Back then... Certified 18 is not the same anymore. BACK WHEN HORROR FILMS WERE HORRIBLE.. Man is the warmest place to hide THE THING“ ACTORS KILLED WITH FLAMETH
Home Funny Pictures YouTube Funny Videos Funny GIFs Text/Links Channels Search

Back then..

Certified 18 is not the ******* same anymore

BACK WHEN HORROR FILMS
WERE ******* HORRIBLE..
Man is the warmest place to hide
THE THING“
ACTORS KILLED **** WITH
FLAMETHROWERS AND WEREN' T
l ******* ******* ...
CGI WAS ******* UNNECESSARY
xld
AND IF IT HAD 18 NEXT TO THE
TITLE, YOU WAS GAURANTEED
TO SPRAY **** IN YOUR PANTS
...
+745
Views: 33919
Favorited: 60
Submitted: 02/24/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to myturntoevil E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend

Comments(134):

[ 134 comments ]
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
#141 - alucardshellhound (02/25/2013) [-]
**alucardshellhound rolled a random image posted in comment #3048313 at MMORPG ITEM COLLECTIVE EXPERIENCE **
#135 - bizarredread (02/25/2013) [-]
**** yes The Thing. Best horror film ever made.
#134 - ishalltroll (02/25/2013) [-]
"And if it had 18 next to the title, you was guaranteed to spray **** in your pants"
#129 - brinden (02/25/2013) [-]
It boogles my mind why studios insist on using CGI instead of spending that budget on animatronics. Animatronics in old films like Alien and The Thing still look good to me and they have a kind of charm about them (even the silly alien masks in "They Live" still work). Don't get me wrong, some films like Prometheus and District 9 look great and benfited with CGI but on the whole it just looks lifeless and crappy (Alien 3, Avatar etc).

Minimal CGI is good too, Dredd 3D was awesome because they combined minimal CGI with real effects.
User avatar #136 to #129 - billysmall (02/25/2013) [-]
In my opinion, some of the best movie FX had a mixture of cgi and props. Aliens is a great example.
#143 to #136 - brinden (02/25/2013) [-]
You are right. CGI should only be used in moderation. It's kinda like how you should drink to enhance reality rather than escape it; CGI should enhance a film rather than make up for an inadequacy.
User avatar #124 - responsibletim (02/25/2013) [-]
You was guaranteed to be ******* yoself *****
#123 - reduxalicious (02/25/2013) [-]
MFW when I think I'm the only one who actually liked The Thing prequel.. NOT MORE then the original mind you, but I still thought it was a good popcorn flick.
MFW when I think I'm the only one who actually liked The Thing prequel.. NOT MORE then the original mind you, but I still thought it was a good popcorn flick.
#122 - pedodelphia (02/25/2013) [-]
**pedodelphia rolled a random image posted in comment #63 at Facebook(8) ** I laughed, they where not better, you where just younger and not surfed on internet that much
User avatar #121 - abnthug (02/25/2013) [-]
I remember hearing that the modern The Thing would follow Carpenter's film by using practical effects and avoiding CGI. Needless to say I was pissed. John Carpenter's film wasn't "scary" but the creatures were definitely creepy. The mutation effects were outstanding and disturbing. John Carpenter's 'The Thing' is still one of my favorite movies of all time.

I still feel a bit sad watching that scene with the dogs though.
#120 - wanicochil (02/25/2013) [-]
And below you will see lots of people living off Nostalgia, because everyone loves Nostalgia

But seriously, The Thing had terrible effects

"But it was all real and not CGI"

it is still terrible effects, I never watched it younger and only watched it recently, the monsters were so silly

Let's look realistically here, if you currently watched the movies, having no nostalgia of it, you would think it is a horrible movie, with laughable effects

Movies have not gotten more **** , you've just gotten more older and not able to be scared by gruesome effects, and know that the creatures are indeed not real
#130 to #120 - brinden (02/25/2013) [-]
There are people that suffer from the "nostalgic effect" but with the internet age there will be equal number of people who suffer from the "overrated effect".

I watched the Thing first time when I was about 15/16, that was only 2005 or something and I still enjoyed it.

Its not about saying the effects suck, but they have some life to them they seem like part of the mise en scene. Star Wars prequel is an example where they took CGI too far and it doesn't look real anymore.

