The Thing Prequel

[AcesandEights]

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?

[slickwilly13]

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]

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?

[JDFP]

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]

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

[slickwilly13]

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]

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]

Kind of like the Romero Dead series.

[shootemindehead]

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]

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

[bassman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.