The Thing (Prequel)

Otis Driftwood

Answer to your spoiler is yes (though I dunno if we get the names in the 82 version)

Id highly recommend Carpenters version Essien.It is truly a horror classic.It can be picked up online for next to nothing nowadays.

donnyab

Essien, I don't believe any of your voodoo bull****, it can't be as bad as you're making it out to be.

rossc007

donnyab wrote: »

Essien, I don't believe any of your voodoo bull****, it can't be as bad as you're making it out to be.

Watching a film is voodoo?

pixelburp

Btw mods, can we change the title of the thread; it should be clear enough now that the movie is a prequel, not a remake. I think it would remove any remaining confusion about the film.

Drumpot

Essien wrote: »

Nope! Warrior is next on the list, its out here before the end of the month, can't wait.

[/SPOILER]

Saw Warrior last night . . One word for me . . Superb . . Worth the wait . .

Essien

donnyab wrote: »

Essien, I don't believe any of your voodoo bull****, it can't be as bad as you're making it out to be.

Apologies. I'll go easy on the Voodoo next time.

Edit -

Actually, for the benefit of users like yourself I'll expand a bit on my earlier post....

Re the cgi: I was probably a little harsh on it (only a little though, it was rubbish) but the biggest problem with it in this movie is that its relied upon so heavily. When cgi is as apparent and in your face as it is here then there's absolutely nothing they can do with it to make it frightening, though they regularly try some very cheap jumpy scares which don't really come off. After the second (and in some cases the first) encounter with the creature the game has been completely given away for 90% of the audience, it has lost all of it's scare appeal and with that it is rendered useless for the remainder of the movie. Not that it matters though as it makes little or no attempt to conceal itself most of the time.

I'll edit this post and add more later later when I've some time on my hands...

rossc007

Saw this last night, not a patch on the original but I did enjoy it somewhat. The CGI is a problem, but only because theres lots of it. Some of it was good

I thought it looked cool when the woman brought Kate to find the keys then transformed behind her, also in the helicopter

but like any film that relies to much on effects, you get desensitized fairly quickly.

The plot has a shed load of holes

Sam is alone with Kate for ages, if he was the thing then why did he help her? He also didn't attack Jameson, even though the 2 of them are alone for extended periods

. All in all I think the 6.5 on IMDB maybe a tad generous.

One thing that bothers me about The Thing, in both films, is that if it can separate into so many different parts, why doesn't it just separate into thousand of small parts and swarm everyone? Wouldn't make for much of a film though I suppose

gazzer

I watched this last night and really enjoyed it. Its not a patch on the original but it was better than I was expecting.

So where does the

female lead fit into the overall 'THING' storyline? Are we just meant to assume that she got away and no more was heard about her? I honestly thought that all of the characters would die at the end fo it.

I liked the

scenes mixed in with the credits where we saw the set up for the original movie

gazzer

rossc007 wrote: »

The plot has a shed load of holes

Sam is alone with Kate for ages, if he was the thing then why did he help her? He also didn't attack Jameson, even though the 2 of them are alone for extended periods

.

I just assumed that

Sam was infected/attacked between the time that they got seperated when Kate fell into the spaceship and when they met up again

chin_grin

See I'm one of those where the original is an absolute masterpiece so I watched with trepidation and a lot of hope.

I was pleasantly surprised that even though it was an almost carbon copy of the first, it still retained some originality. Some.

Maybe I'm reading too much in to it, but the fact that it is a complete copy is quite ironic giving the attack method of the alien in this series. You know,

copy and emulate and live inside it's prey.

(Spoilered in case you haven't watched the first).

Thought the acting though clunky in parts (probably complimenting the script......one example right at the start: Dr Sander introduces himself.....then says "do you know who I am?" thought this was quite a stupid thing to do.....In my opinion that should have been the other way around). Right the acting. It was good and because ME Winstead is on my *sigh*-list I overlooked any faults. Because I'm fickle like that.

So the cgi. Very cartooney in places, but have to give them credit in the design of the "mutations". They were impressive.

But because they seemed a little off and weren't puppets you knew the actors were working with a green screen and therefore the scenes like

Juliette getting Kate on her own and morphing in the background, didn't carry the same weight as if you heard flesh ripping and screams off camera and then she turned around to face it.

