The Thing (2011 Reboot)

[megladon8]

Collider reports that Variety reports (http://www.collider.com/entertainment/news/article.asp/aid/10679/tcid/1) that Ronald D. Moore of "Battlestar Galactica" fame has already written a script for a prequel to John Carpenter's The Thing, and that Universal is moving forward with the project.

It will take place right before the events of Carpenter's original, and will show what happened to that Norwegian team we briefly see at the beginning of the first film.

Bloody Disgusting confirms this (http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/14971), stating that Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. is slated to direct the film.

[Boner M]

Cool.

[bac0n]

As a person regards John Carpenter's The Thing as his favorite horror of all time, I'll be watching this one with keen interest.

[Raiders]

Kick. Ass.

[number8]

Yay, a prequel we like.

[Ivan Drago]

I want to believe that this will be good.

[Morris Schæffer]

Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. can be trusted to deliver?

[Kurosawa Fan]

I'm skeptical.

[MadMan]

I'm worried that it will take away from some of the mystery of what went down at the camp, which only added to The Thing's overall creepiness, especially with the scenes where they visited the dead camp. And I have a feeling that what went down at the Norwegian camp in some ways mirrored with happened when the Thing made it to the American camp, anyways.

On the other hand, this could have some promise and be at least entertaining and somewhat freaky. Thankfully this is a prequel, not a sequel.

[Rowland]

Terrible idea.

[Dead & Messed Up]

::sighs::

[Raiders]

::sighs::

I'm sure this was the reaction in 1981 as well.

I am excited that Moore is behind this. His re-imagining of BSG has been outstanding and he has shown in the past to have a great science fiction mind with his work on other TV series.

The only thing I do wonder is that I thought Carpenter's followed the original novella pretty closely. Not sure how much more faithful they will be, particularly being a "prequel."

[Dead & Messed Up]

I'm sure this was the reaction in 1981 as well.

I am excited that Moore is behind this. His re-imagining of BSG has been outstanding and he has shown in the past to have a great science fiction mind with his work on other TV series.

The only thing I do wonder is that I thought Carpenter's followed the original novella pretty closely. Not sure how much more faithful they will be, particularly being a "prequel."

Yes, but in 1981, reworking established properties wasn't quite as dominant. Clearly this has a pedigree with Moore, whose current show is, by all accounts, a success.

Maybe it's just too early in the morning for me.

[Dukefrukem]

the Thing is the best horror film ever in my eyes. I'm excited, yet weary of what to make of this.

[Ezee E]

I'll agree with MadMan on what happened in the Norwegian camp also happened at the American one. However, with special effects being better, I'm curious to see what they'll do.

[Morris Schæffer]

However, with special effects being better, I'm curious to see what they'll do.

Though you could argue that creature effects have rarely been better than what was on show in the 1982 flick, supplanted these days with CGI monstrosities.

[Acapelli]

the effects in the carpenter thing are some of the best i've ever seen, to this day

[Dead & Messed Up]

Though you could argue that creature effects have rarely been better than what was on show in the 1982 flick, supplanted these days with CGI monstrosities.

Also, the Thing itself was created with great imagination from Bottin and co. I have no doubt the Thing will be state of the art, but will it be as strangely beautiful?

I'd hate to be a naysayer, but NAY.

[Spinal]

So, another horror movie in which we just get to watch everyone die. Great.

[Raiders]

So, another horror movie in which we just get to watch everyone die. Great.

That's assuming all the Norwegians were dead when MacReady went to their camp.

[Spinal]

That's assuming all the Norwegians were dead when MacReady went to their camp.

Weren't they? I guess someone could have been hiding somewhere.

[number8]

Weren't they? I guess someone could have been hiding somewhere.

Or escaped.

[Spinal]

I assumed that all members of the team had been accounted for, but I've only seen it once, so I'm probably wrong.

[Raiders]

I assumed that all members of the team had been accounted for, but I've only seen it once, so I'm probably wrong.

They were two separate teams. We're talking about the other camp, not the one featured in Carpenter's film, but the ones who fly in and try and shoot the dog at the start of the film. That's when MacReady flies off to check on the camp and comes back reporting it was destroyed and he found nobody there. They were Norwegian, not American.

[Dukefrukem]

So this film is gonna have subtitles then?

[EvilShoe]

I don't want this, but I'm glad it's not a sequel.

[megladon8]

So, it may or may not have anything to do with Norewegians. (http://www.cinematical.com/2009/01/29/discuss-norwegians-in-the-thing-prequel-not-so-fast/)

I'd like to read the book.

*looks on Amazon*

[Raiders]

There are two very conflicting stories here. I'm thinking one is probably incorrect. This will either be a brand new story based on the Norwegians, or an update (and not a prequel) to the first two versions sticking even more closely to the novella.

Only time will tell.

[megladon8]

Has anyone here read the book?

*looks to D_Davis*

[EvilShoe]

There's also a rumour going around that McReady's brother will have a role in this.
That doesn't seem to fit with the Norwegian angle.

[Raiders]

I'd like to read the book.

