The Thing (2011) | Movie Reaction | First Time Watching | THE FRICKIN THING!!!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 кві 2024
- Grab your parka and keep an eye on your friends.... Mrs. Movies heads to Antarctica for the Prequel to John Carpenter's The Thing (2011). Here's her reaction to her first time watching.
Our PATREON: / youmethemovies
(For Polls, Early Access, Full-Length Reactions + More!)
Our MERCH: my-store-bd7ba5.creator-sprin...
Our TWITTER: / youmethemovies
#TheThing #MovieReaction #FirstTimeWatching
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Mailing Address:
You, Me, & The Movies (Supchucks Media)
100 24th St West Ste 1 #3072
Billings, MT 59102
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT INTENDED.
All rights belong to their respective owners.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Розваги
The struggle of trying not to traumatize your curious children.
Yes, I was young when I asked my parents "Can I watch The Thing?" And they let me. And I had trouble falling asleep for the rest of my life. :D
I was the kid that always got yelled at for coming in when anything “not suitable” was on the TV
I do appreciate their concern, my uncle had me watching the first alien movie when I was like 6 and my dad had me watching Evil Dead when I was about 12
I was born in 1976
I watched
HALLOWEEN 1978
when I was 5 years old
I watched
FRIDAY the 13th part 1 & 2
when I was 7 years old
@@andrewblanchard2398 I...think your math is a little off?
Lars is the one badass you need on your side when you fight The Thing. His character creation was perfect for tieing into the previous film. The could have just made him a cardboard character, but they made him real, likeable and just as determined as the demon he was hunting.
What gets me though, Lars disappeared just before the climax and then shows up when it’s all over. What happened to him when it all went down?
@@Tweezymane He was told to share the screen with the other actors. After all, it is called, "The Thing", not "Lars". lol. Ze americans tied him up.
Who saw 1954's "The Thing from Another World"? This was the original film before John Carpenter's remake in 1982.
1951
I really don[t' consider Carpenter's film a remake. It was far more faithful to the original short story than the '51 film.
@@KthulhuXxx Lovecraft would've loved the cosmic horror element and effects. The original monster featured a vegetable man-creature, not a shapeshifter. This remake gave us a bit more of a look at the original Lovecraft-like cosmic alien, reminiscent of his tentacled gods, the Old Ones.
It's a different adaptation of the novella "Who Goes There?" As such, there's more of an understanding and acceptance of differences in interpretation from the page to the screen. It's why the recent It films aren't a remake of the 90s miniseries, and why it's easier to appreciate what each version got right and wrong about the book, to see what they valued and chose to express in one way or another, and how faithfully they did so, in one way or another. Whereas, for example, something like the remake of A Nightmare on Elm St is judged much more harshly for its failings, because there's less to interpret and more opportunity to fail where the original succeeded. An adaptation will never be completely accurate to the creator's vision and the audience's imagination, so different adaptations can both have unique value from a unique interpretation. But a remake has a hard time adding anything that makes it worth existing as a remake, with it also being incredibly and inevitably easy to change and lose what worked and was loved about the original.
It's still a scary movie, especially with the stuntman walking around on fire.
Now you need to check out The Thing From Another World (1951).
honestly, the best thing about your reactions are the wholesome moments when your kids come in. It just gives a much more real sense to the channel.
I turn 50 this year, and I've never had a cavity and also have all my wisdom teeth. We're out here. Among you.
I made it to 45. But then I got a cavity in one of my wisdom teeth, and the dentist said pulling it was easiest. So one cavity, one fewer wisdom teeth. Gotta up my oral hygiene game, to keep the record there...
Got to 38.
This movie doesn't deserve the hate it gets. I thought it was good and it blends seamlessly with the beginning of the 1981 movie. If they had only went the practical effects that they had originally filmed, it would have been better. There's no way you can follow up the practical effects of Carpenter's movie with CGI. There's just no comparison on which looks better. Other than that, the story was good, and the cast was solid.
