Do you think the special effects got carried away maybe? - The Thing (1982) Discussion

[–] GorchBrother 8 years ago

I see what you're saying but spaceship or no spaceship in the opening scene, people were already expecting a remake of The Thing (From Another World)

Build up suspense is one way to do it. Would the audience experience the paranoia of the men in the base as well if the director is constantly priming us for the next thing out?

I think the dog revelation was quite well built up before it went crazy. Seeing a spaceship at the beginning didn't really tell us anything about the dog that we shouldn't have known until the point in the story that it tries to imitate the other dogs.

Most of the time, the suspense is in what the men are going to do next. Essentially we are caught up in their story until it becomes apparent which of them is not a man at all.

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

reply

[–] scochs-1 8 years ago

My opinion is: No, I don't think the SFX got carried away. (<- Total fanboy perspective.)

I'd read about critics reaction to the gore. I was about 10 when the movie came out, and no movie went as far as The Thing 82 did (That I can think of) at that time. I can empathize with the critics observation. Perhaps other worldly entities were to be perceived through the rose colored glasses of that DOUCHE E.T. 

To me, this movie set the bar. I even like how the Prequel "attempted" to expand upon that, and the CGI had some great moments, but couldn't quite deliver.

IMDB - Because some Trolls need more than just a bridge

reply

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

Well I agree that the prequel is worse.

I don't have a problem with the gore necessarily per say. I just didn't like how the gore was delivered perhaps, as I thought it might have been delivered too soon, without enough build up.

The gore later on was fine though. In some scenes the special effects look like they were trying to hard though.

Those stringy things that came out of the dog looked kind of fake, and if they just would have showed it from the humans POV, you can still have the gore from their POV without needing to show the effects in close up, cause in close up, it doesn't have the same effect, compared to showing it from a characters POV, if that makes sense.

reply

[–] scochs-1 8 years ago

I understand where you're coming from. I personally think the GORE OVERKILL was totally legitimate based on the build up that was there, prior to the Kennel Scene:

Chasing a dog down with a helicopter? The Norwegian Camp Slaughter (Split-face/gruesome suicide?) The Ship Crater & VHS footage?

Those mysteries preceded the Kennel Scene and for me "Strange and Pissed Off" was the ultimate pay off to "what in the hell is really going on!"

IMDB - Because some Trolls need more than just a bridge

reply

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

I didn't mind the gore later on, I just think that the first half, gave away too much, too soon.

Another thing I forgot to mention is that in the first act, they show the dog go into a room, and you see a shadowy figure of one of the human's take notice of the dog and stop back sort of.

You know that something bad is going to happen to this person, as the screen fades to black. The fade to black and the shadowy reaction give away too much. I think it would have been more exciting, if this scene was cut, and we find out by complete surprise later, what the dog did to that character.

I think that by having that scene, along with the spacecraft opening, and showing the dog transform, close up, out of the human's POV, Carpenter has a tendency to foreshadow too much perhaps.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] scochs-1 8 years ago

^LMFAO

IMDB - Because some Trolls need more than just a bridge

reply

[–] bluefishbythesea 8 years ago

I liked the way they shot the first thing scene coming out of the dog, it was very dark so you didn't quite see it all the way, plus it sets the tone for the absolute paranoia these men were facing, and the effects/gore get better and better, I wouldn't change a thing.

reply

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

Maybe I saw a different version but the one I saw, you see The Thing coming out of a close up of the dog's face. I guess I just felt like it was revealing too much too soon. As oppose to something like Jaws, where they keep giving build ups here and there, before full on reveal, if that makes sense.

reply

[–] GorchBrother 8 years ago

What did it reveal too soon? The tension that drives the movie is the outrageous and unpredictable nature of the thing. It's after this scene of pandemonium - with a seemingly normal dog turning its face inside out and then into a pod worm thing then a crab with whipping tentacles and then into a large pulsating mass reaching out with with powerful arms and has eyes dotted indiscriminately all about its hide which then opens up to reveals a stalk with fans out in to a disc of tongues studded with teeth - that the men realise that any one of them could have been similarly affected just as they conclude the Norwegians succumbed to this Thing.

