The Thing Prequel

[AcesandEights]

Ok, I am back from my haircut.   I did not like the head morphing scene in the trailer. What pissed me off about that is that it's a trailer and not a place to reveal something of that nature, if you ask me. The effect itself was kind of...lazy, though, I felt.

[slickwilly13]

I agree, because it is a spoiler. Now we all know this character will turn and hopefully, it will not be a cheap cgi scene, but we saw some cheap cgi. I am hoping they polish it up. At least they did not show the ending like some trailers had in the past. -- -------- Post added at 03:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:53 PM ---------- If it's not set in 1982, then I'm going on an interweb crusade. Actually, in the trailer, there's some graphics of cells taking over other cells (a la 'The Thing' 1982) and they don't look very Commodore VIC 20 to me. I hope that isn't supposed to be a fancy computer simulation that the "scientists" are looking at. I can explain that scene. Possible spoiler.   They took tissue samples after the first attack and examined it under a microscope. They were trying to figure out what they dealing with. They noticed it could replicate. Just like JC's movie, which Blair performed an autopsy and made some discoveries. It is the same thing. They mixed some cells with blood and examined it. No computer.

[wayzim]

Just to interject some reality into the fiction, this is an interesting article from the Antarctic Sun News. http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/feature...er.cfm?id=1946 I actually looked most of this stuff up today. Wayne Z

[LouCipherr]

It's funny how people these days intentionally set themselves up to be disappointed rather than giving it an honest shot... There's a reason for that - allow me to give you a few examples: A Nightmare on Elm Street remake Friday the 13th remake Black Christmas The Wolfman The Hills Have Eyes Halloween remakes (fuck you, RZ!) Prom Night My Bloody Valentine Texas Chainsaw Massacre Day of the Dead remake for many of you, the Dawn of the Dead remake Do I need to go on? Regardless of the fact that this new "Thing" is supposedly a "prequel" and not a remake, it doesn't matter - the bottom line is, they're doing a movie that has no business being done. As someone said before me, JC completed the story. There's nothing else that needs to be told - although Hollywood certainly thinks so, and why? Because they feel they can cash in on JC's version. I see no reason to give a movie an "honest shot" when the movie wasn't made with "honest intentions" to begin with.

[bassman]

How do you know it's not being made with honest intentions though? What would happen if people refused to give Carpenter's film a shot because it was a remake? The Fly? Ben Hur? 3:10 to Yuma? Scarface? The Departed? Those were remakes, but if you give them a chance they're actually very good. Not just cash in's. Even sequels or prequels from different directors can be fantastic. Look at Aliens. The story of Alien was complete, wasn't it? No need or real want to continue it. Then James Cameron came in, defied all the hate, and turned in a film that now sits proudly next to the original as a classic. These examples are in the minority, but they prove that it can be done and done well. They wouldn't have had a chance if people just shut them down without even seeing the finished film. Of course the internet is the biggest reason this now happens... If you start hating on the film in advance of it's release, there's basically no chance you can like it. You just go in thinking it's going be bad and then TRY to find the bad things rather than enjoying the good. That's the way I try to look at it these days, anyway. As I said before, I think more people should try to keep open minds with movies and give them and honest shot.

[slickwilly13]

I did not have a problem with the Friday the 13th remake. It was a Jason movie. What was expected? All of those movies are one star movies. The only problems I had with the Dawn remake was the fact they did not attack animals, the stupid chick going after the damn dog, and the lack of feeding. I just hope this prequel is not full of bad acting and crappy cgi. I am going to give it a chance after reading the script. If anyone wishes to read it, then let me know.

[MinionZombie]

