ae_productions Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 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. Try to think of it like this. This is a prequel to JC's The Thing. Both films are about a creature that can mimic anything it consumes... So, it's mostly fitting that it has the same title. Mostly. Quote
Gubaba Posted October 9, 2011 Posted October 9, 2011 What about Campbell's 50's-era, "The Thing?" That would be "The Thing from Another World -1." Quote
Kanedas Bike Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 ^ "...or tied to the fvcking couch" - Awesome. -b. Quote
areaseven Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 ^ "...or tied to the fvcking couch" - Awesome. -b. Would've been perfect if he added Kurt Russell's "Yeah, f*ck you too!" line, but it's still brilliant. Quote
myk Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) "Cause I'm the Thing, yeah I'm the Thing baby..." That's some good s**t man, although I'm pretty sure the dog was an Alaskan Malamute and not a Husky... Edited October 10, 2011 by myk Quote
Marzan Posted October 10, 2011 Posted October 10, 2011 Love it...he he..." Big surpise guys, I'm not Palmer, I'm the Thiiinngg" Are those the same guys that did the musical for Conan? When I heard that one for a moment I thought that they had actually gotten Arnold to sing for them. Quote
kanedaestes Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 So IGN pretty much confirms what I thought would happen from viewing the trailer. There are just too many aspects of the original in this film, not just the nods to it but what makes it feel less like a prequel or more like a remake until the last third of the movie. http://movies.ign.com/articles/119/1197745p1.html Quote
Keith Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 (edited) Ok, I'll say it. "One of these Thing's is not like the other..." Edited October 14, 2011 by Keith Quote
Graham Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 Friend who is a fan of the original saw it yesterday, gave it the thumbs down. Rental or download material only. he said. Graham Quote
areaseven Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 Rumor has it that there's a surprise cameo appearance after the end credits. Quote
Negotiator Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 Just watched it. Theres nothing at the end.of the credits. Stuff during the early credits, but nothing at the end. Quote
myk Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 That's strange, just about every site that has a review on it states there's some sort of post-credit thing. Anyway, what did you think? Did you like it? I won't get to see it on Monday... Quote
taksraven Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 (edited) Not looking for major spoilers or anything like that, I would just like to know if this version retains the very dark humor of the Carpenter version, which was one of the best things about it. All the promo stuff makes it look very "straight". Edited October 15, 2011 by taksraven Quote
Penguin Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 (edited) Just saw it tonight. Not much in the way of dark humour, to answer your question Taks. I went in not expecting to much, and found it entertaining enough. As I figured, it didn't capture the atmosphere of the original. Mostly jack in the box scares and a couple of decent moments of tension. Characters are thin. Beltrami's score is servicable, but nowhere near as creepy as Morricone's. Special effects likewise servicable, though I found them a bit repetitive, compared to how the original had something new every time the thing came out. CG did allow for some interesting images and ideas. I'll give them credit for making sure the camp ends up in the same condition as when MacReady and Doc Copper find it. I can only think of one contradiction in the whole film. The first film seems to show the Norwegian's freeing the ship from the ice with explosives, whereas this has a different explanation. Didn't see anything post-credits either... just the finale extends into the end credits. I actually liked that part quite a bit. Revisiting the original score as the end of the prequel becomes the start of the original was a nice touch. Overall, I'd give it a 6.5 out of 10. Edited October 15, 2011 by Penguin Quote
myk Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 Now that's bad. Tension and unique scares/creatures/situations are what made some of the '82 Thing such a great movie. I have to wait 'till Monday to see this-late to the party as usual... Quote
wm cheng Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 This is an interesting read/short story from the Thing's perspective... http://io9.com/5849758/an-incredible-brilliant-short-story-told-from-the-perspective-of-the-aliens-in-john-carpenters-the-thing Quote
wm cheng Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 A decent review from a trusted source :-) http://io9.com/5850037/the-thing-prequel-is-a-fun-horror-film-with-one-fatal-flaw?tag=movie-review and to tout my own horn!... "...Then, when we finally get to the (beautifully designed) Thingship..." Go see it, support a fellow MacrossWorlder... And watch for my name in the credits! - too bad it was too dark to make up the Macross/Zentradi inspired details in the Alienship. Quote
Negotiator Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 I have to wait awhile to digest a movie and comment except that ramona flowers is hot. Lol I plan to rewatch the original again tho my initial impression is that I like the original more. Quote
myk Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 The original is a classic that, 30 years after its release, people are still talking about. I hope this new The Thing can have a similar impact on us... Quote
taksraven Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 ramona flowers is hot. No KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!! :P Quote
Negotiator Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 Mmhhmmm! Ok the original is on netflix right now. After watching it, I'm thoroughly impressed by the prequel's attention to detail. Seriously watch the original right after the new movie. I don't think the new movie was bad at all, it was a fun addition. a plot hole I can think of tho, is Kurt should have run into Kate when we went to check out the space ship. I suppose the easy explanation is that she went in a different direction Quote
Gubaba Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 One question about the 1982 film... If they can't get new game shows on VHS, how do they keep supplying the one guy with pot...? Quote
myk Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 One question about the 1982 film... If they can't get new game shows on VHS, how do they keep supplying the one guy with pot...? Well, in the book Childs and Palmer had a mini-garden in one of the sheds, or something... Quote
Gubaba Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 Well, in the book Childs and Palmer had a mini-garden in one of the sheds, or something... Okay, I can buy that. Quote
Kanedas Bike Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 Just came from an early showing. I wanted to enjoy this so much more than I did. It wasn't bad but most of what everyone else on the boards has said rings true for me too. If anything I ended up kind of disappointed that I didn't come from a big-screen showing of JC's The Thing instead... PS - nice job WM, the ship design was cool. I wish we'd had been able to see more of it, so here's hoping to a video release with lots of extras -b. Quote
myk Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) Most critics are saying that this movie fails to develop its own identity and draws too much from the JC version; some are calling it a remake that's parading around as a prequel. Personally, I don't understand how a prequel, sequel or remake could avoid being accused of drawing too much from the source material because, after all, it's already based on an existing story. For example, some critics say that what happens in the new Thing happens in the old Thing. Well, of course the same thing happened. A shape-shifting monster is unfrozen and it attacks everyone-that's the basic story behind JC's story and if you want to make a sequel, prequel or remake of the '82 film you're going to have a shape-shifting monster attacking everyone. You couldn't have a Thing based movie that was similar to Hamlet, Bridesmaids or Footloose and expect it to remain faithful to the original material. I dunno, I'm not a screenwriter or a critic, so maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but in my opinion a prequel, sequel or a remake pretty much has its die cast. You can change characters introduce new plot devices, maybe even change the location but ultimately you're going to have a story that's obviously close to the original material. Now I haven't actually SEEN it yet, but as far as I'm concerned the only areas that this movie could fail would be its ability to build tension (which I hear it fails miserably), the quality of its acting, special effects and things of that nature. Now...I'm still deciding if I'm going to see this. I need to be able to sleep at night... Edited October 17, 2011 by myk Quote
kanedaestes Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 X-Men First Class was nothing like the original, and I am sure there are more but that is the most recent I can think of. Oh Batman Begins nothing like the other Batman films and then The Dark Knight established itself outside of Begins without having to rehash things. I felt since seeing the official trailer they focused to much on the JC version. I remember reading an article saying they were watching the JC version constantly on set to keep with continuity. I think that is really what hurt it, instead of keep with continuity you basically just rehashed the same scenes and plot devices thus not crafting it's own identity. Quote
