WELL, IT'S DEFINITELY THE THING - Page 2

So long as this doesn't make me retroactively depressed about the original (like The Fog remake did), I'll be all set. If reviews confirm that it's a shot-for-shot premake with a dog scene, flamethrowers, and a blood test sequence, I will go into full denial mode and pretend that this doesn't exist, passably interesting Winstead or no.

As a huge fan of the original (who isn't), the trailer made me extremely happy. WHY? Help.

Can't wait, somehow.

Has anyone played the 2002 The Thing videogame? Like this flick, it worked as a companion piece to Carpenter's original. It too showed a new group of scientists arriving at the location, leading to similar encounters (of course, being a game, you encounted lots of Things, some of them really large, heavy usage of guns). While adding to the original's story (they even reveal who of the two at the end of the flick survived), it extended the story and brought in new details. It also played with the difficulty of not knowing who of your friends is a Thing and had lots of atmosphere. I remember it actually being quite difficult, mostly due to the harsh conditions on the outside.

Well, this movie looks exactly like that. A mostly unnecessary retreat that uses most of the predecessors elements and only varies what's already been told, but may be a worthy addition and a better choice than a direct remake.

The only thing bugging me right now is the thought of most animatronics having been replaced with CGI. Now the trailer doesn't show CGI Things, indicating that, well, they look like shit. Like the vampires in I am Legend or the vampires in Priest. I'm freezing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nardo 

You're a fucking moron.

Far from it. My point was valid: everybody can have an opinion on the trailer. But a fully informed and educated judgement of the final product can only be made from seeing the film, start to finish.

Not trying to pick a fight, just making a point. But thanks for keeping it classy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Benenson 

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. 

Not at all. I see the films that interest me, plain and simple. As of now, the footage I've seen in the trailer makes me want to see it. 

I go by my gut, I go by my reaction to the promotional material or clips that I've seen and go from there. It's a crap-shoot - sometimes, it pays off and sometimes it doesn't. Either way, I'll live. 

And I've seen many a movie recommended by friends or like-minded critics, which turned out to be incredible personal disappointments. The same applies in reverse. Having similar tastes isn't always a sure-fire sign that you'll like the exact same things. But I certainly don't hold it against my friends, and I certainly don't judge them.

Liked the trailer, and even though it appears to have a lot of the same beats, it should be different. It's a prequel to The Thing. I'll be there seeing it. I just hope this leads to Carpenter getting the chance to finally make his idea for a sequel. 

I don't mind that they didn't change the title, but they should put something like "Learn how it all started" or something like that in the trailer and the poster to let people know this isn't a remake of Carpenter's version, as on a lot of other boards, it appears that is what people are thinking who aren't all that familiar with it.

The title should be something like "The Thing Unleashed."

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronniemick 

Far from it. My point was valid: everybody can have an opinion on the trailer. But a fully informed and educated judgement of the final product can only be made from seeing the film, start to finish.

Not trying to pick a fight, just making a point. But thanks for keeping it classy.

I don't think you're a moron, but I do think you're sort of pointing out the obvious. Of course the only way to have a fully informed judgment of a film is to see it, but that's not always practical or a good use of time and money. I guess I'm really talking about being more picky about what we choose to see, whatever criteria we use to make that decision. And of course reviews and WOM aren't the only factors that affect that decision for me, I also have the promotional materials, the pedigree of the people involved, the premise of the film, my gut instinct, etc. But those things, particularly the marketing stuff, can be just as (or more) misleading as critical reaction.

So in this particular instance a little bit of the discussion comes down to semantics - despite this being a pretty good trailer I'm just not buying that the film has much potential. But it made me think about a broader topic that has been on my mind lately, movies that we movie geeks see even though we know there's a pretty good chance they won't be good, as if we have some obligation to do it.

Say what you like, this still looks better than anything Carpenter himself has done in 12+ years.

Hmmmm... Nope, Universal.  This definitely isn't the Antarctica-set monster-filled horror movie I wanted you to greenlight.  Not at all.

True, but that's because it's aping something he did 29 years ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob Singer 

Say what you like, this still looks better than anything Carpenter himself has done in 12+ years.

Point make no sense.

This "prequel" to a film that takes place in 1982 feels and looks like a film that takes place in 2011. That's the main problem I have with it. I'm sure there will be some old technology sprinkled throughout its frames but the look and feel are distinctly modern to me. If this ends up being the case for the actual movie that's some incredibly thoughtless and lazy directing right there. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timothy Q 

This "prequel" to a film that takes place in 1982 feels and looks like a film that takes place in 2011. That's the main problem I have with it. I'm sure there will be some old technology sprinkled throughout its frames but the look and feel are distinctly modern to me. If this ends up being the case for the actual movie that's some incredibly thoughtless and lazy directing right there. 

