#1  
Old 07-05-2011, 03:45 PM
The Thing prequel

Variety reports that the theatrical trailer for The Thing prequel (due out October 14) was previewed at CineEurope, also included was some additional footage.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead also tweets that she has seen the final cut and was impressed with the movie. Despite rumour control working over-time the release date still stands.

Roll on October!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-06-2011, 03:46 PM
I like Mary but this movie is D.O.A. for me.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-13-2011, 01:12 PM
Teaser poster is pretty cool

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-13-2011, 09:20 PM
Yeah. I love the poster.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-14-2011, 03:09 PM
The trailer is fantastic too. Though it looks to be the exact same movie with a female Macready. Maybe better production values.

I DID, however, absolutely love the use of the original score at the very end of the trailer. I wonder wonder wonder if that will be used throughout the movie.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-14-2011, 03:26 PM
This is not a prequel, this is a remake, disguised as a prequel....

Seriously though, come on. At LEAST use Sweedes, I mean Norwegian, language. And come up with your own scenes, such as the dogs in the cage, the Thing building another lair in the basement, burning Bennings, I mean whoever that other character is being burned out in the snow. Morriconne's score was cool to hear again though. I'm kind of let down on this one. It could have been a great movie, but instead they are relying too much on JC's vision. At least that's what I'm taking from the trailer. BUT WHAT IF WE WRONG ABOUT HIM?!...........THEN WE WRONG!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-14-2011, 04:42 PM
Sadly, I agree that this looks like a remake in the guise of a prequel. On the positive side: It has Mary Elizabeth Winstead, the poster looks great, and it has Mary Elizabeth Winstead!!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-14-2011, 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisoGenie View Post
Sadly, I agree that this looks like a remake in the guise of a prequel. On the positive side: It has Mary Elizabeth Winstead, the poster looks great, and it has Mary Elizabeth Winstead!!
The only positive.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-14-2011, 06:36 PM
Ehh, I'm a bit hesitant on this one, but I'll probably check it out when all is said and done.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-14-2011, 09:42 PM
Trailer looks ok. I bet the movie sux. Hope I am wrong. And just to clarify, it is a prequel.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-14-2011, 10:25 PM
Meh. It looks okay I guess. But definitely not something that I'd jump out of seat and go rush out and see.

John Carpenter's The Thing was a good enough movie, but I didn't love it like a lot of people do.

The trailer for this prequel just looks, at best, mildly diverting but nothing remotely special.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-14-2011, 10:30 PM
While I do respect peoples reservations about this film. I on the other hand am not going to jump into the "Oh, it will be crap, because JC's vision is the best etc" boat too early. I give just about every film at least ONE chance. I think it could be promising. And I will go and see it. Remember, everything or nothing can be told by a trailer. I have seen great flicks with crap trailers. And vica-versa. My life-long movie philosophy has been to give everything at least once chance. And I will do exactly this. There are exceptions to this rule though. The Twilight movies etc lol
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-15-2011, 10:37 AM
It really doesnt look that bad, it just looks like a shot for shot remake disguised as a prequel. The production budgets - sets, location, etc - will be better than Carpenter's. but the effects will, of course, be CGI and probably lame.

I always love me a good paranoia movie so I'll be there. PLus, as has been said, Mary Elizabeth Wanstead.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-15-2011, 06:45 PM
My philosophy about remakes is "Shut up, stop being an idiot, and don't judge a movie when you haven't even seen it yet."

Needless to say, I've been looking forward to this ever since it was announced, and the trailer didn't disappoint.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-15-2011, 07:42 PM
Whoa, I've seen my fair share of remakes and the majority of them have ranged from mediocre to flat out sucking. So, these schmoes and I have that mindset can have some skepticism regarding remakes. There's nothing regarding being an idiot about it.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-16-2011, 03:23 AM
I picked it was just a remake from beginning. God hollywood is so pathetic these days. Anyway the trailer confirms that the movie will stink. The dialogue looks terrible in the trailer, with too much exposition which is typical of hollywood these days.

'my god, someone was attacked...but it seems everyone is fine'

'either someone miraciously healed themselves or someone is not who they say they are!'

I mean seriously? Pathetic. There is no need to spell this out to the audience, like they are idiots, its part of the mystery and ambiguity as it was in the original, when the cast were just as puzzled as the audience for the most part, just observing, what was unfolding and trying to comprehend it, as the seeds of paranoia were planted frame by frame.

Now they have some bimbo (as expected) spelling out everything just to make sure we get it. Horrible. If you are going to remake it, then just use the original script and dialogue instead of creating crap like this.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-16-2011, 03:32 AM
I hear ya. But it's a prequel. Not a remake. Even though it does look and sound like a remake of JC's film.

