@@krustylesponge6250 Damn! you picked up on something that 'lingered' for 4 years! i've met some intelligent people before....but YOU sir....are a 'fart-smeller!
It has a special significance for me since the subject is one of only two movie "monsters", if that's the appropriate term, that ever gave me nightmares (the other being Godzilla, and I was a kid then). It's the only movie I ever memorized every line of.
At 6:14 Had to add my two cents here. Big fan of John Carpenter's The Thing and Thing From Another World. But since this is a prequel, you could argue that since this is the first interaction the creature has with humans, it will make mistakes and that by the time it entered MacReady's camp that it had learned that humans are very paranoid and to use that paranoia against them, hence, the more guarded stealth. Great show, you guys!
My only point is: just like in Alien, there are 2 CREATURES. The first is the actual alien who flew the spacecraft, the 2nd is the Thing, which in essence, is a virus the 1st alien is infected with.
***** Yeah, but now someone brought up the fact that (Wilfred Brimley) was building a spaceship underground in the movie, and how do I reconcile that? Perhaps, the Thing keeps the memories of any creature it already infected? IDK.
Yes, that's the case. But because of that, you have to assume that the creature possesses a great deal of knowledge and intelligence. It's absolutely ruthless and violent when threatened, but that's a matter of survival. Part of what makes it so scary is that combination of sophistication and savagery. In the new version, it was more like just a rabid animal or something.
Carpenter's monster had CHARACTER; a kind of proxy dynamic made through the characters, whereas the prequel had characters you'd find in your box of cereal
Good review. The John Carpenter film was about subtlety, the prequel was a borderline action flick. And I don't think there should have been any women in it, because one of them would simply be destined to survive or be a cliche heroine, which was the case. You kinda had a better idea of who might have been infected and who wasn't. In the 82 version I had no clue who was infected until they were exposed, and like these guys mentioned, I was so fond of every character and wanted them to outwit and win against the alien.
Part of some of the stuff the ass producers changed at the end featured another alien that was the pilot in the ship. It was covered up with the dumb big pixels effect. The pilot had collected specimens, including the Thing which escaped in the crash.
12:48 FYI Stan Winston was brought in to work on the the thing dog kennel scene. Because Rob Bottin was really swamped with working on the film at that time, cool little fact.
Kind of a joke review... In the Prequel the monster is killing a lot, yes, but if you actually pay attention, it's not used to imitating yet. Remember, it hasn't been in contact with humans. When they find it it's in it's most primal form in the ice. Then it's brought up. Comes back and starts assimilating. By the end it's learning to blend more. Hence going into the SEQUEL which is the 82 techinically, it's learned to adapt more and be more stealthy to survive. It ALMOST gets away with it at the very end of the 2011. Then going into the next camp. It knows how to preserve more. It wasn't used to the dogs. So that was a mistake on its part. but then with the humans it's had time to adapt to clothing and trying to "Spread". Pretty obvious when you think of it that way
@92Tribeca I do my best, but I admit there's always room for improvement. I do appreciate you giving some credit. I do hope you understand why I was upset by your initial comments as you made it seem like I brought nothing to the show. BTW, are you affiliated with the 92Y in Tribeca?
I kind of agree with the original reviews in 1982. I think the admittedly amazing practical effects should have been used more sparingly until the end, because the climax is a bit of a let-down, compared to the blood test scene. I understand that McCready gets the idea for the blood test from the heart attack scene, but it's overkill to have those two scenes follow immediately after each other and it leaves very little left for the final confrontation in the generator room. We also don't get enough of the creepy/eerie scenes like McCready looking at his cabin and saying he left the lights off when he left (which is as unnerving as any explicit gore scene in the film for me), or the simple shot of Childs(?) leaving the station (as seen by Gary).
@mikerants Was it the dog that had it's head split open? That wasn't that bad and creepy as hell the way it was shaking and then it just exploded it's head outwards like a flower. Very creepy, I was only 16 years old when it came out, so I was impressed. The other effects were also great, but copies of aliens from another world, so it didn't need to look like anything specific. It just needed to look as bizarre as possible.
It was Ed Flanders in "The Ninth Configuration," not Richard Dysart. Although, interestingly, Richard Dysart was the coach in the original stage cast of "That Championship Season" written by Jason Miller, who was Father Karras in "The Exorcist" which was written by William Peter Blatty who also wrote...drumroll......."The Ninth Configuration!" Sadly all three of those actors are no longer with us. Dysart just passed away less than a year ago.
Eric's idea should've been the film, that Russian Base side-quest/infection sounds much better than the ultimate fate of the identikit Norwegians at Thule. Nearly 10-years too late to comment!
I dont wanna be nitpickin, but in the first issue of The Thing comic-book sequel mentioned, it was a Japanese research ship that rescues McReady and then something happens with these guerillas and so forth. Cant remember what.
The 2011 was not horrible. I am glad a movie was even made to be honest. John Carpenter's The Thing is my favorite film of all time. I honestly did not expect another movie. The game had it's pros and cons as well. It was fun following the 2011 film from announcement to release. Hopefully another one can be made.
Richard Dysart is not in the movie "Twinkle, Twinkle Killer Kane" (aka The Ninth Configuration). I think Michael Foltz is mixing Dysart up with Ed Flanders.
I LOVE that you guys love John Carpenter's "The Thing"! I agree: that's one of the most underrated films of all time. You guys pretty much nailed the prequel from 2011. I would be interested in hearing you Cinefiles dudes discuss the original "Thing From Another World" [1951]. I think the original is a fabulous film; also one of the most underrated films of all time. While it lacks Carpenter's paranoia about one's own comrades in a closed environment, the original Thing is a great movie.
woah! wait a minute... Childs and MacReady cant be rescued by a submarine because they are in the ANTARCTIC - which is a solid land mass unlike the Arctic where could feasibly happen - and they couldnt have walked to coast because know that its a thousand miles to the coast (or at least a long way).
cage i also found it to slot into the more experienced thing from the john carpenter movie...it had experience with humans and played people off each other rather than risking its frontal assault like on the Norwegians. it makes more sense that way.
Yes they did a lot of practical effects I think you can check those out at ADI workshop. They even had a proper Alien at the ending but were forced by the studio to pick a monster. Prequel was basicly just a moneygrab without deeper meanings behind it sadly.
Our understanding was that while a lot of practical effects were designed for the 2011 Thing, most of them were thrown out in favor of CGI, thus not used. But we could be wrong about that.
Here's an interesting fact about the way to tell who is who if you are looking inside peoples mouths to see if they have porcelain teeth. What you do is get a UV light, you can tell if someone has real teeth or fake ones, the porcelain teeth will show dark when beside a standard healthy tooth which will show white in compared.