It woulda been a lot better if set entirely with the Norwegian team, in Norwegian language and finished with the helicopter chasing after the dog/thing. THEN it would have been seamless.
I'm also quite fond of it, because it's such an homage to the 'original' and I really don't hate the CGI. The biggest problem I think is that the Carpenter movie already had a prequel: the scenes where they visit the other base. That was already such an elegant way of setting up what would happen, and then we got to see those same outcomes play out at the US base. The prequel really is redundant as a result.
Still, I will always love that bit where the dude's skull cracks under his skin. Even as someone who has worked in (and will always champion) practical FX, that shot is fantastic.
Nope. Well ( no offense ) you can't argue taste if you enjoyed it excellent! But for me not even close to the OG especially as they replaced the great looking practical fx with CGI.
people hate this movie?? weirdos
Nope! Sorry it deserves the hate. And not just about the CGI.
Please explain these 5 plotholes to me:
1) If the Ship was still working then why did the Thing leave the ship?
2) Science lady and Lars disabled all the vehicles... except these two!
3) I actuslly like the fillings explanation but the earring explanation makes no sense. Why? The thing is wearing clothes and shoes, but it can't wear a hanging ring?!
4) Instead of going back to camp to check on Lars she just disappears.
5) Instead of knowing about the American weather and research station, which should be common knowledge for the Americans, she goes the Russian camp... in the 80s... during the Cold War....
We used to have tourist flights to Antarctica until one slammed into the side of Mt. Erebus.
In the original short story ("Who Goes There?") there's a very atmospheric, creepy scene where the future first victim is set to watch over the ice block and has his back to it - he can hear the drip, drip of the ice slowly melting as his imagination goes wild, and then the sound changes as it escapes from the block and its feet(?) hit the floor. And that's the end of him.
It gets a lot of hate, but personally i love it. Despite the stupid decision by the studio executives to cover most of the practical effects with CGI, i thought it was an excellent story. Maybe one day they will re-release it with all the CGI removed. I'd love to see that.
That would be a dream come true. The movie itself is awesome; it's just the CGI that destroys it.
I watched some of the practical effects... Im happy they went with CGI... Honestly the practical effects looked so fucking fake and trash the CGI was a defenite upgrade...
@@warlorddk2070 You are probably the only person on this planet thinking like that :D
@@warlorddk2070 CGI is faker and even more trash BECAUSE ITS NOT REAL! A practical effect puppet can 100% be scary and more authentic, and the fact this movie bombed because of the cgi, shows the truth in this!
@NecramoniumVideo Listen I am a big fan of practical effects okay? I get your frustration that studios tend to leave practical behind for trahs CGI... But lets be real the reason this movie failed was because people expected practical and there is a certain prestige and nostalgia in practical effects its sorta like stage shows where you can see the prop and backdrops if you look to the side... Its amazing what people can do with it sometimes achieving real looking products that feel more grounded than CGI. Its amazing how cool the effects were in the original im not saying the effects in the orignal were bad im saying the practical effects on this movie before the change were TRASH... Beyond repair level of bad... Some of it might have worked but my god some of the shots were just highschool project level bad... CGI was better in this case 100% which I say as a practical FX fan... Sure people like to pretend its because the CGI was bad looking people hated it... But the real reason is much more complicated... Promoting no CGI just to make it CGI... Americans disliking subtitles/foreign films, the brewing hatred towards CGI and the clear prestige in old fashion movie making instead of looking at the end product and what works.... All these things and more plus the fact that The thing was already pretty much a niche cult classic with a fanbase very much overlapping with the practical effects nerds me included... It all added up to the disliking of this movie but seperating this from the orignal and this is a great watch... @NecramoniumVideo Listen I am a big fan of practical effects okay? I get your frustration that studios tend to leave practical behind for trahs CGI... But lets be real the reason this movie failed was because people expected practical and there is a certain prestige and nostalgia in practical effects its sorta like stage shows where you can see the prop and backdrops if you look to the side... Its amazing what people can do with it sometimes achieving real looking products that feel more grounded than CGI. Its amazing how cool the effects were in the original im not saying the effects in the orignal were bad im saying the practical effects on this movie before the change were TRASH... Beyond repair level of bad... Some of it might have worked but my god some of the shots were just highschool project level bad... CGI was better in this case 100% which I say as a practical FX fan... Sure people like to pretend its because the CGI was bad looking people hated it... But the real reason is much more complicated... Promoting no CGI just to make it CGI... Americans disliking subtitles/foreign films, the brewing hatred towards CGI and the clear prestige in old fashion movie making instead of looking at the end product and what works.... All these things and more plus the fact that The thing was already pretty much a niche cult classic with a fanbase very much overlapping with the practical effects nerds me included... It all added up to the disliking of this movie but seperating this from the orignal and this is a great watch...
