Thank you for this pearl of wisdom. I have learned my lesson! I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT OH HOLY ONE! *Bows* I'LL TELL THEM YOUR MESSAGE! JUST DON'T GO!Nurb said:
XD
Escape to the Movies: The Thing
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
XD
I watched the review before going to see this movie today and I also watched the Carpenter film a couple weeks ago. I thought the new movie was just as good. The pacing was the same in both films. If you saw the Carpenter film you knew everyone was going to die anyway, so there was no surprise there. I didn't really see any merit to the complaints Movie Bob made. I am honestly beginning wonder if Movie Bob actually watches all the movies he reviews or if he just watches the trailers for some of them and finds crap in there to ***** about.
I've yet to see the movie, so I can't really defend or attack it, but there is something I'd like to say: something tells me that several people here have already had it in their mind that they were going to hate this movie long before the movie was even released.
Okay, obviously that doesn't apply to everyone, rather I'm just saying that appears to be the vibe I'm getting from these comments. What I find interesting to are the people who say "Oh, it's not suspenseful at all, it has none of the paranoia and is just creature chases and scares!", mostly because on reflection, how else could it have been done? I'm willing to bet that had this movie stayed true to all of that and was basically the 82 version again, people would just say "It's the same damn movie, just watch the original!", and since I'm sure thats what the director thought the reaction would be like if they did that, he decided to change it.
Again, I haven't seen it so I can't say if this is fully true or if it works, but from what I'm hearing this is again filed with alot of chase sequences and jump scares, to which I think to myself "That's the only way it could work". Seeing as how we already now what the end conclusion is going to be because of the intro to the 82 version, simply doing a stealth creature seems rather odd. Think about it, the Thing itself in the prequel would be un-aware of the harm humans can pose to it, confidant that it's strong enough on it's own to just face the humans head on without having to use most of it's survival techniques, which I'm guessing in turn leads to it learning the hard way that humans can harm it pretty easily, which in turn seems to turn the Thing to a confident and cocky brute (2011 version) to a nervous yet strategic hunter (1982 version). This difference in character type means that the pace of the movie will also be different. After all, having a brutish creature in a stealth and suspense setting would be like trying to snipe someone with a chainsaw, different but impractical. That said, I'm open to the idea that this may be wrong once I see the movie, so this won't be a definitive response or defense untill then, rather speculation based on what I've heard.
As for the CG debate, I must say that the 82 versions effects were tremendous, expecially for it's time and in some cases even today (although there are effects towards the end that aren't as impressive and haven't really aged that well), and I will also say that I do indeed find practical effects (only in Horror movies mind you) to be more effective than CG, and even when not as effective the offness of the practical effects help to lend to a sense of distrubance that the offness of CG can't really capture. That said however, when I heard that the same studio that did the CG for this did the CG for District 9, it made me wonder if the complaints about the CG come from people who were purposefully looking for something to complain about as oppossed to actual problems that the studio should've noticed.
Okay, obviously that doesn't apply to everyone, rather I'm just saying that appears to be the vibe I'm getting from these comments. What I find interesting to are the people who say "Oh, it's not suspenseful at all, it has none of the paranoia and is just creature chases and scares!", mostly because on reflection, how else could it have been done? I'm willing to bet that had this movie stayed true to all of that and was basically the 82 version again, people would just say "It's the same damn movie, just watch the original!", and since I'm sure thats what the director thought the reaction would be like if they did that, he decided to change it.
Again, I haven't seen it so I can't say if this is fully true or if it works, but from what I'm hearing this is again filed with alot of chase sequences and jump scares, to which I think to myself "That's the only way it could work". Seeing as how we already now what the end conclusion is going to be because of the intro to the 82 version, simply doing a stealth creature seems rather odd. Think about it, the Thing itself in the prequel would be un-aware of the harm humans can pose to it, confidant that it's strong enough on it's own to just face the humans head on without having to use most of it's survival techniques, which I'm guessing in turn leads to it learning the hard way that humans can harm it pretty easily, which in turn seems to turn the Thing to a confident and cocky brute (2011 version) to a nervous yet strategic hunter (1982 version). This difference in character type means that the pace of the movie will also be different. After all, having a brutish creature in a stealth and suspense setting would be like trying to snipe someone with a chainsaw, different but impractical. That said, I'm open to the idea that this may be wrong once I see the movie, so this won't be a definitive response or defense untill then, rather speculation based on what I've heard.
