Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
Weird. I've thought for a long time the effects look great in the trailer(CG yeah... But more fluid and organic movement than practical) and several of my friends have said some of the effects are great. You're saying it's all shit?
So, if the new film was getting rave reviews, would it still be a "cash-in"?
Doesn't the term "cash-in" sort of imply a lack of quality?
People were calling it a cash-in and unnecessary long before anyone had seen a frame of film.
Quote:
Weird. I've thought for a long time the effects look great in the trailer(CG yeah... But more fluid and organic movement than practical) and several of my friends have said some of the effects are great. You're saying it's all shit?
The trailer doesn't feature any of the big Thing attack moments, which are where the FX fall apart. Whenever the creature 'bursts out' of someone, the resulting CG is generally overly-lit and shiny. It looks like a bit of a rush job.
Indeed they were. This time the internet was apparently right.
Nick's review makes this Netflix or library rental. Effects aside, it sounds like it falls prey to the chief problems inherent to prequels: lack of tension because we know how the story ends, and aping the original too closely.
I don't buy the lack of tension argument, unless you consider knowing that someone's going to end up as a two-faced burned thing constitutes a lack of tension. This certainly isn't a Chainsaw: The Beginning situation where you know going in that absolutely everybody's going to die.
Nick's review makes this Netflix or library rental. Effects aside, it sounds like it falls prey to the chief problems inherent to prequels: lack of tension because we know how the story ends, and aping the original too closely.
Oddly enough, there's a prequel comic out there that is settled in the middle ages, with a bunch of Vikings encountering The Thing (or a Thing, i have no idea)...which, to me, sounds like a far better idea for a prequel; Hell, they could have done something like "X-men: first class", and set it in the 60's, during the Cold War; two exploration teams (one russian, the other from USA) stumble upon the crash during a scientific/covert operation, blizzard traps them in and forces them to team together to deal with the thing, will cold war paranoia and distrust ran rampant; post credits scene is the norwegian team settling in the location and finding the ship.
So I take it there is a post-credits sequence then?
Not so much "post-credits" as "during credits".
I don't buy the lack of tension argument, unless you consider knowing that someone's going to end up as a two-faced burned thing constitutes a lack of tension. This certainly isn't a Chainsaw: The Beginning situation where you know going in that absolutely everybody's going to die.
How does everyone not die? I guess that veers off into spoiler territory, but unless they want to convince us one of the scientists pulls a Shackleton, they're either all dead from the Thing or exposure.
I guess they could have a survivor, infected or not, pulled out, and have the rescuers doing a cover up, hence our heroes in Carpenter's film being none the wiser. But that's really lame.
I liked this, but overall it's just an OK movie. Given the script they had this is about the best you could ask execution wise so good work in that capacity. The Thing itself generally looked kind of cool, but unfortunately the CG was overly aggressive. The Thing screams around and moves like a freight train assault on the senses to the point that it's too loud and too BRAAAAAHHH in your face. I don't know if this is a CG problem but it sure seems like the tendacy is to make the creature fast and blurry to hide the flaws in the CG which sucks.
It's been an interesting experience to read the Ronald D Moore draft and see all of this come together in one way or another. Generally speaking it was more or less the exact same movie as the script, but there was a few notable changes...
1. Carter and Jameson are introduced in the chopper as opposed to in their shack at the air field. In the script Carter warns Sander that a storm is coming and explains the danger of a white out. Sander doesn't blink an eye and insists they need to risk the extreme danger, Carter agrees to pilot them. It's a nice beat that tells you all about who these two are but I guess it's not missed. There's also a fun reference where there's a picture of Macready in this pilot shack that says "DO NOT ACCEPT RIDES FROM THIS MAN"
2. The ice break scene. In the script Carter and Jameson are waiting patiently while most of the crew is out at the space ship and they are suspicious of Pedar and Hendrik I think it was as they gaurd the door to the lab. There's a big crash and a bunch of screaming and thrashing around as the Thing wakes up and escapes entirely off screen. I think it would have worked better than what they did here with Mr. Eko.
3. There's a scene that's missed where Edvard explains to Mary how absurd it is that this creature could perfectly replicate not only appearances but behavoirs, quirks etc. It would have added some nice logic to the thought process and it would have kept them from directly calling exactly what this alien is too simply or easily.
4. Thing Julliete speaks to Mary and attempts to put the focus on Lars, not Colin. It's a minor change but making the focus of all the paranoia on Lars makes him more well known and sympathetic later on when the audience realizes he's pretty capable.
