Imagine having lunch at a diner with Childs. *Childs opens up his sandwich, removes a slice of cheese and holds it up on display.* Childs: "If this was an imitation - a perfect imitation - how would you know if it was really brie?"

@themorbidzoo

3 жыл бұрын

😂 I'm pinning this comment

@Ragitsu

3 жыл бұрын

@@themorbidzoo The gesture is appreciated. I do hope I can one day offer a comment of actual substance.

@Ragitsu

3 жыл бұрын

@@U-L-T-R-O-N I assume that applying a scorching hot piece of wire to _that_ concoction would also elicit an otherworldly shriek?

@RottenHeretic

2 жыл бұрын

@@U-L-T-R-O-N ???

@brianreddeman951

2 жыл бұрын

Then he puts the slice of cheese on your sandwich and...well would you eat it?

Another big problem was that the 2011 Thing was a stereotypical, killing machine, monster. Whereas the 1982 thing was very calculating, strategic, and precise. The 1982 thing wasn’t just trying to absorb and replicate everyone, it knew it was vulnerable and, like the men it was hunting, was trying to survive, and would only strike for necessity and in isolation.

@baconandx1858

3 жыл бұрын

Thats a thing I’ve seen what later incarnations of The Thing do, making it like some animal making quick decisions.It didn’t try to infect the other guys sitting next to him when it was caught in the blood test, it tried escaping its restraints and attacked windows since he was the closest and only threat for those few seconds and tried to escape out to the cold when Macready sets it on fire.I’ve seen other media like one of the comics, the game, and the 2011 movie that makes The Thing creatures less smart and some mostly untouchable creature unless harmed with fire, making them creatures that sometimes assimilates one or more people right in front of group of people and attacking the other survivors sometimes without a plan, ignoring their own safety just to get a person with a plan that’ll just get them killed instead of fleeing.Some of the other continuations I’ve seen make it look like fire is the only way to kill it but Macready was able to finish off multiple things with dynamite, after setting one on fire and finishing the possibly “last” thing without setting it on fire at the end.

@namethis658

3 жыл бұрын

Could be explained by the fact that the Thing gained experience interacting with humans after the events of the prequel, so it changed its tactics in outpost31.

@richardbug3094

3 жыл бұрын

@@namethis658 thats a weak excuse for poor story telling

@denierdev9723

3 жыл бұрын

@@richardbug3094 How? it makes SENSE.

@faceless2302

3 жыл бұрын

@@namethis658 I like this idea a lot since it portrays the Thing as an adaptive organism just like how the 82 movie wants you to view it. It makes sense that it would have different strategies to approaching whatever alien life it was acclimatized to and would need to adjust to human behavior if it didn't want to be hunted down and killed like a big dumb monster. It doesn't redeem the 2011 film but it is interesting to think about.

Also, just on a visual note: the characters in John Carpenter’s The Thing looked like real humans and scientists: old, fat, long faced, rumpled, etc. everyone in the 2011 version looked like they stepped out of a J. Crew catalogue, and they were led by a thin, wide eyed beautiful person who never had a hair out of place. John Carpenter’s characters wore realistic clothing for the environment: bulky sweaters, parkas, etc. in the 2011 version, the petite woman( who should be freezing in that environment) is running around in a thin tight top because, you know, we have to show off her beauty and her breasts.

@stevenroberts2541

3 жыл бұрын

Well said sir. Far more believable..therefore much scarier

@detu9896

3 жыл бұрын

Apart from Lars he was realistic

@xuanathan

3 жыл бұрын

Edvard and Adam were too hot to be scientists. They all look like Olav or Jonas irl.

@jasoncaldwell5627

3 жыл бұрын

Your points are spot-on. Also consider that the prequel's main character is supposed to be a noted paleontologist...but the actress was like 22 years old! WTF?!?

@captainclipy6236

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for explaining this! It was nagging in the back of my mind why the characters are so “wrong”. The best I could think of was that they were too young

"The camera wants you to focus on grief when survival is at stake" I've never been able to put this feeling into words and it's beautifully straight-forward here. This really has no place in the horror genre IMO unless it's to contrast different people's reactions to a dire situation. And yet it seems to happen in so many modern horrors. Thanks for the vid.

@thepubknight6144

6 ай бұрын

That's something I've noticed with many horror remakes especially if the characters are bitches or assholes, we as an audience are supposed to feel bad at a shitty character being brutally murdered because its brutal? That's really bad film making and it's really grimey to try to manipulate the audience Even the first Nightmare on elm Street the first person killed is Tina the most likable character, and her boyfriend was witty and sarcastic but still a likable character who was screaming for Tina to wake up who was killed in front of her, he's accused of her murder Then he gets killed , so we as the audience already are invested and traumatized because they were good people killed which makes you want the monster killed That's how you make good horror

@Ragitsu

6 ай бұрын

@@thepubknight6144Weren't the ordinary characters in _The Texas Chainsaw Massacre_ decent folk?

@nickolasbrown3342

5 ай бұрын

Every movie that be like WE HAVE TO DO THE THING NOW leads directly to THE ROMANTIC PAIR wasting 2 minutes of screentime while the audience is like "hurry the fk up!"

@infinitesimotel

4 ай бұрын

Also note specifically the BLACK male who is the one we are supposed to cry over by exaggerating and protracting the drama as the White guy suffers a far worse fate but made less important and not tragic at all.

@infinitesimotel

4 ай бұрын

@@thepubknight6144 The formula is if they are a male White character they are assholes, clowns or creeps, black males are heroic, alpha, self righteous and caring and women are all round perfect and boss. The value and importance of black characters must be accentuated and amplified even subtly, while White people need to be devalued, vilified and ridiculed.

“Maybe I’m a metaphor” and “beware the patriarchy, lol” are the single most hilarious lines I could ever imagine coming from a horror movie monster 🤣

@agriosbr

4 ай бұрын

Wait..those are actual lines? I don't know because I didnt see the new Thing.

@agriosbr

4 ай бұрын

Wait..is this an actual line?

@dungeonsanddragonsanddrive2902

4 ай бұрын

@@agriosbrit’s in the video

@kylegonewild

2 ай бұрын

@@agriosbr No they're not actual lines. They're humorous criticisms the video creator edited over top of the visuals in this video to tie off a point they were making with a joke.

“When you find yourself turned into prey, you lose the privilege of imagining yourself as having any greater purpose” Very well said!

@themorbidzoo

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the watch!! :)

@zx7-rr486

Ай бұрын

Indeed.. although I profoundly disagree with the statement that the 1982 movie's FX "clearly looked fake". For the most part they look incredibly REAL. And it wasn't just the models and animatronix, it was the expert lighting and cinematography combined that created a compelling illusion. The dog kennel scene is just so realistic and utterly intense; there are moments when I can't tell if they are using models or real dog corpses, it's that good!

@therealmanguyman

5 күн бұрын

This is pretty much me every time I have to sacrifice mice.

My biggest issue of the 2011, among many issues, was the female protagonist figured out what was going on WAY to quickly- as if she had watched the earlier versions of the film and was like "Oh, it's one of those aliens that likes to absorb and imitate other forms of life". Very unbelievable.

@themorbidzoo

Жыл бұрын

Totally, it's like they didn't trust the audience to sit through that process, even thought that process is THE SOURCE OF ALL THE TENSION i just can't with this movie

@Xbalanque84

Жыл бұрын

STRONK FEMAIL KARAKTUR!

@smellycat57

Жыл бұрын

@@Xbalanque84 It's a bastardisation of female empowerment. It feels purely performative as if they decided to put her there just for marketability. Like who gives a shit man, there's a monster ffs and they're worrying about aesthetics. Shit movie, sucks ass.

@mcslender2965

Жыл бұрын

Nah, it's because she played Among Us

@Dubs22005

Жыл бұрын

you ever think that you're just like the critics that ravaged the 1982 film? that later on people will change perspectives and say that it's actually a good film?

Given the year 1982, there must surely also be an HIV angle to the paranoia of a collection of lonely, isolated men - particularly exemplified by the incredible 'blood test' scene, which I still think is one of the most tense sequences ever put to film. Great analysis and dissection of the armchair-level editing of 2011. Carpenter really was on fire with the 1982 film, forever in my top 10.

@ABC-yt1nq

9 ай бұрын

Great point! I'm suddenly seeing a waiting room full of terrified men waiting for the results of a blood test that will decide if they live or die. Holy shit. Suddenly that conceptualization is growing into an emotionally powerful understanding of what horror those first AIDS sufferers were going through. Thank you so much for your perspective - it is a powerful tool I will use to continue to try to improve myself. Wow! How cool is that! Click on a random vid about The Thing that turns out to be the best analysis I've seen of it, and THEN in the comments this old greybeard receives an awesome lesson from a fellow human! Thanks again!

@worsethanhitlerpt.2539

9 ай бұрын

This video even points out more reasons why the first movie was way better like we needed them anyway you can tell from 10 minutes of either movie JCs version rules

@Dr0dd

9 ай бұрын

While of course possible from a foreboding sense (a sense maybe among some people in the 70s that something was happening) it just barely matches up with the timeline of the epidemic as it wasn't that well known yet so early in the 80s. When filming begun it had just become known as an unusual outbreak in medical literature and among afflicted gay patients. Particularly the blood tests were not used yet at the time. I like the idea of stories being able to capture unintended fears at the time of their creation but I wouldn't say they are this prophetic.

@jonnowocky8179

9 ай бұрын

@@Dr0dd I see your point, and I wouldn't pin the inspiration as being 100% conscious, any sort of unconscious inkling, or early article read, or influence of the miasma of the time could be a factor. I do think it's interesting how they lack meaningful friendships or relationships between themselves or outside - there's no wives or girlfriends mentioned; yet none of the usual 'not-gay' inserts of them oogling playboy or putting pinups all over their bunks, which was par for the course in any male-orientated 80s film. The film seems set on isolating its fear of other men. Its thematic commitment to this to the point of forgoing filmic convention of the time is part of why it has aged so brilliantly I think.

@IAmCaligvla

8 ай бұрын

While it's an interesting analogue, I think you're overthinking it, the 1982 move is a (mostly) faithful adaptation of a 1930s novel and the blood test scene was already in it.

The Thing is one of the greatest movies ever. I caught it on TV back in the mid 2000's, was captivated instantly. Another point about the 82 version is the men were rugged, they looked like how you'd expect people trapped in a snow storm would look. The 2011 version had people who looked like they were gonna be in a fashion magazine

@failtronic2646

4 ай бұрын

that's another huge problem that keeps fucking happening in modern movies. in Black Widow, we see Natasha get fucking blown up twice, beaten to fuck, tank several story falls and she comes out the other side every time pristine. Meanwhile, John Wick. Like, come on, it's not that complicated. Sure, John Wick cartoonishly can ignore his wounds the next day but, at least they're still visible.

That was a great point about how people react in real life: if a monster is consuming people in the room, the characters’ focus is on the monster - nothing else. A lot of movies fail at this.

@themorbidzoo

Жыл бұрын

Thanks :) And agreed, horror cinematography is an art. It has its own rules that are disregarded so often

@coreym162

Жыл бұрын

It's basic common sense. I guess you can't expect much from pampered protected directors and producers that have never known danger just regurgitating the same old sheltered ideas... right?....

@marmolejomartinezjoseemili9043

Жыл бұрын

It would be cool if one of the characters stoped focusing on the monster and imediatelly got killed lol

@Cricket0021

Жыл бұрын

horror movies these days tend to squeeze in that political correctness when the situation is a matter of life and death. getting chased by a monster? women empowerment!

@thetooginator153

Жыл бұрын

@@Cricket0021 - Like “Halloween” (1978) and “Alien” (1979)?

I feel the 2011 film made the thing far too deadly, it was way too fast and strong for the humans to beat. The 1982 thing was vulnerable and slow, as long as it didn't get you alone you had a chance of winning and that made for a much better movie. Either side could feasibly win and that made you pay attention to what was going on.

@dracomurdock6349

Жыл бұрын

There really was no reason the humans won against it in 2011. The second it proved able to infect people on touch- and had tentacles- AND had everyone in one room- AND ALSO had a second person in the room infected already... No, they absolutely should have lost right there.

@KTSpeedruns

Жыл бұрын

That's the truly mind bending part. Each movie or show loves to see how far into a dangerous unwinnable fight they can put the characters in without actually having the main character(s) lose. The Thing 1982 didn't have to create an unbeatable beast. but the question is how the characters even figure out what the rules are. This is why Final Destination, Terminator, Alien, and Predator all work: it's not about beating an invincible enemy, it's about seeing if the characters can figure out the rules that the other side already knows and takes advantage of.

