WELL, IT'S DEFINITELY THE THING

Well, it definitely doesn't come across as sacrilege. And I kinda like Winstead so far. It's got a fair shot, long as they get inventive with the transformations.

The eye kinda shifting out of place on that guy's face was subtly creepy, though.

So it's a prequel which seems to be restaging every major sequence of the original? It looks like it could be entertaining, but it seems so...academic. Could you imagine a Thing prequel where they didn't figure it out until the third act, where 90% of the cast were infected and it was presented as more of a paranoid mystery than a Ten Little Indians slasher film.

It also looks like we're going to get more of the 'mythology'

The teaser we saw at the NYCC was twice as effective. They really should have released that one.

Still not sure what to make of all this.

Yeah, looks like a shot for shot remake with Kurt Russell as a chick.

Consider me cautiously optimistic.  Was that Vaughn from Community?  And Mr. Eko?

Less is more and Carpenter knew that which is one of the main reasons The Thing itself works so well. Take out all the monster/sci fi stuff and you still have a film that captures the intensity and feeling of paranoia, claustrophobia, fear of isolation and maybe even a subconscious fear of our fellow man with  his motivations and inner workings that we can't grasp. 

That trailer looks like somebody watched the Thing, thought is was the monster stuff that made the film great, and played lip service to everything else. Maybe I'm being too judgmental from just one trailer trying to sell this to Joe and Jane Moviegoer but that's the vibe I'm getting.

It's kinda pointless to prequalize (& totally rehash) a perfect film but as long as this movie ends with a Swede chasing a dog, this could be fun companion pic. That Carpenter-ish cinematography is pretty nifty too.

I watched Dark Star again recently and was struck by the similarities betwen it and The Thing. This doesn't look anything like Dark Star.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzy dunlop 

Consider me cautiously optimistic.  Was that Vaughn from Community?

Yep.  And I immediately found myself singing, "The Thing's a B, it's a GD B..."
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art Decade 

It's kinda pointless to prequalize (& totally rehash) a perfect film but as long as this movie ends with a Swede chasing a dog, this could be fun companion pic. That Carpenter-ish cinematography is pretty nifty too.

I know for a fact that the director wants people to be able to watch this and then go directly to the Carpenter film without missing a beat. 

Well, god DAMN. That got my blood pumping. I love me some paranoid horror. If they play up the aspects of the Swedes turning against each other and not so much of the "oh my god something is dragging me away while I scream!" nonsense this could be excellent. I am optimistic. There's really nothing in there to give me pause... except the CGI snowmobile falling. I mean, less is more. In the original the vehicles were sabotaged, not destroyed in a grandiose action sequence. 

The original is probably my favorite film of all time but I'm actually pumped for this. Looks like they're doing it right. Should be fun to see how everything lines up into the first one (who slashes his own throat, etc.). Surprised Mr. Eko got so little screentime; he wasn't in any of the group shots. He appears to be the janitor they keep in the back or something. 

This is the first remake/reboot/sequel/prequel in years that is actually angrying up my blood. I guess it's the sheer pointlessness of it, as perfectly exemplified by this article and the comments on it; it understandably starts with "this is so similar looking it's like a remake" and then people step in and say "well of course it's going to be similar, what were you expecting?" That's true, but then what's the point? We know roughly what will happen throughout, we know exactly how it ends, we even know what the movie will be like aesthetically. So why go in this direction at all? The fact that they're even evoking the lighting and cinematography and such isn't neat to me, it's just cheap. And we're falling for it - "doesn't seem like total blasphemy" and "it'll be kind of cool seeing it tie into the original" and so on. No! Bad movie geeks! It's exploiting your love of the Carpenter film. Don't give it a pass because of that. It's completely unnecessary and redundant, don't go see it.

You don't know what will happen throughout or how it will end, other than you do any other horror movie you decide to watch. I.E. people die over the course the film. I don't see it as exploitation, it seems very respectful of the source material.

So, it's a remaquel?  

I don't know.  I love The Thing.  This looks cool, I guess.  If that other teaser, the one Alex was talking about, if it really is twice as effective, then that would push me into the cautiously optimistic category.

So, are these the Swedes?  

