After much delay, we’re finally getting our look at the prequel of The Thing.
It turns out prequel is now synonymous with remake. Only I feel like Mary Elizabeth’s Winstead character has somehow actually seen John Carpenter’s film, and thus is able to apply it to the situation.
I do take some small pleasure in their replacing Kurt Russell with a feisty female scientist. Really, how often does that happen? How is it not Chris Pine or some other square-jawed fellow?
And they did remember to include the dog. I love how that’s broadcast. Look, it isn’t a remake! The dog is still ok!
25 comments
It looks pretty good. But yeah, not a prequel.
On one hand, it doesn’t look terrible. On the other, it doesn’t look like it’s offering anything new. I’m torn.
I don’t get the “not a prequel” thing. Clearly it’s set in the camp that was devastated. Clearly there’s a shot of the dog that started the commotion in Carpenter’s film. Clearly people are in period garb (though they sure do try to hide it – which is easy, since the beards just make the dudes look like scenesters or olds).
It may not be wholly original, but – for the film to make any sense – the same shit that happens to Carpenter’s crew HAS to happen to those crazy Swedes.
Isn’t a really similar set of tone and content… kind of what you expected? I mean… we always knew this was taking place at the Norweigan camp briefly visited in the first movie. Which means we’re back in Antarctica with a sausage-fest camp full of guys in an isolated setting. A camp that had to even have dogs, because an infected dog from the Norweigian camp is EXACTLY how the Thing reaches Kurt Russell’s American camp. This was all guaranteed because of the direction they chose to go. Even the ending is largely guaranteed – most of these dudes will die and the Thing itself will live in the form of the dog and get away, etc. At least they gave us one mild change here here – we get to see a GIRL this time, because she comes in from outside the camp.
I guess I’m saying “don’t hate the playa, hate the game.” If you wanted something different, you should’ve probably wished they never announced this plot direction in the first place, but you probably should’ve ALWAYS known it’d be a crew full of dudes with a dog or two in Antarctica, because we knew that much about the Norweigian camp from the first one. And that means it’s a very similar setup.
That having been said, just because the setup and location are similar doesn’t mean that all the same stuff is going to happen. There’s no sign of a blood test in the trailer. There’s no sign of locking one character away in a distant shed in the trailer. There’s no sign that someone’s head will walk away on spider-legs in the trailer. Same basic setup? Sure. HAD to be. But different execution is what I want and expect, and it looks like I’ll definitely get new set pieces.
I don’t really see what was wrong with the original. I saw it when I was quite young and then one or two times as an adult and it still freaks me out (especially the blood ‘test’ scene where they’re all tied to chairs).
What I do kind of dig though is that they’ve included the music from the original (at least a modified version, I can’t really if it’s exact).
When you say “The original” you mean the Howard Hawks version, right…?
CHURCH.
exactly how I feel. I really want to like it but there’s just something not quite right..
I’d have loved it if they had the balls to do the whole damn thing in Norwegian and not felt the need to bring in some US folk to make it more accessible.
Looks very cool.
If you’re just talking about the title, maybe. Carpenter’s film owes more to “Who Goes There?” than the Hawks version.
It is in every sense a prequel. Having read the script I assure you it is. Now, wether the movie itself is any good is a different debate we’ll have to wait and see…
The CGI looks like shit. Makes you appreciate the practical effects of the original even more.
Is there an obligatory attempted rape in this?
Chariots of the Gods, man. They practically own South America. I mean, they taught the Incas everything they know.
I’m in.
Looks excellent, but I’ll echo the “not a prequel” sentiments.
Wasn’t the Howard Hawks version called The Thing From Another Planet?
Snake Plissken > Ramona Flowers.
Whatever you want to call it (Premakeboot?), I like what I see.
I love Carpenter’s film – terrified and fascinated the hell out of me when it was making the rounds on HBO after its theatrical run – so it’s something of a scared cow for me, as with many others.
But I’m willing to give this one a shot. It’s not like my seeing it will diminish the 82 version, or make it disappear.
I meant “sacred”.
Stupid lysdexia. 🙁
The problem with this not looking like a prequel to me is that it looks like it could easily be 2011 instead of pre-1980. I’m sure there are some things in there that didn’t register “1980” for me but if it feels like 2011 it’s already failing as a prequel regardless of story.
Go on… call me out on obvious “1980’s” things. Still feels modern to me.
completely agree. I’m not sure what they’d have to chuck into an arctic base to make it look like an 80’s movie. Hell just the same 8 bit computer animation of the Thing taking over cells would have done
Outside of the TV show video tape and the computers, try and call out something “1982” about Carpenter’s film…..
Kurt Russell looked about 30 in it.
Holy Shit is that a Slacker quote?!?
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.