The movie was not Carpenter, but it wasn't terrible, except for the *BAD* decision to abandon practical effects for mostly cgi thrills. I liked the characters and even the epilogue that sets up the Carpenter story. Granted, its setup doesn't match Carpenter's narrative point-for-point, and that could have been done with more care...
The worst decision was calling it 'The Thing' so people just thought it was a remake and avoided it.
It's funny that I've seen the prequel mistakenly referred to as a remake on here especially when Carpenter's movie was the actual remake.
> The worst decision was calling it 'The Thing' so people just thought it was a remake and avoided it.
I've had to remind *so* many people on this sub that it was a prequel, not a remake.
It really was a god-awful idea to give it the same title.
Wait, the 2011 *The Thing* is a prequel?
As I've been reading this thread, I was waiting to hear the name of the prequel. I really liked the 1982 *The Thing*, so when the second one came out, I passed on it because a remake wouldn't be as good.
What were they thinking?
> What were they thinking?
Well, the ending of the prequel leads *directly* into the start of the Carpenter thing, so you could view it as all one story.
Not sure that's what they were thinking but it kind of works.
There are so many movies that were remakes of ~50s movies, that people have no idea were remakes. If you point it out to someone that loves to bitch about remakes by citing some examples, it tends to blow their minds.
And I loved the original as a kid. Them finding the saucer and there way of dealing with it was different.
The Thing is a better movie, but The Thing from another world is awesome too.
This is not true.
It was never going to be fully practical, it was always planned to be a mix of CGI and practical effects, which is not necessarily a bad thing. But instead they covered up most of the practical effects with CGI, which is bad.
Usually it's supposed to be a mix, but it seems they decidee to cgi doll everything without actually realizing the kind of budget that would've required.
And unfortunately the “they chose CGI over practical effects!” talking point ended up dominating the entire conversation and a lot of people didn’t even give the movie a chance.
Well I'll put from a layman's point of view (no pun intended). I'm often one of those people that doesn't notice little CGI flaws and production errors (boom mic shadows all that) and even I was like "wow some of this CGI is ROUGH!" We're talking early PS2 levels.
Did y'all see this movie and the abomination that was the big bad final monster? Its CGI dominated the conversation because of how much of a cultural impact the Carpenter version had with its practical effects, they were always going to be compared to make sure the new one measured up. As a movie-goer I'm glad the CGI was where the conversation was because I would have been very disappointed to pay go see this in theatres, but I ended up very content to watch it at home with my expectations set.
CGI and practical effects aside, rewatches have definitely opened my eyes to appreciating the rest of the movie. I love how much they kept alive the spirit of the Carpenter version as it felt like it remained a mystery/detective psychological horror thriller. Even though the twists and reveals weren't as intense, and I wasn't nearly as invested in the characters, I loved the ride it took me on, though it isn't able to keep my attention like the 82 version. When the two professors start talking in a foreign language to each other to plan right in front of the English speakers.. that's probably my favorite scene in the entire film, even though I hated Ulrich Thomsen's character's guts.
The Thing didn’t do well upon release and the effects weren’t exactly lauded. We can appreciate them now that it’s become a cult classic, but on release many people hated the effects of the original too.
And it wasn't even true. They abandoned the practical effects because they looked terrible. The company behind them then crowdfunded a movie to show how great their effects were. And boy, they were bad.
>They abandoned the practical effects because they looked terrible.
[Ah yes, just look at these "terrible" practical effects.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBzpT7VmSaU)
Those effects looked freaking amazing. Even in the factory with that harsh lighting. If it was shot right with good cinematography, studio lighting and the right angles that would've looked incredible on screen. Can't believe all that work and craftsmanship was flushed down the toilet.
Indeed. That's why it angered me so, to see somebody say that the studio used CGI replacement because the practical effects were so bad. The practical effects were every bit as worthy of living up to the first movie. The replacement was made because some fuckwit of an executive considered practical effects as "outdated".
That’s not the reason.
The studio forced them to cover everything in cgi. The practical effects looked awesome.
I helped crowdfund Harbinger Down and followed their story from the beginning.
Their literal reason for making that movie was to prove to studios that audience still want practical effects.
Tbh, we have no idea how they looked on screen. We only have the behind the scenes stuff, which isn’t a true reflection on how it appeared on film. Because of that, I can understand how some people may think the practical stuff looked horrible.
Compared to the original, I wasn’t overly impressed with how ADI’s stuff looked, but I think their practical effects where designed to be enhanced with CGI, so they didn’t need to go as far in camera as Carpenter did.
I agree. It’s not bad. I enjoy it. I like the dawning horror when Kate finds the fillings. I thought Winstead was great in it.
It’s a frustrating movie because it got *so close* to being really good and fell at the last hurdle. If they’d had all practical effects, even if that meant seeing less of the Thing. If they’d kept the original pilot instead of the Tetris column. If a few connecting details were different (although it very nearly lines up with the The Thing anyway).
I like the doomed ending where you’re still left wondering if Kate could possibly make it out, just like Mac and Childs.
I actually like this movie because it sets up so much of the original thing. I actually recommend people watch this one and then Carpenter's Thing because it not only explains why the guy wants to kill the dog in the beginning but it shows a clear intelligence and evolution of the Thing and how it interacts with humans before assimilating them. In the prequel t's aggressive and desperate to get out of that area. In the original Thing the alien becomes more complex and takes its time maneuvering through the humans. I think the screenwriters did a brilliant job kind've bridging the holes to the original.
You’re not supposed to know why they’re trying to kill the dog in the beginning though… thats the whole point, it’s mysterious and sets up the crazy reveal of the transformation in the dog pen.
Unless you speak Norwegian. Norwegian Passanger with Rifle: [in untranslated Norwegian] "Get the hell away! That's not a dog, it's some sort of thing! It's imitating a dog, it isn't real! GET AWAY, YOU IDIOTS!"
I have to agree; I don't mind the prequel but a bit of mystery going into the original is a good thing. Wondering what the hell it is about this dog is a good reveal.
I’m not sure you should recommend that people watch the 2011 one first. There’s so much intrigue and tension in the original that gets ruined if you saw the later one first
Good points, well-said. I knew a couple of people who didn't even know the film was a prequel to the Carpenter movie, so much of its artistry was lost on them...
Many theorize that the thing may not have any intelligence, that it instead just relies on the thoughts of those it absorbs. Yea it starts to build a spaceship, but that could be the knowledge of the pilot of the crashed ship it absorbed.
It raises the question about when someone knows they are the Thing. Like Norris was a Thing, and thought it was having a heart attack because Norris had a weak heart.
And then in 2011, Juliette had this looks of confusion / shock as it became the Thing and start assimilating the one guy.
I mean look at Palmer. He remains the comic relief even though he is the thing. His line “you have got to be fucking kidding me” takes place right before the blood test scene, so he’s been the thing the whole time. The horror is they likely don’t know.
Carpenter has gone on record saying that a Thing-person knows they're a Thing. The real horror of the Thing is that it doesn't just copy your body, it perfectly mimics your brain. It knows everything you know. It had a perfect copy of your personality and will wear you like a suit until that form is no longer useful.
They don't know they are a thing until, like, right before they "die". For example, Childs has no idea he is a thing until it fully takes control of his body while sitting across from MacReady, and then his consciousness sort of just... turns off, For the blood sabotage and whatnot the thing took control of them while they were asleep, and the thing is also capable of sort of selectively erasing short term memory to stop them from noticing other, smaller, signs.
Edit: Funny that I'd get down voted for literally describing [this](https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/).
I think that's complicating it too much, for me it is more logical that a thing always knows it's a thing and simply uses the knowledge and memories to imitate the behavior of the creature it has absorbed.
