If you understand Norwegian, the '82 film's twist is given away (even without the saucer) in the beginning because the shooter is screaming, "get the hell away from that thing. That's not a dog, it's some sort of thing! It's imitating a dog, it isn't real! GET AWAY YOU IDIOTS!!"
Even then, that's really freaking ominous. "It's imitating a dog." Like, if you were never exposed to this film, how the heck are you supposed to take that?
@@Penguinmanereikel Yeah, like I'm not sure it would change the outcome of the movie or the next scenes either, even if they crew could speak norwegian, right? It's still a lunatic norwegian who just exploded his own helicopter and shot one of your guys. And as a viewer you find out pretty quickly that something's up with the dog
I'm sure I'm not the only one to point this out but the generally accepted reason why the 1982 version flopped so hard was because it just so happened to release right off the heels E.T. and the whole pop culture phenomenon surrounding that movie, so the general audience really wasn't prepared for a film about an alien that wasn't all cute and child friendly. And from what I understand, this caused many oblivious parents to end up accidentally taking their kids to this movie without realising what they were in for... which understandably led to a lot of outrage at the time.
Another reason I heard suggested was that it was made during a severe recession with people feeling generally down. They wanted feel-good stuff like ET not downer films like the Thing. It didn't stop me, I have to say; I saw it in Belfast when it came out and that's a pretty depressing dump at the best of times.
That cracks me up! I can only imagine some mom bringing her young children to see this, and realizing her mistake as things start to get gory!! Those poor kids would have nightmares for years! 😂😂😂
1982 was a year of abundance in scifi. Wrath of Kahn ET Blade Runner The Thing Dark Crystal Secret of NIHM Swamp Thing Tron .... Should I go on at the competition for this year's best and brightest?
This is the first horror movie I ever saw.... Before Jaws... Before the Shining.... However those 3 along with the original Exorcist, remain some of my favorites of the genre.
Yeah... It's especially painful when you see the making of stuff where everyone working on the movie was so hyped to be working on it. Though, even with all of the stuido interference, it's still a descent enough "companion piece" movie.
@@Cosmicshambler Yup, they cut a BUNCH of scenes out of the movie. If we ever somehow got access to the director’s cut, it’d probably be vastly better.
Right!?! Hey, @UniversalPictures give us the Directors version that you guys dropped the ball on and included all of the practical effects. I’ll pay you 19.99 to buy it. Don’t be dumb and release I. Theaters. Release for home digital and on streaming.
I believe the way we are dropped into the mix in the 80s version without any backstory on the characters works because their interactions seem realistic. You believe they have been stuck together in isolation for months and are already tired of each other before the Thing shows up.
Like yeah I guess I can understand the criticism itself, character introductions are so ingrained in movies and story telling in general as part of the set up but not having one adds to the paranoia and more importantly the ambiguity of the film. Since we don't get to know them there's not only less clues to go on behaviorally how each might be acting a little different but also no time to grow attached to certain characters, favoring and trusting them in your mind over others. You end up trusting no one just like the characters themselves and it really puts you in their shoes increasing the paranoid atmosphere. For me, even McCready is suspect at the end and he's the protagonist who we've spent the most time with and I believe that's thanks to not spending 10-15 minutes understanding him and his general dynamic within the group before sh*t hits the fan. For me it just works better in my mind as is, without character introductions and getting right into the meat and potatoes of the horror.
My mom actually worked on the practical effects for the 2011 movie. Yes me my mom and my dad were very upset about the lack of her work making it to the finished film.
Fun fact, the prequel's sets were designed to match the base as it was in the 1982 film but they didn't have the exact measurements of the origianl set. So they designed them based on the height of Kurt Russell. It's given me a new metric for measuring things. One "Kurt Russell" makes something 5'9" tall. That means I am 1 Kurt Russell tall.
@@david.e376 Well, let me think. They could be used to melt snow for dinking water in an emergency, discourage polar bears [maybe wrong location?] without killing them, maybe signal for help if the radio was down [a nice big SOS in the sno comes to mind] help to free objects encased in ice [like a spaceship though of course that turned out to be very unfortunate in the movie] and of course incinerate otherworldly beings who simply refuse to become ex-aliens any other way. Seems to me there could be quite a few uses for them in mostly emergency situations. Anyone reading this who's worked on such a base care to comment? Are flamethrowers ever kept on these bases or is that just movie myth?
It wasn't caps in their mouth it was fillings. Back in the 60's, 70's, and 80's fillings were generally done with a metal alloy and since this was the height of people eating sugar and not really taking care of their teeth (not like today) almost everyone had dental fillings.
@@thethriftytypewriter BTW, I haven't seen the 2011 version. But from what you mention, it talks about flossing being a death sentence? Certainly at least in my part of the world, Ireland/UK flossing wasn't a thing in 1982. Maybe in the US but in Norway?
Height of eating sugar? Ever heard of high fructose corn syrup & the obesity crisis of today? And everyone who grew up in the ‘40s, ‘50s, & ‘60s, like these characters, brushed their teeth regularly & had fluoride in the water. I’m sure plenty of people still get fillings today.
@@NickFromDetroitPeople in the 40s and 50s had terrible teeth. Thats why they experimented on disabled people by giving them loads of sugar to find out what could help. A study in the late 40s in Sweden revealed over 90% of conscripts had bad teeth. Just to give an example
@@cheften2mk , My parents had okay teeth. It’s been shown that adding fluoride to water supplies is what has improved dental health in Americans, to whom I was referring. Those who grew up in the ‘40s & ‘50s, not the population of that time who probably grew up on well water.
And the 82 version of The Thing is actually a remake of a Howard Hawks film from 1951 called The Thing From Another World. It was John Carpenter's favorite film as a kid, with The Thing itself being a bulky dude in make up. Carpenter went with the original idea from the book and removed the whole intro of the flying saucer getting discovered, in a weird way, making it a sequel to the 50s film of sorts.
I seen the 1951 version maybe 10 or 15 years ago online after i seen the 1982 film. I always thought it was called The Thing From Outer Space. Mandela effect I guess. But I'm sure I got it confused cause I do love watching Killer Klowns From Outer Space
The whole "you cant see Child's breath at the end" bit has been debunked...you cant see his breath because of the lighting, additionally the absence of his breath means nothing anways because when Bennings gets turned and is caught outside, he lets out a loud scream. You can clearly see his breath when he does so.
The thing [Bawoom] that people hated about the 2011 one was the fact that they did practical effects work, but at the last minute it was overwritten with CGI. I suspect this was done by movie big wigs to prevent the resurgence of practical effects movies because practical effects artists are unionized and CGI artists are not.
I hadn’t even considered that as a possible motivation, but you might be absolutely right. It certainly _sounds_ like something those corporate ghouls would do.
I don't understand. PEAs worked on the film costing a substantial amount of time and money. Replacing their efforts and effects with CGI just cost more time and money.
I have a really fond memory of this film. I got to see it with some friends on the big screen. It was shown at some old theatre house, one with tiny uncomfortable chairs and no air conditioning, during a heatwave. This should sound awful but there was a huge positive: you could go get an ice cold beer for dirt cheap prices and be back in your seat in less than a minute, the bar was that close. It turned into a very fun night, with the room kinda getting the unique contrast that we're watching a film suited for a cold winters evening in a baking hot heatwave. No one in the audience complained, the vibe was good, and we all got pretty drunk by the end.
@danielbaguley2483 : That ironic I saw the movie in a theatre also on a hot NYC July day of course I was wearing shorts and a T-shirt. The air conditioner in the theatre was broken and was on ultra high blasting frigit air . The manager apologized and told everyone that they had a repairman in route, but he would gladly refund anyone money if they didn't want to stay. I chose to stay because the frozen theatre added to the atmosphere of actually being in the Arctic, like the movie set.
I’d love to hear from others but the OG Thing not “holding your hand” in character introduction is one of the things I like most about the movie. Everything you need to know about each character is inferred, implied, or straight out stated as the movie goes along. I don’t always need a movie to set up a character with a bunch of back story to figure out the actual character.
I think it adds to the feeling of paranoia and distrust we the audience feel since they are strangers to us. Not only do we get less behavioral clues of how they might act outside of a survival situation as extreme as the one they're in but also we don't grow attached to certain characters, trusting them over others thanks to biases.
The Thing is one of my most favorite horror films. The isolated setting, the growing distrust and paranoia the crew start to suffer from. And the practical effects tied it all together to make a great terrifying experience. A real masterpiece from John Carpenter.
