Here's a thing people forget when they're trying to create a "Ripley character." Ellen Ripley wasn't perfect, and she wasn't Rambo. She was abrasive, she was pushy, she was terrified, and she desperately wanted to not die. She was just willing to do what it took to not die.
Ripley didn't get her badass upgrade until Aliens. People tend to forget that back in the first movie, she was honestly a pretty standard "final girl." She has that blue-collar attitude, but she spends the whole movie just trying to survive and escape.
@@AkuTenshiiZerosorry for the one year later response, but Aliens also gave her a more traditional feminine trait of being Motherly. I feel like for a long time, and even a kind of exists today, badass females were written downplaying their femininity.
There is one good thing I can say about this movie. They were able to recreate the look of the facility and how it gets demolished before the events of the 1982 movie start. I just hate how all that new practical effects work was erased by CGI.
I agree with you totally! I usually like Mary Elizabeth Winstead movies but hate how the 2011 movie was destroyed by the CGI menace. The 2011 flick is as awful as the 1982 flick was awesome. Best to you-
Basically what your saying the film was good as a remake but was let down badly by the new practical effects work that was erased by CGI. If so i agree to a point everything was very good the acting the look and feel to the original and kept it within the original story. IF it did had all the new proper practical effect intact throughout without the CGi i think it would off been a better film as this version didn't seem to drag out much and made it more action.
@@wstine79 No they weren't. And even if they did use practical effects they'd just CGI over them anyway. Theyll just say they used them and people won't look any further into stuff. That's just ONE of the problems and it would still suck if it were practical
I'll say this,we had a trilogy of classic remakes that came out in the 80s that mastered practical effects,1982 The Thing,1986 The Fly,1988 The Blob,i love all 3
Been a bit, but I'm pretty sure they were referencing the well-known and unfortunate trivia piece concerning H.P. Lovecraft and the name of his cat, which contains a racial slur concerning Black people.
I was 15 when Carpenter's Thing came out. EVERY teenage boy LOVED it. While our younger siblings and parents were seeing ET multiple times, we were going back to see those Thing effects over and over. Every one of my friends saw it multiple times. And yes, people had the poster.
Yup, I was 16 when I saw it in the theaters back in 82. All my friends and I loved it even though it freaked us out! It was only the adults who, for the most part, didn't get the movie and hated it.
I agree with the poster above--- I was 12 when it came out and even the few scenes I saw terrified me to the point that I wanted nothing to do with the movie. I think that's pretty typical of that age, and there is a huge gulf between age 12 and age 16. It kind of just fell off my radar until I think the late 90s when I actually saw the whole thing, and then I loved it. But by then I was pushing 30! Anyway I didn't know anyone my age in 1982 who liked the movie or even saw it, because back then parents weren't taking their 12-year-olds to movies like that.
The Norwegians never blew up the ship. There is a scene where McReady, Doc and someone else (I forgot) go to the site of the ship and find it intact and uncovered by ice. They find the hole where the alien was dug out the ice some yards away. The Norwegians simply blew up the ice that was covering the ship. The U.S. team even commented that the Norwegians used explosives to uncover this thing in the ice.
Watch the movie again. It's clearly shown the Norwegian's tried to blow up the alien ship in the recording, and you can see evidence of this when the American Crew finds it.
They did blow up the ship. Mac says as much. They used thermite charges and accidently blew up the ship or part of it anyway. Also that footage from them standing around the saucer in the 82 film is from the Howard Hawkes 1951 Thing From Another World. Bet you didn't know that. Huh huh huh.
@LUCKO2022 true, he actually says "the swedes blew it up". However, in real life it would have been a stretch to blow up a giant ship with just thermite, which is basically just a pyrotechnic.
In the saucer scene, they used Thermite to MELT the ice, not to blow it up. Thermite isn't an explosive, but a high volume oxidizer. It is used to melt metals and and can burn in water. The question is where all the melt water went, because it would have become a solid slab of ice rather than ice and compacted snow. Neither the Norwegians or Americans would have had the equipment to dig it out.
I said the same thing in another comment. McReady DID say "the Swedes blew it [the ship] up." So I'm torn between Carpenter and the rest not knowing what thermite was and just throwing in the word to sound cool; or, it was a script error and the writers actually meant to communicate that they meant the ice was blown, not the ship.
42:48 - even though they said they blew it up I'm thinking the term "blew up" may have a different meaning because that ship looks(for the most part) intact. I've always thought that the Norwegians blew open the hatch, and maybe that's what McCready meant by "blew it up".
it's still alive in the 2011 version, the damage has to be thermal/acid/electric therefore the crash would just hinder its recovery but it would still recover and pretent to take on someone else, the other 3 for sure were deleted from the script
when hollywood producers say ''we need to do such n such because the audience won't get it, we need an explainer cuz the audience won't get it, we need to make it less complicated cuz the audience won't get it'' it's basically them saying ''i'm stupid and i dont get it''
What's crazy is that an article that a video essay went into on this movie showed that the studio went over all the practical effects with cgi after all the work the people behind the film and the actors did. What kind of disrespect is that? Also means there is a version of this film with practical effects only and I would love to see that.
Someone related to the movie said they got rid of the practical cut...some executive apparently was disssapointed with sales and dumped the extra footage. So if what I heard is true. It's gone baby gone
@@Tahu33446 Yeah. Seems overly extreme to toss everything. But it also seems overly extreme to completely redesign a movie mere weeks before premiere because of a test audience nor liking it.
@@mrgrimsle5627 Plus the work they put into it. What's crazy is every time.i hear complaints about this movie its about the cgi not the acting or the plot. I can only imagine what the original looked like and I'd still like to give it a chance
Crystal complained about people commenting that it should just be the guys. This is my first watch of this channel and I have to agree. Just because you’re pretty, doesn’t mean you have smart things to say.
Good thing Tony is talking about "The Thing Prequel" with Crystal & Joe. He could be trapped in the back room with Johanna, Justin, and Kieran doing blood tests to see whose the alien monster.
Surprised the comics didn't come up. There's three sequel stories. The first picks up immediately after the Carpenter movie. The fourth comic, Northman Nightmare, came out for the 2011 prequel. It's about a group of lost vikings encountering The Thing, ending with the last survivor instigating an avalanche to bury the ship. If you're interested, a small channel called "slowmutants" made decent audiobook performances of the comics.
They did not make posters of not very popular movies that a young child would easily been able to get back in the 80s. My big criticism was that they showrunners were just adding nostalgic references that in the 80s would not have been present.
