The Thing Prequel [Archive]

krakenslayer

08-Feb-2010, 04:38 PM

I'm kinda torn on this. On one hand it's cool that they're doing a prequel as opposed to a shit-on-it-and-start-again reboot, but on the other, we already know what happened to the Norwegian team. So they're going to have to do a lot of wriggling to make themselves room for a complete, original and unpredictable story. They need to have some team members chase the Thing (in dog form) to the American base, they need to excavate the same UFO from the ice (and film it), they need to remove the Thing in a large block of ice and leave it inside their base, some of them need to commit suicide by wrist-cutting, and the base needs to burn down. So the film-makers have two options - stick closely to these story points and limit their free-reign to tell a story, or take liberties with the continuity. I'm hoping they pick the former (as the lesser of two evils), but I have a feeling they will lean towards the latter.

slickwilly13

08-Feb-2010, 04:47 PM

I was going to post this news earlier, but I have been so busy today I did not bother. After reading the news about an American female lead and other character descriptions, I have a bad feeling about this.

MinionZombie

08-Feb-2010, 06:39 PM

*sigh*

Winstead is fit as fook, and she was rather enjoyable in general in the likes of Death Proof ... ... but there's NO NEED for a Thing prequel (nor remake :shifty:).

It's like Tremors 4, a pointless sequel/prequel that won't bring anything new to the table, and that will just re-tread ideas we already know all about.

Legion2213

08-Feb-2010, 08:35 PM

darth los

08-Feb-2010, 08:50 PM

Prequels are very interesting in that they answer alot of questions that one has about the original film, which is a good thing.

They are treading on thin ice though. The original is an absolute classic and imo, things can only go down from there.

:cool:

fulci fan

11-Feb-2010, 05:52 PM

darth los

11-Feb-2010, 05:56 PM

I heard it will be a SyFy movie. So who will see it anyway? I guarantee it will have shitty C.G. (especially if it is a SyFy movie).:mad:

I actually hope it will go to SyFy because no one will see it then.

Well, dealing with what we hear isn't going to get us anywhere. Facts would be more helpful. Is there a link to that assertion?

If that is indeed the case and it's going to be a sy fy movie then that pretty much tells us all we need to know right there.

:cool:

krakenslayer

11-Feb-2010, 05:59 PM

I heard it will be a SyFy movie. So who will see it anyway? I guarantee it will have shitty C.G. (especially if it is a SyFy movie).:mad:

I actually hope it will go to SyFy because no one will see it then.

Really, I'm pretty sure it's being produced by Strike Entertainment (i.e. the guys behind Dawn 2004) who have a deal with Universal to release all their movies.

capncnut

11-Feb-2010, 06:04 PM

Not interested, thank you.

bassman

11-Feb-2010, 06:06 PM

I doubt it's going to be a TV or straight-to-dvd film. As mentioned before, Strike is handling the prequel, so it's going to theaters. And they also wouldn't shell out the money it takes to hire someone like Mary Winstead if it were a Syfy film...

darth los

11-Feb-2010, 06:49 PM

Really, I'm pretty sure it's being produced by Strike Entertainment (i.e. the guys behind Dawn 2004) who have a deal with Universal to release all their movies.

Sweet! Now all we need is snyder to direct it and I'm there ! lol

:cool:

bassman

11-Feb-2010, 06:53 PM

Then the alien wouldn't go from person to person, but would be a gay muscle builder/olympic runner and would talk like a dinosaur from Jurrasic Park.

Oh and the alien would have a sex scene with MEW to show they're "in love".:dead:

EDIT: Actually.....now that I think about it, the alien DID sound like a dinosaur in Carpenter's film. Snyder was born for this!

darth los

11-Feb-2010, 07:57 PM

Then the alien wouldn't go from person to person, but would be a gay muscle builder and would talk like a dinosaur from Jurrasic Park.

Damn dude. You just subconsciously described big daddy. :p :lol:

:cool:

krakenslayer

11-Feb-2010, 08:05 PM

darth los

11-Feb-2010, 08:19 PM

Meh, I was pretty happy when I first heard about this, I thought RDM could do a good job...he stated that it would be a "companion piece" to the original, which i cool, but casting a woman is pure BS.

The original thing was a guy movie, no distracting women/love interests etc

I don't mind the idea of a prequel, I want to see that gene stealing alien raping another research station, but I don't want to see any chicks in it.

.

It's a shame that gore makes something a guy movie. If one could get passed that there's really a wealth of pscchological drama going around at that camp which imo, has gone unsurpassed in film till this day.

Atleast they're no remaking it tho.

:cool:

krakenslayer

11-Feb-2010, 08:40 PM

It's a shame that gore makes something a guy movie. If one could get passed that there's really a wealth of pscchological drama going around at that camp which imo, has gone unsurpassed in film till this day.

Atleast they're no remaking it tho.

:cool:

I totally agree but...

I think what he means is The Thing is a movie with an all-male cast and the social/power interactions are all male-male. Guys act slightly differently when there are no women around, especially in stressful situations, but it's not often you get a movie that really explores that because of the pressure by studios to include a female character for sexual tension/love interest, and to pander to the teen market.

Putting a woman into the situation contaminates the mix of relationships that the original movie had. It might not be bad, but it certainly won't feel the same.

Mike70

11-Feb-2010, 09:12 PM

Not interested, thank you.

i'll second that. i've always preferred the 50's version to carpenter's by a long, long margin. carpenter's version is way, way too far over the top and leaves almost nothing to the imagination.

fulci fan

11-Feb-2010, 09:57 PM

Well, dealing with what we hear isn't going to get us anywhere. Facts would be more helpful. Is there a link to that assertion?

If that is indeed the case and it's going to be a sy fy movie then that pretty much tells us all we need to know right there.

:cool:

I just read it on some "upcoming horror movie" site. I think it is too early to tell anyway.

Legion2213

11-Feb-2010, 10:26 PM

Krakenslayer nails it.

If you watch the directors commentary on the DVD, you will find out that there was only one woman crew member when filming it as well, she left really early early because she was having a baby, so it was actually a "guy movie" made by guys. They said that the dynamic was different even when filming, no posturing, showing off etc.

.

bassman

08-Apr-2010, 01:22 AM

First photo

http://www.joblo.com/images_arrownews/the-thing-norwegian-camp.jpg

Not much, but the setting seems very familiar.:)

shootemindehead

08-Apr-2010, 10:20 PM

Oh no...is this thing going ahead?

MikePizzoff

11-Apr-2010, 08:39 PM

At least it's not a remake. Here's to hoping it's not like the TCM prequel...

EvilNed

11-Apr-2010, 09:02 PM

I hope they do with practical effects rather than CGI. Carpenter's version still holds up. The effects are awesome.

ProfessorChaos

11-Apr-2010, 09:25 PM

I hope they do with practical effects rather than CGI.

hate to be so negative, but i highly doubt this will be the case.:(

wayzim

11-Apr-2010, 11:09 PM

i'll second that. i've always preferred the 50's version to carpenter's by a long, long margin. carpenter's version is way, way too far over the top and leaves almost nothing to the imagination.

The original version was greatly altered from the John Campbell story "Who Goes There? " where Carpenter returned to the source. While I enjoyed both movies, the 1951 film had one thing which the 82 adaption didn't, a seriously grown up script.
It also had a woman in it, yes, one of the coolest pre-ripley sci fi heroines in Nikki (Margaret Sheridan. ) who had a credible adult relationship with Captain Hendry(Kenneth Tobey ). The sexual banter between them was as much fun as the monster hunt.
"At time you were making like an octopus, I never saw so many hands. "
Even as a kid, I got it.

Wayne Z
Ned "Scotty" Scott: Here's the sixty-four dollar question - what do you do with a vegetable?
Nikki: Boil it.
Ned "Scotty" Scott: What did you say?
Nikki: Boil it... bake it... stew it... fry it?

Legion2213

11-Apr-2010, 11:22 PM

I keep meaning to pick the original B&W movie up, I saw it once when I was about 9 years old, so I don't remember much about it.

fulci fan

12-Apr-2010, 03:34 AM

I hope they do with practical effects rather than CGI. Carpenter's version still holds up. The effects are awesome.

Won't happen, dude; expect CG. This is the era of shitty CG.

MinionZombie

12-Apr-2010, 10:39 AM

There'll be CGI everywhere, and if not everywhere, the practical with have "enhancements" done on computer - which just means that it'll end up all looking like CGI anyway (e.g. the new Wolfman movie).

Even if the odd bit of Bottin's practical effects in JC's The Thing might look a bit rough these days, it's far more convincing because of imperfections - and the very fact that our eyes and brains know instinctively that that effect was actually taking place there on the set right in front of the camera and the actors.

The effects in The Thing are horrendous - in a good way - they gross you out, still to this day, and they feel painful and violent and they just keep going further and further out there. I tell you man, when I first saw the dog's head split open and it jiggled the skull out to reveal that big tongue thing I damn near flipped out ... this was back when I was about 10, if I remember correctly. :D

shootemindehead

12-Apr-2010, 12:02 PM

The original version was greatly altered from the John Campbell story "Who Goes There? " where Carpenter returned to the source. While I enjoyed both movies, the 1951 film had one thing which the 82 adaption didn't, a seriously grown up script.
It also had a woman in it, yes, one of the coolest pre-ripley sci fi heroines in Nikki (Margaret Sheridan. ) who had a credible adult relationship with Captain Hendry(Kenneth Tobey ). The sexual banter between them was as much fun as the monster hunt.
"At time you were making like an octopus, I never saw so many hands. "
Even as a kid, I got it.

Wayne Z
Ned "Scotty" Scott: Here's the sixty-four dollar question - what do you do with a vegetable?
Nikki: Boil it.
Ned "Scotty" Scott: What did you say?
Nikki: Boil it... bake it... stew it... fry it?

I have to say that I think it's utterly incredible that ANYONE would prefer the 50's version to Carpenter's.

LouCipherr

13-Apr-2010, 03:08 PM

There'll be CGI everywhere, and if not everywhere, the practical with have "enhancements" done on computer - which just means that it'll end up all looking like CGI anyway (e.g. the new Wolfman movie).

This is EXACTLY what I'm afraid of.

But, like someone said before, at least this is a prequel and not a "remake" of Carpenter's classic.

As MZ said, I still think The Thing holds up even to today. You wouldn't know when that movie was made save for the computer MacCready is using to play chess and their hairstyles. Other than that, you could say that flick was made in the past 5 years and most would have no problem believing that.

DjfunkmasterG

13-Apr-2010, 04:16 PM

I think a lot of that is also because the re-mastering job for the film was done properly. I have seen films with very poor mastering that make them look even more dated than they really should be... I guess it is down to how much the studio sets aside for re-mastering.

Most likely why the Ghostbusters Blu-Ray looks like shit... at least in my opinion it does. All the money that franchise has made and columbia couldn't spend a few extra bucks by cleaning up and re-storing the master?

bassman

13-Apr-2010, 04:36 PM

Most likely why the Ghostbusters Blu-Ray looks like shit... at least in my opinion it does. All the money that franchise has made and columbia couldn't spend a few extra bucks by cleaning up and re-storing the master?

