Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CMelody t1_iugurnv wrote

Reply to comment by Dispositionpsn in The Thing (1982) -- the scene with MaReady checking on Blair in the cabin by darthvirgin

I saw several interviews with the prequel filmmakers, and they obviously have a lot of reverence for the Carpenter film and really strived to create a movie that would fit perfectly with it, plot wise.

I know a lot of people complain that using CGI instead of practical effects ruined the experience, but I don't think that was the problem. In The Thing, even years later many fans remember the character's names. There was something unique about all of them, and Carpenter was able to establish them all very quickly before shit started going wrong.

But there was no decent character development in the prequel. It seemed like we were watching a bunch of nameless Norwegian guys getting wiped out and there was no reason to root for any of them, and sadly Mary Elisabeth Winstead wasn't enough (love the actress, just not in this film). The audience needs to feel connected so there are stakes to their peril. A lot of screenplay sins can be forgiven if you like the characters you are watching onscreen.

12

HoboJack t1_iuh2nm6 wrote

I haven't watched the prequel but one of the most common complaints I have read is that the Thing reveals itself multiple times for no real reason, unlike in the 1980s film where it does its best to hide and only comes out when backed into a corner.

9

MattyKatty t1_iuh3ogx wrote

I somewhat agree and disagree with this assessment. Longtime fans would have rooted for the two Norwegians seen in the beginning of the 1982 movie, except only one is really shown at a decent length. I agree that they should have had more character development in that direction.

But I think having the Norwegians be separate from the main characters, in a suspicious way as they mumble to each other in a foreign language, was an interesting take on it. The language gap was a realistic barrier.

Edit: Also I made this comment before opening the actual conversation so I didn't know you commented on the language barrier above, though that was in reference to the 1982 movie.

1

Ok_You9503 t1_iuh5lri wrote

Yes, by far one of the best horror movies of all times.

1

Toadman005 t1_iuioj8b wrote

To say nothing of it filling in the unknown, and what it presented was never going to be as terrifying as our imaginations.

1

CMelody t1_iuiszfu wrote

I just watched a doc about the making of Jaws (there are a few, all worth a watch) where Spielberg admitted that the failure of the mechanical shark (and having to find creative ways to film the attacks) was a blessing in disguise. As you said, rarely seeing the monster can be so much more terrifying.

I think the same can be said of gore. There are people who think Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Halloween are total bloodfests, when really they aren’t. The killing mostly occurs out of frame, and the gore shown is quite tame compared to Friday the 13th or Hostel. What we imagined Leatherface and Michael Myers would do to their victims was scarier.

2

Toadman005 t1_iuitqjx wrote

Agreed 100%. Less is always more. Something seemingly lost on film makers today.

2

CMelody t1_iuix0vr wrote

I have seen so many horror films, love the genre but it is tough to unnerve me.

Imagine my surprise when Paranormal Activity freaked me the hell out. It is really kind of funny how effective it was considering it boils down to two people hearing strange noises in their house. Bloodless, never saw the entity, it was almost entirely suspense. Not getting a complete explanation of what was happening upped the creep factor.

3

Toadman005 t1_iuizdp8 wrote

That was the last real "scary" experience I had in theaters. God I loved that movie. At 2 am the next night though....not so much.

2

CMelody t1_iuj6r3b wrote

Been there. Lying awake in bed hearing strange creaks downstairs, being too chicken to investigate.

2

Toadman005 t1_iujahq9 wrote

Hell yes, the mind can really start to play tricks....gets the heart beating so hard, you swear the bed is shaking, and it's not you causing it...

2

CMelody t1_iujcv79 wrote

I remember reading Salem’s Lot as a kid, was so into it I stayed up until it was several hours past my bed time to finish it. I realized as I was groggy half dreaming that I’d left the light on in my closet with the door cracked open. I kept dreaming/hallucinating that a vampire was inside slowly opening the door. I was scaring myself so much I pulled my gothy cross earrings out of my jewelry box and put them on to protect myself if I fell asleep.

Felt so dumb the next morning when I woke up with the clunky earrings poking me.

2

dudinax t1_iugxquu wrote

I didn't watch the whole thing. What turned me off was adding Americans to it. Seemed like an obvious sop to the US market and not something the movie really needed.

−3

CMelody t1_iugyl6c wrote

I would have been fine with an all Norwegian film, and you're right that it felt like pandering to the market to have it in English. The language barrier while they investigated the Norwegian camp added to the mystery of the Carpenter film.

I have only seen it once when it first came out so I could be remembering wrong, but it felt like a retread of the first film in structure, too. Maybe that is why the other redditor assumed it was a remake rather than prequel.

2