I think another good horror SciFi you might enjoy if you haven't seen it yet is "Alien" It is even older than "The Thing" (1970's) but is still a classic. And even further back is "The Exorcist" which has aged a little but still has the capacity to shock.
That UFO flying shot in the opening of the movie wasn't CGI either, that was an optical effect using a model and a matte painting of the earth. The first significant uses of CGI in a film were also in 1982 though, with Tron and Star Trek II.
The Dog should have won some sort of award for it's performance. The hallway scene where it pauses and then goes into "someones" room was particularly well done.
There was a RUclips reactor that had the reveal completely spoiled because they spoke the language. Totally understood that the Norwegian at the beginning was yelling at them “don’t touch it! That’s NOT a dog, it’s a thing you idiots!” Talk about spoilers. 😆😆 There were 2 “things” at the US camp. First the dog, then later on the burnt corpse that they brought back from the Norwegian camp.
Such a fun movie. The theory I buy into of the ending is that Childs is the Thing, and MacReady giving him the alcohol is a call-back to him pouring alcohol in the computer when it beat him at chess at the beginning of the movie.
There were some sequels or sequel stories...The video game that came out years ago,showed a SEAL team going to the camp.The comicbook,showed McCready and Childs rescued and Childs was infected and McCready fights the alien in jungle setting.Their were alternative endings.1,McCready was rescued and his blood is tested and it's negative for the THING.2,the dog is seen staring at the camp and it runs off,showing the audience that the THING survived.
Nah, the callback was that the computer DID cheat, and instead of letting the computer have the win, he "burned the game to the ground" by pouring the scotch into the machine. Sets his character in place for when the Blair-Thing tries to check-mate Mac by freezing everyone and mac, once again instead of conceding defeat, LITERALLY burns the place to the ground!
I just ran across your channel while at work ... Your reaction was fun to watch. a couple of quicj little facts: 1.All of the effects in this movie are practical,1982 being pre CGI. 2. The 2011 The Thing movie isn't a sequel, but a prequel. The story is what happened at the Norwegian base before the dog/Thing ran to American base.
And 2011 sucks dramatically. The Thing 2011 loves to show itself in front of 5 people. It doesn't hide in an imitation. Inferior CGI aside, my biggest beef is the thing doesn't hide like it does in John Carpenter's The Thing.
@@LoneWolf_Cub_Ogami_Itto the main reason the 2011 is awful is studio interference. The script was a bit different and the crew had set up all practical effects, even to the point of having the puppetry completed (you can find video online). The studio insisted on CGI over practical …
@@LoneWolf_Cub_Ogami_Itto I understand the script was different (supposedly). I could be totally wrong, but I bet the Thing hiding more was a big plot point.
Top 3 most horrific and disgusting practical effects ever: The Thing, Alien, The Fly. John Carpenter is the master of good horror movies. "In the Mouth of Madness" is my favorite, it is such a psychological mindfuck.
the guy who made all the creature effects, rob bottin, was only 23 when he worked on this movie. the dog effect at the end, when the flower of tongues opens up, is actually the only effect he couldnt make, because he had hospitalized himself working long hours for the rest of the movie. an uncredited stan winston, of jurassic park fame, actually did that effect.
100% some of the BEST physical/practical effects ever committed to film. And even more, the sheer inventiveness and creativity in HOW the Thing appears and attacks is incredible. Every encounter is terrifying because you NEVER know what it's going to look like or what it's going to do.
The opening isn't CG either. The UFO is a model on a motion control rig that was photographed in several passes to get the effects of the lights on it.
100% practical effects. Opening was miniatures on a motion control rig, and a ton of repetition with different elements and lighting effects. Hell, even the opening title was a trash bag they lit on fire behind a cut out board. Practical is so much more effective because even if it's fake, it's a tangible object they had to film. Great vid! More John Carpenter! And yeah, check out the remake... it... it sure is. Something. ;)
So, most people miss it, but Fuchs said "IF a small particle is enough....." He was theorizing and playing it super safe. They had absolutely no idea how it worked. But as far as we have seen, the violent takeover method seems to be the only way to assimilate. Also, it is able to duplicate instead of just turning into something else, because it is absorbing MASS. It then uses that absorbed mass and creates the imitation with the copied cell information it absorbed.
I disagree. Norris, the chubby guy, I suspect, got it through food. First chest pains, then heart attack, then the infamous defibrillation scene got it to jump out prematurely. Hence, the fetal-like appearance on the ceiling duct work. It could also be argued that once his brain had died, assimilation halted at that point, but I don't care much for that theory.
@@vilefly Norris had a pacemaker, but the Thing can't replicate that, so he had a heart attack when an arrhythmia wasn't corrected by it. I read about this a few years ago but can't recall where atm.
since Child took a sip of a molotov cocktail that macready gave him during the final scene, which would have contained gazoline, your theory is 100% right. Child drank the gazoline because he didn't know what alcohol is supposed to taste like. The omnious music is a hint at this point
I heard the defib chest ripping thing took 2 weeks to build, and they couldn't afford to do it over if it didn't work on the first take. We take Ctrl-Z for granted, but those old school model/prop FX guys worked their asses off on details, just to watch it all get blown up in an instant. I can't imagine going to work every day knowing what's coming.
It's not a remake, it's a prequel, shows what happened at the Norwegian base. It's an ok movie, they did everything with practical effect, but the studio got involved and had the practical effects covered by cgi. That completely killed the movie in theaters.
