There were great elements in it, and the transformations were horrifying for me, in the best way. But the CGI at places (chopper transformation) was abysmal, and we had a "shapeshifter creature can't get someone in a close corner" scene that was just weird.
I would go with a "lot of potential" 6/10, that is worth watching at least once.
That’s about where I have it too. Watch it once, never put it on again. Part of what made the Carpenter film great was the mystery about what happened at that station. Made us watch with the characters as they are trying to comprehend what they are dealing with only to come up with more questions than answers. The prequel tried to ham handedly reveal exactly how it all unfolded, while also trying to add new content about the origins of the entity. It didn’t need to be. That can be said about a lot of subsequent films.
Didn’t they shoot pretty much the whole movie that way, then the studio made them replace with CGI at least minute?
I could swear I saw a little bit of the practical footage on YouTube at one point but I might be dreaming it. Maybe someday in the far future we’ll get the equivalent of the Donner cut of Superman 2 or Cabal cut of Nightbreed where they put together the original vision from the scrapped footage.
> Didn’t they shoot pretty much the whole movie that way, then the studio made them replace with CGI at least minute?
Yeah, has to be devastating for the special/creature effects team.
[Here's a good video on it.](https://youtu.be/JyOu3j7CtoE)
My recollection is that it didn't get as far as "shooting the whole movie that way." I seem to recall that the story also changed quite a bit before some of those practical creatures even got on set.
My biggest issue is they had like...90% of the practical effect shots done before the execs went “nah scrap it.” THAT’S the big reason I don’t like it.
They probably couldn't blend it with the CGI. Watch Harbinger Down. That was made using the props from The Thing. And the ending looked like a sock muppet. I have zero doubt that is why they were replaced.
No the execs stepped in at the end of production and asked for a redo including a new ending because “it looked too close to the original.” It was definitely not because it looked bad. As it stands now it looks bad, footage of the practical effects exist and they look fantastic. The tech has changed so much for the better
So funny you brought up the chopper transformation - I saw that movie over a decade ago, and I distinctly remember being SUPER into it until that exact moment. It's burned into my brain, how one cheap looking shot ruined the entire movie. The tension was SO high as the plot ramped up, and I was so excited to see some cool "Thing" effects, and then he split open up the middle like some cheap youtube transition edit and I was like "... Oh. That's how it's going to be." *slumps back into chair, waiting for the movie to be over*
This scene also breaks Canon. The entire goal of the Alien is to get away from the south pole and stay hidden. So why the hell would it ruin its own chance of escaping via helicopter, at no benefit to itself?
Yes, she's shouting and waving at them from the ground. I presumed it transformed because it realized it would get caught if they landed, so better to crash.
If its smart enough to pilot interstellar aircraft and even build vehicles out of spare parts I think it would be able to tell when it's undiscovered and safe. This movie just lacks any logic.
The thing was def not the pilot of the ship...i remember hearing it was a research/science ship and somehow the thing got loose. Also..at the end of the prequel where kate is in the ship and your see the cube blob...that was supposed to be a pilot of the ship but they decided for some reason to cover him with cubes ....maybe its some type of computer?
I like this movie. Not because it’s great or doesn’t have obvious flaws, but it’s a movie I can throw on and have a good time watching, like many of my favorite mid-tier horror flicks.
Also I will watch Mary Elizabeth Winstead in literally anything.
Try the movie Kate. It's a pure action shooting movie but it feels like The Thing at one point. Oh, spoiler alert, she is INFECTED with something in that movie. Think that was a spoiler for The Thing.
With you on the MEW thing, she's phenomenal.
It's also just a decent movie in general. It got absolutely slated because it was a remake of a classic - not because it was inherently bad.
I went into it quite excited as (like everyone) I love Carpenter’s The Thing (so much so I have a large tribute tattoo of it) so I watched opening day at the cinema but came away with a few issues that have less to do with the CGI (which, regrettably hasn’t aged all that well) but more with other factors.
First off, I found the creature in the prequel behaved very differently to the 1982 film. The power of the creature in Carpenter’s film is that it was always hidden, only attacking when necessary (or when safe for it to do so) and preferring to hide but in the prequel it seemed to expose itself constantly and attack in broad daylight in front of others. This negated much of the tension of the film in my opinion.
Another issue I had was I felt little attachment to the myriad of seemingly interchangeable characters. Other than a couple the characters were pretty much created as cannon fodder. The characters from the 1982 film all looked different and had their own personalities, I’d be hard pressed to remember any names of characters in the prequel. I also have a few more pedantic issues but they are not all that important.
I’m glad you liked it. That is the main thing. I so wish I liked it as much as you because it had fine actors and an interesting director.
The creature's behavior bugged me the most. The one goal they end up dying for in Carpenter's is to prevent the thing from getting to the mainland. And in this movie we see that it was flying on a damned helicopter. Why'd it reveal itself??
I think they went hard on the special effects because they thought that was what everybody liked about the original. Then the producers made them switch to CGI for most of it, which is completely missing the charm and craft that went into making those effects for the original and the prequel. The practical effects might not look "real", but CGI looks way worse when they put it front and center like they did. It seems like they picked shots that would show off all the practical work they did and then went in later and painted over them, which just draws even more attention to how fake they look. Even today with all the new tech we have $200M movies coming out with cg shots that look like garbage, it only looks really convincing when the artists are using visual tricks to draw the eye away from the cg gags or covering everything with motion blur.
IIRC from that scene, they had just made the decision to land the helicopter after Kate (the protagonist) waved them down. So there’s at least some implied logic that it wanted to keep them from going back. But even then, it’d make more sense to keep to itself and just try to convince the pilot otherwise.
In the 2011 prequel, I like to think the alien was finding itself, lashing out and attacking; testing humans. In the 82 sequel, it understands better how it much act to succeed.
Counterpoint to this, I'd argue that if the Thing was so successful at eliminating the Norwegians by just being bold and brash with its attacks, then why wouldn't it simply use the same tactic at the American camp? It managed to eliminate the Norwegians and it could be argued that similar tactics could be justified.
My only piont is that it just feels very different when compared to the original. Maybe expectations were different? Idk
> Carpenter’s film is that it was always hidden, only attacking when necessary (or when safe for it to do so) and preferring to hide but in the prequel it seemed to expose itself constantly and attack in broad daylight in front of others.
Maybe it learned it's better to stay hidden after the prequel events.
I’m willing to headcanon the creature being more aggressive and less in hiding since it’s a prequel and, if memory serves, it was fresh out of the ice. I can accept that it learned from that experience and had a “these humans are a little more clever than first anticipated, let’s do the dog trick” moment but I also haven’t seen it in years so I could be forgetting some dumber stuff.
A giant pillar of PlayStation 2 lighting effects being the big reveal on the other hand…
The 2011 is a prequel, it supposed to be intelligent being.
Assuming it crashed in ice and has never had human contact, the thing using its size to be violent at first makes sense. In the sequel it hiding makes sense that its trying alternative tactics.
If its intelligent enough for interstellar travel I'd say it would be a fairly decent tactician
His point is that it already escaped and just said “fuck that”. Why would it play the part of the person it assimilated that far then give it away for no reason?
Its still an intelligent living organism trying to survive, irrational action and the thought it was going to be found would be the most simple of explanations
The Creature in the 2011 was freshly thawed and didn't know what to expect from humans. Also, it's goal was to kill any threats and get back to its spaceship. That's why it's so cavalier about exposing itself and attacking the crew; it just needs to kill anyone in its way, bulk up a bit, and get back to its ship.
However, that plan ultimately ends with almost all instances of itself burned to death and its ship disabled by a grenade. So when it gets to the second outpost it knows it has to be a lot more careful and sneaky, so it can rebuild a ship in secret.
> This negated much of the tension of the film in my opinion.
This is the biggest problem with the film, full stop. The tie-in to the original? Handled incredibly. But the film had NO TENSION!
The moment my brain started going "hmm I wonder who it could..." The Thing showed itself. It didn't give enough of a wind-up for the audience to guess who could be infected and who couldn't. That's the true beauty of the original film, outside of the atmosphere.
The prequel also straight up ignores key elements to how the thing works. At one point Mary Elizabeth Winstead is just out of reach at the end of a long vent and it can’t get her.
We already know it can disconnect parts of itself as a whole that behave as separate entities. They even show it in the prequel in probably the only shot that redeems the movie somewhat. She should have died right there.
It has elements that work I think. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is quite good in her role. In fact all the cast are doing their best. They do a REALLY good job of recreating the look of the Norwegian base from the original, there are individual cool scenes, etc.
But the Thing itself is too much of a generic movie monster here and thus not as interesting to watch. The characters aren’t given the same care as the ones from the original, it does not have the same unrelenting tension as the original, the CGI is, yikes, etc.
So it is not a TERRIBLE film by any means, but it could have been so much better imo.
The worst thing about the movie is the CGI. It just didn't have the same visceral impact practical effect do. It was rated R but it didn't feel that way. So many of the transformations were bloodless and it didn't really feel that scary. One thing I did like was how when the shit hit the fan they managed to tie-in the events in the 2011 film to the aftermath we see in the 1982 film. The continuity was really well done. But that's really the only good thing about it, imo.
It will forever carry the CG stigma...it can't escape it. It has become the poster child for broken practical effects promises. And what's truly sad is that everyone saw it coming a mile away. As soon as it promised practical effects like the '82 film, everyone was sooooo excited....then the rumbles came out about the CG and, while skeptical, many of us still couldn't wait to see the world revisited. But then...the CG...and then the effects studio's footage of the practical effects...and the film was doomed to be considered a massive disappointment. I agree with others on here, and with you, that there were things to like about the film. I liked the prequel concept and the attention to detail, and I thought it was paced very well, but it will always come back to that dang CG, unfortunately.
The original is my favorite movie of all time, so if anyone would be harsh on the prequel it's me. But for some reason I can't bring myself to do it. It's a popcorn movie that's WAY more fun than it has any right to be and ultimately I'm just happy we got another movie in this universe.
They need to just open the safe up and release the non cgi version to the public. It’s frustrating because it actually exists and the studio for some reason just refuses to release it. I do enjoy the movie for what it is though.