5. Speaking of which Colin the british radio dude felt out of place here. I understand why our American outsiders are at the camp, but why would Colin shack up with all this swedes? In the script I think he had a bit more character, he's basically non existent here. One thing I did enjoy was his death. In the script he is alone in the radio room and looks up to see one of Edvards Thing legs. He says "Not to me!" and then slits his throat. In the movie it makes more sense that he just goes nuts and kills himself, because in the script the leg Thing is a big time loose end.
6. The paranoia tension stuff is played out a little bit more with people being tied down and argueing etc. The whole Mary vs Sander relationship is much more well down in the script in my opinion.
If any body else has read the 2009 script feel free to add any moments I missed.
A so-so film at best. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is an attractive lead and i appreciate the attention to detail here (to set up Carpenter's film).
There's no suspense at all in the creature attacks and i so dislike the ending with regards to Winstead's character.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Those pussies.
I was hoping they would have the guts to kill her off. In a way it takes out the suspense from the ending of Carpenter's film.
I guess if a sequel ever gets made. We can expect Winstead showing in her Snow Vehicle to pick up Mac and Childs.
1) So...there's a hole in the ice with a huge Alien spaceship all this time?
2) What were those flashing lights in that Alien Ship? DNA Analysis or what?
3) Was Joel's character infected at the end? Didn't see a creatuure when he burned.
A so-so film at best. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is an attractive lead and i appreciate the attention to detail here (to set up Carpenter's film).
There's no suspense at all in the creature attacks and i so dislike the ending with regards to Winstead's character.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Those pussies.
I was hoping they would have the guts to kill her off.
In the original script...
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
There was only one snow vehicle, and Kate had to drain its gas to fill her torch. It ends with her just starting to walk back through the snow, clearly on her way to freezing to death.
And yeah, Carter was infected. They added Thing screams and the like.
I was thinking for half a second they were going to pull a bait and switch and have it turn out that he simply took his own earrings out haha. Would have made for an awesomer ending.
People wanted that ending. The studio didn't.
It was much better in the script. It's a very minor detail but that one line about the russian base and the extra snow crawler is really shitty.
It's ironic considering they had the balls off Carter.
This one gets a big resounding 'meh' from me. Creature design was very awesome for the most part, but for every cool transformation shot, there are several more shots of CG blobs flying around rooms and down hallways. I think van Heinjingen's heart is in the right place here, as there's clearly some genuine love for Carpenter's version on display, but he just doesn't have the chops to pull it off. The mystery and ambiguity from the '82 version are gone; here, the imitations are either telegraphed to all hell or are revealed to be imitations arbitrarily when the script calls for an action beat. Its immensely frustrating, because there are some truly gruesome kills (poor Vaughn), but they mostly go to waste.
The best remake yet of a John Carpenter film. I wish I could say that was a compliment but sadly that's akin to being the prettiest contestant in a leper's beauty pageant.
I make no bones about my love for the original. I rank it among my Top 10 films of all time and I think it's Carpenter's best work and should be regarded more highly outside of just genre fans or cinephiles. I went into this movie with all sorts of bias (and I asked myself why we passed on Drive to see this. Maybe it was my affection for the original? I don't know but I loathed Zombie's Halloween mess and have yet to sit through either one) admittedly but I tried to keep that in check to evaluate the film on it's own merits. What I found was that it was completely impossible to do that because the film sought to tie itself by design so closely to the original in every conceivable form but missed BADLY on what made the original so special and effective.
Everything was telegraphed, the attempts to ape the paranoid atmosphere of the original came across as half-assed and even silly at some points and I felt the whole film was forced into trying to appeal to the "jump scare/gore" crowd which destroyed the few futile attempts it made at trying to recreate the claustrophobic and paranoid nightmare of the original. I found Winstead to be grating and written as extremely stupid until it became crucial to the plot for her not to be. Most of the characters came off as poorly written pastiches of the characters from the first film ( Every time Edgerton was on screen I imagined MacReady getting drunk on J & B and calling his chess computer a cheating cunt and it made me smile) and served no real purpose other than to lead us to to the next bait and switch on who had been "replaced" by the Thing.
Saw the movie in a fairly packed theater tonight, and I have to say I liked it a lot. It's of course nowhere near the level of the original, but it was an effective prequel, and I can't see how some are comparing it to a remake. It feels like a prequel, and that was enough for me.
Favorite part was the "Open your mouth" scene. The whole theater laughed after Lars turned the flamethrower on everyone else except for Winstead. The transformations were surprisingly good, and the CGI was good for the most part, and that is definitely something in this day and age. The last jump scare even got me. That doesn't happen often.
