CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › HERE'S THE THING ABOUT THE THING RESHOOTS…
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HERE'S THE THING ABOUT THE THING RESHOOTS…

post #1 of 40
11/16/10 at 7:20pm
Thread Starter 
Bad, Good, or Ugly? What's the prognosis on this remake after word of a date-change and reshoots?


More...
Reply
post #2 of 40
11/16/10 at 7:35pm
let it not be forgotten that woody allen reshoots parts of his films often enough that he budgets them into each one he directs.

also, a THING movie where the filmmakers don't know what the monster will look like while they're shooting? we're a long way from rob bottin.
Reply
post #3 of 40
11/16/10 at 8:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Ultimately View Post
let it not be forgotten that woody allen reshoots parts of his films often enough that he budgets them into each one he directs.
he goes in knowing he's going to reshoot as a more relaxed way of making movies, and his reshoots aren't really emergency patches as much as they are to massage the narrative.

hollywood reshoots tend to be more panic driven. and this does not instill confidence:

"to add punctuation marks to the film's feeling of dread,"

it just sounds like they shot something that doesn't work ala Nightmare On Elm Street remake and like that debacle are scrambling to save it.
Reply
post #4 of 40
11/16/10 at 8:52pm
The biggest hill this has to climb is justifying why they'd hamstring themselves by telling a prequel to the first film. Great, we now know exactly how it ends. See you later, suspense and tension!

It's not even like other useless prequels, where they could set it back far enough so as to have some unanswered questions. This first film told us all we needed to know.
Reply
post #5 of 40
11/16/10 at 8:54pm
But, I want to know how that axe got in the wall!

I still don't get why they're calling this THE THING.
Reply
post #6 of 40
11/16/10 at 8:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post
The biggest hill this has to climb is justifying why they'd hamstring themselves by telling a prequel to the first film. Great, we now know exactly how it ends. See you later, suspense and tension!

It's not even like other useless prequels, where they could set it back far enough so as to have some unanswered questions. This first film told us all we needed to know.
Exactly, do we really need a film that ends with a dog running off from the Norwegian station with a helicopter after it? How is that a dramatically satisfying ending for a movie???
Reply
post #7 of 40
11/16/10 at 9:06pm
Especially since this previously Norweigan science station will now have an international cast of young 20something Americans. And everyone will be speaking English. Because otherwise, how can we relate to what's going on?
Reply
post #8 of 40
11/16/10 at 9:08pm
I'll admit, I would have been intrigued if the whole thing is in Norwegian. Without subtitles, like Mel Gibson originally wanted to do with his movie.
Reply
post #9 of 40
11/16/10 at 9:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post
Especially since this previously Norweigan science station will now have an international cast of young 20something Americans. And everyone will be speaking English. Because otherwise, how can we relate to what's going on?
Grrr, I simply can't think too hard about this, it's bad for my blood pressure.
Reply
post #10 of 40
11/16/10 at 9:31pm
This really got made.. i was thinking it was still in pre pre production..
Reply
post #11 of 40
11/17/10 at 1:57am
I really want this to be good. I'm a little more optimistic than most I think, and really for no good reason other than I love Carpenter's film so much I want this companion piece to be good too. Plus Ron Moore has had his hand in it, and I fucking love Battlestar.

I'm really just glad that this isn't a sequel, or a straight remake, even though I know it'll contain a lot of the same beats. I've been let down before in this kind of situation, (I'm thinking of the movie last summer directed by the guy with the happy meal name), but I'm going to remain cautiously optimistic.
Reply
post #12 of 40
11/17/10 at 1:59am
How is this being a prequel make you any happier than it being a sequel or a straight remake? If anything, it's an even dumber option, because we now know the whole story, especially the outcome.
Reply
post #13 of 40
11/17/10 at 3:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post
Especially since this previously Norweigan science station will now have an international cast of young 20something Americans. And everyone will be speaking English. Because otherwise, how can we relate to what's going on?
With Mary Elizabeth Winstead. This whole thing makes not a damn bit of sense whatsoever and I haven't felt this much indifference towards a property i've liked since Predators (and look how that crap turned out mediocre).
Reply
post #14 of 40
11/17/10 at 3:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post
Especially since this previously Norweigan science station will now have an international cast of young 20something Americans. And everyone will be speaking English. Because otherwise, how can we relate to what's going on?
Actually, I heard a good chunk of the cast will be speaking foreign languages to add to the otherness and stress.
Reply
post #15 of 40
11/17/10 at 3:10am
Wasn't the video game sequel to the movie actually pretty decent? Even though it sorta was a retread.

