THE THING FINALLY SHOWS ITS MANY CGI SELVES IN A RED BAND TRAILER

I really don't understand the hate some film fans are throwing at this. CGI? Well obviously, we'd all like to see that tangible practical work, but at the same time, does it really, honestly look any less realistic? From what I can see, the CGI looks pretty good.

Some of the original FX do look a touch hokey on the Blu Ray but it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the '82 THING. In fact, my appreciation for the practical work, after all these years actually can take me out of the moment "Oh, that still looks great!"  The monsters are important, but they're not what make the movie work. Its the claustrophobia and dread and this seems to be doing a good amount of that. 

Carpenter used the best he had with him back then and it worked. I'm sure if he was doing it now, he'd be using CGI because its seemingly the 'best' way to pull it off.

Until I see this, I'm gunning for it to be good. I hope I'm not too disappointed. 

Copied/cut from the "other" thread that doesn't seem to have an article attached...

EDIT: As much as I don't like redband material spoiled in trailers as it spoils the jokes and kills (depending on genre), this actually looks better than I've been dreading. Some of the body horror stuff looks nifty and the outnumbered female minority (hinted at by the trailer's opening) in an isolated environ has potential for a different dynamic than the "all male" dynamic of Carpenter's. The rampaging THING glimpses reminded me of moments from THE HOST. I'm also getting a distinct "ALIEN" vibe, but that could just be me projecting, due to the gender changes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanCE 
Carpenter used the best he had with him back then and it worked. I'm sure if he was doing it now, he'd be using CGI because its seemingly the 'best' way to pull it off.

I'd argue that the best way to pull off any convincing cinematic creature is determined on the individual shot. A combo of FX is always most effective. See GDT's body of work, the JURASSIC PARK franchise, etc. EXAMPLES... Closeups and actor-contact: practical. Huge movement and mass destruction: CG.

From what I can see in the trailer, it probably will be a combination, but with 'The Thing' moving about so much, all those wide 'Trailer' moments will end up being CGI. I'm sure there are a good number of rubbery close up bits. Its also worth noting that Rob Bottin pulled off an absolute feat, doing something that really, was almost impossible. It wasn't really bettered by the end of the 80s and then digital had started to take over. 

I just can't fathom why people are not more supportive of this film, even with CGI and non-Norwegian cast members. I'd rather have a good, not great, monster movie out around Halloween than Saw or Paranormal Activity. If this doesn't do as well as hoped, like DBAOFD then those big risks are going to be even bigger and it'll be a while before we see a fun monster film.

Maybe I'm an optimist or a sucker, but I'm looking forward to it.

"Any of us could be infected...especially you Sven. I distinctly remember you getting impaled and dragged off somewhere"

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanCE 

I really don't understand the hate some film fans are throwing at this. CGI? Well obviously, we'd all like to see that tangible practical work, but at the same time, does it really, honestly look any less realistic? From what I can see, the CGI looks pretty good.

 

Some of the original FX do look a touch hokey on the Blu Ray but it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the '82 THING. In fact, my appreciation for the practical work, after all these years actually can take me out of the moment "Oh, that still looks great!"  The monsters are important, but they're not what make the movie work. Its the claustrophobia and dread and this seems to be doing a good amount of that. 

 

Carpenter used the best he had with him back then and it worked. I'm sure if he was doing it now, he'd be using CGI because its seemingly the 'best' way to pull it off.

 

Until I see this, I'm gunning for it to be good. I hope I'm not too disappointed. 

They are pitching a fit because apparently virtually ALL of the creature FX were originally filmed practically during production.  After the director turned in his first cut to the studio, the execs demanded that the action quotient be upped and most of the FX be replaced with CGI.  Granted none of us (I'm assuming) have seen that initial cut, so we have no way of knowing if the execs were right in their decision.  That said, it usually doesn't bode when we a studio lets a group of filmmakers go off to make the movie they wanted and then when they got back exactly what they were told they would, they demanded changes.  Basically, typical Hollywood bullshit.

That said, I'm still quite interested in seeing the film.  I'm not expecting a masterpiece, but I do hope I'll get a good movie out of it.

