THE THING (2011) MOVIE REACTION - HOW DID WE NOT CATCH ON SOONER!?- FIRST TIME WATCHING - REVIEW

[@OfficialMediaKnights]

Hey guys! Thank you for watching and for your support. You guys have been nothing but the best! What are your thoughts on both The Thing (1982) & The Thing (2011)? We'd love to see the original cut of this film! If you'd like to support the channel and gain access to the full length reaction become a member of our patreon bit.ly/3ICVrJ6 Watch our reactions early! kzbin.info/door/iCUz1bHid4H9mu6g2IOjXgjoin

[@jbwade5676]

❤❤

[@AdrianSilva-y5n]

And thank you for reacting on this movie with my favorite actress Mary Elizabeth wintead 😍

[@myGamebox47]

Absolutely

[@reduxmod9178]

That's right guys. It's a prequel. 😉😊

[@samcataldo4278]

HAVE YOU SEEN THE ORIGINAL FILM The Thing from Another World, 1951 ???? sometimes referred to as just The Thing, is a 1951 American black-and-white science fiction-horror film, directed by Christian Nyby, produced by Edward Lasker for Howard Hawks' Winchester Pictures Corporation, and released by RKO Radio Pictures.

[@AlessaParker]

🤣 the way you ended with "KILL THE DOG PLEASE" beautifully circling back to how most reactors begin the Carpenter film reaction with "LEAVE THE DOG ALONE"

[@StephenCice]

Before they realized too late that it was The Thing.

[@Jayskiallthewayski]

I must have been one of the few that went "Kill that fucker!" at the time 😂

[@AWhistlingWolf]

The joy of slowly realizing this was NOT a remake but a prequel about the norwegian camp.... the two-faced burnt monster, the axe on the door, the guy with the slit throat, Lars's dog, the broken block of ice, the hole in the ice field where they dug up the creature.....

[@ubik5453]

This prequel wasn't really needed.

[@jimmysmithjr4523]

If you enjoyed the original youll take it ​@@ubik5453

[@TempoMotions]

@@ubik5453 its not about if it was needed, its about introducing a movie to a new generation and the studio removed that opportunity by making it all of it CGI. Many prequels and sequels aren't needed, if you aren't happy about it then don't watch it

[@ubik5453]

@@TempoMotions 🤣 Someone's acting like a little bitch, eh?

[@AWhistlingWolf]

@@ubik5453 True, but most prequels in general aren't needed. Same for sequels, spin-offs, etc.

[@barnowl763]

Mad respect to Lars. He never gave up trying to protect people. The amount of hate the character receives initially in the original movie from EVERYONE is not deserved. We’re too trusting of dogs sometimes. Good efforts Lars, rest In peace

[@breezy3392]

A good man. He tried so hard

[@schibleh531]

He reminds me of both Mcreedy and Dr. Blair in the original. All of them decided to stop the thing no matter the cost once they knew what it was capable of.

[@dljprogun]

I like Lars too. In the 1982 film it made me happy to see the thing get Garry.

[@rockon4853]

This is not a remake from the old movie. This is the BEGINNING.

[@schibleh531]

I read a theory here on KZbin on why the Thing is way more aggressive in this one. They said that it made sense because the thing never encountered humans, and it didn't know what they were capable of. It probably underestimated humanity after realizing that we can't transform or adapt to our environments, and that almost got it killed. This is why it takes a very stealthy approach in the original.

[@dustinmichel7608]

Exactly

[@dustinmichel7608]

It literally adapts from one film to the next.

[@jamiefarrell6049]

Yeah but as soon as it copies a person it should have a very good idea on how to behave!

[@krashd]

My theory has always been that by the time it gets to the US base it is exhausted, after all it has been fighting for almost two days by that point. It switches from confrontational to hit and run tactics.

[@brandonvortex995]

This was explain alot but the die hard fan refuse to listen to it. But yeah, why it was aggressive in the prequel it's because the alien lifeform never encounter a human before, soo after it's first defeat, the alien lifeform learn it's lesson and take more stealthy approach the next time it encounter a human being. My only critique is that sadly there is more of this prequel that was remove, supposedly there were an introduction of the Alien Pilot that was in stasis and the one that crash landed the Flying Saucer (and the UFO was probally somekind of research ship probally)

[@bertalach]

I read somewhere that they wanted to rebuild the Norwegian base, but there were no measurements for dimensions. So the set designers found out Kurt Russels height and measured everything in Kurt Russels to get the exact dimensions correct! I love this it’s one of the best prequels

[@jaimicottrill2831]

Lol, that's better than how many bananas I guess!

[@jameylebel]

They actually used the blown up United States base as the Norwegian base in the 82 film. All the scenes with Doc and Mac are filmed after the camp was blown. Saved a lot of money by being practical

[@erikbjelke4411]

That's a common trick in the film industry when you need to reconstruct something but only have the film footage. Take a known measurement, like an actor's height, that's in frame with the thing you need to replicate and extrapolate from there. Adam Savage of the MythBusters is pretty skilled at it.

[@jaimicottrill2831]

@@erikbjelke4411 That's cool!

[@vladyvhv9579]

Actually, they did a ton of resarch on places like the old Outpost 31 fan-site before there was a hosting migration that resulted in loss of tons of content. I was a member of that site's forums, and we got to converse with them a bit, as well.

[@AWhistlingWolf]

Look up "The Thing 2011 original pilot" to see what the original spaceship pilot was supposed to look like. That creature design with the three eyes on top of one another was shown at the end in the original cut, several of them lying dead and mummified on the floor in one of the rooms of the ship. They were the original alien pilots, The Thing got on their ship and started killing them all, and the few survivors locked themselves in a room and starved to death. In the final cut, they thought that part was confusing and they replaced it with the 3-D tetris thingy you see in the movie when Kate gets on the spaceship. They also had a different design for the creature at the end, instead of having the face of the expedition leader, in the original version The Thing is a shape-less mass of the alien pilots, the humans, everything mashed together in a freaky form.

[@OfficialMediaKnights]

Whaaat, that final design should have made it into the final cut!!! Also, would have loved to see what happened to the survivors instead of the tetris situation! Thanks for recommending the original pilot to us, we can't wait to see what it looks like!

[@BryanMasten-pn8wo]

Sad thing is, those alien pilots could've been a race of peaceful explorers that just happened to pick up an unwanted passenger.

[@MikeC_337]

@@BryanMasten-pn8wo Or perhaps it was a prisoner, and they were exterminators or bounty hunters of sorts. The possibilities.

[@AWhistlingWolf]

@@MikeC_337 This plays out the same way in Alien (1979), the main theory is that the Space Jockeys were transporting facehugger eggs for some reason and one of them broke out and killed the pilot, but it may be that the eggs were laid AFTER the pilots were killed, maybe one facehugger climbed on board and the xenos took over from there.

[@w415800]

It doesn't really matter, it's still has near or same level of intelligence as the spaceship owners, it's not some captured animal like the Xenomorphs.