Dan, there's the world that should be, and the world that is. I appreciate your idealism, but in this world, Hollywood makes remakes, reboots, sequels and prequels. If they make something that honors the source and delivers some entertainment value we are left with no choice but to enjoy it for what it is. If it turns out to be a good move, it is a win, regardless if we "needed" it or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackyShimSham 

You don't know what will happen throughout or how it will end, other than you do any other horror movie you decide to watch. I.E. people die over the course the film. I don't see it as exploitation, it seems very respectful of the source material.

So respectful that it seemingly brings nothing new to the table. And of course we know how it ends, that's the whole point of it. The trailer indicates that we have a pretty good idea of what happens throughout as well, but then we already did from imagining it when we watched the original. The first third sets up that question and the rest more or less answers it. That's the other thing that bothers me about this - it was great starting with the guys chasing the dog and later showing the aftermath of what happened because it implied what happened but left the specifics to your imagination, which made it much creepier. It'll get less creepy to see it actually spelled out for you, "oh right it was basically the same thing that happened to the other guys in the other movie."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

Dan, there's the world that should be, and the world that is. I appreciate your idealism, but in this world, Hollywood makes remakes, reboots, sequels and prequels. If they make something that honors the source and delivers some entertainment value we are left with no choice but to enjoy it for what it is. If it turns out to be a good move, it is a win, regardless if we "needed" it or not.

I guess I shouldn't have started by saying that it's the movie itself that annoys me, when really it's the attitude towards it. I completely accept that we're in a world of remakes, reboots, sequels, and prequels, but the disconnect for me comes in with this "we have no choice" thing. You don't need to see it. Saying "hey, at least it honors the source material. It has some entertainment value. I enjoy it for what it is." sounds like settling for mediocrity. Just skip it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Benenson 

 

I guess I shouldn't have started by saying that it's the movie itself that annoys me, when really it's the attitude towards it. I completely accept that we're in a world of remakes, reboots, sequels, and prequels, but the disconnect for me comes in with this "we have no choice" thing. You don't need to see it. Saying "hey, at least it honors the source material. It has some entertainment value. I enjoy it for what it is." sounds like settling for mediocrity. Just skip it.

But what if it comes out and it's good? This same attitude could have applied to Carpenter's version.
 

True, and I should have added that if the reviews indicate it's worthwhile after all, I'll reconsider and give it a shot. And I'm getting a bit ahead of myself here insofar as this is something I've been thinking about lately and I'm kinda using this trailer for this movie and the subsequent discussion as an opportunity to bring it up, when maybe there are better examples where the movie is out, even the reviews aren't really good, and people who should know better are still going to see it. There's definitely level of complacency that bugs me, not so much from mainstream viewers, but from movie geeks. Giving things a pass because they push the right buttons or just because "I'm a movie geek and I see everything that a movie geek should see" (or everything, period). I think we should be smarter and more discriminating. That's probably very elitist, but maybe that's not a bad thing and in either case it's a whole other discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

But what if it comes out and it's good? This same attitude could have applied to Carpenter's version.
 

 

I don't know, I think it's quite a different situation, as Carpenter's film is just so drastically different from the original. A lot of this looks almost exactly the same as the Carpenter version, right down to the sets. Except it's not as well shot. But I don't disagree with you entirely. For all I know, this version has a killer script going for it. But at this point, I think that any skepticism is justified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by D.S. Randlett 

A lot of this looks almost exactly the same as the Carpenter version, right down to the sets. Except it's not as well shot.

You've conclusively determined this after seeing a 2 minute preview?  Really, dude?!?

From what I've seen from this trailer, I don't think that the quality of the image, lighting, etc. matches up to the original. It just doesn't look as good. Now they might have some grading etc. left to do before release, but a film's look tends to be pretty consistent, so one can conceivably extrapolate in that arena.

But at this point, any discussion of this movie has an understood "from what I've seen at this point" prelude, right?

As remakes of Carpenter's films go, this so far looks like the best one  #damningwithfaintestpraiseever

Winstead goes a long way towards any interest I have in this, but I am curious to see just what in the hell they think they can add to this story.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Benenson 
There's definitely level of complacency that bugs me, not so much from mainstream viewers, but from movie geeks. Giving things a pass because they push the right buttons or just because "I'm a movie geek and I see everything that a movie geek should see" (or everything, period). I think we should be smarter and more discriminating. That's probably very elitist, but maybe that's not a bad thing and in either case it's a whole other discussion.

