The Thing vs The Thing (2011)

They may have the same title, but they sure as hell aren't the same quality. Today we explore Jon Carpenter's masterpiece, The thing, and compare it to its infamous CG filled prequel that make PS2 graphics look photo-realistic in comparison. Here's The Thing Vs The Thing (2011)
What'd you think of the two Thing movies?
What should I review next?
What's the meaning of life?
Twitter : / culturehorror
Subscribe : / @horrorculture
Thanks for watching! Next is a video of the entire Leprechaun series, see you then.
The Thing movie review
The Thing from another world
John carpenter
Comparision video

[@FeverDreamlandTheater]

The unused practical effects from Thing 2011 is frustrating as hell. Those behind the scenes shots look incredible.

[@manleeman5212]

Maybe we can demand a Director's cut XD

[@B__________]

@Rusticle 2.0 I see that your mother dropped you on the head as a baby practical effects is way better the reaction of the characters is better because they can actually see what is happening not just a golf ball

[@calonyoutuber1399]

The cgi alien hologran on the ship at the end of 2011 thing is hideus 😓

[@possessedslig]

@Rusticle 2.0 🤮

[@dan_hitchman007]

@Rusticle 2.0 Get your eyes checked.

[@domskillet5744]

The original is the definition of "I guess you guys aren't ready for this yet, but your kids are gonna love it"

[@zx7-rr486]

😂 Yes.. but I was a kid in 1983 when I saw it on video, and a few years later we were enthralled with Back To The Future. My 15 year old son loves both these films. Now he's a bit older he's beginning to realise that a lot of 70s and 80s films were outstanding pieces of work... and quite different to most modern movies.

[@cl0wn_mp3]

oh yeah. when i was a kid, my dad described it as a weird gore-fest and a subpar horror movie. when i finally watched it in my teens, it immediately became not only one of my favorite horror films, but one my favorite films of all time.

[@Wunderwuffel3207]

I like to think of the prequel as character development for the Thing itself. Notice how it's much more aggressive in the prequel, mostly opting for confrontation versus staying hidden like in the 1982 film. It learned from the prequel that humans can throw hands and it's smarter to stay hidden rather than fight in the open.

[@kevex3929]

I never thought of it that way!

[@barombolobombolo1501]

@Lux et Mathematica ooook bubba

[@emperorkiron3470]

@Lux et Mathematica this is about individual enjoyment, not widespread appreciation. This comment is only there to make the individual happier while viewing. Lay off, dude, let people enjoy stuff

[@waffledog7756]

@Lux et Mathematica Let people have their own joy and draw some goodness from the bad movie.

[@koffinrott]

I actually love that. That's an incredibly smart way to look at it and I want to think of it that way from now on. That said, I do still wish it was actually written that way, instead of leaving that on audiences to decide.

[@Rat-czar]

John Carpenter's The Thing is one of those movies that TRULY was ahead of it's time. We don't look back fondly on many sci/fi movies like it these days.

[@Luna-mo4bp]

It was the ugly duckling that was ahead of its time.

[@user-hi8or6lo6t]

Also Event Horizon is super underrated

[@ogbobbyjohnson7311]

It’s insane how brainrotted Americans were back then. There was clearly massive amounts of lead poisoning going on back then

[@SH19922x]

It's not ahead of anything it's bare basics cosmic horror. Average at best

[@CopiousDoinksLLC]

I genuinely never understood how people could have had a bad reception to The Thing when it first came out. Sure, it was gross, but it was deeply cerebral. Even as a kid, the first time I watched it, I could tell there were more dimensions to this plot than I was really grasping.

[@GippyHappy]

I feel so bad for John Carpenter. He made a genuinely good movie and everyone, even respectable film critics, just dumped all over it and him for no reason. I only saw The Thing for the first time 2 days ago, and while I won't say I found it scary or it blew my mind, I really enjoyed it. I can't imagine calling it dumb or accusing it of only existing for the sake of gore. It was even _that_ gory. Imagine thinking you’re smart while sitting through a 2 hour movie and not taking anything from it but "oooh wasn't the monster kinda gross? what a nasty film! that definitely didn't have any deeper meaning or themes. i am very intelligent."

[@grantsamson2384]

You're speaking from the perspective of a person living after the Saw movies came out; people are more desensitized to movie gore and violence now. Back in the time the Thing came out, there wasn't anything like it. The incredible detail in the special effects was very shocking to people, and that probably made it difficult to see the greater narrative behind the story.

[@bobraible]

@@grantsamson2384 "Alien" preceded it by several years. So there is that ...

[@faded1to3black]

@@bobraible Alien wasn't nearly as grotesque as The Thing though. It had its scares, and the chest bursting, but The Thing ran where Alien just strolled in terms of gore.

[@DarkScherzo94]

@@grantsamson2384 Not to mention that things (heh) like online film discourse didn't exist back then. In other words, film criticism, while large, probably felt a little more isolated back then. I imagine a lot of critics like Ebert watching the film once in cinemas, getting really shocked by the violence, and writing something shortly after. Nowadays, you'd get online fans praising the movie, which also influences film discourse. You'd get a lot more coverage, and that kind of stuff leads critics to pay more attention to a movie of the week, especially when it's by a well known director. At least, that's how I see it.

[@meggers1771]

@@bobraible Alien has almost no gore other than the chest burster scene. It mostly suspense and had most kills off screen, which is perfect for the movie, but yeah, the OP is right. Back then this kind of gore was considered 'distasteful' in film.

[@echoinggarden6923]

The original movie has rational characters making the best decision they can to survive, and the thing tries to hide identity as long as possible. When the thing appears, it will push the story forward, not just simply killing ppl you do not remember their name for kill count. Those are 'the thing' i like about the original

[@sassyd8738]

In the 2011 one it seem too easy too rushed on them finding out no time like on the 1985 thing where u see the doc studying the analyzes and then it took maybe 7 scenes maybe behind that for them to really test folks but on the 2011 it shot out the lab n testing i think around same time was too rushy for me

[@warrenbfeagins]

The original remake. The original movie was from 1951.

[@Eidolon1andOnly]

@@warrenbfeagins John Carpenter's _The Thing_ wasn't a remake of the 1951 movie, but rather an adaptation of the same source material the 51 movie was also based off of.

[@MK-hh1vo]

@@Eidolon1andOnly However, it's not the "original", that title goes to the '51 version.

[@Eidolon1andOnly]

@@MK-hh1vo Can't atgue that

[@pikapal91]

How anyone didn’t like The Thing in 1982 is beyond me. It’s a practical effects masterclass. It’s not just a gross out gorefest. It’s a compelling story about isolation and what that would do to a group of people. Also, Letterman is a hack.

[@tire_iron488]

alien, predator, the thing. best sci-fi monster films of all time, no competition.

[@ilium2112]

Didn't E.T. come out the same time as The Thing?

[@scottdavidson526]

​@@ilium2112 Yes

[@scottdavidson526]

I saw thecThing (1982) six times in two weeks at the movie theater.

[@ogbobbyjohnson7311]

At the time, America had insane amounts of heavy metal poisoning through water supplies. Explains the objectively low IQ of the landwhales at the time

[@bearjingle5316]

I can't believe he got ridiculed to the point he was shaken. That's incredibly frustrating to hear. I'm glad he's getting the recognition he deserves now at least.