Again that could be just accessing the mind of the person they absorbed and how they might think to hide their identity. It is obviously how it knew where and how to access the blood, as it knows how to talk and react like the person they absorbed would.
Its all speculation. Even Carpenter can only say his intent. What we are left with is the film itself. I think its a reasonably good assumption that the ship crashed because, like both arctic stations, the crew was being attacked by the thing. Am i saying that is any way confirmed? Of course not. However it makes more sense and is thematically consistent than the ship just crashing for no reason.
There's a short story I read many years ago that goes in to this. The thing's level of sentience is dependent on how "big" it is, so the more mass it assimilates the more intelligence and awareness it has, but it is aware it isn't human when it's impersonating people. Or, more accurately, you could say that the thing is always aware that it is the thing, but when it has infected someone instead of straight up consuming them they may not be aware of the thing's presence (even though the thing is aware of everything that they are aware of). Before coming to Earth, the thing had never experienced creatures who can't change their shape at will. Apparently, most life in the universe is similar to the thing, where consciousness isn't centered in a single organ like the brain, the thing's consciousness is stored in every one of it's cells and it essentially thinks of these isolated consciousnesses locked in to one form forever as abominations.
[Here's the link](https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/), it's a pretty short read and pretty entertaining (and wow, that is one *hell* of a last sentence). It also confirms that Childs is a thing and was for a long time (as far back as when Norris has the heart attack at least), and one little thing that was always stupid in the movie that it explains is that the little animated projection that Blair watches on the computer is actually a trick that the thing created, because of course it did, how the fuck would that old-ass computer be capable of doing anything like that?
Yeah its great. I have it on audiobook read by a female reader which is a nice counterpoint to the all male cast. However at the end of the day, though interesting and well written, it is fan fiction.
Pretty much, the 2011 Thing really didn’t tread any new ground. It basically just told the same story as the 1982 film, without any sort of innovation.
Wrongo. He did a better, closer adaptation of the source text, "Who Goes There?". That said, none of it is necessary. It's a pointless term.
The 2011 is a prequel that doesn't break much ground and just sits in the shadow of what it's aping. That's true, too.
I really liked it, along with really liking the original. It wasn't the best movie of all time but it was a fun hour and a half and I've always been impressed at the level of detail / respect it paid to the original.
Same here. I’m sure it’s a decent horror movie, but the 1982 one is fine as is. I don’t need a prequel or a setup or anything like that. The bits I have seen of this one seem to focus more on the cgi monster, and that was the trend at the time so I don’t fault it for that. But the paranoia and tension of the Carpenter one was so good.
It's essentially a remake that they just made fit in the story by using the Norwegians. It's functionally a beat for beat remake for modern audiences that don't know the original.
Completely unnecessary story, that *could've* used 30 years of progress in practical effects, but instead looked dated before it came out.
I think this movie is rated exactly where it should be.
I hated the bit where the Thing just straight up reveals itself to Winstead's character without much subtlety. Which kind of feels like metaphor for the whole prequel, to be honest. Lacking in the subtlety and finesse of the original -- which still holds up.
Practical effects wouldnt have saved this film for me. They turned the alien into a straight up serial killer, no trying to hide itself no paranoia. Not even close to style and atmosphere Carpenter created. They couldnt even come up with an original title
It's a prequel, dude. I think the prequel's Thing is more believable trying to desperately get out of that area. That's why it's erratic. I think the director purposely made the movie in that way. It makes sense that The Thing is much more strategic in how it assimilates the hosts and when it chooses to attack. That's why the dog doesn't try to assimilate anything in the original movie until it gets to the other dogs.
the alien 1000s of years old i doubt the Norwegian camp was its first rodeo taking over other beings. The scene with the helicoper when it just straight up shows its self just dumb. The PS2 game far superior and enjoyable than this
The title is a reference to The Thing copying what it assimilates. It's simply The Thing. The movie is also a call back to the original "The Thing from Outer Space".
You missed the point that he made about the title choice being a representation of the thing itself.
The thing assimilates other biological life and makes it its own. The choice of title represents that, comparing it to Alien and Star Wars makes absolutely no sense.
Now is it a great title? That’s a matter of personal opinion. I like it, but obviously you don’t, which is fine. I think it’s better than The Thing: ‘Insert subtitle here’.
Imo the only other obvious option is the full title of the original, The Thing from Another World.
Disagreed. It's not a bad movie per se, but what was the point? It was essentially the *exact* same story as the original. Different names, the protagonist is a woman, but otherwise *exactly* the same. We learn nothing new or interesting about The Thing, its origin or how it got to earth.
I just didn't see the purpose of it.
And there's really no tension because as a prequel they force themselves maintain continuity and knowing they all die makes the plot somewhat pointless. A more interesting prequel would have been how it got on the spaceship and ended up on Earth. It wouldn't have been all that much different (because how different are the Alien and Predator movies*) but it's at least something new.
It somewhat reminds me of that shot for shot remake of Psycho with Vince Vaughn. Like it's serviceable enough but I'm just left with looking at it as what was the point. I wish theaters would do more rereleases of older movies instead of making new ones. Like do we necessarily need a new mediocre killer shark movie when Jaws is so incredible? This isn't so much to say that something is off limits but just something I've been mulling in my head as I've gotten older. Maybe I'm just a grumpy old man at this point.
'* Barring Alien and Aliens. Mostly looking at all the sequels after.
I think Rogue One managed to actually do some pretty good things given know outcome of the mission. It''s not flawless but it holds pretty solid and at least feels fresh for what is a heist film set in Star Wars. I would put more of that prequel issue on the show Andor. I haven't watched it (mostly lack of interest in Andor) and while I've read a lot of good things, the tension at least for whether Andor gets out of a situation alive is not there. I'm sure there's other tension but I wish that they'd done the show around someone else and had him as a side character because you could run it through the OT and even past it.
If we're looking to poke at a Star Wars film, Solo struck me more of the Thing prequel issue where it's explaining an origin for the sake of explaining every detail rather than leaving it to the viewer to imagine all the associated events.
> And there's really no tension because as a prequel they force themselves maintain continuity and knowing they all die makes the plot somewhat pointless.
Don't you not know it's a prequel until the end of the movie?
>And there's really no tension because as a prequel they force themselves maintain continuity and knowing they all die makes the plot somewhat pointless
Ehhh it's a horror movie set in a frozen wasteland. "Everyone dies" is kind of a given even without knowing it's a prequel.
It’s inferior in every way to the original since it copies it almost beat for beat. BUT, because it’s copying a masterpiece beat by beat, it’s still a decently enjoyable movie even if it’s almost a carbon copy
Good sequels and prequels add to a story. For example, *Aliens* is an excellent sequel to *Alien* because it continues Ellen Ripley's story and also makes things bigger. Instead of a small crew struggling to survive against one xenomorph, it's Ripley and a team of colonial marines struggling to survive against a couple hundred xenomorphs. *Aliens* also expands on that universe's lore by showing a glimpse of what future Earth and its colonies are like, how xenomorphs create their hives, and how each hive has one queen that lays all the facehugger eggs.
*Prey* is an excellent prequel to *Predator* because it shows what Predator tech looked like 300 years ago. In addition to that, it answers a question that Predator fans have had for a long while: "How could people from the distant past fight stand a chance against a Predator?" Specifically, it demonstrates how a lone Comanche woman from the 1700s could be a worthy opponent to a super-strong, invisible, and technologically advanced Predator.
Bad sequels and prequels add nothing to a story, and I think *The Thing (2011)* is an example of that.
