You gotta respect the guy acknowledging the originals brilliance and asking to make a prequel 'cause he knew he couldn't improve it. That's both honorable and ballsy.
This depressed me - when this version of the film came out I thought it was well done apart from terrible CGI which ruined it for me. Finding out they made all the practical effects hurts even more because the real people behind the making of it knew what was right and they got overruled by idiots :(
It wasn't well done by any measure. It was extremely badly scripted and the actors were very bad. There were virtually no memorable scenes. Not to mention that the point of the movie was completely avoided. This turned from a mystery - paranoia fest into a boogy-man chasing you - americans going bang bang at monster fest. I could have easily looked past the bag CGI if the script and acting was solid and the movie full of memorable scenes.
+The Pickles If the Enron scandal is any indicator on how these people think, they believe that they are making good decisions whilst making an extra buck not realizing that they are at the very root of the issue for trying to make that extra buck... Overall, they are more retarded than an inbred sea cucumber with down syndrome
Fuck yeah that's awesome. I love Carpenter's so much and I always hated this one after seeing it in theaters. Maybe now I just feel kinda bad for it. This bodysuit thing kicks ass.
The best horror movie score of all time imo. Gets stuck in your head. They were fucking idiots back in the 80's. So many horror movies they couldn't tell the bad from the good.
Not only the CGI, but the original ending/story looks way better than the released one. And the practical effects were so well done that it looked even more realistic than the CGI. Seriously, what were Universal executives thinking?
I am so sick of these stupid, arrogant, out-of-touch executives and studio big-wigs making enforcing these idiotic ideas and changes to films that ultimately derail them. They don't care about what the audience wants to see, they only care about what THEY want to see, and project that onto everyone else.
Imagine Dali or Caravaggio handing over their works to a group of idiots who never painted a thing in their lives and then those people completed the works! Why don't studio execs trust the artist's vision?
The idea of another artist messing with your work isn't as bad because, while I'm sure artists think they are better than other artists, at least it is another person who understands your art. Studio execs are like the church coming in and telling a painter "you can't paint this and you can't paint that and this has to look this way and..." which did happen, but... wow, I've totally lost control of my simile, but I'm sure everyone gets it.
It's mind boggling how bad the 80's The Thing was initially received. The things (ha!) people said about it at the time. Yet, how much everyone loves it now.
ludwin cruz Das Boot was beloved in the USA, so I think they were very open-minded just not so much when it came to John Carpenter's work which is a shame :\
Sad that a few clueless studio execs ruined the film for everyone; the audience, everyone who contributed to the making of the film, and profits for the studio. Now this makes me really want to watch that pilot Director's Cut with all the practical effects.
The rushed (and forced) CGI brought this movie down but I still enjoy both it and the 1982 movie alot. They completely shit on "thing from another world", fuck you Christian Nyby!
Agreed, *THAT* level of practical effects... blows my mind, that shit, with proper lighting... would *MAKE ME BELIEVE* it if while walking I turned a corner and bumped into it... Would need new underwear at *LEAST* . Hmm.... would give a new meaning to "Practical" Jokes.....
I know. It's odd that innit. It's not scary but it is VERY unnerving. Because each eye is moving independently. Kind of like how Chameleons do. That's very fitting too, if the Chameleon was indeed the inspiration 😉
I remember when I was like a little kid like 7 years old around 2008 and my dad one day went on a rant how I should never listen to critics and judge for myself. He actually brought up the roger ebert guy and said he was nothing but a shitty hack who had no business criticizing movies when he had no talent himself.
Professional Critics often think that they can do no wrong with a movie review and that people will hate the movie because they told them so, The Mummy 1999 is my favourite action adventure horror movie because of the characters and the chemistry between the actors original is still great though but the 99 version is it's own thing and I like it for that; but many critics panned it because it is not worth the money and Go watch Phantom menace instead yeah we all know how it turned out 😂. Same with Joker why the hell did they say it was gory because they did show that much blood and said it is not that great when it clearly is , Rise of skywalker was panned by critics because they did not follow The last Jedi but the audience hated it because the story made No Fucking sense and that the trilogy felt like not planned out . Critics may sometimes be right about a movie but for most they think they are the reason movies are still alive but No that is not the reason.
Mob mentality.. everyone was too busy praising and dick riding E.T. they didnt dare acknowledge that any other movie at the time was even remotely as groundbreaking. Judgement was clouded by what I can only say dick riding. Like when it's cool to hate on something. So one bad ceitsisim turned into 2 and soon its nominated for a razzi. Dumb people thinking themselves smart and good. "Hey look how bad this movie was and the music hahah so dull and boring let's nominate the music for how awfully simple and boring it is hahahha were so smart".
@@zachiswayposi1 according to my father he read in some online newspaper that it was gory and in bad taste and he actually went to the premier in my country and came back and said it is not gory yet felt so real that he said any children should watch it with a parent because of the reality it shows and he is actually a news producer. So I watched it with with my brothers and dad and at the end we all agreed it is a great movie and the blood is used properly.
Carpenter’s The Thing is a masterpiece. I will absolutely never get tired of watching it. Honestly? I think the prequel is pretty solid. The CGI isn’t great, but the acting is really good and you can tell that Mary Elizabeth Winstead committed to her role. You can tell that the team behind the prequel really cared about linking things up to the 1982 version as well and as seamlessly as possible. It’s a shame that the studio executives had to come in and mess with all their good ideas.
Yeah, I feel you. As hard as they tried, the studio execs didn't manage to ruin everything about the prequel and right now I would still say it does a faithful job of recreating the vibe of the original. Aside from the absolute shitter of an ending and the cg, it's still a commendable effort by the filmmakers. The biggest tragedy here is the director never returning to movies. He made his masterpiece, had some idiots rub shit all over it and then had to deal with the fallback from the critics. I wish he'd give it one more go before throwing in the towel.
I think critics went into the 2011 movie with way too high of expectations... and maybe based their reviews too much on the original. The 2011 prequel is okay, but under a 40% score on rotten tomatoes?? Bruh
What I found out after I finished the video was that one of the execs wanted CG because the practical effects made the movie look like it was from the 80s. Infuriating.
+GoodBadFlicks Yeah, I've seen similar complaints from a lot of directors in recent years - Jurassic World comes to mind. It seems the studio heads are so in love with CGI that they simply put it in there for the sake of having it. It's one of those things that makes me wonder if they actually WATCH the movies they produce.
I know a lot of studios like CG because it's easier, and often cheaper than practical, but since the practical effects were already done I couldn't figure out why they would spend more money to cover them up with CG. Wanting it to look less like an 80s film is so much dumber than any reason I was imagining.
I saw this in theaters as a freshman in high school and thought the CGI was horrendous. The Griggs face-split on the helicopter looked like something from a SyFy channel movie.
Mark Steven Seagle Jr. Yes they looked. But still the Thing itself in newer version behaves more like Jason Vorhees on a killing rampage, in Carpenters version the Thing only revealed itself when cornered or its cover had blown up. And even then It tried to escape not stand Its ground and fight till death.
Test Audience: "It's alright but why does that guy have green pants?" Studio: "You heard them! Re-do all the characters, cut out the scene that provides closure, and for God's sake can somebody PLEASE replace all of the practical effects with CGI over here??"
Rushed CGI. That's one of the things which gets me more than anything else. Given equivalent skill levels, resources and time, CGI will beat practical HANDS DOWN. There is only so far that you can push foam rubber, latex and corn syrup. Yet if you don't give them the proper support, CGI hits the uncanny valley twice. It clearly is fake, like practical, but it also clearly isn't an object in space. Something practical atleast has going for it.
I wouldn't say CGI beats practical at all, depends on what/how it's used, but we haven't reached the point yet where CGI looks real, we're close though.
@@AnonEyeMouse I don't agree that CGI beats practical, unless there is a mix of practical and digital effects, a great example being Mad Max Fury Road. If the effects in that movie were entirely CGI it would have ruined all tension lol it's really easy for the human eye to tell when an effect is CGI, hence why people are so fucking tired of it now. Seeing fake shit on the screen ruins all tension, especially if the CGI is rushed (which in 90% of cases these days, it is)
Sadly, they love making money, they're just stupid and have no idea what people want to see. Studios are incompetent and out of touch. They honestly really think they're helping when they do stupid things like this, even though they're so clueless they cannot even fathom after all these years that they are always wrong.
This is the real crux of the issue even more than interference. They interfere in ways that HARM the movie and therefore their profits, yet the same sort of thing happens again and again. They really do think they are acting for the best, yet make horrible decisions like this. The recent Suicide Squad debacle shows nothing has changed, sadly.