I personally think that BR looks pretty good. I admit that it is grainy but from what i've heard it has more to do with the film they used. Something about it being an obsolete film stock that produces grainy images? You would know more about it than I would, but this is just what i've heard from some of the folks on the GB boards.

I do still think the 1999 CE DVD of Ghostbusters looks great, though. I was blown away when I first saw it. The green "slime" dvds aren't that great of a transfer in comparison. They even cropped out some of the image.:confused:

The Thing holding up by today's standards? I would have to disagree there. As mentioned..the hairstyles, computer, and a few things are dated, but the effects are pretty dated as well. That's not a bad thing. The effects help make the film great imo, but some of them just can't pass by today's audiences.

I still have some hope for this prequel. It could turn out to be a fun little ride and companion piece to Carpenter's. Do I expect it to be as good? No....but i'm hoping it will at least be worthy.

shootemindehead

13-Apr-2010, 05:11 PM

Hairstyles in 'The Thing'?

They're not that dated. Look fine to me.

The only thing that dates it is the Chess game IMO.

AcesandEights

13-Apr-2010, 05:15 PM

Hairstyles in 'The Thing'?

They're not that dated. Look fine to me.

There's always business to be done out front and partying to be had in the back! (<---Does that sound gay?)

http://www.scifiscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/kurt_russell_the_thing.jpg

shootemindehead

13-Apr-2010, 05:19 PM

Yep, sounds gay. I haven't a clue what you're on about though.

Anyway, Mac is in the Antarctic. No barbers around. He has a beard too.

My hair would look like that, that's for sure.

AcesandEights

13-Apr-2010, 05:21 PM

Yep, sounds gay. I haven't a clue what you're on about though.

It was in reference to mullets.

bassman

13-Apr-2010, 05:22 PM

Yep, sounds gay. I haven't a clue what you're on about though.

"Business in the front, party in the back" is a phrase associated with Mullets. Which Russell has what could be considered a mullet.

Not only that, but doesn't the black guy on roller skates have a fro? Been a while since I've seen it...

shootemindehead

13-Apr-2010, 05:24 PM

Mac doesn't have a mullet though.

This clown, on the other hand...

http://www.ratemyeverything.net/ImageDatabase/PostImages/5311/Large/rate_my_mullet.jpg

bassman

13-Apr-2010, 05:26 PM

Both would be considered mullets. Anything that's longer in the back and shorter in the front...

You're just used to Russel's mullet because he wore it constantly for about 10 years.:lol:

AcesandEights

13-Apr-2010, 05:26 PM

Not only that, but doesn't the black guy on roller skates have a fro? Been a while since I've seen it...

I think fros are timeless, Bassman, though the acceptability of size does vary by period somewhat. If I could, I would have an afro and it would save my life eventually, as some zombie would try and bite me in the back of the head, but only get a mouthful of afro. The next time around, I wouldn't be so lucky however, as the next zombie would grab my afro and bite me in the neck. :(

shootemindehead

13-Apr-2010, 05:31 PM

Both would be considered mullets. Anything that's longer in the back and shorter in the front...

You're just used to Russel's mullet because he wore it constantly for about 10 years.:lol:

nah man. Mac's hair is just long. Hasn't been cut. Looks more 70's to me, than 80's. mulletness.

Also Aces is right. Fro's are pretty timeless. Besides, Thomas Carter didn't have much of a choice.

krakenslayer

13-Apr-2010, 05:35 PM

All the guys in The Thing were supposed to look scruffy - they'd been living in the Antarctic for many months on end. Not only that, but beards and lots of hair are common attire among those who work in extremely cold environments, for obvious reasons. AND MacReady was supposed to be an undisciplined, renegade type, not a fashionable stud. He'd look just like that today.

As for the effects: I saw this movie in The cinema a few weeks back (and many times on video before that) and saw nothing in the alien scenes that didn't look convincingly like mutating organic tissue. If it had been filmed in a documentary style and someone told me it was real, I'd have a hard time questioning it. On the other hand I'd have been able to spot the telltale smooth motion and hyper-realism of CGI a mile away. Could you guys elaborate on what exactly makes the effects seem dated to you?

bassman

13-Apr-2010, 05:37 PM

I don't know if I would say fros are timeless. You sure as hell don't see them too much anymore....

Just the general "fluffiness" of everyone's hair points to what decade the film was made. Even Keith David's.:lol:

I say that because his head is shaved.....and nobody else could?...

LouCipherr

13-Apr-2010, 05:38 PM

Well, MacCready's haircut (parted in the middle, feathered & layered) is definitely out of style today. It was par for the course in the 80's, but not today or in the past few years.

Depending on your definition, MacCready's 'do is almost a mullet. :lol:

As for the effects: I saw this movie in The cinema a few weeks back (and many times on video before that) and saw nothing in the alien scenes that didn't look convincingly like mutating organic tissue. If it had been filmed in a documentary style and someone told me it was real, I'd have a hard time questioning it.

That's what I thought too, but to each his own.

***Edited to add: you suckers beat me to the mullet comment! :D

shootemindehead

13-Apr-2010, 05:41 PM

I saw this on a cinema screen too a couple of years back and was ready to spot all the flaws. However, it was difficult to do so.

Only two scenes come to mind.

Mac's fake hand in the blood scene and the spider head yoke running across the floor.

But even so, they were still ok.

AcesandEights

13-Apr-2010, 05:42 PM

Well, MacCready's haircut (parted in the middle, feathered & layered) is definitely out of style today. It was par for the course in the 80's, but not today or in the past few years

Oh, god...feathering. You went there and I had almost forgotten I used to do such a thing to my hair.

That said, I agree with Bassman that this project could be a nice bookend to the original, if done correctly...hopefully.

Dear Journal: Barnburner of a hair debate on HPotD today.

LouCipherr

13-Apr-2010, 05:45 PM

Oh, god...feathering. You went there and I had almost forgotten I used to do such a thing to my hair.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/Smileys/shhh.gif Me too. :D

ProfessorChaos

13-Apr-2010, 05:49 PM

krakenslayer

13-Apr-2010, 06:19 PM

the only scene from carpenter's flick that looks dated to me is when they're trying to revive the guy who apparently has a heart attack. when his abdominal cavity turns into a giant mouth-thing with razor teeth and it closes down on that one fellow's arms. i think it's mainly his arms being ripped off and how rubbery they looked.

aside from that and the computer, the film has aged remarkably well. i am slightly optimistic about this prequel, as long as they don't go overboard with the cgi.

They used a real amputee and put a mask resembling the doctor character on his face for that scene. Or did you mean the actual ripping effect itself? In that case I kind of see where you're coming from, but I've never seen flesh torn off like that in real life so can't really question it. It's basically the same flesh-ripping effect they use in all horror movies, though, even to this day.

---------- Post added at 06:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:00 PM ----------

One thing I think is inaccurate though, and it's nothing to do with the time period, is the ratio of scientific to support staff. Pretty much everyone in the base is some kind of technician or radio man or cook or helicopter pilot or dog handler or generally something OTHER than a scientist. There were twelve men living at the research base and maybe two or three of them looked like they were there to do any actual research. Real Antarctic research teams are usually comprised of ten to fifteen researchers, most of whom double up as drivers, doctors, mechanics, etc. when the need arises.

bassman

18-Aug-2010, 06:14 PM

Teaser poster....

http://www.joblo.com/images_arrownews/thingq11.jpg

So they're calling it....The Thing?:confused: This makes it look basically like a remake and they're trying to dodge a bullet with the prequel storyline...

darth los

18-Aug-2010, 06:28 PM

That seems to be the way hollywood is trending.

It has now come to the point where not only can't they make an original film but now they can't even think of a title!?!

They did it with Friday the 13th and the final destination as well. :rolleyes:

:cool:

bassman

18-Aug-2010, 06:31 PM

They did it with Friday the 13th and the final destination as well. :rolleyes:

5inal Destination. :lol:

I just threw up in my mouth a little...

MoonSylver

18-Aug-2010, 06:37 PM

So they're calling it....The Thing?:confused: This makes it look basically like a remake and they're trying to dodge a bullet with the prequel storyline...

I can't even see a "The" in there. So they're so lazy they're just calling it "Thing"?

Could have been worse, I suppose. Could have called it "ThingS" & featured 100's of Things who get wiped out in a "cool" raging gun battle, leaving "only" one alive for the original...:rolleyes:

I'm really wishing cancer of the penis on anyone responsible for, or involved with, this abortion.:mad:

BillyRay

18-Aug-2010, 06:39 PM

5inal Destination. :lol:

I just threw up in my mouth a little...

"Final Destination 23 - this time it really IS Final! We mean it this time!"

bassman

18-Aug-2010, 06:40 PM

I can't even see a "The" in there. So they're so lazy they're just calling it "Thing"?

The article I got it from says that the "The" is there, you just can't see it because of the flash.

I'm really wishing cancer of the penis on anyone responsible for, or involved with, this abortion.:mad:

M.E.W. can give something to my penis. :elol:

Final Destination 23 - this time it really IS Final! We mean it this time!"
In case you missed it, the next one is officially titled 5inal Destination. I didn't make that up.:|

darth los

18-Aug-2010, 06:43 PM

I can't even see a "The" in there. So they're so lazy they're just calling it "Thing"?

You mean the movie is about a hand?

What assholes. :rolleyes:

:cool:

AcesandEights

18-Aug-2010, 07:00 PM

So they're calling it....The Thing?:confused:

Clearly it's to be called Thing, not The Thing. You see?

Okay, kind of lame, but this pedantry has been been happening with remakes, re-imagining and the like a bit lately.

Alien --> Aliens = cool :thumbsup:

The Thing --> Thing = Clobberin' Time

bassman

18-Aug-2010, 07:08 PM

Clearly it's to be called Thing, not The Thing. You see?

The article I got it from says that the "The" is there, you just can't see it because of the flash.

The Thing.:annoyed:

MoonSylver

18-Aug-2010, 07:16 PM

The Thing.:annoyed:

Can't hot link to the pic, but here is another site that has a similiar pic from a slightly different angle & Bass is right, the flare obscures it, but the "The" IS there.

http://www.collider.com/2010/08/17/poster-ben-afflecks-the-town-the-thing-prequel-sanctum-3d-james-cameron/

Don't know which is worse. Honestly, they both suck.:mad:

MikePizzoff

18-Aug-2010, 07:20 PM

You mean the movie is about a hand?

What assholes. :rolleyes:

:cool:

Yeah but Thing is teaming up with Cousin It in a battle of wits against Kurt Russell and a monster tsunami that's rolling through Los Angeles.

rongravy

19-Aug-2010, 07:14 PM

MinionZombie

19-Aug-2010, 07:27 PM

Great movie, one of those that's going to be hard as fuck to top. Or even be in the same ballpark...
Hope whoever is doing it loved the shit outta it. I used to love scaring the shit out of my sister doing the scene where that guy is tied up and convulsing.
A very creepy scene ... the tension waiting for the inevitable "BLAAAARGH!" reaction from a blood sample had me screwed up on the sofa when I first saw it as a kid.

I'd imagine that being strapped to a sofa with an infected person - convulsing like that too - would be ruddy terrifying. The actor made that moment insanely creepy - you just know shit's about to go down in a big bad way right then.