Im gonna go ahead and risk optimism. I dont expect anything to fuck with the original, but theres enough fuckedupness in that trailer to buy some faith.

I'm not having any problem in seeing both sides of the coin on this as far as what people expect/hope for. On one hand, it looks that taken on its own it could be a fun creature feature, on the other hand it's living in the shadow of a classic that is most revered for its stunning practical effects work. We will know soon enough whether it is worthy or just a pretender to the throne.

So... after I watched that video, I clicked on the link for the other video which promised 'the Thing escapes from the ice' and what I witnessed was 1) A low rent Zach Galifrakakas acting like what they think Zach Galifrakakas would act like if they had only ever heard of him.  2) More CGI frost-breath than I could shake a stick at and 3) The Thing behaving in a manner that the OT (Original Thang) would never behave in a million years.  Fuck this film.

Yeah, it's not at all possible that the creature in Carpenter's film might have learned from some fuck-ups here and adapted its behavior to better survive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Shape 

Yeah, it's not at all possible that the creature in Carpenter's film might have learned from some fuck-ups here and adapted its behavior to better survive.

Well hell why not just write the movie for them in your head as you watch it then - I'm sure it'll be better than what we get anyway.

Sorry Dark Shape, but I really hate when audiences are expected to do a screenwriters job for them. Pet hate of mine - I still feel nothing but love for you sir.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Shape 

Yeah, it's not at all possible that the creature in Carpenter's film might have learned from some fuck-ups here and adapted its behavior to better survive.

I did actually think that as I was watching the trailer.  It struck e how much more on the offensive it seemed to be.  Thought it might be quite cool if it learns the stealth approach through this movie.  But then my problem with that is that you'd imagine that acreature that has evolved to be able to take over and imitate any living thing would be all about the strategic approach.

But then I go back to the "it wakes up, probably not in the best of moods" from JC's Thing and I can handle it being a bit more rampagy.

That does mean that a fair bit of the paranoia aspect that makes the second one so mint will be missing though.

At the end of the day I'm going to see this, but I'm not expecting anything other than an OK creature feature and if I get more then so much the better.  If I get less I'm down $15 and just keep rewatching my DVD of the classic.

Apart from the scene with the creature blasting out of its iceblock I think the CG on display here looks more than fine. Just because the original showcased brilliant practical effects doesn't mean this one has to go that route. If this was not a prequel to The Thing, no one would complain about the lack of practical effects in the trailer.

Yeah originally they intended to use as much practical effects as possible but apparently it just didn't work, so they switched to CG. Big deal. I would imagine that practical creatures require a lot more effort, with todays super high res cameras being able to capture even the smallest details, and they probably didn't have the money/skills for that.

Looks like there will be more than a couple sequences that are going to irritate me to no end - the thing EXPLODING from the block of ice has already been mentioned, and that snowmobile set piece looks like its from a different movie entirely - but I will say, despite the terrible looking CG, I remain jazzed about the creature design.  Appropriately grotesque and true to the original.  I really want to have fun with this one.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzy dunlop 

I remain jazzed about the creature design.  Appropriately grotesque and true to the original.  I really want to have fun with this one.  

I feel pretty much the same. This looks like it could be a good monstrous time at the movies, and I love Carpenter more than some members of my own family.

If that story mentioned in this thread is accurate I would love to see those initial practical effects too, even if they're crap. Trying to compare Bottin's work to CGI must be like comparing Elizabeth Taylor in her prime to a realdoll.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Shape 

Yeah, it's not at all possible that the creature in Carpenter's film might have learned from some fuck-ups here and adapted its behavior to better survive.

If I had any faith in the creative team then I might be open to that unlikely possibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin Clark 

Im gonna go ahead and risk optimism. I dont expect anything to fuck with the original, but theres enough fuckedupness in that trailer to buy some faith.

I'm with you. I'm kinda looking forward to seeing this. The original stands on its own as a classic. This doesnt have to shoot for that high praise and still be pretty good.

      Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

Well hell why not just write the movie for them in your head as you watch it then - I'm sure it'll be better than what we get anyway.

That's hardly writing the movie for them.  Its very aggressive and gets its ass kicked to the point a single specimen ends up on the run while being hunted by the crazy Swedes.  I'd go so far as to call it pretty common sense as to why it's much more reserved in its second attempt.