[@shanelogan630]

My favorite part of this is that Lars knew the dog was the thing at the end because he knew his dog was killed. That whole time that’s how he knew and the feeling of shooting at something he loved when we believed initially he was some crazy guy trying to kill a random dog.

[@stutallis5673]

That reveal at the end that Lars is the crazy guy at the start of the original is just fantastic, and your guys reaction was just perfect

[@k1productions87]

I was waiting the whole time for that moment of realization "Wait, is this THE Norwegian camp?", but eventually I knew that wasn't gonna happen until right at the very end, and what an end.

[@mustlearnmore4884]

I loved the twist at the end when the two KZbinrs realised this was a prequel all along! I thought you already knew this was set before the original! 😅😅

[@XxVenoms_CarnageXx]

Showing how smart the thing is and how it retains the memories of its host was in the scene with the girl in the locker room. When kate set it on fire it KNEW whwre the ansul fire extiguisher was to try and out out the fire. That alone is terrifiying

[@wratched]

It's not the use of CGI that poisoned the well for this film; it's that the film was advertised in advance as using only practical effects, and then those effects, which were done by Alien FX maestro Tom Woodruff, were swapped out at the last minute with CG effects.

[@warlorddk2070]

So a pretty entertaining movie were unreasonably hated based on ridiculous factors... Yup that absolutely sounds like movie people XD

[@tenchraven]

But is that enough to have a nearly irrational degree of rage about the movie as so many of the people who hate it do? Thats all post production, not much the director or wrier or actors can do at that point. I think the CGI is trash, and would swap every left nut on the continent to get the version with practical effects. But it's still a good story.

[@tinocontreras5105]

it was a good movie but using cgi killed it. it was a little overboard

[@benmason9755]

Woodruff and co. were SO frustrated by that that they went off and made a low budget indie horror movie using the original practical effects they made for the film, which was a thinly-veiled homage to the original movie. The result was called Harbinger Down and it's REALLY GOOD.

[@warlorddk2070]

@@benmason9755 All i can say i saw the shots and I was not impressed... Looked like the muppetshow to me

[@AWhistlingWolf]

I love how you went "That thing was crawling away on the ice because something forced it out and chased it", and then it turns out everyone in the spaceship was dead and that thing crawling on the ice was THE thing, trying to find other lifeforms to kill and replace. MacReady in the 1982 film: "So the ship crashed and this thing [the monster] crawled out, trying to get somewhere"

[@tinocontreras5105]

it wasn't Mac he wouldn't have killed The Thing in the end

[@vladyvhv9579]

Mac says exactly: "...and this Thing gets thrown out. Or maybe it crawls out."

[@odemusvonkilhausen]

I'm glad y'all watched this. Nobody ever suggests this movie, because it's CGI instead of practical effects. Y'all just went up a notch, in my book.

[@OfficialMediaKnights]

Thank you so much for your support, it means everything to us!! We honestly enjoyed this film, the hate it gets is just mind-boggling!

[@pnaomiw]

I agree! I loved this movie! This is one of a few movies I liked where I also liked the original (the other one is Poseidon). You can keep the same story line and have different character arcs & obstacles to character development & that will still make the film super interesting and different .

[@StuckCrab]

It's not so much the fact that it's CGI that bothers people IMO. It's more that they had the practical effects for all, or at least most, of the scenes and then CG'd over the top of them. Other than that it's certainly not a bad movie. Not as good as the original but could've been worse.

[@blueturret5596]

@@StuckCrab​​⁠It’s not a bad film, but it could’ve been significantly better if the studio hadn’t interfered. Apparently, a collection of test screenings yielded a mixed response, so the studio panicked and had a bunch of scenes that were dedicated to character development and story building either significantly shortened or completely cut. They also replaced all the practical effects with CGI because they felt the practical effects “made it feel too much like an 80’s movie.” This choice apparently really upset both the writers and Amalgamated Dynamics. The ending for the film was also completely changed. Instead of the cheap looking CGI Sander-Thing, the final antagonist of the film would’ve been the Thing taking the form of the ship’s alien pilot in an attempt to escape the planet. Technically the alien pilot animatronic is still in the final scene, it’s just hidden behind the CGI Tetris effect.

[@Dinobottenbley]

@@blueturret5596it’s almost a complete retread of the original. There’s nothing that stands out on its own.

[@SeanHunterMusic]

The Thing (1982) is my favourite film and I actually love this film as a prequel. The writers went into such great detail setting the story up to lead into the original. You can tell the people involved in this had a love for the original and wanted to make something fun for fans. Just a shame that studio tampering erased the efforts of the practical effects by the talented crew involved. That and there’s so many underrated actors in this. I always watch both films back to back as it becomes one long, great story. Seeing you guys realise it was a prequel was so fun and this is why I love watching your reactions!

[@xenomorph2056]

Honestly, critics can never be trusted. Ever. CGI effects or not, this was a great movie. Movies are supposed to be about the story more than anything.

[@saltLTaylor]

Thank you.....I didn't care of what manner the effects came about the movie rocked

[@tenchraven]

Even if the effects look bad, it's the story. We don't complain about the original Godzilla because the man-in-suit looked bad, nor about Jaws because the shark is obviously mechanical to modern eyes who've grown up on better.

[@Peekaboo6969]

This movie is more then awful cgi it's rehash everything from the first but worse

[@redemptionjack4657]

Uh it was a prequal like in the first film the Norwegians went trhough exactly what the americans went through.​@@Peekaboo6969

[@levitaggart5943]

I agree. This movie was a long time coming. Anyone who's seen the J. Carpenter film has waited for the day that the Norwegian story gets told, especially since their base was visited in the '82 film. That one had everyone wondering why the 'copter crew was hunting a dog. Now we see why. It was well executed, considering the exotic & extremely odd nature of the alien. A lot of people like to knock it, but let them try to do better.

[@chriswerth918]

This movie is hated by the crowd as well as by the critics. Personal opinion: I loved it! It is one of the most underrated horror prequels, of all time 😉

[@Sandra-wj4on]

I LOVE that this prequel stayed true to the original Kurt Russell movie. A lot of prequels nowadays tend to derail because the “new” director wants to but their own spin to the original story. It then takes away the joy you guys felt at the end of the prequel. Wonderful review, guys!❤

[@Lucklaran]

Actually, no, it didn't. It caused a major hole in the story. At no time in this movie do we see the scene of them standing around the crater with the EXPOSED ship in it. At no time do they place explosives in it, as seen on the video tape found at their camp. So, how the hell do Mac and Norris end up walking over the EXPOSED surface of the ship? Then there's the "shocking reveal" that the last Thing(don't even know the name of the dude) didn't know which ear it's missing earring was suposed to be in. This was obviously a nod to the debate over whether or not Childs is a Thing at the end of the movie. The more observant people can see Childs still has his earring in his ear. With the exception of the MC, who's name I also don't remember, none of the characters really add anything but fodder to the movie. None of their deaths matter. You feel every death in the '82 movie. Those characters matter. How many and who will survive. We already know the fate of everyone in this movie. They're all dead, except of course MC. How they die doesn't really matter. Going back to the last Thing we see before the dog, there is now another Thing, frozen near the burned out abandoned vehicle, a rather obvious attempt at setting up a sequel. Last thing from a continuity aspect, the "split face" Thing has way to many teeth. Compare 40:50 to kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y2qTXnhomrxjf8ksi=R708R1X8AV9pVQxo&t=754 . Is this a nitpick? Probably, but it's not like they couldn't reference the source material to get it right. If this was NOT an attempt at a prequel to one of my favorite movies, I might have been more open to it. It's a solid horror film in it's own right. But for me personally it fails to justify it's existence. For me it added nothing of value to the lore of the 82 movie. It was TOO similar, with less likeable characters.

