Printable View
The Thing is probably my all-time favorite movie. When they announced a prequel (hey, at least it's not a remake) I had a lot of doubts. I still do, but this AICN set visit makes me feel a little better about it: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/46868
Good points: physical/pratical effects vs. digital are 80/20, and what CG there is is being done by the alien effects guys from District 9. Plus, Adebisi is in the movie! What more could you want?
But will he rape the Thing? One can only hope.
Color me very skeptical. A prequel meaning what - is this the story of the Norwegian camp takeover? We know how that turned out, and this doesn't look like it's going that route. (I've not read the leaked script.)
This strikes me as an unofficial remake. It's the same setting, with the same weapons and creature effects. Those dudes even look similar to MacReady and Childs in those shots....I want to be positive, but I dunno man, I dunno. It'll live or die based on its characters and story, and it has to do something very different to avoid feeling like a total rehash. Except now there's a chick!
The Thing is one of those untouchables: it's still awesome and always will be, and cannot be improved upon. Like Commando.
It's NOT a remake. Its a prequel that deals with what happened at the Norwegian camp. The article only says that about 100 times.Quote:
Originally Posted by BioMechanic
I agree with this statement 1000%. Anyone who would even think of remaking such a perfect classic should be buttraped by a million AIDS-infected midgets.Quote:
The Thing is one of those untouchables: it's still awesome and always will be, and cannot be improved upon. Like Commando.
I remember there was a comic-book sequel in the early 90s, I think from the people who put out the old-old Terminator and Ghostbusters books.
edit: NOPE! Dark Horse.
Quote:
Picking up where John Carpenter's film left off:
MacReady is certain he's going to die. But he doesn't care--as long as he can destroy the frozen remains of the Thing before he freezes to death.
Well I didn't read the whole thing....but I looked at the pictures!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
Anyways, in that case, the tension in the prequel will certainly be lessened since we already know what's going to happen. Plus, we already know how the creature operates, so the mystery will be gone. Kinda like how the people who saw Aliens first weren't surprised by Alien.
I think I have that comic somewhere. The cover looks verrry familiar.
Speaking of this ... They are making a prequel to that too. With Ridley Scott producing and maybe his brother Tony directing.Quote:
Originally Posted by BioMechanic
I heard Ridley was directing.
Ridley Scott 2010 /= Ridley Scott 1979
"Doing It Wrong"Quote:
Originally Posted by BioMechanic
I never saw the The Thing from Another World, but I love the remake. I read rumours about another remake, which pissed me off. I'm hoping this prequel is what actually inspired those rumours.
Iirc, they have at least two planned don't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Advocate
It's a prequel, but it has the same name? Huh?
Hey, Scott Pilgrim girl.
A thread already exists ahoy!Quote:
Originally Posted by BerringerX
Trailer: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/50381
When I watched it, my first reaction was that it looked awesome. Then, I realized that it looks like a shot-for-shot remake of the original with a chick added in, even though it's really a prequel. Being called "The Thing" only adds to that confusion...your average joe watching the trailer will think it's actually a remake when it's not.
Of course, that could just be how the trailer is cut. Hopefully the movie itself will have a slightly different vibe. Fuck, most of the cast is supposed to be (and speak) Norwegian, but you wouldn't know it from the trailer (which is understandable, I guess).
That said, I did get excited to see how how exactly the filmmakers re-created the room where they kept the ice-cube Thing.
Thx to whoever merged the threads, BTW.
Solid trailer but, yeah it really does look like a remake. Hope they do enough new stuff to make it really stand out. They need to avoid the head crab and stuff since it's been done. Take that monster to new places with the advances of FX made in the past 30 years.
That trailer makes it look so much like a remake that the scene where the dude from "Grounded for Life" has the flamethrower, they even made him look a bit like Kurt Russell.
Hey! Morricone callback! ... That's the only thing I liked in that trailer.
Still, I'm fine with a similar movie that ties to Carpenter's plotwise. I mean, really, how different could a prequel to The Thing be? You knew there was going to be a dog and bearded men and an Antarctic station, it was always implied that the events of The Thing more-or-less mirrored whatever happened at the Sweds' (Norwegian!) camp. As long as it doesn't rehash the crawling head and the chompy chest and stuff like that, then whatever.
I'll see it.
Doom doom.... doom doom....
Too bad we already know the ending.
True. It's gotta end with the Thing doggie hauling ass into the snow with the two Norwegians in da choppa hot on its tail.
Speaking of the two Norwegians, that's one hell of a stupid way to die. "Oh, hai, Imma throw this granadeWHOOPS I GOT IT I GOT IT I GOT-" *BOOOOM*
At that point you gotta think they weren't too sharp. That was a very stressful day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
I was stunned when I heard about this. Remaking The Thing? Really? Ugh. Still, I'm sure I'll watch it like the fucking sap that I am.
That doesn't really mean that's how the movie ends. It will no doubt play into the movie some how, but we don't know if a splinter group ran off somewhere or got away or what.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
I hope not. A Thing movie shouldn't have a happy ending.