Mac's shack was never blown up, only the toolshed. But Mac can't allow Childs to come with him... If you noticed when Childs left the door open and went outside. There is a white marron coat missing on the rack. Child's is wearing it at the end, which means he changed cloths before he went after Blair. We as the viewer know Blair was not outside, but inside removing the generator. Child's lied to Mac, about leaving his post. I think Blair attacked Childs from behind, and used the coat because his was torn. We see Childs stumbling outside not walking, he was finished on being taken over. If he was in a hurry to get Blair, why spend the time to remove the flamethrower and place a new coat on. We know Mac's shack is still standing in a fast scene in the movie, and because Mac has his bottle from the chess game. All the bottles but his in his shack, were converted to flammable cocktails. We also see Mac walking from the direction of his shack to the sit down spot, we don't see him coming from the explosion side. Mac still has his gun, he can shoot Child's in the head, and the Thing will pretend to be dead. Remove the flamethrower and burn him, then go back to his shack and survive for 16 days. We know he has a furnace in his shack and in the early pictures of it, we saw Fuel drums under his house. HE WILL BE OK, but can't allow Childs to live. Childs will attack him in the shack, knowing Mac will tell the rescue team to test them. Child's has Palmers knowledge, and Blairs knowledge of the Alien pilots. So he will know how to fly a helicopter, and won't need Mac. So Mac has to kill Childs right there, before he knows about the shack. "As for Blair" he was infected either from the dog autopsy, or in his room. He had to Dig that hole in the shed before he was placed in there. We saw no Snow piles inside the shed, while he was out there locked up. He would have needed the Base Equipment to help with the hole, and snow removal. He did this during the first storm, to stay hidden.. Once the hole was made and proper equipment was down there, it was time to sabotage and remove parts. While everyone thinks Blair is preventing people from leaving, he is making sure no one can follow him. The space craft is not big enough for Blair to be in it. He will place a sample of himself in it, and have it crash in a populated city. The generator, was most likely his last part he needed for power. He removes it, not destroyed it. Once Blair Assimilates Garry It knows now the Ship is no longer a option, and to remove the plunger. Child's Thing has no clue what has happened up to the point of Blair going for the generator. That's why Child's asks the dumb question if he got it. There was no mission or plan with Child's to get it. The question being asked, is from the creature it's self. The only plan Child's knows of, is they're giving Blair a test. {not hunting down the Things} Good movie, it's only plot hole was the ship in the ground. My only way to explain that was Blair was bad after Palmer. this gives him the time needed to dig and construct.
Good analysis, except for the idea that the Thing would send a small part of itself out into the world. Once the piece was separate, the Thing wouldn't care about it as it would be a distinct lifeform. This is demonstrated by Palmer calling attention to the fleeing spider head, even though he was a Thing himself by that time.
@@emsleywyatt3400 I only think it cares about survival only, and spreading. Palmers reaction was the Thing pretending to be human or acting out one of Palmers traits. Remember Palmer thing even smokes weed, this is to continue this Vail of hiding. Weed is a harmful act to the system, especially for the thing as much as Palmer smokes it lol. The creature is willing to go through a certain level of discomfort or minor harm before having enough. "shock paddles more then once" " needles in the arm" Fire is it's only hell no, I'm going to attack you right away. This makes sense because fire destroys cells fast. So if i was to say, what is going in the small ship.... I would say it breaks off as another Dog. By now it has learned, the Dog gets affection without question. So a dog pops out of the crashed hovercraft, and the camp\city is happy to see it survived. "again lol" :) Like I've said in a few posts, i think any answer or ideal about the creatures motives can be correct. Maybe palmer has a trait to betray people? So the Thing acts on it, while around others. So many ideals could work for this movie, and it's moments of open interpretation.
There is NO CG whatsoever in the film, as this was 6 or 7 years before it's first use. I love when even old-school gags can trick the eye. Practical is made up of so many different divisions. Not just the monster stuff. The opening ship, I'm not even 100% on, which is weird, as I could tell you how every other effect was done. But you have to consider that besides the monster stuff. you have matte paintings, rotoscoping, stop-motion animation, rod puppetry, forced perspective miniatures, oversized set-pieces (i.e. when the Norris Spider is under the desk) to make an effect look smaller... it goes on and on. And The Thing is perhaps the crowning jewel of the combination of all of them. The 2011 film isn't a remake per se. It's a prequel about the Norwegian camp. And aside from dodgy CG, it's decent. A lot of the practical effects shots were replaced with computer stuff, which is a shame, as ADI, the guys who did the Aliens and AVP films saw it as the ultimate challenge to try to live up to the work of Rob Bottin (and a little bit of Stan Winston) from the original . Definitely find the video diaries of the making of the film afterward to see how much got tossed out. It's a travesty. The dudes ending up making their own movie to make use of all that was wasted lol.
There’s a really interesting theory that child’s was a thing at the end of the movie but Macready already knows and the drink he gave him wasn’t alcohol, it was gasoline to test the Thing
The only CGI was the beginning. But it was actually animation. The tentacle that grabs the detonator is stop motion. There was a conglomeration of effects without CGI. 99% of this is practical. Totally amazing.
I love Thing reactions, and I search for them, because watching people react to this magnificent masterpiece is just too much fun. I saw it opening night with my best friend, seniors in 1982. We knew Carpenter from Escape from NY. but not this. Anyway, we were speechless. You reaction to this film was quite entertaining to watch.😂 Blows me away that the effects still hold up so damned well.
Whoever was in the room when the dog walked in (the shadow) could have been the first human turned by the dog. I personally think that was how Norris got infected. Only thing is, Blair was touching not only the thing they brought back from the Norwegian camp, but also the dog transformation. If he had even one tiny cut, could he have been infected right off the bat? It’s hard to say because he really seemed to try to keep The Thing there. He was stuck outside by himself long enough for Norris to get to him too.
Childs and Macready share the bottle at the end. If that bottle was infected then they both preserved The Thing perfectly for whoever shows up and finds this mess.
There was no such thing as realistic CGI back in the 90s. That didn't really exist until the early-to-mid 90s, though earlier films had experimented with very rudimentary CGI. Special effects were achieved with matte paintings, models, miniatures, animatronics, stop-motion photography and lighting tricks. Everything was made by hand.
The prequel is ok, but the main thing that it does is dramatically reinforce the idea that good practical effects beat cgi any time, and all the time. The fact that The Thing didn't win any awards for special effects is a travesty to this day, especially because we can literally look at it next to movies that are 10, 20, 30 + years more recent and they still don't hold up the same way!
The Thing is basically a highly intelligent alien parasite and the movie hints at,is that,the Thing can infect you at a microscopic level and that means any contact with it,you can be infected. Although,what's not explained,is that,can it infect people or other lifeforms through airborne particles?
"I dunno what the hell's in there, but it's weird and pissed off, whatever it is." Fun Fact: According to an apocryphal story first reported on Reddit in February 2013, when asked about the ambiguous ending of the film, John Carpenter responded that he never understood how could there be any confusion about whether Childs or MacReady are human or not, because the last scene shows: "Kurt Russell and Keith David staring each other down, harshly backlit. It's completely, glaringly obvious that Kurt Russell is breathing, and Keith David is not." Budget Friendly Fact: The Norwegian camp scenes were actually the charred remains of the American site from the end of the film. Rather than go to the expense of building and burning down another camp, John Carpenter re-used the destroyed American camp. Practical Effects Fact: The film is considered a benchmark in special make-up effects. The effects were created by Rob Bottin, who was only 22 when he started the project. To create the effect of the title, an animation cell with "The Thing" written on it was placed behind a smoke-filled fish tank which was covered with a plastic garbage bag. The bag was ignited, creating the effect of the title burning onto the screen.
When asked John Carpenter stated that there are NO subtle clues as to who may or may not be a Thing. Also, you can CLEARLY see Childs breath on BluRay and 4K but even if you couldn't it doesn't matter because we already know the Bennings-Thing exhaled warm moise air when it screamed just before mac Torched it.
On the Thing they made a few years ago supposed to have taken place right before this one took place. It's not as good due to using CG.. It showed how that frozen mushy faced monster came to be. Same with the dog. The ending of the newer Thing showed the Norwegians chasing the dog in the helicopter..
I know this video is like a year old, but just to clarify when a Thing replicates another life form, both the initial Thing and the newly replicated Thing both remain as separate entities, meaning there can be several Things at once, the Thing can infect someone slowly like a virus by just having one cell slowly spread throughout your body and replace your cells with its own, or it could completely absorb you all at once and spit out a duplicate.
If you'll notice in the final scene when child's and mcrady are sitting down talking you can see one of their breath in the cold but you can't see the other's. I'm not saying that means anything, I'm just saying.
Actually, you CAN see Childs breath, but even if you couldn't it's irrelevant because we already saw the Benings-Thing's breath when it screamed right before Mac torched it.
@@dioneberts1715 You said you can't see the breath of one of them... except that you CAN it's just that Childs breath isn't backlit by the burning camp, but it's clearly visible on BluRay and 4K.
@@rsrt6910 perhaps YOU could see his breathe, I on the other hand could not. Of course I'm no spring chicken, and my eyes aren't what they used to be. Getting old is a bitch.
@@dioneberts1715 No I get it. There's a part of the human psych that demands there be a resolution, an ending either happy or tragic, that finds the ambiguity of John Carpenters film unacceptable. The whole movie was an abject study in building tension. In most horror/monster films, the tension is released a bit once we've seen and understand the monster, but in the case of The Thing, revelation does nothing save increase the tension. In a proper story, the ending should have given the audience a release, but John Carpenter didn't. Mac and Childs will die before they can relay their story to the world and we will never know weather they've saved it, or doomed it, at that's not something most people can live with, so they're forced to look for a "hidden message" that gives them that release, weather it exists or not, not matter how circumspect and nebulous it may be. I personally, believe the Thing is still alive and that the rescue party will find it, but it has nothing to do with any "hidden clues" that don't exist in the film, because there are none. Childs breath is visible, Mac gave Childs a bottle of scotch, Childs was wearing the same coat he had on inside the camp, you can see light reflecting in Palmers eyes minutes before his blood runs away from a hot wire. But I believe the Thing is still, somehow, alive. Why? Because the Norwegian camp found a frozen Thing, brought it back, it thawed out and ran amuck before they torched everything to kill it, leaving only a couple pilots to chase a surviving Thing and get shot to death in the process. the American camp finds a frozen Thing, brings it back, it thaws out, runs amuchk before they torch everything to kill it, leaving a couple pilots to chase a surviving Blair-Thing and froze to death in the process. In the opening scene, we see a flying saucer, out of control, but doesn't seem to be damaged. I'm betting the crew of that flying saucer brought back a frozen Thing, it thawed out, ran amuck and they crashed the saucer to kill it, leaving only a pilot that froze to death in the process. Based on these circumstances alone, I believe that the rescue party will find a Thing, it'll get thawed out, run amock, they'll have to destroy everything to try to kill it, leaving only a couple pilots to chase the last of the Things and wind up getting killed afterwards in the process. And it'll happen again, and again, and again and such will be the fate of ANYONE that comes across the atrocity that is THE THING! Dun, dun... dun, dun... dun, dun... dun, dun... Dun, dun,tip,tip... tip... tip... dun, dun, tip.......tip.
DO, DO, DO the "REMAKE" as it's not actually a remake, but a prequel film that shows what happened BEFORE this movie at the Norwegian came..it is amazing!!
