The Thing (1982) - John Carpenter Deleted Stop Motion
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 чер 2023
- Director John Carpenter did not like the Blair Monster stop motion as he perceived it to look 'different' or not blending in with the other live action mechanical puppetry effects. I have always disagreed with cutting this scene. Just look at it ... the actual stop motion shots are maybe only under 20 total seconds or even less!
IMO, your average audience will not notice any slight difference of the stop motion ... the scene is in a dark ice cave. The viewers are generally more interested in the overall story & drama. The stop motion scenes are so short but I think it enhances the overall surrealistic horror effect that the audience can see for a quick second ... the entire shape of this grossly deformed mutant Blair Monster.
Randall W. Cook designed & sculpted this stop motion puppet which was molded, then cast in a rubber skin. He also did the hands-on animation. Ernest Farino designed, constructed, and pieced together the internal jointed metal skeletal armature.
LIKE & SUBSCRIBE TO THIS CHANNEL!
________________________
Stop Motion Works & Retro FX - Free to subscribe ....
stopmotionworks-fx.blogspot.com - Фільми й анімація
I love how WET horror effects looked in '80s films.
I liked how we had real effects in movies till late 2010s.
When you put it that way it's weird af lol
@@muratbayraktar5035 We still have them some people actually still have passion
@@clouds5922 yes and it seems as if indie movies and practical effects are aking a small comback.
Slimy you mean
I always imagined the dog being expelled would be fully formed with four legs. If Mac didn't blow it up, the dog would quickly chase him down and consume him.
I like to imagine it as the Thing trying to separate from the dog so if it gets killed the dog like at the beginning of the movie can escape from the base and find another base to settle in
@@user-ce5sv5hu9rBetter still it would be for the dog thing to try to reach the sea. There it can absorb whatever marine organism it stumbles upon and by oceans spread to entire world. Interestingly it was never stated how far this base was from the seashore. Usually antarctic research facilities are kept close to the sea.
@@melanimatejak6821I always thought the Thing could of more easily spread, if it became some sort of Virus or pathogen, it had the ability to do so as it was at cell level. Obviously it's a movie and we need entertainment but if it did exist it would probably do so. It could of easily infected food and water supply's the second it arrived in the dog.
@@ADZ01982 As I understood it, organisms the Thing attacks MUST BE of a certain size. Otherwise it would be too easy. Microscopic living species are all around; bacteria, fungi, algae... Besides, even an antarctic base should be populated with bugs (spiders, ants, woodlice, et cetera), as they travel with humans wherever we go, hidden in supplies, equipment, vehicles... And think about mites that live on human skin. Yes, it is a movie, but even movies have to follow internal logic, and without the rule from my first sentence this movie simply can't function. Now, the seas of Antarctica are something entirely different than the dry land. Whereas the latter is a barren, completely dead wasteland, seas are teeming with life, fish, seals, birds, you name it. Obliging the aforementioned rule, the Thing could still easily find eligible targets in the water. After which there would be no barriers to world spread. Brrrrrr 😉
That was the idea as shown on the storyboards.
Better special effects than in 98% of movies today.
Normally "not like the good ol' days" comments are yawnsome, lol. But I agree with you here. Back then SFX - whether practical or CG - were expensive and usually got special consideration when making a movie. Now CG is comparatively cheap, and often gets little consideration. Movie makers often think CG can just be slapped on at the end. And Effects companies often have short deadlines to work with. Hence a lot of sfx look worse than they did 20+ years ago.
Of course. No movie has been released today.
The Thing is one of my favorite movies of all time and the visual effects for it is perfect for what it needs to do BUT NO, the special effects is not better than 98% of movies today. Technology has improved enough today they can improve on this while still utilizing the techniques from the past. Let's not be hyperbolic.
It's not about posibilities. Yes effects today CAN be better than this, but they rarely are.
Something about Kurt Russell delivering the line “Yeah, f**k you too!” Makes that phrase an instant classic.
Russell really knows how to sell his 'Fuck Yous' and their many versions.
The first time I saw this movie and he said it, I laughed.
0:32 In all the years I've been watching this absolute horror classic, I've only just noticed the human face on the side of the Thing.
OH WOW! I had to pause it and do a quick Where's Waldo for a few seconds lol. But yup, there it is. 30 years and I NEVER once noticed that. Fantastic! Thank you
@@BULL.173 That scene was always dark and hard to tell. This seems better lit. But at 0:23 are those.... genitalia???.....
