For fans of John Carpenter's "The Thing"

[northeast rower]

1: I found this trailer recently. It's been out for a while, but it took me until now to notice it. Personally, I loved the original, and if this prequel can pull off the same feeling of distrust, I think it'll be great. Part of the reason the original trumps "Alien" for my personal favorite horror movie is that in "Alien" the threat is very clear and defined. In "The Thing", though, you never know who's infected. Anyway, on to the trailer:


2: "The Thing" is now available on Netflix's Instant Watch. Now, I think this is worth putting up because a) I'm pretty sure it's only there for a limited time and b) Netflix is raising it's price to exorbitant levels and if you're like me, you'll be going for the DVD service only. Therefore, you will only have a limited time to continue using Instant Watch (unless you want to pay those fees).

EDIT:
Okay, before we all ***** out, let me lay some shit down: this is a PREQUEL, not a REMAKE. It focuses on the Norwegians uncovering The Thing and the UFO.

Creature effects will be practical, CGI will be used ONLY when necessary, like having a tractor break through the ice because no one wants to trash a perfectly good tractor.

The thing at the beginning may not be the actual thing, it is being kept ambiguous as to whether it is the actual Thing or an alien life form imitating it.

 

[ReservoirAngel]

No!

No, no, no, no, no, no and fucking NO!

Two things alarm me immediately about this:

1) The Thing itself, as in the creature/specimin itself, was better when you didn't know anything about it. You barely knew where it came from or what it actually looked like. You only saw it when it was possessing and mutating people or dogs, never as it's true form. And that's why it worked! Because it was just thing overwhelming thing that could be all around you but you'd never be able to know until it was too late. That's what made it scary. Reducing it to "frozen ancient life form" or "frozen alien thing" remove some of that because you then know what it is as a life form, not just as something that can fuck up your shit on a whim.

2) This trailer, and I am only going by the trailer here since I haven't looked up anything else on this, looks lame. I haven't researched this, the trailer is the only exposure I've had to this project. But it looks like it abandons what makes the Carpenter film great. Why was the Carpenter version scary? Because it had that foreboding sense of not knowing what the fuck is going on. There was just this horrifying presence sitting right behind you the entire movie that made you feel constantly on edge because... well, because you just didn't know what this Thing was or when it was going to show up, if it wasn't already right there without you knowing.

This looks like that same-old same-old horror cliche of "bunch of people in isolated place, get picked off after numerous predictable jump scares". That's not to say such a method is bad, cause God knows jump scares and bus moments do get me a lot of the time. But that's not why The Thing got me, and it's not why the concept scared me.

Besides these points, it seems like it's just rehashing the original version but arbitrarily setting it years before and dumping exposition onto it.

Call me cynical but I'm really not sure about this. I want it to work and I want it to be as amazing as the original Thing was, but I just don't have much faith in modern Hollywood when it comes to horror franchises. It does look like they're trying to put that xenophobic sense of "people can't be trusted" into it but it just doesn't look like it's going to be anywhere near as good at it was when Carpenter did it.

 

[Zac Smith]

Your title is misleading, "For fans of John Carpenters: The Thing" I refuse to believe that this will have anything to do with the original. I think any fan of the original will hate this, and rather the story is left alone. It doesn't need a prequel, what we learn in the original is all you need to know

 

[Riobux]

I don't understand why any of John Carpenter's films need a remake. He's nothing short of a brilliant horror director.

 

[northeast rower]

1) The Thing itself, as in the creature/specimin itself, was better when you didn't know anything about it. You barely knew where it came from or what it actually looked like. You only saw it when it was possessing and mutating people or dogs, never as it's true form. And that's why it worked! Because it was just thing overwhelming thing that could be all around you but you'd never be able to know until it was too late. That's what made it scary. Reducing it to "frozen ancient life form" or "frozen alien thing" remove some of that because you then know what it is as a life form, not just as something that can fuck up your shit on a whim.

