Few horror films are more iconic than John CarpenterX Thing. Although its nihilistic tone and grotesque use of special effects contributed to box office success and even worse critical reception, it has since been hailed as one of the genre’s finest achievements, with many of its once-controversial elements re-evaluated and universally acclaimed. Today it’s one of the most viewed, referenced and parodied films ever made, and it’s hard to think of a single aspect that hasn’t entered popular culture. It’s the only thing that stops halloween from being the clear choice for Carpenter’s best work, and while this debate shows no sign of ending, it doesn’t really matter in the long run. Both are fantastic films that offer their own unique experiences, and while the darker tone and even darker ending Thing Far from being to everyone’s taste, those who can understand his style will have no doubt why he is called the greatest master of horror.
Unsurprisingly, this has set a pretty high bar for anything that wants to be associated with it, an obstacle that Matthijs van Heiningen Jr. knew well when an offer came to him to make a sequel to 2011 - a film with a rather annoying title Thing. An unknown director was supposed to debut with army of the deadspiritual successor Zack SnyderX Dawn of the Dead, but studio trepidation led to the project being canceled months before filming was due to begin. Having just seen his big break sink into the ocean with no chance for a rescue job, he called his agent to see if anything else would be kind enough to grace his presence. He casually asked what is the current status Thing ownership because it was one of his favorite films and he found to his delight that Strike Entertainment was already preparing a script for a revival. He presented his ideas to the producers. Mark Abraham as well as Eric Newman, and by January 2009 he was confirmed as the project director. Pretty impressive twist.
How do you remake a classic that is itself a remake?
But it was still a problem how to make a successor to something that had spent thirty years solidifying its reputation as an undisputed classic. Since the idea of a remake of such a well-known film was out of the question (an irony considering it was a remake in itself), Heiningen Jr. suggested making the new film a prequel, a concept that Abraham and Newman had already considered. It’s easy to see why they chose this approach. By making it a prequel about the Norwegian Antarctic research station whose encounter with the titular creature set off the events of the original film, Heiningen Jr. and company will be able to put their own spin on the material that will alleviate accusations that it’s all fiction. a soulless remake, yet still allowing them to replicate the overall tone and plot structure that made Carpenter’s film so successful. Of course, it would be a bold move to directly associate oneself with such a revered film, but if it paid off, Heiningen Jr.’s film would take pride of place in the horror landscape, side by side with its older brother. . Now it just had to be done.
Initially, everything was pretty simple. Heiningen Jr.’s goal was to make his own version Thing a throwback to the old school that eschews the trends set by modern horror films, and by the looks of it, Universal Pictures has backed that choice. At a time when cinema was shifting towards digital photography, Heiningen Jr. and cinematographer Michel Abramovich were committed to shooting at 35mm, which gives the film a tangible quality that blends seamlessly with Dean Candywork on the original (and also gives it a more organic feel, suitable for a story in which the nature of humanity is the central plot point). In addition to this, Heiningen Jr. decided to take a more methodical approach to the material, minimizing the use of quick cuts (allowing the tension to build more naturally) and also favoring practical effects over CGI where possible (ensuring that the actors would give stronger performances as they had a lot to work on on set). Understandably, Heiningen Jr. wanted to pick up where Carpenter left off, and if his filming methods didn’t make that clear, his decision to constantly refer to the original as the irrefutable guide to making the film. of course would. Abraham described Heiningen Jr.’s laptop as containing “a million” screenshots from Carpenter’s film, and not a day went by without him checking this precious treasure trove to make sure everything from the ax plunging into the wooden door to the number of grenades that scientists used in self-defense matched perfectly.
