Erik Sanchez the scrip is identical to the first movie and we learn nothing about the alien or the space ship. while technically a prequel, it is essentially a remake
@@CoolGobyFish there are new things to learn, like the fillings and inorganic material it can't copy. The movie is the prequel and is much better than it's given credit for, even though CGI replaced these awesome practical effects.
@@zcellor_7063 and they’ve already aged like sht and are laughable just like I am legend which was supposed to be practical effects. Take a look at hogwarts in the first Harry Potter movie which was built practically using a miniature and lighting for outside shots then look at all the Harry Potter movies that didn’t bother. The very first Harry Potter movies castle looks so real when they’re in the boats rowing up to it it’s crazy. My god but the cgi in that movie is 😂😂😂. That castle is now on display at a museum for all fans to see. You can’t do with cgi.
I really like the little details, such as the partially-assimilated left arm and left leg. The big clawed arm is awesome. Even tho the coolness of it was stripped in CGI, I refuse to loathe the Juliette-Thing.
I've always preferred practical effects, this is such great work. Too bad a lot of it was replaced with CGi & not just simply enhanced where needed. Makes me wish for an all out ''Practical Effects'' Special Edition BluRay version.
Practical effects add so much texture and believability to things! Shooting scenes like this ought to be the norm in Hollywood. It makes things so real!
What I liked about the Juliette Thing was the look of dismay on her face. It showed that she had enough of her original human in her to be aware that she was thing-ified. The Juliette Thing had a thoughtful, tender side that most thing-ified people don't have. It was really quite touching.
***** bunnyfreakz You guys are right. I didn't word it properly. I didn't mean to say CGI is lazy. It's incredibly difficult and it takes talented people to do it right. What I mean, more specifically (and especially with this movie), is that the tool of CGI makes filmmakers/producers lazy. Why spend an extra day on set and work to get practical effects looking good when we can just "fix it in post"? That's what I meant. I think practical effects still look better than CGI in most cases. Especially when it comes to "monsters"
Elias Toufexis Yes, and especially when you are dealing with "The thing", a movie that made history in practical effects usage. I was really disappointed: in the first movie they have been even more creative.
It's easy to see why the director wanted to fight for practical effects. The work is so tangible, beautiful (in a horrifying way) and keeps you in the moment. It's also amazing that you build something that can stand up to being lit on fire for more than one take. I understand that CGI gives you more leeway in post, but the tradeoff isn't worth it. Sometimes I just want to say to these producers, (as I'm sure all involved in making a film they care about do) "If you just take the time to do this right, you'll have something that will continue to garner fan love, and make you money, for years to come." Quantity over quality is just killing the magic of the movie experience. I truly hope Harbinger Down turns that around.
It's a shame that NONE of the practical animatronics were used in the 2011 Thing, part of the reason why it was so badly received. The studio executives apparently axed the practical FX and had a CG team redo everything to look more "fluid." Guess they didn't realize the entire basis of why the Thing is so popular in the first place. Damn shame
Well, Jimmy, mommy tried the new suit for a movie about an alien that kills other people and mimocs them and the only way to defeat it is to burn it until its damn gone
artist 1: "where my work, dude" artist 2: "i dont know, ah, over there" artist 1 says "thanks" and walks toward the figure artist 1: "No, no, it's not my work, it's a living thing"
Seeing this helps you understand why studios like using CGI. There's a lot of pressure on actors to deliver first time every time when you may have only one chance to film a sequence like this...where a real prop will be destroyed after the take. In the same vein that's why practical effects always work better....actors can react to them and often create happy accidents (or deliberate ones) like the chest burster in aliens.
Beergut222 While it was originally indended to use these practical effects with CGI in a purely supporting role, much of what Woodruff and Gillis created was covered over by CGI in post-production. AFAIK, this was done a the behest of the Producers who felt modern audiences would react better to CGI (or some similar bullshit reason). Woodruff and Gillis were unhappy about that, to say the least, and in response they started developing the Practical-effects-only Horror-Film "Harbinger Down" currently in production.
