# The Thing (2011)



## Starbeast (Oct 1, 2011)




----------



## Quokka (Oct 1, 2011)

I would have preferred a sequel, thank god it's not a 3rd remake, high hopes for the prequel


----------



## Triceratops (Oct 1, 2011)

Well, I've been waiting a long time for this one. Too bad they can't revive the original cast and begin where they left off. I've always liked the remake, one of the best of the best SF classics.

Chris


----------



## Quokka (Oct 1, 2011)

I just had a look on IMD and it mentions that even though it starts as a prequel it may at some point catch up with the begining of The Thing (probably the helicopter scene) and then run parallel with it so it doesn't have to finish as a set up for the 1982 movie.

  Could be a good idea but it's also convienient for the mandatory sequels.


----------



## Triceratops (Oct 1, 2011)

Interesting...there were some tribute scenes, paying homage to Russels' movie...bits and pieces or flashbacks. I never understood why it didn't have a sequel to the 82 version. 

chris


----------



## j d worthington (Oct 1, 2011)

"Tribute scenes"? Perhaps; but it looks more to me as if we're seeing direct copies inserted into this one in lieu of doing something original with their own set-up. I'm afraid that it looks far too much like a rehash to have me running a temperature over it. I'm not entirely closed to the idea (even of a remake), but I'm going to have to see some very high marks from reviewers I trust before I make much effort to see this.


----------



## Rodders (Oct 2, 2011)

I'm very much looking forward to seeing this.


----------



## steve12553 (Oct 2, 2011)

I'm not sure. I really enjoyed both earlier version of the film. I read the novel(la) and thoroughly enjoyed it. Maybe you can go on the the same thrill ride every 30 years or so and make it work. Maybe not. The '51 version was tense and scary and thoughtful. I rewatch it every so often. The '82 version went back to original story and pulled the shapeshifting concept back in and was scary and tense in it's own right. So many remakes and years later sequel/prequels fail because they load the film with special effects and lose the story and the characters.


----------



## D_Davis (Oct 2, 2011)

I had really high hopes for this all the way up until the point that I actually watched the trailer.


----------



## P.G.Bell (Oct 6, 2011)

Hmmm. I love the '82 version and I'm certainly not against the idea of them doing another one but, on the strength of the trailer, this appears to be as much remake as sequel.


----------



## No One (Oct 6, 2011)

The immediate problem I see with this is that it's touted as a prequel but, as J.d says, it basically looks like a re-hash. We know what happens at the Swedish camp (sorry, Norwegian ). At best this will only echo the events of Carpenter's version and I don't see much point in that.

Plus, they should be speaking in nonsensical, made-up, Norwegian.

Even if the CGI - and I fancy there'll be a lot of that - is _spectacularly _well done, this doesn't seem to offer anything original. Same old same old.


----------



## HoopyFrood (Oct 6, 2011)

I was all to set to up in arms about this, but then I ended up researching and posting an article as my first task in my job the other day.

I was worried about too much CGI (anyone who knows me knows it's a big pet peeve of mine) but apparently the director wanted to retain a lot of practical, on-screen monsterness, mostly because actors react better to things that are actually there. A monster suit was made for the beastie, as well as other animatronic bits, and CGI is more used as extension of the creature rather than the whole thing.

The main woman is apparently influenced by Ellen Ripley and the actress specifically decided to forgo any romantic contact for her character with the other characters in order to retain the paranoia that made the previous film awesome. 

So maybe it'll be all right. Or, seeing as the trailer does seem to suggest we've going to be seeing the same things as last time, it'll just be Carpenter's film with a more womanly Kurt Russell.


----------



## Rodders (Oct 7, 2011)

If it's done well does it matter if it's a rehash?


----------



## j d worthington (Oct 7, 2011)

Rodders said:


> If it's done well does it matter if it's a rehash?


 
By definition, a "rehash" is something which only repeats what has been done before; it doesn't improve on it in any significant way. That being the case... yes, I'd say it matters. What's the point of doing again, no better and not different in any _substantive_ fashion (leaving aside the technological advances, which are not really a reason for doing a remake in themselves), something which has been done before? It becomes nothing more than a glorified five-finger exercise, in that case; and the resources and talent could be much better used doing something original and creative instead. Especially when we're talking about a film (the Carpenter version) which is still quite easily available. Were it a "lost" film or somesuch, there might be reason, but as it is....

(Though I shouldn't have to make this point, I suppose it's best to do so: as I said earlier, if I hear from people whose opinions I respect that this is indeed a film which can stand on its own merits, is something original and striking, then that's quite another thing. But going on what is available so far... that seems an unlikely scenario.)