This is one of those 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situations for filmmakers.  Play it in such a way that people figure it out for themselves and you're accused of not thinking it through.  Actually have a character reference its aggressiveness and point to the idea of it being more subtle in the future and you'll be murdered for stating the obvious.

This movie is going to be fantastic I say! You'll see! You'll all see! 

But really, it's going to be exactly the movie we deserve. Take that how you will. 

I've had an epiphany.

I'd written a big reply that touched on sloppy writing and audiences being left to make sense of inconsistencies with a film hewing so closely to the original its the prequel of...

...but you know what? It's all a waste of time. Dark Shape and I could go back and forth for another dozen or more posts and what it will essentially boil down to is the innate truth that this Thing film has no reason to exist outside of a cheap lazy cash grab - and that some will be okay with that and accept it on those terms while others will reject it for precisely the same reason.

This film will tell us nothing, nothing that the film its aping didn't do much more successfully.

On a purely creative, storytelling level, this film literally has zero reason to exist.

Which means its only reason to exist is to try and use the good will of the original to suck money out of the wallet of fans of Carpenters film, like myself, before we get a chance to work out we've essentially been had.

So why exactly, should I even bother thinking about the existence of this film, let alone see it?

You know what? I'm tired. Really fucking tired. Not angry, not raging, just essentially bored with Hollywoods cannibalisation of itself as branding takes over as the main driving force in Hollywood studio film approval.

I'm tired of my favorite movies being rebranded and treated like Coke or Nike to try and cynically use my happier memories to make me part with my hard earned. I'm tired of man-children who enable this shit, I'm tired of mainstream audiences enabling this shit. I'm tired of caring more about this than a normal person should.

I'm just tired of it all, the same conversations we end up having over and over because we're all dancing around the core of the problem - some people accept Hollywood as a business and don't expect much from them in the first place as a consequence while some have this crazy notion that it can still make good original product that will be financially successful if they stopped looking at movies making the same way they do selling whitegoods and toasters.

I'm tired, I'm over it, I'm ready for Hollywood to financially implode, late-sixties-style, so we can try and start again.

Cause this shit just isn't working. At all.

Big rant I know and maybe not the best place for it, but it just kinda spewed out of me.

Slither.....now there was a film that merged CGI with the practical effects pretty darn well. Although the CGI slugs kind of sucked. Also, when the Grant monster was more of a mobile type slug. But the rest, however, was great and met my body horror needs in a The Thing kind of fashion.

The feeling I'm getting, allowing for the standard trailer pacing that wants the young and dumb crowd to think it's like every other horror movie, is that a movie that at least tries for a vintage Carpenter tone will at least have that going for it.

I think of Let Me In, which a lot of people didn't like, but bear with me a sec — I love the original and thought the remake was fine, another run at the material. But going off the trailer for that, you wouldn't have guessed how quiet and low-key the movie would turn out to be. I'm holding out hope for some wintry 1982 atmosphere and some convincing paranoia.

Other than that, tangentially, it's kind of odd the way it's worked out, with them going with CGI after all. This way we have three Thing movies that basically tell the history of movie monsters: James Arness in make-up, then Rob Bottin's ejaculatory Lovecraftian greatest-hits of every animal that gives us pause, then CGI — nicely spaced apart almost 30 years a pop. In context, the CGI could suck, but it's like everything else — we haven't seen how it's used, how it's edited and lighted in full sequence.

Hell, I could point you to old fogeys back in '82 who hated Bottin's work, called it disgusting, almost yearned for the man-in-suit simplicity of the Arness version. I adore the Carpenter film and worship Bottin's work, but on occasion when I rewatch it, sometimes I do (and sometimes I don't, depending on my mood) feel a shift where it stops being a Carpenter film and starts being a Bottin demo reel — I can't blame Carpenter; Bottin was doing unprecedented genius stuff and Carpenter obviously wanted to include as much of it as he could.