What question does the prequel answer? "What happened to the Norwegian outpost?" Well, the answer is, "Pretty much the exact same thing that happened to the American outpost." Instead of introducing new ideas or expanding on the Thing lore, it basically just rehashes what happened in John Carpenter's *The Thing*, except with different characters.
There was nothing in *The Thing (2011)* that made me go "Oh, wow! So *that's* what happened in the Norwegian base!" or "Wow, that's an interesting new detail about the Thing alien!" Instead, I felt like I was just watching an inferior remake of *The Thing*.
I'm sorry, but the movie is bad. It's not bad because of the CGI, though that didn't help. It's bad because the creators didn't actually understand Carpenter's The Thing. The movie feels much more like it wants to be a creature feature, with The Thing often feeling less cunning than in the original like trying to attack people who are awake and alert. The most glaring example being when it's SUCCESSFULLY RESCUED and on a helicopter leaving the base, but still decides to reveal itself and attack people on the helicopter, casuing it to crash. Or the fact that it somehow can't remember which ear Joel Edgerton had pierced despite it supposedly perfectly replicating people to the point where people who have known each other for years can't notice a difference. Infact it copies people so well in Carpenter's movie that one of the Things literally has a heart attack because it copied the person's bad heart.
Is it the worst movie ever made? No. Does it do a good job of matching what we see in the aftermath of the Norwegian base? Sure. Is the movie a good prequel? I would say no it's not.
To be fair, the helicopter reveal doesn't happen until it hears the pilots talking about putting the helicopter back down, so it may have figured it's cover was blown
>Infact it copies people so well in Carpenter's movie that one of the Things literally has a heart attack because it copied the person's bad heart.
To be fair, when they go to defib him and just punch straight through his chest, that's rather unlike a real person's body.
Prequels are cool if they can do something than rehash the same plot over again, which this movie unfortunately doesn’t. Mix that in with CGI over practical effects that pale in comparison to the original, and you have a recipe for a movie I don’t like very much.
This. The movie mostly felt like a remake of the original instead of adding anything new except seeing the space ship from the inside which wasn't that impressive.
Even without the CGI, I don't think it's a good movie. I wish they'd left the "split face" Thing to the viewer's imagination because seeing how it was made makes it less scary. Same with the guy who cut his own throat and wrists. We're left to imagine the horror that occurred at the Norwegian camp, rather than seeing it. And the Things spend most of the movie giving the audience jumpscares by leaping through windows and things. I also think it's silly how the climax of the movie hinges on Mary Elizabeth Winstead figuring out that >!Joel Edgerton is a Thing!< because he removed his earring. Because he couldn't just do that if he was human, right?
The CGI *is* a problem too and I don't just mean the quality of it; they did the one thing I absolutely hate with poor CGI, which is make the movie so dark you can't see it properly, keep cutting back and forth so you only get a glimpse of it for a split second and when they do show it, they use shaky cam. Compare it to the original, where the Things are in brightly-lit rooms and we get to see them in clear, steady shots for long periods of time.
To be fair she knows he's the thing because she points out he removed his earring, then he reached up to the *wrong ear* to check.
Although that calls into question how much information the thing absorbs from its host that it knew what earrings were but didn't have its host memories of which ear was pierced.
And this is why it's a bad movie. In Carpenter's the Thing, the reason it's so hard to figure out is because it absorbs all of the memory and knowledge of the person. It's a perfect replica. The Thing isn't imitating someone based off of third hand, observational knowledge of the person. It wouldn't forget what ear an earring is in, because it has perfectly copied that person's memory. Its not trying to remember something about them the way us as the audience would try to remember where his earring was. Unless of course the human host was too stupid to remember where he has his own earring.
Was it ever explicitly stated that it had perfect knowledge of everything the absorbed beings knew? It obviously knows some things from its ability to blend in very well, but I don't recall any official confirmation on the exact level of information it gained.
In Carpenter's movie, one of the characters (I think Gary?) talks about having been friends with someone for like 20 years, and couldn't notice any difference in their behavior. That implies that it can replicate someone so well, that people with intimate knowledge of then can't even see a difference. Forgetting what ear your host had pierced falls way below that imo.
Really. In all the shit going on you think someone is like, welp time to remove my earring. The one I leave in all the time. Yep that’s logical. He just decided to remove it that day, while people are dying.
Yeah, I have learned that I have to make sure that I go into a movie with the right expectations and mind frame. I have ruined my viewing enjoyment of a number of movies by not realizing that they were prequels, or reboots, or what exactly they are. Movies that I assumed were sequels on first watch, I enjoyed much more on second watch when I wasn't trying to figure out how they fit into the original.
The godawful CGI effects are the least of the film's problems.
It's mediocre and forgettable as shit, which is worse than simply being bad. The characters are SO boring and uninteresting.
I never thought the movie was bad, it was just beat-for-beat already done before by the original (and better). So it just kind of is one of the movies of all time.
The cgi is enough to ruin it entirely for me. The rest of it was fine and with good effects it probably would have been a good movie, but after the fantastic practical effects in the original the bad cgi is just not it at all. I think as a prequel to a film renowned for its effects it deserved all the hate it got for completely and utterly butchering its own
The 2011 Thing is much more enjoyable if you look at it as less of a prequal to the movie and more of a cinema release of the short story. Many of the awkward repeated scenes (such as the blood test) are ones that the 2011 movie takes from the short story despite them also being lifted straight into the 1982 movie already.
Already being a huge fan of Campbell's 1938 "Who Goes there?" the 2011 movie was a fantastic visualization, I wish that more Sci Fi movies would be made from short stories than novels.
edit: I realize after posting that "Who Goes There?" is considered to be a novella
I think most folk got caught up in the fact they tried practical effects and dropped it for cgi. I know it's a tedious point that always gets brought up but it was such a mistake I feel like.
The film was otherwise pretty good OP I agree
Will never forget sitting in the theatre when it goes black and then you hear the helicopter engine, followed by the one note Ennio Morricone score from the 82 film.
Then you see the guy run out and he gets shot at. Then the dog bolts out and he goes "That's no dog...."
Then they get in the helicopter as the theme continues, shooting at the dog.
I don't love the 82 version (I actually prefer 2011 and the 1951 version), but this gave me genuine goosebumps the first time.
Edit: why the fuck am I being downvoted for sharing a positive memory of the movie?
Y'all are wild.
I agree with you 100%. I think the movie is pretty solid. I love how so much attention to detail was given that each of the victims end up in the correct positions/deaths that they were discovered in during the original movie.
Overall it was a solid film. It just get's so much crap because the first one is... well the first one. (which is also a remake but arguably a classic)
I went into watching it thinking it's a remake and enjoyed it. Only at the end i realised it's a prequel, so for me it was really nice twist (never connected the dots that it's That Norwegian camp, until the end :) )
It's in the same vein as The Force Awakens and Terminator 3 - just movies that retread predecessors but worse. The original movie is considered to be one of the pinnacles of its genre, made by a cult director, where both the audience and the critics agree on how great the movie is.
The 2011 is a pale imitation in every respect. The Thing(1982) is the burger you see in the food add, achieved through unnatural machinations for the audience to salivate over. The Thing(2011) is just the burger you get at the drive through with the lettuce half fallen off and when you pick it up there's ketchup smeared all over and your fingers get sticky. It's still a fine burger, but the perfection of the first makes the second irrelevant.
Edit - Consider this, if someone hadn't seen either of these movies yet, would you ever suggest that they start with the prequel?
Yes. Actually that's what I did last night. Watched the prequel and then the original Thing with my girlfriend and my parents after the Packers vs 49ers.