I got little nergasms at nods to the original like the

two faced thing you see in the first

. Although we never got to see the guy who

slit his wrists

, or was that just me getting a bit confused by the amount of characters (I think there was two or three too many).

The final act almost lost me completely. It was completely unnecessary and threw the whole feel of the film for me.

What this movie didn't deliver were better scares and the originals feeling of paranoia and alienation. There must have been one scene that they tried (akin to the

blood-in-the-petri-dish of the first

) and failed. And that's why it failed as a demake/reboot/remake or whatever the kids are calling it now.

red dave

I thought it was alright, nothing spectacular but mediocre.


One question about the ending

Did I miss something at the end. She burns the guy in the snow-mobile, then she gets into the other snow-mobile. Next scene is the helicopter landing and one of the Norwegian guys comes out with the gun

What happened the girl

chin_grin

red dave wrote: »

I thought it was alright, nothing spectacular but mediocre.


One question about the ending

Did I miss something at the end. She burns the guy in the snow-mobile, then she gets into the other snow-mobile. Next scene is the helicopter landing and one of the Norwegian guys comes out with the gun

What happened the girl

Yeah, I had an awful feeling that they were "hollywood-ing it up" with that bit so it would include some spin off. I'm guessing that she

either got away (would be a sequel) or that she did die (which would be the natural conclusion seeing that they didn't find anyone alive when they went to that camp in the first one).

They left out a huge plot hole there. Why didn't she

try to go back in and use more grenades to blow up the spaceship?! I mean I know she wanted to get away, but if she was that adamant in destroying the thing then that would have been her natural train of thought. But of course this would have ruined continuity.

pixelburp

Yikes, after the slew of bad reviews Stateside, I had completely forgotten about this prequel movie. In the end I'm not sure I'll bother with attending a showing; it would feel like rewarding an (apparently) sloppy cash-in.

rossc007

red dave wrote: »

I thought it was alright, nothing spectacular but mediocre.


One question about the ending

Did I miss something at the end. She burns the guy in the snow-mobile, then she gets into the other snow-mobile. Next scene is the helicopter landing and one of the Norwegian guys comes out with the gun

What happened the girl

The ending is how the original starts, 2 guys in a chopper chasing a dog.

So, the original is going on while Kate is making, or has made her way to the Russian camp. By the time she reports it, The Thing has eaten most of Kurt Russels crew I'd say

Another thing that bothers me now that I think of it...

If the space ship was in full working order, why did The Thing get out in the first place??

Creature

Yeah its a perfectly average film, certainly nothing special but definitely not deserving of the ridiculously negative reviews it's been getting from the fans of the 1982 film and critics that I've seen. It constantly felt like it couldn't decide whether it was a remake or a new original film as they'd throw in something new occasionally but then next rehash something that had been done before.

I think the main problem was that there were too many characters, most of whom hardly got any screen time and little to no introduction. It built up a great atmosphere in the first half but later felt like it became more of an action film than suspenseful horror due to the high number of people needing to be killed off.

It's a shame about the shiny looking CGI. I think the autopsy scene, which was very good and looked terrific, really showed how nice the later scenes would have looked if a more practical prosthetics/models and a less digital effects had been used.

I really liked the inclusion of the Norwegian cast and the substantial Norwegian dialogue. I think the film would have been much much better if they had halved the number of American characters and given some of the Norwegians more substantial roles. And the plot holes, would've been better without them of course.

chin_grin wrote: »

Thought the acting though clunky in parts (probably complimenting the script......one example right at the start: Dr Sander introduces himself.....then says "do you know who I am?" thought this was quite a stupid thing to do.....In my opinion that should have been the other way around).

I think he meant "are you aware of my background/accomplishments" rather than literally do you know who I am. I thought it was poorly phrased. Besides, I actually liked that line. I think it's meant to show you how much of an arrogant social retard he is.

Otacon

rossc007 wrote: »

Another thing that bothers me now that I think of it...

If the space ship was in full working order, why did The Thing get out in the first place??

Maybe it wasn't the Thing's ship. I could have just attacked its crew.

rossc007

Otacon wrote: »

Maybe it wasn't the Thing's ship. I could have just attacked its crew.