Yes, the theatrical version gives such a small amount of screen time to the final form of the Thing that it's almost blink and you'll miss it. I always thought that the ending was way too abrupt, and we needed to see a lot more of the Blair Monster. Apparently Carpenter thought so too, which was why they went to the trouble of creating and filming the whole stop motion sequence. It's too bad that it wasn't usable, but I suppose if the choice was between using the dodgy stop motion footage and including only a very brief shot of the monster, I agree with the decision to go with the brief shot.
@@BULL.173I'm unable to make out who's face it is exactly, but it looks a little bit like Bennings. Have a close look and let me know what you think. Cheers from Melbourne, Australia 🇦🇺
@@bradwilliams1691 Hey there my brother from down under. Greetings from the states. I actually had fire up my Blu Ray for this one lol. I was having trouble working around the shadows to get a good look. I did some tweaking with picture settings on my TV to brighten it up. I literally spent over 5 minutes just staring at this thing (pun intended) on a giant flat screen. I still couldn't give you a better guess than Bennings. But working backwards we can at least tell who it isn't. It's definitely not Mac. The face appears Caucasian so that rules out Nauls and Childs. It doesn't look like Windows, Gary, or Blair. Both Clark and Copper passed their blood tests after they were killed. The Thing can't assimilate with a dead organism so they're clear. So I'd say Norris, Bennings, or Fuchs. But honestly I'd put my money on that face belonging to one of the Norwegians. Anyway, I'm stumped lol.
I think the stop motion makes even more terrifying.
Yes, it makes it look uncanny which is perfect for a movie of this type.
bro i always thought that looked like a eye or something
Yes. Makes it look unnatural and unsettling.
It doesn't fit into the movie because everything else in the film was done as practical animatronics.
I absolutely love Kurt’s line here. It’s not cheesy, it’s not pretentious, it just gets the point across. It’s a what most of us would probably say 😂
It's a hat?
I would not say anything cos I would be too buys shi**ing my pants.
@@vojtechhavranek1176well by the end of the movie there’d be no shit left to come out just air
I’d would’ve released every fluid in my body after the dog scene by now he’d be desensitized to it……and dehydrated by the loss of fluids
Goes right up there with the captain in Day of the Dead telling the zombies choke on his legs after they ripped them off.
I'd probably say, to myself, "Lets get the f outta here!"
One of the most perfect horror films and I can see why this was omitted: it's not quite up to the standards of the rest of the film.
I always thought this story was full of interesting ideas it deserved sequels but they never happened in the era of prosthetics.
I agree. The whole film was using puppetry that looked amazingly lifelike, and stop motion always has a mechanical, animated feel to it. The contrast would have been too jarring.
it just looks like that because they didnt touch this scene up like others.
There is a prequel but it sucked like hell.....
@@abirdey5147 What the hell r u talking about? Prequel was as amazing as original movie
@@SketchTurnerZero it’s my opinion....no need to pounce
The very last distant shot where it's standing there.... I agree that it's better with it not in the movie. It looks helpless just standing there and actually takes away from its power.
Think about it though: the Thing always wanted to remain hidden, secret.
It only came out as a crazy monster when detected.
MacReady said, " It'll fight if it has to, but it's vulnerable out in the open."
So maybe not as powerful as we imagine it to be?
@@matthewhudson5685 Makes sense, one thing I like about this movie is both sides are trying to survive, while also trying to corner the opposite side, foreshadowed with the chess game at beginning.
The Thing itself is like combination of Pawn & King piece. Both has the most limited movement, but if you let it go through, it can transform into another piece, just like the Thing. It's reasonable that it was mostly act as ambush predator.
Great analogy! @@raydhen8840
@@matthewhudson5685 Yeah that's an interesting perspective. I'll have to muse on this. Still, that particular shot is in such contrast to the rest of the movie.
That's how this scene makes me feel as well. A creature that just stands at the corner writhing and screaming can not hunt anything.
Seeing the whole thing makes it seem a lot smaller than I imagined.
One of greatest horror movies of all time thank you Mr Carpenter
This Thing is so much scarier than the Prequel from 2011 where it clumsily walks around with face of the lead scientist wearing a scowl.
2011 film was originally supposed to have a lot more to it. Most of the effects were going to be practical and there was a lot more time focused on character development. The studio didn't like the original cut of it though, so they forced the team to recut it and overstuff it with CGI.
