Just watched "The Thing" prequel"

[VIDA]

I should make a habit of these threads lol.

these horror sequels/prequels/remakes always get a bad rap for usually crappy reasons. This movie is honestly not bad. Not fantastic or anything, but it was alright. Its a nice "extension" if you really liked Carpenter's film, which i did.

Actually started rewatching the 1982 version today before I went to the theatre (the auditorium of which was nearly all to myself on a Thurs night lol). And I have to say, between the films, the best performance, and Im not joking...I think it's the dog's at the beginning of Carpenter's film. The way he just creepily stares and observes things around the camp, while just being very mechanical yet sinister, even in running from the chopper, is brilliant. And the way he sits down in the dog penn is just eery and very good atmosphere. Just goes to show how good film making can derive a brilliant performance, even from an actor that is unaware he's acting.

But yeah anyways, back to the 2011 film. It was nice how they worked off the footprint of the desolated Norweigan camp in the first film. It did feel a little too similar at times, and in typical cinema (esp horror) fashion some things didnt make sense, but it had enough new and old to be cool. It's basically like the dlc to lets GTA4. Sure its not as good as the original game, but its a good/great and fitting extension to something you already loved. And thats cool.

Also, I liked the way the film transitions to the timeline of the 1982 film in the first phase of the closing credit. Apparently Carpenter has had a sequel to his movie in mind for the past half a decade or so.

So discuss.

 

[aj1701]

I have to agree. While the originals were good, they were dated by the time I saw them too (not too long after they came out, only a few years). The remake / prequel was well done visually. Its a decent movie, worth renting at least.

My wife also said "it was basically the same as the originals." Well, I'm not sure what anyone expected. The Thing 2 was much like the original. Its the same creature, with the same abilities, in the Antartic; the variations seem limited to me. The only way to really mix things up to me would be a Thing 3 where it mutates or something and games new abilities or something.

I also liked how they did the ending as well, with the scenes from the original (well, reshot). Also seeing the origin of the creature was cool as well. I wish they did more exploring of that. I doubt "the thing" built the ship, it probably was responsible for it crashing. There was missed potential there, I think.

All said though, I was happy with it, and am glad I went to check it out.

 

[VIDA]

I havent seen the 1951 version, but Ive read about the original short story and its more or less the same concept: an alien that imitates ppl and thus breeds paranoia and speculation.

The only thing is the prequel's insistence on this whole "cant replicate inorganic material" thing. Im sure it makes sense that it cant, and that is prob consistent with Carpenter's movie, but why cant it just form around fillings and earings etc. It spitting out metallic things doesnt seem consistent with the 1982 classic, and it seems like the whole theme about it tearing through clothing might not be there, Im not sure.

The 1982 movie will always be a classic with a great mystery woven into it. This prequel was a nice addition. Supposedly Carpenter wants to do a sequel to his movie but not sure if the source is accurate (wikipedia, lol). Anyways, good to see ppl enjoyed it.

 

[aj1701]

Right, i forgot there was a 50s Thing as well. I don't think I've seen that either. To form around fillings or put earings back in would imply its intelligent, at least somewhat. I didn't gather that it was quite that smart... more like a virus that can imitate but not really do anything that requires thinking. That's why I think the Thing brought down the alien ship instead of it actually being the lifeform that was piloting it. Of course I could be missing something!

 

[VIDA]

I never liked the term "intellignet" but if you mean like conscious and cognizant I think its plenty of that. I get how fillings and even an armour plate cant be formed around, possibly. But an earring it can just pickup and pierce in, unless maybe it forgets or doesnt pay attention to that...Idk.

The making of docu: Terror Takes shape"shows that Bottin, one of the main guys on the film had the idea that "the Thing" would take on the forms of every organism its ever taken form of across the universe. Thats why Norris' head grows like strange alien eyes among other alien shapes. It probably did take down that ship, and was not actually the "resident" species.

 

[doomfarmer]

The 1982 version of The Thing is maybe my favorite movie... so when this new one came out I was ready to pick it apart in the theater. I gotta say it wasn't at all bad. It's not going to turn any heads, or bring in any new fans but, I really enjoyed it. The cast didn't bug the shit out of me like I assumed they would. The CGI wasn't terrible. No terrible nickleback type bands in the soundtrack, all original score. There are a few things I could nip pick about it but I won't. Overall, yeah, pretty happy with it.