I realize this might not be the best counterpoint, but horror, as a genre, is kind of a crapshoot these days.  The movie could still end up being a pile of shit, but nothing about this trailer screams 'incompetence', which puts it head and shoulders above a lot of recent / upcoming horror movies.  Could we afford to be a bit more discriminating here?  Absolutely, but we've reached a point where there's such a saturation of shit remakes that something even attempting to evoke and maintain the atmosphere and intensity of 80's Carpenter is like a breath of fresh air.  Yeah, this flick is clearly exploiting our love for Carpenter's version, but if its pushing at least some of the right buttons (I'm talking the sense of overwhelming isolation, nasty creatures, gooey deaths, etc), I don't see this as a negative necessarily.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzy dunlop 

Quote:

I realize this might not be the best counterpoint, but horror, as a genre, is kind of a crapshoot these days.  The movie could still end up being a pile of shit, but nothing about this trailer screams 'incompetence', which puts it head and shoulders above a lot of recent / upcoming horror movies.  Could we afford to be a bit more discriminating here?  Absolutely, but we've reached a point where there's such a saturation of shit remakes that something even attempting to evoke and maintain the atmosphere and intensity of 80's Carpenter is like a breath of fresh air.  Yeah, this flick is clearly exploiting our love for Carpenter's version, but if its pushing at least some of the right buttons (I'm talking the sense of overwhelming isolation, nasty creatures, gooey deaths, etc), I don't see this as a negative necessarily.  

 

 

This whole post translates to lowered expectations, and is exactly what I'm talking about. And I've been guilty of it too. I'm just tired of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Benenson 

So respectful that it seemingly brings nothing new to the table. And of course we know how it ends, that's the whole point of it. The trailer indicates that we have a pretty good idea of what happens throughout as well, but then we already did from imagining it when we watched the original. The first third sets up that question and the rest more or less answers it. That's the other thing that bothers me about this - it was great starting with the guys chasing the dog and later showing the aftermath of what happened because it implied what happened but left the specifics to your imagination, which made it much creepier. It'll get less creepy to see it actually spelled out for you, "oh right it was basically the same thing that happened to the other guys in the other movie."

I thought about it, and I honestly don't know what else I would want it to bring to the table. It's a fascinating concept that I wouldn't mind expansion on. But I wouldn't want to see the virus spread to civilization (because there would be no way to contain it realistically) and I wouldn't want a direct sequel because I don't think we as the audience should ever learn what becomes of Childs and MacReady. So this seems the best option in my mind. I like that they are on the same wavelength there. 

And I would argue that we don't know how it ends. We know a bunch of Swedes die, we know their base gets trashed, and we know some pursue a Thing-Dog in a helicopter. Beyond that, we have no idea. Maybe in your mind you've decided that it will end a certain way, but we won't know for sure until it comes out. Even if it plays out in that everyone dies just like the original leads us to believe, I don't necessarily think that robs it of any value. 

I'm not arguing that it won't be essentially the same thing that happened in the first movie. It probably will be. But I'm OK with that. If I do have one big complaint, it's that they should not be speaking English. 

If it just has to be done (which, as we've established, is the way things are right now), don't make it a direct sequel or prequel. Make it a remake and  make it different from the original. Even asking for that much might be idealistic, but that's why I'm just not interested in seeing it.

And theoretically you're absolutely right that I don't know for sure what will happen, but come on; the call for accepting the reality of contemporary Hollywood goes both ways, so lets be real. What are the odds it won't just be a rehash of the original and will actually sneak in some fresh spin on the material? You said yourself, pretty low. And like I said, if the buzz indicates I'm wrong, I won't be bullheaded about it. But come on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluelouboyle 

Looks ok. How much of Ron Moore is in this?

None, and be happy for that.  His screenplay was godawful.

Heisserer's script is good.  There are nice character beats.  The film certainly looks quite good from a cinematography angle.  I'm willing to have a little bit of faith.  If it sucks, who cares?  The Thing '82 is still amazing.

Maybe it'll end with Winstead running into Keith David. Turning it into a sort of prequel/sequel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Shape 
If it sucks, who cares?  The Thing '82 is still amazing

Just for the record, I totally agree with this. That's why all the remakes and reboots are usually no skin off my back. I'm not worried it'll ruin the original. I know you weren't accusing me of that, just taking the opportunity to point it out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Benenson 

 

This whole post translates to lowered expectations, and is exactly what I'm talking about. And I've been guilty of it too. I'm just tired of it.

Agreed 100%.  I'm not giving my hard earned (and hard to come by these days) money to these obvious cash-ins anymore. 