[@DoodleThis]

At least he’s getting the recognition he deserved

[@zx7-rr486]

It's a masterpiece. It will be long remembered when all those talentless critics are long forgotten.

[@johnathanross6519]

Agreed. No movie has ever engulfed me with such paranoia.

[@iamanisland]

John Carpenter’s The Thing is a genius film. I remember seeing it in the cinema; my girlfriend dug her nails into my thigh through the whole thing. She wanted to leave and I wanted to stay. I was mesmerized by the practical effects, the slow building suspense, the creepy and unsettling musical soundtrack; I could go on and on.

[@drewgrows7765]

One of mytop5 movies. I wish Carpenter had remade it. Practical effects over CGI any day. I just realized why this movie is as outstanding today as it was 40yrs ago. There is nothing in the movie that dates it. If you did not know the actors you could believe the movie was from this year.

[@j.g.3293]

It was a real horror film. A story about people (not characters) in a situation each doing what they think is the best decision at the time. What I found most unsettling is that at no point did I feel like anyone was making bad choices and in that situation, I’d be no better than any of them.

[@laurel5432]

@@drewgrows7765 Genuinely only one thing that comes to mind that would date it is audio. Audio quality not to say worse, but it is different in films from the previous century, and also the recognizable style of Ennio (though in this case, it's the same as your argument about the actors). I have to find someone to rewatch it with and soon.

[@drewgrows7765]

@@laurel5432 The Thing for me is in that category of movie you can watch once a year for the rest of your life. Such as the original Predator movie and the majority of the Tarrentino movies.

[@Good_Watch]

4:37 Gary looks like a npc

[@lizardog]

John Carpenter didn't make just one exemplary "alien on Earth" movie; he made two. I'm still amazed that the director who made The Thing also made Starman. Two incredibly different but brilliant films about first contact.

[@hashvendetta7226]

They Live

[@MichaelAarons1701]

I’d actually say that _Starman_ was even better than _E.T._ since the titular character actually talks and gets to more than be an “Ooh” 😯 and “Ah” 😲 puppet. Bridges even got an Oscar nom for it. Plus hearing him and Karen Black sing the Everly Brothers together was kinda sweet.

[@spaceghostcqc2137]

@@MichaelAarons1701 it lacked the helpful product placement of ET reminding viewers to eat candy

[@MichaelAarons1701]

No, instead it opted for “DUTCH APPLE PIE!”

[@lizardog]

@@MichaelAarons1701 "It's terrific!"

[@LambentOrt]

I remember watching The Thing (the original one) as a kid in the 80s. It scarred me for life and I am eternally grateful for it.

[@user-fd1lz2vc4s]

The 50s one. Or the 80s version

[@zx7-rr486]

Ditto. 10 years old in 1983.. saw it on a Betamax rental. Even as a kid I could tell it was a genius piece of cinema. Now I own it on 4K and my 15 year old son was blown away by it. He now really believes me when I tell him films were "so much better when I was a kid!". Whilst I am joking a bit, I feel it is generally true... the quality density these days is VERY low.

[@seanofoghlu5747]

I have watched carpenter's the thing numerous times over the years and watched it again lately .I still jumped at the blood test scene even though I knew it was coming .It's the tension that's built up in this scene that provides the jump not just the scare its self

[@sassyd8738]

Yep watched it last night lol when i was a kid Was first time i watch at theater and the blood scene i screamed at same time sumone in the audience said what the uck lol leaving everyone was saying was a good movie 2011 version was decent it was nice but nothing like carpenters The thing but they tried

[@SlashTheWeasel]

I too have watched it many many times over the years. Its still great movie. 2011 I think I've watched twice.

[@Grabthar191]

The defibulator scene where the doctor gets his arms eaten is really horrifying to me.

[@bigmoose99]

Windows

[@Vicus_of_Utrecht]

@@Grabthar191 Such a damn good scene

[@geraldmartin7703]

Saw the 1982 version in the theater during original release. Stunning. Recent prequel wasn't bad, just ordinary. I did like the segue into the 1982 version at the end, however.

[@MichaelPoage666]

Exactly. I love the Carpenter version, it is one of my favorite films. And I don't hate the prequel. I don't love it, of course. But it's not terrible. Much like the newer "Alien" movies, I'd probably like them better if I weren't constantly being reminded that I could be watching much better films.

[@davidprince1138]

It was one of the 2 films that freaked me out (as an adult). The other being Alien. I have not seen any others that have reached that level of anxiety. The remake of Body with Leanord Nimoy and Donald Southerland was pretty good too.

[@dreamshakegaming]

I actually really liked the prequel. The cgi was bad but the overall was great imo

[@BillMcSwain]

Agreed

[@clyne8835]

It's amazing how a lot of cult classic horror films were canned on first release. The exorcist was condemned by the church and created mass hysteria because it was "too intense". The Shining was called boring and unrealistic and now The Thing gets called a gore fest. Weird how this always happens

[@Diabeticninja90]

They fear what they can not understand

[@alexfc679]

Of course it did. The entire movie was banking on some kind of religious backlash. Ironically there was more backlash from protestants, while Catholics had mixed reactions.

[@sleepyproduction7166]

And look at what they call good, especially today. All marvel, Disney, is absolutely formulaic shit. But critics say it’s is the best. They did it back then, and they do it today.

[@coleozaeta6344]

They said “The Shining” was boring?

[@alfa_kenny_body]

​@@sleepyproduction7166 wait 20-30 years they might declare them as absolute masterpieces of cinema 💀💀

[@GreenDinoRanger]

Your 5th point about The Thing 1982 is pretty spot on. The more clips I see of Ebert and Siskel, the more I wonder why they were so popular. They were terrible critics.

[@Redfern42]

While there existed "resident" film critics writing for large newspapers, they were the first to actually have a TV show (originally on PBS and later syndicated to local network affiliates). Thus, they were far more known than others and audiences listened to what they said. (Not that viewers always agreed, but they tuned in.) Now, anybody with internet access and having an account upon one or more social media outlets can play "armchair critic". Even if Siskel and Ebert were still alive and in good enough health and state of mind to analyze film releases, their voices would be almost lost in a din of competition. And credit where it is due Roger Ebert was a bit more amiable to genre productions. He was a fiction writer in addition to being a film critic and wrote some speculative fiction. Siskel seemed to favor contemporary narratives and thus was a bit harsher on sci-fi, fantasy and horror.

[@magne7771]

Because people love milquetoast bullshit, and ebert confirmed their shitty biases. It's like his whole career was him fellating himself.

[@fuzzywzhe]

Siskel was the "smart one" and Ebert was the "dumb one" - that's why. Siskel would approve of films that were more thoughtful and Ebert would approve of films that were more blue collar, kid type films. That was the dynamic. You have to remember this was before the Internet. When the Internet came online, there was the IMDB where you could EXCELLENT suggestions for films, so good that I became a movie buff, until Amazon purchased IMDB and all the ratings for IMDB became purchased and fake. Doesn't really matter, all new movies are kind of crap, and I've totally lost my appreciating for films now, in the same way I've lost any appreciation for video games. You grow out of everything.

