THE THING KEEPS PROVING IT SHOULDN’T BE A THING

I want to thing the guy/girl responsible for that cgi block of ice.

I really have no idea why this got the free pass (to a certain degree) that it did. 

You gotta be fucking kidding.

IMHO melting things out of ice is always more cinematic and scary than exploding them out. It allows for a slow reveal and creeping tension, horror and dread

Sad to see that whoever is in charge of this THING REDUX didn't find such basic cinematic truths to be self evident

Maybe it's misleading... Maybe they want to downplay the paranoia aspect of the plot in an attempt to pull in a bigger crowd... Yes, I do know that I'm trying to bullshit myself

Even if it does suck, hopefully it will have the side effect of getting more members of  the general movie-going public to watch the original.

Also, I think that I remember reading that the filmmakers said they were going to use as many practical effects as they could? Everything in that damned spot was CGI... The Thing looked like it belonged in Priest.

I think Matthis von Heinigen or whatever his name is actually did that, shot every monster scene with practical fx. Wasn't there set reports that praised the animatronics?

And then a producer saw his first cut and demanded Heinigen to add additional action bits (like the falling snow caterpillar and the thing exploding from ice) and to replace every practical shot with digital ones. I'm not even sure if Heinigen did the reshoots himself or just said fuck it and let some ghost director took over, but I know that many people who worked on this aren't all to pleased with this "improved" version.

Absolutely seconded on that regard. I just can't see anything good coming from any of this though.

Hollywood cannibalism of great films needs to end.

These are dark times.

We can at least take heart in knowing that this film did not absorb or consume the previous film also known as The Thing.

So Carpenter's film is a remake and the Coens' TRUE GRIT is not? Just checking. Semantics. ;)

I got nothing much to say about this spot other than the dumb little pop up ad on the player that ruined whatever groove it had. Replaced all the practical FX in post??? Dollar theater or rental unless it gets rave Chewer reviews.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Myers 

And then a producer saw his first cut and demanded Heinigen to add additional action bits (like the falling snow caterpillar and the thing exploding from ice) and to replace every practical shot with digital ones. I'm not even sure if Heinigen did the reshoots himself or just said fuck it and let some ghost director took over, but I know that many people who worked on this aren't all to pleased with this "improved" version.

Heinigen did the reshoots. There has definitely been a few different editors hired and fired on the project though. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Myers 

I think Matthis von Heinigen or whatever his name is actually did that, shot every monster scene with practical fx. Wasn't there set reports that praised the animatronics?

And then a producer saw his first cut and demanded Heinigen to add additional action bits (like the falling snow caterpillar and the thing exploding from ice) and to replace every practical shot with digital ones. I'm not even sure if Heinigen did the reshoots himself or just said fuck it and let some ghost director took over, but I know that many people who worked on this aren't all to pleased with this "improved" version.

This is pretty much the scenario that went through my head when I first read about the film being pushed back six months (it was supposed to come out in April) and reshoots being ordered.  I can easily picture the filmmakers turning in a slowburn horror film into the studio and the execs freaking out because it didn't have enough action and jump scares.  I'm not implying that whatever the initial cut was is a masterpiece, but I wouldn't be surprised to discover that it is a better film.

Let's just hope the rest of the film is good.  I can stomach ill-conceived CGI if everything else is fine, especially if the bones of the film (whose script was supposedly damn good) are still in place.  It's so depressing to read my suspicions confirmed and I'm truly hoping for the best.  The practical effects of Carpenter's film still look fantastic today and I was really hoping to see what could be done with all of the advancements that have been made over the last 30 years.  I really hope that they literally didn't replace every single practical shot in the film though.  I know that Heinigen wanted to keep it as practical as possible and only resort to CGI when something couldn't be done practically or need a bit of enhancement.  Let's just hope that some of that loving work has actually made it into the film we are getting.  The filmmakers wanted this to be a good companion piece to the Carpenter film and their heart certainly seems to be in the right place.

I guess we'll just have to wait here awhile.............................see what happens......

I'm just always baffled by sudden changes of heart like that. I mean, Heinigen came in with that script and said guys, I want to do a slow burn flick with practical effects and with no spectacular money shots that will do 70 m at best. At best. A flick that is great for the studio's image and not exactly a huge money maker with sequel potential. That is "The Thing 2" how I want to do it, not any other way.