*looks on Amazon*

*Ahem*

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Highrise/3756/jc/who/bonusid.htm

[megladon8]

*Ahem*

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Highrise/3756/jc/who/bonusid.htm


:pritch:

[Ezee E]

I'd venture to say it'll be an update before the Norwegian angle.

And it should start with the return of a penguin going, "Doobie, doobie doo."

::hopes someone gets the reference::

[Kurosawa Fan]

Bud Ice! Fantastic commercial.

[Spinal]

They were two separate teams. We're talking about the other camp, not the one featured in Carpenter's film, but the ones who fly in and try and shoot the dog at the start of the film. That's when MacReady flies off to check on the camp and comes back reporting it was destroyed and he found nobody there. They were Norwegian, not American.

Yeah, I remembered that much. Basic point I was making is that there seems to be a trend lately towards horror with no hope. My initial impression was that this seemed to be heading that way. But maybe not.

[Dukefrukem]

This begins shooting in March.

BD (http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/18570?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+bloody-disgusting+(Bloody+Disgusting+ Horror+News)&utm_content=Google+Reader)

[Spun Lepton]

http://blog.internetnews.com/apatrizio/do-not-want-dog.jpg

[Raiders]

I do. Both versions have been great so far. I trust Moore, and hell, I'd love to know more about those crazy Norweigans.

EDIT: Hm, in researching it seems they have overhauled Moore's original screenplay with some rewrites from the guy who is writing the script for the new Elm Street film.

Hrmph.

[Spun Lepton]

In my head, the word Prequel is synonymous with FAIL.

Let me guess the ending ... uuhhh ... THE DOG GETS AWAY.

[megladon8]

It'd be sweet if it had a twist ending that totally betrays everything in Carpenter's film.

Like, there is no dog at all, and the Norwegians (who in this film will be played by American actors with British accents, since Brit-speak denotes "foreign") blow up the base and escape unscathed.

Total body count - 0.

Rated PG-13 for mild terror and some language.

[Spun Lepton]

It'd be sweet if it had a twist ending that totally betrays everything in Carpenter's film.

Like, there is no dog at all, and the Norwegians (who in this film will be played by American actors with British accents, since Brit-speak denotes "foreign") blow up the base and escape unscathed.

Total body count - 0.

Rated PG-13 for mild terror and some language.

:|

[number8]

It'd be sweet if the twist is that it's actually a sequel.

[Skitch]

It'd be sweet if the twist is that it's actually a sequel.

...Starring KURT FUCKING RUSSELL!

[Dead & Messed Up]

The twist is that nobody ever is the Thing, and the dog-thing watches as the people self-destruct from paranoia. Then it turns to the camera and smiles devilishly.

[Skitch]

The twist is that nobody ever is the Thing, and the dog-thing watches as the people self-destruct from paranoia. Then it turns to the camera and smiles devilishly.

I think I hate every idea in this thread, real, sarcastic, joking, or serious. Because they're all plausible.

[Raiders]

In my head, the word Prequel is synonymous with FAIL.

Let me guess the ending ... uuhhh ... THE DOG GETS AWAY.

Hm, OK. Therefore historical films are also synonymous with FAIL.

[Skitch]

Hm, OK. Therefore historical films are also synonymous with FAIL.

I suspect you know what he meant.

[Spun Lepton]

Hm, OK. Therefore historical films are also synonymous with FAIL.

You're reaching. :P

[Raiders]

You're reaching. :P

No, I'm not. You indicated they fail because you already know the outcome. I simply said the same is true of most, if not all, historical films as well.

[Raiders]

To clarify, I assume you mean that it's rather pointless because ultimately, it's a fatalistic project and we know what will happen and so what's really the point. I don't think it is inherent that the project must be all about the ending. There are many instances, historical films being one, where the outcome is known and inevitable and the drama comes from the actions and events that lead to it. This could be even more powerful since we already know the futility of what we'll be seeing.

[Spun Lepton]

No, I'm not. You indicated they fail because you already know the outcome. I simply said the same is true of most, if not all, historical films as well.

This is opening up a whole different discussion. "Hollywood history" certainly is chocked full of FAIL, and if I have interest in historical events, I'll tend to watch documentaries. And I watch documentaries for completely different reasons than I do fiction.

[number8]

This is opening up a whole different discussion. "Hollywood history" certainly is chocked full of FAIL, and if I have interest in historical events, I'll tend to watch documentaries. And I watch documentaries for completely different reasons than I do fiction.

He's saying you're like those people who back in 1997 said they don't want to watch Titanic because they already know the boat sinks at the end.

[Spun Lepton]

He's saying you're like those people who back in 1997 said they don't want to watch Titanic because they already know the boat sinks at the end.

Yeah, but the story wasn't about the boat. :P

[[ETM]]

Yeah, but the story wasn't about the boat. :P

...um... can you not see where this is going?

[Spun Lepton]

;230803']...um... can you not see where this is going?

Do tell.

[[ETM]]

Do tell.

Well, what if the Thing prequel is not about the "boat"?

