I do appreciate their concern, my uncle had me watching the first alien movie when I was like 6 and my dad had me watching Evil Dead when I was about 12
This movie doesn't deserve the hate it gets. I thought it was good and it blends seamlessly with the beginning of the 1981 movie. If they had only went the practical effects that they had originally filmed, it would have been better. There's no way you can follow up the practical effects of Carpenter's movie with CGI. There's just no comparison on which looks better. Other than that, the story was good, and the cast was solid.
It woulda been a lot better if set entirely with the Norwegian team, in Norwegian language and finished with the helicopter chasing after the dog/thing. THEN it would have been seamless.
I'm also quite fond of it, because it's such an homage to the 'original' and I really don't hate the CGI. The biggest problem I think is that the Carpenter movie already had a prequel: the scenes where they visit the other base. That was already such an elegant way of setting up what would happen, and then we got to see those same outcomes play out at the US base. The prequel really is redundant as a result. Still, I will always love that bit where the dude's skull cracks under his skin. Even as someone who has worked in (and will always champion) practical FX, that shot is fantastic.
Nope. Well ( no offense ) you can't argue taste if you enjoyed it excellent! But for me not even close to the OG especially as they replaced the great looking practical fx with CGI.
Nope! Sorry it deserves the hate. And not just about the CGI. Please explain these 5 plotholes to me: 1) If the Ship was still working then why did the Thing leave the ship? 2) Science lady and Lars disabled all the vehicles... except these two! 3) I actuslly like the fillings explanation but the earring explanation makes no sense. Why? The thing is wearing clothes and shoes, but it can't wear a hanging ring?! 4) Instead of going back to camp to check on Lars she just disappears. 5) Instead of knowing about the American weather and research station, which should be common knowledge for the Americans, she goes the Russian camp... in the 80s... during the Cold War....
See this is why you always need someone who speaks Norwegian in your group. When the crazy guy in the beginning is shouting at them he’s telling them to get away from it and that it’s imitating a dog. We would’ve been long gone by then 😂
I made it to 45. But then I got a cavity in one of my wisdom teeth, and the dentist said pulling it was easiest. So one cavity, one fewer wisdom teeth. Gotta up my oral hygiene game, to keep the record there...
@@raven2435 the whole movie was pretty much marketed as a remake. Even down to having the same exact title. So no it was not given away at all. I saw this in theaters opening day and no one was expecting it to be a prequel. We all gasped.
The really sad thing is the original ending got cut... where Studio ADI made a full sized giant alien pilot who is the race that made the saucer. They covered it up with the neon blue Tetris effect at the end. The creature would have then transformed into a Thingified version for the final chase. It's on their RU-vid videos that go way more in depth than the official disc. They made their own homage to the original with a little indie film called Harbinger Down, mainly out of being upset about their practical effects being cut.
@@KthulhuXxx Lovecraft would've loved the cosmic horror element and effects. The original monster featured a vegetable man-creature, not a shapeshifter. This remake gave us a bit more of a look at the original Lovecraft-like cosmic alien, reminiscent of his tentacled gods, the Old Ones.
It's a different adaptation of the novella "Who Goes There?" As such, there's more of an understanding and acceptance of differences in interpretation from the page to the screen. It's why the recent It films aren't a remake of the 90s miniseries, and why it's easier to appreciate what each version got right and wrong about the book, to see what they valued and chose to express in one way or another, and how faithfully they did so, in one way or another. Whereas, for example, something like the remake of A Nightmare on Elm St is judged much more harshly for its failings, because there's less to interpret and more opportunity to fail where the original succeeded. An adaptation will never be completely accurate to the creator's vision and the audience's imagination, so different adaptations can both have unique value from a unique interpretation. But a remake has a hard time adding anything that makes it worth existing as a remake, with it also being incredibly and inevitably easy to change and lose what worked and was loved about the original.
It gets a lot of hate, but personally i love it. Despite the stupid decision by the studio executives to cover most of the practical effects with CGI, i thought it was an excellent story. Maybe one day they will re-release it with all the CGI removed. I'd love to see that.