Beergut222 wow such an original comment, you probably liked the book even better right? you probably have a beard and drink hipster beer....ok i'll stop
As I see it, CGI effects are great when it comes to create a fictional world, an outdoor environnement, a panoramic view of a city,... In short terms, inanimated objets.But when it comes to create a difformed creature, a monster or any fictional character, practical effets win almost everytime. Why? Because you SEE and you FEEL the character is there because well, it's there. The fleshy and visceral look of SFX makeup will always be much more impressive to me than any CGI effect, even a fantastic one.
just watched the 1982 film, man, practical effects all the way. this team was so dedicated, so detailed on their work, and just got fucked up by the higher ups.
I know this was just two years ago but you took the words right outta my mouth. Kinda makes you wonder what would've happened if they studio interfered with Carpenter's version.
The CGI relied heavily on the practical work done here. But I agree: it was foolish for the studio not to use all this great work, especially when they paid for it. Supposedly, footage using practical FX did not "test" well with early audiences.
Everyone needs a Juliette thing. I could just imagine a practical joker putting that in one of the crew's bed. Imagine waking up alongside it. ''You see Jack - we told you you'd pulled a real monster last night'
I have seen the film a few times now, and you just don't get to see the detail and the talent and art that goes into these things. Also its freaky as hell lol
ChickenRieder I heard tha 2011 Thing started with these practical effects but were then layered with cgi on top AFTER tha work had been done as a cop out!
Thanks for posting. We geeks can't see enough of this stuff. And since most of us weren't there, it is THE ONLY WAY we will ever see it. Besides, "Thing" movies don't get made all that often.
I love the 1982 movie due to the use of practical affects ONLY, the whole team of studioADI put so much work into these animatronics and props, it’s such a shame a lot of it was glossed over with CGI
I wonder if these guys ever work on this stuff really late at night with all the lights off except for one... which is pointed just right, towards her face... which is always "staring" at them... waiting... ... soon . _ .
Simply Amazing) Greetings ADI, my name is Ryan from Australia. I have been following Tom, Alec, and your team of highly skilled craftsman since I can remember, and although I am 22 I fully support Practical Effects. It is undeniably true that your techniques have some restrictions but comparing CGI with Practical Effects is like comparing IKEA with Dovetail Joints. I do not disregard CGI and Andy's Gollum is an extremely impressive achievement. Harbinger Down should pack the same punch but I think a marriage of the two techniques will always trick us best. Bye, for now)
I would like to work with these guys, they are dedicated to their work so seriously. Thanks for posting StudioADI....you people are great. Thanks again.
sensacional!uma obra prima...cena extraordinaria !!! O filme em si excelente uma continuaçâo primorosa do filme de 82 (enigma do espaço) parabêns, produtores, diretores,colaboradores etc. queremos the thing 3.
If done right, CGI can easily beat practical effects. Unfortunately, doing CGI right is incredibly time-consuming and costly, and not worth it for heavily CGI-dependent movies.
BboyCustomz All of you make good points. The way I see it, good CGI is like frosting on a practical effects cake. Just like you wouldn't stick a candle in a tub of frosting and call it a birthday cake (unless you are a very sad person), you can't make good effects with CGI alone. But CGI absolutely is a wonderful tool for enhancing practical effects in ways that can't really be done without computers.
This would've been another classic with one of the best practical effects ever (just like the original) if we got the movie the way it was initially designed. Instead, it was forgotten and thrown in the trash. Such a shame. I want the director's cut to be released so bad. I know that the chances are zero to none, but I still have hope, especially after seeing some of the recent comments on such videos.
See why make this awesome practical effect if your gonna cover it with shit looking CGI, they did the same with the guy on the plane and his chest opening, they actually made that in practical effects then covered it with CGI. WHY!