MoonSylver

20-Aug-2010, 05:08 AM

A very creepy scene ... the tension waiting for the inevitable "BLAAAARGH!" reaction from a blood sample had me screwed up on the sofa when I first saw it as a kid.

I'd imagine that being strapped to a sofa with an infected person - convulsing like that too - would be ruddy terrifying. The actor made that moment insanely creepy - you just know shit's about to go down in a big bad way right then.

http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsM/12171-19343.gif

"I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time, I'd rather not spend the rest of this winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!"

;):D

CooperWasRight

20-Aug-2010, 05:53 AM

"I dunno what the hell's in there, but it's weird and pissed off, whatever it is..."

One of my all time favorite lines.

MinionZombie

20-Aug-2010, 11:16 AM

http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsM/12171-19343.gif

"I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time, I'd rather not spend the rest of this winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!"

;):D

*high five*

I love that moment.

bassman

15-Nov-2010, 03:29 PM

Universal has pulled the film from its release calendar. The film was scheduled to hit theaters on April 29th but the studio yanked the film and has moved up FAST FIVE(Fast & Furious 5) to take its slot on that date.

http://www.joblo.com/the-thing-prequel-delayed-indefinitely-fast-five-gets-moved-up

Could this be a bad sign or just that the studio knows Fast Five(ugh) is more of a sure thing? They claim The Thing prequel isn't ready. With five months to go, this may be a sign that the film isn't shaping up too well...

MoonSylver

15-Nov-2010, 05:24 PM

http://www.joblo.com/the-thing-prequel-delayed-indefinitely-fast-five-gets-moved-up

Could this be a bad sign or just that the studio knows Fast Five(ugh) is more of a sure thing? They claim The Thing prequel isn't ready. With five months to go, this may be a sign that the film isn't shaping up too well...

:rockbrow: Usually not a GOOD sign when studios start playing hanky panky w/bumping stuff back, UNLESS they see a "better" spot for it. If any word starts coming out about reshoots, then, yeah bad news indeed. :(

ProfessorChaos

15-Nov-2010, 05:31 PM

man, i was actually kinda looking forward to the thing prequel...i'd much rather see that than "fast five" (what a shitty moronic title)...but then again, i'm not one of the cool kids who's down wit da siknezz, so who gives a fuck what i think, rite?

and is there still no trailer for this film yet? i know there was the shit-cam cellphone footage a while back, but searching the webs, i can't find anything official. april seemed like a long ways away especially since they already had a trailer of sorts out a month or so ago....now that it's delayed further, i don't think that's a good sign. i can't imagine them scrapping the project, but interest is likely to decrease if they put it off longer.

and i'll say it again, what the fuck gives with making it come out anytime other than winter? i really hope they don't go for the total douche move and try to make it a summer block-buster or anything, but then again, i don't wanna wait till next fucking winter to see this thing....ugh.

*frustration at hollywood and the film industry in general*

bassman

15-Nov-2010, 05:36 PM

As I said before....it's possible that this could just be a case of the studio wanting to put out the "sure thing" movie earlier. The last F&F film opened in April and made quite a bit of money, so they're probably just trying that same formula again. Maybe they just haven't decided where to put The Thing yet. After all....next summer is a big blockbuster summer, so they may be waiting for something closer to Halloween. The movie would get clobbered if released during all the Thor, Captain America, Green Lantern, etc hoopla.

ProfessorChaos

15-Nov-2010, 06:10 PM

damn, all those unnecessary comic book movies are coming out this upcoming summer? i really thought this comic-book movie bullshit would've died off by now...that's all that's been coming out for the last fucking decade....

*adds 3 more reasons to "why i hate hollywood" list*

bassman

15-Nov-2010, 06:18 PM

That was only the tip of the Iceberg, man. :lol:

MoonSylver

15-Nov-2010, 06:19 PM

That was only the tip of the Iceberg, man. :lol:

"THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID!!!" :lol:

ProfessorChaos

15-Nov-2010, 06:28 PM

bassman

15-Nov-2010, 06:32 PM

Breathe Prof, breathe.:p Just because they're out there doesn't mean you're required to see them.

There are a bunch of duds, but there are also a few gems. And they seem to be taking the genre seriously lately, so you never know where it might be in a few years. Don't be so quick to disregard comics as meaningless entertainment. Some of them are, but there are also some GREAT stories out there.

And you're liking TWD show so far, right? :sneaky:

ProfessorChaos

15-Nov-2010, 06:42 PM

i realize all that, dude. it's just that with so much focus on those sort of films, it leaves little room for the quality stuff that i prefer (the road, gran torino, there will be blood, etc - movies that focus on characters and plot more than explosions, trendy pop music, in-film advertising)...not really into the big summer blockbuster hype marketing bullshit they force on audiences each year.

and TWD is a totally different beast, in my opinion. taking a serious approach to the living dead genre and gearing it towards mature audiences with a fairly new source material...compared to casting the newest hot young actors into reboots of comics movies that have been using ideas from comics dating back 50+ years...yeah, i'm talking about you spider-man reboot.

Legion2213

15-Nov-2010, 11:20 PM

seriously, though, the movie industry has been totally dominated by comic-book movies for so long now....and as soon as the well dries up, they just do a reboot (spider-man, hulk, FF) and cast different actors, and idiots keep lining up to pay money to see the same thing.

things like this are why i sometimes think a nuclear attack on the west coast would be a blessing...fucking greedy film execs just bending audiences over time and time again, using storylines and characters that are decades old...

If the audiences keep dropping their pants and winking suggestively at hollywood, they deserve what they get.

Time for the public to take a bit of responsibility and stop going to watch these awful films.

As for The Thing prequel, I started having doubts the moment that a woman was cast...even though the original clearly states (as far as I remember) that it was an all male crew in the Norgie research station

ProfessorChaos

15-Nov-2010, 11:49 PM

If the audiences keep dropping their pants and winking suggestively at hollywood, they deserve what they get.

Time for the public to take a bit of responsibility and stop going to watch these awful films.

As for The Thing prequel, I started having doubts the moment that a woman was cast...even though the original clearly states (as far as I remember) that it was an all male crew in the Norgie research station

i've been preaching for at least 2 or 3 years about comic book movies being a huge hindrance in modern cinema and boycotting the fuck out of them and encouraging my friends/family to do the same. i really don't think i'm being elitist by expressing my opinion that most of these films are dismissible crap on celluloid, but seems the majority of the film-going public can't get enough of these stupid fucking re-hashed stories.

as for the thing, i have my reservations about a woman being cast in it as well, since the research crew from the carpenter version discuss how many were present, look at the video tapes of the expeditions, read the log books, etc. as long as they can provide a believable explanation of sorts, i guess i'm okay with it....

as long as the don't pull an AvP and have her be the only competent one in the group who ends up buddying up with the thing and shows them running down a hallway or something side by side....i swear, i almost threw up in my mouth when that part happened in AvP. not that women can't be action heroes, but goddamn, that particular shot of her and the predator running and you can see their silhouettes ruined that entire film and was so fucking forced and cheesy....

Neil

12-Jul-2011, 07:02 AM

Poster up at AICN...

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/50335

MinionZombie

12-Jul-2011, 10:56 AM

Poster up at AICN...

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/50335

Why are they using the exact same title as Carpenter's flick? "From the producers of Dawn of the Dead" - well being that'll be the remake, that's not selling me on the flick. :sneaky: Also, why are they using an image - or a version of an image - from the Carpenter movie? Tag line is weak too.

MikePizzoff

12-Jul-2011, 04:17 PM

Tagline IS weak. I'm also worried about them using the same title as the original; I hope they didn't scrap the idea of doing a prequel and just do an all-out remake.

bassman

12-Jul-2011, 05:22 PM

They claim they couldn't come up with a good prequel name, so they're just calling it The Thing as if its another part of Carpenter's film. :rolleyes: It's still a prequel though. I'm still interested to see what they did, but it's looking more and more grim.

The poster may not be anythign revolutionary, but I kinda dig it. At least it's not another floating head photoshop job like so many posters these days....

MinionZombie

12-Jul-2011, 06:45 PM

True, those friggin' photoshopped posters featuring the cast's heads pasted curiously onto body doubles really annoys me - I long for the days of painted posters that captured the essence of a movie, rather than a very literal cast roll call.

However, they could easily make the image much more striking and bolder-looking.

As for a name for it, surely it needs a sub-title - perhaps a reference to a line of dialogue, or the name of the location (the Norweigian Camp), or some sort of 'theme' word(s) linked to the concept of the movie and the content ... having not read the script or seen the movie yet, I can't venture as to what you could possibly do, but I find it a bit dumb they couldn't think of anything half-decent for the title to separate it from Carpenter's superb film.

AcesandEights

12-Jul-2011, 07:05 PM

I long for the days of painted posters that captured the essence of a movie, rather than a very literal cast roll call.

Hell yeah! A nicely dramatic and stylized movie poster is a thing of beauty.

MinionZombie

12-Jul-2011, 07:34 PM

Hell yeah! A nicely dramatic and stylized movie poster is a thing of beauty.

Indeed, Drew Struzan's poster for Carpenter's "The Thing" is wonderful - and it was done at the last minute, with next-to-no-knowledge of the movie itself, and yet it encapsulates the essence of the movie is a simple, striking image. There's an artistic subtlety to it (coupled successfully, with a striking sense of boldness), which is lacking from that teaser poster for this new movie.

slickwilly13

12-Jul-2011, 07:41 PM

If anyone could change the title, then what would it be called?

MinionZombie

12-Jul-2011, 08:02 PM

If anyone could change the title, then what would it be called?

"The Thing But Not The Thing"

"Mary Elizabeth Winstead?! Even if it's total shit, I'll watch it 'cos of her!"

"Being Faithful to a Beloved Classic Means Different Things to Fans and Movie Studios"

"Crazy Shit Involving a Shapeshifting Alien-type-deeley Somewhere That's Cold"

"Frozen Aliens and Nipple Pokies"

"Kurt Russell's Awesome, Ain't He? Yeah ... He's Not In This Movie"

"The Thing Movie That's Got A Girl In It"

"Them Crazy Swedes"

...

Seriously though, the American camp was "Outpost 31" - so the new movie could be "The Thing: NAME OF THE NORWEGIAN CAMP" ... 'Outpost 30', or whatever it was/might have been (can't find a reference to the name of that camp beyond "the Norwegian Camp".

AcesandEights

12-Jul-2011, 08:07 PM

Well, depending on how the film works you could just call it Things.

Rancid Carcass

12-Jul-2011, 11:14 PM

Or how about "Another Thing" - as a sort of nod to the original, plus it differentiates from Carpenters film.

Or failing that: Thinglings (from space!) :lol:

clanglee

13-Jul-2011, 12:17 AM

The Thingamajig!!!

MikePizzoff

13-Jul-2011, 01:42 AM

The Thingamajig!!!

:lol:

They could always pull a 'Fast & Furious' and drop 'The' so it's simply THING.

MoonSylver

13-Jul-2011, 05:45 AM

The Thingamajig!!!

The Thingy?

M5gE34MLxvU

How about "My Thing-a-ling"? Bust Chuck Berry's perverted ass outta jail to do the soundtrack.