Hmm... 'The Thing' 2011s run time is 1:43. This review of 'The Thing' is 1:50. So it'd be quicker to watch the movie and see why it sucks for myself, Thanks.
It was said somewhere that the hull of the spaceship was made from a material that reacted chemically with the explosives, so the charges ended up destroying the whole thing. But I can't remember which version that was.
I don't know exactly where The Thing franchise could go from the 2011 film. I have 2 ideas, just adapt the game, which would be lazy but hey it's an idea. Or my orginal idea for another prequel would be the orginal landing of the spacecraft 100,000 years ago. We see the ship crash in the frozen tundra, from a far a tribe of eskimo cavemen see the crash. A Chieftain believes it to be a gift from the gods and sends a troop of 10 or so warriors and a shaman to investigate. Along the journey we see The Thing exit the craft (it is left ambiguous whether or not it was a escape creature or the pilot) As the Cavemen travel through the snow in heavy winter storms a few members are grabbed away from the group and eventually the rest of the cavemen catch on that someone is somehow not who they say they are. One fully thought out plot thread I had was maybe one of the cavemen has a flint rock stuck in the side of his head and because The Thing cant replicate inorganic material the other cavemen know he isnt really the same person. It would eventually end with a lone survivor doing his best to use fire in some way to severely injure The Thing and The Thing crawls back to the ship to seek shelter only to pass out from his wounds becoming frozen over to then the Norwegians digging The Thing out 100,000 years later.
“The Thing can’t replicate inorganic matter.” And yet…! During the scene when Norris (Charles Hallahan) has a heart attack and they put him on the operating table, they open his mouth and we (the audience) can see a shiny metal filling in the top row (left side) of his mouth while they’re holding it open. Once they remove their fingers, despite his mouth still being open, his bottom lip then obstructs the filling from view. Now I’m well aware that this is simply a continuity oversight, and isn’t really a big deal, but I still thought I’d bring it up anyway.
Shame it didn't do well in 82'.. People labeled Carpenter A " Pornographer of Violence" .. And the fact Steven Spielberg's film E.T. came out the same year. Furthermore, hindered the film..
The book is a banger, BTW. It's got an early sci-fi monster movie vibe, lot of exposition and pseudo science wonkery, but it's a real page turner with some good creepy scenes.
Bob Saget didn't write The Aristocrats. That's a comedians' joke. It's existed for probably a century. That's just a joke every comedian has their own version of, or at least they used to before people decided comedy wasn't allowed to be funny anymore.
Same. It was never going to be near as good as the Carpenter version but it's still decent, and it's a bummer the studio stepped in and ruined the effects and ending. I give it a pass and still enjoy it. Even got a signed photo of MEW with her flame thrower from the movie.
2 minor things about Lovecraft. He didn't name the cat and he had inherited it from his grandfather when he died. He said in his letter that he couldn't rename the cat after so long as he considered it near abusive to confuse the cat so much with a new name. He was VERY protective of cats, after all he wrote an entire essay dedicated to why cats are cool. Second, is that there seems to be a modern myth that he was outstandingly racist for his time when that is not the case. I don't think people understand that eugenics and similar practices were very, VERY popular in the 1900's, well, right up until the found the camps in the 40's... Also the fact that he did apologize for his views in the later years of his life. BONUS FUN FACT: Did you know his inspiration for Shadows Over Innsmouth was not over racemixing like many believe? He revealed in his letters that it was inspired by him learning that, to his horror, his great grandmother was in fact... Welsh. I think that's pretty funny.
@@HackTheMovies Wow, I did not expect a reply, nor that soon. Cats answer people? Anyways, I was just saying some stuff that people didn't know about him. The dude had a FUCKED childhood that is directly responsible for almost everything about him.
Sorruy to stumble across this so late, but I'm curious if you have any citations on your inforation about Lovecraft. Because I've never read or seen or heard anything about him being apologetic about any of his beliefs. Nor do I see the point of anyone being an apologist for him.
@@jkclark5204Citation-- read his letters. I know they're available in a hardback 5-volume set, but I bought my copies 20 years ago and even then they were out of print and ridiculously expensive. And I'm an apologist for him because I love his work.
Look how the redhead can’t stand when someone else gets attention. “She” has to take drink, flip her hair, and try to think of what her cool friend would tell her how to act.
1) You can add Scarface to that list of classic movies that the 80’s remake did well. 2) The Thing was cult status in the 80’s. My uncle rented it so many times, and I can’t recall how many times I saw it on TV. So I don’t think the Stranger Things kids would have had a poster. I had Star Wars, Ghostbuster, Godzilla and Marvel Comics posters. But they would have been sneaking to watch it on cable late at night.
Also just buying a poster of a lesser known movie would be way more difficult in the 80s. It's common place now because of the internet, but I remember driving to like 6 different video rental stores just trying to find the movie I wanted. Let alone the poster to a movie, that at the time was still getting bad reviews.
This movie had so much potential and it so many really well but studio meddling which included the addition of bad cgi ruined it they also changed what would have been a very interesting ending into garbage
This movie was begging to made like a foreign film: subtitled all the way through, with Norwegian actors. There was another layer that could have been added too; this should have been a Rashamon style film with an unreliable narrator. What I mean is, there could have been two people who theoretically survived the Norwegian camp, and are brought to McMurdo, and have conflicting stories about what happened. The point is, we should never know exactly what happened at the camp.
This was a shame and I followed from it's inception. First time director films this with all practical fx by adi ,blood and character back story. This was made with all the promises being done. Test screens are shown studio demands re shoots(telling the 1st time director it's too 80s looking). Release is pushed back for months .They remove the practical and fx ,blood and replace it with piss poor CGI. Fans are extremely disappointed. Start a petition to release the test screen version but Universal will never release it and admit their huge mistake.
Click here ritual.com/HACK10 and use codeHACK10 to get 10% off your first 3 months with Ritual! #ritualpartner * These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease
There was a concept for a sequel mini series called Return of the Thing about the aliens invading a town in New Mexico. Best Movies never made did a podcast on it.
The Unmentionable name reminds me of Pink Floyd's The Wall, where Pink is watching a show(movie?) with a dog named that. Also ADI has a history of being Effed over. That awesome original Green Goblin mask was by them.
I just had a thought about how the Thing acts in this movie compared to the '82 one. Maybe the reason it acts more subdued in the original compared to the '11 one is that maybe (assuming it shares the same consciousness as the previous incarnation) it learned to be more stealthy in is approach on assimilating the humans? I don't know, maybe I'm just defending The Thing 2011 but I enjoy both. The original is superior in every way but I can have fun with both!
