Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2017 14:55:24 GMT
Man, if only they had more money to add to the scene..it would've kicked ass. I understand they basically had no choice but to film it like it was but it's still pretty anti-climatic given the build up leading up to it IMO. Anyway, I definitely don't hate the film at all and it's simply a missed opportunity..but the effects, direction and acting were very good.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 20, 2017 18:04:33 GMT
Exactly. An action finale would be out of place at the end.
As for the thing's motivations, I'd say it had no more motivations than a virus or bacteria. It multiplies. Plain and simple.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2017 18:22:22 GMT
Exactly. An action finale would be out of place at the end. As for the thing's motivations, I'd say it had no more motivations than a virus or bacteria. It multiplies. Plain and simple. I'm inclined to agree, but at the end of the day, we know so little The Thing, it's difficult to say. The humans it took over were still able to talk and act normally, which does imply some kind of upper brain functions in The Thing, or perhaps it just picked that up from them.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 21, 2017 13:06:05 GMT
Exactly. An action finale would be out of place at the end. As for the thing's motivations, I'd say it had no more motivations than a virus or bacteria. It multiplies. Plain and simple. The horror in the film was born out of the manifestations of how The Thing multiplied and took over, but that also appears pretty shallow to me at the same time. The horror of The Thing, had no real substance as to what it's "intention" was, or more importantly, for what ultimate purpose or goal? It was a life form devouring other life forms and assuming their identity. The physical body\life of the organism it takes over dies. So what! All the film really plays upon is the base human fear of death, and used an alien life form to instigate it and man fights to survive it. It couldn't even be considered an artificial life form, only that it assumed the form of different identities based on an individuals genetic structure. Technically it was an excellent film, it just lacked layers to it's science and story. While still a popular cult horror film, it might have gained a stronger reputation like 'Blade Runner-82'— a film it inexplicably went up against when it originally opened in the US and both did lackluster box office considering their hefty budgets—had it had a bit more cerebral intelligence behind it's script. The film's main theme is paranoia, not fear of death. That's incidental. Also, don't confuse its premise for science fiction. The film is first and foremost a horror story. The science behind the thing is immaterial, just as it was for Alien. The layers weren't about the alien. The layers were about the human condition and reaction to that horror. The movie already has a strong reputation to rival Blade Runner. It's just not a science fiction reputation. They are two different genres.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 21, 2017 15:26:22 GMT
I can understand wanting more, but at the same time, that wasn't the film's intentions. It wasn't meant to make the audience contemplate the science behind an alien organism's motivations. It was meant to shock and unnerve. Deeper science wasn't needed anymore than an explanation for why Michael Myers could drive a car. Or how the xenomorph's biology allowed it to grow to such a large size in such a short time frame.
The horror is foremost. As MacReady said regarding the Thing: "Cause it's different than us, see? 'Cause it's from outer space." And while that was in relation to its biology, it also perfectly captures its motivation. We can't understand it because it's nothing like us.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 21, 2017 15:27:20 GMT
Exactly. An action finale would be out of place at the end. As for the thing's motivations, I'd say it had no more motivations than a virus or bacteria. It multiplies. Plain and simple. I'm inclined to agree, but at the end of the day, we know so little The Thing, it's difficult to say. The humans it took over were still able to talk and act normally, which does imply some kind of upper brain functions in The Thing, or perhaps it just picked that up from them. True, but even in humans, reproduction is a powerful driving force.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2017 15:41:51 GMT
I'm inclined to agree, but at the end of the day, we know so little The Thing, it's difficult to say. The humans it took over were still able to talk and act normally, which does imply some kind of upper brain functions in The Thing, or perhaps it just picked that up from them. True, but even in humans, reproduction is a powerful driving force. It's funny how someone can strike up a conversation about what exactly "it" wants. We know so little about it, it's actually brilliant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2017 22:09:23 GMT
Interesting discussion guys...I just wanted to know how people felt about the lack of a confrontation with Blair-thing at the end. Personally, it was just too brief and underwhelming even despite the fact that this isn't an action horror film at all. It's obvious that they ran out of money to complete that scene but it's all they could due given the circumstances. It's still an excellent movie despite my complaint as I've clearly said. I can't be the only one who was disappointed though based on a couple responses here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2017 0:13:27 GMT
It's funny how someone can strike up a conversation about what exactly "it" wants. We know so little about it, it's actually brilliant.It just was. To know little about it in the context of how the story played out worked in the context of what Carpenter wanted to do, however, it could also be perceived as being simplistic over brilliant too. The film for it's time, was brilliantly made for a horror, and nothing like it had been seen before. The suspense was built up around whatever horror was going to come next and where it was going to spring from and who; but all I ever come away with from this film, is wanting to know more about The Thing and it's intentions. Being different to humans, yet still wanting to survive by it's own form of reproduction, doesn't really resonate as a nuanced whole to me. I was a tad bored last time I saw this film. Not every film can be rewatched too often. I think The Thing holds up better as an occasional thing to revisit after a long space in-between.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2017 3:07:09 GMT
Not every film can be rewatched too often. I think The Thing holds up better as an occasional thing to revisit after a long space in-between. There are a few that I really don't really have any qualm about constantly re-visiting, but most are comedies: Grease-78' Up In Smoke-78' Tootsie-82' Back To The Future-85' Ferris Bueller's Day Off-86' Elvira: Mistress Of The Dark-88'As for horror films, I think the one that I could re-watch quite often is Romero's Dawn Of The Dead-78'. While this one shows how the human condition copes when confronted before an apocalyptic horror and it is not particularly boo\creepy scary, it also has a potent and even clever satire running through it's core, about the correlation between humans and zombies and which ones of us are really just zombies ourselves. The Thing lacks this bite, and is just presenting us with horror for the sake of presenting a horror, even if unique at the time. Psycho II-83' is another I can re-visit quite often. Minority opinion, but I also like the re-make of Carrie-13' for some reason and have watched several times. Fair enough. Personally, I look at The Thing (1982) the same way I look at Lovecraftian Horror. Horror IS the point, because ultimately the heroes' plight is meaningless. As soon as the science team stops reporting in, someone will be sent to investigate and the horror will begin again, and again, and again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2017 3:15:04 GMT
I respect all of your thoughts so far. Anyway, I just wanted to mention that I know exactly what type of movie John Carpenter made...and having an action climax isn't probably what I meant to say. Maybe if the ending was a little more drawn-out and intense like a "cat and mouse" style climax instead of the monster literally just standing there, then I would give the film a 9/10. But as the "confrontation" is...it's just a little too anti-climactic for me IMO. Like just imagine how the scene would be different if McCready was hiding throughout the facility, alone, while the alien creature is searching for him and maybe he tries to use another flamethrower he finds on it before finally throwing the dynamite. That would at least be something more suspenseful right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2017 8:07:58 GMT
I see what you're saying, it's more about giving the sense of ambiguity with the remaining main characters' trust...which made it creepy I admit. However, it's almost like they didn't really attempt to execute a better more satisfying final scene with the monster, obviously the budget running out would be the main reason. I don't know it just was, for me, kind of a letdown in that regard and it's frustrating because at the same time the practical effects were so gruesome and nightmarish that they honestly deserved to do more considering how tirelessly Rob Bottin worked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2017 3:11:22 GMT
Fair enough. Personally, I look at The Thing (1982) the same way I look at Lovecraftian Horror. Horror IS the point, because ultimately the heroes' plight is meaningless. As soon as the science team stops reporting in, someone will be sent to investigate and the horror will begin again, and again, and again. Being a big fan of horror, when horror is the point, it can deliver what it promises without letting the ghouls down. Carpenter made a pure horror film, about a horror, doing horrific things and humans attempting to confront it. This was delivered in spades with The Thing. I suppose I shouldn't really be complaining in that regards. I wasn't at the time, but the passage of time can make one jaded and then we see things from a different perspective. And to be fair to hindsight, it does allow one to look at past works with a sense of "they could have done" this or that to perhaps improve it. If we never did that, genres would never evolve.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2017 4:39:36 GMT
No film is not without its problems. That's just the way of human fallibility. The Thing is still a great ride, though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2017 7:16:13 GMT
It's nice that people enjoy talking about aspects of a film they love...even if the movie in question isn't without it's flaws. Anyway, I want everybody on here to understand that I still give The Thing alot of praise, it's just that the ending could've been improved that's all. For me, it's simply a really effective horror film that isn't a 100% masterpiece based on the anti-climactic and short "finale". Anybody else admit it?
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 24, 2017 13:22:31 GMT
I can understand wanting more, but at the same time, that wasn't the film's intentions. It wasn't meant to make the audience contemplate the science behind an alien organism's motivations. It was meant to shock and unnerve. Deeper science wasn't needed anymore than an explanation for why Michael Myers could drive a car. Or how the xenomorph's biology allowed it to grow to such a large size in such a short time frame. The horror is foremost. As MacReady said regarding the Thing: "Cause it's different than us, see? 'Cause it's from outer space." And while that was in relation to its biology, it also perfectly captures its motivation. We can't understand it because it's nothing like us. The prequel they made several yeas ago, I don't recall that film giving much of an explanation either, only that it was setting up the events, leading up to Carpenter's The Thing-82'. That one wasn't very popular either, though I admired it's tenacity. I suppose it is not necessary to understand The Thing's motivation, other than wanting to survive in the only way it knows how and in the process it became a threat to mankind. But mankind, in itself, is it's own threat. Something else that is different, is only going to help speed up the process. How much about the human condition was the film really giving us though, when it was really was just an exercise in graphic horror without much nuance behind it? Michael Myers in Halloween, was at least a horror born out of the human condition and something more relatable, even if a simple story too. Perhaps that might explain why Halloween resonated with more people. Quite a bit. The nuance was in the performances of the actors as they grow more and more paranoid, unable to trust the very men they'd spent weeks, if not months working alongside each other. Some of them had even been friends for years. There is almost a sense of betrayal as the very men they'd just worked with devolve into a blob of horror and viscera. There may not have been nuance in the alien's motivation (certainly no less than Michael Myers'), but motivation is the not only element present in a story. In fact, I'd say The Thing had more nuance than Halloween. With Halloween, the characters and the audience always knew where the danger was coming from: Michael Meyers. With the Thing, neither the characters nor the audience knew who in fact the thing was. The danger was coming from themselves, yet no one knew when or where it would strike. And true, The Thing was not an instant hit, but over the years, it has garnered a very acclaimed reputation. One that rivals Halloween, if not surpasses it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 13:39:12 GMT
Does anybody else want to share their thoughts on the ending? We're doing a good job so far and I appreciate the comments.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 24, 2017 16:49:16 GMT
I just want to say that I absolutely love that, despite various fan theories, there is absolutely no way to tell who if either MacReady or Childs was a thing at the end. A pitch perfect demonstration of an ambiguous ending.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 24, 2017 22:28:11 GMT
Quite a bit. The nuance was in the performances of the actors as they grow more and more paranoid, unable to trust the very men they'd spent weeks, if not months working alongside each other. Some of them had even been friends for years. There is almost a sense of betrayal as the very men they'd just worked with devolve into a blob of horror and viscera. There may not have been nuance in the alien's motivation (certainly no less than Michael Myers'), but motivation is the not only element present in a story. In fact, I'd say The Thing had more nuance than Halloween. With Halloween, the characters and the audience always knew where the danger was coming from: Michael Meyers. With the Thing, neither the characters nor the audience knew who in fact the thing was. The danger was coming from themselves, yet no one knew when or where it would strike. And true, The Thing was not an instant hit, but over the years, it has garnered a very acclaimed reputation. One that rivals Halloween, if not surpasses it. I never really got that, and I have seen the film many times. I just saw a group of douchy alpha guys— who I wouldn't relate to in real life—hanging out at the research station, introduced to us due to the Norwegians and dog. They were pretty much larger than life characters, had no backstory and we really knew jack squat about their lives before we met them, or even after. Not that this was an issue in the context of the story, but I really didn't feel for any of them. For me, all I cared about was who was going to become a thing. Mac was the only one I was really rooting for, because he was the lead and taking charge of the situation. It was obvious he wasn't going to die. What characters knew where the danger was coming from in Halloween. Most of those that got slaughtered, weren't even aware of any danger, only the audience knew there was something in the shadows, but when was "he" going to strike? Even Laurie didn't know where the danger was going to come from, even when she knew there was danger. That's all right that you didn't get that. I can understand why some people might not. And while it's true we weren't provided much backstory, it wasn't necessary since the film established character and relationships much more effectively. Plus, it's not about feeling for them. It's about feeling the growing dread and paranoia, which the film does masterfully. What characters knew about the danger? Well, there was Doctor Loomis and the police chief he spoke too. And again, while they didn't know when the danger was coming, they knew from who it was coming, particularly the audience. There was no fear that suddenly Little Timmy would be the killer. Or that Laurie's friend was behind the mask. We always knew who the bad guy was. It was always the guy in the Captain Kirk mask. With the thing, the characters, and just as important, the audience doesn't know where, and worse who, the danger was. He could be in the scene and no one would know it until it revealed himself. There was no such uncertainty in Halloween.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2017 7:43:11 GMT
I think these are interesting points guys. Can I just ask that we focus on the topic of this discussion...the brief and disappointing climax with Blair-thing? You guys are awesome and thoughtful with your responses regardless, but I'm just a little more curious about your views on that aspect. Of course, I'm talking about those who haven't commented on here yet LOL.
I will say that Carpenter knows how to expertly direct paranoia and dread and the build up to the creature reveal was very effective. It's too bad the actual payoff, aside from the briefly-shown effects work, couldn't match it as much IMO. McCready blew it up so effortlessly that it was almost a pointless reveal to not have the monster do ANYTHING. You know it's true in that sense.
|
|