In regards to the clothing/inorganic material comments: CALL OFF THE DAMN DOGS JESUS Most of the criticisms of this video deal with my claim that the thing can imitate clothes in the original. After thinking about it for a few days, I will admit I may have misjudged this aspect, but I’ll give you my initial reasoning anyway. It was specifically the scene with Bennings being assimilated by the thing. During the reveal, we see that he doesn’t have a shirt or jacket on, sitting half-naked on the chair while being devoured. Very quickly after Windows alerts the rest of the crew of this, they chase him outside, to which we see him fully clothed again. Now the obvious interpretation is that the thing just put his clothes back on, or someone else’s clothes as they all wear similar jackets, which is looking to be the correct interpretation. I think where I got mixed up was in the second reveal of his hands still amidst imitation, showing that he’s unfinished. In my mind, it was finished generating the rest of his body, including the clothes that may have been ruined during the assimilation, and was discovered too quickly to finish the hands. That idea then moved on to the other characters who got assimilated, as I doubt it was a clean process and their clothes got all torn up too. So going back though, yes it does sound like a stretch. I should’ve omitted that aspect from the review. But if we REALLY want to get pedantic about the logic of the inorganic material, there’s a scene in the ‘82 film that throws the teeth-fillings conclusion out the window (and hence, the inorganic material argument as a whole). During the defibrillator scene with Norris, a close-up shows the inside of his mouth where he literally has teeth fillings. Go back and watch it, it’s at the timestamp 1:14:34 in the film. And Norris is obviously a thing at this point: his entire chest rips open and his head splits off in that scene. So even retroactively, the inorganic material plot point doesn’t stay consistent between both films. Now while this isn’t a confirmation of clothes being replicated, it does serve as one for teeth fillings, which might as well be extended to clothes since neither are organic material. If you think this is cherry-picking, so do I, honestly. And I really don't think it matters. I could’ve focused on that particular instance too, but the same people would be up my ass for being too pedantic all the same (“Should they have known to cover up his teeth fillings because of a plot point in a prequel film 30 years later dumbass????? etc., etc.”) ((straw man)) Depending on how the reception of this video continues I may even rerecord this portion of the review and rerelease it, as I believe all my other points stand completely valid. This may have killed the review for some of you as evident in the comment section… So sorry! Please don’t kill me with hammers!
Aside from the Thing not imitating clothing as other commenters have pointed out, I think the reason they don't take the ax off the wall is because the blood on it is from the Thing and could contaminate them.
The Thing doesn't imitate clothes. That is one of the biggest plot points of the first movie. It rips through and sheds clothing. It's also a key point in the argument that Childs is the Thing at the end of the movie (even though I don't think he is). So far I'm with you on the rest of your points, but you're wrong here, I'm afraid.
"kate is too pretty" While there are many people in real life as pretty as her, it detracts the realism from me that hollywood always has to cast a supermodel looking actress as the leading lady
As much as I didn't love this "Prequel", I do understand a lot of the scenes mimicking the 1982 version. Similar people, similar environment, similar knowledge, similar fear of the unknown...good chance they'll have similar reactions, ideas. But, I do enjoy your take. Keep up the good work.
Lol I love the Wild Hogs Reference! and Also the Fact The Dudes in the Poster but not in the Actual Film! Great Voice As Well Defiently the Voice of a Movie Critic!!!! excellent Content!
The original Thing was on tv constantly when I was a kid, it’s probably been my favorite horror movie since age six. The remake/redux/redo was as a consequence the most personally disappointing theatrical experience of my life. I watched it last year for the first time since release, wondering if I had been overly critical: I was not. Great review/breakdown! It’s always fun to share movie misery.
outside of the cgi. the plot is AWFUL. writing IS TRASH. awful characters. awful suspense. awful dialogue. truly trash writing. awful set up. it's so awful