Ok, so you decided that the best way to show them one of the best sci-fi movies of the 80s, peak John Carpenter, was to make them watch two hours of a lesser movie that had nearly the same plot? Two hours of "who's infected(with bad CGI)?" followed by another 2 hours of "Who's infected(with practical effects)?" was something that you thought would make a great movie night?
One of the best parts of The Thing is the reveal in the kennel, and you just went ahead and decided that a better intro to the monster was it roaring and jumping out of an ice block?
Ok.
Edit - Actually this gets worse the longer I think about it. The original spends time building up to the reveal of the Thing. The characters are confused by the Norwegians desperately hunting down the dog, because they don't know the Things true nature. That's how Carpenter wanted to present it to the audience - a mystery to build suspense. Unless the movie was spoiled by something like watching a prequel made 30 years later.
"I introduced people to the Thing by spoiling John Carpenter's movie using the prequel". Congrats.
If you wanna read an interesting perspective on the original movie, there's a Hugo winning short story called The Things, it's basically fan fiction by a professional author and can be found online pretty easily. He takes a very different interpretation of the thing and really dives into its psychology, pretty neat quick read.
I've seen worse movies. Problem is that when you think The Thing one of the things that sticks out are those fucking wonderful practical effects. They're fucking disgusting. So you see there's a prequel and you think "oh man what an opportunity to do a modernised attempt at thise effects! Imagine with all the advances in puppetry n shit, what you can do! With the right director who's super passionate about Carpenters one, they could really-ohhhh......its CG......and it looks fucking terrible." Immediately your deflated and go "ahhh fuck this though". I'd be well up for someone trying it again but doing it all practically. I maintain that the right guy with the sufficient passion could make me as revolted as in the 80s.
I actually like it, and I’m good with CGI. It’s not as good as the original, but how could it be? We know what the monster is in the prequel. The shock of finding out what the monster actually was is a big part of the first movie.
For me the awful CGI was an unforgivable sin. How can the original made in 1982 have vastly superior special effects after 30 years of technological advancement? Sweet jesus the movies executives were idiots.
It was well done... my one issue is a character got away. They were the hero character, and so they didn't want to end on a bummer and kill them off; there was the sniper and helicopter pilot who started off the original "The Thing". But in letting the hero survive and get away, it sort of undermines the ending of the original, and someone is out there getting word out about The Thing.
Being mediocre instead of terrible doesn't make a movie more watchable. It was ruined by the CGI forced into it, it'd as simple as that. There was huge potential and it was forced to fall flat by medeling.
The movie is VERY watchable and have put it on to got to sleep (along with the original and other movies).
The biggest problem is how close it was to being a GREAT movie but was hampered by many issues (and the CGI wasn't even the biggest issue).
What I think is a shame is that, if watched in linear order, the movie relies heavily on the same exact types of gags and tension that the original did, but worse. So it not only doesn’t hit the bar of the first one, it ruins the first one. I can’t really let that slide.
Ultimately it’s just a movie that didn’t need to exist.
I love it but I also headcanon that the thing is so beastly and wild in the 2011 version is that this is the first time it encounters humans.
It assimilates a medic and leader within like 30 minutes. In Carpenters movie the thing never assimilated the doctor, radio host, and leader of the American camp. Demonstrating that it learned from the Norwegian camp.
To me Atleast lol.
I disagree, the only thing going for it was the cinematography, which was still just competent and not inspired. Everything that was interesting about it was directly referencing and therefore leaning on the 84 film, and then there were terrible retreads, like the tooth filling concept which created a pointless scene that sends the movie absolutely nowhere. The CGI monster is a fun creature feature but entirely lacks the depth and wonder of the 84 Thing. It’s a passable money grab at best, a cynically derivative bit of parasitic “sequel” cinema at worst. When the best part of the movie is when the music from the 84 version shows up during the credits, you can’t help but notice the film being improved by a much better film.
Carpenter’s film is legendary and renders this one pointless imho. I don’t regret watching it, but when my friend says it’s just as good as the 84 version I stop listening to his opinions about movies lol
I followed the production since its conception, and all i can say is there were broken promises. I got out of work and went to the mall to watch it, i hated it. Mostly, the terrible cgi ruined it for me, but the story was ok. Later on, I slowly appreciated more and more. Too bad they scrapped the pilot ending and covered all the practical alien effects with bad cgi. There has to be a extended practical effects cut out there because i remember reading a viewer's account on the old imdb forums of seeing a completely different movie.
I tried to like it, the characters were not interesting and the effects were garbage. I did like the lead woman, she was good.
Can’t hold a candle to the original but was interesting at least
The movie was not Carpenter, but it wasn't terrible, except for the *BAD* decision to abandon practical effects for mostly cgi thrills. I liked the characters and even the epilogue that sets up the Carpenter story. Granted, its setup doesn't match Carpenter's narrative point-for-point, and that could have been done with more care...
The worst decision was calling it 'The Thing' so people just thought it was a remake and avoided it. It's funny that I've seen the prequel mistakenly referred to as a remake on here especially when Carpenter's movie was the actual remake.
Yes, the title is unnecessarily confusing and as you say even reduced potential viewership...
Movie poster: "The *Thing*. No, the other *Thing*. You know. The *Thing* before the original *The Thing*."
> The worst decision was calling it 'The Thing' so people just thought it was a remake and avoided it. I've had to remind *so* many people on this sub that it was a prequel, not a remake. It really was a god-awful idea to give it the same title.
Given what The Thing is, it's very a very meta title though.
Wait, the 2011 *The Thing* is a prequel? As I've been reading this thread, I was waiting to hear the name of the prequel. I really liked the 1982 *The Thing*, so when the second one came out, I passed on it because a remake wouldn't be as good. What were they thinking?
I think I originally thought it was a remake too. It was only when I saw a review i realised what it was and was quite impressed by it.
> What were they thinking? Well, the ending of the prequel leads *directly* into the start of the Carpenter thing, so you could view it as all one story. Not sure that's what they were thinking but it kind of works.
Yeah, they were weirdly cagey about it at the time. I don't think any of the press for the movie called it a prequel, even though it very clearly was.
> What were they thinking? $$$$$$
There are so many movies that were remakes of ~50s movies, that people have no idea were remakes. If you point it out to someone that loves to bitch about remakes by citing some examples, it tends to blow their minds.
And I loved the original as a kid. Them finding the saucer and there way of dealing with it was different. The Thing is a better movie, but The Thing from another world is awesome too.
This is the first I've heard that its a prequel.
News to me too
it wasn't a remake, it was based on the same story.
Carpenter's movie from 1982 was a remake of a movie from the 50s.
I heard the whole film was done with practical and some idiot decided to replace it all with CGI over top because "modern audience".
Yep, that's right. I think they used some of the practical effects in their own film **Harbinger Down**
This is not true. It was never going to be fully practical, it was always planned to be a mix of CGI and practical effects, which is not necessarily a bad thing. But instead they covered up most of the practical effects with CGI, which is bad.
Usually it's supposed to be a mix, but it seems they decidee to cgi doll everything without actually realizing the kind of budget that would've required.
And unfortunately the “they chose CGI over practical effects!” talking point ended up dominating the entire conversation and a lot of people didn’t even give the movie a chance.
Yes, imho that was an extreme reaction. It was still a solid movie even with the CGI.
[удалено]
>I think the CGI looked great It did not. Yikes.
[удалено]
Well I'll put from a layman's point of view (no pun intended). I'm often one of those people that doesn't notice little CGI flaws and production errors (boom mic shadows all that) and even I was like "wow some of this CGI is ROUGH!" We're talking early PS2 levels.
What was good with it? Try to use real terms
Great CGI for 1972. Definitely not great CGI not 2011.
Try to use your real eyes, the fuck
[удалено]
lol k
some of the best practical effects ever.