I remember playing The Thing video game on the original Xbox with my friends back in the early 2000s. It wasn't the greatest game ever, but being able to experience this awesome movie in an interactive game was absolutely amazing for us.
My head canon is that both of them are the thing and they transform to eat each other only to stop and start laughing. They transform back into humans,kiss deeply, and travel to Minnesota to open up a bed-and-breakfast.
The Thing is quite possibly my favorite horror movie. I’m 26 but when I was a kid, I went to my grandmas house every weekend and she’d take me to rent movies. But she like horror movies. And so I watched what she watched. Which was Halloween. Child’s Play. The Thing. And so on. And so I really did grow up and age into a real appreciation for older movies like this. And on a side note she also showed me Starship Troopers and Robocop and most of the other action movies I love now
One irony - Morricone ‘won’ a Razzie for the Thing, but won an Academy Award for Hateful Eight, which used unused music from The Thing and The Thing was also an inspiration for Hateful Eight. ‘Test audiences’ and studios often ruin potential in movies. Paid ‘critics’ do as well in their own way. I’m with you, I like the 2011 The Thing and it could’ve been even better had the studio let the director do his….well, thing. Carpenter’s Thing is one of my favorite movies and I do like the prequel as well. Thank you for reviewing this sir. Was looking forward to it and not disappointed.
Thank God for test audiences. The Thing's true form never being revealed is the best part of the whole mystery. The point is its an alien and it's here to assimilate, period.
@@bboi1489What??? What we got was a LAMER version. I’d take the idea that we find the alien pilot and learn that the thing isn’t even of its species. Hypothesizing that maybe they visited a random planet and it did its thing amongst the alien crew. Learning an advanced alien species was still taken down by something so feral sounds cool. Test audiences are trash. What we got terrible CGI and still no answer to how the thing goes from a mindless attack monster in its likely not base form to someone so articulate when it’s in human form. Did it fly the spaceship????
I'm proud to say that I went to see the 82 Thing, when it was released..came away knowing I'd seen a classic..strong characters, claustrophobic atmosphere..paranoia around every corner..
I was in a horror appreciation group years ago. During the months of November and December, they'd run a horror movie tournament. The 82 version of the Thing won tyree years in a row. It created the hall of fame they used thereafter
Carpenter's movie was part of my childhood and going to the video store on Friday knowing we had three days to watch it over and over again. Of course, as a kid all I knew was i was scared out of my mind, didn't analyze anything, was just along for the ride. Now as an adult and a cinephile, I can appreciate it on another level (but secretly just prefer slipping back into my kid mentality and watch it thru those eyes). Thanks for covering.
Its interesting you think the blood test scene aged poorly, i think its the single most tense and well constructed scene in horror personally! I love it and even knowing what happens im stil on the edge of my seat
I could be totally wrong but given the context that the Thing can’t replicate inorganic matter, one could argue that because it escaped the Norwegian camp it may have learned from prior mistakes and wore the earring. It’d be a pretty cool theory given that it would further support the Thing’s ability to adapt and learn.
The dog is part wolf. Thus the uncanniness but also well behaved. Carpenter remarked how the cast and crew were a little perturbed by its uncanny behavior on set.
For me, the interactions were better in the '82 film since it felt realistic. How they all naturally interact with each other. In the prequel, it felt so obvious they were reading off a script. There was hardly a mystery since it seemed so obvious who was assimilated since they acted way too nervous and suspicious. While in the '82 film, they all continued to act the way they were even before being a Thing. Also, I liked how the '82 film rarely used eye contact between any characters and how most of them had odd names such as Windows.
Great video. It saddens me to think what we could have had with practical effects for the 2011 version. I really liked seeing how they made sure to make things line up with the 80s version, and think they make a good double feature.
What the 2011 version does wrong from the 1982 film is the fact that the Thing is trying to hide. It doesn’t want to be found. The film is missing what made the 1982 film work so well, that sense of dread and paranoia, and it becomes just another monster movie for me.
The Thing 1982 is the best. I love jumping right into the action & figuring things out along the way. It's like the writers are giving the audience some credit.
The fact that the 2011 The Thing got slammed by test audiences for being too 80's is wild given the nostalgia craze we've gotten recently. If it came out towards the end of the decade I bet it would have done so much better and had the original vision and effects.
As a huge fan of the original the only thing i found myelf actively disliking was the CGI everytime i saw it, it would break my immersion with the film which sucks because otherwise i didn't think it was terrible. I just wisdh they showed us the work the practical effects crew had done more.
The test audiences tried to mess up the end of the '82 Thing as well. They wanted a happier ending. Carpenter filmed an ending where Childs and Mac were still human and were rescued. This made JC barf and he stuck with his guns to keep the ambiguous ending that he wanted.
The Thing gave me nightmares as a kid. Now that I'm older it's a bit more cheesy than I remember but there's still this strange uneasiness when I watch it.
I liked the prequel at first, but the more I watched it, I noticed gaping plot holes. The UFO in the prequel uncovers itself, but in the OG the Norwegians blow it up (we see them do it in the footage the Americans watch). Also if the prequel is to be believed there should be a snow crawler at the UFO, but there isn’t. There’s other things too.
Good points. The footage used in ‘82 The Thing is from Howard Hawks’ The Thing From Another World, an homage by John Carpenter. I completely agree about the many egregious plot holes in the prequel
@@NickFromDetroit Where in the 82 Thing is footage from The Thing From Another World? They briefly watch a game show, b ut that's it. Are you thinking of Halloween? Carpenter did use footage of TTFAW in that ...
@@dsolosan , It’s when McReady & Doc arrive back from the Norwegian camp, they play the video tapes they brought back for everyone. “The Thing From Another World” 1951 footage is part of the “Norwegian” video tape, especially the thermite explosion, as The1971Cuda1 referred to in his OP. I’m going off of memory, haven’t watched the 1982 version in years.
My favorite piece of evidence that points to Childs being a Thing at the end is the jacket theory. Not the "he's wearing a different jacket" one - he's wearing the same style of coat but covered in frost. I'm talking about the coat that was on a peg next to Childs when he's guarding the door that Mac, Garry and Nauls left through to go test Blair, that's gone when we go back to that room. After the generator has been cut.
My absolute favorite movie of all time is The Thing (1982). Because if you follow all the clues, you can find out who really is who and how every character gets infected. You just have to pay attention. I doubt anyone will figure it out their first go around or even their second but that’s kinda the neat part. You have to watch it over and over, a story of absolute paranoia, to find out its secrets
Being a Swedish dude and watching the first movie is peak cinema, when you hear a Norwegian shooting a sled dog and yelling something you both can and cannot tell entirely what he's saying, since we share some words you can kind of context-hear the words: "Hell" "It's immitating" "Not real" out of the Norwegian he's yelling. I always thought that was super fucking cool, because it highjacks the part of my brain that says that the Norwegian and I are from the same place-ish and it automatically makes me side with the Norwegian over the Americans, and when they shoot the Norwegian, you're kind of just left to linger with the words he yelled for the rest of the movie and with everything happening, you're constantly thinking back to why the fuck that Norwegian guy was willing to freak out regular people by almost shooting at them just to kill the dog. It perfectly does the whole "We're all humans in an isolated place"-setup that I love The Mountains of Madness for. Peak movie. Love it. Not a big fan of the prequel, but I'm very biased since I saw that one just a couple of years ago, just to notice how terrible the 3D CGI has aged. I wonder if there could be a fan-remake at some point just to upgrade the graphics, I don't know.
All I learned from 2011 film is that studio usually fucks everything up. Everyone knows practical effects just look better even if they're less convincing.
I get the complaint that there's no introduction to any of the characters in the 82 version, but I kind of find it charming that the movie just starts with a norwegian guy rampaging through the camp and it just pops off. Also I think going through and characterizing everyone and dumping exposition and back story for each character at the beginning would make continuity a complete nightmare - part of why it's effective is because you are a stranger to all of these characters, you don't know if the guy is freaking out and bolting because he's cowardly and this is normal or because he's a thing and he thinks he's getting sussed out so he's retreating. Also the 2011 movie is good and terribly underrated, and is actually a fantastic companion to the 82 version. The problem is that it's just disappointing in its effects and a lot of the monster designs are just a normal bipedal guy but his torso or head is a big mouth, the monster just isn't as scary looking or creepy. The best scares are in the moment before the thing things all over the place and the realization that the person you're talking to is an alien. That doesn't happen as much in 82 except with Childs at the end and Blair, instead the thing is much better at hiding and when it attacks it's way more of a spontaneous ambush when it has an advantage or is completely in a bind - nobody ever catches it out from just talking with it, it's far more stubborn and patient.
