• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Onix555

Member
Apr 23, 2019
3,380
UK
So I just finished watching this and I just have to say it; it's a turd and represents everything wrong with modern Hollywood in my opinion.

Now I should preface that I fully understand all the corporate BS the films team went through. From all the physical props being thrown out, to the script going through the blender several times. However i'm just judging the end product, not how we got there.

I'm not so good with putting stuff into words so i'll try and break it down:

-On the basis of when this film is supposed to be set (1982), the casting and the way they portray/dress up the characters look off. They look like people from 2010, not '82. It kind of creates a mental dissonance in my mind, well, that and a lot of things in this film. I also cannot stand that they just had to shove in some American characters as the main duo, despite this story taking place on a Norwegian outpost; because apparently US audiences are too afraid of scary Europeans or something. And then finally on this point, shoving in British characters randomly to take the more antagonistic roles.

-The characters themselves extremely bland and have practically no development. I think this is partly because there were too many of them, but I don't think I can remember anyone's names; not even the main girl. The only sort of character traits I can point out are: main smart girl who is smart because she is smart. The strong male character that protects the girl because he is a strong male character and she is a girl. And the evil british scientist guy that doesnt care about human life because "muh science".

-Dialogue in this film is standard for the 2010's, and a complete stepdown from the 1982 film. I wasnt sure on how to write this section to properly get across what I meant, but basically I feel a lot of films these days, the writers don't know how to write interactions between people. Like, they don't sound like people at all, I feel like i'm listening to a script and it really pulls me out of the film. They just talk in strange ways.


-Tension. A big part of what made the 1982 film good is the fucktonne of tension that's built up everywhere over the course of the film, even when nothing is seemingly happening. This is also the main source of the fear in it, it wasn't all about the jumpscares or the creatures. It was the distrust of everyone and everything on screen.
In 2011, this get's thrown out the window. Things don't get built up, tension is not established; instead things just happen. "Oh the movies starting to slow down, throw in a random monster jumping out". There's no build up, and no pay off.

-As for the jumpscares themselves, which the film uses as it's primary vehicle of horror, they are just kind of bad tbh. They couldn't even get the jumpscares right, mainly because there's none of the tension mentioned about. Of the various jumps in the film only one give me a mild jump and it was in the first half of the film. The rest was just meh really, I did not feel fear during this film, it just simply wasn't scary.

-There have been entire essays on the awfulness of the CGI in this film, but I will say it again. The CGI is awful in this film and it looks like a X360 game. Also fucking everything is CGI, the backgrounds, the helicopters, it's just bad. You know you've taken a wrong turn when the props and setups in the 1982 elicit a much more horrific reaction then your 2010 effects.


-In addition and less talked about, the soundtrack in 2011 is just bland. I imagine in Hollywood they just have a CD of generic sounds and music for horror films that they use for all these movies. Music is extremely bland and nearly non existent, and the sounds for the creatures are a step down from 1982.

-A sort of nit pic on my end. But I can't stand the Cam filter they used for this film. Everything just looks so dull and sterile, this film has two colours; white and grey.

-Finally I guess, there's just no iconic cinematography in this movie. 1982 is full of it, tonnes of amazing shots that are very memorable; scenes like when they find the Bennings-Thing running away outside with the sirens blaring, and they all just circle around it as it wails while stretching out it's very not-human claws.
Here there's just.. nothing, no scenes strike any emotion in me. The only iconic thing is the main poster for the film, which just so happens to be the Bennings scene lol.


Well, there it is, my midnight tired thoughts and rambles on a fairly bad film.


EDIT: oh actually forgot, the film's story also suffers from Prometheus Syndrome when it comes to characters. I.E. super smart scientists acting like complete dumb asses to push the plot.
 

Tanuki-Go

One Winged Slayer
Member
Jul 21, 2018
2,429
US
-There have been entire essays on the awfulness of the CGI in this film, but I will say it again. The CGI is awful in this film and it looks like a X360 game. Also fucking everything is CGI, the backgrounds, the helicopters, it's just bad. You know you've taken a wrong turn when the props and setups in the 1982 elicit a much more horrific reaction then your 2010 effects.

Which is too bad because they had some pretty fucking cool practical effects that went unused in the final film.



They wouldn't of saved what was an otherwise forgettable movie but man...
 

UnluckyKate

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,527
Which is too bad because they had some pretty fucking cool practical effects that went unused in the final film.