UaEC-lWSlmI

:sneaky:

Legion2213

13-Jul-2011, 11:56 AM

If anyone could change the title, then what would it be called?

The Thing II: Electric Boogaloo

bassman

13-Jul-2011, 01:02 PM

They could always pull a 'Fast & Furious' and drop 'The' so it's simply THING.

The Thing: Norwegian Drift?
2 Thing 2 Norweigian?

:p

At one time weren't they considering calling it "From Another World"? That's not so bad. That's what they should do....just come up with a totally different name. Ridley Scott is doing it with the alien prequel, Prometheus...

shootemindehead

13-Jul-2011, 01:36 PM

'Two Things, One Cup'

Andy

13-Jul-2011, 02:04 PM

If anyone could change the title, then what would it be called?

Tingen

(Norwegien for 'The Thing' gettit?)

slickwilly13

13-Jul-2011, 03:26 PM

I think they should call it The Thing From Another World or like MZ suggested The Thing: Outpost *whatever number it is*.

MikePizzoff

13-Jul-2011, 09:14 PM

These replies have me cracking up. How about...

The Thing Which First Shapeshifts Into A Dog Then Turns Into a Spider With A Human Head Before All Hell Breaks Loose In The Original Film Which This Film Is A Prequel Of

MinionZombie

14-Jul-2011, 11:10 AM

Kaos

14-Jul-2011, 11:05 PM

The trailer is up on AICN: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/50381

I do not anticipate that it will exceed Carpenter's, but I honestly think it doesn't look too bad. Definitely looks like something I would enjoy seeing.

bassman

14-Jul-2011, 11:36 PM

Yeah, that doesn't look half bad. Although the basic cut-and-paste scenes give further evidence to the "remake" camp. They try to claim it's a prequel yet make no reference of Carpenter's film in the trailer other than ripping off a few shots? I guess only fans of the original(err....remake) will know this is a prequel.

"From the producers of Dawn of the Dead". Is it just me or is that on EVERY new horror trailer these days? It's not even that good of a movie to mention in the trailer, anyway. Well....to anyone over 18, that is. :p

Kaos

15-Jul-2011, 01:27 AM

I think they should have called it... Ain't Nothing But a Thang.

slickwilly13

15-Jul-2011, 02:16 AM

Already a hint of mediocre cgi. Damnit, damnit, damnit.

MinionZombie

15-Jul-2011, 11:13 AM

Looks okay ... I'm cautious, but it looks okay ... I'll approach this like a suspicious squirrel to a conveniently placed chestnut.

I take it that it'll be set in the 1980s too - being that it's a prequel, if it's not set in the 1980s then that's retarded, but even the biggest idiot of filmmaking couldn't make a mistake like that surely? Anyway, this does have a distinct 'remake' vibe to it - a 'remake that's not a remake' ... ... Predators had that in a way, there was a lot of references to Predator, but it was it's own thing.

However, with this one, there's inately less point in doing it - sure there was this Norwegian camp that got taken out first, but that was a chilling half-known discovery in Carpenter's flick. It was foreshadowing. To make an entire film out of a foreshadowing plot point from a movie (that no doubt played/plays out in pretty much the same way as it did at Outpost 31) seems a bit pointless ... hence the distinct 'remake vibe' ... ... I guess it's a case of 'when is a remake, not a remake ... when it's The Thing 2011'.

The trailer looks alright, but I do hope the CGI doesn't take over - it should be used sparingly and subtly ... but I've been burned before on that front, so I'm not giving them any benefit of the doubt until I've seen it. Also, did anyone notice that the guy who played Lloyd Christmas in Dumb & Dumberer is in this? However - more importantly - Mary Elizabeth Winstead is in it. So as soon as I heard that, I knew I was gonna watch it. ;)

Anyway, we horror fans are gluttons for punishment. We're the most curious of curious cats. So of course we're going to watch this flick - it's why we've seen so many of the god-awful/mediocre/occasionally-alright-on-it's-own-terms remakes that have been made. However, the studios see money, rather than response. In a way, we're our own worst enemies - our curiosity will get the better of us and we'll end up seeing it anyway.

Hopefully there'll be another trailer to further establish a vibe - hopefully something that sets it apart (although clearly the final act - or some portion of the movie at least - is going to take place inside the space ship, by the looks of things). I hope they haven't gone overboard on references (both direct and not-so-direct) to Carpenter's flick ... because then you're just remaking the goddamned movie half-the-time.

We'll see, I guess.

LouCipherr

15-Jul-2011, 07:20 PM

Sorry guys, but I honestly believe this has "FAIL" written all over it...and it doesn't make me very happy to say that. :( I'll give it a shot, since I'm a huge fan of the original (meaning, Carpenter's "The Thing"), but I don't expect it to be anywhere near that caliber.

*grumbles about how stupid hollywood is and wanders off*

slickwilly13

16-Jul-2011, 07:08 AM

I just read a leaked script *maybe real*. If the movie follows what I read, then it is a prequel and not a remake. I actually liked this script. It follows what I have read about the movie so far. I will know for sure in October if it is real or not. As long as the special effects and acting do not suck, then it should be a good movie if you like JC's.

MikePizzoff

16-Jul-2011, 07:22 AM

The trailer makes this movie look like it's going to start out prequel-ish, but then turn into a remake. Anybody else notice umpteen shots that looked like scenes straight out of Carpenter's?

shootemindehead

17-Jul-2011, 01:22 PM

Am I the only one who's cheesed off that there's a 20 something dolly bird at the centre of this particular show? Antarctic research stations have always been dominated by a male workforce and even these days, women comprise a relatively small percentage of staff. In 1982, it would have been an extremely rare event for a woman (of any scientific background) to have been asked to go there.

These type of hollywoodisms drive me up the wall.

Still, in all, I'm kind of looking forward to this, but the trailer seems full of cheap shock moments that were largely absent from the 1982 film. Not to mention CGI, which if overused will put me off even further.

ProfessorChaos

17-Jul-2011, 03:43 PM

yeah, mixed feelings about this trailer. looks highly derivative of carpenter's version, almost too much in fact. and the inclusion of teeny-bopper (or mid-20's) girls just makes the movie seem cheap or half-assed.

still interested, but i'm not holding my hopes very high.

bassman

17-Jul-2011, 03:51 PM

Am I the only one who's cheesed off that there's a 20 something dolly bird at the centre of this particular show? Antarctic research stations have always been dominated by a male workforce and even these days, women comprise a relatively small percentage of staff. In 1982, it would have been an extremely rare event for a woman (of any scientific background) to have been asked to go there.

In the trailer that leaked from last year's comic con, I believe they mention something about how she was the top of her class and a "genious". So I guess that's how they'll explain it in the film....

MinionZombie

17-Jul-2011, 05:35 PM

What's all this being said slagging off Mary Elizabeth Winstead?! I won't be having any of that 'round here - how can you not love some MEW? Death Proof, Scott Pilgrim vs The World - quality, says I!

Cheap scare shots though - aye, I'm nervous about the film basing it's scares in that. Now, JC's flick rarely, if at all, had any such (or vaguely similar) moments. That film was terrifying because of the creeping dread, the paranoia, the isolation. That shit is creepy scary - indeed just thinking about the flick, or thinking 'what if I was in that situation', gets my skin crawling. That's how you make a great horror movie.

We'll see I guess ... but aye, the main concerns are:

1) Too much copying of JC's superb film.
2) Reliance on jump scares.

As for *sarcastic gasp* A WOMAN appearing at the Norwegian camp - even if a female being in such a location, especially in 1982, was rare, methinks it's not impossible. I mean come on lads, if you can have an alien spaceship frozen in the ice, that holds a shape-shifting organism that takes over people's bodies and replicates them, then you can ruddy well have a lady in the cast - especially if it's Mary Elizabeth Winstead. ;)

shootemindehead

17-Jul-2011, 05:38 PM

Not sure if one can one be a "genius" in Paleontology. Besides, she's in her 20's. Would she really be any more of a genius than some geezer (or woman) who's been studying for longer than she's even been alive?

It's ridiculous.

Also, the whole "let's ask the Americans to send someone down to check out this" is a pain in the arse too. Would have been a better film just to keep it to the Norwegians. They all die, dog runs off in the end...credits roll. Then stick on 1982 film.

-- -------- Post added at 05:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 PM ----------

- how can you not love some MEW?

Ha ha...that sounds dirty.

I'm telling Neil.

JDFP

17-Jul-2011, 05:51 PM

I'm waiting for this to break down into a "Day" style debate of whether or not Winstead's character would have been raped by the Norwegians or not due to their isolation and being cut off from the rest of the world and the only female around.

As far as the film, I saw the trailer and I'm definitely going to give it a shot. While I'm sure I'll be highly disappointed with the infusion of silly CGI I'm willing to give it a chance and hoping they don't screw it up too badly. I digged the "update" of the soundtrack in the trailer for a more "popish" sound of Morricone's original frightening music. The real question will be on how accurate they are in portraying clothing/actions/styles from 1982 here as opposed to a more recent setting. If anyone cracks a line of: "I'm on it!" or "let's roll!" I think I'll scream.

j.p.

MinionZombie

17-Jul-2011, 06:39 PM

shootemindehead

17-Jul-2011, 06:53 PM

Well surely part of the point in being a genius is that you're highly intelligent - you can be far more intelligent as a teenager than a smart 50 year old. Age has nothing to do with it, you don't gain knowledge and get measurably smarter as you grow older - like go from average intelligence and grow to become a genius. So, if someone's a genius, they can easily be far smarter than a bunch of guys of average/above average/high intelligence in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. So it's convenient as a plot point, but not ridiculous.

The 'send in an American' thing is a point, but hopefully it's not a huge problem ... but such is the state of the movie industry, and certain parts of the audience, if you're spending millions of dollars on a movie, then the suits have to have a few 'cash back points' to convince them to dish out the cash so the filmmakers can get going. It's not always the case, but neither is it a rare occurrence ... as long as it's handled well enough, what's the huge deal? It's kind of "hmmm", but it's not like they've flown in Elmo as well so they can attract the kindergarten demographic. :p

My point is, if you've been studying in a field for 40+ years, you have the edge over some 24 year old college girlie. Having her character there is just a silly hollywood plot device and it's impossible not to be cynical about it. I't difficult to believe that she's the only "genius" in town.

MEW, is eyecandy. That's all. The Hollywood preference to some crusty old professor.

The other cliche of "getting the Yanks involved" is obvious to me as well, but again, it's difficult not to roll one's eyes and tut.

In saying all that, it'll probably be the only film I'll end up seeing in the cinema this year...