I don't think there's a comparison with Jaws. It's not a mystery that there is a shark in Jaws. The true size and power of the shark is held back and revealed in increments, but it's not like a shark is ambiguous. We know what they do and how they scare us.

The whole point of the THING is that there is no definable threat except that no-one knows who is the thing and what it will do next or how. The physical size of the threat is not an incremental problem. It's who you can or can't trust and the tension that spreads like a disease.

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

reply

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

I guess I just felt like it was revealing too much too soon. As oppose to something like Jaws, where they keep giving build ups here and there, before full on reveal, if that makes sense.

Gorch's explanation is idiotic, totally missing your point. Whether it's a shark, what we're familiar with, or an alien, what we're unfamiliar with, is a piss poor comparison on gorch's part.

This snot nose kid gorch's moronic logic is because we are unfamiliar with the alien and unaware of it's capabilities, that's why we got an early in your face full display of the alien and what it can do. I get your point, Alien 79 pulled off exactly what you are getting at. A creature we are unfamiliar with and unaware what it's capable of, is revealed only in fragments over the course of the film.

But keep in mind, gorch revealed in another thread he thinks the actors didn't read the script, that's his ridiculous argument why the actors didn't know which characters turned into a Thing until it was actually filmed. You're dealing with an imbecile here, don't bother with him or he will sick his sock puppets on you.

-------------------------
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces.

reply

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

Okay thanks. I don't have any feelings towards Gorch in that way, I am just going to discuss the movie when I say this... but I felt that even though we are unfamiliar with the alien, that is what would make revealing things in fragments more exciting. I guess I just felt that the shot of the alien spaceship flying towards Earth gives too much away, along with the shot of the dog going into a room and you see the shadow of the dog get close to a person. I thought it was too much foreshadowing.

I also felt that it would have been more effective, if after the dog was locked back up, they showed the humans talking, and then could hear barking coming from outside. They then go out too look, and we see from their point of view, the alien trying to take over the other dogs, already in the process.

That way, the audience is just as confused as the humans are, and they are not fed any foreshadowing that the characters are not.

reply

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

Both Alien and The Thing present a mysterious and hostile alien. It's really just two different styles. Alien is slow burn, The Thing is in your face. I understand your point Carpenter could have taken the slow burn route, which works so great for Alien. Honestly I don't know if it would be as effective for The Thing to go the slow burn route because the problem there is, back then the film had already been accused of copying elements of Alien. If Carpenter had made it a slow burn reveal, the comparisons to Alien would even be greater.

One thing for sure, revealing the alien's true terror early in the film, launches the parade of paranoia we witnessed throughout the film in grand fashion. Would the premise of paranoia the film is so often praised for, been as effective if there was no explicit threat? It's debatable one way or the other. It's not like a hostile alien is required to set a premise of paranoia. But an alien that can imitate other people, now that's a top shelf ingredient to launch widespread paranoia.

Regarding the spaceship arriving to Earth, it's the same for the novel. The novel starts out basically describing the discovery of the ship and the misfortune of destroying it. So Carpenter was being true to the novel regarding an alien ship reveal right out of the chute. However Carpenter didn't destroy his version of the ship.

-------------------------
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] antonasmodeus 8 years ago

The special effects were perfect. It was the timing of the film's release that was flawed.

reply

[–] DialingForDollarhyde 8 years ago

Just a quick and respectful nod to your great question Ry, and I'll definitely weigh in later with a longer reply.

The Thing is in my Top 5 all-time favorite films btw.

"Can I use her underwear to make soup?"


reply

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

Well I am not saying cut down on the in your face gore and effects of the creature itself. just feel that they shouldn't have shown the dog's face peal apart and show the strings come out.

I don't think they should have shown things that were not from the human's point of view, when coming to the build up. I think they should show the humans hear the dogs barking, then show them go out to see what the problem is. They then see the thing trying to take over the dog, and attack.

So you are still getting plenty of gore and special effects from their point of view, just not the face pealing as I felt that itself gave too much away.

reply

[–] danhunter-1 8 years ago

I get what you're saying but i will have to disagree. I think it sets the tone perfectly for the film, you're introduced to this 'HOLY *beep* *beep* moment early on and you're aware its been making some moves inside the camp before going *beep* insane with the dogs.