I already know what happened in the Norwegian camp, it's basically spelled out in the Carpenter version (and makes the film creepier by NOT having seen exactly HOW it went down).  I don't need to see a blow-by-blow just because some Hollywood exec wants to justify and keep his job.

I love movies, but I can swtich hobbies real quick. 

Oh no, no accusations toward anyone.  Personally, I'm sort of over remake rape.  Halloween (which had some fun with the mutilated corpse of my favorite film of all time) and Elm Street got me over the rage.  Now it's just a simple, 'meh.' 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Benenson 

True, and I should have added that if the reviews indicate it's worthwhile after all, I'll reconsider and give it a shot. 

Which means back in 1982, you probably wouldn't have gone near Carpenter's remake (yes, remake) with a ten-foot pole. When it came out, critics tore the HELL out of it and nobody went to see it. Now, thirty or so years later, it's gone from failure to cult classic to plain old classic. Critical opinion is just that: opinion. And sometimes, they're wrong.

 I still say the best way to determine if a film is garbage or not...is seeing it. If it works (and this one has potential), then we got a good film and I'll be happy. If not, I'll walk away, put it out of my mind and throw on my Blu-Ray of Carpenter's film, as if nothing ever happened. I'm happy with this lifestyle choice - much better for my health.  

So you see every movie that comes out? Just the ones that have at least some vague possibility of being decent? I'd rather find critics and friends I trust and put a little faith in their opinions, and yes, risk occasionally missing a movie in theaters that I might have liked, than waste time and money (which, keep in mind, translates to a show of support in Hollywood's eyes) on countless mediocre and bad films. Of course I'm not basing the decision solely on the opinions of others, nor am I saying I never take a chance on something, but how is my approach not the more sensible one? How is deciding what you'll spend your time and money seeing using no more criteria then "eh, it has potential" better for your health? Life's too short. By the way, I didn't start feeling this way randomly. I've seen plenty of movies cause "eh, it has potential." How often does that really work out for the best?

To bring this away from the hypothetical a bit, I love that you emphasize that Carpenter's film is itself a remake, as if that's a shocking revelation. This is CHUD, we're all aware the '82 film is a remake - a remake that does its own thing, whereas the film that started this whole conversation is a prequel that appears to have so little to add it could be mistaken for a slavish remake.

Okay, I dunno if some of you are being cute calling them Swedes, because as we all know "They're Norwegian Mac"

A] Looks a bit more than "been there done that"

B] My love for Carpenter's masterpiece prods me to want to see this

C] There better be some/much practical monster FX, by the love of Bottin

D] Anyone think this similar flick help to make Universal balk at GDT's ITMOM's budget?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Benenson 

 

To bring this away from the hypothetical a bit, I love that you emphasize that Carpenter's film is itself a remake, as if that's a shocking revelation. This is CHUD, we're all aware the '82 film is a remake - a remake that does its own thing, whereas the film that started this whole conversation is a prequel that appears to have so little to add it could be mistaken for a slavish remake.

This is a point I was trying to get at in another thread.  Carpenter's film takes the source material and premise from The Thing From Another World and spins it into something completely and totally different while still paying subtle homage to a piece (and director) that obviously influenced Carpenter.  What this movie seems to me is to ape and cash in on Carpenter's film and tell nothing new or substantial in it with the built in excuse that "Hey guys, it's a prequel!  Look it's those whacky Norwegians...I bet all of you wondered what happened to them didn't ya!"

I think The Thing is a classic story that deserves to get retold every thirty years or so, just so it stays in the public consciousness. That's the main benefit of remakes, I think -- it's like how ancient civilizations had oral traditions that were passed down from generation to generation. Now it's a little different since movies are tangible and have staying power where oral tradition obviously didn't, but our culture is so hostile to even slightly outdated stories that it is now necessary, more than ever maybe, for them to be reiterated so their themes remain prescient and compelling. This demands of course that the narrative is updated and modified for the time in which it's told (The Fly or King Kong are good examples).

It's a complicated issue since I dunno if I would ever recommend that someone remake Jaws or Taxi Driver just because they're falling out of the popular consciousness, and it might threaten to undermine originality if we just become a culture that's constantly repurposing it's own history for modern consumption. So having an "original spin" on these stories is pretty goddamn important I would say, just as important as having respect for the originals. With this Thing movie, it seems to be overly respectful and devoid of originality and so obviously it would be mostly useless, which is what everyone here is saying more or less. So I think a remake of The Thing is a good idea in concept, but maybe not like this, as it just seems crass and pointless.