...and that's really depressing.

slickwilly13

17-Jul-2011, 07:04 PM

I have to agree. I do not think she should be in this movie. She is not the only female, btw. I honestly do not believe there should be any Americans or females in the camp. I guess that is the diffrence in films from 30 yrs ago compared to today. You would think the Norwegians would keep it underwraps for themselves or at least have fetched out another Norwegian or European paleontologist, who is a man, to examine the frozen fossil they found in the ice.

blind2d

17-Jul-2011, 10:42 PM

Well, there were women in the original... So, this isn't TOO much of a stretch. Then again, yeah... But hey! I'm sure it'll either be good for roasting, or it'll cook, so either way we get hot food, which is something that's valuable in such a cold climate (Hollywood... Or the Arctic, I suppose). Oh listen to me, acting like I know what I'm talking about. Who here's seen the original 'Thing from another world'? There's fire in that one too! Um... Yes, needs a dog. And... Electrocution. That's key. Um... Yes.
Still, I can't see this as being anything but bad. A remake of an awesome movie, being even better than it's source material remade again? Or if not, still a VERRRY similar concept? Nope. It'll prolly suck. Oh well.

shootemindehead

17-Jul-2011, 11:24 PM

Ha ha....how many have you had?

Cheers!

Danny

18-Jul-2011, 12:00 AM

i just got why im not excited after the trailer.

-its not because of cgi
-its not because its not a john carpenter film
-its not even for the inevitable retcons

you know why this film is going to be mediocre?

because carpenter told the whole story. It's a timeless tale of isolation and paranoia. Theres nothing you can add or reveal anymore. We are told through the imagery of the first 15 minutes of the thing what happened to the entire cast of this film. The thing replicates creatures, it wants to do this. thats it. people will turn on one another just like the first film. it will turn into monsters, just like the first film.
just this week i read the comics set after the first and you know what they were about? the exact same situation in 5 different locations. thing appears, people distrust each other, one person is left standing.

the thing was a one hit wonder for good reason. this may be a fully competent film but in all honesty we need this less than we needed highlander the quickening.

addendum: I fully realise the asinine hypocrisy of that given we are all fans of the romero films, but love or hate his last 3, at least he stopped making it about people trapped in a building

MinionZombie

18-Jul-2011, 11:01 AM

Indeed, as I've said above, it's somewhat pointless to make this movie - being that we know what happened. But it's a way to do a remake that isn't a remake. :rolleyes::p

However, JC's flick flopped upon release (the same year as E.T.) and it has only become a hit over the last three decades once it was rediscovered and seen for the tip-top bit of paranoid, creep-inducing, masterclass in suspense and terror that it is.

AcesandEights

18-Jul-2011, 02:34 PM

slickwilly13

18-Jul-2011, 05:14 PM

So is this movie supposed to take place before the events of the 'original' Thing in the early 1980s, or does it take place now and the events of the 'original' film are to have taken place in a contemporary time period in the not-too-distant future?

According to the leaked script I read, it is a prequel. All events take place before JC's version. If the special effects and acting are good, then there should be little to no complaints,other than the two women, who are in it. I cannot wait to see the transformation of the two-faced thing that was discovered in JC's. If this scene is done correctly, then everyone on here will be discussing it.

AcesandEights

18-Jul-2011, 05:28 PM

JDFP

18-Jul-2011, 05:36 PM

I know it's a prequel, my question relates to whether we, the viewer, are to assume that the events of JC's The Thing actually take place in modern times after this prequel (ie. in the 2000s), or whether this prequel is actually set in the 80s.

Does my question make sense, now?

I'm hoping it will be set in the 80's myself. It would add a whole new level of "stupid" if they update it to supposedly be a prequel and yet be set in the modern day, such as why Kurt Russell's character was playing with an ancient 70's model pre-Windows DOS computer or why they have TV's with VCRS (ancient VCR's at that) with 80's programming on it. It wouldn't add up at all to set it for "contemporary" times.

Plus, there's the issue of connectivity. Back in the early 80's (even though it was only 30 years ago) the world was much more cut-off than it is today. You'd have to rely on relay stations with radios for communication back and forth from the mainland. Today you could just have a satellite hook-up for internet and communicate back and forth with civilization without much of any issue. If they were updating it for "contemporary" times they'd have to knock out the satellite first thing or explain it in some logical matter as to why they couldn't communicate with the outside world. Then it begs the question: Why would Norwegians have a satellite hook-up for communications but the Americans wouldn't?

j.p.

MinionZombie

18-Jul-2011, 05:42 PM

Oh shit yeah, it has to be set in the 1980s ... if they fuck that up, then damn.

slickwilly13

18-Jul-2011, 05:43 PM

The script really did not mention it. But they did use a radio for communications, so I assume it will be early 1980's.

AcesandEights

18-Jul-2011, 05:47 PM

Oh shit yeah, it has to be set in the 1980s ... if they fuck that up, then damn.

I've seen some movies that reference films they are linked to and supposed to be occurring contemporaneously where the newer film is set in modern day and the audience is supposed to make the transition and assume the events of the dated film also happened more recently/in modern times.

Note, I'm not saying it's a good idea when this is done. I can take or leave it, depending on the film and source material being referenced.

slickwilly13

18-Jul-2011, 06:18 PM

Kind of like the Romero Dead series.

shootemindehead

19-Jul-2011, 12:51 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.

MinionZombie

19-Jul-2011, 04:22 PM

bassman

19-Jul-2011, 04:36 PM

This movie doesn't stand a chance. Just about everyone on the web already hates it before it's even completed. The built-in hatred is there and it can't be lifted. Even if the film is fantastic.

It's funny how people these days intentionally set themselves up to be disappointed rather than giving it an honest shot...

AcesandEights

19-Jul-2011, 06:23 PM

Hell, I'll give it a chance. Then again, I'm more likely to like something like this if I go in with low expectations. <---a lot of likes in that sentence, eh?

Plus, you have to remember, no one on the internet likes anything, it's just not cool.

slickwilly13

19-Jul-2011, 06:51 PM

I am going to give it a chance during opening day or weekend. I really like the script that I read and it matches with all the scenes from the trailer. So, I am thinking it is real for the most part. There will probably be some changes. I am going to discuss some spoilers, so read if you dare.

According to what I read. We get to see the inside of the ship. It is revealed that one of their specimens gets lose in the ship and all hell breaks loose, which explains why the ship crash landed on Earth. The aliens were collecting lifeforms from other planets and came across the Thing. They must have had some idea of what it was, because a sample was contained, but some how breaks from from the orb *possibly glass*. Either it broke free or an accident occurred in lab.

I will add to this later, because I have to get a hair cut.

shootemindehead

19-Jul-2011, 07:48 PM

Or perhaps it's someone's POV down a powerful microscope?

Hope that's the case MZ, but it looked too computery...if you know what I mean.

-- -------- Post added at 07:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:41 PM ----------

This movie doesn't stand a chance. Just about everyone on the web already hates it before it's even completed. The built-in hatred is there and it can't be lifted. Even if the film is fantastic.

It's funny how people these days intentionally set themselves up to be disappointed rather than giving it an honest shot...

I'm certainly willing to give it a shot and I'm actually looking forward to it. But, my tolerance for sub-par movies and TV is extremely low. I'll be happily surprised if it turns out to be good, but more often than not movies (and TV shows) end up being pretty rubbish these days, with forulaic cliche, systematic plotting and pretty dreadful "characters". It's very rare that something comes along worth bothering with.

slickwilly13

19-Jul-2011, 08:28 PM

Ok, I am back from my haircut.

I noticed people are concerned about recyled scenes from JC's film such as the dogs. From what I read, do not worry about it. There is a dog scene, but it is not the same as what happened in JC's. They did not lock up an infected dog in the kennel.

There is a testing scene, but it is not blood. The alien does not replicate and rejects inorganic material. They check for fillings. I know it probably sounds bullshit, but hear me out. What if you have perfect teeth without fillings or have fillings and false teeth that is made of resin or porcelain? It adds to the suspense and paranoia. This happens in the script. At least with a blood test, the alien is outed.

I could be wrong, but I think there will be more transformation scenes. They have a tough act to follow. I am not a fan of cgi. If it is done correctly, then it looks superb. I did not like the head morphing scene in the trailer. I know it is a trailer and not the final product. As we know, sometimes there are scenes in trailers that are not present in the movie. Piranah 3D and Predators are good examples. I think this movie was originally going to be released last spring, but was pushed back to October. I am sure they had their reasons. Movies can be like video games. If you rush through it, then it could be a hit or a miss. If you hold off and fix the problems, then you will have a better product.

AcesandEights

19-Jul-2011, 08:29 PM

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

19-Jul-2011, 09:16 PM

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

23-Jul-2011, 05:47 PM

Just to interject some reality into the fiction, this is an interesting article from the Antarctic Sun News.

http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/features/contenthandler.cfm?id=1946

I actually looked most of this stuff up today.

Wayne Z

LouCipherr

25-Jul-2011, 05:03 PM

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

25-Jul-2011, 05:32 PM

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

25-Jul-2011, 05:56 PM

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

25-Jul-2011, 06:47 PM

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

25-Jul-2011, 08:02 PM

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

25-Jul-2011, 09:15 PM

How do you know it's not being made with honest intentions though?

http://www.tarantino.info/wiki/images/Jules.jpgI'm sorry, did I break your concentration? You were saying something about "best intentions"...? oh, you were finished? Well, allow me to retort!

:lol: 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! :lol: :lol: :lol: He wasn't saying "Kill kill killl" "hah hah hah" - he was saying "T...t...t... H...h...h.... C...c...c..." :lol:

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! :lol:

MinionZombie

26-Jul-2011, 10:50 AM

shootemindehead

26-Jul-2011, 10:57 AM

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

29-Jul-2011, 05:16 PM

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. :sneaky:

*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. :lol:

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... :rolleyes:

bassman

29-Jul-2011, 05:22 PM

John Carpenter's response to this prequel: He just wants to be paid. :lol:

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.

:lol:

Carpenter just wants da money.

LouCipherr

29-Jul-2011, 05:44 PM

John Carpenter's response to this prequel: He just wants to be paid. :lol:

....

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. :lol: :lol:

***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?! :lol:

blind2d

01-Aug-2011, 09:24 PM

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.

LouCipherr

03-Aug-2011, 08:11 PM

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.

Yeah, I do too, but it makes him sound like a greedy old man. :lol:

AfterMovieDiner

04-Aug-2011, 09:56 PM

possibly the most redundant film ever...? Don't we already know what happens before the Norweigan's fly in at the beginning of Carpenter's film? they will either just work their way towards the ending we all know is coming or change it and ruin the Carpenter version.

bassman

04-Aug-2011, 11:30 PM

We know what happened to a few members of the camp. The rest is still up in the air.

AfterMovieDiner

05-Aug-2011, 04:38 AM

Well we know that if they intend to make this a true prequel to Carpenter's film then the following things have to happen: They have to find the alien spaceship and video tape themselves doing it using technology available prior to 1982, then they have to take one of the aliens, encased in ice, back to their cabin and then they have to, at some point, destroy that cabin and almost burn it to the ground so all that's left is the shell that MacReady and the others find when they go on their search. We know the alien is in the dog at the end and we know that the two Norweigan's that escape go to their deaths. I honestly think Carpenter showed us enough for us to fill in the blanks.

Plus the trailer for this prequel/sequel/remake looks like they stole all the set design and entire mood from the Carpenter version, along with its title (which makes no sense, at least something like The Thing Begins or something). It also looks suspiciously like it has a CGI creature, which means it will be poo (in my book, give me proper effects any day of the week). If we need an example of how bringing CGI into a series can ruin it, I have two words: Star Wars.

