I guess they are remaking Pet Sematary now

[bassman]

It was basically a remake without remaking the same story. They used the Norwegian camp as the basis of the story, but it was clear that they were trying to coast on the good reputation of Carpenter’s film. Even using the exact same title.

[JDP]

It was basically a remake without remaking the same story. They used the Norwegian camp as the basis of the story, but it was clear that they were trying to coast on the good reputation of Carpenter’s film. Even using the exact same title. If it doesn't have the same story or at least its basics, then it cannot be a "remake". The movie is clearly intended as a prequel, so the filmmakers never denied the intentional connection to Carpenter's movie.

[bassman]

It’s not remake in the direct sense of the word, but the intentions behind it were exactly the same as those behind remakes. Regardless, they missed the target...

[JDP]

It’s not remake in the direct sense of the word, but the intentions behind it were exactly the same as those behind remakes. That would be the case if it happened at the American base, and it involved those characters, but I fail to see how does this apply to that movie. The cast of (human) characters is different (only the two Norwegians killed at the American base are also part of the first movie), the location where the action takes place is not the same (Norwegian base, not American base.) The only thing in common between both movies is... The Thing! (pun fully intended)

[bassman]

Yeah. I’m well aware of the character and location differences. As I said, it’s more of the intentions behind the film. I like MZ’s term, “premake”. That’s fitting.

[ProfessorChaos]

pet semetary is probably one of my all-time favorite books. i started re-reading it a while back, but since i've last read it, i've became a father to an adorable little lad, had to put it down. it's a great story, but downright horrifying to read as a parent. perhaps i'll give it another go sometime soon. as for the remake, i'm gonna keep my expectations low as hell, but given the state of the film industry in 2018, i'm sure it'll be a let-down full of jump-scares and loud noises. and for the record, my wife and i both thought the 2017 version of IT was completely over-rated and pretty forgettable.

[EvilNed]

as for the remake, i'm gonna keep my expectations low as hell, but given the state of the film industry in 2018, i'm sure it'll be a let-down full of jump-scares and loud noises. and for the record, my wife and i both thought the 2017 version of IT was completely over-rated and pretty forgettable. I thought the film really nailed the kids and their world. However the way the monster was presented was just loud and in your face. There was no creeping feeling of dread at all, just loud noises and him coming at you with thunderous music blasting at high volume.

[MinionZombie]

Yeah. I’m well aware of the character and location differences. As I said, it’s more of the intentions behind the film. I like MZ’s term, “premake”. That’s fitting. Yeah, we're not being literal, JDP, we're talking to all intents and purposes. They were at least aware of the 'shame' of horror remakes as well as the fans' awareness of how cynical it all is, but they couldn't resist themselves (hence the same exact title ... which in itself makes zero sense ... shoulda been something like The Thing: Outpost somethingorother) ... as I said before: pre-make. It's technically a different story, but they're playing in almost the same sandbox as JC's movie (for some scenes, certainly). Basically, it was a way for the studio to remake The Thing without actually remaking it and upsetting the fans in the process. The prequel idea with the Norwegian camp gave them enough of a loophole, but they still fucked it up. Indeed, many prequels are kinda pointless as you know where people end up - I've no idea why we need a prequel to The Purge, for instance, as we've already had three of them and know how it all climaxed in the third movie. It seems as if much of what they're aiming to say in the Purge prequel has already been said in previous movies in the franchise. A fourth movie detailing the dismantling (and certain resistance) of the Purge itself might have been more interesting ... maybe.

[shootemindehead]

I must be the only person on the planet that didn't mind the 2011 Thing.

[EvilNed]

I must be the only person on the planet that didn't mind the 2011 Thing. Did you know they shot all the gore with practical effects and then replaced them with CGI in post because the studio executives thought it looked too "80's"? By the way, I haven't seen it.

[shootemindehead]

Yeh, I know all about the making of it. BTW, I don't think it had anything to do with looking too 80's. The studio stepped in and basically said the animatronics looked shite. It's far from being a great film, though. Servicable, nothing more.

[beat_truck]

I haven't seen the '11 version, and it sounds like I don't need to bother. The JC remake was decent from what I remember, but I only saw it once many years ago. It might be time to rewatch it, and I think I actually own a copy. I thought the original '50s The Thing From Another World was pretty decent for it's time, too.

[MinionZombie]

I must be the only person on the planet that didn't mind the 2011 Thing. And coming from the forum's harshest movie critic! Yeh, I know all about the making of it. BTW, I don't think it had anything to do with looking too 80's. The studio stepped in and basically said the animatronics looked shite. It's far from being a great film, though. Servicable, nothing more. I recall seeing some footage of the scene where the two bodies are fused together and the animatronics did look a bit shit - they were also only partial effects (the limbs weren't complete, for example, so some of it was always intended to be done in post production). What they should have done with that scene was figure out some way to have two stunt performers inside a physical 'suit' of some sort with them fused together and trying to pull apart or join together (depending on who is playing which part), and that would have looked better that the weird robot thing they attempted. The JC remake was decent from what I remember, but I only saw it once many years ago. It might be time to rewatch it, and I think I actually own a copy. I thought the original '50s The Thing From Another World was pretty decent for it's time, too. Decent? *faints* It's a hell of a lot more than that, beat, it's a cinematic landmark.

[EvilNed]

Yeh, I know all about the making of it. BTW, I don't think it had anything to do with looking too 80's. The studio stepped in and basically said the animatronics looked shite. It's far from being a great film, though. Servicable, nothing more. They did release some behind the footage of the film which received high acclaim for it's high quality practical effects. It's probably still around on Youtube somewhere. I can't 100% vouch for the 80's comment tho, but I don't think the practical effects were shit.

[MinionZombie]

They did release some behind the footage of the film which received high acclaim for it's high quality practical effects. It's probably still around on Youtube somewhere. I can't 100% vouch for the 80's comment tho, but I don't think the practical effects were shit. Comparison and analysis - the director himself made the "80s" comment, despite being a fan of practical effects and the original intentions to go practical for the movie. Seems that, perhaps, the studio was more responsible for pushing for CGI. There's also more BTS footage here: Looking at some of this, particularly at the blending of two bodies gag, that Tom Savini's school of 'pulling off a magic trick' - the whole 'what does the audience need to see and therefore what does the effects team have to create' philosophy seems to have been utterly forgotten about. The choice of shots and the selection of effects techniques seems a bit ill-considered, might you say?