I don't know if that's always true, is it? *Bad* CGI is certainly cheaper than good practical effects, but really top-notch CGI is very expensive (look at current CGI-fest movie budgets). Good practical effects take longer to do, though (more workspace is needed, more people to do the works, etc.), and I suspect a lot of producers prefer CGI because it can be micro-managed more easily; you can tell a CGI artist to change something halfway through much easier than you can tell someone developing a big rubber suit to completely change it.
CutThroatNin3 that would be to admit that they were wrong, so until they can figure out a way to make it sound like they were right all along and still release it they won't
I know, even admitting they were wrong... it means more money and cashing in. They've released Director's Cuts of the recent DC movies saying that these versions "fixed the problems of the theatrical releases," so obviously they have not problem admitting they screwed up in some sense.
Joe Richards Wait, I don’t remember cgi in the movie? Lol what part? Edit::: I was reading comments, as I was watching the video, this is about be second one. I get the cgi comments now :)
To be fair, the crew made practical effects, but the studio told them to CGI over them, and then to add insult to injury, buried the original cut. The people who made the movie were pissed, too. Fuck executives.
They actually had really impressive practical animatronics, the execs just decided to opt for the more modern trend (for whatever reason...and, obviously a detriment to the film)
I was so excited about the prequel, but when I saw that horrible CGI...oh man. And now when I know they actually did practical effect and changed that to CGI...it''s even more painful to process.
That's super depressing. The CGI was indeed horrible in this film. But I also didn't like how the thing was reckless in comparison with the Russell version. It was just running around killing people in the open. Felt like both films had a completely different type of creature.
They killed the suspense in one fail swoop, it started out right they just shot most of the fireworks all at once leaving not much for the finale which is why the ending sucked. Also wrong actress for the lead
I srill think prequel was meh, but I like this theory. It was frozen for ages and it was first time it interacted with earth biology. So some erratic behavior and control is understandable and can be even part of story
Maybe she freezes to death in the snowcat, or maybe she tries to find the Russian base Carter talks about, or maybe she knows where McMurdo is and starts heading there. It's ambiguous, like the original.
jeez, I don't know which one makes me sadder. Exploring Event Horizon or Exploring The Thing 2011. Why do studios take all of the potential out of films? why?
Because they think that because they have money they have the proper talent and knowledge to change the ideas of people who have dedicated their lives to creating things that people enjoy. So instead of letting the person who actually studied and practiced for years to do their job they decide that they know better what people like. It’s like a costumer telling a carpenter how to make a table, when they already know how to make a table without it being uncomfortable.
There's a great 90+ minute interview with Alec Gillis somewhere on the ComicBookGirl19 channel where he goes into detail about the screwed up attitude studios have towards practical effects and where their bias towards CGI comes from. It's an extremely interesting yet also infuriating to watch as he explains how the studios will ask the most absurd questions when trying to debunk the positives of practical effects, he says he was asked if a puppets face could "convey the emotions of fear/bewilderment that could fade into anger/melancholy" ... they wanted a single puppet to do that in one shot! I personally don't know what that sort of overcomplicated, convoluted direction has to do with a horror movie. I'd argue that there's more feeling and emotion in any piece by Rob Bottin then any of the CGI in the remake.
...why would anyone care about "The Thing" expressing fear, bewilderment, anger, and melancholy? The THING, for fuck sake. This is a creature that emotes when it is trying to pass for human, which you have actors who can do all that. I'm not gonna look for melancholy on the face of a creature that shifts into a crazy tentacle monster that drains the blood out of a bunch of dogs without mercy. Ohhhhhhh..... you were right... I'm already infuriated at how dumb that question is.
The Pickles Yeah it's beyond infuriating when you hear Alec Gillis talk about how he has to defend his teams talent and skill base to executives who don't know what their talking about. I'd highly recommend checking out the interview as it's extremely interesting to hear someone who is extremely well established in the industry talk so candidly about the moronic goings on behind studio doors.
MissPandoraC That's the abridged video your talking about. The 90+ minutes interview is an unlisted video on her channel that's accessible through an annotation at the end of the abridged interview.
ET is a good film. That being said, I watched it again recently. while it was still enjoyable, well crafted and engrossing, parts of it now feel pretty dated. That’s probably because it has tons of 80’s culture in it. The Thing on the other hand, never really feels dated on a rewatch, there’s little there to feel dated (outside of the 80’s computer).
This discovery has broken my heart I remember seeing alien and saying wow how cool then I remember seeing the thing at a cousins house at 3am while our parents where asleep and my god was that one of the most amazing films I’ve seen one of the best!!! Totally an underrated alien with underrated abilities and what makes the thing more scary than any monster is that it has no appearance it just mutates it’s Host and can create many horrific forms man fuck this studio
Oh my god! What were they thinking?! This could've been a great prequel to The Thing, but nooooo, they had to replace nearly all the practical effects with badly rushed cgi! I want this the original version, not this Green Lantern cgi mess!
Is there a new petition for the Director's cut? Hopefully one that both restores the effects and the Pilot (along with all the scenes that would allow the Pilot version to make sense)
Those CGI effects look so fake and not scary I don't know the fact that they're practical makes the other ones creepy as they're really there and actually exist
Well that just sucks. So the movie was actually made by people that wanted to do justice to the original and instead the studio screws it up. On the upshot, we are approaching the time that filmmaking is becoming decentralized from Hollywood. Hopefully we can see people make stuff without all this needless interference from execs who I have a feeling aren't really in touch with the public these days.
I think their biggest mistake was using the same title. I don't blame general audiences for confusing that. They could have, for instance, used the title of the original story, even something cliched like "Thing: The Beginning" or "Before The Thing"
Cecil, thank you for changing my mind on The Thing (2011). I was a projectionist back in 2011 when this film came out. I thought it was decent, but after they surprised me it was a prequel, it was better.You was absolutely right!!! I'd rather preferred the practical effect than that god-awful CGI. I'm so glad you are making these "Exploring" series on GBF!!! This will give the filmgoers/film students like myself to give an underrated, unrecognized, and unappreciated movie a second chance.
The Thing is an awesome movie, and one of my absolute favourites. The critics who bashed this, are,. in my eyes, total idiots and back then were overpaid and blind. The director of the remake / prequel was very wise to not touch the original and instead creating a very good prequel, which wouldve fitted nicely into the original movie and wouldve made it also a much loved movie next to the original to me. Too bad the studio had to stick their fingers into the original version of the prequel, which shows in the theater version. Why do they have to put their stupid noses into great movies and f. it up??? And a really talented director went on to direct commercials because of their stupid actions....
Well, actualy most movie critics ARE just opinionated idiots. Look at Ebert. I've never, never read or heard a comment from him that was not totally idiotic.
Alexandre Martins The man bashed Carpenter and on ocassions the Cohen brothers, but loved Revenge of the Sith. Nostalgia critic is a better critic than him, and you're not even supposed to be taken seriously
The fact that the 'Thing' was shapeless and formless (1982) was what contributed to the films success. Leaving everyone in suspense and literally making the characters doubt one another; "No one trusts one another", contributed enormously to making TT '82 a masterpiece.
So I finally decided it's high time I watched both of the Thing films. I put it off for a long time because I was squeamish, but I've reached a point where I have seen so much behind-the scenes stuff about practical effects that I lost that queasy reaction, now I am utterly fascinated by the effects. So I absolutely love the Carpenter film, the effects are amazing and still look just as real as ever. On the other hand, the 2011 film is a joke. Nothing looks real at all. And it's also just broken from a writing perspective, it has none of the subtlety that made the original so tense. It tries, but it fails. In the Carpenter Thing, you feel like the monster is almost as tense as the humans, it doesn't want to be found. In the 2011 Thing, the monster is practically desperate to show itself and chase people, revealing itself at the most idiotic times and putting itself at needless risk. Yes, the Carpenter film is known for it's big effects moments, but those moments are the explosive end of a long buildup of quiet paranoia. In the 2011 film, there's all this shouting and talking during the examination of their teeth. In the Carpenter film, the blood-test scene is damn near silent. In the Carpenter ending, Childs and MacReady sit in an eerie aftermath, not knowing which of them is human or not. In the 2011 ending, there is no subtlety, you know exactly who is human and who isn't. The 2011 film is not just a failure for it's bad effects. It's a failure because it wears the face of the Thing while lacking the soul. The Thing is not a roaring monster that chases people. It's a creeping paranoia that lives inside people and bursts out when the tension finally snaps.
It's always frustrating to hear about the incredibly negative reception John Carpenter's The Thing initially received from professionals. I can understand your average movie viewer not liking it in the aftermath of ET. For example my aunt was 8 at the time and thought ET was scary, so she obviously wasn't going to like The Thing. While that's kind of unfair to the movie there's at least a reason behind it. What I don't understand is why film critics, people who are professional movie enthusiasts, wouldn't like such a well written, well acted, and well made movie. I have never heard any specific reasons Ebert hated this movie besides "it's a horror movie". What is it about the thing that certain people just hate?