@@nbpk They are both good. The second one has amazing acting and dialogue, the CGI isn't as good but the design of the mutations was still awesome. The ending was eerie and fantastic too, knowing she will died out there in the cold if she kills the driver who only knows how to get to the station but in turn save the world.
He didn't have an earring in either ear in this scene, which was the point. Though, it's so dark, it's hard to tell, so everyone thinks he put the earring back into the wrong ear. Him reaching up to touch the wrong ear just confirmed for her that it was an alien and not the real dude, but it also makes it seem like there's supposed to be an earring there when there isn't.
Honestly, I didn't even notice the janky CGI the first time I watched the movie. Even though I'm aware of it now & agree that they should have just run with the practical effects, it's never bothered me enough to spoil my enjoyment of the movie. It's definitely one of my favorite horror movie sequels/prequels.
In the short story and the original film the ship was completely destroyed by a combination of thermite and magnesium-alloy that caught fire from the thermite causing a chain reaction that allowed the engines to release stored energy, utterly vaporizing the space craft. Anyway...
So, I understand the sentiment of being completely let down and hating the loud, fast and "attack no matter what" behavior of the Thing in the 2011 movie, but I think it would make WAY less sense for it to just automatically know that it needs to be stealth. I can imagine it's probably not met much resistance on the multitude of planets and species that it's assimilated over who knows how many years, and it is just used to openly doing it's thing (no pun intended, lol). While it doesn't completely forgive the bad plot, it definitely does help make sense out of a good portion of it. Of course the alien is going to be super hostile, as it it was JUST woken up after 100,000 years, being poked and prodded, so of course it's going to be a little loud and aggressive. I'm also sure it probably underestimated the humans, thinking they were probably just some stupid species it could easily overtake, but quickly learned that loud and fast wasn't the right method. So, by the time it gets to the American base, it knows to be quiet and methodical and take it's time. It can quickly adapt, but things just got way too out of hand, way too fast at the Norwegian base, that switching to a silent and stealthy approach, just was out of the question by then.
I was just about to rant the same thing, for being fans of the series it's frustratingly surprising how they overlooked such obvious considerations. To addon I'll dig into their complaint about 'why was the alien pilot not in the craft?' We've seen that it can infect on the cellular level, but the conversion rate depends on the amount of mass that's contaminated; hence why half the crew in the 80s turned out to be things from being exposed to active bloodsplatter, but didn't turn until much later in the movie compared to the characters that had direct contact by a thing monster. The alien pilot could've been infected and tried to suicide before it lost control, knowing that if it failed it would've at least stalled the thing from escaping the planet. Similarly the smaller craft it tried to build wasn't intended to go into space at all realizing there's sentient creatures here, the thing just needed something it knew could reach a more populated part of the planet where it could grow and build something better; like using a life-raft to reach a cruise-liner, of course a life-raft in the open sea is a mistake waiting to happen, but it's ineptly shortsighted of them to ignore possible motivations of the thing when it's shown to be both intelligently cunning and future-minded.
I suppose its a good point that it hasnt encountered humans before so doesnt know about stealth. However, if we say that the alien ship pilot/crew wasnt an original thing and was instead attacked by it and they fight/deliberately crash then surely that would mean the thing should learn about stealth.
To answer the question of why it crashed in the South Pole (or North pole), the original story answers it. The hypothesis is that the ship's engines used magnetic fields of planets to generate energy, and it malfunctioned, which sucked it into one of the poles (where the magnetic fields concentrate). "It tangled with the Earth's magnetic field..." or some line like that. Anyway...
I think it's been established that John Campbell's "Who Goes There?" was directly influenced by H.P. Lovecraft's "At the Mountain of Madness," at least from what I've read.
Found your channel and first commenting. I love the 50s original and Carpenter. Regarding the TV narration version, is there a release that includes that version?
the 1982 version is way closer to the original story written by John W. Campbell, Jr. than the 1951 "Thing From Another World", thank you Joe for mentioning that. Also Hack the Movies wouldn't be the same without Johanna, Crystal, Trisha & Mint!!
I get them not calling it "The Thing." Think about it, two entire groups consistently call this creature The Thing without interacting with each other? It'd really be weird in this one, since they know it's an alien.
This prequel was ok to me. I really don't find it to be trash, because I've seen SO much worse prequels/sequels/remakes!!! This movie doesn't deserve this enormous trash talking, just because we love the orginal 1982 movie so much! I still hope to see a sequel some day (with the Russian base and stuff)... And really...the CGI and practical effects look ok! Be realistic! The effects really aren't that bad!!! It's not like Mortal Kombat (1995) Reptile, Lawnmower Man 2: Beyond Cyberspace or Spawn (1997) effects stuff. These comments...pfff...so much nitpicking stuff!!!! And everybody that is criticising, they all believe they would be better movie makers....right?! My main point is...I don't think this movie is trash!!!
@@Temujin18S Ok...really...I'm not a fanboy! This prequel is nowhere as great as the 1982 movie! It manages however, in my opinion, to capture some of the atmosphere and look of the original movie. But, this 2011 prequel movie is just NOT trash!
I quite like the prequel but it's utter madness that they did the SFX for a beloved franchise entry which is famous for its practical effects with CGI instead. Nuts.
John Carpenter's The Thing is my all time favorite movie. I couldn't bring myself to watch this TURD for years but then it was on T.V. about a year ago or so I forced myself. It pissed me off so bad ( and this isn't a joke ) after I watched it I hunted it down on DVD bought it and burned it . I know that's stupid but it made me feel better. And I'm sure you know how I put the fire out and it wasn't water . The movie was a disgrace to cinema.
Tell me how they cut out a cube (more or less) from a solid mass of ice at their feet. It would have taken a day or two at least to cut trenches in four directions deep enough to reach a bottom where they could remove the base and disconnect it. With HAND AXES????? No one has ever tried to cut through ice with an ax apparently. It ain't cotton candy.
I find it hard to believe Crystal gets misogynist comments on the internet. Who would do that. Just go on the internet and be mean for no reason? That's so uncommon.
