the THING

praetus

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKjErC2JLQc"]The Thing 2011 Trailer [HD] - YouTube[/ame]

so, I went and saw this tonight and it was pretty awesome. The one from 1982 is one of my favorite movies and I was somewhat worried when they announced the prequel. Everything you see in the second camp from the first movie you see happen in this one. Nice continuity. I'd be curious to know what other people thought about this or if they planned on seeing it.

biofrost

I just saw it as well! I enjoyed it almost as much as the 1982 The Thing. I really enjoyed as you said seeing all the references to the second camp in the first movie. Overall I very surprised with the movie and it complements the 1982 The thing very well.

I just wish after the credits they would have taken it farther and either showed footage from the 1982 version or had the actors reprise their roles and remade the crash scene.

DrunkShaman

Oh ya! I almost forgot about this movie.

they froze themselves in the previous one, so I didnt think they had the motive to make another but TADAAA!!

Kot_Leopold

I am so glad to hear positive comments about the prequel! I got sort of anxious when I saw a 35% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (they're harsh critics, no doubt). John Carpenter's "the Thing" is one of my favorite films of all time. Now it looks like I will go and watch the prequel too

gillmeister74

There is definitely some real heavy cynicism, but a lot of it probably comes from those who hate seeing cg taking over what was once the job of hand crafted puppets or a blend of puppets and computer graphics. Either that or people are just sick of remakes (even though this is technically a prequel). I can't say much cause I haven't seen this one, but I might have too. It does look fun

Axios

Obviously, I didn't expect this to come anywhere near John Carpenter's, but even with all my optimism and excitement, I'm pretty disappointed in this movie.

Overall, I feel that this movie missed the point. What made Carpenter's so great was that for all that it focused on the monster, the movie was driven by the paranoia between the characters. This movie focused too much on the monster itself, which was to be expected given how effects-driven this movie would be. For instance, the scene where the monster is roaming around looking for people, shouldn't it have gone back to human form to bolster the paranoia that The Thing is about? Also, didn't they walk around outside pretty casually for Antarctica? Anyways, I could have accepted all of that no problem, but then the movie lost me. What the hell was the UFO ending all about? That was very unnecessary and really detracted from the movie. All of a sudden it became Alien vs Predator and felt completely pointless. Can't say I didn't expect it, but leaving her alive was disappointing. I was hoping that the film would hit on more of the notes in John Carpenter's, such as the feeling of absolution that came from the characters accepting that they would die there and acting with that in mind. Overall, this movie came off more like a slasher film than the cerebral horror that the old one was.

Of course, it's not all bad. I was at least entertained by the movie, and I really enjoyed it for about the first two-thirds or so. The effects were strong overall and I feel they did a good portrayal of the Thing itself which was great, as it was probably the motivation for this movie to begin with. Additionally, it did a good job in leading into the old one. The cabin was set up right, obviously they lead directly into the old opening scene, and, hey, the credits font was the same! But why was the UFO so massive?

Striff

I am a huge fan of the 82 version and I loved it. I read all the negative reviews and went into it very skeptical but it almost made me feel the same way I felt after watching the 82 version for the first time.

It's pretty much just a FUCKED up and graphic as the 82 version. So what if it's more of the same like most of the reviewers are saying. They grow the storyline somewhat and the fact that a lot of it is in Danish since some of the characters only speak in Danish really adds to the suspense.

biofrost

Axios wrote: »

Obviously, I didn't expect this to come anywhere near John Carpenter's, but even with all my optimism and excitement, I'm pretty disappointed in this movie.

Overall, I feel that this movie missed the point. What made Carpenter's so great was that for all that it focused on the monster, the movie was driven by the paranoia between the characters. This movie focused too much on the monster itself, which was to be expected given how effects-driven this movie would be. For instance, the scene where the monster is roaming around looking for people, shouldn't it have gone back to human form to bolster the paranoia that The Thing is about? Also, didn't they walk around outside pretty casually for Antarctica? Anyways, I could have accepted all of that no problem, but then the movie lost me. What the hell was the UFO ending all about? That was very unnecessary and really detracted from the movie. All of a sudden it became Alien vs Predator and felt completely pointless. Can't say I didn't expect it, but leaving her alive was disappointing. I was hoping that the film would hit on more of the notes in John Carpenter's, such as the feeling of absolution that came from the characters accepting that they would die there and acting with that in mind. Overall, this movie came off more like a slasher film than the cerebral horror that the old one was.

Of course, it's not all bad. I was at least entertained by the movie, and I really enjoyed it for about the first two-thirds or so. The effects were strong overall and I feel they did a good portrayal of the Thing itself which was great, as it was probably the motivation for this movie to begin with. Additionally, it did a good job in leading into the old one. The cabin was set up right, obviously they lead directly into the old opening scene, and, hey, the credits font was the same! But why was the UFO so massive?

I can understand where you are coming from but the movie did have the paranoia between characters, just not as much. I feel if it had focused more on that like the 1982 version, it would be seen more as a carbon copy. I feel it focused more on the monster to set it apart from John Carpenter's. As far as the ufo ending, I mean it was a alien, I liked that I got to see what kind of technology that species had.

Richard Kain

I was very disappointed in how they handled the protagonist in this film. The character herself wasn't particularly objectionable, I just didn't like the role she played in the plot, or they way in which they resolved her part. It just struck me that the way they approached this lacked a lot of the daring that was evident in the original 1982 film.