It lets you know you're dealing with something serious and incredibly 'alien' right away. Its also a good juxtaposition with the Things nature of playing chess and stalking the people as one of their own, it could suddenly turn into something horrifying at any moment, adding to the tension.

At the end of the day its all personal opinion and in mine, i felt it actually added to the atmosphere of the film. But your opinion is equally valid. As was said above the movie to watch is Alien, this isn't that film and i personally think the film does well to steer away from the same format as Alien.

But thats what makes life interesting isnt it, differences :-)

reply

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

I guess I feel if you were to compare to other movies, imagine if in Psycho,

SPOILER FROM PSYCHO

they show Norman Bates, actually go to get the kitchen knife and hold it all creepy, before he dresses up as Mother, and goes to kill the woman in the shower.

A lot of people might think that showing him go for the knife before, might give too much away, in comparison.

And imagine if the opening shot of the movie, was the skeleton of Mother, rather than saving it for later.

If that's a good analogy?

reply

[–] danhunter-1 8 years ago

Yeah im not actually disagreeing with you, its just how the film was made. The film Psycho would have been ruined if it was shown as you describe.

The Thing is a bit like Saving Private Ryan (well not really, but i might be on to something!), in that it open to one hell of a scene. From that moment on you're aware of the horror of their situation and that they can die at any moment. Saving Private Ryan could have been written in a slow burn way where the film ENDS with the storming of the beaches and them capturing the beach head.

Its just a different way of telling the story. As i say im not disagreeing with you, if i put my mind into gear and think about The Thing being a mystery film and you have no idea whats going on for a fair bit of it, then it works as well.

But we only have what was filmed and my personal opinion is it works as a massive shock to the audience to scare the crap out of your early, so you're completely aware of what this creature is capable of. You're then on edge the entire film in case someone bursts open and a dinosaur head comes flying out at you!

reply

[–] PreachCaleb 8 years ago

they show Norman Bates, actually go to get the kitchen knife and hold it all creepy, before he dresses up as Mother, and goes to kill the woman in the shower.

A lot of people might think that showing him go for the knife before, might give too much away, in comparison.

And imagine if the opening shot of the movie, was the skeleton of Mother, rather than saving it for later.

If that's a good analogy?

That doesn't work because that's giving away the twist at the end of the movie.

The dog being an alien thing is not the final twist of The Thing. It's a plot point.

Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.

reply

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

That's true, about Psycho having an end twist, but I feel the thing could have gone for a first act ending twist, that is, you do not know it's an alien till the end of the first act, rather than revealing it right at the beginning.

The Thing is a bit like Saving Private Ryan (well not really, but i might be on to something!), in that it open to one hell of a scene. From that moment on you're aware of the horror of their situation and that they can die at any moment. Saving Private Ryan could have been written in a slow burn way where the film ENDS with the storming of the beaches and them capturing the beach head.

When you say the opening, are we talking about the opening shot of the flying spacecraft, or the opening with the dog and the helicopter?

reply

[–] PreachCaleb 8 years ago

That's true, about Psycho having an end twist, but I feel the thing could have gone for a first act ending twist, that is, you do not know it's an alien till the end of the first act, rather than revealing it right at the beginning.

I'm not sure what you mean. Beginning of what?

Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.

reply

[–] danhunter-1 8 years ago

All im saying is The Thing doesnt need to be the way you described it above. It works well as it and doesn't require added layers of mystery.

Fair enough you disagree with that, that's fine. Thats not the film you got though so probably best to move the conversation on. I beleive i've said all i need to and it seems you're at the end of your train of thought as well.

reply

[–] Herreken 8 years ago

First, I wanted to reply in appreciation of you giving a spoiler warning for Psycho. I always see people spoiling other movies on IMDB and it's very cool of you not to do that with Psycho even though it's an old movie.

I have to agree with GorchBrother when he said:

Seeing a spaceship at the beginning didn't really tell us anything about the dog that we shouldn't have known until the point in the story that it tries to imitate the other dogs.