They could do a sequel with Russel and Winstead meeting at the Russia station 🤔
And they fall in love💞...till one day a French kiss goes terribly wrong
Oh. Please let this happen.
mary elizabeth winstead is so gorgeous. she's amazing in everything she's in. this, 10 cloverfield lane, smashed, scott pilgrim...
Death Proof and Final Destination 3 for me is when she was at her hottest but yeah she is gorgeous.
She's looking more and more like Sigourney Weaver in recent years. She can totally play Ripley's daughter in an Alien Isolation movie.
I first saw her in a campy MTV movie called Monster Island back in the 80s.Class trip to a tropical island,giant bugs,Adam West(TVs Batman)as a lone scientist,a lost civilization...and Carmen Electra sings.Sounds really silly..and it is..but I found it very entertaining.
Very true.
She also married a Jedi Knight.
They watched closely not only 1982 The Thing, but also anime Parasyte.
Another thing is in 1982 The Thing stayed low. Now it's a king of intrigs from very start.
Love parasyte the maxim anime series.
See this is why you always need someone who speaks Norwegian in your group. When the crazy guy in the beginning is shouting at them he’s telling them to get away from it and that it’s imitating a dog.
We would’ve been long gone by then 😂
One thing that I always think about contact with Aliens is like: if we already have so many problems with virus and bacteria that are from our planet imagine what would happen if an Alien came and introduce a bacteria/virus that is aggressive for us. We would be so screwed !!
The studio thought nobody was going to go to a monster movie with no CGI, so they made them go over it.
You shouldn't have told her it was a prequel till the end when the dog starts running.
I mean that is kinda spoiled with them finding the UFO in the beginning. Lol.
They make it very obvious this is a prequel nothing to spoil my guy
@@raven2435 the whole movie was pretty much marketed as a remake. Even down to having the same exact title. So no it was not given away at all. I saw this in theaters opening day and no one was expecting it to be a prequel. We all gasped.
@@khughes1997no they don’t, boy.
ABSOLUTELY!!!
I WAS LIKE WTF DUDE
Distress beacon sound is the same one used in Sunshine (2007) for the Icarus 1. Y'all should check out that movie as well!
The really sad thing is the original ending got cut... where Studio ADI made a full sized giant alien pilot who is the race that made the saucer. They covered it up with the neon blue Tetris effect at the end. The creature would have then transformed into a Thingified version for the final chase. It's on their UA-cam videos that go way more in depth than the official disc. They made their own homage to the original with a little indie film called Harbinger Down, mainly out of being upset about their practical effects being cut.
I saw Jeff Goldblum on his Hot Ones episode and I can't remember how it came up but he's 71 and has never had a cavity. So if anybody could be the Thing, I could definitely see it being Jeff Goldblum. lol
I've never had a cavity at 49. Must be an alien.
@@NefariousKoelit is unironically hard to never ever have one. Even if you eat incredibly healthy and follow proper dental health. Genes have a lot to do with it as well I think.