As for the CG debate, I must say that the 82 versions effects were tremendous, expecially for it's time and in some cases even today (although there are effects towards the end that aren't as impressive and haven't really aged that well), and I will also say that I do indeed find practical effects (only in Horror movies mind you) to be more effective than CG, and even when not as effective the offness of the practical effects help to lend to a sense of distrubance that the offness of CG can't really capture. That said however, when I heard that the same studio that did the CG for this did the CG for District 9, it made me wonder if the complaints about the CG come from people who were purposefully looking for something to complain about as oppossed to actual problems that the studio should've noticed.
That thing joke you put in there was bad, but the permission to laugh joke was funny.
Of course, the Avengers trailer joke was the best.
Of course, the Avengers trailer joke was the best.
I was expecting a flamethrower joke, but otherwise good review. Not really looking forward to the movie but I'll watch it anyway.
Yeah I have an Xbox, an original and the 360mcnally86 said:
. I will have to find it for my Xbox now.
i love the 1982 version. its simply awesome. had a feeling that this new version would suck. so i will keep missing out on that one and maybe rent it on dvd when i have nothing better to do.
but for now, i watch the carpenters version
but for now, i watch the carpenters version
Before I even watch this review I can see from the comments I'm gonna have something to ***** about. Almost every other person is talking about the fucking Avengers Trailer? Seriously? Is this a show about reviewing trailers? I'm just gonna guess that he threw it in as that in the middle of the credits info thing and his fans are just stupid; giving people the benefit of the doubt is healthy sometimes.
Oh goddamnit, really? It's not just his fans? Bob is really just gone that far over the deep end? Fuck you Bob, and fuck the escapist for not wising up to his stupid shit by now!
Oh apparently it was an unfunny... well I guess you can't call it a joke if it isn't funny. I guess you can call it filler then? Intentionally trying to waste our time since even he knows he has nothing of substance to actually say about this travesty of a movie? Either way, sorry about the outburst *pops some chill pills*
Oh I didn't know the girl in this was Ramona from Scott Pilgrim. Cool. Good to know her career already peeked I guess. It is kinda cool hearing him talk about, you know, cinematography which is something not a lot of reviewers talk about since everyone usually chats about the story and characters when in horror movies the art of the camera is just as important, but it comes off as a cock tease since he immediately moves on to the story/characters blah blah blah way too soon.
Also I have a pet peeve about using the same word twice in a row. Couldn't come up with a synonym for dull? Hell Bob I'm surprised you didn't use boring so you could have stretched it out and padded out the review even more. I'd be impressed if I didn't think it was a choice done out of lazyness instead of trying to improve.
I'm also tempted to bring up Yahtzee's little anti-hyped theory. If you keep raising your expectations, it doesn't matter how good the movie is gonna be, you'll be disappointed.
Really I'd rather just watch Spoony's video of it. It may be 40 minutes long, but at least it's 40 minutes actually talking about the movie instead of just two mins out of a five minute video with the rest of the space filled with trite bullshit.
Oh goddamnit, really? It's not just his fans? Bob is really just gone that far over the deep end? Fuck you Bob, and fuck the escapist for not wising up to his stupid shit by now!
Oh apparently it was an unfunny... well I guess you can't call it a joke if it isn't funny. I guess you can call it filler then? Intentionally trying to waste our time since even he knows he has nothing of substance to actually say about this travesty of a movie? Either way, sorry about the outburst *pops some chill pills*
Oh I didn't know the girl in this was Ramona from Scott Pilgrim. Cool. Good to know her career already peeked I guess. It is kinda cool hearing him talk about, you know, cinematography which is something not a lot of reviewers talk about since everyone usually chats about the story and characters when in horror movies the art of the camera is just as important, but it comes off as a cock tease since he immediately moves on to the story/characters blah blah blah way too soon.
Also I have a pet peeve about using the same word twice in a row. Couldn't come up with a synonym for dull? Hell Bob I'm surprised you didn't use boring so you could have stretched it out and padded out the review even more. I'd be impressed if I didn't think it was a choice done out of lazyness instead of trying to improve.
I'm also tempted to bring up Yahtzee's little anti-hyped theory. If you keep raising your expectations, it doesn't matter how good the movie is gonna be, you'll be disappointed.
Really I'd rather just watch Spoony's video of it. It may be 40 minutes long, but at least it's 40 minutes actually talking about the movie instead of just two mins out of a five minute video with the rest of the space filled with trite bullshit.
Considering a good number of the people here said "Well I knew it would be bad but I'm gonna watch it anyway" you're probably wasting your time with that one.Nurb said:
I love that last week was Kirby for the wii, and now this week was Mario for the 3DS.
Its a rare find to have a reviewer like nintendo.
Then again maybe my vision is being scewed by 4chan and the constant "Nintendo is kiddy" and "Rehashes, Rehashes everywhere"
Its a rare find to have a reviewer like nintendo.