The hand face hugger and Juliette things didn't bother me in the movie, I thought they looked great. But the Finch thing as well as the Tetris tube and the thing at the end really looked awful. The Tetris tube just looked out of place even if you didn't know about the pilot, and CGI faces are NEVER a good idea, especially in 2011. Even in 2018 we have Alita Battle Angel which looks like it has CGI leagues above the Finch thing's animation, but still is terrifyingly cemented in the uncanny valley.
I thought that the tetris thing looked strangely out of place, and learning that it was pasted in there to cover up the original practical effects makes total sense. What a hack job...the video gets it totally right, it was a poor decision where everyone loses, director, writer, practical effects crew, CGI effects crew, the audience and the studio!
The Tetris tube was put in just to cover up the pilot, who was done with practical effects. It looks like there was a lot of extra footage inside the saucer that was never used.
I didn't hate all the CGI like the shot of the arm crawling off the body or Juliette, but none of it was as visceral as the original practical effects.
"Hell, I've had bad dreams ever since I looked at those three red eyes. Nightmares. Dreaming the thing thawed out and came to life--- that it wasn't dead, or even wholly unconscious all those twenty million years, but just slowed, waiting--- waiting." --- "Who Goes There?" (1938), by John W. Campbell, writing as Don A. Stuart
It depends. Some directors have enough clout (Tarantino, Spielberg) that they can call the shots because of their track record. Others have a constant battle with the producers. With Independent productions, if the producers have enough faith in the director they will often let them make their vision unhindered. In most cases though, it is a balance between directors, producers, and the studio. Which is kind of lopsided because if the studio completely ruins a movie, it all gets blamed on the director.
One thing that directors are doing is staying away from Hollywood. Netflix, so far, has been very hands off, and allows directors to make the films that they want. There's not as much budget and profit as a "summer blockbuster," but in general, much better films.
Unless they do like some directors like M. Night Syamalan does and fund their own film completely out of pocket so they can make what they want, Studios will always get something of their input shoved into the film.
5:36 I absolutely loved the fact that they came up with a different means of spotting the thing in the prequel. Because different people in different circumstances are unlikely to come up with the same solution to a problem or the same answer to a question. The method of checking for inorganic implants or accessories like fillings or earrings was an excellent one because it was simple, believable and also NOT perfect.
Each time I hear how deeply affected Carpenter was when his masterpiece was (I know, they were all puffing on some mighty strong chemicals)panned - breaks my heart to imagine what that would do to a psyche.
This is a great channel! Thank you for introducing Harbinger Down, a film I hadn’t seen. I have been binge watching and will share your content with my friends. Thanks!
This series makes me so angry because there are so many good films that have been turned into crap and I just lose hope when it's not enough that you get to make a good movie, you can have it be completely destroyed last minute by someone with zero knowledge about movies. After you've spent years on it they can make a decision in 5 min to just remove everything you cared about in it and then you have to work extra to destroy what you built up. I didn't know any of this. I feel like this is a movie I really want to watch, but I can't because it's ruined too.
I wish I was rich, then I'd buy the studio that made THIS decision and go to this guy's office every single day, EVERY SINGLE DAY, take him(or them) out of his office out in front of everybody and just bitch slap him in front of EVERYONE, even the file clerks and secretaries. I'd also pay other companies to NOT hire this guy so that he has nowhere else to quit and go to ensuring he stays my bitch till he(or they) dies. Why 'till he dies'? Because I'd create a situation where something unfortunate would happen to his retirement completely erasing any funds he has coming.
Sam Raimi: So for Spidey 3 I want him to fight sandman. I have a very good backstory for that villain planned that will make him appeal to the audience. Studio: That's cool and all but this is the third film. Let's put some more action in it! Give us more villains! Sam Raimi: I guess I can throw in Goblin Junior. I mean he was teased in Spiderman 2. Studio: That's good but you know since this is the third let us have three villains! Sam Raimi: ... Studio: Give us Venom! That guy is scary! Sam Raimi: ...
ET sucks. It sucked back then and it sucks now. (although Close Encounters was amazing). I wish that Universal had just WAITED 6 months to release the Thing. By then, ET fever would have died down - and The Thing would have been released in the WINTER (cause it takes place in a cold setting after all) AND it would have been around Oscar time when the serious movies come out. I think it would have done much better with a later release.
Thanks for the great video. This one is especially heart-breaking as The Thing 1982 is one of my favourite films. Your first thought after seeing The Thing 2011 is that they got a bunch of idiots to make it but this couldn't be further from the truth. I do like the film as it stands because I can see some merit in the efforts to tie it to the first film.... but I really feel for the people who wanted to make the best companion piece to a great film as they could, but were thwarted my misguided execs, especially the FX guys. That's the problem with test audiences; they normally get it totally wrong.
I agree Damian. I've always loved the '82 The Thing, and was leery of the "prequel" when I heard they were doing it. Hollywood messes up way more than they get right. When '11 The Thing came out, I was happily surprised to see how much attention to detail was in it. At the time, I remember saying to people, the story is great, the detail and connections to the '82 version are spot on, I just have no idea what they were thinking with the crappy CGI. I bemoaned the lack of proper puppet makers now that CGI had taken over. This video was a great realization that the movie was even better than I originally thought. I would love to see the "Pilot version" of this. So sad to see what execs do to movies most of the time.
That would be the best choice, but general audiences would have no idea that it is the name of the book it was based on. It would have to be The Thing: Who goes there, which sounds really silly.
Tomasz Guzik I don't think they would care, general audiences are busy twitting or taking pictures, you could call it 'The Thing, I swear to god this is not a remake' and still no clue.
I'm sure it was the same studio people who thought cgi was the way to go who also thought a different title would ruin the opportunity to cash in off the Carpenter version.
Jw Nj, this Thing prequel really should of been called "Thing: The Norwegian Outpost" and all of us Thing fans would of instantly known what the movie was all about.
I started high school in '82, and that was a hell of a year for nerds. The Thing, Blade Runner, Conan the Barbarian, Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan, Poltergeist, Tron, and E.T. of course. The critics rarely got anything right, but - 38 years later - I'd say the fans win out.
2018's Predator, anyone? I'm so sick of Shane Black, a clearly talented filmmaker, getting all of the blame for every horrible thing the studios and test audiences make.
@@TheAdam1995 I saw that movie. There is no way that piece of shit is the fault of test audiences and and studio interference. Let me remind you that the plot revolves around the fact that Predators want autism.
Wow this really made me appreciate the prequel so much more! I had not noticed so much effort put into it. i liked it OK but now i will respect it much more.
Holy shit, I literally just saw this film and it’s incredible. How it could have been nominated for a Razzie for the score is beyond me. The soundtrack helps lend to the tension so well.
I just recently watched this movie for like the 15th time, and it's still as chilling as it was the first time I saw it. Not only it's it a great movie, but it also has one of the best musical scores EVER. Ennio Morricone absolutely killed it.
If they do I will get that cut over the mess that was the theatrical version, I want this movie at its full potential. I looked forward to this movie since its conception and felt cheated because of exec. meddling. UGH! If I want to critic a prequel to an otherwise great film I should be able to critic it when it is at it raw form. Not half ass effects over gorgeous practicals. It does the makers a disservice, and the cg workers get shoved under the bus for it as well. Film making is not an easy endeavor. The hierarchy in the studios need to change.
I think that's was kinda the point since the 2011 version confused everyone with the title. It did cover some of the original Thing, so it's not like the video's title isn't entirely incorrect.
The Thing came out during what I call "The Greatest Month in Sci-fi History". In one month, we got ET, Blade Runner, The Thing, and Star Trek: Wrath of Khan. What a time to be alive!
They screwed up *BIG TIME* and forgot to implement the thermite chargers explosion that blow up the ice layer that exposed the spaceship... In the prequel, they actually left the spaceship sitting under the ice layer and that was totally disqualifying as prequel being connected to the original 1982 movie... A major continuity issue..
the natural ability of executives to look at something and come up with the exact opposite of how to make it better nearly 100% of the time is one of those things that will never cease to amaze me
People who weren't die hard fans didn't get this film. It's fan service and a love letter to the original and a good companion piece, just wish there wasn't so much CGI but the attention to detail was very impressive.
I liked prequel, I thought it did a good job in creating the same type of isolation as the first movie. I wish the studio didn't change the practical effects as it would have made the film better.
This is hilarious because when the studio executives see the poor performance they'll just blame everyone but themselves. But they indeed just shot themselves in the foot. Also, It's a funny parallel to Carpenter's version because the executives hated his original ending and made him film another with MacReady getting his blood tested. But apparently the executives ended not caring about the film since they dropped it a week after E.T. and had little marketing.