I'd be with you if it was indeed a remake (anyone who thinks they can one-up Carpenter's original should be shot), but in this case it's actually prequel (which has already been mentioned many times in this thread).Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru
Carpenter's isn't the original. :p
Yeah, I know. Maybe "reboot" would be a better term. How different do you think the story can be from the original (and Carpenter's better remake of that)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
It's still trying to capitalize on the '82 film - and it's even calling itself the exact same Thing.
In any event, I'm still in.
Yeah, prequel is not the same thing as reboot.
Haoh doesn't get it. This film is about the Norwegian camp that first discovers The Thing buried in the ice and sets it free. Their destroyed camp is the one Kurt Russell visits in the Carpenter flick. It's not reboot or a remake, it's just telling the story of what happened right before the '82 film.
As the movie is a prequel, I do agree that calling it "The Thing" is stupid, however. That's like calling the Silence of the Lambs prequel "Silence of the Lambs" instrad of "Red Dragon."
Yeah, I keep forgetting about that cheesy 50's one.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
I really do get it. Have you read the plot synopsis on IMDB? Even though it's set in the Norwegian camp (I've see Carpenter's film at least 20 times) where the ship crashed, etc... it seems like it's going to be largely similar to the '82 Thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
From IMDB:
"Antarctica: an extraordinary continent of awesome beauty. It is also home to an isolated outpost where a discovery full of scientific possibility becomes a mission of survival when an alien is unearthed by a crew of international scientists. The shape-shifting creature, accidentally unleashed at this marooned colony, has the ability to turn itself into a perfect replica of any living being. It can look just like you or me, but inside, it remains inhuman. In the thriller The Thing, paranoia spreads like an epidemic among a group of researchers as they're infected, one by one, by a mystery from another planet. Paleontologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) has traveled to the desolate region for the expedition of her lifetime. Joining a Norwegian scientific team that has stumbled across an extraterrestrial ship buried in the ice, she discovers an organism that seems to have died in the crash eons ago. But it is about to wake up. When a simple experiment frees the alien from its frozen prison, Kate must join the crew's pilot, Carter (Joel Edgerton), to keep it from killing them off one at a time. And in this vast, intense land, a parasite that can mimic anything it touches will pit human against human as it tries to survive and flourish."
I get that they're selling this as a prelude, prequel, etc... But read that shit and tell me it's not sounding real familiar - helicopter pilot, dogs infected, remote arctic base, stubborn scientist, burning to attack it, etc...
Hey, I hope it's good. Not really trying to bash it.
It would be strange if it took place in the jungle with jet skis and tigers, I'd think.
Yeah, that's the angle I was going for. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
The Thing isn't IN the trees... it IS the trees....
What the hell are you?
Carpenter's and Hawkes's versions are way, way different. The monster isn't a shapeshifter, there's no crazy violence, it doesn't play on the paranoia of everyone. Still, it does make bitching about someone making a remake or a prequel pretty pointless.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Edit: The Hawkes version is still awesome though. PLANT MONSTER IN ANTARCTICA
And haoh is kind of right. It's a prequel yes, but the stories are so similar that it functions as a remake. It would be like making a movie called Predator about the first commando group that got killed by the Predator.
Yeah, haoh IS kind of right. He just wasn't being very clear at first, but now I see where the nigga's coming from.
Early review. Seems to be exactly what the trailer suggested- that, despite being a prequel set at the Norwegian camp, it's basically the same exact movie as the original. At least the reviewer says that it's otherwise well-made and enjoyable.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/50776
Good. I like Scott Pilgrim chick. She's pretty.
She really is.
It's out this Friday. Hopefully it'll be good.
Oh, and: http://www.youtube.com/user/14oct201...91782&kw=thong
Nice.
Yeah, I thought that was pretty cool.
Also, I'm hearing that a lot of the practical effects have been replaced by CG. Judging from the trailer, that seems to be true. Bummer, unless the replaced effects looked really shitty.
One of my buddies did pre-vis stuff for this flick, I saw spoilers on an iPhone. :(
There are a few reviews out there and they are less than flattering, saying the film doesn't compare to either that have come before. :/
I believe it. However, Carpenter's Thing got shitted on by reviewers back in the day as well, so you never know.
Both my girlfriend and I are massive fans of the Carpenter flick and we're going to see this opening night but, just to be safe, we're setting our expectations low.
The trailer makes this look like the same damn movie... for better or worse.
How many people saw Let Me In three months after Let The Right One In? I figure if it's a good story told twice, w/e.
Don't get me wrong...I want to like this. I REALLY want to like this. But we'll see.
Saw this today. Not bad, not bad. It could have been much worse. It's way more remake than prequel; the overall structure follows Carpenter's almost exactly. The effects are a mix of CG and traditional, and were pretty impressive in parts. The characters were very flat, especially compared to the awesome collection of dudes in Carpenter's. There was some stupid stuff, of course, but also a new detail or two that were interesting. It's not going to replace either previous classic - not close - but I think it's worth seeing. Yeller's right on: it's a good story told twice.
