Author Topic: The Thing (1982) discussion.  (Read 6438 times)

Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #30 on: January 09, 2020, 02:54:18 PM »

Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #31 on: January 09, 2020, 03:21:19 PM »

Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #32 on: January 09, 2020, 08:10:00 PM »
Ha, that was brilliant.

The Thing's one of my all time favourites. I think the apocalypse trilogy in general are great films. The ending of The Prince of Darkness for some reason sticks with me as terrifying and makes me anxious thinking about it.

The Thing remake/prequel/whatever is bad though, I've tried watching it twice and gave up both times bored. The cgi just sucked all the authenticity out of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyOu3j7CtoE This is a good brief video on how the film had been done with practical effects before a digital veneer of fakeness was smeared over them.

Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #33 on: January 09, 2020, 09:27:25 PM »
Far better than Alien
it was quite a bit later. The effects are a bit ropey in Alien but it laid the groundwork for something like this

The practical effects in this are just fucking amazing. Down to using an amputee stunt double for the arms-biting off scene

Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #34 on: January 09, 2020, 09:31:06 PM »
"We need a character with no arms. Get a bloke with no arms!"

Genius. How did they think of that?

Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #35 on: January 09, 2020, 09:36:11 PM »
One of those films like Where Eagles Dare that I will watch whenever I spot it on TV but usually with enough time passed since the previous viewing that I can't exactly remember each twist. The bit that always takes me aback is when they pull up the floorboards under the shack and find the scientist guy has built a fucking flying saucer

Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #36 on: January 09, 2020, 09:51:10 PM »
"We need a character with no arms. Get a bloke with no arms!"

Genius. How did they think of that?
theres other ways you can do that visual effect!!!! Its like for one shot i think

Kryton

  • Disregard the Constabulary
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #37 on: January 09, 2020, 09:52:42 PM »
Ha, that was brilliant.

The Thing's one of my all time favourites. I think the apocalypse trilogy in general are great films. The ending of The Prince of Darkness for some reason sticks with me as terrifying and makes me anxious thinking about it.

The Thing remake/prequel/whatever is bad though, I've tried watching it twice and gave up both times bored. The cgi just sucked all the authenticity out of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyOu3j7CtoE This is a good brief video on how the film had been done with practical effects before a digital veneer of fakeness was smeared over them.

I feel sorry for the 2011 crew - Namely because they wanted to keep the spirit of the 82' version with practical effects and animatronics and gooey physical stuff, but I think some dickhead in the offices clearly knew better than everyone else and ruined it by forcing CGI over the almost finished product.

The Prequel's problem wasn't the CGI though (not mainly) it was the lack of characterisation and the absence of any real tension.

Here's a decent scrutiny of the CGI vs practical stuff of 2011's version. This Youtuber is very good btw.

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

I enjoyed the 2011's revelation that the Thing rejected metal and thus teeth fillings replaced the blood test. Though, you'd be fucked if you had perfect teeth. Not as good as the blood scene though.

Another good comparison between 1982 and 2011 version

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS3NAOMreIo

Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #38 on: January 09, 2020, 11:20:10 PM »
The 2011 version needn't exist. The 82 film is a self contained story that through its characters tells wider ideas of humanity vs beastial self-propagation and the space in between.

ALSO A HEAD DROPS OFF SPROUTS LEGS AND RUNS ABOUT

Sebastian Cobb

  • bad opinion haver
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #39 on: January 09, 2020, 11:25:24 PM »
The practical effects in this are just fucking amazing. Down to using an amputee stunt double for the arms-biting off scene

I think Silent Running pioneered that when they crammed bilateral amputees into Huey, Dewey and Louis.

Rev+

  • Take care of yourself, and each other
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #40 on: January 10, 2020, 01:12:27 AM »
Can we at least agree that the opening is total balls?  We don't need to see a flying saucer falling to Earth, it would be much better if we didn't.

kalowski

  • the Zone of Zero Funkativity
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #41 on: January 10, 2020, 06:52:04 AM »

Another good comparison between 1982 and 2011 version

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS3NAOMreIo
That's very good and confirms that I don't need to rush and find the prequel any time soon.

oy vey

  • [sic]
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #42 on: January 10, 2020, 08:47:40 AM »
That's very good and confirms that I don't need to rush and find the prequel any time soon.

The prequel is not a real movie. It's an imitation. We got to it before it had time to finish.

Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #43 on: January 10, 2020, 09:31:24 AM »
Should have added in my previous post, that the Playstation 2 game (which was set after the events of the 1982 film) wasn't much cop either. I remember some decent ideas, but naff execution.

Jim Bob

  • (aka Right Said Brett)
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #44 on: January 10, 2020, 11:57:59 AM »
"We need a character with no arms. Get a bloke with no arms!"

Genius. How did they think of that?

It's more the brilliance of the mask of Richard Dysart's face that the amputee wears.  Try telling me that you can tell that that's not the Richard Dysart himself (@37s).  It's that kind of clever use of the practical effects of the time that make The Thing such a magically grizzly film; invention through necessity.  These days they'd just have the actor wear green gloves and digitally remove his arms in post, which would impress no-one.

The bit that always takes me aback is when they pull up the floorboards under the shack and find the scientist guy has built a fucking flying saucer

Out of helicopter parts no less!  That scene is one of the very few things in the film which I consider to be a flaw within an otherwise damn near perfect film (the others being a handful of dodgy effects shots - mostly in the Palmer Thing reveal scene).  I don't care how much knowledge the creature has from different species and civilisations; it ain't gonna be able to build a flying saucer out of helicopter parts and other random junk from an Antarctic research station.

I enjoyed the 2011's revelation that the Thing rejected metal and thus teeth fillings replaced the blood test. Though, you'd be fucked if you had perfect teeth.

To be fair they address that in the prequel itself, during the scene where they're separating people based upon who has fillings; "so I'm gonna get killed because I floss?".

Can we at least agree that the opening is total balls?  We don't need to see a flying saucer falling to Earth, it would be much better if we didn't.

Same deal with Predator, though I think the inclusion of the opening flying saucer shot in that is far worse, given that without it, the movie would play out as a From Dusk Til Dawn style bait and switch (you think you're watching a typical Tarantino/Arnie flick and then BHAM!  It's now a creature feature).

Should have added in my previous post, that the Playstation 2 game (which was set after the events of the 1982 film) wasn't much cop either. I remember some decent ideas, but naff execution.

Agreed.  Can you believe that there's still idiots who harp on about it being a "canonical sequel"?  Just because Carpenter said that at the time, in order to promote it.  The same shit happens with Ghostbusters: The Video Game.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2020, 12:24:13 PM by Jim Bob »

Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #45 on: January 10, 2020, 02:11:21 PM »
Anyone else have love for The Thing From Another World? One of my favourite B movies.

Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #46 on: January 10, 2020, 02:17:45 PM »
Out of helicopter parts no less!  That scene is one of the very few things in the film which I consider to be a flaw within an otherwise damn near perfect film (the others being a handful of dodgy effects shots - mostly in the Palmer Thing reveal scene).  I don't care how much knowledge the creature has from different species and civilisations; it ain't gonna be able to build a flying saucer out of helicopter parts and other random junk from an Antarctic research station.

To be fair its never made clear exactly what it is, it could be some kind of simpler transportation to get to other populated places on earth that just looks like a flying saucer because that's were the things knowledge is.

Jim Bob

  • (aka Right Said Brett)
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #47 on: January 10, 2020, 02:21:34 PM »
To be fair its never made clear exactly what it is, it could be some kind of simpler transportation to get to other populated places on earth that just looks like a flying saucer because that's were the things knowledge is.

I can't see what it could possibly be, that it would ever operate when constructed from scrapped helicopter parts.  For example, it could be a rocket sled but I fail to see how such a mode of transport could be constructed from helicopter parts.  I doubt even Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman could do that.

Wouldn't it make infinitely greater sense for Blair-Thing to dismantle the helicopter, take the parts and store them in his secret tunnel underneath MacReady's shack and then once the others are assimilated/killed, take the parts, restore the helicopter and fly to other populated areas?  Building... whatever that construction was, makes no sense whatsoever.  I love the movie (it's easily within my top ten horror films of all time) but it's definitely got flaws.

Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #48 on: January 10, 2020, 03:01:40 PM »
I can't see what it could possibly be, that it would ever operate when constructed from scrapped helicopter parts.  For example, it could be a rocket sled but I fail to see how such a mode of transport could be constructed from helicopter parts.  I doubt even Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman could do that.