How 2011’s The Thing Differs From 1982’s The Thing
Not that this meant that Heiningen Jr was content to fill in the blanks on what misfortunes befell the Norwegian base and then finish the job, but instead the film solidified its status as a prequel. Most people who watch already know that it doesn’t end well, but the movie’s characters don’t end, and that looming sense of dread that permeates from the very first minute makes for a compelling inversion of Carpenter’s film, where a subtle glimmer of hope always shone in the distance. At the center of this massacre we have Keith Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), a recent Columbia University graduate with a hell of a thesis, whose role as the protagonist represents another key aberration. It is known that in the 1982 film the cast consisted entirely of men (with the exception of Adrienne Barbeau like the voice of a chess computer), providing Carpenter with the perfect platform to critique and explore the notion of masculinity in a genre that often fetishizes such notions. However, the combination of changing times and the original has already said all there is to say on the subject, which would make it difficult to repeat, so Heiningen Jr. prefers not to worry. Winstead does a great job in her role, and her refusal to abandon her scientific mindset and become just another gun-toting badass or (God forbid) damsel in distress makes her an effective protagonist who is much more than just a replica. Kurt Russell R. J. Macready.
The prequel reshot the ending
Unfortunately, everything was not perfect. As is often the case, the studio didn’t know what it wanted until it saw the exact opposite, which led to a lot of reshoots, resulting in the release date being pushed back by six months. While the usual corporate speech like “improve[ing] existing sequences” or to help “clear things up” to quell misgivings, it soon became clear that much of these reshoots were dedicated to crafting an entirely new ending. Keith was originally supposed to descend into an alien spaceship and discover the frozen body of its pilot, who died 100,000 years ago when the ship crashed on Earth. Closer examination would reveal the ship to be a research vessel studying alien races, along with a single broken pod that supposedly contained the titular Thing. It is implied that the pilot crashed the ship in a failed attempt to kill it, leading to a sequence that reflects the premonition of mystery experienced by the American crew while exploring the Norwegian base in the 1982 film. Unfortunately, the studio felt it was too confusing and ordered it replaced with a more action-packed ending, and while Heiningen Jr. integrates it more seamlessly into his film than other re-shot endings, it still leaves one wondering what could have been.
Practical effects have been replaced by computer graphics
However, the most controversial change concerns the special effects. Despite how proudly Heiningen Jr. and his team boasted of using practical effects instead of digital ones, Universal was concerned that the film would look outdated and demanded that they be replaced almost entirely with CGI. Since the main photography was already finished and there was no question of further reshoots, the good people at Image Engine Design had to redraw the work done by Amalgamated Dynamics, and also in a fairly short time. The results were (to put it mildly) poor. The CGI looked bad in 2011 and is absolutely terrible now, and their sheer notoriety throughout the film means it’s a problem that will never go away. It’s hard to be scared when every five minutes you wonder if you accidentally put on scorpion king instead, and this single-handedly robs the film of that tangibility that Heiningen Jr. so desperately sought.
Why Universal removed the practical effects in the sequel to the most famous practical effects horror film ever made - effects that still look fantastic forty years later, let’s not forget - is anyone’s guess, and it has been the loudest criticism. when the film was shown in October 2011. This backlash intensified after behind-the-scenes videos showed snippets of truly horrifying effects created by Amalgamated Dynamics, most notably a split-faced creature that somehow looked even more terrifying than its 1982 counterpart. The footage sparked calls for a “Pilot” release, and while there was a time when such demands were the cinematic equivalent of dead air, the success Justice League Zack Snyder gave such campaigns a taste of real power. It remains to be seen if Heiningen Jr’s original version sees the light of day - though it’s worth noting that Universal hasn’t given any indication that they’re planning to release it - but it would be nice to see what kind of nightmares he’s got planned.
However, it’s worth remembering that the abundance of CGI was far from the film’s only shortcoming. Despite Heiningen Jr.’s desire to do something more creative than a simple remake, it seems that his unwavering love for the original has led to exactly the opposite result. As long as there is simply enough extras to debunk accusations that this is a remake in everything but the title (despite the misleading title), most of the runtime still feels like we’re watching the same story in the same Antarctic location with the same themes paranoia. and distrust. The director’s cut is unlikely to solve these problems, but it will solve the most egregious of them and allow the audience to appreciate the film on the merits, rather than all discussions focused on a problem that should not have been there at all. Heiningen Jr. Thing this is a movie made with love and to see its vision being wasted by people who failed to understand a key part of what made the original so successful is a parody. Hopefully the day will come when we will see him.
Source: Collider