Hmmm,not sure I buy that

I think its a given that its the things ship, it definately came out of the ship and it new how to start her up

shadowcomplex

Essien wrote: »

I'm just back from seeing this. No major spoilers below, but I've tagged it just incase.

Genuinely awful, really, really awful. I've seen a lot of films in the cinema in the past few years and this one is up there with 2012 as the worst I've seen in that time. Before we left the cinema I had apologized to my girlfriend 4 times (iirc) for dragging her along.

I've never seen the original so I didn't quite know what to expect. My best guess would have been a suspenseful, paranoid thriller mixed in with a reasonable dose of horror. The idea of an alien being that can mimic humans is a very interesting one, however, it's only really explored in this movie for about 15 mins across maybe 2 or 3 scenes. The rest is pretty much an abomination comprised of an entirely forgettable cast, traces of a very predictable plot and some of the worst cgi I can remember for a very long time (certainly in mainstream cinema at least).

The Thing itself was comical for the most part. It completely blew its load within the first 30 mins or so, removing any element of fear or suspense. The creature looked so bad you would be forgiven for thinking you were watching a cutscene from Resident Evil or Silent Hill, or at best something from the SciFi channel, truly awful stuff.

I could go on all night about this, but its late so I won't :pac:, there really is any amount of issues I could rant about.

IMO keep your money, or spend it on something more beneficial like a glass hammer or some lead balloons, you won't feel as disappointed.

Your Wrong

chin_grin

shadowcomplex wrote: »

You're Wrong

How can an opinion be wrong?

I can't see everyone liking it. There are a lot of flaws, but I did enjoy it.

LighterGuy

Sequel?

So the film ends with setting up the events of the original. But Kate is alive and its suggested she will go to the Russian camp "about 50 miles away". That screams potential sequel to me. As said above, by the time she could reach that camp the events of the 1982 movie could be written in to be over. Allowing for an completely new Thing story.

Question is, would a sequel involve the 1982 original in any way? .. Be it heading to that camp or even touching on the question who was the thing, Macready or Childs.

rossc007

Whether there is a sequel or not will purely be down to the box office take I'd say. Judging from the critical reviews and the lack of buzz, I'd say this will be lucky to break even.

Blazer

rossc007 wrote: »

Saw this last night, not a patch on the original but I did enjoy it somewhat. The CGI is a problem, but only because theres lots of it. Some of it was good

I thought it looked cool when the woman brought Kate to find the keys then transformed behind her, also in the helicopter

but like any film that relies to much on effects, you get desensitized fairly quickly.

The plot has a shed load of holes

Sam is alone with Kate for ages, if he was the thing then why did he help her? He also didn't attack Jameson, even though the 2 of them are alone for extended periods

. All in all I think the 6.5 on IMDB maybe a tad generous.

One thing that bothers me about The Thing, in both films, is that if it can separate into so many different parts, why doesn't it just separate into thousand of small parts and swarm everyone? Wouldn't make for much of a film though I suppose

He wasn't the Thing back then...in fact he only got affected going into the spaceship. If you look carefully when he's getting into the snowtrak with yer one he's wearing an earring, it's only at the end when he reappears that you notice he's not wearing it then

All in all I thought it wasn't a bad film...someone mentioned Drive and I thought it was a pile of crap...
The thing is every one knew what the Thing was so what was the point of hiding it? Otherwise it would just be a remake of Carpenter's one.
Apart from dodgy CGI it wasn't too bad and to be honest I was really expecting a lot worse..

constitutionus

rossc007 wrote: »

Hmmm,not sure I buy that

I think its a given that its the things ship, it definately came out of the ship and it new how to start her up

havent seen the film but surely..

..theres shades of "alien" here ? we hadnt a monkeis whether the space jockey bred the things or were attacked by em just like the crew of the nostromo.

similarly the thing couldve just got on the ship and those lads mayve crashed it to stop it getting to their world (not a million miles away from what kurt russel did to his artic base when it got lose there.



ok from the sound of things it tried to restart the ship but in the original film it was trying to build stuff out of the base so we know it retains the knowledge and skills of the people its absorbed

.

have to be honest for all the slagging its getting this is pretty much the only film coming out soon that im arsed going to see.

there just seems to be a bit of a slump for sci/fi action lately so bad reviews or not ill be going if only to get my natchos and cheese fix !

rossc007

constitutionus wrote: »

havent seen the film but surely..

