Finally the legit version of that film! (I seen a fake trailer using Dead Space 2 footages). Well as long it's a 18/R and the mutanted things look similar to the original (1982) like the human head insect than it could be a good film.
For fans of John Carpenter's "The Thing"
- Thread starter northeast rower
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Calm down people. We all know by now that trailers VERY rarely represent movies accurately and if this film takes it's time with pacing and building suspense, it could be quite enjoyable.
It looks promising.
I'm a huge fan of the original movie and even I say that it looks like it's going to be worthwhile.
Even if we already know that everyone will eventually die, you can still color me interested in this.
As for the specimen frozen in the ice, it could be The Thing itself imitating that creature, so we still don't get full exposure from it.
I'm a huge fan of the original movie and even I say that it looks like it's going to be worthwhile.
Even if we already know that everyone will eventually die, you can still color me interested in this.
As for the specimen frozen in the ice, it could be The Thing itself imitating that creature, so we still don't get full exposure from it.
Going from Carpenters self admitted Lovecraftian inspiration (Shoggoths from At the Mountains of Madness), you do get a small glimpse of its true form after the dog scene before part of it escapes, an amorphous fleshy mass of eyes, which fits Lovecraft's description pretty soundlyReservoirAngel said:
"...a shapeless congeries of protoplasmic bubbles, faintly self-luminous, and with myriads of temporary eyes forming and un-forming..."
All that being said, Carpenter was just trying to make a re-appropriated 'At the Mountains of Madness' in the first place, is a remake of a reapropriation nessisary? why dont we just give del Toro the founding to make the original already!!!!!!! * le sad face*
Yeah, I have to say that I was not impressed by the trailer at all, although to be fair, I never expected to be. Now, the biggest problem I have with it, is slotting an attractive female into the lead role. I realise that in any Hollywood studio's eyes, when it comes to horror movies, they HAVE to put a female lead in there for sex appeal and possibly audience empathy (I dunno, I'm kinda reaching with this one but I find it hard to properly get into the mindset of somebody who is absolutely devoid of any creative talent, and is driven only by greed)It just doesn't sit particularly well with me. Not because I don't think that Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a competent enough actress for the role. It's that I feel it kinda shits on the John Carpenter original.
This was a movie that was populated by hard, tired looking men, including Kurt Russell who was something of a hearthrob at the time. He had a Grizzly Adams beard and really struck me as a guy who was feeling the solitude of the situation he was in. It wasn't a science facility populated by bored teens, it was a facility populated by irate men of varying professions, who clearly didn't have the greatest of affection for each other in the first place. Hell, a lot of what I sensed throughout the course of the movie was animosity.
Basically what I'm saying is, I felt like McCready or Childs, or indeed any of the other characters would have gladly killed the others in order to protect themselves. Only the Doc really knew the extent of what would happen if the Thing ever made it back to civilisation, and his measures pretty much guaranteed the deaths of everybody on that base. Whether he was being controlled at the time is anybody's guess, but it's not a stretch of the imagination to think that he could have been acting selflessly. Plus the noose in his hut would have me believe he was taken over whilst in captivity.
So as soon as he rips the guts out the choppers, it's fairly clear that nobody will survive anyway, but the overwhelming sense of dread and paranoia is always there. I should point out that I watched the Thing for the first time last year. I'd been drinking heavily for five days, my nerves were pretty frayed anyway, and I watched it in a darkened room alone in a bunk bed in Romania. Now it could very well be that this contributed somewhat to how I felt when watching it, but I felt it was truly effective in conveying a sense of hopelessness.
Do I think this prequel will effectively emulate that? Hell to the nein! I think it will be forgettable trash that unfortunately chose to call itself the Thing also. Not to mention the fact that it will probably have a teen rating or some shit, so will be right out there in the middle of the video store (I recently went looking for the Thing in a video store in Germany, and I had to go into the adult only section to find it. An adult only section in a video store is like a full on assault to the senses in Germany. Like some kind of porn cannon to the frontal lobe).
