Author Topic: The Thing (1982) discussion.  (Read 6403 times)

kalowski

  • the Zone of Zero Funkativity
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #90 on: January 11, 2020, 05:30:10 PM »

The sheen to which is refer is on-set lighting (i.e. cinematography).  It's an animatronic, through and through.
I stand corrected.



Fucking pointless character though.

Endicott

  • I've done no research
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #91 on: January 11, 2020, 05:31:38 PM »
Fucking pointless character though.

That's the whole film in a nutshell

Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #92 on: January 11, 2020, 05:36:35 PM »
Jim Bob's point about CGI and horror specifically does I think have merit, if your dealing with something that's mostly about a physical threat then it having a strong sense of substance does I'd say become even more important.

CGI characters I would say have generally been very successful in recent years relative to excessive prosthetics though IMHO, the difference between Thanos and Apocalypse for example.

Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #93 on: January 11, 2020, 07:59:17 PM »
I would say generally a bad practical effect works better, and draws you out of the story less, than bad CGI.

PinkNoise

  • This is my happening and it freaks me out
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #94 on: January 12, 2020, 01:33:15 AM »
Somewhere  I have a cassette recording from 1982 of Kenny Everett talking about going to see The Thing at the cinema. He thought it was great.

I first saw this on ITV on a Saturday night around 1986. It was a tense experience because I’d read enough about the film to know some people had been made physically uncomfortable watching it. I didn’t vom, but the pus breaking out of the tendons before Norris’s head goes walkabout is still one of the most disgusting things I’ve seen on film.

That and the “wire in the blood” scenes are genuinely nightmarish and I don’t think the film reaches those heights after that point. But the more times I watch The Thing, the more the philosophical implications of self come to mind... as opposed to wondering what it would look like if someone’s head sprouted legs and walked off.

Saw it a couple of years ago at the Prince Charles and it got a good response from the hipsters in attendance, but everyone laughed at Blair’s computer because - ho ho - of course computers don’t work like that, how stupid they were in the 1980s! They went a bit quiet once the head had sprouted legs and walked off, however.

Seeing it with an audience reminded me that Carpenter includes a genuine belly laugh after each of the two major transformation scenes and bloody hell, they really do diffuse that tension.

In conclusion: The Thing (1980s Thing film) is great


Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #95 on: January 12, 2020, 07:33:13 AM »
There's a strangely gentle poignancy in that scene where they find the photo of the previous party, the ones whose last two survivors they thought had gone crazy.  In the picture, there's about eight men, all beaming happily at the photographer.  They look like a happy, close-knit group of friends-but by then you know that one of them ended up as that frozen man in the chair with the cut throat, another as that half-transformed figure in the ground, and two more of them shot dead by the new crew as presumed homicidal lunatics, and the others are missing, presumed dead.

alan nagsworth

  • aka the mollusk
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #96 on: January 12, 2020, 12:03:56 PM »
In my opinion, CGI is not as good as physical/prosthetic/whatever effects specifically in creature/body horror because there's a bizarre unreality to those physical stunts which, even if they look a bit dated or corny at all, are still disturbing to my mind's eye in that they are literally physically happening right there and it still looks bloody horrible and unnerving.

The shard of wood through the eyeball in Zombie Flesh Eaters is a perfect example to me. Rubber face/eyeball, gloopy fake blood, looks massively fake. But it's still grim and nasty as fuck and it still makes me go EERGH FUCKINELL because it's still more "real" than CGI.

CGI looks best in this instance when it's done somewhat badly, though, and I will still vouch for it. Takashi Miike uses a lot of ropey CGI in his classics like Dead or Alive, or Ichi the Killer, and there's a definite charm to that.

I guess it depends on the film. Guardians of the Galaxy, which I have not seen, would scarcely look as good to its target audience if it was done by the Jim Henson Company (though I'd probably be more interested in it if it was).

I apologise if these points were raised by Jim Bob in that previous post. I don't really have time to go through the thread and compile a more considered post at the moment!

Sebastian Cobb

  • bad opinion haver
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #97 on: January 12, 2020, 12:20:20 PM »
Is there any body horror that just uses cgi? That must defeat the purpose surely.

Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #98 on: January 12, 2020, 05:18:23 PM »
Hang on, was that ITV crime series starring Robson out of Robson and Jerome called "Wire in the Blood" as a reference to this film?

Endicott

  • I've done no research
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #99 on: January 12, 2020, 05:33:06 PM »
Apparently not, no.

https://www.valmcdermid.com/tv-series/wire-in-the-blood/

Quote
The phrase ‘the wire in the blood’ comes from T.S. Eliot’s Four Quartets. – ‘The trilling wire in the blood ⁄ sings below inveterate scars ⁄ appeasing long-forgotten wars.’

Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #100 on: January 12, 2020, 05:52:59 PM »
That's probably where they got the idea for The Thing from.

oy vey

  • [sic]
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #101 on: January 12, 2020, 10:00:15 PM »
This Youtuber is very good btw.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyOu3j7CtoE

Georg and his sidekick lava lamp!!! I missed this one on The Thing. Woodruff and Gilis being overly diplomatic at the premiere. They sound like James Cameron just after a non-JC Terminator is released in the cinemas. He changes his tune when the theatrical run ends. It must be hard to let loose on Hollywood knowing you may be unemployable within minutes. Surely Cameron could be a cunt and get away with it. Anyway Harbinger Down looks interesting. Georg's vids on Rob Bottin are also worth a look.

Thumbs up on Rob Ager. YT is good when it's good.

Jerzy Bondov

  • best not bother
    • righto so ive got five minutes off work and uh yeah im gonna have a cheeky volvic
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #102 on: January 13, 2020, 10:14:25 AM »
The thing with CGI I never considered until I saw a Corridor Crew video is that you're not just making a 3D model and plonking it in a scene. To get it to look good they have to simulate the camera itself. It's not enough to know how light sources affect an object, they need to simulate how the camera captures that image. They need to recreate the imperfections that come from working with film. They're not trying to make it look real, they're trying to make it look like it's been filmed. With practical effects all that is done for you because the effect is there, in the room, on camera. Working that out really changed the way I think about CGI artists and I feel silly for not considering it before. When they get it right, they show that they really understand film - not just computers.

With that said obviously practical effects are better. Have you seen the new Fireman Sam? FUCKING SHIT

Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #103 on: January 13, 2020, 11:44:37 AM »
The thing with CGI I never considered until I saw a Corridor Crew video is that you're not just making a 3D model and plonking it in a scene. To get it to look good they have to simulate the camera itself. It's not enough to know how light sources affect an object, they need to simulate how the camera captures that image. They need to recreate the imperfections that come from working with film. They're not trying to make it look real, they're trying to make it look like it's been filmed. With practical effects all that is done for you because the effect is there, in the room, on camera. Working that out really changed the way I think about CGI artists and I feel silly for not considering it before. When they get it right, they show that they really understand film - not just computers.

With that said obviously practical effects are better. Have you seen the new Fireman Sam? FUCKING SHIT

I think this is key and where early CG went wrong and how modern CG looks so much better, or at least so much more incorporated into the scene. You rarely get those shots now where the CG looks like it has been overlaid onto the celluloid rather than being part of the scene as filmed

Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #104 on: January 13, 2020, 12:04:08 PM »
Childs definitely has an earring and a gold tooth at the end tho'

I like the bleakness of "both not infected but don't trust the other at all so both die"

Sebastian Cobb

  • bad opinion haver
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #105 on: January 13, 2020, 12:16:01 PM »
I think this is key and where early CG went wrong and how modern CG looks so much better, or at least so much more incorporated into the scene. You rarely get those shots now where the CG looks like it has been overlaid onto the celluloid rather than being part of the scene as filmed

Isn't this done automatically though, through things like ray tracing?

Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #106 on: January 13, 2020, 12:34:26 PM »
Isn't this done automatically though, through things like ray tracing?

I don't think that is automatic. I think you have to give the position and type of light source. It also doesn't help with making it look like it was shot by a certain camera with a certain lens on certain stock and all the physics involved in what effect that has on the image you see

Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #107 on: January 13, 2020, 12:49:32 PM »
I like the bleakness of "both not infected but don't trust the other at all so both die"
I always saw it as trust being irrelevant by that point, as both of them will soon freeze to death regardless, which MacReady seems to realise.

monkfromhavana

  • Member
  • **
  • Top one, nice one, get sorted
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #108 on: January 13, 2020, 01:13:47 PM »
I always saw it as trust being irrelevant by that point, as both of them will soon freeze to death regardless, which MacReady seems to realise.

Not if one of them is The Thing, because it wants to freeze.

Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #109 on: January 13, 2020, 01:22:07 PM »
Not if one of them is The Thing, because it wants to freeze.
True, but MacReady notes neither of them are in any state to do much about it if the other is infected. Though if one of them was a Thing, you'd think they would attacked/consumed the other on sight.

But, again, it's 20 years since I've seen it so I'm probably missing some important point.

bgmnts

  • Depressed to the point of poisonous toxicity.
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #110 on: January 13, 2020, 01:23:14 PM »
Did someone on here mention that Rob Ager was a proper right wing cunt bubble?

oy vey

  • [sic]
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #111 on: January 13, 2020, 01:34:41 PM »
Did someone on here mention that Rob Ager was a proper right wing cunt bubble?