It's not about saying they look crap, but appreciating the work that went into it at the time and how good they were for its time. Think about 2001: A space Odyssey, although arguably the effects in that still look good.
User avatar #132 to #130 - wanicochil (02/25/2013) [-]
It probably was overrated to the extreme when I watched it and thus I did not enjoy it

(Mind you I loved the hell out of the game, and people said movie is more scary then the game, and the game scared the **** outta me)

I know it does take lots of time/effort to put all those effects in The Thing, but it just annoys me when people say that old movies are still scary as hell and new movies aren't

Watch The Thing now, you won't be scared, you might enjoy it for what it is and appreciate the effort, but again, no scare factor

#144 to #132 - brinden (02/25/2013) [-]
I think i probably don't find it scary because I know what is going to happen after watching it. I played the game before watching it, which made my experience of the film so much better - all of the references starting fitting into place and I thought it was neat.

For sure there are people who like things because other people tell them and the opposite is true too. The important thing is that even though you and I have different opinions we at least have our own reasons for having them
#119 - dantemp (02/25/2013) [-]
Nope.

I also was a lot more scared as a kid from the horror movies. But now I grown up.
User avatar #117 - spectralbanshee (02/25/2013) [-]
Man I loved "The thing". The newer one wasn't as good as the old one, but IMO still alright.
#116 - crazyeyedbioll (02/25/2013) [-]
Ive never found any horror movie to be scary, especially old ones. just a bunch of cheesy ********
#114 - bladebites (02/25/2013) [-]
I saw the modern version "The Thing", and I can't seriously believe how disappointed I was. Granted I couldn't finish the entire movie, (I stopped at around the same time the same thing happened for like the billionth time), so perhaps I shouldn't judge it without finishing it. But unless something truly extraordinary happened in the last fifteen minutes, (which I doubt) I think it's safe to say it's just a bunch of bundled up paranoid people shooting 						******					 CGI monsters with whatever the 						****					 they can get their hands on. I adore horror movies, and I'd be lying if I said I was critical when it comes to them. Hell, I'm merciful usually. If it entertains me, it's pretty cool in my book. But that was cliche and repetitive to the point of it being physically painful. The original version (and I don't usually compare like this, I tend to like newer and older versions of things on their own merits) was better by a long 						*******					 shot.    
Pic related, mfw.
I saw the modern version "The Thing", and I can't seriously believe how disappointed I was. Granted I couldn't finish the entire movie, (I stopped at around the same time the same thing happened for like the billionth time), so perhaps I shouldn't judge it without finishing it. But unless something truly extraordinary happened in the last fifteen minutes, (which I doubt) I think it's safe to say it's just a bunch of bundled up paranoid people shooting ****** CGI monsters with whatever the **** they can get their hands on. I adore horror movies, and I'd be lying if I said I was critical when it comes to them. Hell, I'm merciful usually. If it entertains me, it's pretty cool in my book. But that was cliche and repetitive to the point of it being physically painful. The original version (and I don't usually compare like this, I tend to like newer and older versions of things on their own merits) was better by a long ******* shot.
Pic related, mfw.
User avatar #138 to #114 - billysmall (02/25/2013) [-]
Back when it was made, that **** was top notch. I guess as people get older and watch higher budget, more advanced movies, we can't exactly enjoy the old FX as we used to.
User avatar #148 to #138 - bladebites (02/25/2013) [-]
Well yeah, the older version was ******* amazing. It's the newer version that was garbage. I've never been on the "the older one's better" side before, but I have to say the new version is repetitive and bland, like I said before.
#111 - vizz (02/25/2013) [-]
there were plenty of bad movies too, its just they were bad and no one remembers them.
User avatar #109 - dovakinbronie (02/25/2013) [-]
watched that movie like an hour ago, for the 8th time :D
#94 - gustamelusta (02/25/2013) [-]
You know why Horror films got so bad? It got political, film writers had to convey a particular message that if you partake in under-age drinking and promiscuous sex that a boogy man will come and get you. Look at the recurring theme in most horror films, group of teenagers with no parental supervision, usually some sort of house party, lots of uninhibited behaviour, next thing you know, something starts killing them all, usually some guy in a disguise with a really flimsy reason for doing it. Halloween, Friday The 13th, Scream, I know what you did last Summer, even Evil Dead I and II (But they were supposed to be satirical so we let it slide)
User avatar #113 to #94 - scrax (02/25/2013) [-]
You, good Sir, is right. Thank you for not being a generic dumbass.
#91 - harbingerwolf (02/25/2013) [-]
They dont make them as good as they did in the 80's.   
   