[Spun Lepton]

;230806']Well, what if the Thing prequel is not about the "boat"?

I don't concern myself with what-ifs. I can not see the future. I'd love them to prove me wrong. I find remakes near-intolerable, but The Thing is my favorite movie, so there you go.

[[ETM]]

I don't concern myself with what-ifs. I can not see the future.

We can only hope.

[number8]

I don't concern myself with what-ifs. I can not see the future. I'd love them to prove me wrong. I find remakes near-intolerable, but The Thing is my favorite movie, so there you go.

Well, since you abhor remakes but your favorite movie is one, perhaps because you abhor prequels this prequel will be your new favorite movie.

[Morris Schæffer]

Yeah, but the story wasn't about the boat. :P

I'd argue that, in many ways, it was. Cameron's original infatuation was more than likely with the ship itself. Indeed, the way that it is framed, each shot more majestic and awe-inspiring than the last, seems to support that theory. I guess he needed a romance to sort of stop the movie from being a documentary.

[Spun Lepton]

Well, since you abhor remakes but your favorite movie is one, perhaps because you abhor prequels this prequel will be your new favorite movie.

Possible, but I doubt it.

[megladon8]

This movie probably won't be good, but it'd be really cool if it actually did turn out well.

Agreed, everyone?

[Skitch]

This movie probably won't be good, but it'd be really cool if it actually did turn out well.

Agreed, everyone?

Naturally. I sincerely hope it is awesome.

[megladon8]

I don't think I've ever actually hoped that a movie would.

More than enough times I've expected suckage, but I've never wished it upon a movie.

I like surprise awesomeness.

[Morris Schæffer]

I always hope for the best when it comes to remakes.

[KK2.0]

I agree that telling the Norwegian's point of view is a bit predictable, since we know they'll find the UFO, the alien will replace one of them, paranoia, blood and chaos will follow. But still, i'm very intrigued with a modern version of the story and if they manage to add a surprise or two, it may work.

I remember the americans found several frozen bodies in the Norwegian camp and even brought a twisted corpse with them, which btw, also infects one of the crew.

Hopefully they will use animatronics and practical fx, specially for the gory details, the ones in Carpenter's version were amazing. I won't bother if the huge monster is CGI though.

[MadMan]

After reading through the rest of the thread, my original post still stands as how I feel about the whole damn thing. Nothing has changed. Nothing!!! :P

[Spun Lepton]

Still have hopes for this? Let's see how they fare after reading this:

http://io9.com/5447338/major-spoilers-revealed-in-the-casting-call-for-the-things-prequel

Norwegians?! HAHAHA ... we don't need no stinking Norwegians ... what? Oh, there were? At the beginning of the orginal? Oh, fuck, okay, uuhhhh ... ONE Norwegian.

ONE GREAT STEAMING PILE OF SUCK

[number8]

I repeat.


It'd be sweet if the twist is that it's actually a sequel.

[Dead & Messed Up]

The movie should be about the Thing flawlessly infecting the entirety of life on Earth, and, with nothing else to do, it just behaves like the life it's faking, and Earth continues more or less as it was.

[Skitch]

Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Uncle-Owen-From-The-Prequels. (http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=26952)

[bac0n]

This project is dead to me.

[Spun Lepton]

Can I say "Told you so," right now, or must I wait until it's actually unleashed on the public? :D

[Dukefrukem]

ugggggggggggggg

[MadMan]

Okay, never mind. This is probably going to be quite bad. But hey at least there's Mary Elizabeth Winstead's hot ass to look at, I suppose. Eh.

[Dukefrukem]

"Well, it's a prequel and definitely the Norwegian base is modeled on the base you see in the Carpenter film," he told us. "Being a prequel you'll see a lot of tie-ins as to how the base comes to be the way it is in the Carpenter film, being so destroyed, and that evidence you see in the Carpenter film, We'll get a glimpse into that. It's great because you have a bunch of people behind making it—Eric Newman and Marc (Abraham), the producers at Strike (Entertainment), those guys and Matthijs the director, they have such respect for the original film that they're not trying to do a remake, they're just trying to pay homage to the original and also do the right thing with what I think is a real cool way in to doing that, and revisiting the material."

I've been on set and I've been at the base, and it's a full station, and it's f*cking exciting. We're out there in Antarctica, it's amazing. We're shooting in Toronto, but it feels like we're there."

I've heard the second bolded quote before...

http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=14754

[D_Davis]

It cracks me up how so many of the comments at i09 mention how well the JC original has held up over the years, as if it's surprising that an "old" movie could still be good.

The Thing doesn't "hold up," it's a freaking classic, a masterpiece.

[Spun Lepton]

I've heard the second bolded quote before...

http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=14754

Every article reminds me how much this is going to suck.

[MadMan]

It cracks me up how so many of the comments at i09 mention how well the JC original has held up over the years, as if it's surprising that an "old" movie could still be good.

