The Thing (2011) - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 80 Old 02-03-2012, 02:42 PM
Member
 
Jayderek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamereviewgod View Post

So many questions hung over my head as I watched this.

And, since it breaks out of the ice in the form that it does, how did it fly the ship? How did it create the ship in the first place? I could buy that it was on the ship of a different alien species if there were clues to that, but this is the only thing they found.

I'd also wonder why such a being would need a ship that size, big enough to make the Independence Day motherships flinch.

who said that ship was this aliens'?

~Jason
Jayderek is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 80 Old 02-03-2012, 04:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
thehun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Wine country CA
Posts: 7,294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Since this alien was an "impostor" having able to fly a ship clearly isn't that big of a deal.
Also the ship is not that big like it was in ID4 not even close.
My issues as far as the story and how it ties up with the 1982 version are:

The before mentioned fall of the snow truck when they found the ship, I agree they shouldn't survive that, not to mention to excavate the ship like that in 48hrs.
What happened to Kate? There was no sign of the 2 snow trucks or the entire tunnel system the Norwegians constructed to have access to the ship, when the Americans arrive in the 1982 version, which was supposed to be the next day and there was no storm yet. Also how some of the Norwegians got infected are rather mysterious, which was true to the Crapenter film as well in some cases anyway. I think movies like these should give us some clues without making them too obvious. Of course this could leave the audience more surprised or bored depending what type of viewer you are.

My other issues where with the creatures looks. It seems that Woodroof and Gillis worked on the Alien franchise far too long to create something original here, and frankly not very scary either. Too bad we didn't get too see the original "Ice monster" since there was no chance for that in the Carpenter film. Which reminds me the "Blair monster" was lame indeed, as a concept and the execution of it as well. The "Sander" one in this film was boring as the rest of them, but it was at least executed well, so technology can matter.
Anyway all in all I liked this film, and if they had fixed the continual issues, this could have been even better.

sent via Morse code...........

The Hun
thehun is offline  
post #63 of 80 Old 02-03-2012, 04:57 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dave Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,966
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by replayrob View Post


IMO, the 1951 version still holds up well today, but it's especially outstanding when you compare it to other so called "classic 50's sci-fi".
I played "The Blob" (1958) for my kids the other day... and we were actually laughing at it's cheeseness, there were some real cringe-worthy moments in that "classic". .

To be fair, even back in the day that was considered a very low budget cheesy exploitation flick. It was never regarded as a classic. The original "invasion of the body snatchers" was and still is a classic.
Dave Mack is offline  
post #64 of 80 Old 02-07-2012, 06:58 AM
Senior Member
 
TheCableMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Rented this one yesterday........ I'm not sure where I stand on this. Definitely to much cgi used. As a stand alone movies this is ok but if your using as a prequel you should take some notes from the JC version. The alien doesn't even look or act the same way.
Is it me or did the American at the end of the movie look a little like Kurt Russel. Not sure if that was intended or not. As a prequel you don't copy scenes from the movie you prequel either. Like I said as a stand alone this is fine but as a tie in they lost me.

Always Up for a Good Zombie Flick
TheCableMan is offline  
post #65 of 80 Old 02-07-2012, 07:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Deviation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
Posts: 2,780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCableMan View Post

Rented this one yesterday........ I'm not sure where I stand on this. Definitely to much cgi used. As a stand alone movies this is ok but if your using as a prequel you should take some notes from the JC version. The alien doesn't even look or act the same way.
Is it me or did the American at the end of the movie look a little like Kurt Russel. Not sure if that was intended or not. As a prequel you don't copy scenes from the movie you prequel either. Like I said as a stand alone this is fine but as a tie in they lost me.

They originally used practical effects. Then the studio jumped in and said they had to use CG.
Deviation is offline  
post #66 of 80 Old 02-07-2012, 07:22 PM
Senior Member
 
TheCableMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deviation View Post

They originally used practical effects. Then the studio jumped in and said they had to use CG.

Bummer. That may have made the movie more tolerable. I really disliked the cgi used in this movie. The JC version effects still creep me out to this day .

Always Up for a Good Zombie Flick
TheCableMan is offline  
post #67 of 80 Old 02-07-2012, 11:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
IanD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,847
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCableMan View Post

As a prequel you don't copy scenes from the movie you prequel either. Like I said as a stand alone this is fine but as a tie in they lost me.

The original movie did include footage from what is now the prequel, via camcorder recordings, but I agree that one shouldn't reference the original movie in a prequel in any way, shape or form as it then becomes too confusing separating the two.