I have noticed the occasional hint of it. Ditto Georg, but nothing intrusive or even clear cut within the videos I've seen. I've also seen libertarian elements. There is a guy Dave Cullen who I find interminable. If he left out his overly cunty rants against feminism in cinema he'd leave more room for the decent reviews. I don't mind yputubers with some sensibilities I don't agree with just as long as they are not ramming it down everyone's throats.

Back on topic, The Thing is great innit?

alan nagsworth

  • aka the mollusk
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #112 on: January 13, 2020, 02:07:42 PM »
The bit at the start before it all kicks off, with the dog slowly coming round the corner with an almost robotic tilt of the head and very slow pace, is the most unnerved I’ve been by something so simple in a film. Literally just a dog walking down a corridor with Stevie Wonder playing in the background. No weird angles, no brooding soundtrack, no dim lighting, but a huge swell of dread comes out of that bit.

I first saw this film when I was about 10 years old and I didn’t think to revisit it until my early 20s. I probably yelled out and shit my kegs more on the second viewing than the first. It gets me every time.

I will add however that the film is spoiled somewhat by the dumb macho TOUGH BLOKE VS. HUGE MONSTER showdown scene and I do really wish they’d rounded it off with something a bit more low key. I am an advocate for goofy action films but that sort of thing doesn’t sit right with the rest of the film.

oy vey

  • [sic]
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #113 on: January 13, 2020, 10:00:58 PM »
The bit at the start before it all kicks off, with the dog slowly coming round the corner with an almost robotic tilt of the head and very slow pace, is the most unnerved I’ve been by something so simple in a film. Literally just a dog walking down a corridor with Stevie Wonder playing in the background. No weird angles, no brooding soundtrack, no dim lighting, but a huge swell of dread comes out of that bit.

I first saw this film when I was about 10 years old and I didn’t think to revisit it until my early 20s. I probably yelled out and shit my kegs more on the second viewing than the first. It gets me every time.

I will add however that the film is spoiled somewhat by the dumb macho TOUGH BLOKE VS. HUGE MONSTER showdown scene and I do really wish they’d rounded it off with something a bit more low key. I am an advocate for goofy action films but that sort of thing doesn’t sit right with the rest of the film.

Interesting, I was thinking about the character development of MacReady. There are three one-liners that showcase who he is for me: "Cheatin' bitch", "I just want to get to my shack and get drunk" and "I'm a real light sleeper Childs". He has some cowboy elements, even the hat. While he's not full on John Wayne/Jack Burton it does creep in here and there, particularly in Act 3. I think that's what you're picking up on. The dynamite / "Fuck you too" scene is not far off a western. JC shows his influences.

Since politics raised it's ugly head above, are people aware Kurt Russell is a staunch right winger? JC (who is as left as you get) mentioned it a few times in interviews. He suggested avoiding the subject when you are in Kurt's company and all will be well.

PlanktonSideburns

  • we got the funke
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #114 on: January 18, 2020, 06:57:00 PM »
Looks mad shit and everycunt droning the fuck on about it for 40 years massively puts me off

fair enough, - this is exactly your sort of film, tho, you being a fan of all those orrible 70s novs

have you watched brawl in cellblock 99 yet? - get it down you before i massivley bore you by droning the fuck on about it ffs

Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #115 on: January 18, 2020, 07:09:02 PM »
The bit at the start before it all kicks off, with the dog slowly coming round the corner with an almost robotic tilt of the head and very slow pace, is the most unnerved I’ve been by something so simple in a film. Literally just a dog walking down a corridor with Stevie Wonder playing in the background. No weird angles, no brooding soundtrack, no dim lighting, but a huge swell of dread comes out of that bit.


At the very end of that sequence, you see him go through a doorway, and you just glimpse him walking up to Mr Exploding Head, who is sitting in there.

Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #116 on: January 18, 2020, 09:17:06 PM »
That's probably where they got the idea for The Thing from.

John Carpenter's The Waste Land

Quote
A woman drew her long black hair out tight
And fiddled whisper music on those strings
And bats with baby faces in the violet light
Whistled, and beat their wings
And crawled head downward down a blackened wall
And upside down in air were towers
Tolling reminiscent bells, that kept the hours
And voices singing out of empty cisterns and exhausted wells.


Kryton

  • Disregard the Constabulary
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #118 on: January 28, 2020, 02:11:15 AM »
There's a strangely gentle poignancy in that scene where they find the photo of the previous party, the ones whose last two survivors they thought had gone crazy.  In the picture, there's about eight men, all beaming happily at the photographer.  They look like a happy, close-knit group of friends-but by then you know that one of them ended up as that frozen man in the chair with the cut throat, another as that half-transformed figure in the ground, and two more of them shot dead by the new crew as presumed homicidal lunatics, and the others are missing, presumed dead.

Yeah absolutely. That small photo evokes a lot of backstory without the need to delve further. Genuinely good way of establishing the human aspect.


Tags: