The Thing 2011 -

Pure shit, don't believe the faggots who try to shill this crap here

No, it was a lazy retread of a nearly perfect film beat for beat that not only wasted overwhelming amounts of potential but MEW as well. Fuck this movie and fuck you, fuck everyone involved.

>>86121753
No but Kate was cute at least.

>>86121753
>Was is Kino?
Das Kino ist ein Aufführungsbetrieb für alle Arten von Filmen.

>>86121753
It's not horrible, but it's kind of pointless, the characters are all one note, and the CGI is bad (they were originally planning to do practical effects like Carpenter's version, but the studio nixed it, which just makes it worse).

>>86122029
>the CGI is bad
I would've been much more forgiving of this movie if they'd just kept the fucking practical effects.

This guy >>86121810 is right about the movie being too much of a retread of the original. It would've been just fine if they'd been more subtle about it, but the "homages" are so in your face, like the filmmakers are elbowing you and saying "Heyyy, remember that? Just like in the original!" Instead of being creative and trying to tell a more original story, they took the lazy route and tried to jerk off your nostalgia boner.

I like MEW, but her character felt so out of place. Very little about this movie made sense. It's a shame.

It's secret kino. Save for the CGI, it was better than the original.

You all thought it was that bad? Are you kidding me? I thought it was pretty good, and I was relieved at the ending twist when you learn it was a prequel and not a remake.

File: compare.jpg (770KB, 1916x1610px) Image search: [Google]

770KB, 1916x1610px

I'm a sucker for this kind of shit.

>>86122612
Points for trying, i'll give them that.

File: THE THING.png (478KB, 2144x2476px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 2144x2476px

>>86121807

FPWP. It's a decent companion piece but most people hate it.

You don't have to watch it but (fuck you,) I like(d) it and it has certain redeeming features.

>>86122612
i like the bottom one better

which one am i supposed to like?

>>86122704
They're from different movies decades apart.

>>86122704
Bottom is the 2011 remake. Obviously serves as a prequel that goes right into the opening of the original. Which was Kino.

>>86121753
I liked how it tied into the original Thing, but if they really wanted to do The Thing justice, they should've shelled out the extra dosh on animatronics. The CGI looked like shit and the special effects were one of the things that made the original my favorite horror movie.

>>86122612
>>86122766
This might have been my favorite part of the movie. The actors did a good job of portraying dudes who are frantically trying to kill the last thing-dog before it can get away, with no regard for whether they live or die.

It was at least a satisfying way to end the movie.

>>86122854
>when the old Carpenter score starts playing

>>86123003

that's ennio morricone, you pleb

>>86123119
Cut him some slack, a lot of people forget that Carpenter didn't write the score for this movie.

I've actually always wondered how Carpenter's score would've sounded if he had done it himself. Morricone's score is quite subdued compared to the average Carpenter score. Carpenter wrote plenty of moody ambient pieces but Morricone's score for The Thing is practically minimalist.

>>86123731
>>86123119
It's because Prince of Darkness' score reminds me of The Thing's, so I always forget the latter was actually Morricone.

File: Thing Locations.jpg (349KB, 1493x1493px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 1493x1493px

I'll just keep funposting in this thread.

>>86121753
Of course not, it was completely unnecessary since we already knew exactly what happened in the Norwegian camp, because we saw it happening all over again in the American camp. That was the whole plot of the first fucking movie.

>>86121753
Nah.

>>86122281
>I would've been much more forgiving of this movie if they'd just kept the fucking practical effects.

All the creature effects in the film were practical, just like in the original. Executive meddling forced them to cover it up with bad cgi. No joke.

>>86121753
Is was shit. Even if they kept those amazing practical effects it would have been shit.

File: loose_ends.png (59KB, 1069x587px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1069x587px

loose ends among the two films.

I am now strongly set on the idea that the shit that they burned in a big pile in 1982 was warm enough, being buried, that it re-integrated and took Blair, and later formed the biomass which dug the tunnels, ripped out the generator, etc. It's the only thing that makes any sense.

I also cheerfully admit that either or both of Childs or Mac might be a thing (with respect to Childs, the tunnel-camera argument holds well, and the coat thing too), but I do have a sentimental view that at least one of them is human, which is an artistic view justified by the film. I prefer to think that they were both human, but lately I have a perverse wish to see the later installment where it breaks out into the world and just kills everybody and there's no redemption, no love interest, just a series of vignettes where it does its thing and gets everybody and immediately begins constructing ships to do the next world. With good-god-damn-nigger practical-effects, jesus fuck. I want to see it.

Treatment: the Childs and Macready bodies are both recovered and brought out into some navy ship or such, or a base in Argentina. The bodies are clearly visible... and then whoops, they're both gone, and somehow later Other Things. This preserves the mystery. Then the rape of humanity across every continent.

File: ThingGame.png (1MB, 3522x1198px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3522x1198px

I also had recent occasion to analyze the chess game of 1982. Basically what is depicted is nonsensical and impossible in literal terms, but the point is to set up the basic metaphor. That's my conclusion about Carpenter's directorial intent anyway.

That very same year, Blade Runner uses an actual chess game, which has much better historical provenance (the immortal game, though we don't clear see moves). 2001 also uses chess.

>>86125627
>I also cheerfully admit that either or both of Childs or Mac might be a thing

I'm about 90% sure that Carpenter confirmed that one of them is a Thing in the final scene, but left it up to the audience to decide which one.

>>86122757
d-does she have any movies with nude scenes?
just asking for research purposes.

A lot better than people give it credit for.
People usually expect this to be a "remake" or something like that, but its not.

There was few clever things they did, but too bad the spaceship thing and shitlaod of CGI take away a lot from this movie.

reminder that in the video game that takes place after the John Carpenter movie, is confirmed canon by Carpenter himself

Neither of them were the thing, Childs dies of hypothermia and Macready helps you kill the final boss by flying you around in a helicopter

>>86126126
But how did Macready survive? Everything was destroyed.

>>86125767
>but the point is to set up the basic metaphor.
Explain a bit more for a 'tard such as myself?

File: 1501502271715.jpg (16KB, 436x395px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 436x395px

>>86122612

>tfw you just return from an ordinary helicopter trip to a blown up camp and a crazy Norwegian convinces you to hunt down a dog with a rifle and grenades and you blow yourself up while digging one

>>86122029
>>86122281
>>86122308
>CGI

Excuse me?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBzpT7VmSaU

Anybody play the video game? It's actually really good and a sequel to the 1982 film.

>>86121753
its not as bad as /tv/ says
obviously it's inferior and they fucked up with the CGI, but I'm kind of glad it even got made at all, I've been wanting to know what happened to the group that discovers the spacecraft since I first saw the Carpenter version many years ago

>>86121753
terrible movie on all accounts.

>>86126731

That's the stuff they were supposed to use but the props got canned halfway through and they used CGI instead for some stupid reasons, probably money and time.

>>86126731
You do know that the amazing practical effects were covered up with cg shit because the suits were ridiculously out of touch?

>>86127031
What I've heard is that the studio bosses put their foot down after seeing some extremely rough cut footage of the practical effects. The director and his people weren't able to get the point across that practical effects are always going to look really shitty until they go through editing and shit.

>>86122812
oh anon...

https://www.inverse.com/article/29806-the-thing-effects-horror-movie-remakes

>>86122400
They literally announced that from the start.