The Thing 2011 Discussion

I'm curious about those reshoots, and if they tilt this movie from horror to action, which I'm betting is the case.

 

I want to like this, and I love Winstead and Edgerton, but I'm waiting for something, anything that reveals that this movie is more necessary than whatever I imagined in my head when considering the Norwegian crew/remains.

Take out Winsteads name and put in Joel Edgertons and there's nothing above I don't align with 100%

 

Just like the Fright Night remake, this "prequel" is just another cash grab using the names of much superior originals.

Whats the betting the film ends with Winstead in a battered snowcat, cresting a snowdune and coming across the burning remains of Outpost 31?

Whatever the quality of the actual eventual film, the trailer at least makes it look more like a Carpenter film than The Ward actually is.

Agreed. After reading your post Martin I summoned up the courage to finally watch it and as a lifelong Thing geek, I won't pretend it didn't give me at least a little buzz. Winstead and Edgerton certainly have a chance at chemistry if the script is there, so I'll remain mildly optimistic. Yes yes it looks more like a remake than a prequel, but I'm going to go into this giving it the benefit of the doubt on behalf of the two leads.

I'm cautiously optimistic...just wish they hadn't stuck in obvious 'Thing' fatalities/potential take-overs in the trailer.

 

 

I wouldn't be shocked in the least.

 

I though about resurrecting one of the old threads for Carpenter's film for this, but considering no one has added anything to them since 2005 (criminal!), I'll toss it in here.  I figure this is rather timely anyway......

 

Watch and discuss!

 

http://www.badassdigest.com/2011/08/19/was-childs-the-thing

Anyone seen those YouTube videos promoting "The Thing"? Basically there's a 7 second video that promises the tiniest bikini ever...if you search for any video it will pop up in the "promoted" section. Never turning down a promise of seeing a chick on the internet, I clicked and let's just say I'll need a clean pair of shorts and not for the reasons I would normally hope for.

Whoooo... I need a cold shower after that.  Thanks, Navidson.

couldn't find what you were writing about but found this which is quite mint:

 

 

in typical "you live in the arse end of nowhere" just found out this isn't opening here till November.

 

And also on a "fuck you're stupid Bain" personal note, because I know this is just a movie, but I was always please to live in the UK because it's so far from Antarctica, but you know, it's just a movie right?

 

Now I live on an Island where if you head South the first thing you hit is Antartica.

 

But then it's just a movie, so that's OK..... right? ;p

I tried to find the link for you, Andy.  But I can't seem to find the video anymore either.  Weird.

cheers anyway :)

 

Me neither. I did find some more vids of tiny bikinis.

 

It was basically one of those spook videos where as the girl turns to reveal her tiny bikini a Thing tentacle comes out of the screen accompanied by a loud noise and then the ad fills the majority of the screen.

fuck that took some finding:

 

Can't embed

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/14oct2011?x=2&v=TKS1LPQ6D2Y&feature=pyv&ad=9460638782&kw=brink%20youtube

 

I should be a freaking detective ;p

looks like a few people complained so they pulled it from general searchability

 

I'm not entirely sure what they complaned about since it seems it was featured if you searched for The Thing 2011 anyway.

 

hey ho - found it and liked it :)

 

cheers for the heads up

Hated this. HATED it.

Tell me more!

Go oooooon....

Also... I just noticed in the CURRENTLY VIEWING THREAD box that Domingo is reading this thread !!!

 

 

 

Okay, I'm resisting the urge to like this post since I haven't seen the film and am trying not to prejudge it, but please tell us more.

 

They took all the things that made the first film awesome, and repeated them. Poorly. Moments, scares, motifs. Not a single new idea, absolutely ZERO reason for this to exist.

 

It's pure stupid. Characters say stupid shit, do stupid shit, and speak in cliches. We don't get ANY time with Mary Elizabeth Winstead's character before she anachronistically becomes the voice of reason at the camp, despite few of them seeing any women recently. Literally, there is back and forth screaming, and then she speaks and everybody drops EVERYTHING. Of course, instead of Carpenter's version, where every decision is predicated by the characters wordlessly wondering, "I have no idea if this is or isn't working," they seem to "figure out" The Thing pretty quickly and stick by one set of rules.

 

They also seem fairly unimpressed or not exactly scared by the beast. There are ZERO moments akin to "You've gotta be fucking kidding me." This comes with the territory of CGI-heavy material, I imagine. Lots of shot-reverse shot sequences of characters firing at The Thing, to the point where you wonder if they're actually occupying the same space.

 

And oh, that ending... UGH. Stinks to reshoot heaven.

I will try to tread lightly, but

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

The best part, and this is mostly spoiling the Carpenter film, is

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

Credit to the FX guys, as the morphing stuff, some practical, some CG, is REALLY horrifying. Just eye-popping stuff. The biggest problem is that this director has such poor scene geography, and the script and characters are borderline nonexistent. When the Thing isn't Thinging out, this shit is BOOOOORING.

 

So yeah, I thought it was stupid and lame, but it had some good monster scenes. And then that third act begins, and I wanted to punch God. Eric Heisserer also wrote the Nightmare on Elm Street remake, and I kinda feel like he shouldn't even be let near a pen right now.

: (

 

 

Balls.

I concur with Gabe's take. Director van Heijningen clearly wants to make this a companion piece to Carpenter's film, down to mimicking shot composition and sequence pacing, but he shows none of Carpenter's mastery in these areas. Add to this a truly by-the-numbers screenplay with characters barely registering one dimension apiece and you've got a leaden letdown of a movie. Winstead's a dull lead; Edgerton's not much better, sorry to say. What a fucking pointless POS. 

kind of remind me of the original reviews of Carpenter's Thing ;p

 

no offence but going to make my own mind up on this.  hell, I thought Tron Legacy was awesome when it was roundly hated so it may be that I feel the same about this.

 

Oh and my first sentence is VERY MUCH tongue in cheek.  Can't and won't comment till I've seen it myself.

I don't know if there were reshoots involved, but the studio definitely sort of crippled the ending from the script.

 

 

To be fair, he also wrote Final Destination 5, which was awesome.  Elm Street's script was pretty okay, the movie around it just sucked.

 

By the sounds of it, im pretty sure there will plenty of ""You've gotta be fucking kidding me." moments...only among the audience.

 

I had little hope for this one, but hearing its such an abomination surprised me; i expected at least that it would be a competent, forgetabble and pointless exercise as a best case scenario....seems like it really is a clusterfuck.

Maybe Hollywood should attempt to remake Carpenter's worse films instead of his masterpieces? Its not like you can go downhill on "Ghost of Mars".

Be careful, they might see that as a challenge!

 

I was letdown. It starts off SO great, with the 1982 Universal Pictures logo and Morricone's theme, and it clips along rather well the first 20 minutes or so, and then...

Zero suspense. Zero mystery. Zero attempt to recreate the "Who is it?" that was so perfect in the original. Actually, they do try to go for a "Who is it?", except that they draw it out for all of 2 minutes before they just reveal outright who it is. And when the Thing shows up, it SHOWS UP. It's there, in all its glory, not even trying to hide in the shadows. There's not even an attempt to create some mystery around the look of the creature or whatnot. It's the anti-Jaws in that respect. I honestly didn't care for that decision. Especially when the Thing is 90% CGI, and 90% it's shitty CGI.

I also love that in the original, you could dissect the shit out of it, and you could track EXACTLY the "route" taken by the Thing throughout the entire film. In this one, there's some glaring "assimilations" that don't make sense. These characters are now the Thing because it serves the plot that they're the Thing at that moment of the story.

 

Finally, CG-monsters aside, the movie doesn't really do much to take you of it's 80's setting feel... nothing that you can't pretend is a really good matte painting... until the end. Ugh. Ugh, ugh, ugh.
 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

So, yeah, not a fan of that either.

It has really good bookends, and there's some admittedly not-horrible scenes here and there, but I was honestly disappointed overall.

At the end of the day, if this movie makes people who otherwise haven't experienced JC's Thing actually dig it out and watch it then that can only be a good thing , right?

I like to imagine someone later down the track catching this, maybe liking it and then finding out that the story continues and then digging out JC's one and having their mind blown.

From the descriptions above I imagine it being like someone watching Aliens (not the quality but the mainly action style) and then watching Alien.

So you go from full on rampaging Thing in the spotlight action to rampant paranoia and a bleak as fuck ending.

Going to get fully munted and watch this with a group of mates. Currently all I'm expecting is full on body horror which I'm ok with

I still have the JC version to return to for my cinematic greatness.

LOve to hear the opinion of a horror fan who hasn't seen JC's Thing on this one. (Apparently a lot of kids prefer the prequels if Star Wars to the classics, it's just what you get first I guess for a lot of people)

What is this well it might make people want to watch the original bullshit. No it won't to the casual film fan to a serious film viewer yes but those people have already seen it.

 

This is a useless film. It serves only one purpose.

 

To make money and it won't make money.

 

The audience LOVED it and was raving about it walking out. I wouldn't be surprised if it does pretty well for itself.
 

 

That's nonsensical, if they enjoy it and it ends with the helicopter chasing the dog then of course they're going to seek out the film that covers the next bit.

Hate on the film all you want and fuck, maybe it deserves that hate, but to say the casual film goer who enjoys this film won't bother, only serious film goers would, is patronizing as fuck.

If the casual film goer isn't interested in sequels to films they enjoy why is there a plague of sequels? Because they make money. Why do they make money? Because the casual film goer that doesn't give a fuck about reviews or the Internets opinion pays to see them.

Only the eliteratti of the Internet can properly appreciate the Thing? Bollocks.

I think the casual filmgoer will want to see how the story continues.....in the sequel to this 2011 film.

