The Thing (1982) or The Thing (2011)

Uber Morpth

Uber Morpth

First time out of the vault
John Carpenter's The Thing is probably my favorite horror film from is great cast, pratical effects and tone, I always had heard that the 2011 version of the thing was quiet bad but never actually seen it till today.

I can sort of understand what they wree trying to do but I feel due to how modern horror films are usually made, the controversial fact that the studio was planning to do pratical effects like from the orginal but were forced to do cgi at last minute and seeming to of been rushed out into theaters it felt very saggy, not terrible but not enjoyable either.

Not sure if any of you fellas had seen one of these or both the films but I wanted to see how you all feel about this and I guess horror films/remakes in general.
 
The problem for the second one will always be that it has to hold up to scrutiny in comparison to its predecessor.
It's been a long time but it was an all right film, nothing special, but enjoyable as a horror flick.
I also didn't find the CGI to be 'that' terrible but then again, it's been years since I last saw it.

I don't like the idea of capitalizing on a classic if there's no need for it and especially if the people involved aren't truly invested in it.
And considering how the sequel/remake/reboot/rewhatever turned out it doesn't feel as if they were that invested in it.
Kinda just feels like a cashgrab.
 
Uber Morpth said:
John Carpenter's The Thing is probably my favorite horror film from is great cast, pratical effects and tone, I always had heard that the 2011 version of the thing was quiet bad but never actually seen it till today.

I can sort of understand what they wree trying to do but I feel due to how modern horror films are usually made, the controversial fact that the studio was planning to do pratical effects like from the orginal but were forced to do cgi at last minute and seeming to of been rushed out into theaters it felt very saggy, not terrible but not enjoyable either.

Not sure if any of you fellas had seen one of these or both the films but I wanted to see how you all feel about this and I guess horror films/remakes in general.
Click to expand...
I think this here answers many questions



It also really highlights a problem with the movie industrie, at least if the story they tell is true it seems the people runing the studios prefer with some movies to go for a style and visual look reminiscent of 'games' or the CGI used there with the intention to attact a certain audience. Now if that is true, then it really is a bit of a problem. Using practical effects to make them later look like CGI, is kinda defeating the purpose of practical effects. Not to mention it often is not what the directors and effects artist actually want.

Edit
Sadly I can't find the video anymore where one of the Effects artist talked about the practical effects and how everything was changed later without their approval - I think. They even had a completely different idea about the creature at the end of the movie. Here you can see one of the versione of the Pilot they originaly intended.

I found the video:
 
Last edited:
I thought you were gonna ask which one should you watch.

The 2011 movie has the problem of CGI as didn't seem to be anywhere as good as the 1982 movie, but i wouldn't say it was an awful movie either. They tried something and it worked in some areas, not so much in others. Not the worse remake imo. Also, there is the 1951 movie, adapted from the same book, but i didn't see it.

It is very rare, but sometime the remake can be better than the original. I loved a lot more the Dredd movie with Karl Urban that the one with Stallone, for instance.
 
The Thing 2011 had imo alot more problems than just cgi.
It lacked most of the atmosphere of the original and the distrust between the characters which to me added alot to the tension and scares.
It was imo very predictable and felt too much like other generic horror films that time and the average effects just made it worse. I also felt that it would've been better if they did not try to explain that Thing monster that they recovered in the original and just leave it as a mystery.
I kinda liked it storywise but everything else was just average or crap.
 
The 1951 movie is pretty good.
I mean, it's a black and white movie monster film so you kind of know what to expect but if you just appreciate it for what it is for its time then it's quite enjoyable.
It's a plant instead of a flesh monster.
 
Mr Fish said:
The problem for the second one will always be that it has to hold up to scrutiny in comparison to its predecessor.
It's been a long time but it was an all right film, nothing special, but enjoyable as a horror flick.
I also didn't find the CGI to be 'that' terrible but then again, it's been years since I last saw it.