The Thing doesn't "hold up," it's a freaking classic, a masterpiece.Exactly. The blood test scene and the paddles scene that leads to the doc getting his hands ripped off, plus the creature just crawling off, leading the rest to go "WTF?" are both amazing. Creepy, freaky, and scary. The first time I watched Carpetner's The Thing, my reaction was "Goddamn." When it held up the second and third time, I knew I had viewed something truly amazing. Plus the commentary from Carpenter and Russell rocks-I'm glad I bought the SE, although at this point it only costs $10.0 now on DVD anyways. But hey, I bought it cheap and felt glad to have done so, although originally I rented it.

[Spun Lepton]

Script review.
http://www.coronacomingattractions.co m/news/exclusive-script-review-thing-prequel

Emphasis mine.

Alas, if there’s a major flaw in Moore’s story it’s that it doesn’t add anything new. We’ve seen this same story played out in the Carpenter movie; we watch the characters discover what the threat is they’re up against and then paranoia sets in amongst them as they freak out about who’s not really human anymore. The Thing’s goals aren’t any different in the prequel than the first film, which are to get out of isolation and absorb everything on the planet. There’s flamethrowers, sticks of dynamite and a snowstorm to cut off the base from the rest of the world. Ironically, in every way Moore’s Thing movie is perfect imitation of its originator when it’s really a franchise reboot that comes looking and sounding like it’s a prequel.

[Raiders]

Wonder what script he read since he basically gives all the credit to Moore when Moore's screenplay was extensively re-written by Eric Heisserer.

[Dukefrukem]

http://a.imageshack.us/img10/4175/thething081510.jpg

[MadMan]

I had forgotten all about this movie until the thread was bumped, damnit :| :P

[Morris Schæffer]

http://www.empireonline.com/images/image_index/hw800/45008.jpg

http://www.empireonline.com/images/image_index/hw800/45010.jpg

http://www.empireonline.com/images/image_index/hw800/45012.jpg

http://www.empireonline.com/images/image_index/hw800/45014.jpg

[Dukefrukem]

Oh shiiiiiiiiiiit. :) :) :)

Bah, they had to put a female in the cast.

[[ETM]]

That looks like a buff Conan O'Brien.

[D_Davis]

A chick? Lame.

[Dukefrukem]

quick!

watch it while you can!!!

Tv9jp_l9qMY

[Kurosawa Fan]

So basically it's a remake.

[megladon8]

I really don't like the cast of this one. Mary Elizabeth Winstead has never impressed me, and with it seeming that she is the lead character (maybe a sort of Ripley-esque one at that) it'll probably all be leaning on her.

I'm at least glad that the director was adamant to use practical effects rather than CGI.

[number8]

So basically it's a remake.

It's still a prequel... in which the exact same thing as the other movie happens. But hey! They're gonna put "1982" at the beginning of the movie so we know it's a prequel!

[Dukefrukem]

The release has been delayed :(

Not good news.

[Spun Lepton]

The release has been delayed :(

Not good news.

:pritch:

[MadMan]

:pritch:I second this.

[Irish]

The release has been delayed :(

Not good news.

Lemme guess: Studio is dumping it in January or February?

Getting a Fog remake feeling now.

[KK2.0]

So basically it's a remake.

of the remake

[Dukefrukem]

October 14, 2011 is the new release date

[Spun Lepton]

of the remake

Technically a prequel; a useless, useless prequel.

[Irish]

October 14, 2011 is the new release date

I guess they're betting there won't be another Saw movie. At least it demonstrates a kind of faith in it.

[Spun Lepton]

Gaaah ... thinking about them trying to turn this into a franchise makes my chest hurt ...

[Irish]

Gaaah ... thinking about them trying to turn this into a franchise makes my chest hurt ...

Thing III: The Thing About Manhattan - starring Tom Welling and Jessica Alba.

[bac0n]

Or better yet, a Rom-Com:

Crazy Little Thing Called Love

[number8]

Minimal effort photoshop got me this.

http://imgur.com/a2rcB.jpg

[bac0n]

10 bucks sez Number8 has a greenlight and 30 million in budget by the end of January.

[Morris Schæffer]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/coolproduction/ckeditor_assets/pictures/2434/original/TheThingOneSheet.JPG?131041867 1

[Lazlo]

http://files.sharenator.com/okay_face_RE_Highest_Rated_Pos t_Ever-s251x239-156794-580.jpg

[Ezee E]

I like it.

[D_Davis]

That is an undeniably cool poster.

[Dukefrukem]

hey it's from the producers of Dawn of the Dead

[Dead & Messed Up]

Nice slogan.

[Irish]

I'm going to assume that's faked, stick my fingers in my ears and continue to pretend this movie isn't happening.

LA-LA-LA-LA-CANT-HEAR-YOU-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA

[Ivan Drago]

I'm going to assume that's faked, stick my fingers in my ears and continue to pretend this movie isn't happening.

LA-LA-LA-LA-CANT-HEAR-YOU-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA

I'm approaching this film and the Straw Dogs remake like you are to this.

[Grouchy]

Straw Dogs remake
Shit.

[Skitch]

I'll wait for the trailer. The Straw Dogs trailer was not good.

[number8]

Wait, the trailer hasn't been released online yet? I saw it 9 months ago. WTF?