The prequel sucks ass the cgi ruied it and the cgi is sooooo bad practical effects owns cgi the only god scene in that movie is the end scene credits.!
The only cgi in this movie is the little blue and red blobs on the computer monitor representing dog and intruder cells. Everything else is practical effects. ... Unless, of course, Elon Musk is right and we're all living in a simulation in which case EVERYTHING is cgi.
There was no CGI in this movie .all practical and they were done by Rob Bottin who also did the original Robo Cop costume. The sequel is what happened at the Norwegian camp. 👍
Yo Prof, just heads up to let you know the ending is a guessing game if Childs is Alien, Kurt gives him a bottle at the end which is supposedly one of the Molotov's he took from the tunnel explosion. If Childs didn't know what he was drinking.....
Except there's NO evidence whatsoever that a PERFECT imitation that can mimic complex neurological responses of a organism would, for some strange reason, not know the difference between scotch and petrol.
I think if it separates from the main Thing it can become it's own individual Thing and that's how it replicates/reproduces. But each individual Thing also wants to individually absorb as many creatures as it can. Or maybe there were just multiple Things on that ship.
I discovered your channel this week and I've been binge watching your reactions. Absolutely love them, especially the Saw films. The practical effects in The Thing are truly disgusting. I think you should checkout the first Hellraiser, which has similar effects.
Great reaction! You might like John Carpenter's 'In The Mouth of Madness' (1994), it has an end of the world theme too. Not as good as The Thing, but worth seeing.
7:31...how did he work all that stuff out...maybe he guessed...or maybe he's a scientist or something like that? Who knows eh...oh no wait a minute, they are a group of scientists, mechanics and pilots at a research station 🙄
The (Shitty) 2011 "prequel" to The Thing used ALL CGI and it completely sucked. It wasn't ONLY the cgi that doomed it, but that was one of the big reasons. CGI when done right is incredible - when done wrong it can Destroy a film.
Best horror, best sci-fi, best movie ever!! I love this movie so much.. the effects were done by Rob bottin who was like 22 years old with some help from Stan Winston since rob had overworked himself.. just amazing
my favorite horror film of all time besides shaun of the dead! just thought to let you know that Everything Everywhere All At Once is coming back to theaters
I've never seen this movie, and really want to on my own time, so I'm not going to watch this video yet, BUT I just had to pop in and say that your hair looks SO GOOD in this video! Have you done something different? That will be all, bye for now
The old "The Thing" game is canon. I hope it gets remade with better graphics, but it's pretty effective alteady. ruclips.net/video/j1FC3YdjuW0/видео.html
The greatest horror of all time, a perfect movie. I'm amazed everytime i watch it. The effects are 100% practical and stop-motion. The Thing is basically a super advanced alien parasite/supercell, who goes around the universe trying to assimilate and bond with every kind of lifeform.
@@chrissellers9091 Mac' is backlit from the fire, Childs is facing it, making Macs breath easier to see. In 4K and in the theatre you CAN see Childs breath. Besides, even if it was, the point is irrelevant because we already know that a Thing exhales warm moist air just like a human because the Bennings-Thing did so just before Mac torched it.
what a trip this was
*THE BLACK PHONE* and *HOT FUZZ* are available in both their edited and full-length glory :)
www.patreon.com/professorreactions
I think another good horror SciFi you might enjoy if you haven't seen it yet is "Alien"
It is even older than "The Thing" (1970's) but is still a classic.
And even further back is "The Exorcist" which has aged a little but still has the capacity to shock.
I love the tier list and the remake of the thing is a prequel to what happened in the Norwegian camp
That UFO flying shot in the opening of the movie wasn't CGI either, that was an optical effect using a model and a matte painting of the earth. The first significant uses of CGI in a film were also in 1982 though, with Tron and Star Trek II.
This is what happens when people don’t understand CG means specifically computer generated and isn’t the same as visual/special effects in general.
Practical effects are so much scarier than CGI, even from the 80s.
So true
Even from 70s...like Exorcist 1973.
The Dog should have won some sort of award for it's performance. The hallway scene where it pauses and then goes into "someones" room was particularly well done.
Wasn't a real dog, two guys in a suit.
There was a RUclips reactor that had the reveal completely spoiled because they spoke the language.
Totally understood that the Norwegian at the beginning was yelling at them “don’t touch it! That’s NOT a dog, it’s a thing you idiots!”
Talk about spoilers. 😆😆
There were 2 “things” at the US camp. First the dog, then later on the burnt corpse that they brought back from the Norwegian camp.
Her Channel is "Centane"
Such a fun movie. The theory I buy into of the ending is that Childs is the Thing, and MacReady giving him the alcohol is a call-back to him pouring alcohol in the computer when it beat him at chess at the beginning of the movie.
There were some sequels or sequel stories...The video game that came out years ago,showed a SEAL team going to the camp.The comicbook,showed McCready and Childs rescued and Childs was infected and McCready fights the alien in jungle setting.Their were alternative endings.1,McCready was rescued and his blood is tested and it's negative for the THING.2,the dog is seen staring at the camp and it runs off,showing the audience that the THING survived.
Nah, the callback was that the computer DID cheat, and instead of letting the computer have the win, he "burned the game to the ground" by pouring the scotch into the machine. Sets his character in place for when the Blair-Thing tries to check-mate Mac by freezing everyone and mac, once again instead of conceding defeat, LITERALLY burns the place to the ground!
I just ran across your channel while at work ... Your reaction was fun to watch.
a couple of quicj little facts:
1.All of the effects in this movie are practical,1982 being pre CGI.
