MacReady to Childs: ""Why Don't We Just Wait Here For A Little While, See What Happens? Maybe we could watch The Thing playlist on Sci-Fi Station whilst we wait?" - ruclips.net/p/PLbV8PUWO1igDHeAS9XBeONSGV9mfTC60s Subscribe to Sci-Fi Station for more of the greatest Film & TV Science Fiction moments - ruclips.net/user/SciFiStationOfficial
@@ОлегКочережкин Well I think Kate may have been contaminated too… the way she looked at herself made me think she was in utter shock of the situation, but maybe she realized that she had a contact with The Thing itself when it dragged her down… (I mean some of its dna may still have been on her clothes… ) she also touched the flamethrower that Carter had… I mean everything makes you go paranoid in The Thing’s universe
@@usmctwin61 you are likely thinking from the perspective of the story’s order. “Sequel” is in reference to the work, meaning publishing. The Thing (1982) is the predecessor, or original. The Thing (2011) is the prequel, because it was ‘published’ after its predecessor, about events that take place before. Star Wars (1977) is the predecessor to all other star wars media. I am ignorant about most things, as we all are…..and I’m something too. Hope that helps.
It's so weird to think about it. In the beginning of the 1982 we all think the men in the helicopter know exactly what's happening. However, we get to fully learn that Matias (pilot) has absolutely *ZERO* idea on the situation other than seeing split-face and whatever Lars told him on the helicopter. Just to die to a grenade. A blessing in disguise in hindsight.
@@wormthatturned8737 no, I know what you're trying to do there. Look closely at their clothing, especially the jacket. Lars was the shooter as we know from the beginning, pay close attention to his jacket and just before he blows up.
The dedication and craftmanship is what really hits the spot with the prequel! Sure the CGI that was a studio descision was stupid but still the prequel is awesome
Craftsmanship it had, even more before the studio forced CGI on the movie instead of the practical effects they made. But the pacing, the diverse character personalities, the building tension, the conflicts between the characters, were all superior in 1982. 2011 just imitated what had been done before, often repeating the same plot beats. And it threw in cheap enabling gimmicks that weren't part of the earlier move, like memory lapses by the Thing, and the metal dodge.
This film (1982) had probably the best character writing ever. They were not stupid idiots like in all other horror / action movies, they were very smart and acted realistically, like you could feel yourself relating and being part of it because you would act the same way
@@_-Emerald-_ honestly I see why everyone hated this movie when it came out now people are much dumber and more brainwashed they call garbage the best movie ever made and this is mockery fr. You gonna tell me a dumbas movie like the thing is better than Terminator 2 give me a damn break
It's scary to think about the Kate and Carter in 2011 version, that "the thing" is trying to learn how to drive the snow car. You gotta admit if this entity infiltrates Earth, we won't even know it.
That's exactly what Blair's computer simulation showed. If the Thing made it to a populated area, in three years it would have supplanted the entire human race.
@@danieldickson8591 Yeah I remember that but honestly I give those things a year and a half how they spreading, soon they might as well give earth a new name.
Or if the helicopter pilot had hovered over the dog for the other guy to get a clean shot instead of constantly zooming past the dog like he was in a jet, the 82 film would never have happened.
I mean, probably not. They would have still thought the dude went crazy once he started shooting at them. This works way better to not give non-Norwegian audiences extra mystery. Maybe they would have figured it out slightly earlier, but by that time Dog-Thing would have infected someone anyways.
I miss movies that keep you in the dark guessing and wondering like the 1982 opening scene. "Why are they trying to kill this innocent dog?" I remember thinking. When you find out why a little ways into the movie, you're like, "Oh, okay." But the mystery part you don't get very often anymore in movies. Everything's been done, and there's so much internet buzz that you've already gotten a ton of spoilers before heading out to the theater.
That's part of the reason I'm not big on the 2011 film. Theirs very little mystery, the Alien is just popping out of everywhere after a certain point. The 1982 film played lots of mind games with viewer. Predictable. The 1982 film played a lot of mind games, and kept the alien to a minimum. We just knew a dog was being chased in the beginning.
As a Norwegian, I understood what the shooting guy said in the opening, so I knew why he chased and tried to kill the dog, that it was a thing. Spoilers IN the movie haha :D
If theirs one thing I applaud about the 2011 film is it didn't dance around the point of tieing directly into the 1982 film. It didn't pull a Prometheus where they ended it just so they could produce a sequel to a prequel that's supposed to lead into a classic film.
The director and producer of the 2011 movie stated that to make this as a prequel, they had to acknowledge the 1982 movie in subtle ways. that the fans of the '82 Thing would pick up on.
The worst part is, much of the new effects were also practical effects "enhanced" by CGI due to the sudio call, when i say "enhanced" it's basically totally replaced besides the design. You can look for the in house test footage of how amazing the animatronic looks. There is one scene in particular, the one where the thing absobed the dude on the ground and it became an agglomeration of 2 bodies, the pratical effects there were insane ! Unfortunately at the end of the day is Studios execs ruining the Director vision, something unfortunally very common on Hollywood.
@@danieldickson8591 Except they didn't say it was the same dog, they said they tied it in perfectly... Aka ending of prequel matched the OG film's beginning well...
That's the polar opposite of what you need from this thing. An inferior clone with an explanation, yuck! It would get an icy reception here - I would flame it right away.
Wyatt Russell (Kurt’s son) would make a good still-young MacReady if they ever wanted to continue his story on film. It would need good writing though. But leaving his fate ambiguous works just fine too.
Yeah the old guy could've went for a shoulder or leg shot. I "assume" he didn't see or analyze that Lars went past the guy he (accidentally) shot, so he could've asked himself what was he really going for, shoot him to disarm him and then ask what's really going on RIP Lars and the pilot
Probably a very minor detail but if you pay close attention it's actually Matias who gets out of the Helicopter with the rifle and gets shot by Garry, Lars was the one with the grenades at the end.
So the 2011 movie is basically a prequel, as to what happened on a different station, and as the movie ends with them chasing the dog, the 1982 movie begins with this? That's actually really cool
The only thing wrong with the prequel is the CGI, everything else is on point. If they had kept the practical effects the movie would be almost as perfect as the original.
@@abnormallylargemonkey9334 and the production studio (the people who financed the film) didn't want to pay for it either. To be fair to the CG Artists, they did some damn impressive work for the limited time and budget they had available.
@@Tank50us I heard they already shot the entire film practical but covered all of it up with CG because "it looked like an 80's movie". There's even a comic-con teaser that shows small snippets of the scenes with the practical FX and it looks scary asf
@@BoObOo-md5vg That is true. The recorded footage we have shows very advanced animatronics, something that with a few touch-ups would have been amazing to see on the movie, truly shame that the studio cut it.
Most people aren't aware of the 1950's movie version called the Thing, also known as The Thing From Another World. It also was set in Antarctica, but major differences on how it replicated itself. Scary for back in the day, but special effects were primitive by today's standards.