[Dukefrukem]

Wait, the trailer hasn't been released online yet? I saw it 9 months ago. WTF?

I remember the cammed footage on youtube but I chose not to watch it because the quality was so bad. When they announced they were pushing the release date back 6 months, thats when I gave up on this project.

[Morris Schæffer]

Yeah i don't ever recall there being a HD trailer, only a bad cam.

[Morris Schæffer]

As if by magic, the trailer (re)hits

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/50381/

Next to no gruesome footage, but it looks acceptable even if it looks like a copy of the original, only three days earlier.

[Dukefrukem]

Yeh I am skeptically excited. I like the use of the old 80s theme in the trailer though. But did I see:

a shot of the space ship on? That renders the opening scene of the Thing moot. I hated that opening anyway.

[number8]

a shot of the space ship on? That renders the opening scene of the Thing moot. I hated that opening anyway.

What? Why would it be moot?

[Dukefrukem]

What? Why would it be moot?


Well I never liked seeing the ship crash into Earth at the begining because we saw it frozen in the ice later in the movie. Now we're gonna see it again frozen in the ice and later shots with it on? (only guessing based on the trailer, maybe it will be a dream or something) It feels unnecessary to the story. I dont need to be spoon fed information like that.

[MadMan]

That trailer sucked. This movie looks awful. I'm going to go now with open hostility and hope that it bombs. So long as MEW's career isn't affected, because she is actually awesome and really hot.

[[ETM]]

I want Ronald D. Moore to succeed, MadMan.

[MadMan]

;361960']I want Ronald D. Moore to succeed, MadMan.Look, I don't want people's careers negatively impacted unless they are actually douchebags and or they set out to make only awful annoying movies. If it succeeds there will probably be a crappy sequel, too. Yikes.

This isn't the same thing as the NOES or Friday the 13th remakes, because those original films weren't great. The John Carpenter film, even though it was a remake, was as much him deciding to stick even closer to the original story than the 1951 film did. Its one of the best horror movies ever. So yes I feel that this prequel is bastardizing a classic.

[number8]

What you are saying is, we should only remake movies you don't like.

[Yxklyx]

I think producers should abide by IMDB ratings. Anything 8 and over JUST CAN'T BE REMADE!

[MadMan]

What you are saying is, we should only remake movies you don't like.No, although there are many crappy movies that could stand to be remade. It would make sense to remake certain movies that were terrible in the first place, no?

PS: :rolleyes:

Yep, ignore the fact that this remake looks crappy. Don't know why the hell I bother.

[number8]

Well, that is what you implied when you said this:


This isn't the same thing as the NOES or Friday the 13th remakes, because those original films weren't great.

I happen to think Nightmare on Elm Street is a terrific classic and I would put it on the same pedestal as The Thing.

If you're talking critical acclaim, NOES was very much well received, and currently has a Tomatometer rating higher than The Thing (95% vs 80%).

So essentially the only criteria for one to be more "worthy" of a remake than the other is that you didn't like it.

[number8]

But anyway, this looks pretty bad.

[Irish]

If you're talking critical acclaim, NOES was very much well received, and currently has a Tomatometer rating higher than The Thing (95% vs 80%).

Pet peeve of mine, but the Tomatometer is a bullshit metric for any film made before ~2002 or so, when Roger Ebert starting mentioning it quite a bit and rottentomatoes.com gained traction.

Before that, it doesn't capture the popular or critical reaction that genuinely reflect the original release. A lot of popular movies (Blade Runner, Shawshank, etc) benefitted enormously from VHS and DVD releases, and their current Tomatometers contain a lot of 20/20 hindsight.

Same goes with The Thing. It got critically panned and audiences stayed away in droves (it also had the bad fortune of being released in the same cycle as Blade Runner, Tron, and ET). I also think it's the kind of movie that plays much better on a small screen than a big one.

NOES was a commercial success, but I'm not sure it really was well received critically. It's a teenage slasher movie, and those kind of movies never faired well with the press back then.

(Nevermind that their aggregation is just plain stupid. If you and I see the same movie and I rate it a 6/10 and you rate it a 9/10, Rotten Tomatoes counts both of our ratings as "fresh.")

[Dead & Messed Up]

The Tomatometer doesn't indicate quality; it indicates levels of consensus, and even then, only in the most basic, binary way.

It's a guide, not a measure.

[Irish]

http://i.imgur.com/g9mvP.jpg

[MadMan]

Well, that is what you implied when you said this:



I happen to think Nightmare on Elm Street is a terrific classic and I would put it on the same pedestal as The Thing.

If you're talking critical acclaim, NOES was very much well received, and currently has a Tomatometer rating higher than The Thing (95% vs 80%).

So essentially the only criteria for one to be more "worthy" of a remake than the other is that you didn't like it.http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.co m/2010/07/wrong.jpg

[Dukefrukem]

Just watch this. Watch it just watch. (46 second clip of the Thing (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/51103))

scared the shit out of me at work

[chrisnu]

Just watch this. Watch it just watch. (46 second clip of the Thing (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/51103))

scared the shit out of me at work
That definitely startled me.