2. The 2011 The Thing movie isn't a sequel, but a prequel. The story is what happened at the Norwegian base before the dog/Thing ran to American base.
And 2011 sucks dramatically. The Thing 2011 loves to show itself in front of 5 people. It doesn't hide in an imitation. Inferior CGI aside, my biggest beef is the thing doesn't hide like it does in John Carpenter's The Thing.
@@LoneWolf_Cub_Ogami_Itto the main reason the 2011 is awful is studio interference. The script was a bit different and the crew had set up all practical effects, even to the point of having the puppetry completed (you can find video online). The studio insisted on CGI over practical …
@@jamesstringer5170 oh I'm aware, but it still has the problem of The Thing bot hiding in imitation and loving to show itself.
@@LoneWolf_Cub_Ogami_Itto I understand the script was different (supposedly). I could be totally wrong, but I bet the Thing hiding more was a big plot point.
1st time watching The Thing, "no don't kill the dog!"
Every time watching it again, "kill the freaking dog!"
Top 3 most horrific and disgusting practical effects ever: The Thing, Alien, The Fly.
John Carpenter is the master of good horror movies. "In the Mouth of Madness" is my favorite, it is such a psychological mindfuck.
Hellraiser 2 also has some pretty great and nasty practical effects. In the Mouth of Madness is so good
@rx303 I agree with your picks but no list is complete without An American Werewolf in London.
Fright Night (1985) has great practical effects too.
the guy who made all the creature effects, rob bottin, was only 23 when he worked on this movie. the dog effect at the end, when the flower of tongues opens up, is actually the only effect he couldnt make, because he had hospitalized himself working long hours for the rest of the movie. an uncredited stan winston, of jurassic park fame, actually did that effect.
100% some of the BEST physical/practical effects ever committed to film. And even more, the sheer inventiveness and creativity in HOW the Thing appears and attacks is incredible. Every encounter is terrifying because you NEVER know what it's going to look like or what it's going to do.
The opening isn't CG either. The UFO is a model on a motion control rig that was photographed in several passes to get the effects of the lights on it.
100% practical effects. Opening was miniatures on a motion control rig, and a ton of repetition with different elements and lighting effects. Hell, even the opening title was a trash bag they lit on fire behind a cut out board. Practical is so much more effective because even if it's fake, it's a tangible object they had to film. Great vid! More John Carpenter! And yeah, check out the remake... it... it sure is. Something. ;)
So, most people miss it, but Fuchs said "IF a small particle is enough....." He was theorizing and playing it super safe. They had absolutely no idea how it worked. But as far as we have seen, the violent takeover method seems to be the only way to assimilate. Also, it is able to duplicate instead of just turning into something else, because it is absorbing MASS. It then uses that absorbed mass and creates the imitation with the copied cell information it absorbed.
I disagree. Norris, the chubby guy, I suspect, got it through food. First chest pains, then heart attack, then the infamous defibrillation scene got it to jump out prematurely. Hence, the fetal-like appearance on the ceiling duct work. It could also be argued that once his brain had died, assimilation halted at that point, but I don't care much for that theory.
@@vilefly Norris had a pacemaker, but the Thing can't replicate that, so he had a heart attack when an arrhythmia wasn't corrected by it. I read about this a few years ago but can't recall where atm.
@@vilefly 2:03 Also I believe this is his profile and where he was infecyed.
I thought that the Thing just duplicated Norris, bad heart and all. It's pretty clear that the shadow seen early on is Norris.
since Child took a sip of a molotov cocktail that macready gave him during the final scene, which would have contained gazoline, your theory is 100% right. Child drank the gazoline because he didn't know what alcohol is supposed to taste like. The omnious music is a hint at this point
I heard the defib chest ripping thing took 2 weeks to build, and they couldn't afford to do it over if it didn't work on the first take. We take Ctrl-Z for granted, but those old school model/prop FX guys worked their asses off on details, just to watch it all get blown up in an instant. I can't imagine going to work every day knowing what's coming.
It's not a remake, it's a prequel, shows what happened at the Norwegian base. It's an ok movie, they did everything with practical effect, but the studio got involved and had the practical effects covered by cgi. That completely killed the movie in theaters.
This is a remake of the 1951 movie, "The Thing from Another World." The prequel was made much later in 2011.
Mac's shack was never blown up, only the toolshed. But Mac can't allow Childs to come with him... If you noticed when Childs left the door open and went outside. There is a white marron coat missing on the rack. Child's is wearing it at the end, which means he changed cloths before he went after Blair. We as the viewer know Blair was not outside, but inside removing the generator. Child's lied to Mac, about leaving his post. I think Blair attacked Childs from behind, and used the coat because his was torn. We see Childs stumbling outside not walking, he was finished on being taken over. If he was in a hurry to get Blair, why spend the time to remove the flamethrower and place a new coat on. We know Mac's shack is still standing in a fast scene in the movie, and because Mac has his bottle from the chess game. All the bottles but his in his shack, were converted to flammable cocktails. We also see Mac walking from the direction of his shack to the sit down spot, we don't see him coming from the explosion side. Mac still has his gun, he can shoot Child's in the head, and the Thing will pretend to be dead. Remove the flamethrower and burn him, then go back to his shack and survive for 16 days. We know he has a furnace in his shack and in the early pictures of it, we saw Fuel drums under his house. HE WILL BE OK, but can't allow Childs to live. Childs will attack him in the shack, knowing Mac will tell the rescue team to test them. Child's has Palmers knowledge, and Blairs knowledge of the Alien pilots. So he will know how to fly a helicopter, and won't need Mac. So Mac has to kill Childs right there, before he knows about the shack.