I like the idea from the Dark Horse comic books about McReady and Childs walking on the snow and, suddenly a Russian submarine breaks thru the ice. But I do not agree that the submarine would then travel to Tierra Fuego(tip of South America), and ultimately the Thing would make its way into the jungle. IMO, the sequel should be confined to Antarctica. Instead, a Thing sequel should attempt to recapture the atmosphere of paranoia and distrust that Carpenter portrayed in his movie. The sequel should could start with McReady & Childs walking on the snow. A Russian submarine breaks thru the ice. However, it is revealed that the Russians had to perform an emergency evacuation of the submarine due to a nuclear reactor failure, The crew de-board from the sub in order to avoid exposure to radiation. The nuclear reactor failure is quickly contained and it's determined there is no radiation, but the submarine still has other extensive mechanical failures and cannot depart immediately from Antarctica. The Russian crew starts its repairs & and the Russian captain permits Childs & McReady to board the sub. After this point, the movie starts to unravel with interesting events. It could begin with McReady highly suspecting Childs to be the Thing. A big argument ensues. There is a physical fight & McReady kills Childs. The Russian captain questions McReady & listens to his story about Outpost 31. The Russian captain becomes skeptical of McReady( perhaps even thinks McReady is crazy to tell such an outrageous story) and orders him to be locked up and confined. As more events unravel, the Russian captain realizes something is not right as slowly his crew are either taken out by the Thing(which could be McReady or Childs) or they are dying at the hands of each other due to paranoia and distrust. Meanwhile, the submarine is eventually repaired and the entire crew is ready to leave. However, the captain issues orders that the submarine cannot depart. This angers half the crew. Soon, the lines are drawn & the crew starts aligning themselves with those who wish to leave and those who are loyal to the captain. Needless to say, the smell of a mutiny is in the air. The captain also realizes that the Thing must never leave the sub. Therefore, the story becomes not only about a fight among the crew members, but a fight to stop the Thing from reaching the mainland.
CGI wasn't that bad in my opinion, especially since it was only used for touch ups on the gore suits and what not. Plus I liked the idea that the Thing was a mindless killing machine in the prequel and became more sly in the 1982 movie because it learned from its experiences from the Norwegian outpost. It was its first encounter with humans and by the end of the prequel it realized the aggressive approach wouldn't work and became more resourceful against the Americans.
@92Tribeca Actually, one of the reasons, if not the MAIN reason, Jeff is no longer on the Cinefiles is because he felt he didn't get to say enough. Of course, we still love Jeff and value his film opinions THUS he has Unfinished Business. And he loves it rather than trying to figure out when and what to say in the midst of all of us uber-talkative film geeks. Anyway, IF we would get picked up (Saints Preserve Us!), I'd want Jeff back on, for the record.
Now I know what Michael meant when he once said: "some fans have shit for brains". Great Review guys (just watched this 2011 film today) You know film-genres like noone else on youtube and you keep it real
My two cents: Carpenter's film brilliantly captured the mystery and paranoia that the original novella conveyed. John W. Campbell's "Who Goes There?" (1938). Personally, I like "The Thing from Another World" as well. It has a plot device that is used to best effect in Alien and Aliens (they use a Geiger Counter to estimate how far away the Thing is...such a great way to build suspense). Worth checking out. Yes, its a guy in a suit, and the special effects can't hold a candle to Carpenter's, but judged on its own merit, it was a great film. But yeah, Carpenter's is one of my favorites of all time.
I dont think these guys realised the 2011 film was a prequel. If they had split off it would have ruined john carpenter's the thing as that never happened. The Norwegian base is the base the chars go to in john carpenter's version. In fact the ending of the 2011 film directly links to john carpenter's version. I like to think the creature learnt from its mistakes in the 2011 film and then changed its tactics in john carpenter's version.
Why is Conductor hat taking the lead hosting position on this review? He clearly is the least knowledgeable about contrasting both films for sure. Is that the thing, hate the host, like the disagreeing/clarifying co-hosts.
A prime example of someone with such strong bias towards/against something that they can not evaluate it on its own merits. The prequel is an homage to the original by dovetailing its story with the iconic moments from the 82 as well as mirroring the story flow (eg. outbreak & autopsy, revelation & soliloquy, The Test). The Thing (1982) is one of my all time favorite horror/scifi films. I watch it at least once a year (snowy winter). That being said: I really enjoyed The Thing (2011).
You guys are too critical. The alien in the 2011 thing is having it's first contact with humans. It uses savagery, as a defense. It doesn't understand deception, which is a very human trait. By the time Carpenter's film comes around, the alien knows how to deceive and tries to use that to survive.
So, you're saying that after 3 days of contact the alien goes from "savagery as a defense" to hiding in plain sight as a defense? No, it's clear that we are dealing with two different kinds of alien here and the writers of the prequel wanted to go for savagery and gore because of the level of gore in the original, but they neglected to consider that us as fans don't need to see the alien creature every 5 minutes to know it's there. They opted for the current methodology of "more is better" in horror films, when that clearly is not the answer. Instead of taking the John Carpenters 'Halloween' - subtle and atmospheric approach, they took the Rob Zombie's Halloween sledgehammer to the face, tons of blood and gore approach and it absolutely does not work on this or any other horror film.
No because throughout the prequel you can see the alien adapt and become smarter in its ways. For example the Thing goes from being sloppy in the beginning with the blood splattered in the shower to being fully intelligent when he turns into Carter at the end and tried to convince Kate to take it to the next base. I think it's perfectly reasonable that after seeing its initial strategy fail that it went to a more direct attack approach to a more planned style of attack. Also you have to understand that its survival instincts is at an all time high. They stopped the Thing from escaping 4 times in the prequel. The 2011 film is not great, but it's damn sure not as bad as people make it out to be. There's a lot of decent material in the movie and it probably would've been one of the better prequels if they allowed the director to use practical effects and use the original script.
+Christian James I've read the original script and loved it, despite being weaker in the horror aspect, it wasn't the point. The point was filling the narrative void with the backstory of the Thing and what happened to the Norwegians and in that regard, it pisses me off that The Thing 2011 turned out the way it did because CGI and an ending that was too "confusing."
Jon Morris so you just wanted to see the same fucking film. you know ot was John Carpenters advice to them to make it a savage alien this time around and that in the time of Carpenters movie it would have learned from its mistakes from the Norwegians camp encounter. Dude I'm sorry but you're so wrong it's retarded. what you saw in this prequel was actually a lot of advice that John gave them and it makes absolute sense and that's why it actually works.
Bill Em exactly bro dead on. everything you just said is exactly what they did, and it was all based on John Carpenter's advice to them everything you just said is exactly what they did, and it was all based on John Carpenter is in vice to them when they went to him over lunch to talk about how they can make it different than making it different and not that same movie carpenter did in 82.
i belive mac to parker to go with windows to find fuchs ,and parker he didnt to go with him ,and then got into argument about it once again creating tension
100% agreed on the Prequels Crappy CGI, No paranoia, weak characters and stupid alien monster. One big fuck up you didn't mention though. In JC's Movie the team watch a video of the Norwegians planting Dynamite to blow up the Alien ship. But in the prequel that doesn't happen. It gets blown up in a completely different way. The movie is so obsessed with showing these continuity shots to connect it to JC's movie yet they get that entire part completely wrong!
