There was only like one practical effect in the movie!!! I bloody hate this version because of the thing! The original it would be sly and infect people with out turning or alerting people of it. In this movie there was no point in it even turning into people because it would just tear its head open and scream at random. Ergo I hate this lousy prequel to the best Sci-fi film ever made.
To the two people who were arguing earlier, you both forgot that Palmer, Norris and Blair could have succumbed to infection indirectly. Fuchs made a note to MacReady saying even a small particle of The Thing could subvert an entire creature, someone could have passed bad guacamole behind the scenes.
They actually did. If you did some research you'd find a while 5-6 minutes video of behind the scenes in the monster workshop. They added CG to enhance the practical fx.
I rewatched the film last night after knowing what was practically made and you CAN tell. certain shots of the siamese twin thing, the insect legs and such when they first burned the thing. There was a decent amount in the film if you look close enough. They just went a bit over board augmenting the practical effects with cg.
hey you beautiful girl.. It's midnight and i've just seen the thing (1982) ... I don't want to go out my bedroom, not even to go to bathroom. :S:S:S:S
Yeah, now if only they didn't cover up all that awesome make-up effects with hokey CGI work... It still, despite all our advancements in the field, just doesn't always mesh well in a reality scene.
I did not like this prequel at all. The creatures were good but were too clean especially the transformations. Not to mention so many potholes and the only thing that connected the two was the last 30 seconds. The Norwegian Thing they found outside the camp looked nothing like the one in this movie. Nothing that good came out of this movie. . . . .
After seeing the movie, I can say that I am glad the crew did respect and honor all the work and effort put into making this movie great. Even though Hollywood screwed it all up with CGI, the film crew and makers did fine enough. Well done guys, you made a movie worth keeping.
1) They change unearthing the ship to being in a ice cave until the end of this movie when the ship starts and creates the crater. We see in the 82 film the Norwegians used Thermite to create the crater.
2) The kerosene cans by splitface are missing. Kate burns splitface instead.
3) Collins body doesn't have the blood trail leading to the body
4) They switched the Norwegians at the end, the pilot is shot, not Lars.
2) Off camera. Easilly retconned by having Lars put them there along with the other bodies.
3) Irrelevent.
4) Hard to challenge, they most likely landed and switched places. Cannot account for jackets.
5) Easilly explained by snowfall, them landing on the opposite side and not seeing it sinceit is behind a small hill. It is notoriously hard to see things in Antarctica unless they are in plain sight.
@snake2006 And all six points are nothing more than nitpicking. It is impossible to get perfect details down when working with such material. The filmmaking process is a difficult one. Be glad that it could have been much, much worse.
I am glad the director realize not to mess with the original with a remake and instead did a prequel and made sure the original was respected. In the end, I hope it works.
@Zipst700 We never said the 1982 film was the original. In fact Carpenter's 1982 film was not necessarily a remake of the Howard Hawks 1951 classic film it was closer to the novella WHO GOES THERE? by John W. Campbell Jr.
@Zipst700 People like you make me laugh. You hound other people for calling the 82 version the original, when it's actually a much, much more faithful adaption of the novel the 50's version was (very partially) based on. Sure, the 82's a remake, but only by loose association. What really makes me laugh is that when people refer to the "original" in the context of this movie, you point out the fifties film, like you're insightful and intelligentfor knowing about it. Protip: You aren't.
@NaveNinja What to prove? you're doing a pretty damn good job at making yourself look like an idiot. ''Thanks for more laughs'' Overused comeback. Please, you'r trying to look mature, but you can't take it. Your icon describes it all.
@Zipst700 You know nothing of me or what I know. That you would judge me solely based upon my icon speaks miles of you.
Protip: I've studied the mythos of the Thing far more extensively than you. Read every acclaimed text and spent hours discussing it with colleagues. To assume that I would not know about The Thing From Another World is, to me, hillarious.
I do a good job making myself look like an idiot? Look back on your comments and then look at mine. I never insulted anyone.
@NaveNinja ''I've studied the mythos of the Thing far more extensively than you'' do you even know what i've studied? hypocrite. Weren't you the one saying ''You know nothing of me or what I know'' and ''spent hours discussing it with colleagues'' did you also build a house just to research the thing? you're a sad, sad nerd. Grow up. You're just a dumb nerdy Carpenter fanboy. i love The Thing 1982 very much, but i do not ignore the fact that 1951 is the original. you've started a pointles argue
@NaveNinja If you studied so much. Than tell me how did Nauls die, how did Blair get infected, etc. Learn to eccept other people's opinions and Shut the fuck up. You remind me of one of those Cartoon nerds who think they know everything. STFU dude.