I think that "The Thing" and "Predator" are both improved if you start the movie by skipping the scene of the alien ship arriving on Earth. In fact, when showing both movies to people for the first time I've done exactly that.
The Thing 2011 coming out during the CGI craze is such a tragedy, because there really was no way to convince big wig executives that practical effects are the right move when movies like Avatar were coming out. At least we have all of the great concept art and behind-the-scenes looks at what could've been.
I think that part of the reason for the strong dislike of the prequel was the state of films at the time. A lot of unnecessary remakes and such. I only saw the prequel the once, but I remember feeling that (CGI aside) it was just "how do we do the film but another way?" Which wasn't appealing to me. The mystery of what happened at the norwegian base did not need to be solved, either.
This is still my favorite thriller horror movie ever. The UA-cam videos breaking down on this movie just makes you appreciate this movie. Glad you did a video on this!
Side note on the CG overlay for the prequel. Thought it is true that test audiences didn’t like the practical, the me of the big nails was an executive seeing the filming and thinking the effects looked awful. He tried to explain it was because it looks bad because it hasn’t been edited yet but the exec was set on it looking bad.
1:07 nope waaaayy MORE than (2) fans for "The Thing 2011". The 2011 prequel is a more than worthy part of the franchise that ppl just don't appreciate. When "the test of time" has made its presence, the 2011 film will be considered a classic in the same vane as the 1982 masterpiece.
The Thing 2011 was fine but would have been much better if they kept the practical effects. The CGI spoiled it for me unfortunately. Wish they could release the practical version as a directors cut. Oh and BTW, I *highly* recommend the novella 'Who Goes There?' that The Thing is based on. I have yet to read the extended version, published as 'Frozen Hell', but I'm sure it's great too.
I actually like the prequel. They made the movie with practical effects, but cg was big at the time so they cg’d on top of it and made everything look worse. If it had the original practical effects it would get a lot more praise.
I agree with you about the prequel, I like it, but what was talked about before release sounds like it would have been a much better movie than what got released. I would love to have seen the movie with the full practical effects.
Ok so van helsing has always been a favorite of mine. I always wanted to cosplay as Anna but I feel like no one would get it. So fun fact: Halloween Horror nights on both coasts have a house called “eternal bloodlines” it features a made up Saskia van helsing which they are saying is his daughter. She’s after draculas “daughter”. They reeeeally stretched the stories to make sure they had an all female universal monsters house. Regardless of the messy story line, I LOVE the house. It makes me so happy to be in their version of this movie. Also, epic universe (the new park opening in Orlando) has a monsters section called “darkmoor”. It gives me van helsing town vibes, especially the misting well. You should look up both those things.. it will make you happy.
The first "The Thing" was a remake of "The Thing From Outer Space" so it was generally known by most people that it was about aliens. So I don't know that removing the alien ship scene in the beginning would have changed anything
Seeing the difference between the 1980s and 2011 The Thing posters makes Me realise I hate when movie posters just forgone art and focused instead on the business class neatness of a PowerPoint presentation class.
Funny you posted this, I watched “The Thing From Another World” a couple weeks ago. I feel that it had too many characters, and that ending just was so abrupt. But I guess that was the times back then, you could tell who MaCready was based off of though.
I also like how the originals ending works with the 2011 preboot, child's has an earring, which makes him less likely to be a thing, but the thing may have learned about that from the Norwegian base, same way the guy at the end of it out his earring in the wrong ear, maybe childs is a thing that did it right, or maybe hes not. They setup a reasonable why child's isn't a thing, and at the end a reason why he might still be
I was lucky enough to have parents that gave no fucks, and at 6 years old, jammed me and almost a dozen other friends and family into our giant station wagon to see this original version of ‘The Thing’ at the drive in. Man there was nothing like a drive in movie experience back then.
The Thing 1982 is my favorite film and it’s hard to point out just one aspect of it as the determining factor. I don’t know if others can relate but, in a strange way, it doesn’t feel like a movie when I watch it. What I mean by that is, the characters feel so realistic and grounded and the casting is so perfect that I’m not constantly reminded that it’s a movie. It’s weird. But honestly, almost everything comes together so perfectly to make it the ultimate in alien terror.
As far as the ending goes, The Thing game in 2002 at the beginning you find Child's body which id say maybe confirms that he wasn't the thing. the game isn't officially canon but John Carpenter said himself that he may consider it canon. The game is also getting a remaster for anyone interested
I'm a long-time fan of Carpenter's The Thing, and was active on the Outpost 31 forums prior to, during, and after the Prequel was made and shown in theaters, and up to a bit after it hit DVD. We actually had some communication with people working on the movie, and it really did feel like they were trying their best. But they got taken to the cleaners by the studio. True Thing fans look past the prequel's flaws and see it as "well, at least the guy was able to not make it a remake", and are fully aware that the director, actors, and practical effects people really worked their asses off trying to make a good movie, only for the studio to try to destroy it. Plus, the cells scene from 2011 is better than Blair's computer graphics. Small win, but it's still a win there. And the director basically confirming what about half the old fan base has been championing since 1982: The Thing's single cell form is the "true/original form". The characters in the prequel is mostly people who haven't worked together before, or small groups of 2 or 3 people who have, all brought together. The guys from Carpenter's version have been at that outpost for maybe close to a year, or longer. They're well-familiar with eachother, and the types of "getting to know everyone" chatter would be narratively out of place. It wouldn't make any sense, unless you expect them all to spew exposition to the Dog-Thing while its roaming the camp. Which, we'd all love to see the actors just sitting opposite Jed the wolf-dog telling him their characters' life stories as outtakes. The main reason cited for the 1982 The Thing's poor reception is that it was released while ET was in theaters, and it's generally felt that people wanted (and/or perhaps needed) the sappy friendly alien movie to sort of "recover from" all of the "mean and nasty" alien movies. Given how a lot of box office bombs that became huge cult classics tend to have this in common (being up against one or more "hype train" movies that few people actually want to rewatch nowadays), it makes sense. They become victims of bad timing. Plus, movie critics from the 80s and 90 were horribly out of touch, and got their rocks off lambasting anything horror, action, or otherwise not "high art". Those of us who grew up in that time period knew that if a movie got ripped to shreds by the critics, that was a must-see once it hit VHS.
The “Cell Scene” makes no sense & is another strike against the prequel. It’s the same time period. Why would their computer graphics look so much better than Blair’s?
I watched the og for the first time alone, second time was with my father. I have very fond memories of giving him some random trivia i knew about the movie. He didn't quite like it because he is not a "true fear brought by fiction" fan but kept watching to hear what i had to say about the production. The prequel was on cable once and i changed the channel.
1982 original, one of the best films EVER. I watch it every year on one of the coldest, snowliest days of the year. Great writing. I don't think you need to know a lot of the characters, just enough to know what motivates them. I compare their story to that of the original Alien movie. I forgot who mention this theory....about McCready and the alcohol. The 1st time you see him, he is playing chess against the computer. He loses and says something about "cheater" and then uses the alcohol to fry it. He couldn't find a way to win, but he knew HOW TO TAKE IT OUT. The person then references how he uses all his empty bottles to blow us the "last" Thing and it's base. Then Childs comes out of nowhere and both men are trying to figure out who is who. I have hear the theory about the light in the eyes and the whole breathing thing. If you can see their breathe they are human and if there is no breathe then they are the thing. However, there are 2 problems. As much as Childs may have been trying not to show his breathe, you can. But, there is one other time of seeing the things breathe, the blad guy with the redish beard. Right before he gets lit on fire, as he is holding his deformed hands out, he let's out a scream and you can see his breathe. Now, bringing this tugboat back in, I still believe McCready is human and Childs is not. I don't think McCready had any alcohol left. I truly believe all his bottles have gas in them. I subscribe to the theory that the thing has no idea what gas tastes like and drank the liquid, and that is why McCready is smiling at the end of the movie.
What rebukes your theory about Childs being the THING: is he's wearing an ear ring, he has a glimmer of light in his eyes, you can see breathe coming from his mouth, and once the THING fully absorbs you your body functions react to what a human would. So if the bottle contained gasoline Childs world have spit it out because it would have burned his mouth just like fire 🔥.
McCready smiles because it doesn't matter now. They are both dead whether they are the thing or not. Its the irony that he has won against the thing but at the cost of himself. He has won but he has lost. He laughs and smiles because even if they are both human now they still might have the thing inside of them. And he has no fight in him left. That theory always hinges on whether Childs is fully converted and leaves out the more likely question of whether either is invected.