Think about it this way: WHAT IF that alien life form ISN'T an alien life form and is actually an imitator possessed by the Thing? I'm pretty sure that the devs of the project said they wanted to leave that aspect ambiguous, but think of it that way. Also, I think that this will retain some of that "what the fuck?" element, because you get the "what the fuck?" of discovering the downed UFO and then the "what the fuck?" of the people not knowing what's going on. They know even less when it starts attacking than the Americans do. I'm willing to give it a shot.

 

[northeast rower]

I don't understand why any of John Carpenter's films need a remake. He's nothing short of a brilliant horror director.

I agree. That's why this is a prequel focusing on the Norwegian base.

 

[Valksy]

Depends if it keeps true to the original.

The horror of the thing is not the gore - it is the shock and horror of what the thing actually is and the distrust and paranoia it causes.

The gore, when it happens, is so fantastically wet and organic and gross. Even today, I still find it kind of gross. CGI monsters would be shit, they always are. I love practical effects and hate CGI.

Jump shocks are not scary. If the new film relies on them, it can go and fuck itself.

Now, I don't go to the cinema any more because the urge to beat noisy fuckers is too strong, I can't stand it. But if the word is even remotely good, it is on my DVD want list. Unless it is a CGI crapfest. Then I'll watch it when it show up on Sky. Maybe.

 

[MetalDooley]

I don't understand why any of John Carpenter's films need a remake. He's nothing short of a brilliant horror director.

Apparently this is a prequel rather than a straight remake of the original.Still not holding out much hope for it though

 

[northeast rower]

Depends if it keeps true to the original.

The horror of the thing is not the gore - it is the shock and horror of what the thing actually is and the distrust and paranoia it causes.

The gore, when it happens, is so fantastically wet and organic and gross. Even today, I still find it kind of gross. CGI monsters would be shit, they always are. I love practical effects and hate CGI.

Jump shocks are not scary. If the new film relies on them, it can go and fuck itself.

Now, I don't go to the cinema any more because the urge to beat noisy fuckers is too strong, I can't stand it. But if the word is even remotely good, it is on my DVD want list. Unless it is a CGI crapfest. Then I'll watch it when it show up on Sky. Maybe.

THey say that CGI will be used ONLY when needed, like having a harvester break through the ice (which is, I guess, how they find the UFO). I'm guessing that all of the creature effects will be practical.

 

[Blemontea]

-snip-

EDIT: If this is a a Prequel to the original... Why does it not have some sort of subtitle to prevent fanboy rage like

The Thing: The Norwegian File/Case
The Thing: First Encounter
The Thing: The First Attack

Something like that... and im cool with this movie now...

 

[northeast rower]

GOD FUCKING HELL NOOOOOOO!
The Thing actually got me generally creeped out and spooked at some points when it came to horror movies. This Looks like its trying out the Duke Nukem forever Formula of catching up with today trends of horror. With the Trailer having things jump out at you and people screaming as they get dragged away.
Remember how the original Thing started out... Two Crazed Eskimos trying to shoot a dog to death for no reason. In other words it didn't start out REVEALING THE MONSTER. Their was build up and tension as you made your bets and saw it play out.

Plus Albert Whitlock worked in The Thing so much more work was put into making the animatronic Thing seem somehow real and a threat. Probably a lot more work than the CGI their going to use for the thing. Way to shit on one of my possible relatives finest work hollywood...

1: they were not Eskimos. They were Norwegians. This focuses on the Norwegians uncovering The Thing. Also, as stated above, it is ambiguous as to whether or not this is the actual Thing or an imitator of an alien life form.

2: CGI will be used only when necessary, creature effects will be practical.

 

[ReservoirAngel]

1) The Thing itself, as in the creature/specimin itself, was better when you didn't know anything about it. You barely knew where it came from or what it actually looked like. You only saw it when it was possessing and mutating people or dogs, never as it's true form. And that's why it worked! Because it was just thing overwhelming thing that could be all around you but you'd never be able to know until it was too late. That's what made it scary. Reducing it to "frozen ancient life form" or "frozen alien thing" remove some of that because you then know what it is as a life form, not just as something that can fuck up your shit on a whim.

