[ad_1]
There are few horror films more iconic than John Carpenter’s The Thing. While its nihilistic tone and grotesque use of special effects contributed to a box office drubbing and even worse critical reception, it has since been recognized as one of the genre’s finest achievements, with many of its once controversial elements being reassessed to widespread acclaim. Today it’s one of the most watched, referenced, and parodied films ever made, and it’s hard to think of a single aspect that has not ingratiated itself into popular culture. It’s the only thing stopping Halloween from being the runaway pick for Carpenter’s best work, and while this debate shows no signs of concluding, ultimately it doesn’t really matter. Both are fantastic films that offer their own unique experiences, and while the bleak tone and even bleaker ending of The Thing are far from everyone’s taste, those who can get on board with its style will be left in no doubt about why he’s referred to as horror’s greatest master.
Unsurprisingly, this has set quite a high bar for anything that wishes to be associated with it, a hurdle that Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. was keenly aware of when the offer to direct the 2011 follow-up arrived on his doorstep – the rather annoyingly titled The Thing. The unknown director had been set to make his debut with Army of the Dead, the spiritual successor to Zack Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead, but studio trepidation had seen the project canceled months before it was supposed to start filming. Having just watched his big break sink into the ocean with no chance of a salvage job, he called his agent to see if anything else would be kind enough to grace his presence. He offhandedly asked what the current status of The Thing property was, due to it being one of his favorite films, and he discovered to his delight that Strike Entertainment was already prepping a script for a revival. He pitched his ideas to producers Marc Abraham and Eric Newman, and by January 2009 he was confirmed as the project’s director. Quite an impressive turnaround.
How Do You Remake a Classic That Is Itself a Remake?
But that still left the problem of how to make a successor to something that had spent thirty years solidifying its reputation as an undisputed classic. Since the idea of remaking such a renowned film was out of the question (ironic considering it was itself a remake), Heijningen Jr. suggested making the new film a prequel – a concept that Abraham and Newman had already been considering. It’s easy to see why they opted for this approach. By making it a prequel about the Norwegian Antarctic research station whose encounter with the titular creature instigates the events of the original film, Heijningen Jr. and company would be able to put their own twist on the material that would temper accusations of it being just a soulless remake, while still allowing them to replicate the general tone and plot structure that made Carpenter’s film such a success. It would certainly be a daring move to directly tie themselves to such a revered film, but if it paid off it would see Heijningen Jr.’s film earning a much-esteemed place in the landscapes of horror, side by side with its older brother. Now it just had to get made.
Initially, things were pretty straightforward. Heijningen Jr.’s goal was to make his version of The Thing an old-school throwback that avoided trends set by contemporary horror films, and by all accounts Universal Pictures was supportive of this choice. In a time when cinema was shifting towards digital photography, Heijningen Jr. and cinematographer Michel Abramowicz were committed to shooting on 35mm, giving the film a tangible quality that blends seamlessly with Dean Cundey’s work on the original (while also giving it a more organic feel that befits a story where the nature of humanity is a central plot point). In addition to this, Heijningen Jr. decided to take a more methodical approach to the material by minimizing his use of rapid editing (allowing the tension to build more naturally), and also prioritizing practical effects over CGI whenever possible (ensuring the actors would give stronger performances since they had something to work off on set). It’s clear that Heijningen Jr. wanted to pick up right where Carpenter left off, and if his methods of shooting didn’t make that clear, his decision to constantly refer back to the original like it was the irrefutable guide on how to make a film certainly would. Abraham described Heijningen Jr.’s laptop as containing “a million” screenshots of Carpenter’s film, and not a day would pass without him consulting this precious treasure trove to ensure that everything – from the way an axe lodged itself in a wooden door to the number of grenades the scientists used when defending themselves – would line up perfectly.