@bloodytyran9245

Жыл бұрын

Exactly, but here’s the thing ( ;) ) : to survive you can’t be alone, but you cannot trust anyone.

@wadesmith2096

Жыл бұрын

This is very true. It might go a long way to explaining why the original was just such a masterpiece compared to the prequel. As a prequel. Maybe "the thing" learned from its obvious behavior to be more secretive. So there are explanations that offers continuity in a very sensical way with the story. We also knew what happened to this entire camp. Just the total loss of mystery compared to the 1st film. I really enjoyed them both but ' the thing' inspired by Lovecrafts in the mountains of madness. It is legendary to me in terms of monster horror. And the slow deception is such an iconic part of it.

@mofushi3163

Жыл бұрын

The 1982 movie was the second part of the story. The 2011 movie was the first part.

I’m an architect student. Recently I rewatched 1979’s Alien, wondering why it’s so damn good it’s still the best of the saga. And then I started checking the interior design and found some photos of the sets on internet, and it blew my mind how amazing they are. Some of them really beautiful, warm and cozy, contrasting with others dark, sharp and unsettling. And it is that contrast what gives me that uncertainty feeling of not knowing what is going to happened next.

@michelleh.5225

7 ай бұрын

Yes, the set design was what sold me on the film in the first five minutes and gave me a lot of respect for Ridley Scott. Very few directors pan over the set to establish a sense of place. It's almost like they want to hide the background (i.e. make it blurry) to cover up the fact that it's not well built.

@leesasuki

6 ай бұрын

some artists try to make the scene as close as what they envision, to sell the feels to the audience while some just to complete a daily quota, that's the different

@BMW-sd6nn

5 ай бұрын

Alien is easily one of the best movies ever made.

@thedddemon

4 ай бұрын

"I’m an architect student" >> I speak England very much

@pyropulseIXXI

2 ай бұрын

I love how you start with “I’m an architect student.” This information is literally irrelevant and is both useless and totally meaningless. Only a pretentious fool thinks being an architect student gives them an extra ability to evaluate whether a movie set is high quality or not. Apparently just watching the movie was too confusing for you. I guess the movie didn’t show you the movie sets of which that movie was literally composed of, so you had to look up images on the internet of the movie you were watching, because watching it provided no info about the quality of the set pieces used

I had never known that John was treated this unfairly after the film released. It boggles my mind, how could this happen. Were people blind? Were they stupid? I have and still am considering this film to be the greatest horror ever created.

Whew, that analysis at 8:44 about how the 2011 "Thing" prioritizes grief over survival in the attack scene is just brilliant.

@themorbidzoo

Жыл бұрын

Thanks so much! Love y'all's body positivity 💗

@veramae4098

Жыл бұрын

Still prefer the original b&w.

@totallyrealname8849

Жыл бұрын

@@themorbidzoo i think its just thirst traps

@sana-cm7oc

Жыл бұрын

This was one of the best points about this film - ever.

@jayaybe1

Жыл бұрын

@@themorbidzoo Yes! Nothing more positive than telling people obesity is attractive and not at all related to hugely increased risk of debilitating disease. Might as well celebrate smoking.

Can we please also touch on the fact that actors in movies are getting to be way to good looking and clean? It’s ok for characters to have some physical flaws. It makes them more recognizable, and real. And I don’t believe researchers working out in the middle of Antarctica would all look so well kept. Or look like super models.

@dannore8077

2 жыл бұрын

The problem with that is that you just end up with only 10-15 actors playing every mayor character in every movie, but it would be hard to get new actors that doesn't look attractive now a days because everything orbits around that, even in the case of men, I definitely can't remember any men or women in the last 25 years in a major role, that wasn't attractive in any physical way

@RC-go2kl

2 жыл бұрын

I remember the days when films didn't shy away from bad teeth. Look at films now, in the medieval days, everyone has flawless teeth.

@dannore8077

2 жыл бұрын

@@RC-go2kl yeah that it how it was back then, bad teeth wasn't that common since sugar in the diet was rare, so a 50 year old farmer in the medieval probably had better teeth than you at 20 even with the dentist

@surenot4362

2 жыл бұрын

@@dannore8077 1. a 50 year old farmer in the middle ages would probably be dead at 40. 2. sugar was rare but so was dental hygiene....they didn't had any fillings and for a serf to loose their teeth that meant they would chew food the rest of their miserable lives on the other side of the jaw.... 3. lost your front teeth in a tavern brawl ? tough luck mate , good luck sporting the hillbilly smile the rest of your life since dental implants were pretty much inexistent for the peasants in the middle ages.... 4. I get what you mean to say but I'm pretty sure modern 20 year olds have way better teeth than even kings during the middle ages , lol

@goukeban6197

2 жыл бұрын

@@surenot4362 1- Not true. Infant mortality was pretty high, but if you survived your early years you still had a good chance of reaching your 50s or 60s. 2- Toothbrushes were not a thing, but they had the notion that taking the gunk out of their teeth helped preserve them and they had methods of doing so. Other than that, I agree and it also bothers me the obsession with having everyone in modern movies be always well kept and pretty. It's really hard to buy into whatever sense of verisimilitude they wanna sell when I can smell the actor's hairspray from this side of the screen.

I find it so interesting how you point out that practical effects doesn't look more real than CGI, and also you provide pretty good evidence for it as well. But I actually think it's more complicated than that; when you see bad CGI you can often tell intuitively that something is off. This, as we know, is usually due to color and lighting, but the issue is that even if you can't put your finger on it, it's very clear that whatever you are seeing doesn't exist beyond the movie, it's just computer graphics, because bad/questionable CGI isn't "integrated" into our world properly. Whereas Practical effects might be off when it comes to movement and/or textures, but you can see that it actually exists in the world, OUR world, and it, as we know, actually does to the extent that the props has a physical existence beyond the movie. So I would say that in one way it looks more real and in another way it does not. At least that's how I see it. I hope that makes sense. XD

@mylittleossi1234

6 ай бұрын

I get your point, but you wouldn’t believe how much cgi there is in movies that is literally impossible to notice. There is a lot of stuff vfx studios aren’t allowed to share that they made. Even if a studio markets how good the practical effects of their movie are, it may be cgi you see in the final movie

@alwaysxnever

6 ай бұрын

@@mylittleossi1234 that doesn't refute OP's point though as they made sure to mention BAD/questionable cgi not just thge use of it. Both in visual and special effects when it is done well it helps to enhance the story that is being told and aiding in suspension of disbelief. However when it is poorly done and then you add in poor scripting or direction it can hamper said suspension and bring down even an otherwise enjoyable experience . For some anyway.

@unclenogbad1509

5 ай бұрын

There's another thing in this - possibly overlooked in the debate: Gravity. We have an innate sense of how things move in the world around us, and cgi too frequently doesn't quite get that right (eg, in one of the clips here, the creature is standing on two legs, but most of it's mass is to one side, and we don't see it shifting it's legs to compensate - subliminal, possibly, but enough to rankle). Practical effects are forced to work just as we do. Plus, with practicals, you can spot a problem on set or in rushes and do another take. CGI only comes along months later (or is already done, fait accompli) and tweaking it is a lot harder, time-consuming and expensive. Still, as pretty much everyone says here, it ultimately depends on how much care you put into it. John Carpenter is one of those master directors who know exactly what they want to see, and make sure it's what we get.

@melissaharris3389

5 ай бұрын

Practical effects fall into the uncanny valley of creepy or frightening. Bad CGI often falls on the other side of the valley, looking or feeling so unrealistic as to be comical.

@Delmasaurus

4 ай бұрын

I think something else to consider is that CGI is probably considered to be "easier." I don't say that to discredit the remarkable work that animators and visual effects artists do, but with CGI I think filmmakers fall into the trap of just assuming that they can make the CGI do whatever they want and that takes away from the art of cinematography. I think Jaws is the perfect example. If the shark was CGI, then we would have seen tons of shots of the shark from the beginning of the film. But because it was practical, and because Spielberg was not a huge fan of how the animatronic looked, he instead chose to shoot around the shark, creating more suspenseful scenes as a result. I think practical effects can ultimately end up leading to more creativity on the part of the filmmakers since they can't just "fix it in post" with CGI.

My biggest issue with it is that in the original you can find the moment every person became infected, if you pay close enough attention. But in the sequel, people just kinda get infected with seemingly no indication on when.

This man deserves a national apology for the mistreatment of his masterpiece....🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼

@themorbidzoo

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed, thanks for the watch!

@whitedragoness23

Жыл бұрын

@@Alteringcollectibles I think your right, I think I read somewhere Hollywood was pressuring the idea for the thing to be remade. To avoid having it completely remade and take away from the old film. A prequel was made to explore a different angle. And it was ok, some creepy moments but over all it didn’t have that same alien space horror. Omg I saw it a few months ago and I felt like it was a nightmare come to life. I’m shock of how much horror they could make back then and that head struggling to crawl with its tongue? Nightmarish stuff

@Minnevan

Жыл бұрын

Justice for John!

@milesipka

Жыл бұрын

I don't need to apologize - I have loved The Thing 1982 since the first time I saw it. It is one of my favourite films, and the 2002 videogame (which was a masterpiece of a PS2 game and the true sequel since Carpenter himself confirmed it as canon) is also my favourite videogame. If John needs some help in paying back those critics, I would love to give him some backup...

@jaygarcia8508

Жыл бұрын

@@milesipka I was obviously referring to the negative critics, not the fans.

I think when most people say that practical effects look "real" what they really mean to say is they look "tangible." Sure the kennel-thing and especially more than a few shots of the Palmer-thing look like puppets but you can, for lack of a better word, "tell" that it was a thing that was actually made and exists in physical space as opposed to an effect added later. This isn't a critique of you by any means by the way, just something that occurred to me when you mentioned that. This video is absolutely fantastic

@themorbidzoo

Жыл бұрын

Thanks so much! Yes, I think this is a failure of definitions and film discourse rather than an actual disagreement, which is the kind of thing that drives me insane. When we say "practical effects look more real than CG" what I think we're saying is more that the artistry behind the creation of the puppets and the way they're filmed makes it more effective than what is obviously ones and zeroes added later. That doesn't mean, definitionally, that puppets have more fidelity than even mediocre CG to what a Thing would really look like, it means the audience is more sophisticated than Hollywood is willing to admit. I wish THAT were the conversation instead of squabbles that often ultimately sound like appeals to nostalgia.

@Pho7on

Жыл бұрын

That effect of intuitive fidelity cuts both ways too. There are plenty of things that appear fake or unreal when we take videos or photographs of them. Space is an easy environment to replicate almost perfectly in CGI, but the problem is we have no preconception what space looks like. The harsh, uniform lighting, absence of any atmospheric haze, hard shadows, and nothing to establish depth makes any space shot, real or fake, appear fabricated to a lot of people.

@fnorgen

Жыл бұрын

There is something I came to think of while watching all the Hobbit and LoTR movies back to back. "How come the special effects feel way more real in the older movies?" I figured it came in large part down to how the effects were generally treated, rather than how they were made: If you go frame by frame, most of the orcs in LoTR are for example blatantly just dudes in cheap masks and basic costumes, or relatively basic copy-pasted CG creatures, but they are all carefully kept in the background, in the dark or slightly out of focus and always moving so you never get a good look at them. Only a handful of orcs are done with extremely elaborate prostatic effects or high quality CG, but these are only kept in plain view for a few precious moments each, again so you never have time to notice that a thick elaborate mask is only capable of a single well sculped facial expression, or that the skin on some CG creature seems to stretch in weird ways as it moves. They knew most of their effects just weren't solid enough to carry an entire scene on their own, (at least on a realistic budget), and planned accordingly. In the newer movies they were confident in their effects, and put their carefully crafted CG effects on full display for numerous very long unbroken sequences, giving the audience more than enough time to notice and examine every little flaw. (It also meant the story could get completely side-tracked for long and extremely elaborate action sequences without breaking the bank.) I suspect 2000-2015 era CG had the capacity to look significantly better than classical practical effects, if they were treated during planning, filming and editing as though they were practical effects. As though they could generally only hold their own for few previous moments at a time, and that their shortcomings needed to be carefully hidden to maintain the illusion. Although they did that too, but that's not the kind of "CG" people notice and complain about. A separate issue now is how a lot of "CG" heavy movies just end up telling poopy stories because the studio was mostly just concerned about drawing idiots with a flashy spectacle, which sadly works extremely well. They keep making Marvel movies for a reason.