..theres shades of "alien" here ? we hadnt a monkeis whether the space jockey bred the things or were attacked by em just like the crew of the nostromo.

similarly the thing couldve just got on the ship and those lads mayve crashed it to stop it getting to their world (not a million miles away from what kurt russel did to his artic base when it got lose there.



ok from the sound of things it tried to restart the ship but in the original film it was trying to build stuff out of the base so we know it retains the knowledge and skills of the people its absorbed

.

Its not a bad theory, but its a big stretch imo, theres no evidence to support that back story All we know is that The Thing came from that ship.

pixelburp

Ah decided to see this in the end, it was a lazy Sunday & figured as a fan of the original it'd be interesting to see...

... and to be honest, it didn't deserve the critical thrashing it got in the American press; it's a fairly competent, tense & atmospheric horror movie for the most part. It all unravels in the final third though, where I suspect the most studio interference happened. Any tension, paranoia and suspense built-up is fast jettisoned, the cast are quickly picked off by some (at times) ropey CGI, and the film descends into a by-the-numbers action horror, with an idiotic race against time that makes no sense.

It's a terrible shame because kudos is deserved to the production team in capturing the spirit, look & tone of the original film, even if they didn't quite hit the same heights. Although at times they copied the original a bit too much. I hope the home release comes with some kind of Director's Cut, or even show us how the original FX appeared, before the studio chickened out & put in the CGI.

Any fan of the original would appreciate the care and attention taken to tie in with Carpenter's work; things like the axe in the door, or the two-headed corpse are explained, but not in an overly arbitrary way. The only link-up I felt didn't work was at the end, when we see who takes off in the helicopter to chase the dog, and lead us into the events of the 80s movie.

Overall, it's a solid movie that respects the first film, and doesn't trample on its legacy by any means. I just wish they gave it a different bloody name, instead of confusing people into thinking it's a remake. Although even that I suspect was a bone-headed move by the studio to fool the public into thinking it was a remake.

Skinfull

I thought it was awful. Had heard good things and though I'm a huge fan of the Carpenter version I was hoping this would be a nice teaser movie, leading up to it. But instead it was almost like a re-scripted (barely) version. It was more or less the same movie!

No tension really, as we knew the ending, more or less. The Thing in the initial scene was hard to track, tough to see on the screen. The acting was terrible but hell I didn't walk in expecting oscar material.

And there were so many loopholes and missed targets in relation to lining the two movies up. Sigh.

Sudden Valley

I was reminded of the Hangover 2 while watching this film, the feeling of thinking you've seen exact same events played in a slightly different way. I had no problem with the CGI or plot, they were both quite good, I just wished like in Batman Begins or Aliens they'd set the majority action somewhere differently like off the base or with different types of characters. Now it seems we can watch a four hour "Thing" film.

My only other complaint would be that the American characters seem to have been better developed than the Norwegians- Apart form the leader of the Norwegians the rest were indistinguishable from each other.

Skerries

we see Lars being attacked near the end and dragged off but then comes out at the end to chase the dog, how was he able to survive the aliens attack?

Kiith

Skerries wrote: »

we see Lars being attacked near the end and dragged off but then comes out at the end to chase the dog, how was he able to survive the aliens attack?

He wasn't dragged off by the aliens. The Americans grabbed him and took his flamethrower.

I saw it last night. Was decent, with some alright CGI, but no where near as good as the original. Some creepy scenes, but as others have said, there were too many people and they were just fodder for the alien. I liked how it ended, but it was always going to end exactly like that. Makes me want to watch the original tonight though.

pixelburp

Kiith wrote: »

He wasn't dragged off by the aliens. The Americans grabbed him and took his flamethrower.

I saw it last night. Was decent, with some alright CGI, but no where near as good as the original. Some creepy scenes, but as others have said, there were too many people and they were just fodder for the alien. I liked how it ended, but it was always going to end exactly like that. Makes me want to watch the original tonight though.