I could totally have gone for a sequel on this, maybe 30 Days of Night meets Invasion of The Body Snatchers with The Thing in some small northern town and as long as you didn't reveal whose frozen body the Thing hibernated in you could maintain the integrity of the awesome ambiguous ending of Carpenter's version.

Just a thought

blind2d

05-Aug-2011, 04:43 PM

AMD, I'm really beginning to like you.
Crap, now I feel a nagging urge to rewatch Carpenter's film, without the commentary this time.
*gives muffin to AMD* - Derpy Hooves

AcesandEights

05-Aug-2011, 04:59 PM

I could totally have gone for a sequel on this, maybe 30 Days of Night meets Invasion of The Body Snatchers with The Thing in some small northern town and as long as you didn't reveal whose frozen body the Thing hibernated in you could maintain the integrity of the awesome ambiguous ending of Carpenter's version.

It's odd that you mention this, as I was thinking along similar lines about this very topic last night, even wondering how well an early to mid-80s romp through some backwoods portions of South Africa or New Zealand, where I think most Antarctic travel routed through at the time, would work.

Definitely would have been a better way to go. Or just do a jazzed up version of AtMoM if people want to take the face to face with alien danger amongst a polar backdrop to the next cgi level, but ATMOM has been a geek Flying Dutchman for a while now.

AfterMovieDiner

05-Aug-2011, 06:30 PM

Thanks man, nice to be appreciated. My first love with Carpenter was the Halloween series but since then it's all about the Kurt Russell movies, even Escape from LA, I just love them.
I was really lucky to get to see The Thing on the big screen back in the winter at the IFC cinema in NYC, I think it was a new digital print because the quality was pristine.
It's a near flawless film, brilliantly written, excellently directed and, personally I think, some of the best acting Russell's ever done.
It's also my wife's favourite film next to Carlito's Way (yes folks, I married right!).

The remaking of Halloween annoyed me A) because they remade Halloween and B) because up until then, like him or hate him, at least Rob Zombie was trying to do something that was his own, albeit heavily influenced by Craven, Carpenter and Hooper films from the 70s.

but the remaking of any of his Russell pictures just takes the cake for me, I am just glad the Escape reboot is on pause for the moment. Just the thought of that boils my blood!

Thanks for the muffin blind2d! Please feel free to have a meal in the After Movie Diner on me...

-- -------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:24 PM ----------

It's odd that you mention this, as I was thinking along similar lines about this very topic last night, even wondering how well an early to mid-80s romp through some backwoods portions of South Africa or New Zealand, where I think most Antarctic travel routed through at the time, would work.

Definitely would have been a better way to go. Or just do a jazzed up version of AtMoM if people want to take the face to face with alien danger amongst a polar backdrop to the next cgi level, but ATMOM has been a geek Flying Dutchman for a while now.

Any sort of sequel could work really well in the right hands. I just don't understand all these remakes when with little or no effort you could come up with a sequel idea just as plausible and at least attempt to keep the brand name of the movie alive without ruining the existence of the first. Plus they always remake films that don't need it.
How about remake, with the original director's involvement, films that were either good ideas but badly realised or never had the budget in the first place but are now sort of underground favs. They did it with The Crazies and actually, despite Olyphant, it wasn't half bad... much better than the over-rated Dawn remake from Zack the Hack Snyde-face.

Also True Blood is almost a direct follow on/progression, storywise, from what could've been a really good film: Sundown: A Vampire in Retreat which never had the budget to be as good as the idea is and which I would love to see remade properly but maintaining Bruce Campbell in the cast, obviously :) especially as vampires are big now...

slickwilly13

22-Aug-2011, 06:10 PM

Check this out!

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/25961

Thoughts?

Neil

22-Aug-2011, 06:27 PM

^^ v.interesting!

Kaos

22-Aug-2011, 06:41 PM

Looks pretty good to me.

AfterMovieDiner

22-Aug-2011, 08:04 PM

ProfessorChaos

22-Aug-2011, 11:11 PM

while i agree on nearly everything in the post above this, i still must say that i am pleased with what i see in those pics. much better than the cgi route. i also am thankful that they are making this a prequel to carpenter's film (easily one of my fave films of all time) and aside from the addition of the female characters, i feel that this is much better than the alternative, which would be a remake set in modern times in NYC during a blizzard with all kinds of dumb pretty young characters and a soundtrack of hip hop and scream-o tracks.

clanglee

23-Aug-2011, 12:29 AM

What with the sets, props, costumes, colour palette and monster effects looking so similar, it does sort of render the whole thing pointless.

But since it's a prequel to the original. . . isn't it a good thing that they are keeping things as similar a possible? Wouldn't it be weirder if all that was different? And besides. . . it's an Anarctic base in the 80's. . . .how different could it look?

rongravy

23-Aug-2011, 01:33 AM

Check this out!

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/25961

Thoughts?
Neato. That stuff would be cool to have in your house... life size and dripping with goo.

shootemindehead

23-Aug-2011, 09:27 AM

Check this out!

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/25961

Thoughts?

A lot of those were in a YouTube clip I saw a couple of months ago.

Bare in mind that some of those are simple scaled down models. It doesn't mean that the final on screen product won't be fully CGI.

"Is that a man in there?"

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/photosizer/timthumb.php?src=/photosizer/upload/3thethingpracticle082211.jpg&w=600&zc=0

Neil

23-Aug-2011, 10:11 AM

Neato. That stuff would be cool to have in your house... life size and dripping with goo.

Would certainly be useful at Halloween!

Tricky

23-Aug-2011, 10:31 AM

If they honestly go with these and a less CGI approach it will be better certainly but ultimately still redundant because of A. the reasons I explained before and B. while paying homage to John Carpenter is indeed respectful, there is a thin line between homage and flat out just copying everything. What with the sets, props, costumes, colour palette and monster effects looking so similar, it does sort of render the whole thing pointless. If you can't bring your own thing to it then step away from the camera!!

I guess what they're hoping for is that very few people under, say , 20-24 will have seen the original now unless they're horror buffs or have caught one of those late night showings on TV, so the concept will be new to them & they'll flock to see it, then of course DVD sales of the original will rocket as they all want to see what happens next, its all about the dirty cash! I'll only complain if they make a bad job of it!

rongravy

23-Aug-2011, 03:36 PM

Would certainly be useful at Halloween!
Or just in an everyday setting, lol.

slickwilly13

25-Aug-2011, 12:28 AM

Here are some fan made posters for the '82 movie.

http://www.shortlist.com/entertainment/films/alternative-posters-for-the-thing

MinionZombie

25-Aug-2011, 07:43 PM

Erm, most of those pics are of models - I can't see those being in the movie - and other ones doesn't necessarily mean practical stuff - quite often they will sculpt something, then scan it into a computer, and then animate that. Indeed that apparent screenshot doesn't look especially practical to me - or perhaps it's "CG enhanced" ... like the recent Wolfman movie ... ... but the problem with that was there was so much CGI retouching it ALL looked like CGI regardless, which was just stupid and annoying.

I really do hope they use practical effects - because they feel more real and The Thing is still a great gross-out movie when the gloopy stuff gets flowing - and it still stands up to this day!

bassman

08-Sep-2011, 01:28 PM

Clip:

J7u5tqmbadc

So there goes your slow, creeping terror that builds until the thing finally emerges. Now we get "cat jumps from the darkness".

shootemindehead

08-Sep-2011, 03:51 PM

Ummmm........

:rockbrow:

MinionZombie

08-Sep-2011, 06:42 PM

Clip:

J7u5tqmbadc

So there goes your slow, creeping terror that builds until the thing finally emerges. Now we get "cat jumps from the darkness".

Ugh. First we get that video of an insanely quick 'zombie' in WWZ (which just creates even more of a sinking feeling with seemingly every bit of news), and now this stupid arse clip ... I was sceptical, but I was giving it a fair chance, but this clip is moronic. Whose dumbass idea was it for someone to shout "BOO!" at Mr Eko anyway? Screw the sudden burst out of the ice block thing - isn't it supposed to be that it was cut out of the ice block and then thawed out at the Norwegian Camp?

LouCipherr

08-Sep-2011, 07:51 PM

This movie will be able to be summed up with three words:

EPIC. F*CKING. FAIL.

:lol:

This is just absurd.

blind2d

08-Sep-2011, 08:19 PM

Yep. Yep. But! At least somebody actually watched 'The Thing from another World'. Right?

Neil

08-Sep-2011, 10:49 PM

Ugh. First we get that video of an insanely quick 'zombie' in WWZ (which just creates even more of a sinking feeling with seemingly every bit of news), and now this stupid arse clip ... I was sceptical, but I was giving it a fair chance, but this clip is moronic. Whose dumbass idea was it for someone to shout "BOO!" at Mr Eko anyway? Screw the sudden burst out of the ice block thing - isn't it supposed to be that it was cut out of the ice block and then thawed out at the Norwegian Camp?

Looks like cheap tactics!

MinionZombie

09-Sep-2011, 11:04 AM

Looks like cheap tactics!

Indeed!

Also I was looking at Sky Anytime last night and in the movies section they have The Thing (1982) up on there (to cash-in on this movie coming out next month) ... but the rating on it listed the movie as a being rated 12! :lol:

slickwilly13

09-Sep-2011, 06:56 PM

That really blows. They ruined the scene. The script, I read was much better.

This is a decription of what I read. They were hanging out in the lounge eating and socializing. Then they hear a loud noise from the room it was stored. It was screeching and things being tore up. They went into the room to find the ice block without the alien inside and a huge hole torn in the wall leading outside. So, they get the dogs to track it down in the snow and dogs run towards the generator room. They find it, but it was weak from being frozen for so long. But it managed to kill some of the dogs and the dog trainer, before they burned it. They should have used that scene, instead of what we viewed. It looks CGI and as you guys mentioned cheap scare tactics. It has been frozen in the ice for over 10,000 years, so it should not be at full strength, plus its body endured a battle inside the ship and its crash.

Mike70

09-Sep-2011, 07:18 PM

Indeed!

Also I was looking at Sky Anytime last night and in the movies section they have The Thing (1982) up on there (to cash-in on this movie coming out next month) ... but the rating on it listed the movie as a being rated 12! :lol:

rated 12?! did any of the people that assigned that rating actually watch the film??

ProfessorChaos

10-Sep-2011, 02:20 AM

ugh. not liking that scene one bit. i can't stand how many of those jump scares and the whole "i'm so startled" (thanks, randy marsh) trend in movies has become so prevalent.

from the trailer, i got the impression that this film will rely on a lot of those moments, and i'm kinda bummed about that.

what slick described sounds so much better and keeps the same sort of tone/vibe of the carpenter film. fucking shame that the clowns who make these sort of decisions can't get that through their skulls.

MinionZombie

10-Sep-2011, 10:20 AM

rated 12?! did any of the people that assigned that rating actually watch the film??

Here's a picture of it ... I must check back to see if they've amended it yet. :p

Mike70

11-Sep-2011, 05:05 PM

Here's a picture of it ... I must check back to see if they've amended it yet. :p

well that's one they missed for sure.

btw - what do DD and W stand for? I'm guessing they are somewhat equivalent to the codes that go with our tv ratings, (G, PG, 14, MA) like D, S, L, and V.