R.I.P. Stan Winston for providing infinitely better effects than CGI.   
No matter how good CGI gets it can never be more realistic than physically existing animatronic work.    
   
Films dont ever go for the 18 rating anymore so they can grab an extra chunk of viewers, and they always opt for cgi because its usually cheaper and less effort and people than practical effects.
They dont make them as good as they did in the 80's.

R.I.P. Stan Winston for providing infinitely better effects than CGI.
No matter how good CGI gets it can never be more realistic than physically existing animatronic work.

Films dont ever go for the 18 rating anymore so they can grab an extra chunk of viewers, and they always opt for cgi because its usually cheaper and less effort and people than practical effects.
#118 to #91 - Funnymick (02/25/2013) [-]
You know Stan Winston studios is still extremely active right? They still make plenty of props. Everything from Iron Man to life size models to help in the production of Avatar.
User avatar #137 to #118 - harbingerwolf (02/25/2013) [-]
Yep sure do, i was just making a note of his passing :(
User avatar #92 to #91 - harbingerwolf (02/25/2013) [-]
Woops forgot Rob Bottin who did The Thing.
#89 - lilRican (02/25/2013) [-]
**lilRican rolled a random image posted in comment #3204798 at My Little Pony fanfiction, backgrounds, songs, lyrics, and GIFs. **

I completely agree...

now all of it is just jump scares... back then they had to work on **** and not depend on CGI, and all of it was intentionally creepy too... nowadays i just go and read some paranormal **** to get the creeps i need
#104 to #89 - doggstar (02/25/2013) [-]
same here. i dont even jump at horror movies anymore, they're just too predictable. last horror movie that scared me was freddy vs jason when i was 13
#86 - strikous (02/25/2013) [-]
I only watched the new one because of Mary E. Winstead   
   
pic just here so you notice my comment....
I only watched the new one because of Mary E. Winstead

pic just here so you notice my comment....
0
#97 to #86 - Axemaniax **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #100 to #97 - strikous (02/25/2013) [-]
Yes exactly :)
0
#101 to #100 - Axemaniax **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #102 to #101 - strikous (02/25/2013) [-]
I'll rewatch the old one tonight, have a good evening friend! ;)
User avatar #83 - fantomen (02/25/2013) [-]
Fun Fact. This is one of the very few films where they use real military grade flamethrowers (even then they only run them at half pressure). In most Hollywood films they use propane powered flamethrowers, and those only have a range of about 5 yards. That's why most people think flamethrowers have a short range. However, real military flamethrowers can easily reach out to 30 yards if you load them with the correct fuel at the correct pressure.

The coolest part. Outside of Commiefornia, flamethrowers like that are completely unrestricted. They don't even count as firearms in most of Europe.
#95 to #83 - PubLandlord (02/25/2013) [-]
Propane is clean burning and efficient, taste the meat not the heat
#85 to #83 - myturntoevil (02/25/2013) [-]
It is against the geneva convention to use them in warfare now
User avatar #87 to #85 - fantomen (02/25/2013) [-]
It's the Hague Convention that bans certain weapons. The Geneva Convention only deals with rights and rules regarding prisoners of war.

And no. fire weapons like flamethrowers, white phosphorous and napalm are not specifically banned by the convention. They are however frowned upon by the UN and most human rights organizations.
#103 to #87 - gustamelusta (02/25/2013) [-]
White phosphorous now has a different application. My cousin used to be in logistics before redundancy, he drove heavy goods vehicles in Afghanistan, he was required to carry white phosphorous grenades which he was under orders to use to melt his vehicle if he were ever immobilised and un-recoverable. There's a lot of top secret armour and IED jamming equipment on these things and they had to make sure the Taliban didn't get any to study.
User avatar #110 to #103 - fantomen (02/25/2013) [-]
White phosphorus is mainly used for illumination these days. But it can be used as an incendiary too. Even tough I believe thermate is more common for that now.
#88 to #87 - myturntoevil (02/25/2013) [-]
I stand corrected
[ 134 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)