[@phousefilms]

@@Lucklaran I agree on a lot and more. The part about each death mattering most. Garry:"I've known Bennings for 10 years. He's my friend!" The movie is not a shot for shot remake, but it doesn't take risks or do anything special to differentiate itself. -Thing reveals itself and tries to absorb something(human in this one, dog in the original) and is burned, leading to an alien autopsy. -A main character is suspected of being a Thing and is locked up/out, only to hold the group up at flamethrower point. -Human is killed by headshot. -Filling's scene=attempt at recreating the blood test. -Person is injured and the group attempt to tend to them, only to reveal they are a Thing. -Giant Thing is blown up in the final battle.

[@kryptonpictures9849]

I'm happy to see how you don't let yourselves be influenced by prejudices, instead forming your own opinions. That's why you have one of the best channels. Looking forward to more.

[@DarkLarva]

I don’t know if anyone has mentioned it but the 1982 The Thing is actually a remake of 1951’s the Thing from Another World which this film actually took elements of the actual 1951 original.

[@John-wb9lf]

Having said that, Carpenter’s version is closer to the novella.

[@Oliverf-ej8kl]

the thing is also a reference to many mens genitalia, which is capable of changing shape and density on command. Obviously that connection was incorporated by the original director. So many artistic nuances at work here

[@tommc3622]

​@John-wb9lf It's surprisingly faithful to "Who Goes There?". Far more so than the 1951 film. It's actually kinda mind-blowing that this story/concept was written in the 1930s.

[@vladyvhv9579]

the 1951 movie isn't anything to write home about. It's basically a Frankenstein suit set up as a vampire plant creature. The sort of B-Movie that's fodder for MST3K.

[@Zeradias]

Fun & True fact: they filmed this movie with 100% practical effects, but Paul Marketing said, "PrAcTiCaL dUmD, KiDs & TeEnS LoVe CGI, ReDo ThE wHoLe MoVie" So they CGI'd over every instance of the Thing's practical effects they had.

[@OfficialMediaKnights]

Gaaahhh, see, this is so upsetting!! We need the original cut with the practical effects, it's honestly criminal to change it after all of the hard work that has been put into it!

[@elduderino2462]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/aYObcoakZ5p6gsksi=LQtZU1KLVgSJkZWZ Its just sad what they did when you look at these tests...

[@TJMiton]

yup, studio totally ruined this movie.

[@hayatotheninja]

Yeah, when I watched the extras showing the practical effects, my heart was broken...

[@evilscary]

They also changed the final act. In the original the thing is revealed to have been a specimen that broke free of a containment tube, and one of the original pilots is still alive inside the ship.

[@jameylebel]

I love that you originally thought it was a remake of a remake….the original Thing was in the 50’s, the remake in 1982, and the “prequel” in 2011

[@kuribayashi84]

I love that they got a bunch of experienced Norwegian Actors for this movie. I heard Trond Espen Seim, who played Edward, is very famous in Norway, basically their Brad Pitt. And Kristofer Hivju (Jonas) later was Tormund Giantsbane in _Game of Thrones._

[@G3rain1]

I've always thought the same thing about the ship and it's original crew. In fact, if you think about it, Antarctica is THE best place to crash land if your are trying to prevent the spread of the thing. So I don't think the crash site was random chance. The ships crew was trying to be responsible and not infect all of Earth.

[@krashd]

They could simply have chosen not to crash into the Earth at all. Spaceships aren't like planes, they don't have to fall out of the sky when something goes wrong.

[@gradypowell5391]

‘The Thing From Another World’(1951) is The Original ‘Thing’

[@OfficialMediaKnights]

It's on our list for sure!

[@daveking9393]

​@@OfficialMediaKnightsI believe John Wayne was in the thing costume for the final scene...

[@blueroninstudios]

To be fair, it's the short story "Who Goes There?" that is the original source material that inspired all the films. Technically, anyway. 😊

[@Heathen9]

@@OfficialMediaKnightsno, the original story for, who goes there almost matches completely with the John Carpenter film. Not the 1951 version.

[@Heathen9]

No, it’s not. The John Carpenter version was almost shot for shot like the story, not the 1951 film.

[@duckodzilla]

The fact they somehow made this fit in so well with how the first movie was truly made me respect them.

[@Nakna_ankaN]

You should watch The Fly from 1986. Just like The Thing, it's a 1980's reimagining of a classic sci-fi horror from the 1950's. It's not just a great horror, but a great movie with actual drama and real depth. Along with The Thing and An American Werewolf in London, it is considered to contain some of the best practical special effects and makeup of all time. The Fly even won an Oscar for best makeup and stars Jeff Goldblum in arguably the best performance of his career.

[@misteral1083]

Yeah, The Fly really stands up - maybe not as well as Alien, but it's still a very good movie. Cronenberg, what can I say?

[@MREmusique]

I wouldn't say that The Thing was a "remake" of a 50s film. I'd say it was a considerably more true-to-the-story adaptation of the novella the 1950s movie was supposed to be based on. The novella gave me violent nightmares for the longest time. It's truly terrifying, and is almost (I do say "almost) beat-for-beat the same story as the 1980s The Thing. I remember seeing The Thing at the cinema. It never got a regular theatrical run where I live and only played in a sort of "art house" theatre. The audience loved it (I mean at the showing I was at.) The critics absolutely trashed it. A real shame.

[@Nakna_ankaN]

@@MREmusique Fair enough, but I never called it a "remake", but a reimagining and the title is obviously based on The thing from another world, rather than Who goes there?. It is also very likely that John Carpenter was at least initially inspired to make his version because of the film, since it's featured in Halloween. Yeah, The Thing and The Fly, had very different receptions. The Thing didn't do well with critics or at the box office, but is well known and held in very high regard today, while The Fly received a lot of praise at release, but isn't anywhere near as well known or appreciated as The Thing is nowadays.

[@MREmusique]

@@Nakna_ankaN I love both The Fly and The Thing. I actually have a soft spot for this Thing prequel as well. It's just a shame that studio interference forced them to add a bunch of shoddy last second CGI over the practical effects. I mean, the practical stuff is still there! It's just overlaid with not-very-great CGI. Oh, but if you DO get the chance, read "Who Goes There". I swear it is one of the scariest things I've ever read. And it really is almost beat-for-beat Carpenter's film.