The Things ship would have crashed landed before man had evolved. I'm pretty sure it's been there for thousands of years before it is found. A prequel involving it crashing would be it crashing, crawling out and then freezing solid. That'd be boring lol. You could show intergalactic alien goo space battles. Maybe the shop isn't even his species' ship. Maybe it's just another alien species that was unfortunate enough to come across the Thing and it hijacked a ride before it could be destroyed. That movie would be interesting
It's ok but studio interference messed up entire movie ending on ship and all the practical effects were basically removed and replaced with cg when alot of the stuff was already made .the john carpenter one was a masterpiece cronenbergs the fly also total masterpiece 👌
The Thing 1982 is the best and can not be compared, to be honest using props and costumes looks more realistic than CG at times, if done right with high quality made props, look at the original Alien 1979 compared to Alien: Covenant 2017, Alien 1979 looks more realistic and has a certain vibe that Covenant's CG can not provide to the viewer.
Comic idea. Alien/Predator vs The Thing. I mean, they were in Antarctica. So was Mulder and Scully...this could be the Endgame of comics. Oh, they might invade Superman's crib...throw in Sauron from X-Men, sold.
Eh, wouldn't say it's trash, just mediocre. Too bad the studio messed the movie up by mandating terrible visual effects which made everything look like plastic.
I think the only time it really falls apart is towards the end. The final monster in the spaceship doesn’t look great and I don’t think the effects blend well there, and then there’s that weird 8-bit column thing. It felt like they ran out of money and had to change the ending or something.
@@kidcrossfire3489 Before I made my comment I looked up if I remembered correctly about the visual effect being added because of studio interference so as not to spout nonsense. I did remember correctly and though it has been too long since I saw the movie to clearly remember the ending, it also mentioned that the studio wanted the ending changed. So that might be something Universal is responsible for as well.
Also also.... that "The Thing Returns" movie that got brought up, it's literally just "trailers" but made up of a bunch of stolen clips from The Thing Fan Films off of YT and other B-Roll. Maybe that was already known by y'all, but JIC it wasn't, just letting you know. One of the main ones they rip off is from a fan film on here call "Who Goes There" from 2017. Pretty decent no-budget practical effects tho.
They didnt blow up the ship in the prequel they blew it up in the original black and white movie! the point of the ending at the ship was to show how the ship was uncovered in the ice with the thrusters melting the ice exposing the ship and got covered again in snow! I think it's even mentioned in the special features somewhere that blowing up the ship by accident was stupid and there was no way the Norwegians could've exposed the ship like that with no excavating vehicles!
I'm baffled at how three people who are in such close proximity to one another, presumably emotionally as well as literally, can manage to have such terrible communication. Even when you're not talking over each other, you'll often just flat-out misunderstand what the subject of the conversation is because you're all so desperate to tell your own story and aren't offering an ear to what anyone other than yourself is trying to address. That happens multiple times in this video - "I'm not talking about X, I'm talking about Y!" "I know, I'm talking about X, not Y here!" You all clearly know and love movies but this chemistry is just awful.
the two face thing bothered me cuz when i saw the original i didnt imagine it as two people being smooshed together, i thought it looked more like one person being split into two.
@@NotMorganFreeman. well, the producers. I will admit I love watching this one and then the original straight after like one big film. I would love to see a cut of the film before they added the CGI. It was done practically with CGI augmentation. So theyd work in tandem (the best way to do cgi) but then a producer decided to cover ALL the practical with cgi
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Here's a thing people forget when they're trying to create a "Ripley character." Ellen Ripley wasn't perfect, and she wasn't Rambo. She was abrasive, she was pushy, she was terrified, and she desperately wanted to not die. She was just willing to do what it took to not die.
Ellen Ripley a badass space trucker
Spot on.
Ripley didn't get her badass upgrade until Aliens. People tend to forget that back in the first movie, she was honestly a pretty standard "final girl." She has that blue-collar attitude, but she spends the whole movie just trying to survive and escape.
@@AkuTenshiiZerosorry for the one year later response, but Aliens also gave her a more traditional feminine trait of being Motherly. I feel like for a long time, and even a kind of exists today, badass females were written downplaying their femininity.
There is one good thing I can say about this movie. They were able to recreate the look of the facility and how it gets demolished before the events of the 1982 movie start.
I just hate how all that new practical effects work was erased by CGI.
I agree with you totally!
I usually like Mary Elizabeth Winstead movies but hate how the 2011 movie was destroyed by the CGI menace.
The 2011 flick is as awful as the 1982 flick was awesome.
Best to you-
Basically what your saying the film was good as a remake but was let down badly by the new practical effects work that was erased by CGI. If so i agree to a point everything was very good the acting the look and feel to the original and kept it within the original story. IF it did had all the new proper practical effect intact throughout without the CGi i think it would off been a better film as this version didn't seem to drag out much and made it more action.
@@wstine79 No they weren't. And even if they did use practical effects they'd just CGI over them anyway. Theyll just say they used them and people won't look any further into stuff. That's just ONE of the problems and it would still suck if it were practical
The guys at Amalgamated Dynamics Inc got screwed over big time when all the Special Make up and animatronic effects were replaced with shitty CGI.
It should be an all boys club because she yells too much, curses too much and says “like “ way too often.
And thinks she’s a 10. Maybe in her echo-chamber of simps…..
Who, the girl in this video or the girl in the movie? Lol
I'll say this,we had a trilogy of classic remakes that came out in the 80s that mastered practical effects,1982 The Thing,1986 The Fly,1988 The Blob,i love all 3
All decent horror remakes.
The end of the 70's had the remake of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers.
"John Campbell, Jr."
"And what was his cat's name?"
Tony out here laying it down. 🤣
didnt get - pls explain
Been a bit, but I'm pretty sure they were referencing the well-known and unfortunate trivia piece concerning H.P. Lovecraft and the name of his cat, which contains a racial slur concerning Black people.
@@MrStefanDittrich 1) Google 2) HP Lovecraft cat 3) Enter
It was a 🐈⬛️
I was 15 when Carpenter's Thing came out. EVERY teenage boy LOVED it. While our younger siblings and parents were seeing ET multiple times, we were going back to see those Thing effects over and over. Every one of my friends saw it multiple times. And yes, people had the poster.
Yup, I was 16 when I saw it in the theaters back in 82. All my friends and I loved it even though it freaked us out! It was only the adults who, for the most part, didn't get the movie and hated it.
Poster is Sicc
Yep, but the kids in Stranger Things are only about 12-14 tops so it'd make more sense if it was on Johnathon's wall instead.