If you showed me the trailer for The Thing today, had I never seen it and had no idea who the actors were, I'd have no idea it took place in 1982.  You're bringing in baggage watching the trailer.

A great point which leads to the next question. Why remake a film that got its ass handed to it by ET 30 years ago? Mind you thats a badge of honor Tron and Blade Runner also have.

Wow first Tron Legacy 28 years later and now a Thing prequel 29 years later. These are some seriously strange times film wise. Its like the twilight zone.

What makes the original Thing work is John Carpenter. I am not holding my breath for this director or Ramona Flowers.

As someone who owns and loves The Thing and Carpenter's work I have no desire to see this none.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Daywalker 

A great point which leads to the next question. Why remake a film that got its ass handed to it by ET 30 years ago? Mind you thats a badge of honor Tron and Blade Runner also have.

 

Wow first Tron Legacy 28 years later and now a Thing prequel 29 years later. These are some seriously strange times film wise. Its like the twilight zone.

Times have echoed more than you think.  Carpenter begged Universal back in the day to postpone The Thing from its post-ET release date to an October one where it might fare better.  They ignored him and look what happened!

The Thing prequel was originally set for a late April release and would have gone up directly against Universal's own Fast Five.  I guess someone realized history was about to repeat itself and postponed it to..............you guessed it...................October!  That and apparently they wanted more time to fine tune the editing and the FX, but it's still a fun coincidence.

EDIT - While not a Blade Runner sequel, next year we also have Ridley Scott's Prometheus..........finally returning him to the science fiction genre after 30 years away from it!

The real question is what 1982 release will see a milestone in 2013?  We do have a new Mad Max film on the way, but that doesn't count since one was released after Road Warrior.  So what film will keep the pattern going?

Well, we're sorta getting another Star Trek II.  Though I guess that's still scheduled for 2012.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

Times have echoed more than you think.  Carpenter begged Universal back in the day to postpone The Thing from its post-ET release date to an October one where it might fare better.  They ignored him and look what happened!

 

The Thing prequel was originally set for a late April release and would have gone up directly against Universal's own Fast Five.  I guess someone realized history was about to repeat itself and postponed it to..............you guessed it...................October!  That and apparently they wanted more time to fine tune the editing and the FX, but it's still a fun coincidence.

 

 

EDIT - While not a Blade Runner sequel, next year we also have Ridley Scott's Prometheus..........finally returning him to the science fiction genre after 30 years away from it!

 

The real question is what 1982 release will see a milestone in 2013?  We do have a new Mad Max film on the way, but that doesn't count since one was released after Road Warrior.  So what film will keep the pattern going?

Universal handled The Thing wrong and sadly that was something Carpenter had a hard time with studios handling his properties all wrong.

October is certainly a better time than April its a great move actually.

Really looking forward to Prometheus.

As for 2013 good question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 
It's a complicated issue since I dunno if I would ever recommend that someone remake Jaws

No need. There's a whole sharks-ploitation genre parodying or ripping off that flick. They just don't benefit from the property name. PIRANHA, etc. ALIEN fits that no-redo mantra as well. No need to remake that one as long as INSEMINOID exists!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham 

Meh...Sweded John Carpenter classic...

 

...I mean 'Norged'...

Cute.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Shape 

The title should be something like "The Thing Unleashed."

 "FIRST THING'S FIRST"
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 
The real question is what 1982 release will see a milestone in 2013?

Is THE DARK CRYSTAL sequel still back-burnered?

Rise of The Thing?

Dawn of The Thing?

The Thing Begins?

The Thing: Origins?

Just trying to use all the current cliche prequel titles!

How about Thingy?
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 

Is THE DARK CRYSTAL sequel still back-burnered?

 

I don't think The Power of the Dark Crystal is on the backburner so much as it isn't ready for production just yet.  The script is supposedly still being tinkered with and Brian Froud has been brought on board as the conceptual designer, just like with the original.  The Spierig Brothers are attached to direct, but are filming another movie this fall.  I guess 2013 is a possibility.  It definitely won't be ready before then, especially since they are still (supposedly) going to heavily rely on puppetry like the original.  I just hope it gets made at some point.  I would love to see The Jim Henson Company back in full swing again.  They also want to do a Fraggle Rock movie at some point.  I'm actually surprised that they haven't decided to do some sort of Labyrinth follow-up.