The Thing: Origins, The Thing: Norwegian Outpost, Before The Thing, The Thing: Lockdown. There's some titles for you in 5 minutes. Not all great, but come on, something would have stuck if you spent longer than 1 day at it.
Or simply The Thing 2. Since it's the second movie. I hate now numbering movies is out of style. Instead of coming up with stupid names like Rise of the Thing.
CaptainAtomSmasher 2 would have been weird since it is a prequel. Plus these days, numbering tends to backfire on the studio because the general public has the weird thing of anything past 3 is too much. The Force Awakens didnt have "episode VII" in the title to give it more mass appeal in its appearance. The only series Ive seen be super successful and still number is Fast and the Furious, and maybe Rocky, but they dropped the numbering. You look at something like Friday the 13th, and people go "Oh geez, Part 8, they really made that many?"
Thank you for the insightful story behind one of my favorite nightmare movie. John Carpenter is so ahead of its time. The Thing and Escape from New York were a constant re-run in where I came from.
I'm here from Mr. Sunday Movies! Great video, knowing all the hard work that went into this film makes me sad we didn't get the original "Pilot" version. It looks so much better too.
0:41 I noticed that in the #2 spot is Firefox, a movie almost nobody talks about. That got me thinking that you should do an Exploring Firefox video. I think a lot of people would be interested in one of Clint Eastwood's 9th time directing.
CGI can be handy if used properly. But, I am hurted by those who think that CGI is the ULTIMATE TOOL! No... it's a tool... just a tool. Puppets are superior for closeup. For distant shots, then you can assume the CGI (if distant, less details to show)
My personal advice to film makers is "if you can film it, FILM IT". I feel like CGI should only be reserved for things that can not be filmed. I'm just sick of CG animator spamming a bunch of computer shit over film. It's disrespectful to the crew who took the time to set up their shots, the props, the lighting and the actors. Immersion is stronger when you see a film that your brain unconsciously reasoned to itself "if this was real, and I filmed it on a camera, it would look like this"
Vincent Pellemans It means Fury Road is quite possibly the greatest western action film of all time, or at the very least in the running and uses CGI incredibly well and blends with the practical effects to create an immersive world and phenomenal set pieces.
Your videos are really informative and give me a better appreciation for movies I haven't see in a while. I definitely have a much better appreciation for the effort that goes into some of these films!
Hey gbf another great vid as always, I was wondering if you have a review on deep rising in the pipeline, its a great sea moster movie with loads of 90s cheese
0:58 Let me remind you this is they same guy that said Predator 2 was too violent. The fuck does this guy want from movies? ET Ft. Mandibles and claws?
man, that July 2 line-up was stellar. Not saying those were better films than The Thing (they aren't) but ET, Rocky III, Blade Runner, Poltergeist-what a feast of riches
You gotta respect the guy acknowledging the originals brilliance and asking to make a prequel 'cause he knew he couldn't improve it. That's both honorable and ballsy.
Wise man. When the studio asked Carpenter to remake "The Thing", he immediately asked himself, "how do I remake this masterpiece?"
A badass once said, "A man full of guts and honor, I like that." Such a shame he got fucked over by a dipshit.
Indeed, but not only that, the idea itself was great. So many questions about the Norwegian base camp, and certainly a good idea to tell the story.
I'm your 666 like. Yw.
@@QuestionThings123 🤝🏻
This depressed me - when this version of the film came out I thought it was well done apart from terrible CGI which ruined it for me. Finding out they made all the practical effects hurts even more because the real people behind the making of it knew what was right and they got overruled by idiots :(
It wasn't well done by any measure.
It was extremely badly scripted and the actors were very bad.
There were virtually no memorable scenes.
Not to mention that the point of the movie was completely avoided.
This turned from a mystery - paranoia fest into a boogy-man chasing you - americans going bang bang at monster fest.
I could have easily looked past the bag CGI if the script and acting was solid and the movie full of memorable scenes.
@@antoniudraculea4507 a lot of the script and such were changed because of the big dogs.
Antoniu Draculea fuckin moron
@Andrew Sullivan Not true at all.
Brandin Bertucci sorry dude I thought you guys were talking about the 80s version
so...anyone down to sign another petition for that pilot version???
Ben Garcia yes
Heck yes!
Indeed
Yes!
Hell yeah!
Fascinating. The three-eyed pilot actually harkens back to the description of the creature in the original 1938 novella.
Corporate executives ruin everyTHING.
@@mannixflinn6227 tell that to mel brooks, you racist asshole.
@@mannixflinn6227 God damned right.
Bjorick truth hurts.
@@Bjorick that's antisemitism not racism
The thing at 8:35 looks horrifying in the practical version, but the CGI version looks stupid.
+The Pickles If the Enron scandal is any indicator on how these people think, they believe that they are making good decisions whilst making an extra buck not realizing that they are at the very root of the issue for trying to make that extra buck...
Overall, they are more retarded than an inbred sea cucumber with down syndrome
Enron Burn! Nice.
The Pickles Nice to meet another Pickles. Are you my evil doppelganger? Or am I yours?
Pickles
no, I'm "The" Pickles. There's a difference.
Fuck yeah that's awesome. I love Carpenter's so much and I always hated this one after seeing it in theaters. Maybe now I just feel kinda bad for it. This bodysuit thing kicks ass.
Razzie for the score ? and here i was thinking "the thing score" is one of the best scores in movie history.
Don't get surprised.
Some of the worthless actors won Oscars too.
Awards don't mean anything really.
The best horror movie score of all time imo. Gets stuck in your head. They were fucking idiots back in the 80's. So many horror movies they couldn't tell the bad from the good.
Not the first nor last time they were dead wrong.
Never trust film critics. Watch something, and then decide for yourself if its good or not.
it is... The Thing is a testament to why you shouldn't listen to critics or general audiences, EVER.
Not only the CGI, but the original ending/story looks way better than the released one. And the practical effects were so well done that it looked even more realistic than the CGI. Seriously, what were Universal executives thinking?
They weren't.
The Thing is my favorite horror film, just fucking love it, and Kurt Russell’s hair was perfect
Agree, second favorite for me after Alien. Dallas' hair is just better.
Correction *IS perfect
And beard.
I am so sick of these stupid, arrogant, out-of-touch executives and studio big-wigs making enforcing these idiotic ideas and changes to films that ultimately derail them. They don't care about what the audience wants to see, they only care about what THEY want to see, and project that onto everyone else.
Actually they're doing what their marketing departments tell them audiences want to see, which is more often than not something they've already seen.
The movie is too smart, let's dumb it down so casual watchers can feel more at ease...
because Inception is beloved for its simplicity
Imagine Dali or Caravaggio handing over their works to a group of idiots who never painted a thing in their lives and then those people completed the works! Why don't studio execs trust the artist's vision?
Cyril- Dali did disown L'Age d'Or, but not because of studio interference. He just didn't get along with Bunuel. Sometimes artists don't get along.
The idea of another artist messing with your work isn't as bad because, while I'm sure artists think they are better than other artists, at least it is another person who understands your art. Studio execs are like the church coming in and telling a painter "you can't paint this and you can't paint that and this has to look this way and..." which did happen, but... wow, I've totally lost control of my simile, but I'm sure everyone gets it.
It's mind boggling how bad the 80's The Thing was initially received. The things (ha!) people said about it at the time. Yet, how much everyone loves it now.
I'm not one to delve into critical bias but it most certainly looked as though critics had some form of stigma against John Carpenter
Vegeta8300 why was it consider so bad?. people back then weren't open minded?
ludwin cruz Das Boot was beloved in the USA, so I think they were very open-minded just not so much when it came to John Carpenter's work which is a shame :\
Too bad. The first Halloween was really good
Probably a combination of how horrific and slow it was
Sad that a few clueless studio execs ruined the film for everyone; the audience, everyone who contributed to the making of the film, and profits for the studio.
Now this makes me really want to watch that pilot Director's Cut with all the practical effects.
I WISH WE COULD SOMEHOW GET IT ;-; id pay for that pilot version
The rushed (and forced) CGI brought this movie down but I still enjoy both it and the 1982 movie alot. They completely shit on "thing from another world", fuck you Christian Nyby!
The original ending sounds better too
@Frizzurd It really is unfair. Execs fuck with the movie, and then hold the director and others responsible for the result.
I hope they lost their fucking job...
That eye blink from the pilot thing is amazing to me lol
Agreed, *THAT* level of practical effects... blows my mind, that shit, with proper lighting... would *MAKE ME BELIEVE* it if while walking I turned a corner and bumped into it... Would need new underwear at *LEAST* .
Hmm.... would give a new meaning to "Practical" Jokes.....
a moment of silence for starship trooper´s brain bug.