[@HeatherHolt]

Yeah they had some pretty bad takes. Ebert hated the usual suspects. How. And I’ll never forgive him for hating on fight club. But sometimes you have to watch a movie more than once to really appreciate it. I didn’t like The Leftovers the first time I watched it but after a few years and a second watch it’s stuck with me and I ponder on its deeper meanings often. They also hated Reservoir Dogs and full metal jacket. How?!

[@fuzzywzhe]

@@HeatherHolt They were corporate shills really. They had a dynamic where they would explain to their audience what films they MIGHT like, there were fans of Siskel and there were fans of Ebert. The show was designed to usually get at least 1/2 the audience to pay for the product, and if you think their opinions weren't bought at times, you're being naive. They were popular because not ALL of their opinions could be purchased.

[@BadTwin]

The Thing was one of the first horror movies I watched when I was young. It's one of those movies I can not only enjoy, but also highly respect. It really does feel like a "movie" that really tried and has a purpose. When I first watched it, I couldn't figure out who was infected and that put me on edge. The 2011 version really had some potential, but it missed the mark. I get the impression that the fault was due to the terrible decisions from higher ups (producers and etc) and NOT the creatives.

[@izifaddag8221]

I agree. It had me on the edge of my seat. Kurt Russell was superb.

[@steveharvey2102]

He was in that? I thought he went overboard.?! No that's not right.??!? Who am I here? Hollywood is confusing us by getting rid of the number system. In the 70s and the 80s it was easy. Putting a number after the title, espesially a roman one, almost guranteed box offec succes. I think it was Godfather Ii that took the stigma away from sequels. ThenThe Exorcist II almost brought it back lol. Thank Zod it takes way more than one bomb to change the trend. I'm looking at you slasher movies, (Which I personally love) ;) Cheers from Canada

[@spaceghostcqc2137]

@@steveharvey2102 I will always wonder if Goldie Hawn or Kurt Russell was the thing at the end of that movie.

[@honster9996]

Talk about cash in prequel was awful end of not even close to 1982 version

[@CHRISMED2]

Every Halloween season the Thing & Alien are on steady rotation

[@jjohnston326]

Look, I was 10 years old in 1982. I've seen ET all the way through ONCE. The Thing is in my permanent favorites collection. Carpenter's The Thing is one of the best films ever in my opinion.

[@JohnSmith-yd5wq]

ET is overrated trash

[@zx7-rr486]

The Thing is a masterpiece. I was 10 in 1983 and could only watch The Thing on home video. But I have to give props to ET which I saw on the big screen It is also a masterpiece. The scene when the space ship door closes around his ❤ at the end tears me up every damn time .. and the John Williams score is sublime!

[@joshjones6536]

I enjoy all 3 versions of The Thing but my personal favorite is John Carpenters’ film. I admire how he wanted to make his film closer to the short story “Who Goes There” that the film was based on. Also, the special effects work of Rob Bottin are unmatched. He worked his tail off to get the special effects work completed.

[@AltairEgo1]

I haven't watched the 1950s version, but admittedly the prequel did give me some good scares. Yeah, no one likes too much CGI, myself included, but I honestly didn't think it was as bad as everyone says it is. Practical effects will always be king, but no movie has ever aged perfectly. Some better than others, but if you look hard enough you can find the unrealism in all films. Obviously I like John Carpenter's the best, but I can appreciate what the prequel did right, even if it didn't quite reach the heights of the 1982 one.

[@ilhanmohamed3495]

Yeah, I’m pretty sure Rob contracted pneumonia from the lengthy hours he spent working on the practical fx

[@D.a.n.i.m.a.l]

Insane, I never knew it got such bad press. It's my all time favourite horror movie and I don't think its feeling of paranoia and isolation can ever be topped.

[@PeterRichardsandYoureNot]

He should get a posthumously awarded Oscar. One of the best executed movies of all time. From the direction to his own contributions on the score which make this movie an amazing piece of art!

[@RagShop1]

Let's not wait until he dies. Everyone now recognizes it's great. Maybe start a petition to get him a belated special Oscar for the next awards show. Maybe with a profound apology for how the critics and the public all got it so wrong, way back then.

[@gwwasham]

He doesn't need to. He's not dead yet.

[@larryc835]

I am astounded how the critics treated him and david letterman always was a sarcastic dick.

[@thunderspark1536]

Man's still kickin

[@Johnof1000Suns]

For me personally, that’s just more insulting tbh. “Sorry we thought you sucked as a creator in the past, but now we realise we’re wrong so here’s an award to show the world just how wrong we truly were”.

[@twitchygene614]

I heard John Carpenter might want to make a sequel to the Thing, that would be pretty awesome.

[@mrmeat168]

Really? I've been waiting so long for that man.

[@rushv825]

I thought he died.

[@Agentshadling]

With how the Halloween movies currently are, I'd rather he didn't.

[@faded1to3black]

@@Agentshadling is he actually involved in those? Creatively?

[@RunByCash]

@@faded1to3black He actually is just composing the music for those movies

[@ChrisParrishOutdoors]

Seeing The Thing on a full size movie screen must have been absolutely insane.

[@RS4KING]

I saw it when it came out to theaters again in 2022 for its 40th anniversary. You'll probably have to wait another 9 years before it happens again for its 50th.

[@scottdavidson526]

It was awesome. I saw it six times over a two week period while I was living in Scranton.

[@zx7-rr486]

Best thing would be the huge surround sound. I have a 4K 65 inch, and a good quality surround sound setup at home... with the lights down... it's pretty awesome. Modern tech to enjoy vintage masterpieces.. happy place!

[@Loki6781]

John Carpenter is the man. Simple and straight. Extremely underrated. Thank you for your work sir. Cheers

[@alcoholically4280]

It genuinely makes me sad n confused to find out that ppl didn’t appreciate that film. I CAN understand why, but even for me as a kid I always loved it, thought it was scary, ahead of it’s time, and a great movie as a whole. It was TOO ahead of it’s time for ppl to comprehend it and appreciate it. Today its seen as the ORIGINAL Among Us (respectfully)

[@alcoholically4280]

Man screw ET. How funny how I unironically hate ET, but love The Thing. I wish that movie never existed tbh

[@kingfuckingkong]

I too simply do not understand why audiences responded the way they did back in '82.

[@bigmoose99]

My older brothers loved the thing in the 80s don’t dwell on what some fat old men said. People will talk about Carpenter long after Ebert.

[@SenkaBandit]

@@kingfuckingkong everyone averted their eyes and ears at most parts or left the theater probably lol

[@kickballjedi]

Excellent review. I think the issue with the prequel is that the Producers knew everybody (almost) must die, the writers knew everybody must die, and the viewers knew everybody must die. I think this gave the writers a shortcut to not create very likeable or deep characters. It seems they focused more on gathering several background characters with a couple of main characters for the Monster to kill off one by one. The only pleasure I got out of The New Thing was seeing how the writers wedged the plot to fit the details in The Thing. Why the one guy was off on his own and sliced his wrists, why there were giant holes blown in the walls, who the two guys were in the helicopter... even that was a letdown.

[@marcdraco2189]

Well put sir!

[@TheTrueMariWho]

and there was absolutely no reason to have any Americans there. Even the main character was not charismatic or even likable.

[@bigmoose99]

@@lonewolf8667 that’s no dog! And I agree with you 100% But how much money is a Norwegian cast going to rake in at a American box office? Sad truths of Hollywood.