Sequel might have worked a little better. Though, I imagine that changing the setting would help make it different, or at least push a sequel to be different.
Reply
post #16 of 40
11/17/10 at 11:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post
How is this being a prequel make you any happier than it being a sequel or a straight remake? If anything, it's an even dumber option, because we now know the whole story, especially the outcome.
I don't want see anything taking place after MacCready and Childs take their last uncertain drink together. It's a perfect ending, and I never want a definitive answer as to what happens after it, or if the Thing made it off Antarctica into the mainland. I wouldn't rather have a remake either for the same reason, I think Carpenter's film is a perfect film and I have no desire to see someone try and play Blair, MacCready or Childs better than Wilford Brimley, Kurt Russell and Keith David. They were going to make another Thing movie no matter what and this seems like the best option. Plus I get the feeling we don't know the full ending. We know two norwegian guys were chasing the dog, but who's to say that was the only thing to escape? I think they have enough wiggle room to surprise us. Maybe I'm being dumb by being optimistic, but I want this to work so I'm going to give it a chance.
Reply
post #17 of 40
11/17/10 at 6:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreMrNiceGaius View Post
They were going to make another Thing movie no matter what and this seems like the best option.
I hate this kind of thinking. It's fanboy service and nothing else.

Quote:
Plus I get the feeling we don't know the full ending. We know two norwegian guys were chasing the dog, but who's to say that was the only thing to escape? I think they have enough wiggle room to surprise us. Maybe I'm being dumb by being optimistic, but I want this to work so I'm going to give it a chance.
So you adamently dont want to know anything that happens after the end of The Thing, but you're more than happy to hamstring the earlier discovery of the Norweigan station? Ok. Other than the burning question of "How'd the axe get stuck in the door?" what can be added there? To put it another way: why do we need to know anything else?
Reply
post #18 of 40
11/17/10 at 6:21pm
I need to see another scene where the Thing attacks dogs in the Norwegian camp because it's important to see how it got introduced to dogs the first time...because it's important...somehow. I also need to know how that one dude slit his own throat. That's hardcore. Must be a Norwegian thing. Trve Kvlt. Also, and this is the most important thing: I need to fuckin' know where MacReady got that bitchin' hat.
Reply
post #19 of 40
11/17/10 at 7:46pm
I've heard from the inside that the animatronic work didn't turn out very well and a huge chunk of it is being replaced by CGI, despite the producer's claims that it would be 80% practical and 20% CG. My friend (who's working on it) said those percentages turned out being reversed in post, so I wouldn't be surprised if they're going back to reshoot some of the dodgier animatronic work. Especially after all their claims of the film not being a CG fest.
Reply
post #20 of 40
11/17/10 at 8:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post
So you adamently dont want to know anything that happens after the end of The Thing, but you're more than happy to hamstring the earlier discovery of the Norweigan station? Ok. Other than the burning question of "How'd the axe get stuck in the door?" what can be added there? To put it another way: why do we need to know anything else?
It affects more than the discovery of the station. If it's an open ending and another alien gets away, then the end of THE THING is essentially superflous because there's another alien that could get to the mainland.

You end up getting some type of definitive answer, even if it's just Macready and Childs blasting each other without knowing if one or the other is an alien is irrelevant because there's another one still alive.
Reply
post #21 of 40
11/17/10 at 8:30pm
Geez you guys are a bunch of sourpusses. I'm not a fanboy by any means. I'd rather they not make another Thing movie, but if they're going to, I don't think this is the worst thing that could happen. I'm not dying to know how the axe got into the door, or all of nerdy shit you guys are saying. I just don't think that a prequel is totally going to hamper the telling of a good story.

All the set reports and shit I've read have been pretty good and I like the actors so I'm optimistic. Best case scenario, we get a good film that serves as a companion to Carpenter's. Worst case we get a shitty movie I'll only watch once. No reason to get your vag hairs all tangled.

ETA: But I'll also be the first to eat my own words if this thing turns out to be total shit.
Reply
post #22 of 40
11/17/10 at 11:14pm
Ah, yes, the bitter and dismissive reaction to being asked to think critically. Thanks for playing anyway!
Reply
post #23 of 40
11/18/10 at 12:11am
I'm not here to get into a pissing match. I'm here to discuss movies. And I happen to think that there's a possibility this movie won't be terrible just because it's a prequel. Maybe it will just end up pandering to fans of the original by showing us the set ups to the pay offs we see in the Carpenter film. But maybe it'll use the guise of a prequel to do something new with the material. Maybe you're right and this will be stillborn because we know the ending, maybe I'm being too much of a fan when I say I don't want to know what happens after the first film, I just feel that's it's a little too early to write it off. I'm going to at least wait to see a trailer.

I hope the news of them replacing the animatronics with cgi turns out to be false, that would certainly sour me on this. It's bad enough they have Marco Beltrami scoring it.
Reply
post #24 of 40
11/18/10 at 12:30am
Yeah, I'll never understand why people think prequels are good story options. The Patton Oswalt Star Wars bit on why they're just inherently bad ideas is ace.