How ‘The Thing’ 2011 Makes Changes From ‘The Thing’ 1982
Not that this meant Heijningen Jr. was content with filling in the blanks about what misfortunes struck the Norwegian base and then calling it a day, with the film instead weaponizing its status as a prequel. Most people watching will already know that this doesn’t end well, but the characters in the film don’t, and this overhanging sense of dread that permeates from the very first minute makes for an appealing inversion of Carpenter’s film where the thin flicker of hope was always glowing in the distance. At the center of this carnage we have Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), a recent alumnus of Columbia University with one hell of a graduate job whose role as the protagonist represents another key deviation. The 1982 film famously had an all-male cast (assuming we don’t count Adrienne Barbeau as the voice of the chess computer), providing Carpenter with the ideal platform to critique and examine the notion of masculinity in a genre that often fetishizes such concepts. However, a combination of changing times and the original have already said everything there was to say on the matter would make repeating this difficult, so Heijningen Jr. chooses not to bother. Winstead does a solid job in the role, and her refusal to shed her scientific mind and become just another gun-toting badass or (god forbid) damsel in distress makes her an effective lead who’s far more than just a copy of Kurt Russell’s R.J. MacReady.
The Prequel Reshot the Ending
Unfortunately, things did not stay perfect. As is often the case, the studio did not know what they wanted until they were looking at the complete opposite, resulting in a hefty round of reshoots that saw its release date pushed back six months. While the usual corporate-speak like “enhance[ing] existing sequences” or to help “make things more clear” were dished out to quell concerns, it soon became clear that a large chunk of these reshoots were dedicated to crafting a whole new ending. Originally it was supposed to end with Kate descending into the alien spacecraft and discovering the frozen body of its pilot, having died 100,000 years ago when the ship crashed on Earth. A closer examination would reveal the ship to be a research vessel that studies alien races, along with a single broken containment pod that presumably housed the titular Thing. The implication is that the pilot crashed the ship in a failed attempt to kill it, resulting in a sequence that mirrors the sense of foreboding mystery that the American team felt when exploring the Norwegian base in the 1982 film. Sadly the studio found it too confusing and ordered it replaced with a more action-heavy finale, and while Heijningen Jr. integrates this into his film more smoothly than other reshot endings, it still leaves you wondering what could have been.
Practical Effects Were Replaced With CGI
However, the most controversial change relates to the special effects. Despite how proudly Heijningen Jr. and his team would boast about using practical over digital effects, Universal was concerned they would make the film look dated and demanded they be almost entirely replaced with CGI. Since principal photography was already finished and conducting further reshoots was out of the question, it was left to the good people at Image Engine Design to draw over the work done by Amalgamated Dynamics, and in quite a short timeframe too. The results were (to put it politely), bad. The CGI looked poor in 2011 and absolutely terrible now, and their sheer prominence throughout the film means it’s an issue that never lets up. It’s hard to feel scared when every five minutes will have you wondering if you’ve accidentally put on The Scorpion King instead, and it singlehandedly robs the film of the palpability that Heijningen Jr. was so desperate to achieve.
Why Universal would remove the practical effects in a follow-up to the most famous practical effects horror film ever made – effects that still look fantastic forty years on, let’s not forget – is anyone’s guess, and it served as the most vocal piece of criticism when the film opened in October 2011. This backlash grew even worse after behind-the-scenes videos revealed snippets of the truly horrifying effects Amalgamated Dynamics had created, most notably the Split Face creature that somehow looked even more terrifying than its 1982 counterpart. This footage has prompted calls for a release of the since-dubbed ‘Pilot Version,’ and while there was a time when such demands were the cinematic equivalent of dead air, the success of Zack Snyder’s Justice League has given such campaigns the taste of real power. Whether Heijningen Jr.’s original version will see the light of day remains to be seen – although it’s worth noting that Universal has given no indication that they plan on releasing it – but it would be nice to see what nightmares he had planned.
Still, it’s worth remembering that the abundance of CGI was far from the film’s only criticism. Despite Heijningen Jr.’s wish to do something more creatively fulfilling than a simple remake, it seems that his unflinching love of the original resulted in the exact opposite. While there are just enough additions to counter the allegations of it being a remake in all but name (in spite of the misleading title), the bulk of the runtime still feels like we’re watching the same story in the same Antarctic location with the same themes of paranoia and mistrust. A director’s cut is unlikely to fix these issues, but it would address the most egregious one, and would permit viewers to assess the film on its own merits rather than all discussions focusing on a problem that should never have even happened. Heijningen Jr.’s The Thing is a film made with love, and seeing his vision squandered by people who failed to realize a crucial part of what made the original such a success is a travesty. Hopefully the day will come when we get to see it.
[ad_2]
Original Source Link
