The Thing Prequel written by Ronald D. Moore

[anime52k8]

no, but it is sad that your tastes haven't matured since you were 9.

what's wrong with the thing? it's a great movie.

Edited January 5, 2010 by anime52k8

[eugimon]

what's wrong with the thing? it's a great movie.

I was referring to your statement that RDM raped and is raping your childhood.

[anime52k8]

I was referring to your statement that RDM raped and is raping your childhood.

oh, I thought we were still being sarcastic

[CoryHolmes]

no, but it is sad that your tastes haven't matured since you were 9.

You might want to rethink that comment considering the board we're posting on...

[eugimon]

oh, I thought we were still being sarcastic

ah. It's 4 am, my sarcasm chip turns off at 3am.

You might want to rethink that comment considering the board we're posting on...

good point...

[EXO]

You might want to rethink that comment considering the board we're posting on...

I'd usually agree but coming from you i'd think that comment was rather ironic... (The Alanis Morristte type ironic)

[big F]

Done right it could be a modern classic........ Although I expect the Hollyweird machine will dumb it down and turn it into tosh.

[reddsun1]

........ Although I expect the Hollyweird machine will dumb it down and turn it into tosh.

Exacta-mundo!

Edited January 12, 2010 by reddsun1

[taksraven]

Done right it could be a modern classic........ Although I expect the Hollyweird machine will dumb it down and turn it into tosh.

Judging by what Garth of Dark Horizons has been reading about the prequel, sounds like you will be right.....

Taksraven

[eugimon]

riiight, because the Thing was such a deep and philosophical movie to begin with...

[taksraven]

riiight, because the Thing was such a deep and philosophical movie to begin with...

I didn't say it was frikkin Shakespeare, but it was still better than a lot of other fodder dished up to us then and now.

If anything the Carpenter version was quite minimalist, just a bunch of guys trying to survive a nasty situation. No real bad guys apart from the creature itself, and even then it just wants to survive like everybody else in the film.

Taksraven

[eugimon]

I didn't say it was frikkin Shakespeare, but it was still better than a lot of other fodder dished up to us then and now.

If anything the Carpenter version was quite minimalist, just a bunch of guys trying to survive a nasty situation. No real bad guys apart from the creature itself, and even then it just wants to survive like everybody else in the film.

Taksraven

sure, but it had all the issues Garth has with the character descriptions.. stereotyped 2D characters. I realized the movie is a cult classic and people love it, but to bitch and moan that someone is making a prequel to a remake of a movie that was an adaptation of a short story... meh.

And for all you Ron Moore "raped my childhood, shot my robot dog-monkey" folk, you can relax, his script was rewritten anyways.

[Gubaba]

riiight, because the Thing was such a deep and philosophical movie to begin with...

Hmm...like a lot of John Carpenter's early films, I think you can make a strong case for The Thing being a pretty rich film. It certainly asks a lot of questions about the nature of humanity and whether it's even worth fighting for...considering that as the men get more and more desperate, they get more and more brutal and...inhuman.

Seems like a subtext that would be perfect for Ron Moore, no?

[taksraven]

sure, but it had all the issues Garth has with the character descriptions.. stereotyped 2D characters. I realized the movie is a cult classic and people love it, but to bitch and moan that someone is making a prequel to a remake of a movie that was an adaptation of a short story... meh.

Well, I guess if you want to take it to the most basic level, its pretty much the same reason as why I started the remake thread for people to bitch and moan about the modern remake trend. At the end of the day, I would be much happier if they went out and created something new. Some new sort of monster for the 21st century to terrify us. There have been few successful attempts at this.

And for all you Ron Moore "raped my childhood, shot my robot dog-monkey" folk, you can relax, his script was rewritten anyways.

Look Scrappy Doo was a great character....

Taksraven

[eugimon]

Hmm...like a lot of John Carpenter's early films, I think you can make a strong case for The Thing being a pretty rich film. It certainly asks a lot of questions about the nature of humanity and whether it's even worth fighting for...considering that as the men get more and more desperate, they get more and more brutal and...inhuman.

Seems like a subtext that would be perfect for Ron Moore, no?

Sure... I guess, compared to Children of the Corn it's a masterpiece. But it still deals with the subtext in a ham fisted way.

[taksraven]

Sure... I guess, compared to Children of the Corn it's a masterpiece. But it still deals with the subtext in a ham fisted way.

You kind of have a point, but if you want the subtext to be dealt with in a more "intellectual" fashion, you would have had to have gone with the likes of Kubrick.

And its certainly nowhere near as bad, subtext wise, as Carpenters remake of The Midwich Cuckoo's, that was a terrible film that really missed the point.

