MovieChat Forums > The Thing (2011) Discussion > Insult to the 1982 version? (Spoilers)

Insult to the 1982 version? (Spoilers)

posted 9 years ago by love_cats_hate_dogs
10 replies | jump to latest

Just some of the things that made The Thing (1982) so great:

1) The creature effects. How do you make a guy's head detach from his body, sprout spider legs, and run across the floor? You get a bunch of skilled craftsmen to spend ages making rubber and KY and animatronics into awesome practical effects.

Edit: It's even more tragic that they did actually have a lot of practical effects but put in that really crappy CGI and spoiled the whole thing.

2) The ending where the two characters are stranded beside a burning base, with an uncertain future, not even knowing whether/if the other one has been copied.

Along comes the 2011 version and not only does it use CGI that was crappy for 2011 standards to half-arse the monster effects, they throw in the "I knew you were an imposter because of your earring" ending. Then, on top of that, the credits state they based it on the story "Who Goes There?" when so much of the film was so derivative of the 1982 version...like they did their own thing with it! Give it the credit it deserves at least. Oh and by the way, the "Strong female lead" was original 30 years ago...now it's just so trite.

This film was cheap scares and ropey CGI. The 1982 version was a special effects masterpiece made by the best.

--------------------------------
Hitler was a dog person.

[–] crc-4 9 years ago

Just some of the things that made The Thing (1982) so great:

1) The creature effects. How do you make a guy's head detach from his body, sprout spider legs, and run across the floor? You get a bunch of skilled craftsmen to spend ages making rubber and KY and animatronics into awesome practical effects.

It looked like a clock on tiny pogo sticks. It was great for its time but still not that great now days.

edit: It's even more tragic that they did actually have a lot of practical effects but put in that really crappy CGI and spoiled the whole thing.

I hear its because people complained about the practicle effects.

2) The ending where the two characters are stranded beside a burning base, with an uncertain future, not even knowing whether/if the other one has been copied.

In this film we know how it ended from the start of the original 1982 film. They didn't have much flexibility.

[–] therefdotcom 9 years ago

"Insult to the 1982 version? (Spoilers)"

one of my favorite idiot phrases.

on par with:

riddick was the same as pitch black
evil dead was an insult to the original
avp did this and this and this wrong
how can they redo ghostbusters with women???
i stopped watching SNL in 1982 (yet chose not to shut up about it, even though it's 2015)
you just did not understand the film
this is gonna be a classic 10 years from now
... etc

[–] love_cats_hate_dogs 9 years ago

Good stuff.

--------------------------------
Hitler was a dog person.

[–] therefdotcom 9 years ago

oh and let's not forget:

why can't people just sit back and enjoy a movie?
it was a financial success (as if that was an indication for quality)
bill hicks was the greatest and bestessest comedian there every was and every will be

[–] champi_m5 9 years ago

Full of crappy monster chase scenes, whereas the original built tension and had a more menacing feel to the creature

[–] charles-pockert 8 years ago

I totally agree. The following post will likely be in rant format with no discernible structure..

No tension, no buildup, no suspense - The Thing (2011)

Problems with this film:

They tried too hard to tie it to the original but make it set after the original which technically was a sequel (chronologically). That in itself doesn't make sense.

They made a point of showcasing these "tie-ins" instead of making subtle nods to the original, like a toddler standing on his chair shouting "look at meeeee!". This annoyed me greatly - instead of concentrating on making the two halves fit together perfectly, work on your script...

The creature is essentially a ninja survivalist. It is supposed to be subtle about assimilating other lifeforms - waiting until you are alone in order to mitigate the risk of being discovered during the time it takes to assimilate another organism.

This uncertainty was the mechanic that built tension between the characters in the original - suddenly, people that had been friends for years weren't sure who to trust.

This remake had no buildup or suspense. From a few minutes into the film we had a monster flying about the place killing people with all the subtlety of an epileptic elephant in a china shop.

I was expecting (hoping) that someone would come back to the ice block and it would be empty. That would have been a great start to the movie, but instead we get an attempted jump scare and all out shoot-em-up action. Helicopters crashing because we haven't had enough explosions yet, people suddenly gaining knowledge of the creatures abilities and motives for no reason at all (they had good reason to figure that out in the original)

The writes/directors missed the whole point of the original movie. I'm not saying it should have been a remake of the original, but at least stay true to the canon and pay attention to your source.

If you ignore the original (i.e. pretend it doesn't exist) I might be able to give this 6/10.

However, the original does exist...and for these crimes against film-making I can barely give this a 4/10.

[–] StarWarsMoviesSuck 9 years ago

The movie sucked, it's not canon, box office failure, lame sfx, lame story, stupid MEW dumbface protagonist, overall a failure

suck on that thingboys

[–] Todd_B 8 years ago

2) The ending where the two characters are stranded beside a burning base, with an uncertain future, not even knowing whether/if the other one has been copied.

My interpretation is that Child's was the thing in the 1982 version based on 2 facts

1. Child's isn't breathing at first. Only after a bit of time does he start to produce vapor as he exhales.

2. The drink he was given was probably gasoline.

I thought even John Carpenter admitted Child's was the thing at the end scene.

[–] manchof1 8 years ago

Childs can't be a Thing considering the testing scene from the prequel since he has an earring.

[–] PreachCaleb 8 years ago

1) Childs is breathing. He's just lit darker than Kurt Russell so his breath isn't as noticeable.

2) There's nothing really to indicate it was gasoline. And if it was, the creature would respond to it. It would know what gasoline is. It would know that it's not something to be drunk.

You are sin.