They wouldn't of saved what was an otherwise forgettable movie but man...


They were used.

Then painted OVER by CGI.

Corridor crew went over this is their horror movie ep this week
 

Jawmuncher

Crisis Dino
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
38,396
Ibis Island
I thought it was decent for what it was. Definitely doesn't match the original (and truth be told it was a low chance for that to ever happen). But as far as additional prequels go it could've been worse. It is something that if I was watching both, I would watch this first though. Still bummed they went with the CG instead of practical though, as that one aspect was already showing its age when it released.

Still wish we could've gotten a film out of the sequel game.
 
Nov 8, 2017
13,097
The Thing '82 does almost everything right, so it's not a surprise that the 2011 one is a notable step down in many areas. But for me the worst things were the overall much less tight script and story. I can't even think of specific examples because it's been ages since I watched it, but I distinctly remember the huge disappointment I felt over that.
 

rsfour

Member
Oct 26, 2017
16,746
I like the cast, the movie, not so much.

MEW, Edgerton, Kai Proctor, Mr Eko, etc etc.
 

Kapryov

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,129
Australia
It was baffling decision city. A poster child for meddling.

I didn't come away hating it like I expected, maybe my expectations being so low helped me sit through the movie.
With the original effects intact it could've been a "serviceable" followup, nothing amazing but fun to sit through and watch the carnage created by some talented special effects artists.

That "tetris" thing in the ship was the most wtf decision I've seen in film for quite a while.

Here's what it was supposed to be:
KR4LVTg.jpg

 

Komo

Info Analyst
Verified
Jan 3, 2019
7,110
It's probably because they painted over all of the practical effects with CGI and ruined it.
 

JigglesBunny

Prophet of Truth
Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
31,089
Chicago
It's really the textbook case of a potentially incredible film being ruined by studio interference. The practical effects and original ending would have made this one of the best prequels of all time. Add in a decent marketing campaign and a more distinct title (I'd opt for "Anyone: The Thing") and it'd have done gang busters.
 

svacina

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,439
It's probably because they painted over all of the practical effects with CGI and ruined it.
The film has more issues than that, like the weird slavish need to set up the state of the camp as seen in the 1982 movie and often managing to make zero sense in the process (yes, fuck the axe scene). It mostly being a beat for beat remake masquarading as a prequel is just the cherry on top.
 

Jedi2016

Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,614
The film has more issues than that, like the weird slavish need to set up the state of the camp as seen in the 1982 movie and often managing to make zero sense in the process (yes, fuck the axe scene). It mostly being a beat for beat remake masquarading as a prequel is just the cherry on top.
Not just that, but they completely eliminated the guy that cut his own throat. He's in the film, and then he just sort of disappears, and then in the closing credits, he's dead. No clue how he got there.

And as for the effects, can you imagine the slap in the face it was for the practical guys, because they didn't know their work got painted over until they went the premiere. They were super pissed.

Huge missed opportunity.

The original is still amazing, I watched it a couple months ago.
 

-shadow-

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,110
I had the chance to talk to the director once around the film its premiere here in the Netherlands. The guy was a huge fan of the original, and hearing him talk about the props, the crew, actors and original ideas that ended up having to be scrapped and/or replaced was heart breaking. It's such a shame that this was his one and only big project, he has the talent to create a great film, it was all there until the studio wanted more and more changes throughout the production. While there's absolutely some blame on him for some of the choices throughout, the final product is almost entirely by committee from the studio.

What an absolute waste of a film, cast and crew in the end, it could've been so good. I still hold hope that they'll at least bother with an alternate cut that restores the original effects and ending. The cut does exist, the question is, how much more work does it require to be finished and is the studio willing to do so some day.
 

Pilgrimzero

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,129
The Thing acted so dumb. Attacking when it had no need. Running around in the halls as a monster etc.

A lot of "characterization" issues with The Thing in the film.

But aside from that I still like watching it just to get more Thing.
 
Jun 10, 2018
8,822
All the promise in the film immediately dies in the helicopter scene.

It's like the people who created the 2011 film heard about Carpenter's version secondhand. And to make it worse - that wasn't the ONLY instance of the thing alien acting completely WTF stupid. And then that ending 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

Imma stop now cuz I can feel the disappointment coming back.
 