"As for Blair" he was infected either from the dog autopsy, or in his room. He had to Dig that hole in the shed before he was placed in there. We saw no Snow piles inside the shed, while he was out there locked up. He would have needed the Base Equipment to help with the hole, and snow removal. He did this during the first storm, to stay hidden.. Once the hole was made and proper equipment was down there, it was time to sabotage and remove parts. While everyone thinks Blair is preventing people from leaving, he is making sure no one can follow him. The space craft is not big enough for Blair to be in it. He will place a sample of himself in it, and have it crash in a populated city. The generator, was most likely his last part he needed for power. He removes it, not destroyed it. Once Blair Assimilates Garry It knows now the Ship is no longer a option, and to remove the plunger. Child's Thing has no clue what has happened up to the point of Blair going for the generator. That's why Child's asks the dumb question if he got it. There was no mission or plan with Child's to get it. The question being asked, is from the creature it's self. The only plan Child's knows of, is they're giving Blair a test. {not hunting down the Things} Good movie, it's only plot hole was the ship in the ground. My only way to explain that was Blair was bad after Palmer. this gives him the time needed to dig and construct.
Good analysis, except for the idea that the Thing would send a small part of itself out into the world. Once the piece was separate, the Thing wouldn't care about it as it would be a distinct lifeform. This is demonstrated by Palmer calling attention to the fleeing spider head, even though he was a Thing himself by that time.
@@emsleywyatt3400 I only think it cares about survival only, and spreading. Palmers reaction was the Thing pretending to be human or acting out one of Palmers traits. Remember Palmer thing even smokes weed, this is to continue this Vail of hiding. Weed is a harmful act to the system, especially for the thing as much as Palmer smokes it lol. The creature is willing to go through a certain level of discomfort or minor harm before having enough. "shock paddles more then once" " needles in the arm"
Fire is it's only hell no, I'm going to attack you right away. This makes sense because fire destroys cells fast. So if i was to say, what is going in the small ship.... I would say it breaks off as another Dog. By now it has learned, the Dog gets affection without question. So a dog pops out of the crashed hovercraft, and the camp\city is happy to see it survived. "again lol" :) Like I've said in a few posts, i think any answer or ideal about the creatures motives can be correct. Maybe palmer has a trait to betray people? So the Thing acts on it, while around others. So many ideals could work for this movie, and it's moments of open interpretation.
There is NO CG whatsoever in the film, as this was 6 or 7 years before it's first use. I love when even old-school gags can trick the eye. Practical is made up of so many different divisions. Not just the monster stuff.
The opening ship, I'm not even 100% on, which is weird, as I could tell you how every other effect was done. But you have to consider that besides the monster stuff.
you have matte paintings, rotoscoping, stop-motion animation, rod puppetry, forced perspective miniatures, oversized set-pieces (i.e. when the Norris Spider is under the desk) to make an effect look smaller... it goes on and on.
And The Thing is perhaps the crowning jewel of the combination of all of them. The 2011 film isn't a remake per se. It's a prequel about the Norwegian camp. And aside from dodgy CG, it's decent.
A lot of the practical effects shots were replaced with computer stuff, which is a shame, as ADI, the guys who did the Aliens and AVP films saw it as the ultimate challenge to try to live up to the work of Rob Bottin (and a little bit of Stan Winston) from the original .
Definitely find the video diaries of the making of the film afterward to see how much got tossed out. It's a travesty. The dudes ending up making their own movie to make use of all that was wasted lol.
There’s a really interesting theory that child’s was a thing at the end of the movie but Macready already knows and the drink he gave him wasn’t alcohol, it was gasoline to test the Thing
When this film was made, there was simply no such thing as "CGI".
This is why I love classic movies because they use practical effects, now a days everything is cgi
The only CGI was the beginning. But it was actually animation. The tentacle that grabs the detonator is stop motion. There was a conglomeration of effects without CGI. 99% of this is practical. Totally amazing.
I love Thing reactions, and I search for them, because watching people react to this magnificent masterpiece is just too much fun. I saw it opening night with my best friend, seniors in 1982. We knew Carpenter from Escape from NY. but not this. Anyway, we were speechless. You reaction to this film was quite entertaining to watch.😂 Blows me away that the effects still hold up so damned well.
Best dog "actor" ever.
Rob Bottin was 21 years old when he made the practical FX for this movie..
Whoever was in the room when the dog walked in (the shadow) could have been the first human turned by the dog. I personally think that was how Norris got infected. Only thing is, Blair was touching not only the thing they brought back from the Norwegian camp, but also the dog transformation. If he had even one tiny cut, could he have been infected right off the bat? It’s hard to say because he really seemed to try to keep The Thing there. He was stuck outside by himself long enough for Norris to get to him too.
There’s a video instead of taking wild guess do some research 😅😅
@@ez9565 I like the challenge of thinking. Try it sometime.
No cgi.. The title credits and space ship were "in camera effects plus motion control multi film exposure.. Like you're reactions..
Childs and Macready share the bottle at the end. If that bottle was infected then they both preserved The Thing perfectly for whoever shows up and finds this mess.
You should watch the 2nd movie since it provides backstory for this movie
There was no such thing as realistic CGI back in the 90s. That didn't really exist until the early-to-mid 90s, though earlier films had experimented with very rudimentary CGI. Special effects were achieved with matte paintings, models, miniatures, animatronics, stop-motion photography and lighting tricks. Everything was made by hand.
What's interesting about The Thing is that critics and audiences didn't receive it very well when it was released in '82.
The prequel is ok, but the main thing that it does is dramatically reinforce the idea that good practical effects beat cgi any time, and all the time. The fact that The Thing didn't win any awards for special effects is a travesty to this day, especially because we can literally look at it next to movies that are 10, 20, 30 + years more recent and they still don't hold up the same way!
