This movie is everything people claim to hate. - The Thing (1982) Discussion

[–] [deleted] 7 months ago

This movie is like the Transformers or Fast & Furious of horror. The only thing missing from the 'low brow entertainment checklist' is a cracking pair of tits. I mean we've got fist fights, shooting, flamethrowers, sticks of dynamite, a bunch of over the top gore and the ending has a lot of really big explosions. It's like a Michael Bay movie.

You know how cinephiles turn their nose up at people who don't like Citizen Kane or whatever, they say shit like, "maybe go watch fast and furious 22 kid, that's more your speed."

I feel like The Thing should be used in that manner, when someone says they didn't care for The Thing From Another World they should be told they have ADHD and should watch the 1982 version. Or if the latest A24 hipster horror bullshit is getting dragged for being boring you should tell the criticizer to go watch The Thing, because they clearly need gore and explosions to have a good time.

I've seen people criticize remakes like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) for being a 'soulless' big budget revamp that relies on gore. Sounds like The Thing (1982)!

reply

[–] Martoto (5190) 7 months ago

Have you even read the reviews of The Thing in 1982?

Do you know that Martin Scorsese ranks it as one of the top horror movies and favourite of his by a "quintessential" classic Hollywood/American filmmaker?

Do you even care that within ten years the general consensus had already recovered to the point where the hostility on its release was considered to be a reflection to the predominant more family friendly adventure movies at the time?

The original movie had fights, explosions, tommy guns, electrocutions, fires, bondage and wisecracking reporters. I guess that must be trash too?

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 months ago

I value Martin Scorsese's opinion as much as I do yours or any other user on here. I don't understand why people take a movie makers opinion as gospel. I consider him to be an overrated director by the way.

Roger Ebert, a respected critic, wasn't a fan of The Thing (1982). One could easily co-opt his take instead of Scorsese's.

I like gore, explosions and all that. It would probably be better if people admitted they like this movie because it's gore and explosions, instead of acting like it's high art. I saw someone say that people who prefer the 2011 prequel over this are kids with ADHD that need explosions every minute. Some people just default to 'old movie = good, for attentive and mature audiences' & 'new movie = bad, for attention deficit and immature audiences'. They were talking like John Carpenter's The Thing is 12 Angry Men or something, a bunch of dudes talking for 110 minutes, which was hilarious. It's like they've never watched the movie before.

When it comes to this movie vs the 2011 one. All people can point out is the fact this has practical FX and the prequel has CGI. That's the only criticism they can think of (other than blatant misogynistic complaining about women being cast!). Honestly the 2011 movie has superior pacing, acting and characterizations in my opinion. It the 1982 movie is a masterpiece then so must the 2011 one.

Unfortunately some movies just get latched onto by the hive and propped above all others. Such as people saying Halloween (1978) is a flawless masterpiece and far superior to every other slasher movie that ever existed. It's a man in a mask stalking and killing horny babysitters. When asked what makes it better than Friday the 13th, My Bloody Valentine, The Burning, Scream or whatever, you know what people say? The music! They think it's the best thing since sliced bread because they like the theme tune. A bizarre reason to prop a movie above all others.

reply

[–] Martoto (5190) 7 months ago

Martin Scorsese doesn't think the movie is the equivalent of Transformers or Fast & The Furious. That's your opinion, which I have never seen expressed elsewhere. Whose words do you want me to "treat as gospel"?

Roger Ebert got caught reviewing movies he hadn't seen. I liked the guy but he is in no way a key influencer on my opinions.

By the way. Quoting a filmmaker because it undermines your claims about how the movie has been or should be perceived by people doesn't mean I treat their opinion like gospel. I formed my own opinions long before I ever learned of Scorsese's appreciation. If you're going to claim to know what people say, generally speaking, I'm going to quote actual people saying things.

All your anecdotes about what people, or a person once said (funny, I thought we weren't supposed to place too much stock in others opinions, but this whole thread is 100% your reaction to what people, or a person, have said, or what you imagine might be saying) are of as much worth as your original claim about F&F and Transformers.

