John Carpenter's The Thing is getting a prequel

[Mike Fang]

I recently went to see ?Don?t Be Afraid of The Dark.? An apt title, since there?s nothing in the movie worth being scared of. It delivers maybe one or two mild jump scares, but?well I don?t want to spoil it if you decide to see it for yourself, but let?s say it makes the same mistake ?Darkness Falls? did and tries to make something that?s really not scary the subject of a horror movie. I really don?t see why they gave it an R rating, either.

But there is one thing worth being afraid of that I saw when I watched that movie. It was one of the trailers. Brace yourselves: they?re making a prequel to John Carpenter?s ?The Thing.? Oh sweet merciful God, this is fraught with peril. Prequels are probably the most difficult kind of movie to make, because certain things have to happen for them not to conflict with what you know will happen in the movie they?re preceding, story-wise. This means you?ve got an audience that will likely not be surprised by the ending.

What isn?t helping matters is this prequel ISN?T being directed by John Carpenter. Instead, its being directed by Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. Never heard of him? That?s because this is his first major film, according to IMDB. Previously he directed a video called ?Zein? in 2004 and a short film called ?Red Rain? in 1996. So, this could either be a young new director?s big break to greatness or proof that you need a little more experience under your belt before you try to follow up what is arguably on one of the most famous sci-fi horror movies of the last 25 years. I think a lot of it will depend on whether or not he uses real, physical set pieces and props like Carpenter did?or if he does too much CGI. Either way, I?m nervous about how this is going to turn out.

 

[Vicarious Reality]

Goody. I want to see a new thing themed thmovie
Of course, i don't really see how they can provide a new, exciting script that's not silly and farfetched

 

[Bambi On Toast]

I loved The Thing. The special effects were brilliant.

If this prequel turns out good, it would expose a whole new audience to one of the coolest horror films ever. And that can't be a bad thing really.

If it goes bad, I will lose faith that anything new will be good ever again.

If Tarantino's next film in 2012/13 also disappoints... I will end it all.

I hate CGI. I thought the effects in the first Predator were better than in the newest installment, and that's like a 20 year gap.

 

[SammiYin]

I'm very hopeful about this film, it'll be good to introduce other people not familiar with the original [so, anybody under 30 who isn't a film geek] to such a brilliant film. I really hope they manage to capture the paranoia and distrust of the original.

 

[Lionsfan]

If Tarantino's next film in 2012/13 also disappoints... I will end it all.

I think it's impossible for it to disappoint. You've got Jamie Foxx as a Slave Bounty Hunter, Leonardo DiCaprio as a Racist Cruel Plantation Owner, Samuel L. MOTHERFUCKING[footnote]Sorry about that, it's just that whenever I see/type his name I have to add in something yelling ************, since that's almost all he does in movies[/footnote] Jackson as a Wise Old Slave, and Christoph Waltz as a German Bounty Hunter. Also adding to the fun is a just for shits and giggles casting decision, with Kevin Costner rumored to be in the movie as guy who trains Leo's slaves to fight in Death Matches

 

[Casual Shinji]

Even if John Carpenter made this prequel it would most likely still suck.

I don't know if you noticed, but John Carpenter hasn't made a quallity movie in ages.

 

[electric_warrior]

The Thing was released more than 25 years ago, just sayin'

In fairness, even Carpenter's the thing was a remake, and it turned out amazing. I suppose anything could happen: it could be bad, it could be good, either way the proof will be in the pudding. Personally, I think it looks like it could be alright... or maybe I just want it to be so so badly.

 

[Thaluikhain]

In fairness, even Carpenter's the thing was a remake, and it turned out amazing.

Not really, while there was a similar "The Thing" or "The Thing from Another World" made much earlier, Carpenter's wasn't a remake, they were just based on the same story...Carpenter's version keeping much closer to the original.

Might almost say Carpenter's was a remake of the first two episodes of "The Seeds of Doom", otherwise.

[small]I'd strongly recommend both "The Thing from Another World" and "The Seeds of Doom"[/small]

But, I can't say I'm expecting this not to suck, but it'd be nice to be wrong about this sort of thing, just for a change.

 

[electric_warrior]

Not really, while there was a similar "The Thing" or "The Thing from Another World" made much earlier, Carpenter's wasn't a remake, they were just based on the same story...Carpenter's version keeping much closer to the original.