Killing off the male lead was certainly ballsy. I read the script earlier this year, and I had to read that last scene twice to get it confirmed that he died. The script as has already been said, certainly had a lot of better stuff that should have made it into the film. Hope to see the New York scene from that initial trailer show up in the deleted scenes on the Blu-ray/Dvd.
A solid prequel, and I hope it makes enough money for them to give Carpenter the chance to film his version.
Several things (heh) did irk me though. First, they established in the original that it tears through clothing in order to imitate a person. Here it just seems that it eats someone and regurgitates a double. Also, they gleamed over the blowing up of the ice to get to the saucer. Wish they could have shown that.
The "Body Meld" and the "Facehugger" were the most gruesome scenes. Film needed more of that.
Either way, I was entertained, and eventually I'll do a double feature of this one, and the superior Carpenter version.
I enjoyed the hell out of this. Sure, it's not as good as Carpenter's brilliant original, but we've had 30 years to fall so deeply in love with that, haven't we? I didn't like the characters as much, but I did dig Lars and the dude with the righteous beard quite a bit. I also dug the skeevy Doctor Sander and felt he tied in nicely to the "barely human in the first place scientist who places discovery above survival" character from sci-fi/horror films in general and the from the Nyby directed film in particular. Sure, there are some things that don't make sense, but there are some things in the original that don't add up for me either.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
For example, why would the Thing expose itself in the helicopter? Wouldn't it take that opportunity to get safely away? I suppose I could chock its behavioral difference from the original with having learned how to blend in better from its mistakes with the Norwegians before assaulting Outpost 31.
I also have always thought it didn't make sense in the original when the head was scurrying away and Palmer draws attention to it with his "you got to be fucking kidding me" line, resulting in Mac burning it. Whereas, since we know the next scene reveals him to be the thing as well, why would he have not kept silent and let it slip away unharmed?
I really enjoyed swimming around in this world again. It felt and looked (apart from some era inappropriate hair and clothes here and there) like Carpenter's film with a very downbeat and apocalyptic vibe throughout. I thought the effects looked phenomenal with a Dead Space sort of Lovecraftian aesthetic, yet felt in line with the Things appearance in the original. It had weight and grossed me out quite a bit, also my theater I go to has a booming sound system and the sound design was impeccable with the things screaming pinning me to the back of my seat. I understand how people are beholden to their love of the original film, it's in my top 10 as well, but this is tonally on the same page and I thought it was very exciting and didn't ever feel like I knew what was going to happen.
And: for the record, I loved the inside of the ship. It was interesting to look at and very unknowable and bizarre. I'm going to check this out again today and see how it holds up on repeat viewing before I cement my opinion in blog form. So far, with a day to think about it, I'm way into this and agree with Mr Eko's above comment that it will make for a great double feature with Carpenter's original, superior filming capping off the proceedings.
I'm curious...Did they use the line, "Sandor, one of these days your experiments will consume you..." or something similar?
I also have always thought it didn't make sense in the original when the head was scurrying away and Palmer draws attention to it with his "you got to be fucking kidding me" line, resulting in Mac burning it. Whereas, since we know the next scene reveals him to be the thing as well, why would he have not kept silent and let it slip away unharmed?
Three reasons. First, because, as explained in the film, each Thing is its own separate entity, halves of a whole. Second, there are several instances in the film that suggest that the creature is something of a method actor, totally losing itself in the part of the imitated subject. Thing-Norris for example, not only absorbed the original Norris' heart condition, but seemed to not know that he was a Thing at all. Third, because its funny.
Yeah, that definitely irked me too. I know they telegraphed the whole "SEE HIS EARRING!??!?!" ... but it's established long before that the Thing rips into a person and the person is absorbed and reproduced. They made a big point of the metal plate "not being in him" anymore on the earlier kill. Ah well ... still a decent watch.
Yeah, I'm just trying not to let these mess ups ruin my enjoyment of the movie. Earlier I realized that it was funny, that the Norwegian version of Garry, Edvard really did get to the blood in this one.
Seeing the movie, it is obvious when someone gets "thinged" for the most part.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The original one gets Griggs out in the helicopter, although this one also forgoes the "shreds through your clothing" as we see Griggs wearing the same clothes later, he gets to Juliette when she goes off to the bathroom, but the one we don't even have an idea of is Edvard.
His really seems like the one everyone mentions "Just happens to move the plot along."
My girlfriend did make a good point this morning about the movie. Just how did the dog come about? We know it was eaten, but we never see the imitation of it, and all the rest have been burned, but then at the end, it just shows up.
That and the glaring continuity error of there being a burning snowcat in front of the alien space craft, but when MacReady, Norris, and Palmer show up, there's nothing there.