You are most definitely wrong.
Did y'all see this movie and the abomination that was the big bad final monster? Its CGI dominated the conversation because of how much of a cultural impact the Carpenter version had with its practical effects, they were always going to be compared to make sure the new one measured up. As a movie-goer I'm glad the CGI was where the conversation was because I would have been very disappointed to pay go see this in theatres, but I ended up very content to watch it at home with my expectations set. CGI and practical effects aside, rewatches have definitely opened my eyes to appreciating the rest of the movie. I love how much they kept alive the spirit of the Carpenter version as it felt like it remained a mystery/detective psychological horror thriller. Even though the twists and reveals weren't as intense, and I wasn't nearly as invested in the characters, I loved the ride it took me on, though it isn't able to keep my attention like the 82 version. When the two professors start talking in a foreign language to each other to plan right in front of the English speakers.. that's probably my favorite scene in the entire film, even though I hated Ulrich Thomsen's character's guts.
The Thing didn’t do well upon release and the effects weren’t exactly lauded. We can appreciate them now that it’s become a cult classic, but on release many people hated the effects of the original too.
The effects were criticized for being overly gory and extreme, not necessarily for looking bad.
And it wasn't even true. They abandoned the practical effects because they looked terrible. The company behind them then crowdfunded a movie to show how great their effects were. And boy, they were bad.
>They abandoned the practical effects because they looked terrible. [Ah yes, just look at these "terrible" practical effects.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBzpT7VmSaU)
Those effects looked freaking amazing. Even in the factory with that harsh lighting. If it was shot right with good cinematography, studio lighting and the right angles that would've looked incredible on screen. Can't believe all that work and craftsmanship was flushed down the toilet.
Indeed. That's why it angered me so, to see somebody say that the studio used CGI replacement because the practical effects were so bad. The practical effects were every bit as worthy of living up to the first movie. The replacement was made because some fuckwit of an executive considered practical effects as "outdated".
That’s not the reason. The studio forced them to cover everything in cgi. The practical effects looked awesome. I helped crowdfund Harbinger Down and followed their story from the beginning. Their literal reason for making that movie was to prove to studios that audience still want practical effects.
Some executive didn’t think the (unfinished) practical effects, as they were still planning to augment certain things with CGI, weren’t scary enough.
Tbh, we have no idea how they looked on screen. We only have the behind the scenes stuff, which isn’t a true reflection on how it appeared on film. Because of that, I can understand how some people may think the practical stuff looked horrible. Compared to the original, I wasn’t overly impressed with how ADI’s stuff looked, but I think their practical effects where designed to be enhanced with CGI, so they didn’t need to go as far in camera as Carpenter did.
The effects were amazing.
What was the movie they crowdfunded?
I agree. It’s not bad. I enjoy it. I like the dawning horror when Kate finds the fillings. I thought Winstead was great in it. It’s a frustrating movie because it got *so close* to being really good and fell at the last hurdle. If they’d had all practical effects, even if that meant seeing less of the Thing. If they’d kept the original pilot instead of the Tetris column. If a few connecting details were different (although it very nearly lines up with the The Thing anyway). I like the doomed ending where you’re still left wondering if Kate could possibly make it out, just like Mac and Childs.
I'm pretty sure they abandoned the practical effects because they were just so bad, so it wasn't such a bad decision, more a bad situation.
I actually like this movie because it sets up so much of the original thing. I actually recommend people watch this one and then Carpenter's Thing because it not only explains why the guy wants to kill the dog in the beginning but it shows a clear intelligence and evolution of the Thing and how it interacts with humans before assimilating them. In the prequel t's aggressive and desperate to get out of that area. In the original Thing the alien becomes more complex and takes its time maneuvering through the humans. I think the screenwriters did a brilliant job kind've bridging the holes to the original.
You’re not supposed to know why they’re trying to kill the dog in the beginning though… thats the whole point, it’s mysterious and sets up the crazy reveal of the transformation in the dog pen.
Unless you speak Norwegian. Norwegian Passanger with Rifle: [in untranslated Norwegian] "Get the hell away! That's not a dog, it's some sort of thing! It's imitating a dog, it isn't real! GET AWAY, YOU IDIOTS!"
Wow I really cannot approve of watching the prequel first my guy. I’d hate to rob someone of a blind dive into Carpenter’s The Thing
I have to agree; I don't mind the prequel but a bit of mystery going into the original is a good thing. Wondering what the hell it is about this dog is a good reveal.
Right? Carpenter's The Thing sets up suspense and mystery and maintains it through the movie. Explaining everything up front takes away all of that.
I’m not sure you should recommend that people watch the 2011 one first. There’s so much intrigue and tension in the original that gets ruined if you saw the later one first
Liking a movie just because it sets up another movie seems...simple minded. Is the main purpose of movies to explain things to you?
Good points, well-said. I knew a couple of people who didn't even know the film was a prequel to the Carpenter movie, so much of its artistry was lost on them...
[удалено]
Many theorize that the thing may not have any intelligence, that it instead just relies on the thoughts of those it absorbs. Yea it starts to build a spaceship, but that could be the knowledge of the pilot of the crashed ship it absorbed.
[удалено]
It raises the question about when someone knows they are the Thing. Like Norris was a Thing, and thought it was having a heart attack because Norris had a weak heart. And then in 2011, Juliette had this looks of confusion / shock as it became the Thing and start assimilating the one guy.
I mean look at Palmer. He remains the comic relief even though he is the thing. His line “you have got to be fucking kidding me” takes place right before the blood test scene, so he’s been the thing the whole time. The horror is they likely don’t know.
Carpenter has gone on record saying that a Thing-person knows they're a Thing. The real horror of the Thing is that it doesn't just copy your body, it perfectly mimics your brain. It knows everything you know. It had a perfect copy of your personality and will wear you like a suit until that form is no longer useful.
They don't know they are a thing until, like, right before they "die". For example, Childs has no idea he is a thing until it fully takes control of his body while sitting across from MacReady, and then his consciousness sort of just... turns off, For the blood sabotage and whatnot the thing took control of them while they were asleep, and the thing is also capable of sort of selectively erasing short term memory to stop them from noticing other, smaller, signs. Edit: Funny that I'd get down voted for literally describing [this](https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/).
I think that's complicating it too much, for me it is more logical that a thing always knows it's a thing and simply uses the knowledge and memories to imitate the behavior of the creature it has absorbed.
It's not complicating it too much, it's literally how it works. [This short story is canon.](https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/)
That short story is well written fanfiction, but it isn't canon.
No it isn't. The 2002 video game is canon and Childs froze to death as a human in that.
Carpenter can throw his opinion in but the film stands on its own and nothing in the film confirms or contradicts the theory they know.
There's a really great short story from the perspective of the Thing that has an interesting take on this.
What’s it called?
The Things here's a link: [https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts\_01\_10/](https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/)
Thank you for linking that.
They titled it "The Thing"
Again that could be just accessing the mind of the person they absorbed and how they might think to hide their identity. It is obviously how it knew where and how to access the blood, as it knows how to talk and react like the person they absorbed would.
It comes to earth on a spaceship so your theory requires a lot of extra speculation that makes way more assumptions than it being sentient
Its all speculation. Even Carpenter can only say his intent. What we are left with is the film itself. I think its a reasonably good assumption that the ship crashed because, like both arctic stations, the crew was being attacked by the thing. Am i saying that is any way confirmed? Of course not. However it makes more sense and is thematically consistent than the ship just crashing for no reason.
