HOME | DD
MIKECORRIERO ā The Thing 2.0
Published: 2011-08-10 00:22:12 +0000 UTC; Views: 24766; Favourites: 752; Downloads: 194
Redirect to original
Description
Ā© Mike Corriero my take on The Thing in creature form.Fan art since the prequel will be coming out soon, though this was more inspired by John Carpenter's version.
please take a couple of minutes to check out my GoFundMe - Iād appreciate it.
gofund.me/0ca0c140
Thanks šš¼
Related content
Comments: 99
That. Movie. Was. AMAZING!
It scared the shit out of me, I cant trust anyone now. One more apocalypse I need to prepare for.
š: 0 ā©: 1
lol - such a great concept for this sort of creature feature, stranding everyone out in the middle of nowhere surrounded by extreme weather conditions and no contact to the civilized world.
š: 0 ā©: 0
Is this the creature's "true form"? Or just one of the recent victims?
Either way, it looks creepy...
š: 0 ā©: 1
No, though a shape shifting creature at least in my mind would never have a true form. Though if I were to further explore this concept, I would try working out more plausible looking designs that though mangled/mutilated and transformed.. would also have a few "go to" anatomy constructions for various purposes ie; running fast, attaching quick and efficiently, jumping long distances, flying etc. The movie really only shows the creature take form of the huskies/dogs and the people because maybe that's the only human based life it has seen since the time it crashed and was thawed out. Though if it had a spaceship, it would have been on other planets or at the very least.. its own planet. Meaning it would have imprinted and copied other alien life forms it could still use once it felt threatened.
š: 0 ā©: 1
Still, if you look at Carpenter's original film, you can see that all of the Thing's mutations share some common characteristics that hint to a "true form": elongated tongues, sharp fangs, tendrils and spider-like legs. So, either this is "casual", since the Thing is chaos incarned, or the creature does have some common points to refer to, after all., which implies a possible "true from", though as you said a shape-shifting creature like the Thing could not be such if it'd show its true colors..
Of course, it's just an opinion.
š: 0 ā©: 1
Yea, it does utilize anatomy at certain points of JC's version that hint at other species like the upside down head walker scene, the rib cage/teeth scene etc. In some respects though, as a shapeshifter (again just opinion) you would assume it would be capable of taking something such as the canines of the dogs, the paws, hands and anatomy of a human and combining those as well as exaggerating, reforming, transforming, elongating and mutating the anatomy to produce its own rendition of these things. I think of a shapeshifter like an artist or a chameleon. It's capable of not only mimicking the look of existing species, colors and anatomy but creating its own version of what it has imprinted on and basically creating chimera-like versions as well as new species or unique anatomy that would benefit the creature in whatever situation fits best. The strange thing about a shapeshifter is that especially in the case of The Thing films, it seems at least on Earth, that it's only interaction with life were with the huskies and humans. So it would basically be able to produce its own version of a werewolf for lack of a better term.
š: 0 ā©: 0
did you know they already made a prequel?
š: 0 ā©: 1
yea, that was why I decided to design this.. I saw some of the stills of some creature work from the prequel and it didn't look all that interesting (though I'd have to see how they handle it in the film)
š: 0 ā©: 0
Time to call the Orkin man, or an exorcist. Frigin' sweet textures!
š: 0 ā©: 1
How do you feel about the new one? Hopeful or disgusted?
š: 0 ā©: 1
Hopeful but I was a little bummed seeing the trailer because it doesn't seem all that different. I understand keeping similar elements from JC's version is important but it looked like it should be called "The SAME THING" instead of a prequel. We'll see.. horror films like this don't get much of a budget these days and they either don't show enough of the creature/monsters or they show too much and the budget causes the CG to look like trash.
š: 0 ā©: 1
Hahaha THE SAME THING is right! The few frames of monster I caught in the trailer didn't look poorly rendered, at least. On the other hand, they looked more like a bunch of spiky bug legs, nothing close to Rob Bottin's hellish, twisted forms.