That looks like it's lifted directly from the dog kennel scene in the original.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Just watch this. Watch it just watch. (46 second clip of the Thing (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/51103))

scared the shit out of me at work

Eh. I'm not really turned on by the

"joke" jump-scare. Weren't those exhausted a decade ago?

[Dukefrukem]

Effective!

Red Band Thing Trailer. (http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/26387)

[Sxottlan]

John Carpenter's film was dropped on a unsuspecting 10-year old Sxottlan many many years ago. Just watching television and it played what I can only assume was an unedited version on some weekend afternoon (wtf?!). Started off as a good mystery and then the gore just about made me throw-up.

I have never wanted to see it since. I should probably just grow up and watch it again some day, but it greatly disturbed me and I'm reluctant to go back. Same goes for a lot of what I call "body horror" films of the 70s and 80s when the practical special effects really improved, including The Thing knock-off Leviathan. I finally got into Alien when I was in high school, but not the others.

So this is about the first team that found the creature?

[Morris Schæffer]

Yep, this is that team. The abandoned base RJ Macready discovered belonged to Mr. Eko And Lucy Gennaro McClane. :D

[MadMan]

Yep, this is that team. The abandoned base RJ Macready discovered belonged to Mr. Eko And Lucy Gennaro McClane. :DI predict a 70% Tomatoemeter rating :|

And yes Sxottlan you should go back and watch Carpenter's The Thing. The blood test scene and the defibulator scenes are still goddamn creepy/freaky/disturbing. As is the stuff with the dogs, too. Your story reminds me of how as a 6th grader I had the misfortunate to stumble across the original Halloween on USA. Scared the shit out of me, although granted that movie still does.

[Morris Schæffer]

I predict a 70% Tomatoemeter rating :|



I predict lower. the original is so revered and this one, well, it doesn't look pants, but it does look superfluous, terribly unimaginative. And true enough, there never appeared to be enough in the 1982 to make me want a prequel about the Norwegians. But hey, hope I'm a little wrong.:)

[Dukefrukem]

Yeh it's not very good, but it's not terrible either. Living up to one of the scariest horror films of all time is no easy task, but I really didn't think they were going to go FULL-CGI-FUNHOUSE on us. It really takes away from the lure of what the Thing actually did in the 80s. There is some practical effects, but it's brief in most shots.

I'd like to slice up the movie into thirds. The first and last are bad and the middle actually having some genuine good ideas that I wish were expanded upon. The one in particular being a take on MacReady's method of how to discover who's the Thing and who isn't. There's actually a scene that felt like Spielberg did a cameo take. You'll know it immediately when you see it.

But the movie eventually forgets what the Thing is all about. It's not about a fast moving monster. The thing doesn't need to be shown to be scary. And most importantly, the Thing NEVER attacks around a group of people unless it's life is being threatened.

For the most part you can guess what actually happens from the moment they drag the block of ice back to camp. It's essentially the same movie as the original only there's more expendable people and they find out how the Thing copies humans SOONER than they did in the original movie... (for some reason I ALWAYS relate sequels or prequels that do this to the Final Destination films. Example in Final Destination 2 "What? You saw a vision? Maybe we were supposed to die and the order of how were supposed to die is the way we're all going to die next! Yeh that must be it because that jump in logic makes perfect sense. Or we need to relate it to the first movie somehow") .... with what seems like, modern technology. Remember the computer MacReady was playing chess on? Well I guess the Wegians are ahead of the US in technology by a couple decades.

The ending will leave you scratching your head, but before the credits "completely" roll, they wrap up loopholes that you were wondering about therough the whole film.

The ones I can't figure out are; 1. they didn't blow up the crashed space ship with TNT and 2. Why didn't the 2nd camp find the snow-crawlers with the burnt remains at the camp?

[Dukefrukem]

Well I never liked seeing the ship crash into Earth at the begining because we saw it frozen in the ice later in the movie. Now we're gonna see it again frozen in the ice and later shots with it on? (only guessing based on the trailer, maybe it will be a dream or something) It feels unnecessary to the story. I dont need to be spoon fed information like that.

And all i have to say about my post back then is:

:|

[MadMan]

Well number8, if we go by the tomatoemter than The Thing prequel is fucking shitsville.

Funny enough despite all of my grumpiness about this movie I'll probably still give it a small chance. Mostly because of MEW, and by chance I mean "RedBox this movie when I've already bought a 6 pack of Point."

[Dukefrukem]

So no one else saw this eh?

[Kiusagi]

I mostly agree with Duke. Towards the middle I was actually enjoying it. But then it descended into a generic and repetitive slasher-like film. The Thing is shown far too much and ceases being scary. I understand why they would want to do that, but they could have utilized some quick shots to maintain some mystery and suspense. I adore MEW and in my incredibly biased opinion she was a good lead. The rest of the cast is solid as well.

Overall, some good ideas but they go to waste in a bland CGI-fest.