Then again maybe my vision is being scewed by 4chan and the constant "Nintendo is kiddy" and "Rehashes, Rehashes everywhere"
The Avengers trailer was the best damn trailer of anything. I cannot wait, I am going to love it sooo much. I havn't been paying much attention to Super Mario 3D Land, but a blue shelled Mario with a boomerang is freaking awesome.
Anyway this movie... not really interested in it. Still it looks better than The Human Centipede 2. This review was fun to watch. Maybe its because you put The Avengers trailer in. God I loved that.
Anyway this movie... not really interested in it. Still it looks better than The Human Centipede 2. This review was fun to watch. Maybe its because you put The Avengers trailer in. God I loved that.
As a teenager, I watched the '82 film because of Kurt Russell. You know, the guy from "Escape from L.A.","Tango&Cash" and "Tequilla Sunrise" and of course I liked his acting and I was even quite impressed by Keith David's performance.
But this new film, what kind of actors are playing in their? Did they play in good films before? Did they play at all?
It's not only about CGI or not, its about chosing the right actors for the job (and of course the money involved to hire good ones).
But this new film, what kind of actors are playing in their? Did they play in good films before? Did they play at all?
It's not only about CGI or not, its about chosing the right actors for the job (and of course the money involved to hire good ones).
I'm really surprised at the bad reception this movie is getting. I just saw it last night, and color me impressed. The amount of detail that they give attention to is pretty amazing - the plot fluidly moves from the ending right into the beginning of the 1982 film. The acting was pretty decent, especially from Mary Elizabeth, and there was a surprising lack of sexuality that so many movies find obligatory these days. The way Bob suggests that SOME kind of sexual tension was necessary bothers me.
The CGI effects don't really compare to the effects used in the original, but they were still pretty damn good. I feel this film really exemplified what the creature was fully capable of.
The CGI effects don't really compare to the effects used in the original, but they were still pretty damn good. I feel this film really exemplified what the creature was fully capable of.
I can't. I AM NOT IN THE CORRECT AREA OF SERVICE. I THINK SOMEONE MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT AMAZON EARLIER. THIS IS ALL IN CAPITALS BECAUSE CAPS LOCK IS STUCK.
Came back from watching it last night. You know what? It's not bad. However 2 scenes of CGI looks rather poor meanwhile the rest is fantastic. The character development is short and you cant expect to laugh, cry, hate and somewhat grow with every character in the movie, and if you do its brief however that would change the entire damn atmosphere.
Indeed The Thing could almost be called a remake however they have done a fine job connecting the pieces to lead into the previous installment without repeating the same scenes. I walked in expecting to be a bit disappointed thanks to Bob's bashing and yet I was pleasantly satisfied.
They do not lack gore in the middle of the film btw, its fantastic
So I suppose I should not take Bobs opinion so seriously anymore. He is just a comic book man.
Indeed The Thing could almost be called a remake however they have done a fine job connecting the pieces to lead into the previous installment without repeating the same scenes. I walked in expecting to be a bit disappointed thanks to Bob's bashing and yet I was pleasantly satisfied.
They do not lack gore in the middle of the film btw, its fantastic
So I suppose I should not take Bobs opinion so seriously anymore. He is just a comic book man.
Spoony and the Cinema Snob ripping this POS a new one:
http://spoonyexperiment.com/2011/10/14/vlog-10-14-11-the-thing
http://thecinemasnob.com/2011/10/15/reviews-trespass-and-the-thing-2011.aspx
http://spoonyexperiment.com/2011/10/14/vlog-10-14-11-the-thing
http://thecinemasnob.com/2011/10/15/reviews-trespass-and-the-thing-2011.aspx
Hah! Low expectiations means i don't lose anything!
The movie itself is a classic in its genre and there're few things that can meassure up to something of that status. So yeah, i think i WILL watch the original instead, but i'm still gonna have some popcorn while watching it >_>
Also, i would've been completely satisfied with cutting off where you did, but oh well... To the youtube website!
The movie itself is a classic in its genre and there're few things that can meassure up to something of that status. So yeah, i think i WILL watch the original instead, but i'm still gonna have some popcorn while watching it >_>
Also, i would've been completely satisfied with cutting off where you did, but oh well... To the youtube website!
My problem with CG:
Physical effects (modelling and make-up) made you ask, "How did they do that?"
CG makes you ask, "How much processing power did they need to render that?"
The answer to the latter question will never be interesting.
Physical effects (modelling and make-up) made you ask, "How did they do that?"
CG makes you ask, "How much processing power did they need to render that?"
The answer to the latter question will never be interesting.