[@awesomelybadout1370]

@@lonewolf8667 I don't mind if it's a good movie, but I know a lot of people that fit your statement.

[@cirrocumulus7554]

They should have left the Norwegian camp an unsolved mystery(which just would have added to the uneasiness)and done a sequel instead. Furthermore they "opened up" the film so people and monsters could come and go as they pleased (it was almost an American-Norwegian Airport) removing the isolation and terror. Also there where too much people in the film, making it less intimate and with less at stake.

[@TheBourbonWrench]

I love both movies. I will say, the CGI never bothered me TOO much (scorpion king in the mummy returns, need I say more). That being said, seeing the unused practicals REALLY put a bad taste in my mouth.

[@AltairEgo1]

For sure, there are far worse examples of CGI, and even some practical effects in certain films. I just keep in mind that this was a film made in 2011, when studios went crazy with computer animation. It was still a relatively new tool, even in the 2010s. I can suspend enough disbelief to get some joy out of it.

[@Phoebe5448]

Also I think the story and atmosphere of The Thing 2011 is what also let it down, aside from the CGI.

[@17Watman]

One aspect I liked was how the last scene with the Dog-Thing running away and the last ones chasing after it set-up the beginning of John Carpenter’s “The Thing.”

[@Etymon-jt3zw]

There's actually a video game based upon the Thing where you play apart in a rescue team that shows up to figure out what happened afterwards. The graphics aren't great but it's loads of fun and they did a good job paying tribute to the original. And the cold was every bit as much as dangerous as running into the Thing Lots of fun if you like the movie and you enjoy games it's be worth the money.

[@mosthated8848]

Now that needs a remake I remember playing it. I would go with the developers of Dead Space to pull it off.

[@hashvendetta7226]

Some of the best headshot animations in any video game ever! Go check em out

[@Carbabydoll]

Its the sequel

[@iconofsin4578]

What platorms is the thing game available?

[@TheBongeSpob]

You mean Among Us 🤣

[@furiousone942]

I loved The Thing in the theaters and still do. I like all of Carpenters work. I didn't realize back then that people were such pansies.

[@jamessullivan4391]

You might be, yourself, a pansy.

[@robertarodecker2558]

I seen the 1982 film in theaters that year. What people hated was not the film. But the ending. They leftvyou hanging. I heard boos when the credits shown. I'll amit I was disappointed with the ending but not the film. To me its still a film that shows off the special effects. I still prefer the 1951 version. Love the characters in that film. And it wasn't a effects films like they showoff nowadays.

[@codysaunders7348]

@@robertarodecker2558 the ending was glorious, it left the story open to future adaptations. Did it survive and make it to the mainland, did it die with Mcree? Perfect ending.

[@JogaBonitoCFTV]

​@@codysaunders7348 spot on, it left it open to interpretation. it leaves you with all these questions and little answers allowing you to draw the conclusion of what happened and I love that

[@jollama]

People today are even bigger pansies

[@Rich-hm9ux]

I remember watching The Thing with my dad on TV back in the 80's and I was so impressed with it and so was my dad. Was a great father/son sci-fi horror movie.

[@joffles6516]

It makes sense that the thing is way more aggressive in the prequel, since it’s it’s first time interacting with humans, and it thinks it can win with brute force. But when it barely survived the first group, it decides that a more stealthy approach will work better for the next group

[@spencergsmith]

Shooting someone in self-defense does not make him a murderer. Murder is premeditated, aggressive, and cold-blooded, and as such cannot be defined as defensive.

[@probablynotmyname8521]

Err no, murder is killing someone with the intent to cause death or grevious bodily harm. Aggression, premeditation and if the act is in cold blood has nothing to do with it. Just as motive has nothing to do with it either.

[@spencergsmith]

@@probablynotmyname8521 the Oxford Dictionary defines murder as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." So yes, premeditation has EVERYTHING to do with it. Also, I could have "the intent to cause death or grevious bodily harm" and be defending myself against an attacker, or defending my loved ones. For example, if I walk in on someone raping my wife or daughter, I will ABSOLUTELY intend to cause death or grevious bodily harm, but that isn't murder. And although motive doesn't define murder, it certainly is related -- that's why detectives and prosecuting lawyers establish motive when arresting or trying someone for murder. The point is, self defense is not murder, morally or legally.

[@probablynotmyname8521]

@@spencergsmith oh dear… you should NEVER rely on a dictionary for your definition of a legal term, even a legal dictionary shouldnt be used. Id recommend the wikipedia page as a starting point for a layperson, it does a reasonable job. Premeditation has nothing to do with murder, the issue is intent. Did you intend to kill the person or cause grievous bodily harm at the moment you caused their death. I dont know what jurisdiction you are in but id check your local law relating to murder, i can almost guarantee it doesnt say anything about premeditation. On the subject of motivation, it is used for two reasons, the first is in finding the killer, most crimes are committed by someone who has a motive to do so and it is also used as a weighting factor at trial, so it is more persuasive if the person on trial had a motive to commit the crime but it actually proves nothing and is at best circumstantial evidence. On the subject of you walking in on a person committing a crime against a loved one, it would still be murder but in that case you would be looking to use a justification for killing the person. A possible justification is the defence of another person, however to be valid the force used in the defence has to be proportional to the offence you are trying to stop. For example, its generally not valid to murder someone who has pickpocketed your phone. A rape could, arguably, be considered grievous bodily harm so a jury may accept that the force was justified, however if you had the intent to kill it would be murder and bear in mind at that point it wasnt premeditation you didnt previously plan to kill the person you walked in on. Premeditation relates more to motive than anything else and is not needed or part of the definition of murder.

[@spencergsmith]

@@probablynotmyname8521 alright, let's be logical about this. You're arguing that I shouldn't use the dictionary's definition of murder, instead I should use YOUR definition, right? You claim I should check my "local law relating to murder," which suggests that there are different regional definitions. If that's true, then what makes YOUR "legal definition" more accurate while mine less? By admitting that there are different parameters, even within the legal community, you've defeated your own point. Second, as I said, motive isn't a DEFINING factor in murder, but it is certainly deeply connected. Also notice that I never initially claimed that murder is defined by motive, I said it was premeditated, aggressive, and cold-blooded. You talk about intent, but apparently you don't realize that premeditation and intent are VERY similar. Yes, technically you can murder someone on a whim, but logically that's simply a short amount of time that you premeditated killing them. So again you're essentially arguing against yourself. Aggression is a logical part of murder also, because if you aren't the aggressor, you're acting in self defense which is NOT the same as murder. Self defense is considered a "justifiable homicide" which is neither unlawful nor morally wrong, therefore not murder. And cold-blooded? Yeah, you got me there, I was just being expressive. Murder can be passionate. But again, the primary point of my comment is that self defense is NOT murder. Third, if I walked in on a person committing a VIOLENT crime against a loved one, and I killed them, that would not be murder. I know this because if there was sufficient evidence for a jury to NOT convict me at a murder trial, I would be found NOT GUILTY of murder. "However to be valid the force used in the defence has to be proportional to the offence you are trying to stop. For example, its generally not valid to murder someone who has pickpocketed your phone." I never said otherwise, that's why I used rape, which is a violent crime, as an example. Similarly, if someone breaks into my home and I feel my life is threatened, I have every right to do whatever is necessary to end that threat, and it's not murder. "However if you had the intent to kill it would be murder." So if someone is pointing a gun at me or my family, and I shoot them with the intention to kill them, it's murder? No, it would be self defense. No reasonable jury would find me guilty of murder if the evidence was clear that I was defending myself or my family.