Taksraven

[eugimon]

Well, I guess if you want to take it to the most basic level, its pretty much the same reason as why I started the remake thread for people to bitch and moan about the modern remake trend. At the end of the day, I would be much happier if they went out and created something new. Some new sort of monster for the 21st century to terrify us. There have been few successful attempts at this.

...

Taksraven

You don't find it at all disingenuous that people are complaining that hollywood has run out of ideas about a prequel to a movie that was itself a remake of an adaptation?

[eugimon]

You kind of have a point, but if you want the subtext to be dealt with in a more "intellectual" fashion, you would have had to have gone with the likes of Kubrick.

And its certainly nowhere near as bad, subtext wise, as Carpenters remake of The Midwich Cuckoo's, that was a terrible film that really missed the point.

Taksraven

Alien and Bladerunner deal with similar ideas as does the 1970's Wickerman... all three, vastly superior movies to The Thing.

And to be fair, the original story, "who goes there?", widely regarded as one of the best sci-fi short stories ever written, has to get at least some of the credit for the depth of The Thing.

[taksraven]

Alien and Bladerunner deal with similar ideas as does the 1970's Wickerman... all three, vastly superior movies to The Thing.

We are now really just getting into matters of opinion here, and it therefore becomes harder to say who is right and who is wrong. I will certainly agree that Alien and Bladerunner are great SF films, but personally, I find that they have a kind of "coldness" to them and with the characters. I think it comes down to Ridley's style as a director and the fact that he gets a lot of his casts to underplay their roles. Superior to the Thing? Who knows??

(I have never had the opportunity to see Wickerman and since it is not SF I am not debating it here)

And to be fair, the original story, "who goes there?", widely regarded as one of the best sci-fi short stories ever written, has to get at least some of the credit for the depth of The Thing.

Once again, I am sure that it is good but since I have not read it I cant judge or compare it.

Taksraven

[taksraven]

You don't find it at all disingenuous that people are complaining that hollywood has run out of ideas about a prequel to a movie that was itself a remake of an adaptation?

I can be called disingenuous or whatever you want. I probably am. I don't care because I totally have the right to have an opinion about this upcoming film.

As I said though, my thread is more about the modern remake trend anyway.

Taksraven

[Gubaba]

Sure... I guess, compared to Children of the Corn it's a masterpiece. But it still deals with the subtext in a ham fisted way.

I'll give you that. I'll still defend it as a good horror film with some meat on its bones, though. Halloween remains his avant-garde highpoint, but The Thing is certainly among his better films (not that that's saying much, of course, since he's done some real schlock).

You kind of have a point, but if you want the subtext to be dealt with in a more "intellectual" fashion, you would have had to have gone with the likes of Kubrick.

And its certainly nowhere near as bad, subtext wise, as Carpenters remake of The Midwich Cuckoo's, that was a terrible film that really missed the point.

Taksraven

I would LOVED to be able to see what Kubrick (or Tarkovsky) would've done with The Thing...damn you for making me drool like that.

[CoryHolmes]

(not that that's saying much, of course, since he's done some real schlock).

Who hasn't?

[taksraven]

I'll give you that. I'll still defend it as a good horror film with some meat on its bones, though. Halloween remains his avant-garde highpoint, but The Thing is certainly among his better films (not that that's saying much, of course, since he's done some real schlock).

Thats one thing that has always annoyed me about Carpenter as a filmmaker, the fact that his number of bad films outweigh the good ones. Making films would be a pretty tricky business though.

Taksraven

[Gubaba]

Who hasn't?

Bergman? Miyazaki? Tarkovsky? Kieślowski? Roeg? Possibly a handful of others, depending on ones taste, mood, and willingness to find something interesting in artistic failures.

[taksraven]

Bergman? Miyazaki? Tarkovsky? Kieślowski? Roeg? Possibly a handful of others, depending on ones taste, mood, and willingness to find something interesting in artistic failures.

Maybe. It can also be down to luck rather than skill. Even great directors with relatively low output can still put out clangers. (Eyes Wide Shut, bleugh!)

Taksraven

[big F]

what would be really good to see (never gonna happen) a collection of the widely considered best current directors all doing their own take on a story or remake of some sort. The differences of style and story editing and cut would interesting to say the least.

Kinda like X-Factor for film directors, we could all vote.

Edited January 15, 2010 by big F

[eugimon]

I can be called disingenuous or whatever you want. I probably am. I don't care because I totally have the right to have an opinion about this upcoming film.

As I said though, my thread is more about the modern remake trend anyway.

Taksraven

Wasn't talking about you, I was referring to some of the more vocal and rhetoric filled posts. I certainly understand not wanting to see a needless prequel made but I think the argument can be made without elevating The Thing to something it clearly is not.

[Gubaba]

Wasn't talking about you, I was referring to some of the more vocal and rhetoric filled posts. I certainly understand not wanting to see a needless prequel made but I think the argument can be made without elevating The Thing to something it clearly is not.