I forgot the Spierig Bros were attached after Genndy T left.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Shape 

If you showed me the trailer for The Thing today, had I never seen it and had no idea who the actors were, I'd have no idea it took place in 1982.  You're bringing in baggage watching the trailer.

So you wouldn't be able to tell that THIS was a film from 30 years ago and THIS was something that was made recently? Really? Okay, but I can't help but disagree. There is a big difference in the film stock and cinematography in the original (not it's trailer) and the new one's trailer. The new one feels very modern (because it is, of course). I won't get into the whole thing because you already disagree but I will say that if your'e going to make a prequel to a film from 30 years ago at least attempt some visual continuity. It helps us all out, especially when everything about the film feels like a remake, right down to the title.

The second video you linked to isn't the new film's trailer by the way.

I realized after the fact... I don't think it changes the argument though. I'm not even writing the film off. Just doesn't feel or look like a prequel from the trailer(s). 

Honestly, if Joel Edgerton wasn't in this, I could quite happily go about my life pretending this damn flick never existed.

There is no way to get the new prequel to look like the old one me thinks and if so it'd look funny.

They shot it the only way they could for this time. It has to make some money after all.

Still think its gonna be a huge miss.

Remember when Frank Darabont was involved and it was supposedly gonna be a Scifi channel miniseries? Anyone know the story on why that fell through?

No, but I do remember the screenplay not being all that great and it likely would have been full of awful CGI.................unless for some reason Sci-Fi put as much effort into as their two Dune miniseries, which is doubtful.  As much as I love Darabont (who was only producing, I believe), I think we dodged a bullet on that one.

Of all the sequel scenerios...........be it the aborted miniseries, the Dark Horse comics runs, the video game, and the various movie ideas.................I still prefer the idea of a sequel being set on a submarine headed back to mainland South America.  I just don't think giving a Thing film a wide open setting (like the miniseries was going to) would be a good idea.  The paranoia and intensity is a whole lot greater when the story takes place in an isolated environment.

I did like the game though, btw.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

 I just don't think giving a Thing film a wide open setting (like the miniseries was going to) would be a good idea.  The paranoia and intensity is a whole lot greater when the story takes place in an isolated environment.

Well in a wide open setting wouldn't it really become more of a gorier version of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers anyway?

Agreed on the isolation angle. Its just a treasure grove of ideas and drama. I think a sequel containing another alien landing would have worked better.

Prequel is a little too much been there done that.

From the 2006 CHUD interview with Guillermo del Toro:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Phibes 

From the 2006 CHUD interview with Guillermo del Toro:

 

 

That's what I was alluding to. I wonder if Universal just realized they already had something similar in the pipeline when they turned down GDT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timothy Q 

So you wouldn't be able to tell that THIS was a film from 30 years ago and THIS was something that was made recently? Really? Okay, but I can't help but disagree. There is a big difference in the film stock and cinematography in the original (not it's trailer) and the new one's trailer. The new one feels very modern (because it is, of course). I won't get into the whole thing because you already disagree but I will say that if your'e going to make a prequel to a film from 30 years ago at least attempt some visual continuity. It helps us all out, especially when everything about the film feels like a remake, right down to the title.

 

Didn't see anyone with an MP3 player or a cell phone, so I'm in for believing it's the early 80s.

Wouldn't it be even harder to distinguish if the new Thing had the same visuals as the old one? The same grainy look? Maybe even the same score? The only thing left different would be the directing and cast, and going up against Carpenter at best might be difficult for van Heijningen. Unless that dutch is another Verhoeven. MEW showed chops, but she'll need to fascinate us in a way Ripley did to get up to Russell. Hopefully she'll be better than Beckinsale in Whiteout.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

Well in a wide open setting wouldn't it really become more of a gorier version of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers anyway?

And amped to 11.  After all, The Thing can pretty much imitate anything........humans, animals, plants(?), etc.  There is literally NO way to contain it. 

I always envisioned the submarine scenario ending with Mac escaping and destroying the sub.  He reaches the surface and heads back to shore....................only to discover that the mainland is already being infected, regardless of his actions.

The Thing is one of my top five favorite films, and I agree this is film is technically unnecessary, but I am curious nonetheless. I never want there to be a sequel, as part of what makes the film so great is the ambiguity of the ending. A prequel focusing on the Norwegians is much more palatable to me than a straight remake or a sequel. Is it retreading on the same tropes? Probably, but I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt. I think the trailer accomplishes what it set out to do and I think it's got some good actors involved. I'm hoping for the best. 

"oh...and another Thing..."