@themorbidzoo

Жыл бұрын

@@fnorgen I love this comment. This is much of my point with this video, it’s not enough to just have impressive effects, you have to *sell* them

@branflake

Жыл бұрын

@@themorbidzoo i would have to disagree with the statement that there is less artistry in cg, while i must admit i’m biased as a cg artist i think it’s more how they are implemented and treated in movies today. people still went through the process of designing and creating those effects, just in a different way. no hate it was a great video it’s just that phrase really angers me

How was the 82 version of the Thing considered bad by... anyone? This was one of the greatest horror movies of all time. Constant suspense, not knowing what the hell is going on, not knowing who to trust... it was fantastic. The only downside of the movie is that you only ever really get to "experience" it one time.

@R4inbowSt4rs

7 ай бұрын

It failed back then since it came out like 2 weeks after ET came out + a lot of people were too stupid to understand the themes of The thing and it called the movie an excuse to do excessive gore and body horror.

@saliv88

7 ай бұрын

I’ll also say this. From personal experience, if you go into something great but it’s nothing like you were expecting it to be, you might not like it the first time you see it. But, one of the ways you might realize it was actually great is if you can’t stop thinking about it afterwards, and a rewatch can make it completely click. I loved this movie from the first time, but I’ve gone through that with other ones.

@KainYusanagi

7 ай бұрын

You'd be amazed at how quickly culture has shifted. Remember that Tipper Gore and the PMRC were from that era; Dee Snider's famous stand against censorship was in 1985.

@damienvalentine5043

7 ай бұрын

The film critics of the 1980s told us flat-out why they didn't like the movie, and their reasons are pointed out in 2:34, 7:47, and 10:42. Remember, at this point "arts critic" was a formal profession, which *required* at least some kind of formal training in Criticism-with-a-capital-C. If you don't have those credentials, you don't get hired. And that training primed you to believe in a fixed set of aesthetic rules which a work of art -- in this case a film -- must obey to be considered "great". The degree of "greatness" depended purely on the finesse displayed in obeying one or more of these rules. The horror genre largely ignores these rules, and Carpenter broke them completely. So I don't think we need to speculate about late-20th-Century malaise. The critics were simply doing the same job they'd been doing for the past 200 years.

@michelvanderlinden8363

7 ай бұрын

@@damienvalentine5043 these were the same critics didnt consider " Once Upon a Time in the West" a good movie I suppose.

For me a lot of it was the monster designs. In the Carpenter film there were unique designs that not only had recognizable silhouettes but also showed traits of the original form that mutated. In the prequel with the exception of the maw chest, it was just a mass of flesh and tentacles

The 1982 version is better because Carpenter ramps up the tension and paranoia better than the 2011 version. The paranoia is literally palpable. The hot needle blood test scene is one of the most tension inducing scenes ever put on film. As a viewer you could feel the paranoia along with the characters. It was so bad they were killing each other. It culminates when MacReady shoots and kills Clark. The paranoia was deadlier than the monster in some scenes. That's why it's a masterpiece.

@RoninDave

9 ай бұрын

exactly. In many monster flicks, the emphasis is the monster including the original 50s version. But Carpenter's version was closer to the original short story where no one knew who they could trust and anyone could be a "thing." I think the Norris reveal especially surprised people more so than Palmer (which was also a shock) because Norris was so innocuous and wasn't trying to manipulate people like he would have been in a badly directed film. The Norris-thing said to the audience and the characters: "forget what you think, anyone could be a thing" which heightened the paranoia. As the reviewer said the characters became reduced down to the basic level of survival and not some stereotypical hollywood archetype we've seen time and time again in horror films.

@TheAdaoo7

9 ай бұрын

"Gentlemen. I know you've been through a lot. But if its all the same with you I'd rather not spend the rest of the evening TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!"

@pvanukoff

9 ай бұрын

"So Clark was human ... that makes you a murderer." I have to say MacReady acted in self-defense here, I mean, people were getting killed and Clark did come at him with a weapon in hand.

@motherplayer

9 ай бұрын

@@pvanukoff Not to mention he was very much willing to potentially let someone freeze to death outside just on a hunch. "What if we're wrong, Childs!?" "Well then we're wrong....."

@daegnaxqelil2733

9 ай бұрын

blame the hollywood producers who asked the 2011 team to rush the film

I was down near the South Pole in the winter of 1982, and watched Carpenter's movie. The head-spider is one of the most breathtakingly horrific pieces of practical effects of it's era. It has no parallels.

@themorbidzoo

Жыл бұрын

Oh god, you were? That’s terrifying

@jinx1987

Жыл бұрын

Out of all movies you could watch near the South Pole, WHY THE THING!?

@EmyN

Жыл бұрын

@@jinx1987No, it's the perfect time! What better way to watch The Thing?

@mournblade1066

9 ай бұрын

@@jinx1987 There's a group of scientists down there that watches it every year.

@nathanaelmcmahan872

9 ай бұрын

Idk. I put it up there with the head explosion in Scanners. I can't put one over the other.

Imagine your career floundering because of the poor response to a movie that is going to be considered a bedrock of the horror genre just a few years later.

This video has highlighted my love for this movie, I especially missed the theme of man being reduced to its bare components. In that sense, it’s also so interesting to see the group use every tool known that ‘separates’ humans from animals (weapons, buildings, science, reasoning, intelligence) only to fall just short and be exterminated to the last regardless. In the end you can’t outrun your own nature

Carpenter’s version does have moments where the Thing looks and moves unrealistically, but I always felt it made sense that the alien looked and moved weird since it was so far from anything human. It never broke the immersion for me.

@iestynne

Жыл бұрын

This is one of the things I retrospectively appreciated about stop-motion effects in movies like Clash of the Titans. As a child, I accepted the weird motion as evidence of the unknowable other-worldliness of these creatures, and it seemed all the richer and more captivating for it.

@robanderson473

Жыл бұрын

I loved the '82 THING, the spider head really unsettled me, but I have no interest in viewing the 2011 THING just as I have no interest in viewing the PSYCHO remake... what's the point.

@iamdalibor

Жыл бұрын

@@robanderson473 What's the point is don't believe what everyone says. See it for yourself then judge it. Yes the 2011 Thing isn't as good as the 1982 but.. it does some things better and some things worse then the 1982 version. I actually liked the CGI effects of the 2011 thought is was good and the Thing moved more fluidly compared to the 1982 version. 2011 version was more action that Thing was more brutal in the attacks compared to the 1982 version. Either way check out the movie because it ties into the 1982 version darn well. Plus it's different then all these superhero movies we are getting now anyways at least 2011 version is somewhat a refreshing movie compared to movies now a days being released.

@iamdalibor

Жыл бұрын

@@iestynne Yes motion I agree but watching the 1982 version now some parts seem outdated and at times over the top with all the blood and everything. 2011 wasn't as grotesque and didn't have the crazy amount of blood as the 1982 version had. Both are just different.

@iamdalibor

Жыл бұрын

@@robanderson473 If you think the spider Thing was unsettling.. wait until you see the Splitface Thing from the prequel. Now that... was eerie and will make you same damn.... thank gosh I wasn't Adam haha. That looked painful as fock what Adam went through.

Also, the reason the 2011 version has no appeal is that there is no question as to who is the thing and who is not. We are even given clues as to when the characters are assimilated. And there is no surprise or twist in this regard. No ambiguity.

@ChessAlbaneze

3 жыл бұрын

Agree. There is still debate even today about who the curly-haired shadow who's alone with the Dog is in the 1982 version, but there's zero mystery about the 2011 Thing (for the record, I think it's Palmer, but we'll still never know). There's a very clear path in the 2011 version where each Thing is left alone with the next person who's going to be the Thing. It's so boring.

@danielgiovanniello7217

2 жыл бұрын

I rewatched the 2011 film a few days ago with one of my roommates, and I could _not_ pin down when characters got infected. It felt like they'd just become infected because it was convenient to the plot. Afterwards, he and I rewatched the original and (if you know who is infected) you can pretty soundly nail down when they all being Things.

@watamatafoyu

2 жыл бұрын

@@ChessAlbaneze The '82 version had a lot of logical problems in who turned on what order, but it's still immensely more well presented than the '011 version because it was more about not knowing who was the thing, its unpredictability, and alien animalness.

@prpeptv8463

2 жыл бұрын

As soon as the woman tells our main character she Saw a Guy walk out of the bathroom and he might be the thing after that she inmediatly reveals herself. The thing is supposed to be smart IT would feel a lot better if they had waited for her reveal and let the distrust play out. I cant even remember these peoples names and i watched the movie last Friday.

@AlexH8280

Жыл бұрын

@@prpeptv8463 To be fair she thought it was a chance to assimilate another victim caught alone. Which, by the films' historical logic, *should have happened* (because no one alone with this thing is never NOT doomed), but didn't because the attempted victim was the protagonist and the movie had to happen, so she got away, causing the awkward chase.

The part about the hierarchy of needs and the focus on grief is a problem with a lot of modern movies and TV shows where characters will just stop everything they're doing to have a heart to heart while in a warzone or surrounded by dozens of imminently approaching zombies. The later seasons of The Walking Dead is really guilty of this and it just completely takes you out of the suspense and shatters immersion while you wince in disbelief that THIS is the moment they decide to talk about their feelings and dreams? THIS is their concern right now?!

I saw this movie on its release back in the day and emerged absolutely mesmerised and quite deeply disturbed, but there was no doubt in my mind that I'd seen something of unparalleled quality in every aspect of production. Before it ceased to be shown, I went to the cinema 5 times more, fascinated by Bottin's monstrosities, Morriconi's music, the claustrophobic intensity and Carpenter's nihilistic finale. I made a bit of a bore out of myself at work, at the pub, with the family - where not..? Only a complete philistine would not wax lyrical about Carpenter's masterpiece.

One thing I like about 2011 The Thing is the inorganic material test. Not everyone has had fillings in their teeth, so it makes it impossible to clear everyone, it just narrows it down a little. They should've done more back and forth between the characters trying to convince each other, but instead the thing reveals itself unnecessarily for another 10 minute action sequence. It's like the film gets bored with the distrust scenes and wants to hurry up and get to the alien revealing itself and attacking people instead.

@BD-cv3wu

Жыл бұрын

I actually got bored by the "let's wait to show it" way of thought. That was already done in it's sequel. I was honestly expecting a lot more thing outs than Carpenter's. I need to pay $50 to go with my family to the theaters and only see five or so thing outs? Seriously?

@austind7232

Жыл бұрын

@@BD-cv3wu And you are the reason why movies have degraded into the sorry state they're in. You demand an amusment park ride where you can sit down, throw your hands in the air , then go home; and the studio delivers. Who cares about plot, character, suspense, or anything that makes a movie good...Just show us the damn monster for an hour so we can go home!

@marceloxaustivo784

Жыл бұрын

@@austind7232 I mean, who even cares about the masterpiece of an atmosphere that the original had? who cares about the intriguing ending? who cares about the horrifying knowledge that this primal looking thing is actually as smart or even smarter than we are?

@starhalv2427

Жыл бұрын

@@BD-cv3wu if you care about money and time so much, what are you doing here- wasting time and electricity to watch a video essay about "The Thing"?

@BD-cv3wu

Жыл бұрын

@@starhalv2427 Because I love it to death. I wish I was it.

Imagine the computing power to hoover up someone's central nervous system and make sense of this enormous structure without running extensive tests in a controlled environment so as to imitate its former bearer so perfectly that your facial expressions are what they would have been if the original bearer had had your current intentions.

I saw 'The Thing' in the theater, in 1982, at Ft Bragg, and it instantly ranked and will always rank right up there with 'Alien', as a sci-fi/horror masterpiece. How it could've taken others so many years to fully appreciate it is incomprehensible to me.

@galadballcrusher8182

Жыл бұрын

Some people are allways ahead rhe curve. Ever since i 've seen it, nothing even came close to it on how visceral the effects felt mostly because of the fact they were half obscured, limited on screen time, and supporting the very claustrophobic paranoia driven scenario perfectly acted by the cast instead of expecting the cast to be the support and having the effects shown face front with long well lit shots. Point is in most well made horror movies you as part of the audience are trying to catch glimpses of it in the limited shots you get with very carefully limited lighting and while The Thing went more graphic than most, it maintained largely the formula and had a plot that sold it well. I would compare the difference to a sensual erotic film where you see a woman's body allways dressed in a risque classy provocative dress helped by the right shots, music, conversation delivered well and not wooden and falling flat... And then you see a remake with first shot if that particular woman being sitting with nothing on crotch fully exposed and lit front view legs wide open in a long shot. Kills the whole mystery and interest early on.