I find it MUCH less offensive to raise The Thing to the level of high art than I do to worship the original Battlestar Galactica as "a classic" that shouldn't be, um, frakked with.

But then, you probably knew that already.

[eugimon]

I find it MUCH less offensive to raise The Thing to the level of high art than I do to worship the original Battlestar Galactica as "a classic" that shouldn't be, um, frakked with.

But then, you probably knew that already.

I actually think a movie like The Thing offers a lot for modern audiences, especially with all the mistrust of science out there

[taksraven]

I actually think a movie like The Thing offers a lot for modern audiences, especially with all the mistrust of science out there

The theme of xenophobia in the story is especially relevant today as well....

Taksraven

[HappyPenguins]

Ug, which is precisely why I stopped watching the new BSG.

Is there still such a thing as the Actors/Writers Guild in Hollywood? Seriously, these guys need to have their membership cards taken and cut up.

"Shooting runs from March till June in Toronto." Which means it'll all be done in-studio--or worse yet, all green-screen. What a load of crap.

Godda**it, at least Kurt Russel, Keith David et al put in work to give us a great sci-fi/horror flick. They froze thier a$es off in the wilds of British Columbia, shooting on-location. While Antarctica it ain't, there's still just something altogether more satisfying/immersive about movies that are filmed on a real location rather than a closed studio set.

Apparently, the burned up camp has sat unmolested all these years, save for some determined fans who trekked out to it to get souvenirs. One of them has a piece of the blown up Bell 'copter. Gawd, I just love all the inane trivia on imdb dot com...

agreed wholeheartedly

I'm sick of the lazy ass green screen crap

that's all movies are anymore

and being that John Carpenter's The Thing is my absolute favorite film, the news of a prequel pisses me off to no end... it's just going to turn out to be another god damn gore fest movie.... that's all horror is today anymore

[HappyPenguins]

Judging by what Garth of Dark Horizons has been reading about the prequel, sounds like you will be right.....

Taksraven

dear god why does the lead have to be female?

unless shes like Ripley from alien I don't give a damn

[reddsun1]

While the SFX might look dated by today's standards. Carpenter's The Thing is STILL a f'ing classic. It's arguably a film that elevated special effects in the horror film genre to high art.

Wasn't talking about you, I was referring to some of the more vocal and rhetoric filled posts. I certainly understand not wanting to see a needless prequel made but I think the argument can be made without elevating The Thing to something it clearly is not.

Please do not misunderstand. Was I inferring that Carpenter's The Thing rivals a Shakespearean masterpiece? NO. My focus was solely on the use of the special effects, which I think were pretty shocking for its time. It may not impress today's audiences, but you know back in '82 there had to be bunches of people in the theaters going: "oh, sh*t! did you SEE that?!" Perhaps I should have said "cult-classic"?

I was still a kid when this film was new, so I had to basically sneak bits and pieces while the grownups watched it on HBO back in the day. But this, and other movies like The Howling, Silver Bullet, Basket Case and the like were the kind of flicks that caused a whole generation of kids to hear those proverbial marching orders from parents: "go to your room! you don't need to see stuff like this!"

Edited January 16, 2010 by reddsun1

[HappyPenguins]

Please do not misunderstand. Was I inferring that Carpenter's The Thing rivals a Shakespearean masterpiece? NO. My focus was solely on the use of the special effects, which I think were pretty shocking for its time. It may not impress today's audiences, but you know back in '82 there had to be bunches of people in the theaters going: "oh, sh*t! did you SEE that?!" Perhaps I should have said "cult-classic"?

I was still a kid when this film was new, so I had to basically sneak bits and pieces while the grownups watched it on HBO back in the day. But this, and other movies like The Howling, Silver Bullet, Basket Case and the like were the kind of flicks that caused a whole generation of kids to hear those proverbial marching orders from parents: "go to your room! you don't need to see stuff like this!"

I think the special effects were amazing too, even better than todays overuse of the CG.

[eugimon]

Please do not misunderstand. Was I inferring that Carpenter's The Thing rivals a Shakespearean masterpiece? NO. My focus was solely on the use of the special effects, which I think were pretty shocking for its time. It may not impress today's audiences, but you know back in '82 there had to be bunches of people in the theaters going: "oh, sh*t! did you SEE that?!" Perhaps I should have said "cult-classic"?

I was still a kid when this film was new, so I had to basically sneak bits and pieces while the grownups watched it on HBO back in the day. But this, and other movies like The Howling, Silver Bullet, Basket Case and the like were the kind of flicks that caused a whole generation of kids to hear those proverbial marching orders from parents: "go to your room! you don't need to see stuff like this!"

See, that's funny, because the complaints you have about the use of CGI now is EXACTLY the same complaints leveled against The Thing when it came out, gore for gore sake, over use of special effects.