Either way, these are nitpicks, and I still greatly enjoyed the movie.
I have to ask do they show how the guy gets an axe to the head and his wrists slit???
Due to the semipostive reviews I may rent this when it comes out on video. I know the ending is going to disappointment me because
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)I know that Winstead's character lives. It doesn't match up with the 1982 Thing because everyone was dead at the Norwegian camp in that one.
Due to the semipostive reviews I may rent this when it comes out on video. I know the ending is going to disappointment me because
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)I know that Winstead's character lives. It doesn't match up with the 1982 Thing because everyone was dead at the Norwegian camp in that one.
I have some theories on this:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Perhaps Winstead IS the Thing at the end. We don't definitively see that Edgerton is and she makes a wierd look in the snow cat before driving off like she's suddenly realizing she might be the thing.
Or, it would make a great sequel to to Carpenter's flick to have her roll up on Russell and David before they freeze to death! It would be a stretch, but for the sake of continuing this story, I'd bite. Or, she could have just went to the Russian station 50 miles away that was referred to.
I have some theories on this:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
it would make a great sequel to to Carpenter's flick to have her roll up on Russell and David before they freeze to death!
No. Just no.
I have some theories on this:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Perhaps Winstead IS the Thing at the end. We don't definitively see that Edgerton is and she makes a wierd look in the snow cat before driving off like she's suddenly realizing she might be the thing.
Or, it would make a great sequel to to Carpenter's flick to have her roll up on Russell and David before they freeze to death! It would be a stretch, but for the sake of continuing this story, I'd bite. Or, she could have just went to the Russian station 50 miles away that was referred to.
HATE.
I'm not sure where people are getting this "happy ending" stuff with Winsteads character. It's pretty heavily implied she's infected. The thing got a hold of her/made contact/touched her in the space ship. In the final shot she's trembling, alone in the snow cat, closeup of her face, ominous music, the image fades to black. Happy-Happy-Joy-Joy I do not get from this.
You're insane. There's no way she's a Thing at the end of this movie. And please don't say infected. You're not infected, it's a fucking animal that consumes and replicates you.
Well that's what I got from the final shot with Winstead. As I said before I think its implied. That's my opinion. Sorry if it came across as "fact". That was not intended!
Edit: as for the word "infected", I'm pretty sure one of the ways The thing can duplicate the host creature is by infecting it on a cellular level. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084787/faq#.2.1.19
I was sufficiently entertained. it was about as good as I think a Thing remake could be in 2011. It's nothing on Carpenter's film, at all, but as a B movie creature feature it's decent. The problem is mainly that it is so closely tied to Carpenter's film and cannot measure up. It is fun but largely forgettable.
I really liked this. It stumbles somewhat in the third act and has some questionable CGI at times, but all in all I had a lot of fun with it.
Also, can we either turn this into a "Post-Release" thread or at least start one? I'd really like to fully discuss this one (both positives and negatives) and not be hinder by having to spoiler-box everything.
Sorry about that last post jmub, I came across as a bit of a cunt there and I really didnt intend to sound that way haha.
I see your point. I always kind of assumed Norris ate something with Thing saliva in it and was slowly consumed from the inside out. I suppose in that context its ok to say infection, but outside of that specific context completed replicas arent infected. Theyre fully completed animals.
I still cringe every time Blair touches the "dead" thing with his pencil and then touches it to his lips. Repeatedly.
There's no actual visual evidence to imply that she is The Thing at the end. We're all going by hunches. I don't think the filmmakers thought it out very much.
Not a terrible film. But this prequel just wasn't neccesary (Rain Dog's view essentially). And since it flopped, how long do you think till we get another reboot or sequel to this?
I still cringe every time Blair touches the "dead" thing with his pencil and then touches it to his lips. Repeatedly.
Well, maybe it tasted really good, despite its disgusting looks.
Watched the original last night, and I think that while you can be "infected" by the Thing's cells by fluids or direct contact, you can only be replaced if the original being is dead or fully consumed by The Thing directly; perhaps its required for a being's inmune system to be shut down (that is dead) in order to fully be consumed.
Perhaps Blair was infected indeed, but he was fully consumed when he died of his heart attack.
Somebody somewhere is going to conduct an in-depth reverse-engineering study on the '82 flick with the new knowledge that the Thing can't replicate bioinorganic material. "Here's a screenshot of a screaming Bennings wherein fillings are plainly visible."
Seeing the prequel hasn't changed my stance that the only derivative work built on the Carpenter film I'll accept as canon is the widely linked (and brilliant) Peter Watts story. The prequel and the Dark Horse comic sequel are momentarily diverting what-ifs.