I had relevant points to make here, but I got sidetracked by the sunset outside the window. It's really something. All in all though, I think this movie won't be terrible, but I sure as shit don't think it'll do justice to the 1982 original.
This was a movie that was populated by hard, tired looking men, including Kurt Russell who was something of a hearthrob at the time. He had a Grizzly Adams beard and really struck me as a guy who was feeling the solitude of the situation he was in. It wasn't a science facility populated by bored teens, it was a facility populated by irate men of varying professions, who clearly didn't have the greatest of affection for each other in the first place. Hell, a lot of what I sensed throughout the course of the movie was animosity.
Basically what I'm saying is, I felt like McCready or Childs, or indeed any of the other characters would have gladly killed the others in order to protect themselves. Only the Doc really knew the extent of what would happen if the Thing ever made it back to civilisation, and his measures pretty much guaranteed the deaths of everybody on that base. Whether he was being controlled at the time is anybody's guess, but it's not a stretch of the imagination to think that he could have been acting selflessly. Plus the noose in his hut would have me believe he was taken over whilst in captivity.
So as soon as he rips the guts out the choppers, it's fairly clear that nobody will survive anyway, but the overwhelming sense of dread and paranoia is always there. I should point out that I watched the Thing for the first time last year. I'd been drinking heavily for five days, my nerves were pretty frayed anyway, and I watched it in a darkened room alone in a bunk bed in Romania. Now it could very well be that this contributed somewhat to how I felt when watching it, but I felt it was truly effective in conveying a sense of hopelessness.
Do I think this prequel will effectively emulate that? Hell to the nein! I think it will be forgettable trash that unfortunately chose to call itself the Thing also. Not to mention the fact that it will probably have a teen rating or some shit, so will be right out there in the middle of the video store (I recently went looking for the Thing in a video store in Germany, and I had to go into the adult only section to find it. An adult only section in a video store is like a full on assault to the senses in Germany. Like some kind of porn cannon to the frontal lobe).
I had relevant points to make here, but I got sidetracked by the sunset outside the window. It's really something. All in all though, I think this movie won't be terrible, but I sure as shit don't think it'll do justice to the 1982 original.
They seem to have got the tone right from the first film. Certainly a competent workforce. For some reason I feel the female character to be somewhat... out of place however. The trailer lets her have most of the dialouge, which makes me assume she's supposed to be more or less the protagonist. But the ending could have difficulty with focusing on her, as the two helicopter pilots from the first film's beginning are without doubt male.
I just hope they won't rely on plot progressions identical to Carpenter's movie. I'm certain it'll be easy to be creative about the setting!
Oh, and jump scares got old decades ago!
I just hope they won't rely on plot progressions identical to Carpenter's movie. I'm certain it'll be easy to be creative about the setting!
Oh, and jump scares got old decades ago!
I reserve judgement of the movie until I see it, but I will say that the premise is about as generic as it gets. So it's a prequel to the original movie (but with the exact same title, confusingly enough), that tells the story of what happened to the team who initially discovered the alien craft - let me venture a guess here:
Sure, there will probably be a twist or two, like the Thing turning out to have been a different kind of alien than the ones in the craft or something, but the gist of it remains the same. It's basically the first movie, with a different cast, and minus the surprise element.
The Thing killed them all?
Well technically, we already know how it ends...Matthew Dunn said:
And in the first there was to be quite a bit of dragging. Both Windows' and Bennings' original death scenes had them being dragged away by the Thing.
so, why aren't they speaking norwegian? in the original they were.
anyway, i hate remakes and remakes that pretend they're prequels (like this one)
20 years late is NOT a real sequel, it's an attempt to squeeze in a few extra bucks from an old series most of the public never heard of, but is highly revered by movie geeks (that's kinda like a sequel though)
still, i'm sick of them remaking my fave old movies. why won't you leave it alone, hollywood?
the originals are good enough!
you mean to tell me you can't make a single original movie anymore?
not even a paint-by-numbers horror?
just fuck off hollywood, you're not getting my money. and stop raping my youth.
anyway, i hate remakes and remakes that pretend they're prequels (like this one)
20 years late is NOT a real sequel, it's an attempt to squeeze in a few extra bucks from an old series most of the public never heard of, but is highly revered by movie geeks (that's kinda like a sequel though)
still, i'm sick of them remaking my fave old movies. why won't you leave it alone, hollywood?
the originals are good enough!
you mean to tell me you can't make a single original movie anymore?
not even a paint-by-numbers horror?
just fuck off hollywood, you're not getting my money. and stop raping my youth.
