tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8293273378239831747.post8477839625010960430..comments2024-02-18T08:45:16.295-08:00Comments on The Film Connoisseur: John Carpenter's The Thing (1982) vs. The Thing (2011)Franco Macabrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10994905312221715861noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8293273378239831747.post-7958920495372570552015-06-22T06:55:05.030-07:002015-06-22T06:55:05.030-07:00It's a bad prequel because it has massive inco...It's a bad prequel because it has massive inconsistencies with the original film. <br /><br />Like, I love how the makers think themselves being clever for showing how that axe got against the wall, yet they fuckup stuff like not showing the Norwegian team blowing up the ice to reveal the spaceship underneath the surface and film it on a tape for MacReady to find (in the prequel the ship seems to be located in some kind of cave... WHY??) or the fact that the Norwegian team has a british and an american member and somehow in the original they never mention that.<br />Or that the dog looks nothing like the dog of the original film.<br /><br />And it's a bad horror movie on its own because the characters are flat and the acting is dull, it's full of stupid jumpscares (silence, silence... BOOOM!!!), the CGI is awful and the movie is even inconsistent with itself: so the Thing rejects not-organic stuff... And yet we clearly see the monster gobbling up a guy with his jacket on. Or how about the fact that the Thing isn't able to reach the girl when it hides in a hole inside the spaceship... When it could just detach its arm to catch her like it did when it infected that guy turning his hand into a scolopendra-like creature?<br />And let's not forget the whole thing about the flying saucer being fully functional which begs the question of why the hell the creature didn't just left that place a long time ago instead of going out and freezing itself. If it wanted to invade the Earth, he could've just took off and find a better, warmer place where to spread, why did it get out of the ship and got forzen like an idiot? It makes no sense no matter how you put it.<br />...Or most importantly, THE SHIP OF THE PREQUEL LOOKS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE THE SHIP OF THE ORIGINAL MOVIE. WHAT THE FUCK, SERIOSULY.<br /><br />The 2011 prequel contains pretty much everything wrong with modern horror films, like using too much CGI, unlikeable characters, disrespectfully using old and better source material to profit from it, retarded jumpscares that are more annoying than scary... All that it missed was a sex scene between two teenager dipshits.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8293273378239831747.post-5391740367120959392014-09-25T13:54:33.292-07:002014-09-25T13:54:33.292-07:00Glad you liked it Horror Seeker, I was expecting a...Glad you liked it Horror Seeker, I was expecting a huge stinker, thank the movie gods I wasn't totally let down. Still, I believe the first one is way more effective. Franco Macabrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10994905312221715861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8293273378239831747.post-58123428250001214282014-09-14T03:14:54.256-07:002014-09-14T03:14:54.256-07:00Great analysis! Nice points! When it was first ann...Great analysis! Nice points! When it was first announced, I was very skeptical, if not downright hostile. Then I read it was going to center around the Norwegian expedition who found the ship in the first place... then I gave it a shot. And what I got was a nice prequel which can stand on its own as well.The Horror Seekerhttp://thehorrorseeker.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8293273378239831747.post-68543203815526708422012-07-19T10:05:50.401-07:002012-07-19T10:05:50.401-07:00Thats a good observation right there, they never d...Thats a good observation right there, they never did find that vehicle or the girl...I guess had they made a more detailed search they would have found it, but thats stretching it. <br /><br />I guess both films have that open end thing that a lot of horror movies love to do, they leave you hanging..with questinos in your mind. Fulci for example loved to that with his films.Franco Macabrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10994905312221715861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8293273378239831747.post-42637465580457202092012-07-18T17:50:02.679-07:002012-07-18T17:50:02.679-07:00I agree with your review, I even enjoyed watching ...I agree with your review, I even enjoyed watching the remake a second time.. its fun looking for links and disparity with Carpenter's classic movie.. I do think its missing Russell's iconic performance at McReady, hes such an underrated and versatile actor.. but one thing left me perplexed - having just watched the 'remake' a second time - I'm curious, what happens to Mary Elizabeth Winstead at the end of the film? Is it assumed she freezes to death in the vehicle by the spaceship? As she is never discovered by the US crew in Carpenters version when they discover the site? Surely the big yellow vehicle she was sat in would still be there.. or maybe snowed under.. wouldnt she have attempted to drive back to camp or..? Seems like a strange loose end, unless its another goddamn open ended sequel strain lol! And another unasnwered question to this day is... did the alien get to McReady?!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8293273378239831747.post-70213124745969981112011-10-20T10:50:20.313-07:002011-10-20T10:50:20.313-07:00I know that about you Francisco. I totally got wh...I know that about you Francisco. I totally got what you were going for.<br /><br />I think your enjoyment of it is a big nod. I love the original as well.<br /><br />Yeah, it definitely sounds like The Thing in an alternate dimension. : )SFFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04256589316922398158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8293273378239831747.post-3457440224656331602011-10-20T06:37:39.532-07:002011-10-20T06:37:39.532-07:00Yeah, I didnt mean to bring down his performance o...Yeah, I didnt mean to bring down his performance or anything, in reality, nobody on this film did a bad job acting wise.<br /><br />But it seemed to me like it was his character that was playing the McReady type of role on this one. <br /><br />When I saw the trailer, I immediately thought it was going to be the same exact film remade, but upon watching it, it's strange because it feels like it is a remake, but then not. They changed things around a bit, but essentially, the story does go through the same beats as Carpenters, only slightly altered. <br /><br />I'm a die hard fan of John Carpenter's film and I walked out happy, so take that for what it's worth. <br /><br />Thanks for commenting Sci-Fi!Franco Macabrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10994905312221715861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8293273378239831747.post-48833312973671290782011-10-20T05:23:55.591-07:002011-10-20T05:23:55.591-07:00Hey Francisco- hope all is well.