[Morris Schæffer]

About halfway though it. It's...not bad. Pointless cash grab of course, not quite adding anything interesting to the original, but I'm surprisingly enough on edge. Let's see where this thing goes.

Haha, see what I did there?

And that was still not bad. Pretend the original doesn't exist and this might be one of the cooler horror flicks of the past bunch of years. A pity then that the original does exist. Or not, because it's great. And the one from 1951 as well.

This adds little to it, but again, I found it effective. Ditto for the effects. Forget the original FX by Rob Bottin and you'll find these new ones get the job done. I found them suitably disgusting. And the guys who did them, Tom Woodruff and Alec Gillis, are no unknown quantities either.

Goes a bit overboard towards the end with the molested son from Festen.

And the final scenes, aping the original's beginning complete with Morricone's monotone music, was very cool.

[Henry Gale]

And that was still not bad. Pretend the original doesn't exist and this might be one of the cooler horror flicks of the past bunch of years. A pity then that the original does exist. Or not, because it's great. And the one from 1951 as well.

This adds little to it, but again, I found it effective. Ditto for the effects. Forget the original FX by Rob Bottin and you'll find these new ones get the job done. I found them suitably disgusting. And the guys who did them, Tom Woodruff and Alec Gillis, are no unknown quantities either.

...

And the final scenes, aping the original's beginning complete with Morricone's monotone music, was very cool.

The thing is I saw the movie recently too and this was what I thought was its main problem. The entire movie's purpose and narrative is driven only tp get us to the point of where the Carpenter film begins without really carving out enough of its own path or having enough originality to make any of it seem worthwhile. But at the same time it barely tells the audience that its meant to take place in the '80s and lead right into the previous film before that credits scene comes along aside from a lot of the technology seeming outdated and Winstead's character listening to Men At Work on her walkman. (Maybe the chronology was meant to be a thinly veiled twist?)

But I agree that the effects are surprisingly well done considering they're almost entirely CG and the film apparently had only a moderate budget. My issue is that the ever-evolving creature in this premake (the best label I can give it) is that it's treated almost like a dinosaur in a Jurassic Park movie. We're constantly seeing it as if its something we're meant to understand while it sneaks around corners, wanders around cognitively and carefully attacks one minute, but then we see thrashing around uncontrollably while it tries to make sense of its body for the rest of it. It doesn't find any sort of balance with what we know of it to act like when it takes on human form, and we also see so much of it in monster form that it just takes a lot of the out of it.

I did think this movie's version of the blood test was quite clever though.

[Dukefrukem]

I did think this movie's version of the blood test was quite clever though.

Agreed

[Morris Schæffer]

Yeah, the blood test scene was tense. What can I say? It worked. It's a good example of how the same story can work again.

And the credits sequence chilled me.

[Scar]

30 minutes in.

I am not amused.

[Dukefrukem]

you guys stop and take breaks from the movie to post these reactions?

[Morris Schæffer]

you guys stop and take breaks from the movie to post these reactions?

Can't we take a piss or grab a beverage?

In any case, in Belgium there's always a break during movies in theaters.

[Scar]

you guys stop and take breaks from the movie to post these reactions?

My laptop typically resides on my coffee table, which resides in front of my couch. And behind the coffee table, a few feet away, is my TV.

[Dukefrukem]

That is how I watched movies up until I was told by fellow MCers that I wasn't paying proper attention to the source material. So i stopped multitasking and focused more on the movie.

[KK2.0]

And the credits sequence chilled me.

I'm very biased towards the original because it's one of my favorite films (I must have rewatched it 10 times at least), so all the fanservice ended up compensating for the film's lack of a proper sense of build up and atmosphere, that credits scene really pushed the right buttons for me.

[Skitch]

My buddy watched it last night, and came back with the same review as me. Thank god. I was worried he would love it and I would have to stab him.

[Spun Lepton]

I'll probably need more time to get my thoughts together, but ultimately I did not like it. The pacing was way off, no gradual escalation. The thing escapes the ice block and suddenly they throw as much as they can at the screen. Zero suspense. If I were forced to praise anything, I'd say the monster design was pretty cool. I'll give it a point or two for that. it's too bad the monster designs were the only cool thing.

4/10

[Morris Schæffer]

Well, I thought the movie did have suspense although its sense of discomfort and tension isn't as masterfully sustained as in the original.

[Spun Lepton]

I'm left wondering why this Thing has such different behavior from Carpenter's. His Thing was all about stealth. Hiding, and then striking quickly when the victim had their guard down. Not revealing itself unless its cover was blown or it was in danger, going so far as to play dead for long periods of time. This Thing feels free to roam about in monster form. Hiding only as long as it takes for the filmmakers to setup the next jolt, and attacking like a wild animal.

Kate is alone with the Thing numerous times. Once, it decides to change form and give her time to react, instead of just striking while in human form. Why? Because the filmmakers wanted to wow us with a monster effect.

One of the Things goes far enough to help Kate escape the spaceship. Why? It's given plenty of opportunity to kill her or take her over, join its pal on the ship and leave, but it doesn't. Why? Because if he hadn't, we wouldn't have had the worthless scene where she says, basically, "I figured you out, you're not who you say you are," and fries him.