@patrickscalia5088

Жыл бұрын

Agreed! I saw Alien on its first run through the theaters. I went by myself, at night, and the theater was almost empty. I knew almost nothing about the plot except that it science fiction and then, as an adolescent, I loved anything sci-fi (and still do). I was wrong. It wasn't sci-fi. Not the way I knew it and expected it. It was horror, plain and simple. It was my first experience with a movie that was so terrifying that I literally almost had to walk out because it was just too stressful. I didn't walk out and I'm so glad I did. It's interesting that two of the most terrifying movies I've ever seen, Alien and The Thing, both of which feature alien xenomorphs (shape-changers), are of an age that they relied entirely on practical effects and what the effects couldn't accomplish they relied on directorial brilliance. Best example is that when I watch the movies now -- I couldn't count the number of times I've watched both -- it surprises me just how little you see of the creature in both films. With modern CGI they can put icky scary monsters in every scene if they want, and in The Thing (2011) they don't do that exactly but the creature(s) have a hell of a lot more screen time than in the original. And that made them much less scary to me. Likewise with James Cameron's juvenile, butt-stupid shoot-em-up Aliens where he threw entire platoons of xenomorphs at the characters and didn't evoke one tenth of the stress and fear the original did, the fact that the creatures had so much screen time made it easy to start yawning every time they appear. In Cameron's simple, ham-fisted directorial technique anything that's worth showing you once or twice is worth shoving down your throat. CGI doesn't automatically make a bad movie. In both Cloverfield and the 2014 Godzilla the monsters were visually spectacular and extremely realistic, but had less then ten minutes on screen throughout both entire movies. So much else is implied and suggested rather than beating you in the face with it that it forces your imagination to work and in a sense it sort of customizes the 's horror to the individual viewer's psyche. Its the essence of great writing and directing. Incidentally, for those who play computer games, the 2014 game Alien:Isolation is a real treat. If you consider something that will make you sh!t yourself a treat. Unlike other Alien-franchise games that seek to replicate the stupidity of the Cameron shoot-em-up sequel, A:I is slavishly loyal to Ridley Scott's 1979 original in spirit, look, and for the sense of helpless fragility it instills in the player in the face of the xenomorph. And it's an ironic acronym of the title of the game (A:I) because the AI (artificial intelligence) controlling the xenomorph is relentless, unpredictable, and utterly diabolical in its ability to out-guess and out-outmaneuver the player at almost every turn. It's the greatest AI I've ever seen in dozens of otherwise really good game titles I've played over the past 30 years. And it tops the movie in one respect: instead of you watching the creature hunt down down the characters as in the movie, in the game the creature is hunting YOU and believe me, you ain't ready for it. It's the most terrifying game I've ever played. So frightening that it's used in university experiments to study the physiological and psychological effects of extreme stress and terror. And unlike the movie, which I just barely withstood without fleeing, I have never been able to finish the game. For me the terror and the stress are so extreme that I literally was paralyzed and couldn't move, and hid in the closest cabinet or locker until the xenomorph eventually found me, tore the door off, and killed me. I havent played the game from The Thing, but I suspect it would be a disappointment compared to the original movie, especially if as I suspect it's primarily an action game rather than a horror game like A:I. And just sayin' the 2011 The Thing is not at all a bad movie. I enjoyed it. Had it been an original rather than a sequel/prequel to Carpenter's brilliant original I suspect it would have gotten much better reviews. Of course it sort of sucks by comparison. But then almost every horror movie I've ever seen sucks in comparison to The Thing, in my opinion the only other two that are its peers are Alien (1979) and of course The Exorcist, a movie which still makes me sleep with my light on for a couple of nights after after watching (the novel is even worse). And hell, I'm an atheist.

@nocomment1212

Жыл бұрын

@@patrickscalia5088 Excellent review, and I'm not even a gamer! I've never seen 'Exorcist', but I always rank 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers'(1978) as a distant third, in my personal trilogy of horror. I suspect if you watch all three, alone, in the dark, you won't sleep well. I'll need to get around to actually watching 'Exorcist', one of these days, but I was too young to see it in the theater; my Catholic parents would've rather sent me to a sleeper-over at Anton Lavey's house than drop me off at any theater playing that movie. By the time I could've seen it on video, it had been parodied so much that I didn't bother. Timing issue. I know that those who saw it in the theater literally freaked out. I recall the mass hysteria.

@SavouryGalette

Жыл бұрын

Ever took into account that those people had a different opinion than you?

@nocomment1212

Жыл бұрын

@@SavouryGalette yes... the wrong one

As someone who saw The Thing opening day, I can say that it’s a bit unfair to blame it’s failure at the B.O. on critics. My buddies and I were the ONLY ones in the theater that afternoon and The Thing was the 3rd movie we saw that day the others were; Blade Runner, Star Trek II, and part of Megaforce (that was the ticket we bought to get into an R feature as we were only 13) I’ve always felt that The Things failure was mostly due to the glut of fantasy/horror/sci-fi/comedy films all marketed towards young audiences that summer most of which have become classics themselves. The Thing would’ve faired better in the fall, especially since Halloween was non-existent that year because of the Tylenol scare, which know one could’ve predicted, and made for a rather eerie season. I knew The Thing would eventually find it’s audience as it was a great film with a perfect ending. The marketing for it was abysmal as well as a fan of Drew Struzan’s work (I got the One Sheet for Revenge of The Jedi that summer as well) I thought, and still do, that poster wasn’t very strong. I think Universal were focusing on Cat People, Conan The Barbarian and E.T. The Thing was just an after-thought for them I think despite it’s budget.

@themorbidzoo

Жыл бұрын

Yes, excellent point. There were a lot of cultural events happening at the same time that definitely kept The Thing from being as successful as it should have been. You'd think critics would understand that, though. Maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part

@jaleelel-shabazz5459

Жыл бұрын

All of those movies you mention did far better at the box office than the thing in 1982, but none of them are still being debated, dissected, analyzed, and out right admired then John Carpenter's THING!!

@ArcaneAzmadi

Жыл бұрын

Was a hell of a year.

@lietkynes432

Жыл бұрын

@@jaleelel-shabazz5459 Blade Runner?

@jaleelel-shabazz5459

Жыл бұрын

@@lietkynes432 Not on the same level as John Carpenter's THING!

I remember the first time I saw this movie and thought to myself wow, this was amazing....The practical effects, the score, the cinematography, the feeling of isolation, distrust, and pure paranoia was something I had not seen in a horror movie before, or for that matter in ANY movie to such a great effect! So naturally I also thought to myself....how many Oscars did this win? Surely it got best visual effects, cinematography, maybe best score too? Nope, NOTHING! And to my utter surprise....it was a box office bomb?! WHAT?! It just goes to show you how certain pieces of media were simply NOT appreciated in it's time for the masterpieces they really were. The Thing is not only an amazing Horror movie, it's an amazing movie in general with it's complex themes and just how everything was put together.

@themorbidzoo

2 жыл бұрын

This is an excellent reminder to ignore the Oscars always and forever. :) Thanks for the watch!!

@tender0828

Жыл бұрын

This gives me hope lol if not today, perhaps people in the future would someday appreciate the stuff I leave behind

@mariadocarmosobreira8323

Жыл бұрын

Historically, critics have mostly been biased, ultra-conservative, reactionary idiots. Take Hanslick, for instance. He hated Wagner and Brahms and idolized Brahms because he was closer to the classical style of Beethoven and especially Mozart. Or, to take a less controversial and even more idiotic view, Stravinsky said Berlioz didn't know how to compose... because he didn't compose on the neoclassical style Stravinsky valued.

@stevenscott2136

Жыл бұрын

I remember Leonard Maltin absolutely BUTCHERING it in his review. Of course, I already knew that Maltin hated anything newer than 1960, unless it was saccharine kid-type fare. He gave "E.T." a 10. "Firefox" got a 4. "The Thing" got a 2. So I made a point of watching "Thing" first chance I got. 😁

@Lucifronz

Жыл бұрын

The Thing is my all-time favorite horror flick and the fact that it wasn't appreciated at the time is all the more reason for me to simply not give a shit about what other people think is "good" or "bad". It's really fucking sad that this masterpiece of horror cinema wasn't appreciated in its time, but I am glad that I'm not the only one who thinks it's one of the all-time greats.

After repeat viewings the aspect I find the scariest about the Thing is that it's not a villain, not really all that calculating, or even hell bent on taking over the world as Blair assumes, simply because it chose not to infect Clark despite having ample opportunities to do so. It's just afraid and trying to survive and decided not to eliminate a person that was nice to it, possibly the first human that ever was. The entire situation is a huge misunderstanding, and one day it could be a similar misunderstanding that eliminates us all.

@themorbidzoo

Жыл бұрын

Hadn’t even thought of this

@MySerpentine

Жыл бұрын

Shit, that does explain Clarke in the most depressing way possible.

@cikame

Жыл бұрын

On one hand i've always thought of the Thing as a virus that just goes wherever, which explains this away as just random "luck", on the other hand it's building a space ship so it's definitely sentient.

@scionofdorn9101

Жыл бұрын

@@cikame More particularly, it's obviously sapient, which isn't the same thing as sentient. Even a frog is sentient. The two words mean different things.

@electrotoxins

Жыл бұрын

There's a short story called "The Things" by Peter Watts that writes the story from the perspective of the Thing and I highly recommend it to everyone here who has an hour to spare.

The critics chose E.T, and Poltergeist over the THING because they chose Steven Spielberg over John Carpenter, it's that simple. Neither the directed or produced Spielberg movies were better than Carpenter's "THING".

@lifes40123

2 жыл бұрын

Now ET is considered a joke while the Thing is a cult classic masterpiece. How things have turned.

@etarver13

2 жыл бұрын

@ lifes40123, E.T is still consider a classic, it’s just ‘The Thing’ finally got the recognition and respect that it deserves.

@jeanpaulmichell7243

Жыл бұрын

ET is one of the single most overrated films in the history of cinema. Yeah it's cute, and there is that one scene in the school room with the frogs that is artistically impressive; the rest is a cloying saccharine crowd pleaser that over stayed it's welcome.

@bezoticallyyours83

Жыл бұрын

@@jeanpaulmichell7243 👎 your entitled to your opinion, but it's not all that cloying and saccharine and was not afraid to make people cry either.

@Dragon32z

Жыл бұрын

I think ET was despised when almost a decade later, ET was released when guns in their holsters were CGI edited to be walkie talkies.

Great insights here - can I just address the special effects in 2011’s The Thing - the designs may be excellent and the CGI passable; but the reason they have none of the impact on audiences, the way Carpenter’s film does, is the total lack of fluids - 2011’s victims tear apart like bread, completely dry, whilst Rob Botin’s victims explode; spraying, dripping, leaking and oozing all manner of splatter everywhere.

@themorbidzoo

Жыл бұрын

Yes, absolutely!!

@pravkdey

Жыл бұрын

great point! I also loved that the original designs had body parts that look useless or perhaps we don't really know the function of. Like ok some vestigial arms and legs could have been the thing is "trying out" these weird new features it's learnt, but then there are those creepy clusters of tentacles and stalks. I like to think the latter are from other lifeforms that the thing assimilated

Dude please don’t scare me by saying John Carpenter is dead. He is very much alive.

"A group of people who've settled into being alone together." "Populated not so much by people as by people shaped objects who we come to know by names that aren't really names." You're describing the internet.

@Razumen

Жыл бұрын

Or very large cities. It's strange how alone one can feel when surrounded by hundreds of people.

@coreym162

Жыл бұрын

She's doing and awful lot of projecting here..... No surprise....

@stevenscott2136

Жыл бұрын

@@Razumen Worse than alone. We are fundamentally tribal creatures, and we tend to see people we don't know (not our tribe) as potential rivals. After all, for thousands of centuries, the only people you were likely to see were your tribe, unless you were fighting outsiders over a water source or something. So you're constantly suppressing that instinct to run or fight every time you walk down the street in a city. No wonder there's so much paranoia.

@bombomos

Жыл бұрын

And the war on ideals being good and bad, black and white. That's the Thing. Flooding us with hate till we are apart of the Thing, adding to the hate.

@sucroseskulls7488

Жыл бұрын

@@coreym162 how so? these are really great observations about the characters in the movie. dont see how this could be a projection.

The thing you mentioned at 9:16 is one of my biggest movie pet peeves. The long reaction shot to someone dying in the middle of a life or death situation. Not only is it frustrating and kills any tension in the scene, but it also is treating the audience like we are too stupid to realize that a character dying is sad without a hint.