@Zipst700 Nauls death was shown in storyboard segments that weren't filmed. Blair's infection has been and always will be up to personal opinion and debate. I always accept other people's opinion but that has literally nothing to do with anything you've said. You insulted two random people and acted like they knew nothing of the fifties film, and did the same to me. That has nothing to do with your "opinion." The fifties film is not a secret and many, many people know about it.
@NaveNinja It just annoys me when people call 1982 Original. I love the 1982 movie very much, but it doesn't change the fact that 1951 is the original. That's my point. Maybe i went little too far with insulting though. I saw how Nauls died (it was a little bit of artwork for the scene, but they didn't have enough money to film it) Blair gets infected with his pancil while he was explaining The Thing to the crew. He places the pancil on the thing and than on his lip.
@Zipst700 See, here's my problem with your logic, which I already brought up: People call the 1982 film the original... IN THE CONTEXT of discussing the new movie. They aren't claiming that the 1982 is, universally, the ORIGINAL film in the series, because it and the 50s film are disconnected in continuity. You don't need to call people retards because they talk about a prequel and bring up the film it is related to, calling it the original. They call it that because it is in context of it.
@Zipst700 Blair's Infection: Don't be so certain of your facts. Carpentor intended his infection to be impossible to be determined with 100% accuracy. Also, the pencil never directly touched the Thing--watch the scene again. He (very) closely points with it, but never is direct contact made.
Now, if you subscribe to the theory that Blair was infected before he went crazy and it was an act to get him seperated, then yes, the autopsy scenes are the most likely time where he would be infected.
@NaveNinja Dude, if that fact is not true. Than how did he get infected? or Palmer too? that's my point. They KILLED the thing (dog) AND the splitface thing which got Bannings. So, my guess is that The Dog goes in a room with a shadow figure (unknown) which could of been Palmer or Norris. There are hundreds of things to be uncovered. To be ceratin you probably need to get a private interview with Carpenter.
@Zipst700 Let me fill you in on a few things, to clear your mind. 1: Carpenter wanted Blair's infection to be unknown. 2: The shadow figure is unknown. 3: He'll never answer anything in regards to points 1 and 2. He, himself, said that he does not know.
The Thing is so much more than a simple story. It is a story that can never be fully known.
@Zipst700 well, when the Dog-Thing was consuming the other dogs, from what I remember some of the dogs survived until Blair shot them when he went into a rage about the Thing. As for Blair getting infected, who knows, endless possibilites like perhaps, there was another "Thing" that the Norweigens didnt notice and perhaps only began to thaw out because the main "Thing" tried to get it out and once it got out it accidentaly stumbled upon Blair
@JimboT2009 also if you notice, Blair was very careless with his pencil during the autopsy scenes! "that's not dog(touches, not yet dead thing with his pencil)...its imitation (places pencil to his mouth) we got to it be for it had time to finish." "finish what?" "finish imitating theses dogs!"
@Zipst700 Actually, it's based off the novel "Who goes There" what you're thinking of is "The Thing From Another World", it's common that people think that's the original. Don't call people retards like that.
@Zipst700 To me I refer to Carpenter's film (1982) as The Original. And the Christian Nyby's film (1951) movie as The Classic. Carpenter definitely caught the imagination of the naval 'Who Goes There?' more so than the classic Thing From Another World showed on screen.
@Zipst700 No, John Carpenter's The Thing is a sequel to The Thing From Another World, they remade the 1951 Thing to make it more based off the novel Who Goes There? by John Campbell Jr, which was the inspiration to all three films.
Awesome,really looking forward to seeing this!I hope you dont mind but I put this vid up on my John Carpenter fan page on Facebook? The John Carpenter Appreciation Society .You can find the link on my channel.
an experiment didnt free it!(wich it should have)it busted out under its own power,wich was fukin bulshit
bmgetinawywithmurdr 1 week ago
There was only like one practical effect in the movie!!! I bloody hate this version because of the thing! The original it would be sly and infect people with out turning or alerting people of it. In this movie there was no point in it even turning into people because it would just tear its head open and scream at random. Ergo I hate this lousy prequel to the best Sci-fi film ever made.
MrGalaxyPictures 2 weeks ago 2
To the two people who were arguing earlier, you both forgot that Palmer, Norris and Blair could have succumbed to infection indirectly. Fuchs made a note to MacReady saying even a small particle of The Thing could subvert an entire creature, someone could have passed bad guacamole behind the scenes.
KingNothing9764 1 month ago
Just show the fucking clip GODDAMN IT.
briobio 1 month ago
''used traditional efects'' my fucking ass
LatinoBadass 1 month ago
@LatinoBadass
They actually did. If you did some research you'd find a while 5-6 minutes video of behind the scenes in the monster workshop. They added CG to enhance the practical fx.
TwigsInc 1 month ago
@TwigsInc if thats true then they overused it cus all i see its pure CGI
LatinoBadass 1 month ago
@TwigsInc
The Film Studios just remade it all on the computer in post production.
The practical effects were unnoticeable.
degree7 3 weeks ago
@degree7
I rewatched the film last night after knowing what was practically made and you CAN tell. certain shots of the siamese twin thing, the insect legs and such when they first burned the thing. There was a decent amount in the film if you look close enough. They just went a bit over board augmenting the practical effects with cg.
TwigsInc 3 weeks ago
If the thing can't copy inorganic material, why do they have the persons clothes
icebreakersix1nine 1 month ago
@icebreakersix1nine it probably found a new set of clothes to wear.
snakesrule5 1 month ago
It was better than i thought it would be.
kicknbazz1615 1 month ago
This is not a remake it's a prequel
psycoticbastard 1 month ago
the Funnyest post is from pussycat 3 with Shut the fuck up and play the clip! lmao
Rocket11213 1 month ago
hey you beautiful girl.. It's midnight and i've just seen the thing (1982) ... I don't want to go out my bedroom, not even to go to bathroom. :S:S:S:S
normandusvang 1 month ago 3
Stupid dumb fuckin Asian bitch
spikedavid64 2 months ago
@spikedavid64 dude really? was that necessary?
SmexyPC 2 months ago 6
great movies
meskisz 2 months ago
Yeah, now if only they didn't cover up all that awesome make-up effects with hokey CGI work... It still, despite all our advancements in the field, just doesn't always mesh well in a reality scene.
Fredrock1982 2 months ago
Shut the fuck up and play the clip!
ThePussycats3 2 months ago
Great preview gang.
haggidubious 2 months ago
Everybody please SHUT THE FUCK UP and let's enjoy the video...
hepa11121 2 months ago
and as far as the 'practical effects' went? there was one scene with a real effect. That shapeshifting tower in the spaceship was so unnecessary too.
dismemberednecromorf 2 months ago
I did not like this prequel at all. The creatures were good but were too clean especially the transformations. Not to mention so many potholes and the only thing that connected the two was the last 30 seconds. The Norwegian Thing they found outside the camp looked nothing like the one in this movie. Nothing that good came out of this movie. . . . .
dismemberednecromorf 2 months ago
@dismemberednecromorf i totally agree!!!!!
nocknights 2 months ago
I am incredibly proud of the director for using practical effects as much as possible.
CrimsonCylinder 2 months ago
Hmmm.... she seems to be suffering from narcolepsy!!
HammerFist1970 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
she gives great neck...
bozo47p 2 months ago
After seeing the movie, I can say that I am glad the crew did respect and honor all the work and effort put into making this movie great. Even though Hollywood screwed it all up with CGI, the film crew and makers did fine enough. Well done guys, you made a movie worth keeping.
bossshun9 3 months ago
Too bad they didn't use any of the practical effects that Woodruff shot. They replaced them all with CGI and you can tell.
Great job, Hollywood.
WhiteMousse1980 3 months ago
Haven't seen this movie yet, I hope it doesn't suck because the thing is a horror classic that deserves tons of respect... well.. in my opinion:)
simplefixty 4 months ago
@simplefixty
It does suck and it has major continuity errors with the 82 film it's suppose to be a prequel of.
snake2006 2 months ago
@snake2006 Such as?
nakyer 2 months ago
@nakyer
1) They change unearthing the ship to being in a ice cave until the end of this movie when the ship starts and creates the crater. We see in the 82 film the Norwegians used Thermite to create the crater.
2) The kerosene cans by splitface are missing. Kate burns splitface instead.
3) Collins body doesn't have the blood trail leading to the body
4) They switched the Norwegians at the end, the pilot is shot, not Lars.
snake2006 2 months ago
@snake2006 1) Irrelevent.
2) Off camera. Easilly retconned by having Lars put them there along with the other bodies.
3) Irrelevent.
4) Hard to challenge, they most likely landed and switched places. Cannot account for jackets.
5) Easilly explained by snowfall, them landing on the opposite side and not seeing it sinceit is behind a small hill. It is notoriously hard to see things in Antarctica unless they are in plain sight.
6) The Thing can change itself and likely did.
NaveNinja 2 months ago
@snake2006 And all six points are nothing more than nitpicking. It is impossible to get perfect details down when working with such material. The filmmaking process is a difficult one. Be glad that it could have been much, much worse.
NaveNinja 2 months ago
@nakyer
5) There is a dead carter in the snowcat left behind by the crater and yet in the 82 film it's not there.
6) The dog isn't the same until the very end credits when they use the 82 footage. Otherwise it doesn't even look the same breed, let alone color.
Those are some of the issues, I have only seen it once. I have to wait for the Blu
snake2006 2 months ago
@snake2006 I have to wait for the blu ray to find the rest as I can't remember them I saw this film opening night Oct 14 in US and Canada.
snake2006 2 months ago
I am glad the director realize not to mess with the original with a remake and instead did a prequel and made sure the original was respected. In the end, I hope it works.
NinjaCthulhu 4 months ago 16
@NinjaCthulhu you bring up a good point, the prequel crew did though make an effort to respect the original
eerietube 4 months ago
@eerietube It's not the original you retards. The thing 1982 is a REMAKE of the ORIGINAL thing that was released in 1951.
Zipst700 3 months ago
@Zipst700 We never said the 1982 film was the original. In fact Carpenter's 1982 film was not necessarily a remake of the Howard Hawks 1951 classic film it was closer to the novella WHO GOES THERE? by John W. Campbell Jr.
eerietube 3 months ago 18
@Zipst700 People like you make me laugh. You hound other people for calling the 82 version the original, when it's actually a much, much more faithful adaption of the novel the 50's version was (very partially) based on. Sure, the 82's a remake, but only by loose association. What really makes me laugh is that when people refer to the "original" in the context of this movie, you point out the fifties film, like you're insightful and intelligentfor knowing about it. Protip: You aren't.
NaveNinja 2 months ago
@NaveNinja You're just another dumbass who didn't knew 50's movie even existed until you read my comment. Smartass wannabe.
Zipst700 2 months ago
@Zipst700 Prove it.
You can't.
Thanks for more laughs.
NaveNinja 2 months ago
@NaveNinja What to prove? you're doing a pretty damn good job at making yourself look like an idiot. ''Thanks for more laughs'' Overused comeback. Please, you'r trying to look mature, but you can't take it. Your icon describes it all.
Zipst700 2 months ago
@Zipst700 You know nothing of me or what I know. That you would judge me solely based upon my icon speaks miles of you.
Protip: I've studied the mythos of the Thing far more extensively than you. Read every acclaimed text and spent hours discussing it with colleagues. To assume that I would not know about The Thing From Another World is, to me, hillarious.
I do a good job making myself look like an idiot? Look back on your comments and then look at mine. I never insulted anyone.
NaveNinja 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NaveNinja ''I've studied the mythos of the Thing far more extensively than you'' do you even know what i've studied? hypocrite. Weren't you the one saying ''You know nothing of me or what I know'' and ''spent hours discussing it with colleagues'' did you also build a house just to research the thing? you're a sad, sad nerd. Grow up. You're just a dumb nerdy Carpenter fanboy. i love The Thing 1982 very much, but i do not ignore the fact that 1951 is the original. you've started a pointles argue
Zipst700 2 months ago
@NaveNinja If you studied so much. Than tell me how did Nauls die, how did Blair get infected, etc. Learn to eccept other people's opinions and Shut the fuck up. You remind me of one of those Cartoon nerds who think they know everything. STFU dude.
Zipst700 2 months ago
@Zipst700 Nauls death was shown in storyboard segments that weren't filmed. Blair's infection has been and always will be up to personal opinion and debate. I always accept other people's opinion but that has literally nothing to do with anything you've said. You insulted two random people and acted like they knew nothing of the fifties film, and did the same to me. That has nothing to do with your "opinion." The fifties film is not a secret and many, many people know about it.
NaveNinja 2 months ago
@NaveNinja It just annoys me when people call 1982 Original. I love the 1982 movie very much, but it doesn't change the fact that 1951 is the original. That's my point. Maybe i went little too far with insulting though. I saw how Nauls died (it was a little bit of artwork for the scene, but they didn't have enough money to film it) Blair gets infected with his pancil while he was explaining The Thing to the crew. He places the pancil on the thing and than on his lip.
Zipst700 2 months ago
@Zipst700 See, here's my problem with your logic, which I already brought up: People call the 1982 film the original... IN THE CONTEXT of discussing the new movie. They aren't claiming that the 1982 is, universally, the ORIGINAL film in the series, because it and the 50s film are disconnected in continuity. You don't need to call people retards because they talk about a prequel and bring up the film it is related to, calling it the original. They call it that because it is in context of it.
NaveNinja 2 months ago
@NaveNinja You do have a point.
Zipst700 2 months ago
@Zipst700 Blair's Infection: Don't be so certain of your facts. Carpentor intended his infection to be impossible to be determined with 100% accuracy. Also, the pencil never directly touched the Thing--watch the scene again. He (very) closely points with it, but never is direct contact made.
Now, if you subscribe to the theory that Blair was infected before he went crazy and it was an act to get him seperated, then yes, the autopsy scenes are the most likely time where he would be infected.
NaveNinja 2 months ago
@NaveNinja Dude, if that fact is not true. Than how did he get infected? or Palmer too? that's my point. They KILLED the thing (dog) AND the splitface thing which got Bannings. So, my guess is that The Dog goes in a room with a shadow figure (unknown) which could of been Palmer or Norris. There are hundreds of things to be uncovered. To be ceratin you probably need to get a private interview with Carpenter.
Zipst700 2 months ago
@Zipst700 Let me fill you in on a few things, to clear your mind. 1: Carpenter wanted Blair's infection to be unknown. 2: The shadow figure is unknown. 3: He'll never answer anything in regards to points 1 and 2. He, himself, said that he does not know.
The Thing is so much more than a simple story. It is a story that can never be fully known.
NaveNinja 2 months ago
@NaveNinja True.
Zipst700 2 months ago
@Zipst700 well, when the Dog-Thing was consuming the other dogs, from what I remember some of the dogs survived until Blair shot them when he went into a rage about the Thing. As for Blair getting infected, who knows, endless possibilites like perhaps, there was another "Thing" that the Norweigens didnt notice and perhaps only began to thaw out because the main "Thing" tried to get it out and once it got out it accidentaly stumbled upon Blair
JimboT2009 2 months ago
@JimboT2009 also if you notice, Blair was very careless with his pencil during the autopsy scenes! "that's not dog(touches, not yet dead thing with his pencil)...its imitation (places pencil to his mouth) we got to it be for it had time to finish." "finish what?" "finish imitating theses dogs!"
nocknights 2 months ago
@Zipst700 Actually, it's based off the novel "Who goes There" what you're thinking of is "The Thing From Another World", it's common that people think that's the original. Don't call people retards like that.
ThatGuyUnderTheStair 2 months ago
@Zipst700 ...that had nothing to do with the original book 'Who Goes There?'. The thing 82 is closer to the book.
MrMoorkey 1 month ago
@Zipst700 Thats rhigt !!!
jayjay2338 1 month ago
@Zipst700 To me I refer to Carpenter's film (1982) as The Original. And the Christian Nyby's film (1951) movie as The Classic. Carpenter definitely caught the imagination of the naval 'Who Goes There?' more so than the classic Thing From Another World showed on screen.
NuttyButties 1 month ago
@Zipst700 No, John Carpenter's The Thing is a sequel to The Thing From Another World, they remade the 1951 Thing to make it more based off the novel Who Goes There? by John Campbell Jr, which was the inspiration to all three films.
GhostVenom051 2 weeks ago
@NinjaCthulhu The original in the 1951 version.
Zipst700 3 months ago
Doing it old School is always better! ~Jess (Jub's House Of Horror)
darkargentofan 4 months ago
@darkargentofan agreed Jess!
eerietube 4 months ago
Awesome,really looking forward to seeing this!I hope you dont mind but I put this vid up on my John Carpenter fan page on Facebook? The John Carpenter Appreciation Society .You can find the link on my channel.
THEINFAMOUSILLWILL 4 months ago
@THEINFAMOUSILLWILL we're big time John Carpenter fans here, thank you!
eerietube 4 months ago
I saw The Thing last night. I am very pleased. They got it right!
wrght9185 4 months ago 16
@wrght9185 They sure did, glad you dug it too.
eerietube 4 months ago
what? the monsters are not CG?
Froastwolf 4 months ago
Oh man first person to comment but not about the video though
Flip4910 4 months ago
@Flip4910 It is about the video.I liked the way they were making it.
killerrodan 4 months ago
I love the old school appoarch.Hey,I like the old style Godzilla films so what'cha expect ? Anyways.Awesome video as always ! : P You rock !
killerrodan 4 months ago
@killerrodan thx Killerrodan, how have you been?
eerietube 4 months ago
@eerietube No problem.I've been doing pretty well and yourself ?
killerrodan 4 months ago
@killerrodan we're doing good gearing up for our favorite holiday >:)
eerietube 4 months ago
@eerietube That's great to know. : ) Halloween is my favorite,too.I'll go as a vampire.
killerrodan 4 months ago