The filmmakers claimed to be fans of Carpenter's but didn't seem to put much effort into figuring out why Carpenter's film worked so well.

Hint: It wasn't just the monster effects.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm left wondering why this Thing has such different behavior from the Carpenter's. His Thing was all about stealth. Hiding, and then striking quickly when the victim had their guard down. Not revealing itself unless its cover was blown or it was in danger, going so far as to play dead for long periods of time. This Thing feels free to roam about in monster form. Hiding only as long as it takes for the filmmakers to setup the next jolt, and attacking like a wild animal.

I mentioned this too. It's the films biggest flaw.

[megladon8]

This was utterly pathetic.

An insult to the original films.

I'm also deeply confused as to why people were arguing at the time of its release over whether it was a prequel or a reboot. Ummm...did you leave the theatre the second the screen went black? It was quite clearly tying itself in as a prequel to Carpenter's film.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead's strong performance is the only good thing about this film, and even that was not allowed to impress as she seemed to get cut off by a stupid (and terrible looking) monster attack every time she was really getting to flex her acting muscles.

I really cannot get over how horrible the CGI monster effects were. Claymation would have been more convincing.

The cliché brilliant scientists who are huge, self-important dicks and who make all the wrong choices with the justification of "for THE SCIENCES!!" were painful, and led to contrived plot device after contrived plot device.

And there was no consistency with how people were turned into the alien. Did you just need to touch it? Could blood sprayed on your hand turn you? Did you have to be stabbed or cut?

Just an awful, awful movie.

[Morris Schæffer]

I feel that whenever you start to think about just how, and more importantly when, assimilation occurs, the answer isn't exactly clear cut. The 1982 version kept it all rather vague which was probably a good idea. The 2011 version shows it to be a painful and laborious process which I guess is understandable. No doubt our heroes in the 1982 version should have seen it too at least for some of the victims, as it would have been just as slow, but then that would have meant no suspense, no paranoia. I think the original 1951 version had an elder scientist who tries to understand the creature, but I agree the one played by Ulrich Thomsen in the 2011 flick is oh so begging to be slaughtered. I liked the creature effects and the resulting attack scenes. Thought the gore was suitably disgusting, the major scene halfway pretty effective. And Alec Gillis and Tom Woodruff are no slouches in this department. Really, I liked their work. Loved all the little references to the 1982 flick. Totally dug the coda.

I don't think this movie insults anything. That it is quite inferior nonetheless is obvious. :)

[megladon8]

I'd be hard pressed to pick out what was actually a make-up effect in this movie.

All I saw was awful, awful, awful CGI. I would rather have seen nothing at all.

[Morris Schæffer]

I'd be hard pressed to pick out what was actually a make-up effect in this movie.

I guess that never really entered into the equation for me. CGI is just another valid tool, but I admit some were better than others.

[megladon8]

I guess that never really entered into the equation for me. CGI is just another valid tool, but I admit some were better than others.


I'm not saying CGI in general is bad. Far from it.

I'm saying the CGI used in this film was atrocious, and detracted from the experience and any fear that could have been felt from the monster scenes.

[Dukefrukem]

This was utterly pathetic.

An insult to the original films.

I'm also deeply confused as to why people were arguing at the time of its release over whether it was a prequel or a reboot. Ummm...did you leave the theatre the second the screen went black? It was quite clearly tying itself in as a prequel to Carpenter's film.

That discussion was before the movie was even released. No one had seen it yet.

[Henry Gale]

I actually thought the CG was one of the better things about it.

That isn't to say that those effects made the movie worth watching, or even added to any given sequence in a significant way, but as the bigger effect shots rolled in (and often in ways that showed each incarnation of the creature so much that there wasn't much scariness left in it) I was impressed by the fluidity, designs and rendered textures of the majority of them.

The movie didn't have a very big budget, and I don't doubt that the animatronic versions of the thing(s) for many scenes from that video that got posted a while back would have looked a lot cooler and more in the spirit of the original, but it was a 2011 horror remake/prequel made by a major studio, so any modern shortcuts didn't come as a surprise, sadly.

This whole movie just ended up being a big missed opportunity. But I guess the fact that it only functions to fill in the blanks of Carpenter's film tells you that even they couldn't find a better, original or even necessary way of reinventing it. What's the saying in Hollywood? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it, but just add parts to it that no one asked for"?

[Lurch]

New to this site and thought I would start here.

Carpenter's The Thing is one of my favorite movies and I approached the 2011 film with much trepidation and low expectations. For what it's worth, I didn't find the film to be a total loss. There was obviously some affection for Carpenter's film and an attempt to mimic certain aspects, but therein lies the irony of its presentation. It would seem that Carpenter's film has been assimilated and this tepid, but somewhat entertaining, imitation has been left in its place.
Again, it is a marginally enjoyable waste of time, but ultimately quite pointless.

[Dukefrukem]

Welcome to MC

I feel the same way about this movie. The middle of the movie had some genuine good ideas going.