I was a 16 yr old girl, and I loved it! Still do! ❤️❤️❤️
I agree with the poster above--- I was 12 when it came out and even the few scenes I saw terrified me to the point that I wanted nothing to do with the movie. I think that's pretty typical of that age, and there is a huge gulf between age 12 and age 16. It kind of just fell off my radar until I think the late 90s when I actually saw the whole thing, and then I loved it. But by then I was pushing 30! Anyway I didn't know anyone my age in 1982 who liked the movie or even saw it, because back then parents weren't taking their 12-year-olds to movies like that.
The Norwegians never blew up the ship. There is a scene where McReady, Doc and someone else (I forgot) go to the site of the ship and find it intact and uncovered by ice. They find the hole where the alien was dug out the ice some yards away.
The Norwegians simply blew up the ice that was covering the ship. The U.S. team even commented that the Norwegians used explosives to uncover this thing in the ice.
Watch the movie again. It's clearly shown the Norwegian's tried to blow up the alien ship in the recording, and you can see evidence of this when the American Crew finds it.
They did blow up the ship. Mac says as much. They used thermite charges and accidently blew up the ship or part of it anyway.
Also that footage from them standing around the saucer in the 82 film is from the Howard Hawkes 1951 Thing From Another World. Bet you didn't know that. Huh huh huh.
@@LUCKO2022 Womp womp.
Uncovering An Alien Spacecraft (Opening Scene) | The Thing (1982) | Fear
Enjoy.
@LUCKO2022 true, he actually says "the swedes blew it up". However, in real life it would have been a stretch to blow up a giant ship with just thermite, which is basically just a pyrotechnic.
The Thing 1982 is my favorite movie of all time, I can't understate how angry this film made me.
Rigjt rigjt
Joe from Movie Dumpster and Crystal makes a good team. Oh, yeah, Tony was there, too.
I would like to see Shawn from Movie Dumpster and Johanna with Tony
Who’s Tony?
"Drink every time someone says 'the thing' "
Me: *on my 5th bottle of J&B* 🤢
Worst part is the creature is so stupid in the prequel.
In the saucer scene, they used Thermite to MELT the ice, not to blow it up. Thermite isn't an explosive, but a high volume oxidizer. It is used to melt metals and and can burn in water.
The question is where all the melt water went, because it would have become a solid slab of ice rather than ice and compacted snow. Neither the Norwegians or Americans would have had the equipment to dig it out.
I said the same thing in another comment. McReady DID say "the Swedes blew it [the ship] up." So I'm torn between Carpenter and the rest not knowing what thermite was and just throwing in the word to sound cool; or, it was a script error and the writers actually meant to communicate that they meant the ice was blown, not the ship.
42:48 - even though they said they blew it up I'm thinking the term "blew up" may have a different meaning because that ship looks(for the most part) intact. I've always thought that the Norwegians blew open the hatch, and maybe that's what McCready meant by "blew it up".
Almost a year later and he hasn't lost any weight from those "supplements".
You know the Thing is still alive at the end of the 82 version because its presence is indicated by the music cues throughout the movie.
It's still alive because Palmers blood from the test was shown running away
It's still alive because your mom told me.
Got em.
it's still alive in the 2011 version, the damage has to be thermal/acid/electric
therefore the crash would just hinder its recovery but it would still recover and pretent to take on someone else, the other 3 for sure were deleted from the script
when hollywood producers say ''we need to do such n such because the audience won't get it, we need an explainer cuz the audience won't get it, we need to make it less complicated cuz the audience won't get it'' it's basically them saying ''i'm stupid and i dont get it''
What's crazy is that an article that a video essay went into on this movie showed that the studio went over all the practical effects with cgi after all the work the people behind the film and the actors did. What kind of disrespect is that? Also means there is a version of this film with practical effects only and I would love to see that.
Release the practical cut🤬🤬🤬
Someone related to the movie said they got rid of the practical cut...some executive apparently was disssapointed with sales and dumped the extra footage. So if what I heard is true. It's gone baby gone
@@mrgrimsle5627 darn
@@Tahu33446 Yeah. Seems overly extreme to toss everything. But it also seems overly extreme to completely redesign a movie mere weeks before premiere because of a test audience nor liking it.
@@mrgrimsle5627 Plus the work they put into it. What's crazy is every time.i hear complaints about this movie its about the cgi not the acting or the plot. I can only imagine what the original looked like and I'd still like to give it a chance
Crystal complained about people commenting that it should just be the guys.
This is my first watch of this channel and I have to agree. Just because you’re pretty, doesn’t mean you have smart things to say.
Good thing Tony is talking about "The Thing Prequel" with Crystal & Joe. He could be trapped in the back room with Johanna, Justin, and Kieran doing blood tests to see whose the alien monster.
The 2011 prequel just makes me appreciate the practical effects of John Carpenter's The Thing that much more.
Surprised the comics didn't come up. There's three sequel stories. The first picks up immediately after the Carpenter movie.
The fourth comic, Northman Nightmare, came out for the 2011 prequel. It's about a group of lost vikings encountering The Thing, ending with the last survivor instigating an avalanche to bury the ship.
If you're interested, a small channel called "slowmutants" made decent audiobook performances of the comics.
They did not make posters of not very popular movies that a young child would easily been able to get back in the 80s.
My big criticism was that they showrunners were just adding nostalgic references that in the 80s would not have been present.
Hmm... 'The Thing' 2011s run time is 1:43. This review of 'The Thing' is 1:50. So it'd be quicker to watch the movie and see why it sucks for myself, Thanks.
"John Campbell Jr"
"And what was his cats name?"
I'm sorry what?
Was there a joke there or am I too stupid to understand?
he actually wanna talk about Hp Lovecraft's cat's name but got confused
It was said somewhere that the hull of the spaceship was made from a material that reacted chemically with the explosives, so the charges ended up destroying the whole thing. But I can't remember which version that was.
The all-male version of Carpenter was called "The Thing". Couldn´t they just have called this one "The Thingies"???
I don't know exactly where The Thing franchise could go from the 2011 film. I have 2 ideas, just adapt the game, which would be lazy but hey it's an idea.
Or my orginal idea for another prequel would be the orginal landing of the spacecraft 100,000 years ago. We see the ship crash in the frozen tundra, from a far a tribe of eskimo cavemen see the crash. A Chieftain believes it to be a gift from the gods and sends a troop of 10 or so warriors and a shaman to investigate. Along the journey we see The Thing exit the craft (it is left ambiguous whether or not it was a escape creature or the pilot)
As the Cavemen travel through the snow in heavy winter storms a few members are grabbed away from the group and eventually the rest of the cavemen catch on that someone is somehow not who they say they are.