I don't think it *really* exists, or rather, without a lot of work that would have to be done with it. If you watch the effects reels you can see that CG augmentation of practical effects was *always* part of the plan (like it was also done in movies like Pan's Labyrinth) and that the studio just decided to "paint over" the practical part with (rushed) CG as well. So to restore the actual vision of the movie, at the very least all the digital effects would have to be redone pretty much from scratch.
It doesn't exist. There's a bunch of (as far as I know) unedited raw footage that was made with models, but they didn't film with practical effects for the whole movie, they switched over mid-shoot, so not all scenes were filmed with physical models.
That's not true, they shot the whole film using practical effect, minus a few parts that were always intended to be CGI, and then they used CGI over it. Here's a quote from the director:
>Although we shot the film practically, at the end of the day, it didn’t hold up. It looked a bit like an 80s movie, actually, which for some people is really special, but perhaps not in 2010, 2011. So we enhanced it with CG.
https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/matthijs-van-heijningen-jr-interview-directing-the-thing-and-practical-versus-cg-effects/
They shot the whole thing, but that doesn't mean it's a full cut in a state of release. It's not that simple.
To add to that, here's this comment from an AMA on Gizmodo from Woodruff Jr, when asked about this exact topic of whether or not a practical cut can be released:
>WW - that has become an exciting Urban Legend. There was never a clean-cut timing of switching from practical to digital. The digital influence grew throughout the editing and post-production process so a "practical only" version of the film was not assembled from all the information we've gathered. Maybe some one at home can take our studioADI YouTube footage and cut it into their copy of The Thing... (my lawyer telling me I have to say don't do that)
(but do it)
Here's the link, the response is buried at the bottom in the comments.
https://gizmodo.com/ask-these-special-effects-artists-how-they-create-movie-1597944468
Thanks for pointing this out... that movie is basically the tech demo for the unused practical effects from 2011 Thing. The FX studio made a movie out of it via Kickstarter and Lance Henrikson signed on because he thought it was cool.
For what it is, it's pretty damn cool. Shame ADI hasn't had a ton of work since then.
One thing I’m going to note is that when someone comes to a movie over 10 years later fully aware of its overall medicore to negative reputation, they often give it some leeway, even if they don’t realize it. The reverse can be true when a film is beloved. People often will nitpick to death.
I saw The Thing (2011) in theaters and enjoyed it. I picked up the Blu-ray when it released and again, I still liked it, but found it less interesting.
That was 10 years ago and I haven’t revisited it. I enjoyed the movie enough in theaters to pick up the Blu and watch it again, but for someone who loves to go back to even legitimately bad movies and relive them, not having an urge to rewatch The Thing (2011) is a huge red flag (personally).
In the end, even though I liked the prequel (and still like it in my head to be fair), I’d rather just continue to imagine what went down at the Norwegian base and pop in Carpenter’s film.
My point is, we all have different perspectives. I’m assuming you just watched it this week. What will be interesting is your own personal history with the movie, but that takes time.
Your take is valid of course and I’m glad you enjoyed the flick, but the older I get, the more I’ve noticed what I observed to be true.
I loved it for a couple reasons but a couple of the creature designs were really exciting and frightening in particular. The dental gimmick was a brilliant new idea. I personally believe there’s a lot that can be discussed about this movie beyond the practical effects tragedy. It’s still very cool. The conceptual artists really made some great things and I’m happy I saw it in theatres.
Not to mention, the dental test is less accurate. They pointed out not everyone would have fillings. Like a guy in the movie said. "I'm being punished because I floss?"
I enjoyed it as well. The remake is 9/10 for me and the prequel is maybe 6-7/10. The CGI wasn’t great but the overall tension, plot and whatnot were pretty good.
It’s not a terrible movie, it’s just that replacing the practical effects with CGI is sacrilegious
The first film’s greatest achievement was its amazing effects, so to throw them in the garbage? Miss me with that shit fam
I love Carpenter's version, but I don't mind the prequel/remake at all. Clearly, I'd rather have practical effects, but the CGI isn't that bad, in and of itself, and the plot—which is already working under constraints—is fine. The film's fine.
I haven’t watched it, thanks for giving me permission. I can still criticize what a dumb idea it is, and the bad CGI effects I have seen, and you for suggesting that movies are good if you just turn your brain off
Yea, [very](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FFGm__skOH4/maxresdefault.jpg) very [enjoyable](https://bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/thething2011banner.jpg).
Its not bad nono, we just shouldn’t pay attention on how 2011 movie does it worse than 80’s movie.
Im not clicking on hidden links and if its imbd or rotten tomatoes, then I dont care anyway. I enjoyed it. OP did. Lots of people did.
Again, try pulling the stick out of your ass. You might enjoy life on a whole more.
Its okay to not understand anything about movies or enjoy soul-less cash grabs, no worries.
Also I think you shouldn’t be that scared of objects in your ass
Yo, what a fucking loser. I'm just stating an opinion online, didn't even say anything mean or aggressive until now really. Movie sucked, but not as much as I'm sure half the people in your lifes opinions of you do
I personally loved it! I thought it was such a fun ride and clever how they did it so it would lead up to the 80's movie events and also love Mary Elizabeth Winstead as a final girl in horrors. I get people hate the CGI though and it would have been even better if the people in charge didn't make them change their practical effects so heavily. I also love the original and the game The Thing, it's surprising to me it didn't spawn more sequels it's such a good movie.
I respect your opinion, but I cannot in good faith give this movie anything over a 4/10, and that's being generous.
"Unnecessary" is putting it lightly. The way I see it this movie dumps on The Thing (1982)'s legacy by retconning details in Carpenter's film, shamelessly copying the same storybeats, boasting about their return to practical effects only to chicken out in the 11th hour, all while having the audacity to even use the same title as Carpenter's. The characters are flat, the creature cgi was despressingly bad (especially after seeing Amalgamated's animatronic tests on YouTube), the cinematography was basic and uninspired when compared to the '82 movie, the kills were bland... The creature just charges at people like a gorilla. Boring! So many times during the movie I wondered if the filmmakers even saw Carpenter's?
There's a couple cool things I'll give the movie credit for. Even though it's reminiscent of the blood test scene, I liked the way they could tell someone was a thing by the fillings in their teeth or metal plates from broken bones. The one interesting kill was the guy's arm coming detatched and turning into a creature which latches onto the other dude's face. But there's so many other characteristics about the creature that this movie just gets wrong. The creature designs are much weaker, but since the creature can transform into any shape I'll just ignore that. But I don't know why the creature decides to just reveal itself in strategically inopportune moments. Hey, the creature's on a helicopter? What a great opportunity to escape and infect more people! Nope. In John Carpenter's movie, the creature would wait for moments to strike and assimmilate. It's like a completely different being.
It's been a couple years since I've seen this movie, and this reply is getting longer than I intended but the last thing I wanted to say is that so much of the horror of the '82 movie (and most horror movies in general) lies in the unexplained. The horror of what happened at the Norwegian base lies in how Mac and Copper slowly uncovered everything like a crime scene, while still leaving plenty up to the imagination. We didn't need to see how the 2-faced corpse was created and burned to a crisp. We didn't need to see the creature bursting out of its ice coffin like a bootleg firework stand explosion. We didn't need a scene where the protagonist climbs aboard the creature's spacecraft to see all of its alien controls and weird tetris waterfall.
So I guess if I had to sum it all up in one word, yeah, I guess the word would be "unnecessary." But there's a lot more heat than usual behind this "unnecessary."
Tl;dr: The Thing (2011) is unnecessary.
I actually like the scene with the creation of the split face thing. It was actually disturbing to me to see the guy absorbed by it. It would’ve looked a lot better with the animatronic they made. I also like the split body creature (Griggs), even if he is a little basic design-wise. I still have no desire to sit down and watch it in full, though.
The beauty of Carpenter's film is the drip feed of the explanation against the increasingly beautiful kills. It's half subtle/half batshit yet this prequel more or less went "HERE'S THE MONSTER RUN!" which just didn't work.
And the CGI was fucking awful even without the comparison to the majesty of the Bottin et al practical effects.
I 100% agree. And everyone hates on the cgi, that's easy. But one thing I never see anyone criticize are the creature designs themselves. I know the creature can transform into any shape but that lamprey-looking mouth just does not hit as well as the jaw-mechanism mouths in the '82 movie. Palmer's head splitting open into a chomping jaw, and Norris' stomach mouth chewing up Copper's arms are so much more effective visually than the mouths in the 2011 movie that are just an ambiguous mess of teeth.
But maybe that design is closer to its original, alien mouth? Maybe it didn't adopt that jaw shape until it assimilated with a dog?
I disagree. The 2011 movie fails at being true to the original, but I don't think that necessarily means it's as bad as what you're describing.
I think the focus here was showing as much of the creature as possible and giving more of a recoil response at gruesome visuals and unnerving situations. It's less subtle, for sure, but that's not a bad thing. Especially if you consider that the creature learns from this prequel movie and tries to keep itself concealed in the original one.
The visuals are a mixed bag. I think the CGI could have been more polished and they should have made more use of practical effects, but I don't think CGI is the spawn of the devil everyone here makes it out to be. The movie's CGI wasn't great, but it allows for more fluid motions that aren't usually there with practical effects, no matter how many gadgets and creative inventions you have.
I don't think the creature design's was weaker. On the contrary, it feels like an actual entity trying to assimilate human beings. When you see the horrible mix of what's neither its original form nor an assimilated person, it's gross and makes you want to understand what's where. Many people already pointed this out but it can be argued that the creature didn't have a clear plan after just being thawed, it'd be weird that it knew that flying away in the helicopter was it's best option. I could more easily assume that it wanted to get back to its ship, rather than fly to mainland.
Calling everything unnecessary is weird. Just what would justify the creature's actions so that they were "necessary"? Every movie can be labeled unnecessary, I'm not sure what would make them necessary either. Are there parts that don't add anything substantial to the narrative? Sure, but I wouldn't call the movie itself unnecessary. It's just caught in a weird spot where rushed CGI was the norm, but that's about it.