+Danblukk to add slime, wetness, blood and other things on top to help it look more organic. I think these effects looked great, although I'M not blinded with Nostalgia or an "anti-CGI" hipster.....so that might have something to do with it.
Question: how do they do the burning scenes? Is the stunt person sprayed with alcohol? Does the flame thrower spray them with something in addition to the flame? How many times can they 'burn' the stunt person before the latex costume becomes too damaged? The hair on fake Juliete head will burn the first time. How do they compensate for this? post production CGI ?
They did really set her on fire with actual real flamethrower. And then putted fire out after scene. But Studio suddenly thought CGI would be better so all of the things were replaced by CGI
I like the job creature performer so much, i like the idea of being a very scary and weird creature that doesn't look like you, but does someone know what type of education you need? And btw: these performers deserve awards, they are put a a such narrow position to perform other people while they are getting the honor
This movie could have been a revitalization of the practical effects industry. CGI could have cleaned up the scene by hiding cables and puppet wranglers, but instead they went full CG and it never looked real. There's nothing scarier than something real.
Perché , il film del 2011 , The Thing ( prequel ) è stato ampiamente discusso e censurato , in particolare la fine , dove doveva esserci un alieno anno messo una colonna di colori ? Che senso ha ? Si vedrà mai la pellicola per Intero ?
0MoTheG Yeah! I did the fire burn. They made two suits. The one that we used for the fire burn was essentially a dummy suit. So...no moving parts, no animatronics, just foam latex and me:-)
Alicia Turner, Darth Destroyer Ah, thank you, I watched multiple videos but they did not make that clear. I assumed it would have been too much work to have a second suit. Did you chew gum while on fire too? ;-)
So did they use that "thing" (im sorry^^) for the whole juliette scene or just for that one scene? Because in the other juliette scenes you can easily tell its cgi.
They really should have an Academy Award for stunt preformers. They don't get enough recognition in this industry.
YES
I thought there is one? Though it is not part of the Academy.
WhatsApp yang tidak mencapai tujuan tersebut di bawah mereka akan 7 yang akan menerima segala sesuatu
@@MikeshoutsVideos yup
@@MikeshoutsVideos yup
People often mistake this movie for a remake. It's not . It's a prequel to the 82 film.
it's clearly a remake that was made to look as a prequel. same deal with Escape from LA (a remake that pretended to be a sequel)
@@alexsmith5606 even though the film ended when the first film began?
Erik Sanchez the scrip is identical to the first movie and we learn nothing about the alien or the space ship. while technically a prequel, it is essentially a remake
GESSO217 and the 82 one is a remake of the 50s
@@CoolGobyFish there are new things to learn, like the fillings and inorganic material it can't copy. The movie is the prequel and is much better than it's given credit for, even though CGI replaced these awesome practical effects.
Glad to see practical effects getting more respect lately. Huge respect for this craft. Looking forward to Harbinger Down!
Ouch. This comment didn't age well.
Lol and yet they drowned all the good practical effects with garbage poorly aged cgi
@@lessalazar9068 they actually reshot all of the scenes without cgi to seem more new and not old
@@zcellor_7063 and they’ve already aged like sht and are laughable just like I am legend which was supposed to be practical effects. Take a look at hogwarts in the first Harry Potter movie which was built practically using a miniature and lighting for outside shots then look at all the Harry Potter movies that didn’t bother. The very first Harry Potter movies castle looks so real when they’re in the boats rowing up to it it’s crazy. My god but the cgi in that movie is 😂😂😂. That castle is now on display at a museum for all fans to see. You can’t do with cgi.
I really like the little details, such as the partially-assimilated left arm and left leg. The big clawed arm is awesome.
Even tho the coolness of it was stripped in CGI, I refuse to loathe the Juliette-Thing.
I've always preferred practical effects, this is such great work.
Too bad a lot of it was replaced with CGi & not just simply enhanced where needed.
Makes me wish for an all out ''Practical Effects'' Special Edition BluRay version.