The Thing is basically a highly intelligent alien parasite and the movie hints at,is that,the Thing can infect you at a microscopic level and that means any contact with it,you can be infected. Although,what's not explained,is that,can it infect people or other lifeforms through airborne particles?
"I dunno what the hell's in there, but it's weird and pissed off, whatever it is."
Fun Fact: According to an apocryphal story first reported on Reddit in February 2013, when asked about the ambiguous ending of the film, John Carpenter responded that he never understood how could there be any confusion about whether Childs or MacReady are human or not, because the last scene shows: "Kurt Russell and Keith David staring each other down, harshly backlit. It's completely, glaringly obvious that Kurt Russell is breathing, and Keith David is not."
Budget Friendly Fact: The Norwegian camp scenes were actually the charred remains of the American site from the end of the film. Rather than go to the expense of building and burning down another camp, John Carpenter re-used the destroyed American camp.
Practical Effects Fact: The film is considered a benchmark in special make-up effects. The effects were created by Rob Bottin, who was only 22 when he started the project. To create the effect of the title, an animation cell with "The Thing" written on it was placed behind a smoke-filled fish tank which was covered with a plastic garbage bag. The bag was ignited, creating the effect of the title burning onto the screen.
When asked John Carpenter stated that there are NO subtle clues as to who may or may not be a Thing.
Also, you can CLEARLY see Childs breath on BluRay and 4K but even if you couldn't it doesn't matter because we already know the Bennings-Thing exhaled warm moise air when it screamed just before mac Torched it.
On the Thing they made a few years ago supposed to have taken place right before this one took place. It's not as good due to using CG..
It showed how that frozen mushy faced monster came to be.
Same with the dog. The ending of the newer Thing showed the Norwegians chasing the dog in the helicopter..
That spaceship you saw in the beginning of the movie was in fact a practical model scratch built with some CG for it's exhaust.
I know this video is like a year old, but just to clarify when a Thing replicates another life form, both the initial Thing and the newly replicated Thing both remain as separate entities, meaning there can be several Things at once, the Thing can infect someone slowly like a virus by just having one cell slowly spread throughout your body and replace your cells with its own, or it could completely absorb you all at once and spit out a duplicate.
If you'll notice in the final scene when child's and mcrady are sitting down talking you can see one of their breath in the cold but you can't see the other's. I'm not saying that means anything, I'm just saying.
Actually, you CAN see Childs breath, but even if you couldn't it's irrelevant because we already saw the Benings-Thing's breath when it screamed right before Mac torched it.
@@rsrt6910 that's why I said "I'm not saying that means anything, I'm just saying"
@@dioneberts1715 You said you can't see the breath of one of them... except that you CAN it's just that Childs breath isn't backlit by the burning camp, but it's clearly visible on BluRay and 4K.
@@rsrt6910 perhaps YOU could see his breathe, I on the other hand could not. Of course I'm no spring chicken, and my eyes aren't what they used to be. Getting old is a bitch.
@@dioneberts1715 No I get it. There's a part of the human psych that demands there be a resolution, an ending either happy or tragic, that finds the ambiguity of John Carpenters film unacceptable. The whole movie was an abject study in building tension. In most horror/monster films, the tension is released a bit once we've seen and understand the monster, but in the case of The Thing, revelation does nothing save increase the tension. In a proper story, the ending should have given the audience a release, but John Carpenter didn't. Mac and Childs will die before they can relay their story to the world and we will never know weather they've saved it, or doomed it, at that's not something most people can live with, so they're forced to look for a "hidden message" that gives them that release, weather it exists or not, not matter how circumspect and nebulous it may be.
I personally, believe the Thing is still alive and that the rescue party will find it, but it has nothing to do with any "hidden clues" that don't exist in the film, because there are none. Childs breath is visible, Mac gave Childs a bottle of scotch, Childs was wearing the same coat he had on inside the camp, you can see light reflecting in Palmers eyes minutes before his blood runs away from a hot wire.
But I believe the Thing is still, somehow, alive.
Why?
Because the Norwegian camp found a frozen Thing, brought it back, it thawed out and ran amuck before they torched everything to kill it, leaving only a couple pilots to chase a surviving Thing and get shot to death in the process.
the American camp finds a frozen Thing, brings it back, it thaws out, runs amuchk before they torch everything to kill it, leaving a couple pilots to chase a surviving Blair-Thing and froze to death in the process.
In the opening scene, we see a flying saucer, out of control, but doesn't seem to be damaged. I'm betting the crew of that flying saucer brought back a frozen Thing, it thawed out, ran amuck and they crashed the saucer to kill it, leaving only a pilot that froze to death in the process.
Based on these circumstances alone, I believe that the rescue party will find a Thing, it'll get thawed out, run amock, they'll have to destroy everything to try to kill it, leaving only a couple pilots to chase the last of the Things and wind up getting killed afterwards in the process.
And it'll happen again, and again, and again and such will be the fate of ANYONE that comes across the atrocity that is THE THING!
Dun, dun... dun, dun... dun, dun... dun, dun...
Dun, dun,tip,tip... tip... tip... dun, dun, tip.......tip.
DO, DO, DO the "REMAKE" as it's not actually a remake, but a prequel film that shows what happened BEFORE this movie at the Norwegian came..it is amazing!!
The prequel sucks ass the cgi ruied it and the cgi is sooooo bad practical effects owns cgi the only god scene in that movie is the end scene credits.!
26:22...mate this is from 1981/82. There were only practical fx back then 🤣🤣🤣
The only cgi in this movie is the little blue and red blobs on the computer monitor representing dog and intruder cells.
Everything else is practical effects.