Someone posted that the Thing can infect people with a drop of blood or a lick or a bite from the dog. OK, but that still doesn't explain why this intelligent thing would not lick or bite most of the Outpost 31 crew and in that way have an overwhelming advantage in killing off the uninfected remaining crew. I'm just trying to think like the Thing..lol. Maybe "it" was just playing with them killing each human one by one for it's own entertainment's sake. As for the blood being able to infect any human, some of the crew did touch it mainly the scientist but it seems the blood was frozen still. Although the scene where the "thing" is laid out on a table and you see smoke rising from it and some of the crew are smelling the thing and coughing, that right there should have been a red flag for possible contamination by all in that room. "Masks please!!", but no dice. The bloody thing should have been quarantined but not in a room where it was slightly warm or better yet just kept it "out" in ice until they could figure out just what the hell they were dealing with.
Maybe the thing can only infect people with certain bloodtypes. Maybe some blood type/s are immune. That would explain the only-some-are-susceptible issue.
What a huge disappointment this prequel was. Just a side note, I read the script before seeing the movie and it was butchered. The helicopter scene actually made sense in the script and was a lot more claustrophobic. It was still heavy on action and light on suspense...but if they had adhered to it, and used only practical effects they could have made it work. Damn universal, and damn the makers of this movie for not paying Rob Bottin to come in at least as a consultant.
# 3 Carpenter had a year to perfect the effects and shoot the movie if the thing prequel had time it would've been better its not perfect. But the movie was rushed out because the movie was a studio movie and the one thing they hate is taking time just spend more money get the shots completed.
@a7rivera1 for the most part both ,in the scene with pedar getting shot and his tank blowing up ,at that point in the film theres only one person infected , the splitface guy , go back look at the film ull notice how human he was acting , even going so far to asked them ,could he just check on his friend ,also noticed how his telling pedar to burn them over and over, creating tension ,like parker did to windows in the 82 version ,
There is so much info that you guys talk about that sadly never happened the guy on teh right talks about the pods at 7:15 that is spot on how it was going to look before Universal put their hand sin the cookiejar. The director MAtthijs did a fantastic job with the little he had to work with he is def a big fan and treated the material like a pro. Sadly Universal fucked it up they wanted a movire "scary" monster and went CGI which is why it was re-shot. So sad really i love the movie but itcould
Everbody thinks they could make a better movie but no one knows how much work is put into making a good movie. The prequel is a good film that offers more of the same which is what people want to see. These 3 dudes are annoying as hell.
Recently I saw some BTS clips of the new guys' attempts at practical FX on the new Thing. I believe its true, most if not all of them were replaced. Lame!
The Thing as prisoner...dumb! That characterization would take away of the competitive nature with the Thing and humans. The Thing was pitted against MacReady who was a strategist. Both the Thing and the humans strive to survive. Introducing another lifeform would have to add an unnecessary background story, which can take away from what has already been developed in one film.
One of the strengths of the 1982 Thing was the all-male cast. I love women, but adding a female character would have changed the entire dynamic of the film.
lol, why are you guys hanging out with each other? the dude in the hat was obviously presenting. but make sure to interrupt him every 3 seconds after he starts talking. Ever heard of depositing after agreeing? Your "friends" are extremely rude.
Introgauge .C haha its like they wait for him to start and give him zero chance of finishing sentence , you can here him frustrated, just cut him dead constantly
The nosering. I thought I was the only one who noticed that. Outpost31 a very good fan site, did confirm to me back in 2003, that it was a fraternity thing. You can clearly see it in the blood bag scene where they are accusing each other for destroying them.
The problem they ran into was that they simply didn't film enough content on frequent basis specifically for youtube. I remember I was subscribed years ago and it would sometimes be months without an upload and I just kinda forgot the show existed. I think they should've really prioritized making videos specifically for youtube instead of doing the cable access show or whatever they did and porting the footage to youtube.
Christian James The show is still being made. Eric Cohen has replaced Edwin Samuelson as anchorman and Mike and Jeff are still regulars. I can't remember which website they're hosted on (it might be Thisisinfamous, or it could have changed again), but if you look up Eric on Facebook I'm sure you'll get a like. I do miss Edwin a lot though.
Numinous20111 Yeah they still do the show, but it's not the same anymore. You can really tell Edwin was kinda the brains behind choosing the topics and setting everything up. They could've been way bigger, especially since they started at the beginning of RUclips, but I think they simply needed more guidance.
I still have hope at somepoint John Carpenter will decide to make a sequel to this film The Thing ..he has to know how many of his fans both young and old still love/support this film would love see a sequel as well and a proper prequel
I'm 99% sure that ain't happening. John hasnt made a movie in a long time he says he likes just chilling now adays and he's made like 1 sequel to a movie he's done
I can't keep watching this train wreck of a discussion. You have one odd guy,sporting a train operators hat/lumberjack outfit.. Nasally voice,etc. Then these other two keep interrupting one another,every single time they speak.
Plus, nobody knows what the Thing really looks like. We see what it is in this movie, but it could have imitated a million life forms throughout its existence, so its current form could merely be the most recent lifeform that it imitated.
It's likely a mutant virus that ate its way up the food chain. It probably has no real form but what it borrowed on it's way up the evolutionary ladder.
Chris Duncan There's a movie also like that called Blood Glacier. Its not in English, but its a fantastic movie. A weird ending though, but really good.
John Carpenter's use of foreshadowing works perfectly in The Thing. When the movie started, we learn that Macready loved to play chess and we see that he hates to lose, even destroying his own computer in a kamikaze move, which is mirrored excellently in his encounter with The Thing. The movie at it's core boiled down to a chess match between Macready and The Thing and when it seemed he might lose Macready's kamikaze nature to win at all costs comes once again to the forefront.
My theory about why people say in the 2011 version, the creature was a mindless killing machine and in the original it was more sneaky; I believe that in the prequel when it's first thawed its a mindless killing machine and not concerned with being so disguised because on previous worlds and stuff "the thing" never encountered an intelligent and violent species as man and just acted by instinct and maybe thought humans would be easy prey. And even though it was burned at the end of the prequel the cells were still alive and maybe it kind of learned a lesson, because its an intelligent being; so it adapted its way of thinking and decided that being more covert is a better way.
***** It could make sense either way. Let's not forget that intelligent beings have the propensity to make bad decisions. The Thing might be intelligent, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that it wasn't as careful as it should have been when it was first awoken.
The Thing 2011 is horrible film I didn't like it at all. John Carpenters The Thing is a masterpiece you guys are talking wonders about it more than 30 years later. Rob Bottin is a Mad genius!!! The characters in the film are endearing. Definitively there is no comparison between the 2 films.