MinionZombie

12-Sep-2011, 10:46 AM

well that's one they missed for sure.

btw - what do DD and W stand for? I'm guessing they are somewhat equivalent to the codes that go with our tv ratings, (G, PG, 14, MA) like D, S, L, and V.

I'm pretty sure "W" is used for "Widescreen", and I'm not sure - but would imagine - that "DD" stands for "Dolby Digital". Prior to a film they have a black screen with logos on it (that kind of look like traffic warning signs) that have logos for particular themes in whatever the film about to show contains, e.g. violence or sex or drugs etc.

I re-checked the Anytime listing for "The Thing" and it still said it was rated 12. :p

shootemindehead

12-Sep-2011, 11:46 AM

It could be cut.

Mike70

12-Sep-2011, 04:50 PM

It could be cut.

very likely and the most probable explaination for the rating. though with the stuff shown on tv and in movies today, i'm sure a lot of 12 year olds would have no problem with "the thing."

MinionZombie

13-Sep-2011, 10:23 AM

Sky don't cut the movies they show (it's rather rare these days for any TV channel to cut a movie - and I doubt Sky would do so as they're a subscription service), plus even being rated 12 by accident, you'd still need to enter your PIN number to watch it on Anytime before 8pm, so it's clearly a bugger up on their part. With the sheer amount of violence and swearing in the movie, it'd be the silliest thing ever to cut it ... so it'll be someone's silly bugger up when attributing a rating to the movie on their system. Funny, mind. :D

Mike70

13-Sep-2011, 08:23 PM

MinionZombie

14-Sep-2011, 10:28 AM

it will be interesting to see if there any complaints lodged after this is shown.

I checked it on Anytime last night and even though they rate it as "12" on the info, when the movie starts it's still rated "18" ... but it was quite funny to see the info list it as a "12". :p

bassman

19-Sep-2011, 08:24 PM

1qhqQ6F0l1o

AcesandEights

19-Sep-2011, 08:44 PM

They should have just given Del Toro the money.

That'd been grand...

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b205/DougOBrien/Mountains_of_madness__Attack_by_MarcSimonetti.jpg

blind2d

19-Sep-2011, 09:14 PM

Meh... I'll see it. Not in theater obviously. But yeah, doesn't look too horrendous.

shootemindehead

19-Sep-2011, 09:39 PM

They should have just given Del Toro the money.

That'd been grand...

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b205/DougOBrien/Mountains_of_madness__Attack_by_MarcSimonetti.jpg

Aye, a 'Mountains of Madness' set in the 20's would have been bloody great.

paranoid101

19-Sep-2011, 10:41 PM

Anyone else feel that the CGI mosters are not a patch on the original ones?

Neil

19-Sep-2011, 10:54 PM

Anyone else feel that the CGI mosters are not a patch on the original ones?
CGI, unless it's v.good seems to look worse than models for some reason. I guess because it's maybe fake on two ways? ie: It's not only not real, it's not ever there! :)

paranoid101

19-Sep-2011, 11:23 PM

Anyone else feel that the CGI mosters are not a patch on the original ones?

I am legend was ruined for me with the awful mosters CGI (plus it was pretty crap anyway) if its done badly it takes me out of the movie.

MinionZombie

20-Sep-2011, 11:12 AM

I am legend was ruined for me with the awful mosters CGI (plus it was pretty crap anyway) if its done badly it takes me out of the movie.

Damn straight, and Neil's right - a really good puppet or practical effect is better, because you know that it physically existed in the same space as the actor and you know that the actor is looking directly at something in front of them ... CGI can be done well, but in a horror movie, it's much better to go practical I think.

Regarding that trailer - is it me, or is 'the thing' itself not very good at keeping itself secret? Surely that's the whole point of the creature itself? To blend in totally ... in Carpenter's flick it was mostly only caught out (like during the blood test sequence), although there was that awesome bit where the guy had a heart attack and his chest burst open - but I'd imagine that's more because it was physically being attacked (by the electric shocks). I can't recall the creature ever being so blatant in JC's flick - whereas in that trailer it's just bursting around all over the place showing itself off every five seconds. :rolleyes:

I will see it eventually, but I really don't know when.

This flick seems more concerned with action than the actual thing that made JC's original (it's a retelling of the book, not the 50s movie) ... but considering it's *sigh* "from the producers of Dawn of the Dead" (as in the shitty remake that totally missed the point of everything that made Romero's flick great), then it's no big surprise. Plus - there's an awful lot of CGI in that ... I thought this was supposed to have physical effects in it? That trailer suggests an awful lot of pixels running around screaming. :rolleyes:

I was holding out hope that this could be worthwhile seeing in the cinema ... I never thought it'd beat JC's movie, but geez, the more we're shown the more it becomes painfully evident that they've totally missed the entire point. If the creature replicated it's target as badly as the team behind this 2011 version have, then it'd stick out like a sore thumb ... mind you, it clearly has no interest in playing it sneaky in this new movie. :bored:

shootemindehead

20-Sep-2011, 11:54 AM

Anyone else feel that the CGI mosters are not a patch on the original ones?

Yes.

It's just not there yet.

Neil

20-Sep-2011, 12:17 PM

Yes.

It's just not there yet.

It can be... But it has to be spot on!

shootemindehead

20-Sep-2011, 01:32 PM

hmmm, for hardware, I'd agree. Stuff like vehicles, tanks, planes, spaceships etc.

But, for organic material, I don't think it's there yet. It's too easy to spot and rarely convincing completely. Gollum was probably the best effort yet.

Another issue I with it, is that it totally destroys physics. When using CGI for people etc, the temptation is there for film makers to abandon physical reality and have their characters do all sorts impossible maneuvers.

Drives me nuts.

bassman

20-Sep-2011, 01:36 PM

But, for organic material, I don't think it's there yet. It's too easy to spot and rarely convincing completely. Gollum was probably the best effort yet.

I thought both King Kong and Ceasar from the new Apes film blew Gollum out of the water. It's definitely improving.

shootemindehead

20-Sep-2011, 01:40 PM

Haven't seen the new Planet of the Apes and I was bored stupid by the King Kong travesty, I've wiped it from my memory.

*Blank*

See, totally gone.

It is getting better yes, but my heart still sinks when film makers resort to it over a decent mechanical effort. Partly because the old art is going to die out.

paranoid101

20-Sep-2011, 01:53 PM

Not only can too much CGI take you out of the film, but It can also take the actors out of the film when theres way too much (see Phantom Menace)

Think Gollum work so well is because Andy Serkis was with the Actor as well when they did the scenes and most were done on location not against a green screen.

Agree on Rise of the Apes the CGI in there never once ruined that film for me.

MikePizzoff

20-Sep-2011, 03:23 PM

Well, that trailer looked like shit. The studio definitely won't be getting money from me for this one.

MinionZombie

20-Sep-2011, 05:39 PM

Count me in as another fan of Caesar in Rise of the Planet of the Apes - the key being, not only quality CGI, but the performance capture itself, and adding that glimmer of life into their eyes. Little things that are inescapably 'real' to something that is 'living' - if it's not there you instantly miss it, but if it is there you don't immediately notice it being there, rather it just feels right.

Agree on the machinery vs organic situation ... not hard and fast rule, but generally speaking that seems to be the case. However, that demonstration of CGI used in The Walking Dead was surprising - there were some zombies that were quite close to the camera that were totally CGI, but when watching the episode I completely believed them to be actual actors in zombie get-up.

slickwilly13

20-Sep-2011, 05:57 PM

I guess I will have to take one for the team and watch it first, huh?

paranoid101

20-Sep-2011, 06:05 PM

Also The Thing is surposed to be Hidden, in that Trailer how many times did they Show it?

The original works better cause when the thing made its Appearance its totally shocking.

What you Imagine in your head and what is not seen is always more scary than plastering it all over the trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouZkkIsLiNg heres the original trailer look how many times they even show the monster hardly any.

AcesandEights

20-Sep-2011, 06:41 PM

Now that was a *channles MZ* proper old skool trailer.

Wow, Man is the Warmest Place to Hide...what a great tag!

MinionZombie

21-Sep-2011, 10:49 AM

Now that was a *channles MZ* proper old skool trailer.

Wow, Man is the Warmest Place to Hide...what a great tag!

I thought I felt someone digging around my brain last night. :p

Agreed - that trailer gives you a little taste of the craziness in store, but it just teases you with it. The majority of what goes on is hidden - and what's hidden is scary - meanwhile the new one looks like an action movie that is always wiggling its privates in front of your face. :(

bassman

21-Sep-2011, 01:43 PM

meanwhile the new one looks like an action movie that is always wiggling its privates in front of your face. :(

With Mary Elizabeth Winstead in the lead role, you're gonna act like that's a bad thing?!? :lol:

LouCipherr

21-Sep-2011, 04:07 PM

With Mary Elizabeth Winstead in the lead role, you're gonna act like that's a bad thing?!? :lol:

I'd rather see her in a porn than this flick. :shifty:

:lol:

MinionZombie

21-Sep-2011, 05:30 PM

With Mary Elizabeth Winstead in the lead role, you're gonna act like that's a bad thing?!? :lol:

I'd rather see her in a porn than this flick. :shifty:

:lol:

I agree with you both! :sneaky:

MEW is one of the best things about this flick to me - possibly the only best thing about it - so I'll definitely watch it at some point, I would have anyway out of curiosity, but I can't see this being all that great with the stuff we've seen thus far.

Seriously though, I dig MEW. I like the characters she plays and she seems like a switched-on kind of lady who isn't some typical bag-of-bones preening Hollywood bitch or drugged-out whore ... yep ... it's crush-o-rama time when MEW rocks up on the screen. ;)

slickwilly13

12-Oct-2011, 06:48 AM

The reviews are mixed. Anyone going to watch it this Friday? Or am I taking one for the team?

MinionZombie

12-Oct-2011, 10:06 AM

The reviews are mixed. Anyone going to watch it this Friday? Or am I taking one for the team?

I highly doubt I'll bother seeing this in the cinema now after seeing the bits of footage and trailers put out there that make it look like it's trampling over so many of the reasons why JC's flick was so good and worked so well as a horror movie.

You might be taking this one for the team, slick. ;)

AcesandEights

12-Oct-2011, 02:53 PM

The reviews are mixed. Anyone going to watch it this Friday? Or am I taking one for the team?

I'm tentatively down for seeing it sometime this coming weekend. :)

LouCipherr

12-Oct-2011, 02:56 PM

I highly doubt I'll bother seeing this in the cinema now after seeing the bits of footage and trailers put out there that make it look like it's trampling over so many of the reasons why JC's flick was so good and worked so well as a horror movie.

You might be taking this one for the team, slick. ;)

^This x2. Sorry, slick. :lol:

bassman

12-Oct-2011, 03:06 PM

I would love to give it a shot, but getting to the cinema is a rare event these days, unfortunately. I keep hoping that maybe the trailers are putting a spin on it. There are certain aspects of it that still look good though.

Kaos

12-Oct-2011, 03:23 PM

I'll probably hit a matinee this Saturday.