@@CrazeeAdam - Yeah, a lot is to do with genes, I expect. Also likely some degree of childhood diet and prevention. I definitely got lucky in this case.
I just commented saying that I've also never had a cavity/filling and I'm 46 years old. I think that genetics definitely play a huge part.
They actually made all the monster scenes with practical effects but the studio decided to overlap all of it in cgi in post production without telling the sfx and director.
6:15 you know what Mrs movies you would DEFINITELY survive a horror movie though 😭😭😂
Edit ; if they mad a horror movie for yall it would be so short 😭😂🩷
Other than some questionable CGI, I actually quite like this one.
There are plenty of people with terrible taste like you I'm sure
I don't even think the CGI is questionable.. it's just not as good as the practical.
Oddly enough, there was a full practical version BUT the studio had it scrapped and the effects replaced with CGI.
You're being nice. This was trash. Good concept making it a prequel, but they dropped the ball in the endzone. Bad CGI, bad acting overall except for Mary Elizabeth Winstead and the dog.
Who let the dogs out should play when your dog walks in, like your daughter’s applause.
Please no.
Remember, during this film, McReady is playing PC chess... 🤔🥃
7:46 your appreciation for the glacier jusst gave me a great memory of taking a tour through one in I _think_ the French Alps. It was a week long school trip, first time abroad, 14 years old, everyone having teen crushes everywhere lol. It wss an amazing tour through a carved out glacier complete with whole rooms with sculpted ice furniture. I'm glad for that flashback!
You guys and 'Dasha Reacts', are wearing me out with the "That's What She Said" comments. I don't know why it never gets old..but it's funny every time - in an exhausting kind of way, LOL.
This is a guilty pleasure. I do love this movie. When you guys get to Cheech and Chong, would you be called "You Me and the Doobies"?
36:08 They have to leave the axe wall, so Kurt Russell can find it in the next movie.
I've got no fillings at 52 ... so I'm The Thing ...
The among us site gag was excellently placed and hilarious. You guys rock!
6:29 If it was supposed to be Kurt Russell, I think he would be wearing a sombrero.
Saw this is theatres when it came out, knew it was a prequel the entire time, so no idea why so many people think you spoiled the movie for the Mrs. But anywho, I love Eric Christian Olsen, who plays Adam. He's in one of my all time favourite movies Fired Up! 😂 and he's great in NCIS:LA
I love it when your kids make appearances! so cute!
the reason they removed the practical effects is actually more stupid, the producers wanted the thing to be faster "like a videogame". The funniest thing about it is that the company that made the practical effects made their own The Thing-ish movie out of pettiness for having their work go to waste and not only it sucks but the effects aren't even that good.
Its the hand that escapes not the dog? Lol that's why there's A axe in the wall in original because of the hand lol
I'd be screwed! I'm in my early 40s and I've never had a cavity, no fillings. Don't light me up! 😬
Remember the Kurt Russell doctor told him it’s been there one hundred thousand years
The score is so epic. Simple but perfect
IMO 1 of the only movies that is close to as good as the original though it was a prequel, you get my drift
Never watched live before. This is fun!
18:50 ... 😂 that's nothing 😂
41:51 Looks like Luke Skywalker's Uncle Owen gets burnt to a crisp AGAIN.
I didn't think eyes could get that wide open.
Tesla makes a flame thrower and there are at least 2 other companies that do as well. They're badass.
At the end of the 82 Thing, Childs and MacReady were talking. You could see MacReady's breath, but not Child's.
Only problem with that is John Carpenter himself debunked that fan theory. Also, in the blue ray release of The Thing you can see both of their breaths at the end.
The breath theory never made any sense, however. After the crew burns the Bennings-Thing, you can clearly see Palmer and Norris' breath outside and at that point at least one of them are a Thing, if not both.
I was amazed to find out when I first watched this in theaters, that this was the prequel. Especially the ending.