Because they ignored this principle, I thought I was watching the original movie at times, whilst watching the prequel. I really hated how they duplicated the blood test and the tying up on the couch and the alien whose head splits open on the couch and ... in the prequel.

My main disappointment is that they didn't replicate those camcorder recordings during the prequel, as this would have tied them together without having to make them almost the same. For example, the explorers standing around the perimeter of the spacecraft whilst it was still embedded in the ice; and the use of thermite charges to free the spacecraft from the ice (the prequel completely changed the storyline here).
IanD is offline  
post #68 of 80 Old 02-08-2012, 11:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Swanage, Engerland
Posts: 2,464
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanD View Post

My main disappointment is that they didn't replicate those camcorder recordings during the prequel, as this would have tied them together without having to make them almost the same. For example, the explorers standing around the perimeter of the spacecraft whilst it was still embedded in the ice; and the use of thermite charges to free the spacecraft from the ice (the prequel completely changed the storyline here).

I do like Thing '11 but the videotape ****-up annoyed me too, not least because the movie fills in so many other '82 beats perfectly. It's like they completely forgot about the recordings, which clearly show the Norwegian group standing around the exposed ship - a ship that doesn't get unearthed until the very end of the '11 version. It could be argued that a storm covered the ship up again, but that's descending to Lucas style levels of filling in the blanks.
Geoff D is offline  
post #69 of 80 Old 02-09-2012, 09:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mr.G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,514
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 105 Post(s)
Liked: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamereviewgod View Post

And, since it breaks out of the ice in the form that it does, how did it fly the ship? How did it create the ship in the first place? I could buy that it was on the ship of a different alien species if there were clues to that, but this is the only thing they found.

One could argue that at the beginning of Carpenter's version that the ship was quite functional as it fell to Earth but was under attack from within - like the Thing trying to take over the original occupant(s).

A lot of good comments on the lack of continuity/common sense in certain aspects of the story although as a whole I thought they did well.

All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Movies

Mr.G is offline  
post #70 of 80 Old 02-09-2012, 06:36 PM
Senior Member
 
Tompa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 46
In the prequel, the sign on the door where the frozen alien is stored (in the norwegian camp) says "Storage Room" in english. I just rewatched The Thing and the sign was difficult to make out because it was covered with frost. Anyone know if the same mistake was present in Carpenters movie?
Tompa is offline  
post #71 of 80 Old 05-19-2012, 10:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
PhilipsPhanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rockland County, NY
Posts: 3,027
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebarnman View Post

So I take it...it wasn't all that great. I'm pissed I missed it at the Drive-in when it played there. Then I heard it wasn't all that good. My thoughts were, how can you mess up a classic...even a remake of a classic? I still want to see it though.

You guys have to remember something: The Thing (1982) was considered an artistic flop as well as a financial flop. It wasn't until 20 years later that it became a classic.

Carpenter himself went into a multi-year depression because of how the film was received.

Food for thought on how the 2011 might improve as time goes by.
PhilipsPhanatic is offline  
post #72 of 80 Old 05-19-2012, 11:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Kilgore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Huntsville Ontario
Posts: 3,094
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilipsPhanatic View Post

You guys have to remember something: The Thing (1982) was considered an artistic flop as well as a financial flop. It wasn't until 20 years later that it became a classic.

Carpenter himself went into a multi-year depression because of how the film was received.

Food for thought on how the 2011 might improve as time goes by.

You are sadly mistaken.

"The Thing" was in the top ten box office releases for three weeks.

Here are a few of the films that John Carpenter's "The Thing" was up against back in july 1982:

Blade Runner
Poltergeist
Rocky III
Tron
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Raiders of the Lost Ark (re-issued)

and last but not least....
E.T., which was completely obliterating box office records at the time.

Meanwhile, word of mouth was saying that "The Thing" was a disturbingly violent and gory film, and people stayed away in droves.

The fate of "The Thing" totally changed when it was released on VHS, and later laserdisc. That's when the word of mouth started to change as people who were warned against seeing the film actually watched it and found it to be a gripping thriller.

As far as this new remake/reimagining/prequel The Thing goes, it had wide release, and is available on DVD and digital download, as well as High Definition distribution on Blu-ray. It will eventually pass from the public memory, except for those few who will watch it without being familiar with the vastly superior film that it ripped off.
Kilgore is offline  
post #73 of 80 Old 05-21-2012, 04:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rr6966's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 1,212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Yep, I saw The Thing when it first came out in video, I'm prety sure I rented it on Betamax. I'm getting old!
rr6966 is offline  
post #74 of 80 Old 05-21-2012, 12:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 9,105
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 941 Post(s)
Liked: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by rr6966 View Post

Yep, I saw The Thing when it first came out in video, I'm prety sure I rented it on Betamax. I'm getting old!