John Carpenter’s The Thing was a modern take on the 1951 film. The only difference between the two was there were women in the cast of the 1951 film. No women were in Carpenter’s film( not counting the voice of computer chess game which beats MacReady and him saying, “Cheating bitch.” The use of thermite to uncover the spacecraft in the ice was in both films. But in Carpenter’s film, the spacecraft was a lot larger than the spacecraft in the 1951 film. Carpenter’s film used paranoia and suspicion to cause distrust among the men in the Arctic station. The 1951 film, the creature stalked around the Arctic station seemingly invulnerable to the elements and could strike anywhere. Both films were great and represented their times.
@@garyreid6165 , I didn't know that. Funny when you see type cast actors in other parts. We tend to think of James Arness only in Gunsmoke, as if that was all he did, and in his case it was a long run.
@@davidgraham2673 You’d be surprised which actors have been in more than one genre. Actress Faith Domergue(pronounced Doh-merg)said in an interview that doing sci-fi was fun but it limits an actor’s range. Therefore, the actor/actress becomes typecast. Russell Johnson, before he would be recognized as The Professor in Gilligan’s Island, he was in many sci-fi films like It Came From Outer Space, Attack Of The Crab Monsters, This Island Earth and was on an episode of The Outer Limits called Specimen: Unknown and an episode of an anthology show called Monsters in the 80’s. Some actors stay in the genre because they enjoy the genre and they have an audience in that genre. There was safety there because that genre kept them working.
Highly unlikely that a Norwegian scientist based near an American research center does not speak English. I mean the vast majority already speak English let alone for an actual scientist.
They were several hundred miles away. The bases had a rough idea that they were there, but they didn't know each other. Also, the prequel sort of explained that Lars and the pilot are basically the only ones on site who didn't speak English.
Highly unlikely that an extraterrestrial would randomly crash on Earth, remain frozen for centuries, have the luck of being discovered by Norwegian researchers, etc, etc, etc. When you take all the concessions to the fiction you have to make to enjoy the movie; one guy not speaking English is really small potatoes.
Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Kurt Russell were great in those movies like the Thing and Sky High :) P.S. Kurt Russell voice Copper the dog from Fox and Hound
The 2011 prequel gets a lot of totally unjustified hate that I'll never be able to fathom. I think it's an excellent film, terribly underrated and fully worthy of the superb 1982 classic.
Think it's problem is, aside from the obvious CGI, is how much it just copies from the 1982 film. They weren't even being subtle about it. I get it, gotta connect it to the original somehow. But the execution of it ended up just making it an inferior copy instead of it's own thing. In my opinion, it's still an okay film. The Thing's design were great, even with the CGI. But yeah, I think the hate is just overblown.
It'll be a cult classic and people will watch these movies back to back with friends for years to come. The haters are a small group, they just are obnoxiously loud
10:24 " George are you ok...yeah yeah yeah im ok ,what's going there ( takes the bottle from McReady and drinks the bottle ) Actors then showing their personality in a few seconds of screen time . LEGEND
One day the prequel will be recognized as a perfect bookend to the original. It was done with respect, good writing, skilled direction and lots of monstrous thrills. CGI is a tool not available in the 80s. Get over it, take a deep breath and watch it again.
Don't think we would have gotten an answer. It probably would have been confused by a question like that if it even chose to drop the carter act, it'd be like deer asking early humans why they're hunting them
The sad fact is that Carter died after entering the ship while Kate was passed out, he never left the ship, and Kate understands this when it grabs the wrong ear
@@Tommyknocker.In a way his death was kinda the most sad. No cinematic goodbye or sacrifice. Just quietly, probably horribly and painfully, eaten and consumed off screen.
Well it was obvious enough he was a thing because he didn't have the earring and then he reached for the wrong ear. A definite sign of proof? No but I was enough to tell us that he was.
Anyone notice that Larrs doesn't have rips in his jacket when he gets into the chopper in 2011, but he does in 1982. Also the pilot has lenses in his goggles in 2011 but then has slits in 1982. The pilot in 1982 also looks like he's dressed as Larrs from 2011 in the all-in-one looking snow suit.
There is even more interesting detail: in the prequel Lars sits on the left seat of the helicopter, but in 1982 guy that got out of the helicopter from the left side dies such a stupid death for a character that used to be a soldier. Also, there is such a huge focus on Lars not speaking english in the prequel, so we can asume that the screenwriters of 2011 movie wanted Lars to be the guy that told the american crew about the dog. But this guy sat on the right seat. So, screenwriters of the prequel turned this scene into a blooper: Lars at first sits on left seat, but then gets out from the right side of the helicopter
@@biggore8338 I think you're right that the screen writer turned this into a big blooper. I've just watched the vid again - it looks like both guys in the helicopter are wearing goggles with slits in, and both have beards and so both look alike, whereas in the prequel the pilot doesnt have a beard. The pilot (guy in the right hand seat) can also be seen exiting the helicopter with a rifle and running off ahead of it to chase the dog, whilst the left hand guy (which would be Lars) gets his box of grenades out and then blows himself up.
Imagine been alien and thinking conquering the world would be easy with those powers but turns out you just gave humans another reason to kill each other
The Thing doesn't need a sequel or a prequel. It's perfect. Left in suspense but we all know the last 2 survivors died anyway. Kurt Russel turned and the other guy died in the cold. They saved the planet.
The thing need TV series and video games free from wokeness agenda but it's challenging to make new game based on The Thing without being overshadowed by Dead Space.
If one of them turned, they they didn't both die in the cold. The Thing would just freeze again, until a rescue party found it. And that means the planet was probably doomed.
The video game I think is connected because I think John carpenter said it and shows Macready had survived while child's had died in the burned down camp so yeah only Mac survived unless u count the comics
@@worsethanhitlerpt.2539 The original Thing was a book called “Who Goes There?” which was made into a movie called “The Thing From Another World” in the 1950’s. It was later remade in the 1980’s as”The Thing” and remade again in 2011 as”The Thing.”
Allright, lets put u in a cold ass destroyed camp, stress u out a lot when only ur friend is a gun, lets kill ur friends, maybe also starve a bit, then grab a gun, grenades, step into helicopter and try to shoot. Oh dont forget moving target, u are on moving object EDIT: Do not forget about not sleeping for a night too
Freezing cold, just Witnessed entire team get killed buy an alien and traumatized, I don't think anyone would be a good shot under those circumstances 😂
it would have been so much better if they had him shooting accurately and hitting the dog but not doing any damage. It would "set up" the invulnerability of the thing
He probably did hit it a few times, but the Thing can shrug off bullets and rapidly regenerate. Conventional guns won't kill it. It has to be destroyed on a cellular level, such as through fire.
What a coincidence that the first 5 characters you see on screen that go out to see what's going on with the Norwegians first end up being the 3 people we see turn from their normal looking selves to Things slowly on screen plus the final 2 characters alive in the movie.
It probably was a coincidence. John Carpenter wouldn't tell his actors which of them was a Thing until a scene where one of them transformed was shot. He wanted to be sure they played their characters straight and truthfully.
It's not a fun fact. It's an anecdote. There was a thirty years gap between each of the movies. The dog was either dead by 2011 or too weak to endure a physical stress of running such a long distance, especially if they did multiple takes.