One fully thought out plot thread I had was maybe one of the cavemen has a flint rock stuck in the side of his head and because The Thing cant replicate inorganic material the other cavemen know he isnt really the same person.
It would eventually end with a lone survivor doing his best to use fire in some way to severely injure The Thing and The Thing crawls back to the ship to seek shelter only to pass out from his wounds becoming frozen over to then the Norwegians digging The Thing out 100,000 years later.
Except, humans never lived on Antarctica...
Aren’t the only people in Antarctica scientists?
Lmao
“The Thing can’t replicate inorganic matter.” And yet…! During the scene when Norris (Charles Hallahan) has a heart attack and they put him on the operating table, they open his mouth and we (the audience) can see a shiny metal filling in the top row (left side) of his mouth while they’re holding it open. Once they remove their fingers, despite his mouth still being open, his bottom lip then obstructs the filling from view.
Now I’m well aware that this is simply a continuity oversight, and isn’t really a big deal, but I still thought I’d bring it up anyway.
Shame it didn't do well in 82'.. People labeled Carpenter A " Pornographer of Violence" .. And the fact Steven Spielberg's film E.T. came out the same year. Furthermore, hindered the film..
Good to see Tony finally become a proper Italian filmmaker by including a bottle of J&B in the episode.
The book is a banger, BTW. It's got an early sci-fi monster movie vibe, lot of exposition and pseudo science wonkery, but it's a real page turner with some good creepy scenes.
The best thing about The Thing (2011) was when it ended, not kidding the post credit scene was pretty awesome. 😃
Bob Saget didn't write The Aristocrats. That's a comedians' joke. It's existed for probably a century. That's just a joke every comedian has their own version of, or at least they used to before people decided comedy wasn't allowed to be funny anymore.
All the criticism aside, I enjoyed the 2011 movie for what it was, which it wasn't much, but still enough to let myself be immersed in its horror.
Same. It was never going to be near as good as the Carpenter version but it's still decent, and it's a bummer the studio stepped in and ruined the effects and ending. I give it a pass and still enjoy it. Even got a signed photo of MEW with her flame thrower from the movie.
Both of you are wrong
2 minor things about Lovecraft. He didn't name the cat and he had inherited it from his grandfather when he died. He said in his letter that he couldn't rename the cat after so long as he considered it near abusive to confuse the cat so much with a new name. He was VERY protective of cats, after all he wrote an entire essay dedicated to why cats are cool.
Second, is that there seems to be a modern myth that he was outstandingly racist for his time when that is not the case. I don't think people understand that eugenics and similar practices were very, VERY popular in the 1900's, well, right up until the found the camps in the 40's... Also the fact that he did apologize for his views in the later years of his life.
BONUS FUN FACT: Did you know his inspiration for Shadows Over Innsmouth was not over racemixing like many believe? He revealed in his letters that it was inspired by him learning that, to his horror, his great grandmother was in fact... Welsh. I think that's pretty funny.
Cats will answer to literally anything you call them as long you're giving them food.
@@HackTheMovies Wow, I did not expect a reply, nor that soon. Cats answer people? Anyways, I was just saying some stuff that people didn't know about him. The dude had a FUCKED childhood that is directly responsible for almost everything about him.
Sorruy to stumble across this so late, but I'm curious if you have any citations on your inforation about Lovecraft. Because I've never read or seen or heard anything about him being apologetic about any of his beliefs. Nor do I see the point of anyone being an apologist for him.
@@jkclark5204Citation-- read his letters. I know they're available in a hardback 5-volume set, but I bought my copies 20 years ago and even then they were out of print and ridiculously expensive. And I'm an apologist for him because I love his work.
Wow, my comments are being deleted.
Look how the redhead can’t stand when someone else gets attention.
“She” has to take drink, flip her hair, and try to think of what her cool friend would tell her how to act.
Some people must have liked the 1982 Thing because in Family Ties sitcom there’s an extremely well constructed joke with a callback
1) You can add Scarface to that list of classic movies that the 80’s remake did well.
2) The Thing was cult status in the 80’s. My uncle rented it so many times, and I can’t recall how many times I saw it on TV. So I don’t think the Stranger Things kids would have had a poster. I had Star Wars, Ghostbuster, Godzilla and Marvel Comics posters. But they would have been sneaking to watch it on cable late at night.
They even mentioned the 50s version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers which was remade in the 70s.
Also just buying a poster of a lesser known movie would be way more difficult in the 80s. It's common place now because of the internet, but I remember driving to like 6 different video rental stores just trying to find the movie I wanted. Let alone the poster to a movie, that at the time was still getting bad reviews.
The only "THING" cool about the 2011 version was the theme maze they built at Universal Studios
Speaking of tentacles and CGI, the last It film had phenomenal effects(bug feet as a homage to the Thing).
This movie had so much potential and it so many really well but studio meddling which included the addition of bad cgi ruined it they also changed what would have been a very interesting ending into garbage
The film featuring the dog with the inappropriate name is
The Dam busters.
I preferred The Thing (1981), it's one of my favorites. I could see Hollywood revisiting The Thing if the timing/producing is right
@@DreamcastAesthetic the right timing is NEVER
Kinda feel Crystal hijacked this episode.... which is a bad thing
hahahaha
Shall we talk about the “short story who goes there”?
Tony: oh Have you read it?
“No“
🤣
This movie was begging to made like a foreign film: subtitled all the way through, with Norwegian actors.
There was another layer that could have been added too; this should have been a Rashamon style film with an unreliable narrator. What I mean is, there could have been two people who theoretically survived the Norwegian camp, and are brought to McMurdo, and have conflicting stories about what happened. The point is, we should never know exactly what happened at the camp.
This was a shame and I followed from it's inception. First time director films this with all practical fx by adi ,blood and character back story. This was made with all the promises being done. Test screens are shown studio demands re shoots(telling the 1st time director it's too 80s looking). Release is pushed back for months .They remove the practical and fx ,blood and replace it with piss poor CGI. Fans are extremely disappointed. Start a petition to release the test screen version but Universal will never release it and admit their huge mistake.
Click here ritual.com/HACK10 and use codeHACK10 to get 10% off your first 3 months with Ritual! #ritualpartner
* These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease
Joe is best co-host. Make him a full timer at your store please.
There was a concept for a sequel mini series called Return of the Thing about the aliens invading a town in New Mexico. Best Movies never made did a podcast on it.
The Unmentionable name reminds me of Pink Floyd's The Wall, where Pink is watching a show(movie?) with a dog named that.
