Member robgrob Posted September 19, 2011 Member Share Posted September 19, 2011 okay I was sitting at home watching some football yesterday when I seen the trailer for the remake of the thing,one of my favorite horror movies of all time,the first thing that I notice was the lead was a woman,and the monster broke out the ice and escape right away on an actor who I throught was playing childs,but then I look online read some of this stuff and they saying it's a prequel I just want too know what doe you guys think and did anyone else see the trailer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator KUNG FU BOB Posted September 20, 2011 Administrator Share Posted September 20, 2011 This movie is about what took place at the Norwegian camp that they find destroyed in the 1982 film THE THING. So yes, it's a prequel. I'm very excited about this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member daisho2004 Posted September 20, 2011 Member Share Posted September 20, 2011 Yup its the prequel to John Carpenters The Thing! I'm looking forward to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member sifu iron perm Posted September 21, 2011 Member Share Posted September 21, 2011 Im a huge fan of both versions. I will defo go and watch this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member daisho2004 Posted September 21, 2011 Member Share Posted September 21, 2011 The only thing is why do they feel we need a Woman as the Main Star of this movie? I'll keep an open mind until I see it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Markgway Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I'm glad it's not a remake - but they should've changed the title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator One Armed Boxer Posted September 21, 2011 Moderator Share Posted September 21, 2011 Just checked out the trailer. Despite it being billed as a prequel, it seems to be very much re-treading the same ground as the original (well, Carpenter's version)...the dogs, the flame thrower, the specimen on the table, the heavily bearded men...it all looks very familiar. The only difference being instead of Kurt Russell's great turn as R.J. MacReady, we get some indescript female character who's only job seems to be to look mildly concerned. In my personal opinion, this, along with the recent remake of 'Straw Dogs', should have been left well alone. a1OpwEu7luk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator KUNG FU BOB Posted September 21, 2011 Administrator Share Posted September 21, 2011 Im a huge fan of both versions. I will defo go and watch this. Me too. I remember my Dad showing this to me on TV when I was a kid. He told me that when he saw it in the theater as a kid it scared the stuffing out of him. I rewatch both versions every few years. The only thing is why do they feel we need a Woman as the Main Star of this movie? I'll keep an open mind until I see it! There was actually a lot of pressure to add a female character to the Carpenter version too, but he wisely resisted. It didn't make sense then. In terms of reality, these days it IS realistic to have female researchers in these kinds of fields. But, if it's supposed to be a prequel time-wise, then... what the hey? I'm glad it's not a remake - but they should've changed the title. Agreed. They should definitely have changed the title. Just checked out the trailer. Despite it being billed as a prequel, it seems to be very much re-treading the same ground as the original (well, Carpenter's version)...the dogs, the flame thrower, the specimen on the table, the heavily bearded men...it all looks very familiar. The only difference being instead of Kurt Russell's great turn as R.J. MacReady, we get some indescript female character who's only job seems to be to look mildly concerned. In my personal opinion, this, along with the recent remake of 'Straw Dogs', should have been left well alone. a1OpwEu7luk As far as your "re-treading" criticism OAB, a lot of these elements are just part of the territory in which the story takes place. It's kind of like saying "Uh oh... this ninja film has shuriken just like the last ninja movie". In that kind of research station they have to rely on dogs (for transport when machinery freezes), flamethrowers (to deal with ice problems), beards (typically worn by men in cold climates), and the specimen was found in the ice, so... onto an examining table. Obviously I get what you're saying, but personally I'm still intruiged. Of course, as a special makeup effects fan (I will bluntly state that THE THING's fx artist Rob Bottin (THE HOWLING, LEGEND, TOTAL RECALL) is a bonafide genius) I am skeptical that we will see any practical FX artistry to match the '82 version. I fear that we'll get a bunch of much less visceral seeming CGI fluff. But I hope I'm wrong. If ever there was a place for CGI in a film, using it to show the endlessly morphing alien as it does it's "thing" is THE place for it. If... if... it's done right. Though the Carpenter film is a fave of mine, I still feel this film calling to me. We'll always have the original. Nothing, including prequels