I really appreciate Ennio Morricone's music score for The Thing. The erieeness of the soundtrack is subtle but it bridged both movies perfectly together
If they had shot the newest movie on the same camera (I'm assuming it was film) and tightened the 80s hair look and props in the movie, kept away from cgi and went practical (or used really realistic looking cgi only), then I would probably take it as a movie from that time. But it looks too modern (like the story took place in 2011).
@@FekOmsamsundinee950 I dunno man 1 or 2 hours with that dog and you telling me he did not get infected ? Hard to believe the Thing passed on that opportunity.
It's hard to say if simple skin on skin contact is enough to infect. The outer layers of human skin, the epidermis, are technically made of dead cells. So the Thing shouldn't really be able infect someone by merely poking them with its fingers, otherwise it would have infected everyone without any retaliation. It probably has to puncture the victim's skin.
Because the thing had only just arrived and was trying to lay low and gather intelligence on its best strategy. It plays a very patient game all film, never revealing itself unless cornered.
In spite of its flaws, all these years later, this is actually a decent prequal. I would have simply used a little more familiar practical effects and made it a little bit more suspenseful.
It would have required considerably more to rival its predecessor, but I agree, a decent prequel. But after all those years, The Thing deserved a great one.
The licking didn't touch his skin. It was on his clothes. We also don't know if simply touching the victim is enough for the Thing to infect them. Clark has been in constant physical contact with the dog, and was never infected. Blair doesn't seem to have been infected when he performed an autopsy on the Thing either. The outermost layer of human skin, the epidermis, is technically made of dead cells, and because the Thing needs live cells to assimilate, it probably can't infect that easily. It probably has to puncture the skin.
You have to give the prequel at least some credit for how much the filmmakers made sure to connect it with the continuity of the original. Even down to minor details like the ax embedded in the door that Macready and Copper find.
If you pause it around the 8:13 mark, the cast left to right is in the same order as they were exposed of being assimilated. That is if you believe Childs was the Thing at the end and by this scene, it's very likely the case. Obviously the Doc is missing from this lineup but it's very interesting to say the least.
There are also other things that suggest Childs is The Thing at the end, like the camera cutting from showing the basement door to showing Childs not being where he was, Childs' different clothes at the end, the lack of steam from his mouth when he talks to MacReady, and the fact that he drank gasoline because they made Molotov cocktails when they decided to blow up the base and the fact that while he's drinking gasoline, The Thing's theme song starts playing and MacReady starts laughing.
I wonder if that was partially intentional to kinda fool the audience into thinking he'd survive till the end like Macready, thus making the twist that he had been assimilated much more surprising?
Kate going to the Russian base may be a connection to another movie "Leviathan" where the crew on a base at the bottom of the ocean finds a Russian ship where biological experiments have been taking place. Two crew members get infected by the experiment and turn into a The Thing-like organism.
They. Have. Nothing. To. Do. With. Each. Other. They're both based on the same book, but the only thing referenced from that book by The Thing From Another World is the setting and the concept of a hostile alien being frozen in the ice. The creatures are entirely different, the way the creatures function are entirely different, the location is entirely different (one in the Arctic, the other Antarctica), the characters are even different... It's like people who try to act like they're in any way related have never even watched them.
One problem I had with the 2011 ending. There was no way The Thing had time to assimilate the guy. And even if it did, his clothes would have been torn to shreds and there were no spare clothes on the ship. How is he perfectly dressed?
Oh, I forgot about the torn clothes. It can't be avoided. The Thing is kind of impatient if you think about it, but then each part of it has it own will to survive. So it makes sense parts of it's going to be trying to assimilate others quickly.
No it’s bc Kate is so suspicious that she can’t trust anyone at all. There is no real confirmation that he was the thing Just the sounds Kate imagined He didn’t turn at all She just killed her friend and the movie ends ambiguously just like the 82 film
Helicopter is heavily unstable if you try to hover close to the ground, plus the Antarctic wind would cause the Helicopter to be unstable whenever hovering...
In spite of all of it's faults (and there are many) i still like the thing (2011), not nearly as much as the carpenter one bit it's still good. And the scene at the end with the helicopter landing and the theme kick8ng in is (to me) the best scene in the movie.
Took my Mrs to watch the prequel and she was so lucky not to have watched carpenters masterpiece,we both sat down when we got home and watched the 1980s film together
Yes but the popular theory is that Childs was one of them since he had no breath out in the cold. Only Macready had. So maybe Kate rolls up on the station, finds Macready but no Childs (he is assumed to have tried to flee) and the hunt is now on to try and find him. It'd be nice to see but the logistics of how they'd first interact would be a nightmare, and where would the story go from there that hasn't been done already?
If they were to make a sequel, I think the one rule is that they should not undo the ending of the original thing by giving away who is human or not. A movie about just Kate is a way more interesting idea. Having the main character just walk away from the entire scenario seems dumb, and maybe have it so, because of what happened in the 2011 movie, she doesn't trust anyone ever again and have the whole movie about her irrational paranoia of the Russian base being infected. Instead of having a bunch of scenes where people are revealed to be things, have her dream about the prior events with the practical effects, or maybe dream about the new people being things to emphasize her distrust for the new crew.
Childs and Mac both freeze to death, The thing can't assimilate inorganic material and Childs had on an earring which means Mac is The Thing, kate finds the bodies and finds a way to get help, Help arrives and they want to take Mac and Childs bodies back home for their loved ones, bodies get to the Morgue and Mac assimilates one of the Workers and we have Chaos all over again
Or Alternate, Kate finds her way to another outpost and somehow off screen she was assimilated, she tells the new crew what happens and they go off to her site leaving her alone with one person then she assimilates him, we get Chaos all over again and never find out the fate of Childs and Mac
The 2011 one would have been a better ending if they had the exact same ending with her burning the guy, but without the thing “screams”. Leave it ambiguous to wether he was a thing or if she just fried her closest ally.
the 1982 movie deserved a much better prequel than the one we got in 2011. So much potential. The studio needs to do a reset on the prequel, the fans deserve that much!
@@garvindean6443 Why? Why do people need a sequel to a movie whose ending is unintentionally ambiguous and could only be made worse by squeezing more material out of it. New IP would be much more appreciated
@@zackerycooper7602What we actually need is that they release this lovie again but with its original practical effects instead of the cheap CGI they added to it.
@@nicksandz3209 I disagree, the ambiguous ending is perfect for the movie, and I 100% think that they could not make a satisfying ending in this day and age.
@@pigwhaleg That's your opinión, I have traveled to almost every state plus different parts of the world, everyone I have ever mệt plus everyone I know that saw the thing always wanted a sequel
The 2011 film is spectacularly stupid from the first to the last second. A lot of people have rightfully pointed out that a dog cannot possily outrun a helicopter. This glaring mistake however was created by the 2011 version! The introduction of the 1982 version clearly establishes that the dog must have had a head start of at least several minutes or even much longer (maybe even a whole day) before the heli took off. Then of course it took a while for the Norwegians to actually find the dog, which was shortly before he arrived at the US camp.