I watched some of the practical effects... Im happy they went with CGI... Honestly the practical effects looked so fucking fake and trash the CGI was a defenite upgrade...
@@warlorddk2070 CGI is faker and even more trash BECAUSE ITS NOT REAL! A practical effect puppet can 100% be scary and more authentic, and the fact this movie bombed because of the cgi, shows the truth in this!
@NecramoniumVideo Listen I am a big fan of practical effects okay? I get your frustration that studios tend to leave practical behind for trahs CGI... But lets be real the reason this movie failed was because people expected practical and there is a certain prestige and nostalgia in practical effects its sorta like stage shows where you can see the prop and backdrops if you look to the side... Its amazing what people can do with it sometimes achieving real looking products that feel more grounded than CGI. Its amazing how cool the effects were in the original im not saying the effects in the orignal were bad im saying the practical effects on this movie before the change were TRASH... Beyond repair level of bad... Some of it might have worked but my god some of the shots were just highschool project level bad... CGI was better in this case 100% which I say as a practical FX fan... Sure people like to pretend its because the CGI was bad looking people hated it... But the real reason is much more complicated... Promoting no CGI just to make it CGI... Americans disliking subtitles/foreign films, the brewing hatred towards CGI and the clear prestige in old fashion movie making instead of looking at the end product and what works.... All these things and more plus the fact that The thing was already pretty much a niche cult classic with a fanbase very much overlapping with the practical effects nerds me included... It all added up to the disliking of this movie but seperating this from the orignal and this is a great watch... @NecramoniumVideo Listen I am a big fan of practical effects okay? I get your frustration that studios tend to leave practical behind for trahs CGI... But lets be real the reason this movie failed was because people expected practical and there is a certain prestige and nostalgia in practical effects its sorta like stage shows where you can see the prop and backdrops if you look to the side... Its amazing what people can do with it sometimes achieving real looking products that feel more grounded than CGI. Its amazing how cool the effects were in the original im not saying the effects in the orignal were bad im saying the practical effects on this movie before the change were TRASH... Beyond repair level of bad... Some of it might have worked but my god some of the shots were just highschool project level bad... CGI was better in this case 100% which I say as a practical FX fan... Sure people like to pretend its because the CGI was bad looking people hated it... But the real reason is much more complicated... Promoting no CGI just to make it CGI... Americans disliking subtitles/foreign films, the brewing hatred towards CGI and the clear prestige in old fashion movie making instead of looking at the end product and what works.... All these things and more plus the fact that The thing was already pretty much a niche cult classic with a fanbase very much overlapping with the practical effects nerds me included... It all added up to the disliking of this movie but seperating this from the orignal and this is a great watch...
I first saw her in a campy MTV movie called Monster Island back in the 80s.Class trip to a tropical island,giant bugs,Adam West(TVs Batman)as a lone scientist,a lost civilization...and Carmen Electra sings.Sounds really silly..and it is..but I found it very entertaining.
One thing that I always think about contact with Aliens is like: if we already have so many problems with virus and bacteria that are from our planet imagine what would happen if an Alien came and introduce a bacteria/virus that is aggressive for us. We would be so screwed !!
Like the way native populations were decimated by new bugs back in the day. It depends on how similar our physiologies would be. Most of the buggies we have are specific to certain species at least to an extent, like how our pets don't catch our colds and vice versa.
The most interesting thing (no pun intended) about these movies, The Thing 1982 The Thing 2011 and the 1951 version is that after the last plane leaves the Amundson-Scott Station at the South Polo, leaving the winter over crew there, the initiations is to watch a marathon of all three films. They, of course have an extensive library of movies for the occupants of the station.
There’s an audio book version of Peter Watts short story “The Things” here on RU-vid. Told from the point of view the Thing during Carpenter’s movie. The Thing is as terrified of us as we are of it. That’s as far as I go, without giving away spoilers, but the story is quite good.
the reason they removed the practical effects is actually more stupid, the producers wanted the thing to be faster "like a videogame". The funniest thing about it is that the company that made the practical effects made their own The Thing-ish movie out of pettiness for having their work go to waste and not only it sucks but the effects aren't even that good.