@themorbidzoo

Жыл бұрын

Same

@DaMoniable

Жыл бұрын

The best way to handle death scenes is to always show the aftermath *after*. The thing moves on, then suddenly "Oh god.. Hes dead" in the background.. pan over to them and bam.. holy shitballs. They died so fast in all that that it was so insignificant that no one noticed until now. Theres a bit of a chill with this method. It plucks at the strings of our mortality, reminding us.. atleast in that dark.. tiny little spot in the back of our minds, that at any moment the same could happen to us. Barely even a footnote, and everything is over, ending the sentence and entire tale with a simple 'And then they died.' Its why stupid reaction shots like this suck ass in horror films when youre trying to make it a big thing. Dont get me wrong, they do have their place, like if it happens in an action movie, and the event rallies the rest to overcome their odds.. but in this its supposed to inflict dread and despair. Another has died. What will we do?

@pedrolopez8057

Жыл бұрын

like in "Saving Private Ryan" where while their comrades are horribly wounded, dead, or dying on the beach, the soldiers are taking weapons and ammo off of them, not stopping just doing what they have to do to survive. They don't have time to stop in sympathy. That must be hell

@matthewlawton9241

Жыл бұрын

This! So much this! Horror is about OBJECTIFICATION. It's about stripping away the layers of psychology and environment that give us the privilege to be human. When you inject that kind of emotional slop into a scene, you rob it of that potential. And you rob the movie of potential down the road when the characters, who in a realistical scenario would have been running away from their loved ones, now have to contend with the guilt of having behaved like animals.

@Starscreamious

Жыл бұрын

A couple better ways to do that... . 1 have a character react during a wide shot.....cry/scream/rush the enemy whatever while everyone else acts normally.... 2 do the typical hollywood closeups of tending to the recently deceased...then have one of mourners be murdered as well to prove to the audience it's not going to be that kind of film

As a life long fan of The Thing, I must have seen hundreds of essays like this one dissecting the deeper themes, metaphores, reasons why it bombed, reasons why it's so revered now, and many of them are very good, but this has to be my favorite.

@themorbidzoo

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks!!

@watamatafoyu

2 жыл бұрын

Yup, excellent analysis of the deeper themes of the '82 version vs the shallow exploration of the '011 one, especially in relation to people's mentality in '82.

@tannaeros

Жыл бұрын

In retrospect, I think one of the reasons it might have bombed was that, at the time, it was so ungodly scary. I saw it first run in the drive in with my cousin- we parked the car sideways and rolled down the windows so we could watch while lounging- me in the front seat, my cousin In the back. At the end of the movie, I was afraid to move. Literally. I lay there for fifteen minutes afraid to sit up to drive home because I didn't know what was outside that open window.

@deanladue3151

Жыл бұрын

One big advantage that John Carpenter had was he had 1 year to prep, assemble the cast, shoot and direct the film. Whereas the director and producer of Thing '11 were given barely 5 months to do the same.

@jaleelel-shabazz5459

Жыл бұрын

I actually pray that someone would make a better Sci-Fi movie than John Carpenter's "THING" but I doubt it can be done!!

3:42="This is very obviously a puppet." Yes, but the CGI is very obviously CGI in the 2011 film. So, the artifice is apparent in both examples. As mentioned previously, it was the quality of filmmaking that set the 1982 version far ahead of the other.

@Neirean

Жыл бұрын

Indeed. (Not the case for these movies, since 2011 had practical effects on set, but:) Even a puppet is grounded in reality, and actors react to it far more organically - CGI often comes off as a superimposed image, nullifying a lot of the threat it can offer. CGI has a slew of issues beyond just 'not looking good' - its floor of quality is generally a LOT lower than practical effects.

Something I love about the Carpenter thing is the Monster has demonstrated that it can communicate. It CHOOSES not to. The Monster does not care about anything but killing you. That is scary shit.

@supercolorful5878

Жыл бұрын

Whats scary is its based off of parasites...the thing is a parasite...same thing killing you and most of humanity off in the name of diseases...parasites...

@sonofacheron

Жыл бұрын

I missed that - what’s the scene where this is revealed?

@BradLane5

Жыл бұрын

@@sonofacheron In every scene where it imitates a human

@jmlaw8888

Жыл бұрын

@@sonofacheron There are numerous scenes. We know either Norris or Palmer were the first to be infected be the dog. Norris refuses to take over leadership from Gary "sorry guys Im not up to it". Also Palmer when MacReady has been cut loose by Nauls. Whether Thing-Palmer KNOWS Mac isnt a Thing and wants a shot at taking him out or simply doesnt care he is eager to go on the offensive despite clearly already being an imitation at this point. The Thing is a perfect imitation. It has the intelligence and social skills of a human while it is one. Finally we have Blairs pleading to be let back in when he has clearly been turned. We know because of his earlier attitude its obviously not him anymore but the imitation is doing its best to plead in a meek and apologetic manner. Another thing watch Palmers face when Mac is about to test his blood with the hot needle. He does this amazing resigned facial expression almost like "oh boy here we go" in anticipation that he is about to be exposed.

@Kspice9000

Жыл бұрын

@@jmlaw8888 another interpretation is palmer and Norris things act independently if not competitively. I like the idea that they are trying to get the superior amount of body mass or the jump on the other. Like competing Hive minds

I was favorably impressed by The Thing(1982) in its theatrical release. I was unaware of the negative reaction by critics and some moviegoers, or that it harmed John Carpenter's career.

@themorbidzoo

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the watch. :) I'm jealous you got to see it in theaters

I think part of the reason practical effects look better to most people is the design of the thing has to be changed to work in reality therefore making it more realistic, possible and less goofey by nature.

@themorbidzoo

Жыл бұрын

Oh shit, a pro-practical argument I actually like

@Trepanation21

9 ай бұрын

Oooh, that's an excellent point.

@ronaldmcdonaldjunior6616

9 ай бұрын

@@themorbidzoo yoooo what movie is that at 1:24 ???

@MarcelNL

9 ай бұрын

I kinda liked certain effects in the remake too. Felt far less real than the original even though graphically speaking it of course was far more impressive; the movements were more fluent and facial expressions were based on muscle structures rather than a few robotic motors. Still, seeing a REAL thing doing all these things in front of a camera, like the head ripping off the body and slowly sliding down the table had much more impact than any CGI moment in the remake. The remake indeed was very forgettable. Just by having seen this video I remember bits and pieces of it and now I realise that there is some movie on Netflix that is quite similar; some alien crashed on earth and its precense transforms the DNA of everybody who gets closeby, resulting in all sorts of horrible hybrid monsters. It's so forgettable that I can't even remember the title, just like how the remake of The Thing is forgettable.

@_khooman_chronicles_

9 ай бұрын

@@ronaldmcdonaldjunior6616 I think that was "Swamp thing", not sure.

I think another way that the Carpenter film really sticks with you as memorable is that, while there isn't a lot of depth with the characters, they're very clearly not stupid. They ask the kinds of questions people would in this situation, come to conclusions like "If you were all these things, you'd just attack me, so some of you are still human"; and they come up with solutions based on what they learn about the creature, the most famous being the hot needle in the blood test. There's some bad decisions in there, the worst probably being Clarke trying to shank MacReady and Mac shooting him dead, but it's done out of a genuine sense of fear and paranoia. They're all on edge and have no idea who to trust, but still trying their hardest to work together. The Thing itself also isn't stupid. It's patient, calculating, and never reveals itself unless it has to. It doesn't do so very often because it recognizes that the people in the camp are its biggest threat, and so its best bet is to turn them against each other. Something that doesn't often get talked about is how, when doing the blood test, the Palmer-thing waits until Mac actually stabs its blood and it leaps out, using the shock as a chance to quickly transform. It was only thanks to Mac's flamethrower crapping out on him and Windows freezing up in terror that it managed to kill the latter. I think all of this really does add another layer to the horror of the situation. Most of the time, we roll our eyes at the bad, stupid decisions characters in horror movies make, and the prequel is no exception. They don't exist to be characters, they exist to be kill fodder to show off the monster and so you don't really give a damn. The Carpenter film shows you characters who are genuinely and even overly cautious, work together and make intelligent decisions like we want to see, but they still *fail.* It's not even made clear if, after all their work, the Thing is actually dead by the end. Carpenter's film says that if you were actually in a horror movie and even if you made all the right decisions, you could still end up dying, even if you win.

@adambuchbinder2791

Жыл бұрын

Well said. If you know everything the characters know as they know it, roughly the best you could do... is what they did. There's a degree of pleasant detachment at feeling like you'd survive. (See those "How to Win X Horror Movie" videos.) But no, not here. These are reasonably clever guys doing their best, and they still die.

@jonathanbirch2022

Жыл бұрын

I actually think they weren’t that smart, they kept wandering off alone and getting separated which allowed the thing to spread. Like most horror movies, they always split up.

What I love about the 1982 one is the real horror is fear and paranoia. They've all gone from being close friends/colleagues to being shit scared (and not trusting ) of each other where as the 2011 one was more of a gory kill craze.

@veramae4098

8 ай бұрын

1951, B and W, is the original. James Arness is the tall monster -- it's why he was hired. Later the Sheriff, in "Gunsmoke" TV.

@aletron4750

7 ай бұрын

That is true, however in the 1982 one the thing really never seemed... dangerous.. Whenever it was discovered it just kinda.. sat there and screamed. The dog, the defib thing, and the very final one. They just kinda transformed and screamed at the humans, not really doing anything. The 2011 ones actually seemed terrifying once they transformed.

@mbattalionenjoyer5162

7 ай бұрын

You’re mostly wrong about the Thing just standing there and screaming. The Dog-Thing was about to attack before it was destroyed; the Bennings-Thing was too weak to attack at that moment because it was just assimilated minutes ago; and the Norris-Thing killed Dr. Cooper when it revealed itself. I agree with you about the Blair-Thing though, it just stood there and waited to be blown up. The original script was going to have the dog jump out of the Blair-Thing and attack MacReady, but they didn’t have enough money for the effects. Regardless, the 1982 movie is vastly superior to the 2011 prequel.

@aletron4750

7 ай бұрын

@@mbattalionenjoyer5162 The dog thing was just making weird noises and the most it moved was like a foot in the air, the norris thing just spouted a head in the center and screamed at everyone else, it was just a coincidence it killed dr cooper. I 100% agree that the atmosphere, writing, and score is far better in the 1982 movie, but the actual thing was just scarier in the prequel for me.

@mbattalionenjoyer5162

7 ай бұрын

@@aletron4750 The Dog-Thing was about to attack Childs with some sort of appendage before getting torched. It probably wasn’t as aggressive as you’d expect it to be because it was in the process of assimilating the dogs. I’m pretty sure everyone was standing far away from the Norris-Thing so it couldn’t immediately attack anyone other than Dr. Cooper. I think the Thing in the 1982 version is scarier because it is a silent killer. It waits for the right moment to strike unless it is discovered. The 2011 Thing just feels like a generic monster to me. It displays little intelligence and attacks everyone in sight.

Wow, that had some seriously insightful moments about the hierarchy of needs and the camera's disregard of survival breaking the monster's tension. Excellent content, thank you.

@themorbidzoo

Жыл бұрын

Ah, thanks so much!!

@maicolmallers2999

Жыл бұрын

@@themorbidzoo yep, I was thinking that too. This video made me want to sit through the movie again without any distraction at all, but I'll go watch some of your other videos first.

@marmolejomartinezjoseemili9043

Жыл бұрын

It would have been cool if they made the other characters aproach this character to help him get saved only to unexpectedly die themselves to show the audience that the monster is a REAL threat

@erlandjnilsson

Жыл бұрын

This! This is what I learned in this video. The camera doesn't simply show what is goin on. It tells you what is important and what isn't in these ways. I never considered it like that before.

@chrism1503

Жыл бұрын

This shits me so much in so many movies. Characters caring about or focussing on things that wouldn’t matter in a particular situation. Like the world is literally ending, everyone on the planet is about to die horribly, but some woman is still mad at her boyfriend for cheating on her.

The pure tension and insane paranoia is what 2011 lacked..the thing was the antagonist but the true killer was the distrust and suspensions.

@enraeh2834

Жыл бұрын

"Nobody trusts anybody anymore"

@Ro-fw3lc

Жыл бұрын

@@enraeh2834 ngl,I feel like the fact we already knew what the thing was and saw it numerous times kinda takes away from the scare factor

@kucingnumpakalphardasli8178

Жыл бұрын

Its hard for me to feel the amount of paranoia when I cant remember every single character coz they dont even have a single memorable trait. I mean like when someone shouted "Henrik is dead!" and all I can think is "Who's Henrik?"

@jaleelel-shabazz5459

Жыл бұрын

True the fear and paranoia really came through in the 1982 version .