Wow they actually set the actress on fire!? :O that's dedication to your work
Practical effects add so much texture and believability to things! Shooting scenes like this ought to be the norm in Hollywood. It makes things so real!
What I liked about the Juliette Thing was the look of dismay on her face. It showed that she had enough of her original human in her to be aware that she was thing-ified. The Juliette Thing had a thoughtful, tender side that most thing-ified people don't have. It was really quite touching.
I still wonder if the creature that get assimilate even know that their thing until they transform
To hell with lazy cgi. This is the stuff.
So... Do you think make CGI is easy??
CGI is not lazy what so ever. Its just more cost effective.
***** bunnyfreakz You guys are right. I didn't word it properly. I didn't mean to say CGI is lazy. It's incredibly difficult and it takes talented people to do it right. What I mean, more specifically (and especially with this movie), is that the tool of CGI makes filmmakers/producers lazy. Why spend an extra day on set and work to get practical effects looking good when we can just "fix it in post"?
That's what I meant. I think practical effects still look better than CGI in most cases. Especially when it comes to "monsters"
Elias Toufexis Yes, and especially when you are dealing with "The thing", a movie that made history in practical effects usage. I was really disappointed: in the first movie they have been even more creative.
@@toufexiselias
oh thanks man for clarifying, CGI is cool and all but we now get to see monsters just talking with people normally
It's easy to see why the director wanted to fight for practical effects. The work is so tangible, beautiful (in a horrifying way) and keeps you in the moment. It's also amazing that you build something that can stand up to being lit on fire for more than one take. I understand that CGI gives you more leeway in post, but the tradeoff isn't worth it. Sometimes I just want to say to these producers, (as I'm sure all involved in making a film they care about do) "If you just take the time to do this right, you'll have something that will continue to garner fan love, and make you money, for years to come." Quantity over quality is just killing the magic of the movie experience. I truly hope Harbinger Down turns that around.
Thanks for posting. Good job Alicia Turner, I was fortunate to meet stunt people years ago, been on many sets, excellent work gentlemen and lady!
always dreamed of such work, art
It's a shame that NONE of the practical animatronics were used in the 2011 Thing, part of the reason why it was so badly received. The studio executives apparently axed the practical FX and had a CG team redo everything to look more "fluid." Guess they didn't realize the entire basis of why the Thing is so popular in the first place. Damn shame
"What did you do at work today, Mommy?"
Well, Jimmy, mommy tried the new suit for a movie about an alien that kills other people and mimocs them and the only way to defeat it is to burn it until its damn gone
Imagine wearing a suit like that on Halloween!
As much as that monster was freaky looking.
I was more surprised they used a real Flame thrower.
Wow, they used real fire and a costume for this part. No wonder it looked so damn good. Amazing work, honestly.
The flame throwers where real but they reshot all of the scenes without the practical and only kept the flamethrowers
artist 1: "where my work, dude"
artist 2: "i dont know, ah, over there"
artist 1 says "thanks" and walks toward the figure
artist 1: "No, no, it's not my work, it's a living thing"
Seeing this helps you understand why studios like using CGI. There's a lot of pressure on actors to deliver first time every time when you may have only one chance to film a sequence like this...where a real prop will be destroyed after the take. In the same vein that's why practical effects always work better....actors can react to them and often create happy accidents (or deliberate ones) like the chest burster in aliens.
Did they use this, or did they end up with CGI? I hated the CGI effects in this film, compared to the genius seen in the '82 film.
Beergut222 While it was originally indended to use these practical effects with CGI in a purely supporting role, much of what Woodruff and Gillis created was covered over by CGI in post-production. AFAIK, this was done a the behest of the Producers who felt modern audiences would react better to CGI (or some similar bullshit reason). Woodruff and Gillis were unhappy about that, to say the least, and in response they started developing the Practical-effects-only Horror-Film "Harbinger Down" currently in production.
Beergut222 wow such an original comment, you probably liked the book even better right? you probably have a beard and drink hipster beer....ok i'll stop
***** So he's a hipster because he likes the original which is better in many ways?
Rock Lobster yea basically, and he's probably into seashell art.