I did exactly that after watching the prequel; and I'm not sure how the prequel ends tallies well with the original movie.

The random pilot arrives at the end of the prequel, and with Lars, high-tails it after the Thingdog. The pilot wouldn't have been that aware of the stakes & what just happened, and yet in the original movie seemed desperate enough to fling grenades at Kurt Russell & co., almost as if he knew what the dog really was.

That said, watching the original movie really highlighted
a.) how dreadful the 2011 FX were in places
b.) how ludicruous the prequel's descent into action-horror was. The slow-mo grenade toss at the end was positively hilarious
c.) that while the alpha-male showdown of Thing 1 wasn't compulsory (they should have played up the xenophobia a little more), the prequel shouldn't have cast Elizabeth-Winstead as its lead. She was too pretty and distracting

chin_grin

pixelburp wrote: »

She was too pretty and distracting

+1,000,000

:pac:

Mitch Connor

Can someone who has seen this and the Carpenter one clear up some things for me....

What does The Thing actually do to people? My mate was saying it copies them, I understood it as it takes them over (ie. there isn't a dead body somewhere of whom The Thing is impersonating). If it takes them over, why does it NEED to copy inorganic material? Why couldn't it keep the ear ring, or the fillings - had no issue with clothes, at all.

What the hell was Thingdog doing during the course of the movies? First thing to get eaten/copied, and does nothing til at least a day later? What was Lars doing after the american's took him out? Why did they not explain what happened, at all? They left him for dead...

sReq | uTeK

The thing, well it seems logical that it can only manipulate organic material, I mean it seems to ingest people, the the things cells start to replicate it's victims, metals ect ect are compounds that don't have cells hence not being able to clone inorganic material.

I believe the thing was looking for a way out. it only EVER killed initially to clone someone, then when people started to get close to it, it had to kill in order to survive.

My understanding is it couldn't survive in those cold elements alone and needed the humans to get to its ship / out of the artic.

Could be wrong but thats what I took from it.

Im astonished at the amount of bad reveiws, it was a mediocre movie but nowhere deserving the bashing it got.

Creature

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Can someone who has seen this and the Carpenter one clear up some things for me....

What does The Thing actually do to people? My mate was saying it copies them, I understood it as it takes them over (ie. there isn't a dead body somewhere of whom The Thing is impersonating). If it takes them over, why does it NEED to copy inorganic material? Why couldn't it keep the ear ring, or the fillings - had no issue with clothes, at all.

What the hell was Thingdog doing during the course of the movies? First thing to get eaten/copied, and does nothing til at least a day later? What was Lars doing after the american's took him out? Why did they not explain what happened, at all? They left him for dead...

It digests your cells while shaping it's own cells into imitations of yours. You could say it makes a clone while spending the original in the process.

Clothes are different they require no change to bodily integrity like earrings, fillings and internal steel plates do. My guess is that when it's taking something over it can't 'know' the purpose of the inorganic material so it just spits them out.

My thinking was that Lars was just left unconscious by the Americans and woke up sometimes in the morning or after the main events that night.

I don't know about the dog, I suppose it just waited around observing the events. Showing itself would more than likely result in getting itself burned so it just stayed hidden.

constitutionus

got around to watching this yesterday and i agree with pixelburps assesment.

maybe im being more generous as i seen the god awfull remake of "the fog" and kind of use that as the benchmark for atrocities but i thought they did a very good job of establishing the look and tone of the original.

yes the CGI is ropey in place but it was nice to see them stick to the visual tricks of the prosthetics in the first i.e the yellow tenticle/guts/ropes or whatever flying out to rope you in, and the fanged mouths in the chest/torso area.

there were some geniune jump moments.

but all in all i enjoyed this more as a companion to the original. TBH i was most happy when they went to the ship as we never saw inside that in the original.

they probably couldve done more there as its the only real option they had to tread new ground.

but it was good to see the subtle ties to the first in terms of seeing how the axe ended up in the wall and two headed man came to be.

also really like the notion

that you could tell an infected by the fact they'd no filling as the thing couldnt replicate em. it must be the first time ive ever seen actors WITH fillings in a major film as usually its unfesiably perfect teeth in actors

all in all im happy with it.

its not a patch on the first as it doesnt have the same tension and i have to confess i was 11 when i saw the first and it made a major impression on my young mind so it was never going to measure up to that.

still there much, MUCH worse out there in the remake/prequel stakes so ya couild do worst.

also have to say i liked the way it ended with the lead in to the first playing over the credits.

i'd give it 6/10

WHIP IT!

