what does /tv/ think of The Thing (2011)?
worthy remake or garbage?
It's shit. Even if they had kept those amazing practical effects the movie would still be shit
>>71984992
/thread
I like how it's a remake while pretending to be a prequel
it's a fucking prequel, not a remake
And it's insignificant, ruined by the lousy CGI, the dumb characters and the lack of paranoia and suspense.
It's not a remake it's prequel. Get it right asshole.
It's alright. If they had kept those amazing practical effects it would have been better.
It's almost hilarious how this managed to not take a single fucking clue from carpenters and just ended up like a generic horror flick.
>>71984926
I quite enjoyed it.
what's enxt fro her career should BrainDead flop?
no memes pls
>>71984926
Muh Stronk Woman: The Horror
The men are utterly useless while the female university student solves everything and kick ass in every scene. Predictable and boring as fuck
>>71984926
>remake
Its a prequel you fucking retard.
>>71986506
just like Ripley
>>71986613
its dog!
>>71986067
>no memes pls
>no memes
>>71986613
>false dichotomy
Ripley spends three-quarters of Alien as a background character. As the men - who are all presented as capable characters - get killed off she emerges from the group. That's not what happened here. Try again
Boring and redundant. It turns what was a very psychologically driven movie about paranoia and isolation into a super generic monster movie. If you know someone who didn't like Carpenter's version because it moved too slowly and was "boring", show them this and they'll probably eat it up.
Even if those beautiful practical effects hadn't been touched by dumbshit execs and were in the final version, it would still be a bad movie. It's not OFFENSIVELY bad like some of the other remakes out there, but it's such a jarring contrast to the original that it really should be in a league of its own when you look at good examples of reasons NOT to reboot or remake old properties.
>>71987349
stahp it
>>71987349
It wasn't a reboot or a remake.
A good movie that is butchered by critics for what the producers did to its practical effects.
The director was very passionate about making it as close to the original 82 film as possible, as were all of the crew, especially StudioADI who did the practical effects and puppetry.
The director went out of his way to cast authentic norwegian actors, even describing them as the "Ocean's 11" of norway in the making-of, and I appreciate that.
I understand why people don't like the movie, but I do.
>>71987349
Carpenter's was a remake
i am so genuinely angry about what happened to the practical effects in the movie.
>>71986613
The crew behind the remake did say that MEW's character was based on Ripley. For me, that was the first warning sign that this movie was going to be shit.
Every time someone shills for their movie and uses the fact that they have a female character with a Ripley-like personality as a selling point it always turns out to be a shitty character stuck in a shitty movie, because the writers or the director really miss the point of what made Ripley such a good character. They don't realize that she's very gender neutral (and was in fact written to be a man originally) allowing her to be a character who stands on her own personal merits instead of her gender. They ignore this and instead try to make a very broad, bland, bare bones rip-off and it always comes across as obnoxious because it reeks of smug "hurrr hurrr a woman is doing badass man things that's so revolutionary bet you've never seen that before".
It's shallow and dumb and signs a movie's death warrant when they do it wrong, which they almost always do. I can't even remember the first thing about MEW in The Thing other than her killing that dopey MacReady looking cowboy dude at the end in the Snowcat.
The fact that it's a prequel and yet the title is still just "The Thing" really says it all.
Also, what were audiences unacquainted with the original movie supposed to make of that ending? When I saw it in a theater people were PISSED.
>>71987554
>>71987682
The 2011 one was clearly trying to be a remake because it's the same exact fucking story with a few wink-wink moments to remind you of moments in the original. It does nothing new, except maybe with the gay spaceship towards the end.
>>71987554
It was definitely intended as a reboot. That's why MEW survives: They were setting up a sequel.
Mercifully we were sparred The Thing: Revelations or some shit where she goes to Outpost 31 and finds the charred remains of MacReady.
>>71987677
I get what he was trying to do and admire how close he tried to make it look like the original, but it really doesn't excuse the horrible story stuffed with numerous plot holes. The Thing itself acts so out of character that I wonder if whoever wrote it even saw the Carpenter one.
I like that the people in this movie were smarter than the original. When they realized The Thing couldn't copy false parts like dental fillings was brilliant.
>>71987734
how does it end? never saw it
>>71988022
it also lost all pacing which drags out the psychological horror that made carpenters so legendary
carpenters felt like a slow burn and they unravvel the thing - try to beat it and ends in a stalemate. the RE-WHATEVER felt way too fast paced, emergent almost. was shit.
>>71987844
It's supposed to show what happened at the Norwegian camp.
Hence prequel
>>71984926
>>71985012
>>71985021
>>71985014
>>71986570
>>71987554
>>71987682
>>71987896
>>71987844
>>71987733
They said it was a prequel. It didn't need a prequel, so it feels like a generic remake. They should have had an all female cast so that they could have said the haters were racist, misogynistic basement dwellers.
>>71988062
Dog running away from helicopter.
>>71987896
Funny that you mention that because Halloween Horror Nights did a house based on the 2011 Thing, and when you enter it there's a section where you see the frozen bodies of Child's and Mac.
I saw a pic of it somewhere a long time ago and they looked really neat until you noticed that they were naked for some reason, then I realized someone got paid to sculpt realistic genitals for a Kurt Russell mannequin.
>>71988150
>It doesn't need a prequel thus it isn't one
Shut the fuck up spoonhead.
how come she rarely ever gets any good roles?
>>71988168
Except Macready survived because he was the Thing.
>>71988213
Doesn't do anal
It was already bad without the CGI
>>71988062
After MEW blows up the spaceship the Thing originally crash-landed on earth with and burns Joel Edgerton to death, she gets into a snowcat and there's an extreeeeemely slow, silent dolly-in on her face, then it fades to black and the "Directed by" credit. As soon as this happened there was a huge vocal reaction from the audience.
If you stick through a few more credits, there's a mid-credits scene of the Norwegian guys chasing the Thing-dog with a helicopter, setting up the opening of the original movie.
>>71988218
>BUT MAC WAS THE THING
then why does he go through the entire movie, literally up until the very last minute before the credits roll, doing everything he can and succeeding in undermining the thing's goals and more or less dooming himself to a slow death by freezing which he's totally okay with
>>71988431
Because he wasn't the Thing until the end. Duh.
>>71988430
That mid credits scene was the worst for me because it's the only time in the movie where they start to play the Ennio Morricone score and it actually looks and plays out like a scene from the original. It all just made me realize that I could've been watching the Carpenter version instead of wasting my time.
>>71987997
>The Thing itself acts so out of character that I wonder if whoever wrote it even saw the Carpenter one.
This. In the original you really got the sense that the Thing was just trying to survive, but had it's own survival plan. In this it just seemed to be trying to murder everyone on the base by getting them each to come somewhere private one by one.
Overall though, I didn't hate this film. I can't remember them doing anything to ruin the continuity of the first film, so I think it stayed reasonably respectful to it. It just didn't do enough to stand on it's own merits.
is it wrong to like both remakes?
I'm in love with the 1984 movie since my childhood and went open minded in the 2011 version and was surprised how much I actually enjoyed it. I thought the atmosphere was very strong and I liked most of the performances, especially MEWs. the CGI was serviceable, it didn't ruin the movie for me. and I thought the part with the dental fillings was interesting to change things up a bit and not copy every beat from the carpenter movie.
the slightly reworked theme was cool as well in my opinion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvXQ7hn-sRU
pls don't hate me guys.
>>71988738prequel
why so many threads about her?
>>71989557
she has a new tv show or something.
