment it stops being terrifying.
The Thing prequel did just that.Early in the movie, after they take the tissue sample from the ice block, the main character looks at Thing tissue samples in the microscope and sees Thing cells infecting normal cells then appearing completely normal again. They talk about the Thing cells imitating cells.
So before we even see anyone turning into the Thing or seeing the Thing copy people, they've already explained in advance that the Thing can copy people.
>>70133683
But Carpenters movie did the same.
>>70132948
The Norwegian that hunted the Thing in Carpenters version was the best even in the prequel.
He was Norwegian MacReady shafted to be a side-character.
That thing with the metal screwed up the ending to the original. Childs has earrings all throughout and still has them at the end, meaning we now know that he's not the Thing.
>>70135451
What? Only Blair did tests and he didn't tell anybody.
>>70135942
I thought we were talking about the audience watching it.
>>70135898
Yeah but the characters and the audience didn't know that. Plus the canon splits after the end of the movie. In the video game Child's dies of Hypothermia, and in the comics he ends being a thing. However, both of those have issues where they conflict with the original work, so which is canon is purely up to preference.
Also, it was pretty much confirmed that the thing is a smart being, so maybe after the first base it learned to reacquire the victims jewelry.
page 10 save rave
>>70121513
He was NORWEGIAN,Mac!
>>70123417
fucking this man, jeez