[@probablynotmyname8521]

@@spencergsmith id recommend that you check your local law relating to the definition of murder. You are just wrong on a wide number of points but im not going to be able to convince you. You are suffering from a common problem, its something i also suffer from and have struggled with, that is you are thinking the law is what you want it to be.

[@billyboy8534]

I'll never understand why so many people liked E.T., it was just boring to me.

[@niemanickurwa]

ikr

[@zx7-rr486]

It has some brilliant moments.

[@undercoverbrother67]

There was only one "fake jump" scene in the 1982 version. It was subtle and seemed almost organic: it's when the lights go out in Fuchs' office and he lights a torch in the dark, silently moves towards the door, and accidentally kicks the trash can causing himself (and first time viewers in most cases) to jump.

[@Cre80s]

How about when the dog/thing startles Bennings?

[@J0MBi]

Looking at Who Goes There, The Thing From Another World, The Thing 1982 and The Thing 2011 - you can trace how cinema progressed, peaked, and then regressed to the stage we are at now - where major motion pictures are more like the stilted, predictable and heavily censored output of the 50s than the classics of the later part of the 20th century. They might show you more explict sex and gore than ever before, but everything else is all kept neatly contained within well established visual and story tropes due to (percieved) market forces.

[@shamiyama0505]

One thing i heard about why the "Thing Alien" is so different in the Prequel in their behavior than in the john carpener is that because it tried to be aggressive at first and saw the outcome in the Norwegians that it then tried a different tactic and be more stealthy.

[@Madanth0ny]

I think the prequel failed but this is a great point makes sense .

[@vothbetilia4862]

@@Madanth0ny it didn't really failed as it made money still, plus the movie will probably be more liked in the future and would be considered great to others.

[@AfroGaz71]

​@@vothbetilia4862it failed in it's attempt to play alongside Carpenters version. The CGI was sub standard, even for it's time. Carpenter's version still holds up and is eminently more watchable than the prequel. Also, it wasn't a commercial success either. It bombed at the box office.

[@vothbetilia4862]

@@AfroGaz71 still made money, and it still doesn't change the fact the original wasn't well received back then either.

[@AfroGaz71]

@@vothbetilia4862 No, it lost money. What do you think bombed means? it had a 35 million budget and it's box office was 31.5 million globally. If you also factor into account the promotional costs and cinema split then it was an abysmal failure. Taking inflation into account, the original was more successful at the box office and against it's budget. It's also been 12 years since the prequels release, and far from people reassessing the movie, it remains as it always has been. A bang average horror movie with shoddy CGI that looks more shoddy as time passes.

[@kjone5086]

longest video yet, incredible job. I honestly can't find anything in particular I disagree in this video so I can't really add anything to the conversation.

[@HORRORCULTURE]

Thanks for watching!

[@megaton_a]

My mom saw The Thing (erm, the Carpenter one) when it came out in theaters. When it was released on home video she told me it was one of the most brilliant films she had ever seen and I had to watch it. I was 9 years old. Yeah, I had some nightmares, but I always regarded it as an amazing film. It was always weird to me when I got older and found out the reception it originally had. I always saw it as a masterpiece, thanks to my mother.

[@HeatherHolt]

What a cool mom ❤

[@zx7-rr486]

You have a seriously cool mom! 😅

[@M_Alexander]

Another thing that bothers me in Da Ting (2011) is it doesn't look _cold_ enough. In The Thing you can practically feel the frostbite but in Da Ting it looks like jacket-optional weather

[@lenseclipse]

that's probably because they actually went to Antarctica for many of the exterior shots in the first film. The prequel is just a set with green screen

[@M_Alexander]

@@lenseclipse it shows. I mean they didn't have to go all the way to Antarctica but come on

[@jmm8021]

When this movie came out I was 14. I rode my bike to the Falls Mall about 5 mile ride. I paid for a movie I could get into ,when it was over I snuck into The Thing. Let's just say it left an impression!

[@LuckyBastardProd]

Same age. The film we paid for was Megaforce😂

[@Wolfman1491]

To be fair making a worthy prequel to John Carpenters The Thing is a nearly impossible task. As a kid watching the original dozens of times I had constructed this loose idea of what happened at The Norwegian Camp in my head and nothing was ever going to live up to my imagination. Goes to show you how great a storyteller Carpenter was in his prime, his hinted at plot threads or more interesting and had more room to explore than most modern franchises.

[@HeatherHolt]

I honestly feel a limited series can do more than a movie nowadays. Like HBO. More time for character development which is paramount in good horror in my opinion. There’s a recent The Grudge prequel tv show that was just great and gives me hope for horror shows.

[@Murf_Workshop]

I watched Carpenter's version for the first time a few years ago, and holy shit I was on edge, it's a good movie. The feel of the characters is genuine. The effects still hold up, and erie sense of isolation stays with you throughout the whole film. I thinks it's the right touch to a horror movie for when you do not know the final outcome, It's more or less one of those instance's where the viewer has to fill in the blanks. The way it ends it awesome and it sucks how so many people don't appreciate an open ended question at the end, did they both die? did they fight? did the thing kill Mcgready or was Childs for real. There's a saying "a good story teller leaves them wanting more" and with the 1982 version this holds true. I have not seen the 2011 and seeing glimpses of the CGI I feel hesitant to do so.

[@ClockworkAlex]

Watch it, it is not that bad.

[@chaylynnpetherbridge683]

One could argue the creature was learning in the prequel, which is why it’s seemingly more aggressive and doesn’t try to hide as much. It learned it needed to blend in better.

[@RS4KING]

That's actually a good point.

[@lenseclipse]

also could explain why the thing can replicate nose rings in the original

[@Sawlon]

The Thing 1982 is still one of my favorite movies.

[@redpillnibbler4423]

The 1951 was pretty good too.Very different.

[@orangenblue6981]

My thoughts about the prequel aside, this was a damn fine video.

[@HORRORCULTURE]

Thank you!

[@Joxman2k]

I'm surprised that the original was so widely panned. I was like 11 years old when it came out and couldnt see it till it came out on VHS and it scared the bejebus out of me! The SPFX were perfect to my 14 year old brain and the story was captivating and horrific. It is still in my top 5 of ALL horror movies I have ever seen. That could be because of my age when I first saw it, but it has aged well and the Rob Bottins creatures still hold up today. The new version had some pretty big shoes to fill and I got really excited to see it, but it was "Meh". The CGI wasnt horrible, but it was missing that twisted creativity that Bottin brought to it. I wish ADI's effects were more utilized. I would rather see mostly practical, but using CGI to remove wires and puppeteers. 90-10% Practical to CGI ratio seems to work best for FX. The story wasnt there. I dont even remember what it was about or who the characters were. Seems to me that "Studio" hands got too involved. You need one creative person to steer the ship, and when they can bring out the best in the people they hire you are going to get a great movie. This was not the case.

[@mintcream7017]

i actually really liked the dental filling screen. it plays on your expectations magnificently, it keeps you in suspense the whole time, but in a way youre almost craving the resolution, and when it doesn’t come you’re still left tense! there’s a lot about the 2011 movie i didn’t like, but i thought that scene was actual a pretty novel subversion

[@p8ton880]

Holy shit how do you have so little subscribers and views, this is a crime. Amazing stuff, keep it up!

[@HORRORCULTURE]

Thanks very much!

[@karenlbellmont6560]

Did she really make it alive or freeze to death?

[@gachasarah4971]

I noticed that in the original thing, the thing never really killed unless threatened or to infect. It always had a reason to kill, It knew if it killed without restrain it would die. It stayed hidden and only killed/infected in the shadows unless literally forced to kill to protect itself.

[@daggett8516]

I would like to say that they connected their film quite well with the original. I mean the references and the final scene. It looks like the director did his best in that aspect, and that he really loves the original film. Maybe if they had more than 3 months of preparation the movie would have turned out better than just average and unsightly.

[@SamDeMonic]

The sad thing is They have a "The Pilot" Cut they only Shown once, the folks who watched it HATED IT and the producer told them to use more cgi

[@lenseclipse]

@@SamDeMonic I wish they would release it

[@JustSomeGoy]

I LOVE pretty much all of Kurt Russell's work, can't think of a bad movie he's been in.

[@Dilaudid281]

Escape From LA is a pretty rough watch. Got some great scenes, the basketball scene is just awesome. But it's still pretty bad.

[@JustSomeGoy]

@@Dilaudid281 I would call it dated, but I can't say it's bad, I just found out Kurt was a child actor, he was on a couple Western TV shows like Bonanza...I was like HOLY SHIT, I recognize that kid 😆

[@Vicus_of_Utrecht]

@@JustSomeGoy LA was a terrible, terrible, movie.

[@JustSomeGoy]

@@Vicus_of_Utrecht assholes and opinions👍🏻 if you didn't enjoy it maybe you are what's terrible lol

[@darthdragonborn1552]

Whatever fast and furious movies he’s in lol

[@desireless4092]

One thing (no pun intented) to consider for point 4: The movie was designed and prepared to be your usual block buster summer hit. Carpenter was a hot-shot back then being notorious with making movies on modest budgets yet banking in 5 times over the income from tickets. They gave him bigger cash this time and ground to basically go all out. Movie came out, not a block buster hit, Carpenter was "wtf?" and the suits were "yeah, you're out, no more movies for you" and his shiny 3 movies contract: shredded.. Rest is history

[@Scottyy788]

At least now its considered one of the best horror movies of all time

[@KingsNerdCave]

John Carpenter's 1982 Thing is one of the greatest horror movies of all time. The atmosphere and effects made it truly unsettling. The "prequel" is just kind of there. Carpenter talked about making a sequel I really hope he goes for it.

[@jukeified]

I believe Mr. Carpenter has passed on...(maybe working on a sequel from there ;) )

[@KingsNerdCave]

@@jukeified You might be thinking of Wes Craven, another horror legend. John Carpenter is 75 but still alive last time I checked. I think he lives in New York.

[@jukeified]

Damn ..I'm slidin' ;) A total Fav of mine at That! I would enjoy a sequel...by Him :) Cheers for that good news!

[@KingsNerdCave]

@@jukeified There's still hope!

[@Elerad]

Thanks for saying that it wasn't just the bad CGI that sank the film. A lot of my friends have said over and over again they think that's the reason it didn't work, and I've always felt like the bad CGI was more a symptom of a lot of underlying problems. It's the surface level issue that's easy to blame, but there are a TON of issues with the prequel.

[@shanedaniel8954]

Before watching this video. I can tell you that the 1982 the thing was an absolute masterpiece. I think back to it pretty often actually

[@ivorjawa]

I hardly see how shooting someone who is coming after you with a knife makes you a murderer. Killer, yes. Murder? No way.

[@jamessullivan4391]

*murderer

[@Dilaudid281]

What's really amazing is how Carpenter's The Thing was already a sequel that was also a completely original movie at the same time. The 2011 Prequel is actually a remake that not only fails to live up to The Thing From Another World, but it also doesn't do justice to being connected to Carpenter's sequel.

[@koffinrott]

John Carpenter's "The Thing" has so much to do with my love of horror. I saw it on daytime TV as a kid while my Grandpa was napping in his chair. It horrified me, and it stood with me 20+ years later. I love horror as a whole, but when I'm asked what my favorite horror film is, it's always John Carpenter's "The Thing". When I heard about the prequel in 2011 I was 19 years old, and EXTREMELY excited to see it. I loved the first film so much, and felt like seeing the team that came before the original cast was a stellar idea. I hadn't quite learned that sequels aren't always good just yet. I was let down by the film, hating the CGI like everyone else, and hating how they squandered such important moments of the film. Like the photo around the escavation site, and the constant use of callbacks to the other films. Like, I know there was love behind The Thing 2011, and I know it had massive shoes to fill so it would have fallen short regardless, but it had potential. REAL potential. If the writing and filming team had more time I think it could have been an OK film, maybe even good. It was the untapped potential that made me hate it the most. And that's not even entirely on the director. Deadlines are a bitch. Still, to see it made me seethe.

[@thomasmonroe7947]

This was a fantastic film when I first watched it in the theater in 1982. There weren’t many people in the theater but those of us there liked it. I went with two girlfriends and they both wound up wanting to see it again. So, we did. I wasn’t too terribly stupid, then, and recognized the plot elements as laid out to be part of a suspense build up that was meant to be kindred to the special effects, not supplanted by them and, for me, it worked. The nihilistic ending was a breath of fresh air in the manner it was done. Very open to interpretation, very stately and thoughtful in respects to everything that had come before and how unnerving one might feel pondering the final question while exiting the theater and driving home. This should have been recognized for the science fiction/horror gold that it was, at the time. Imagine what Carpenter might have given us if he hadn’t been shut down by the money movers. I still feel bad for what happened to him over this project. I think some critics went into this unenthusiastic about its premise, hating it even before seeing it and, then, only giving it one bare bones “time to take a nap” viewing. This film is one major reason I rarely listen to critics. I’m my favorite film critic. 🙂

[@amberkelly3187]

I love both movies. The characters did work better in the original. I liked the singing moment as the Norwegian crew seemed natural and bonded. I love the Norwegian’s. Lars was a great character.

[@docmagnus6890]

I feel one of the biggest aspects that kept Carpenter's version so terrifying is how we still know virtually nothing about why it does what it does. When it exposed itself it seemed vulnerable. With the remake, if it could just kill them all outright as just one, why tf didn't it just do that? Why not just bullrush them all? If your movie falls apart from 2 seconds of asking questions, it sucks.

[@invaderjim9661]

arby and the chief line thrown in near the end is chefs kiss for me

[@chingasofarkaso]

Ebert: The story is implausible..... Well, fuck, Roger.......

[@barclaybehie7787]

I saw “The Thing” at a drive-in when it was released and at a walk-in a few days later. It is a fantastic movie and in my top 5 horror films of all times. Never listen to the critics.

[@midlevelgamer]

The 82 version is one of my all time favorite movies. Gotta say tho, I was pleasantly surprised with the prequel. All I heard about it was how bad it was and when I watched it, it wasn't the dumpster fire I expected. It's a competent movie with passable effects. I'd really love to see a fan cut of it that takes out the unnecessary interpersonal bits. In a movie about an impending alien apocalypse, there's no room for a jerk boss or a love interest.