I've been watching a lot of your videos and I just love Mrs. Movies reactions! Especially when her language gets spicy! Your little one is adorable! Much love from Windsor, Ontario Canada!💗
You didn't see the final scene at the end during the credits. You can see the dog , the same dog of The thing 1982. And they tried to kill it from the helicopter. It is a prequel which explains what happened to the Norwegians.
They did, until the studio decided to CGI over every single practical effect in post production without telling the team that made the practical effects until they've seen it at the premiere. Also they used the original footage to do so, so there is no way of a practical effect directors cut.
Try looking for the Thing-ish type film the practical effects guys made with their stuff. It looked horrible. So, no, i dont think it would've been better received 🤣🤣
@@sugarbomb1346 that movie was made to show off the animatronics that the other studio covered up with zero cgi. Nobody said they couldn't use cgi to enhance the animatronics, to add a condensation effect around their mouths, add more slime, blood, tiny tentacles, or whatever.
Lars didn't miss the dog in either movie. No-one ever considers that the dog is A SHAPESHIFTER! Bullets probably would have no effect. MacReady never actually drank from that bottle.
Saw this is theatres when it came out, knew it was a prequel the entire time, so no idea why so many people think you spoiled the movie for the Mrs. But anywho, I love Eric Christian Olsen, who plays Adam. He's in one of my all time favourite movies Fired Up! 😂 and he's great in NCIS:LA
I hope you get to react to the 1951 The Thing From Another World. Fun Fact: The "Thing" is played by James Arness of Gunsmoke, he's also the brother of Peter Graves who led the Mission Impossible team in the TV series.
I have been wondering about that hat/headphone setup for a long time Mr. Movies. Was always curious if you'd cut through to fit them on, and now i know
thats always the funny part about this and the old school movie, if you spoke the language....you were good to go for the whole movie hahaa within the first 8 minutes or so
This is a BRILLIANT FLAWLESS PREQUEL, when people moan about this there bat ass crazy don’t no what there on about this films really good love it and it flows lovely into john carpenters film.
10:00 How did they cut the block out?? I understand that they would cut down into the ice however far they would need (looks like about 2-3 feet) but how would they have cut out the BOTTOM of the cube?
When Kate was asked how long it would take to extract the creature in ice, she responded maybe half a day, ASSUMING YOU HAVE THE PROPER EQUIPMENT. My guess is that the "viewing audience" never actually saw what this equipment was, but one must assume they had what was needed for the "extraction". After all, they knew beforehand that there was a specimen in the ice and would have brought everything needed for an expedition of this sort. Good question though. Cheers.
Practical > CGI. When I first watched this I didn't care for it much, but it has grown on me after a few viewings. I would love to see a Practical only version of this Prequel.
I think it's somewhat cool to see how hostile and offensive the Thing is in this movie, compared to its more sly and defensive approach in the movie that takes place after this. Like it has learned from this experience.
The Video Game of 2004 get a Remasterd soon!! OMG!!!!!😍😍😍😍😍 And b.t.w your little daughter will soon watch it secretly with her friends. I did it as a child in 1982.
to be honest, i think your reaction to this movie helps me to appreciate it more. i was really disappointed by the CGI cover-up, when this first came out, but have become more tolerant with time. this has probably been mentioned, but i got the impression mrs. movies had a misconception about the thing (when she deduced that the hand started it): the thing does not really have a specific form. i would even go so far to say that the thing actually infected the original owner of the space ship causing it to crash to earth, where it froze (maybe 100 years ago, maybe 20,000 years ago, who knows) just to be discovered by those curious people. i couldn't really say what the original form of the thing was, but as it consumes, it grows... and it can manipulate its own form into anything it has assimilated, divide up or basically emulate the behaviour of the consumed creature. i was wondering about the aspect of the fillings a few times... would it just remove the fillings or would it somehow complete the missing parts of the teeth with pre-consumed information (like for example AI-generated pictures) to stay inconspicous? hm.
They should of called it "First Things First" Also, this film is good but like a lot of people have mentioned, they should've stuck with the practical effects. They should re-release it like that if they still have the footage.