The dog didn't have to outrun the helicopter, Lars and the pilot just had to miss all their shot on the way to the American base. You can see that they for some reason keep flying past the dog and have to turn around every time to get another shot. Of course it does still sound better to imagine the dog had a head start.
The Thing crossover (2011 + 1982) - Kate burns Carter - Dog-Thing just escape - MacReady see the chopper. - Childs, Palmer, Norris and Bennings - Dog-Thing goes to Bennings - Norwegian guy shoots Bennings leg - Garry shoots the Norwegian guy.
The stupid thing with the ending and opening is they are chasing a dog in a helicopter but they keep overflying the dog like they are in a airplane. It's a damn helo stay on top of the dog, you know it HOVERS.
Continuity error. Lars now has a massive rip in his coat, also he is sat with the rifle in the left side of the helicopter. When it lands the pilot gets out with the rifle on the opposite side, so Lars is actually the one who blows himself up by mistake. However the pilot in the prequel doesn’t have a beard but now does…. Also the husky is different
MacReady to Childs: ""Why Don't We Just Wait Here For A Little While, See What Happens? Maybe we could watch The Thing playlist on Sci-Fi Station whilst we wait?" - ruclips.net/p/PLbV8PUWO1igDHeAS9XBeONSGV9mfTC60s
Subscribe to Sci-Fi Station for more of the greatest Film & TV Science Fiction moments - ruclips.net/user/SciFiStationOfficial
Imagine if Kate from the 2011 Thing get lost in the snow storm and ended up at the American base in 1982 Thing as soon as everything went downhill.
She could have a good time with MacReady.
The 2011 thing movie was supposed to take place in 1982 before the events of the Kurt Russell version.
@@ОлегКочережкин Well I think Kate may have been contaminated too… the way she looked at herself made me think she was in utter shock of the situation, but maybe she realized that she had a contact with The Thing itself when it dragged her down… (I mean some of its dna may still have been on her clothes… ) she also touched the flamethrower that Carter had… I mean everything makes you go paranoid in The Thing’s universe
@@ОлегКочережкинShe's more a McGregor type 😄
@@stahlgott Got the joke! I wish them happiness in the future)))
These two movies blended so well... I dont think there has ever been a prequel that worked perfectly with the original as these two movies did.
But we don't what happened to Kate
@@HenryDallas-u7lwe don't know what happened to kate
@@Geon555just like we don't know what happened with childs and Macready. I think both endings were pretty good and thematically appropriate
They should go back and splice both movies together and re-release.
Rouge one/ new hope
how both movies connect is just amazing!
wow! it's almost like ones a prequel and ones a sequel!
@@usmctwin61there’s no sequel…and it’s not amazing since the scene at the end of the prequel is pretty out of place with the rest of the movie.
@eclipsewrecker are you ignorant or something? The Thing (2011) is a prequel to The Thing (1982) making one a sequel, and one a prequel
@@usmctwin61 you are likely thinking from the perspective of the story’s order. “Sequel” is in reference to the work, meaning publishing. The Thing (1982) is the predecessor, or original. The Thing (2011) is the prequel, because it was ‘published’ after its predecessor, about events that take place before. Star Wars (1977) is the predecessor to all other star wars media.
I am ignorant about most things, as we all are…..and I’m something too. Hope that helps.
@@eclipsewrecker the video game is the sequel
It's so weird to think about it. In the beginning of the 1982 we all think the men in the helicopter know exactly what's happening. However, we get to fully learn that Matias (pilot) has absolutely *ZERO* idea on the situation other than seeing split-face and whatever Lars told him on the helicopter. Just to die to a grenade.
A blessing in disguise in hindsight.
I wonder wtf Lars said to him that got him down to chuck grenades at a dog
He didn't die from the grenade, it was Lars, the pilot was shot by Garry.
@@NowLedgeOutpost must be a continuity error there then as any Norwegian helicopter pilot would speak better English than me!
@@wormthatturned8737 no, I know what you're trying to do there. Look closely at their clothing, especially the jacket. Lars was the shooter as we know from the beginning, pay close attention to his jacket and just before he blows up.
@@NowLedgeOutpostespecially because he couldnt speak English which the prequel talks about in the beginning
The dedication and craftmanship is what really hits the spot with the prequel! Sure the CGI that was a studio descision was stupid but still the prequel is awesome
Craftsmanship it had, even more before the studio forced CGI on the movie instead of the practical effects they made. But the pacing, the diverse character personalities, the building tension, the conflicts between the characters, were all superior in 1982. 2011 just imitated what had been done before, often repeating the same plot beats. And it threw in cheap enabling gimmicks that weren't part of the earlier move, like memory lapses by the Thing, and the metal dodge.
This film (1982) had probably the best character writing ever. They were not stupid idiots like in all other horror / action movies, they were very smart and acted realistically, like you could feel yourself relating and being part of it because you would act the same way
Movies back then were better
@@goodxd701 There were plenty of dumb people in horror back then to.
Nah the thing sucks and way to many plot holes it was only one thing now it was like 4 and it doesn't multiply so stop it
@@dontrah1838Something tells me you didn't watch the movie 😑
@@_-Emerald-_ honestly I see why everyone hated this movie when it came out now people are much dumber and more brainwashed they call garbage the best movie ever made and this is mockery fr. You gonna tell me a dumbas movie like the thing is better than Terminator 2 give me a damn break
It's scary to think about the Kate and Carter in 2011 version,
that "the thing" is trying to learn how to drive the snow car.
You gotta admit if this entity infiltrates Earth, we won't even know it.
Yep and majority of the population would not be human anymore.
That's exactly what Blair's computer simulation showed. If the Thing made it to a populated area, in three years it would have supplanted the entire human race.
@@danieldickson8591 Yeah I remember that but honestly I give those things a year and a half how they spreading, soon they might as well give earth a new name.
This reminds me of that tok tok where the guy is using Shazam while people are singing happy birthday...
trump is the thing.
If The Thing had stayed in the form of a Husky indefinitely it would have a better chance of assimilating the entire Earth population
Gentrifiers everywhere would probably agree lol
Running 50 miles tired out the dog.
@@wkatc007YUP, them folks love their 🐕 😂
Bro was just hungry
Not with me, can't bear these things
if only the norwegian dude spoke english or one of the americans spoke norwegian. The entire 1982 film woulnt have happened
or had good aim
Or if the helicopter pilot had hovered over the dog for the other guy to get a clean shot instead of constantly zooming past the dog like he was in a jet, the 82 film would never have happened.
@@Namco_ no effect
@@HelaPainYo that thing won't die just by got shot. the entire cells is living
I mean, probably not. They would have still thought the dude went crazy once he started shooting at them. This works way better to not give non-Norwegian audiences extra mystery. Maybe they would have figured it out slightly earlier, but by that time Dog-Thing would have infected someone anyways.
I don't think anyone would drop the flamethrower ever again. Keep it under your pillow at night.
This is funny but true
I miss movies that keep you in the dark guessing and wondering like the 1982 opening scene. "Why are they trying to kill this innocent dog?" I remember thinking. When you find out why a little ways into the movie, you're like, "Oh, okay."