Mike70

12-Oct-2011, 03:53 PM

i'll be checking it out just because...

bassman

13-Oct-2011, 03:50 PM

Mike70

13-Oct-2011, 04:41 PM

Anybody seen rottentomatoes today? The Thing sits in the 30's while the remake of Footloose is near 70. It's getting reviews worse than a teen remake of a teen dance movie? Ouch....

Of the reviews i've seen, most say it's a passable sci/fi horror film, but not even close to Carpenter's. Not a surprise there, really.

Well I guess that settles it for me - Wait for Netflix.

i avoid rottentomatoes the way i would avoid actual rotten tomatoes. why let the opinions of others influence you into either seeing or not seeing a movie.

then again, i operate under the basic principle that everyone in the world is a complete and total idiot until they've proved otherwise.

bassman

13-Oct-2011, 04:48 PM

i avoid rottentomatoes the way i would avoid actual rotten tomatoes. why let the opinions of others influence you into either seeing or not seeing a movie.
.

Well, in RT's case at least they compile as many reviews as possible. It's not just one person's opinion, but a general consensus. A single person's review doesn't really effect anything for me either, but when a great number of reviews give the film a low number, you get an idea that something bad is afoot. Not that it will keep me from eventually giving the film a fair shake, but it's not encouraging me to go flop down some hard earned cash to see it in theater.

slickwilly13

13-Oct-2011, 06:22 PM

The reviews are very mixed. It is hard to tell if it is decent or not. A lot of people are bitching about CGI and comparing & contrasting the '82 film.

MinionZombie

13-Oct-2011, 07:18 PM

I've read that the CGI is terrible, there's a complete lack of tension or horror, and it spends too much time trying to be JC's flick - i.e. remaking it, without technically being a remake - plus the fact that it seems to be entirely pointless (we already know what happened to the Norwegian camp - which, for me, has always been the big problem with the idea of a prequel of the exact-same-bloody-name-as-the-original).

That said ... Mary Elizabeth Winstead is in it, and there's the curiosity factor ... but sod off am I paying to see this in the cinema.

Neil

13-Oct-2011, 07:53 PM

slickwilly13

13-Oct-2011, 08:30 PM

That is what bothers me the most about the CGI. They claimed to use CGI at a minimum and use real props similar to what Bottin used for The Thing.

-- -------- Post added at 02:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:16 PM ----------

I am going to watch the first showing in my city at 1:20 pm. Central U.S. tomorrow.

LouCipherr

13-Oct-2011, 08:45 PM

it seems to be entirely pointless (we already know what happened to the Norwegian camp - which, for me, has always been the big problem with the idea of a prequel of the exact-same-bloody-name-as-the-original).

Is that entirely true? We don't know if some people survive or not!?

We do know the two norwegian guys in the helicopter survived, as well as the infected dog, but that didn't last long for any of them. :D

Regardless, MZ is right - the story of the norwegian camp was already told. Not to mention, it seems as if they're twisting the camp's story a bit as compared to how Carpenter laid it out. That, I think, is what bothers me the most about these remakes, prequels, sequels, etc. At least stick to the original goddamned story! *shoots an evil eye in the direction of Rob Zombie*

Every time I see the trailer for this flick, it looks like nothing but a re-hash of Carpenters' minus a penis on the lead character. :lol: :lol:

Rancid Carcass

13-Oct-2011, 11:37 PM

Review up at IGN:

I don't hate this version of The Thing, but there is one thing that I do hate about it: By putting a new spin on what the alien can and can't replicate, by making it canon if you will, it calls into question actions depicted in the first film. A remake/prequel/whatever shouldn't make you go look for the flaws in the original.

http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/119/1197745p1.html

Let battle commence...

bassman

14-Oct-2011, 02:58 PM

The cast of Carpenter's film watch the prequel....

jYjDVCwKr6A

:lol:

Kaos

14-Oct-2011, 03:29 PM

The cast of Carpenter's film watch the prequel....

jYjDVCwKr6A

:lol:

Definitely stealing that. :D

paranoid101

14-Oct-2011, 04:53 PM

Review up at IGN:

http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/119/1197745p1.html

Let battle commence...

that was class :D

LouCipherr

14-Oct-2011, 05:17 PM

The cast of Carpenter's film watch the prequel....

:lol:

THAT was hilarious!

Interesting. The IGN review has reiterated something we have been saying all along:

"...it's the script by Eric Heisserer (who also penned the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street) that commits the sin of too closely paralleling its predecessor, to the point of almost being a beat-for-beat replay of the paranoid events of the '82 film. "

"Prequel" my ass.

That, and it all makes sense now why it's not going to be good: the script was written by the same bozo who destroyed the remake of ANOES. :rolleyes:

slickwilly13

14-Oct-2011, 06:49 PM

I am leaving in a little while to watch it.

AcesandEights

14-Oct-2011, 06:55 PM

I am leaving in a little while to watch it.

God go with you...and let us know what you think. This is still on a list of possible outings for me this weekend.

slickwilly13

14-Oct-2011, 11:08 PM

It was not nearly as bad as I thought it would be. The movie was actually enjoyable. I still think the '82 movie is better, but that is just my opinion. '82 movie was more suspenseful. This one was more action.

Mike70

15-Oct-2011, 01:32 AM

went this afternoon as well out of boredom more than anything. i agree with slick. the movie is more actiony than horror but is a decent flick. i point blank refuse to make comparisons with the 82 version. divorce that one from your mind and you might end up liking the movie.

that is all i have to say until more of you have seen it. even then, i might not have more to say. i thought it was decent, if you don't fine with me.

shootemindehead

15-Oct-2011, 09:14 AM

The cast of Carpenter's film watch the prequel....

jYjDVCwKr6A

:lol:

"You don't understand...that thing wanted to be US!"

Never a truer word spoken.

MinionZombie

15-Oct-2011, 10:41 AM

Oh geez - that guy wrote it? Ugh...

The ANOES remake was an actual abomination. I watched it on Sky Movies t'other week, and it was just bad, bad, bad, bad, bad ... it was as if they'd spent five minutes thinking about the script and then ran the original movie through the mind of an idiotic 12 year old dressed from head-to-toe in Hot Topic.

*shudders*

Actually, here's my thoughts of the movie from June:
http://deadshed.blogspot.com/2011/06/hextuple-bill-mini-musings-june-2011.html

A Nightmare On Elm Street 2010:
Wes Craven's franchise-starting 1984 original had an inventive idea driving the properly crafted narrative, and it introduced us to a pitch-perfect new face of terror (well, until he turned into a cartoon character marketted - bizarrely, even perversely - to children as a cuddly rogue at the height of his popularity). Samual Beyer directs his film debut like a music video (he's best known for the video to Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and Green Day's "American Idiot" videos). Like a music video it's impatient to get going (the movie begins at minute zero with us already in a nightmare), and due to the rush you care little (if at all) for the protagonists.

On the one hand it wants to rip-off the famous moments from Craven's decidedly far superior original, and on the other it wants to branch out ... but whenever it does, it hints at an idea that could have (in the hands of a talented screenwriter who cared about motivation, characterisation, tension building, and pacing) created a really interesting new take on a well-worn genre legend. Then it goes and blows it, time and again, and just cobbles together a bunch of vaguely connected dream sequences (none of which are scary, let alone chilling, nor mildly cool). Half of the cast feel totally disconnected (more like celebrity wannabes, than anyone interested in acting), and the other half that have any talent are totally wasted (I'll be interested to see Roony Mara take on The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo under the superior direction of David Fincher, and Kyle Gallner in Kevin Smith's much-talked-about chiller Red State).

Only one sequence - a flash back to how-and-why Freddy got fried - holds any intrigue (indeed, a talented screenwriter could have crafted a deeply dark origin story), but that doesn't save the movie from being a heartless, witless, and completely-and-utterly pale immitation of Craven's iconic original. Presentationally it feels like an imitation of the Friday 13th remake, which in-turn was an imitation of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, and The Amityville Horror remake (all produced by Platinum Dunes ... or 'The Remake Assembly Line' as it should be known). These Platinum Dunes movies have dropped in quality consistently with each new product that's foisted upon the horror community (notorious gluttons for punishment, whose curiosity inevitably kills the cat) from good-but-still-inferior-to-the-original, to downright woeful.

Jackie Earle Hayley is also wasted here - under a supposedly 'more realistic' (yet entirely unconvincing, nor frightening) mask - with a dud script and a director who blows his load almost immediately revealing too much of Freddy early on (several times). This could have been a golden opportunity to make a dark origin story that avoided the content of the original almost entirely, but instead this is just another cash-hungry, churned-out, load of old bullshit. Avoid it like the plague, and let's hope they don't make a sequel to it!

slickwilly13

15-Oct-2011, 06:03 PM

It is not shitty like the Elm Street remake. A lot better in my opinion.

ProfessorChaos

15-Oct-2011, 06:58 PM

i plan to see this in theaters next weekend. still slightly optimistic about it.

Kaos

16-Oct-2011, 06:59 AM

Saw it with the family today, and this my take:

Was it necessary to make? No.

Did it add anything to Carpenter's original? No.

Was the CGI excessive? Yes, but they used a lot of in camera effects too.

Was it a total piece of crap? Not in my opinion. I rather enjoyed it even though many scenes in it were rehashes from scenes in the original (and I know this alone will cause an uproar with a segment of fans).

It does end where the first begins which is more than I expected out of this movie.

The Thing 2011 is a fun flick that just can't build up the paranoid-claustrophobic atmosphere that Carpenter's did. There is too little character development for you to care about this group of people in the same way as old Outpost 31.

The main scientist bad guy is a 2011 take on the Dr. Carrington character from Howard Hawk's "The Thing from Another World" which I thought was a nice touch.

It is way better than its Rotten Tomatoes rating.

slickwilly13

16-Oct-2011, 09:15 PM

For those you have seen it, what do you think of the creatures in general?

rongravy

17-Oct-2011, 03:42 AM

Saw it. Weak compared to the original, didn't carry the vibe.
Wasn't horrible, had decent gore when they got down to it.
I give it an ehhhhhh......

snowwarrior

25-Oct-2011, 09:00 PM

I'm a huge fan of the Carpenter version and I enjoyed this prequel. Just hope that Universal doesn't rename Carpenters film "The Thing 2"!

ProfessorChaos

26-Oct-2011, 03:26 AM

i was going to take my ladyfriend to see this over the weekend, but found out she's not seen the carpenter version. so we decided that we would watch the "original" if you will, likely on halloween night, then see the prequel at a later date.

MissJacksonCA

17-Nov-2011, 03:49 PM

Having been out for work and without technology for so long I went to see the Thing just assuming it was a remake of the orig and yeah when it finally hit me that it was a prequel I was entirely delighted and was probably the giddiest girl (perhaps the only one) in the theater... I love prequels... I loved this movie... probably not something I'm going to run out and buy when it hits DVD but you know... I miss old movies because they didn't promote Chips N Soda (anyone remember in Land of the Dead when it was obvious where money for the film came from?) and they didn't have these soundtracks that leave me feeling like the movie is just an advertisement for food and music. This movie is a classic... mostly unknown people in it, not a lot of vulgarity, good SFX, and it did something that John Carpenter is great at... it had 'atmosphere' ...just sayN...

Neil

17-Nov-2011, 04:36 PM