The Thing (2011) trailer

Post Reply New Topic

This UK poster is pretty sweet:



(click for bigger version)

Edit: Uploaded these to ImageShack. Apparently the original site doesn't like bandwidth thieves like me.

Yes, perhaps in light of today's effects, the sound is a huge part of the scariness. But that scene where the guy's hands get bitten off is pretty darn scary. They put out a call for an actor who was a double amputee. When they auditioned them, they said "this scene might bring back some bad memories." But when the actor (wearing a mask) pulls back those stumps, it makes your blood run cold. There are probably some scenes where Bottin's "puppets' haven't aged well, but I can't name any.What about the crab legged head? Which leads to another great line.
"You have got to be f***in' kidding me!! !"

The spider head Thing looks great sitting still, but the worst effect in the movie is when it crawls away from the group toward the doorway when their backs are turned. The legs are barely moving, and the head is clearly in motion only because it's on wheels. And yet none of this bothers me because the scene is so well put together. This is why I'm losing patience with all the complaints about CGI. I like the practical effects in Carpenter's film as much as the next raving fan, but we need to stop pretending like they look even remotely real.

i don't know man... CGI doesn't look real to me. And I'm sorry you're losing patience, but it's my opinion that CGI is has begun to take the Art out of cinema. A good example is that movie "2012" that came out a couple years ago. Did the CGI look real to you in that?

First, 2012 is a lousy movie regardless of effects quality, and a bad example. Why not use a good movie that has a lot of CGI as an example, like Inception or District 9? Second, we need to stop equating "it looks real" with "it looks good." The effects in Carpenter's The Thing don't look real, but that doesn't take away from my enjoyment of them. Yoda is an obvious puppet in The Empire Strikes Back, but you totally buy that it's a real creature. He looks much faker than any of the CGI in the new version of The Thing, but nobody would say that he looks bad. Third, I don't buy the argument that CGI inherently takes away from the artistry of effects. Good CGI is just as legitimately artistic as good rubber and latex skin and corn syrup blood. You'd be surprised just how many effects in modern movies that look practical are, in reality, completely digital.

I didn't like District 9 or the effects, and I thought Inception was just ok, but I do think that the use of CGI was about as tastefully done as possible. I'm not completely Anti-CGI, I enjoy most of what Pixar does (But prefer the work of people like Richard Williams, Yuri Norstein, Władysław Starewicz), I just get annoyed at the excessive/unneccesary over-use of it. I think the main thing for me is that I just don't like most modern movies... But I suppose that goes beyond just graphics and special effects. I respect your argument, I just think that we have different views and tastes.

Fair enough.

I think we can agree on one thing, though:

2012 blows.

Haha, yep. I used that example because I just remember while I was watching it, my eyes were freaking out, because all the CGI was so over the top and fake looking it was overwhelming. I accidentally laughed a few times kinda loud in the theater, during moments that I shouldn't have been laughing at.

If the movie is poorly acted, written, directed, scored, and edited – in other words, missing all the elements of good filmmaking – then your attention is drawn to any special effects flaws. If those elements are good, however, then even awful special effects won't matter. The Mist had miserable CGI, but it made me feel genuinely frightened, which a horror movie had not done in a very long time. Not even the best effects in the world would have saved 2012.

Just got done re-watching the 1951 Nyby version (Or Howard Hawks however, by most accounts), and what a great movie it is! It must've been really frightening at the time.

Oh, man. If you and I didn't see eye to eye before, you're really gonna think I'm crazy now. I'll just copy and paste what I wrote about the 1951 version in another topic:

Haven't seen the original in quite some time. I liked the over lapping dialogue because to my ear, that's what goes on around me all the time. The scares are few, though. The scenes of the Thing suddenly bursting into rooms was surprising and thus a shock. Remember this was 1951 and the code book of what could NOT be shown in a film was thick. Try checking some other post war films and you'll see what I mean. So they pretty much had to settle on the Thing jumping into a room suddenly. The big scene for film buffs is the 'douse it with kerosene'. It scared me as a kid, and now looking back at film technique of that era it scares me. Not for the reason it was intended, it scares me that the stuntman was in this small room (if I remember, you can see the ceiling) and they set him on fire and he howls and staggers around with the actors near at hand. Good GOD ! ! How did Nyby ever convince the actors to do that ?? I would think they would have been on the phone to their Union Representative and saying, "no, I am most certainly not going to do that scene."
The theramin score is still awesome.

And now for something MORE completely different, a mock Frank Sinatra song about The Thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8faq5amdK30

Did you laugh ?? I thought it was hilarious ! !

What's next? An opera about Cthulu ??