Glad Scott Pilgrim fanboys are happy. Nothing here looks that good or offensively bad just blah.

I'll wait for the reviews come halloween time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by felix 

Maybe it'll end with Winstead running into Keith David. Turning it into a sort of prequel/sequel.

 

 

Doubtful.  That said, if this manages to make bank, I wouldn't be surprised if a potential follow-up serves as both a sequel to this AND Carpenter's film.  Wouldn't be that hard to do, really.  Carpenter himself said that he'd still love to make a sequel and would just explain the difference in Russell and David's appearances with frostbite.  I can easily see Universal being cool with a Thing 2 fronted by the survivors from this film and Kurt & Keith from Carpenter's.................providing you could get them to agree to come back.

And for everyone bitching about the Norwegians speaking English...............................you do realize that this is just a trailer?  And that two of the characters in the film are American?  Just because you see them speaking English in the preview doesn't mean they speak nothing but English in the film.  I'd be surprised if the Norwegians didn't speak their own native language amongst themselves in the film.  Also, who's to say that the dope who gets plugged in the head at the start of JC's film is one of the only people on the base who CAN'T speak English?  Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups!

By the way, supposedly they have gone as practical as possible with the FX...................using CGI only when necessary.  At least that is what the director has been stating in interviews for the past year or so.

Anyway, I like what I have seen so far and it has gone a long way to alleviate my fears about the project.  I'm still not expecting a classic, but if we can get a solid prelude to Carpenter's masterpiece then I am cool with that.  It has to be better than the recent versions of The Fog and Halloween.

Why the hell are two Americans with the Norwegians anyway? Why wouldn't they be with Mac and the others?

Why would a team of American scientists need shotguns in the middle of Antarctica?  Impending Yog-Sothoth attacks?  What in the blue blazes is the American base there for anyway?  Nobody does anything outside of hanging out in the compound all day.  We are given absolutely no indication to their purpose on the continent in Carpenter's film.  It's my all-time favorite movie, but let's not act like there aren't logic gaps in it as well.

All that aside, I think it is implied that she is brought in due to being a specialist in whatever her field is.  Besides, if they contacted the American base they would have to share the discovery with them.  This way it is still their team that discovers it...............as opposed to a joint custody deal between two countries.  As for Edgerton?  He's a pilot and probably got the job because he was good at it, nationality be damned.  It's not that hard to rationalize either character's inclusion.

Here's the synopsis:

Taking place three days before the events of the John Carpenter film, paleontologist Kate Lloyd and her two assistants Davida Morris and Adam Goodman join a Norwegian scientific team that has stumbled across a crashed extraterrestrial spaceship buried in the ice of Antarctica. They discover a creature that seems to have died in the crash eons ago. When an experiment frees the alien from its frozen prison, Kate, Adam and Davida join the crew's pilot, Carter, to keep it from killing them and imitating them one at a time, using its ability to perfectly mimic any lifeform it absorbs through digestion, and eventually reaching civilization.

Also, in the teaser trailer that was leaked earlier this year, it is made abundantly clear that they bring Kate and her team down to Antarctica AFTER discovering the saucer.  She is brought in as a specialist and is not an original member of the Norwegian team.

And apparently Edgerton's character Carter is the one who flies the supplies in to the Norwegian camp.  Mr. Eko is one of his co-pilots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_%282011_film%29

http://geeksofdoom.com/2010/10/10/nycc-2010-the-thing-panel-reveals-first-footage/

Meh...Sweded John Carpenter classic...

...I mean 'Norged'...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronniemick 

 

 I still say the best way to determine if a film is garbage or not...is seeing it.

You're a fucking moron.

Just a quick pop to the folks who call Carpenter's movie a remake... it is, but if you've seen the original it's a DRASTIC difference. This looks like they did virtually nothing new aside from introduce Americans and CGI.

I'll see the shit out of this, but I'd have chosen something a little more unique Winstead.

I don't really view John Carpenter's movie as a remake.  It's very much an adaptation of "Who Goes There?", the original short story that Hawks's film was (very) loosely adapted from.  Carpenter sticks much more closely to the short story.

And this movie needs to answer one burning question:  whose fucking shadow was on that wall in the dog kennel?