Think about it this way: WHAT IF that alien life form ISN'T an alien life form and is actually an imitator possessed by the Thing? I'm pretty sure that the devs of the project said they wanted to leave that aspect ambiguous, but think of it that way. Also, I think that this will retain some of that "what the fuck?" element, because you get the "what the fuck?" of discovering the downed UFO and then the "what the fuck?" of the people not knowing what's going on. They know even less when it starts attacking than the Americans do. I'm willing to give it a shot.

But this is the point: the "what the fuck?" stuff is just retreading old ground. This film is basically relying primarily on people who've seen Carpenter's film going to see it. But the problem with that is that those people already know everything that it's going to ultimately take the film characters about half the film to find out.

It's just going back over what we already know. Plus with the original Thing's massive fanbase and it just generally being a well-known, widely-seen and even more widely-known of film, unless people go in having no knowledge of Carpenter's version they're going to be watching characters running around asking each other what's going on for 90 minutes when everyone already knows, because we've already seen basically the exact same thing.

Plus Valksy brings up a good point:

CGI monsters would be shit, they always are. I love practical effects and hate CGI.

And I completely agree. Hollywood will not be able to resist cramming as much CGI into this thing for the monster effects as possible. Think of the original: only the "Blair monster" seen right at the end was a computer-added effect and even that was just detailed stop-motion not CGI. All the rest of it? Practical effects.

And that's why it worked. Because what you were seeing managed to be so other-wordly yet still being real. It wouldn't work with CGI because people are so used to seeing CGI grotesque monsters running around in horror films leaping out of dark places. So any impact the creature had in this would immediately be lessened.

I'm not saying it couldn't work with CGI but it will be much harder to make it work and it'll just make it more difficult to break away from the "this is a typical Hollywood monster flick" atmosphere that it already has hanging around it.

I will make one concession however: if they do not reveal the origins of The Thing, then I will give them a point right there. If they keep it ambiguous, then they've gotten on my good side. But if they reveal it's nature like horror movies seem to think needs to be done, they will find no favour with me. I'm not speaking as a pedantic fuck here, I'm speaking as a gigantic Carpenter fan, who has a poster of this movie on my bedroom wall, and who doesn't want to see everything Carpenter made so pant-wettingly suspenseful, gross and horrifyingly scary about the film trampled beneath the feet of the "add more CGI and jump scares!" modern Hollywood horror mindset.

Wow I'm putting too much effort into these posts. I guess I'm more passionate about The Thing than I originally thought. It's just a movie, why am I getting so anal about this? Damn I'm lame.

 

[mad825]

I don't understand why any of John Carpenter's films need a remake. He's nothing short of a brilliant horror director.

Apparently this is a prequel rather than a straight remake of the original.Still not holding out much hope for it though

The apparent seems to be a remake. the film uses it's trademark such as the flame-thrower, we never saw flame-throwers at the Swedish Norwegian outpost but instead they had explosives and guns, you can also see that dog in the cage trying to escape by biting it's way through the chicken wire which is another iconic moment in John Carpenter's The Thing.

 

[Knight Captain Kerr]

The problem with making a prequel is that we all know how it will end. People in a helicopter chasing a dog.

 

[Llil]

I'd like them to remake "The Thing From Another World" from 1951 instead. You know, the one with the plant monster. I liked it for what it is, but it would be a much better movie to be remade. Carpenter's The Thing doesn't need a remake, it's fine by today's standards.

 

[northeast rower]

snip

THIS WILL NOT BE ALL CGI.

I'm sorry, but I'm getting a little fucking pissed off right now. Read the first post, I edited it.

Also, enjoy this poster. Sort of hearkens back to the original poster, a little darker, but I love the tagline and the little reference to Bennings, which was for me the second-scariest part of the film.