@kev3d
*The Thing 2011 is still a good movie though - Mary Elizabeth Winstead was great in it - they put in good effort - however the only thing lacking was no Kurt Russell in the end, although now they could re-release it with an enhanced ending with a digitally-deaged Kurt Russell cameo in the end - there's always that opportunity.* :)
That's just because it was imitating a Norwegian. They all walk around clumsily while wearing a scowl.
@@Percival-kl9yythe best part? Uncle Owen was burned by Obi wan's wife at the end
@@UltraPoseidonhere's hoping it gets a snyder cut
I remember going to the movies to see this……2 hours of scary scary moments…..right up there with the first Alien movie
So well done,you can see why they didn't add it. That reveal is truly hideous.
And not in the good way
nah its good
The puppetry effects was good until it pan out the stop motion was pretty underwhelming probably due to the lack of details and look and move like a miniature. Probably due to budget strain they could have just made a larger mechanical puppetry(human inside) while scaling down the barrels and sets to fit the right proportion to the creature for that zoom out shot.
@@kaibrunnenG You're absolutely right. But in films, the reasons why effects go wrong is usually making a decision to make something one way, seeing that it doesn't work, but having to go with that particular technique because time and money was already spent. I've been doing special effects makeup for over 35 years, and that is usually the case.
Still looks better than all the CGI garbage now. Like the 2011 "prequel" for example. They always go too far with it, try too hard, no matter how big the budget is you can tell it's drawn in with computers. Even badly done practical effects look more believable than literally any CGI/CG whatever technical crap you call it.
This makes a lot of sense, especially if they had of went with one alternate ending. One ending to the film Carpenter was thinking about, was showing a scene of the burning destroyed camp, and a lone dog running away into the distance. The studio execs thought that was too bleak and nihilistic, so they wanted something else which resulted in the ending seen in theaters. This cut scene though shoes the hairless Thing dog, I assume being prepared to flee before MacReady can blow them up.
That scene with the dog fleeing the outpost is actually in the television cut of the movie with a soundbite of "watch the skies!" lifted from the original "The Thing from Another World."
Another cut ending that Carpenter scripted is of MacReady taking the blood test again, and proving he was still human.
Personally I think the ambiguity of the current ending works better than something so definitively bleak. It’s one of the most talked-about endings in sci fi cinema. Not to mention it’s bleak enough with the idea that Childs and MacCready, even if they *are* still both human, will never trust one another until they freeze to death.
@@danielludwig647А чего им друг-другу не доверять? Огнемёты есть, проверят кровь и поймут, что они оба нормальные.
@@danielludwig647 I agree. The whole sub-text of the movie is paranoia and the ending we're given ensures that the paranoia persists long after the credits roll.
@@danielludwig647 Well put. I'm actually a fan of bleak endings over happy endings as I find the shmaltzy happy ending can really tear down a great movie - but this wasn't your typical "happy ending" at all - a won the battle, maybe, but the war is far from over (possibly). Questionable can be just as good as bleak.
The Thing was an absolutely classic, it wasn’t missing anything with this scene cut. It’s so satisfying to read others opinion of what a great and underrated sci fi horror movie this shocker was when they saw it. I only went into my local cinema as a last minute decision after missing a bus to my girlfriends house in Manchester. England. I was caught in snowy conditions on a Sunday evening in winter 1982. Even the freezing Winter conditions at the time seemed like that of the Polar scientific station in the movie and added to the horror impact. I don’t recall any great publicity the movie at the time. Other than a well known British movie buff on BBC giving it a thumbs up it flew unnoticed under the radar. I’m a grown family many and 41 years later I swear I’d still look under the bed at night if I ever saw the movie before bedtime 😂
What happened to your then girlfriend, did you marry her?
Imagine spending a LONG, GRUELLING-ASS time executing that stop motion and then hearing Carpenter say "Nah, nvm, lets skip it."
Such is the nature of the film business, even back then--but yeah it must have been pretty deflating.
Or they spend aload of time and money on a scene and it ends up on the cutting room floor. Gutted!
To be fair it's not like these stop motion artists didn't work on other parts of the film that were included. At the end of the day they still got paid.
Also only the brief stop motion part where it shows the thing just standing there was cut, the rest was still there in the film.
Never forget that they had almost completed making ALL the actual working animatronics to be used in The Thing prequel movie, but someone decided at the last minute to instead copy them all note for note using that crummy CGI that wound-up in the film as released.
They don't make horror movies like this anymore *sigh*
Well, body horror is not as effective anymore, wich is why most horror flicks are psychological horror.