@bluemooninthedaylight8073

Жыл бұрын

@@kucingnumpakalphardasli8178 Um, I think they played guitar or something? [Shrugs]

At least in the original you knew everyone but in the prequel someone died and you were like who is that guy. Henrik for example

@yt.zenger

2 жыл бұрын

Who?

@elioorozco8185

2 жыл бұрын

And the guy who slit his wrist. Didn't even know who he was until the deadmeat killcount came out and pointed it out to be Colin. And even I STILL had to rewind to check which one was Colin.

@SavouryGalette

2 жыл бұрын

@@elioorozco8185 And remember: Colin is essentially supposed to be the prequel's Windows, who was a much better character, and his death scene is horrifying to watch, while Colin's death happens Off-Screen, and he goes out like a bitch.

@watamatafoyu

2 жыл бұрын

I was glad when people died in the prequel, they were so stupid or such caricatures. I don't remember much about them, but I remembered everyone's names and personalities in the '82 version.

@MGrey-qb5xz

Жыл бұрын

@@SavouryGalette oh no no you don't understand the actual base they went to in 1982 film was the 2nd base the thing attacked after being frozen again when it ran away as a dog ,it's just that coincidentally the same major plot points happened there for some reason

All those critics are forgotten and this movie is a CLASSIC masterpiece. I saw in in the theater in 1982 and I absolutely LOVED it.

@frankcolumbo4481

Жыл бұрын

Ditto! 👍

There was a sense of isolation and foreboding the 1982 version created with it's suspense and building narrative that I have not experienced from another movie, I watched it when I was young and my dog coming up to me while watching alone downright terrified me as he stared all confused lol.

@charlespockert8948

Жыл бұрын

Haha amazing - your dog actually creeped you out and that's exactly why the Carpenter version is so good. This 2011 prequel is a joke of a horror film.

@EmyN

Жыл бұрын

Yes! More movies like this please

@ronaldmcdonaldjunior6616

9 ай бұрын

What movie is that at 1:24

@ptonpc

9 ай бұрын

@@ronaldmcdonaldjunior6616 The prequel. The 2011 Thing. It's not good

The prequel got the character of the thing all wrong. It's supposed to be "the chameleon that strikes in the dark" but they had the monster jumping out and chasing people down the halls. Practical FX force filmmakers to show less, rather than more, which is much scarier. Computer FX are so cheap and easy, they use it everywhere and it's not scary.

@gusjones8501

3 жыл бұрын

To be fair, I think that the thing in this movie is still learning how to deal with humans

@Lava91point0

3 жыл бұрын

@@gusjones8501 True, but the film didn’t execute that very well. It was really just cat and mouse the whole way through. If the short story (of the 1982 events from the things perspective) is anything to go by. It should been a slow build to a horrifying climax, instead we got points where the creature really had no reason to show itself. The 2011 prequel was just very poor

@Cucerescmunti

3 жыл бұрын

@@Lava91point0 The CGI effects ruined the movie for me. I can accept the creature was adapting and chasing people down the halls but those effects were horrible man.

@Lava91point0

3 жыл бұрын

@@Cucerescmunti Amen

@bigmetroidfan1263

2 жыл бұрын

@@gusjones8501 But the thing in the prequel did clean up the shower room after Kate Lloyd found the blood and teeth fillings in it. Since the thing have shown intelligence by cleaning up the shower room, that one scene exactly contradicts how the thing functioned during the rest of the movie and John Carpenter's The Thing

One big reason I loved the 1982 version over the 2011 version is that the monster had a sense of psychical presence that is missing with cgi. CGI has edges between where it and the physical set meets, which is difficult to make look good. While practical effects also have edges to them, they’re easier to work around in a movie like the thing (tight spaces, small scale, lots of items around, and more of a focus on how the characters react to the thing than the thing itself)

This was a really damn good analysis! The idea of being reduced to meat, forgotten and unrecognizable pulp, is my biggest fear. Like the idea of someone being crushed under a hydraulic press or eaten whole; they're just gone. There's no sanctity in their death, nor anything to mourn. It's why The Thing is my favorite movie, horror or not. Nothing since this film has captured the essence of "We're all electric meat computers trying to survive in a cold, isolated, and dangerous world, and we end up killing each other just as much as that world because we're scared." It's horrible, yet the craft of it is beautiful and incredible. It reminds me of the way Disco Elysium captures those feelings of regret, depression, and hopelessness so perfectly. It's tough to witness, but one should not deny its craft. I hate that The Thing got panned just because people couldn't handle the emotions it made them feel, I'm glad that it wasn't forgotten and left behind. I think we live in an age now where people are much more willing to face these emotions and actually think about them rather than just turn away and call it "bad," and The Thing's recent popularity and Disco Elysium's success are proof of that. Though at times (often) it feels like society can be regressing, I think people's willingness to face these darker aspects in mature ways is hopeful.

@themorbidzoo

Жыл бұрын

That’s my biggest fear too. Those hydraulic press videos raise my blood pressure. You said it all perfectly, thanks for the watch!

@greyone40

Жыл бұрын

For dark aspects, I liked The Prestige. It has a metaphysical question that I'm not sure everyone is as creeped out by as I am.

@themonsterunderyourbed9408

Жыл бұрын

Sounds like you need God.

@spanishnameisjesus

Жыл бұрын

@@themonsterunderyourbed9408 I've always liked the idea of being religious, but I just can't. You can't force yourself to believe in something if you simply don't believe in it. Hell, I'd have an easier time making up my own deity to believe in. It would be comforting to truly believe in a benevolent God, but... I just don't.

@Jakioliberty

Жыл бұрын

that's exactly the opposite how i want to go. I don't want for anything to be left behind. I don't want a tomb, i don't want to be a waste of meat rotting in a wooden box. My ideal would be dropped in a volcato, where i would pulverize even before i reach the magma

In the 80's, we had the nuclear clock. At every moment there was the creeping knowledge that a bomb could drop, followed by instant retaliation and complete obliteration worldwide. It's difficult to describe how that impacts a nation psychologically, but the average person didn't want a movie with an unhappy ending or uncertainty. They wanted an obvious bad guy and a strong hero in the same way that you want a happy song when you're at a truly low point because a sad song when you're actually sad can be overwhelming.

@applesandgrapesfordinner4626

Жыл бұрын

Kinda can't blame anyone at the time of the Cold War when the reality was already looming dread.

@Amantducafe

Жыл бұрын

I listen to sad music when i'm sad.

@mayabartolabac

Жыл бұрын

then i wonder why the 2020s seem so pessimistic... just our media and all...

@applesandgrapesfordinner4626

Жыл бұрын

@@mayabartolabac Almost sounds like a subtle social engineering. An attempt to create enough apathy in the hopes of deterring possible meaningful change. Or just the motions of society trying to get through difficult change like any point in history.

@mayabartolabac

Жыл бұрын

@@applesandgrapesfordinner4626 who or what is creating the apathy?

The sound effects and the sound track in the 1982 The Thing is both mesmerizing and horrifying. It is one of the least mentioned aspects that gives it an other worldly feeling, which most alien creatures depicted even if not horror themed rarely have.

@worsethanhitlerpt.2539

9 ай бұрын

The scream you hear during the dog scene before Macready pulls the Fire alarm is insane really distorted scary as fuck

It’s actually insane that this film got so absolutely hacked apart upon its release. And now is revered a genuine classic masterpiece. How times change.

@Randleray

Жыл бұрын

Na, thats normal for a big part sadly. In terms of media, a lot of new stuff gets massively hacked and later be considered a classic. I also will bet my left hand that 50 shades will be a special classic in 30 or 40 years.

@ZrankFappaH

Жыл бұрын

@@Randleray I’d go as far to say there are many middle aged women who already consider 50 shades a classic lmao.

@gregbors8364

Жыл бұрын

Most people really don’t like true horror. The professional critics who watched “The Thing” watched every major studio release back then, because that was their job. It’s definitely a switch from “ET,” which came out the same month.

@IAmCaligvla

Жыл бұрын

Makes you wonder what panned movies nowadays will be "rediscovered" in 30-40 years time.

Funny how a bunch of my friends and I, just "nobodies" in a little town not on the map, no film school under our belts, no journalism in our dreams... KNEW that "The Thing" was great the first time we saw it, the year it came out. We knew nothing was like it, we knew the acting was reserved and realistic, we knew the style helped us immerse ourselves until it was over... and I, being a classic sci-fi geek, knew the source material was WAY ahead of its time, and fascinating... not just blood and guts.

@vancesnyder2426

Жыл бұрын

I believe Kurt Russell made the movie a classic.

I love how Quentin Tarantino took elements of JC’s “The Thing” into “The Hateful Eight”, especially when Kurt Russell’s character states “Someone here is not who they say they are”, QT stated The Thing was one of his favorite movies. The entire setting of The H8ful 8 is a salute to “The Thing”, a cabin, in the dead of a winter storm populated by a bunch of characters, many of whom are not who they say they are, and of course one of the leading roles played by Kurt Russel.

@supersilencer

Жыл бұрын

holy cow ! never though of that, now to think the atmosphere among the characters in The Hateful Eight is so tense, it really does resonates The Thing !

@polik971

Жыл бұрын

Oh , BTW , Ennio Morricone in both of them!

@d3nza482

Жыл бұрын

@@polik971 Actually, Ennio Morricone's music FROM The Thing is in The Hateful Eight.

@supersilencer

Жыл бұрын

@@d3nza482 ​ my mind is blown again

@rogershore3128

Жыл бұрын

I thought the Hateful Eight was more a tribute to a certain Christie novel to the point I even knew how the film was going to end because of it.

That so many supposedly educated critics came away feeling bad and not realizing that was the WHOLE point of the movie is kind of wild. You would think a movie that is both entertaining, and shocking, and with themes close to heart in the Cold War would be a hit with just about everyone. Goes to show just how badly America needed to reinforce its own exceptionalism after Viet Nam. We still haven't accepted our flaws.

@themug406

9 ай бұрын

Lol "Viet Nam"

@THall-vi8cp

9 ай бұрын

@themug406 The Vietnamese write it as Việt Nam. Two words.

that thing howl still gives me chills to this very day...even though I've seen this masterpiece of a movie at least 15 times...chills me to my core every time

@themorbidzoo

3 жыл бұрын

Same!

@terrystockton850

2 жыл бұрын

I just watched that scene again lol. It gets me every time.

@watamatafoyu

2 жыл бұрын

Yep. That's the #1 most gutteral effect of Carpenter's version, like someone is right on the line of losing their humanity and screaming out in nihilistic horror.

@BD-cv3wu

Жыл бұрын

You mean...some...Thing.

@jaleelel-shabazz5459

Жыл бұрын

You've only watched it 15 times, I've must have seen it at least 38 times. I just can't get enough of it!!

The original thing is genuinely one of my favorite movies of all time and the idea that people hated it when it first came out astounds me.

@almo2001

Жыл бұрын

Yeah they didn't like The Shining, either.

@elimgarak7330

Жыл бұрын

Maybe they just hate vegetables.

@salsamancer

Жыл бұрын

Sorry to be a douche about this but the 1982 movie was a remake as well, the original is from the 50s

The comparison between the narrative structure of the film and Maslow's heirarchy was really eye opening for me. I'd never thought of it in that context before and it definitely helps explain the process of designing fear as a product. That's always been difficult for me to put a finger on in these conversations, so thank you!

@themorbidzoo

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for watching! :)

@iestynne

Жыл бұрын

It's a good way to summarize how so many action oriented movies (past or present) fail to create any real tension. Not sure what that's evidence of, seems like a single class in movie school oughta clear that right up, there are so many great examples of how to do "urgent terror" well... so something else is going on there other than ignorance. Conflicting priorities within the studio?

To be fair, what used to scare me the most when i was younger with the practical effects was the unnatural movement. The jitter effect. And to be fair..... it still some how creeps me out more then the best CGI produced, smooth moving abominations. Also what one commentator pointed out, the difference between a creature that tries to survive and uses tactics instead of mindless attacks.

@xEvilNeverDiesx

Жыл бұрын

I'm not sure I agree about the unnatural movements, I mean it's unnatural movement I guess but it's how like a head stretching and popping off would look, because it's actually what you are seeing. I mean we know it's not a real head, but we are literally seeing a head stretching off a body then all the cords popping in real time. Where as with cgi it's someone's interpretation of what it looks like. But with real effects it's actually happening so all the unpredictable things and things someone wouldn't interpret actually happen naturally. Not sure I explained myself but hope you get what I mean. Also I do agree that it's unnatural even tho what you are seeing is how it naturally happens lol.