Also ADI has a history of being Effed over. That awesome original Green Goblin mask was by them.
I’m almost positive that’s where I was remembering that from and got my wires crossed. -Joe
I just had a thought about how the Thing acts in this movie compared to the '82 one. Maybe the reason it acts more subdued in the original compared to the '11 one is that maybe (assuming it shares the same consciousness as the previous incarnation) it learned to be more stealthy in is approach on assimilating the humans? I don't know, maybe I'm just defending The Thing 2011 but I enjoy both. The original is superior in every way but I can have fun with both!
"Blade Runner 2049" is fantastic, dude.
I saw "The Thing" in theaters when it came out and I loved it. Seen it multiple times.
The 1982 version or 2011?
@@The_Word_Is_The_Way Both. Lol
@@nbpk They are both good. The second one has amazing acting and dialogue, the CGI isn't as good but the design of the mutations was still awesome. The ending was eerie and fantastic too, knowing she will died out there in the cold if she kills the driver who only knows how to get to the station but in turn save the world.
@@Despond that may be true, but the 82 version aged much better than the 2011.
He didn't have an earring in either ear in this scene, which was the point. Though, it's so dark, it's hard to tell, so everyone thinks he put the earring back into the wrong ear. Him reaching up to touch the wrong ear just confirmed for her that it was an alien and not the real dude, but it also makes it seem like there's supposed to be an earring there when there isn't.
There are comics that continue the things story and they are really good, look into them.
Honestly, I didn't even notice the janky CGI the first time I watched the movie. Even though I'm aware of it now & agree that they should have just run with the practical effects, it's never bothered me enough to spoil my enjoyment of the movie. It's definitely one of my favorite horror movie sequels/prequels.
Wow, I had the complete opposite experience. Took me completely out of the movie.
bad taste bro.
I admire your tolerance lol
In the short story and the original film the ship was completely destroyed by a combination of thermite and magnesium-alloy that caught fire from the thermite causing a chain reaction that allowed the engines to release stored energy, utterly vaporizing the space craft. Anyway...
The ending was frickin awesome, as we got to see what happened to the camp as well as seeing the events of the classic 1982 film.
So, I understand the sentiment of being completely let down and hating the loud, fast and "attack no matter what" behavior of the Thing in the 2011 movie, but I think it would make WAY less sense for it to just automatically know that it needs to be stealth. I can imagine it's probably not met much resistance on the multitude of planets and species that it's assimilated over who knows how many years, and it is just used to openly doing it's thing (no pun intended, lol). While it doesn't completely forgive the bad plot, it definitely does help make sense out of a good portion of it. Of course the alien is going to be super hostile, as it it was JUST woken up after 100,000 years, being poked and prodded, so of course it's going to be a little loud and aggressive. I'm also sure it probably underestimated the humans, thinking they were probably just some stupid species it could easily overtake, but quickly learned that loud and fast wasn't the right method. So, by the time it gets to the American base, it knows to be quiet and methodical and take it's time. It can quickly adapt, but things just got way too out of hand, way too fast at the Norwegian base, that switching to a silent and stealthy approach, just was out of the question by then.
I was just about to rant the same thing, for being fans of the series it's frustratingly surprising how they overlooked such obvious considerations.
To addon I'll dig into their complaint about 'why was the alien pilot not in the craft?' We've seen that it can infect on the cellular level, but the conversion rate depends on the amount of mass that's contaminated; hence why half the crew in the 80s turned out to be things from being exposed to active bloodsplatter, but didn't turn until much later in the movie compared to the characters that had direct contact by a thing monster. The alien pilot could've been infected and tried to suicide before it lost control, knowing that if it failed it would've at least stalled the thing from escaping the planet.
Similarly the smaller craft it tried to build wasn't intended to go into space at all realizing there's sentient creatures here, the thing just needed something it knew could reach a more populated part of the planet where it could grow and build something better; like using a life-raft to reach a cruise-liner, of course a life-raft in the open sea is a mistake waiting to happen, but it's ineptly shortsighted of them to ignore possible motivations of the thing when it's shown to be both intelligently cunning and future-minded.
I suppose its a good point that it hasnt encountered humans before so doesnt know about stealth.
However, if we say that the alien ship pilot/crew wasnt an original thing and was instead attacked by it and they fight/deliberately crash then surely that would mean the thing should learn about stealth.
That actually makes sense.
To answer the question of why it crashed in the South Pole (or North pole), the original story answers it. The hypothesis is that the ship's engines used magnetic fields of planets to generate energy, and it malfunctioned, which sucked it into one of the poles (where the magnetic fields concentrate). "It tangled with the Earth's magnetic field..." or some line like that. Anyway...
I think it's been established that John Campbell's "Who Goes There?" was directly influenced by H.P. Lovecraft's "At the Mountain of Madness," at least from what I've read.
Ever notice that whenever we watch these Thing movies we are really just watching ghosts because everyone dies
Found your channel and first commenting. I love the 50s original and Carpenter. Regarding the TV narration version, is there a release that includes that version?
the 1982 version is way closer to the original story written by John W. Campbell, Jr. than the 1951 "Thing From Another World", thank you Joe for mentioning that. Also Hack the Movies wouldn't be the same without Johanna, Crystal, Trisha & Mint!!
The 82 one is nothing like the book. None of the movies is. The book hardly even has gore.
I thought the 1982 version was a very close adaptation to the novella.
I get them not calling it "The Thing." Think about it, two entire groups consistently call this creature The Thing without interacting with each other? It'd really be weird in this one, since they know it's an alien.
This prequel was ok to me. I really don't find it to be trash, because I've seen SO much worse prequels/sequels/remakes!!!
This movie doesn't deserve this enormous trash talking, just because we love the orginal 1982 movie so much!
I still hope to see a sequel some day (with the Russian base and stuff)...
And really...the CGI and practical effects look ok!
Be realistic! The effects really aren't that bad!!!
It's not like Mortal Kombat (1995) Reptile, Lawnmower Man 2: Beyond Cyberspace or Spawn (1997) effects stuff.
These comments...pfff...so much nitpicking stuff!!!!
And everybody that is criticising, they all believe they would be better movie makers....right?!
My main point is...I don't think this movie is trash!!!
Thank you, yes I didn't hate this movie. I think it's just fashionable to poo poo. I feel they are grasping at staws to find bad things to say.
I loved this movie. No idea why it gets so much hate.
@@ericbrown2336 these people always do.... Clickbait. Trolling etc...