***** You're an idiot lmao
Imagine this is your job every day. To do stuff like this. 👍🏼
As I see it, CGI effects are great when it comes to create a fictional world, an outdoor environnement, a panoramic view of a city,... In short terms, inanimated objets.But when it comes to create a difformed creature, a monster or any fictional character, practical effets win almost everytime. Why? Because you SEE and you FEEL the character is there because well, it's there. The fleshy and visceral look of SFX makeup will always be much more impressive to me than any CGI effect, even a fantastic one.
holy shit they actually set her costume on fire
Dayyyum that is awesome, wish I could see how this would'a turn out on film
Trabalho Extraordinário ♥
just watched the 1982 film, man, practical effects all the way. this team was so dedicated, so detailed on their work, and just got fucked up by the higher ups.
and than they made everything with CGI and totally ruined everything.
murhi
MrAnimepredator
I know this was just two years ago but you took the words right outta my mouth. Kinda makes you wonder what would've happened if they studio interfered with Carpenter's version.
The CGI relied heavily on the practical work done here. But I agree: it was foolish for the studio not to use all this great work, especially when they paid for it. Supposedly, footage using practical FX did not "test" well with early audiences.
I hope that the original cut with the practical effects will be released one day.
TheShrimp Plaza No kidding, the CGI absolutely killed it
TheShrimp Plaza
TheShrimp Plaza ponho
TheShrimp Plaza s
Everyone needs a Juliette thing. I could just imagine a practical joker putting that in one of the crew's bed. Imagine waking up alongside it. ''You see Jack - we told you you'd pulled a real monster last night'
I love Adam just running away at the moment he sees the creature for the first time xd I didn't notice that in the movie
I have seen the film a few times now, and you just don't get to see the detail and the talent and art that goes into these things. Also its freaky as hell lol
They didn't use this practical effects in that movie... I think the directors rejected them and went for CGI...
ChickenRieder I heard tha 2011 Thing started with these practical effects but were then layered with cgi on top AFTER tha work had been done as a cop out!
こーゆー「特撮」「SFX」の楽屋風景、メイキングを観るのは、本当に楽しいですっ！！
By
qahv
0000syuable gvycicuxtxllb
Thanks for posting. We geeks can't see enough of this stuff. And since most of us weren't there, it is THE ONLY WAY we will ever see it. Besides, "Thing" movies don't get made all that often.
Now that a remake of The Thing has been announced I really hope that they will use practical effects.
Good job team n nice movie...two thumbs up..👍👍
I love the 1982 movie due to the use of practical affects ONLY, the whole team of studioADI put so much work into these animatronics and props, it’s such a shame a lot of it was glossed over with CGI
Yup, sad.
If I was disgusted or scared by a specific movie and hard to forget, BTSs will do the work.
omg now i love juliette :3
Blue Mary dhàmm ...
Blue Mary កេង
I wonder if these guys ever work on this stuff really late at night with all the lights off except for one... which is pointed just right, towards her face... which is always "staring" at them... waiting... ... soon
. _ .
Simply Amazing) Greetings ADI, my name is Ryan from Australia. I have been following Tom, Alec, and your team of highly skilled craftsman since I can remember, and although I am 22 I fully support Practical Effects. It is undeniably true that your techniques have some restrictions but comparing CGI with Practical Effects is like comparing IKEA with Dovetail Joints. I do not disregard CGI and Andy's Gollum is an extremely impressive achievement. Harbinger Down should pack the same punch but I think a marriage of the two techniques will always trick us best. Bye, for now)
I would like to work with these guys, they are dedicated to their work so seriously. Thanks for posting StudioADI....you people are great. Thanks again.
Guy=slang for male
Guys=plural of guy
Heil grammar.
message is important not grametical mistakes....
+The Watcher It wasn't actually bad grammar. The Grammar was fine, his spelling was terrible.