Concerning this project specifically, there's really no way to make the story interesting for people familiar with the original. As others have pointed out, if you do something like add another alien to the mix, you completely undercut the suspense of the original film. If you don't, you know exactly what is going to happen from the jump.
Reply
post #25 of 40
11/18/10 at 12:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain View Post
Yeah, I'll never understand why people think prequels are good story options. The Patton Oswalt Star Wars bit on why they're just inherently bad ideas is ace.
Isn't it.

"Do you like rock salt?"
Reply
post #26 of 40
11/18/10 at 12:39am
Yeah, I'll admit, I might be deluding myself a little bit out of love for the original, and my adamant stance on a sequel to the film. The only prequel I've seen that works as it's own thing is Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, and that's a bit of an unique case when it comes to prequels. I'd really hate to see this end up like something akin to the Star Wars prequels.
Reply
post #27 of 40
11/18/10 at 12:41am
I think it's pretty clear that there's going to be more than one Thing. Best guess is that it's probably going to make a beeline for the saucer for the big climax while a couple of guys fly off in a helicopter after dog Thing.

What happens in the saucer is anyone's guess. (Which is I think an argument for why the third act might not be stillborn.) But, I could definitely see the humans beating the Thing and then making for the American station to kill anything that looks at them funny. Or, perhaps a gonzo, the saucer takes off and they end up on a planet of Things. Or, maybe they go all Lovecraft and they end up on a planet of the Race of Yith, or Mi-Go, or Elder Things.
Reply
post #28 of 40
11/18/10 at 12:47am
For me the inherent problem isn't just that we know how it ends, but that it's much more horrifying leaving what happened at the Norwegian base to the viewer's imagination. Especially when it'll probably end up being a lot like what happens to the Americans in the original.
Reply
post #29 of 40
11/18/10 at 12:49am
This is Predators all over again. A de facto remake that they're soft-peddling as "part of the franchise."
Reply
post #30 of 40
11/18/10 at 12:51am
Exactly.
Reply
post #31 of 40
11/18/10 at 12:53am
Yeah, I have a hard time seeing how Acts I and II don't play out pretty much as expected. I can see some fun variations, like perhaps taking an ax to the Thing and ending up with 2 Things, but at best I expect a mix of what we've seen from 2 previous versions of the story while waiting for some loophole to jump through.

But, as I said, I do think there are loopholes for the 3rd act.

And, of course, I don't expect many teenagers to have seen the 1982 movie, let alone the 1950s movie.
Reply
post #32 of 40
11/18/10 at 1:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilTwin View Post
And, of course, I don't expect many teenagers to have seen the 1982 movie
Really? Is John Carpenter that niche these days and am I that old?
Reply
post #33 of 40
11/18/10 at 1:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post
Really? Is John Carpenter that niche these days and am I that old?
Yes and yes.
Reply
post #34 of 40
11/18/10 at 1:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
This is Predators all over again. A de facto remake that they're soft-peddling as "part of the franchise."
Yeah, the title basically confirms this.

That said, I liked PREDATORS just fine, so I guess I don't have a problem there.
Reply
post #35 of 40
11/18/10 at 1:19am
Yeah, I'm sure a lot of people who see this won't have even heard of the other two or know it's related in any way.
Reply
post #36 of 40
11/18/10 at 1:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Benenson View Post
Yeah, I'm sure a lot of people who see this won't have even heard of the other two or know it's related in any way.
If that's truly the case doesn't that negate the entire point of making a prequel to a 'pre-loved' property in the first place?

Why even tie your horror film in with a past classic if most of the people watching won't even know what the original classic is?
Reply
post #37 of 40
11/18/10 at 1:27am
Well, I'm not necessarily saying it'll be most, but I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who aren't familiar with THE THING(s). But to answer your question, I don't know but they've already done it with more obscure (to mainstream audiences) stuff than this, so why stop now I guess.
Reply
post #38 of 40
11/18/10 at 1:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian OB View Post
Yeah, the title basically confirms this.

That said, I liked PREDATORS just fine, so I guess I don't have a problem there.
Yeah, I'm still hoping they change the title to something other than the title of Carpenter film. Maybe even going with the full Hawks title, The Thing From Another World or something.

I also like Predators enough. Nothing groundbreaking, but I felt it was solid. I have yet to revisit it after the theaters though.
Reply
post #39 of 40
11/18/10 at 1:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post
If that's truly the case doesn't that negate the entire point of making a prequel to a 'pre-loved' property in the first place?

Why even tie your horror film in with a past classic if most of the people watching won't even know what the original classic is?
Ask the Star Trek reboot gang. The dopey hoops that otherwise solid reboot had to go through to assure the old timey fans that the original adventures still "counted" was embarrassing.
Reply
post #40 of 40
11/18/10 at 2:06am
That's what gives me hope about the next Trek, since they've managed to shake off the chains of continuity and can now do pretty much whatever the hell they want. Of course, I'd have much rathered they just toss said chains off without having to have the plot do it for them, but I guess bets needed to be hedged.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › HERE'S THE THING ABOUT THE THING RESHOOTS…