And they nodded and said, go on, make that movie. We're with you. And just when he's laying finishing touches on it, the "uhm" comes. The uhm, we'd prefer to have this be a fast-paced franchise opener, ready to become a MTV Movie Awards favourite.

Now is the question whether it's a desperate rescue attempt and an actual improvement or just too many cooks ruining the evening.

 

I doubt we'll ever truly know the answer, unless they actually toss all the alternate footage on the film's home video release.  I just hope we AT LEAST get a solid film out of it.

Bob, have you played the The Thing videogame? If not, you should do that. It's a pretty solid continuation.

I recently showed Carpenter's 'The Thing' on a projector set-up at a lounge owned by friends and the crowd of twenty-somethings liked it, but had never even heard of it. It was quite depressing and it made me feel very fucking old.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

 

 The practical effects of Carpenter's film still look fantastic today and I was really hoping to see what could be done with all of the advancements that have been made over the last 30 years.

 

I have a question. Obviously practical effects did evolve after 1982, but after CGI really took off, has there been a sort of stagnation in the field of practical effects, give or take a KNB show here and there? With more and more films relying on CGI from the outset, I wonder if tech advances in practical effects (and stunts, and hell, anything done-in camera) have maybe slowed as a result.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil 

 

I have a question. Obviously practical effects did evolve after 1982, but after CGI really took off, has there been a sort of stagnation in the field of practical effects, give or take a KNB show here and there? With more and more films relying on CGI from the outset, I wonder if tech advances in practical effects (and stunts, and hell, anything done-in camera) have maybe slowed as a result.
 

 

Well, judging by what Del Torro did in the HELLBOY films, it seems that advances in CGI can be used to cover up seams or give life to elements of practical effects in ways that would have been impossible before. There have been some advances in the field of robotics, but probably nothing cost effective for most film productions to integrate into their FX budget. Just an educated guess, BTW
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil 

I have a question. Obviously practical effects did evolve after 1982, but after CGI really took off, has there been a sort of stagnation in the field of practical effects, give or take a KNB show here and there? With more and more films relying on CGI from the outset, I wonder if tech advances in practical effects (and stunts, and hell, anything done-in camera) have maybe slowed as a result.

 

I dunno. Looking at the sharks in the SHARK NIGHT 3D behind the scenes clip on CHUD and then at Bruce from JAWS, I'd say there's been leaps and bounds. But it's bound to be costly and not too time efficient, comparatively. Studios are always looking at the bottom line. Course, if the practical FX are already shot, throwing money at CG replacement seems risky. Such a weird machine, that Hollywood. Not unlike our goverment. "We're bleeding money! Quick Hand me that stack of bills to clean up all this bloody mess!"
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil 

 

I have a question. Obviously practical effects did evolve after 1982, but after CGI really took off, has there been a sort of stagnation in the field of practical effects, give or take a KNB show here and there? With more and more films relying on CGI from the outset, I wonder if tech advances in practical effects (and stunts, and hell, anything done-in camera) have maybe slowed as a result.
 

 

It's hard to tell. Certainly, the hubbub around most of them have diminished significantly. But then, there's stuff like the Faun head in Pan's Labyrinth that was completely animatronic that wouldn't have been possible 10 or 20 years ago. Stunt-wise, there's still crazy shit being done, like the crane jump from Casino Royale or the camera following Matt Damon as he jumps across buildings in The Bourne Ultimatum.

There is one thing that is certain: the decline of practical effects in films can be linked almost directly to the utter lack of any new movie monsters catching the public interest. Something about the freedom CGI has given filmmakers seems to have curtailed the creative edge that comes out when you have to figure out how to make a creature exist in the real world.

Hmm.  I saw it and liked it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

There is one thing that is certain: the decline of practical effects in films can be linked almost directly to the utter lack of any new movie monsters catching the public interest. Something about the freedom CGI has given filmmakers seems to have curtailed the creative edge that comes out when you have to figure out how to make a creature exist in the real world.

Interesting observation. Anything's possible... except tangibility. Even Harryhausen's creations had that.
 

Since the movie isn't using practical effects, I know I can save my money.