[@Nakna_ankaN]

@@MREmusiqueYeah, it's a shame that a version with the practical effects intact is unlikely to ever see the light of day, but you never know. It could be interesting to compare the book to the film, I just might have to check it out. =)

[@ermond012]

49:36 your reactions are priceless. Hahaha! When I was watching your reaction, I thought it's weird that you didn't recognize some scenes in the Norwegian camp. And at the end of the film you really do not have any idea that this is a prequel to the original. Haha it was a delight to see the realization in your faces that it's all connected. This film could have been better but it's still nice that we got to see what happened to the Norwegian camp.

[@AWhistlingWolf]

22:03 "That's a lot of blood, man" You could even say it was.... a bloodbath.

[@kylec254]

Booo!! 😅😅

[@jenni5104]

Lol 😂

[@phousefilms]

Patrick Star(thumbs down):Booooo...

[@donnaroo8042]

YYYEEEAAAAAA!!!!!

[@AWhistlingWolf]

@@donnaroo8042 WON'T GET FOOOOOLED AGAAAAAAAIINN

[@chinruiz4113]

The marketing messed this one up by directly selling this one as a prequel. If they had held back that information, minds would've been blown (fantastically like yours did)

[@tygerchickchibi]

Tbh I didn't know it was a prequel until I saw it in theaters

[@williamgood1402]

I, fortunately, did not realize it was a prequel til most of the way through when I first watched in 2016- also didn’t know Prometheus was an origin story. Sometimes it helps not having cable or satellite t.v.

[@Wash869]

Despite the problems, I still consider it a good prequel, makes good connections with the classic film.

[@OfficialMediaKnights]

Absolutely agreed, it's not flawless by any means, but it carries many of the elements from the Carpenter 'The Thing' while still doing some things differently. We definitely had a lot of fun with this!

[@TheDeeGeeNL]

Yep, it's good, nothing will top the original aesthetics anyways. The only thing i don't like is the alien fight on the ship near the end, the rest is just perfectly good to me.

[@warrenbfeagins]

Great reaction! Guys, The Thing's 'original' form is what you see under the microscope. It's a micro/macro cellular organism. Anything other than that is what's been digested and then copied. That's why it can transform into different shapes. Those shapes or organisms were it's previous victims. Remember in the 1982 film Blair said, "It could have copied a million different lifeforms on a million different planets." Also, keeping the outside world out of it is absolutely the right call. My gripe was the lack of stealth the organism showed in this film vs the Carpenter film. In Carpenter's film Blair snuck up on Gary and started absorbing his face. In this one The Thing would unnecessarily transform BEFORE absorbing a victim. Overall, I liked the prequel.

[@OfficialMediaKnights]

We’d love to learn more about the lore of “The Thing” such a fascinating creature!

[@edgymoji8260]

Hell even the way the cells are constructed might not be it’s original form, the cells could be a mish/mash of other organisms genetic code that it’s commandeered. When I think of the thing’a original form minus everything it’s copied I just imagine that it’s a just a ‘will’ which is to take and spread, and that ‘will’ can’t ever really be killed so long as it’s got enough material to work with.

[@warrenbfeagins]

@@OfficialMediaKnights It's THE greatest sci-fi horror film of all-time in my opinion particularly Carpenter's version.

[@chadwood4412]

Since this was a prequel, maybe it learned it needed a different approach and started being stealthy?

[@warrenbfeagins]

@@chadwood4412 Possibly. I think (don't know) that they kinda wanted to show off the CGI which wasn't necessary after Juliette/Thing lured Kate into that room looking for the keys. Juliette/Thing could've just casually walked up behind her and then game over.

[@extremerpg409]

One detail that I love is that at 3:10 the signal sounds identical to the Distress Beacon from 2007's "Sunshine," a criminally underrated movie with a stellar cast.

[@krashd]

One way to think about the Thing being slower and less confrontational in the 1982 movie is that it was likely exhausted, by the time it reaches the American base it had already spent the better part of two days fighting the Norwegian team so it wasn't strong enough for a frontal attack and had to resort to hide and seek tactics against the American team.

[@Shyning77]

Or it decided to use a more sneaky and stealthy tactic because the more frontal approach in the Norwegian camp didn't work out well.

[@nicholasj007]

Loved your reactions at the end when you both realized this was a prequel and not a remake, awesome!

[@kiranpunnoose2441]

Have you realized that the Thing from the spaceship wasn't a survivor but a dangerous, lethal, and deadly prisoner?

[@OfficialMediaKnights]

We figured, we talk theories towards the end of the reaction portion of this film. It’s implied the ship and its pilots had this thing on board but the pilots and “The Thing” are not the same.

[@JeshuaSquirrel]

A crashed alien craft turned out to be a prison transport was used in episodes of Stargate SG1 and Seven Days.

[@AWhistlingWolf]

That's a possibility, but as far as we know the Thing may not have even been a prisoner, but a stowaway organism that climbed on board somewhere. In the original cut there were dead alien bodies in the spaceship, that looked completely different to the Thing. Seemed like the monster either broke into the ship or broke out of containment, slaughtered everyone, and the survivors locked themselves up and starved to death.

[@Renegade2786]

Like the Vampire parasite from *House of Ashes* which was inspired by both *The Thing* and *The Descent*

[@w415800]

It doesn't really matter, it's still has near or same level of intelligence as the spaceship owners, it's not some captured animal.

[@emosam07]

This is a prime example of me being wary of old horror movies, watching the remake/sequel/newer version first, loving it, then going back to the original and loving THAT even more. Nightmare 1 is also a good example.

[@gundamsigma]

When the pin drops for both of you that this was a prequel was the best part of the reaction guys

[@Mugelbbub16]

Fun fact: Juliette's thing assimilation was part CGI and part prosthetic, the person who played Juliette's mutant self essentially had an arm puppet prosthetic, I watched this prequel YEARS ago then watched the bts because I'm a fan of sfx makeup (I have even done some myself), not even the fire scene was CGI the prosthetic was fireproof! the stunt double had to wear a protective cover tho.

[@chefskiss6179]

Right or wrong, good or bad... major props, MAJOR props to you both for at least checking out this flick. I don't think any channel has actually done that (I could be wrong). Keeping an open mind in cinema, much less any medium, is something to be respected. In that vein, I hope you check out 1982's Gandhi at some point.

[@Gingerninja1138]

Hahaha that was awesome watching you guys realise its actually a prequel, watching you see the dog escape 😂 watching your react to the end made the hairs on my arms stand up, I know people give this movie a hard time but that's just because they went with the CGI instead of the practical effects.

[@Richardwho-vv5bh]

thank you so much for react to the prequel, is such a underrated movie.

[@ShinobiGrim]

I love the idea that what these people dig up is what caused the space craft to crash. It really solidifies the evidence presented to the question "why would it leave the super advanced space ship"?

[@rvmt81]

I thought you knew it was a prequel when you started were watching it. I loved when you discovered it was a prequel, her reaction was fantastic.

[@blueroninstudios]

A worthy companion piece to the original in my humble opinion. Loved how you guys figured it out by the end: it's the Norwegian outpost McCready investigated in the original!

[@Ahardcorecasual]

Fun fact - the scene where Kate torches Sam originally was not supposed to have the alien scream that we see in the movie, it was supposed to be just Sam's screams while he was getting torched mirroring the ambiguity of whether he was a 'thing' or not just like the end of the Carpenter file, this would have been awesome as even though he does not have the earring and he touches the wrong ear there could have been an aspect of after such a stressful situation of escaping the ship he may have mistakenly dropped the earring and touched the wrong ear cus he was not thinking straight, or he was really a thing it would have been up for interpretation. But as you said the studio meddled with so much of the film they also changed the scene to have the alien scream as they though it made Kate's character seem a little too inhuman which is stupid when you consider the situation.

[@UberNoodle]

Yes, and I thought that was disappointing. If I could edit the film, I would remove those alien screams. It's just another example of studios underestimating audiences and thinking they have to dumb everything down for them. They think audiences can't handle ambiguity, so they remove it as much as possible.

[@cuoresportivo155]

Honestly, one of the best prequels out there. It answers all the stuff that was revealed in the original, and didn't add much confusion.

[@nathanlindahl8336]

I laughed so hard at the end when you guys are screaming “KILL THAT DAMN DOG!!!” 😂😂😂

[@nathanw2775]

There were a few reasons why this wasn't received well: - It was announced as a prequel and so there was no surprise to anyone that it led into the 1982 film. - The trailer(s) gave away too much. The helicopter Thing scare scene being a big one people were upset seeing before the film came out. - At the last minute the studio executives replaced all of Amalgamation Studios practical effects with digital ones. This altered the final scenes dramatically. I saw this in the theater during release week and there was only four other people in the audience. I appreciated it for what it was but after finding out what could have been it hits a sour note in my memory.

[@Critical_mtb]

A yo!!! Thanks for the shout out ❤ I have seen this once and I didn't remember that tie in at the end. It low key caught me off guard. I would like practical effects but I'm not mad about, the movie is still enjoyable as it is. Also I love that double jump scare...your jump made ME jump!!! 😂

[@OfficialMediaKnights]

Haha that tie in at the end had us in shock but we thoroughly enjoyed it!! This one was such a fun time! Thank you so much for always supporting us, we appreciate you!!

[@Critical_mtb]

@OfficialMediaKnights thanks 😊 its crazy how time goes by so fast...I started watching/follow/sub when you dropped the reaction to Prey and I've been here since then LOL you are both awesome!!!

[@Gojira1701]

You did see the ice outline. The two-face was the one they brought back and dissected. And yes, we all knew it was a prequel going into the theater. The only thing is, we never find out what happened to Kate.

[@jimamos7984]

When they were making this movie, they went frame by frame in the original with the Norwegian camp, and was asking questions like "Why was the axe in the wall?"

[@vladyvhv9579]

They also did a bunch of reseach from the various fan websites that existed at the time. We were able to chat with them for a while on the old Outpost 31 forums.

[@PierceArner]

There are a couple elements of the way they set up & execute horror in this that always make me think of both *_30 Days of Night_* and also *_Annihilation_* which I think the both of you might enjoy, since you appreciated this.

[@Kdeem.224]

Have they Reacted to 30 Days of night? Cuz if not they should

[@silvertouchedwoman]

Love 30 Days of Night!

[@krashd]

Horror in remote locations where you know no help will reach you have always been my favourites, anything in space, under the sea or deep in enemy territory. The last good movie to fall into this category would be Underwater with Kristin Stewart and the bar tender from Deadpool who thinks he's hilarious.

[@AWhistlingWolf]

The last scene with the earring answers my question of "But what if The Thing just takes the inorganic parts and puts them back on?" Basically, you have to hope it puts the tooth fillings on the wrong teeth or the earring on the wrong ear or something like that. If The Thing memorizes where each inorganic part goes, it can replicate that as well no problem.

[@blackwidow7804]

You cant just put fillings back so even if the Thing knew it cant put them back. Earing is something else. You just put it on.

[@AWhistlingWolf]

@@blackwidow7804 I mean if the Thing can dissolve and re-build an entire human body piece by piece in just minutes, it can definitely place tooth fillings the right way during the process

[@benjalucian1515]

Oh and the "Tetras" thing in the ship? Was originally a practical effect alien of the ship, who had hung itself to escape the Thing. But after the studio made them switch to CGI, they just covered it up with the weird light show.

[@shainewhite2781]

I liked this movie, even though critics and fans said it was a terrible prequel, I think it was enjoyable. John Carpenter, however, liked the premise but didn't like the CGI, saying in an interview that the CGI ruined the suspense of the original. Even Alec Gillis and Tom Woodruff got screwed over by Universal after they spent months on special makeup and character animatronic puppets that they built for the film. Executives told them that they would use CGI to replace what was made in the final cut of the movie, which was very sad to hear.

[@OfficialMediaKnights]

Honestly, having watched this, we can understand how the CGI would be disappointing for the audience, even Carpenter said so, and he has a point. The practical effects would have grounded the terror more and hearing how Universal decided to switch to CGI after all that effort was put in is just upsetting. We enjoyed this film - it carried all the elements from the original and at this point, it's just obvious that people sometimes hate remakes just to hate.

[@DevilLoveMetal]

I'm starting to suspect, learning more about the concept, that the authors could have made a better film (not to mention the special effects), but because they were treated this way, their efforts were neglected, they decided - well, to hell with it, the main thing is to finish it and move on.

[@gavinderulo12]

CGI isn't the issue. The issue is bad CGI. And the fact that this movie wasn't shot with CGI in mind is likely the main contributing factor to why it is bad. Most people think CGI is just painted over the footage but in order to get good results that are grounded with the rest of the scene and actors you actually have to specifically shoot around that.

[@misterhyde1971]

55:00-55:50 You’re spot on Sister 👍🏽 By the time the Thing got to the American station it had known about Ye Olde Blood Test. That’s why he got to the blood so fast to dump it out. Also, he got to the blood because windows dropped the keys when he turned around and saw his friend being absorbed in the storeroom…you can hear them drop. There was another Thing from the shadow silhouette earlier so that is the one who picked up the keys and got to the blood. This Thing was flying an intergalactic spaceship 100,000 years ago…intelligent beyond our comprehension. Also… We now know that the Thing does not retain memories and it is not the actual person not knowing if He/She is the Thing or not. Example… At the end, the helicopter pilot didn’t remember which ear was pierced. That’s a memory so if you do not retain the person‘s memories, then asking someone a very personal question could work. Last… At the end of the original “The Thing” when Kurt Russell and Keith David are the only two survivors of the explosion… We now know that Keith David was not the Thing. Example… When Keith David is talking to Kurt Russell after he sits down you can see that Keith David has an earring in his ear. 👍🏽 Thanks for the great reaction to a great prequel!

[@Shmurph]

It always made me mad that the lack of practical effects is what made people write this movie off. The characters are great, the actors give fantastic performances, the atmosphere of stress and distrust and paranoia was perfectly maintained as soon as shit hit the fan, and the creature design was actually pretty great. Sure, it was all CGI, but it's not like it was *bad* CGI or the creatures looked stupid or anything. The designs they came up with were absolutely horrific in the best possible way. Not to mention the twist on it not actually being a remake of the John Carpenter film. Also, Marco Beltrami was a fantastic choice to do the score, he excels at anxiety-inducing music.

[@KNK2116]

I absolutely LOVED what y’all said about remakes & peoples entitlement towards an IP! You both hit the nail on head. Idk if anyone could’ve made the point better than you both did in your commentary section of this video. I’m a newer subscriber, within the past 2-3 months or so, & I’ve got to say I really enjoy not only your reactions but the commentary/analysis of the film you just watched. I cannot say the same for other reactors, even ones where I love their reaction but just feel like their review of the movie isn’t interesting (for lack of a better term atm) enough to listen to. You both always have such intelligent & insightful things to say & you often get me thinking more about a film or sometimes making me understand another point of view that I hadn’t previously. Coming from someone who loves everything that goes into making films (acting, writing, special effects, set design, etc.) I just want to say thank you both for taking the time to speak so passionately, eloquently & intelligently about the films you watch! ❤

[@Thundarr100]

I saw this movie in theatres when it came out. At the time, most everyone knew that this was a prequel to the original. And, I think that a lot of the hate came from knowing that it was a prequel to the original, telling the story of the Norwegians that found the alien and the ship. Knowing that took away a lot of the tension, because we already knew what was going to happen, if not exactly how it happened. Then there were some story elements that made no sense. Like the alien exposing itself and causing the helicopter to crash. True, the sick guy was way too obvious of a red herring, but deciding to crash the helicopter and risk dying rather than return to camp made no sense. The others hadn't even figured out how to tell the difference between a human and a replica yet. Add to that the crappy CGI instead of the original practical effects, and you've got a recipe for hatred.

[@Torente32]

I love how the twist in this film is that it's a prequel and not a reboot of the Thing. I did at first think it was just a bad reboot of a classic, but it was the ending that make me realize what was happening

[@berlyglobe7]

I loved this movie... and damn now i'm just realizing its a prequel...WOW!! amazing

[@arveanas]

This is one of my favorite movies. I also LOVE Mary Elizabeth Winstead. First saw her in Sky High as Gwen. Loved your reactions as always!

[@OrphanCrippler69bb]

The people who don't like this movie because of the CGI are the same people who judge a video game based on graphics and not gameplay.

[@LukeGreensmith]

I like the movie for what it does right. I HATE the executives for plastering over the practical effects with underfunded rush job CGI. We badly need a release of The Pilot Cut X_X

[@Resedda]

As a Norwegian, it's a bit fun to see how the actor dynamics are viewed from the outside. I like the movie for other reasons though. But your reactions, especially at the end, were great to share! Love your analysis, and completely agree with you here! Subscribed.

[@camarofan2008]

Y'all need to watch more John Carpenter movies. The Fog, big trouble, the rest of his Apocalypse trilogy and vampires. There are so many good movies. Enjoy

[@OfficialMediaKnights]

We are supergame, thanks for the recommendations!! Added them to our list!

[@warchief-e8273]

Ghost of mars , or vampires would be a good start

[@camarofan2008]

@warchief-e8273 I didn't care for the ghost of Mars myself, but horror is very subjective.

[@shadybrain3424]

escape from new york, assault on precinct 13, and they live are really good too.

[@camarofan2008]

@@ZXSPEX that's fair enough. Wasn't bashing it at all, just to be clear.

[@evilash2010]

I am glad you guys gave this a watch, I think you may be the only reactors to have. Back when it came out everyone was complaining about how the thing acted (also the bad CGI) and back then I came to the same conclusion that you did about it being new to the world and hadn't learned yet to be sneaky with humans. Since I liked both movies I made myself a super edit of both movies together to make an epic ride from both camps. The 80's movie really only needed the video and references to using thermite charges to clear the ice off the ship to make them fit together pretty well. Great Job with your reactions and looking forward to more.

[@Pingkonk]

This movie is a real solid horror flick. If this wasn’t of the The Thing IP it wouldn’t get the hate it does. Too bad so many ppl can’t just see it for what it is on its own

[@budlebubthebard301]

Unless your someone like an effects artist or of any creative view. The movie was great. The cgi was just awful. And I’m saying this as an artist, it wouldn’t have been that bad if it was given more time. Specifically the lighting. It was hard for me to enjoy it because I see the flaws in the way it looks. The helicopter turn with his face and the mixing of heads are the best examples off the top of my head. It just needed more work. Everything else is fine

[@pangaea90]

The original movie was made in 1951 and was called The Thing From Another World

[@Sawyer1982OAC]

Going from lead singer in a band at community college to scientist! Eat that, Britta!

[@TheMostWanted92]

Getting rid of Britta, getting rid of the B.

[@markeldamgaard]

Just discovered your challen recently. I subscribed and I love your longer reactions. Plus your genuine without being over the top just to get attention.

[@lorivera94]

Mary Elizabeth Winstead as "Amanda Ripley" I'd still see if it became real, because of this 👌

[@penguincgm489]

OMG I was so excited to see this upload! The reaction to this one is so rare. I think the amazing practical effect is a signature for the thing 1982, so it's a bit of a shame that we only got a little of that, but like you said, we gain mobility instead. I like the pacing in this movie more and they really did well in lots of perspective, creature design, tension, paranoid etc. Happy that you enjoy this one! Now that you know it's prequel, enjoy your rewatch especially with their visit to the Norwegians camp. There are TONS of details that they put there!

[@MattSipka]

Most fans point out the CGI vs. Practical as the main problem of this film, but to me the effects are just the icing on the cake. Part of what made John Carpenter’s version so great wasn’t just the practical effects but also the characters and the whole paranoia aspect of the plot. This prequel film gave us no time to know any of these characters, I can easily remember the names of every single character in the first movie, but I can’t remember anyone in this film nor do I care.

[@jenni5104]

I found the opposite. I didn't care about a single character in the sequel and can only (off the top of my head) remember Windows, Blair and Mac by name despite seeing it a hundred times. At least in this one I cared about some of the Norwegians like Peder, Lars and Jonas.

[@BarebonesNetwork-w3s]

Agree. One of the mistakes they made in this film was killing the dog off right away. Anyone who watched the 1982 version would know that the dog gets infected at some point. I think a scary scene would be the dog not acting normally, in that he stays outside of the compound and no amount of coaxing by the crew members can get the dog to come in. One member tries later as the dog slowly and cautiously approaches. When the dog gets near, its demeanor changes as he shows his teeth as if he were about to attack. Then the dog runs away as we hear voices behind the crew member, as he and the movie audience realize that others have come out to join him. Later, through a series of events, they find out that someone has been taken over, and after burning it to death, they see that the dog is no longer afraid, and willingly comes back to the compound. The crew member who tried to get the dog to come in earlier, remembers that every time the dog ran away, the infected crew member was nearby. They figure out the dog somehow knew and now that he's acting like a normal dog again, that everyone must be okay. Keeping the audience guessing was the way to go. Is everyone really okay, or has the dog already been infected?

[@misteral1083]

This is me musing, rather than trying to state something as a definable fact: I think in the 80s, as practical effects were really hitting new heights, there was a resurgence of the 50s phenomenon "Creature Feature". A large part of the draw of Carpenter's film WAS the practical effects - that was a significant reason why you would watch the film at that time. Similarly with The Fly (mentioned in an earlier comment) and An American Werewolf in London. The FX driven scenes were the focus, from an audience perspective. Where all these films excelled (and why they have become classics) is that in all other areas of film-making they were incredibly well crafted. Character driven pieces, with solid acting talent, great cinematography (for the time) and brilliantly paced. Somehow, with CGI...I don't know, it's as if those scenes are somehow dismissed instead of being lauded. Not entirely, I'm generalising considerably here. But it seems like we quickly got used to CGI as just another part of the film - notable only with huge steps forward like Jurassic Park and Lord of the Rings. I could be totally wrong about the latter part, since I was 12 in 1982, 23 when Jurassic came out and 31 when Fellowship emerged. I'm sure that age makes a difference (and of course my peers would also be similar ages).

[@jenni5104]

@@misteral1083 I mostly agree. Except Lord of the Rings was mostly practical and simply enhanced with CGI. As was Jurassic Park. Unless that was what you were getting at. It wasn't entirely clear.

[@misteral1083]

@@jenni5104 Ah, interesting about those two. No, I meant that they were celebrated for the successful implementation of CGI such as we hadn't seen before. (Not the only reason they were celebrated, of course). But your point about them being a mix of practical and CGI - I wonder if that's part of why people responded so well to the effects....

[@disturbed1013]

JC 82' "The thing" is one of my favourite movies. I went into this (2011) film thinknig it was a remake, but it was pretty obvious from the start that it was a prequel. The norwegians, finding the spaceship and getting out that ice cube with the thing. It's what McReady finds in the norwigian base. Then, obviously, there's that famous two faced half assimilation, where they show how it came to be. It was a nice movie, I did like it in the end, and the end was the best part :) the very last scene with Lars shooting at the dog from the helicopter is actually the scene from the 82' openning scene. Love when things come full circle :)

[@Fanto_Sir]

Art suffers when businessmen force artists to alter their vision for 'financial profit' 😢 This case was a perfect example of the irony of their actions.

[@TheLisa-Al-Gaib]

I wish I could give you a thousand thumbs up. This reaction was SO much fun! What a ride!!!

[@babalonkie]

The Thing (JC Original) is my favourite film. This is NOT a bad film, it's faithful to JC's film... however, the copying and CGI is it's downside, especially when they created and used amazing practical effects... the studio demanded CGI over the top of the already filmed practical effects and copying of the previous film's scenes... they sabotaged this film... probably the same people who tried to sabotage the original film. Tattoos: Ink is made from animals or plants... they are cellular based organisms... it's also a pigment... so yes, the Thing can imitate a tattoo. I liked this film, especially since it's faithful and answers questions on what happens. I just wish they kept the practical. I was just glad we got more "Thing" and faithfully... i now just want a horror paranoia multiplayer survival game based on it. Edit: You also acknowledged the same at the end.

[@dljprogun]

16:37 No, that is some alien life form that it killed and is imitating. We never find out what the thing's true form is. 36:47 You forgot Norris's head? 51:55 The 1982 film is a remake itself from the 1951 movie "The Thing from Another World" 52:03 Yeah, I think it's good too.

[@Cameron5043]

Fantastic reaction, guys! You made my day! It exactly IS the prequel to The Thing! Yes, the guy with the cut throat, the burned corpse with the two heads melted, the cut out ice block, the fact that it was the Norwegian station, all of it, yes! The fact that it can't absorb metal was a genius move, since the possibility of the blood test was destroyed. The guys in the "original" Thing were able to do the blood test, so they didn't get to the metal idea. I was not put off by the CGI. The jump scares were awesome, the grotesque level was absolutely on point...and remember in the original, the guy's HEAD detaching, sprouting LEGS, and scuttling away??? Oh, yes, those hands and arms can detach and scuttle! I sometimes think it's the popular thing to hate on CGI just because we can. Practical affects are fantastic, CGI is an amazing tool! Combining the two can produce God level visuals (LOTR anyone?). Yes, there is some cheesy CGI out there. There are also some really bad practical effects, too. This movie, for me, is NOT one of the bad ones! For me, they nailed it! And I loved it! There is a certain approach to watching movies, the suspension of disbelief, that allows us to invest in what we're seeing, to buy in to the world that been built for us. And that's on us to do. To not go, that's CGI, so I'm going to not buy in, but to revel in the overall power of what we are seeing! And you guys, by the way, are wonderful at this, investing in that suspension of disbelief and taking joy in what you see! You may discuss the CGI or practical effects afterwards, but you go in hard at investing in what you're watching, and I treasure that about you both! I will admit, when I realized, early on, that you thought you were seeing a remake, and didn't catch that it was the Prequel, I laughed like a maniac the whole way! It was just too good! Now....if they'd just go for part 3, because she's headed in the opposite direction to the Russian station, 50 miles away....I can think of SO many things to do with that for a 3rd movie!!! Hope somebody does it someday!

[@OfficialMediaKnights]

Thank you so much! Totally agree with you. The best use of CGI is when it’s working in tandem with practical sets and effects. Together they can be a very powerful tool. The issue here was the studio meddling with a product that would’ve surely been better had they not gotten involved. Even then, the visual effects here are not crappy. It just looses some of that magic the original had since it became such a staple of practical effects. That is the biggest downside this film has. Even then we believe the amount of hate it gets is not justified. The final minutes and how it connects to the 1982 film was such a cool experience. Caught us off guard because we really thought this was a remake 😂

[@brandonflorida1092]

Just to be clear, the 1982 film is not "the original." The 1951 film, which is excellent and never once reacted to on KZbin, is the original.

[@76marex]

but Carpenters Version is closer to the book. i know the original, it wouldn't me scare today

[@brandonflorida1092]

@@76marex Strange phraseology. When you say you "know" it, does that mean you've seen it?

[@andymason3555]

Your realization at the end that it was a prequel was amazing 😊. I know the effects aren’t very good, but this is still fun. I appreciate them setting it up for John Carpenter’s The Thing

[@vilefly]

They missed a chance for Kate to talk to the Thing. I imagine it could have gone like this: "Where are you from?" "I don't know. I am lost." "What are you?" "That which survives."

[@Francisco-ow6bl]

Do you ever talk to your food? Exactly.

[@vilefly]

@@Francisco-ow6bl Delay tactics whilst planning a stab attack.

[@krashd]

@@Francisco-ow6bl If your food had you over a barrel like Kate did with the flamethrower pointed directly at the thing then you would talk to it, if only until you saw an opportunity to turn the tables.

[@stefanhuddleston6816]

Both these films are based on the 1951 film The Thing From Another World, which was, in turn, based on a short story "Who goes there?" The 1951 film has the creature as a plant-based lifeform and not a shapeshifter like in the story and later films.

[@LesDexia13]

Starring James Arness before he was Marshall Dillon in Gunsmoke.

[@sircdrom]

Haha, best part of the reaction is how you only realized it was a prequel at the very end. Very satisfying to wait for that realization all of the movie :D The movie got a lot of undeserved crap. I think it's really solid and if only the team was allowed to go for all practical effects as they had intended it would have been near perfect. Some asshole thought it would have to be CGI to be "modern" and that was the one thing that really fucked it :\

[@OfficialMediaKnights]

Honestly we didn't know this was a prequel, we thought it was a remake of sorts 😂 sadly, you are right. Many people have this preconceived notion of remakes and judge them without even watching them - which we honestly can't relate to. Though, we agree, the practical effects would have really brought it together - the CGI did add some mobility to the Thing, which we appreciated, so a combination of both would have been perfect!

[@ICEcoleman2k]

My big issue was there should be no one from the US at all there. This should have been all Swedish crew. It was basically the "no one will watch because there's no Americans in the movie" thing. Maybe someone in Sweden would do their own prequel version.

[@Angivel]

I was worried that they'd turn it off before the mid-credit scene started and miss it all😅

[@sircdrom]

@@ICEcoleman2k Norweigans! 😅 It's funny because McCreedy makes the same misstake in the first movie 😁

[@ICEcoleman2k]

@sircdrom it is funny, cause for someone who's watched The Thing often enough that I could recite every line verbatim, I totally had that go out of my head. Hey I'm 55 years old 😉😆

[@SevenWondersProd]

As a huge fan of the original that came out when I was a kid, I did the same thing you did. Realizing at the end that this was a prequel and not remake, my mind was blown too. There was NO hint when this came out. I absolutely enjoyed this movie as well.

[@disturbed1013]

The Norwegians, the double faced amalgamation, are good clues.

[@Cameron5043]

Yeah. Toxic Fandoms. Its a thing. Boy is it a thing. "Back in the day"... I'm in the generation that 40 something plus years ago, *cough*, was in the theater for the very first Star Wars movie ever. I was first in the door in a line that went around the theater and down the block for The Empire Strikes Back! And then Return of the Jedi came out...(which was great and I loved it!)...and I remember hearing the rumblings of fan hatred begin right there. Not kidding. I generally stay out of Star Wars fan groups and pages because the level of toxicity so bad. And I tend to be wary of "fandom" anything. I choose to take joy in things, and my life is better for it!

[@OfficialMediaKnights]

It’s way too popular and it only has gotten worse to hate something even before it comes out and people has had a chance to see it. Especially when it comes to stories that have a strong fanbase. We believe in watching first, judging later. There’s been instances where a trailer looked like the film was gonna be pretty terrible and we ended up enjoying the experience quite a bit and times where the opposite has happened.

[@lordpuki1375]

Not saying that I don't agree that Fandom Toxicity isn't real, but far too often lately it gets blamed for the shortcomings of the production team. It's appalling just how many hacks in Hollywood are willing to bastardize a beloved franchise just to shoehorn their own story that wasn't good enough to stand on its own...

[@BobCrabtree-ev4rz]

I could have written your comment word for word..I've seen all the Star Wars films,as a guy who just enjoys them,but the hard core super fans are scary.Any movie/tv series franchise has a fan base that can get very 'protective'.I totally agree with you..I just watch what I like,regardless of what people say,and for something like The Thing prequel,I'm watching cos of the story,not obsessing over the quality of the effects.Stay happy.

[@taloselohim1022]

50:11 kill the damn dog and in The thing original why are you killing the dog got it lol

[@OfficialMediaKnights]

Ahahah we learned our lesson, okay?! 😂

[@mauricedelorenzo5213]

Compared to others who do movie watches you guys are the best... I literally can't watch anyone else. You both add so much quality commentary!!!

[@Washinyot]

wait this isnt cloverfield paradox

[@OfficialMediaKnights]

Not yet, but it'll happen soon!

[@fartvader84yearsago8]

Guys, I just wanted to tell you that you became my favorite reaction channel (and one of my favorites KZbin channels overall) faster than a bullet train

[@phousefilms]

Two things I hate about this movie(other than the fact the original is a hundred times better despite being not as advanced with CG or anything): a)The movie is pretty much a carbon copy of the original. Not completely shot for shot or anything, but come on. -Plan to figure out who is the Thing with blood samples leads to someone(not revealed)getting to the blood. -Main character is suspected of being the Thing and gets locked up, breaks out and holds people up with flamethrower. -Person gets injured, then turns out to be a Thing as people try to tend to them. -Attempt to recreate the "blood test"scene with fillings. -Final battle is with a Giant Thing and it gets blown up. b)The movie initially had amazing practical effects(to the point of looking totally realistic)and studio covered them up with crappy CG.

[@krashd]

You are referring to the John Carpenter remake as the original, this might confuse people.

[@lance05]

This is why this channel is better than other channels (RR and HS) who also watch and/or review it.

[@Mr_HammerExe]

Fun fact: There was going to be a sequel mini-series that released on Sci-Fi channel in 2005 titled “Return of The Thing”, but it got canned due to a lack of funds. Luckily, the screenplays have been posted online, and I’ve gotta say, just reading them kept me on the edge of my seat.

[@warkentien2]

28:20 I've heard that they made the entire film practically then added CGI on top of it. You can find some original practical cuts compared to the CGI coverup online.

[@playerone2629]

You are so fun to watch, it's like watching my favorite movies with my friends. I love the original and this prequel as much, I hope they'll make another one some day.

[@kauhalephinfan2304]

To me it’s one of the best preQuels because it allows the viewer (perhaps true fans) to figure it out as the the movies plays out.

[@gustonzimasheen]

I love the behind the scenes videos where they show the practical FX from Amalgamated Dynamics, INC (ADI). And they really did set stunt ppl on fire.

[@BunkPhD]

One of the reasons this wasn't that well received on release, is that it was filmed with all practical effects and there were articles about this in Fangoria and other magazines, so everyone was hyped. When the movie was finished, the producers decided they didn't like the practical effects and replace most of them with CGI. However, you can still find the making of on the Blu-ray and I think even on KZbin and the effects looked absolutely amazing.