Jump to content

Any other "Thing" fans out there?


Recommended Posts

Dude she's gorgeous. I "just" discovered her like a week ago, too. She has this one taped video performance of "A little more love" and to me, even though the taping is like 32 BC it's one of the most passionate, sexy and soulful performances I've ever seen that easily trumps the mainstream trash of today. With the new Thing, SW on blu-ray and old clips of Olivia I'm reminded that the 70's & 80's weren't a complete waste of time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it me or did the trailer have way to many shots of scenes that look extacly like the original? Gives me that whole while this is a remakedisguised as a prequel feel.

This movie is setting itself up to piss off fans no matter what. No matter what the studio tells the fans, they don't seem to get it. When they are told it's a prequel, fans hear reboot. Remake or Sequel.

It's a prequel.

It takes place in 1982, at the Norwegian camp, three days before it is discovered by MacReady and Doc. This movie explains in gruesome detail what happened to the Sweeds, I mean, Norwegians. There are moments in the film that even set this up to be nothing but a prequel to Carpent's film. One moment in particular, is at the airport towards the beginning of the film. There is a flyer about MacReady (no, he is NOT in the movie, he is not mentioned, but there is a picture of him in the background with a funny notation about him). The movie ends setting up John Carpenter's film. It is a prequel. It is not a remake and it is not a sequel.

As a prequel, it has to "fit into" John Carpenter's universe. As such, it is limited by the rules and events of JC's first film. Because of these limitations, yes, it will have a similar "feel" to the first movie.

Primarily, the namesake. The thing itself. It acts and behaves and does things very much like it did in Carpetner's film. (Except it is more on the "offensive" in this movie instead of "blending in" as it did in JC's film. One of my gripes). If the Thing wasn't acting like the thing, fans would bitch. If the thing didn't act like the thing, fans would bitch. It's a loose loose situation for the studio.

So, yes. The tone, atmosphere, it will all be familiar. It has to be if it is going to fit into Carpenter's universe. It's frustrating, cause there are a few moments when the movie has the means of breaking out of mentality of "what it's expected to do," but it doesn't. It's afraid to be it's own entity. It wants to mimic Carpenter's work so much that it actually feels like an imitation itself a few times. But that is not completely a bad thing either, as JC's film was one of the best horror films ever made.

If you see this film with an open mind, and let yourself have a good time, you may find that you actually will.

If the Thing does well, maybe we'll see a third film. Maybe we'll get to see Childs and MacReady again. In fact, I think we need it. I'm sick of the ghost stories, slasher flicks. If the thing is successful, hopefully we can see a reboot of this genre. I am all for a revamp of classic monster films that attempt to use some practical effects.

But please remember, this is called The Thing. It is a perfect title about an alien parasite that can replicate anything it consumes. Kinda like what this prequel is trying to do to JC's film. It is a prequel. It will fill in all the missing elements of Carpenter's film.

Except that one final question...is MacReady or Childs "The Thing?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am and have always been very aware this is a prequel. I also heard the filmmakers were wathing the original everyday to try and keep with continutiy. I feel they were a bit too influenced and wound up recreating a lot of shots to give nods to the original so much so that except for maybe the beginning and the end the bulk of the film will be too much like the original, especially according to a lot of those shots in the trailer. Hence my post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, have any of you guys read the short story by Peter Watts called "The Things?" It tells the events of the 1982 movie from the Thing/Alien's point of view. I know it sounds really silly but it was amusing to pretend seeing the movie unfold through an "alien" point of view. I suggest checking it out:

http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/

Except that one final question...is MacReady or Childs "The Thing?"

Depends on what material you're reading. There are some comics/books that have various twists on what happened after the events of the '82 movie. For example if you read the short story I posted a link to, or play the video game, there are some musings as to what happened after the camp went up...

Edited by myk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am and have always been very aware this is a prequel. I also heard the filmmakers were wathing the original everyday to try and keep with continutiy. I feel they were a bit too influenced and wound up recreating a lot of shots to give nods to the original so much so that except for maybe the beginning and the end the bulk of the film will be too much like the original, especially according to a lot of those shots in the trailer. Hence my post.

I hope it didn't come across that I was attacking you, cause that was not my intention.

I did reiterate your points, where I felt this whole prequel thing was merely a trap, and no matter which way this production decided to tell this story, that it would find itself in a bind with the fans.

Did anyone read the Dark Horse Comics in the 1990's that was a sequel to Carpenter's "The Thing?" I've been trying to hunt them all down, and man, it is not cheap! Curious to see how it played out.

Also, prior to this prequel, there was suppose to be a 4 hour made for TV sequel. Wonder what ever happened to that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, have any of you guys read the short story by Peter Watts called "The Things?" It tells the events of the 1982 movie from the Thing/Alien's point of view. I know it sounds really silly but it was amusing to pretend seeing the movie unfold through an "alien" point of view. I suggest checking it out:

http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/

Depends on what material you're reading. There are some comics/books that have various twists on what happened after the events of the '82 movie. For example if you read the short story I posted a link to, or play the video game, there are some musings as to what happened after the camp went up...

That short story was great fun. Thanks for sharing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I mean the idea of the Thing originally being a sophisticated and even benevolent creature that just wants to commune with other beings is certainly contrary to how it behaved at outpost 31, however I like how the writer explained that violent nature by eventual effects of its crash landing on Earth and how badly damaged it was. I wanted to empathize, even feel sorry for the creature but...I just can't, especially when at the end the Thing decides it must RAPE salvation into the human race. UUUUUUUUGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use to think Rob Base was hard core when I was younger. Now when I listen to him, can't help but laugh.

Some music is NOT like wine.

I have a feeling we're talking about two completely different things at this point. :lol:

Edited by anime52k8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I regret trying to watch as many video snippets and trailers as I can, because now I feel as if I've ruined the shocks and surprises that would have been in store for me had I exercised some patience.

13 days and counting...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We saw the crew screening on Thursday and I must say it looked pretty freakin' great! (if I say so myself:-)

There were a few glaring CGI elements that stood out, but on the whole, the physical effects will definitely make some hard-core gore effects people very happy. The overall tone of the movie is very straightforward and suspenseful which is a refreshing change of pace from recent modern "flash-cut in your face" movies. I felt it was nicely updated without it seeming modern.

That being said, they did have to rewrite the ending in the alien spacecraft and that portion of the movie fell apart (which was the sets I concentrated on!) Most of it was edited out which was too bad. Plus the most awful glaring VFX effect was inside my set to hide something that was written out in the re-shoots.

Anyways hope you guys like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you guys seen the international poster yet? It's great!

gallery_13257_490_10607.jpg

A very nice poster, emphasises the technological rather than the splatter for once. But just one last thing.

The title.....for the prequel to the film "The Thing"........is "The Thing".......

Would have been fair enough if it was just a remake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the original is often labelled "John Carpenter's 'The Thing' ", so the prequel can be "Matthijs van Heijningen's 'The Thing' ".

Doesn't quite roll off the tongue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...