The makers of this film were hardcore fans of the original practical effects and wanted to stay true to that but then a producer came in and said "the kids love cgi so make it cgi" so they painted over their already completed effects
You wouldn't know you're the thing in the sense that you would be dead. There is no surviving the digestion process
What about when it assimilate you like it did with the guy in this film
@@breakwoodhopper6739 which guy?
@@86leewis The one who became the two faced thing or the guy who had the hand thing stuck on his face.
@@sugarbomb1346 the guy with the hand stuck in his face was not part of the assimilation of the thing and the guy backing away. However after seeing windows turn during the blood test thing, I don't think it takes too long to start the process, but there indeed is a process and that's why it still was attached to its face and hadn't run off yet. It wasn't finished. Then again, this film didn't really do a good job, it almost was like a different alien. There were some interesting things, the non organic material getting excreted.
If they used practical effects I think it would have been much much better received
They did, until the studio decided to CGI over every single practical effect in post production without telling the team that made the practical effects until they've seen it at the premiere. Also they used the original footage to do so, so there is no way of a practical effect directors cut.
blame the studio execs that forced them to cover the practical fx with cgi
Try looking for the Thing-ish type film the practical effects guys made with their stuff. It looked horrible. So, no, i dont think it would've been better received 🤣🤣
@@sugarbomb1346 that movie was made to show off the animatronics that the other studio covered up with zero cgi. Nobody said they couldn't use cgi to enhance the animatronics, to add a condensation effect around their mouths, add more slime, blood, tiny tentacles, or whatever.
just proves once agian studios don't understand their audience @@MrCrniVrag
In Ireland they call this 'Te Ting'.
Love you both and all the wonderful viewers
I've been waiting for the cowboy hat to come off! Now I am completely. LOL.
Your daughter playing Switch, I approve. 👍
Sounds like swedes and norwegians lol yay. Your family is the cutest thing btw "what are you watching" " A scary thing" lol
I know you were probably joking about getting a flamethrower but it is actually legal to own a flamethrower in most of the US, it's even legal to fill it with napalm (which is actually really easy to make at home)
27:29 The guy that was shooting at the dog at the beginning of the other one didn't wasn't speaking English, so at least HE was not one of the two guys that just returned from the helicopter crash.
"This is a big freakin thing"
I've been waiting for this reaction!
Joel Edgerton (Sam) is the Brother of Nash Edgerton, who was the producer of an Australian Crime Drama TV series, Mr Inbetween.
I hope you get to react to the 1951 The Thing From Another World. Fun Fact: The "Thing" is played by James Arness of Gunsmoke, he's also the brother of Peter Graves who led the Mission Impossible team in the TV series.
It's very underrated. Good movie!
Such an amazing prequel definitely doesn't deserve the crap it gets
A lot of people just like to hate on everything lol 🤷♂️
Forreal
@@thaistompNothing to do with that, you can't just keep using that blanket statement when it was universally panned. The cg is garbage.
@@scottneil1187 I never cared about what critics think. I liked it 💯😎
I have been wondering about that hat/headphone setup for a long time Mr. Movies. Was always curious if you'd cut through to fit them on, and now i know
Saw this movie twice in the theater in 2011. Never understood all the people hatin on this. Sure it's not as great as the 1982 movie but it is still great in it's own way. Remember being hyped to see this and Prometheus in 2012 and The Thing 2011 didn't disappoint unlike Prometheus did.
I think it was just unnecessary and to just show off CGI FX.
i think the aspect many people don't like about this movie is that the practical effects that were present (and not bad) were mostly covered up with subpar CGI. i like the concept, i like the details and references, but the CGI is just disillusionary to the entire experience.
@@MRC_5000 Yeah I agree that they should've kept the original practical effects. Would've definitely made the movie better. But for me personally it's not enough to ruin the film completely for me. Too bad those dumb producers got their hands on the film and sabotaged it. Fine example of corporate fat cats being out of touch with what people want too.