I know. It's odd that innit. It's not scary but it is VERY unnerving. Because each eye is moving independently. Kind of like how Chameleons do. That's very fitting too, if the Chameleon was indeed the inspiration 😉
Man people were smoking CRACK in the 80s bashing The Thing. Legit one of the best movies of all time.
I remember when I was like a little kid like 7 years old around 2008 and my dad one day went on a rant how I should never listen to critics and judge for myself. He actually brought up the roger ebert guy and said he was nothing but a shitty hack who had no business criticizing movies when he had no talent himself.
Professional Critics often think that they can do no wrong with a movie review and that people will hate the movie because they told them so, The Mummy 1999 is my favourite action adventure horror movie because of the characters and the chemistry between the actors original is still great though but the 99 version is it's own thing and I like it for that; but many critics panned it because it is not worth the money and Go watch Phantom menace instead yeah we all know how it turned out 😂. Same with Joker why the hell did they say it was gory because they did show that much blood and said it is not that great when it clearly is , Rise of skywalker was panned by critics because they did not follow The last Jedi but the audience hated it because the story made No Fucking sense and that the trilogy felt like not planned out . Critics may sometimes be right about a movie but for most they think they are the reason movies are still alive but No that is not the reason.
Mob mentality.. everyone was too busy praising and dick riding E.T. they didnt dare acknowledge that any other movie at the time was even remotely as groundbreaking. Judgement was clouded by what I can only say dick riding. Like when it's cool to hate on something. So one bad ceitsisim turned into 2 and soon its nominated for a razzi. Dumb people thinking themselves smart and good. "Hey look how bad this movie was and the music hahah so dull and boring let's nominate the music for how awfully simple and boring it is hahahha were so smart".
@@kazinadbiralamadit6905 Who the hell said Joker was gory?
@@zachiswayposi1 according to my father he read in some online newspaper that it was gory and in bad taste and he actually went to the premier in my country and came back and said it is not gory yet felt so real that he said any children should watch it with a parent because of the reality it shows and he is actually a news producer. So I watched it with with my brothers and dad and at the end we all agreed it is a great movie and the blood is used properly.
Carpenter’s The Thing is a masterpiece. I will absolutely never get tired of watching it. Honestly? I think the prequel is pretty solid. The CGI isn’t great, but the acting is really good and you can tell that Mary Elizabeth Winstead committed to her role. You can tell that the team behind the prequel really cared about linking things up to the 1982 version as well and as seamlessly as possible. It’s a shame that the studio executives had to come in and mess with all their good ideas.
Yeah, I feel you. As hard as they tried, the studio execs didn't manage to ruin everything about the prequel and right now I would still say it does a faithful job of recreating the vibe of the original. Aside from the absolute shitter of an ending and the cg, it's still a commendable effort by the filmmakers.
The biggest tragedy here is the director never returning to movies. He made his masterpiece, had some idiots rub shit all over it and then had to deal with the fallback from the critics. I wish he'd give it one more go before throwing in the towel.
Except the blood test that they just HAD to include.
The prequel's weakness wasn't the use of cgi, it was its generic horror-script. Formulaic
I think critics went into the 2011 movie with way too high of expectations... and maybe based their reviews too much on the original. The 2011 prequel is okay, but under a 40% score on rotten tomatoes?? Bruh
More studio execs ruining what could have been great films. Who would hate practical effects. Makes me want to scream my head off.
What I found out after I finished the video was that one of the execs wanted CG because the practical effects made the movie look like it was from the 80s. Infuriating.
stlouisrocker100 i'm just glad they didn't make it a remake.
+GoodBadFlicks Yeah, I've seen similar complaints from a lot of directors in recent years - Jurassic World comes to mind. It seems the studio heads are so in love with CGI that they simply put it in there for the sake of having it. It's one of those things that makes me wonder if they actually WATCH the movies they produce.
I know a lot of studios like CG because it's easier, and often cheaper than practical, but since the practical effects were already done I couldn't figure out why they would spend more money to cover them up with CG.
Wanting it to look less like an 80s film is so much dumber than any reason I was imagining.
That has to rank high on the list of dumbest complaints ever.
I saw this in theaters as a freshman in high school and thought the CGI was horrendous. The Griggs face-split on the helicopter looked like something from a SyFy channel movie.
it was orginally gonna be a terrifying scene
i thought the cgi was pretty damn good. it wasn't the best, but it was realistic enough to gross me out multiple times.
WOW!!!!! Those practical effects looked AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!
You should check out Studio ADI's youtube channel to see more, they are amazing. Its a tragedy what the studio did to this movie.
The shrinking pupils on the pilot especially is just brilliant.
Mark Steven Seagle Jr. Yes they looked. But still the Thing itself in newer version behaves more like Jason Vorhees on a killing rampage, in Carpenters version the Thing only revealed itself when cornered or its cover had blown up. And even then It tried to escape not stand Its ground and fight till death.
Test Audience: "It's alright but why does that guy have green pants?"
Studio: "You heard them! Re-do all the characters, cut out the scene that provides closure, and for God's sake can somebody PLEASE replace all of the practical effects with CGI over here??"
Rushed CGI. That's one of the things which gets me more than anything else. Given equivalent skill levels, resources and time, CGI will beat practical HANDS DOWN. There is only so far that you can push foam rubber, latex and corn syrup. Yet if you don't give them the proper support, CGI hits the uncanny valley twice. It clearly is fake, like practical, but it also clearly isn't an object in space. Something practical atleast has going for it.
I wouldn't say CGI beats practical at all, depends on what/how it's used, but we haven't reached the point yet where CGI looks real, we're close though.
@@AnonEyeMouse I don't agree that CGI beats practical, unless there is a mix of practical and digital effects, a great example being Mad Max Fury Road. If the effects in that movie were entirely CGI it would have ruined all tension lol it's really easy for the human eye to tell when an effect is CGI, hence why people are so fucking tired of it now. Seeing fake shit on the screen ruins all tension, especially if the CGI is rushed (which in 90% of cases these days, it is)
This might be my favorite 'Exploring'-video, it hurts me that we never got a pilot-version of The Thing 2011...
Thanks!
How much angry mail would they have to receive to make them release it?
@@OrionCanning yes
@@martinnicdalsihovedetnemus6700, excellent use of that meme. I give it four and a half stars.
@@notahotshot thanks I guess
why do studios insist on not making any money
Sadly, they love making money, they're just stupid and have no idea what people want to see. Studios are incompetent and out of touch. They honestly really think they're helping when they do stupid things like this, even though they're so clueless they cannot even fathom after all these years that they are always wrong.
This is the real crux of the issue even more than interference. They interfere in ways that HARM the movie and therefore their profits, yet the same sort of thing happens again and again. They really do think they are acting for the best, yet make horrible decisions like this. The recent Suicide Squad debacle shows nothing has changed, sadly.
practical effects cost more then cgi
I don't know if that's always true, is it? *Bad* CGI is certainly cheaper than good practical effects, but really top-notch CGI is very expensive (look at current CGI-fest movie budgets). Good practical effects take longer to do, though (more workspace is needed, more people to do the works, etc.), and I suspect a lot of producers prefer CGI because it can be micro-managed more easily; you can tell a CGI artist to change something halfway through much easier than you can tell someone developing a big rubber suit to completely change it.
Making movies with bad effects costs more than making good movies with practical effects. Case in point: this movie lost the studio money.
...why wouldn't they release the pilot version? Do they know how many people would empty their wallets to buy a copy???
They probably scraped it.
CutThroatNin3 that would be to admit that they were wrong, so until they can figure out a way to make it sound like they were right all along and still release it they won't
MariWakocha But money, loads of it, all for them!
I know, even admitting they were wrong... it means more money and cashing in. They've released Director's Cuts of the recent DC movies saying that these versions "fixed the problems of the theatrical releases," so obviously they have not problem admitting they screwed up in some sense.
I would love to see a director's cut of this, pre-CGI.
Joe Richards
Wait, I don’t remember cgi in the movie? Lol what part? Edit::: I was reading comments, as I was watching the video, this is about be second one. I get the cgi comments now :)
Me too
I really love practical effects
You're thinking of the 2011 prequel, also called The Thing. This is the 82 The Thing, and its practical effects will blow your mind.
“Let’s see... since we’re remaking a film that’s famous for its legendary practical effects, let’s honor that by making a prequel that uses 99% CGI.”
No no no, it was the stupid execs that said that not the cast and crew.
To be fair, the crew made practical effects, but the studio told them to CGI over them, and then to add insult to injury, buried the original cut. The people who made the movie were pissed, too. Fuck executives.
Said the execs calmly.
They actually had really impressive practical animatronics, the execs just decided to opt for the more modern trend (for whatever reason...and, obviously a detriment to the film)
does anyone really like the "pilot alien" design? i don't blame the producers!