@michaelmcclintick9541 : That's an interesting theory. But the THING doesn't have to know what alcohol or gasoline taste like. Once it totally engulfs it's victims, it would still be vulnerable to that which a human would be. Also if Mc Ready purposely gave Child's the bottle containing gasoline, he would have already known Child's was the THING. There is no pre indication of. Child's has gleam in his eyes, visible breathe. and is wearing his earring. Also alcohol is also flamable, so if Child's was the THING, he should have spit out the alcohol.
The breath, or lack thereof, is not a way to tell if someone has been assimilated. You can see the Bennings thing’s breath right before they torch it. I think Mac’s line says it all “I know I’m human… some of you must be too, because if you were all these things you’d just attack me right now.” If either of them weren’t human at the end, they’d just assimilate the other on the spot, there would be no reason to pretend to be human anymore. It only pretended to be human when it was outnumbered because it wouldn’t be able to attack them all at once. I think Mac and Childs were both human, but they had no way to know, so they died not trusting each other and not knowing whether they actually destroyed the abomination. That said, it’s meant to be ambiguous and it’s a testament to the quality of this masterpiece of a film that people are still discussing it and trying to figure it out, even all these years later. The commentary track with Kurt Russel and John Carpenter is awesome too, you can tell they’re having a blast (maybe they broke out the J&B for that).
LOVE the original. It's up there with Alien, Aliens, Terminator and Predator for me. As a kid I remember watching watching this one regular TV and after it was over I went out side to finish helping my dad get the boat ready for a fishing trip. It was dark out, how he could see anything with the boat itself was wild and creepy. Add to it my Dad had that 80's style cut and mustache like Magnum PI and only seeing him in mostly a silhouette was half creeping me out. I just started rambling about the movie and he followed suit. I was excited for the 2011 prequel. Enjoyed it. Still do. Still think its a solid movie. No where near as good as the original but it was fun. I've seen more than a few bits of Studio ADI talking about the practical fx they did and I'd love to see that version. I will always recommend the 82 version for first viewing then the 2011. I think it is worth watching both. For all the faults of the studio I love how the 2011 setup so much of what we see in 82. The credit's ending of 2011 is great. My biggest grips are they change how they found the ship, and ignore them detonating ice to get to it, where as in 2011 it was the ship firing up. The ship interior just seemed to generic. That being said I always wanted to see if Mac and Norris (was it Norris?) went in like in Alien.
I can imagine a netflix or Amazon series reboot of the original would be good for Developing the characters, maybe not as scary or dramatic, but you'd get to know the characters better, making it sadder when they die or are revealed to have Been a thing. First episode 30-45 minutes, ends with the dog being chased with the helicopter coming in, giving us most of the episode to meet the characters
When asking people why they don’t like the 2011 movie they’ll most likely say that it’s the CGI but I believe this is an excuse because they just don’t understand why they hate it well I’ll tell you the real reason. The real reason people hate it is because it focuses it’s characters on stereotypes like the love interest and the villain which makes you feel less invested as you’ve seen these characters before but in different scenarios and the original version gives all the characters unusual and unreal names but gives them original personalities which makes you feel more connected with the characters while also making them far from each other which makes the assimilations work well as you don’t know them well enough to spot differences which makes the fear that it could be anyone of them always there. Btw the dog actors name is Jed :D
I think the thing could have very quickly learned that it was given away by not having those artificial features. We know it is a very intelligent creature. It isn't a stretch to think that it simply took Child's earring and put it into it's ears after taking his place.
We hate the remake compared to the 1982 version for the same reasons the director won't work with a western studio ever again. I think that's a good answer
Saw them both in a rented cabin in chronological order. The tv was small so the effects weren’t sinful. These are the movies that made ‘monster’ my favorite horror theme.
I loved this film, my theory about the ending is that Childs is the thing and mac knows is. I reckon it's a candid moment to talk between the two enemies realising they're at a stalemate and out of energy. M "If we got any surprises for each other i don't think we're in much shape to do anything about it" C "Well, what do we do?" M "Why don't we just wait here for a little while, see what happens." The thing drinks and mac laughs. Of course the point of it is to be interpreted in many ways which is why people are still talking about it, Love it.
If you enjoy any of these movies (including the '51 version) and have already, I highly recommend the novella that inspired them all Who Goes There? (1938 John W. Campbell) it's way ahead of it's time, and is very creepy.
The Thing 2011 isn't a bad movie but I wish they would have stuck with the practical effects. The Thing itself acted out of character at points, like when he revealed himself unnecessarily.
Imitations are perfect replicas. They clearly have memories of their victims, because otherwise language, and personality would be gone the moment they become assimilated. If Childs was an imitation, it absolutely would be breathing, and know if it was given gasoline, and not liqour.
2011 version was a fun watch and I felt the producers made an honest attempt that got muddled by studio interference. Really appreciated how they lined the closing shot of the prequel with the opening of the 80s film. Just wish they hadn’t canned all the practical effects in favor of cgi.
Thanks. The one big clue that child's is infected is that he takes the bottle from McCready and drinks from it without thinking (despite fuches telling them not to take food from each other), That's why McCready laughs. ❤
My introduction to the franchise was through the 2002 video game. Luckily my mother had the film on VHS. Also watched The Warriors that night. Awesome times.
Try imagining being 15 with your learners permit and winning a ticket to the midnight premiere of this movie. You've never seen anything vaguely this intense or insane before. Can't go back,but I was there and this movie scared the ever loving shit out of me that night.
In the original, McReady is a thing. He was infected early on. Pay close attention to the dog scene at the beginning, where the dog licks the glove , and then how the bottle is grasped with the glove. At the end, McReady is infecting Childs the same way he was infected. His laugh was ‘Ha, got you.’
@@jonathanleake6176 Yes, but pay close attention to how he goes about it. He's ruthlessly trying to make sure that HE is the thing that makes it out alive. And the 'Fuck you, too!' at the end of the movie, maybe that wasn't such a one liner, as a response to being chewed out by his fellow thing.
If you understand Norwegian, the '82 film's twist is given away (even without the saucer) in the beginning because the shooter is screaming, "get the hell away from that thing. That's not a dog, it's some sort of thing! It's imitating a dog, it isn't real! GET AWAY YOU IDIOTS!!"
Even then, that's really freaking ominous. "It's imitating a dog." Like, if you were never exposed to this film, how the heck are you supposed to take that?
Spoiler alert please, jeeeeesh
@@Penguinmanereikel Yeah, like I'm not sure it would change the outcome of the movie or the next scenes either, even if they crew could speak norwegian, right? It's still a lunatic norwegian who just exploded his own helicopter and shot one of your guys. And as a viewer you find out pretty quickly that something's up with the dog
@@snupermoto723spoiler alert for a movie that came out decades ago? Chill out 😂 plus you’re on a breakdown video 🤦🏾♂️ tf is wrong with you
I think John Carpenters' version of the THING, remains the greatest sci-fi movie ever made‼️
I'm sure I'm not the only one to point this out but the generally accepted reason why the 1982 version flopped so hard was because it just so happened to release right off the heels E.T. and the whole pop culture phenomenon surrounding that movie, so the general audience really wasn't prepared for a film about an alien that wasn't all cute and child friendly. And from what I understand, this caused many oblivious parents to end up accidentally taking their kids to this movie without realising what they were in for... which understandably led to a lot of outrage at the time.
Another reason I heard suggested was that it was made during a severe recession with people feeling generally down. They wanted feel-good stuff like ET not downer films like the Thing. It didn't stop me, I have to say; I saw it in Belfast when it came out and that's a pretty depressing dump at the best of times.
That cracks me up! I can only imagine some mom bringing her young children to see this, and realizing her mistake as things start to get gory!! Those poor kids would have nightmares for years! 😂😂😂
1982 was a year of abundance in scifi.
Wrath of Kahn
ET
Blade Runner
The Thing
Dark Crystal
Secret of NIHM
Swamp Thing
Tron
....
Should I go on at the competition for this year's best and brightest?
@@singletona082 - Oh man, we were spoiled back then and didn't realize it!
This is the first horror movie I ever saw.... Before Jaws... Before the Shining.... However those 3 along with the original Exorcist, remain some of my favorites of the genre.
replacing all the practical effects with last minute CGi in the prequel was a classic studio move
They also cut the movie to pieces
Yeah... It's especially painful when you see the making of stuff where everyone working on the movie was so hyped to be working on it. Though, even with all of the stuido interference, it's still a descent enough "companion piece" movie.
still wouldn't have saved the film
@@Cosmicshambler Yup, they cut a BUNCH of scenes out of the movie.