Kanedas Bike Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 X-Men First Class was nothing like the original, and I am sure there are more but that is the most recent I can think of. Oh Batman Begins nothing like the other Batman films and then The Dark Knight established itself outside of Begins without having to rehash things. I felt since seeing the official trailer they focused to much on the JC version. I remember reading an article saying they were watching the JC version constantly on set to keep with continuity. I think that is really what hurt it, instead of keep with continuity you basically just rehashed the same scenes and plot devices thus not crafting it's own identity. To be fair there's not much they could have done differently to avoid the comparisons to JC's The Thing. I mean the setting is exactly the same as the original (Antarctic, research base, etc.) and they had some pretty established cannon with regards to the fate of some/all of the characters that had to be adhered to. The more I chew the fat on this one the more I think a direct sequel might have been a better bet. I did for the most part like the movie, and maybe my enjoyment was a victim of my love of JC's movie and high expectations but it wasn't a bad film and if you enjoyed the first then I think you'd enjoy this one too. -b. Quote
myk Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 (edited) X-Men First Class was nothing like the original, and I am sure there are more but that is the most recent I can think of. Oh Batman Begins nothing like the other Batman films and then The Dark Knight established itself outside of Begins without having to rehash things. I felt since seeing the official trailer they focused to much on the JC version. I remember reading an article saying they were watching the JC version constantly on set to keep with continuity. I think that is really what hurt it, instead of keep with continuity you basically just rehashed the same scenes and plot devices thus not crafting it's own identity. Well First class was an origins movie, almost a prequel in itself, but the locations and the times were different. The first X movie was presented to us in almost present day, First Class took place during the 60's, so naturally they didn't really have to rehash anything. The new Batman movies are reboots, so I'd say the writers have a bit of freedom when it comes to developing their story. However, the origins of Batman have remained constant no matter which Batman movie you watch. The rich family, the kid, the cave, the murders, being an orphan, etc, none of that ever changes. Then you have the Thing(s). Since this is a prequel that's supposed to be telling the story of what happened at the Norwegian camp, the writers have to tell a story limited to that particular piece of established canon. The fact that both movies take place within HOURS of each other makes it even more difficult to differentiate the two movies. Now having watched the movie, I will admit that there were some scenes from the '82 movie that were shamelessly (and very badly) copied, however the story formula can't deviate from this: frozen alien, curious scientists, Thing outbreak, hell breaking loose. Sure that's what happened in the 'JC version, but honestly, I don't see what else they could've done with the new movie asides from just showing us what happened at the Norwegian camp, which disappointingly almost mirrors what happened at the US camp. I did for the most part like the movie, and maybe my enjoyment was a victim of my love of JC's movie and high expectations but it wasn't a bad film and if you enjoyed the first then I think you'd enjoy this one too. -b. Agreed. Again I wish they hadn't copied some scenes, but this movie answered one of the great questions that the '82 movie has had fans asking for decades: what happened at the Norwegian camp? My only major criticism of the movie is that it failed to develop, spread and increase tension, anxiety and fear. I would even go to say that the more subdued creature effects of the primitive '82 movie beat this CGI wonder because something that is more hidden than seen is 100 x's more horrifying. Also, some believe that Mary Elizabeth Winstead was intended to be some sort of Ripley-esque character. If that's the case I'd say the writers failed there as well, because we don't once see Mary being hot and sweaty, wearing nothing but her underwear.......... Edited October 18, 2011 by myk Quote
EXO Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 I enjoyed it. Predictable and all the insanity of the original softens the surprises, but still in the same level of creepiness and grossness. I guess I wasn't really expecting much. lol. Quote
myk Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 I enjoyed it. Predictable and all the insanity of the original softens the surprises, but still in the same level of creepiness and grossness. I guess I wasn't really expecting much. lol. I really, really wish I hadn't looked it up on 'Wiki before I saw it; ruined a lot of the Boo! moments. Damn it I'll say this also: a lot of the Thing incarnations were stupid looking... Quote
Kanedas Bike Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 (edited) I really, really wish I hadn't looked it up on 'Wiki before I saw it; ruined a lot of the Boo! moments. Damn it I'll say this also: a lot of the Thing incarnations were stupid looking... Speaking of... am I the only one that thought it looked a lot like a roach after it burst from the ice and during the *ahem* alien autopsy? Edit to add spoiler tags. -b. Edited October 18, 2011 by Kanedas Bike Quote
Dynaman Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 I would even go to say that the more subdued creature effects of the primitive '82 movie beat this CGI wonder because something that is more hidden than seen is 100 x's more horrifying. Bruce agrees with you. (Bruce the mechanical shark of course) Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.