F*ck it, I'm gonna have a watch of the original - haven't seen it in ages... :pac:

sham69

Was fearing the worst but really enjoyed it.
I agree there were too many people with no real role to play.
Some of the CGI was dreadful but overall I thought it was decent enough.
The carter guy was obviously made to look like Kurt Russell.
Enjoyed the ending.
Quite easy to watch with Miss Winstead in it, I thought she did a decent job

krudler

WHIP IT! wrote: »

F*ck it, I'm gonna have a watch of the original - haven't seen it in ages... :pac:

one of the best sci-fi/horror movies ever. its Carpenters best film imo. has more atmosphere in the opening credits than some modern horror movies have in their entire run time.

WHIP IT!

krudler wrote: »

one of the best sci-fi/horror movies ever. its Carpenters best film imo. has more atmosphere in the opening credits than some modern horror movies have in their entire run time.

It really does! I haven't watched it in a good few years, but as the score was playing and 'The Thing' logo etched itself on the screen, I got that giddy feeling when you know you're watching a great flick!

krudler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xueZY42_CIk

awesome scene, awesome score, Morricones score sounds very like one of Carpenters own as well.

pixelburp

Absolutely classic soundtrack - amazing how the right sounds can just lift a film into a different territory altogether.

On another note - one thing that the prequel got me thinking about & neither film ever really clarified was exactly how self-aware & sentient the Thingpeople actually were. In both movies, we see the clones act, speak & generally interact like their original forms, and I wonder if they are ever aware of what they've become; at least until some fight-or-flight instinct kicks in.

For instance: in the '82 movie, one of the characters dies of a heart-attack, but only turns into a Thing when the doctor attempts to resuscitate him with paddles. Before then, the character was behaving as normal.

rossc007

pixelburp wrote: »

Absolutely classic soundtrack - amazing how the right sounds can just lift a film into a different territory altogether.

On another note - one thing that the prequel got me thinking about & neither film ever really clarified was exactly how self-aware & sentient the Thingpeople actually were. In both movies, we see the clones act, speak & generally interact like their original forms, and I wonder if they are ever aware of what they've become; at least until some fight-or-flight instinct kicks in.

For instance: in the '82 movie, one of the characters dies of a heart-attack, but only turns into a Thing when the doctor attempts to resuscitate him with paddles. Before then, the character was behaving as normal.

That confused me too. In the prequel, the Norwegian leader guy gets knocked out while he is a Thing, raises some interesting questions.

constitutionus

i like the fact they keep it so ambiguous as it ads to the 50s paranoia and allows people like us to come up with ideas.

for instance we know the cells are sentient as they react to the petri dish test, but theoretically theres nothing to stop the thing consuming you once your infected with say a splat of bood, replicating all your cells except your brain - so you could be walking around in what technically an alien body...

..and not have a monkies about it till it goes for your brain when its been rumbled ala the same petri dish scene.



fun stuff like this is what makes the original so good.

must say i didnt know it was a morriconi score either till recently, so close was it to stuff like escape from new york and carpenters other works.

it is a fanstastic score.

the film hasnt even STARTED proper and your already disturbed and upset.

krudler

Its the tension of the original I love, even the shots of the dog just sitting there staring at nothing are unsettling, love that one when it walks down a corridor, we see a shadow of someone sitting on a bed and it turns to see it as the dog strolls in the door, great stuff.