or remakes, is going to change that. Unless George Lucas secretly ghost directed it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator One Armed Boxer Posted September 21, 2011 Moderator Share Posted September 21, 2011 As far as your "re-treading" criticism OAB, a lot of these elements are just part of the territory in which the story takes place. It's kind of like saying "Uh oh... this ninja film has shuriken just like the last ninja movie". In that kind of research station they have to rely on dogs (for transport when machinery freezes), flamethrowers (to deal with ice problems), beards (typically worn by men in cold climates), and the specimen was found in the ice, so... onto an examining table. That's exactly my point, the very location of the movie kind of dicatates that essentially this is a remake in the guise of a prequel. If the story being told here should have been anything, a 5 minute flashback sequence in the original or something along those lines would have sufficed. If you read the plot descriptions for each movie, it's hard to look at this as anything other than a re-tread of what's come before, but here we are with it being made into a full length feature. Of course, as a special makeup effects fan (I will bluntly state that THE THING's fx artist Rob Bottin (THE HOWLING, LEGEND, TOTAL RECALL) is a bonafide genius) I am skeptical that we will see any practical FX artistry to match the '82 version. I fear that we'll get a bunch of much less visceral seeming CGI fluff. But I hope I'm wrong. If ever there was a place for CGI in a film, using it to show the endlessly morphing alien as it does it's "thing" is THE place for it. If... if... it's done right. Agreed....if this movie needs to be anything, it needs to be a showcase for the monster, and really I hope it's not a CGI showcase. Directors need to learn that CGI isn't scary, end of story, my 6 year old cousin could tell you that. If you're going to go up against something as visually creative and amazing as Carpenter's version, you better have something special up your sleeve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member sifu iron perm Posted September 21, 2011 Member Share Posted September 21, 2011 if the norwegians spoke English in the '82 movie, the rest of the film wouldn't have happened..huh? lol yeah the film will have cgi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator KUNG FU BOB Posted September 21, 2011 Administrator Share Posted September 21, 2011 That's exactly my point, the very location of the movie kind of dicatates that essentially this is a remake in the guise of a prequel. If the story being told here should have been anything, a 5 minute flashback sequence in the original or something along those lines would have sufficed. If you read the plot descriptions for each movie, it's hard to look at this as anything other than a re-tread of what's come before, but here we are with it being made into a full length feature. Ah, I see what you mean. Good point. Agreed....if this movie needs to be anything, it needs to be a showcase for the monster, and really I hope it's not a CGI showcase. Directors need to learn that CGI isn't scary, end of story, my 6 year old cousin could tell you that. If you're going to go up against something as visually creative and amazing as Carpenter's version, you better have something special up your sleeve. It would be great if Rob Bottin returned to show what he can do now after an additional 29 years of honing his skill. Er... wow. Has it really been thirty years since I first saw this in the theater? Yikes. I'm gettin' old. if the norwegians spoke English in the '82 movie, the rest of the film wouldn't have happened..huh? lol LOL Yeah... "those crazy swedes." "Noweigian Mac. They're Norweigian." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member sifu iron perm Posted September 21, 2011 Member Share Posted September 21, 2011 Ah, I see what you mean. Good point. It would be great if Rob Bottin returned to show what he can do now after an additional 29 years of honing his skill. Er... wow. Has it really been thirty years since I first saw this in the theater? Yikes. I'm gettin' old. LOL Yeah... "those crazy swedes." "Noweigian Mac. They're Norweigian." sorry for my lack of research!! Im ashamed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member monkeygift Posted September 22, 2011 Member Share Posted September 22, 2011 There was actually a lot of pressure to add a female character to the Carpenter version too, but he wisely resisted. It didn't make sense then. In terms of reality, these days it IS realistic to have female researchers in these kinds of fields. But, if it's supposed to be a prequel time-wise, then... what the hey? Yeah, I hate when Hollywood is pulling those politically correct cliche. Now it's becoming the norm to put the black guy, the fat geek, the "strong" woman, the indian/arab or jewish scientist etc... Why not just put an old ugly woman scientist, that would probably be more accurate. lol! Of course they need to sell tickets so they throw in a chick as the lead. I think the only time I recall seing a strong female character in an american movie and it worked out well was in ALIEN and I think here they are once again trying to copy that receipe for the xxx time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Tosh Posted September 22, 2011 Member Share Posted September 22, 2011 After watching the trailers I can only foresee this being crap, I'm not even going to get started on the cgi or the basic retread of the same movie, but the one thing that sticks out to me is how bland the cast is, Carpenter filled his movie with some great character actors, everyone is way to attractive to be believed as a bunch of scientists in Antarctica. Where are the Ernest Borgnine's of today??