Sounds like I'm waiting for Netflix.
Bio's assessment is dead-on.
Pretty much what bio said. It was alright but nowhere even close to what the John Carpenter film or even the original film were. The movie was too concerned with its effects and the whole boogity boogity thing and it lost the important part of the originals, the characters.
I will say that the only new detail they added the whole inorganic thing makes absolutely no sense at all.
I thought that made perfect sense, and it thankfully prevented them from ripping off the blood test from Carpenter's flick. For a movie that made very little attempt to do anything whatsoever different from the '82 version, it was one of the few things that set it apart. The blood test was cooler, though.
Also, on the creature designs: they were solid, and some even maybe sorta kinda approached the brilliance (and insanity) of the original, but they all kept going back to the "big toothed maw/tentacles" motif. In the original, every Thing looked different and got progressively freakier, while all the Things in this movie looked pretty much the same except maybe the "double" Thing that goes on to be later discovered by MacReady and the doc.
Continuity problem! In this movie, the saucer is uncovered when it tries to take off, but in the original the Norwegians are shown uncovering it with explosives.
Also, the ending, which was the only ending it could have been, was handled poorly. It felt really rushed and tacked-on as an afterthought.
Overall, I thought it was quite good, but it can't even touch Carpenter's brilliant film.
I thought the creature design was largely ripped from Resident Evil. The games. 2&3, mostly.
The inorganic thing was a good idea but was handled poorly. The dude could have just put on the earring, like putting on a watch; it's an accessory, not something integral like a filling or metal bone-plate. Something with tattoos, say, would have been cooler, and made more sense for the direction they were going. Either way, I kept thinking of The Terminator: "Nothing dead will go!" and T2: "It can't create moving pahts. It doesn't werk dat way."
Another thing that dropped this a couple notches was for me wasthe Thing didn't show smarts at all. In the previous ones, it disabled the vehicles, turned guys against each other with paranoia, and half-built a makeshift craft underground. In the remake, it was just a brainless monster.
Also, they never explained what happened to Kate. She's just left alone in the cold. That's a pretty massive loose end considering it's a prequel. I was sure she was going to sacrifice herself.....
Totally.Quote:
Originally Posted by BioMechanic
I did like that they showed where the bloody axe came from.
However, one major thing I think the missed the boat on was playing up the language barrier in regards to the paranoia aspect of the plot. They could have really done something cool with that...they touched on it, but only barely. It could have been a million times more effective.
It makes no sense whatsoever though if you stop and think about it. Specifically it's always wearing the same clothing as the person who it just devoured and whose clothes it ripped to shreds, sure you can try to make excuses saying oh, well it goes and gets new clothes but nope when it becomes the helicopter pilot in the end after gettting him on the ship it comes out in his clothes, you're not going to tell me it had a change of clothes on the shipQuote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
Hmm...didn't think of that. Good catch.
Ok, so the whole inorganic thing was a good idea that was just done poorly in this movie (the fact that the Thing ripped through your clothes was a major plot point in Carpenter's film). Or maybe the Thing that took him over was...um, just really careful and didn't rip his clothes?
I'll kill you cunts if you paid to see this backwash. "Not bad" isn't good enough when you're remaking classics.
It's the vagina thing. Horror movies love monster vaginas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
I was going to see this for 31 Days of Horror (fourth year!) but. Eh.
Not sure if you guys have seen this or not, but it is a very thorough analysis on the ending of The Thing (1982). I thought it was very cool regardless of whether or not the observations made were planned-out intentionally by Carpenter.
The Thing Analysis Part I
The Thing Analysis Part II
I mostly liked it, or at least I found it no more retarded than most of these superhero movies you faggots all gush over.
The joke in the beginning was truly lols. I'd never heard it before.
Lars was my favorite. He was awesome, but since I liked him it made the stupid way in which he died seem even more stupid.
The creatures were cool in concept but shitty in CG reality. Muppets from 1982 should not look more realistic than CG in 2011.
My buddy and I were discussing whether or not the ship was the aliens, or if the alien took it over from some other aliens. We just could imagine a tentacled vagina killing machine who seemed all about rage and murder having the smarts or time to come up with all that technology. The design did not look like the kind of aesthetic that someone who is all sinew, teeth, and tentacles would come up with.
Also, we assume it has not natural procreation. It just overtakes and assimilates whatever other life forms it comes into contact with. If that's the case, how would the species keep going? Eventually it would take over the entire planet and die out. But I guess it doesn't really die. It would just go into stasis until new contact is made.
The Thing is ripping off Aliens, ultimately.
I have noticed that almost every time you say this, you end up not liking it all that much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
But I did like this one!
Wait, you guys know the creatures in Resident Evil were inspired by the Carpenter movie, right?
Inspired or stolen?