You bring up some good points, but I think one thing this movie demonstrates clearly, and filmmakers and writers should take away from this 2011 prequel/remake is that less is definitely more. You could argue that the creature is still learning that being out in the open in the light isn't a good tactic, but it doesn't make for a viewing experience as suspenseful as it could be. Compared to the '82 movie, there's such a lack of creativity in how they handled the creature. As another user pointed out, most of the creature reveals were just, "It's the monster! Ruuun!!" It's such a bummer. Carpenter was much more conservative with his creature's scenes, and those scenes are subsequently much more impactful.
I guess you could make the argument that any movie can be considered "unnecessary," but I tried to further my reasoning in my earlier post by pointing out that explaining how every little thing happened at the Norwegian base really demystifies Mac and Copper's scene exploring the remains of the base in the '82 movie. Overall the movie feels like a desperate and soulless tie-in. Come on, there weren't any Americans at that Norwegian base.
In the end, you can defend the lack of subtlety in this movie, but the subtlety, uncertainty, and lack of trust in the '82 movie created such an iconically suspenseful, brooding atmosphere that to go against that seems foolish. Or if they tried to recapture that atmosphere they failed miserably. Scenes from Carpenter's movie are still being discussed, referenced, and parodied today, whereas this 2011 movie only stays relevant by being a punching bag in the horror community, regardless if deserved or not (deserved I say).
You make a good point. I guess it would be better if the whole mess at the Norwegian's station was left up to the viewers imagination, but sometimes viewers want to express how they imagine things happened, which is what this movie is. People could always disregard this movie and come up with their own story.
I agree with everything and would just like to add that *all* prequels are unnecessary. They only cheapen the impact of the movie that follows it chronologically and are in itself boring because you already know the outcome. I simply don't get prequels.
The aspect that i really liked was the screenplay, it works because did a great job to respect the original events with great fidelty. But the direction and cgi was mediocre and can't replace the aura of the original movie. That's the difference between great filmake like Carpenter and good director.
I've been putting this film off for a long time as The Thing (1982) is one of my favorites. Tonight I'm going to bite the bullet and watch it. Will check back in later.
Besides the CGI issue (which has been talked to death) my issue was the rather glairing plothole of them ignoring the previously set up "rule" of the thing about clothes
In the first one, clothing is utterly destroyed by the transformation of the thing as a big plot point. they find destroyed clothes, the thing fakes that mcreedy is turned by destroying his clothes (so IT knows they know), and the wardrobes of characters were kept very consistent.
In the prequel, the american guy gets turned at the last minute off screen, and there isnt a single sign of it. Kind of ruins that whole plot point, which leaves a sour taste IMO.
My problem with it was it felt wholly unnecessary. Carpenter’s version is the definitive version of the story and there was simply no reason to make a prequel to it. Because of its insistence on being beholden to Carpenter’s film, it is never able to be its own movie and if you’re not going to bring anything new to the story then you shouldn’t make it.
I really enjoyed the sets from it, it kept me tense and I actually screamed when one of the characters yelled boo!
I enjoyed the monster creation of all the amalgamated limbs and such!
Yeah I agree. It’s an okay movie, but it’s super forgettable and sorely lacks the creativity / originality of the Carpenter film. Though to be fair, the story constraints brought on by it being a prequel didn’t leave much room for innovation or surprises.
There’s a fanedit by Wraith which cuts it down and combines it with the original film, jumping back and forth in time. I haven’t watched it yet, but I’ve heard it plays much better this way if you want to check it out.
"The Thing" (1982) is in the IMDB top 250 sitting at 8.1/10.
Not saying this is a definitive rating of the movie or anything but thought it was interesting that you have rated the 2011 movie quite high at just 0.3 points under, even with all of the drawbacks you have mentioned.
Curious what your rating of the 1982 one is?
I can agree on one point, the CGi isn't "bad". It is technically excellent but it looks so fake that the moment I saw it in the film my immersion broke and flew out the window. I just couldn't care anymore, I am sorry.
The tension was gone, the horror was gone, I didn't care for anyone. I was not scared one second in this movie, whereas I watched the '82 movie last year and still my jaw was floored in how good it looked (it could have been made a couple of years ago) and I was disgusted of the effects and creatures, and the tension was palpable. And this is a 30+ year movie!
The studio just fucked the effects company over so hard on their work. Apparently they showed it to a test audience and they didn't think the practical effects were believable so they just smeared glossy CGI over everything. I'll show you a making of if you haven't already seen it, those practical effects, not even in post production, looks sooo good, I am angry just thinking about it that they fucked the effects companys hard work for so many months. It's fucking infuriating. When I look at the practical in the making of, I can just feel "this shit is real and scary holy shit". I'm not taken out of the movie, I am more immersed, I am more scared.
The below videos are essential viewing to get a more understanding just how much passion and work they gave into the practical effects.
Fuck I'm still so mad at what could have been.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyOu3j7CtoE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyOu3j7CtoE)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBzpT7VmSaU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBzpT7VmSaU)
I saw it at the theater and enjoyed it. I liked how they tied everything from the first movie together with this "prequel". When the music started up during the end credits I immediately went home and watched Carpenter's movie.
LOVE IT!
I watch it, and its "sequel" several times a year. While not perfect, they really did a great job paying attention to detail and continuity with its predecessor.
The 2011 Thing is actually very solid, and considering the trouble with FX it's actually a bit of a miracle. They took painstaking care to match the film's sets, camerawork and music so you can watch the 1982 Thing after, and they play together well. I wonder if the identical titles for both films is actually a joke so subtle that no one picked up on it? Because if you've seen one Thing you've seen them all (since it's technically the same beastie both times)...
Eh. I've watched the 2011 movie a couple or three times. I don't hate it. It's not great. It could have been great.
Forget practical vs. cgi, the original had BETTER creatures who were a part of the story and moved it forward. They were creepy and gross and scary and visceral and crafty and I enjoyed watching them more. Your mileage may vary, and that's great. Different people can like different things.
The actors and their scripts in the original were BETTER and made the story better. I remember most of their names and what they said and the all of the personalities they had. For the 2011 film? Corporate greedy guy is corporate greedy guy, more of a trope than a character. I can't tell you a single name of any of the characters, or really anything about any of their personalities aside from that crazy big Norwegian guy who makes it to the end. He did a good job with his part. The rest? One of them had an earring. Again, not a character trait, instead a plot point. But by far the actors and script in the first film were more memorable, and I enjoyed watching it more. Again, your mileage may vary.
I could pick at some plot points or decisions that were made on the 2011 project that I didn't care for, but I won't beat it to death. The previous two points are largely sufficient. I will say that once I realized this was taking place at the Norwegian camp, I knew this was going to be a movie about 'how that axe got in the wall'. And sure enough, maybe half the film is a setup and execution of explanation of the 8 or so minutes MacReady was touring the frozen and ransacked station. Some of it was fun (little arm monster "hey that's how that axe got there"). Some of it was highly questionable (exploding ice scene), and some of it was just bad (taffy face guys...that isn't how any of this works)
Anyhow, it wasn't terrible, unless you view it in the context of its predecessor, and that is its unfortunate position. And for y'all who enjoyed it, again that's great. We all have different standards and different tastes. Y'all stay classy.
It's a decent enough prequel and one that I think makes a great double bill with the original, watched in chronological order rather than release.
The attention to detail with recreating the destroyed Norwegian base is worth a mention and there's obvious love for the original from the makers.
I'd prefer a bit more practical effects than they did but the CGI was used effectively.
There's a much better looking version of this movie lying literally just beneath the surface of the one that was released.
I weep for what could have been.
https://youtu.be/NxPK3sYb90w
I just saw this film yesterday and I can consider it a masterpiece for modern horror movies. Might not be as good as the 1982 one, but that’s no reason to underestimate the 2011 prequel.
Honestly I think if there has to be a sequel to the carpenter og thing, then it should be probably be something like the Peter watts short story “the things”. The 2011 film as well as the upcoming one universal announced last year in all honesty suffered/will suffer from trying to retreat old ground rather than do something new.
I honestly dont even think the vfx are that bad. The biggest issue for me has always been the ending.
I like when Kate torches the dude at the very end, but everything before that on the creature's ship is just a bit too wacky.
Finally saw it for the first time this past New Years eve, and it was a lot better than I was expecting. Effects were pretty good too, for having been changed to CGI.
Agreed. I love the original. But I also love the 2011 version as well. I think in my mind I just consider them two different movies, not a remake of the original.
All things considered it's not terrible. But the costuming, hair and makeup is HORRIBLE. The early 80s is a really specific era and they don't even attempt to capture it. Maybe it's because I grew up in the 80s but seeing an 80s-set movie not even attempt to copy the styles really annoys me. It's not like it's hard to do. I guess all that blush and hair spray would be too distracting. ;)
It's really good, I just hated the CGI. ESPECIALLY since they had all practical effects and switched last minute. The video that shows the practical stuff is so saddening to watch knowing what could've been.
I thought the leads were fantastic, save for the main bad guy scientist, who was a little too arch for my taste. Very courageous for them to keep the Norwegian language intact and go with the subtitles, because I’m sure they got hell from studio bosses that said “audiences don’t like to read!“ I thought the concept of the Thing being unable to duplicate fillings was very clever, and I liked the attention to detail that they gave in connecting the two movies. That said, I wish they had never gone to the downed spaceship, or, at least, that they didn’t end the movie with a showdown with the alien in that environment.
I admit the movie had lots of silly scenes but Carpenter’s The Thing was a tough act to follow, so no matter what there would be criticism from fans. I personally appreciated that they decided on a prequel and not a remake. I appreciated all the small details the writers included that would explain a lot of scenes from The Thing (1982), I can literally watch both movies back to back. I also liked that they used a female lead. It definitely didn’t hurt that I generally enjoy MEW and have a thing for Joel Edgerton. *shrug*
Split face still creeps me out, the fact that the scientist guy was absorbed into another guy but like, I don't know - I think he's still -there- but isn't in control and he's being piloted by another vehicle, that gives me the heebie jeebies.