But the mystery part you don't get very often anymore in movies. Everything's been done, and there's so much internet buzz that you've already gotten a ton of spoilers before heading out to the theater.
That's part of the reason I'm not big on the 2011 film. Theirs very little mystery, the Alien is just popping out of everywhere after a certain point. The 1982 film played lots of mind games with viewer.
Predictable. The 1982 film played a lot of mind games, and kept the alien to a minimum. We just knew a dog was being chased in the beginning.
As a Norwegian, I understood what the shooting guy said in the opening, so I knew why he chased and tried to kill the dog, that it was a thing. Spoilers IN the movie haha :D
Well if you’ve seen the movie (like most people probably have) then like you said you know why they’re chasing the dog. So what’s the mystery.
@@Olsens13 They are talking about a first time viewing duh
"Mystery"
*The man of the Start literally saying "that is not a dog"*
The thing is a truly terrifying concept for a lethal monster. Nothing comes close due to the psychological aspect of it all.
Shimmer in Annihilation is even more terrifying imo because it doesn't even have malicious intent but still kills everything on its way...
@@yevgeniyaleshchenko849 Like fire?
@@yevgeniyaleshchenko849 Very true.
@@yevgeniyaleshchenko849
It's like a plague that takes over and mimics the person it gets ahold of. Absolutely morbid, love it.
@@yevgeniyaleshchenko849Yeah but color out of space is like shimmer on steroids
If theirs one thing I applaud about the 2011 film is it didn't dance around the point of tieing directly into the 1982 film.
It didn't pull a Prometheus where they ended it just so they could produce a sequel to a prequel that's supposed to lead into a classic film.
The director and producer of the 2011 movie stated that to make this as a prequel, they had to acknowledge the 1982 movie in subtle ways. that the fans of the '82 Thing would pick up on.
Every time I see huskies and malamutes, I think of "The Thing."
Me too.seen this movie too many times
A worthy prequel imo, even if the cgi fx where worse than the practical effects in the 1982 remake, 1982 was a great year if you like sci-fi.
The worst part is, much of the new effects were also practical effects "enhanced" by CGI due to the sudio call, when i say "enhanced" it's basically totally replaced besides the design. You can look for the in house test footage of how amazing the animatronic looks. There is one scene in particular, the one where the thing absobed the dude on the ground and it became an agglomeration of 2 bodies, the pratical effects there were insane !
Unfortunately at the end of the day is Studios execs ruining the Director vision, something unfortunally very common on Hollywood.
Yeah I agree. I liked how they connected the 1982 movie with this.
@@VerGiLL1 hopefully they'll release a version of the movie with the cgi removed one day...if possible.
I think we have all become used to over-used shonky CGI, when you watch it now it's actually pretty good.
Its not about the CGI
Why blame the CGI
Well the CGI was bad but the writing is worst
They did really well to match everything up. Even the dog.
Except that later dog wasn't the actor that Jed was in the 1982 Thing.
@danieldickson8591 Obviously, it was a different dog. 🙄
@@danieldickson8591you really thought you looked smart saying this
@@danieldickson8591 Except they didn't say it was the same dog, they said they tied it in perfectly... Aka ending of prequel matched the OG film's beginning well...
@@danieldickson8591 🥱🥱🥱🥱
This movie needs a third part, because we need to know about what happened with Kate and MacReady
I think child's was a thing. I just watched it yesterday.
Mc ready changed his name and escaped to New York
That's the polar opposite of what you need from this thing. An inferior clone with an explanation, yuck! It would get an icy reception here - I would flame it right away.
@@drnockaable childs had a earing on at the end so doubt it
Kates hot ass froze to death, and so did Childs and MacReady
Little did the Americans outpost that Lars was trying to save their lives. 💀
Your missing a word or two there, sport.
@@jamessullivan4391 only noticed that now. I was drunk when I wrote this. 🤣
@@ScottyIsHim whoever watches The Thing when they are drunk lol ..
Lars probably gave them all a good slap on the head in the afterlife.
@@patricioperez7323 exactly my thoughts. 🤣🤣
Wyatt Russell (Kurt’s son) would make a good still-young MacReady if they ever wanted to continue his story on film. It would need good writing though.
But leaving his fate ambiguous works just fine too.
Jumping Jesus, that's the guy from under the Banner of Heaven. Didn't know he was Kurt Russell's son even though he's the splitting image of his pa.
4:50 - 4:56 Fantastic transition.
Took me right to an ad lmao
It's kinda sad that lars was the only survivor of his camp and he ended up being killed by a bunch of humans a day later
Yeah the old guy could've went for a shoulder or leg shot. I "assume" he didn't see or analyze that Lars went past the guy he (accidentally) shot, so he could've asked himself what was he really going for, shoot him to disarm him and then ask what's really going on
RIP Lars and the pilot
Yeah, I liked him too.
RIP to both the original and prequel dogs. They did a fantastic job in tying both movies together. 😔
Original dog was a better actor.
Probably a very minor detail but if you pay close attention it's actually Matias who gets out of the Helicopter with the rifle and gets shot by Garry, Lars was the one with the grenades at the end.
So the 2011 movie is basically a prequel, as to what happened on a different station, and as the movie ends with them chasing the dog, the 1982 movie begins with this? That's actually really cool
Probably the only way a prequel would have made sense.
2011 thing had bad cgi but it filled in the story nicely with events that tied into the 1982 thing
The only thing wrong with the prequel is the CGI, everything else is on point. If they had kept the practical effects the movie would be almost as perfect as the original.
@@davideassis87 they would’ve done practical but they didn’t have enough time
@@abnormallylargemonkey9334 and the production studio (the people who financed the film) didn't want to pay for it either. To be fair to the CG Artists, they did some damn impressive work for the limited time and budget they had available.
@@Tank50us I heard they already shot the entire film practical but covered all of it up with CG because "it looked like an 80's movie". There's even a comic-con teaser that shows small snippets of the scenes with the practical FX and it looks scary asf
@@BoObOo-md5vg That is true. The recorded footage we have shows very advanced animatronics, something that with a few touch-ups would have been amazing to see on the movie, truly shame that the studio cut it.
Most people aren't aware of the 1950's
movie version called the Thing, also known as The Thing From Another World.
It also was set in Antarctica, but major differences on how it replicated itself.
Scary for back in the day, but special effects were primitive by today's standards.
John Carpenter’s The Thing was a modern take on the 1951 film. The only difference between the two was there were women in the cast of the 1951 film. No women were in Carpenter’s film( not counting the voice of computer chess game which beats MacReady and him saying, “Cheating bitch.”
The use of thermite to uncover the spacecraft in the ice was in both films. But in Carpenter’s film, the spacecraft was a lot larger than the spacecraft in the 1951 film.
Carpenter’s film used paranoia and suspicion to cause distrust among the men in the Arctic station.
The 1951 film, the creature stalked around the Arctic station seemingly invulnerable to the elements and could strike anywhere.
Both films were great and represented their times.
@@garyreid6165 , I very recently found out that James Arness from Gunsmoke played the alien in the 1951 movie.
@@davidgraham2673 James Arness did play The Thing. Later he would star in the sci-fi classic THEM!.