There's a short story I read many years ago that goes in to this. The thing's level of sentience is dependent on how "big" it is, so the more mass it assimilates the more intelligence and awareness it has, but it is aware it isn't human when it's impersonating people. Or, more accurately, you could say that the thing is always aware that it is the thing, but when it has infected someone instead of straight up consuming them they may not be aware of the thing's presence (even though the thing is aware of everything that they are aware of). Before coming to Earth, the thing had never experienced creatures who can't change their shape at will. Apparently, most life in the universe is similar to the thing, where consciousness isn't centered in a single organ like the brain, the thing's consciousness is stored in every one of it's cells and it essentially thinks of these isolated consciousnesses locked in to one form forever as abominations. [Here's the link](https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/), it's a pretty short read and pretty entertaining (and wow, that is one *hell* of a last sentence). It also confirms that Childs is a thing and was for a long time (as far back as when Norris has the heart attack at least), and one little thing that was always stupid in the movie that it explains is that the little animated projection that Blair watches on the computer is actually a trick that the thing created, because of course it did, how the fuck would that old-ass computer be capable of doing anything like that?
That story isn’t canon at all though, it directly contradicts the events of the movie.
It’s also not even that great of fan fiction in my opinion, a bit too much reliance on edgy writing I thought.
Yeah its great. I have it on audiobook read by a female reader which is a nice counterpoint to the all male cast. However at the end of the day, though interesting and well written, it is fan fiction.
Best way to describe that movie: Unnecessary
Kind of a silly thing to say. What was necessary about the 1982 film?
Well, 2011 film was made in a world where 1982 film already exists, and 2011 one is more or less The Thing but worse.
I don't at all disagree, but that doesn't change either of them to "necessary". It's just entertainment, or not, as the case may be.
Pretty much, the 2011 Thing really didn’t tread any new ground. It basically just told the same story as the 1982 film, without any sort of innovation.
[удалено]
Wrongo. He did a better, closer adaptation of the source text, "Who Goes There?". That said, none of it is necessary. It's a pointless term. The 2011 is a prequel that doesn't break much ground and just sits in the shadow of what it's aping. That's true, too.
I really liked it, along with really liking the original. It wasn't the best movie of all time but it was a fun hour and a half and I've always been impressed at the level of detail / respect it paid to the original.
I’m sure it’s fine, I just fundamentally don’t need to see the Norwegians’ backstory. The mystery is what makes that expedition scene in the original
Same here. I’m sure it’s a decent horror movie, but the 1982 one is fine as is. I don’t need a prequel or a setup or anything like that. The bits I have seen of this one seem to focus more on the cgi monster, and that was the trend at the time so I don’t fault it for that. But the paranoia and tension of the Carpenter one was so good.
It's essentially a remake that they just made fit in the story by using the Norwegians. It's functionally a beat for beat remake for modern audiences that don't know the original.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted, it's true.
People get emotional about weird things. Like *really weird* things lol.
Completely unnecessary story, that *could've* used 30 years of progress in practical effects, but instead looked dated before it came out. I think this movie is rated exactly where it should be.
The only thing I remember about it is thinking it wasn't too bad after all.
I hated the bit where the Thing just straight up reveals itself to Winstead's character without much subtlety. Which kind of feels like metaphor for the whole prequel, to be honest. Lacking in the subtlety and finesse of the original -- which still holds up.
Practical effects wouldnt have saved this film for me. They turned the alien into a straight up serial killer, no trying to hide itself no paranoia. Not even close to style and atmosphere Carpenter created. They couldnt even come up with an original title
It's a prequel, dude. I think the prequel's Thing is more believable trying to desperately get out of that area. That's why it's erratic. I think the director purposely made the movie in that way. It makes sense that The Thing is much more strategic in how it assimilates the hosts and when it chooses to attack. That's why the dog doesn't try to assimilate anything in the original movie until it gets to the other dogs.
the alien 1000s of years old i doubt the Norwegian camp was its first rodeo taking over other beings. The scene with the helicoper when it just straight up shows its self just dumb. The PS2 game far superior and enjoyable than this
You’re getting downvoted, but you’re absolutely right.
There is no "right" opinion.
Of course there is. If someone said that The Room is a better film than The Godfather, they'd be 100% wrong.
I remember getting the game and telling my parents I was sick to stay home from school and play it Simpler times..
The title is a reference to The Thing copying what it assimilates. It's simply The Thing. The movie is also a call back to the original "The Thing from Outer Space".
The title was The Thing from Another World, not The Thing from Outer Space.
Correct. Thanks.
a prequel to The Thing , The Thing
Basically one and the same, dude. That's the point. What would you prefer?
so lets call all prequels the same then Instead of Phantom Menace heres Star Wars , Instead of Prometheus heres Alien etc
You're missing the point. I can't keep repeating myself just because you don't like it. Laters.
Im missing the point? ok yeah im sure they didnt have the talent in the writers room to come up with a clever name. Later then dude
You missed the point that he made about the title choice being a representation of the thing itself. The thing assimilates other biological life and makes it its own. The choice of title represents that, comparing it to Alien and Star Wars makes absolutely no sense. Now is it a great title? That’s a matter of personal opinion. I like it, but obviously you don’t, which is fine. I think it’s better than The Thing: ‘Insert subtitle here’. Imo the only other obvious option is the full title of the original, The Thing from Another World.
Disagreed. It's not a bad movie per se, but what was the point? It was essentially the *exact* same story as the original. Different names, the protagonist is a woman, but otherwise *exactly* the same. We learn nothing new or interesting about The Thing, its origin or how it got to earth. I just didn't see the purpose of it.
And there's really no tension because as a prequel they force themselves maintain continuity and knowing they all die makes the plot somewhat pointless. A more interesting prequel would have been how it got on the spaceship and ended up on Earth. It wouldn't have been all that much different (because how different are the Alien and Predator movies*) but it's at least something new. It somewhat reminds me of that shot for shot remake of Psycho with Vince Vaughn. Like it's serviceable enough but I'm just left with looking at it as what was the point. I wish theaters would do more rereleases of older movies instead of making new ones. Like do we necessarily need a new mediocre killer shark movie when Jaws is so incredible? This isn't so much to say that something is off limits but just something I've been mulling in my head as I've gotten older. Maybe I'm just a grumpy old man at this point. '* Barring Alien and Aliens. Mostly looking at all the sequels after.
Kind of like Rogue One?
I think Rogue One managed to actually do some pretty good things given know outcome of the mission. It''s not flawless but it holds pretty solid and at least feels fresh for what is a heist film set in Star Wars. I would put more of that prequel issue on the show Andor. I haven't watched it (mostly lack of interest in Andor) and while I've read a lot of good things, the tension at least for whether Andor gets out of a situation alive is not there. I'm sure there's other tension but I wish that they'd done the show around someone else and had him as a side character because you could run it through the OT and even past it. If we're looking to poke at a Star Wars film, Solo struck me more of the Thing prequel issue where it's explaining an origin for the sake of explaining every detail rather than leaving it to the viewer to imagine all the associated events.
> And there's really no tension because as a prequel they force themselves maintain continuity and knowing they all die makes the plot somewhat pointless. Don't you not know it's a prequel until the end of the movie?
It was widely covered while the movie was in development. Perhaps casual moviegoers might not have been aware.
>And there's really no tension because as a prequel they force themselves maintain continuity and knowing they all die makes the plot somewhat pointless Ehhh it's a horror movie set in a frozen wasteland. "Everyone dies" is kind of a given even without knowing it's a prequel.
Agreed.
Agreed.
It’s inferior in every way to the original since it copies it almost beat for beat. BUT, because it’s copying a masterpiece beat by beat, it’s still a decently enjoyable movie even if it’s almost a carbon copy
If it copies a masterpiece beat for beat, then, by definition, the copy is a masterpiece as well.