People analyze CG way too much. The practical effects in the original movie were good in some places and horrible than others, just like here. Making good CGFX it's just as hard as making practical effects. It's an artistry, it's something I do nowhere near as well as in this film. I don't understand why people who can't make good practical effects and can't make good CG effects piss on million dollar CG as if they can do just as well on their commodore 64.
@@Sentinel3D yes, it's an artistry and if the artists don't get enough time to create it, it will look like shit and totally take you out of the movie like in this and many other cases.
do you know about the development of this movie? or the aspect of tom woodruff jr.'s frustration?
i am sure that you are aware how great many (rather ambient) CGFX are (i actually prefer them to matte paintings, although they are awesome), but mainstream stuff like this usually just gets the "yeah, it'll do."-treatment.
movies like "district 9" or "monsters" (2010, directed by gareth edwards) have great CGI. this does not.
no way you can beat the original but they did a good job.
I'm sorry but they didn't. If you can explain these 5 plotholes to me, it would improve my opinion about it:
It has 5 plot holes that ruin it:
1) If the Ship was still working then why did the Thing leave the ship?
2) Science lady and Lars disabled all the vehicles... except these two!
3) I actuslly like the fillings explanation but the earring explanation makes no sense. Why? The thing is wearing clothes and shoes, but it can't wear a hanging ring?!
4) Instead of going back to camp to check on Lars she just disappears.
5) Instead of knowing about the American weather and research station, which should be common knowledge for the Americans, she goes the Russian camp... in the 80s... during the Cold War....
@@Dave-hb7lxOriginal was the short story Who Goes There.
There’s an audio book version of Peter Watts short story “The Things” here on UA-cam. Told from the point of view the Thing during Carpenter’s movie. The Thing is as terrified of us as we are of it. That’s as far as I go, without giving away spoilers, but the story is quite good.
You didn't see the final scene at the end during the credits. You can see the dog , the same dog of The thing 1982. And they tried to kill it from the helicopter. It is a prequel which explains what happened to the Norwegians.
Did you watch the video until the end? They watched all that
12:08 I THINK you flinched HERE. LOL
When I was young! Adults had to ask for my help when it came to setting things up
People who don’t know should not be told it’s a prequel. I didn’t know that and it made the movie so much better
Practical > CGI. When I first watched this I didn't care for it much, but it has grown on me after a few viewings. I would love to see a Practical only version of this Prequel.
Hey, I got the Mr. Eko reference! lol Only because I've recently been watching Lost (didn't watch any eps before).
I think the mention of the Russian base is indeed to link it into the game as in that the player take command of a US rescue team sent to the outpost from 80's The Thing before finding out at the 2011 base that a team from a nearby Russian base had secretly visited both infected bases and took all the infected remains back with them which leads you heading said base only to find it to is infected XD
Great review to a great movie. Did you see the Alien head at 7:40, just as they were entering the ice cave?
it's actually not hostile or evil, just asumed they wre trying to kill it by drilling into it :>
😂😂 at the AMONG US refrence and visual! There is also a good sequel story in Dark Horse Comics, I think there was 3 different series 10-12 comics/graphic novels. This as well as The Blob deserve new sequel movies.
In a really fun universe, all of the above happened on the same Antarctica:
1. The Thing
2. AvP
3. Monsterverse
4. Stargate SG1
LOL your face on the thumbnail is just like the little girl "concerned" meme.
We know what is under the ice. Antarctica was covered in vegetation/forests. The arctic also had a very mild climate.
I still haven't saw this version yet and I still have it in a 3 pack with the original and the John carpenter version
You're not missing anything.
I'd say it's worth a watch. Doesn't come remotely close to Carpenters though.
You guys should react to short circuit (1986) and short circuit 2 (1988) its a really good science fiction movie of the 80s.
I'd love to own a flame flower.
The First one was One of the Best flicks of its kind of all time the prequel aint Bad.