Tallon

Really enjoyed this movie.. CGI was hit and miss in places, and that grenade was ridiculous

tunguska

Saw it last night and the best thing I can say about it was that it isnt the worst film I've ever seen. In comparison to the Carpenters '82 film though its not even in the same universe. If movies were football leagues, carpenters film would be la liga, the 2011 version would be airtricity division 1.
First half hour of the new film was actually really good, was very optimistic but then it degenerated into standard hollywood horror film fare. The music score alone played a big part in ruining this movie. It was your bog standard, generic score. Thats part of why the '82 movie was so good, the score was very different and used sparsely. Carpenter was a master at creating atmosphere but the new film had nothing going for it in that department. The dialogue in the '82 film was as tight as a nuns ass, but the new one, again, came off like it was screenwriting by numbers. The characters in this film are bland, wheresas in carpenters film they were cool as ****. I mean I have no idea what a dude like palmer was doing out in a scientific research station in antartica but it works. The new one just had bland character after bland character. Mary Elizabeth Winsted is girl next door hot, she has those big brown eyes that just kill me. Im biased, so I cant say a bad word about her, but I will say that it was a mistake to have a female character in this kind of film. It just came off like it was the studio trying to be pc and tick a box, we have a female character, job done. There was too much effort put into makng MEWs character an action hero, but shes way too much of a cutie to be strutting around with a flame thrower, I just couldnt buy it. And no amount of dressing her down in a parka jacket and wolly had will make her any more buy-able as an action hero(she actually looks even cuter with the wolly hat). This type of movie needs a dude with a face enveloping beard to work the flame thrower, end of.
I really think they had an opportunity to make a decent film here, but instead we get the same old same old.

Red Hand

pixelburp wrote: »

I did exactly that after watching the prequel; and I'm not sure how the prequel ends tallies well with the original movie.

The random pilot arrives at the end of the prequel, and with Lars, high-tails it after the Thingdog. The pilot wouldn't have been that aware of the stakes & what just happened, and yet in the original movie seemed desperate enough to fling grenades at Kurt Russell & co., almost as if he knew what the dog really was.

That said, watching the original movie really highlighted
a.) how dreadful the 2011 FX were in places
b.) how ludicruous the prequel's descent into action-horror was. The slow-mo grenade toss at the end was positively hilarious
c.) that while the alpha-male showdown of Thing 1 wasn't compulsory (they should have played up the xenophobia a little more), the prequel shouldn't have cast Elizabeth-Winstead as its lead. She was too pretty and distracting

They actually have things now set up for a sequel. The female lead is in her vehicle beside the spaceship at the end of the prequel. The events of the original The Thing happen over a few days next, with the final result being Kurt and other guy facing each other off, each not knowing who is human.

So what's to stop the female character showing up at this moment and a new film beginning at this point? I'm sure a soviet antarctic base will be conveniently nearby for more paranoia and shenanigans.:D

Sad Professor

I haven't read the whole thread. I went to see this last night and I thought it was very enjoyable. Not as good as the Carpenter original, but I wasn't expecting it to be.

Oh and I'd still consider this a de facto remake. I'd put it in the same category as the recent Straw Dogs: a decent remake of a film that didn't need to be remade.

BlitzKrieg

Yeah just back from it.

I didnt hear much at all about it so was pleasantly surprised at a competent enough film.


On some of the points raised:

The Thing's awareness:

there are cases for not being aware and being aware in both films. Both the people having heart attack being knocked at and doc building a ship + restarting an alien ship also the woman laying a trap.

Personally I draw from what the carpenters film established that each individual cell is a thing all to itself (hence the fire test) so when they copy a host completely they act within the knowledge and abilities of that host being the perfect mimic, and when it becomes flight or fight it lashes out for any possibility to preserve itself. Hence being knocked out and heart attacks. Saying that though the mimic extends to allowing the thing to focus, mimicking a human allows the thing to focus like a human, act towards its own goals (sabotage, trap and build) but thats millions of creatures working together and when its clear they have been caught they no longer work together and go any route they can to survive. Hence we get classics moments like the walking head.

I'd fault the new film on this because I felt they treated the transformations too much like the creatures revealing themselves at times and less like the fight or flight feeling the scenes had in the original. I expected after the initial attacks the creatures would shift back to a form that suited the situation more then stamping around like some mal formed two headed monstrosity.

Gandalph

Just seen it tonight

I thought the whole spaceship thing was a load of crap...the thing doesnt seem like one of those alien species that can operate or even build one of those things, although we dont know what other planets it has been before, maybe some of their "hosts" did most the work.

Anyway this poxy scene reminded me of that in predator 2 when danny glover gets on the alien space craft, it pisses me off when they all look like giant saucers!