I do understand your point though. I really like the beginning spaceship scene but they could've done without it. Even without the Shadow Man scene, there are a few scenes with the dog that show us something is bad going to happen. But would there have been much more of an impact if we didn't know it was a alien until later in the movie? Would it have been a big deal to find out the terrestrial monster was extraterrestrial?

The discovery of The Thing's alien origins was really secondary. The discovery of its capabilities is the real threat and I don't think this is given away or foreshadowed until Blair figures it out. The audience doesn't know what The Thing is capable of even though we see the space ship in the beginning, or the dog walking into an unknown person's room. We still don't know Its capabilities when we see It attacking the other dogs in the kennel.

DISPLAY thy breasts, my Julia!

reply

[–] tyson6633 8 years ago

Hmm, I don't know.

Personally, I *love* the gore and practical effects. *Love* it. It's one of the reasons why I enjoy this film so much.

Nothing else can really compare to it at the time either, it was so grotesque. The next film made that could *possibly* match the gore for "Body effects" would have to be maybe Cronenberg's 'The Fly' , made 4 years later in '86. Another excellent one, if I may say.

---
"I learned that in prison, you like? You white trash piece-a sh!t."

reply

[–] sati_84 8 years ago

No, the effects are perfect, and the showing a full-blown dog transformation is necessary for the viewer to anticipate something similar to happen to a human... And in that department - again - the movie is paced perfectly, since first we only see the "hand" of Bennings...

I think showing these transformations is key in creating the atmosphere of what is exactly at stake for the characters. Offscreen deaths would not suffice, especially so, since the process of imitation is also a key plot point.

So I think the movie is perfect as it is.

I was looking back to see if you were looking back at me to see me looking back at you

reply

[–] [deleted] 10 months ago

This is one of those things where people flip-flop on what is the correct method.

When a movie like Alien doesn't show you the xenomorph too much, it's considered the correct method as it's more mysterious and keeps you guessing what it's like. Just giving you a glimpse here and there.

Then you get a movie like The Thing that has several prolonged FX scenes and people will praise it for how awesome and gory it is.

You can see similar with movies like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (often praised for being gore free and utilizing atmosphere) only for people to praise movies like My Bloody Valentine for it's brilliant gory kill scenes.

There is no rhyme or reason.

reply

[–] seagal72 (1870) 10 months ago

Reading through this thread, I can see that *some* would have prefered a longer build-up before the 'Thing' was revealed.

IMO, there was little point, given that the film was a remake of a already beloved sci-fi classic (and the central plot was hardly complex or multi-layered to start with) And for all the movies atmosphere, brooding score and macho posturing...let's not forget, this was intended as a showcase for Rob Bottin's (still) amazing special effects (plain and simple)
Whereas, I've read others on this thread cite both JAWS or ALIEN as examples of built-up reveal....JAWS scant-appearance was (thankfully) circumstantial (due to an often malfunctioning shark) but truth be told, audiences sort of knew what to expect (from the movie-poster alone) ALIEN (other than growing in size since it's first reveal as the chest-buster) stays (by-and-large) the same creature throughout the movie (and it's sequels)

But 'THE THING' is exactly that....a 'Thing'

The other movies had to have a slow reveal, because their creatures had ONE core design.

The Thing doesn't.

It has no set shape, form or design (so any suspense lies solely on *which* human is it impersonating, and little else) so given such an open canvas to work with, Rob Bottin set out (and acheived) some of the most balls-out practical special effects ever seen. It would be a crying shame to have NOT seen the dog's face burst open at that specific time in the movie. God knows what audiences made of these (previously unseen) effects back in 82 (TBH, they probably either laughed or were shocked...given that there was nothing to compare them with...apart from 'An American Werewolf In London' perhaps?) and yet over time (given decades of corny CGI...audiences appreciate the artisry, skill and patience of practical effects more than ever)
But even the aformentioned 'American Werewolf' still had a basic design to adhere to....The Thing didn't.

So other than the suspense lying (primarily) in who-is-who, the only other suspense of sorts would have likely been which special effects 'visual assault' was round the corner (and how could it possibly top the last one)
As much as I love 'The Thing', I'll always consider it (first and foremost) a Rob Bottin movie, over a John Carpenter film.

reply