HATE.
This is my favorite kind of film discussion on the internet. Good stuff. Everywhere I go, people are so against this film. I love the original as much as the next guy and throughly enjoyed this new addition to the story. It was exciting, gross, well made and very much in line with Carpenter's film. I enjoyed a solid creature feature and feel bummed out that it's bombing at the box office and so poorly received. There won't be anything to see theatrically next Halloween other than Paranormal Activity 4. Now there's a series of films I find infinitely more offensive to those who appreciate cinema!
Well then maybe you shouldn't be pitching a terrible idea to The Thing 2, a sequel to a prequel to a remake of a story adaptation, turning this into a series pretty much like Paranormal Activity. But, you know, for lovers of cinema.
Never really understood the thinking behind this concept. It's like remaking/prequelizing PREDATOR by having a different group of commandos find a Predator in the South American jungle. If you want to make use of the IP, fine, but for Christ's sake do something with it. There are endless possible set-ups/locations/subtexts you could use in tandem the concept of the creature. Telling us what happened to the dead bodies at the beginning of Carpenter's film is just tepid 'fraidy-cat filmmaking.
The main problem I had with it, aside from the weak-tea direction, is that it's locked into what's supposed to happen after it's over — it's built to interlock with the 1982 film.
If they'd sequelized the Carpenter film or straight-up remade it, it might've been terrible but at least it might've gone somewhere different. I might actually have been on board for a re-imagining that was to the 1982 film what the 1982 film was to the 1951 film.
As it is, the director here only made it because (A) he was a fan of the first film and (B) his Dawn of the Dead sequel fell through and he needed something else to do. It just really feels like an addendum that was made because the money was there to make it.
It's good that, if it had to be made, it was made by someone who respected the 1982 film enough to try to get the set design right. But a movie is more than set design.
Carpenter damn sure wasn't looking over his shoulder at the fans of the 1951 film, straining to be true to its narrative and continuity. It was a hard reboot and return to the Campbell source material. And then you had Bottin going nuts with creature design. Point is, Carpenter and Bottin were free to go places we hadn't been before. The prequel isn't. It can really only reiterate what we've seen before. And the "let me see your fillings" bit is going to replace the blood-test scene in absolutely nobody's heart.
If you want to make use of the IP, fine, but for Christ's sake do something with it. There are endless possible set-ups/locations/subtexts you could use in tandem the concept of the creature.
Maybe its the lack of sleep, but the first thing that came to mind here was a crossover with "Happy Feet".
In all seriousness, you're right in the money here; Carpenter's film works on its own and doesnt need any prequels or sequels whatsoever; explaining what happened at the dig site/norwegian camp cheapens the unknown origin of the Thing, and a direct sequel would cheapen the perfect ending of the original.
Best leave this one in the ice, I say.
I'm actually surprised by how positive some people are about this film. I thought this was a dull, unimaginative film that, ultimately, proves to be pointless. I haven't seen the original film, but I know enough about it to see that this prequel(remake?) was merely following its story, beat-by-beat.
gabl
Some other things I felt:
- It's amazing how, despite their being many characters in the film, not a single one of them has a distinct personality. They're practically interchangeable with each other, making it hard to keep track of who's alive and who's dead.
- I love Mary Elizabeth Winstead, but my god is she absolutely boring in this film. All she seems to do in this film is have this "I don't know about this, guys" look on her face throughout the entirety of the movie.
- Perhaps one of the few noteworthy aspects of the film is The Thing itself. When it shows up, it's absolutely creepy.
-The film brings up elements of xenophobia and sexism in an attempt to make the increasing paranoia in the crew, but the film doesn't really do anything with it.
-I thought the spaceship scene was largely pointless, and seemed to be only in the movie as the special effects heavy finale.
Sorry about that last post jmub, I came across as a bit of a cunt there and I really didnt intend to sound that way haha.
I see your point. I always kind of assumed Norris ate something with Thing saliva in it and was slowly consumed from the inside out. I suppose in that context its ok to say infection, but outside of that specific context completed replicas arent infected. Theyre fully completed animals.
Norris is, I believe, the only "gimme" in the '82 film. When the dog is walking around the camp it enters a room where there's a shadow that clearly belongs to Norris (I used to think it was Palmer, what with the curly hair, but it's obviously Hallahan). It probably just outright fucking attacked him.
I'm not saying it would have been any good, but does anyone know if they actually APPROACHED CARPENTER about directing this pre/requel? I would be annoyed if I was him, and the studio told me, yeah, we're going to use the skeleton of your film, but we're going with a first-timer instead. If you're making a companion piece, go to the source, you know?
