MovieChat Forums > The Thing (2011) Discussion > Better effects than the 1982 movie.

Better effects than the 1982 movie.


Per Roger Ebert;

The contribution by John Carpenter was to take advantage of three decades of special effects to make his creatures Awful Gooey Things from Space. That was done well in his film, and it is done with even more technical expertise here

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-thing-2011

Ebert gave both the 1982 and 2011 movies 2.5 stars out of 4.

reply

The 1982 version is still a classic 40 years later, yet this one, like the majority of 21st century reboots, has been utterly forgotten a mere 12 years on.

reply

Every old movie is called a 'classic'. That don't mean much. The Thing flopped and casuals don't even remember it. My parents know about your Freddys, Chuckys, Michaels... your Aliens and Terminators. They don't know what the fuck 'The Thing' is.

A coworker of mine was a big fan of Alien and Blade Runner. I asked him about 'The Thing' (naturally as Alien and The Thing are two of the first 'sci-fi horror classics' to come to mind) and he said he hadn't heard of it.




This movie will overtake the 1982 movie when the hivemind shakes itself free from the boomer propoganda machine. With the advent of the internet, old buggers managed to hardset the canon. They gave movies like The Thing 1982 higher ratings on IMDb, due to nostalgic bias and the younger people have blindly followed it as gospel.

Back pre-internet. Movie discourse progressed freely and in an timely manner. The internet has paused it and it'll take a while to get moving along.

reply

No. I don't think so.

reply

Jesus christ what kind of drugs was he on
.

But i haven't actually seen the 2011 one, but its on my list now after pop up in the boards

reply

People hated Ebert because he told them the truth.

reply

I found myself siding with siskel most of the time he was around

reply

The crappy CGI took me out of this movie.

reply

He doesn't say they're better. "More technical expertise" seems to imply that the effects took more effort to do, because CGI requires dozens of artists.

Roger Ebert seemed to not understand how The Thing worked as an alien. In his original review he outright lied and said that "people will disappear for a bit, and then round the corner with a wicked smile on their faces..." which never happens a single time in the Carpenter film.

He seemed mostly upset that Carpenter dare remake the 1951 film, which Ebert found to be nearly untouchable. It's the main reason why most boomers disliked the 82 film; the 51 film was such a timeless classic, and leave it to Hollywood to splatter it with gore and special effects. A huge reason as to why the 82 film developed a cult following and a serious reevaluation was that it was introduced to unbiased people who didn't grow up with a blind devotion to the 51 film. People today don't even know the 51 film exists, which does stink because it's a great film, but it means people today are going into the 82 film with fresh minds.

reply