There's a reason for that - allow me to give you a few examples: A Nightmare on Elm Street remake - agreed, it was beyond horrendous. FACT. Friday the 13th remake - it's a bit of a mess, quite a mess even, but I strangely quite like parts of it ... ... plus Julianna Guill gets her norks out. Black Christmas - never watched the remake. Fuck that shit. The Wolfman - the old school Universal monster movies original is a classic, and this remake/update/modernising was okay, not great, not awful, just okay. The Hills Have Eyes - the original wasn't a milestone, it was decent, and I really enjoyed the remake - even if there were too many 'jump scares' employed - and the third act rocked. It was brutal, bloody, and a very solid effort. Halloween remakes (fuck you, RZ!) - RZ's #1 doesn't beat JC's #1 by any stretch of the imagination - it was never going to - but I still dig it, as you well know, haha. Even the follow-up, as much of an utter, utter mess it is half the time, still had a bunch of stuff about it that I really dug. Prom Night - never saw the remake. Have ZERO interest. My Bloody Valentine - the original (uncut) is an undersold slasher classic, it's really rather good ... but the 3D remake was dull, and that awful video-look spoiled the visuals to no end. Texas Chainsaw Massacre - the remake is nowhere near the league of the superb original - of course - and despite some problems, I actually quite liked it in the end, despite decrying the news when I first heard it ... the shame is that it inspired a whole slew of remakes ... but then on the other hand we get Jessica Biel in a tank top. Day of the Dead remake - good God. The film version of some ghastly disease. It's abject movie-viewing torture. for many of you, the Dawn of the Dead remake - fuck yes. Yawn04 can kiss my ass. One observation though - would I rather have a possibly unnecessary prequel, or a definitely unnecessary remake? The former, naturally. We'll see, but I just know it won't live up to JC's film - nothing will - it's just a case of whether it's good enough or not ... we shall see, I guess.

[MikePizzoff]

I thought The Hills Have Eyes remake was pretty awesome and the original is a laughing fest. I've been a big Texas Chainsaw Massacre fan since I was about 11 years old, so I had very low expectations for the remake. However, I walked out of the theater with a smile on my face. I haven't seen the majority of the others you've listed. Also, sure, JC completed the story of the US camp. This movie is supposed to tell the story of the Norwegian camp. However, I'm still leaning toward your side on thinking this thing is just going to be mostly a remake - I've seen too many pictures/shots of the lead female dressed like Kurt Russell, carrying a flamethrower.

[LouCipherr]

How do you know it's not being made with honest intentions though? I'm sorry, did I break your concentration? You were saying something about "best intentions"...? oh, you were finished? Well, allow me to retort! I couldn't resist. The question is, what remake is done with honest intentions? I appreciate your sentiment, bassman, but I think you're giving the industry too much credit. The main reason Hollywood has jumped on the remake bandwagon is for nothing other than "guaranteed cash" based on the popularity or name of the previous incarnations of the film(s) being a guaranteed cash cow (ANOES, Fri13th, Halloween, etc). There are few - extremely few - examples which do not, but wow is it rare. The ones that aren't trying to cash in on a name, I'll agree they're done with honest intentions. The real question is, how often do we see that? What would happen if people refused to give Carpenter's film a shot because it was a remake? Technically, while it was based on another film (The Thing From Another World), it was a much more direct lift from the novella, "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell, Jr. - so, does that make it a remake? I dunno. I think so, but of which one? What Carpenter did was twist and shape the original story into something similar (based on the idea of a shape-shifting alien), but made it something new. Is that going to be the case with this one? Who knows, but it dosen't look like it based on the trailer. These examples are in the minority, but they prove that it can be done and done well. But they are all indeed good examples you provided, and I have to agree with most of them. I'll probably get shot for this on this forum, but I think the remake of The Crazies was quite well done. As well some of the films you mentioned - 3:10 to Yuma being a great example (I really enjoyed that film) For me, though, giving hollywood the 'benefit of the doubt' is not something I'm willing to do as their output for the past decade or so has been sketchy. There are shining gems out there, but they're lost in a sea of mud and debris. If you start hating on the film in advance of it's release, there's basically no chance you can like it. You just go in thinking it's going be bad and then TRY to find the bad things rather than enjoying the good. True, and I'm not "hating" on this prequel, I just don't know why they're doing it. Matter of fact, I have been all for some remakes - I had a completely open mind about RZ's Halloweens and look where that got me. I was the one idiot standing on the street screaming "IF ANYONE CAN DO IT, RZ CAN!" Hah! I tried to find SOMETHING good about it, but still to this day I cannot. I tried to find something to like about ANOES... Nope. I couldn't even like Haley, who I think is an awesome actor... I even saw flicks like Black Christmas in the theater - letdown. I went to go see My Bloody Valentine in the theater - again, major letdown from the original. It's not from my lack of trying to like these films, it's a matter of the films themselves competing against something they'll never compare to. As for The Thing - I will go see it, as I stated before, but after what I've seen, it just seems like someone said, "Hey, this movie has found a NICE sized following after it was put out on video/DVD - lets try and get some of the money from those suckers to go see this!" It reeks of insincerity. BTW: The story was not already told for Aliens. This "Thing" prequel is covering things already dealt with in the first film by JC. Aliens, however, happened after the first film, so I have no idea how they could've told the story already of something that had yet to happen. I did not have a problem with the Friday the 13th remake. It was a Jason movie. What was expected? I guess I shouldn't have either, since we finally figured out Jason's REAL back story. He was a mercenary pot farmer who got pissed when Camp Crystal Lake was built too close to his operation. When the kids wandered too close to his stash, they had to go! He wasn't saying "Kill kill killl" "hah hah hah" - he was saying "T...t...t... H...h...h.... C...c...c..." One observation though - would I rather have a possibly unnecessary prequel, or a definitely unnecessary remake? The former, naturally. In all honesty, MZ? I'd rather have an original idea. If I was forced to pick prequel or remake, I guess I'd pick prequel, but that's like asking me to pick between eating a corpse or a shit sandwich -- neither of which I wanna do!