Dev Parmar wgk
Dev Parmar
Once again, blown away. Funny how Tom is the one recording. He should really be the director of photography for Harbinger Down.
TheShadowedOne1
Juliette thing rules!
id love to get a costume like that just dont know where it be awesome guessing it be allot of money as well
Incredible work!
CGでは無い特殊メイクのメイキング素晴らしい❗️私はホラーのstoryも重要ですが沢山の方々の手で造られる特殊メイクが非常に大好きです☺️興味深く楽しい🍀😌🍀
i realy love this movie , and I think it should have a sequel
sensacional!uma obra prima...cena extraordinaria !!! O filme em si excelente uma continuaçâo primorosa do filme de 82 (enigma do espaço) parabêns, produtores, diretores,colaboradores etc. queremos the thing 3.
Awesome great work
If done right, practical effects will always beat out CGI
If done right, CGI can easily beat practical effects. Unfortunately, doing CGI right is incredibly time-consuming and costly, and not worth it for heavily CGI-dependent movies.
All the cgi vs practical "fight" is generally pointless. It's all about when to use what and mixing it up to fool the viewer.
zolikoff
zolikoff LIAR!!! BICTH! PRACTICAL EFFECTS FOREVER!!
BboyCustomz All of you make good points. The way I see it, good CGI is like frosting on a practical effects cake. Just like you wouldn't stick a candle in a tub of frosting and call it a birthday cake (unless you are a very sad person), you can't make good effects with CGI alone. But CGI absolutely is a wonderful tool for enhancing practical effects in ways that can't really be done without computers.
yes! keep them coming please!
That's a cool jacket, where can I get a jacket like that?
This would've been another classic with one of the best practical effects ever (just like the original) if we got the movie the way it was initially designed.
Instead, it was forgotten and thrown in the trash. Such a shame. I want the director's cut to be released so bad. I know that the chances are zero to none, but I still have hope, especially after seeing some of the recent comments on such videos.
Oyunu efsaneydi filmini izlemedim akşama izleyelim :)
saw the movie last night on demand and seeing this that must be a lot of costume to put on. wow.
I’m curious, how much does a costume like this cost?
See why make this awesome practical effect if your gonna cover it with shit looking CGI, they did the same with the guy on the plane and his chest opening, they actually made that in practical effects then covered it with CGI. WHY!
+Danblukk Because they didn't and people cannot tell the difference between CGI and actual props.
I think the face splitting scene in the chopper looked cool !
+Kurai1 That is a lie, it is very easy these days to tell.
CommanderSh!mi X
If the models look horrible then you can tell. If they don't then you can't.
+Danblukk
to add slime, wetness, blood and other things on top to help it look more organic. I think these effects looked great, although I'M not blinded with Nostalgia or an "anti-CGI" hipster.....so that might have something to do with it.
AMAZING as always, and I agree with lil Jimmy835 100%
Lou
Would love to borrow this for Halloween to greet kids 'trick or treating' at my front door. They'd shit themselves!
para apagar el fuego usaban extintores de CO2 ya que los de polvo manchan mucho tanto los decorados como el personaje de la cosa
03:18 "Somebody stop me!" the mask hahahahahah
Question: how do they do the burning scenes? Is the stunt person sprayed with alcohol? Does the flame thrower spray them with something in addition to the flame? How many times can they 'burn' the stunt person before the latex costume becomes too damaged? The hair on fake Juliete head will burn the first time. How do they compensate for this? post production CGI ?
They did really set her on fire with actual real flamethrower. And then putted fire out after scene. But Studio suddenly thought CGI would be better so all of the things were replaced by CGI
KIM NAMJOON
KIM SEOK JIN
MIN YOONGI
JUNG HOSEOK
PARK JIMIN
KIM TAEHYUNG
JEON JUNGKOOK
BTS
dont normally sub but i like to watch how these are made so when i watch the film i can say its not real its not real
This Is Awesome :D
Man Id love to see a cut of this film before all the practical effects were replaced with cgi.
i love this cala kar
I wonder if the special effects guys play practical jokes on people?