I'm 46 years old and have never had one cavity or filling and still have all of my wisdom teeth, so I'd be screwed, lol! I'm very lucky to have great genetics. Even my dentist tells me that I have beautiful teeth! 😂
Up until like 2 years ago, I never knew this was a “prequel”!! I thought it was just a “remake”! The title is a bit misleading! lol Good movie though!!
Quite a good movie, but the problem is that we already know that the Thing survives and makes it to the USA camp, so saying "please work, please work, please work" is a little over-optimistic 😉 - and we already know that only two people were left alive at the Norwegian Camp (unless some got away .... which leaves the way open for a sequel sequel
the only thing this movies missed is in the OG thing. ther was pictures of them around a giant hole in the ice so the starting of the UFO to the ende who make it dont make scense so ther is no hole form the start who the team makes a pic from.
I watched this recently with my goddaughter. We'd seen the 1982 film earlier. I'm a Boomer and she's Gen-Z -- while i really enjoy this movie I prefer Carpenter's and with my goddaughter it was the other way around. Really interesting to me how different generations see these two films. From what I understand this version is being rediscovered now that it's streaming. Here's hoping it finally gets the love it deserves.
I know you cant trust anyone, but once they shot the guy with the flamethrower, all chaos broke lose. Not only did they lose a flame weapon, but they all mixed up. Then when a monster shows itself, no one with a flame thrower can get theirs to work. That monster hurt at least 3 people in this short moment, and with blood everywhere, who knows who else got infected just now.
Only thing that sucks about this movie is the decision to scrap all the hard practical effects work and go with CGI. If they would’ve just chose cgi for the beginning they would’ve saved a huge amount of money and could’ve had cgi that looked much better and probably way more realistic OR stuck with the practical effects. Or a smart and genuine blend of both types of effects, which usually results in the best looking finished product anyway. Porcelain fillings have gotten much better. Back then you could really only see porcelain fillings after a few years (they would get stained at a different rate than normal teeth) nowadays you can get them to look completely natural for much longer. I had fillings for about 2 decades before I was starting to be able to tell where one was, and that was only when I really focused and had past knowledge. At this time in the 80s if he had just recently gotten the teeth filled you wouldn’t be able to tell as an avg person
Want to know what would have made the ending much better? Imagine if Carter wasn't infected and he lost his earring on Accident. Imagine how badly Kate would react and how traumatizing it would have been if she realized she made a mistake? It would have been very unexpected. I say it would have made it better to me.
I got caps done by a very great expensive dentist. You won't be able to tell with me. I need two more but they were 3 grand each with insurance. My job is closing it's doors July 2 of this year. If I get the job I want I will join your patreon. So fingers crossed.....
To see what the movie could have been here's a couple of videos with some footage of the effects done practically before they were basically painted over with CGI. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-JyOu3j7CtoE.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fBzpT7VmSaU.html I don't think the effects look as bad as most people do but it's still insane that the film was shot with practical effects designed to be of a similar aesthetic to the 1982 Thing to create a continuity for the look of the various Things across both films only for them to be covered with CGI that, compared to what footage is available, looks undeniably worse. Probably because they had to rush it out since everyone agreed the practical was the way to go. Everyone except some test audiences who were critical of the fact that the effects looked like "something from the '80s". So the studio seemingly not realising that was the whole point and that those effects still hold up today decided to reshoot the ending and cover almost every practical shot with much worse CGI.
To differentiate from original they could have called this the things like you said or maybe these things or that could be the sequel lol we saw the camp and the dog but how the spaceship get put from under the ice in original they saw tapes where they blew up something and they went out there and they saw the spaceship in a crater did they show a shot of when the spaceship was getting ready to take off and blew all that ice up and ready to take off but they stopped it and when they got out of the ship they could see the stars above them not ice like I thought I seen in this lol
>"there are people who think CGI looks more real" yeah... and then there are people who aren't horribly wrong : ^) While I don't actively hate this movie like some other pre/sequels/remakes cause people making it were clearly passionate about it and also tried doing most stuff practical, it's just not as good as the original... it's basically more of the same except you know how it's gonna end, and calling it 'The Thing' didn't do it any favor, either