@matthewlawton9241

Жыл бұрын

I couldn't agree more. Old school 70s and 80s body horror was AMPLIFIED by the unnatural movement of the prosthetic effects. CGI utterly fails in this regard. The way fake skin wrinkles as it's pulled...or the way its tensile strength gives in "ropes" when it's pulled apart simply hasn't been replicated by cgi yet.

@0ooTheMAXXoo0

Жыл бұрын

Real life creatures and humans do not move so smoothly. Every movement is full of little jittery movements. That is why CGI in motion is so much more fake-looking than a still image can be. Not saying the old school animation is more realistic, but the new stuff is just as bad but for different reasons...

@Kurochana

Жыл бұрын

@@xEvilNeverDiesx I get what you mean yeah, good props will properly simulate the effects and physics of whats happening. What I really like about practical effects is how they look real for both the audience and the actors. The lighting is genuine and sometimes the actors really get spooked themselves, which makes for a very convincing screen experience. Practical effects also tend to be messier and grittier, CGI can look too "clean" at times and create an uncanny valley effect. I'm not against CGI, it is very useful and allows certain shots to be pulled off, but it does have a bad reputation because they do detract from the movie when they're done poorly. Props can and have been done poorly too, but CGI is a relatively new thing that has been spammed and the negative associations can stick to people after seeing their fair share of lousy CGI.

@mrreg

Жыл бұрын

My favorite scene in this film..is the "spider-head"..which scuttles away..because it appears just off the edge of the camera,just short of blindsiding the audience..and at the same time underlies the apparently unlimited resiliency of the creature...the fact that it takes a moment for Nawls to even see the thing...he's open-mouthed..the audience is open mouthed.

Solid analysis! Keep doing what you're doing! :)

@themorbidzoo

3 жыл бұрын

!! I love your videos, thanks for watching!

@Preceyese-Seyeght

3 жыл бұрын

You should commented this to my comment instead. Fits 1000 times better !!!

I saw The Thing when I was 13, the same day I saw ET. Of course, I loved both films for very different reasons. The Thing was one of those movies, that blew my mind. The tone, the isolation, the cold, the dark, the paranoia, the music, the effects, the performances.... masterpiece. Thank you John.

The JC version generates a subdermal feeling that stays with you after the movie is over. Things are not resolved, the tone hints towards a darker end. That we are isolated and alone no matter how many people are around us. This evaluation of The Thing was well done; the discussion, scene selection, and exploring conversational delivery is impressive.

@SarahNGeti

Жыл бұрын

Reminds me of Stephen King's *"The Mist"*

So the moral of the story is, CGI isn't the problem in the right hands and as long as they keep it grounded to the story being told and not going overboard like many do. With the kind of computing tech we have today, CGI should be able to look as real as the real thing in the right hands. The real problem is, people expect everyone that is doing CGI to have top end skill sets for the job but that just isn't how it works. For me, CGI isn't a problem anymore, what is the problem is the tools to create them and too many going overboard in what they try to do and not keep it ground, basically, too many newer movies are about the special effects and not the story but in the right hand with the right director, CGI artist and so on, they can make a masterpiece of a movie today.

@themorbidzoo

3 жыл бұрын

Wonderfully said!

@watamatafoyu

2 жыл бұрын

Yep, restraint is as valuable as fortitude.

@d3l3tes00n

Жыл бұрын

The biggest issue is that CGI folks are overworked, underpaid, & never given enough time to perfect anything anymore which is why it looks so bad these days depending on the movie.

@stevenscott2136

Жыл бұрын

@@d3l3tes00n Honestly, it usually looks fantastic -- it's just that it blends so well (backgrounds, spaceships, removal of things that don't belong, etc) that you don't realize you're seeing CGI. Some of the super-ambitious center-stage stuff looks odd -- usually because they're trying to create stuff that really DOES look odd -- monsters and such -- or because they make poor stylistic choices, like making things look too polished for what they are. And, of course, if it's not a billion-dollar blockbuster, there's the sort of thing you're talking about. I'm not denying that there's truth in your statement -- just pointing out that people overlook the immense success of CGI in creating effective illusion, in order to focus on its occasional failures.

@marmolejomartinezjoseemili9043

Жыл бұрын

And you can actually make a movie with both, good story and good cgi

I think you hit the nail on the head. The Thing (1982) is just better filmmaking. It's easy for a lot of people to blame, plot holes, or CGI when a movie doesn't work, but more often than not, it's simply that the writing and the filmmaking. The movies that people love today are littered with plot holes, and even great modern films use plenty of CGI, but when a movie connects with you, you don't notice that stuff, you just like it.

@themorbidzoo

Жыл бұрын

Exactly :)

@ublade82

Жыл бұрын

Exactly the REAL reason it's better is it's just better! Nail on the head!

@0ooTheMAXXoo0

Жыл бұрын

The CGI is why the plot and film was changed for the worse... I kid you not... There was a film with practical effects, effect tests on youtube look amazing, like Real life CGI actually, because of the lifelike robotic movements used by the special effects company. The studio literally wanted CGI because CGI was selling according to the math they use... They forced reshoots and changes and the film is nothing like planned as a result.

@mksmike

Жыл бұрын

When a movie is obviously bad it's more entertaining to look for flaws than to try to enjoy it.

@felidaefatalis

Жыл бұрын

Thank you! It used to drive me crazy when people acted like it was just the CGI that ruined the 2011 film. Cgi just another tool, it's not what makes or breaks anything.

This is where I think “annihilation” succeeded, by making Natalie Portman utterly powerless at the face of an unknowable unseen creature. The most fascinating part was seen how each evolution led to a more and more warped version of nature and reality itself.

@themorbidzoo

Жыл бұрын

Annihilation is an incredible movie. A rare successful cosmic horror film

@empanada65

Жыл бұрын

@@themorbidzoo I saw annihilation alone in a theater with maybe 5 people in it and was glued to the scream the whole time. It made me feel things I couldn’t describe and there were multiple times in the movie that I had to close my mouth because I had unknowingly left it hanging open. It’s a shame my friends and family never saw it’s charm. The soundtrack of the movie is half of its experience and the work that went into it was remarkable to witness

@levibull6063

Жыл бұрын

I was gonna watch it but I really couldnt care about the backstory of it ... like the characters life because it just makes me hate the character

@electraheart7745

Жыл бұрын

@@levibull6063 yo it was a good horror movie but it is based on a book so there a a lot of differences

@gearandalthefirst7027

Жыл бұрын

@@levibull6063 The Biologist is not supposed to be a likeable character, none of them are. You don't have to like the protagonist for them to be a protagonist.

I always felt Carpenter's version had his characters be that ambiguous so we the audience would be on our toes for who is who. We know as you said just the basic of what we need to know about each character through actions and emotions.

@k1productions87

Жыл бұрын

Its the fine line one must always walk. Its too easy to fall into the trap of giving main characters more focus than supporting characters,... and in a horror film this becomes the trap of "oh, okay, all those guys are gonna die, but these ones are not" and all the tension disappears. This is made even worse when you make a movie where the audience already knows the only survivors will be the pilot, and the Norwegian with bad aim. The setting itself demanded even greater care, but got less.

I'm a fan of the 2011 Thing (I saw it in theaters) and the 80s thing (I was traumatized by it as a child in the early 90s) and I, for the most part, agree with your analysis. Very perceptive observation about the characters in the 80s thing being dehumanized (called by names that aren't really "names") and not really connected to each other personally, but rather just resigned to being alone together. You really get a sense of that in the Carpenter version.

@carriersignal

9 ай бұрын

The names they were called by were their last names. It isn't that uncommon. We do it where I work often.

@spankytag

9 ай бұрын

@@carriersignal sure. We did it at a place I worked at too. It’s not uncommon in a work place but when it’s done in a move like this, it’s one of several choices Carpenter made to distance the characters from the viewer and each other

This helped me better understand why my immersion is so throughly broken when characters make puns all the time in action and horror movies. Also, romantic pursuits being established on screen have a similar affect. When I see two people flirting, my brain automatically assumes there’s no danger or urgency because you wouldn’t flirt in such a situation. So when the monster comes on screen the next scene, I’m already checked out. The social politics thing was a good point too. If you have energy to have a Twitter debate for example, you’re definitely not concerned about anything important relating to survival.

I just watched The Thing 2011 and I was so angry afterwards but I didn't know exactly why, since I am a huge fan of the 51 and 82 version... But not only you conveyed what I felt in words, this video even gave me goosebumps... Fantastic stuff, thank you

@themorbidzoo

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the watch :)

82 The Thing is my favorite film of all time. I have never heard someone compare the creature, and body horror as a whole, to real life deformations and parasites exactly the way you did. Very intriguing. Fantastic video!

@themorbidzoo

2 жыл бұрын

Ah thanks, much appreciated!!

@Cryogenius333

Жыл бұрын

A lot of these old horror films were inspired by real life things like that. The Fly from how gnarly and creepy insects look up close. The Blob from the rise in awareness of rapidly spreading slime molds, specifically a fast spreading slime mold that appeared somewhere in Texas. The Thing and Invasion of the Body Snatchers, They Live!, from the rising fears of alien abduction and the beliefs that Aliens were living amongst us.

I recently read "The mountains of madness" by H.P. Lovecraft, a story who shares some similarities with the Thing. (just a quick recap of this one : a scientiic expedition in Antartica discovers some strange and really ancient beings frozen in the ice, and later they find an entire city which used to be one these Elder things citadel) And something awesome with it, is about the Elder Things in this novel, is the fact that they ARE sentients. These are creatures who woke up in a laboratory after thousands of years of sleep. So when they were awaken, surrounded by strange ape-like and wolf-like beings trying to kill them while screaming, they freaked out ! This is something we can find in the 1982 "the thing", the fact that the monster is sentient, it knows it is vulnerable and fights for it's own survival. In the 2011 movie, it seems like it's just here to kill stuff and look bad. When I rewatch the scene of the dogs, I can't stop thinking : what the hell is happening in it's mind right now ?! Sadly, I don't find this dimension in the recent movie. Also, this video have 18 dislikes right now, but it's so good it should have none... I think there are 18 impostors among us...

@themorbidzoo

3 жыл бұрын

Hell yeah, it's a super Lovecraftian monster in 1982, one of those things that makes you feel little and meaningless, there but for the grace of god go my stupid self. I haven't read the mountains of madness in a long time, I might need to pick it up again. Thanks for the watch!!

@RogueDragon05

2 жыл бұрын

As far are the YT algorithm is concerned it registers both likes and dislikes the same as engagement so either way it helps promote the channel at least lol

@Cushla-np4pt

2 жыл бұрын

Ever read “the things” it does exactly that and it presents the thing itself as scared

@RogueDragon05

2 жыл бұрын

@@Cushla-np4pt You mean "Who Goes There?" I assume.

@Cushla-np4pt

2 жыл бұрын

@@RogueDragon05 uh no, here’s a link kzread.info/dash/bejne/mmF7j81yXdyXfqQ.html it’s really interesting

I feel the fact that puppets can't do backflips and you aren't free to jerk the camera all around them while they jiggle forward in a goofy jog helps with the cinematography sometimes. Makes every move of the camera more deliberate. Keeps things stationary and more intimate which is probably helpful in a movie like the thing.

This analysis is what got me to finally watch The Thing (1982) tonight with some friends who'd also never seen it. Great movie. I loved all your analysis points and shared most of them with my friends. You're absolutely right in one of your other videos when you said that this channel would get more people seeing your work than any amount of paper writing and publishing would do. And I say that having 1 published paper under my name already. Cheers and happy holidays!

@themorbidzoo

Жыл бұрын

Amazing, I’m glad you enjoyed it! Thanks so much and happy holidays to you too :)

You just perfectly encapsulated my main issue with the horror genre these days, particularly "creature features" because effects and technology have cone so far they focus on the IT more than the ambiance, more than plot building, character building, sound design, the tense moments and everything else around the IT. Thats one reason classic horror is so much more scary... a movie that scares you good will have turning on lights and pulling back shower curtains for weeks after viewing. It sits in the back of your mind and gnaws... I LOVE THAT. I miss that feeling.

@cincin4515

9 ай бұрын

Agreed. Most movies after 2013 are rubbish.

@DG-iw3yw

9 ай бұрын

Watched a movie called the void recently, saw it on a really low screen brightness the first time, really was an amazing movie, really scary. As soon as i rewatched it but on a brighter screen it really changed things. The shadows and dark bits of the screen really made the film unsettling, made all the monsters etc much more frightening, id recoomend watching a certain scary films you know are good with lower brightness, really turned it into a much more captivating film, not saying you do it so some aspects are not visible

Amazing video. You explained really simply the actual problems we see so much even today in the movie industry. The excess romantization kills the very core aspect of human beings: We are animals, crude and nasty when our life is threatened. The writing of characters and situations in a horror movie (or any other genre actually) should reflect that. That chaotic crudeness.