Well this was hated to extinction cause it released around the time of E.T
I’m playing resident evil 4 now but you can’t deny how much impact this had on that franchise. I mean this is a BOW but the time period is so far off. It’s amazing!
全体像はこんな感じなのか... 凄いな。プラモデルで出してくれないかな。
nothing will ever beat the 1982 The Thing.
Reminds me of the old Ray Harryhausen movie effects that I loved as a kid.
Me too.
They cut the full scene but they still kept the shot of the tentacle wrapping around the detonator.
exactly lmao
@@anchorpoint3631 Either way, you can't beat practical effects.
ok sheep@@_GeneralMechanics_
thanks for showing those extra seconds, and yeah i can see why it mightn't have made the final cut. after the effects that came before moving to even that little bit of stop motion is a bit jarring...as good as it is, given the design of the creature, it's suddenly like a Ray Harryhausen effect (as cool as his work is)- i was immediately reminded of similar stuff done by RH on one of the Sinbad movies or maybe "Clash of the Titans" i saw The Thing when it first came out at the cinema, then on VHS and have owned DVD, then blu-ray copies of it (tho not any 4k-cos still don't have the player for it)- but dont recall that footage being used even in any special features. I expect if I'd seen it way back in 1980, I'd be so used to it, and find it every bit a part of the imagery/story. if it were re-inserted into the footage, it wouldn't change anything for me. except that it was now there after all this time. I hope its creator didn't feel slighted for not having all that work left out. its a mighty fine piece of design and animation.
vyou could see it in the criterion laserdisc in the bonus material, too!
I feel the reason it was cut was due to the guys outburst at the end of the clip coming off as somewhat comical("well f you too"). It gives the impression that the guy was more irritated by the thing as opposed to being genuinely scared for his life.
@@dezperado2006 good point! though i rather like the idea of being "irritated" by The Thing, lol! but yeah, talk about taking one out of the moment. Like if a character did an eye roll and scoffed, "ugh, not that Thing...Again!' Suddenly all that grim suspense that's been carefully constructed is blown away with flippancy.
@@jackfriend4uRight I agree. I mean, this guy probably said the same thing a month ago prior to this to his former boss when he was being fired for sleeping on the job lol. Seriously though, I thought this was a very suspenseful, entertaining movie and enjoy watching it whenever I happen to catch it on. They don't make good horror movies like they did in the 20th century.
Yes, it’s not bad work, it just doesn’t fit the feel of the rest of the film’s effects. Especially at the very end, it would have felt jarring.
The stop motion got canned because it didn’t look organic enough, still better than the CGI crap that would be used to do it now.
CGi is much much better than animatronics and conventional fx.
@@mrb2349no it doesn't, CGI was cool back in the day but now it's boring, shitty, lifeless, and cheesy, the practical effects back in the day actually looked and felt real and it was a work of art made by the minds of imagination, love, and creative people with amazing skills and magic hands, and they definitely outshine and surpass CGI and it was way better than just rendering boring 3D graphics on a small computer, you can fight me on this but I will always have the higher ground and my words will always stay true and everyone else will agree, PRACTICAL EFFECTS RULE!!!!😎✊💕🔥✨
@@mrb2349 Depends on the quality and usage. Some scenes, particularly ones involving actors interacting with something, practical effects are usually better if they are done well. For large scale things that are impersonal (for example, a large scale battle scene or something) CGI is usually better since it's much more flexible. Then of course quality matters as well, good CGI will always be better than bad practical effects, and good practical effects will always be better than bad CGI. I think a good director will know which scenes are better suited to CGI and practicals.
One of the most underrated Horror Films of ALL time!!! The audience wasn't evolved enough back then. NOW we are.
how is it underrated???
I saw it when it first came to theaters. Not only did it bomb at Box Office the critics ripped it to shreds. Back then gruesome HORROR and carnage was not as common as it is today. So I meant it was underrated when it first came out. I loved it.@@Erlisch1337
@@Erlisch1337Maybe not now, but this film effectively killed John Carpenter's career from taking him to the level he deserved. He was more or less relegated to B-movie director stardom. Audiences and critics hated this movie when it came out.
This is a super dumb comment. Audiences were more than "evolved" enough to appreciate The Thing back in 1982. It was critics that effectively killed the film in theatres, but then most critics are full of sh*t anyway and really only write for their egos. I was fourteen when The Thing came out and saw it on a VHS bootleg (because I was obviously too young to see it in theatres), and knew it was something special. As did everyone I knew who saw it. So to claim that somehow we're more "evolved" now than back then is just stupid. If anything, the lowest common denominator now is much lower than back then, and your comment goes some way to proving that.