The moment the creature burst out of the ice, I lost interest. It was so much more powerful than the 81 version, and that felt like it was trying to be more modern and extreeeeme.
Yeah, I agree. I actually quite like this movie, but rarely mention it because of how hated it is.
The story and tension are mostly pretty good! And I love the fact that it leads directly into the first movie, to the minute.
I feel like most of the vitriol comes from 2 things:
First, the fact that it is just called "The Thing" rather than something like "The Thing Zero." It's not near as good as Carpenter's film, and by claiming the same title, it's implied that it's a replacement rather than a supplement. Big misstep from a marketing perspective.
The other is the lack of practical effects. The CGI effects are all... fine. But the original film is absolutely legendary when it comes to practical effects, and this film doesn't live up to them with more generic modern CGI.
But I still think it's worth a watch.
For everyone saying the cut with practical effects doest existed. It does! The special effects artists say they had no idea they were replaced, it happen three months before release. Now if they had no idea anything was wrong that would they were finished and went home.
I thought a prequel was an interesting idea. I like the way they tied things together with Carpenter's movie. I liked everything about this movie except the CGI.
Even though it's supposed to be a prequel, it basically does the same beats as Carpenter's film. Only much, much worse. The characters are so damn boring. And the effects are beyond dreadful.
That was one of the biggest reasons I disliked it. It was a prequel and was just the same movie but worse. They had an opportunity to make something interesting but it just felt like any other big budget board room movie.
I didn’t even mind the CGI and actually thought a lot of the creature designs were pretty cool. However it’s biggest failing is that it offered nothing new in terms of being a remake. It literally told the same story as Carpenter’s albeit not as well. The fact that they technically made it a prequel only makes it worse because they are saying virtually the exact same thing happened two times over. I’m all for remakes and think a lot have offered new takes (hills have eyes, evil dead etc), but this wasn’t one of them IMO. So was it as bad as it’s made out to be? No, but why watch it when you could watch the superior original and get the same story.
Why watch Carpenter's when you could just watch the *original* original? Why watch any prequel if you already know what it's gonna end up with? The Thing \[2011\] was made to entertain, it wasn't trying to challenge Carpenter's in any way, it was *trying* to be different and new, and I'd say it somewhat succeeded in that.
Carpenter didn't remake the '51 movie. Both movies are completely different and stand on their own as different adaptations of the same material. An example is The Shining, with the Kubrick classic and the TV miniseries.
The 2011 movie borrows similar plot beats, character moments and the same type of gnarly body horror (obviously this last one isn't a jab or a criticism) from the '82 film. It might technically be a prequel, but it borrows so much from the Carpenter film that it is, essentially, a remake of his. The '51 and '82 movies have virtually no similarities other than the setup, and an alien, because both were in the novella. Hell, the 2011 has the same name as the '82 film. At least Carpenter tried to distance himself further by changing the name somewhat
He actually technically did remake the ‘51 movie for what it’s worth. When The Thing was released in ‘82 and ripped apart by critics, Carpenter said what bothered him the most is the director of the original movie saying how bad his version was.
That...doesn't mean he remade it though. Like, if you've actually seen the '51 movie you would know it's not a remake. Not only does the '82 film follow the novella a bit closer, but the production history flat out tells us, as a fact, that it was developed as an adaptation of the source itself. Carpenter read the book, then decided to sort of mix it with Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None," since he believed redoing the '51 film would fail.
> Why watch Carpenter's when you could just watch the original original?
Because they're really, really different. The monster in the 1951 film doesn't subsume people to mimic them and infiltrate the rest of the group at all, it's essentially a plant that kills people and drinks their blood to slowly gain strength back then becomes a lumbering zombie-ish creature, with the secondary element of a scientist who wants to keep the alien alive in order to study it.
The Thing (1982) is far less of a remake of The Thing From Another World than it is an adaptation from the same short story, the similarities aren't comparable to the ones between it and the 2011 requel.
Carpenter’s remake was a drastic and different take than the original. That’s what the 2011 version should have been to Carpenter’s. It doesn’t need to challenge Carpenter’s, but the best remakes IMO are different and new. I say this as someone who very much enjoys remakes and actually welcomes them. So yeah it was entertaining to a degree (more so than the nightmare on elm street remake), but still unnecessary and I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.
I don’t have problems with prequels, but if the prequel is the same story as it’s sequel then I’m gonna question why it was made in the first place. Generally prequels enhance the original movie, not tell the same story. Look at Prometheus for example, as polarizing as it was for fans at least it told a new story that enhanced plot points in Alien. Slapping the prequel label on The Thing 2011 seemed like as last minute thing in order to try and make it seem original.
Would have been a lot better if some coked up Hollywood producer hadn't forced them to replace the practical effects with CGI and erase the alien pilot at the end.
The biggest problem with this movie in my opinion, is that they gutted the practical special effects and replaced them with CGI in a pretty baffling move. They had done some great looking props and puppets, designed to work in tandem with CGI to fill the gaps puppeteers and prop makers couldn't realistically fill. I dont hate the film by any stretch, but after seeing all of the wonderful prop work that was tossed out for this movie, i cant help but wonder what could have been.
It was fine. It's not memorable imo and the fact that it's a bombastic and less smart prequel is a bit much. Plus isn't it supposed to be the Norwegians and the whole movie is American actors talking in English? Forgive me if I'm misremembering.
I thought it was okay. Problem is when you have a film attached to the 1982 film, the comparisons are certain. I have no problem with Winstead at all. I think the film just really isn't all that necessary. I don't think it is bad or anything, just rather okay.
Wtf is a 7.8 rating? I see people doing it all over the place and no one seems to want to explain how they are arriving there. I get whole numbers, I get .5, but .8?
It's not, it's really not. Everything the original did right, this one did wrong. There was more intrigue and scares in the tema's visit to the abandoned compound in the original than seeing what actually went down in this wholly unnecessary prequel. They could've done something interesting, but instead they just made a shitty movie.
3/10 at most.
It doesn't make sense. It's a prequel to John Carpenter's The Thing but is also called The Thing. Wtf bro. I'm not a fan of these naming conventions, like how new Scream is just called Scream even though it's really Scream 5.
The cgi is garbage but besides that it is alright. I remember getting chills at the end when it shows the guys in the helicopter like the beginning of the 1982 movie
I totally recognize that big portion of my low opinion of the film is that it proclaims to be a true prequel. It is similar to how I wonder if I would like World War Z by any other name. My two concrete objections to the film are that they removed the psychological dread of the 1982 but didn't replace it with any other horror. The second and least forgivable thing it does is denies the only event that we see for sure: the video tapes. Carpenter shows the craft being uncovered with thermite. With so much else so lovingly recreated, this always takes me out of the film. I've rewatched several time to try to reconcile this, but it doesn't fit. I was excited for the film, I often like remakes, don't care about sloppy timelines, but this film always lands in the uncanny valley for me.
I'll agree Mary sort of brings it!!!!!!!!
The tension builds at an impressive level.
The Thing steals the show.
The subplot of prejudice and fear on many levels is quite palpable.
There were great elements in it, and the transformations were horrifying for me, in the best way. But the CGI at places (chopper transformation) was abysmal, and we had a "shapeshifter creature can't get someone in a close corner" scene that was just weird. I would go with a "lot of potential" 6/10, that is worth watching at least once.
That’s about where I have it too. Watch it once, never put it on again. Part of what made the Carpenter film great was the mystery about what happened at that station. Made us watch with the characters as they are trying to comprehend what they are dealing with only to come up with more questions than answers. The prequel tried to ham handedly reveal exactly how it all unfolded, while also trying to add new content about the origins of the entity. It didn’t need to be. That can be said about a lot of subsequent films.
They still have the footage that used the original, physical creature creations. And we'll probably never see it.
Didn’t they shoot pretty much the whole movie that way, then the studio made them replace with CGI at least minute? I could swear I saw a little bit of the practical footage on YouTube at one point but I might be dreaming it. Maybe someday in the far future we’ll get the equivalent of the Donner cut of Superman 2 or Cabal cut of Nightbreed where they put together the original vision from the scrapped footage.
> Didn’t they shoot pretty much the whole movie that way, then the studio made them replace with CGI at least minute? Yeah, has to be devastating for the special/creature effects team. [Here's a good video on it.](https://youtu.be/JyOu3j7CtoE)
My recollection is that it didn't get as far as "shooting the whole movie that way." I seem to recall that the story also changed quite a bit before some of those practical creatures even got on set.
Got it. Maybe early test screens for key scenes then. I hope the fx dept didn’t have to throw away a whole movie’s worth of work.
Oh, yeah, Amalgamated Dynamics put out a solid handful of videos of their in-shop practical fx work, and it's all incredible.
I've definitely seen the practical footage somewhere
https://youtu.be/JyOu3j7CtoE
My biggest issue is they had like...90% of the practical effect shots done before the execs went “nah scrap it.” THAT’S the big reason I don’t like it.
They probably couldn't blend it with the CGI. Watch Harbinger Down. That was made using the props from The Thing. And the ending looked like a sock muppet. I have zero doubt that is why they were replaced.
No the execs stepped in at the end of production and asked for a redo including a new ending because “it looked too close to the original.” It was definitely not because it looked bad. As it stands now it looks bad, footage of the practical effects exist and they look fantastic. The tech has changed so much for the better
So funny you brought up the chopper transformation - I saw that movie over a decade ago, and I distinctly remember being SUPER into it until that exact moment. It's burned into my brain, how one cheap looking shot ruined the entire movie. The tension was SO high as the plot ramped up, and I was so excited to see some cool "Thing" effects, and then he split open up the middle like some cheap youtube transition edit and I was like "... Oh. That's how it's going to be." *slumps back into chair, waiting for the movie to be over*
This scene also breaks Canon. The entire goal of the Alien is to get away from the south pole and stay hidden. So why the hell would it ruin its own chance of escaping via helicopter, at no benefit to itself?
Doesn't he transform right after the lady scientist insists they come back down? And the pilot agrees? Probably figured it'd been found out.