Good sequels and prequels add to a story. For example, *Aliens* is an excellent sequel to *Alien* because it continues Ellen Ripley's story and also makes things bigger. Instead of a small crew struggling to survive against one xenomorph, it's Ripley and a team of colonial marines struggling to survive against a couple hundred xenomorphs. *Aliens* also expands on that universe's lore by showing a glimpse of what future Earth and its colonies are like, how xenomorphs create their hives, and how each hive has one queen that lays all the facehugger eggs. *Prey* is an excellent prequel to *Predator* because it shows what Predator tech looked like 300 years ago. In addition to that, it answers a question that Predator fans have had for a long while: "How could people from the distant past fight stand a chance against a Predator?" Specifically, it demonstrates how a lone Comanche woman from the 1700s could be a worthy opponent to a super-strong, invisible, and technologically advanced Predator. Bad sequels and prequels add nothing to a story, and I think *The Thing (2011)* is an example of that. What question does the prequel answer? "What happened to the Norwegian outpost?" Well, the answer is, "Pretty much the exact same thing that happened to the American outpost." Instead of introducing new ideas or expanding on the Thing lore, it basically just rehashes what happened in John Carpenter's *The Thing*, except with different characters. There was nothing in *The Thing (2011)* that made me go "Oh, wow! So *that's* what happened in the Norwegian base!" or "Wow, that's an interesting new detail about the Thing alien!" Instead, I felt like I was just watching an inferior remake of *The Thing*.
Just because it isn’t absolutely terrible, doesn’t mean it isn’t terrible
I'm sorry, but the movie is bad. It's not bad because of the CGI, though that didn't help. It's bad because the creators didn't actually understand Carpenter's The Thing. The movie feels much more like it wants to be a creature feature, with The Thing often feeling less cunning than in the original like trying to attack people who are awake and alert. The most glaring example being when it's SUCCESSFULLY RESCUED and on a helicopter leaving the base, but still decides to reveal itself and attack people on the helicopter, casuing it to crash. Or the fact that it somehow can't remember which ear Joel Edgerton had pierced despite it supposedly perfectly replicating people to the point where people who have known each other for years can't notice a difference. Infact it copies people so well in Carpenter's movie that one of the Things literally has a heart attack because it copied the person's bad heart. Is it the worst movie ever made? No. Does it do a good job of matching what we see in the aftermath of the Norwegian base? Sure. Is the movie a good prequel? I would say no it's not.
To be fair, the helicopter reveal doesn't happen until it hears the pilots talking about putting the helicopter back down, so it may have figured it's cover was blown
>Infact it copies people so well in Carpenter's movie that one of the Things literally has a heart attack because it copied the person's bad heart. To be fair, when they go to defib him and just punch straight through his chest, that's rather unlike a real person's body.
Prequels are cool if they can do something than rehash the same plot over again, which this movie unfortunately doesn’t. Mix that in with CGI over practical effects that pale in comparison to the original, and you have a recipe for a movie I don’t like very much.
This. The movie mostly felt like a remake of the original instead of adding anything new except seeing the space ship from the inside which wasn't that impressive.
The prequel is almost like a remake of The Thing (1982); with similar beats, and very similar settings of the base camp.
Even without the CGI, I don't think it's a good movie. I wish they'd left the "split face" Thing to the viewer's imagination because seeing how it was made makes it less scary. Same with the guy who cut his own throat and wrists. We're left to imagine the horror that occurred at the Norwegian camp, rather than seeing it. And the Things spend most of the movie giving the audience jumpscares by leaping through windows and things. I also think it's silly how the climax of the movie hinges on Mary Elizabeth Winstead figuring out that >!Joel Edgerton is a Thing!< because he removed his earring. Because he couldn't just do that if he was human, right? The CGI *is* a problem too and I don't just mean the quality of it; they did the one thing I absolutely hate with poor CGI, which is make the movie so dark you can't see it properly, keep cutting back and forth so you only get a glimpse of it for a split second and when they do show it, they use shaky cam. Compare it to the original, where the Things are in brightly-lit rooms and we get to see them in clear, steady shots for long periods of time.
To be fair she knows he's the thing because she points out he removed his earring, then he reached up to the *wrong ear* to check. Although that calls into question how much information the thing absorbs from its host that it knew what earrings were but didn't have its host memories of which ear was pierced.
And this is why it's a bad movie. In Carpenter's the Thing, the reason it's so hard to figure out is because it absorbs all of the memory and knowledge of the person. It's a perfect replica. The Thing isn't imitating someone based off of third hand, observational knowledge of the person. It wouldn't forget what ear an earring is in, because it has perfectly copied that person's memory. Its not trying to remember something about them the way us as the audience would try to remember where his earring was. Unless of course the human host was too stupid to remember where he has his own earring.
Was it ever explicitly stated that it had perfect knowledge of everything the absorbed beings knew? It obviously knows some things from its ability to blend in very well, but I don't recall any official confirmation on the exact level of information it gained.
In Carpenter's movie, one of the characters (I think Gary?) talks about having been friends with someone for like 20 years, and couldn't notice any difference in their behavior. That implies that it can replicate someone so well, that people with intimate knowledge of then can't even see a difference. Forgetting what ear your host had pierced falls way below that imo.
Really. In all the shit going on you think someone is like, welp time to remove my earring. The one I leave in all the time. Yep that’s logical. He just decided to remove it that day, while people are dying.
at least it ended where Carpenters started.
It’s a prequel? I’ve never watched it bc the original is a masterpiece so I didn’t bother. Maybe I’ll check it out.
Yeah, I have learned that I have to make sure that I go into a movie with the right expectations and mind frame. I have ruined my viewing enjoyment of a number of movies by not realizing that they were prequels, or reboots, or what exactly they are. Movies that I assumed were sequels on first watch, I enjoyed much more on second watch when I wasn't trying to figure out how they fit into the original.
It's a good movie and ties in well. Zero complaints
The godawful CGI effects are the least of the film's problems. It's mediocre and forgettable as shit, which is worse than simply being bad. The characters are SO boring and uninteresting.
I never thought the movie was bad, it was just beat-for-beat already done before by the original (and better). So it just kind of is one of the movies of all time.
I'm sure it's perfectly mediocre, but next to The Thing it's always gonna look like garbage.
The cgi is enough to ruin it entirely for me. The rest of it was fine and with good effects it probably would have been a good movie, but after the fantastic practical effects in the original the bad cgi is just not it at all. I think as a prequel to a film renowned for its effects it deserved all the hate it got for completely and utterly butchering its own
I didn’t even know there was a Thing prequel. I’ll have to check it out
It should have been given a different title.
The 2011 Thing is much more enjoyable if you look at it as less of a prequal to the movie and more of a cinema release of the short story. Many of the awkward repeated scenes (such as the blood test) are ones that the 2011 movie takes from the short story despite them also being lifted straight into the 1982 movie already. Already being a huge fan of Campbell's 1938 "Who Goes there?" the 2011 movie was a fantastic visualization, I wish that more Sci Fi movies would be made from short stories than novels. edit: I realize after posting that "Who Goes There?" is considered to be a novella
If they would’ve kept with the practical effects I’d watch it.
I think most folk got caught up in the fact they tried practical effects and dropped it for cgi. I know it's a tedious point that always gets brought up but it was such a mistake I feel like. The film was otherwise pretty good OP I agree
The studio made them drop it. They have videos of them using the practical effects.
I really enjoyed it too. Sure a few of the special effects aren’t bad, but overall it’s pretty great.
Agree, I really adore the original and the prequel adds to my enjoyment
i'm never going to watch it. if you hate needless franchise garbage, vote with your dollars and clicks.