The point I guess I'm sidling up to is that CGI might be the best way for the new film to go. One, we aren't constantly comparing the practical work in this to Bottin's practical work, which would almost certainly be a fatal comparison. Two, it's CGI, it's a different mode, so it's going to feel more fluid, hopefully, and more matter-of-fact, less of a show-stopping "let's pause to check out the elaborate practical work."

Also, it's 2011, not 1997; it's true that a lot of us still have scars from An American Werewolf in Paris and its laughable digital werewolves that couldn't hope to compete with Rick Baker's practical work, but that was then and now is now. If the movie doesn't get the basics right — isolation, paranoia — the CGI could put WETA to shame and it wouldn't matter. And vice versa: if they nail the important things, we might forgive a plastic-looking tentacle or two.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanCE 

From what I can see in the trailer, it probably will be a combination, but with 'The Thing' moving about so much, all those wide 'Trailer' moments will end up being CGI. I'm sure there are a good number of rubbery close up bits. Its also worth noting that Rob Bottin pulled off an absolute feat, doing something that really, was almost impossible. It wasn't really bettered by the end of the 80s and then digital had started to take over. 

 

I just can't fathom why people are not more supportive of this film, even with CGI and non-Norwegian cast members. I'd rather have a good, not great, monster movie out around Halloween than Saw or Paranormal Activity. If this doesn't do as well as hoped, like DBAOFD then those big risks are going to be even bigger and it'll be a while before we see a fun monster film.

 

Maybe I'm an optimist or a sucker, but I'm looking forward to it.

Firstly, it's been said that a majority of the practical has been replaced. And secondly, the success/failure of this (and or DBAOTD's B.O.) may effect monster movie output. But they also may effect remake output. Or which properties get remade. I think DBAOTD justified its existence just fine due to the distance and flawed execution of the cult (and much lesser-known, especially due to its home vid rarity) original. Carpenter's THE THING (and the original LET THE RIGHT ONE IN) are friggin brilliant on their own terms.

I want more "fun monster movies". I'm no fan of torture porn or rape/revenge flicks. I tired on the drippy long-haired Japanese (and remake) ghost trend fairly quickly. I just want funding for more original creature feature flicks (or at least remakes that make sense).

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Shape 

Yeah, it's not at all possible that the creature in Carpenter's film might have learned from some fuck-ups here and adapted its behavior to better survive.

That sounds like fanwankery conjecture to me, no offense. If the big action moments were insisted upon by the studio, then it's for popcorny reasons and not logical tie-in ones.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bitches Leave 

If this was not a prequel to The Thing, no one would complain about the lack of practical effects in the trailer.

But it is. Therefore there are expectations (like M Blank's mention of AWWIP), You can't change history. It's like the argument: "If this particular actor didn't play the role, this movie might have sucked!"... Well, he did, so it didn't. That's Strawman territory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Blank 

The feeling I'm getting, allowing for the standard trailer pacing that wants the young and dumb crowd to think it's like every other horror movie, is that a movie that at least tries for a vintage Carpenter tone will at least have that going for it.

 

I think of Let Me In, which a lot of people didn't like, but bear with me a sec — I love the original and thought the remake was fine, another run at the material. But going off the trailer for that, you wouldn't have guessed how quiet and low-key the movie would turn out to be. I'm holding out hope for some wintry 1982 atmosphere and some convincing paranoia.

But we've already got that flick. It was already made in 1982, and from what I've read in other threads, this new one plays more like a remake than a prequel, hitting most of the same beats. Making itself all the more superfluous. And did LET ME IN really take "another run at the material"? Opinions vary. But then you made a good point/s...

... And now maybe it's earned its right to exist on merely a clinical level. As a CG demo reel and something to compare to the 82 version. But that's not really enough for me to drop the money to see it in theaters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzy dunlop 

.......and that snowmobile set piece looks like its from a different movie entirely

A bit OTT, but wasn't Carpenter's film originally supposed to have a huge snowmobile action sequence with Mac & Co. chasing a Thing and destroying it, with Nauls biting the dust in the process?  I'm pretty sure it was in the original script (and in the novelization), but was cut/changed due to budget constraints. 

      Quote:

I don't think people are rejecting it for that reason, though.  I think they're rejecting it out of some silly loyalty to Carpenter and Bottin.  As though bashing the film will somehow help them.

