Earlier this week, Jeremy brought you the news that Universal was bumping the newest Fast and the Furious franchise entry to April 29th of next year, a move that showed confidence by leading off the summer with a sequel in a series of films that only seems to grow more popular. As much confidence as that demonstrated in Fast Five, it came at the expense of bumping the prequel film The Thing to an unknown new date. Speculation ran rampant until word emerged that the bump was to make room for some reshoots the director Matthijs van Hijningen Jr. is planning. “Reshoots” is a nasty word to drop, especially in reference to a controversial (at least among horror geeks) film that skates a fine line between goodwill and dismissal.
Drew McWeeny spoke to producer Marc Abraham and got a few more details about the reshoots, and while I would hesitate to use the word “spin,” good sir McWeeny is definitely an advocate of chilling the fuck out about reshoots, and that they should be a part of the process regardless of the film. This is true, but it’s tough to deny that a ton of films that have gone through this process turned out to be turds regardless of extra time and footage with which to finesse their cuts. It also speaks volumes when filmmakers have things planned well enough and have put enough care into pre-production that they get what they need the first time around. That said, there is absolutely nothing inherently terrible or creatively bankrupt about knowing you need something and actually going about getting it.
According to McWeeny the goal of the reshoots are specifically to “…enhance existing sequences or to make crystal clear a few story beats or to add punctuation marks to the film’s feeling of dread,” with the first encounter with the mysterious creature being part of that. He also rightly notes that the original film shot all through principle photography without knowing exactly what the special effects were going to look like, or even how there were going to be accomplished. It’s absolutely true that I’d rather them shoot more material instead of hiring a few extra animators to CGI in a fix for whatever the creature scenes currently lack.
Ultimately this doesn’t mean much to you and I, sitting on the other side of the screen with no context with which to judge the situation. We can only hope to hear a new date soon (hopefully one that plops in the Halloween season?), and that the final product doesn’t do an injustice to the name it bears.





10 comments
I wouldn't mind a second THING movie, if it were made in 1985 with the original crew. This one, well…it's got an uphill climb ahead of it, and this news really doesn't help. And as long as I'm talking here, I wish this weren't a prequel: I wanted a sequel set in the modern day, when someone goes and digs up the base from the original. Simply because with prequels…well, we always know how they end, and that's a very nearly insurmountable obstacle in a horror/suspense movie.
Wait.. didn't Scott Pilgrim also have reshoots/additional filming? and that movie was great 🙂
There was a good interview between Eric Vespe and Alec Gillis on the Thing prequel on AICN. Near the end Gillis said he hoped they didn't think it too much, and CGI gloss over practical effects. My big fear is that this delay will cause them to do exactly that.
People really believe these filmmakers when they say its gonna be mostly practical effects? They always say that about these movies and it always ends up being chock full of shitty CGI.
If this movie sucks so what, maybe at least it will turn more people onto the original. And if it's great? It'll be awesome to watch them back to back. Unfortunately the bitter sweet thing about it being successful is we'll likely get The Thing 3, and that will most definitely be a turd.
Reshoot apologists aside, you know what else had massive reshoots? Iron Man II and Jonah Hex. One was a hot turd and the other simply boring. Reshoots are not "pickups" people. Pickups are good for coverage, missed opportunities and make for a better film. Reshoots are usually done on the fly because the crap just ain't working.
I am confused. How has this remake (oh I'm sorry, it's a prequely reimagining, but with bonus hot chicks), looked promising in any form? Reshoots for what promises to be a turd? Wow, who would have thought.
Wait…. doesn't the Thing burst out and cause trouble at a Norwegian base before wolfing out and running off to give Kurt Russell and company the heebie jeebies? Mary Elizabeth Winstead and friends don't look, or sound, very Norwegian……
I'm so tired of prequels. I agree also with the person who said there should have been a sequel in '85 or so instead of this. And reshoots never help as far as I can tell. If you look up the films that had lots of reshoots they would likely be some of the worst movies ever. Except Where The Wild Things Are. That movie worked a charm and it was delayed for a whole year. That's the only one I can think of that's good.
Well, they reshot 'The Invasion' & even a hot Nicole Kidman could not bail that movie out. Scott Pilgram was not a huge success, nor was Where the Wild Things Are. To the studios, they were both a financial disappointment, as will be The Thing 2: The Beginning.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.