[@PeterMasi_Son_Tile]

The 2011 Thing gets a positive rating for it’s ending alone! Mind was blown realizing it was a prequel! 82 Thing beats 11 Thing across the board but the ending in 11 makes it worth the watch!

[@bigmoose99]

That’s no dog!

[@jasonbungard7484]

You watched the entire movie not knowing it was a prequel?

[@PeterMasi_Son_Tile]

@@jasonbungard7484 yes, I watched right when it first came out & I thought it was a remake. Didn’t see any trailers before watching it.

[@jasonbungard7484]

@@PeterMasi_Son_Tile You're the first person I've ever heard say that. Glad you enjoyed the movie, but I can assure you, the rest of us didn't have any such positive epiphany at the end. I would not have even given it a chance if it was indeed a remake.

[@ComradeCupcake]

The 2011 prequel is far better than people give it credit. Watching the two films back to back is a lot of fun and I'm glad it exists, even in an admittedly flawed form.

[@chumorgan443]

100%. Yes they made a ton of missteps but I like it regardless.

[@Impalingthorn]

I will 100% say that the hate for the 2011 is overblown. I totally agree that what the execs did when axing the special effects was unforgivable. However, everything else about the film is solid and works because this is a PREQUEL. You HAVE to remember that, the events are meant to line up with the beginning of the original movie which they do. The number one thing I see criticized about it is the way the monster acts and behaves... But jesus it makes sense when you spend more than a few seconds thinking about. It's a PREQUEL. The monster in the original movie had already blown through and destroyed the original camp and learned from the dangers humans presented there how to more effectively hunt them. The monster in the prequel, naturally, is the less experienced version. It IS hasty, it IS less considerate and calculated; it has not suffered for the mistakes it made yet, it is simply hungry and eager to corner people. And it DOES suffer for its hasty decisions, leading to it learning to take things slower and manipulate human empathy. And here's the thing: The Thing from the original John Carpenter film still had its moments. If it got discovered, it would still lose its shit. No one judged it for running out in the open and screeching for the whole camp to hear, no one judged it for having a stray spider legged head stick around to watch its former body burn just to get caught. No one judged it for immediately going offensive when the blood test was proven; it could have played that bit out a little longer and transformed when people tried to untie the other two, but it immediately went ham. The monster shown in the prequel is still there in the original, it's just more subdued and cautious... Which. Makes. Sense. There are things worth criticizing, but to say it's a "bad film" or "insult to the original" is a flinch reaction.

[@littleponygirl666]

But it's completely pointless movie. It's a rehash of the original which did EVERYTHING better.

[@paulanthony5274]

It's like the 2006 War of the world's it has a lot wrong with it, but I still like it, about 6.5 out of 10 movie

[@ArchDethKreation]

yes I hate the hate it gets. As a massive fan of the carpenter the thing Ill take anything of that quality relating to The Thing. MORE

[@dantealighieri7234]

For all its flaws I did like how the prequel basically ran directly into the original one with its ending.

[@ColorFilmArchives]

I'll swear to it; practical effects are "almost" always going to be better then CGI.

[@Bob.Roberts]

When I saw the 1982 film as a child of 8, in an old drive-in. during a "midnight movies" rerun with my family, it was the singular film that scared me more than any other horror film in existence, even more than The Shining. No other horror movie had given me such vivid nightmares as a kid, and even nowadays watching it gives me creepy ideas. I always remember the utter incomprehensible biology of the creature, how it moved, what it sounded like--unearthly, and most of all, what it could do to a person. Then there's the environment and sound score, so hopeless. It is the perfect terror combination. I took my nephew to see it at a "Halloween Madness" showing for the first time a couple of years ago; he was 11 at the time. When he first saw Bennings being taken over and killed, he just sat there silently, eyes wide as saucers. During the kennel scene, he covered his eyes, and tried to cover his ears too, lol. That followed for the rest of the scenes. My sister got so upset with me because of how scared he'd gotten, lol. He wouldn't turn off the light in his room at night anymore for months. Ironically, he bought the dvd of it not long ago and then had his girlfriend over to watch it; they had a spat afterwards. I guess JC infected another one with his horror. edit: Onto this video. To put it plainly, several of the criticisms raised about the 2011 film are too harsh. Firstly, though there were some ideas about when exactly it was supposed to take place, it was planned pretty early on that it was slated to be a prequel, and that it would ignore any of the related video game or comic material before it. With that in mind, it gives some reasoning for how the creature might act and react, since presumably, this is the first time it's encountering humans after being frozen in an icy tomb for more than a 100k years. Reasonably, it's not going to be quite as subtle and cunning as it becomes in the 1982 film. It's going to 'thing-out' with less provocation. Its forms are going to be leaning more towards utilitarian and kill factor, instead of deception. Even then, when it comes down to the last scene, it has learned to be more deceptive, and very nearly tricked our protagonist. While I agree that there could have been more different scenes than the first movie, there were enough of them, and the homage scenes were diverse enough--while also maintaining continuity from the first movie, that this shouldn't be considered a 'rehash'. I believe if the practical effects had been preserved, the negative attitudes concerning this movie would be far less critical.

[@clyne8835]

The movie traumatised you so you took your nephew to get traumatised by it too. Lmao, I love that

[@jondrew55]

I was super enthused when I saw the trailers for Carpenter’s The Thing. But I got caught up in a work project for a few weeks and next thing I knew it was gone from all the local theaters. Thank god for HBO when they showed it. I’ve probably seen this movie 100 times and love every minute of it.

[@zew1414]

And in 1991, there was so many hidden narratives that I still hadn't noticed until a few years ago! Like the blood bank and who had the keys (the big clue to this was a sound, so easy to miss), the jacket continuity, the eye flare theory, etc....and some people are still finding little gems to discover, then uncover! Bravo Carpenter!!

[@MrHereWeGoYo]

Like many Gen Xers, I saw Carpenter's The Thing as a kid when it hit home video and was completely blown away by it. 13 years old to be exact. However, as kids we didn't have a voice back then. Then came the rise of the internet with its chat rooms and message boards. By the mid-90s it was becoming clear just how much of an impact the movie had on our generation.

[@wickamo]

I actually really liked the prequel. The story was already dictated by the first one for the most part. I had always wanted to see the story of what happened at the Norwegian camp that lead up to the Carpenter movie story. As far as rehashing it, the stories have to be similar to be consistent. They were basically continuations of each other. I do wish they had stuck with the practical effects and I wish they hadn't rushed it, but I don't think it made it a bad movie and I think they got very close to making the cgi match the style of the practical.

[@jandoor2068]

The prequel is a decent enough movie, but falls down in two areas - one the rubbish CGI when it could have used far more pleasing practical effects, and two, it is compared to the 1982 film which is vastly superior in pretty much every way. By itself, the prequel is a solid 8/10, but when compared to the earlier Carpenter film it sinks to a 6/10.

[@IrradiatedLimes]

This channel deserves WAY more subscribers. Amazing quality work.

[@HORRORCULTURE]

Thanks very much!

