>the poster is only vaguely related to anything that happens in the actual filmWhy did this fall of out fashion?
Since the grunge era of the 90s, we're incresingly in the grip of literalism. Along with that comes not only loss of appreciation of aesthetics, but loss of sense of humour as well.
>>223181363i used to think it was a sea diver until realizing it was a parka
>almost time for my annual Thing rewatchCan't wait.
>>223182644Check out the dvd commentary or pat and plague of gripes watchalong.it adds to the experience.
>>223181363It's a shame it has. When I talk to zoomers about alien, they haven't seen the film but know what the fucker looks like. It was such a shock for me as a kid because I went in completely blind. Many won't get that experience now.
>>223182644One thing that cgi monsters fail to replicate about classic practical effects was just how wet and disgusting they were. In the original Thing movie, the creature is constantly oozing blood, pus, and other unspeakable fluids from everywhere on its body. Compare it to the 2011 prequel and all the monster transformations feel clean and sterile in comparison.
>>223181363It doesn't literally glow but it's super relevant that you can't see the face because it can be anyone and it's not from this world
>>223181363This movie was based on a short story by John Campbell, right?
Because dumb nigger faggots must have the poster explain everything to the general public these days. Retardation is at an all time high.
>>223181363>not posting the best version
>>223183150Kek
>>223183081Yep. Frozen Hell / Who Goes There
>>223182754Another thing is that in the 2011 prequel the movement ot the thing is too fluid and smooth and the transformations are bit too fast. In Carpenter's film it shakes and trembles, transforming seems much more of a painful and exhausting process for the thing.