If anything we are far less evolved now.
I think it's some of the best stop motion i've seen and i don't know why it was removed? I know it doesn't completely fit with the rest of the movies effects but it's still done very well and i've seen much worse in movies.
Part of the reason was that while they were doing the animation, they changed the live action set, so when they tried cutting them together they didn’t match. That plus the stop motion is a different aesthetic. It didn’t stop them doing stop motion in the first Terminator though.
Agreed! It looks to be on par with the original Clash of the Titans, which was released the year before.
Imo, this overexposes the monster and it's better when cut.
I like that little moment of the dog worm thing coming out, woulda been cool to see in the final movie
John Carpender have made with The Thing best Horror Movie.
Another nice Horror Movie: From Beyond
As much as I love stop motion effects, it was for the better that they cut these few seconds out. Ruins the pacing of the scene. In the theatre version there is a sense of urgency after the Wilford Brimley monster forms and deforms. Here it just stands around akwardly, waiting for some action to happen
Well it'd almost certainly have been edited tighter than is shown here anyway, but the effect in general looks noticably like small stop motion puppets.
@@GrandHighGamer Exactly, as much as it looks badass--it takes the films immersion away from many + Less is more.. Specially in horror.
I hate to say it, but I agree. I do like when the monster first shoots out of the floor and kind of orients itself, but the overall impact of the scene just feels diminished. Also, Mac's pov shots from a distance make the creature look so much smaller and less intimidating.
My thoughts exactly. It looks helpless; shot its load and now it's just having a sniff around the floor with its dog appendage waiting for Macready to blow it up. The same Thing that understood it needed to eliminate the detonator. Good decision to remove the scene.
Ty! One of the all time greats, love to see as much extra footage as I can.
This film changed life.
Not really at all
Should have kept that stop motion bit in, looked ok and showed more of the Thing.
Indeed. Or even better, John should've simply used a guy in a suit with air powered animatronics (or whatever they're called. i believe those are more affordable) for the arms and the serpent dog. then built miniature tanks to make the monster look tall. I don;t know how the heck John didn't think of that to avoid the stop motion quality issue
@@anchorpoint3631 "I don't know how the heck John didn't think of that to avoid the stop motion quality issue"
1) John Carpenter is not a SFX artist\supervisor. There were people in charge of that. Coming up with SFX solutions is not a director's job.
2) It's pretty obvious that they went for stop motion for the wide shots because they couldn't do it with animatronics. Hell, in 1981 they barely had animatronics to begin with and miniature servos simply didn't exist back then: the only way would've been to build the damn thing full size at a huge cost only for a shot or two. Doesn't sound like a shrewd move to me.
Lmao you never hear of logic, do you? I don't need elaborate the whole damn thing for you to understand what I meant. THUS , I am NOT going to waste my time to read you, child. @@thermonuclearcollider4418
No@@sh-creative
@@anchorpoint3631Yes, Alien proved this tactic works in 1979.
This movie is Awesome , john Carpenter for me is the best horror director of all time
We have cicadas going crazy right now. I'm picking up some interesting sound engineering in this clip that reminds me of these critters + the awesome growl. Reminds me of Godzilla Minus One.
John Carpenter was the man
I saw it in the theater - that entire scene was there.
If i were kurt russel this shit would haunt me forever.... they did an amazing job with the props.
it is still one of the best horror movies. Love the Thing.
I do not think they should have deleted this.
Eh, it's better without it to me, this feels clunky and since he just chucks the dynamite and kills it, the detail of the dog tendril falling out is more for shock value when the creature itself is shocking enough.
My favourite horror movie. When i saw it for the fist time in 80si was in big shock and excited so much. Since then i saw it maybe 20 times and will see more times. John Carpenter is a monster)!
Straight up love this film. One of my all time favourites
great last words
Never been into the horror or scifi genres at all but there are certain films in Genres I can watch over and over again because the quality just overtakes everything (The Thing, Alien/Aliens, Terminator 1&2, 2001: A space Odyssey and The extended Lord of the rings) trilogy
I can´t imagine how much time and effort was wasted by deleting this horror! What a shame (but I´m glad it wasn´t forgotten and we can enjoy it even now!)
