# New version of The Thing on the way.



## KGeo777 (Jan 28, 2020)

Using material from a recently found manuscript by the author.









						Universal Is Remaking The Thing With New Content From Original Novel
					

Universal Studios and Blumhouse are remaking The Thing, using the lost pages from Who Goes There? by science fiction writer John W. Campbell.




					screenrant.com


----------



## Phyrebrat (Jan 28, 2020)

That's a hard pass from me.

pH


----------



## Vince W (Jan 28, 2020)

Ditto.


----------



## Rodders (Jan 29, 2020)

I'm interested in this. It'll be interesting to see what they do. 

The Thing is so high up on my list of great movies that not a lot can knock it off. I just hope it amps up the paranoia and fear rather than being a movie made up of set piece after set piece.


----------



## CupofJoe (Jan 29, 2020)

If the pages weren't used in the previous films, there was probably a reason they were cut.


----------



## Toby Frost (Jan 29, 2020)

I suggest we get a copy of this remake and touch it with a hot wire.


----------



## Vince W (Jan 29, 2020)

Toby Frost said:


> I suggest we get a copy of this remake and touch it with a hot wire.


Or perhaps the execs that green lighted it.


----------



## reiver33 (Jan 29, 2020)

No. 

Just, no.


----------



## anno (Jan 29, 2020)

Cool is it clobberin’ time?!!!


----------



## Judderman (Jan 29, 2020)

I haven't read these books but based on the original film intro, and that the article says the extra content is from before most of the original film takes place, I wonder if this is more of a sci-fi element about the spaceship and what happens to the aliens before the crash? The space part is barely mentioned in the original film. But as the original film is so superb I can only expect a remake will be worse. Not necessarily terrible.


----------



## Vince W (Jan 30, 2020)

The only way and I mean only way, that this film could even approach the near perfection of Carpenter's film is if they do two things. First, they completely eschew CGI and use practical effects again. The prequel proved that a CGI Thing doesn't have any real impact on the viewer. Second, the cast would have to match the quality of Carpenter's. I can see a new one using too many 'stars' and most films with a lot of 'stars' are utter kack.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jan 30, 2020)

Vince W said:


> The only way and I mean only way, that this film could even approach the near perfection of Carpenter's film is if they do two things. First, they completely eschew CGI and use practical effects again. The prequel proved that a CGI Thing doesn't have any real impact on the viewer. Second, the cast would have to match the quality of Carpenter's. I can see a new one using too many 'stars' and most films with a lot of 'stars' are utter kack.



Set it in 1938.


----------



## Foxbat (Jan 30, 2020)

It's a very long time since I read it but from what I remember, it was a short story called Who Goes There and not a novel. Maybe there's a reason it's not a novel (like the author didn't think he had enough quality material to flesh it out that far). He was, after all, an editor by trade and would know these things.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jan 30, 2020)

For some reason I thought we had a forgettable remake of _The Thing_ fairly recently? Or am I just getting mixed up?


----------



## Vladd67 (Jan 30, 2020)

Brian G Turner said:


> For some reason I thought we had a forgettable remake of _The Thing_ fairly recently? Or am I just getting mixed up?


It wasn’t a remake as such but a prequel showing the events at the Norwegian camp before the thing reached the Americans iirc.


----------



## J Riff (Jan 30, 2020)

the prequel was actually okay, it sets up what happens next in the 1st flik. Then... I mean..we have these two dudes, and this gigantic spaceship in the ice... and no doubt some thing-stuff laying round somewhere... how hard can it be? 
If they remake it... no, wouldn't, would they? NOO. Get on with the story, it's a perfect set-up.


----------



## CupofJoe (Jan 30, 2020)

If they were going to remake the original 1951 The Thing from another world, I'd be more interested, but still appalled.


----------



## KGeo777 (Jan 30, 2020)

The scene in the 2011 film I liked was where the two-face thing is roaming the hallway looking for victims. Probably could have been more dramatic and scarier but it was a nightmarish idea.
But pretty feeble to have two American pilots who happen to be visiting the Norwegian camp and also happen to resemble MacCready and Childs! From what I heard the film was victim of studio micromanaging.

Bill Warren, author of *Keep Watching the Skies* was not a fan of the 82' Thing. Although the film is among my favorites he did have valid criticisms. 
I also wonder how the film would have been if more of the FX was in shadows. One of the spookiest scenes cut from the film is someone in a corridor wearing a parka scurrying away from a team member. Very mundane yet eerie.


----------



## Foxbat (Jan 30, 2020)

CupofJoe said:


> If they were going to remake the original 1951 The Thing from another world, I'd be more interested, but still appalled.


Although it veered somewhat from the original tale, I thought this was very good. It's a rare occurence when a story inspires a reasonably accurate  movie (Carpenter's) but also a movie that is different but good in its own way.


----------



## J Riff (Jan 31, 2020)

well, everyone hates it already, based on the 'undiscovered manuscript' nonsense.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 2, 2020)

Foxbat said:


> It's a very long time since I read it but from what I remember, it was a short story called Who Goes There and not a novel. Maybe there's a reason it's not a novel (like the author didn't think he had enough quality material to flesh it out that far). He was, after all, an editor by trade and would know these things.



*Frozen Hell * by John W Campbell   Its an extended version of *Who Goes There.      *


----------



## Foxbat (Feb 2, 2020)

Aah! Never read that one.


----------



## BAYLOR (Feb 2, 2020)

Foxbat said:


> Aah! Never read that one.



It can be found on Kindle.


----------



## J Riff (Feb 4, 2020)

yessss. the SS was made with James Arness as the Thing, in the 50s... i swear if they just remake the Thing... I .... nevermind.


----------



## Al Jackson (Feb 4, 2020)

KGeo777 said:


> Using material from a recently found manuscript by the author.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



One wonders why Campbell did not publish this? Could be he didn't consider it worthy?


----------



## Vince W (Feb 4, 2020)

Al Jackson said:


> One wonders why Campbell did not publish this? Could be he didn't consider it worthy?


I find that unpublished material is usually unpublished for a reason.


----------