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=the+thing+2011+poster&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&rlz=1C1TSNF_enUS417US417&biw=1366&bih=667&tbm=isch&tbnid=AF6xXQMwc6rAmM:&imgrefurl=http://www.beyondhollywood.com/the-thing-2011-movie-preview-images-and-videos/the-thing-2011-movie-teaser-poster/&docid=AYWYJGmh-k0LTM&w=940&h=1392&ei=NJROTpvdEtSy0AHh7v3hBg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=172&vpy=282&dur=1054&hovh=273&hovw=184&tx=115&ty=132&page=1&tbnh=134&tbnw=87&start=0&ndsp=29&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:0

(if someone could throw some image tags in here, that would be great. I'm terrible with them)

 

[MetalDooley]

The apparent seems to be a remake. the film uses it's trademark such as the flame-thrower, we never saw flame-throwers at the Swedish Norwegian outpost but instead they had explosives and guns, you can also see that dog in the cage trying to escape by biting it's way through the chicken wire which is another iconic moment in John Carpenter's The Thing.

According to IMDB it's a prequel

The producers convinced Universal Studios to allow them to create a prequel to John Carpenter's The Thing instead of a remake, as they felt Carpenter's film was already perfect, so making a remake would be like "painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa". However, the prequel still has the title of the original film, because they couldn't think of a subtitle (for example, "The Thing: Begins") that sounded good.

 

[ReservoirAngel]

snip

THIS WILL NOT BE ALL CGI.

I'm sorry, but I'm getting a little fucking pissed off right now. Read the first post, I edited it.

Also, enjoy this poster. Sort of hearkens back to the original poster, a little darker, but I love the tagline and the little reference to Bennings, which was for me the second-scariest part of the film.

Spoiler: spoilered for space

(if someone could throw some image tags in here, that would be great. I'm terrible with them)

Okay, then I need to clarify some things:

1) Sorry for not reading the previous posts before I posted mine. If they're going for practical creature effects I have much respect for them in this. If they do it well, they've partially won be back over. But I do have hope, since if they could make the original creature effects so convincing in the 80s then with modern shit they should at least be able to match realism.

2) That doesn't mean they won't cock it up somehow. It means they have more of a chance, but they also have a lot of room for failure. They need to make this very loyal to how the original creature effects looked and acted, and not go off on their own thing.

3) Holy fucking hell, that poster looks amazing. I want a wallpaper of that. It really gets back to the original image that haunted The Thing's poster. That lone, faceless artic explorer by himself in the vast snowy wastelands. Plus the slightly mutated hand is a nice touch. People know it's a monster-based body horror flick so putting that in there just shows that off nicely without overpowering the central image. The tagline is also fantastic. I got nostalgic and terror chills just reading that again. Overall, I love this poster. It's simple, effective, and grabs you. At least, it grabbed me.

Btw, I put up the proper image in the tags, edit it into your OP if you want People need to see that! But... maybe keep the spoiler on it, it's fucking huge.

4) The only red light from the poster: "From the producers of Dawn of the Dead". I'm not slamming it because of this, because I did fucking love the 2004 Dawn of the Dead. It's one of my favourite modern-ish zombie movies in fact. But a lot of people hated what they did to the original movie, so it's not hanging too much in their favour having that so prominently on there.

5) I'm still not entirely convinced. The ammount of "jump scare" moments in the trailer alone makes me feel uneasy about the pacing direction this is taking. The original was a slow, frightening walk into uncertain darkness with creeping shadows all around you, but nothing really jumped out at you. You caught glimpses of horrifying things moving in the darkness but it never got in your face until right near the end of the experience. I have renewed hope after the "holding back on CGI" and the poster, but I'm still worried they'll pack it with jump scares.

The original wasn't about people getting dragged off into dark spaces screaming for their lives. It was about you not seeing their deaths. They were right there, talking to you like they always did... but it might not be them.

All in all, the more I hear the more hopeful I become, but as a faithful fan of the original they're going to have to work hard to win me completely over.

Still... god damn that poster is amazing!