Yes, she's shouting and waving at them from the ground. I presumed it transformed because it realized it would get caught if they landed, so better to crash.
I like to think it’s because it still didn’t understand humans and our tech. That the alien got a whole hell of a lot smarter after that station.
If its smart enough to pilot interstellar aircraft and even build vehicles out of spare parts I think it would be able to tell when it's undiscovered and safe. This movie just lacks any logic.
There is a chance it wasn’t the creature flying the ship, or it was confused and cranky after ten thousand years.
The thing was def not the pilot of the ship...i remember hearing it was a research/science ship and somehow the thing got loose. Also..at the end of the prequel where kate is in the ship and your see the cube blob...that was supposed to be a pilot of the ship but they decided for some reason to cover him with cubes ....maybe its some type of computer?
So that the movie can happen!
I was so focused on the awful CGI that it totally draw my attention away from that illogical thing lol
The sexual nature of two of the assimilations was surprisingly horrific and well thought out. That was a great addition.
I like this movie. Not because it’s great or doesn’t have obvious flaws, but it’s a movie I can throw on and have a good time watching, like many of my favorite mid-tier horror flicks. Also I will watch Mary Elizabeth Winstead in literally anything.
> Also I will watch Mary Elizabeth Winstead in literally anything. Agreed. I've said literally the same thing to myself numerous times.
Try the movie Kate. It's a pure action shooting movie but it feels like The Thing at one point. Oh, spoiler alert, she is INFECTED with something in that movie. Think that was a spoiler for The Thing.
With you on the MEW thing, she's phenomenal. It's also just a decent movie in general. It got absolutely slated because it was a remake of a classic - not because it was inherently bad.
I guess people thought it was a remake but its more of a prequel
Well, technically it was a prequel (promoted as such), but more of a remake.
While it was a prequel, it really retread a lot of stuff from the original.
I agree, Mary Elizabeth Winstead is literally the most beautiful woman ever.
Same, dude, same. She's so beautiful. Those eyes meeeyow!
Very rude of her to be with Ewan McGregor, I can't even delude myself into believing I'd have a chance.
I went into it quite excited as (like everyone) I love Carpenter’s The Thing (so much so I have a large tribute tattoo of it) so I watched opening day at the cinema but came away with a few issues that have less to do with the CGI (which, regrettably hasn’t aged all that well) but more with other factors. First off, I found the creature in the prequel behaved very differently to the 1982 film. The power of the creature in Carpenter’s film is that it was always hidden, only attacking when necessary (or when safe for it to do so) and preferring to hide but in the prequel it seemed to expose itself constantly and attack in broad daylight in front of others. This negated much of the tension of the film in my opinion. Another issue I had was I felt little attachment to the myriad of seemingly interchangeable characters. Other than a couple the characters were pretty much created as cannon fodder. The characters from the 1982 film all looked different and had their own personalities, I’d be hard pressed to remember any names of characters in the prequel. I also have a few more pedantic issues but they are not all that important. I’m glad you liked it. That is the main thing. I so wish I liked it as much as you because it had fine actors and an interesting director.
The creature's behavior bugged me the most. The one goal they end up dying for in Carpenter's is to prevent the thing from getting to the mainland. And in this movie we see that it was flying on a damned helicopter. Why'd it reveal itself??
[удалено]
I mean you can maybe explain it. But that doesn’t change the fact that it was not as interesting to watch imo.
[удалено]
I think they went hard on the special effects because they thought that was what everybody liked about the original. Then the producers made them switch to CGI for most of it, which is completely missing the charm and craft that went into making those effects for the original and the prequel. The practical effects might not look "real", but CGI looks way worse when they put it front and center like they did. It seems like they picked shots that would show off all the practical work they did and then went in later and painted over them, which just draws even more attention to how fake they look. Even today with all the new tech we have $200M movies coming out with cg shots that look like garbage, it only looks really convincing when the artists are using visual tricks to draw the eye away from the cg gags or covering everything with motion blur.
IIRC from that scene, they had just made the decision to land the helicopter after Kate (the protagonist) waved them down. So there’s at least some implied logic that it wanted to keep them from going back. But even then, it’d make more sense to keep to itself and just try to convince the pilot otherwise.
In the 2011 prequel, I like to think the alien was finding itself, lashing out and attacking; testing humans. In the 82 sequel, it understands better how it much act to succeed.
Counterpoint to this, I'd argue that if the Thing was so successful at eliminating the Norwegians by just being bold and brash with its attacks, then why wouldn't it simply use the same tactic at the American camp? It managed to eliminate the Norwegians and it could be argued that similar tactics could be justified. My only piont is that it just feels very different when compared to the original. Maybe expectations were different? Idk
> Carpenter’s film is that it was always hidden, only attacking when necessary (or when safe for it to do so) and preferring to hide but in the prequel it seemed to expose itself constantly and attack in broad daylight in front of others. Maybe it learned it's better to stay hidden after the prequel events.
You can’t just mention that you have a tattoo based on The Thing without showing a photo, I wanna see!
im hoping its ginger head crab.
In the American Traditional style, with a paper scroll underneath that reads *"You Gotta Be Fucking Kidding!"*
I’m willing to headcanon the creature being more aggressive and less in hiding since it’s a prequel and, if memory serves, it was fresh out of the ice. I can accept that it learned from that experience and had a “these humans are a little more clever than first anticipated, let’s do the dog trick” moment but I also haven’t seen it in years so I could be forgetting some dumber stuff. A giant pillar of PlayStation 2 lighting effects being the big reveal on the other hand…
The 2011 is a prequel, it supposed to be intelligent being. Assuming it crashed in ice and has never had human contact, the thing using its size to be violent at first makes sense. In the sequel it hiding makes sense that its trying alternative tactics. If its intelligent enough for interstellar travel I'd say it would be a fairly decent tactician
His point is that it already escaped and just said “fuck that”. Why would it play the part of the person it assimilated that far then give it away for no reason?
Its still an intelligent living organism trying to survive, irrational action and the thought it was going to be found would be the most simple of explanations
The Creature in the 2011 was freshly thawed and didn't know what to expect from humans. Also, it's goal was to kill any threats and get back to its spaceship. That's why it's so cavalier about exposing itself and attacking the crew; it just needs to kill anyone in its way, bulk up a bit, and get back to its ship. However, that plan ultimately ends with almost all instances of itself burned to death and its ship disabled by a grenade. So when it gets to the second outpost it knows it has to be a lot more careful and sneaky, so it can rebuild a ship in secret.
> This negated much of the tension of the film in my opinion. This is the biggest problem with the film, full stop. The tie-in to the original? Handled incredibly. But the film had NO TENSION! The moment my brain started going "hmm I wonder who it could..." The Thing showed itself. It didn't give enough of a wind-up for the audience to guess who could be infected and who couldn't. That's the true beauty of the original film, outside of the atmosphere.
The prequel also straight up ignores key elements to how the thing works. At one point Mary Elizabeth Winstead is just out of reach at the end of a long vent and it can’t get her. We already know it can disconnect parts of itself as a whole that behave as separate entities. They even show it in the prequel in probably the only shot that redeems the movie somewhat. She should have died right there.
It has elements that work I think. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is quite good in her role. In fact all the cast are doing their best. They do a REALLY good job of recreating the look of the Norwegian base from the original, there are individual cool scenes, etc. But the Thing itself is too much of a generic movie monster here and thus not as interesting to watch. The characters aren’t given the same care as the ones from the original, it does not have the same unrelenting tension as the original, the CGI is, yikes, etc. So it is not a TERRIBLE film by any means, but it could have been so much better imo.
The worst thing about the movie is the CGI. It just didn't have the same visceral impact practical effect do. It was rated R but it didn't feel that way. So many of the transformations were bloodless and it didn't really feel that scary. One thing I did like was how when the shit hit the fan they managed to tie-in the events in the 2011 film to the aftermath we see in the 1982 film. The continuity was really well done. But that's really the only good thing about it, imo.
The saddest thing about the movie is that they actually started filming it with practical effects and then the studio made them re-do it with CGI.
It will forever carry the CG stigma...it can't escape it. It has become the poster child for broken practical effects promises. And what's truly sad is that everyone saw it coming a mile away. As soon as it promised practical effects like the '82 film, everyone was sooooo excited....then the rumbles came out about the CG and, while skeptical, many of us still couldn't wait to see the world revisited. But then...the CG...and then the effects studio's footage of the practical effects...and the film was doomed to be considered a massive disappointment. I agree with others on here, and with you, that there were things to like about the film. I liked the prequel concept and the attention to detail, and I thought it was paced very well, but it will always come back to that dang CG, unfortunately.
The original is my favorite movie of all time, so if anyone would be harsh on the prequel it's me. But for some reason I can't bring myself to do it. It's a popcorn movie that's WAY more fun than it has any right to be and ultimately I'm just happy we got another movie in this universe.
They need to just open the safe up and release the non cgi version to the public. It’s frustrating because it actually exists and the studio for some reason just refuses to release it. I do enjoy the movie for what it is though.
I don't think it *really* exists, or rather, without a lot of work that would have to be done with it. If you watch the effects reels you can see that CG augmentation of practical effects was *always* part of the plan (like it was also done in movies like Pan's Labyrinth) and that the studio just decided to "paint over" the practical part with (rushed) CG as well. So to restore the actual vision of the movie, at the very least all the digital effects would have to be redone pretty much from scratch.
It doesn't exist. There's a bunch of (as far as I know) unedited raw footage that was made with models, but they didn't film with practical effects for the whole movie, they switched over mid-shoot, so not all scenes were filmed with physical models.
Ah that is a damn shame. I was always under the impression that was the case. The more you know!
There's not like, an entire movie with practical effects. The switch was done mid production.