I don't like the idea of capitalizing on a classic if there's no need for it and especially if the people involved aren't truly invested in it.
And considering how the sequel/remake/reboot/rewhatever turned out it doesn't feel as if they were that invested in it.
Kinda just feels like a cashgrab.
Click to expand...

I guess is why certain franchise reboots can sort of work if there popular enough like Terminator Genisys or 2014's RoboCop and I just mean they do well in terms of box office numbers, there can be some major flops like 2009's Friday the 13th or 2016's Ghostbusters which seem to be made more for profit in mind.
 
Terminator Genosnis or what ever it's called and the 2014 RoboCop are garbage and I assume the only reason why they made some revenue is beacuse they have been sold worldwide and with a lot of marketing. I am not even sure if 2014 RoboCop was such a huge success financially even.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Terminator Genosnis or what ever it's called and the 2014 RoboCop are garbage and I assume the only reason why they made some revenue is beacuse they have been sold worldwide and with a lot of marketing. I am not even sure if 2014 RoboCop was such a huge success financially even.
Click to expand...

The budget from what I could find was around 100 million us dollars and they made around 242.7 million from box offices so they mostly broke even with bit of extra, although its budget could of been much higher if I could find the marketing cost since that is usually hidden for some reason.

This was true semmingly for The Mummy and 2016 Ghostbuster's which both kind of flopped.
 
Uber Morpth said:
The budget from what I could find was around 100 million us dollars and they made around 242.7 million from box offices so they mostly broke even with bit of extra, although its budget could of been much higher if I could find the marketing cost since that is usually hidden for some reason.

This was true semmingly for The Mummy and 2016 Ghostbuster's which both kind of flopped.
Click to expand...

Well they canceled the sequel after all, and while this is just a guess I think they did it because they don't believe it will be a success - which is hardly difficult to imagine when you consider that RoboCop 2014 has like 49% approval on Rotten Tomatoes, just saying. However there are rumors that a new movie might be made as a direct Sequel to RoboCop 3 directed by Neill Blomkamp.

Anyway, it's kinda very strange how a movie that's making 3 or 4 times of the production cost can be still considered a flopp by the studios. I guess it really depends on what they expect as revenue here.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Well they canceled the sequel after all, and while this is just a guess I think they did it because they don't believe it will be a success - which is hardly difficult to imagine when you consider that RoboCop 2014 has like 49% approval on Rotten Tomatoes, just saying. However there are rumors that a new movie might be made as a direct Sequel to RoboCop 3 directed by Neill Blomkamp.

Anyway, it's kinda very strange how a movie that's making 3 or 4 times of the production cost can be still considered a flopp by the studios. I guess it really depends on what they expect as revenue here.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard the business definition failure? It's something along the lines of "If your company is not doubling in value every year it is failing." Still seems a bit excessive to me.
 
It's actually pretty insane and crazy. But I don't want to get this topic derailed by my rambling about capitalism.
 
It's simple, really. If it has Kurt Russell in it, it is preferable.
 
Now that you mentioned him, I just realized how hot he is with that beard.
images (9).jpeg
 
Carpenter's version is a cult classic that has stood the test of time better than many other even higher budget films. After numerous watches over the years it can still feel tense and fresh. The practical effects also look and work far better than most of current day CGI.

As prequels so very often tend to be, this 2011 version, too, was a completely pointless effort at revealing past events whose effect as mystery in the original movie was to enhance the tone and dread of what was to unfold. It undermines that cheaply (as is accustomed with prequels).

I think the 2011 version is a better movie than its reputation gives away, but as said above... It's a pretty pointless flick, and also with an awful horribad ending sequence. It would've been better if the production team was allowed to use the practical effects as they intended, but I doubt it would've made too much of a difference.
 
Original Thing WOOT. Well not ORIGINAL original. Black and white thing, was actually kind of creepy and good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top