Your rant is entirely true, of course.  But seeing as Halloween is my favorite film of all time, I've already sat through... well, that.  The Thing '11 is a lot of things, but I never thought it was lazy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

I'm tired, I'm over it, I'm ready for Hollywood to financially implode, late-sixties-style, so we can try and start again.

 

Cause this shit just isn't working. At all.

I love ya Rain Dog, but this is hilariously melodramatic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

A bit OTT, but wasn't Carpenter's film originally supposed to have a huge snowmobile action sequence with Mac & Co. chasing a Thing and destroying it, with Nauls biting the dust in the process?  I'm pretty sure it was in the original script (and in the novelization), but was cut/changed due to budget constraints. 

 

I don't really know my Thing trivia, but if this scene did exist in the original script, I'm going to pretend it was cut not for budget constraints, but rather for the fact that a high octane snowmobile chase across the tundra simply doesn't belong in such a tense, slow-burn of a movie.

You know, I actually don't think I even even care enough to complain. A lot of the genre films I love were made for cynical reasons, but as an adult, I find it harder to get up off my ass for processed food versions of films I grew up with. CGI vs Practical? I don't give a shit. I don't want to see the Predator anymore, I don't want to see the Alien anymore, and Freddy, Jason, Michael, and all the rest can all retire to Florida.

NEW SHIT. Please.

Bitches says we wouldn't complain if this wasn't The Thing... but I think we would. Because, like fuzzy states, it doesn't look like a thrilling horror movie which it could be. It looks like an action flick with some shitty fx scenes.

The simple existence of cgi fx isn't the problem.

It's just not used well.

Maybe the finished fx are better, but then this isn't discussing the finished flick.

It's a trailer or two though.  Christ.  They could have taken all the major action beats and punted them into a 18- second trailer and the rest of the film could be a slow burn.

The Thing (JC) is deinately one of my top three movies of all time and rotates in and out of the number one spot.  But I'm too old and lazy to be bothered getting into a lather on this over a trailer, when trailers are so unbelievably misleading (based on trailers Green Lantern was my must see FX movie this year - look how that turned out)

I'm just looking forward to a character saying, "What are these.... THINGS!?" 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob Singer 

 

I love ya Rain Dog, but this is hilariously melodramatic.

 

I freely and happily concede I was having a drama queen moment. I meant every word, but yeah, hyperbole was employed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Bain 

It's a trailer or two though.  Christ.  They could have taken all the major action beats and punted them into a 18- second trailer and the rest of the film could be a slow burn.

Care to weigh in on this bit since you've seen it, The Dark Shape?

I think people are going to be pleasantly surprised with this movie.  The negative help is helping it oddly enough.

"Sandor, one of these days your work will consume you..."

http://www.huntthething.com/

I have to admit, the trailer looks decent (but then so did Apollo 18 and woof). Still, I can't help but feel that if this was called Return of the Thing or The Thing: Origins or Swedes and Hot Chick Battle CGI Monsters in the Arctic, and also It's a Prequel to The Thing there'd be about 90% less backlash. Possibly because there would be 90% lower expectations but still.

RISE OF THE THING

Which also works for its very own porn parody.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Shape 

      Quote:

 

I don't think people are rejecting it for that reason, though.  I think they're rejecting it out of some silly loyalty to Carpenter and Bottin.  As though bashing the film will somehow help them.

 

Your rant is entirely true, of course.  But seeing as Halloween is my favorite film of all time, I've already sat through... well, that.  The Thing '11 is a lot of things, but I never thought it was lazy.

I think people are rejecting because it looks like an incredibly unimaginative and dull piece of filmmaking.

I love Carpenter's film very much so, but I dont have any "loyalty" to it, because I don't really have any problems with remakes in general, so long as they do something different,as long as they have their own identity. And thats exactly what my problem with is here, there's a severe lack of creativity on display, it just seems like so fucking perfunctory, nothing new or interesting, nothing that would merit remaking just a routine monster movie.

Don't get me wrong, though. I absolutely love monster movies, its one of my favorite sub-genres, and I would like nothing better than to see it come back into popularity, cause we really do need some good fucking monster movies! But, I don't need to see a resurgence of shit thats been done an infinite amount of times before, and done far better at that. No thanks, I'm good..