Using Props from movies and placing them somwhere where they may cause chaos.
ABW941 trio;
oo :-/ jU h haaG
Who knows. Just set one of the costume props up in maybe a dark storage room, remove the lightbulbs and send someone in to get some stuff.
The thing reminds me of the anime show parasyte the maxim
wow that's nice one, I love it
the thing, cause no other alien can destroy you as hard
I like the job creature performer so much, i like the idea of being a very scary and weird creature that doesn't look like you, but does someone know what type of education you need? And btw: these performers deserve awards, they are put a a such narrow position to perform other people while they are getting the honor
I'm fan of the horror movie which used the real material to make the creature. It looks so real, regardless CGI may got out-date by the time
I had really high expectations for this movie after the Kurt Russell one.
And then they made it all gci.....
Nothing beats the classic
do you mean "CGI"
yay and the cgi models were awful....
Lib Project
Psycho_ Maniac13 llllllñp
Psycho_ Maniac13
the thing is like the flood from halo
This movie could have been a revitalization of the practical effects industry.
CGI could have cleaned up the scene by hiding cables and puppet wranglers, but instead they went full CG and it never looked real.
There's nothing scarier than something real.
PrizeFighter r
Was Alicia Turner also the stand in for Mary Winstead? They look so much alike.
This video was pretty cool
amazing very fantastic
Its a shame these works of art got "Focus Grouped" out of the final movie. The CGI brought this movie down, when it could have been good.
Working Joe sixe
Working Joe asd
Whaaat? I doubt they did much CGI with a Vic-20....
I miss practical effects ...
XDD
Perché , il film del 2011 , The
Thing ( prequel ) è stato ampiamente discusso e censurato , in particolare la fine , dove doveva esserci un alieno anno messo una colonna di colori ? Che senso ha ? Si vedrà mai la pellicola per Intero ?
So sad all the beautiful art and work got covered up by cgi :/
Indrid Cold more like ps2
mooglesprinkles
mooglesprinkles
c
mooglesprinkles
mooglesprinkles
people be like "clickbait" when they don't even understand that this is from a movie..
People be like? Try hooked on phonics! Really!
sasha ツ
excellent stuff !
I want this job.
Holy shit...look like that thing will attack at any second
How much would it cost to make something like this?
Depends on alot of things like materials, quality of materials, if you're paying someone to make it, and other variables.
Giraffeseatwindmills The cost of materials roughly?
insane how they used real fire on the movies instead of CGI.
amazing
WTF they actually burned her ?
Darth Destroyer That's what I though. They made this elaborate actuated costume and then actually hit it with a flamethrower for real.
0MoTheG
Yeah! I did the fire burn. They made two suits. The one that we used for the fire burn was essentially a dummy suit. So...no moving parts, no animatronics, just foam latex and me:-)
Alicia Turner, Darth Destroyer Ah, thank you, I watched multiple videos but they did not make that clear. I assumed it would have been too much work to have a second suit. Did you chew gum while on fire too? ;-)
0MoTheG
Duh?! Of course not; that's when I tuck it in my cheek:-)
Alicia Turner
Pretty cool! :D
Just another day at the office.
Wonderful Movie, just like the other one.
can u say the name of the movie pls?
Sure, search for "The Thing 2011", if you want to see the sequel search for "The Thing John Carpenter"
DANIEL RAIN thx dude, the making of this film is rly impressive.
IN THE END ALL IS PERFECT
All that hard work down the drain. I hope Almagamted got paid handsomely
BURN THEM ALL! MWAHAHAHA! Nice to learn how this stuff is made.
I like it...I just don't know where I would wear it.
behind the scenes of the thing 2011
So good
So did they use that "thing" (im sorry^^) for the whole juliette scene or just for that one scene?
Because in the other juliette scenes you can easily tell its cgi.