Another funny thing is how you imply that praise for this movie is weak, hack criticism re physical effects and music. And yet you gleefully invoke Michael Bay, one of the weakest laziest "critiques" to become popular these past two decades.

In fact none of your claims have any real basis in reality. Except for the fact that a specific type of criticism/hostility was direct at the movie and that the movie did suffer from the perception that it was nothing more than a gross out exercise that they used the name of a classic 50s horror to subject the audience to. Anyone with half a brain looks at the Thing now (and ever since the early nineties in fact) and chuckles at the squeamishness of those critics.

Has a Transformers or a Fast & Furious movie ever gone from being literally attacked by critics and tanking at the BO, then become critically and popularly acclaimed and successful in home video within the space of ten year?

reply

[–] jk90us (8232) 2 days ago

>The original movie had fights, explosions, tommy guns, electrocutions, fires, bondage and wisecracking reporters. I guess that must be trash too?

Yeah but no tits.

We needed to see Margaret Sheridan’s tits, dammit!

reply

[–] Threadkiller (3089) 7 months ago

An interesting take that certainly goes against the grain. I disagree but an interesting take nonetheless. For me it was never about the bloody spectacle or action scenes that made this movie interesting for me. With all the (well deserved) praise for the practical horror effects & designs, for me it was mainly the tone/atmosphere that makes the film special.

The slow buildup of something foreboding and terrible to come. That arctic setting is almost a character itself and it adds to the sense of isolation, claustrophobia as paranoia that slowly takes over. The score also does a very good job of aiding to this atmosphere.

reply

[–] Callahan7 (1204) 7 months ago

Black Christmas was an excellent film. If that is what your username is based on it is a good choice. Some fine acting performances. Margot Kidder in particular.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071222/

I am surprised that a poster with your username would make these excoriating comments about another great film. Unless you are trolling.

"Get rejected by audiences. Blame it on [insert reason here]."

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying the film didn't make money? Or something else? Some great films have done poorly at the box office.

Highly rated by many sources including IMDB. The Thing (1982) is a great film that has become a classic.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 months ago

I like The Thing a lot, though I do consider it overrated and find the insane over the top praise inexplicable, I'm not trolling so much as playfully busting the balls of the people who think it's high art and head and shoulders above everything else. Everything I said in the opening post is true and my opinion. It's a remake that added a lot of 'low brow' entertainment. It's legitimately something that people complain about in other remakes/sequels/copycats but give a pass to certain movies.

I mean people praise The Thing, The Fly, The Blob as 'remakes done right'. They say they took dated movies and utilized the more advanced techonology (special FX, bigger budgets) to improve upon the tamer originals. I would agree with that, but people don't give newer releases the same praise. I've seen remakes from the 21st century get shit on for being big glossy, gore reliant uninspired/soulless remakes. I've seen that criticim thrown at The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hills Have Eyes, Evil Dead, Friday the 13th, Halloween and so on.

It's the double standard a lot of movie fans use that bothers me. The truth is, I think, that it's not remakes or gore that bothers people, it's just a lot of people have a love affair for the 70s & 80s (largely due to nostalgia) and prop those movies above all else. That is to say that remakes from the 70s & 80s of older movies were improvements, whilst remakes from the 00s & 10s of movies from the 70s & 80s were vastly inferior (according to these pople). It's not the act of remaking or 'relying on gore' that is bothering them.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 months ago

On the topic of double standards and The Thing. One of the major talking points about this movie is the 'special fx' (gore). In truth I think a lot of people like this movie because it's gore and explosions in Antartica (that is cool of course!). Yet I've seen people prop Halloween (1978) over all later slashers because they all 'tried one-up it in the gore deparment, Halloween is special because it's gore free and relises on suspense'.