@@garyreid6165 , I didn't know that. Funny when you see type cast actors in other parts. We tend to think of James Arness only in Gunsmoke, as if that was all he did, and in his case it was a long run.
@@davidgraham2673 You’d be surprised which actors have been in more than one genre. Actress Faith Domergue(pronounced Doh-merg)said in an interview that doing sci-fi was fun but it limits an actor’s range. Therefore, the actor/actress becomes typecast. Russell Johnson, before he would be recognized as The Professor in Gilligan’s Island, he was in many sci-fi films like It Came From Outer Space, Attack Of The Crab Monsters, This Island Earth and was on an episode of The Outer Limits called Specimen: Unknown and an episode of an anthology show called Monsters in the 80’s. Some actors stay in the genre because they enjoy the genre and they have an audience in that genre. There was safety there because that genre kept them working.
I reckon with some good enough editing the 2 movies could become one big super movie.
"Who goes there?"
Same thing happened with the evil dead trilogy, some dude edited all three films together for a supercut and it came out amazingly
Honestly wouldn’t mind seeing that get made as a special dvd release. The thing “the completed story.”
@@dirtysanchez2091is it still available? I love to see it
I can do this is the fans want it? I’ve made numerous movie edits and to be honest, I’d love the challenge
Highly unlikely that a Norwegian scientist based near an American research center does not speak English. I mean the vast majority already speak English let alone for an actual scientist.
They were several hundred miles away. The bases had a rough idea that they were there, but they didn't know each other.
Also, the prequel sort of explained that Lars and the pilot are basically the only ones on site who didn't speak English.
I don’t think Lars was a scientist. He was ‘civilian’ support.
Highly unlikely that an extraterrestrial would randomly crash on Earth, remain frozen for centuries, have the luck of being discovered by Norwegian researchers, etc, etc, etc. When you take all the concessions to the fiction you have to make to enjoy the movie; one guy not speaking English is really small potatoes.
It was stated earlier in the 2011 movie that Lars did not speak english.
Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Kurt Russell were great in those movies like the Thing and Sky High :)
P.S. Kurt Russell voice Copper the dog from Fox and Hound
The 2011 prequel gets a lot of totally unjustified hate that I'll never be able to fathom. I think it's an excellent film, terribly underrated and fully worthy of the superb 1982 classic.
Yep. That’s nerds for you 🤷🏻♂️
Think it's problem is, aside from the obvious CGI, is how much it just copies from the 1982 film. They weren't even being subtle about it. I get it, gotta connect it to the original somehow. But the execution of it ended up just making it an inferior copy instead of it's own thing. In my opinion, it's still an okay film. The Thing's design were great, even with the CGI. But yeah, I think the hate is just overblown.
It'll be a cult classic and people will watch these movies back to back with friends for years to come. The haters are a small group, they just are obnoxiously loud
@@anothermovienerd CGI is way overdone these days, l completely agree, but honestly I've seen WAY worse CGI plenty of times.
@@anothermovienerd Yeah l agree, Parallax looked like nothing but a giant mass of space diarrhea 😂🤣
10:24 " George are you ok...yeah yeah yeah im ok ,what's going there ( takes the bottle from McReady and drinks the bottle ) Actors then showing their personality in a few seconds of screen time . LEGEND
The thing 1982 was the best.
Kurt Russell👍👍👍👍👍
Obviously
Yeah, i was small boy went i watched this in box tv
Apart from when they killed off the poor doggies
One day the prequel will be recognized as a perfect bookend to the original. It was done with respect, good writing, skilled direction and lots of monstrous thrills. CGI is a tool not available in the 80s. Get over it, take a deep breath and watch it again.
MacReady: "Why Don't We Just Wait Here For A Little While, See What Happens?"
But im waiting the third part.
Macready lives.
Everybody was like, “So that’s how it all began.”
not me, but it wasn't a bad movie. take it with a grain of salt.
It would’ve been nice if Kate questioned Carter Thing where “it’s” from and what is “it’s” purpose of doing on earth.
It was obvious lol
Yeah....give it a chance to distract or kill her while we're at it.
And open herself up to be attack by him not a chance she did the right thing pun not Intended! Lol 😁😉👍
Aside from the fact there was no time to do that, I like the ambiguousness of never truly knowing it’s purpose or motives.
Don't think we would have gotten an answer. It probably would have been confused by a question like that if it even chose to drop the carter act, it'd be like deer asking early humans why they're hunting them
It would be better if Carter didn't make that sound when he burned, letting us wonder if Kate kill the thing or a human
Him grabbing the wrong ear, which Kate pointed out, was all the evidence we needed to know what she was killing. You'd know which ear you had pierced.
The sad fact is that Carter died after entering the ship while Kate was passed out, he never left the ship, and Kate understands this when it grabs the wrong ear
@@Tommyknocker. My sentiments exactly
@@Tommyknocker.In a way his death was kinda the most sad. No cinematic goodbye or sacrifice. Just quietly, probably horribly and painfully, eaten and consumed off screen.
Well it was obvious enough he was a thing because he didn't have the earring and then he reached for the wrong ear. A definite sign of proof? No but I was enough to tell us that he was.
Anyone notice that Larrs doesn't have rips in his jacket when he gets into the chopper in 2011, but he does in 1982. Also the pilot has lenses in his goggles in 2011 but then has slits in 1982. The pilot in 1982 also looks like he's dressed as Larrs from 2011 in the all-in-one looking snow suit.
There is even more interesting detail: in the prequel Lars sits on the left seat of the helicopter, but in 1982 guy that got out of the helicopter from the left side dies such a stupid death for a character that used to be a soldier. Also, there is such a huge focus on Lars not speaking english in the prequel, so we can asume that the screenwriters of 2011 movie wanted Lars to be the guy that told the american crew about the dog. But this guy sat on the right seat. So, screenwriters of the prequel turned this scene into a blooper: Lars at first sits on left seat, but then gets out from the right side of the helicopter
@@biggore8338 I think you're right that the screen writer turned this into a big blooper. I've just watched the vid again - it looks like both guys in the helicopter are wearing goggles with slits in, and both have beards and so both look alike, whereas in the prequel the pilot doesnt have a beard. The pilot (guy in the right hand seat) can also be seen exiting the helicopter with a rifle and running off ahead of it to chase the dog, whilst the left hand guy (which would be Lars) gets his box of grenades out and then blows himself up.
Imagine been alien and thinking conquering the world would be easy with those powers but turns out you just gave humans another reason to kill each other
The Thing doesn't need a sequel or a prequel.
It's perfect. Left in suspense but we all know the last 2 survivors died anyway. Kurt Russel turned and the other guy died in the cold. They saved the planet.
The thing need TV series and video games free from wokeness agenda but it's challenging to make new game based on The Thing without being overshadowed by Dead Space.
The original Thing is so much better its like comparing Ice Cream to Dogshit. They look kinda similar but you never want dogshit ever
If one of them turned, they they didn't both die in the cold. The Thing would just freeze again, until a rescue party found it. And that means the planet was probably doomed.