IamError

Member
Aug 22, 2020
154
I was really impressed with the opening shot of the Antarctic. It was all downhill from there.
 

misho8723

Member
Jan 7, 2018
3,712
Slovakia
They had good actors but they were absolutely wasted, because basically all characters were bland and boring.. only Lars is kinda likeable, because atleast he has some character, which is basically to be the "funny guy" but he is badass when it comes to action scenes, so he has atleast that going for him.. yeah, of course if the movie would go with the practical effects and not the terrible CGI it would helped the movie but in all honesty, not so much.. the bad writing, boring characters, un-original plot, bland OST, by the numbers cinematography, no tension, etc. would all still be there
Oh yeah, atleast the split-face thing was in some way ok and had a nice scene
Carpenter's version is just a masterclass in the horror genre and pretty much a flawless movie
 

matrix-cat

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,284
The painted-over CGI for the monsters was a travesty, but I'm a big fan of the Mary Elizabeth Winstead practical effects.
 

dennett316

Member
Nov 2, 2017
2,979
Blackpool, UK
Yup...such a disappointment. Just bland, nothing characters after an original movie that had fleshed out characters that you got to know and give a shit about. The effects being replaced with CGI are the least of the movie's problems. The Thing itself is an idiot. This isn't it's first rodeo, it's been on other worlds and took shit over, why does it act as stupid as it does in this?
Takes Mary Elizabeth Winstead's character off to the side, away from the others, she suspects nothing. It then messily transforms into a howling abomination that can barely walk in order to go on a rampage, when it could easily and quietly have taken her over. Then the shit they did to try to match up to the scene of carnage at the Norwegian base in the original...ugh. The dumbass axe thing, the 'thrown in at the end' image of that one guy we barely knew who had killed himself instead of, I don't know, actually giving him an arc that shows him becoming increasingly distressed and terrified to the point he just can't take it anymore. How the melty-faced remains came to be...apparently the creature just decided to rub up against a dude like a cat in the middle of a chaotic scene where it couldn't possibly assimilate him. Just seemed thrown in for the sake of the reference. They could've been found in the middle of the night by horrified camp mates in a supreme bit of body horror, instead it just came off as goofy looking and stupid.
Speaking of stupid, the Thing's spaceship still being flyable in this...what the fuck is that about? Why the hell would it crawl from the wreckage to freeze if the ship was still capable of taking off? Did they say it was thrown clear of the crash? How would that work? Did it have a windshield it could fly through? Gah! I really dislike the movie a lot. I'd still have found some of this stuff dumb if it was it's own thing. In relation to Carpenter's original? It's an abject failure on pretty much every level. Zero tension or atmosphere, it's almost impressive how they manage that considering the paranoia that the situation naturally generates.
 

Kard8p3

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,269
Which is too bad because they had some pretty fucking cool practical effects that went unused in the final film.



They wouldn't of saved what was an otherwise forgettable movie but man...


Those definitely would have helped.

that was a cool fucking video, and I say this as someone who is mortified of body horror.
 

Branaghs

Member
Oct 27, 2017
355
The makers of the practical effects made a movie staring Lance Hendrickson called Harbinger Down.
 

Huey

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,178
I didn't realize it existed.

And I will go back to my state of ignorance.... nnnnnow.
 

Zetta

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
7,631
I came in here ready to raise hell thinking this was about Carpenter's film but thankfully I reread the title. Yeah not even my love of Mew was enough to make this shitty film good.
 

RedSonja

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,131
It's not the original, but I thought it was okay. Decision to do the CGI and not use the practical effects they had worked on was a bit shit though.
 

Nikus

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
10,362
I thought it was fine actually... Not great, not terrible.
Definitely bad in comparison to the Carpenter one though.
 

Nexus2049

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,833
When viewed on its own terms, I thought it was okay. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is easily the best part of the movie. She rocks.
 

Transistor

The Walnut King
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
37,122
Washington, D.C.
I thought it was decent for what it was. Definitely doesn't match the original (and truth be told it was a low chance for that to ever happen). But as far as additional prequels go it could've been worse. It is something that if I was watching both, I would watch this first though. Still bummed they went with the CG instead of practical though, as that one aspect was already showing its age when it released.

Still wish we could've gotten a film out of the sequel game.
My feelings exactly. I give it a 3.6
 

Reizzz

Member
Jun 19, 2019
1,813
I've heard they are doing another remake of the story not related to the original or 80s version.