First saw it on Betamax too... it scared the sh!t out of me at the time and I loved every icky frame.

The remake/prequel is a total waste of time.

John Carpenter's version with its practical Rob Bottin created visual effects for the win!!

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is offline  
post #75 of 80 Old 05-21-2012, 04:15 PM
Member
 
jala12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I enjoyed the film despite its continuity errors and homage overdose. The one thing that really does piss me off though is the way in which the ship is exposed. As others have mentioned, thermite charges were what exposed the ship. I have a feeling that it was the studio that decided it would be much more dynamic if it was the ship's engines that melted the exterior icecap during the finale. Alternatively, they could have made it so that they tried to blow up the top layer first but it still didn't uncover the ship below.
jala12 is offline  
post #76 of 80 Old 05-21-2012, 04:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Swanage, Engerland
Posts: 2,464
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 231
The director says in the commentary that they deliberately ignored that plot point because they didn't feel that it was realistic.....in a movie about a shape-shifting alien organism.
Geoff D is offline  
post #77 of 80 Old 05-21-2012, 07:56 PM
Member
 
jala12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 55
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Really? I don't remember them saying it was unrealistic, just giving it a brief acknowledgement and then quickly changing the subject.
jala12 is offline  
post #78 of 80 Old 05-25-2012, 11:55 AM
Member
 
jd371's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Love this movie too. If anybody is looking for a good read, check out The Things by Peter Watts. I read it somewhere on the internet...I think it was Clarkesworld Magazine...try doing a search. It's a short story done from the perspective of the alien, it's very good.

jd371 is offline  
post #79 of 80 Old 06-16-2012, 03:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
PhilipsPhanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rockland County, NY
Posts: 3,027
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
You are sadly mistaken. "The Thing" was in the top ten box office releases for three weeks.

Kilgore, that is not the mark of a financial or literary success. Being in the Top 10 for 3 weeks is NOTHING.....you should be #1 or #2 for a few weeks AND be in the Top 10 for 2 months. Hell, even "Porky's" was #1 for 7 weeks that year !! LOL

The movie was considered a flop. Nobody understood all the subtleties and the misdirection and confusion about who was or was not "The Thing." Audiences and critics were expecting a remake with a clear simple storyline similar to the 1951 classic.

Lastly, the proof that the film was a dud -- esp. with the critics -- was John Carpenter's reaction. He went into a multi-year depression. That's how upset he was about the critical reaction to "The Thing."
Quote:
Here are a few of the films that John Carpenter's "The Thing" was up against back in july 1982: Blade Runner
Poltergeist Rocky III Tron Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan Raiders of the Lost Ark (re-issued) and last but not least....
E.T., which was completely obliterating box office records at the time.

Yes, that was part of the problem: heavy competition against a bunch of films that now we consider classics. I'm sure that didn't help. Had "The Thing" been released in February or October or some off-peak time, it probably would have done better with the public, though probably not with the critics.
Quote:
Meanwhile, word of mouth was saying that "The Thing" was a disturbingly violent and gory film, and people stayed away in droves.

Eh....not any more than slasher films which were in vouge back then.....the word of mouth was that you had a confusing movie and a weird ending. The average movie goer -- not a Sci-Fi fan -- would not be able to give it a thumbs up. Certainly the critics didn't (have to check what Siskel & Ebert "At The Movies" said about it.....).
Quote:
The fate of "The Thing" totally changed when it was released on VHS, and later laserdisc. That's when the word of mouth started to change as people who were warned against seeing the film actually watched it and found it to be a gripping thriller.

True, and people looked at it in a different light. Borderline-bad movies can sometimes improve over time as people reassess. That's what happened I think. Also, the internet and magazines like FANGORIA explained a bit in detail what wasn't clear from the movie itself.
Quote:
As far as this new remake/reimagining/prequel The Thing goes, it had wide release, and is available on DVD and digital download, as well as High Definition distribution on Blu-ray. It will eventually pass from the public memory, except for those few who will watch it without being familiar with the vastly superior film that it ripped off.

In 20 years, this film will be higher-rated than it is now, though I agree not as highly as the 1982 movie. But again, go back and read the reviews in 1982....they were terrible.
PhilipsPhanatic is offline  
post #80 of 80 Old 06-17-2012, 08:40 AM
Senior Member
 
linthat22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 324
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I still need to get this movie. I'm glad to see a lot of opinions on this release!
linthat22 is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Software

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off