š: 0 ā©: 1
They posted some stills of the sculpts up of some different forms and honestly..it looked kinda bad for a 2012 film..... I understand half the appeal of The Thing is that it takes human form (the whole point of the movie is not knowing who is this shape shifting alien) but some of the designs had crab/insect claws etc..and just mangled flesh (not real design). I would just assume that since it comes from outerspace that it has seen so many other life forms, plus humans and the dogs at the base, that in the "half way shift" designs, they could really have produced some interesting functional body types - means of attack and aesthetic appeal more than just crab legs and a half human face mangled with malformed flesh and sharp teeth.
š: 0 ā©: 1
Shame, really. Of the artists working on the project, I know Alec Gillis, Tom Woodruff, Jordu Schell and Aaron Sims have serious creature design bona fides, though they're mostly of the alien bug sort, not the abstracted human form sort. If I could put together a dream team, it would include Carlos Huante and Wayne Barlowe, and hell, while I'm at it, the rest of the guys who were working on Mountains of Madness. I'm sure there were budgetary restrictions, of course, and clearly a lot of top names were otherwise occupied. The most suspect members of the crew seem to be the writer, who has done just a couple crappy horror flicks, and the director, who seems to be making his feature debut.
Where did you see the sculpts? I've found a couple images on youtube, but I don't know if they're legit.
š: 0 ā©: 1
Hmm.. seems most of the imagery, whether conceptual or maquettes/sculpts are from studios who were producing pitch work and didn't actually get the job - and posted the imagery online, or fake imagery of work that isn't actually from the prequel. So I was wrong, and that would explain why some of it looked realllly bad.
Carlos Huante would have been my #1 pick on THIS type of film because his design work aside from a very good understanding of animal based and alien based anatomy/designs, is constantly including deformed, mangled flesh and human anatomy that would fit perfectly for The Thing. I love Jordu Schell's work.. I don't know of Alec Gillis by name and I know the name Tom Woodruff but I can't picture his work off hand. Aaron Sims company seems to get hired on every creature project available. It's not just Aaron himself, since it's a studio comprised of other artists such as Jerad S. Marantz for one. The only problem with that studio is it seems they have bad luck working on a lot of films that tend to get bad ratings IE; Green Lantern, Sucker Punch, Clash of the Titans.. the creature work is generally not the problem but more so the storyline and direction of the films. I wouldn't mind working for Aaron Sims Company at some point since they do get a lot of interesting projects.
I heard Mountains of Madness was canned but then I read that Guillermo Del Toro hired Allen Williams at comic con while walking the floor - to work on Pacific Rim and it mentions Mouth of Madness which I assume they meant Mountains of Madness. [link] so I don't know if the movie is still greenlit or not.
š: 0 ā©: 1
This awesome New Yorker article talks about the art team on Mountains and Guillermo's vision for it, and its, sad but true, demise :[link]
š: 0 ā©: 1
thanks for the link.. too bad it's canceled. I love "In the Mouth of Madness" with Sam Neill, it would have been nice to see his take on it.
š: 0 ā©: 0
Thanks.. I wish I could have been called to work on it.
š: 0 ā©: 0
That's how it should have looked in the movie.
š: 0 ā©: 1
Thanks - it's a tricky thing when producing a shapeshifter in a film/horror because you could literally choose to have it appear as anything and everything. I think John (more specifically the art team) pulled out some great ideas ie; the chest bursting open and the rib cage appearing as a huge sharp toothed mouth, the head detaching and sprouting eyes walking around upside down on spider-like legs, the "blood test" scene, the dog kennel scene.. but yea, I would have liked to see a more full bodied "creature" malformed and mutated, walking around.
š: 0 ā©: 0
Woah. I did NOT know there was a prequel in the works! I've loved The Thing for a very, very long time, and to know that they're working on a prequel is all sorts of awesome. 