Wouldn't it make infinitely greater sense for Blair-Thing to dismantle the helicopter, take the parts and store them in his secret tunnel underneath MacReady's shack and then once the others are assimilated/killed, take the parts, restore the helicopter and fly to other populated areas?  Building... whatever that construction was, makes no sense whatsoever.  I love the movie (it's easily within my top ten horror films of all time) but it's definitely got flaws.

I'd agree it would but that wouldn't give us the same kind of reveal, generally I think the film works via keeping thing pretty non specific, anti Nolan sci fi.

I'd say probably the most questionable thing is the idea that with the generation destroyed everyone is going to freeze to death, Antarctica is cold but its not THAT cold.

madhair60

  • カッコイイ
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • バカ
    • Comics, videos, podcasts, writing, etc
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #49 on: January 10, 2020, 03:39:01 PM »
Looks mad shit and everycunt droning the fuck on about it for 40 years massively puts me off

Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #50 on: January 10, 2020, 03:41:05 PM »
If you didn't like Alien, then you're not going to like this either.

Because you are a big stupid head.

madhair60

  • カッコイイ
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • バカ
    • Comics, videos, podcasts, writing, etc
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #51 on: January 10, 2020, 03:43:12 PM »
ok thanks for saving me two hours then.

Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #52 on: January 10, 2020, 03:53:46 PM »
You and your wrong, wrong head are welcome.

It's more the brilliance of the mask of Richard Dysart's face that the amputee wears.  Try telling me that you can tell that that's not the Richard Dysart himself (@37s).  It's that kind of clever use of the practical effects of the time that make The Thing such a magically grizzly film; invention through necessity.  These days they'd just have the actor wear green gloves and digitally remove his arms in post, which would impress no-one.
You mean Dysart didn't have his arms chopped off for real? Bloody Hollywood phonies!

It's a fine mask, but the shot only last for a second or so, with Dysart's double being dimly lit in the middle distance. Of all the amazing effects in the film, it seems like a pretty innocuous one to bring up.

And people would be as wrong as madhair not to be impressed by a CGI stump. That's how they made Charlize Theron's prosthetic arm in Fury Road and everyone shat their pants about that film.

Jim Bob

  • (aka Right Said Brett)
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #53 on: January 10, 2020, 04:40:53 PM »
And people would be as wrong as madhair not to be impressed by a CGI stump. That's how they made Charlize Theron's prosthetic arm in Fury Road and everyone shat their pants about that film.

My point was more that with CGI, anything is possible and that a huge part of the charm and appeal of The Thing is seeing how filmmakers were able to achieve incredible effects through in-camera trickery alone.  The ingenuity of practical effects through sheer necessity is admirable in a way that CGI isn't, at least in my humble opinion.

Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #54 on: January 10, 2020, 04:44:13 PM »
As someone who occasionally works with CGI, that sort of attitude makes me want to tear my luxurious, non-mad hair out.

bgmnts

  • Depressed to the point of poisonous toxicity.
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #55 on: January 10, 2020, 04:50:34 PM »
Physical effects will always be better and more impressive than CGI, sorry claude.

Endicott

  • I've done no research
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #56 on: January 10, 2020, 04:50:54 PM »
It's the results that matter isn't it? CGI can be great, or it can be shite. And so can in camera practical effects. Some good, some bad, The Thing is to be praised because they did it well.

MojoJojo

  • Member
  • **
  • Between a cow college and a MetaLab.
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #57 on: January 10, 2020, 04:54:03 PM »
My point was more that with CGI, anything is possible and that a huge part of the charm and appeal of The Thing is seeing how filmmakers were able to achieve incredible effects through in-camera trickery alone.  The ingenuity of practical effects through sheer necessity is admirable in a way that CGI isn't, at least in my humble opinion.

Interesting theory: it's the attitude that with CGI "anything is possible" that leads to a lot of shitty CGI in movies.

I mean in theory you can do anything with practical effects, it will just look shit if your t-rex is a toy plastic dinosaur. Only certain things can be done well with CGI, and directors are worse at judging what CGI can do well than what practical effects could achieve.

Kryton

  • Disregard the Constabulary
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #58 on: January 10, 2020, 05:12:44 PM »
Looks mad shit and everycunt droning the fuck on about it for 40 years massively puts me off

Why... are you even in the thread?
Go back to your wrong opinions about video games. x

Kryton

  • Disregard the Constabulary
Re: The Thing (1982) discussion.
« Reply #59 on: January 10, 2020, 06:33:31 PM »
Seriously though watch it. Mental.

Tags: