Vlog 10-14-11 – The Thing

The Spoony One | Oct 14 2011 | more notation(s) | 

Noah & Miles return from the latest Thing to hit theaters. Is it good, or betrayal?

  • http://twitter.com/BigGhilz Ghilz H

    There’s THREE The Thing. Carpenter’s was a remake. Original was pretty landmark in its days too (Had people faint at seeing the monster, believe or not)

    • Cameron Brannan

      Yeah, but the first is called “The Thing From Another World” so it doesn’t really need to be worried about.

      • http://twitter.com/BigGhilz Ghilz H

        It’s sad coz alot of stuff Spoony credits the JC version… the original actually did. The idea of barely showing the monster as a whole, that was in the original – they weren’t sure how the makeup would hold up to closeups. Similar decisions led to both movies being landmark sci-fi horror films in their own eras.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ICDHG7TLTN6JVK6JMK3TKQFXKQ Mike Wallace

      All of them are based on a short story called “Who Goes There?” written by John W. Cambell Jr. 1938, which the JC version is more faithful to.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=59504418 Andrew Christianson

      He mentioned it in the beginning.

  • Colin hicks

    :) yay

    • http://twitter.com/jonsquall1 Josh Post

      spoke too soon, at about 11 minutes she shows up, lol.

  • Anonymous

    I haven’t seen this movie but my understanding is that the spaceship ‘crashed’ 100,000 years ago. So it might be that it decided to ‘crash’ in the antarctic, freeze itself and wait till humans are smart enough to did it up out of the ice, infect them then move to the mainland and start infecting en-mass. 

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ICDHG7TLTN6JVK6JMK3TKQFXKQ Mike Wallace

      Eh. If it was already able to fly a space ship then I don’t see how waiting for humans to become smart enough to dig it up was so important. I’m thinking it’s more likely it somehow crashed (maybe the ship’s original crew found it and it took over in flight?) and was trying to seek shelter when it froze in the Antarctic.

      • jesseastle

        It is if you want quick to infect as many people as possible and quickly as possible.

  • Anonymous

    I think you’re being way too harsh on this one. Is it the John Carpenter movie? OF COURSE IT ISN’T! I never expected it to be nearly as good as that movie. I think it has huge problems, but it respected the original while not totally remaking it. That’s why it worked as a solid prequel for me. But to each his own I guess.

  • http://twitter.com/twocooljoe87 Joseph Gottschlich

    I like it but yea it is not a great movie I think the 1982 is way better.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QFYSCA32EI53EW5UJGU7XQ675I Daniel

    I didn’t really care for the movie, mainly because of the inconsistencies, like with the alien or the connection to JC’s movie. For instance the cgi (which I protested throughout the movie) was sometimes okay and sometimes really bad. Also *spoilers* I didn’t like how the alien ship was responsible for the removing the ice instead of the Norwegians who blew the ice up to reveal the ship, like in footage found at the camp. As much as I didn’t care for this movie I didn’t really think it was all that bad. On it’s own it’s an okay horror movie I suppose, but I did like the ending spliced in the credits, that made me a little happier.

    Side note: I really enjoyed Lars, his character got just enough screen time for me to enjoy him.

  • Leandro kusdra
  • Leandro kusdra
    • Anonymous

      Lol. How did I know at least one person would post that?

  • http://twitter.com/jonsquall1 Josh Post

    Rotten Tomatoes didn’t like it much either. 35% on their site.

  • http://twitter.com/jonsquall1 Josh Post

    side comment, Noah seems to be very flexible, as his foot is next to his hip.

  • Anonymous

    Man, I tried so hard not to dislike this movie. I think what mostly really bothered me was the fact that it went like this: “Hmm, alright let’s build tension like in John Carpenters mo- okay fuck this BRING ON THE ACTION OOOH YEAH LOOK AT IT OOH TENTACLES OH YEAH!” Also, Mary Winstead…her acting. Oh my god. I was hoping she’d die by the end of it.

    I think I was mostly looking forward to this is because I want to see more from this franchise. I’m that kind of guy. 

    • Anonymous

      Wouldn’t it have bothered you more if it tried to be redundant by copying that tension from Carpenter’s version? Some of the reviews coming out of this really show how much of a lose-lose situation the guys behind this movie had; if it’s too much like the Carpenter version fan will bitch and if it’s too different fans will bitch.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ICDHG7TLTN6JVK6JMK3TKQFXKQ Mike Wallace

        Even if the movie only successfully copied John Carpenter’s tension, I would have been okay with that. I would have said “at least they knew they couldn’t do better, and resolved to try to take the better parts of the original.”

        • Anonymous

          But what I liked about the movie was that it did somethings different. If anything, that’s a bigger testament to their respect of the original. Why copy something that’s been done before? For example, they could have easily done the blood test scene again but instead they did the whole tooth filling thing that added a bit to the mythos of the Carpenter version.

  • Anonymous

    Orea is distracting as hell, while he was biting both of you, i was not listening to shit…

    • Pawel Archipow

      Yeah…she needs some discipline…some consistency and clarity that biting is not appreciated

  • http://twitter.com/Chumblespuzz213 Kyle Huckins

    Oreo is just too damned cute.  She seems to be taking lessons from Lloyd on how to get some screen time.

  • Anonymous

    Is there something about the Norwegian Defence Force that you find funny Mr. Antwiler? :P

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6KKZH7RHL7Q3IKLK55Z7FNEMA Andy Mateo

    I want to point out first that the creators of this new “prequel” of the Thing is just that a “prequel”. When Noah points out that the Thing is just going out killing, I was just like, “Dude this movie has to lead up to John Carpenter’s The Thing, so why do you expect that the Thing has to be super intelligent already?” The monster in Carpenter’s movie was already smart as in this one, it doesn’t know how to hide. But everything else in this video I totally agree with, the movie really is just a pile of sh*t….

  • http://twitter.com/YOUR_Messiah Wilson Dunn

    The movie sucks, period.  I can’t understand why hollywood keeps destroying these classic movies by doing a remake of them.

    BTW Spoony, love the Clerks shirt!

    • http://twitter.com/BigGhilz Ghilz H

      Coz people will pay good money for shitty remakes of good movies. Who’s the idiot, the person making them, or the people who keep giving them money to do it?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6KKZH7RHL7Q3IKLK55Z7FNEMA Andy Mateo

    I want to point out first that the creators of this new “prequel” of the Thing is just that a “prequel”. When Noah points out that the Thing is just going out killing, I was just like, “Dude this movie has to lead up to John Carpenter’s The Thing, so why do you expect that the Thing has to be super intelligent already?” The monster in Carpenter’s movie was already smart as in this one, it doesn’t know how to hide. But everything else in this video I totally agree with, the movie really is just a pile of sh*t….

  • Sky Render

    It seems like no media made based on John Carpenter’s films is ever going to be anywhere near as good as the original.  Truly, as Spoony said, the art of practical effects and the necessary creativity they embodied is a lost art in today’s cinema.

    Also, Oreo is amazingly hyper, even for a Parsons-Russel puppy.  Maybe you should nickname her “Speedwagon”.

    • Anonymous

      Dude, don’t lump this in with the Rob Zombie remakes of Halloween or The Fog remake. This is not THAT bad. I can even see why some people are calling this prequel bad, but it’s not an abortion like those other ones.

      • Sky Render

        Actually, I was more pointing out that Carpenter’s original works have consistently been better than their spin-offs and remakes.  I will openly admit that I have not seen this remake; I have a very well-vested policy of not watching remakes of movies I like, as I have yet to see one that is not disappointing to me.  So I don’t really have any opinion about this remake’s quality, save that it’s almost inevitably inferior to the original film.  My main lament is the fact that practical effects are a dead art in cinema, even amongst independent filmmakers.  Much like Noah, I have felt for a long time that practical effects trump CGI.

        • Anonymous

          I’ll say this on the subject of CG vs. practical; they’re both tools. I’ve seen plenty of great & shitty practical effects and CG effects, so I don’t totally get the huge hate toward CG. I get that CG is so rampant and it pisses people off, but I think that also blinds people from how well done CG can be. I’d love to see more instances of a marriage between the two styles rather than one trumping the other, personally.

          • Sky Render

            Oddly enough, I agree with that sentiment.  I’ve seen CGI merged with older styles done very well before, particularly by Studio Ghibli features from Princess Mononoke onwards.  I’m sure that a non-animated practical/CGI equivalent mix style could easily emerge and be just as impressive.

  • Sky Render

    It seems like no media made based on John Carpenter’s films is ever
    going to be anywhere near as good as the original.  Truly, as Spoony
    said, the art of practical effects and the necessary creativity they
    embodied is a lost art in today’s cinema.

    Also, Oreo is amazingly hyper, even for a Parsons-Russel puppy.  Maybe you should nickname her “Speedwagon”.

  • http://twitter.com/Jets7 Justin

    Yeah, the scene with the guy slashing his throat is confirmed to be a deleted scene that’s going to be on the DVD, not that it matters.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ICDHG7TLTN6JVK6JMK3TKQFXKQ Mike Wallace

    I was walking into this film fully expecting it to be not as good as the original. They never are. I expected lousy CGI, I expected scenes ripped off from the first movie.

    But I really didn’t expect it to BETRAY ME so bad. The cast! The cast is so boring! My god.

    Remember RJ MacReady? Yeah, you remember him. BECAUSE HE WAS INTERESTING! There are so few characters like him. He’s one of those old school big bearded take charge alpha male hunter bastards who when a bear attacks puts a buck knife in his teeth and leaps on the bear to wrestle it down with both hands. He was the kind of character who took charge, kept his head, and when the rest of the crew started fighting between each other MacReady grabbed the reigns and yanked all those panicky fuckers into line. Even when they turned on him he was on top of things.

    None of the characters in this remake movie have an ounce of that character. Instead we follow around slasher flick archtypes from the 90’s, and we have to accept that this 25 year old woman who isn’t old enough earn her masters degree yet somehow is a world-renowned paleontologist with what, a double major in molecular biology? That she’s gonna hold together this pack of Norwegian rednecks and somehow fight this thing? Please.

    The movie has none of the original’s visceral, gothic horror. There’s no dread, there’s no loneliness. The Thing isn’t an unseen, alien intellect, it’s just a screaming CGI mess written by the guys who made the Nightmare on Elm Street remake and the Battlestar Galactica remake (and how many Star Trek Episodes).

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WSJTNOAKKGWAIOWS4HZGDLV4BA Dylan


  • Jonathan Santucho

    One correction: The score of The Thing wasn’t composed by John Carpenter. It was composed by The Master, The One and Only: Ennio Morricone.

    And another thing: The Escape From New York remake was dropped three months ago.

  • Alex Kaminski

    I would actually disagree Spoony. I’m shocked. This is one of those few circumstances where I do, I’m usually exactly in concert. I actually enjoyed this film. I will agree, this doesn’t come anywhere close to beating the original, or equaling it, and it IS unnecessary. However: I will say that for me personally, because I read the shooting script for Carpenter’s version, I know some of the poor changes he made were made because effects failed, so for me, seeing the thing wasn’t the problem. And as a fan of the original, and having heard that it was a “retread”, all the bits where it’s the same in principle but different, really worked for me.Also, I will say: I posted about this on this site a while ago. Fruition eh? Also, we have to admit, the fact that it’s a different test in this movie worked well I think.But I will say, many of the things you said were exactly spot on. I must say I DID like the bait-&-switch in the helicopter. It did catch me.

    • Anonymous

      THANK YOU!!! Someone who doesn’t put the prequel to such an unrealistic standard of being as good as the Carpenter version.

      • http://www.facebook.com/lindsey.rapisarda Lindsey Rapisarda

        Agreed, I enjoyed the prequel myself, and the CGI wasn’t that noticeable in my opinion, honestly I watched a behind the scenes video and they originally didn’t use CGI, they used puppetry and hand made models and then relayed CGI over it, so honestly the CGI wasn’t a obvious choice, one video showed a stunt double wearing a alien suit for the scene where Juliette gets burned in the kitchen and then they put CGI over it.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QYHLRFX75NPR55LUC4F7HT4S4E chad campbell

    You just compared Norway to US in terms of research power? are YOU stupid? Norway calling in an American scientist from their allies isn’t unlikely

    • Asger Egelund Nielsen

      Being a Scandinavian myself I can with proud say that American researcher, especially ice researcher don’t got shit on Danes and Norwegians.. We are the ones inventing most of the equipment used in ice research.. Norway is one of the richest countries in the world. And if Norway wanted help they would go to Canada, Finland, Denmark or Sweden long before USA.. The only reason the palaeontologist is American is so they have an excuse to talk English all the time..

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_EAIHLUU3JSTIB3D2OWHGYN5PHA Ingen

        They weren’t looking for an ice researcher, they were looking for a paleontologist (as Spoony mentions in the video). And it wouldn’t be too unusual for Norway to look for scientists in the US, especially during the Cold War.

        As a Norwegian, let me point out: Yes, we have money. Mountains of it, in fact. That doesn’t necessarily mean we have the knowledge and experience needed.

  • cesarmoeba

    I didn’t even know they were remaking the thing… I’m gonna take a guess and say it sucks. Also fuck yeah Miles again.

  • Anonymous

    Guess what. I’m watching the original The Thing on Netflix with my Xbox 360 right now. I caught a cold or flu or something, so I stayed home today.

    They were right. Netflix is the shit.

  • Anonymous

    I heard from the AV Club that the Escape from New York remake fell through, but I guess I was mistaken, sadly.

    I also remember hearing from Cracked about an effect from that movie that you haven’t mentioned. You know that black and green computer screen Snake was using to navigate his plane? That wasn’t CG; Carpenter took a scale model, painted it black, put green tape on it, and filmed it in the dark.

    This is how I figured Oreo would figure into the videos: appearing in vlogs like the Cinema Snob’s cats. I don’t see her acting in the actual reviews.

    As for the actual movie, I knew that I wouldn’t want to see this movie once I heard it was a prequel. Like you said, we know what happened to the Norwegian base already. I decided that if I saw it, I wouldn’t spend money on it.

  • Anonymous

    Flamethrowers are used for de-icing pipelines, for example pipes that leads to poweplants and water resovoir etc.
    You cant use a simple blowtorch because it would take forever and electrical heaters are just not effective enough.

  • Anonymous

    Oreo spazzes out and noms on Noah’s arm for hours on end. Miles says sit… Miles, you’re the fucking Beastmaster, through the portal of win.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AW3VX7HGVPJFFLYOQGRTPWDVFQ Joseph

    So, basically these were the responses that were given by the following people during the viewing of this remake/prequel:

    -SpoonyOne- The movie used too much CGI and had a complete misunderstanding of what made           Carpenter’s film so atmospheric.

    -Miles- This was ultimately another unnecessary remake.

    -Oreo- {Trying to bite off the SpoonyOne’s hands as revenge for having to put up with listening about an uninspiring film. Either that, or she just wanted to play; as both answers make sense in that particular scenario.}

    -MacReady- {Pours his drink into the computer} Cheating Bitch!  

  • http://twitter.com/Nabexis Sabine Vecchio

    Okay, this comment is more about Oreo than actual video content. (sorry. Haven’t seen either of the movies, so I can’t really input anything important to the conversation) She seems a little nom-y on your hand. If you don’t want her biting/nipping too much I suggest making a slightly watered down Tabasco sauce solution and rubbing it on your skin *No more than 1 drop per tablespoon of water or so. Even less than that could be okay. It will keep her from biting because she won’t like the taste. Also works for furniture that you don’t want chewed. Works like a charm. Just make sure not to use pure Tabasco on your hands because the poor dog will be traumatized and never give you kisses again. It’s okay to use it on furniture to make sure she doesn’t chew on it ever. Just be ready to have a house smelling like Tabasco sauce for a while if you do use it. There’s also this bitter apple product you can buy, which you might want to try first, but in my experience all three of my dogs liked it and ate it up like it was a treat.

  • Anonymous

    Wait, a main character lives at the end?  Bullshit.  Even in the 1982 version, it’s pretty much established that everyone dies, and the Thing straight-up wins.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QYHLRFX75NPR55LUC4F7HT4S4E chad campbell

      Actually when john carpenter was making the sequel he was going to have the two characters survive. The distress call they sent out was  received and they are saved but suffer permanent damage explaining why they looked so much older.

      • Anonymous

        Oh wow, that’s interesting; I wasn’t aware of that!  Still, it’s safe to say that at least the humans lost.

    • http://twitter.com/JJJMMM1 JM

      The Thing doesn’t win. They blow it up and burn it, preventing it from freezing itself again.

      The main characters die, but they saved the world.

      …unless Childs was infected with the thing in the end. It’s something the audience can’t know. That’s what I loved about the movie most: a lot of it is shrouded in uncertainty and everything isn’t explicitly and tediously explained.

      • Anonymous

        The movie ends with the dog running across the snow.  Yeah, they burn the shit out of the Thing, but they’re not 100% sure it’s dead, and if the dog at the end is the Thing, then apparently it’s not.

        I always took it as the humans will slowly die of cold, but they probably killed it, but in the next scene, oh wait, they didn’t.  Well, shit.

        It’s a pretty amazing ending.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brendan-Tucker/100000602726539 Brendan Tucker

        It’s been a while, but after it’s all done and they collapse as the adrenaline fades, doesn’t Macready say he’d like to sit there for a bit longer? and freeze? like the Thing wanted to?

  • Anonymous

    The Thing?  as in, “The Thing that did not need to be remade?!”  AW HAW HAW!

    The movies sounds terrible.  The new one obviously.

  • Nick Roman

    A lot is made of how inconsistently the Thing acts from how it did in the original, but isn’t it possible that the Thing learned from its experiences in this film and adopted the more deliberate, patient approach for the original? I think that could have been the story they were trying to tell, that because of its experiences in this movie, it will be more formidable in the next. And the audience, who likely has seen the original Thing, knows the Thing is more formidable in the original, so perhaps that was the point.

    Either way, I didn’t see this movie and don’t really plan to. I’m good with the original.

    Also, as for the point about the lack of innovation in film today, it’s getting to the point where the practical effects of Carpenter’s “The Thing” WOULD be innovative today. Just imagine if one of today’s creature features decided “You know what? No CG on this one, guys.” It would probably get an insane amount of buzz online just for that alone. There needs to be some kind of a movement in mainstream filmmaking (and not just at the independent level) to take things back to basics – even if it IS a little harder and more time consuming. Because I truly believe the overindulgence in CG is a mindset of diminishing returns.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_P4MBGYOBOMBLGSTNM6L7TLC2RA Robert

    Some people in the comments seem to think it is a remake, it is not, it is a prequel about the first team to encounter the creature. you know the camp that was wiped out and that the dog came from in the first movie? If your thinking of it as a reboot or remake then I see your issues but this is a PREQUEL and a story we did not see originally. 

    Now before anyone loses it be clear, the Carpenter original is my own holy grail and one of my favorite horror’s of all time and had this intended to actually be a reboot/remake believe me I would be the first to be pissed and cursing it, I mean I hate reboots/remakes in general but again I heard some time ago that it was going to be a prequel so I am good with that as it takes nothing from the Carpenter version, in fact the younger generation that went and saw this can now check out the Carpenter masterpiece.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nathan-Ellis/100002419726549 Nathan Ellis

    Show that Kevin Smith love spoony. Clerks was the shit.

  • http://profiles.google.com/commissarmanul Алексей Бекедов

    I see why the Thing goes on a rampage first. Like “At the Mountains of Madness” the Elder Things when they wake up, they too go on a rampage. The Thing is probably trying to get it’s bearings or something.
    P.S. How long have you been alone with your dog, Spoony?

  • Anonymous

    Wait, they gonna remake Escape from New York?

    *goes off tearing wallpapers*

    • http://www.facebook.com/Jessano Jessica Marie

      -huddles in corner rocking back and forth crying-

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Grzegorz-Wojtczyk/100000046280578 Grzegorz Wojtczyk

      *Makes a double facepalm*

  • http://www.facebook.com/Jessano Jessica Marie

    Remake. Prequel. Whatever. It’s not just unnecessary, it’s fucking pointless.

    Great review Spoony One! Picking up from yours and Miles’ interaction with Oreo, I think you’re going to end up being a more lenient owner like I am while Miles is more no-nonsense like my ex was because I can tell when she was jumping up onto the couch, you would allow her to while Miles kept kicking her off and told her to sit while you kind of let her do her thing. It’s cute though because it just reminds me of how I interact with my dog.

  • Anonymous

    2 minutes in, I have to pause the video.  Spoony again brought up how they’re remaking Escape from New York.  When he first mentioned this months ago, I needed a little break. 

    I need one again right now.  ‘Scuse me a moment. 

    Well *that* was the fastest felony I’ve ever committed.  It’ll take ‘em weeks to get all that blood off those walls.  But I’ve calmed down enough to try to watch the rest of this review…and I’m going to try to have an open mind here, because John Carpenter’s The Thing is one of my favorite horror flicks as well, but judging from the reactions I’m seeing, I’m going to need some new neighbors soon. 

    Stress is a terrible thing.  Movies today…they don’t really alleviate it.  But I’ll try to keep my mind open, maybe even see the film itself when it’s out on video…and THEN I’ll go nutso-psycho again! 

    Look, I’m a guy with a Mullet, OF COURSE I’m insane!  And I don’t LIKE it when movie studios fuck up my favorite 80’s flicks!  Urge to kill…rising…

  • http://twitter.com/JJJMMM1 JM

    The Thing is one of my favorite movies of all time, but the one thing I didn’t like about it (no pun intended) was some of the special effects. They were made very well and they feel 1000x more real than any CG produced today, but they were at times way too over-the-top.

    More subtle transformations would’ve worked better in my opinion. I didn’t find the kennel scene that scary, just very loud and slimy. When Dr. Copper was using the defibrillator and the chest opened up with teeth and bit his arms off, well, that was a bit silly.

    On the other hand, when they caught Phoenix when he was almost finished transforming, it was really creepy. You could see it looked like him, but he had weird hands and he was wasn’t acting like a human being. Scenes like that worked for me, the really graphic scenes not so much.

  • http://twitter.com/SigurSquirrel Battle Brush Studios

    Great review as always. Very enjoyable, thanks. Just one quick little note about the Norwegian guy contacting the US colleague – Norway most probably has a different approach to international joint work than the US. Due to this, the reverse example of “what if US scientists found a space ship on US soil” doesn’t really work but you’re right in a way. They probably would have approached UK or Scandinavian specialists first. So I basically agree, I just wasn’t happy with the reverse example because I don’t think that the nations can be compared this way. ;)As for the Escape from New York remake – yeah, really hard to see how anybody can be surprised by that. It’s been rumoured for many years with variying Snake Plisskens being discussed. It’s most probably going to suck. a.) Remakes nowadays almost always suck and b.) we got an excellent remake already in 1996! What would they do with it nowadays? They’d make it more “gritty and realistic” (in today’s sense, not acknowledging that the original already was), add tons of CG, add tons of techy stuff (unless they’re clever and somehow have a radio-and-everything-blocking device on the island) and whatnot. Heck, I’d be happy if they just did an old-school “Escape from Earth” thing with Kurt Russel as Plissken, everything went all post-apocalyptic after the end of the second film, there’s an escape rocket for the president of the US ready to lift off for a secret mars colony they were building secretly, Snake has to get there in time and get into one of the rockets (all set in the alternative 1990s of course so it looks like the 80s) while having cought some kind of virus, having to fight his way through post-apocalyptic USA. You see, just like the original movies basically but with a few twists, some new settings and so on. Then a cameo in that “Machete in Space” film and we’re set. :)

  • Anonymous

    I haven’t seen this vlog yet but it’s good to see you put up one! I wish you would have vlogs up at least almost as frequent as Brad Jones in regards to new movies because your and your brothers sensibilities and viewpoints tend to be more in line with mine than Jones’ and his posse which I rarely see eye to eye with.

    Another thing, make a vlog/review for the new Captain America movie! I was expecting one since you did one for Thor and previously did those Rebb Brown ones. I’m interested as to what you thought about the one with Chris Evans and in comparison to the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films up till now especially since the new Avengers teaser just came out.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Adam-Schrader/788849987 Adam Schrader

    Oh Oreo, demonstrating the “Jumping out every 30 seconds to eat somebody.. the dog has a situation where it can subtly infect people” comments, you bitey Ham.

    An American suddenly appearing at a Soviet base in ’82, in the Antarctic, babbling about an alien monster? Could be that she doesn’t make it back.. just saying.

  • http://twitter.com/Bolt_V3 Bolt Vanderhuge

    So… the Thing game is better than The Thing remake/prequel.

    What was the fuse box count in the film?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=661037953 James Enri

    I haven’t watched the remake/prequel of The Thing, based on what Noah says, I made the right choice.

    This sounds awful. A chick lead? mass overuse of CGI? stupid plot holes?

    • http://twitter.com/Kitsi22 Patricia Quirk

      Seriously, this is 2011. What is with all the misogyny? There is no reason women can’t be leads.

      • http://twitter.com/Redbob86 Bob Walsh

        As evidence by your “misogyny” claim, whining isn’t a good leadership quality.


  • Benedikt van Recum

    oh spoony what did you expect? there was no way this THING could possibly be only remotely as good as carpenters. you know a guy who makes a scifi movie with only 30k bucks and still manages to make it a classic is not easily copied.

  • http://twitter.com/LazarheaD Lazar Gruev

    They really bombed the movie down by including women… Also is it so hard to lock Oreo in another room when recording?

    • Tykittaa

      Have you ever owned a puppy?  It’s either allow the dog into the video, or deal with constant scratching and howling noises in the background.

    • http://twitter.com/Jegsimmons James Simmons

      hey we like Oreo!!

    • Anonymous

      I dislike you, Lazar Gruev.

  • http://twitter.com/Johnnyjuby Johnny Juby

    It sounded like you went in really wanting this to be John Carpenter’s The Thing and when you said the phrase “they didn’t get anything right” well that’s where you’re wrong. This isn’t a remake, it is it’s own stand alone movie. Was it great, no, but it showed what happened at the Norwegian camp, and at the end when it showed the shot of them chasing the dog it did one important thing. It made my girl friend, who had no interest in EVER watching John Carpenter’s movie, want to go home and watch it. She now loves John Carpenter’s The Thing and she never would have given it a chance if not for the prequel. Also I like the difference in pacing from the prequel to the Carpenter one. In second one The Thing has learned how to adapt and instead of just trying to overpower the humans out in the open where every time it did it got torched, it snuck around, and that realization of knowing this was happening again only now The Thing was better at it made Carpenters movie even better. 

    • http://twitter.com/kaealy kaealy

      I am convinced that you find connections between the movies if you want hard enough. With that said, I don’t agree with a singel “thing” you said. They wanted to make it into a monsterflick, trying to explain it through loosely based assumptions that it adapted between the short period of time of the two movies is just baseless. It’s pretty apparent that it is an intelligent being that has surely dealt with other more dangerous lifeforms than humans.

      • http://twitter.com/Johnnyjuby Johnny Juby

        “you’re making baseless assumptions besides it’s obvious it’s this baseless assumption” gg kid

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Grzegorz-Wojtczyk/100000046280578 Grzegorz Wojtczyk

    Can someone please point me a GOOD remake of any movie ? Extra points for people who show me good horror remake because I’m really losing my faith in film industry…damn remakes,”reimaginings”, “modernisations”,re-releases are all over the place nowadays. And don’t get me started about HD remakes of old games. Is this the best they can do ?

    • Anonymous

      the maltese falcon, scarface,the last house on the left…all remakes!

      • Anonymous

        I suppose the moral is that we just suck at making remakes now.

        • http://twitter.com/JJJMMM1 JM

          I don’t think that’s the whole truth. Remakes have always been made, the bad ones are just quickly forgotten. I think the reason why most remakes suck is a combination of a couple of things:

          1) There is a vast number of pointless movies made each year that people don’t see, because they have no reason to see them.

          2) Making a great movie or even a good and memorable movie is very difficult.

          3) Making a remake of a great film may be relatively easy, because it’s easier to get funding for a movie carrying a well-known name: people are guaranteed to go see it, since they already have an emotional connection to the original film.

          People go see the remade films because they love the original films. However, by the laws of probabilities alone, the movie is much more likely to fall into the category “Pointless movie, wouldn’t have gone to see it if it wasn’t for the name [x]” than “Great movie”.

    • http://profiles.google.com/commissarmanul Алексей Бекедов

      Dawn of the Dead remake was pretty good.

    • Anonymous

      carpenters “the thing” is actually a remake of a 1951 movie by christian nyby…and it’s pretty good, isn’t it?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Grzegorz-Wojtczyk/100000046280578 Grzegorz Wojtczyk

        This proves that if you make remake not just to profit on the popularity of original it can even surpass it. 

    • Anonymous

      “Can someone please point me a GOOD remake of any movie ?”

      The Fly.
      Reservoir Dogs.
      The Magnificent Seven.
      The Departed.
      Little Shop Of Horrors.
      A Fistfull Of Dollars.
      Some Like It Hot.
      Cape Fear.
      House Of Wax. (1953)
      King Kong.
      Last House On The Left. (1972)

      You want more I got loads?

  • Anonymous

    The thing (pun intended) that really killed any enthusiasm for this movie was the use of CG. The Carpenter remake was so spectacular and most of that reason was that the aliens were props and looked real, that had grit.

    CG is just a cop-out most of the time.

    I made that pun before Spoony did btw.

  • doresh

    Oooookay, so the Norwegian base had at least 2 Americans who just so happened to be amongst the three main characters? Bloody Hollywood…

    Another thing about the original Thing (hooray for puns!) was that you almost did NOT want the creature to blow its cover, mainly because it’s scary as hell and you actually CARE about the characters. In that way, the audience felt pretty much the same way as the protagonists (as opposed to modern horror movies were you WANT the creature to kill stuff).

    AFAIK, they did use some practical effects in the movie, but still added CGI on it. Lazy…
    (And yes, the effects in the original are AMAZING. But why in the hell is there no making-of to find?! )

    What’s with CGI apparently requiring good lighting? Is a darker set not more useful to hide these fast-aging effects Oo ?

    Who the hell would ever think that infiltrating humanity was the Thing’s plan all along? There’s a good chance this thing crashed BEFORE humans even evolved.

    I also can’t stand Prequels. NOT knowing exactly what lead to the original movie is more often than not FAR more effective. Is there anyone who WANTED to find out that Darth Vader used to be an annoying, whiny prick, or that the Jedi used to be moronic idiots?

    I can tell you why they came up with the Russian base: SEQUEL BAIT! “The Thing 0.5: To Russia with Love” XD !!
    (And what Spoiler are you talking about? Female protagonists ALWAYS SURVIVE)

    Oh, and this “Escape from New York” migth end up being a prequel – although I kinda doubt that if they stick with that name. On the other hand, it didn’t stop THIS prequel here from having the same name as the original (sans “John Carpenter’s” of course).

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_F6DCTUY6RUMWXJKGOICRNIAXCM André Norell

      “I also can’t stand Prequels. NOT knowing exactly what lead to the original movie is more often than not FAR more effective. Is there anyone who WANTED to find out that Darth Vader used to be an annoying, whiny prick, or that the Jedi used to be moronic idiots?”
      Film Brain and Welshy said the same thing in their joint review of “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning”: the whole movie spends all of its time explaining things (my God, this movie is ripe for puns) that never required explaining in the first place.

      I don’t remember who said it, but I’ll quote it anyway: “Wasn’t the Clone Wars far more interesting when all you knew was that it was a “War”, and it involved “Clones”?

      • Anonymous

         I totally agree with Film Brain, Welshy, Noah and Miles and also you, myself and Irene.

        Someone once said “Not knowing is the worst torture of all” infact, i think Lenny from the Simpons said that. It’s true though, not knowing is what makes a monster scary. Which is especially bad when it comes to movies like Texas Chainsaw and The Thing. Nobody wants to know if Leatherface was a troubled kid, nor do we want to ever find out the true form of The Thing.

        Imagine if the Predator would have strutted around without his mask and cloaking device, like “Haters gonna hate!” the entire movie, that would have sucked.

      • doresh

        Don’t mention the Clone War XD !

  • http://twitter.com/RedConine Will Conine

    In the film, when the guy Kate is with is killed, he doesn’t transform. He wasn’t the Thing. That was the point, the Thing had driven her so crazy and paranoid that she killed a human being. She wasn’t tired when she got into the car, she was destroyed. She was emotionally destroyed by killing her one friend there who stuck by her.

    Don’t get me wrong, it was a terrible movie but that was the one moment that I actually enjoyed the film.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Maciej-Chrominski/1431213951 Maciej Chromiński

    if the movie doesn’t have Collins river dancing and 30+ fuseboxes, i am not gonna watch it

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/E7ZQWIJORD4VOJ62Q6EVN4CDKA Zach

    I don’t know what you guys are talking about, I rather enjoyed this movie. Stupid, yes. Disgusting, yes. I actually really enjoyed the creature effects, even though I despise overusing CG.
    I was honestly quite disgusted with the rec room scene; The arm-face rape was gross and horrifying, but nowhere near as disgusting as the formation of the two-headed monster. I think I went mad then.

    And I have seen John Carpenter’s several times, and I rather enjoy it.

  • http://twitter.com/Original_O David

    I heard from one of my best friends that the Prequel had an extra scene after the credits showing The Norwiegan chasing down the infected dog. I wasn’t sure if you knew about that or not…

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/E7ZQWIJORD4VOJ62Q6EVN4CDKA Zach

      Not after the credits, but during.

  • http://twitter.com/Okanehira Okanehira

    Please put Oreo in another room before you record, so distracting.

  • Anonymous

    Just sounds to me like producers of schlock are still doing what they’ve always done (concentrate on the shock factor at the expense of good storytelling), just using familiar names to do it now.  It’s the same thing as always, where directors who are smart and creative like to take risks, and risks are risky from a business standpoint, so they don’t get picked up as often.  So long as folks are content to pay to just sit and look at a bunch of moving pictures of gross stuff or explosions, it makes the most sense to take the easy route and just give it to them.  You know?  Writing a good story is harder than it looks, and we’re on a budget and want to make money off this thing, so let’s not put in the time.  Just do everything in a computer and make it loud and fast and call it good.  Some movies are movies, and others are theme-park rides.  But hey… honestly, it’s always been this way.  For every movie like John Carpenter’s The Thing, there’s at least 10 movies like, say, Critters.
    But now I’m worried that we’re going to see a modern-day reboot of Blade Runner.  Fuck… there’s a thought for you.

  • Anonymous

    happy ending?

    don’t be silly, Spoony.  MEW is a thing, not the other dude.  that’s why he never transforms when she sets him on fire.  note that, in spite of being the one who claims the fillings-test, you never actually see HER fillings, and she’s one of the two characters that had direct skin contact with The Thing during its autopsy.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/E7ZQWIJORD4VOJ62Q6EVN4CDKA Zach

      But she showed one of the Norwegians (was it Lars?) her fillings and he showed he understood.

  • http://idigcomics.tumblr.com/ Matt

    Oreo is too cute. I want one (a dog, that is. Not a cookie. I have those).

  • Anonymous


  • http://cassave.deviantart.com/ Anonymous

    In Carpenter’s “The Thing” you don’t even know how many individual thing entities there are in Outpost 31 AND the Norwegian base. They’re not even sure as to how it propagates itself. It could be slumbering inside of you. You could be infected without you knowing. How many people did the dog infect. Carpenter’s Thing really gets you once the paranoia starts to take hold.

    Rob Bottin’s trick to good practical effects is “less light”. That and Carpenter’s Thing is set right before the start of an Antarctic winter, which confines the people to the outpost’s interior. That and Carpenter didn’t want to make another version of “Alien”. He admitted liking “Alien” in the DVD extra’s, but he didn’t want the monster to be “a guy in a suit” picking off the crew one by one.

    That and the score was partially arranged by Carpenter and Ennio Morricone…

    In John W. Campbell story, the alien spacecraft is already completely banged up when they find it. One scientist speculates that the earth’s magnetic pole screwed up the ship’s navigation. As the crew tries to explore the ship, they use thermite as an ice-softener, but because the alien ship is made of a magnesium alloy, they accidentally destroy it completely (if I remember well). A clever way of both trapping the creature, and keeping information from the protagonists.

    Carpenter’s Thing wasn’t that specific, but they show how the creature tries to build a spacecraft from helicopter parts. It’s as if the thing is just trying to survive, by imitating indigenous life-forms, because that’s the strategy it has been using for aeons. It could even have been that the alien ship belonged to another species, an alien crew that was infected by the Thing. Maybe that’s how it crashed? How can you mess up something that simple???

    In Carpenter’s Thing, they can only gather very little evidence, because the weather doesn’t allow them to fly back and forth.

    I can’t believe they didn’t even go for an open ending!!! I know that
    there  is alternative ending to Carpenter’s Thing…but they picked the
    open end for a reason because it was the eighties!!!

    Carpenter’s “The Thing” is one of a kind. The Norwegians in the movie don’t actually speak Norwegian and it has an all-male cast, and yet somehow it isn’t a gay porn and in the end, you still don’t know who the thing is. It could be Childs or McReady because you don’t know how it infects a person.

    Puke and Fuses!!!

  • Anonymous

    Once again you are watching movies without listening or seeing.

  • Anonymous

    I actually enjoyed this movie, and I’m a big fan of Carpenter’s movie. I concede to some of the points you made but there were also a lot of things about it I really liked. Like them using the basic test of whether or not people have fillings or not. It brought up something that could have been used in the first movie but they just happened to not think of it, as opposed to it being something that left me asking “why the hell was this never mentioned?” Also, they immediately started suspecting each other because they all witness the monster attacking and the seriousness of their situation sets in right away as a result. It didn’t exactly have a happy ending cause I wasn’t sure if I really heard the guy she roasted scream weird because it was the thing or because they put it in slow motion and thats what it sounded like like that. Also, they mention that the other snow cat (the one the sanders thing drove to the spaceship) didn’t have the gas to make it far, so she might’ve been screwed since she set the one she had been driving on fire.
    I can name something Winstead’s character liked. Men at work. She’s listening to a men at work song. It was “who can it be now?” and that’s kinda funny to me.

  • http://twitter.com/JJJMMM1 JM

    Now playing:

    Metallica – The Thing That Should Not Be

  • Anonymous

    1982 The Thing by Carpenter IS the best horror film of the 80s, I don’t care what anybody says.

    Yes there were Mike, Jason, Freddie and whatever… but nothing quite came close to be as scary as 1982 version for me when I was a kid. For all the reasons Spoony explained: story, lighting, effects, setting, etc, etc…

    Thump, Thump… Thump, Thump… the score in itself is worth a thousand pages of a script.

  • Anonymous

    You know, I was actually considering giving this film a fair shot when I first heard that it was a “prequel”.  I thought “hey, may be an interesting idea, I’m intrigued, okay, I’ll wait ’til it comes out.  Maybe they’ll actually put some heart into it, I mean, it’s a Norwegian Ice-Block in the middle of nowhere, how hard can it be to do?”  (STUPID! STUPID! STUPID!)

    And it looks like they do it the same damn way every other “horror” film does it.  Fuck it.  To Hell with an opened mind, I already know that I absolutely detest horror (or any) movies that rely on corny CG monsters and effects, have crappy actors and characters, and I especially can’t stand “jump-out-go-boo!” monsters that have the subtlety of Hiroshima.  I already know I can’t enjoy this movie.  Now if it were a kind of corny that were *fun* (even in a guilty pleasure kind of way) like the last two Pumpkinhead movies for the Sci-Fi channel, that would be different, but my love for the John Carpenter film will keep me from enjoying something like this. 

    I want to blame myself for that as a flaw on my part, for being a fan who can’t “switch off”, but…I have a feeling you don’t have to know a thing about the original to find reason to dislike this movie. 

    And a thought comes to me when I think of the corny CG.  Even the DOOM movie used real, tangible suits and effects for many of it’s monsters.  That is a disturbing thought to me. 

    You know, the first time I got a glimpse of The (good) Thing was when my father was watching it.  Of ALL the scenes for me to see first, it had to be the Kennel scene.  I LOVE horror movies, but as I saw those effects, I thought “my…GOD!”.  I was repulsed and yet intrigued.  I thought it was a 90’s movie, and when I found out it was 19-80-fucking-2, I could not believe how well done the visual effects were.  And they really are still some of the best!  And a lot of it was because of the lighting.  Low-budget tricks that require thought and effort. 

    And to think of all the millions of dollars pissed away on today’s mind-numbing shit.  God, I get pissy when my favorite movies are insulted.  No wonder I had to sleep first before I posted this.  Where’s the Tylenol? 

  • CoHScrapper

    Great vlog guys. Miles, I really enjoyed hearing your thoughts on this film.
      A few thoughts I had were:   (1) Females in The Thing: IMO, I don’t think it’s Anti-Women or Misogynistic (or whatever you wanna call it) to question why females are in the cast. I look at it as: Okay, the 1st Thing didn’t have a female, so why did they feel it was necessary (if that) to cast females in the prequel? I take it as just a question not meant to sting, but some might not see it that way.   (2) Mary Elizabeth Winstead: Well, to some, she’s hot! Not to mention she was in Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. Her reason for being in this flick was probably to lure in a demographic that would never come because it’s a horror/sci-fi film. Much like how Samuel L. Jackson was used in the Star Wars prequels to lure in the “Urban Market” aka black people.   (3) The Thing Revealed Too Soon: That’s the work of the director who’s [mocking tone] “not afraid to show the monster”. I hear that a lot on horror film bonus features in defense to the writer/director, “[insert name here] is not afraid to show the monster.” [Case and Point: Radha Mitchell said that about Christophe Gans’ on Silent Hill. “He’s not afraid to show the monster”] And what I find funny is: these celebrities are praising writers/directors for a technique that’s widely practiced by just about EVERY writer/director!   Seriously, when was the last time we, the audience, were exposed to a horror/sci-fi thriller in which the monster is revealed at the climax? “Hiding” the monster is a technique that hasn’t been executed in what? 15, 20 years? But again, you hear that comment at some point on bonus features.  (I wanna say I heard it on the features on The Grudge or The Ring. Can’t remember)   (4) The Thing lacks intelligence from the original: Well, does it? Keep in mind this is a PREQUEL. Who’s to say that The Thing didn’t adapt. Okay, lets say this is the first encounter with humans The Thing has… Now, what mannerisms would it have? How would it act/react if/when discovered? What if, after THIS encounter with humans, The Thing learned HOW humans act, therefore The Thing acts the way it does in Carpenter’s film. Basically, through the encounter with the Norwegians, The Thing learned how to act/react in the company of the Americans.  (What *IF* that’s the direction they were going for?)   (5) Inside The Spaceship: I’m going to have to agree with Noah. I thought the exact same thing.   Again, just a few thoughts I had. Hope no one takes what I said too seriously. And again, great vlog Noah and Miles. Can’t wait to see what the next one will be.

  • http://twitter.com/Redbob86 Bob Walsh

    I loved the Thing, probably my favorite horror movie (though I don’t see many horror movies, go figure).  The trailer for this remake was filled with bad jump scares, and bad action scenes (running away from a crumbling ice shelf, seriously?)

    So much crap being stolen from the 80’s.  Get read though, it’s on a matter of years before the 90’s start getting pillaged.  Enjoy remakes of Power Rangers, Child’s Play, Pokemon, and Jurassic Park (this one seems very likely if Terra Nova becomes a big hit).

  • Anonymous

    I gotta say I love your movie review vlogs – they’re more informative and in-depth than most. The original is such a fantastic film because it focused on the characters and mood as a suspense flick. Nowadays they dispense with the former and just focus on gore. 

    Regarding your comment on the DP trying to shoot just using the light from the flares, I was recently watching JC’s The Thing (on blu-ray and it looked gorgeous). In the commentary, both Carpenter and Russell talk about how horrid it was to work with those flares – the noxious fumes they gave off and accidental burns they got. I don’t think they’re specialized flares but just regular ones. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ILX5LHHGSQLMRS2VUFNLZXBTBQ Life in the eyes of an ox

    Always good to see people watching these episodes especially when I just saw the movie last night, but honestly there are a few points I have to make.
    1.) This movie is not a ‘remake’ it is supposed to be a prequel to John Carpenters The Thing.  Yes they actually used CGI effects but this is keeping with our modern times but all the technology used on screen is 1982 tech.
    2.) Yes in the first movie they said it was a team of Norwegians and that was not a lie carried into the prequel, the team was predominantly Nords.   There were 2 Brits and 2 Americans to fly the chopper.  The Blonde american we see in the beginning of the film is the lead scientists assistant who they establish has been working with him for a while and is to be trusted, the American Paleontologist was reccomended by said assistant as the best in her field and if you think about it someone who could be easily pushed into not revealing too much either because she is a woman or because this would make her career skyrocket.
    3.)  I agree that the first film was amazing in it’s subtlety and such, however here is the reason why this movie’s pace is as it is.  They discover that there was an alien and that it was in the ice for x number of years, they take it in all it’s ice-cube glory back to their facility and the team celebrates.  As the ice melts it bursts out and cats out of the bag killing rage.  Yes they have to find it and there is enough space where you don’t know who’s infected and who isn’t.  After they torch it nobody knows that it can infect others until the next morning when the threat emerges on the first chopper out of there.  Since then everything moves fast because there is alot of going on, not just the thing but people in untold danger.
    4.)  The ambush predator nature, yes I can agree with you that it blew its cover a lot and more so than it should.  However in it’s defense it was just out of the ice for the first time in along time.  It wasn’t aware of the new species and it’s capabilities so it’s initial interaction is very “Rawr Smash”.  There is no guarantee that every assimilation holds all of the knowledge of the previous so it’s re-learning on the fly.  The longest time between transformations is the Norwegian (non scientist) leader of the facility.  It was accused, threatened, and only really went all monstery after being knocked around after the flame-throwers fuel tank explodes which I’m sure triggered the self defense transformation and splitting apart.  Yes this is supposed to be ultimate ambush predator but more than that the species is more the ultimate survivalist.  Every cell is an organism as was established in John Carpenters version so it can split apart and assimilate a new being quickly so it can hide again.

    I have no arguments about the CGI, granted I thought for what it was it was good.
    The spaceship plot hole, yes I can agree with your analysis.  And there are some things that were established in the previous movie that got flubbed but in all for what it was I liked it but I can also agree with your opinions.

    Good review though.

    • Anonymous

      I really agree wi th the 4th argument. It just got out of the ice, maybe it didn’t now how people would react, so it just went on a rapmage. Maybe it just needed some more time to adapt properly. I can’t say much more though, I haven’t seen the movie yet and probably won’t see it for some time (here, it will be released some time in December).

    • http://www.facebook.com/nasser.elusta Nasser Elusta

      My friend (he didn’t watched the first film, but I filled him in) and said that the alien learned it’s mistake from the norwegians and took advantage of the paranoria that it made in the american base

    • http://www.facebook.com/lindsey.rapisarda Lindsey Rapisarda

      I agree with your statements 100% the movie did use CGI, granted it wasn’t done too badly and I do like that they used puppets to build the alien monsters and then they put CGI over it, not a bad idea. I actually liked Mary Elizabeth Winstead’s character as well as some of the other Nords in the movie.

    • http://www.facebook.com/VitalemRecords Micah J Femino

      They didn’t say it WAS a remake – they said it was effectively a prequel. Because they are just rehashing the same movie – but in a much less effective way. You are apologizing for lazy film making – and saying that’s how it was. The Thing remake is one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen – maybe Deep Water 2 was worse – but that’s about it. This movie was made for 12 year old kids that haven’t seen good movies yet.

  • Joe Moyer

    Your format for reviewing is nice, but I think you need to let the movie sink in a bit more or think about it more in depth before you review it instead of saying what first pops into your head. Just a few things that caught my attention: The Escape from New York reboot has been scrapped for a long time now, so no point in getting upset about it. When Kate was attacked, the Norwegian didn’t just randomly have a flamethrower for no reason. Remember, they used it just the night before to burn the larger thing creature (so it might make sense that it was still laying around nearby and that people might still be on edge about things).

  • Richard Ton

    You’re right, its sad that CG has taken over for practical effects, and movies like this is one of those that gives CG a bad rep, since we all know CG can be used for good. A great example is the Nolan films, The Dark Knight and Inception, he uses practical with some CG to a great way. Yeah this movie is just wasted potential, even though the Predator reboot is ok, not great it was done with respect, this wasn’t.

  • http://twitter.com/FailedSlurpe Mike bonacker

    I kind of figured this would not stand up to Carpenter’s original .

  • Anonymous

    So, would you say the prequel was better or worse than the video game sequel?

  • anonymous8

    It’s nice to hear a review by people like myself that are very well versed in the carpenter version. Unfortunately, you guys are absolutely correct on this one. It was a fun movie, but it is such a disappointment. I wish the director had consulted you guys before making this movie.

  • Anonymous

    The one thing that bugged me about John Carpenter’s outing and bugs me to this day is the Hangman’s Noose in the tool shed. It wasn’t there when they put Wilfred in there, but in every other sequence, there it was almost right on center of camera…*and no one acknowledges its presence*. That just bothers me, because there’s no reason to have a hangman’s noose other then to use it, and Wilfred was not in a stable mind.

  • Brynjar Björnsson

    Watching Oreo’s antics in this vid is no doubt better entertainment than seeing The Thing II.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_V3K7WV3HFEU34TVYZ5D2A3HOK4 charles

    FYI. They also sell flamethrowers in most Home Depots for use when working with asphalt. Adjust your Zombie survival plans accordingly.

  • lkraider

    Control Oreo please

  • Anonymous

    I had forgotten how entertaining it can be to hear you two talk about a bad movie.

  • George Ragen

    I though this movie was going to be bad once i heard it was being produced,
    remakes are pretty bad compared to its original most of the time.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Rosenbaum/100001387887487 George Rosenbaum

      Especially when the first one was good the first time. These film makers not only failed on their own objective merits; they failed in comparison to the other movie. Which makes it suck even more, because we will be reminded of how AWESOME the original movie was in comparison to this shit-hole of a movie.

      Everyone’s heard of the first ‘The Thing’, so of course they had to make a prequel. After all, Hollywood only does remakes of good classics that everyone’s heard of. But since remakes should either be better than the original or some kind of re-imagining (Think ‘Alice ind Wonderland’), the odds are already stacked against the team doing the remake.

      So why is Hollywood in the habit of attempting to beat timeless classics decades after their creation. Isn’t that unreasonably difficult? Wouldn’t it make more sense to remake a movie that was good in concept, but poorly executed?

      And I know this a prequel, but the same principal applies here too.

      • doresh

        Hollywood doesn’t care about good concepts. All that’s important are well-known names you can misuse for your sequel/remake/reboot/prequel/whatever, because the well-known name will guarantee a certain amount of moviegoers. This is pretty much the only reason why some nutballs thought it’s a bright idea to make a movie based on friggin’ BATTLESHIPS

  • Anonymous

    For some reason, when I saw Spoony’s shirt, I expected him to be in black and white, while his brother was in color.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Rosenbaum/100001387887487 George Rosenbaum

    Hey. If your so adamant to get ‘The Thing’ to a modern audience, why not try RE-RELEASING THE ORIGINAL!

    Seriously, I would you see ‘The Thing’ again on the silver screen if they did that. Maybe remind people what a GOOD movie is for once.

  • http://twitter.com/BoneCharmer Michelle Borro

    Two things:

    First thing, when I heard they were making a new “The Thing” movie I thought that the people who endeavored to create this…Thing were going to piss all over it like they did the remake of “A Nightmare on Elm Street” (which made me cry after I saw it) and after having watched the review I realize, ha, I was spot on. 

    Second thing, Oreo is freaking adorable and I bestow on you ENCOURAGEMENT SPRINKLES!! Keep up the good work!

  • Anonymous

    Well, I’m still going to go see this movie tomarrow just because I’ve been fallowing it’s production since it was conceved as a SyFy chaanel mini-series back in the early 2000s and I really wasnted to see it.  But, I do like ya’ll’s review alot better than the others I’ve seen that didn’t like it were they just bashed on it like it was in style.  At least ya’ll didn’t start yelling.  I respect that.  Also, I cans ee who plays the alpha male around Oreo here!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5JGZR6EZ5L442JNKS66KFEOJVE Byzantine

    Spoony man you REALLY need to leave the dog out of your videos, you were constantly being distracted and I feel it really detracted from your normal style.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jimmy-TheFish/100000139595167 Jimmy TheFish

    The Norwegian base gave Carpteners some “back story”. We already knew the important parts to the prequel: the norwegians dug up the thing, it killed everyone, the survivors chased it down in dog form and were subsequently killed. Watching a movie where we already know the plot is pretty boring and thats what they did (presumably)

  • Anonymous

    I totally agree with Miles and Spoony: there was no reason to make a prequel to the 1982 “Thing”; no questions are answered, nothing positive comes out of it, it doesn’t make sense. Prequels only make sense if they take a character from a movie and put them in an unrelated plot (“Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom” is a good example) – this was just a backfiller movie.

    Some points:

    The original ship – In all versions of the Thing story, the ship or “flying saucer” is destroyed so the creature can’t escape; in the original 1930’s story it’s because the ship is made out of a magnesium-like metal, I think it’s the same for the 1951 movie. I can’t remember what happened to the saucer the Norwegians found, except we see a big round hole in the ice; maybe it was too much of a wreck. By not showing a giant hole with a saucer in it, the new Thing movie breaks continuity with the 1982 movie. Also, having the Thing go back into the ship (and having stuff on the ship work!) breaks with the plot structure of all the Thing stories; it’s either trying to get away, absorb enough of the humans so it can continue to exist, or building a radio to contact its home planet (what it was doing in the original 1938 story.) And escape brings me to point two….

    That goofy mini-saucer Wilford Brimley built – Spoony has always though this was silly, but think about it; is the creature going to leave this planet, now that it knows about people? No. That ship was a one-way escape pod to get a piece of the Thing away from the American base. We know the creature absorbs personalities, why not the memories of the people it’s absorbed? And remember, not all of an absorbed person needs to exist for the Thing-copy to survive; all it would need is Brimley’s head. If it could make it to the Tierra del Fuego it would have it made.

    The flamethrowers – I never got why they had one in the 1982 film; I would guess it’s because “Alien” showed how cool it was to shoot fire down corridors. If they have more than one in this version of the “Thing”, it’s overkill.

    • Anonymous

      They apparently don’t do this anymore, but back in the 50s-80s, they used army surplus flamethrowers as a way to clear ice because it was cheap and easy.

  • Anonymous

    7:00 Oh Hai Doggie!

  • Anonymous

    I think you guys were a bit too harsh on this movie.  I’m a huge fan of the original, and I really enjoyed this movie.  It certainly had its flaws, but this movie pulled things off pretty nicely.  On th front of effects, back in the 80s you had to shoot practical effects in dim lighting BECAUSE they wouldn’t hold-up in better lighting!  It was done that way out of necessity not out of art.   Now, sure, it works in hindsight, but if they could’ve used better lighting they probably would have.

    Now, I agree this movie didn’t quite pull of the isolation of Antarctica but the first movie also had plenty of times when characters were outside in light cover in Antarctica.  In the Winter.  At night.  There’s a scene where Windows rushes outside to meet up with McReady and when he’s outside he’s just pulling on his coat.   There were also more than a few times in the original where the thing exposes itself when it doesn’t have to.  You could “fan-wank” that it can only sustain one body for so long, and even further that the thing that escapes (the dog) learned from the faults of the other(s) in staying as hidden as possible.  

    You guys didn’t like the movie, that’s fine and great your opinions, but I think you watched the movie, saw one thing you didn’t like early on and then your “care” shut-off so you started looking for things to not like, overlooking the good.  

    I enjoyed this movie, I liked how it “sets up” everything we see in the original (the axe in the wall at the Norwegian base, the guy in the chair with slashed wrists) and while I agree going into the space-ship was silly it is what it is.  I’m sure I could also fan-wank how the spaceship works after “crashing” that a self-healing system repaired it over the course of time or that that’s where the alien simply chose to land for whatever reasons.  And while the charges were never used to unearth the spaceship that doesn’t mean they weren’t going to be used. What we see the characters in the 82 version is extrapolating on what they see, but they can’t know what really happened.  What obviously happened as we see here is the spaceship was unearthed by its own movement, not the charges.  

    As for what happened on the crashed copter, the crash and resulting explosion likely killed the thing, after our pilots escaped.  I agree one of them should’ve been a thing, but what are you going to do? Maybe it’ll be cleared up in… A SEQUEL!   Muhawhawhawhaw!!!  

    • doresh

      I don’t think they would’ve used better lighting. Do you think this would’ve made the movie better? Would Alien be a better movie if the interior of the ship was all nicely lit? And did Peter Jackson not understand anything about CGI because he didn’t make shots of Mordor or the Balrog in broad daylight?

      Crappy lighting is important to create atmosphere. It invokes fear and allows the producers to partially hide the creature, making it that more effective.

      • Anonymous

        Touche, darkness can enhance the mood and aura of a scene, but one of the reasons why low lighting is used in older movies is to hide the effects. If they could’ve gotten away with even slightly better lighting they probably would have. One could argue this was not that kind of “scary movie.”. Anyway this movie, its effects and atmosphere worked for me. Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

        • doresh

          I can live with low lighting as long as the effects are amazing XD

          • Anonymous

            Unfortunately we no longer live in an era of amazing special effects. Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

          • doresh

            It’s more of an era of limitations: People used to get pretty creative when it came to work around given limitations and managed to create some AMAZING stuff (like Ray Harryhausen’s Stop-Motion, the original Star Wars trilogy and the original Thing) with what they were given.

            Today, you can do pretty much everything, resulting in overblown crap.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Wayne-LaBranch/100002132711844 Wayne LaBranch

      Usually i’m ok with someone who likes the Original and the remake of a movie but with this movie…i can’t see how a fan of the original could even like this shitty movie.  It was a prequel to questions noone asked…hell to things we already know, they ruined the monster by making its like any generic monster (and bad CGI),  no Character development other than the usually horror movie ones.  I think that Spoony and Miles explained pretty much everything that’s need to be said, maybe at points they were in a “not caring mode” but they pretty much were watching it to see the good (that’s why they tried to see how it would do on its own)

    • http://www.facebook.com/VitalemRecords Micah J Femino

      The Thing prequel is one of the two worst movies I’ve ever seen. If you saw this movie and liked it, then you don’t know what good movies are.

  • Anonymous

    In the
    book “Who Goes There?” that all the thing movies are based on it
    gives perfect sense why the creature can´t use the spaceship to return. In the book the research team (in the book
    there is no Norwegian base only the American base) who finds the ship use
    Termite charges to thaw out the ship unfortunately it sets the ship´s hull on

    Also the creature in the book has the ability to
    transform into various shapes of animals it has absorbed and when its
    discovered it transforms into different shapes of predatory nature, it’s even
    explained why it couldn´t just couldn´t transform into a bird and fly away,
    because the place it comes from is different  from our earth.

    Also in the book it’s not trying to leave Earth
    instead it builds an anti gravity harness to try and escape to a mayor city.


    My recommendation to anyone who wants to remake the
    movie, take the book and translate it page by page into a movie really you can
    do it with VERY little to no CGI at all and mostly makeup and creature effects.


    Oh and to all who haven´t read the book yet, do it its
    actually a really good sci fi story, despite it being 73 years old.  

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LDFIQKNRZTYNGYUWU64SVNASHA solidsnake2006

    But the 82 Thing movie was shot in summer of 1981, they talk about this on the DVD commentary for the movie. That they would keep the buildings cold to show the effects of the cold, but when they went outside it would be 30 degrees out there (that’s celcius here in Canada so that is HOT).

  • http://twitter.com/BigJonGoob Jon Fite

    Give credit where credit is due. Ennio Morricone was the man behind the original score.

  • Anonymous

    Crappy CGI remakes claim another victim =(.  Seriously I hate cg in most modern horror or sci fi movies because it makes the movie so much more unrealistic.  It’s fine for small effects but is terrible when used so much like on monsters and crap.

  • Anonymous



  • http://twitter.com/brielmusik Michael Briel

    In the original short story “Who goes there” the flamethrower is explained for being used to de-ice the landing strip for the plane.

    • Anonymous

      Which makes no sense,a s Spoony and his bro point out.  If you need to de-ice something you’re going to use chemicals or other specialized equipment and devices, not something that shoots out a 20-foot long stream of flames that will catch pretty much anyone and everything on fire.   Besides, planes that land in Antarctica, Alaska or anywhere else with heavy snow and ice fall, have special landing skids for handling such terrain.  On the few blogs there are our there made by people who actually live and and work in Antarctica -where watching the Carpenter movie is a tradition- they point out how funny and silly it is for flame throwers to be down there which violates a multi-national treaty against weapons being down there.   Flame throwers, while awesome, are not going to be used in Antarctica. 

      • http://twitter.com/brielmusik Michael Briel

        Remember the original short story is from the 30s or 40s – somehow I doubt that back then that treaty was already in place, but of course I might be wrong.

        Also in the story – if I remember correctly – the “flamethrowers” weren’t what the military uses, which is a squirt gun that shoots ignited liquid fuel (supposed to stick on your target and burn) but instead, as in the Carpenter movie (at least) rather using gas as fuel, like an overpowered Bunsen burner. ;)

        I doubt this little detail makes them any more realistic, I guess the Author back then simply wanted some possibility to instant ignite the infected and made up a reason for them to have something that shoots fire. :)

        It definitely fits the general tone of the story – which Carpenter actually caught pretty well indeed…

        As for using chemicals to de-ice: Are you sure? Wouldn’t that also be against international treaties over Antarctica? Think contamination and leaving no traces behind or something like that? Also: Don’t chemicals fail when temperatures are low enough? (at least the classic salt does – it might lower the melting point of ice,  but when it’s cold enough that won’t matter, otherwise Northpole wouldn’t be frozen over). But I’m just digging out half-knowledge here, so I of course am most likely wrong. ;)

      • http://twitter.com/brielmusik Michael Briel

        It really would be interesting to know if a big torch like that maybe could have been used back in the time that story was written, though. I mean – exploration of Antarctica back then was in it’s childhood, pretty much, and we definitely didn’t have all the modern equipment and ecological consciousness back then.

  • Anonymous

    First I thought maybe there aren’t any good paleontologists in Norway but… turns out there are so I got nothing. The movie just wanted some Yankees there, apparently.

  • Anonymous

    Thank you… they need to stop with all the CG shit.  How cheap are movie budgets these days to make better puppeteer props?  I’m not completely against CG, but if you’re gonna “film” something, film it!

    Stop making every movie feel like Blue’s Clues experience.

  • RosieRoses

    Oreo doesnneed her squeeker – Noah is her favourite chew toy!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_C2JNGRGJTEDOSSZSIW3HH4S3BY Rayvn

    I’m reserving my own judgement on the prequel.  I won’t be able to see it for quite some time, but I already figured it wouldn’t have the same magic as the original.  I might end up waiting for it on DVD, depending on when I get paid–I start a new job in two weeks and paid 2-3 weeks after that, and it might be out of theaters by then.

    Your dog is very cute, Spoony, but you need tpo show her who is boss.  she needs obedience training.  Don’t let her be mouthy and nippy: right now, she’s young and still able to learn to not do that, but if you let it go she’s going to grow up doing that and she might bite a little kid someday. Not out  of meaness, but because she never learned better.  Take her to Petsmart for some dog training courses; she’ll be a better pet and not so disruptive.

  • Anonymous

    PK tak shrt! Seriously, I want that shirt. Now. As for the movie, wasn’t even gonna bother with it, and now even less (Porcupine Tree song… w00t!). The original Thing was a master piece so to stain it’s memory with this thing (pun intended) really doesn’t make sense. Thanks for the review!

  • GLT

    I hope one day they will remake Citizen Kane.
    With cool CGI rosebuds n shit. 

  • Elizabeth Ruifrok

    They’re modernizing Escape from New York?!?!  Oh HELL no.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Wayne-LaBranch/100002132711844 Wayne LaBranch

    I’m not surprised this movie bombed.  1. Remakes (its a prequel but its pretty much a remake) usually don’t do so well, sometimes they do but most times….they don’t.

    2.  Its really Hard to even try and go against the Original, especially knowing how great it is.  You kinda expect it to be…really bad or ehhh decent

  • http://twitter.com/jasonbond013 Darren Rioux-Lambert

    You know guys,the “original” The Thing was a remake as well.

    • Anonymous

      Yeah, they addressed that when they brought up “The Thing From Another World” at the beginning of the review.

  • Anonymous

    Thanks for doing this review, guys. You saved me 10 bucks. When I heard this was going to be a prequel instead of a remake, I had hopes for this flick, but, yeah, so much for that. I suppose I can just use the money I would have spent to buy the John Carpenter version on blu-ray.

    Fuckin’ Hollywood, man…

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HODCXXSPSPEMXHMFTWK2DPOWCM Uyen

    You lost me when you said it is a remake. No it is not. However stupid and shoddy this movie is, IT’S NOT A REMAKE!!!!!!!!

    • doresh

      Well, then it’s a prequel which just happens to have the exact same title as the original ^^

    • CoHScrapper

      I’m sorry, but why are some people acting as if they’re offended when hearing “REMAKE” in association with The Thing (2011)? First off, I’m not attacking you @Uyen. I’m not trying to start an internet battle, but are you even listening to the reason(s) they give as to why most people are calling it a remake?

      I think the most damaging is:
      The Thing (1982): Americans getting killed off one by one by an alien in an Antarctic facility.
      The Thing (2011): Norwegians, with 2 women, getting killed off one by one by an alien in an Antarctic facility (X amount of miles away from the Americans)
      …How do you not see the remake?
      No matter how you try to explain the contrary, it’s essentially a remake. The “unnecessary” bit is a matter of opinion, but I can see how/why they say it. The Thing (2011) is an unnecessary remake much like “Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning” and “Underworld: Rise of the Lycans” are unnecessary remakes. Yes, they’re prequels. But again, they’re unnecessary prequels. How is Rise of the Lycans a remake? You don’t remember the Romeo and Juliet-esque subplot of the first Underworld?

      Again, not attacking, just trying to show you the flip side of the coin.

  • http://twitter.com/megarobbie7 robbie decourcey

    This movie is anus

  • http://twitter.com/megarobbie7 robbie decourcey

    Not to mention the exact same plot, location, and time period.

  • CoHScrapper

    I was watching the original a few hours ago and I noticed something. Even in the original they make fun of the prequel -in a sense. Everyone remember the scene where they’re watching the video of the Norwegians? Bennings asks, “How much more of this crap is there?” Dr. Copper answers, “Well, nine hours, I’d say.” Bennings says, “We can’t learn anything from this.”

  • Eric Mclaughlin

    The version I saw in Sol Cal seemed to have been edited since there were one or two major edit jumps. For instance some argument with the girl (who I call ‘not Ripley from Alien’) and the head Norwegian but the scene starts with everyone around the ice block and then jumps to him saying not contradict him again out side the room?

    But things were hinted that were wasted and could have given this movie a purpose.

    For instance, one of the characters asks early on why the alien left his ship if it was relatively intact?

    I thought holy crap the Thing is not the alien?

    Did the alien crashed its ship in Antarctica because if was being attacked by the Thing?

    Now that is interesting!

    Then it never brought up again.

    • doresh

      You call that major? The German TV-cut of the original Thing has removed around 90% of all scenes involving the Thing – despite the fact that it aired after midnight, was clearly labeled “18 and up” AND that various horror movies with a slightly lower rating can air much sooner and keep more of their gore intact Oo
      Watching this abomination was like reading a book were some idiot ripped out half the pages (and smeared chocolade on the rest). At least the more quiet parts were still good.

      • http://twitter.com/brielmusik Michael Briel

        Und aus diesem Grund gucke ich schon seit Jahren mehr kein deutsches Fernseh’ – die Synchros der Serien die ich mag nerven, ich verstehe fließend Englisch und mag es sowieso lieber von einem Schauspieler die Originalstimme zu hören, die gehört zu seiner Arbeit mit dazu. :)

        • doresh

          Ahh, good ol’ dubbing. You can’t imagine how amazed I was when I first watched “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” in its original dub. All those years, I didn’t know that the most forgettable jokes in the German dub are actually original creations by some weirdo who had no respect for the then rather unkown Monty Python group.
          And part of the reason why I gave up on The Simpsons (apart from the fact that the newer seasons aren’t all that good) was the steady decline in dubbing quality: They would just translate puns word for word (resulting in sentences that are either weird or nonsensical) and use the original audio track for pretty much every scene without dialogue – even though this switch is incredibly obvious.

          Suffice to say, German television is stingy as hell and catering to the lowest common denominator – and this can be VERY low.

          • http://twitter.com/brielmusik Michael Briel

            Indeed – keep in mind that it’s the lowest GERMAN denominator. ;)

            What really made me kinda angry, back when I watched dubbed shows on TV, was when someone says something that doesn’t make any sense to a German, pretty much, but that you *can* recognize as a word by word translation of an English pun… Sure – at some points it’s hard to impossible to make a proper, working translation, but still…

          • doresh

            And this is why I stopped watching the Simpsons – that and the overall decline in quality and the fact that our dubbers got so lazy they just stopped dubbing grunts and similar noises (which is VERY noticable).

            Sometimes, I don’t even thing the guys translating the script noticed that they’re translating puns. More often than not, they would just translate the pun word for word – like “No chick without a cock”, which they basically translated into “No chicken without a rooster”. Try finding a double entendre there Oo

            Thankfully, there a far better examples, just not on TV. The German dub of Azumanga Daioh does a pretty good job with the puns for some reason XD

          • Anonymous

            Oh – Azumanga Daioh in German? I actually have to check THAT out! :D I was just in the middle of watching the series again with english subs… :)

            One final thing about the average German dub: At least they make some minor efforts here, like actual actors doing the dubbing and keeping one voice for the same actor as much as possible – you knew you were listening to Sean Connery, because he had *one* German voice.

            Some even did a really good job, given that their task was impersonating someone else in a different language, like Peer Augustinski, the German voice of Eddie Murphy.

          • doresh

            Go check it out. I don’t know why, but someone decided to put lots of effort into that dub. Not only are the VAs able to pronounce their names, they also make good use honorifics (unlike Rebuild of Evangelion, where everyone calls Shinji “Shinjiken” Oo ), and it’s even better than the English dub (although the English one is still fascinating because their Chiyo sounds exactly like the Japanese one Oo). The only problem I have is Kagura’s VA. She could’ve raised her voice a bit more often. Other then that, you can do far worse (like the wooden Gunslinger Girl dub or the Gurren Lagann dub that – while overall pretty decent – has just enough problems and issues to annoy the hell out of you).

            That “keeping one voice”-thing is just common sense. Nobody wants to confuse the average audience by having the same actor sound completely different in every movie he’s in. That’s actually one of the problems some Germans have with the 4th Pirates of the Carribean movie: Because Johnny Depp’s main VA – David Nathan – returned, after not dubbing him for the first 3 movies XD
            If an actor is important enough, he get’s one main VA. If you go back and watch older movies were the actor wasn’t that famous, you’ll notice that the VA will likely change a lot, since that one actor wasn’t important enough to be very memorable.

    • http://twitter.com/brielmusik Michael Briel

      Hm – yes, the Thing IS the alien – they found it frozen in the ice outside of the saucer, so obviously it had left the ship at some point. ^^

      Althoiugh – of course – there’s no definite word about whether the Thing was the original pilot of the saucer *or* if the pilot was one of it’s victims (which might have caused the crash).

      Another thing: Some people seem to find it funny that the Thing attempts to build a craft from Helicopter parts – mind you, no one ever said it was supposed to be spaceworthy. All the Thing needed to be able to was to get out of Antarctica and somewhere where a little more lifeforms hang around…

      Doesn’t even have to be humans, basically it just needs to get to open water and take over one fish – that’d basically be the end of all “old” life on earth.

  • Anonymous

    I completely agree with everything Spoony and Noah have to say about this movie. I evidently went and saw the midnight premiere with a friend of mine and at the time, I truthfully did not mind it all and accepted it as a decent remake or whatever the eff it is. But looking back on it, I realize that the CGI was crap and just way too obvious, the characters were poorly developed, it did not perceive the atmosphere it should have or the tension and the shroud of darkness, and in generally, just lacked every bit of what John Carpenter’s The Thing had that I loved. When comparing the two movies, you literally just shouldn’t because all you are going to notice is that nothing will be as good as John Carpenter’s and they just killed themselves thinking they could make a worthy remake/prequel thing. This movie should have been a direct to dvd release or on the Scifi channel with all of their horrible movies.

    • Anonymous

      correction i meant to say Miles. My bad my bad

  • Anonymous

    I couldn’t agree more with just about everything that was said. I was pretty pissed off they just skipped the excavation of the alien, and the fact the ship was underground instead of having a crater blasted out. The thing that wasn’t pushed enough was that they put women in it just for the sake of putting women in it. I have no doubt it was done just to appeal to more demographics, including having the main protagonist being a woman. Also, why did we have to have Americans being the main characters in a Norwegian camp? Do we have to have Americans in everything in order to watch it? Why couldn’t they have pulled a Hunt For Red October, and switched it to English after a minute or two?

    • Anonymous

      The other thing that should be mentioned was why did she have a conversation with the thing for something like two minutes before she fried it? It couldn’t shoot its tentacle at her just as fast as she could pull the trigger three feet away? Its ridiculous that you would give the alien time while you tell it how you outsmarted it. You just fry the fucker without giving it a shot to get you first.

  • Anonymous

    https://www.facebook.com/thethingmovieI have voiced my opinion on the link above…and had my posts deleted. I did not like this one at all. I just don’t see how anyone could this movie to be could….I really hate stupid people. I also tried posting Spoony and The Cimena Snob’s review there too. Completely ignored and deleted.

    • Anonymous

      Also, all the people who voice that they like the movie never give in depth reason of why, which royally annoys me. I, as well as many others, at least give complete, factual reasons as to why this movie should not be considered a tribute to the original.

      • http://twitter.com/DiscoRobocop Max Bowman

        The monster work was at times inspired, splitface comes to mind, and there was some early tension building that worked for about five minutes. Joel Edgerton has an interesting presence and should have been the hero, or the villain of the piece. 

  • Nick Sanders

    Final verdict for me is that the original is a good movie in all standards and the new one is just a hack and slash, horror movie that really was just meant to be scary and try and suck in fans of the original like me. I must admit the parts that i did enjoy about the new one was the fact that we got to see how the camp got to the state was left in but i really didn’t need to see a bad movie to know that.

  • Anonymous

    Oreo must be a THING! But seriously Spoony, train Oreo, just think of the results like him not biting your finger and not running around the house dominating the place.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AF52NSQV5IMNG2V4RAG56HUSJI ryan

    When you mention the star wars prequels I thought about how awesome a movie about the early rebel alliance would be. then I think about how it would stink and add very little.

    Ennio Morrconie’s razzie wining score to the 1982 film is indeed creepy

  • Damien Flynn

    Right away i have a problem with this flic because they find this spaceship” I assumed he was going to point out the science behind how that isn’t going to happen but instead he goes into retard mode about how hurr durr merrikuns wudnt talk to non murrikuns , murrikuns only talk to murrikuns . dis movie be shit cause if murrikuns dont talk to anyone else den dat be da way it should be.

    fucking retards in your shitty clerks shirt why don’t you get the fuck off the internet with your imbecilic brainfarts, christ if you were 16 I could maybe understand the shirt, but fucking late 30’s, jesus christ , go out and get some pussy before its too late permavirgins

  • Anonymous

    For the record, thermite isn’t a heavy explosive. It doesn’t explode. It burns like a m-f-er and spills molten iron everywhere, but it won’t really damage anything not directly under it. That’s why it’s good for melting out ice and cutting into a crashed starship!

    • John Done

      I think in the original novella they explain that the ship was made of a rare earth metal or something that combusted very rapidly and violently when it connected with the burning thermite.

  • Devin Morse

    I remember you saying The Thing was one of your favorite movies so I couldn’t wait to hear your stance on this one. HUGE Thing-fan here, but didn’t hate it nearly as much as you. Excellent points all around. Miles mentioned how the Thing seemed to go back to its original form, but to be fair, that’s also what it did in the novella.

  • Anonymous

    There seems to be a trend with Hollywood movies of late, and mostly horror movies at that. The bigger the budget, the less thought goes into the direction and production. The actual art of cinematography becomes lost in this mass of blatant CGI and melodrama, all finesse just forgotten in the face of brute monetary value. The necessities of film-making disappear in the face of what should be fringe benefits and after-thoughts. Unless you’re going to make CGI a big part of your movie for a reason, and do it to fit into the scope and texture of your scenes, don’t bloody use it!

  • Anonymous

    The case certainly could be made that the advent of CGI has proven to be a detriment to cinematography rather than a benefit. It’s given film makers an excuse to take the easy way out rather than actually put work and effort into making the most of what they had.

    I can’t help wondering if Carpenter’s Thing had had access to modern CGI if it would have still been a masterpiece or would he have fallen into the same trap as many directors do now? Guess we’ll never know for sure…

    • meyerandrewj

      People keep making the mistake of thinking CGI is “the easy way.”  Have you ever tried computer modeling?  It’s harder than all hell to make something look convincing and to make many many frames of it.  Not to mention, the materials for both the CG effects and the physical effects are about the same in cost.  Computer modeling computers and software cost as much as all the petroleum jelly and fake blood.

      However, a low budget and an awareness of how shabby your effects are (physical or CG) can make a film much more suspenseful and a lot better.  It is well known that Jaws is a lot scarier because you rarely see the shark, that was all an accident because the mechanical shark wouldn’t work for most of the shooting.  So in that respect, film makers having access to better 3D capabilities makes them braver and less shy about showing their monsters.  So in that respect CG has definitely hurt cinema.

  • David Arseneau

    to completely disregard the 1951 ORIGINAL film, guys.

  • Michael O’Connell

    I actually want to see the directors cut of this movie if it’s ever released. I saw the movie and I feel there are a couple of parts that were actually left out (ie, an explanation for the flamethrower, or even when they went to go get the guy with it). I think maybe the studio less than the producers were the ones at fault here….

  • Anonymous

    The thing I remember about JC “The Thing” was the Norweigan guy running after the dog. I was like, what the hell is saying. Dog something… Speak Norweigan ffs. Your line is just a few words LoL.

  • Anonymous

    Basically what you’re saying is it’s not Carpnter’s movie. Noted. I’m only going to defend the creature because everything else I primarily agree with. Its not that good of movie. I enjoyed just the creature sure its effects stood out like a sore thumb and I would have wanted to more practical effects.

    Basically this Thing is cocky there is a large micro-colony of Thing so it can risk exposure because it can infect many people at once WHICH IT DID. At the end the only Thing left was able to imitate a dog, so in John’s Carpenter’s the Thing had to be subtle in order to get its way.

    As for the ship, in John Carpenter’s Thing its established that a slow infection can be stopped by killing the host through extreme measures (like extreme cold or heat). So what if the space ship’s pilot wasn’t the Thing but rather some random alien who was being infected. Logically it crashed on earth and let itself freeze to death to stop the Thing.

    Other than that I’m agreeing with you on the flaws. It is a very generic film but I did like the creature even though the effects were pretty bad. I probably won’t be seeing this again and just enjoy John Carpenter’s Thing.

    • Anonymous

      The infection doesn’t stop when the host dies, that is why they had to completely incinerate everything that had become infected. Even the burned body that was found at the Norwegian camp was stated to still have cellular activity. And cold had no effect on the Thing at all, which is why it survived being frozen for 100,000 years and why they had to prevent it from freezing again and being found by anyone who came to the camp.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kenneth-John-Taylor/839205050 Kenneth John Taylor

    I, for one, am disappointed by the utter lack of fuse boxes in this movie.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HPN3MZRQLNZY3TDVBEGKLXFFJM Alex Washburn

    your dog is like, hey hey hey hey play with me, oh please play with me. its kind of cute. but that aside, this movie was boring and predictable 

  • the_horror_freak

    I dont know if im the first person to say this but that dog gotta go. I was cute in the start but it get old very fast (in dog years that even faster!).  Funny how Spoony dosnt know how to correct the dogs that is interupting the every single video after he got it but as soon as it went for his brother he calmly put hit hand away so Oreo wouldnt follow it like it keept doing with Spoony and when it finnaly sits on him he takes it, puts in on the floor and says ´´Down´´. That was all that had to be done!
    So pls Spoony put the dog in a other room when your filming because it feels like your only half concentrating on what your talking about when its there

  • Pork Charsui

    It’s 1 paleontologist in Norway.. He was busy.. Seriously.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Robert-Yarber/100000024350868 Robert Yarber

    It is NOT a remake you FUCKING MORON!

  • http://twitter.com/Weedleplop David Woods

    “They don’t make movies like the thing & Escape from New York any more”

    I do agree with this comment, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t low budget, risk-taking, innovative movies being made today.

    Spoony – I humbly sugest you check out ‘Attack the Block’ by 1st time English Director Joe Cornish. I think you may find it ticks a few of the boxes you feel were missing in the Thing prequel.

  • http://twitter.com/DiscoRobocop Max Bowman

    I personally think that the CGI hate is reactionary at this point. I’ve seen the movie and the special effects were serviceable in the sense they were looked real enough.  The more objective opinion that should have been stated that YMMV in regards to the CGI. As CGI is used extensively from color correction to touch up performances to animate computer screens to fix continuity issues due to costuming and etcetera. So most of CGI is unnoticed which is the point, but there is this meme that CGI is inferior to puppetry because the physics and general rendering is inferior to it, a lot of times this gets overstated to the point it becomes pointless. I guess I should throw out my copy of lord of the rings because it uses CGI instead of thousands and thousands of puppets for the helms deep battle. Anyway CGI affords your imagination much more freedom than puppets ever could. The ORIGINAL ending to The Thing was suppposed to be much more imaginative and phantasmagoric involving BlairMonster pulling out nauls and raping him from the inside and actually engaging MacReady and not just roaring and not reacting while dynamite is being thrown at him. Really the ending battle consisted nothing but a macready flip and a fuck you followed by a dynamite throw.
    CGI just like animation affords more fantastical scenarios and it’s up to the scriptwriter and the director to take advantage of it. Also the Blair aircraft was never established as a spacecraft. It was a flying vehicle at best. Most likely Blair wanted to get out of antartica and deny everyone else the opportunity to leave and worn everybody. 

    • Anonymous

      I do not think that the CGI hate is completely reactionary. I think at this point the technology is just not there yet when it comes to creature effects and gore. For certain applications such as locations, spaceships, depicting large armies, and some other things it looks great but for the kinds of things they went for in this movie it is an inferior method. I have little doubt that CGI’s limitations will be lessened as time goes on however.

      • http://twitter.com/DiscoRobocop Max Bowman

        I talked about the limits of CGI, and talking about CGI opening up the possibilities, not the misuse of. There will always be fails at everything from cinema-photography to acting to all sorts of fails due to the directors weaknesses. George Lucas failed at everything from telling an interesting story to casting, to direction of actors, and of course the fail of actually writing shit. So yea shitty directors make shitty use of the tools at their disposal, duly noted. The problem with this movie and its special effects has to be executive stink combined with lazy approach to handing the special effects and the budget allocated. This should have had a heavier use of Puppets for the closeups and CGI for everything else, most likely logistical headaches of all that half forgot practical effects they would have to do. Plus the practical effects are also notoriously unreliable as well, look at original story boards for the original thing; for the death-rape of Nauls and the subsequent BlairThing fight that were cut out of the movie. CGI can do a lot more convincingly, and for a good example look at King Kong and Avatar. Those are great examples of a director knowing what to do with CGI and having the appropriate budget. 

        P.S. The original ending was supposed to be the absorption of Nauls by SpagettiMonsterBlairThing jumping out of a crate, followed by MacReady witnessing Nauls breaking out from underneath the floorboards and being “tentacle raped from the inside” by BlairThing. Then BlairThing comes out, shoots thing projectiles at MacReady followed by dogs climbing out of him and giving MacReady chase. The effect work was stopped after the initial effects were deemed unrealistic. Here’s the longer climax with BlairThing that was cut out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Eddyhq8uNA

    • doresh

      CGI allows more freedom, but the lack of restrictions also mean that you can be lazier and go WAY overboard.
      Some of my favorite examples of this problem are…

      … the ridiculous ginourmus lair of Dracula in Van Helsing. Peter Jackson’s LotR trilogy can also fall into this trap (seriously, why would the dwarves of Moria make pillars THAT tall?). Who the hell build that, and how much did it cost Oo ?!

      … pretty much every action scene in the new Star Wars trilogy. The space battles in the original trilogy were intense because you actually SAW the pilots coordinating their attacks and getting blown up. Episode 1 tried to capture that feeling with those exposition pilots, but then George Lucas said “Screw actors! More CGI”, and the other two movies had every space battle filled to the last pixel with ships, blaster fire or explosions. It’s like he feared we would get bored otherwise.

      Practical effects on the other hand have lots of restrictions, forcing you to be more careful about camera angle, lighting and overall composition.

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, I was done with this movie as soon as I saw the trailer. And listening to your review it seems that they really discarded everything that made the original stand out. It all just seems pointless, really. Wait, did you mention the music at all? It had a big role in the original, along with the lighting.
    And I dont find the dog distracting… It just kinda makes me smile to se it get on with the chewing and the jumping. I can still focus on the review just fine.

  • Anonymous

    I haven’t seen the movie and based on the trailer and this vlog I’m not gonna get into 10 km radius from this movie. Shitty shit.

    And show that dog its place. Miles is doing it right.

  • Anonymous

    What, flamethrowers aren’t good enough heating devices for you, Spoony?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LBADW5IVIVPA4DOZ5LA3WUWEJQ Linda

    Does anyone know what John Carpenter thought of this movie…

  • http://twitter.com/KendallKracht Kendall Kracht

    oh no kurt russel movies are on the george lucas list

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Karl-Ove-Sandvaer-Nilsen/100001876934870 Karl-Ove Sandvær Nilsen

    Well I just saw it and my reaction is pretty much what spoony was, I am Norwegian and as a Norwegian I have to say the Norwegian dialog was really cheesy and poorly handled.

    I also hated the stereotyping of Norwegians in this movie and btw Sander (the professor) is actually Danish not Norwegian because he speaks Danish to Edvard(the guy who´s arm attacks someone) in the movie go figure.

    The only reason I could tell the Norwegian guys apart was because I have seen them in other Norwegian movies.

    Btw whatever happened to those thermit charges that get´s mentioned in the Carpenter version.

  • Anonymous

    I’d have to disagree with spoony and his bro on this one. In john carpenter’s version they were totally in the dark about any alien or space ship so it was easy ta build up the mystery. In this version they have the alien in a block of ice at there base so theres never any dought whats going on or whats the cause. The alien in this version does try to clean its tracks and get the people supecting other people. They said that the creature takes to long to change form but in john carpenter’s version the part were there getting the test done and the dude on the end slowly begins to change, also the frist time in that version when the thing attacks the dogs it makes nosie (so much so that it was caught in the process). You cant compain about the flame thrower’s in this version but except them in john carpenter’s one. As for not going into the ship all the weeks they knew about it…the alien knew how ta get in…they did not. The ship coulda still been working but as the alien went out to expore it got lost and froze (tho fair enough its just me guessing and i cant back that up…its just what i asumed). I had no problem with the CG tho i agree some shading and darkness coulda been used. And hes right that this movie was’nt necessary. Tho personally i found it a welcomed movie and i enjoyed seeing what happened at the other base. I think that spoony and his bro might be being abit harsh on this movie cause of there love for the  john carpenter’s version. No disrepect spoony i guess we just have two different views on this one

    • http://twitter.com/S1imgamz Liam Iverson

      I can agree with you partially

    • doresh

      Sooo, I finall watched this movie. Wasn’t quite as bad as I feared, but it was still incredibly pointless and disappointing.

      As for the block of ice: That’s from the original movie. When the Americans went to the destroyed Norwegian base, you see the destroyed ice block – although it looks more like it was melted a little, even in the prequel. Well, I guess having it jump out of the block was far more exiting…

      And the Thing in in the prequel only cleaned its tracks when it felt like it. Overall, its reaction were anything but consistent – especially if the female protagonist is around:

      – The female protagonist is alone with the Thing without knowing. And what does the Thing do? Sneak up on her and absorb her (what it probably did with any offscreen victim)? NO! It slowly transformed before her eyes and kept rushing blindly towards her screaming like mad Oo !

      – The female protagonist is alone with the Thing and KNOWS it. The Thing has plently opportunities to kill her (and why shouldn’t he? It’s not like he needs her to drive to the Russian station), but instead, he tries to play the human and ultimately begs for mercy. WTF?

      I don’t have anything against the flame throwers, but the guy carrying them is very inconsistent, especially after he disappears completely from the movie, only to return in this annoying epilogue spliced between the credits (whoever came up with this idea deserves to be shot).

      The CGI was sorta tolerable, but especially the “final boss” looked goofy. It looks like it should’ve been a lot slower and MUCH more massive. But as we’ve learned from Transformers, this is something usually ignored when it comes to CGI.

      The fully-functional UFO is just plain ridiculuous. Should we assume that the Thing landed on the most desolate place on Earth it could find (I say “landed” because that’s exactly what the UFO comes across in this movie. If it DID crash, why is it fully-functional?), strolled through the snow and somehow failed to notice it was freezing to death? And why should it get lost? It was less than a stone’s throw away from its ship! And even if not, why should it walk so far away if there’s literally NOTHING besides snow and ice? You don’t do that stuff if you have a warm ship in mint condition right behind you!

      • Anonymous

        I’ll try to cover all your points here…hell of a reply dude XD
        OK about the ice…it was shown to be melting in the movie beforehand and it weakened to the point the creature was able to break out of it.

        The thing that alotta people are’nt getting is that this is not the the same creature from john carpenter’s classic….It just woke up from an ice block and found himself/herself w/e dealing with a race it had no clue about. Altho we see signs of its intelligence in this movie it was still learning ta deal with humans….it made misakes, it was alittle sloopy and it did panic and act reckless at times. It underestimated its prey and only made it to the second base buy the skin of its teeth….would’nt you be alot more cautious and smarter the second time around? Spoony said in this vid that the creature he knew of was patient and attacked from the shadows….This creature learned from his misakes and became a better killer for it (tho saying that it does kinda make the same kinda misakes at times in JC’s version)

        The thing probably attacked the frist 2 people in the same way and they froze in fear and got asimalated (she caught on and reacted faster) thats what im asuming. Like i said in my frist comment the thing attacked the dogs in the kennel just moments after it was put there, it did’nt even wait till the guy had walked far enough away…it attacked the dogs and was caught for it. It also takes its time while transforming after it failed the test and also takes its time to chew on your dudes head instead of getting outta there (its ture that the flame thrower was jammed and that a simalur scene happened in the prequel but in that one the thing had ta sense ta know it was pushing its luck so after breaking up and wounding memebers of the group it fused with the guy on the floor and made its escape before the flame thrower started working again.

        As for not attacking the girl sooner as they were making there way outta the ice caves…i have ta agree with you there i was thinking the same thing and if it were me i woulda grabed her as soon as her back was turned too…idk maybe it wanted to wait till she was locked in a moving car with her and no way out…but i agree with you it shoulda grabed her before they even got to the car.

        When he realises shes caught onto him she already had the flame thrower in her hand and he was enclosed in a small space….its like the dude holding you at gun point scenario you dont think you can move fast enough ta kill or get the gun outta there hand so you try the begging tactic it tryed ta get her ta belive she was wrong….it did’nt work in this case.

        Lars (the dude with the flame thrower) was knocked out cold buy the two americans…he awakes and stands guard not knowing were everone went or what has happened when he was out cold.

        Personally i was cool with the cg….but if were honest here JC’S The Thing (altho amazing for the time and i do understand he had a tight buget) buy todays standards some of the effects dont hold up well. It you traveled back in time and showed the people both versions which would seem more realistic to them? But personal opinion i can understand if you dont like the final look of the thing in the ship.

        I dont find it far feached to belive that this thing landed on an unknown planet (earth) and wandered out to expore or find anther animal to asimalate with….failing this it was unable to find or get back to its ship before frezzen (its quite easy ta get lost in a blizzard you know espeaslly on a planet you dont know)
        Now you say you hated the end were they make it so that it leads on to Jc’s classic movie (the thing runing away and evenually finding the second base) but the thing is that this movie is not trying to reboot or step on the toes of the classic we all know…in fact its a well made extra part of the story that we get an insight too….but most importantly of all it makes you wanna watch The thing (people that know of it and people that dont) so you can injoy (and disscover) a classic…..surely that cant be a bad thing right?
        (ps im sorry for any spelling misakes and some names escaping me -_- im tried and just back from a night shift)

        • doresh

          - The block might have already melted, but that was only on the surface.

          – “It was still learning to deal with humans” – which is why it could perfectly imitate humans, right down to the language, mannerisms and probably memories Oo ?

          – “This creature learned from his misakes and became a better killer for it” – then why did it cleaned up one of its first victims pool of blood, only to stop caring later on?

          – “she caught on and reacted faster” – well, that was pretty easy considering the Thing takes around as long to transform as Sailor Moon. And it still doesn’t make sense. Why transform if she has her back turned to you? All the Thing needed to do was grab her neck! There’s no need to destroy the whole friggin’ room!

          – Sure, it sometimes took its time in the original movie, but this weird “cuddle assimilation” was just a very awkward way of shoehorning the reference from the original movie into. If it was perfectly fine just eating people or impaling them with tentacles, why did it suddenly decide to smooch someone, especially if other humans are all around it?

          – The Thing wasn’t enclosed in a small space in that car. His door was still open. He could’ve jumped out (or just send out his arm) and ambush her while she was running around the car.

          – Lars was dematerialized from the movie because the morons writing the script didn’t know what to do with him, since the UFO was far more exciting.

          – If it could CHOOSE where to land on Earth, why on Antarctica of all places? Even IF Antarctica was crowded with penguins at that time, I’m pretty sure the Thing knows that low temperatures aren’t exactly good for it.

          – “Surely that cant be a bad thing right?”. Dude, I can barely watch the old Star Wars prequels without constantly thinking about Jar-Jar Binks and Vader’s “Nooooooooooooooo!!!”. I don’t quite think I needed an “official” story about what happened to the Norwegian, especially if my own imagination had much more likable characters :P

          • Anonymous

            The ice block was pulled in from outside, kept in a warm room which slowly melted and weakened the ice, im also sure being drilled in the leg/arm/w/e woulda been abit of a wake up call (debateable ik) but it did’nt just wake and explode outta the ice you could hear it moven inside cracking the ice. 

            Its ability to perfectly imitate humans, right down to the language, mannerisms and probably memories is not a learned skill….but down to its Genetic genes this is an abitity it was born with (im asuming). How people react to the danger, how smart they can be and the imporance of trust, paranoia and patience these are the imporant things it learned.

            When did they ever find “anther” pool of blood? (ture it tryed to take out the girl but failed which lead to it attacking anther guy and getting burned for it) but other then that it left no other tracks…they never knew that dude whos arm came off was infected cause they never found any more proof after that someone else was taken..just that there was a likely chance it was still around.

            Only one time (as i remember of the top of my head) did the thing in both movies attack without changing form….others were attacked off sceen so we cant really say. The attack your refering to yes it was a sloppy way to attack and she got away cause she snaped herself outta her trance and ran like fuck and the dude walking out the door took the hit while she got away.

            It did’nt stay in the crowded from and esimalte him…it partly fused to his face and upper torso to carry him off and asimalated him into its body of screen….weather it bulled out teeth or just slowly fused into him we dont know.

            The guy/thing was in the driver seat (in the states lol) and woulda had to get from there, pass the other seat and out the door to get her, also he could’nt transform his arm in to a tenigal (forgive my crap spelling) and strike at her because as we both know it cant instandly do that (it morphs to slow)…..the second he lunged forward or showed the slightest sign of his body changing she woulda pulled the trigger and burned his ass. only option it had left was to try convince her she was wrong…it did’nt work
            (when she was walkig round the car it was yet ta know she was on to it…he was waiting for her to get back into the car with him and attack her there…but that goes back to that whole shoulda grabed her in the ice cave as they were walking out..which i agree with you)

            It seemed sound enough to me that lars was knocked out and we got back to him later…when we were frist introduced to him and we find he cant speak english i was like “bet ya thats the dude that gets shot in JC’S version. I did’nt really have a problem with it but its personal opinion and were both entitled to it.

            Who knows why the ship landed were it landed, mybe it needed to land for repairs or recharging, it never studied were it would be landing, it made a bad call…who knows why. Its no more stupit then thinking you can make a space ship outta heilicopper parts. >.> maybe we need anther move so we can get the story of why it came to earth XD….na im just messing with ya.

            Your really calling calling this the star wars ep 1 of Jc’s the thing? Thats realllly harsh man. Reguardless of our different views on this movie i dont belive it harms the classic we all know and love. I get and understand what your saying…not knowing what happened at that camp and letting our minds fill in the rest is 95% of the time better then what anther movie would give us. But theres also people out there (such a myself) that loves extra back story and the  origins of our fav movies, monters, aliens etc

          • doresh

            That’s one problem: How COULD it move inside the ice? Hearing the ice crack is fine, but It can’t move unless the block is at least partially broken.

            Considering how easy the Thing can assimilate humans and other lifeforms from Earth, I suspect it’s usualy prey is at least partially similar to us. I don’t think we Earthlings are that alien to it.
            While I could buy the “The Thing needed to learn”-explanation, I just can’t shake off the feeling this was just a result of sloppy writing.

            That they didn’t found another pool of blood makes makes the Thing’s attack against the female protagonist even dumber. What was its plan? Slowly transform (hoping that she won’t run away), smash the whole room, assimilate her and then calmly put everything back where it belonged?

            The Thing showed that it can use “grappling hook tentacles”. Why not run past this guy, impale him with such a tentacle and then drag him along? Even turning its back int a giant mouth and biting him would’ve been far quicker and easier.

            The Thing didn’t have problems to suddenly detach its arms before. I’m sure it could’ve done it again – especially after it started to burn.

            Even if it was only landing for repair or recharge purposes, it should’ve quickly noticed that the place it landed was too damn cold.

            Considering the size of its original spaceship, I don’t think this small UFO in the original movie was ever supposed (or capable) to leave Earth. It was probably a makeshift, long-distance VTOL aircraft (made from helicopter parts and probably a few pieces of the destroyed spaceship) with which it would’ve landed in South America (or another warm, populated place). Why should it leave Earth if there’s a whole planet waiting to be assimilated?

            Maybe I was a bit exaggerating when I compared it with Star Wars (especially if George is ruining the originals with each new release). I can probably just drink a bit brain bleach and forget about the prequel XD

          • Anonymous

            We know that the thing can change the size and shape of its body  ta give itsselfs room ta push against the ice.

            Depens what why you look at it…ether you see it as bad writen or as i interpredited it…the thing just got out of a block of ice and found itself dealing with a race its never dealt with before, underestameted the prey and knew better the second time around.

            Its only plan was simple….grap and asimalate. It was a sloppy attack and it only wreaked the room cause it was trying to (and had to) get her and stop her from getting away. Had your dude not walked out the door and into its path it might have. But as for the mess…yes it woulda had to clean it up. That scene coulda been done alittle better but thats basiclly wot happened.

            to hook and drag the dude as it was runing past was an option…but it chose to fuse and run o.0 i dont really see that as a big problem. It wounded him and carryed him of…normally it bites or warps when it needs to quickly sudue its prey …but when you break it down it esimalates with touch weather that be eatting, wraping a tenigal around you or leaning on your body.

            Im asume your refering to the scene were she burns him i the car with this one…but the thing is in Jc’s version the head detacted from the body because that was because that was the only part not on fire. When the girl see your dude alight  he/it was totally consumed in flames.

            As for the spaceship landing like i said we’ll never fully know….but the thing is that in Jc’s version it showed you the spaceship landing there (tho there has always been debates about did it crash, did it land, why did it come here and why there etc) no one can say for sure but jc did have it go to that part of earth.

            The spaceship or flying craft….why would he travel all the why to his spaceship then all the way back to mix with parts…from a heilcopper? why not just fix the heilcopper and fly off instead….plus this thing was under ground in a tunnel…plus you gotta wonder were it found a welder and tools ta bend the metal.

            I dont think you have ta worry to much tho as i really dont see them making anther…least i hope they dont cause it would most likey be a stright to dvd/blu-ray.
            All and all its a love it or hate it kinda movie….and it coulda been done much much worse…hell they coulda said “fuck it were re-booting it” but they did’nt..they just added anther part to the story and keep elements of the thing that we know about…i belive it did a good job  and was respectful (a hell of alot more then what other classics get anyways) it does’nt change or take away from the classic it just adds alittle extra to it (love it or not)

          • doresh

            Yeah, that interpretation of the ice block and the Thing’s lack of experience makes sense. There’s just something that doesn’t feel quite right…

            I know how the Thing could’ve stopped her from getting away: With a grappling hook tentacle. Now that the movie introduced this attack (which has a lot of range and is VERY fast), there’s no excuse why it just stopped using it (unless it has something to do with sloppy writing).

            That cuddle scene not only goes into weird bad touch territory, it also took a hell of a lot more time than a grappling hook to the chest.

            The Thing was fully engulfed in flames before and rushed to the nearest kitchen to put them out. I’m sure snow can also be used to put the flames out if you bury inside it. And the head detached because the body was a bit constrained. And it was not only on fire, but the guy with the flamethrower was still around.

            We may never know more about the spaceship, but a crash makes perfect sense to me. It being fully-operational just raises too many questions.

            The station was kinda in ruins towards the end of the film. The Underground tunnels were probably the warmest place for it to go.
            And I guess the Thing doesn’t understand too much about Earth technology. Or it didn’t like those primitive helicopters XD

            Oh, and did you notice how this new comment system makes replies look very weird, since the available space just keeps getting narrower Oo ?

          • Anonymous

            Yeah i noticed that o.0 at frist i thought it was a prob with my lap top. bit odd but hopefully nothing else changes >..<) learned that this creature's body bodys and even blood would seperate ta get away, which lead to the fire test.

            I get what you mean and it was possible to do a better movie if they just went for the spaceship crashed option. But seeing as it was never confermed if it crashed or not it was an open case and they went with the ship landing story. So if it was said by Jc that yes the ship crashed then it woulda been a big fuck up on this new directors part…but as it stands it was open ta go both ways. But in both cases it the thing still left the ship into the frezzen temp outside. 

          • doresh

            Yeah, this is getting pretty tight here XD

            And I’m pretty sure the grappling hook would be faster to transform than the whole torso. Kinda like how the JC version could turn its stomach into a giant mouth.

            Yes, it was more terrifying – in a bad touch kind of way. Sadly, I don’t care much about the Thing’s sexual orientation :P

             If the thing can spend several thousand years frozen in ice and then still have enough strength to jump through the roof, I’m pretty sure it could just ram through a car door if its life depends on it.
            While it was outside and on fire in the original movie, there was usually at least one flamethrower-carrying human right besides it.

            The writers of the prequel just didn’t like the notion that the spaceship crashed. They couldn’t resist the urge to show the whole interior with a the kewl details and machinery – including an 8-Bit warp core Oo.

          • Anonymous

            ik dude everythings cramed to one side leaven blank whiteness on the other side o.0 i wonder what they were thinking when they made those changes. 

            It only seemed ta whip out the hook for mid – long range attacks. Plus if it just whiped out the hook all the time it would quickly get repetitive as a viewer.

            Well i dont know if this matters but at the time when it was in the ice it had a bigger stronger body as something the size of a man might impact how strong it is…..plus when someones constandly blasting you with a flame thrower its hard to keep your senses about you.
            Yeah thats a fair point everytime they ran out into the snow there was always someone around with a flame thrower anyways….tho even if it did manage to get out of the car ta put out the flames the girl is still there with the flame thrower.

            The whole wanting ta show us inside the ship thing…like i said theres people that dont wanna know and theres those of us that wanna peak. Tho i agree that 8-bit warp core looked terrible….that was like old day tron type effects right there >.<

          • doresh

            That’s the problem if you introduce such a useful weapon as the grappling hook tentacle: It could basically solve every problem the Thing had XD

            And damn, is it getting tight here Oo

          • Anonymous

            It used simalur tentacle attacks in Jc’s version but still attacked in different ways. And olly shit your not kidding about how tight the comment section has become o.0 the little box here is now like 1 inch x 1 inch

          • doresh

            WTF my Avatar is wider than this Oo

  • Anonymous

    First 4 minutes of the review and you already have your facts wrong, Yeah, the Doctor wanted to keep this shit under the radar, that’s why he wanted someone really skilled who he can trust (And seriously…why the fuck does it matters what country is someone from, they ware not spies, but a private team of scientists), his assistant’s close friend was a paleontologist, so its not really just him picking her at random “Just because”. And the whole “Contact the military” would probably mean them bringing their own scientists and poor Norwegian doctor could say “bye bye” to fame and glory of being a man who discovered flying saucer.

    Im a fan of your videos, and i can respect YOU having a different opinion on a movie, but sometimes it just looks like youre not paying attention to the movie youre watching.

    • http://twitter.com/BigJonGoob Jon Fite

      So he misremembered a few overall unimportant plot details. It doesn’t change the fact that what was wrong with the movie had less to do with the plot and more to do with the other elements like the characters, the pacing, etc.

  • Jesse Melat

    Finally watched this one.  It wasn’t as bad as I was expecting, but it was far from good.   I’m willing to forgive plot quibbles and holes, even if the “tie-in” sequence at the end felt like a kick to the nuts for Carpenter fans, but Spoony and _especially_ Miles are right in that this movie fails to deliver in terms of tension and character development.

    The CGI looks incredibly cartoonish–whoever thought that the “face splitting” thing was a good idea needs to be shot; it looks amateurish, and well, _photoshopped_.  The movie _did_ get its head out of its ass briefly during the “checking for fillings” scene, and I thought there was hope for the movie…but then those assholes from the chopper show up and ruin the mood and set the movie back into Syfy Original Movie slasher gear.  I also liked how the Thing merged with its victims–the suckermouth, the conjoined heads–made for a very rape-like, off-setting thingamabob. 

    And that’s about it.   The spaceship scene was just….a bizarre choice, both in storytelling and in how they chose to portray it, by going to Spielbergian Disney Close Encounters Land, when maybe they should have gone to Ridley Scott’s Alien Six Flags instead.  

    Makes me quite happy that I illegally downloaded it for free; you who paid money to see, and thus supported this film have a far more serious stain on your soul than I do. : )

  • Papa Bungle

    Apparently some of the monsters of the 2011 thing were practical, but the studio didn’t like that and pasted CGI all over them. 


  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6EVM3F2U7HDWHYC7LO7TETE2KA MichaelT

    I understand the appeal of practical effects, but I disagree with the sentiment that CGI is inherently “fakier.” CGI can look phony, yes, but so can practical effects. It all depends on the quality and use of the effects, and the choice between physical or digital effects is, in my view, purely an artistic choice (except in some cases where it would be impossible to do something physically, or vice versa).

    • Senna4ever

      I agree.
      Don’t understand when people say CGI ruins a movie. No, bad writing, directing and acting ruin a movie.
      Case in point: Transformers. The CGI is damn impressive, but the plot and characters are dull. It’s not the GC that makes the Transformers trilogy so bad.

      Of course CG can be used to great effect in good movies too. Forrest Gump and Requiem For A Dream both feature tons of CG. But it’s used to such great effect you don’t really notice it.

      However I feel Spoony’s point was the compassion between the practical effects of The Thing 1982 and the useage of the CG in this film. And yes I agree, the effects in The Thing 82 were and still are FAR better then the CG work in this film.

      CG is often used now as it is cheaper and quicker to do then the old effects of the 80’s. Not cos it’s better or worse, cos it’s cheaper and quicker.

  • http://twitter.com/Polishbooty Mary Kanowicz

    Seriously Noah? Hold the 1982 version on such a high regard the new one has to be exactly like it. I call bullshit sir.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2SL2JZ3EP5RJQU5NZGBJRXETUU Vaughan MacDonald

      You’re an idiot.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2SL2JZ3EP5RJQU5NZGBJRXETUU Vaughan MacDonald

    I’m not even a fan of the ’82 version and I still hated this movie. I found something to complain about in almost every scene. Fuck I hate Hollywood 

  • arjumand

    I can’t say that I’m an enormous fan of the John Carpenter movie, but I can see that it’s a good movie and it has real artistry and is fucking chilling and atmospheric (am an Alien girl myself – Alien and Aliens, I mean).

    The 2011 version was seriously lacking in all of these things – I mean, I watched it just to watch something, and maybe to see how it measured up. And it really didn’t.

    First of all, they put two women in the cast and I really didn’t get why. I’m a woman and a feminist, and I still don’t get why there had to be women shoehorned in the story, especially as it was still being set in 1982, and in the same setting! What was the message, hey guys, those Norwegians, they were always about equal rights! And if you’re going to put women in the cast, then at least develop their characters – the protagonist was just a ‘better than everyone at everything’ woman, while the other was there, I suppose, for the brief flash we got of her boobs before she split in two. I can’t think of any other reason, she made no impression on me whatsoever, until she accompanied the protagonist to the drawer, and then I just heard “IT’S A TRAP!”

    And the setting did not look like 1982, at all. Or at least, it didn’t feel like 1982 – I don’t know what happened in hair and costumes, but maybe the actors rebelled or something, because that was one way my disbelief was not suspended. For a movie that has a real feel of the 80s, beside the original Thing, watch Terminator. This director didn’t even try to replicate that.

    Like you said, the reason why The Thing made such an impression is not just the monster, though that’s a part of it. The real reason was the atmosphere, not knowing who’s your friend and who’s a horrific creature. I always remember something that was in an X-Files episode inspired by The Thing: “We are not who we are.” That is so chilling, not buckets of CGI gore and obvious fakery.

    The bit with the helicopter pilot at the end – I agree that there was something wrong there, but I saw it as a plot hole. I noticed straight away that his earring was missing (though an earring falling off, is that really enough to base incinerating someone on? Does the director know how many earrings of that type you lose really easily?!), but then I was intrigued when he seemed to want to talk to her. Did he not know? Did none of them know? But the others knew they were being absorbed, so how does the process work? It never occurred to me that maybe the actual creature wanted to talk, though that’s intriguing too. It would have been so much more interesting that the fucking tetris bullshit on the ship, and the monster movie shocks and scares which I’d seen a million times before.

    But no – it was almost like the director had enough. “Ah, fuck it, we’re done. Cut!”

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Soluman-Blevins/100003591212315 Soluman Blevins

    The Russian base at the end, I think, is supposed to be a reference to a cancelled script called “The Return Of The Thing.” I found it and it is FUCKING AWESOME, but if the guys who made this decide to horribly destroy that script… I’ve lost all faith in humanity. Check the link for detail:


  • Semyon Vasylyev

    Well The Thing flamethrowers weren’t like the real napalm flamethrowers, they were like big gas burning torches, that, I guess, efficient at de-icing the pipes.

    • http://twitter.com/TarielCorbeau Tariel Corbeau

       Or possibly very good at getting a nice ice shield on the inside of Igloo’s for better insulation.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1043221248 Carl Snyman

    I just have to say that after watching this movie I went back and watched the original and the dog in the begining of the original movie is a better actor than any of the people in this latest prequel…
    100% With Spoony on this one – This movie is an insult to the original materpiece!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Discordius-Erisianus/100000352364153 Discordius Erisianus

    What are your top three horror movies, Spoonyone?

  • payback1017

    You two oughta make your own Thing movie. I don’t know why but Miles just reminds me of McCready like this is what he’d do when he’s not in antartica or fighting the thing. You Noah on the other hand remind me of Palmer everything you say in this video can be summed up in one simple phrase “You gotta be fucking kidding!”

  • payback1017

    I could justify the reason why this monster was more open than the original. I was in a debate with someone watching a clip of the final scene, where the Blair Thing pops out one last time. The commenter thought it was very anticlimactic because that monster, while big and scary was out in the open when he coulda taken McCready the same way he took Gary. And I agreed with that….but I realised the reason why it’s out in the open is because whatever plans it had were exposed by R.J. so many times that it got pissed off and did an alien version of throwing a fit. The Prequel thing, same example, It was weird pissed off, throwing a fit and haven’t calmed down till the end when the last two Norway guys were chasing it on the helicopter. You could say the Prequel was It’s anger management therapy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/nasser.elusta Nasser Elusta

    The flamethrower discussion remind me of my friend commenting that in the intergasion scene, we saw one flamethrower, cut to only seeing only the american lady, switch back to the whole room and boom second flamethrower out of nowhere

  • http://www.facebook.com/lindsey.rapisarda Lindsey Rapisarda

    I actually enjoyed the prequel however it can’t beat the original John Carpenter movie, that version is amazing and just fantastic!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=661037953 James Enri

    As I said on his blip channel, it’s horrible.

    Spoony was too easy on it, it fails on absolutely every imaginable level.

    It has one good scene which makes up about 1/30th of the film.
    The other 29 parts are piss terrible.
    The dialogue is incredibly forced and the plot holes are gigantic.


  • http://twitter.com/iolitewraith Leet Shark

    The only somewhere-approaching-semi-reasonable explanation I can think of for Thing 0’s behavior is that it got a bad case of cabin fever and snapped.

  • http://www.facebook.com/wes.muench Wes Muench

    I just watched this movie for the first time and. . . I think it’s pretty good actually. But maybe I see it in a different light than if I’d seen it before Sfdebris’s review of the 1982 Thing.

    Think of it this way, the thing just got free. It doesn’t know where it is or who it’s dealing with. These puny little men think they can stand up to me? Hell no, I’ll kill ‘em and eat ‘em! Oh shit they’ve got flamethro-

    The thing underestimated us, it tried all out war in the Norway camp. When it got to the American camp, it decided to change tactics. Time to play the long game, pick them off one by one, turn them against each other. I’ll get ‘em this time and- Oh shit! They’ve got Kurt Rus-

    Lol. (The flying saucer I have absolutely no explanation for. Maybe the engine had overheated when it originally crashed.)

  • Garmrspor

    I love how Spoony adjusts the volume by shouting “BOOM!”.

  • Pcm979 .

    Is it just me, or is this not working any more?

    • Pcm979 .

      Aha, it’s working again.

  • DarrkVaati13

    This is probably the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life on an emotional aspect.

  • theforetoldlegend

    I felt betrayed watching the remake!

  • fireball3477

    Last words are exactly my thoughts on most modern movies, too. Maybe I’m an old fart, but it’s just true netherless.

  • MayMay

    I think what really told me “This is so not the thing” most… aside from the first rampage, was the thing of… whoever (seriously, I can name the 1982 cast with ease after seeing it maybe once or twice. Recently) on the helicopter. It’s obvious that in the original, the thing was really big on self-preservation even if it meant betraying other imitations. In this case it beasts out and… deliberately gets itself killed. You’d think maybe it did that as a ruse for a getaway, like it then hid out or something and you’d see it in the end but nope. It killed itself and never even took out the pilots… why?

  • Guest

    What is it with these last few years and all these movies trying to explain, poorly, the backstory to older, better, horror movies. i.e. The Thing, Prometheus, AVP, Predators

  • Bailey Voigt

    What is it with movies these last few years trying to give, poorly, backstory to older, better horror movies? i.e. The Thing, Prometheus, AVP, Predators

  • The Spoony Experiment
    @ 2014 Noah Antwiler
  • Privacy Policy
  • "Burt-OS" forged by The Engineer.
  • Logo image by Marobot.