[MinionZombie]

Lou - having neither wasn't part of the hypothetical. What I'm most want is a super-duper special edition home video release, and a theatrical re-exhibition of the JC film ... but that wasn't part of the hypothetical.

[shootemindehead]

The worst thing about this 'Thing', is that it'll probably end up making more money at the box office than Carpenter's. As for 'The Hills Have Eyes' remake, I personally thought that it was very good. Far, far superior than the frankly rubbish Wes Craven effort, who admittedly I've never been a fan of. The sequels of both iterations, however, sucked big fat monkey balls.

[LouCipherr]

Lou - having neither wasn't part of the hypothetical. What I'm most want is a super-duper special edition home video release, and a theatrical re-exhibition of the JC film ... but that wasn't part of the hypothetical. *kicks dirt in front of him like a scorned sad child* Dammit, don't make me choose. I can't do it.. I just....can't. The worst thing about this 'Thing', is that it'll probably end up making more money at the box office than Carpenter's. Now that would piss me off to no end, but I have no doubt you're right. JC's version didn't do well at all at the box office, so that might not be hard to do. This "prequel" (if that's really what it is) already has the coattails of the original to ride off of, so there's almost no way it won't do better than JC's, even though it probably won't even come to the magic of the original. It's very hard to get psyched for a "prequel" when everything they show you in the trailer is almost a direct lift from JC's version. Add to that the poster - another almost direct lift from JC's...

[bassman]

John Carpenter's response to this prequel: He just wants to be paid. On THE THING: “I am not involved with it at all. They didn’t even pay me any money. Some of the other remakes and sequels paid me money, but this one didn’t. I haven’t heard a word (about its release). I haven’t heard. No one tells me anything. No one tells me. They didn’t ask me any questions. They treated me like the lacky that I am. I don’t want to do (direct) that. I’ve done it, man. I don’t want to do that again." "These days you need some babes. You have to have the babes. They are doing the story of the Norwegian camp in the prequel. I did see a couple of photos of the girl (Mary Elizabeth-Winstead) with the flamethrower flaming away. I’m assuming she’s battling the aliens. We’ll see what happens. I don’t know what their plans are for the creature itself. I don’t know what it looks like. I don’t know where they are going with it.” So basically he cares less than we do. He just wants some money. As for the upcoming Escape From New York remake? They paid me money. That’s always good. Carpenter just wants da money.

[LouCipherr]

John Carpenter's response to this prequel: He just wants to be paid. .... As for the upcoming Escape From New York remake? .... Carpenter just wants da money. He said the exact same thing about the remake of The Fog. He said it wasn't his story to tell anymore (he had already done so in his version) and all he cared was that he got his cut. I wish I could find a link to those quotes about The Fog, 'cause even at the time it irked me quite a bit the way he put it. It sounded like "hell, i don't give a shit what any of you do with my movie, just give me some cash" Kinda makes me question Carpenters sanity at this point. ***edited to add: I found one similar comment from him. See below: Source: http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_3956.html "Why remake "The Fog"? John Carpenter: Why not? If everybody else is making remakes and they want to pay me money to make a remake of an old movie of mine why not? It's a good idea. Seriously that's part of the answer, but my ex-partner, Debra Hill, who just recently died, had been trying to get this off the ground. We hooked up with David [Foster] here who did finally get it off the ground and it was kind of nice for her to see this being made." WHAT THE FUCK, JC?!

[blind2d]

I get where he's coming from. Y'know? You did it, it's done, moving on. If other people can't, that's their problem, just give credit and money where it's due.