Execs: "Why do our films flop all the time...?"
Also Execs: *"CHANGE THIS AND AND THIS EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT FILMMAKING JUST BECAUSE"*
I was so excited about the prequel, but when I saw that horrible CGI...oh man. And now when I know they actually did practical effect and changed that to CGI...it''s even more painful to process.
That's super depressing. The CGI was indeed horrible in this film. But I also didn't like how the thing was reckless in comparison with the Russell version. It was just running around killing people in the open. Felt like both films had a completely different type of creature.
Too true ; why would the creature reveal itself on the helicopter when escape was possible?
They killed the suspense in one fail swoop, it started out right they just shot most of the fireworks all at once leaving not much for the finale which is why the ending sucked. Also wrong actress for the lead
I srill think prequel was meh, but I like this theory. It was frozen for ages and it was first time it interacted with earth biology. So some erratic behavior and control is understandable and can be even part of story
I literally juss finished watching the 2011 version. Does anybody know what happens to kate after the event? Where does she go? Does she die?
Maybe she freezes to death in the snowcat, or maybe she tries to find the Russian base Carter talks about, or maybe she knows where McMurdo is and starts heading there. It's ambiguous, like the original.
jeez, I don't know which one makes me sadder. Exploring Event Horizon or Exploring The Thing 2011. Why do studios take all of the potential out of films? why?
Because they are coming at this from a business perspective rather than an artistic one.
I really wish those two thing were more closely aligned. A good film should be a successful one.
@@SmashingPixels that's why I enjoy A24 films. They try to balance artistry and budget. When push comes to shove they go artistry.
Because they think that because they have money they have the proper talent and knowledge to change the ideas of people who have dedicated their lives to creating things that people enjoy. So instead of letting the person who actually studied and practiced for years to do their job they decide that they know better what people like.
It’s like a costumer telling a carpenter how to make a table, when they already know how to make a table without it being uncomfortable.
There's a great 90+ minute interview with Alec Gillis somewhere on the ComicBookGirl19 channel where he goes into detail about the screwed up attitude studios have towards practical effects and where their bias towards CGI comes from.
It's an extremely interesting yet also infuriating to watch as he explains how the studios will ask the most absurd questions when trying to debunk the positives of practical effects, he says he was asked if a puppets face could "convey the emotions of fear/bewilderment that could fade into anger/melancholy" ... they wanted a single puppet to do that in one shot!
I personally don't know what that sort of overcomplicated, convoluted direction has to do with a horror movie. I'd argue that there's more feeling and emotion in any piece by Rob Bottin then any of the CGI in the remake.
...why would anyone care about "The Thing" expressing fear, bewilderment, anger, and melancholy? The THING, for fuck sake. This is a creature that emotes when it is trying to pass for human, which you have actors who can do all that. I'm not gonna look for melancholy on the face of a creature that shifts into a crazy tentacle monster that drains the blood out of a bunch of dogs without mercy. Ohhhhhhh..... you were right... I'm already infuriated at how dumb that question is.
The Pickles Yeah it's beyond infuriating when you hear Alec Gillis talk about how he has to defend his teams talent and skill base to executives who don't know what their talking about.
I'd highly recommend checking out the interview as it's extremely interesting to hear someone who is extremely well established in the industry talk so candidly about the moronic goings on behind studio doors.
have you ever seen the dark crystal? an entire movie made with puppetry and the emotions portrayed are great.
"90+ minute" actual run time 19:56
MissPandoraC That's the abridged video your talking about.
The 90+ minutes interview is an unlisted video on her channel that's accessible through an annotation at the end of the abridged interview.
To this day never seen ET but when John Carpenter's The Thing came out it went right into the collection. I still watch it today and I'm 64.
Fact: I've never been able to watch E.T., always fall asleep around the Halloween arc.
Do you still get Valentines, birthday greetings, and bottles of wine? Are you still needed, and fed?
ET is a good film. That being said, I watched it again recently. while it was still enjoyable, well crafted and engrossing, parts of it now feel pretty dated. That’s probably because it has tons of 80’s culture in it. The Thing on the other hand, never really feels dated on a rewatch, there’s little there to feel dated (outside of the 80’s computer).
Damn, dude never saw E.T.???
Arent you in the least a bit curious why it is so beloved??
Its a great movie!
This discovery has broken my heart I remember seeing alien and saying wow how cool then I remember seeing the thing at a cousins house at 3am while our parents where asleep and my god was that one of the most amazing films I’ve seen one of the best!!! Totally an underrated alien with underrated abilities and what makes the thing more scary than any monster is that it has no appearance it just mutates it’s Host and can create many horrific forms man fuck this studio
This is why everybody hates studio interference.
Oh my god! What were they thinking?! This could've been a great prequel to The Thing, but nooooo, they had to replace nearly all the practical effects with badly rushed cgi! I want this the original version, not this Green Lantern cgi mess!
I want the directors cut so much right now. There still is a petition on the internet for it pl.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/thething
Is there a new petition for the Director's cut?
Hopefully one that both restores the effects and the Pilot (along with all the scenes that would allow the Pilot version to make sense)
Those CGI effects look so fake and not scary I don't know the fact that they're practical makes the other ones creepy as they're really there and actually exist
Gage Crawley And on top of that it made the director and effects team look bad
Gage Crawley
Would have been better they they didn't fuck up the continuity either.
Well that just sucks. So the movie was actually made by people that wanted to do justice to the original and instead the studio screws it up. On the upshot, we are approaching the time that filmmaking is becoming decentralized from Hollywood. Hopefully we can see people make stuff without all this needless interference from execs who I have a feeling aren't really in touch with the public these days.
This is depressing as hell. It sounds like the original vision is exactly what I wanted instead of what we got.
It's really irritating that many people actually think that this was a remake.
Armin Reindl Believe it or not, a lot of people actually thought Mad Max: Fury Road and the new Blair Witch were remakes.
Kristian Bates People can be idiots.
I think their biggest mistake was using the same title. I don't blame general audiences for confusing that. They could have, for instance, used the title of the original story, even something cliched like "Thing: The Beginning" or "Before The Thing"
Achmeron If it was just people who didn't actually watch it I could understand. But there are some out there who saw it and still didn't get it.
Armin Reindl blame the marketing team
Cecil, thank you for changing my mind on The Thing (2011). I was a projectionist back in 2011 when this film came out. I thought it was decent, but after they surprised me it was a prequel, it was better.You was absolutely right!!! I'd rather preferred the practical effect than that god-awful CGI. I'm so glad you are making these "Exploring" series on GBF!!! This will give the filmgoers/film students like myself to give an underrated, unrecognized, and unappreciated movie a second chance.
The Thing is an awesome movie, and one of my absolute favourites.
The critics who bashed this, are,. in my eyes, total idiots and back then were overpaid and blind.
The director of the remake / prequel was very wise to not touch the original and instead creating a very good prequel, which wouldve fitted nicely into the original movie and wouldve made it also a much loved movie next to the original to me.
Too bad the studio had to stick their fingers into the original version of the prequel, which shows in the theater version. Why do they have to put their stupid noses into great movies and f. it up???
And a really talented director went on to direct commercials because of their stupid actions....
Well, actualy most movie critics ARE just opinionated idiots. Look at Ebert. I've never, never read or heard a comment from him that was not totally idiotic.
Alexandre Martins The man bashed Carpenter and on ocassions the Cohen brothers, but loved Revenge of the Sith. Nostalgia critic is a better critic than him, and you're not even supposed to be taken seriously
The critics today are STILL total idiots, overpaid, blind and have egos that like to assimilate other people's opinion
@@wtIUpITp1E0wMsydV19c0FUmIXvCU I see what you did there 🤭
the problems with the prequel are not just down to the effects work. the casting was bad; MEW???
The fact that the 'Thing' was shapeless and formless (1982) was what contributed to the films success. Leaving everyone in suspense and literally making the characters doubt one another; "No one trusts one another", contributed enormously to making TT '82 a masterpiece.
So I finally decided it's high time I watched both of the Thing films. I put it off for a long time because I was squeamish, but I've reached a point where I have seen so much behind-the scenes stuff about practical effects that I lost that queasy reaction, now I am utterly fascinated by the effects. So I absolutely love the Carpenter film, the effects are amazing and still look just as real as ever. On the other hand, the 2011 film is a joke. Nothing looks real at all. And it's also just broken from a writing perspective, it has none of the subtlety that made the original so tense. It tries, but it fails. In the Carpenter Thing, you feel like the monster is almost as tense as the humans, it doesn't want to be found. In the 2011 Thing, the monster is practically desperate to show itself and chase people, revealing itself at the most idiotic times and putting itself at needless risk. Yes, the Carpenter film is known for it's big effects moments, but those moments are the explosive end of a long buildup of quiet paranoia. In the 2011 film, there's all this shouting and talking during the examination of their teeth. In the Carpenter film, the blood-test scene is damn near silent. In the Carpenter ending, Childs and MacReady sit in an eerie aftermath, not knowing which of them is human or not. In the 2011 ending, there is no subtlety, you know exactly who is human and who isn't.