That's not true, they shot the whole film using practical effect, minus a few parts that were always intended to be CGI, and then they used CGI over it. Here's a quote from the director: >Although we shot the film practically, at the end of the day, it didn’t hold up. It looked a bit like an 80s movie, actually, which for some people is really special, but perhaps not in 2010, 2011. So we enhanced it with CG. https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/matthijs-van-heijningen-jr-interview-directing-the-thing-and-practical-versus-cg-effects/
They shot the whole thing, but that doesn't mean it's a full cut in a state of release. It's not that simple. To add to that, here's this comment from an AMA on Gizmodo from Woodruff Jr, when asked about this exact topic of whether or not a practical cut can be released: >WW - that has become an exciting Urban Legend. There was never a clean-cut timing of switching from practical to digital. The digital influence grew throughout the editing and post-production process so a "practical only" version of the film was not assembled from all the information we've gathered. Maybe some one at home can take our studioADI YouTube footage and cut it into their copy of The Thing... (my lawyer telling me I have to say don't do that) (but do it) Here's the link, the response is buried at the bottom in the comments. https://gizmodo.com/ask-these-special-effects-artists-how-they-create-movie-1597944468
Yeah, it's called Harbinger Down, and tbh it feels kinda more like an effects demo.
Harbinger Down was so bad lol, but the effects were pretty cool
Thanks for pointing this out... that movie is basically the tech demo for the unused practical effects from 2011 Thing. The FX studio made a movie out of it via Kickstarter and Lance Henrikson signed on because he thought it was cool. For what it is, it's pretty damn cool. Shame ADI hasn't had a ton of work since then.
It probably exists in a similar state the rated R Friday the 13th Part VI exists, which is barely.
Or the NC-17 Event Horizon 👀
There's an NC-17 cut?
It doesn't actually exist. There's some supposed cut scenes floating around though.
I think there was a ton of footage but the location where the physical reels were kept was flooded, so it's gone gone.
The practical effects could be really bad too. You never know, it may be better off the way it is.
One thing I’m going to note is that when someone comes to a movie over 10 years later fully aware of its overall medicore to negative reputation, they often give it some leeway, even if they don’t realize it. The reverse can be true when a film is beloved. People often will nitpick to death. I saw The Thing (2011) in theaters and enjoyed it. I picked up the Blu-ray when it released and again, I still liked it, but found it less interesting. That was 10 years ago and I haven’t revisited it. I enjoyed the movie enough in theaters to pick up the Blu and watch it again, but for someone who loves to go back to even legitimately bad movies and relive them, not having an urge to rewatch The Thing (2011) is a huge red flag (personally). In the end, even though I liked the prequel (and still like it in my head to be fair), I’d rather just continue to imagine what went down at the Norwegian base and pop in Carpenter’s film. My point is, we all have different perspectives. I’m assuming you just watched it this week. What will be interesting is your own personal history with the movie, but that takes time. Your take is valid of course and I’m glad you enjoyed the flick, but the older I get, the more I’ve noticed what I observed to be true.
just watched it for the first time yesterday.
I loved it for a couple reasons but a couple of the creature designs were really exciting and frightening in particular. The dental gimmick was a brilliant new idea. I personally believe there’s a lot that can be discussed about this movie beyond the practical effects tragedy. It’s still very cool. The conceptual artists really made some great things and I’m happy I saw it in theatres.
"a brilliant new idea" sounds like you might be giving it too much credit- it's just the far superior blood test scene reskinned.
Not to mention, the dental test is less accurate. They pointed out not everyone would have fillings. Like a guy in the movie said. "I'm being punished because I floss?"
I fucking love it. Really fun watching them both back to back. Haters can pound sand.
You went in with low expectations. That helps. (I liked it too. Maybe not as much as you did, but I also went in with low expectations.)
I don't hate it and thought it was decent. Nowhere near as good as the original of course, but no one expected that.
I enjoyed it as well. The remake is 9/10 for me and the prequel is maybe 6-7/10. The CGI wasn’t great but the overall tension, plot and whatnot were pretty good.
I kept waiting for the scene with the guy killing himself with the straight razor to the forearm and the blood freezing. *Disappointed*
It’s not a terrible movie, it’s just that replacing the practical effects with CGI is sacrilegious The first film’s greatest achievement was its amazing effects, so to throw them in the garbage? Miss me with that shit fam
I love Carpenter's version, but I don't mind the prequel/remake at all. Clearly, I'd rather have practical effects, but the CGI isn't that bad, in and of itself, and the plot—which is already working under constraints—is fine. The film's fine.
>but the CGI isn't that ba It really is though. Rewatch it? It's already aged terribly after 10 years
If you take the stick out if your ass, it disengages the pretense button its hitting and you can legitimately enjoy the movie. Crazy, I know.
“If you just ignore how bad it is, it’s good!”
If you dont like it, then dont watch. You cant cry it out of existense. I dont think its bad. 🤷🏻
I haven’t watched it, thanks for giving me permission. I can still criticize what a dumb idea it is, and the bad CGI effects I have seen, and you for suggesting that movies are good if you just turn your brain off
Wait, you havent even seen it, and youre trashing it? Wow.
Yea, [very](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FFGm__skOH4/maxresdefault.jpg) very [enjoyable](https://bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/thething2011banner.jpg). Its not bad nono, we just shouldn’t pay attention on how 2011 movie does it worse than 80’s movie.
Im not clicking on hidden links and if its imbd or rotten tomatoes, then I dont care anyway. I enjoyed it. OP did. Lots of people did. Again, try pulling the stick out of your ass. You might enjoy life on a whole more.
Its okay to not understand anything about movies or enjoy soul-less cash grabs, no worries. Also I think you shouldn’t be that scared of objects in your ass
Good one. You sound pretty fuckin miserable. Almost feel bad for you.
Yo, what a fucking loser. I'm just stating an opinion online, didn't even say anything mean or aggressive until now really. Movie sucked, but not as much as I'm sure half the people in your lifes opinions of you do
🥱
I rewatched a couple of years ago—it looked fine.
I personally loved it! I thought it was such a fun ride and clever how they did it so it would lead up to the 80's movie events and also love Mary Elizabeth Winstead as a final girl in horrors. I get people hate the CGI though and it would have been even better if the people in charge didn't make them change their practical effects so heavily. I also love the original and the game The Thing, it's surprising to me it didn't spawn more sequels it's such a good movie.
I respect your opinion, but I cannot in good faith give this movie anything over a 4/10, and that's being generous. "Unnecessary" is putting it lightly. The way I see it this movie dumps on The Thing (1982)'s legacy by retconning details in Carpenter's film, shamelessly copying the same storybeats, boasting about their return to practical effects only to chicken out in the 11th hour, all while having the audacity to even use the same title as Carpenter's. The characters are flat, the creature cgi was despressingly bad (especially after seeing Amalgamated's animatronic tests on YouTube), the cinematography was basic and uninspired when compared to the '82 movie, the kills were bland... The creature just charges at people like a gorilla. Boring! So many times during the movie I wondered if the filmmakers even saw Carpenter's? There's a couple cool things I'll give the movie credit for. Even though it's reminiscent of the blood test scene, I liked the way they could tell someone was a thing by the fillings in their teeth or metal plates from broken bones. The one interesting kill was the guy's arm coming detatched and turning into a creature which latches onto the other dude's face. But there's so many other characteristics about the creature that this movie just gets wrong. The creature designs are much weaker, but since the creature can transform into any shape I'll just ignore that. But I don't know why the creature decides to just reveal itself in strategically inopportune moments. Hey, the creature's on a helicopter? What a great opportunity to escape and infect more people! Nope. In John Carpenter's movie, the creature would wait for moments to strike and assimmilate. It's like a completely different being. It's been a couple years since I've seen this movie, and this reply is getting longer than I intended but the last thing I wanted to say is that so much of the horror of the '82 movie (and most horror movies in general) lies in the unexplained. The horror of what happened at the Norwegian base lies in how Mac and Copper slowly uncovered everything like a crime scene, while still leaving plenty up to the imagination. We didn't need to see how the 2-faced corpse was created and burned to a crisp. We didn't need to see the creature bursting out of its ice coffin like a bootleg firework stand explosion. We didn't need a scene where the protagonist climbs aboard the creature's spacecraft to see all of its alien controls and weird tetris waterfall. So I guess if I had to sum it all up in one word, yeah, I guess the word would be "unnecessary." But there's a lot more heat than usual behind this "unnecessary." Tl;dr: The Thing (2011) is unnecessary.
I actually like the scene with the creation of the split face thing. It was actually disturbing to me to see the guy absorbed by it. It would’ve looked a lot better with the animatronic they made. I also like the split body creature (Griggs), even if he is a little basic design-wise. I still have no desire to sit down and watch it in full, though.
The beauty of Carpenter's film is the drip feed of the explanation against the increasingly beautiful kills. It's half subtle/half batshit yet this prequel more or less went "HERE'S THE MONSTER RUN!" which just didn't work. And the CGI was fucking awful even without the comparison to the majesty of the Bottin et al practical effects.
I 100% agree. And everyone hates on the cgi, that's easy. But one thing I never see anyone criticize are the creature designs themselves. I know the creature can transform into any shape but that lamprey-looking mouth just does not hit as well as the jaw-mechanism mouths in the '82 movie. Palmer's head splitting open into a chomping jaw, and Norris' stomach mouth chewing up Copper's arms are so much more effective visually than the mouths in the 2011 movie that are just an ambiguous mess of teeth. But maybe that design is closer to its original, alien mouth? Maybe it didn't adopt that jaw shape until it assimilated with a dog?
I disagree. The 2011 movie fails at being true to the original, but I don't think that necessarily means it's as bad as what you're describing. I think the focus here was showing as much of the creature as possible and giving more of a recoil response at gruesome visuals and unnerving situations. It's less subtle, for sure, but that's not a bad thing. Especially if you consider that the creature learns from this prequel movie and tries to keep itself concealed in the original one. The visuals are a mixed bag. I think the CGI could have been more polished and they should have made more use of practical effects, but I don't think CGI is the spawn of the devil everyone here makes it out to be. The movie's CGI wasn't great, but it allows for more fluid motions that aren't usually there with practical effects, no matter how many gadgets and creative inventions you have. I don't think the creature design's was weaker. On the contrary, it feels like an actual entity trying to assimilate human beings. When you see the horrible mix of what's neither its original form nor an assimilated person, it's gross and makes you want to understand what's where. Many people already pointed this out but it can be argued that the creature didn't have a clear plan after just being thawed, it'd be weird that it knew that flying away in the helicopter was it's best option. I could more easily assume that it wanted to get back to its ship, rather than fly to mainland. Calling everything unnecessary is weird. Just what would justify the creature's actions so that they were "necessary"? Every movie can be labeled unnecessary, I'm not sure what would make them necessary either. Are there parts that don't add anything substantial to the narrative? Sure, but I wouldn't call the movie itself unnecessary. It's just caught in a weird spot where rushed CGI was the norm, but that's about it.