Apparently the original ending suggested that the alien spacecraft was basically invaded by the shapeshifting virus and that's what caused it to crash land on Earth. The creature killing the humans is NOT what was piloting the ship. But the almighty studio deemed it "too confusing." That ending and being allowed to keep the practical effects and I think we'd have a very different opinion of this movie.
hawks, wilder, ford, hitchcock........ spielberg, scorsese, carpenter, eastwood,...... tarantino, nolan, fincher, ridley scott. who are the next generation guys??????
I'm still a little confused about the creature. Does it absorb its host's memories as well as its DNA and imitate them perfectly, or does it just hide inside the host's body while the host is unaware until the creature transforms them?
I would have liked some discussion of the 50's film, but I understand how you framed the discussion. Just would have liked to know what you guys thought of it and whether that kind of approach would / could be used now.
"Remember that when you look hard and long into the Abyss, the Abyss also looks into you" As a response to Judge rez, it's entirely possible that the thing had not encounted intelligent humanoids or at least, emotional humanoids before. It's host is clearly an influence on it, here and there, if not in form than at least in intelligence. There's nothing to say that when it eats something, and absorbs all those memories and skills, it has no way of defending its consciousness from in part, becoming that victim. In this way, there might have been times when the thing ate a particular creature or infected one and the host's mindset or will was so dominant in the thing's own will that it preferred to identify as the host instead. It's entirely possible the thing didn't want to part itself from Carter, it understood his motivations, it took perhaps some mis-guided liking for the human condition. After beating out the other alien, and with no ship to use, where could it have gone? Sure it could conquer the planet and eat everything, but what would it do after that? Be stuck on a rock out in space? Clearly, some ulterior motivation had replaced the survival narrative. These guys mentioned that the ship might have been a prison craft, sans wards or guards. Would it be fair to say, that the alien after learning enough, had decided it didn't need to go balls to the wall. It could take an extended, though perhaps bloody vacation here on earth. Or perhaps something about Kate had become likable, perhaps it's grown too accustomed to her voice and face, perhaps ever attatched to her emotionally? Who knows..
The 2011 film also left out a lot of the subtext, both on religion and McCarthyism, from the Carpenter film. You guys are right, the more recent film is just a mindless monster movie, whereas, Carpenter's film is a puzzle that no one, to this day, has been able to piece together, perfectly.
Prisoner transport is the easy way out. I think it would be a stronger backstory that the spaceship was the ship of a different alien race and "the thing" had taken control of the crew. The thing could have been bacteria found on an exploration mission by that race of aliens( the non-thing aliens) and it crashed on earth on it's way back to infect the advanced-race-alien's homeworld. That gives way to a Ridley Scott Alien type pre-prequel. About the advanced alien race of course.
It was sad that the original 'The Thing' was released a few weeks after that soppy block-buster ET film. I mean i liked ET, but have never watched it since........but i have watched 'The Thing' many times over the years. The new prequel film of 'The Thing' is actually pretty good, though i didn't understand it when they started speaking Norwegian.......:)
The original backstory - which the director developed for the film - conceived the Pilot as part of an advanced, space-faring alien race. Following the director’s concept, a scientific crew composed of members of this race collects and classifies various alien lifeforms from different planets across the infinity of the cosmos, storing them inside research pods. Unaware of the oncoming disaster, the crew of extraterrestrials accidentally find the Thing - disguised as another lifeform - which then proceeds to break free of containment, and assimilate both the alien researchers and the specimens they had collected. The last remaining crewmember, the Pilot, severs its own ‘breathing tube’, killing itself, and making the ship crash on purpose, with the intention of killing the Thing. The creature however survives, erupts from the craft and escapes - only to stop a few hundreds of meters away and freeze.
I´ve been sitting here listening through everyting youve talked about and to be frank I can only come through with one conclution. Why are you comparing the 2 movies? You are approaching the prequel from a completely wrong angle. This movie never set out to be better or shine more than the 82 classic. The JC movie is damn near perfect but it to has flaws. It set out to wokr as a COMPANION-PIECE so you can see the 2 movies back-to-back and feel like you are watching one long movie. And that works
I can very quickly tell you why 2011 didn't live up to the first movie: Reliance on computer graphics. I know the film had practical effects but adding computer graphics to it ruined the sense of realism. Let's stop beating around the bush this is the reason why 80s and 90s horror films have classics and 2000s onward have hardly any horror films that will be long-lasting / classic.
It's always refreshing to see a talk show hosted by a wee lumberjack. I guess his axe and chainsaw must be out of shot. Jason Alexander would've been perfect for the job!
The difference between the creature in the 1982 film and the 2011 film is that in the 2011 film the creature didn't know what humans were all about and that is why it attacked by the time it reached the american camp it knew humans were smart and that is why it was more clever in dealing with the americans.
Anyone else catch that meaty fart at 6:01
yes
@@krustylesponge6250 Damn! you picked up on something that 'lingered' for 4 years! i've met some intelligent people before....but YOU sir....are a 'fart-smeller!
Carpener's The Thing is the greatest horror film ever made
It has a special significance for me since the subject is one of only two movie "monsters", if that's the appropriate term, that ever gave me nightmares (the other being Godzilla, and I was a kid then). It's the only movie I ever memorized every line of.
Yep! The absolute best!
That's hard to say because horror movies all have different jandras vampire zombie werewolf you could almost but the first thing as a thriller 😉
At 6:14 Had to add my two cents here. Big fan of John Carpenter's The Thing and Thing From Another World. But since this is a prequel, you could argue that since this is the first interaction the creature has with humans, it will make mistakes and that by the time it entered MacReady's camp that it had learned that humans are very paranoid and to use that paranoia against them, hence, the more guarded stealth. Great show, you guys!
My only point is: just like in Alien, there are 2 CREATURES. The first is the actual alien who flew the spacecraft, the 2nd is the Thing, which in essence, is a virus the 1st alien is infected with.
***** Yeah, but now someone brought up the fact that (Wilfred Brimley) was building a spaceship underground in the movie, and how do I reconcile that? Perhaps, the Thing keeps the memories of any creature it already infected? IDK.
Yes, that's the case. But because of that, you have to assume that the creature possesses a great deal of knowledge and intelligence. It's absolutely ruthless and violent when threatened, but that's a matter of survival. Part of what makes it so scary is that combination of sophistication and savagery. In the new version, it was more like just a rabid animal or something.
Carpenter's monster had CHARACTER; a kind of proxy dynamic made through the characters, whereas the prequel had characters you'd find in your box of cereal
LOVE LOVE LOVE!!!.. YOU mentioned Twinkle Twinkle Killer Cane!!!
Ninth Configuration is one of the most underrated films!!! Great picture!
Good review. The John Carpenter film was about subtlety, the prequel was a borderline action flick. And I don't think there should have been any women in it, because one of them would simply be destined to survive or be a cliche heroine, which was the case. You kinda had a better idea of who might have been infected and who wasn't. In the 82 version I had no clue who was infected until they were exposed, and like these guys mentioned, I was so fond of every character and wanted them to outwit and win against the alien.