You pretty much ...Hey Francisco- hope all is well.<br /><br />You pretty much sum up what my eyes had revealed to me. The trailer for the film tells you so much about its similarities to the superior original. <br /><br />Having said, that, someday I'm sure I will enjoy it. But, I'm still left to wonder why it was remade this way.<br /><br />One small bit, "Kurt Russell Wannabe." I don't know a lot about Joel Edgerton, the actor who played Uncle Owen in the Star Wars prequels, but I think he's an actor on the rise and does appear to have real talent.<br /><br />I know you wrote it in humor, but he does obvious Kurt similarities. I do think he has talent though.<br /><br />As always, a fine review.<br />best, sffSFFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04256589316922398158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8293273378239831747.post-2452722819801832252011-10-20T05:17:24.820-07:002011-10-20T05:17:24.820-07:00@Shannon: Agree, there's enough new stuff to k...@Shannon: Agree, there's enough new stuff to keep those who thought they'd be seeing the same movie all over again (I was one of them) happy. <br />Weird thing about this film is that it feels familiar...then it doesnt! <br /><br />@Brent: It's a great companion piece, I mean, stay after the ending starts to roll, everything matches up perfectly to Carpenter's film. <br /><br />@Craig: Thanks for that link, I will check it out. Im surprised to find out there's some practical effects on there, it didnt look like it. But I guess I've only seen the movie once, maybe I'll notice on further viewings. <br /><br />Agree with your points on what you didnt like. My biggest problem was the tension level which I thought was low when compared to Carpenter's which is soooo freaking intense at certain points. <br /><br />I'm also looking forward to seeing it again, I was especially thrilled with the last moments of the film, with Mary Elizabeth Winstead and the ship...that was awesome. <br /><br />Thanks for commenting everyone!Franco Macabrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10994905312221715861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8293273378239831747.post-20295196332388597692011-10-19T23:45:26.448-07:002011-10-19T23:45:26.448-07:00"But they didn’t have to go and do everything..."But they didn’t have to go and do everything with CGI."<br /><br />They didn't. I'm sure that some of the effects are 100% digital, but a lot of it is hybrid work: practical enhanced with CG. I think that when you see that kind of stuff, your brain just assumes it's all CG. There's a great featurette video on the effects which shows this off very well, with some before and after shots. Here’s the YouTube link:<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/3jsqu23<br /><br />I saw the movie yesterday, and I was surprised at how much I liked it. Carpenter's film is my second favorite movie (after Blade Runner), so I was ready to hate it just as much as any other psychotic fanboy. I certainly have my complaints. To name just a few: the plot is far too similar to the 82 film, the characters are mostly interchangeable, there are too many jump scares, the final Thing monster is a bit silly, and yes, a lot of the CGI looks too... plastic.<br /><br />But the movie captured the basics of what made the 1982 film so good: the combination of paranoia and social decay with grisly, Lovecraftian creature design. It's a lot closer to The Mist than Saw or those lousy Platinum Dunes remakes like Texas Chainsaw and Friday the 13th. Of course it's not as good as Carpenter's film, but there are way too many good scenes to just dismiss it. I'm already anxious to see it again, and it's going to be fun watching it back to back with the 82 film, since they match up perfectly.Craig D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02798473771333728151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8293273378239831747.post-7390339582464298242011-10-19T22:43:08.555-07:002011-10-19T22:43:08.555-07:00great and very useful analysis. I haven't gone...great and very useful analysis. I haven't gone to see it because, like you, I was hesitant to compare it to the Carpenter version, but if it works well as a companion piece, that's not so bad.INDBrenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11606473452389713844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8293273378239831747.post-88056402189406611542011-10-19T17:40:58.741-07:002011-10-19T17:40:58.741-07:00Wow, that is a really great analysis! I loved how...Wow, that is a really great analysis! I loved how clear you are on your points and great notation that it's cohesiveness with Carpenter's film, that really does make it unique in the remake world.<br /><br />It's true that they do encounter a lot of the same scenarios, but I though there were enough new spins to keep in interesting even if you know the original well. And I truly love both Joel Edgerton & Ulrich Thomsen so I'll admit that seeing them here was an extra special treat.Shannon the Movie Moxiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02882101582835293159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8293273378239831747.post-91823947818024888952011-10-18T12:15:18.226-07:002011-10-18T12:15:18.226-07:00Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a gorgeous little darli...Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a gorgeous little darlin`.jervaise brooke hamsternoreply@blogger.com