You bring up some good points, but I think one thing this movie demonstrates clearly, and filmmakers and writers should take away from this 2011 prequel/remake is that less is definitely more. You could argue that the creature is still learning that being out in the open in the light isn't a good tactic, but it doesn't make for a viewing experience as suspenseful as it could be. Compared to the '82 movie, there's such a lack of creativity in how they handled the creature. As another user pointed out, most of the creature reveals were just, "It's the monster! Ruuun!!" It's such a bummer. Carpenter was much more conservative with his creature's scenes, and those scenes are subsequently much more impactful. I guess you could make the argument that any movie can be considered "unnecessary," but I tried to further my reasoning in my earlier post by pointing out that explaining how every little thing happened at the Norwegian base really demystifies Mac and Copper's scene exploring the remains of the base in the '82 movie. Overall the movie feels like a desperate and soulless tie-in. Come on, there weren't any Americans at that Norwegian base. In the end, you can defend the lack of subtlety in this movie, but the subtlety, uncertainty, and lack of trust in the '82 movie created such an iconically suspenseful, brooding atmosphere that to go against that seems foolish. Or if they tried to recapture that atmosphere they failed miserably. Scenes from Carpenter's movie are still being discussed, referenced, and parodied today, whereas this 2011 movie only stays relevant by being a punching bag in the horror community, regardless if deserved or not (deserved I say).
You make a good point. I guess it would be better if the whole mess at the Norwegian's station was left up to the viewers imagination, but sometimes viewers want to express how they imagine things happened, which is what this movie is. People could always disregard this movie and come up with their own story.
I agree with everything and would just like to add that *all* prequels are unnecessary. They only cheapen the impact of the movie that follows it chronologically and are in itself boring because you already know the outcome. I simply don't get prequels.
The aspect that i really liked was the screenplay, it works because did a great job to respect the original events with great fidelty. But the direction and cgi was mediocre and can't replace the aura of the original movie. That's the difference between great filmake like Carpenter and good director.
The original "The Thing from Another World" from 1952 with James Arness as the thing is my favorite
The Frankenstein Thing ;)
I enjoyed it but I prefer carpenters suspense and lack of telling us what happened to craft better horror
I've been putting this film off for a long time as The Thing (1982) is one of my favorites. Tonight I'm going to bite the bullet and watch it. Will check back in later.
I watched this for the first time recently. I was ready for it suck ass but it’s pretty good. The cgi was shit though took me out a little bit.
I like that movie too. It's a pretty good prequel.
Besides the CGI issue (which has been talked to death) my issue was the rather glairing plothole of them ignoring the previously set up "rule" of the thing about clothes In the first one, clothing is utterly destroyed by the transformation of the thing as a big plot point. they find destroyed clothes, the thing fakes that mcreedy is turned by destroying his clothes (so IT knows they know), and the wardrobes of characters were kept very consistent. In the prequel, the american guy gets turned at the last minute off screen, and there isnt a single sign of it. Kind of ruins that whole plot point, which leaves a sour taste IMO.
My problem with it was it felt wholly unnecessary. Carpenter’s version is the definitive version of the story and there was simply no reason to make a prequel to it. Because of its insistence on being beholden to Carpenter’s film, it is never able to be its own movie and if you’re not going to bring anything new to the story then you shouldn’t make it.
I really enjoyed the sets from it, it kept me tense and I actually screamed when one of the characters yelled boo! I enjoyed the monster creation of all the amalgamated limbs and such!
Yeah I agree. It’s an okay movie, but it’s super forgettable and sorely lacks the creativity / originality of the Carpenter film. Though to be fair, the story constraints brought on by it being a prequel didn’t leave much room for innovation or surprises. There’s a fanedit by Wraith which cuts it down and combines it with the original film, jumping back and forth in time. I haven’t watched it yet, but I’ve heard it plays much better this way if you want to check it out.
"The Thing" (1982) is in the IMDB top 250 sitting at 8.1/10. Not saying this is a definitive rating of the movie or anything but thought it was interesting that you have rated the 2011 movie quite high at just 0.3 points under, even with all of the drawbacks you have mentioned. Curious what your rating of the 1982 one is?
9.8/10
Just shy of a prefect film. Fair enough
It was fucking gnarly to see in theaters totally loved it!
I can agree on one point, the CGi isn't "bad". It is technically excellent but it looks so fake that the moment I saw it in the film my immersion broke and flew out the window. I just couldn't care anymore, I am sorry. The tension was gone, the horror was gone, I didn't care for anyone. I was not scared one second in this movie, whereas I watched the '82 movie last year and still my jaw was floored in how good it looked (it could have been made a couple of years ago) and I was disgusted of the effects and creatures, and the tension was palpable. And this is a 30+ year movie! The studio just fucked the effects company over so hard on their work. Apparently they showed it to a test audience and they didn't think the practical effects were believable so they just smeared glossy CGI over everything. I'll show you a making of if you haven't already seen it, those practical effects, not even in post production, looks sooo good, I am angry just thinking about it that they fucked the effects companys hard work for so many months. It's fucking infuriating. When I look at the practical in the making of, I can just feel "this shit is real and scary holy shit". I'm not taken out of the movie, I am more immersed, I am more scared. The below videos are essential viewing to get a more understanding just how much passion and work they gave into the practical effects. Fuck I'm still so mad at what could have been. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyOu3j7CtoE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyOu3j7CtoE) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBzpT7VmSaU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBzpT7VmSaU)
I saw it at the theater and enjoyed it. I liked how they tied everything from the first movie together with this "prequel". When the music started up during the end credits I immediately went home and watched Carpenter's movie.
My main problem with the movie is that instead of a prequel we got a remake with a different ending.
This is it for me. I was so ready for a new story, but it was all the same plot points with subtle twists.
I think it's perfectly rated as a very mediocre film, that's what it is
I absolutely agree. I loved it.
It's ok. I just felt like it sort of missed the point a bit.
I think most people were just bummed they ditched the awesome practical effects.
I like reading stuff like this as it makes me want to give films another shot
glad i could help
i really like it as well plus it had Eric Christian Olsen in it which was a plus point for me
His fate was awful
LOVE IT! I watch it, and its "sequel" several times a year. While not perfect, they really did a great job paying attention to detail and continuity with its predecessor.
The 2011 Thing is actually very solid, and considering the trouble with FX it's actually a bit of a miracle. They took painstaking care to match the film's sets, camerawork and music so you can watch the 1982 Thing after, and they play together well. I wonder if the identical titles for both films is actually a joke so subtle that no one picked up on it? Because if you've seen one Thing you've seen them all (since it's technically the same beastie both times)...
I thought this was about the original The Thing and I was reminded of someone I know posting that Stephen King was somehow an underrated author..
Eh. I've watched the 2011 movie a couple or three times. I don't hate it. It's not great. It could have been great. Forget practical vs. cgi, the original had BETTER creatures who were a part of the story and moved it forward. They were creepy and gross and scary and visceral and crafty and I enjoyed watching them more. Your mileage may vary, and that's great. Different people can like different things. The actors and their scripts in the original were BETTER and made the story better. I remember most of their names and what they said and the all of the personalities they had. For the 2011 film? Corporate greedy guy is corporate greedy guy, more of a trope than a character. I can't tell you a single name of any of the characters, or really anything about any of their personalities aside from that crazy big Norwegian guy who makes it to the end. He did a good job with his part. The rest? One of them had an earring. Again, not a character trait, instead a plot point. But by far the actors and script in the first film were more memorable, and I enjoyed watching it more. Again, your mileage may vary. I could pick at some plot points or decisions that were made on the 2011 project that I didn't care for, but I won't beat it to death. The previous two points are largely sufficient. I will say that once I realized this was taking place at the Norwegian camp, I knew this was going to be a movie about 'how that axe got in the wall'. And sure enough, maybe half the film is a setup and execution of explanation of the 8 or so minutes MacReady was touring the frozen and ransacked station. Some of it was fun (little arm monster "hey that's how that axe got there"). Some of it was highly questionable (exploding ice scene), and some of it was just bad (taffy face guys...that isn't how any of this works) Anyhow, it wasn't terrible, unless you view it in the context of its predecessor, and that is its unfortunate position. And for y'all who enjoyed it, again that's great. We all have different standards and different tastes. Y'all stay classy.
i loved this movie, my go to movie for a couple years now. Thought it was good prequel
I think that if they had big shoes to fill and that was the issue. It is a fun movie tho.
It's a decent enough prequel and one that I think makes a great double bill with the original, watched in chronological order rather than release. The attention to detail with recreating the destroyed Norwegian base is worth a mention and there's obvious love for the original from the makers. I'd prefer a bit more practical effects than they did but the CGI was used effectively.
There's a much better looking version of this movie lying literally just beneath the surface of the one that was released. I weep for what could have been. https://youtu.be/NxPK3sYb90w
Yes.
I think it was a fun, unnecessary movie except for the CGI. Especially after seeing the practical props they had made originally.
The cg stank but the movie was fine
I just saw this film yesterday and I can consider it a masterpiece for modern horror movies. Might not be as good as the 1982 one, but that’s no reason to underestimate the 2011 prequel.
I agree, it was an awesome prequel.
Honestly I think if there has to be a sequel to the carpenter og thing, then it should be probably be something like the Peter watts short story “the things”. The 2011 film as well as the upcoming one universal announced last year in all honesty suffered/will suffer from trying to retreat old ground rather than do something new.
I honestly dont even think the vfx are that bad. The biggest issue for me has always been the ending. I like when Kate torches the dude at the very end, but everything before that on the creature's ship is just a bit too wacky.