[@dogbadger]

I agree with point 2. I believe the gore at the time was seen as so excessive that it distracted from the film's true qualities, and critics dismissed it similar to the shallow 'Video Nasty' films of the late 70s/80s. As we became desensitised to gore over the years, the brilliantly presented paranoia aspect was appreciated more - and it has gained almost universal critical respect. However, as far as the viewing public is concerned whilst it may not be the case in the US, in the UK this film has ALWAYS been highly regarded. Sure, in the 80s it was the gore effects that were the key talking point (because they were remarkable), but whilst similarly it has gained respect over time the love was always there.

[@Vicus_of_Utrecht]

Movie for gore was well established by '82...

[@HeatherHolt]

Oh man, the video nasty days. That was more of a British term IIRC but the idea certainly was a thing here in the us as well. People easily forget how religion had a much larger foothold in society and what was acceptable back then. Hence the satanic panic of the 80s being so proliferant. Plus the normal moviegoer would prefer happy endings with bow wrapped full explanations of any potential cliffhangers. Hell we still see a lot of that today with things like transformers and 50 shades of grey making box office successes meanwhile actual good movies with depth are rarely that successful. Had Joker been just a movie about a crazy guy fed up w society, and not the Joker from Batman like it ended up becoming… it wouldn’t have pulled the numbers it did, IMO. OK rant over lol

[@redflea2877]

11:49 the cutoff of everyone in the room groaning after he said that they were using CG had me giggling

[@BillMcSwain]

One of the only movies I can watch over and over again

[@barnaclestval]

I was 15 when I saw J.C.'s Thing & absolutely loved it. I loved it so much I went back 2 days later to see it again bringing a different group of friends to see it. It was also the 1st movie I ever bought when it was released for home viewing. I wouldn't buy another film till 2010 when I bought Barfly because no one ever shows it. I've been a Carpenter fan since he scared the shit out of me with Halloween in 1978. I was 12 so I had to buy a ticket for another movie & then sneak into cinema 2 when no one was looking. Because of Johns The Thing whenever critic's shit on something I always give it a chance. Critic's are usually wrong about 80% of the time.

[@BoRice82]

I saw this very young at like 7 or 8 bcuz I was born in 82. After seeing Mike, Freddy, Jason, and Zombies, The Thing still goes unmatched comparing 1 movie to multiple. Only rival is The Exorcist. Hands up

[@stiffrichard2816]

I remember the 80's and it's nuts that we had these critics telling people what movie to see and what not to see. I don't think anyone really listened. Siskel and Ebert with their thumbs up/down routine was more about watching them argue.

[@AOV-rv3ov]

I think if The Thing 2011 got to use their practical effects they were originally gonna use before the studio went over their head with cgi everyone would’ve loved it.

[@vothbetilia4862]

Well not everyone, people just prefer cgi at times, the issue was they didn't do the CGI right in the film and not real enough.

[@localone1597]

Don't see how any horror fan could not like the 82 version when it came out. It was instantly my favorite. And honestly I enjoyed the 2011 version. I just go into horror movies with an open mind. Doesn't have to blow me away.

[@marcoslopez_]

Apparently this movie wasn’t very liked when it first came out and didn’t make very much money. The movie failed. Now it’s a horror classic.

[@Vicus_of_Utrecht]

It's a lie, it was a hit, regardless of ratings.

[@l.c.3118]

The "Money in my Pocket" song makes me guffaw every time. Especially the clashing text on his shirt: "MONEY SONG"

[@jakedizzle]

I still can’t believe The Thing was panned when it came out. I remember getting a free DVD of the movie when the game was coming out. I had no idea what it was but even as a kid I knew it was awesome after watching it.

[@doublea9482]

Awesome break down! Love Carpenter’s The Thing much more than the newest remake. But the remake was good too. But you can’t compare the subpar CGI of the new version to the amazing practical effects of Carpenters The Thing.

[@jollama]

It’s a prequel

[@marinex65]

Roger Ebert is, as usual, a simple minded critic.

[@231mac]

At least Ebert is _finally_ contributing to society (worm food).

[@bigmoose99]

I wanted to hear Siskels reply it looked like he disagreed and I’ll leave it at that

[@moriahmars1462]

@@231mac bruh

[@jamesvokral4934]

Ebert was a great critic and writer on films. He got The Thing wrong but his body of work was excellent and on target.

[@231mac]

@@jamesvokral4934 Lol, you're citing a biased and purely subjective perspective as fact. Do you even see how asinine that is? And he got _many_ films wrong, simply because *I* say so. See how well your claim works?

[@Vamroc]

Originally they had practical effects for the prequel but the Studio went behind the backs of the on set FX team and told a digital Effects company to replace all the practical effects with digital ones the original onset FX team only found out about the switch DURING THE FILM'S PREMERE SCREENING

[@acountryboysopinion6001]

One of my Older Brothers took me to see THE THING " (1982), when it came out at the theaters & it's been in my TOP 5 ever since.

[@Inyourspectraleyes]

For the 2011 prequel, you need to remember the thing was stuck in ice for a long time and was just barely found by humans. The thing was not familiar with its surroundings or the humans which is why it was much more vicious than how it was in the 1982 version.

[@SerafiniAGaunt]

There's a better way that concept could've been shown in the movie, if for the breakout scene or even up until Julia it attacks viciously, but then tries to blend in

[@jamessullivan4391]

I'm going to have to call bullshit on this.

[@NotMorganFreeman.]

@@jamessullivan4391 You would be right in doing so. That's some made up on the spot bullshit if I ever heard it. The real reason is, just as it was stated in the 1982 version, the chameleon strikes in the dark, it wants to stay hidden. They simply screwed the 2011 version up and ignored this crucial fact and turned it into a run of the mill monster running up and down the halls. It's called bad writing.

[@jimf.1318]

@@jamessullivan4391 Its literally canon lmao

[@gerardwolf8507]

@@jamessullivan4391 do your research

[@hunterkiblin5765]

This channel is underrated af

[@HORRORCULTURE]

Thanks!

[@xeokym223]

I was over my grandparents when I stayed up late to watch _The Thing,_ which I thought was GREAT. Man, the dog scene scared the crap outta me; hardly slept 5 minutes that night.😄

[@elijahbeaver5388]

"he wasted a perfectly good glass of whiskey", hahaha!

[@karenlbellmont6560]

I've loved John's version of The Thing; it's one of my favorite horror classics.

[@seinfan9]

I watched this movie a few years ago without much, if any, background knowledge regarding its status now as some sort of masterpiece. My unadulterated opinion of the movie was that it was really good as movies in general go, but was definitely among the best ever in the horror genre.

[@geraldmartin7703]

I saw the 1982 version in the theater during its original release. I thought the movie amazing but the acting poor, like line reading before filming. Only criticism, however. Morricone score was excellent. Reviews were brutal. One called it "pornography"; but I thought pornography was enjoyable.

[@taiven.lechevalier]

I had no idea that people didn’t like the movie…? That movie is amazing.

[@BrazenBullXXX]

His way was just before his time. I'd rather be booed for it at the time just for future generations to see it as groundbreaking and I'm sure John is proud of that. It is a badge of honor. Even Quentin Tarantino went through the same treatment with Pulp Fiction.

[@WanderlustWonderscape]

This video must have taken years to put together... well done with all the hard work you put into it.

[@finnish_hunter]

I think the 2011 had some good and smart moments, like the ending when the main girl notices that her friend isn't really his friend just by his ear ring being on the wrong ear.