If we ever somehow got access to the director’s cut, it’d probably be vastly better.
@@mj91212 Hashtag release the Practical Effects Cut!
Imagine being told that your prequel to a movie made in 1982 is "too 80s."
@@Ungli2.0You just admitted to not watching the video by typing that comment
Right!?! Hey, @UniversalPictures give us the Directors version that you guys dropped the ball on and included all of the practical effects. I’ll pay you 19.99 to buy it. Don’t be dumb and release I. Theaters. Release for home digital and on streaming.
@@jollama I've watched the video, what's wrong with the comment?
@@jollama Idiot...
I believe the way we are dropped into the mix in the 80s version without any backstory on the characters works because their interactions seem realistic. You believe they have been stuck together in isolation for months and are already tired of each other before the Thing shows up.
Like yeah I guess I can understand the criticism itself, character introductions are so ingrained in movies and story telling in general as part of the set up but not having one adds to the paranoia and more importantly the ambiguity of the film.
Since we don't get to know them there's not only less clues to go on behaviorally how each might be acting a little different but also no time to grow attached to certain characters, favoring and trusting them in your mind over others. You end up trusting no one just like the characters themselves and it really puts you in their shoes increasing the paranoid atmosphere. For me, even McCready is suspect at the end and he's the protagonist who we've spent the most time with and I believe that's thanks to not spending 10-15 minutes understanding him and his general dynamic within the group before sh*t hits the fan.
For me it just works better in my mind as is, without character introductions and getting right into the meat and potatoes of the horror.
My mom actually worked on the practical effects for the 2011 movie. Yes me my mom and my dad were very upset about the lack of her work making it to the finished film.
Please share more details if you can. BTS information is always helpful.
Omg is there any way your mom can get her hands on this footage? I will pay you for this!
@@coolcat7011 please is there any way we can get in contact with each other. I’m so dead serious about paying you and seeing this
Fun fact, the prequel's sets were designed to match the base as it was in the 1982 film but they didn't have the exact measurements of the origianl set. So they designed them based on the height of Kurt Russell. It's given me a new metric for measuring things. One "Kurt Russell" makes something 5'9" tall. That means I am 1 Kurt Russell tall.
Lmao
Why am I as tall as Kurt Russell 😂
"Hey Sweden!"
I'm 1.1 Kurt Russells tall
The dog they used in the 80's movie was called Jed! He has his own IMDb page, too. :)
14:50 the fact that he can’t get the flame thrower on is the scariest part.. it humanizes the entire film, because that could literally happen to you
Especially in 1982, when technology was a little less reliable. and of course, it's a harsh environment there.
@@paulohagan3309what could be a good reason they had flamethrowers in that environment, like, what would you use it for? Light a campfire? Lol
@@david.e376 Well, let me think. They could be used to melt snow for dinking water in an emergency, discourage polar bears [maybe wrong location?] without killing them, maybe signal for help if the radio was down [a nice big SOS in the sno comes to mind] help to free objects encased in ice [like a spaceship though of course that turned out to be very unfortunate in the movie] and of course incinerate otherworldly beings who simply refuse to become ex-aliens any other way.
Seems to me there could be quite a few uses for them in mostly emergency situations.
Anyone reading this who's worked on such a base care to comment? Are flamethrowers ever kept on these bases or is that just movie myth?
@@david.e376 Most likely to clear off any ice from machinery like the helicopter
@@paulohagan3309 cool
It wasn't caps in their mouth it was fillings. Back in the 60's, 70's, and 80's fillings were generally done with a metal alloy and since this was the height of people eating sugar and not really taking care of their teeth (not like today) almost everyone had dental fillings.
Ah thank you! Makes a bit more sense now
@@thethriftytypewriter BTW, I haven't seen the 2011 version. But from what you mention, it talks about flossing being a death sentence? Certainly at least in my part of the world, Ireland/UK flossing wasn't a thing in 1982. Maybe in the US but in Norway?
Height of eating sugar? Ever heard of high fructose corn syrup & the obesity crisis of today?
And everyone who grew up in the ‘40s, ‘50s, & ‘60s, like these characters, brushed their teeth regularly & had fluoride in the water.
I’m sure plenty of people still get fillings today.
@@NickFromDetroitPeople in the 40s and 50s had terrible teeth. Thats why they experimented on disabled people by giving them loads of sugar to find out what could help. A study in the late 40s in Sweden revealed over 90% of conscripts had bad teeth. Just to give an example
@@cheften2mk , My parents had okay teeth. It’s been shown that adding fluoride to water supplies is what has improved dental health in Americans, to whom I was referring. Those who grew up in the ‘40s & ‘50s, not the population of that time who probably grew up on well water.
And the 82 version of The Thing is actually a remake of a Howard Hawks film from 1951 called The Thing From Another World. It was John Carpenter's favorite film as a kid, with The Thing itself being a bulky dude in make up.
Carpenter went with the original idea from the book and removed the whole intro of the flying saucer getting discovered, in a weird way, making it a sequel to the 50s film of sorts.
I seen the 1951 version maybe 10 or 15 years ago online after i seen the 1982 film. I always thought it was called The Thing From Outer Space. Mandela effect I guess. But I'm sure I got it confused cause I do love watching Killer Klowns From Outer Space
@gfilmer7150 That bulky dude was James Arness, who went on to be famous as Sheriff Matt Dillon in the long running TV western Gunsmoke.
The original actor in the original film was James Arnez, who later was the sheriff in Gunsmoke.
James Arness, also known as Matt Dillon, the sheriff in Gunsmoke.
Apparently the dude that made The Thing from Another World 1951 hates the Thing 1982. Idk if its true then yikes
The whole "you cant see Child's breath at the end" bit has been debunked...you cant see his breath because of the lighting, additionally the absence of his breath means nothing anways because when Bennings gets turned and is caught outside, he lets out a loud scream. You can clearly see his breath when he does so.
The thing [Bawoom] that people hated about the 2011 one was the fact that they did practical effects work, but at the last minute it was overwritten with CGI. I suspect this was done by movie big wigs to prevent the resurgence of practical effects movies because practical effects artists are unionized and CGI artists are not.
That is an excellent theory!
I hadn’t even considered that as a possible motivation, but you might be absolutely right.
It certainly _sounds_ like something those corporate ghouls would do.
I don't understand. PEAs worked on the film costing a substantial amount of time and money. Replacing their efforts and effects with CGI just cost more time and money.
I have a really fond memory of this film. I got to see it with some friends on the big screen. It was shown at some old theatre house, one with tiny uncomfortable chairs and no air conditioning, during a heatwave. This should sound awful but there was a huge positive: you could go get an ice cold beer for dirt cheap prices and be back in your seat in less than a minute, the bar was that close. It turned into a very fun night, with the room kinda getting the unique contrast that we're watching a film suited for a cold winters evening in a baking hot heatwave. No one in the audience complained, the vibe was good, and we all got pretty drunk by the end.
Man, y'all were some lucky folks.
@danielbaguley2483 : That ironic I saw the movie in a theatre also on a hot NYC July day of course I was wearing shorts and a T-shirt. The air conditioner in the theatre was broken and was on ultra high blasting frigit air . The manager apologized and told everyone that they had a repairman in route, but he would gladly refund anyone money if they didn't want to stay. I chose to stay because the frozen theatre added to the atmosphere of actually being in the Arctic, like the movie set.
I’d love to hear from others but the OG Thing not “holding your hand” in character introduction is one of the things I like most about the movie.
Everything you need to know about each character is inferred, implied, or straight out stated as the movie goes along. I don’t always need a movie to set up a character with a bunch of back story to figure out the actual character.
Indeed. Treating your audience as halfwits is never a good move.
I think it adds to the feeling of paranoia and distrust we the audience feel since they are strangers to us. Not only do we get less behavioral clues of how they might act outside of a survival situation as extreme as the one they're in but also we don't grow attached to certain characters, trusting them over others thanks to biases.
The Thing is one of my most favorite horror films. The isolated setting, the growing distrust and paranoia the crew start to suffer from. And the practical effects tied it all together to make a great terrifying experience. A real masterpiece from John Carpenter.
I remember playing The Thing video game on the original Xbox with my friends back in the early 2000s. It wasn't the greatest game ever, but being able to experience this awesome movie in an interactive game was absolutely amazing for us.
Well as of today it got announced that it's getting remastered
My head canon is that both of them are the thing and they transform to eat each other only to stop and start laughing. They transform back into humans,kiss deeply, and travel to Minnesota to open up a bed-and-breakfast.
Nah I’m pretty sure that’s canon
The thing mountain
The Thing is quite possibly my favorite horror movie. I’m 26 but when I was a kid, I went to my grandmas house every weekend and she’d take me to rent movies. But she like horror movies. And so I watched what she watched. Which was Halloween. Child’s Play. The Thing. And so on. And so I really did grow up and age into a real appreciation for older movies like this. And on a side note she also showed me Starship Troopers and Robocop and most of the other action movies I love now
To date, my favorite horror movie.
I grew up with starship troopers as well.
One irony - Morricone ‘won’ a Razzie for the Thing, but won an Academy Award for Hateful Eight, which used unused music from The Thing and The Thing was also an inspiration for Hateful Eight.
‘Test audiences’ and studios often ruin potential in movies. Paid ‘critics’ do as well in their own way. I’m with you, I like the 2011 The Thing and it could’ve been even better had the studio let the director do his….well, thing.
Carpenter’s Thing is one of my favorite movies and I do like the prequel as well. Thank you for reviewing this sir. Was looking forward to it and not disappointed.
Morricone didn't win a Razzie; he nominated for one. The Razzie went to Kit Hain
Got it never take test audiences word to heart because god damn did this movie have its wings clipped
Thank God for test audiences. The Thing's true form never being revealed is the best part of the whole mystery. The point is its an alien and it's here to assimilate, period.
@@bboi1489What??? What we got was a LAMER version. I’d take the idea that we find the alien pilot and learn that the thing isn’t even of its species. Hypothesizing that maybe they visited a random planet and it did its thing amongst the alien crew.
Learning an advanced alien species was still taken down by something so feral sounds cool.
Test audiences are trash. What we got terrible CGI and still no answer to how the thing goes from a mindless attack monster in its likely not base form to someone so articulate when it’s in human form. Did it fly the spaceship????
@@bboi1489Ratioed
@@bboi1489 Awful take
I'm proud to say that I went to see the 82 Thing, when it was released..came away knowing I'd seen a classic..strong characters, claustrophobic atmosphere..paranoia around every corner..
I was in a horror appreciation group years ago. During the months of November and December, they'd run a horror movie tournament. The 82 version of the Thing won tyree years in a row. It created the hall of fame they used thereafter
Carpenter's movie was part of my childhood and going to the video store on Friday knowing we had three days to watch it over and over again. Of course, as a kid all I knew was i was scared out of my mind, didn't analyze anything, was just along for the ride. Now as an adult and a cinephile, I can appreciate it on another level (but secretly just prefer slipping back into my kid mentality and watch it thru those eyes). Thanks for covering.
Jokes on you, my mom had the 1993 collector's edition 😈
Its interesting you think the blood test scene aged poorly, i think its the single most tense and well constructed scene in horror personally! I love it and even knowing what happens im stil on the edge of my seat
its not interesting its absurd! one of the most memorable scenes in movie history
For the 2011 Thing, the studio should have just allowed a directors cut. That way they can both have their movie.
I could be totally wrong but given the context that the Thing can’t replicate inorganic matter, one could argue that because it escaped the Norwegian camp it may have learned from prior mistakes and wore the earring. It’d be a pretty cool theory given that it would further support the Thing’s ability to adapt and learn.
The dog is part wolf. Thus the uncanniness but also well behaved. Carpenter remarked how the cast and crew were a little perturbed by its uncanny behavior on set.
Maybe the dog actor was abused a lot by its trainer? If the actual animal actor was uncannily cooperative, that's a pretty big red flag.
@@Penguinmanereikel, Spare me
@@Penguinmanereikel bruh, sometimes animals are gonna be weird. because they're animals.
For me, the interactions were better in the '82 film since it felt realistic. How they all naturally interact with each other. In the prequel, it felt so obvious they were reading off a script. There was hardly a mystery since it seemed so obvious who was assimilated since they acted way too nervous and suspicious. While in the '82 film, they all continued to act the way they were even before being a Thing. Also, I liked how the '82 film rarely used eye contact between any characters and how most of them had odd names such as Windows.
The thing basically inspired among us
Trash game
Among Us IS The Thing. It's the game we never got for it. Hell, even the cover art for AU is based off of The Thing poster.
@bboi1489 there is a "The Thing" video game
Great video. It saddens me to think what we could have had with practical effects for the 2011 version. I really liked seeing how they made sure to make things line up with the 80s version, and think they make a good double feature.
The Thing (82) is my favorite horror movie of all time. It's perfect in everyway
Amen.
What the 2011 version does wrong from the 1982 film is the fact that the Thing is trying to hide. It doesn’t want to be found. The film is missing what made the 1982 film work so well, that sense of dread and paranoia, and it becomes just another monster movie for me.
The Thing 1982 is the best. I love jumping right into the action & figuring things out along the way. It's like the writers are giving the audience some credit.
The fact that the 2011 The Thing got slammed by test audiences for being too 80's is wild given the nostalgia craze we've gotten recently. If it came out towards the end of the decade I bet it would have done so much better and had the original vision and effects.
The Thing and The Fly = made my skin crawl in the 90s.
Both were bizarre and disgusting.
I couldn't get enough of them.
As a huge fan of the original the only thing i found myelf actively disliking was the CGI everytime i saw it, it would break my immersion with the film which sucks because otherwise i didn't think it was terrible. I just wisdh they showed us the work the practical effects crew had done more.
This is the greatest movie of all time, I’m so very glad you’re covering it
Who do you think was infected in the end?
@@insuchaway childs, mac was too tired in my opinion to be faking anything
@@Atlas_Tyr I agree.
The Test Audiences really flubbed up what would've been a comparable prequel to a masterpiece
The test audiences tried to mess up the end of the '82 Thing as well. They wanted a happier ending. Carpenter filmed an ending where Childs and Mac were still human and were rescued. This made JC barf and he stuck with his guns to keep the ambiguous ending that he wanted.
The Thing gave me nightmares as a kid. Now that I'm older it's a bit more cheesy than I remember but there's still this strange uneasiness when I watch it.
I liked the prequel at first, but the more I watched it, I noticed gaping plot holes. The UFO in the prequel uncovers itself, but in the OG the Norwegians blow it up (we see them do it in the footage the Americans watch). Also if the prequel is to be believed there should be a snow crawler at the UFO, but there isn’t. There’s other things too.
Good points.
The footage used in ‘82 The Thing is from Howard Hawks’ The Thing From Another World, an homage by John Carpenter.
I completely agree about the many egregious plot holes in the prequel
@@NickFromDetroit Where in the 82 Thing is footage from The Thing From Another World? They briefly watch a game show, b ut that's it. Are you thinking of Halloween? Carpenter did use footage of TTFAW in that ...
@@dsolosan , It’s when McReady & Doc arrive back from the Norwegian camp, they play the video tapes they brought back for everyone. “The Thing From Another World” 1951 footage is part of the “Norwegian” video tape, especially the thermite explosion, as The1971Cuda1 referred to in his OP. I’m going off of memory, haven’t watched the 1982 version in years.
My favorite piece of evidence that points to Childs being a Thing at the end is the jacket theory. Not the "he's wearing a different jacket" one - he's wearing the same style of coat but covered in frost. I'm talking about the coat that was on a peg next to Childs when he's guarding the door that Mac, Garry and Nauls left through to go test Blair, that's gone when we go back to that room. After the generator has been cut.
My absolute favorite movie of all time is The Thing (1982). Because if you follow all the clues, you can find out who really is who and how every character gets infected. You just have to pay attention. I doubt anyone will figure it out their first go around or even their second but that’s kinda the neat part. You have to watch it over and over, a story of absolute paranoia, to find out its secrets
The dog was half wolf. That's why he's so intense.
15:24 Childs does breathe a bit here though
silver fillings in teeth were more common i think. I liked the part where they found the fillings in the shower.
Being a Swedish dude and watching the first movie is peak cinema, when you hear a Norwegian shooting a sled dog and yelling something you both can and cannot tell entirely what he's saying, since we share some words you can kind of context-hear the words: "Hell" "It's immitating" "Not real" out of the Norwegian he's yelling.
I always thought that was super fucking cool, because it highjacks the part of my brain that says that the Norwegian and I are from the same place-ish and it automatically makes me side with the Norwegian over the Americans, and when they shoot the Norwegian, you're kind of just left to linger with the words he yelled for the rest of the movie and with everything happening, you're constantly thinking back to why the fuck that Norwegian guy was willing to freak out regular people by almost shooting at them just to kill the dog.
It perfectly does the whole "We're all humans in an isolated place"-setup that I love The Mountains of Madness for. Peak movie. Love it.