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member mpm74 Posted October 16, 2011 Member Share Posted October 16, 2011 Probably as a good as prequel/sequel can get for John Carpenter's 1982 masterpiece... The first one is hard to beat, since it IS the introduction to an unknown terror. For the prequel, we already know most of what to expect so the originality factor loses points. However, it's an entertaining, well-written flick with a lot of gore and a nice, seamless construction that gels into the 1982 flick. Many surprises. Just expect popcorn entertainment, and not a masterpiece... I'm a die hard fan of the original and I was happy with this remake. Much better job than any "prequel" George Lucas has done. =D P.S. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is in it, so that's a plus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member daisho2004 Posted October 16, 2011 Member Share Posted October 16, 2011 I'm looking forward to seeing it, I just don't think it should've been called The Thing again something different I guess! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member massa_yoda Posted October 16, 2011 Member Share Posted October 16, 2011 I'm looking forward to seeing it, I just don't think it should've been called The Thing again something different I guess! The Thingy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member mpm74 Posted October 16, 2011 Member Share Posted October 16, 2011 The Thingy "28 Things Earlier" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member massa_yoda Posted October 16, 2011 Member Share Posted October 16, 2011 "28 Things Earlier" The Thing 2: Cruise Control Thing: Requiem The Thing & Chocolate That Thing you don't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member DarthKato Posted October 16, 2011 Member Share Posted October 16, 2011 The only thing is why do they feel we need a Woman as the Main Star of this movie? I'll keep an open mind until I see it! They have to have a female star in a horror movie. They are the only ones that are able to survive being attacked by a monster/murderer in those types of movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member mpm74 Posted October 17, 2011 Member Share Posted October 17, 2011 The Thing 2: Cruise Control Thing: Requiem The Thing & Chocolate That Thing you don't The Thing & Chocolate??? WTF? LMAO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member ShaOW!linDude Posted October 17, 2011 Member Share Posted October 17, 2011 That Thing you don't Hah! Get the guys from Fountains Of Wayne to write a song for that one, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Drunken Monk Posted October 17, 2011 Member Share Posted October 17, 2011 The CGI "Thing" was the highlight of this film and it's obvious the film makers rely solely on that to impress the audience. If it was something more boring, like a vampire or zombie, this film would have been the most unoriginal film to hit cinemas. I'd say it's a mediocre affair, at best. Wait to see it on DVD. Oh and as for the ending? Did anyone feel as though it was COMPLETELY stolen form "Predator 2" and, more recently, "Cowboys and Aliens?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member daisho2004 Posted October 19, 2011 Member Share Posted October 19, 2011 OK I seen this last night and I thought it was really good for a prequel...But to make it almost 30yrs later! WOW! I mean we all know there wasn't much of any spoilers here. I did like how they explained everything. And as someone mentioned not all the Norwegians spoke English which is how this one ends and the 1st. one begins. The only thing they don't explain anything about is what happened to the Girl that was kinda left you hanging on that one. But overall I really enjoyed.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member mpm74 Posted October 20, 2011 Member Share Posted October 20, 2011 The only thing they don't explain anything about is what happened to the Girl that was kinda left you hanging on that one. But overall I really enjoyed.. I kinda like that they left that open with the girl. If you think about it (SPOILERS) she MAY be the one who discovers/saves the two survivors in the original. Maybe she'll see the fire from a distance or something... Of course, that's if they continue the story. =D the more I think about it, the more I think the prequel kicks ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.