That's such a silly point of view.  "I demand my silly-looking space creatures to be puppets, goddammit!"

  It is one of the elements that made Carpenter's Thing work. I think it should be in the prequel.

That and it looks cool. I know that isn't a well thought out argument, but it works for me.

Extremely sceptical.

I did howevere really like the shot of the flamethrower jet coming into the snowcat cab.

All the CG looks a bit pish though - and it seems like they've designed the 'Thing' on the sex blob from Naked Lunch.

And dammit I don't want to see an actual 'Thing', I want to see the crazy bunch of mixed up shit that pervades the Carpenter version.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Myers 

Bob, have you played the The Thing videogame? If not, you should do that. It's a pretty solid continuation.

Yep, I own it.  It's a really great game and I've been thinking about playing through it again in the near future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

I recently showed Carpenter's 'The Thing' on a projector set-up at a lounge owned by friends and the crowd of twenty-somethings liked it, but had never even heard of it. It was quite depressing and it made me feel very fucking old.

 

 

So......................what did they think?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Shape 

Hmm.  I saw it and liked it.

On a scale of 1 to 10, what would you give it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

 

There is one thing that is certain: the decline of practical effects in films can be linked almost directly to the utter lack of any new movie monsters catching the public interest. Something about the freedom CGI has given filmmakers seems to have curtailed the creative edge that comes out when you have to figure out how to make a creature exist in the real world.

I think this may be unnecessarily reductive. The Lord of the Rings' Gollum managed to get a solid foothold in the public consciousness and nobody complained that he wasn't achieved practically. Likewise, very little of Iron Man's much-touted on-set armor made it to the screen. It's sad that the producers of this new Thing spent money to make the FX one way, then spent more to remake them a different way, but without having seen the end result I can criticize them only for bad planning.

The negative legacy of CGI, as I see it, is that moviegoers have become conditioned to assume that anything that appears outlandish or dangerous onscreen must be somehow fake. Suspension-of-disbelief has passed through the looking-glass, and it affects the way people see all movies, not just digitally-modified ones.

I'm going to repeat what I said in the Shark Night 3D thread. I really, really want a movie to just go all out with practical effects. Just once. There have been such advances in materials, CAD/CAM, miniaturization and control techniques that truly remarkable creature effects could be accomplished.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

So......................what did they think?

I did this myself recently.   People dug the paranoia stuff, but the creature was laughed off the screen.  Sort of annoying.

7.5-ish?  There's clearly a conflict between filmmakers and studio in terms of how dark they want to make it.  If the exact same film was being released, but there was no Carpenter's Thing, I imagine people would be fond of the new one.  But I doubt most will even give it a chance.

People pooping in their own mouths and zombies are memes. Thanks to the internet, kids these days will laugh at anything.

But the FX in the original still hold up. In fact, I'd say they're some of the best seen in a horror flick. There's definitely a WTF quality about them, but I love that Ploog and Bottin pushed that tasteless and bizarre envelope. But they're not poor quality. Not by any means.

Looking at countless comments (from those in the know) beneath articles relating to the new red band trailer, it seems that the practical FX work done in this might not have been up to snuff after all.......thus possibly justifying at least some of it being replaced with CGI.  Who knows.  Personally, I'm still quite interested in seeing this.

Red Letter Media won't be reviewing it. He doesn't see the point after seeing the trailer.

I showed it to some people for the first time recently but I made sure they were good and baked before hand.

Scared the living shit out of them and upped the general paranoia in the room :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

So......................what did they think?

 

 

As I said, they liked it. The were grossed out and laughed at all of the appropriate moments, and were seemingly shocked by how well-done the effects were for such an "old movie". Mostly though, I think most of them were just wondering what the fuck it was they were watching.

Well, at least we'll get a new genre from all of this: "The Remakequel".

Rebootquel is a term I've been reading A LOT this year.  It has mainly been in reference to X-Men: First Class and Rise of the Planet of the Apes, but I've seen it applied to this as well on occasion.

In terms of made up, Variety style descriptions I think "premake" fits the most here.

Probably, but Hollywood seems to think remake is a dirty word these days, hence the ridiculousness of the word "rebootquel".  You see, it's a sequel for those nerdy fans AND it's a fresh start for the new ones.  It's win, win!

Yeah, execs are morons.