Many thanks. Hope to continue cranking out new episodes for a while.
Part of some of the stuff the ass producers changed at the end featured another alien that was the pilot in the ship. It was covered up with the dumb big pixels effect. The pilot had collected specimens, including the Thing which escaped in the crash.
12:48 FYI Stan Winston was brought in to work on the the thing dog kennel scene. Because Rob Bottin was really swamped with working on the film at that time, cool little fact.
Kind of a joke review... In the Prequel the monster is killing a lot, yes, but if you actually pay attention, it's not used to imitating yet. Remember, it hasn't been in contact with humans. When they find it it's in it's most primal form in the ice. Then it's brought up. Comes back and starts assimilating. By the end it's learning to blend more. Hence going into the SEQUEL which is the 82 techinically, it's learned to adapt more and be more stealthy to survive. It ALMOST gets away with it at the very end of the 2011. Then going into the next camp. It knows how to preserve more. It wasn't used to the dogs. So that was a mistake on its part. but then with the humans it's had time to adapt to clothing and trying to "Spread". Pretty obvious when you think of it that way
Wesley Lecruidant bro... the thing is literally genetically programmed to be able to imitate, that's a bad excuse
well , i think the creature in the prequel is "a mindless killing monster" is because its still learning , the thing learns from its mistakes
@92Tribeca I do my best, but I admit there's always room for improvement. I do appreciate you giving some credit. I do hope you understand why I was upset by your initial comments as you made it seem like I brought nothing to the show. BTW, are you affiliated with the 92Y in Tribeca?
I kind of agree with the original reviews in 1982. I think the admittedly amazing practical effects should have been used more sparingly until the end, because the climax is a bit of a let-down, compared to the blood test scene. I understand that McCready gets the idea for the blood test from the heart attack scene, but it's overkill to have those two scenes follow immediately after each other and it leaves very little left for the final confrontation in the generator room. We also don't get enough of the creepy/eerie scenes like McCready looking at his cabin and saying he left the lights off when he left (which is as unnerving as any explicit gore scene in the film for me), or the simple shot of Childs(?) leaving the station (as seen by Gary).
@mikerants Was it the dog that had it's head split open? That wasn't that bad and creepy as hell the way it was shaking and then it just exploded it's head outwards like a flower. Very creepy, I was only 16 years old when it came out, so I was impressed. The other effects were also great, but copies of aliens from another world, so it didn't need to look like anything specific. It just needed to look as bizarre as possible.
It was Ed Flanders in "The Ninth Configuration," not Richard Dysart. Although, interestingly, Richard Dysart was the coach in the original stage cast of "That Championship Season" written by Jason Miller, who was Father Karras in "The Exorcist" which was written by William Peter Blatty who also wrote...drumroll......."The Ninth Configuration!" Sadly all three of those actors are no longer with us. Dysart just passed away less than a year ago.
Eric's idea should've been the film, that Russian Base side-quest/infection sounds much better than the ultimate fate of the identikit Norwegians at Thule. Nearly 10-years too late to comment!
I dont wanna be nitpickin, but in the first issue of The Thing comic-book sequel mentioned, it was a Japanese research ship that
rescues McReady and then something happens with these guerillas and so forth. Cant remember what.
The 2011 was not horrible. I am glad a movie was even made to be honest. John Carpenter's The Thing is my favorite film of all time. I honestly did not expect another movie. The game had it's pros and cons as well. It was fun following the 2011 film from announcement to release. Hopefully another one can be made.
Richard Dysart is not in the movie "Twinkle, Twinkle Killer Kane" (aka The Ninth Configuration). I think Michael Foltz is mixing Dysart up with Ed Flanders.
I LOVE that you guys love John Carpenter's "The Thing"! I agree: that's one of the most underrated films of all time. You guys pretty much nailed the prequel from 2011. I would be interested in hearing you Cinefiles dudes discuss the original "Thing From Another World" [1951]. I think the original is a fabulous film; also one of the most underrated films of all time. While it lacks Carpenter's paranoia about one's own comrades in a closed environment, the original Thing is a great movie.
woah! wait a minute... Childs and MacReady cant be rescued by a submarine because they are in the ANTARCTIC - which is a solid land mass unlike the Arctic where could feasibly happen - and they couldnt have walked to coast because know that its a thousand miles to the coast (or at least a long way).
cage i also found it to slot into the more experienced thing from the john carpenter movie...it had experience with humans and played people off each other rather than risking its frontal assault like on the Norwegians. it makes more sense that way.
The thing is that the all of the aliens on the 2011 are animatronic monsters the only issue is that they painted over them with cgi
anyone know what carpenter thinks to the re-make?
I like Erics ideas at 8:18, how about the branched off team come across a burned up Childs and a frozen Macready
I just noticed the nose ring on blu ray also there's purple blood on the thing that I never noticed until blu ray
Yes they did a lot of practical effects I think you can check those out at ADI workshop. They even had a proper Alien at the ending but were forced by the studio to pick a monster. Prequel was basicly just a moneygrab without deeper meanings behind it sadly.
Our understanding was that while a lot of practical effects were designed for the 2011 Thing, most of them were thrown out in favor of CGI, thus not used. But we could be wrong about that.
Here's an interesting fact about the way to tell who is who if you are looking inside peoples mouths to see if they have porcelain teeth. What you do is get a UV light, you can tell if someone has real teeth or fake ones, the porcelain teeth will show dark when beside a standard healthy tooth which will show white in compared.
Johnny Rekall accept uv light in 1982 probably wouldn't be available...
I like the idea from the Dark Horse comic books about McReady and Childs walking on the snow and, suddenly a Russian submarine breaks thru the ice. But I do not agree that the submarine would then travel to Tierra Fuego(tip of South America), and ultimately the Thing would make its way into the jungle. IMO, the sequel should be confined to Antarctica.
Instead, a Thing sequel should attempt to recapture the atmosphere of paranoia and distrust that Carpenter portrayed in his movie. The sequel should could start with McReady & Childs walking on the snow. A Russian submarine breaks thru the ice. However, it is revealed that the Russians had to perform an emergency evacuation of the submarine due to a nuclear reactor failure, The crew de-board from the sub in order to avoid exposure to radiation. The nuclear reactor failure is quickly contained and it's determined there is no radiation, but the submarine still has other extensive mechanical failures and cannot depart immediately from Antarctica. The Russian crew starts its repairs & and the Russian captain permits Childs & McReady to board the sub. After this point, the movie starts to unravel with interesting events. It could begin with McReady highly suspecting Childs to be the Thing. A big argument ensues. There is a physical fight & McReady kills Childs. The Russian captain questions McReady & listens to his story about Outpost 31. The Russian captain becomes skeptical of McReady( perhaps even thinks McReady is crazy to tell such an outrageous story) and orders him to be locked up and confined. As more events unravel, the Russian captain realizes something is not right as slowly his crew are either taken out by the Thing(which could be McReady or Childs) or they are dying at the hands of each other due to paranoia and distrust. Meanwhile, the submarine is eventually repaired and the entire crew is ready to leave. However, the captain issues orders that the submarine cannot depart. This angers half the crew. Soon, the lines are drawn & the crew starts aligning themselves with those who wish to leave and those who are loyal to the captain. Needless to say, the smell of a mutiny is in the air. The captain also realizes that the Thing must never leave the sub. Therefore, the story becomes not only about a fight among the crew members, but a fight to stop the Thing from reaching the mainland.
CGI wasn't that bad in my opinion, especially since it was only used for touch ups on the gore suits and what not. Plus I liked the idea that the Thing was a mindless killing machine in the prequel and became more sly in the 1982 movie because it learned from its experiences from the Norwegian outpost. It was its first encounter with humans and by the end of the prequel it realized the aggressive approach wouldn't work and became more resourceful against the Americans.
@92Tribeca Actually, one of the reasons, if not the MAIN reason, Jeff is no longer on the Cinefiles is because he felt he didn't get to say enough. Of course, we still love Jeff and value his film opinions THUS he has Unfinished Business. And he loves it rather than trying to figure out when and what to say in the midst of all of us uber-talkative film geeks. Anyway, IF we would get picked up (Saints Preserve Us!), I'd want Jeff back on, for the record.
Now I know what Michael meant when he once said: "some fans have shit for brains".
Great Review guys (just watched this 2011 film today)
You know film-genres like noone else on youtube
and you keep it real
My two cents: Carpenter's film brilliantly captured the mystery and paranoia that the original novella conveyed. John W. Campbell's "Who Goes There?" (1938). Personally, I like "The Thing from Another World" as well. It has a plot device that is used to best effect in Alien and Aliens (they use a Geiger Counter to estimate how far away the Thing is...such a great way to build suspense). Worth checking out. Yes, its a guy in a suit, and the special effects can't hold a candle to Carpenter's, but judged on its own merit, it was a great film. But yeah, Carpenter's is one of my favorites of all time.
You guys MUST do an episode with Patton Oswalt on the panel. Or Joe Pilato. Or both.
Great talk guys. I agree with almost everything especially the CGI. What about a new Night stalker? Any thoughts? :-)
Many thanks. I would recommend making a request on the FB discussion page if you would like us to cover it.
I dont think these guys realised the 2011 film was a prequel. If they had split off it would have ruined john carpenter's the thing as that never happened. The Norwegian base is the base the chars go to in john carpenter's version. In fact the ending of the 2011 film directly links to john carpenter's version. I like to think the creature learnt from its mistakes in the 2011 film and then changed its tactics in john carpenter's version.
Why is Conductor hat taking the lead hosting position on this review? He clearly is the least knowledgeable about contrasting both films for sure. Is that the thing, hate the host, like the disagreeing/clarifying co-hosts.
A prime example of someone with such strong bias towards/against something that they can not evaluate it on its own merits.
The prequel is an homage to the original by dovetailing its story with the iconic moments from the 82 as well as mirroring the story flow (eg. outbreak & autopsy, revelation & soliloquy, The Test).
The Thing (1982) is one of my all time favorite horror/scifi films. I watch it at least once a year (snowy winter). That being said: I really enjoyed The Thing (2011).
The thing 2011 is getting better with age.
Childs calls Mac a murderer after he kills Masur? Self Defense in my book
Stan Winston did the transforming dog in the John Carpenter's "The Thing"
If it wasn't for the 1951 version John Carpenter's wouldn't have been made.
You guys are too critical. The alien in the 2011 thing is having it's first contact with humans. It uses savagery, as a defense. It doesn't understand deception, which is a very human trait. By the time Carpenter's film comes around, the alien knows how to deceive and tries to use that to survive.
So, you're saying that after 3 days of contact the alien goes from "savagery as a defense" to hiding in plain sight as a defense? No, it's clear that we are dealing with two different kinds of alien here and the writers of the prequel wanted to go for savagery and gore because of the level of gore in the original, but they neglected to consider that us as fans don't need to see the alien creature every 5 minutes to know it's there. They opted for the current methodology of "more is better" in horror films, when that clearly is not the answer. Instead of taking the John Carpenters 'Halloween' - subtle and atmospheric approach, they took the Rob Zombie's Halloween sledgehammer to the face, tons of blood and gore approach and it absolutely does not work on this or any other horror film.
No because throughout the prequel you can see the alien adapt and become smarter in its ways. For example the Thing goes from being sloppy in the beginning with the blood splattered in the shower to being fully intelligent when he turns into Carter at the end and tried to convince Kate to take it to the next base. I think it's perfectly reasonable that after seeing its initial strategy fail that it went to a more direct attack approach to a more planned style of attack. Also you have to understand that its survival instincts is at an all time high. They stopped the Thing from escaping 4 times in the prequel. The 2011 film is not great, but it's damn sure not as bad as people make it out to be. There's a lot of decent material in the movie and it probably would've been one of the better prequels if they allowed the director to use practical effects and use the original script.
+Christian James I've read the original script and loved it, despite being weaker in the horror aspect, it wasn't the point. The point was filling the narrative void with the backstory of the Thing and what happened to the Norwegians and in that regard, it pisses me off that The Thing 2011 turned out the way it did because CGI and an ending that was too "confusing."
Jon Morris so you just wanted to see the same fucking film. you know ot was John Carpenters advice to them to make it a savage alien this time around and that in the time of Carpenters movie it would have learned from its mistakes from the Norwegians camp encounter. Dude I'm sorry but you're so wrong it's retarded. what you saw in this prequel was actually a lot of advice that John gave them and it makes absolute sense and that's why it actually works.
Bill Em exactly bro dead on. everything you just said is exactly what they did, and it was all based on John Carpenter's advice to them everything you just said is exactly what they did, and it was all based on John Carpenter is in vice to them when they went to him over lunch to talk about how they can make it different than making it different and not that same movie carpenter did in 82.
I heard the alien death roar when the girl torched the earring dude.
i belive mac to parker to go with windows to find fuchs ,and parker he didnt to go with him ,and then got into argument about it once again creating tension
27:04 lol that he thinks John Carpenter was a Vietnam vet!
100% agreed on the Prequels Crappy CGI, No paranoia, weak characters and stupid alien monster. One big fuck up you didn't mention though. In JC's Movie the team watch a video of the Norwegians planting Dynamite to blow up the Alien ship. But in the prequel that doesn't happen. It gets blown up in a completely different way. The movie is so obsessed with showing these continuity shots to connect it to JC's movie yet they get that entire part completely wrong!
13:00 YES! Now lets get the filmmakers who keep re-editing their films (Save Ridley Scott) and the general mainstream audience to realize this.
Someone posted that the Thing can infect people with a drop of blood or a lick or a bite from the dog.