Not a big fan of the prequel, but I'm very biased since I saw that one just a couple of years ago, just to notice how terrible the 3D CGI has aged. I wonder if there could be a fan-remake at some point just to upgrade the graphics, I don't know.
All I learned from 2011 film is that studio usually fucks everything up. Everyone knows practical effects just look better even if they're less convincing.
I get the complaint that there's no introduction to any of the characters in the 82 version, but I kind of find it charming that the movie just starts with a norwegian guy rampaging through the camp and it just pops off. Also I think going through and characterizing everyone and dumping exposition and back story for each character at the beginning would make continuity a complete nightmare - part of why it's effective is because you are a stranger to all of these characters, you don't know if the guy is freaking out and bolting because he's cowardly and this is normal or because he's a thing and he thinks he's getting sussed out so he's retreating.
Also the 2011 movie is good and terribly underrated, and is actually a fantastic companion to the 82 version. The problem is that it's just disappointing in its effects and a lot of the monster designs are just a normal bipedal guy but his torso or head is a big mouth, the monster just isn't as scary looking or creepy. The best scares are in the moment before the thing things all over the place and the realization that the person you're talking to is an alien. That doesn't happen as much in 82 except with Childs at the end and Blair, instead the thing is much better at hiding and when it attacks it's way more of a spontaneous ambush when it has an advantage or is completely in a bind - nobody ever catches it out from just talking with it, it's far more stubborn and patient.
I think that "The Thing" and "Predator" are both improved if you start the movie by skipping the scene of the alien ship arriving on Earth. In fact, when showing both movies to people for the first time I've done exactly that.
The Thing 2011 coming out during the CGI craze is such a tragedy, because there really was no way to convince big wig executives that practical effects are the right move when movies like Avatar were coming out. At least we have all of the great concept art and behind-the-scenes looks at what could've been.
I think that part of the reason for the strong dislike of the prequel was the state of films at the time. A lot of unnecessary remakes and such. I only saw the prequel the once, but I remember feeling that (CGI aside) it was just "how do we do the film but another way?" Which wasn't appealing to me. The mystery of what happened at the norwegian base did not need to be solved, either.
This is still my favorite thriller horror movie ever. The UA-cam videos breaking down on this movie just makes you appreciate this movie. Glad you did a video on this!
Side note on the CG overlay for the prequel. Thought it is true that test audiences didn’t like the practical, the me of the big nails was an executive seeing the filming and thinking the effects looked awful. He tried to explain it was because it looks bad because it hasn’t been edited yet but the exec was set on it looking bad.
The 1982 film is my favorite film of all time. Absolutely love it
1:07 nope waaaayy MORE than (2) fans for "The Thing 2011". The 2011 prequel is a more than worthy part of the franchise that ppl just don't appreciate. When "the test of time" has made its presence, the 2011 film will be considered a classic in the same vane as the 1982 masterpiece.
The was an earlier version made in the 50s. That would be the Original version!!!
The Thing 2011 was fine but would have been much better if they kept the practical effects. The CGI spoiled it for me unfortunately. Wish they could release the practical version as a directors cut.
Oh and BTW, I *highly* recommend the novella 'Who Goes There?' that The Thing is based on. I have yet to read the extended version, published as 'Frozen Hell', but I'm sure it's great too.
I actually like the prequel. They made the movie with practical effects, but cg was big at the time so they cg’d on top of it and made everything look worse. If it had the original practical effects it would get a lot more praise.
The early version wins by an 82-11 score.
I agree with you about the prequel, I like it, but what was talked about before release sounds like it would have been a much better movie than what got released. I would love to have seen the movie with the full practical effects.
Ok so van helsing has always been a favorite of mine. I always wanted to cosplay as Anna but I feel like no one would get it. So fun fact: Halloween Horror nights on both coasts have a house called “eternal bloodlines” it features a made up Saskia van helsing which they are saying is his daughter. She’s after draculas “daughter”. They reeeeally stretched the stories to make sure they had an all female universal monsters house. Regardless of the messy story line, I LOVE the house. It makes me so happy to be in their version of this movie. Also, epic universe (the new park opening in Orlando) has a monsters section called “darkmoor”. It gives me van helsing town vibes, especially the misting well. You should look up both those things.. it will make you happy.
The first "The Thing" was a remake of "The Thing From Outer Space" so it was generally known by most people that it was about aliens. So I don't know that removing the alien ship scene in the beginning would have changed anything
The Thing From Another World
Seeing the difference between the 1980s and 2011 The Thing posters makes Me realise I hate when movie posters just forgone art and focused instead on the business class neatness of a PowerPoint presentation class.
Funny you posted this, I watched “The Thing From Another World” a couple weeks ago. I feel that it had too many characters, and that ending just was so abrupt. But I guess that was the times back then, you could tell who MaCready was based off of though.
I also like how the originals ending works with the 2011 preboot, child's has an earring, which makes him less likely to be a thing, but the thing may have learned about that from the Norwegian base, same way the guy at the end of it out his earring in the wrong ear, maybe childs is a thing that did it right, or maybe hes not. They setup a reasonable why child's isn't a thing, and at the end a reason why he might still be
"Something is feeling suss around here.... I think it's among us!"
I was lucky enough to have parents that gave no fucks, and at 6 years old, jammed me and almost a dozen other friends and family into our giant station wagon to see this original version of ‘The Thing’ at the drive in. Man there was nothing like a drive in movie experience back then.
The Thing 1982 is my favorite film and it’s hard to point out just one aspect of it as the determining factor. I don’t know if others can relate but, in a strange way, it doesn’t feel like a movie when I watch it. What I mean by that is, the characters feel so realistic and grounded and the casting is so perfect that I’m not constantly reminded that it’s a movie. It’s weird. But honestly, almost everything comes together so perfectly to make it the ultimate in alien terror.
Glad to see you covering my favourite horror movie of all time
As far as the ending goes, The Thing game in 2002 at the beginning you find Child's body which id say maybe confirms that he wasn't the thing. the game isn't officially canon but John Carpenter said himself that he may consider it canon. The game is also getting a remaster for anyone interested
I'm a long-time fan of Carpenter's The Thing, and was active on the Outpost 31 forums prior to, during, and after the Prequel was made and shown in theaters, and up to a bit after it hit DVD. We actually had some communication with people working on the movie, and it really did feel like they were trying their best. But they got taken to the cleaners by the studio. True Thing fans look past the prequel's flaws and see it as "well, at least the guy was able to not make it a remake", and are fully aware that the director, actors, and practical effects people really worked their asses off trying to make a good movie, only for the studio to try to destroy it. Plus, the cells scene from 2011 is better than Blair's computer graphics. Small win, but it's still a win there. And the director basically confirming what about half the old fan base has been championing since 1982: The Thing's single cell form is the "true/original form".
The characters in the prequel is mostly people who haven't worked together before, or small groups of 2 or 3 people who have, all brought together. The guys from Carpenter's version have been at that outpost for maybe close to a year, or longer. They're well-familiar with eachother, and the types of "getting to know everyone" chatter would be narratively out of place. It wouldn't make any sense, unless you expect them all to spew exposition to the Dog-Thing while its roaming the camp. Which, we'd all love to see the actors just sitting opposite Jed the wolf-dog telling him their characters' life stories as outtakes. The main reason cited for the 1982 The Thing's poor reception is that it was released while ET was in theaters, and it's generally felt that people wanted (and/or perhaps needed) the sappy friendly alien movie to sort of "recover from" all of the "mean and nasty" alien movies. Given how a lot of box office bombs that became huge cult classics tend to have this in common (being up against one or more "hype train" movies that few people actually want to rewatch nowadays), it makes sense. They become victims of bad timing. Plus, movie critics from the 80s and 90 were horribly out of touch, and got their rocks off lambasting anything horror, action, or otherwise not "high art". Those of us who grew up in that time period knew that if a movie got ripped to shreds by the critics, that was a must-see once it hit VHS.
The “Cell Scene” makes no sense & is another strike against the prequel.
It’s the same time period. Why would their computer graphics look so much better than Blair’s?
I watched the og for the first time alone, second time was with my father. I have very fond memories of giving him some random trivia i knew about the movie.
He didn't quite like it because he is not a "true fear brought by fiction" fan but kept watching to hear what i had to say about the production.
The prequel was on cable once and i changed the channel.
The blood scene holds up incredibly well. It's one of the best scenes in the whole movie
1982 original, one of the best films EVER. I watch it every year on one of the coldest, snowliest days of the year. Great writing. I don't think you need to know a lot of the characters, just enough to know what motivates them. I compare their story to that of the original Alien movie.