This prequel IS in fact focusing on the events before the original, down to the letter (they will be showing the origins of the wall axe, suicide victim, etc.)faceless chick said:
EDIT: another point for me to ***** about: not everyone can speak Norwegian. I think that subtitles everywhere would take away from the scary immersiveness of the movie. Also, the woman and a few others are actually American, so it makes sense that everyone speaks English for them to understand.
To both of you: Don't read everything from the trailer. Give the movie a chance, otherwise you insult the original by denying its legacy. If it's bad, don't see it. If it's good, see it. Simple enough.Yosharian said:
Well.
It's not going to beat the original. Ever. Films like that just can't be made anymore, it seems.
I'll still go and watch it though.
It's not going to beat the original. Ever. Films like that just can't be made anymore, it seems.
I'll still go and watch it though.
Pretty much this. And who the hell thought it was a good idea for a female American protagonist on a Norwegian base ? Honestly it seems Hollywood is trying to rape any franchise in reach now. I guess she?s gonna somehow live though it. Fucking retarded. This is an Insult to fans of John Carpenters: The Thing.Zac Smith said:
According to the poster, visible here:Valksy said:
It's got an R-rating. Which is good. You cannot have a tense experience about isolated people with a murderous body-destroying monstrosity preying on their increasingly frayed mentality and have it be anything less than a straight-up R rating.
It's a good sign. Means they won't hold back on the gooey and disgusting transformations.
I'm gonna take that as a good sign if it has his blessing as well. I'm still gonna wait till I see the finished product of course but that does make me feel a little better about it.ReservoirAngel said:
Still, my only real compliant is that this feels like it's just a remake even though it's going to be a prequel for some reason, just can't shake that feeling about it. Does anyone else get that kinda vibe from it as well?
I feel the need to give it a shot once it does hit theaters but it had better be good and stay faithful to what The Thing already set up for it. Yeah, I know its a prequel but it needs to stay true to certain fact that were in the first one.
'Remake X' seems to be Hollywood shorthand for 'We're too lazy and conservative to green-light a new idea so let's remake a film people liked and paid us a bunch of cash to see as that's safe'* - and you know what ? The viewing public usually liked the original because it was ORIGINAL - a genuinely new concept or a radical take on an old idea. JC's The Thing was definitely a radical take of Howard Hawks' 'The Thing from Another World' - there are only a handful of things (pardon the pun) in common between the two.
And Hollywood is remaking (or gods help us 'reimagining') more and more recent movies.**
With this and a remake of Blade Runner on the horizon, I'm reserving judgement - they will both be classified under 'Complete and utter rubbish' until they can prove otherwise.
* Note - This doesn't technically apply to JC's The Thing as it tanked at the box office and only got popular through the relatively new medium of video.
** Though the sooner they 'remake'*** Star Wars Parts 1-3 the better.
*** By 'remake' I obviously mean 'put in a massive pile and burn'.
And Hollywood is remaking (or gods help us 'reimagining') more and more recent movies.**
With this and a remake of Blade Runner on the horizon, I'm reserving judgement - they will both be classified under 'Complete and utter rubbish' until they can prove otherwise.
* Note - This doesn't technically apply to JC's The Thing as it tanked at the box office and only got popular through the relatively new medium of video.
** Though the sooner they 'remake'*** Star Wars Parts 1-3 the better.
*** By 'remake' I obviously mean 'put in a massive pile and burn'.