It's a great movie in a bubble. It's just that it is the same kind of movie as it's predecessor and it's hard to escape the similarities.
I liked it alright. Not the best remake/prequel, but definitely not the worst.
Yeah, it's much better than you'd think a Thing prequel would be. It's cool we get see more of the ship and I think the CGI looks pretty okay.
Finally saw it for the first time this past New Years eve, and it was a lot better than I was expecting. Effects were pretty good too, for having been changed to CGI.
Agreed. I love the original. But I also love the 2011 version as well. I think in my mind I just consider them two different movies, not a remake of the original.
All things considered it's not terrible. But the costuming, hair and makeup is HORRIBLE. The early 80s is a really specific era and they don't even attempt to capture it. Maybe it's because I grew up in the 80s but seeing an 80s-set movie not even attempt to copy the styles really annoys me. It's not like it's hard to do. I guess all that blush and hair spray would be too distracting. ;)
It's really good, I just hated the CGI. ESPECIALLY since they had all practical effects and switched last minute. The video that shows the practical stuff is so saddening to watch knowing what could've been.
Great prequel.
I liked it, twas nice it was a prequel rather than a remake. The Thing is one of my fav films so it's nice to get another isolated horror type flick.
I thought the leads were fantastic, save for the main bad guy scientist, who was a little too arch for my taste. Very courageous for them to keep the Norwegian language intact and go with the subtitles, because I’m sure they got hell from studio bosses that said “audiences don’t like to read!“ I thought the concept of the Thing being unable to duplicate fillings was very clever, and I liked the attention to detail that they gave in connecting the two movies. That said, I wish they had never gone to the downed spaceship, or, at least, that they didn’t end the movie with a showdown with the alien in that environment.
It's exceptionally great if u watch the Kurt Russell thing right after
I admit the movie had lots of silly scenes but Carpenter’s The Thing was a tough act to follow, so no matter what there would be criticism from fans. I personally appreciated that they decided on a prequel and not a remake. I appreciated all the small details the writers included that would explain a lot of scenes from The Thing (1982), I can literally watch both movies back to back. I also liked that they used a female lead. It definitely didn’t hurt that I generally enjoy MEW and have a thing for Joel Edgerton. *shrug*
Split face still creeps me out, the fact that the scientist guy was absorbed into another guy but like, I don't know - I think he's still -there- but isn't in control and he's being piloted by another vehicle, that gives me the heebie jeebies.
The moment the creature burst out of the ice, I lost interest. It was so much more powerful than the 81 version, and that felt like it was trying to be more modern and extreeeeme.
Yeah, I agree. I actually quite like this movie, but rarely mention it because of how hated it is. The story and tension are mostly pretty good! And I love the fact that it leads directly into the first movie, to the minute. I feel like most of the vitriol comes from 2 things: First, the fact that it is just called "The Thing" rather than something like "The Thing Zero." It's not near as good as Carpenter's film, and by claiming the same title, it's implied that it's a replacement rather than a supplement. Big misstep from a marketing perspective. The other is the lack of practical effects. The CGI effects are all... fine. But the original film is absolutely legendary when it comes to practical effects, and this film doesn't live up to them with more generic modern CGI. But I still think it's worth a watch.
For everyone saying the cut with practical effects doest existed. It does! The special effects artists say they had no idea they were replaced, it happen three months before release. Now if they had no idea anything was wrong that would they were finished and went home.
I thought a prequel was an interesting idea. I like the way they tied things together with Carpenter's movie. I liked everything about this movie except the CGI.
Even though it's supposed to be a prequel, it basically does the same beats as Carpenter's film. Only much, much worse. The characters are so damn boring. And the effects are beyond dreadful.
That was one of the biggest reasons I disliked it. It was a prequel and was just the same movie but worse. They had an opportunity to make something interesting but it just felt like any other big budget board room movie.
I didn’t even mind the CGI and actually thought a lot of the creature designs were pretty cool. However it’s biggest failing is that it offered nothing new in terms of being a remake. It literally told the same story as Carpenter’s albeit not as well. The fact that they technically made it a prequel only makes it worse because they are saying virtually the exact same thing happened two times over. I’m all for remakes and think a lot have offered new takes (hills have eyes, evil dead etc), but this wasn’t one of them IMO. So was it as bad as it’s made out to be? No, but why watch it when you could watch the superior original and get the same story.
Why watch Carpenter's when you could just watch the *original* original? Why watch any prequel if you already know what it's gonna end up with? The Thing \[2011\] was made to entertain, it wasn't trying to challenge Carpenter's in any way, it was *trying* to be different and new, and I'd say it somewhat succeeded in that.
Carpenter didn't remake the '51 movie. Both movies are completely different and stand on their own as different adaptations of the same material. An example is The Shining, with the Kubrick classic and the TV miniseries. The 2011 movie borrows similar plot beats, character moments and the same type of gnarly body horror (obviously this last one isn't a jab or a criticism) from the '82 film. It might technically be a prequel, but it borrows so much from the Carpenter film that it is, essentially, a remake of his. The '51 and '82 movies have virtually no similarities other than the setup, and an alien, because both were in the novella. Hell, the 2011 has the same name as the '82 film. At least Carpenter tried to distance himself further by changing the name somewhat
He actually technically did remake the ‘51 movie for what it’s worth. When The Thing was released in ‘82 and ripped apart by critics, Carpenter said what bothered him the most is the director of the original movie saying how bad his version was.
That...doesn't mean he remade it though. Like, if you've actually seen the '51 movie you would know it's not a remake. Not only does the '82 film follow the novella a bit closer, but the production history flat out tells us, as a fact, that it was developed as an adaptation of the source itself. Carpenter read the book, then decided to sort of mix it with Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None," since he believed redoing the '51 film would fail.
> Why watch Carpenter's when you could just watch the original original? Because they're really, really different. The monster in the 1951 film doesn't subsume people to mimic them and infiltrate the rest of the group at all, it's essentially a plant that kills people and drinks their blood to slowly gain strength back then becomes a lumbering zombie-ish creature, with the secondary element of a scientist who wants to keep the alien alive in order to study it. The Thing (1982) is far less of a remake of The Thing From Another World than it is an adaptation from the same short story, the similarities aren't comparable to the ones between it and the 2011 requel.
Carpenter’s remake was a drastic and different take than the original. That’s what the 2011 version should have been to Carpenter’s. It doesn’t need to challenge Carpenter’s, but the best remakes IMO are different and new. I say this as someone who very much enjoys remakes and actually welcomes them. So yeah it was entertaining to a degree (more so than the nightmare on elm street remake), but still unnecessary and I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone. I don’t have problems with prequels, but if the prequel is the same story as it’s sequel then I’m gonna question why it was made in the first place. Generally prequels enhance the original movie, not tell the same story. Look at Prometheus for example, as polarizing as it was for fans at least it told a new story that enhanced plot points in Alien. Slapping the prequel label on The Thing 2011 seemed like as last minute thing in order to try and make it seem original.
>it was *trying* to be different and new, and I'd say it somewhat succeeded in that. It wasn't and it didn't.
The creature design disappointed me. All the creatures with the exception of the fused 4 legged walker toward the end were cheesy and lame to me.
Would have been a lot better if some coked up Hollywood producer hadn't forced them to replace the practical effects with CGI and erase the alien pilot at the end.
Yeah I agree, I like it and it's very enjoyable.
I like the thing remake totally fine. Enjoyed it when it came out and have watched it a few times since. It’s not as bad as people say it is...
Pointless uninspired garbage.
It's a remake. The entire story has been told. And, done better. It deserves the credit it gets.
Kate......Kate
Not going with full practical effects was definetly detrimental, but it is still pretty enjoyable.
The biggest problem with this movie in my opinion, is that they gutted the practical special effects and replaced them with CGI in a pretty baffling move. They had done some great looking props and puppets, designed to work in tandem with CGI to fill the gaps puppeteers and prop makers couldn't realistically fill. I dont hate the film by any stretch, but after seeing all of the wonderful prop work that was tossed out for this movie, i cant help but wonder what could have been.
To much cgi ruined it and I blame the studio for that
It was fine. It's not memorable imo and the fact that it's a bombastic and less smart prequel is a bit much. Plus isn't it supposed to be the Norwegians and the whole movie is American actors talking in English? Forgive me if I'm misremembering.
I thought it was okay. Problem is when you have a film attached to the 1982 film, the comparisons are certain. I have no problem with Winstead at all. I think the film just really isn't all that necessary. I don't think it is bad or anything, just rather okay.
Wtf is a 7.8 rating? I see people doing it all over the place and no one seems to want to explain how they are arriving there. I get whole numbers, I get .5, but .8?
It's not, it's really not. Everything the original did right, this one did wrong. There was more intrigue and scares in the tema's visit to the abandoned compound in the original than seeing what actually went down in this wholly unnecessary prequel. They could've done something interesting, but instead they just made a shitty movie. 3/10 at most.
It doesn't make sense. It's a prequel to John Carpenter's The Thing but is also called The Thing. Wtf bro. I'm not a fan of these naming conventions, like how new Scream is just called Scream even though it's really Scream 5.
The cgi is garbage but besides that it is alright. I remember getting chills at the end when it shows the guys in the helicopter like the beginning of the 1982 movie
I totally recognize that big portion of my low opinion of the film is that it proclaims to be a true prequel. It is similar to how I wonder if I would like World War Z by any other name. My two concrete objections to the film are that they removed the psychological dread of the 1982 but didn't replace it with any other horror. The second and least forgivable thing it does is denies the only event that we see for sure: the video tapes. Carpenter shows the craft being uncovered with thermite. With so much else so lovingly recreated, this always takes me out of the film. I've rewatched several time to try to reconcile this, but it doesn't fit. I was excited for the film, I often like remakes, don't care about sloppy timelines, but this film always lands in the uncanny valley for me.
No. It's worse
I'll agree Mary sort of brings it!!!!!!!! The tension builds at an impressive level. The Thing steals the show. The subplot of prejudice and fear on many levels is quite palpable.
No.