The 2011 film is not just a failure for it's bad effects. It's a failure because it wears the face of the Thing while lacking the soul. The Thing is not a roaring monster that chases people. It's a creeping paranoia that lives inside people and bursts out when the tension finally snaps.
Wow, a video that actually touches upon all of the positive things the prequel tried to do. Thank you, was an enjoyable watch.
Thanks for watching!
Blame awful CGI effects these days for ruining what could have been good movies. Also, studio execs interference.
Cough cough Justice league cough cough
It's always frustrating to hear about the incredibly negative reception John Carpenter's The Thing initially received from professionals. I can understand your average movie viewer not liking it in the aftermath of ET. For example my aunt was 8 at the time and thought ET was scary, so she obviously wasn't going to like The Thing. While that's kind of unfair to the movie there's at least a reason behind it. What I don't understand is why film critics, people who are professional movie enthusiasts, wouldn't like such a well written, well acted, and well made movie. I have never heard any specific reasons Ebert hated this movie besides "it's a horror movie". What is it about the thing that certain people just hate?
Ebert openly expressed his hatred of horror films and often would give them thumbs down simply for being horror, regardless of quality.
The reviews for JC's The Thing went from it being a shit piece, to now a masterpiece LOL
I never really thought much of Ebert and his bloated ego but hearing him give reviews like this really make me think worse of him.
My feelings exactly.
GoodBadFlicks Roger Ebert was always a hypcorite.
The hand face hugger and Juliette things didn't bother me in the movie, I thought they looked great. But the Finch thing as well as the Tetris tube and the thing at the end really looked awful. The Tetris tube just looked out of place even if you didn't know about the pilot, and CGI faces are NEVER a good idea, especially in 2011. Even in 2018 we have Alita Battle Angel which looks like it has CGI leagues above the Finch thing's animation, but still is terrifyingly cemented in the uncanny valley.
I thought that the tetris thing looked strangely out of place, and learning that it was pasted in there to cover up the original practical effects makes total sense. What a hack job...the video gets it totally right, it was a poor decision where everyone loses, director, writer, practical effects crew, CGI effects crew, the audience and the studio!
The Tetris tube was put in just to cover up the pilot, who was done with practical effects. It looks like there was a lot of extra footage inside the saucer that was never used.
I didn't hate all the CGI like the shot of the arm crawling off the body or Juliette, but none of it was as visceral as the original practical effects.
"Hell, I've had bad dreams ever since I looked at those three red eyes. Nightmares. Dreaming the thing thawed out and came to life--- that it wasn't dead, or even wholly unconscious all those twenty million years, but just slowed, waiting--- waiting."
--- "Who Goes There?" (1938), by John W. Campbell, writing as Don A. Stuart
matthew witt do we really need Remake of thing Can we get a other John w campbell story
I just discovered this channel... aaaaannnddd there goes my evening lol
Nick S and I just did it today.
Do directors have power to make their own visions into movies anymore? These days its just "it flopped because of studio execs and corporates"
It depends. Some directors have enough clout (Tarantino, Spielberg) that they can call the shots because of their track record. Others have a constant battle with the producers. With Independent productions, if the producers have enough faith in the director they will often let them make their vision unhindered. In most cases though, it is a balance between directors, producers, and the studio. Which is kind of lopsided because if the studio completely ruins a movie, it all gets blamed on the director.
One thing that directors are doing is staying away from Hollywood. Netflix, so far, has been very hands off, and allows directors to make the films that they want. There's not as much budget and profit as a "summer blockbuster," but in general, much better films.
Unless they do like some directors like M. Night Syamalan does and fund their own film completely out of pocket so they can make what they want, Studios will always get something of their input shoved into the film.
Michael Mann 🙄
5:36 I absolutely loved the fact that they came up with a different means of spotting the thing in the prequel. Because different people in different circumstances are unlikely to come up with the same solution to a problem or the same answer to a question. The method of checking for inorganic implants or accessories like fillings or earrings was an excellent one because it was simple, believable and also NOT perfect.
Each time I hear how deeply affected Carpenter was when his masterpiece was (I know, they were all puffing on some mighty strong chemicals)panned - breaks my heart to imagine what that would do to a psyche.
This is a great channel! Thank you for introducing Harbinger Down, a film I hadn’t seen. I have been binge watching and will share your content with my friends. Thanks!
Man i love your exploring series its so interesting
Thanks!
GoodBadFlicks ;0
You going to talk about 'Harbinger Down'? I love that movie!
This series makes me so angry because there are so many good films that have been turned into crap and I just lose hope when it's not enough that you get to make a good movie, you can have it be completely destroyed last minute by someone with zero knowledge about movies. After you've spent years on it they can make a decision in 5 min to just remove everything you cared about in it and then you have to work extra to destroy what you built up.
I didn't know any of this. I feel like this is a movie I really want to watch, but I can't because it's ruined too.
I'm hoping that by bringing attention to this nonsense, it helps people to understand how movies can go wrong.
Spider Man 3, The Crow City of Angels, and Now this, a pattern here is that studios need to quit interfering
I wish I was rich, then I'd buy the studio that made THIS decision and go to this guy's office every single day, EVERY SINGLE DAY, take him(or them) out of his office out in front of everybody and just bitch slap him in front of EVERYONE, even the file clerks and secretaries. I'd also pay other companies to NOT hire this guy so that he has nowhere else to quit and go to ensuring he stays my bitch till he(or they) dies. Why 'till he dies'? Because I'd create a situation where something unfortunate would happen to his retirement completely erasing any funds he has coming.
Sam Raimi: So for Spidey 3 I want him to fight sandman. I have a very good backstory for that villain planned that will make him appeal to the audience.
Studio: That's cool and all but this is the third film. Let's put some more action in it! Give us more villains!
Sam Raimi: I guess I can throw in Goblin Junior. I mean he was teased in Spiderman 2.
Studio: That's good but you know since this is the third let us have three villains!
Sam Raimi: ...
Studio: Give us Venom! That guy is scary!
Sam Raimi: ...
I love the opening with Kurt Russell losing at chess so he destroys the computer.
Same, just wish he played an actual game
This movie should have NEVER failed when it first came out. But I'm glad its gotten its audience.
Probably why I dont care much for E.T
ET sucks. It sucked back then and it sucks now. (although Close Encounters was amazing). I wish that Universal had just WAITED 6 months to release the Thing. By then, ET fever would have died down - and The Thing would have been released in the WINTER (cause it takes place in a cold setting after all) AND it would have been around Oscar time when the serious movies come out. I think it would have done much better with a later release.
@@utube9000 Oh, come on, E.T. is pretty good. But it's not a masterpiece, which The Thing is in every sense of the word.
One great example of a movie ruined by studio interference is Alien 3.
how could they nominate ennio morricone for worst score lol
Infamy lol i know, right? xD
I love the score but the movie uses something like 3 tracks from it in total. And they repeat.
Nevertheless the theme fits the movie so well.
And then it gets an Oscar when Tarantino uses parts of his score from this decades later. Goes to show how much of a joke they are.
Thanks for the great video. This one is especially heart-breaking as The Thing 1982 is one of my favourite films. Your first thought after seeing The Thing 2011 is that they got a bunch of idiots to make it but this couldn't be further from the truth. I do like the film as it stands because I can see some merit in the efforts to tie it to the first film.... but I really feel for the people who wanted to make the best companion piece to a great film as they could, but were thwarted my misguided execs, especially the FX guys. That's the problem with test audiences; they normally get it totally wrong.
Thanks for watching!
I agree Damian. I've always loved the '82 The Thing, and was leery of the "prequel" when I heard they were doing it. Hollywood messes up way more than they get right. When '11 The Thing came out, I was happily surprised to see how much attention to detail was in it. At the time, I remember saying to people, the story is great, the detail and connections to the '82 version are spot on, I just have no idea what they were thinking with the crappy CGI. I bemoaned the lack of proper puppet makers now that CGI had taken over. This video was a great realization that the movie was even better than I originally thought. I would love to see the "Pilot version" of this. So sad to see what execs do to movies most of the time.
don't worry John, we know what a gem this truly was
I deeply appreciate how much work was put into the new “The Thing” movie and how they used the old movie as there pointing reference
Those critics can kiss my hiney😠
John Carpenter's The Thing is a masterpiece👍
What a sad story :(
Thanks for making this video and giving closer on why and what went wrong with the 2011 movie.
Thanks! Maybe one day they'll release the real version.
They should have called it Who Goes There?