The video game I think is connected because I think John carpenter said it and shows Macready had survived while child's had died in the burned down camp so yeah only Mac survived unless u count the comics
@@worsethanhitlerpt.2539 The original Thing was a book called “Who Goes There?” which was made into a movie called “The Thing From Another World” in the 1950’s. It was later remade in the 1980’s as”The Thing” and remade again in 2011 as”The Thing.”
It's kind of brillaint how seamlessly the prequel leads into the 1982 film.
So basically everything that happened in the 2011 film was before anything that happened in the 1982 film?
Yes hence why it's known as a prequel
Thanks for posting this.
Love to know what became of Kate?
She died of hypothermia
Would love to see the 2011 version with the original effects reinstated...... maybe one day
Dude was a terrible shot 😭
maybe he hit the dog thing, but thing is invulnerable to bullets
Allright, lets put u in a cold ass destroyed camp, stress u out a lot when only ur friend is a gun, lets kill ur friends, maybe also starve a bit, then grab a gun, grenades, step into helicopter and try to shoot. Oh dont forget moving target, u are on moving object
EDIT: Do not forget about not sleeping for a night too
It only dies to flameable or explosive.
Freezing cold, just Witnessed entire team get killed buy an alien and traumatized, I don't think anyone would be a good shot under those circumstances 😂
it would have been so much better if they had him shooting accurately and hitting the dog but not doing any damage. It would "set up" the invulnerability of the thing
This dude had the aim of the stormtroopers
He probably did hit it a few times, but the Thing can shrug off bullets and rapidly regenerate. Conventional guns won't kill it. It has to be destroyed on a cellular level, such as through fire.
Perfectly blended 🙂
What a coincidence that the first 5 characters you see on screen that go out to see what's going on with the Norwegians first end up being the 3 people we see turn from their normal looking selves to Things slowly on screen plus the final 2 characters alive in the movie.
It probably was a coincidence. John Carpenter wouldn't tell his actors which of them was a Thing until a scene where one of them transformed was shot. He wanted to be sure they played their characters straight and truthfully.
Great video. The ending was the beginning.
""Are we in war with Norway?""
Fun fact, for this Movie they wanted to bring back the original Dog from 1982, but unfortunately he was already signed to act in "The Grey"
It's not a fun fact. It's an anecdote. There was a thirty years gap between each of the movies. The dog was either dead by 2011 or too weak to endure a physical stress of running such a long distance, especially if they did multiple takes.
I really appreciate Ennio Morricone's music score for The Thing. The erieeness of the soundtrack is subtle but it bridged both movies perfectly together
If they had shot the newest movie on the same camera (I'm assuming it was film) and tightened the 80s hair look and props in the movie, kept away from cgi and went practical (or used really realistic looking cgi only), then I would probably take it as a movie from that time.
But it looks too modern (like the story took place in 2011).
When the film switches from 2011 to 1982 I feel so warm and cozy. Even the sound is better (IMHO)
Still hard to believe Clark never got infected.
Because no one touch his skin.
@@FekOmsamsundinee950 I dunno man 1 or 2 hours with that dog and you telling me he did not get infected ? Hard to believe the Thing passed on that opportunity.
It's hard to say if simple skin on skin contact is enough to infect. The outer layers of human skin, the epidermis, are technically made of dead cells. So the Thing shouldn't really be able infect someone by merely poking them with its fingers, otherwise it would have infected everyone without any retaliation. It probably has to puncture the victim's skin.
Because the thing had only just arrived and was trying to lay low and gather intelligence on its best strategy. It plays a very patient game all film, never revealing itself unless cornered.
In spite of its flaws, all these years later, this is actually a decent prequal. I would have simply used a little more familiar practical effects and made it a little bit more suspenseful.
It would have required considerably more to rival its predecessor, but I agree, a decent prequel. But after all those years, The Thing deserved a great one.
The dog was licking Bennings, but he wasn’t assimilated until split face got to him.
Weird.
It actually wasnt able to get to his face.
The licking didn't touch his skin. It was on his clothes. We also don't know if simply touching the victim is enough for the Thing to infect them. Clark has been in constant physical contact with the dog, and was never infected. Blair doesn't seem to have been infected when he performed an autopsy on the Thing either.
The outermost layer of human skin, the epidermis, is technically made of dead cells, and because the Thing needs live cells to assimilate, it probably can't infect that easily. It probably has to puncture the skin.
The transition was seamless
How he misses that dog with about 10 bullets it’s unreal lol
He's clearly not a professional soldier. That's what happens when you don't practice your shots.
You have to give the prequel at least some credit for how much the filmmakers made sure to connect it with the continuity of the original.
Even down to minor details like the ax embedded in the door that Macready and Copper find.
If you pause it around the 8:13 mark, the cast left to right is in the same order as they were exposed of being assimilated. That is if you believe Childs was the Thing at the end and by this scene, it's very likely the case. Obviously the Doc is missing from this lineup but it's very interesting to say the least.
There are also other things that suggest Childs is The Thing at the end, like the camera cutting from showing the basement door to showing Childs not being where he was, Childs' different clothes at the end, the lack of steam from his mouth when he talks to MacReady, and the fact that he drank gasoline because they made Molotov cocktails when they decided to blow up the base and the fact that while he's drinking gasoline, The Thing's theme song starts playing and MacReady starts laughing.
@@Extreme96PLChild’s breath can be seen in the end of the film.
Didn't childs have an earring on though?
Damn, Lars is a lousy shot.
I gotta admit that Joel Edgerton looks a lot like Kurt Russell.
I wonder if that was partially intentional to kinda fool the audience into thinking he'd survive till the end like Macready, thus making the twist that he had been assimilated much more surprising?
Kate going to the Russian base may be a connection to another movie "Leviathan" where the crew on a base at the bottom of the ocean finds a Russian ship where biological experiments have been taking place. Two crew members get infected by the experiment and turn into a The Thing-like organism.
And to think that this whole "Thing" phenomenon started with James Arness! How special! 😜
Great comment, fewer today have seen that film. One of my favorite films with James is 1954's THEM, about giant ants in New Mexico.
@@jelanitarik7423 You know it JT! 👍🤗
They. Have. Nothing. To. Do. With. Each. Other.
They're both based on the same book, but the only thing referenced from that book by The Thing From Another World is the setting and the concept of a hostile alien being frozen in the ice.
The creatures are entirely different, the way the creatures function are entirely different, the location is entirely different (one in the Arctic, the other Antarctica), the characters are even different...
It's like people who try to act like they're in any way related have never even watched them.
Frankenstein Thing 😉
They also added the classic part.
So is there any explanation to what happened to Kate afterwards?
No clue for what happened. I think she is survived to somewhere.
One problem I had with the 2011 ending. There was no way The Thing had time to assimilate the guy. And even if it did, his clothes would have been torn to shreds and there were no spare clothes on the ship. How is he perfectly dressed?
Oh, I forgot about the torn clothes. It can't be avoided.
The Thing is kind of impatient if you think about it, but then each part of it has it own will to survive. So it makes sense parts of it's going to be trying to assimilate others quickly.
Was he actually the thing? Its very possible at some point he put his earring on his other ear?