Practical effects every time, but with horror films definitely practical like some of the stuff Tom Savini came up with is just amazing.
This is a BRILLIANT FLAWLESS PREQUEL, when people moan about this there bat ass crazy don’t no what there on about this films really good love it and it flows lovely into john carpenters film.
Mary Elizabeth Winstead is very underrated as a final girl in this, very fun and cool
Love this movie as a prequel to The Thing. Mary Elizabeth is great in it. And the story is great too
to be honest, i think your reaction to this movie helps me to appreciate it more. i was really disappointed by the CGI cover-up, when this first came out, but have become more tolerant with time.
this has probably been mentioned, but i got the impression mrs. movies had a misconception about the thing (when she deduced that the hand started it): the thing does not really have a specific form. i would even go so far to say that the thing actually infected the original owner of the space ship causing it to crash to earth, where it froze (maybe 100 years ago, maybe 20,000 years ago, who knows) just to be discovered by those curious people. i couldn't really say what the original form of the thing was, but as it consumes, it grows... and it can manipulate its own form into anything it has assimilated, divide up or basically emulate the behaviour of the consumed creature. i was wondering about the aspect of the fillings a few times... would it just remove the fillings or would it somehow complete the missing parts of the teeth with pre-consumed information (like for example AI-generated pictures) to stay inconspicous? hm.
my mom had me watching scary movies at like 5 lol she's awesome and the reason i love horror movies today, movies in general.
Ain’t Nintendo switch’s just like a godsend? I showed my daughter when yours came in asking for help with hers and she bolted off to play her princess peach
I know you cant trust anyone, but once they shot the guy with the flamethrower, all chaos broke lose. Not only did they lose a flame weapon, but they all mixed up. Then when a monster shows itself, no one with a flame thrower can get theirs to work. That monster hurt at least 3 people in this short moment, and with blood everywhere, who knows who else got infected just now.
This movie gets complaints because of the CGI vs real effects of the 82' movie. BUT, the CGI is really good in this movie!
to be clear the movie studio made them cover the pratical fx with cgi. the filmmakers didnt want to do it.
I watched this twice in theaters before my deployment. I liked it very much. Of course it's not as good as the original but it's still enjoyable. They took the same film and did it in a different way. no blood test but they had the filling test. And now we know Childs was human in the end of the 1982 film because he still had his earring in his right ear
well according to Carpenter, childs wasnt human. But following the narrative of the popular idea, the thing may have learn how to avoid some mistakes. Like been less aggressive and more stealth... probably with childs it learn some small details..
10:00 How did they cut the block out?? I understand that they would cut down into the ice however far they would need (looks like about 2-3 feet) but how would they have cut out the BOTTOM of the cube?
When Kate was asked how long it would take to extract the creature in ice, she responded maybe half a day, ASSUMING YOU HAVE THE PROPER EQUIPMENT.
My guess is that the "viewing audience" never actually saw what this equipment was, but one must assume they had what was needed for the "extraction". After all, they knew beforehand that there was a specimen in the ice and would have brought everything needed for an expedition of this sort.
Good question though. Cheers.
I think it's somewhat cool to see how hostile and offensive the Thing is in this movie, compared to its more sly and defensive approach in the movie that takes place after this. Like it has learned from this experience.
The tragedy of this movie is that it could have been soooo much better. The director, the crew all wanted to stay honest to the 82 version by using all practical effects and making it more in line with a psychological horror movie. They even wanted to have a scene with the original owner of the space ship, not some weird pillar of light. They had all these neat things ready to go and if you're inclined there should be some footage of some of their practical effects they had already built before filming started. Unfortunately this movie was "executive'd" to death and the studio demanded a ton of reshoots/script rewrites because they thought it would be too boring and they also wanted more CGI to "get the younger viewers out"
oh the 2011 version. i was so confused when it started
7:52 I believe 'Icehole' is the correct name.
I hope they do release a version of the 2011 Prequel with all of the practical effects still in it.