I forgot who mention this theory....about McCready and the alcohol. The 1st time you see him, he is playing chess against the computer. He loses and says something about "cheater" and then uses the alcohol to fry it. He couldn't find a way to win, but he knew HOW TO TAKE IT OUT. The person then references how he uses all his empty bottles to blow us the "last" Thing and it's base. Then Childs comes out of nowhere and both men are trying to figure out who is who. I have hear the theory about the light in the eyes and the whole breathing thing. If you can see their breathe they are human and if there is no breathe then they are the thing. However, there are 2 problems. As much as Childs may have been trying not to show his breathe, you can. But, there is one other time of seeing the things breathe, the blad guy with the redish beard. Right before he gets lit on fire, as he is holding his deformed hands out, he let's out a scream and you can see his breathe. Now, bringing this tugboat back in, I still believe McCready is human and Childs is not. I don't think McCready had any alcohol left. I truly believe all his bottles have gas in them. I subscribe to the theory that the thing has no idea what gas tastes like and drank the liquid, and that is why McCready is smiling at the end of the movie.
What rebukes your theory about Childs being the THING: is he's wearing an ear ring, he has a glimmer of light in his eyes, you can see breathe coming from his mouth, and once the THING fully absorbs you your body functions react to what a human would. So if the bottle contained gasoline Childs world have spit it out because it would have burned his mouth just like fire 🔥.
McCready smiles because it doesn't matter now. They are both dead whether they are the thing or not. Its the irony that he has won against the thing but at the cost of himself. He has won but he has lost. He laughs and smiles because even if they are both human now they still might have the thing inside of them. And he has no fight in him left. That theory always hinges on whether Childs is fully converted and leaves out the more likely question of whether either is invected.
@michaelmcclintick9541 : That's an interesting theory. But the THING doesn't have to know what alcohol or gasoline taste like. Once it totally engulfs it's victims, it would still be vulnerable to that which a human would be. Also if Mc Ready purposely gave Child's the bottle containing gasoline, he would have already known Child's was the THING. There is no pre indication of. Child's has gleam in his eyes, visible breathe. and is wearing his earring. Also alcohol is also flamable, so if Child's was the THING, he should have spit out the alcohol.
The breath, or lack thereof, is not a way to tell if someone has been assimilated. You can see the Bennings thing’s breath right before they torch it. I think Mac’s line says it all “I know I’m human… some of you must be too, because if you were all these things you’d just attack me right now.” If either of them weren’t human at the end, they’d just assimilate the other on the spot, there would be no reason to pretend to be human anymore. It only pretended to be human when it was outnumbered because it wouldn’t be able to attack them all at once. I think Mac and Childs were both human, but they had no way to know, so they died not trusting each other and not knowing whether they actually destroyed the abomination. That said, it’s meant to be ambiguous and it’s a testament to the quality of this masterpiece of a film that people are still discussing it and trying to figure it out, even all these years later. The commentary track with Kurt Russel and John Carpenter is awesome too, you can tell they’re having a blast (maybe they broke out the J&B for that).
Dark Horse comics have 3 miniseries. The first one is painted with all it glory gore. The second is the best , at least for. The 3rd is bad.
LOVE the original. It's up there with Alien, Aliens, Terminator and Predator for me.
As a kid I remember watching watching this one regular TV and after it was over I went out side to finish helping my dad get the boat ready for a fishing trip. It was dark out, how he could see anything with the boat itself was wild and creepy. Add to it my Dad had that 80's style cut and mustache like Magnum PI and only seeing him in mostly a silhouette was half creeping me out. I just started rambling about the movie and he followed suit.
I was excited for the 2011 prequel. Enjoyed it. Still do. Still think its a solid movie. No where near as good as the original but it was fun. I've seen more than a few bits of Studio ADI talking about the practical fx they did and I'd love to see that version.
I will always recommend the 82 version for first viewing then the 2011. I think it is worth watching both. For all the faults of the studio I love how the 2011 setup so much of what we see in 82. The credit's ending of 2011 is great.
My biggest grips are they change how they found the ship, and ignore them detonating ice to get to it, where as in 2011 it was the ship firing up. The ship interior just seemed to generic. That being said I always wanted to see if Mac and Norris (was it Norris?) went in like in Alien.
What I really enjoyed about The Thing was the monster itself. How each cell is a Thng
Among us at the Antarctic station
SOS, SOS
Save Our Ship? 🤨
@@kaelang12 *Souls
I can imagine a netflix or Amazon series reboot of the original would be good for Developing the characters, maybe not as scary or dramatic, but you'd get to know the characters better, making it sadder when they die or are revealed to have Been a thing.
First episode 30-45 minutes, ends with the dog being chased with the helicopter coming in, giving us most of the episode to meet the characters
When asking people why they don’t like the 2011 movie they’ll most likely say that it’s the CGI but I believe this is an excuse because they just don’t understand why they hate it well I’ll tell you the real reason.
The real reason people hate it is because it focuses it’s characters on stereotypes like the love interest and the villain which makes you feel less invested as you’ve seen these characters before but in different scenarios and the original version gives all the characters unusual and unreal names but gives them original personalities which makes you feel more connected with the characters while also making them far from each other which makes the assimilations work well as you don’t know them well enough to spot differences which makes the fear that it could be anyone of them always there. Btw the dog actors name is Jed :D
Don't forget the comics and video game (which WAS considered the canon ending until Carpenter's latest statement).
I think the thing could have very quickly learned that it was given away by not having those artificial features. We know it is a very intelligent creature. It isn't a stretch to think that it simply took Child's earring and put it into it's ears after taking his place.
Loved how they answered the weird dog story in the new one
I would have liked Clark to survive because he liked dogs.
We hate the remake compared to the 1982 version for the same reasons the director won't work with a western studio ever again. I think that's a good answer
Saw them both in a rented cabin in chronological order. The tv was small so the effects weren’t sinful. These are the movies that made ‘monster’ my favorite horror theme.
I loved this film, my theory about the ending is that Childs is the thing and mac knows is. I reckon it's a candid moment to talk between the two enemies realising they're at a stalemate and out of energy.
M "If we got any surprises for each other i don't think we're in much shape to do anything about it"
C "Well, what do we do?"
M "Why don't we just wait here for a little while, see what happens."
The thing drinks and mac laughs.
Of course the point of it is to be interpreted in many ways which is why people are still talking about it, Love it.
Really good analysis of these movies. I never realized that Childs had an ear ring at the end. Enjoyed your video.
If you enjoy any of these movies (including the '51 version) and have already, I highly recommend the novella that inspired them all Who Goes There? (1938 John W. Campbell) it's way ahead of it's time, and is very creepy.
Not going the practical effects route really hurts the remake. The OG is one of my favorite movies of all time. 10/10 easily.
The Thing 2011 isn't a bad movie but I wish they would have stuck with the practical effects. The Thing itself acted out of character at points, like when he revealed himself unnecessarily.
[cue helicopter attack scene]
@@richardaiken1 Exactly
Imitations are perfect replicas. They clearly have memories of their victims, because otherwise language, and personality would be gone the moment they become assimilated. If Childs was an imitation, it absolutely would be breathing, and know if it was given gasoline, and not liqour.
2011 version was a fun watch and I felt the producers made an honest attempt that got muddled by studio interference. Really appreciated how they lined the closing shot of the prequel with the opening of the 80s film. Just wish they hadn’t canned all the practical effects in favor of cgi.
Thanks. The one big clue that child's is infected is that he takes the bottle from McCready and drinks from it without thinking (despite fuches telling them not to take food from each other), That's why McCready laughs. ❤
My introduction to the franchise was through the 2002 video game. Luckily my mother had the film on VHS. Also watched The Warriors that night. Awesome times.
Try imagining being 15 with your learners permit and winning a ticket to the midnight premiere of this movie. You've never seen anything vaguely this intense or insane before. Can't go back,but I was there and this movie scared the ever loving shit out of me that night.
In the original, McReady is a thing. He was infected early on. Pay close attention to the dog scene at the beginning, where the dog licks the glove , and then how the bottle is grasped with the glove. At the end, McReady is infecting Childs the same way he was infected. His laugh was ‘Ha, got you.’
What..? McReady is the one that kills almost every version of the thing
@@jonathanleake6176 Yes, but pay close attention to how he goes about it. He's ruthlessly trying to make sure that HE is the thing that makes it out alive. And the 'Fuck you, too!' at the end of the movie, maybe that wasn't such a one liner, as a response to being chewed out by his fellow thing.
The 1982 movie is my absolute favorite horror movie of all time.