That line from McCready near the end .."yeah and fuck you too"......🤣🤣🤣
Awesome movie Awesome scene
They did not have the time of the budget to do what they actually wanted to do with this scene
Exactly. Though I don't know if air powered animatronics (or whatever they're called) would've been more affordable as possible for this scene. John should've just put a guy in a suit, then use said animatronics and make miniature tanks. All that might've eliminated the stop motion quality concerns
Could you please explain what was it that they wanted to do? I'd like to know, thanks.
@@SlappapOriginally, they wanted to show Nauls being assimilated while still alive, his body being liquefied, Evil Dead style.
When i was a kid this move scared me out of sh*t, and it also made other horror movies & games look absolutely normal to me
Me 2 and to this day I still don't like to look at it
Very good scenes uncut (The thing 1982).Fan.😂
Amazing
Fácil, una de mis películas favoritas de todos los tiempos.
Rob Bottin had the worst nightmares!!!! Awesome movie!!!
Poor dogs.. and amazing creature! Tks John, you are amazing!!
Imagine doing all the stop-motion, and then in editing they are like, nah its fine lets cut this bit....
John Carpenter movies were amazing. Vampires was a great flick
One of my favorite films, Carpenter was right to cut this though. It absolutely did not fit in with the rest of the effects in the movie.
Epic movie. Epic effects.
That’s like one of the best stop motion I have seen it doesn’t look that bad it looks radical and scary but in a cool way, I’ve seen a lot of movies that had the best stop motion in the 80s and the 90s and this one is my favorite.
even to this day, its a damn good movie, and people that never seen it will get scared.
It's a lesson usually paid with laborous CGI, baby dolls and broken shark animatronics- seeing less is more, especially in a creature flick. Good cuts.
Best movie of ever
Carpenter made the right call.
Blair's face at the side just his mouth open
This movie is perfection
Im just totally fascinated by the thing it self. it is such a great lifeform. totally different from anything we have on earth, side of maybe siphonophores. since clearly it must be a some kind of superorganism.
My all time favorite horror film
Best horror/scifi movie 10/10😊😂😂
Scared the F out of me the first time...love it!
Awesome. Really great horrific alien deformation put into this work of art
I remember seeing The Thing in the theater at 14. I never felt so cheated. Boy am I glad they deleted this.
Perfect scene 👌🎗️✨
Wow that just makes it scarier
Master
A good move. The stop-motion segments seem to diminish the impact as well as the pacing. It's distant and underwhelming.
CG will never work for horror like good old practical effects do. It's so creepy, it's the unnatural mixed with the fact it's an actual thing existing in the space works so well.
I've been reading about a possible sequel It is definitely left open because every part of The Thing is living It could take over Mac, Childs and everything it came in contact with😮
I just watched it and this scene was in the movie.
Good film that should be remade
One of the best horror movies ever. Great cast and killer story.
That movie was eerie af. I love practical fx and less CG which doesn’t look as scary.
Super
Good choice to keep it out.
This movie scared the bajeezus out of me in 1982. The fear concepts were unlike anything i witness prior... all the goo, slime, tentacles, and assimilations were.....unsettling.
Back then the movie didn't do as good as they want it to do. And that was all do to E.T., One good alien and one bad alien. But now it's a horror classic 👍🛸👍🛸👍
Good call on Carpenter’s part
Jonestly wish this was kept in. (Not the bursting from ground shot, bur the wide ones.) sure, it isn't the best, but there's other stopmotion in the film they kept, like the dog kennel tenticles in a shot. And it looks good, especially the dog leaping out.
Plus any chance to see more of these forms is a must
Wow
tbf i'm glad they cut this, gives the THING more mistique.
Yes
Big fan of "The Thing". Saw it in the theater & countless viewings later. Never saw this clip before. Very cool...
Thanks for posting.
Well that explains the boss designs for the game
Groovy!
Pretty cool, I think it looks good. I think it was cut more for pacing and the dog tentacle really doesn’t add much like it doesn’t attack or anything just kinda sits there
Truly horrifying and you don’t even see it attacking or anything besides barely moving a bit. Better than most “monsters” from today that barely give you the chills with their appearances. Captures the terrifying and sick monstrosity that inspires terror just from watching it and imagining the dozens of way it would slaughter you like mere cattle
Sure wish this scene was also included in the film.
This film is so fucking good
This movie never got the traction in theaters because ET came out at the same time. The Thing became iconic after it was avaiable at Blockbuster.
"Yeah, fuck you too." MacReady said calmly.