Whether you like or not the film has major problems, CGI definitely problem. Typical fanboy response.
@@Temujin18S Ok...really...I'm not a fanboy!
This prequel is nowhere as great as the 1982 movie! It manages however, in my opinion, to capture some of the atmosphere and look of the original movie.
But, this 2011 prequel movie is just NOT trash!
+1 for test audiences ripping away what could have been the one redeeming aspect if this movie.
John Carpenters The Thing is my favorite movie ever made. Was sad when I saw this in theaters haha
I quite like the prequel but it's utter madness that they did the SFX for a beloved franchise entry which is famous for its practical effects with CGI instead. Nuts.
John Carpenter's The Thing is my all time favorite movie. I couldn't bring myself to watch this TURD for years but then it was on T.V. about a year ago or so I forced myself. It pissed me off so bad ( and this isn't a joke ) after I watched it I hunted it down on DVD bought it and burned it . I know that's stupid but it made me feel better. And I'm sure you know how I put the fire out and it wasn't water . The movie was a disgrace to cinema.
Well be talking more about The Thing coming soon.
@@HackTheMovies I seriously can't wait . 👍
Tell me how they cut out a cube (more or less) from a solid mass of ice at their feet. It would have taken a day or two at least to cut trenches in four directions deep enough to reach a bottom where they could remove the base and disconnect it. With HAND AXES????? No one has ever tried to cut through ice with an ax apparently. It ain't cotton candy.
I find it hard to believe Crystal gets misogynist comments on the internet. Who would do that. Just go on the internet and be mean for no reason? That's so uncommon.
The internet makes people show their true colors every day & it's sad .
Crystal must spend so much time googling movie facts before these shows 😂
Have you guys watched Lifeforce yet. The 1985 alien vampire movie with Sir Patrick Stewart. I would love to hear what you guys have to say about it.
The Things ship would have crashed landed before man had evolved. I'm pretty sure it's been there for thousands of years before it is found. A prequel involving it crashing would be it crashing, crawling out and then freezing solid. That'd be boring lol. You could show intergalactic alien goo space battles. Maybe the shop isn't even his species' ship. Maybe it's just another alien species that was unfortunate enough to come across the Thing and it hijacked a ride before it could be destroyed. That movie would be interesting
It's ok but studio interference messed up entire movie ending on ship and all the practical effects were basically removed and replaced with cg when alot of the stuff was already made .the john carpenter one was a masterpiece cronenbergs the fly also total masterpiece 👌
The Thing 1982 is the best and can not be compared, to be honest using props and costumes looks more realistic than CG at times, if done right with high quality made props, look at the original Alien 1979 compared to Alien: Covenant 2017, Alien 1979 looks more realistic and has a certain vibe that Covenant's CG can not provide to the viewer.
Comic idea. Alien/Predator vs The Thing. I mean, they were in Antarctica. So was Mulder and Scully...this could be the Endgame of comics. Oh, they might invade Superman's crib...throw in Sauron from X-Men, sold.
I saw this one in theatres when it first released. I really enjoyed it at the time but it doesn't hold up compared to the john carpenter cut.
Eh, wouldn't say it's trash, just mediocre. Too bad the studio messed the movie up by mandating terrible visual effects which made everything look like plastic.
I think the only time it really falls apart is towards the end. The final monster in the spaceship doesn’t look great and I don’t think the effects blend well there, and then there’s that weird 8-bit column thing. It felt like they ran out of money and had to change the ending or something.
@@kidcrossfire3489 Before I made my comment I looked up if I remembered correctly about the visual effect being added because of studio interference so as not to spout nonsense. I did remember correctly and though it has been too long since I saw the movie to clearly remember the ending, it also mentioned that the studio wanted the ending changed. So that might be something Universal is responsible for as well.
Trash is a bit too much. The problem with the movie is that it didn't do anything special or innovative. Typical 6/10 movie
Laughed out loud at the cat joke.
didnt get it
@@MrStefanDittrich HP Lovecraft's cat was named "N*gger man"
Also also.... that "The Thing Returns" movie that got brought up, it's literally just "trailers" but made up of a bunch of stolen clips from The Thing Fan Films off of YT and other B-Roll. Maybe that was already known by y'all, but JIC it wasn't, just letting you know. One of the main ones they rip off is from a fan film on here call "Who Goes There" from 2017. Pretty decent no-budget practical effects tho.
That girl definitely does not understand what PREQUEL means .......
They didnt blow up the ship in the prequel they blew it up in the original black and white movie! the point of the ending at the ship was to show how the ship was uncovered in the ice with the thrusters melting the ice exposing the ship and got covered again in snow! I think it's even mentioned in the special features somewhere that blowing up the ship by accident was stupid and there was no way the Norwegians could've exposed the ship like that with no excavating vehicles!
I love JOE!!....He's fuggin hilarious, have him on more often, like almost every episode often. Thank you.
I'm baffled at how three people who are in such close proximity to one another, presumably emotionally as well as literally, can manage to have such terrible communication. Even when you're not talking over each other, you'll often just flat-out misunderstand what the subject of the conversation is because you're all so desperate to tell your own story and aren't offering an ear to what anyone other than yourself is trying to address. That happens multiple times in this video - "I'm not talking about X, I'm talking about Y!" "I know, I'm talking about X, not Y here!"
You all clearly know and love movies but this chemistry is just awful.
I think we all know what the red haired problem is.
This has quickly become my favorite channel
Have the Italians remade the Thing. I gotsa kno
In South Africa, "jols" is a slang for a house party or night club, depending on region. That's what I think about every time Tony talks about JOLS.
I enjoyed this in the theaters but yeah I can see the flaws
Just watched the 1982 one yesterday. It was great!
the two face thing bothered me cuz when i saw the original i didnt imagine it as two people being smooshed together, i thought it looked more like one person being split into two.
That's what it was supposed to be. Just another thing this movie got wrong.
@@NotMorganFreeman. well, the producers. I will admit I love watching this one and then the original straight after like one big film. I would love to see a cut of the film before they added the CGI. It was done practically with CGI augmentation. So theyd work in tandem (the best way to do cgi) but then a producer decided to cover ALL the practical with cgi
Man, I NEED to find out where Joe got that Xtro shirt!
I saw this 2011 version in theaters before I saw the John Carpenter version on VHS slightly after.
Would be cool if we could get a cut with remastered practical effects edited in somehow
My Dad watched back in the 80s when he was down in Rockaway Beach so he was definitely one of the few that saw it.