I've seen people say the same about The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974), how it's super duper special because it has no gore in it. These same people will then rant and rave about their love for Tom Savini, movies like The Thing, Re-Animator, The Evil Dead, The Fly... I guess I'd like some consistency with regards to gore. Do horror fans like it or not? Does it make a movie better?

I feel like people operate on a 'I have to prop this classic above others' modus operandi, if the 'classic' is gore free then that's classy and the best way to do it but when a classic is gory, chockfull of nudity, or whatever then that's why it's superior to later movies. There is no consistency.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 months ago

To continue my rambling.

I've seen the 'torture porn' era of movies, such as Saw, Hostel, the new wave of French extremism, etc, etc. get derided for being nothing more than sick entertainment for freaks who like to jerk off to gory scenes.

Believe it or not I've seen some of the very users who say shit like that then list their favorite horror movies in other topics. Yes you guessed it they name movies like The Thing, The Evil Dead, Re-Animator and The Fly. It boggles the mind.

Oh and people drag found footage horror or supernatural horror movies that are gore free for being 'nothing more than jumpscares, very tame and sanitized, borderline PG-13'. So yeah, who knows what the fuck people want from a horror movie.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 months ago

[deleted]

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 7 months ago

Poltergeists were the zeitgeist back then.

Remaking it now would be like remaking the at Bermuda Triangle film.

reply

[–] GrayBush (100) 2 days ago

And they'll never get anyone as good looking as Kurt Russell in a beard to play the part.

reply

[–] WandererFromYs (2406) 7 months ago

Poltergeist was remade 2015, it was forgettable.

reply

[–] DoctorThirteen (15297) 7 months ago

Had a good cast though. Sadly they were thoroughly wasted.

reply

[–] ShogunofYonkers (78545) 7 months ago

This is possibly the best remake of a so-so horror movie ever made.
Groundbreaking special effects, a great cast, a tighter script. It easily puts the original to shame.

reply

[–] pjl69 (2647) 7 months ago

Yeah, but you're not edgy by saying so.

I think Cronenberg's The Fly is even better remake, though.

reply

[–] ShogunofYonkers (78545) 7 months ago

Nobody is attempting to be ‘edgy’ you twit. That’s an honest opinion.

Tell your Mom I say hello❤️

reply

[–] pjl69 (2647) 7 months ago

"Nobody is attempting to be ‘edgy’ you twit."

I'm sure the OP is trying to.

reply

[–] ShogunofYonkers (78545) 7 months ago

Oh, not me.
I’m a really straight shot.

Maybe don’t be a crybaby..

Be less of a target.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 months ago

This is a complex joke. I don't think the average person is going to pick up on the fact that you're not being serious.

reply

[–] Martoto (5190) 7 months ago

But, like Arvotac's attempts at this kind of humour, there isn't a single piece of credible, linear truth in the OP that justifies provoking an examination of people's attitudes. Particularly since it relies on discrediting the value of people's opinions, and then relies on presumed value that the OP places on other's opinions, (some of which don't actually exist) and winds up being dictated by those opinions more than the imaginary people the OP is attempting to criticise.

reply

[–] peter_t_2k3 (1053) 7 months ago

The problem is it's hard to know if someone is being serious or not online

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 months ago

True.

reply

[–] peter_t_2k3 (1053) 7 months ago

[deleted]

[–] diezman (2241) 2 days ago

You make some good points.

I don't remember a lot of marketing for this film back in 1982. Don't remember a preview in the theater or trailers on TV. The first time I heard of The Thing was from an ad in Fangoria or Famous Monsters.

The first time seeing this movie was on HBO a year after it was released in theaters.

reply

[–] jk90us (8232) 2 days ago

It isn’t a reboot of the 50s film, it’s another more faithful adaptation of the original short story.

It also added the graphic horror it deserved and couldn’t be included in the first film.

But if you don’t like what is considered by many to be one of the greatest sci-fi horror films ever made, just don’t watch it.

I’ve seen it several times and I’ll continue to do so.

reply