Finally watched the original thing after all these years and having seen the prequel first. This is a phenomenal and spot on analysis that deserves more recognition! Thank you for giving me something to think upon as I write my first body horror film.

6:15 I like your takes. The thing about Maslow's hierarchy is that it happens simultaniously, not in steps. The lower ones are more important, but they don't have to be fully statisfied before we go for the higher ones too. This has been established for some time now, but since most schools only teach the original theory they forget to mention it. And yes I would have hated any romance in this movie too, but it is possible. Fear of death brings people closer together or at least it can.

@themorbidzoo

Жыл бұрын

Mm that is important, thanks. And yes! A romance is not completely out of turn, just not *this* romance

You’re a bit harsh on The Thing’s special effects. No, they don’t always look real, but what matters is they are consistently unnerving to look at. As for the 2011 film, aside from the CGI removing the tangibility, it also looks too clean. One could say it makes sense that this creature wouldn’t be gushing out fluids as that would be counterintuitive to survival, but as you pointed out, this is about body horror and the psychology surrounding it. Same with how it’s presented in terms of movement. Yes, the 2011 creature comes off as a more effective killer, but at the expense of what made it disturbing in the first place.

@themorbidzoo

3 жыл бұрын

I would say they're unnerving because of their visual context. Their design is lovely and the artistry that went into them gorgeous, they're just a little hampered by the available tech. There's a happy medium I so wish 2011 had used, but I still don't think it would have saved it. Thanks for the watch and the comment!

@martinharris5017

2 жыл бұрын

@@themorbidzoo Don't forget context. I saw the film back in 82 and the fx were mindblowing at the time. Gruesome but dazzling. No one could figure out how they accomplished those transformation scenes. They only look a bit clunky in hindsight. But the Cg fx in the 2011 movie didn't look particularly great by 2011 standards. On every other point I agree with your analysis absolutely.

@themorbidzoo

2 жыл бұрын

​@@martinharris5017 I would argue that their effectiveness comes more from the artistry of the effects and photography. You don't have to literally think it's real to be amazed at it, and I think the viscerality of that amazement is functionally the same as thinking of it as real. For a CG example, Gollum looks a little bit clunky now and will continue to in the future, but all of the artistry behind bringing that character to life convinces you to overlook that (unlike in 2011 Thing). I take your point though, it's a minor difference in opinion :)

@martinharris5017

2 жыл бұрын

@@themorbidzoo Really well said! Interesting analogy and context: My youngest son (age 9) recently saw Jason And The Argonauts. His initial reaction was that the creatures looked a bit "fake and jerky" to use his words. So I explained that in the 1960s there was no CG or Motion Control, nor sophisticated animatronics, and I showed him a documentary in which Harryhausen demonstrated Stop Motion and compositing. He couldn't believe a man could have that much dedication and patience. Then we watched the famous skeleton battle together and his attitude was changed. He was overcome with wonder. "How did Harryhausen make all those little skeletons fight those full-size men so perfectly?" he gasped. "He was a genius Dad!". Like you said its the artistry and appreciation thereof that makes it "real".

@themorbidzoo

2 жыл бұрын

@@martinharris5017 that’s so cute :) way to teach your kid about film!

The effects people did do practical effects for the 2011 prequels in honour of Rob Bottin’s work on the 1982 movie. Word was that the movie execs thought the FX looked too “old school” and at last minute swapped out the practical effects with rushed CGI. The people who had worked so hard on the effects didn’t even know what the studio had done until they saw the movie themselves. Yet another example of Studio interference ruining a movie. I’d love to see the prequel, with all the original effects back in place.

Awesome review thank you! Very rarely do you get a review/analysis this well presented and thought out. Also all true.

A common theme I've noticed of media in the past 20 years is the lack of respect for violence. It makes horror/action media into a sugary, substance-less checklist. It's like music without proper bass. One movie that had loads of tension without the need for violence was "Session 9", which had a very similar atmosphere to The Thing.

@themorbidzoo

Жыл бұрын

Yesss totally agree

@BruceLee-xn3nn

Жыл бұрын

That new Dune movie was supposed to be a wattered down version.

i think a big problem with movies nowadays is that they keep using music for ever little thing. They never let a scene just stay quiet. Like when someone dies, its always just this music in the back saying "hey, feel sad" instead of just letting the power of the scene take center stage. When something big happens, you don't need a loud orchestra to tell you its a big deal, because the context of the scene is clearly enough for it and the music clouds what's going on. Instead, using music should really just be for setting the overall tone and environment of the current part in the plot.

@lidbass

Жыл бұрын

A very good point. Dune (the new one) was completely ruined for me by the appallingly over-bearing sound track. I spent half of the movie with my hands over my ears. Some directors seem to have forgotten how subtle music can have a greater effect. Or tricking the audience with the music, see Jaws. Instead we get cack-handed attempts at manipulation, usually because the plot/characterisation/dialogue is so poor.

@0ooTheMAXXoo0

Жыл бұрын

@@lidbass The new Dune had an amazing soundtrack IMO. One of the reasons to see the film IMO. The theater played the while film so loud that all the sound was distorting but the music was not overbearing any more than all the sounds... It just made me want to watch it again without the distortion...

@0ooTheMAXXoo0

Жыл бұрын

Nowadays we see more experimentation away from that standard way of doing things... Music all throughout is the old, standard way of doing things. It has always been rare to have more silence in movies...

@lidbass

Жыл бұрын

@@0ooTheMAXXoo0 Yes it was an amazing soundtrack. But too fucking loud. Almost all of my favourite films have large amounts of silence - or at least no music during important moments of dialogue - so I’m not entirely sure what you mean. I’m not against music in films; indeed it is very important but I like it to be subtle. If it works correctly, you should come out of the cinema without even noticing the soundtrack at all. If you become too aware of the music, it isn’t doing its job properly. (Unless, of course, the music is deliberately being used for an effect. I’m thinking of the recent Van Gogh biopic where the music was deliberately used to disorient the viewer, to help them get into the head of the artist. That isn’t the case with Dune!)

I feel like I'm totally binging your videos. Your creativity and insight are fantastic! :D

The part that the 2011 film did really well was the transition to Carpenter's film, where there was hysterical panic leading straight into dog chase with iconic music. That was an instance in the latter production that did capture the original film. This was a great analysis of the films.

I didn't know The Thing was panned when it came out. I was in High School at the time so I was the target demo. I was blown away and everyone I knew who saw it was as well. It was to horror what Star Wars was to SiFi. Absolutely terrifying! I feel sorry for Carpenter. To be fired after you make a masterpiece?!?!

@historyandhorseplaying7374

9 ай бұрын

I was in high school in the 80s too, and I must disagree with the commentator that the 80s were a "weird time". They were about as un-weird as is possible, which is one reason why this movie tanked at the time. Now the 70s, THOSE were weird.

@kroon275

9 ай бұрын

Same. I was 10 in '82 and literally everyone I knew, kids and adults thought the movie was amazing

This has been sitting in my watch later for at least a year now. I watched your video on Run, Hide, Fight and realized these were from the same channel; now I shall slip into a content binge. Your writing is absolutely lovely and you seem like a rippin' person!! Good day to you!!!

Love the Carpenter version of The Thing. Just brilliant. I own both films. The prequel isn’t really all that bad. It’s just not as good as the 1982 version. They are now trying to make a remake. Yes, Blumhouse is making it. Like he is now with The Exorcist. I guess they are truly running out of ideas! To me it’s sacrilegious to do this with these classic films that really don’t need a redo.

@specialk19611

9 ай бұрын

I don't typically see remakes as bad because even if they don't do well it gets people talking and can remind people about the original film and inspire a newer generation to watch the original out of curiosity. Sometimes I never know about an original movie until I have seen its remake. This was the case with this film and I preferred the original as well but still enjoyed the remake.

@DG-iw3yw

9 ай бұрын

Just lazy film industry men with zero creativity looking to get paid doing something totally unnecessary and thats had all the hard work done already

Awesome analysis. I would however, argue that the puppets from 1982 are not inferior to the CGI of 2011. CGI today is really getting there, but up until very recently, it tends to be over-animated. Plus, imagine how a limb would move if tendons, muscles, and joints were actively breaking down and and re-configuring themselves. Probably stiff and flimsy and awkward, like a puppet. I don't want to get too morbid, but if you've ever seen the beating of lungs inside a cut-open chest, it looks almost puppet-like. The visual line between actual sustained bodily harm and puppetry is far more blurred, than between CGI and actual sustained bodily harm. TLDR; puppetry (sometimes) outshines most modern CGI in realism. Little Shop of Horrors as my testament.

@grimnadirus1361

Жыл бұрын

Fantastic comment

@Fedorevsky

Жыл бұрын

Yes, CGI is getting nowhere even today. Just looks like a super highly detailed cut scene from a video game. Outside of a videogame setting it looks like shit. Only usable for inanimate objects and backgrounds. Anything else especially anything alive looks uncannily horrible and should be kept at a minimum and shrouded in darkness, layers of fog or other atmospherics never to see the light of day. The CGI era as we know it today is an abomination to moviemaking as an art. Lets hope it ends soon. Bring back the puppets.

@richardb8157

Жыл бұрын

@@Fedorevsky I agree that it's an abomination to the art of film. It's the fastest and cheapest route. Not a fan.

@mariawhite7337

Жыл бұрын

I think CGI Peaked completely with Lord of the Rings. Because that was pretty much the last time real hardcore effects artists were the ones doing the whole thing. That is why even now Gollum looks good. What brings an end to things is the basic thought that you 'fix it in post' mindset. As in every single thing is 'enhanced' or 'fixed' with CGI.

@e-money9251

Жыл бұрын

@@mariawhite7337 don’t necessarily agree with you that cgi peaked with the lotr trilogy but i do agree that the trilogy highlights how good cgi could be and age when done right, that is by combining it with practical effects and set pieces as well as mocap if possible. Too bad studios these days are too lazy and cheap to make those stuffs and would “just animate it and then we’ll layer it in stupid amount of texture to cover the cracks” or in your much simpler words “fix it in post”

Art is not about the paint, the brush, or even the artist's vision; it's about what it makes you FEEL The Thing is ART in its purest form

WOW....There was much more here than I anticipated.. Great video, thanks for posting..

This was a very insightful analysis. I had never thought about it before, but the narrator was right about the 2011 prequel being forgettable. Whenever I think about the best scifi horror films I never remember the 2011 version of The Thing, although, I did enjoy it. The original remake was one of the best and the prequel did fall short.

@themorbidzoo

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the watch and comment! :)

This was a much better overview of this movie than most I've seen on youtube. I saw this movie at a "projectionist screening" at the theater I worked at as a teenager before ANYONE else had a chance to see it. I was BLOWN AWAY! After the "Dogtown" scene both my friend and I turned to each other with a look that just said, "HOLY SHIT! THIS IS AMAZING!" We watched in raptured wonder for the entirety. Our little mall triplex had a weird tradition from this OLD SCHOOL theater manager who had been doing it for HIS ENTIRE LIFE, which was to put a quote from an employee about the movie. As I was the only one who had seen it, my description was "The scariest horror movie that's ever been made. Not for the squeamish". My friend and I watched it twice more for the two weeks it played at my theater. But we saw it again at a local drive in in October where, during the showing, it started to snow, ever so gently. Not so much as to obscure anything, but it was one of those "perfect moments". I've been heartened that this movie finally caught on. I've been a fan from my first viewing and it's one of those movies where because you can't see it again for the first time, the next best thing is when you find out one of your friends hasn't seen it, and YOU get to show it to them.

@worsethanhitlerpt.2539

9 ай бұрын

SHe pointed out the use of eye contact in the first movie that I missed somewhat also the heiarchy of human needs is not used in the second movie which made it stupid

I am so happy I saved this one for last. What an absolute banger! I'm also really happy I didn't force myself to watch it beforehand because now I actually do want to watch it somewhen for the monster, but feel better equipped to deal with he disappointment. Honestly, coming across your videos and the discussion in the comments and on your server have been a revelation, as well as really helping with a particularly dark time I'm having on the ole mind journey. I can't thank you enough. Truly wishing you the best on your own mind journey, studies, and the channel!

this is such an insightful video. This is the first time I'm hearing a full synopsis of this movie but it's clearly so well-thought out. I've never liked horror because I hate being uncomfortable but this is an incredible defense of the genre