OK, but that still doesn't explain why this intelligent thing would not lick or bite most of the Outpost 31 crew and in that way have an overwhelming advantage in killing off the uninfected remaining crew. I'm just trying to think like the Thing..lol. Maybe "it" was just playing with them killing each human one by one for it's own entertainment's sake.
As for the blood being able to infect any human, some of the crew did touch it mainly the scientist but it seems the blood was frozen still. Although the scene where the "thing" is laid out on a table and you see smoke rising from it and some of the crew are smelling the thing and coughing, that right there should have been a red flag for possible contamination by all in that room. "Masks please!!", but no dice.
The bloody thing should have been quarantined but not in a room where it was slightly warm or better yet just kept it "out" in ice until they could figure out just what the hell they were dealing with.
Maybe the thing can only infect people with certain bloodtypes. Maybe some blood type/s are immune. That would explain the only-some-are-susceptible issue.
That's a very good point, a possibility, i never thought of that. Blood types A,B,O and some rare types..!
What a huge disappointment this prequel was. Just a side note, I read the script before seeing the movie and it was butchered. The helicopter scene actually made sense in the script and was a lot more claustrophobic. It was still heavy on action and light on suspense...but if they had adhered to it, and used only practical effects they could have made it work. Damn universal, and damn the makers of this movie for not paying Rob Bottin to come in at least as a consultant.
# 3 Carpenter had a year to perfect the effects and shoot the movie if the thing prequel had time it would've been better its not perfect.
But the movie was rushed out because the movie was a studio movie and the one thing they hate is taking time just spend more money get the shots completed.
@a7rivera1 for the most part both ,in the scene with pedar getting shot and his tank blowing up ,at that point in the film theres only one person infected , the splitface guy , go back look at the film ull notice how human he was acting , even going so far to asked them ,could he just check on his friend ,also noticed how his telling pedar to burn them over and over, creating tension ,like parker did to windows in the 82 version ,
They actually made a decent film until the studio got involved and changed a TON of things. (CGI, Character buildup, cool story)
There is so much info that you guys talk about that sadly never happened the guy on teh right talks about the pods at 7:15 that is spot on how it was going to look before Universal put their hand sin the cookiejar. The director MAtthijs did a fantastic job with the little he had to work with he is def a big fan and treated the material like a pro. Sadly Universal fucked it up they wanted a movire "scary" monster and went CGI which is why it was re-shot. So sad really i love the movie but itcould
This video would have been a lot better if the guy on the far right wasnt always interrupting everyone else with his thoughts ...
Cohen looks like B.Campbell
So sad the prequel turned out. So so sad.
John made a film last year and it was awesome! Go on Netflix and watch "The Ward"
Everbody thinks they could make a better movie but no one knows how much work is put into making a good movie. The prequel is a good film that offers more of the same which is what people want to see. These 3 dudes are annoying as hell.
@Deavi783 That was the chair scrapping the floor. If you want to hear a real fart, check out William Shatner ripping one in the film Mindmeld.
Tarantino is "flavor of the year"?
Recently I saw some BTS clips of the new guys' attempts at practical FX on the new Thing. I believe its true, most if not all of them were replaced. Lame!
oh my gosh whta was that noise.
The Thing as prisoner...dumb! That characterization would take away of the competitive nature with the Thing and humans. The Thing was pitted against MacReady who was a strategist. Both the Thing and the humans strive to survive.
Introducing another lifeform would have to add an unnecessary background story, which can take away from what has already been developed in one film.
Interesting thoughts lads, nice video. Carpenter's The Thing is a classic.
One of the strengths of the 1982 Thing was the all-male cast. I love women, but adding a female character would have changed the entire dynamic of the film.
AIDS wasn't really an issue until a couple of years after Carpenter's The Thing was released.
Did you just make that up? Where did you hear that from? I have never heard John Carpenter say that.
Craig Zimmerman well, there was the female computer voice but, she didn't last long!
The Primordial no,because the story the film based on had all male characters
Which makes sense because it was written in the 1930's
lol, why are you guys hanging out with each other? the dude in the hat was obviously presenting. but make sure to interrupt him every 3 seconds after he starts talking. Ever heard of depositing after agreeing? Your "friends" are extremely rude.
Introgauge .C haha its like they wait for him to start and give him zero chance of finishing sentence , you can here him frustrated, just cut him dead constantly
All these years I've been thinking the same thing
Yeah check from 8:56 constant one sided interruptions
The nosering. I thought I was the only one who noticed that. Outpost31 a very good fan site, did confirm to me back in 2003, that it was a fraternity thing. You can clearly see it in the blood bag scene where they are accusing each other for destroying them.
I miss this show.
agreed
Yup, the original Cinefiles line up (Edwin, Eric, Michael and Jeff) was one of the best review/discussion shows about cinema on RUclips.
The problem they ran into was that they simply didn't film enough content on frequent basis specifically for youtube. I remember I was subscribed years ago and it would sometimes be months without an upload and I just kinda forgot the show existed. I think they should've really prioritized making videos specifically for youtube instead of doing the cable access show or whatever they did and porting the footage to youtube.
Christian James
The show is still being made. Eric Cohen has replaced Edwin Samuelson as anchorman and Mike and Jeff are still regulars. I can't remember which website they're hosted on (it might be Thisisinfamous, or it could have changed again), but if you look up Eric on Facebook I'm sure you'll get a like. I do miss Edwin a lot though.
Numinous20111 Yeah they still do the show, but it's not the same anymore. You can really tell Edwin was kinda the brains behind choosing the topics and setting everything up. They could've been way bigger, especially since they started at the beginning of RUclips, but I think they simply needed more guidance.
I still have hope at somepoint John Carpenter will decide to make a sequel to this film The Thing ..he has to know how many of his fans both young and old still love/support this film would love see a sequel as well and a proper prequel
I'm 99% sure that ain't happening. John hasnt made a movie in a long time he says he likes just chilling now adays and he's made like 1 sequel to a movie he's done
i need to get my hands on that four issued comic series, sounds badass
It kinda sucks
I can't keep watching this train wreck of a discussion. You have one odd guy,sporting a train operators hat/lumberjack outfit.. Nasally voice,etc. Then these other two keep interrupting one another,every single time they speak.
Well said!
3 'uber-nerds'...who keep having to prove..that, they know 'one more fact'..than the guy sitting next to 'em.
Plus, nobody knows what the Thing really looks like. We see what it is in this movie, but it could have imitated a million life forms throughout its existence, so its current form could merely be the most recent lifeform that it imitated.
It's likely a mutant virus that ate its way up the food chain. It probably has no real form but what it borrowed on it's way up the evolutionary ladder.
Chris Duncan it was actually a single-celled organism that takes over the cells of the creature that it is exposed to.
Chris Duncan There's a movie also like that called Blood Glacier. Its not in English, but its a fantastic movie. A weird ending though, but really good.
John Carpenter's use of foreshadowing works perfectly in The Thing. When the movie started, we learn that Macready loved to play chess and we see that he hates to lose, even destroying his own computer in a kamikaze move, which is mirrored excellently in his encounter with The Thing.
The movie at it's core boiled down to a chess match between Macready and The Thing and when it seemed he might lose Macready's kamikaze nature to win at all costs comes once again to the forefront.
The cine files deserves a lot more views than it gets
My theory about why people say in the 2011 version, the creature was a mindless killing machine and in the original it was more sneaky; I believe that in the prequel when it's first thawed its a mindless killing machine and not concerned with being so disguised because on previous worlds and stuff "the thing" never encountered an intelligent and violent species as man and just acted by instinct and maybe thought humans would be easy prey. And even though it was burned at the end of the prequel the cells were still alive and maybe it kind of learned a lesson, because its an intelligent being; so it adapted its way of thinking and decided that being more covert is a better way.
Darn I never actually thought of it that way. You have a good point.
***** It could make sense either way. Let's not forget that intelligent beings have the propensity to make bad decisions. The Thing might be intelligent, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that it wasn't as careful as it should have been when it was first awoken.
srty srtyy "Hahaha, these stupid organisms are still using fossil fuels, this will be easy- THESE FOSSIL FUELS BURN LIKE HELL!"
The Thing 2011 is horrible film I didn't like it at all. John Carpenters The Thing is a masterpiece you guys are talking wonders about it more than 30 years later. Rob Bottin is a Mad genius!!! The characters in the film are endearing. Definitively there is no comparison between the 2 films.
Apparently the original ending suggested that the alien spacecraft was basically invaded by the shapeshifting virus and that's what caused it to crash land on Earth. The creature killing the humans is NOT what was piloting the ship. But the almighty studio deemed it "too confusing." That ending and being allowed to keep the practical effects and I think we'd have a very different opinion of this movie.
hawks, wilder, ford, hitchcock........ spielberg, scorsese, carpenter, eastwood,...... tarantino, nolan, fincher, ridley scott. who are the next generation guys??????
Edwin, stop calling Carpenter's version the "original"
The original was made in the 1950s. It was called The Thing From Another World.
This is a simple one. One was a really good movie. And the other one.... 🤣
Thank you for the flashback to the james Bond episode. I would have had to watch the whole damn thing myself to find that clip.
That dude on the right is really angry. XD
I'm still a little confused about the creature. Does it absorb its host's memories as well as its DNA and imitate them perfectly, or does it just hide inside the host's body while the host is unaware until the creature transforms them?
I would have liked some discussion of the 50's film, but I understand how you framed the discussion. Just would have liked to know what you guys thought of it and whether that kind of approach would / could be used now.
"Remember that when you look hard and long into the Abyss, the Abyss also looks into you" As a response to Judge rez, it's entirely possible that the thing had not encounted intelligent humanoids or at least, emotional humanoids before. It's host is clearly an influence on it, here and there, if not in form than at least in intelligence. There's nothing to say that when it eats something, and absorbs all those memories and skills, it has no way of defending its consciousness from in part, becoming that victim. In this way, there might have been times when the thing ate a particular creature or infected one and the host's mindset or will was so dominant in the thing's own will that it preferred to identify as the host instead. It's entirely possible the thing didn't want to part itself from Carter, it understood his motivations, it took perhaps some mis-guided liking for the human condition. After beating out the other alien, and with no ship to use, where could it have gone? Sure it could conquer the planet and eat everything, but what would it do after that? Be stuck on a rock out in space? Clearly, some ulterior motivation had replaced the survival narrative. These guys mentioned that the ship might have been a prison craft, sans wards or guards. Would it be fair to say, that the alien after learning enough, had decided it didn't need to go balls to the wall. It could take an extended, though perhaps bloody vacation here on earth. Or perhaps something about Kate had become likable, perhaps it's grown too accustomed to her voice and face, perhaps ever attatched to her emotionally? Who knows..
The 2011 film also left out a lot of the subtext, both on religion and McCarthyism, from the Carpenter film. You guys are right, the more recent film is just a mindless monster movie, whereas, Carpenter's film is a puzzle that no one, to this day, has been able to piece together, perfectly.
It most certainly is not just a "mindless monster movie"
Turn on the SyFy channel for comparison.
srty srtyy if that film didn't have the coattails of the Carpenter film to ride on, it would've been a SyFy channel monster movie.
I just found you guys. love the content!!!! I can watch this all day! good job guys!!!
Prisoner transport is the easy way out. I think it would be a stronger backstory that the spaceship was the ship of a different alien race and "the thing" had taken control of the crew. The thing could have been bacteria found on an exploration mission by that race of aliens( the non-thing aliens) and it crashed on earth on it's way back to infect the advanced-race-alien's homeworld.
That gives way to a Ridley Scott Alien type pre-prequel. About the advanced alien race of course.
It was sad that the original 'The Thing' was released a few weeks after that soppy block-buster ET film. I mean i liked ET, but have never watched it since........but i have watched 'The Thing' many times over the years. The new prequel film of 'The Thing' is actually pretty good, though i didn't understand it when they started speaking Norwegian.......:)
The original backstory - which the director developed for the film - conceived the Pilot as part of an advanced, space-faring alien race. Following the director’s concept, a scientific crew composed of members of this race collects and classifies various alien lifeforms from different planets across the infinity of the cosmos, storing them inside research pods. Unaware of the oncoming disaster, the crew of extraterrestrials accidentally find the Thing - disguised as another lifeform - which then proceeds to break free of containment, and assimilate both the alien researchers and the specimens they had collected. The last remaining crewmember, the Pilot, severs its own ‘breathing tube’, killing itself, and making the ship crash on purpose, with the intention of killing the Thing. The creature however survives, erupts from the craft and escapes - only to stop a few hundreds of meters away and freeze.
Michael Foltz : "The thing" : Best monster movie ever !
Michael Folts : "alien" : Best monster movie made ever !
:)
I´ve been sitting here listening through everyting youve talked about and to be frank I can only come through with one conclution. Why are you comparing the 2 movies? You are approaching the prequel from a completely wrong angle. This movie never set out to be better or shine more than the 82 classic. The JC movie is damn near perfect but it to has flaws. It set out to wokr as a COMPANION-PIECE so you can see the 2 movies back-to-back and feel like you are watching one long movie. And that works
I can very quickly tell you why 2011 didn't live up to the first movie: Reliance on computer graphics. I know the film had practical effects but adding computer graphics to it ruined the sense of realism. Let's stop beating around the bush this is the reason why 80s and 90s horror films have classics and 2000s onward have hardly any horror films that will be long-lasting / classic.
It's always refreshing to see a talk show hosted by a wee lumberjack. I guess his axe and chainsaw must be out of shot.
Jason Alexander would've been perfect for the job!
The difference between the creature in the 1982 film and the 2011 film is that in the 2011 film the creature didn't know what humans were all about and that is why it attacked by the time it reached the american camp it knew humans were smart and that is why it was more clever in dealing with the americans.