----------



## steve12553 (Oct 9, 2011)

j. d. worthington said:


> ...What's the point of doing again, no better and not different in any _substantive_ fashion (leaving aside the technological advances, which are not really a reason for doing a remake in themselves), something which has been done before? ... Especially when we're talking about a film (the Carpenter version) which is still quite easily available. Were it a "lost" film or somesuch, there might be reason, but as it is....
> 
> (Though I shouldn't have to make this point, I suppose it's best to do so: as I said earlier, if I hear from people whose opinions I respect that this is indeed a film which can stand on its own merits, is something original and striking, then that's quite another thing. But going on what is available so far... that seems an unlikely scenario.)


Let me add two points. First, when Carpenter remade the Hawks film he returned to the original story and used the newly available technology to help deliver what the author wrote. (Something they couldn't do in 1951). CGI would not make near enough difference to justify a remake. 
Second, the back story they are trying to make needs to be better than the original to justify its existence because we know how it ends. Otherwise we end up with the *Star Wars* prequels: lots of action and drama but we don't really care.


----------



## j d worthington (Oct 9, 2011)

Spot on, Steve!


----------



## J Riff (Oct 9, 2011)

Tailor-made to pick up where it left off. A little piece of the Thingy survives and away we go. Will see it no matter what so here's hoping.


----------



## Dave (Nov 8, 2011)

Creating new thread.

Starring: Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Jonathan Walker, Kim Bubbs, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje
Director: Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.

U.S. Opening Date: October 14th, 2011

Antarctica: an extraordinary continent of awesome beauty. It is also home to an isolated outpost where a discovery full of scientific possibility becomes a mission of survival when an alien is unearthed by a crew of international scientists. The shape-shifting creature, accidentally unleashed at this marooned colony, has the ability to turn itself into a perfect replica of any living being. It can look just like you or me, but inside, it remains inhuman. In the thriller The Thing, paranoia spreads like an epidemic among a group of researchers as they're infected, one by one, by a mystery from another planet.

Palaeontologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) has travelled to the desolate region for the expedition of her lifetime. Joining a Norwegian scientific team that has stumbled across an extraterrestrial ship buried in the ice, she discovers an organism that seems to have died in the crash aeons ago. But it is about to wake up.

When a simple experiment frees the alien from its frozen prison, Kate must join the crew's pilot, Carter (Joel Edgerton), to keep it from killing them off one at a time. And in this vast, intense land, a parasite that can mimic anything it touches will pit human against human as it tries to survive and flourish.

A prequel to The Thing! Next they'll do a prequel to Alien!


----------



## Rob Sanders (Nov 8, 2011)

I am looking forward to this. i love the original. It looks from the trailer as though they have retained the original 'style'.


----------



## Dave (Nov 8, 2011)

The John Carpenter version is not the original filmed version (and actually based on a John W. Campbell Jr. story "Who Goes There?") but I think it is the best version, and I agree that the "style" of this looks like it would easily slip in before it. I'm not sold on the idea that we "need" this though, and I doubt I will see go to it at the cinema.


----------



## Rodders (Nov 9, 2011)

I really want to see this at the cinema. John Carpenter's "The Thing" is one of my all time favourite movies. As for needing this, perhaps not. I want it though.


----------



## Rob Sanders (Nov 9, 2011)

Yeah, I guess what I really meant was that it was a sequel (I think it might be a prequel) to the 1982 version rather than the black and white original. I agree that it's not needed but like Rodders I am eager to see this at the cinema.



________________________________________________________________ 
Rob Sanders Speculative Fiction


----------



## J Riff (Mar 4, 2013)

Wow, a prequel that actually worked. Or did it? I dunno... it was pretty good while it was on. I suspect there will be a third movie, we now have the surviving girl on the loose and she can wander in on whoever plays Kurt Russel.


----------



## steve12553 (Mar 6, 2013)

Based on everything I read, I ordered the DVD. I watched it. Although it seemed to maintain the style of the Carpenter film, it just wasn't much. It lacked the wonderful acting of the original (a Science Fiction movie with David Keith in is always interesting) or the originality or the paranoia. It was just lacking. I was almost bored. Not a good quality for something that should be suspenseful.


----------



## J Riff (Mar 8, 2013)

The original came out on the heels of Alien, and had a great cast. Not a woman in that flick, other'n the voice of the chess machine who beats MacReady at the beginning. He pours his drink into it. 
  What can ya expect from a flick like this - action and not much more. The third one, if and when it's made, will have to start with the US base again -and the Thing threatening the entire world. I suspect that the gal who escaped will be the one to roast it oncet and for all.


----------



## Rodders (Mar 8, 2013)

Is this going to be a trilogy? I didn't think this did that well at the box office.


----------