OK, this is in NO WAY trying to suggest the new movie stacks up, or is even any good, but it's interesting that a lot of Ebert's criticism is the same as has been applied to the new movie (reliant on "cutting edge" effects for scares, poor characterization, unbelievable etc etc)

For the record, I never want to be this wrong about a movie though

Also I'm not trying to deliberately wind anyone up, I just think this is interesting.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19820101/REVIEWS/201010349/1023

I thought that as I was typing it, but I'm trying to believe a little more in humanity at the moment.

Probably misplaced but I'm sick of feeling depressed because the world is so fucking shallow and I'm tired of having knee jerk reactions to these types of things, it just wears me out.

I'll probably see the new film and be plunged back into hate for everything but I'm trying to be positive at the mo, at least until I'm proved wrong

Considering the fact that Strike Entertainment/Universal never bothered to sequelize their previous big remake hit (Dawn of the Dead), I really doubt they will do a sequel to this one even if it makes a ton of cash.

 

And if they do, I suspect it will effectively be The Thing 2 to BOTH the 2011 film and the Carpenter one.  I wouldn't be shocked at all if they took that route if a follow-up is ever made to this.  Mind you I am operating under the assumption that Winstead and/or Edgerton survive this entry, leaving them open to team up with Mac and/or Childs in a sequel if it comes to that.

I didn't jump at the video. Not gonna lie, I'm a little proud of that.

 

I don't care that Hollywood does so many remakes, but why do they have to remake the GREAT ones? I'm half expecting them to remake the Godfather in a few years with Antoine Fuqua directing. I mean, what great horror movie from the '80's hasn't been remade at this point? Not a very huge list.

 

I read in an interview that the director shot everything with practical effects, but that the studio went and CGI'd it up during post production. That dissapoints me greatly as I love practical effects, real sets, and costumes in films. One of the reasons I admire Terminator Salvation is the use of it's practical effects and minimal CGI(minus the obvious *cough Arnie cough*). Not sure if the setpieces would have helped The Thing, but it would have gotten me a little more interested in it.

 

From that review:

 

" But it seems clear that Carpenter made his choice early on to concentrate on the special effects and the technology and to allow the story and people to become secondary. Because this material has been done before, and better, especially in the original "The Thing" and in "Alien," there's no need to see this version unless you are interested in what the Thing might look like while starting from anonymous greasy organs extruding giant crab legs and transmuting itself into a dog. Amazingly, I'll bet that thousands, if not millions, of moviegoers are interested in seeing just that."

 

I always think it's a great idea to revisit old reviews and remember that many films we deem "the greats" weren't necessarily considered great in their day. Your children might someday be singing the praises of the 2011 Thing.
 

 

Jacob, that is an excellent point. It reminds me when the Dawn of the Dead remake came out and people just kinda dismissed it. Less than a decade later, that film is looked upon in a much more favourable light.

 

Anyway back to The Thing, Big fan of the Carpenter version, caught this prequel last night. And I quite enjoyed it. It's a remake in some ways and it's own beast in others. A very strange hybrid but I dug it. The Thing itself is much more proactive, which might bother some (or a lot of) people but it was worked for me because it was key point that differentiates the movie from the Carpenter film, plus it was done well.

I found the ending before the credits roll to be incredibly dark. Much darker than the ending in the 1982 movie. I thought all the performances were pretty good too. Joel Edgerton better get more work after this.

 

I'm probably going to be alone in this but the scene in the spaceship with the holographic thingamajig was really intriguing. What did people make of that thing?

 

I suspect this is a movie that newcomers will love but most Carpenter fans won't. The audience I was with seemed to really respond to it and it was mostly a younger crowd. And then we're back to Singers point about our children someday singing it's praises.

 

 

 

So I take it there is a post-credits sequence then?

 

No, becuase it continues the dumbing down of cinema-goers who make this shit successful enough for Hollywood to keep doing it.  And even those who've never seen Carpenter's version who get turned on to it will scoff at the slow pace, 80s feel, and practical FX....if they haven't already see Carpenter's version and needed a remake to motivate them, chances are, their favorite movie is The Transporter, and they're a lost cause.

Well Carpenter's "The Thing" was a genre film, and it was viewed as such upon original release...genre films are generally not reviewed with the same brush as say, a serious drama or western.  Ebert saw all the (at the time), cutting edge gross out FX and judged it against the Hawk's version's crudeness, and pounced as more of a rant against Hollywood's increased dependence on FX movies. 

 

"The Thing" 2011 is being judged against the original, which set a high standard.  I seriously doubt the reviewers are missing out some kind of genius buried in the flick.  It's a cash-in, nothing more.   

 

 

 

 

 

Yep, It ties the new film to the start of Carpenters film.

http://www.chud.com/70467/review-the-thing/

Thank you.

A lamprey? That's quite insightful.

 

I guess that does it for me. DVD rental it is.

 

 

Saw it again.  Still think it's pretty good and would be looked at more positively without Carpenter's flick in mind.  Act two is the best.  CGI was awful; not because it's CGI, but because it only looks a notch or two above the Scorpion King in The Mummy Returns.