@@paulie.walnuts2838 You hear the alien scream when he's burned.
No it’s bc Kate is so suspicious that she can’t trust anyone at all. There is no real confirmation that he was the thing
Just the sounds Kate imagined
He didn’t turn at all
She just killed her friend and the movie ends ambiguously just like the 82 film
Wrong. He actually makes the sound as he is turning when set on fire.@@Chessheromusic
My 1st question: It's a helicopter. Whey didn't they hover over the dog and shoot it while motionless?
Helicopter is heavily unstable if you try to hover close to the ground, plus the Antarctic wind would cause the Helicopter to be unstable whenever hovering...
In spite of all of it's faults (and there are many) i still like the thing (2011), not nearly as much as the carpenter one bit it's still good.
And the scene at the end with the helicopter landing and the theme kick8ng in is (to me) the best scene in the movie.
Damn I thought the 2011 was a remake this whole time
Nope a prequel. I love prequel movies
No lol its prequel or the first scene ever
The funny thing is that the 1982 version is a remake, but it’s one that’s so good people *refuse* to believe it’s a remake
that dog must be running 100 mph
Took my Mrs to watch the prequel and she was so lucky not to have watched carpenters masterpiece,we both sat down when we got home and watched the 1980s film together
they need to make the third one do the follow up between childs,macready and kate for the third one.
Yes but the popular theory is that Childs was one of them since he had no breath out in the cold. Only Macready had. So maybe Kate rolls up on the station, finds Macready but no Childs (he is assumed to have tried to flee) and the hunt is now on to try and find him. It'd be nice to see but the logistics of how they'd first interact would be a nightmare, and where would the story go from there that hasn't been done already?
@@BigDaddyJinx if they were to do just remember that kurt cgi to look young is gonna be a little awkward.
like they did in guardians of the galaxy 2
If they were to make a sequel, I think the one rule is that they should not undo the ending of the original thing by giving away who is human or not. A movie about just Kate is a way more interesting idea. Having the main character just walk away from the entire scenario seems dumb, and maybe have it so, because of what happened in the 2011 movie, she doesn't trust anyone ever again and have the whole movie about her irrational paranoia of the Russian base being infected. Instead of having a bunch of scenes where people are revealed to be things, have her dream about the prior events with the practical effects, or maybe dream about the new people being things to emphasize her distrust for the new crew.
Childs and Mac both freeze to death, The thing can't assimilate inorganic material and Childs had on an earring which means Mac is The Thing, kate finds the bodies and finds a way to get help, Help arrives and they want to take Mac and Childs bodies back home for their loved ones, bodies get to the Morgue and Mac assimilates one of the Workers and we have Chaos all over again
Or Alternate, Kate finds her way to another outpost and somehow off screen she was assimilated, she tells the new crew what happens and they go off to her site leaving her alone with one person then she assimilates him, we get Chaos all over again and never find out the fate of Childs and Mac
Nicely done!
The 2011 one would have been a better ending if they had the exact same ending with her burning the guy, but without the thing “screams”.
Leave it ambiguous to wether he was a thing or if she just fried her closest ally.
I do love those sort of films "in direct" go from one film then continues right after from the end of it
the 1982 movie deserved a much better prequel than the one we got in 2011. So much potential. The studio needs to do a reset on the prequel, the fans deserve that much!
The prequel is fine man I don't know why you're complaining it just needs a sequel
@@garvindean6443 Why? Why do people need a sequel to a movie whose ending is unintentionally ambiguous and could only be made worse by squeezing more material out of it. New IP would be much more appreciated
@@zackerycooper7602new ips cost money and they take a lot of risks to know if people would like it or not.
@@zackerycooper7602What we actually need is that they release this lovie again but with its original practical effects instead of the cheap CGI they added to it.
The Thing 1982 is a near-perfect horror and suspense movie. It doesn't need a prequel or a sequel.
RIP Lars man, he survived the prequel and died in the original
By the way, the actor Jorgen Langhelle who played the role of Lars also died in 2021. My heart couldn’t stand it. This is not uncommon for actors.
@@ОлегКочережкинwow rip to Jorgen Langhelle .
10:25 Ironically one of the funniest scenes in the movie
I wasn’t even there in 1982 when it came out but this prequel was good asf so as The Thing 1982
The prequel was terrible, we always wanted a sequel...
@@nicksandz3209I don’t like the prequel either but “we?” There is no we.
@@pigwhaleg we as in the people as in the fans of the movie, majority wanted a sequel for years
@@nicksandz3209 I disagree, the ambiguous ending is perfect for the movie, and I 100% think that they could not make a satisfying ending in this day and age.
@@pigwhaleg That's your opinión, I have traveled to almost every state plus different parts of the world, everyone I have ever mệt plus everyone I know that saw the thing always wanted a sequel
Return of the music.
I find it ironic how Bennings just casually sips a drink after getting shot and confused on what's going on.
The 2011 film is spectacularly stupid from the first to the last second.
A lot of people have rightfully pointed out that a dog cannot possily outrun a helicopter. This glaring mistake however was created by the 2011 version! The introduction of the 1982 version clearly establishes that the dog must have had a head start of at least several minutes or even much longer (maybe even a whole day) before the heli took off. Then of course it took a while for the Norwegians to actually find the dog, which was shortly before he arrived at the US camp.
The dog didn't have to outrun the helicopter, Lars and the pilot just had to miss all their shot on the way to the American base. You can see that they for some reason keep flying past the dog and have to turn around every time to get another shot.
Of course it does still sound better to imagine the dog had a head start.
A seamless transition from the ending of the 2011 Prequel to the 1982 opening!
The original will always be the best.
Dude a terrible shot🤣, I like the way the ending and the start of John Carpenters classic blended though.
THE THING IS THE GREATEST HORROR MOVIE OF ALL TIME!
The Thing crossover (2011 + 1982)
- Kate burns Carter
- Dog-Thing just escape
- MacReady see the chopper.
- Childs, Palmer, Norris and Bennings
- Dog-Thing goes to Bennings
- Norwegian guy shoots Bennings leg
- Garry shoots the Norwegian guy.
The stupid thing with the ending and opening is they are chasing a dog in a helicopter but they keep overflying the dog like they are in a airplane. It's a damn helo stay on top of the dog, you know it HOVERS.
Great segue!
So that’s how Uncle Owen died
The fact that the thing tried to lie, act scared, just shows it’s just as smart as it is terrifying
1982 thing is one of the greatest horror movies 2011 is just one time watchable but the girl actor is hot🔥.
Mary Elizabeth Winstead .
Continuity error. Lars now has a massive rip in his coat, also he is sat with the rifle in the left side of the helicopter. When it lands the pilot gets out with the rifle on the opposite side, so Lars is actually the one who blows himself up by mistake. However the pilot in the prequel doesn’t have a beard but now does…. Also the husky is different
Husky is same breed dog is different dog. Yeah beard look different and colour.
この映画怖いけど凄い好き
The twitch and then relaxation after the headshot was very realistic...
30 year's later tuberz still trying to figure this out
Good editing. It is like with the RUclips video of Star Wars Rogue One and A New Hope.