That would be the best choice, but general audiences would have no idea that it is the name of the book it was based on. It would have to be The Thing: Who goes there, which sounds really silly.
Tomasz Guzik I don't think they would care, general audiences are busy twitting or taking pictures, you could call it 'The Thing, I swear to god this is not a remake' and still no clue.
I'm sure it was the same studio people who thought cgi was the way to go who also thought a different title would ruin the opportunity to cash in off the Carpenter version.
***** That would be a good choice but that's not the Norwegian outpost.
Jw Nj, this Thing prequel really should of been called "Thing: The Norwegian Outpost" and all of us Thing fans would of instantly known what the movie was all about.
I started high school in '82, and that was a hell of a year for nerds. The Thing, Blade Runner, Conan the Barbarian, Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan, Poltergeist, Tron, and E.T. of course.
The critics rarely got anything right, but - 38 years later - I'd say the fans win out.
Shout factory needs to release a directors cut
Blood? Blood is the *least* horrifying thing in the movie!
It's the test audiences fault for making the film horrible
As many people have said NEVER LISTEN TO TEST GROUPS!!!! They're the reason Suicide Squad ended up the way it did
Watch GBF's review of Blade, and we see that not all test audiences are horrible.
Test audiences are why the theatrical cut of Conquest of the Planet of the Apes has a dogshit ending.
2018's Predator, anyone?
I'm so sick of Shane Black, a clearly talented filmmaker, getting all of the blame for every horrible thing the studios and test audiences make.
@@TheAdam1995 I saw that movie. There is no way that piece of shit is the fault of test audiences and and studio interference. Let me remind you that the plot revolves around the fact that Predators want autism.
breaks my heart, I would pay good money to get the original special effect version.
Wow this really made me appreciate the prequel so much more! I had not noticed so much effort put into it. i liked it OK but now i will respect it much more.
Just found this channel. Awesome stuff. Subbed!
Thanks for the sub!
Holy shit, I literally just saw this film and it’s incredible. How it could have been nominated for a Razzie for the score is beyond me. The soundtrack helps lend to the tension so well.
Fuck, this makes me want to see the original cut SO much more.
Ah yes, the brilliance of studio executives...they never fucking learn.
The Pilot's eyes look so cool.
I just recently watched this movie for like the 15th time, and it's still as chilling as it was the first time I saw it. Not only it's it a great movie, but it also has one of the best musical scores EVER. Ennio Morricone absolutely killed it.
Back then the critics even killed the score...
(They used the leftover score from The Thing in Hateful Eight...)
I wonder of shout factory would work to release a directors cut of it
If they do I will get that cut over the mess that was the theatrical version, I want this movie at its full potential. I looked forward to this movie since its conception and felt cheated because of exec. meddling. UGH! If I want to critic a prequel to an otherwise great film I should be able to critic it when it is at it raw form. Not half ass effects over gorgeous practicals. It does the makers a disservice, and the cg workers get shoved under the bus for it as well. Film making is not an easy endeavor. The hierarchy in the studios need to change.
Deric James yeah the John carpenter version yes . So it might be possible
kingkold Yeah I do hope it comes out one day and Shout Factory is nice at doing Blu Ray releases.
Well, it could be posible
The shots where actually finished
The only thing different I would recommend is retitling it "Exploring The Thing (2011)" instead of just "Exploring The Thing".
Otherwise, good video.
I think that's was kinda the point since the 2011 version confused everyone with the title. It did cover some of the original Thing, so it's not like the video's title isn't entirely incorrect.
The Thing 1982 is a masterpiece in every sense of the word
hoping and praying we get to see the directors cut one day
The Thing came out during what I call "The Greatest Month in Sci-fi History". In one month, we got ET, Blade Runner, The Thing, and Star Trek: Wrath of Khan. What a time to be alive!
Couldn't agree more. Can I put in a request of 'The Descent' (2005 British Horror Film) ?
They screwed up *BIG TIME* and forgot to implement the thermite chargers explosion that blow up the ice layer that exposed the spaceship...
In the prequel, they actually left the spaceship sitting under the ice layer and that was totally disqualifying as prequel being connected to the original 1982 movie...
A major continuity issue..
The best three horror/gore movies of the 80's. The Fly, The Thing and Hellraiser.
Was about to rant but I remembered Alien is from 1979.
No Evil Dead in your list?
the natural ability of executives to look at something and come up with the exact opposite of how to make it better nearly 100% of the time is one of those things that will never cease to amaze me
People who weren't die hard fans didn't get this film. It's fan service and a love letter to the original and a good companion piece, just wish there wasn't so much CGI but the attention to detail was very impressive.
I liked prequel, I thought it did a good job in creating the same type of isolation as the first movie. I wish the studio didn't change the practical effects as it would have made the film better.
This is hilarious because when the studio executives see the poor performance they'll just blame everyone but themselves. But they indeed just shot themselves in the foot.
Also, It's a funny parallel to Carpenter's version because the executives hated his original ending and made him film another with MacReady getting his blood tested. But apparently the executives ended not caring about the film since they dropped it a week after E.T. and had little marketing.
The Thing: Origins, The Thing: Norwegian Outpost, Before The Thing, The Thing: Lockdown. There's some titles for you in 5 minutes. Not all great, but come on, something would have stuck if you spent longer than 1 day at it.
The Thing from Outpost 31
or simply just Outpost 31
The Thing: One Wrong Turn at The Shores of Orion.
Or simply The Thing 2. Since it's the second movie. I hate now numbering movies is out of style. Instead of coming up with stupid names like Rise of the Thing.
Outpost 31 is the american base of the original movie...
CaptainAtomSmasher
2 would have been weird since it is a prequel. Plus these days, numbering tends to backfire on the studio because the general public has the weird thing of anything past 3 is too much. The Force Awakens didnt have "episode VII" in the title to give it more mass appeal in its appearance. The only series Ive seen be super successful and still number is Fast and the Furious, and maybe Rocky, but they dropped the numbering. You look at something like Friday the 13th, and people go "Oh geez, Part 8, they really made that many?"
Thank you for the insightful story behind one of my favorite nightmare movie. John Carpenter is so ahead of its time. The Thing and Escape from New York were a constant re-run in where I came from.
I'm here from Mr. Sunday Movies!
Great video, knowing all the hard work that went into this film makes me sad we didn't get the original "Pilot" version.
It looks so much better too.
Seeing the original BTS footage vs the final product breaks my fucking heart.
0:41 I noticed that in the #2 spot is Firefox, a movie almost nobody talks about. That got me thinking that you should do an Exploring Firefox video. I think a lot of people would be interested in one of Clint Eastwood's 9th time directing.
True, no one really talks about Firefox and it is a cool spy movie.
....can we start a petition to outlaw CGI effects being shoved into non-animated films?
CGI can be handy if used properly.
But, I am hurted by those who think that CGI is the ULTIMATE TOOL! No... it's a tool... just a tool.
Puppets are superior for closeup. For distant shots, then you can assume the CGI (if distant, less details to show)
Nah Fury Road was the dopest dope to ever dope and it used CGI.
James Marlon What does dope is suppose to mean?
My personal advice to film makers is "if you can film it, FILM IT". I feel like CGI should only be reserved for things that can not be filmed. I'm just sick of CG animator spamming a bunch of computer shit over film. It's disrespectful to the crew who took the time to set up their shots, the props, the lighting and the actors. Immersion is stronger when you see a film that your brain unconsciously reasoned to itself "if this was real, and I filmed it on a camera, it would look like this"
Vincent Pellemans It means Fury Road is quite possibly the greatest western action film of all time, or at the very least in the running and uses CGI incredibly well and blends with the practical effects to create an immersive world and phenomenal set pieces.
Hard to believe this was panned by critics when it first came out in 1982. One of the best sci-fi/horror films ever.
Your videos are really informative and give me a better appreciation for movies I haven't see in a while. I definitely have a much better appreciation for the effort that goes into some of these films!
Hey gbf another great vid as always, I was wondering if you have a review on deep rising in the pipeline, its a great sea moster movie with loads of 90s cheese
Yes, that would be just up his alley!
Every time I watch a Cecil vid and the sentence starts with "the studio decided.." I always become sad. :(
teknifix you're not the only one.
0:58 Let me remind you this is they same guy that said Predator 2 was too violent. The fuck does this guy want from movies? ET Ft. Mandibles and claws?
He may have been one of America's greatest critics but he went a bit nutty in his later years when his partner died
man, that July 2 line-up was stellar. Not saying those were better films than The Thing (they aren't) but ET, Rocky III, Blade Runner, Poltergeist-what a feast of riches
Take Solace in the fact that there is an alternate reality where they released this movie with practical effects and it was a huge hit.
studios ALWAYS fuck shit up. Great review btw!
Thanks!