...
Unless, of course, Elon Musk is right and we're all living in a simulation in which case EVERYTHING is cgi.
My dad took us to the theatre in 1982 when this came out. I was 7.....thanks dad. Lol
There was no CGI in this movie .all practical and they were done by Rob Bottin who also did the original Robo Cop costume. The sequel is what happened at the Norwegian camp. 👍
McCreadys laugh at the end is a big theory on that he was evil in the end.
Yo Prof, just heads up to let you know the ending is a guessing game if Childs is Alien, Kurt gives him a bottle at the end which is supposedly one of the Molotov's he took from the tunnel explosion. If Childs didn't know what he was drinking.....
Except there's NO evidence whatsoever that a PERFECT imitation that can mimic complex neurological responses of a organism would, for some strange reason, not know the difference between scotch and petrol.
"This right here, that's not dog. Its all imitation."
Nothing but toffu and soy. >BO
The newest Thing movie is not a remake. It is the Norwegian station part of the story. Perhaps technically a prequel?
I think if it separates from the main Thing it can become it's own individual Thing and that's how it replicates/reproduces. But each individual Thing also wants to individually absorb as many creatures as it can. Or maybe there were just multiple Things on that ship.
I’m going to stop before you really get into this. Giving me crazy flashbacks to when I watched this as a child.
the norwegians planting the thermic was actually from the FIRST thing from another world film
I discovered your channel this week and I've been binge watching your reactions. Absolutely love them, especially the Saw films.
The practical effects in The Thing are truly disgusting. I think you should checkout the first Hellraiser, which has similar effects.
The end of the movie,the scene when they sit and look at each other,maybe they wanted to make posibility for sequals,Thing 2, i think !
You're Dead, You've failed the Thing Challenge, never trust a strange Dog.
Great reaction! You might like John Carpenter's 'In The Mouth of Madness' (1994), it has an end of the world theme too. Not as good as The Thing, but worth seeing.
The remake was terrible cause it was all cgi, so it really didn’t feel the same. What The Thing was known for were its crazy practical effects.
7:31...how did he work all that stuff out...maybe he guessed...or maybe he's a scientist or something like that? Who knows eh...oh no wait a minute, they are a group of scientists, mechanics and pilots at a research station 🙄
The (Shitty) 2011 "prequel" to The Thing used ALL CGI and it completely sucked. It wasn't ONLY the cgi that doomed it, but that was one of the big reasons. CGI when done right is incredible - when done wrong it can Destroy a film.
Best horror, best sci-fi, best movie ever!! I love this movie so much.. the effects were done by Rob bottin who was like 22 years old with some help from Stan Winston since rob had overworked himself.. just amazing
my favorite horror film of all time besides shaun of the dead! just thought to let you know that Everything Everywhere All At Once is coming back to theaters
a masterpiece
Glad you watched and enjoyed this awesome movie, could you react to evil dead 1981?
Which version?
I've never seen this movie, and really want to on my own time, so I'm not going to watch this video yet, BUT I just had to pop in and say that your hair looks SO GOOD in this video! Have you done something different? That will be all, bye for now
The old "The Thing" game is canon. I hope it gets remade with better graphics, but it's pretty effective alteady. ruclips.net/video/j1FC3YdjuW0/видео.html
Has anyone mentioned the sequel video game? I remember it being pretty good 👍
The greatest horror of all time, a perfect movie. I'm amazed everytime i watch it.
The effects are 100% practical and stop-motion. The Thing is basically a super advanced alien parasite/supercell, who goes around the universe trying to assimilate and bond with every kind of lifeform.
If you like body horror, check out "The Fly" (1986)
You'll regret it.... or you won't 😐
2:50 - hee heee! rubs hands
IT'S ALL PRACTICAL FX. THERE WERE NO COMPUTERS THAT COULD EVEN DO CGI AT THAT TIME.
the CGI did fuck up the 2011 prequel to the thing
If you want a practical effects overload watch Peter Jackson’s DEAD ALIVE (1992)
Watch the end conversation with childs again, specifically the transitions between shots of childs and shots of macready.
You're welcome
They're simple, straightforward jump cuts, just like the rest of the movie (with a few strategic fade to blacks thrown in)... so?
@@rsrt6910 Mac has a ton of condensation coming out of his mouth whenever he talks, Childs does not.
@@chrissellers9091 Mac' is backlit from the fire, Childs is facing it, making Macs breath easier to see. In 4K and in the theatre you CAN see Childs breath. Besides, even if it was, the point is irrelevant because we already know that a Thing exhales warm moist air just like a human because the Bennings-Thing did so just before Mac torched it.
:45 here we go again
Knowing all their names isn't really important. But interesting feedback.
one of the first horror movies i ever did done seen'd.
i like it 'cuz there's no chicks, just boys bein' boys.
American Werewolf in London is a classic!
the thing as well.🤘😎🤘
CGI has destroyed movies
Love your reaction. ❤
sure, the thing is pretty scary, but not as scary as seeing Hasbulla over your shoulder at the end....
🤨🤨🤨🤨 speak english please.
@@markusforsberg6741 how about we make sweet love under a tree during a cloud free summer night!
I have watched this film so many times I have lost count.
Please watch "The Green Mile" It is a Great movie.
The make up and design was all done by a 21 year old guy haha crazy
I agree with you, who gives a fuck whether the CG is sub-par . . . . The story and performances make it for me.
how do you sleep with that thing in the corner lol
Prequel?Actually. Meh. I like it
A good film ruined.
CGI overlaying practical effects.
😵💫
Among us the movie
I'd love if you were to do the 2011 "The Thing" as well whilst this one is fresh on your mind
also yes this is best dog actor ever