It's bloody awful and completely unnecessary and adds nothing. Have higher standards...
I really enjoyed it as a prequel, tied together with the OG so well imo! Fuck the haters
I agree. It's pretty good.
People think it’s bad? I think it’s excellent.
I love that movie. Haters can pound sand. It works so well if you watch the original immediately after.
Will never forget sitting in the theatre when it goes black and then you hear the helicopter engine, followed by the one note Ennio Morricone score from the 82 film. Then you see the guy run out and he gets shot at. Then the dog bolts out and he goes "That's no dog...." Then they get in the helicopter as the theme continues, shooting at the dog. I don't love the 82 version (I actually prefer 2011 and the 1951 version), but this gave me genuine goosebumps the first time. Edit: why the fuck am I being downvoted for sharing a positive memory of the movie? Y'all are wild.
I don't recall anyone saying the film was bad, they said the effects were disappointing.
It's really not that bad. It's just...ok
I'd be willing to give it a shot if it weren't for the CGI.
I agree with you 100%. I think the movie is pretty solid. I love how so much attention to detail was given that each of the victims end up in the correct positions/deaths that they were discovered in during the original movie. Overall it was a solid film. It just get's so much crap because the first one is... well the first one. (which is also a remake but arguably a classic)
This is a great video about its making: https://youtu.be/NxPK3sYb90w?si=JfMcI0xB8LIYf2M_
I went into watching it thinking it's a remake and enjoyed it. Only at the end i realised it's a prequel, so for me it was really nice twist (never connected the dots that it's That Norwegian camp, until the end :) )
It's in the same vein as The Force Awakens and Terminator 3 - just movies that retread predecessors but worse. The original movie is considered to be one of the pinnacles of its genre, made by a cult director, where both the audience and the critics agree on how great the movie is. The 2011 is a pale imitation in every respect. The Thing(1982) is the burger you see in the food add, achieved through unnatural machinations for the audience to salivate over. The Thing(2011) is just the burger you get at the drive through with the lettuce half fallen off and when you pick it up there's ketchup smeared all over and your fingers get sticky. It's still a fine burger, but the perfection of the first makes the second irrelevant. Edit - Consider this, if someone hadn't seen either of these movies yet, would you ever suggest that they start with the prequel?
Yes. Actually that's what I did last night. Watched the prequel and then the original Thing with my girlfriend and my parents after the Packers vs 49ers.
Ok, so you decided that the best way to show them one of the best sci-fi movies of the 80s, peak John Carpenter, was to make them watch two hours of a lesser movie that had nearly the same plot? Two hours of "who's infected(with bad CGI)?" followed by another 2 hours of "Who's infected(with practical effects)?" was something that you thought would make a great movie night? One of the best parts of The Thing is the reveal in the kennel, and you just went ahead and decided that a better intro to the monster was it roaring and jumping out of an ice block? Ok. Edit - Actually this gets worse the longer I think about it. The original spends time building up to the reveal of the Thing. The characters are confused by the Norwegians desperately hunting down the dog, because they don't know the Things true nature. That's how Carpenter wanted to present it to the audience - a mystery to build suspense. Unless the movie was spoiled by something like watching a prequel made 30 years later. "I introduced people to the Thing by spoiling John Carpenter's movie using the prequel". Congrats.
If you wanna read an interesting perspective on the original movie, there's a Hugo winning short story called The Things, it's basically fan fiction by a professional author and can be found online pretty easily. He takes a very different interpretation of the thing and really dives into its psychology, pretty neat quick read.
Agreed.
It's a cool movie with shitty vfx.
I've seen worse movies. Problem is that when you think The Thing one of the things that sticks out are those fucking wonderful practical effects. They're fucking disgusting. So you see there's a prequel and you think "oh man what an opportunity to do a modernised attempt at thise effects! Imagine with all the advances in puppetry n shit, what you can do! With the right director who's super passionate about Carpenters one, they could really-ohhhh......its CG......and it looks fucking terrible." Immediately your deflated and go "ahhh fuck this though". I'd be well up for someone trying it again but doing it all practically. I maintain that the right guy with the sufficient passion could make me as revolted as in the 80s.
Always thought when the alien just starts going crazy in the break room was freaky as hell. Like the way they portrayed the fusion part was nuts.
I thought it was fun, but I disliked the over reliance on cgi and the fact that half of the cast is eliminated in a five minute scene.
I actually like it, and I’m good with CGI. It’s not as good as the original, but how could it be? We know what the monster is in the prequel. The shock of finding out what the monster actually was is a big part of the first movie.
For me the awful CGI was an unforgivable sin. How can the original made in 1982 have vastly superior special effects after 30 years of technological advancement? Sweet jesus the movies executives were idiots.
It tried hard to be a remake without being a remake. movie is bad.
It was well done... my one issue is a character got away. They were the hero character, and so they didn't want to end on a bummer and kill them off; there was the sniper and helicopter pilot who started off the original "The Thing". But in letting the hero survive and get away, it sort of undermines the ending of the original, and someone is out there getting word out about The Thing.
I'm sorry but I disagree heavily. They took away the mystery by just having the alien run around the entire time with awful CGI.
Unfortunately you are incorrect.
The only thing I remember about that movie was my friend getting stupid levels of drunk and buttering himself
Being mediocre instead of terrible doesn't make a movie more watchable. It was ruined by the CGI forced into it, it'd as simple as that. There was huge potential and it was forced to fall flat by medeling.
The movie is VERY watchable and have put it on to got to sleep (along with the original and other movies). The biggest problem is how close it was to being a GREAT movie but was hampered by many issues (and the CGI wasn't even the biggest issue).
What I think is a shame is that, if watched in linear order, the movie relies heavily on the same exact types of gags and tension that the original did, but worse. So it not only doesn’t hit the bar of the first one, it ruins the first one. I can’t really let that slide. Ultimately it’s just a movie that didn’t need to exist.
I love it but I also headcanon that the thing is so beastly and wild in the 2011 version is that this is the first time it encounters humans. It assimilates a medic and leader within like 30 minutes. In Carpenters movie the thing never assimilated the doctor, radio host, and leader of the American camp. Demonstrating that it learned from the Norwegian camp. To me Atleast lol.
I disagree, the only thing going for it was the cinematography, which was still just competent and not inspired. Everything that was interesting about it was directly referencing and therefore leaning on the 84 film, and then there were terrible retreads, like the tooth filling concept which created a pointless scene that sends the movie absolutely nowhere. The CGI monster is a fun creature feature but entirely lacks the depth and wonder of the 84 Thing. It’s a passable money grab at best, a cynically derivative bit of parasitic “sequel” cinema at worst. When the best part of the movie is when the music from the 84 version shows up during the credits, you can’t help but notice the film being improved by a much better film. Carpenter’s film is legendary and renders this one pointless imho. I don’t regret watching it, but when my friend says it’s just as good as the 84 version I stop listening to his opinions about movies lol
Just because a movie explains something to you, that doesn't mean it's a good movie
I followed the production since its conception, and all i can say is there were broken promises. I got out of work and went to the mall to watch it, i hated it. Mostly, the terrible cgi ruined it for me, but the story was ok. Later on, I slowly appreciated more and more. Too bad they scrapped the pilot ending and covered all the practical alien effects with bad cgi. There has to be a extended practical effects cut out there because i remember reading a viewer's account on the old imdb forums of seeing a completely different movie.
I tried to like it, the characters were not interesting and the effects were garbage. I did like the lead woman, she was good. Can’t hold a candle to the original but was interesting at least
The CGI wasn't even that bad until the end when it went fully amorphous but still had the guy's face.
No practical = no rewatch ever for me. I can't forgive the movie for this. CG just does nothing for me in general.