Might almost say Carpenter's was a remake of the first two episodes of "The Seeds of Doom", otherwise.

[small]I'd strongly recommend both "The Thing from Another World" and "The Seeds of Doom"[/small]

But, I can't say I'm expecting this not to suck, but it'd be nice to be wrong about this sort of thing, just for a change.

I've seen the black and white original (directed by the great howard hawks I believe?) and I know there are substantial differences, I made the point mainly to demonstrate that being drawn from a previous source doesn't necessarily mean the work is bad. This The Thing, properly handled, could be as brilliant as any other film. Take the recent adaptation of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, which is by all accounts pretty awesome, as a good example of that.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I've seen the black and white original (directed by the great howard hawks I believe?) and I know there are substantial differences, I made the point mainly to demonstrate that being drawn from a previous source doesn't necessarily mean the work is bad. This The Thing, properly handled, could be as brilliant as any other film. Take the recent adaptation of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, which is by all accounts pretty awesome, as a good example of that.

Being a prequel means it has to fit into continuity, though, which would limit what they could do with it. You'd get a lesser problem with a remake as well. If you're just "inspired by", you can play fast and loose with your source material.

I'd agree that the film, if handled well, could work same as anything else, but I'm always a tad suspicious of things like this...if they just wanted to make a good movie, they'd not need the pulling power of a successful film's name. Being a prequel to a successful film is going to make people watch it, even if it sucks, which can encourage laziness.

I'd also say that a prequel is totally unnecesary, not sure how well it would work.

 

[Jonluw]

What would have been cool would've been if they did the entire thing in Norwegian with English subtitles.

That's not happening of course, but I can dream, can't I?

 

[electric_warrior]

Being a prequel means it has to fit into continuity, though, which would limit what they could do with it. You'd get a lesser problem with a remake as well. If you're just "inspired by", you can play fast and loose with your source material.

How much continuity is really needed, though? All we know from The Thing is that they dug it up, defrosted it, it ran riot in their camp, leading one unnamed man to slit his own throat, and escaped in the body of a dog while being chased by the only two remaining Norwegians in a helicopter (whose names we never learn). There's a lot of room in between those dots to make something almost entirely your own: we still won't know who lives, who dies, who's a thing and who isn't. Besides, I don't really see the need for absolute continuity: so long as the end product is scintillating, I don't care if one or two strands don't quite match up to the old film. I think you'd have to be the worst sort of Comic Book Guy style internet nerd to overlook something's merits and pick at minor flaws in continuity.

 

[Daveman]

Well The Thing is basically the only horror film I like so I guess I'm excited. Or rather I'm praying it's not shit.

 

[Jonny49]

I hate this film already.

I LOVE Carpenter's version, but this "prequel" just looks incredibly bland and generic. It doesn't even look like a prequel, it looks like a remake, a really dull and shit remake.

 

[Vrex360]

I doubt it will be as good as the original, or even as gory, but I'm looking forward to it if only for nostalgia's sake. It probably won't be as good as the original, this I'm sure, but I'm hoping it is still decent on its own merits.

 

[Vegard Pompey]

Old news. At least it's a prequel and not a remake.

 

[Stalk3rchief]

I saw the trailer and it appears to take place in the Norwegian camp, which I guess it has to since they're the only ones who encountered the thing before McCready's group. What worried me about the trailer were the details that stand at odds with the original. The original thing NEVER;
A: Left giant gory messes all over the walls when it stealthily consumed it's victims.
B: Ran lightning fast and dragged people under buildings.
C: Acted like a predatory animal.
D: The Norwegian camp showed no evidence of having a woman station there.(Not sexist, it's true) ((ALTHOUGH, if she's the one of the first victims it'll be okay.))
E: THERE WAS NO STRUCTURE! D:<

The thing, if I remember correctly, was a very intelligent alien. It crashed in a UFO for rucks sake. It consumed a member of the group and left absolutely no mess, just a pair of torn undergarments. It spoke and acted just like a human, it wasn't a ravenous beast, it was smart and stealthy and manipulative. This "Prequel" is looking like it's going to be a surprise-jump out-at-you horror as to the physcological horror it's based on.

Of course that's only an assumption after watching the trailers. That and the fact that all modern horrors movies, specially remakes, are bad. Anyways, idk,I think he's going to fuck this one up.

Spoiler: The trailer