I also felt that they did far too much to ape the John Carpenter film. There were numerous scenes that were quite clearly meant to call back to that movie. While there are far worse films to imitate, I think they took it a bit to far. With a different location and cast, I would have liked to see a different wrinkle on the premise. Also, I fear that this film went WAY too far out of its way to tie things together with the original film. On the one hand, this gives fans of the original plenty of things to take note of. On the other hand, several scenes and sequences were weaker for these diversions. A bit less prequelitis might have made for a more evenly paced experience.

My biggest complaint coming out of this one was that they simply showed too much of the monsters. While there was a decent bit of visual creativity on display in some of the monster designs, their overexposure detracted from the claustrophobia and paranoia that was so important to the original movie. The strength of that film was the constant dread of not knowing who you could trust. You usually didn't see the monster until it was too late to prevent it from eating someone.

They also did a weak job of explaining how they differentiate between the monsters and the humans, but that at least made some sense within context.

The film is still watchable. I wouldn't recommend it very strongly, especially when held up against its far better paced predecessor. But for fans of the original film who feel like seeing a decent creature-feature before Halloween, have fun.

SsSandu_C

Whaaatttt? A black man in the middle of an ice wasteland? ..... I'm just saying... Anyway joke aside... from what I see from the trailer this movie is going to be an average movie. As someone that saw the first one... there is nothing new... hello... nothing new... the same thing... pun intended... This is a movie maybe for people who haven't had the chance to see the first one. I think the trailer, and like most modern trailers... they give too much information. Let's say if I didn't know the first movie, I didn't know that the thing can take the form of other people. Wouldn't it have been nice to find that while I'm sitting in my seat... They should have made a trailer that just presented you with the idea that you are going to see a movie with a monster... that kills... people try to survive it... leave some_thing out. I don't know I personally dislike this remaking trend that has overrun the industry. Yeahh really looking forward to the new Total Recall... NOT!!! Anyway I'm not going to see it. I have no real reason.

Habboi

Ew CGI? Part of the charm of 82 was the puppets. Will probably wait till it's shown on TV or something in the next few years.

Axios

biofrost wrote: »

I can understand where you are coming from but the movie did have the paranoia between characters, just not as much. I feel if it had focused more on that like the 1982 version, it would be seen more as a carbon copy. I feel it focused more on the monster to set it apart from John Carpenter's. As far as the ufo ending, I mean it was a alien, I liked that I got to see what kind of technology that species had.

In regards to the technology, I think it's interesting to speculate on whether that is the thing's tech or not. Seems more logical that the ship would be the tech of a different alien species that the thing had imitated, just like it imitating a human and driving a truck. Of course, I base this on nothing, but it makes more sense to me than that ship actually belonging to the thing.

Black bars!

MainManiac

Ghostscape

frell wrote: »

you magnificent asshole

ambershee

Apparently it's not showing in this country for another 3 months. Staggered cinema release dates are colossally retarded, especially when a trip for me and the missus might cost the equivalent of $50

The bit I didn't get from the trailer is why anyone would have guns in the Antarctic?

Irreal

Huge fan of the original and this was in my opinion a worthy prequel. 45 metacritic was way off.

Geezus

Habboi wrote: »

Ew CGI? Part of the charm of 82 was the puppets. Will probably wait till it's shown on TV or something in the next few years.

There was a good amount of puppetry in this one, actually. I was surprised.

All in all, meh. It was a movie. Didn't do too much for me. I didn't expect it to, though. I tend to only reserve theater viewings for movies I'm genuinely attached to. I went to see this with a few friends on a whim. I wasn't pleased with the movie... but I wasn't disappointed. It's not a movie that I would typically pay to see in the theater though.

As far as horror or suspense goes, I thought it was pretty weak.

The only time I actually *jumped* or was startled was when Adebisi (he will always be Adebisi to me) was checking out the ice coffin and the guy behind him yelled "BOO!".

Did anyone else think the alien sound affects were insanely loud?

I also felt that the space ship was seriously lacking and came off very unrealized.

The whole alien skin-merging scene was pretty wicked, though

I would not recommend this as a theater viewing, as it's not quality enough to warrant the price of a theater ticket... unless you're itching to enjoy a night out at the theater, and a decent movie will do.

Dylan Brady

I was sorta let down. But to be honest, I enjoyed it more than most horror movies that have come out recently.
I was super excited to see the final monster (Sander-thing) cause I worked on it for another licensed project, and it was really crazy to see how it turned out.

ambershee

ambershee wrote: »

The bit I didn't get from the trailer is why anyone would have guns in the Antarctic?

Watched the original last night - had to after this thread. For the record, they have shitloads of guns in the original too. What does an antarctic research post need with ~10 rifles and two military grade flamethrowers?

[HP]

ambershee wrote: »

Watched the original last night - had to after this thread. For the record, they have shitloads of guns in the original too. What does an antarctic research post need with ~10 rifles and two military grade flamethrowers?

Because It's America and it's how they roll?

Looking forward to this, I loved the first one.

achillesian

too fucking loud, the rest was great in my opinion

Axios

ambershee wrote: »

What does an antarctic research post need with ~10 rifles and two military grade flamethrowers?

Shit's cold.