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

I freely and happily concede I was having a drama queen moment. I meant every word, but yeah, hyperbole was employed.

I like what you said. In the case of this movie, it's something I can see watching but I agree with your sentiment regarding these kind of films in general. I've written my share of scathing commentaries on the accepted mediocrity on display in a lot of these projects and it's become tiring. What's crazy is even the one that's are profitable feel like there is such a detachment in terms of fans. I mean, does anyone know anyone who really wants to actually see a sequel to the remake of Nightmare On Elm St. or Friday the 13th? I'm sure you'd find people who pay to see them if they were made but is there anyone who'd give two shits if they never made a sequel?

 

I would watch a sequel to the Friday The 13th reboot simply because, while the current film isn't great, one could make a damn good sequel off to it if some effort was applied (an unlikely scenario, I know).  The ANOES remake is a lost cause though and I can't see myself ever going out of my way to watch a sequel to it if one is ever made.  I don't think Platinum Dunes really has any intention of sequelizing either film though.  Hell, it doesn't even seem as though any of their current horror projects (Monster Squad remake, a handful of originals, etc.) might make it beyond the scripting stage.  Fuller & Form seem far more concerned these days with jumpstarting the Ninja Turtles franchise again and branching out into action flicks.  It seems as though they might have finally given up on the horror remake train which they actually (unintentionally) had a huge hand in derailing.  I think their ANOES remake meeting almost universal disapproval has had A LOT to do with that...............and I doubt the recent tanking of the Fright Night remake has helped things either.  Hell, beyond a small handful of exceptions, most of the horror remakes to come out over the past decade haven't done all that well.  Right now the studios are starting to see a lot more interested in seizing up indie horror films and at least considering giving them wide releases.  Everyone wants the next Paranormal Activity/Saw-esque franchise that can be done on the cheap.  While their intentions aren't exactly honorable, at least they are giving a lot more attention to (mostly) original horror films.  At the rate things are going, we might start seeing a whole lot more studio-based original horror properties in the near future..................most of which will probably be at the hands of current and soon-to-be indie horror director darlings.

At least I hope that's where things end up.  I don't know if we'll ever see things hit the fever-pitch of the late 70s/early 80s in terms of a new massive original horror boom, but it would be nice to achieve something close to that sometime in the next decade.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Jim 

I like what you said. In the case of this movie, it's something I can see watching but I agree with your sentiment regarding these kind of films in general. I've written my share of scathing commentaries on the accepted mediocrity on display in a lot of these projects and it's become tiring. What's crazy is even the one that's are profitable feel like there is such a detachment in terms of fans. I mean, does anyone know anyone who really wants to actually see a sequel to the remake of Nightmare On Elm St. or Friday the 13th? I'm sure you'd find people who pay to see them if they were made but is there anyone who'd give two shits if they never made a sequel?

 

 

Good point. Modern corporate Hollywood isn't interested in lovers of film, they want consumers. Mindless consumers.

Why not just call it Den Tingen (which I think is Norwegian for The Thing)?

but then I still wish they had had the balls to do it with just Norwegians, in Norwegian.

While Mary Elizabeth Winstead is beautiful; I want to know if I'm the only one who thinks she is just unbelievable sexy in her Ramona Flowers costume?

her outfit, hair and general demeanor fucked me off no end in that movie, so I don't share your opinion!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Bain 

her outfit, hair and general demeanor fucked me off no end in that movie, so I don't share your opinion!

 

 

Interesting, who was it she reminded you of exactly? An ex?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

Interesting, who was it she reminded you of exactly? An ex?

to kind of bring it back in topic she was like a hybrid Thing detailing many different annoyances (all around girls I went out with at Uni to be fair) bundled into one hyper-annoying form. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Bain 

Why not just call it Den Tingen (which I think is Norwegian for The Thing)?

 

but then I still wish they had had the balls to do it with just Norwegians, in Norwegian.

 

That's an inspired idea but from a marketing standpoint, it is useless. It doesn't bring an immediate connection to the first movie so there is little chance for the studio to captalize on its popularity, which is the entire point of making it in the first place.