Also, I think what I like best about your image is the tendrils of fleshy corruption it's spreading out over the ceiling. Nice touch, that.
š: 0 ā©: 1
Thanks. Yea, it takes place at the norwegian camp where they first dug it up out from near the ship.
The root/hair-like tendrils of flesh spreading out were inspired by the dog kennel scene in JC's version. Since this thing mimics whatever it basically imprints on IE; people, dogs etc.. I figured the hair would also be a nice creepy touch along with the molars/human teeth on the main tusk-like protrusion of the face where the proboscis sticks out.
š: 0 ā©: 0
Actually, the creaters of the Thing prequel have repeatedly stated that practical effects were being used as much as possible, only using cgi to "enhance" aspects of it. I'm gonna wait and see for myself, but I remain optimistic.
Oh! And BTW , I AM A MEMBER OF OUTPOST 31.com , we are a fansite of a small, diehard THING fans, and we have recently opened up a new thread on our discussion board called "FAN SUBMISSIONS"
We would love to have you join us, if your interested.
A standard procedure "blood test" IS MANDATORY.
š: 0 ā©: 1
and if I refuse the blood test?
I don't know if I'd have time, I usually don't even get around to checking out DA's forum/threads and hardly even get too involved in groups except submitting relevant art. Thanks though
That's good to hear, I hope they use as much traditional and practical effects where possible, but I think that CGI is at a point now where if they really wanted this THING to look awesome, they can use CG but only if they have the budget ie; king kong, avatar, rise of the planet of the apes..... smooth, quality creature and cg effects.
š: 0 ā©: 0
Ooo! Creepy! I love the "rooty" feet and the hair just seems to up the creepy factor. Oh and that wicked mouth, oh my! Wouldn't want to unfortunatly stumple under that.
š: 0 ā©: 1
Thanks, yea..from John Carpenter's version there were scenes were especially in the husky kennels that the creature started to kind of quickly branch out and shoot out liquid and vine-like anatomy grasping the dogs. I also felt the hair would be nice to give some human eerie-ness to it along with some molars on that tusked, spiked proboscis malformed face/mouth.
š: 0 ā©: 0
š: 0 ā©: 0
Great work!!I loved the John Carpenter version with all the animatronics and stop motion use.I'm a little hesitant about how good the new one will be with CGI,but I still wanna see it alot!
š: 0 ā©: 1
Yea.. CG is great when used properly, but in terms of cheaper horror flicks they usually fall short. I love John's version and I don't expect I'll like the prequel more than it but it will be fun to see an updated version of this franchise.
š: 0 ā©: 0
ive been even more excited ever since there was that leaked shot of "splitface".
Oh and there was the one shot of the one guy with arms growing out of his back... which looked completely painful. XD
š: 0 ā©: 1
Where have you seen the splitface and hands out of a guy's back images? I'd love to check them out..
š: 0 ā©: 1
oh, one sec...
[link]
here they are!
I cant tell if they're arms or legs tell you the truth. XD
š: 0 ā©: 1
hhmmmmmm.. hard to tell yea. As much as I'd like to see the creature in multiple "creature forms" shifting, changing etc.. I think the way they handled it in JC's version will best suit the look of things as shown in the splitting face and whatever is going on with the other guy lol. Thanks for the link.
š: 0 ā©: 1
no prob!
I have no idea why people are rating on about it being done mostly with CGI effects.
The thing seems like a perfect subject for CGI.
With all of the forms it takes and such.
š: 0 ā©: 0
a prequel to "The Thing"?
I dont know whether to cry Fuck yeah! or groan
wicked work by the way
š: 0 ā©: 1
Thanks for the compliment.. yea, it's crazy... originally they meant to produce a sequel and years later now they are producing a sequel at the Norwegian Camp where it all began.
š: 0 ā©: 0
You're welcome!
š: 0 ā©: 0
<= Prev |