Like I said above. I am going to be fair, and give it a fair shot. Who knows, it may be really good.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-16-2011, 04:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by God of War View Post
I hear ya. But it's a prequel. Not a remake. .
What makes you say that? Does adding a few norweigens make it a prequel if the rest is the same?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-16-2011, 04:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSkeptic View Post
What makes you say that? Does adding a few norweigens make it a prequel if the rest is the same?
Here you go. Have a read, dude. I can't explain it like this....

This film will actually serve as a prequel to the 1982 movie The Thing, as the film will detail the events that took place in the Norwegian camp from that film. According to the screenwriter, painstaking care has been taken to assure that the prequel will take into account all the details about the Norwegians and their camp as seen in the original movie. The movie will end where the original film begins. However, other sources say that this movie will also continue where the original story ended.

The reason the movie has the same title as the first film is because the filmmakers felt that adding a subtitle such as "The Thing: Begins", "The Thing: Origins" and so forth, did not sound as reverential as just simply naming it "The Thing". If you look up any of the proposed and existing "Thing" projects they all have "The Thing" as their title. Unfortunately, this confuses a lot of the public audience, but that's the title Universal wants.

Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-16-2011, 08:33 AM
How on earth is it a remake? it's a prequel it documents the events from the moment the Norwegans discover the alien craft and the specimen frozen in a block of ice. I've read both scripts, it's definitely NOT a remake!

The trailer is some what underwhelming, MEWs character comes across as pathetically dull and irritating. Compare her character to the gruff and assertive McCready she looks and sounds completely out of step.

My feeling is the practical FX will be the only thing that draws the audience in to an otherwise bland and predictable movie. The trailer is too pacey and I'm not keen on those horrible music stabs - another Hollywood signature..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-16-2011, 10:56 AM
Why on earth hasn't joblo added a news feature re the trailer? should be front page news!

Last edited by jagged halo; 07-20-2011 at 03:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-16-2011, 11:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jagged halo View Post
How on earth is it a remake? it's a prequel it documents the events from the moment the Norwegans discover the alien craft and the specimen frozen in a block of ice. I've read both scripts, it's definitely NOT a remake!

The trailer is some what underwhelming, MEWs character comes across as pathetically dull and irritating. Compare her character to the gruff and assertive McCready she looks and sounds completely out of step.

My feeling is the practical FX will be the only thing that draws the audience in to an otherwise bland and predictable movie. The trailer is too pacey and I'm not keen on those horrible music stabs - another Hollywood signature..
It's the exact same goddamned movie. It has different characters and placed in a "slightly" different time period, but its the same movie. (From the looks of things)

It's easily a cross between a remake and a prequel. It allowed them to remake the movie but throw in some new wrinkles because of the changes.

It looks like a fine film, but it's insanely derivative-looking as well.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-16-2011, 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
It's the exact same goddamned movie. It has different characters and placed in a "slightly" different time period, but its the same movie. (From the looks of things)
Has any official time period been confirmed? If this is modern-day I think it's safe to call 100% remake in disguise.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-16-2011, 08:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Ed View Post
Teaser poster is pretty cool

So far that's the only thing it's got going for it.

I want to give it a benefit of the doubt, but it seriously has some enormous monster shoes to fill.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-17-2011, 06:35 AM
Can someone who has read the script say if it has the blood test scene from the original? I find it hard to beleive their grubby fingers could resist stealing that scene. If they have then its a remake imo.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-18-2011, 12:30 PM
Two movies set on an Antarctic base featuring the same shape-shifting creature have similar shots? NO WAY!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-18-2011, 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chelovek View Post
Two movies set on an Antarctic base featuring the same shape-shifting creature have similar shots? NO WAY!
Hey, look. Your insights are still set at the high school English class level. You get a Grape Job sticker for that.

I think that asking for a little variety from a film that took nearly thirty years to get on the big screen is pretty reasonable. When you wait that long to make a sequel/prequel, you'd think that maybe doing something a little different would be a good thing?

Guess not. But of course, horror fans have learned how to curb their expectations to zero. A decent film in this genre is automatically "great."

This could be fun, but definitely won't come close to Carpenter's film. It set the bar, wrote the book, and pushed the concept to its limit.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-20-2011, 03:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSkeptic View Post
Can someone who has read the script say if it has the blood test scene from the original? I find it hard to beleive their grubby fingers could resist stealing that scene. If they have then its a remake imo.
Before I answer your question, please remember that shooting scripts differ vastly from the initial screenplay.

I have a copy of the original Ronald D Moore script and there is no blood test scene however there is a slightly different 'test' which Kate stumbles upon quite by chance, it involves a tooth filling and that's all I'm going to say.............
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-26-2011, 06:16 PM
Just watched the trailer, and I have to say...
This 'thing' looks god awful
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-30-2011, 11:41 AM

I've seen plenty of SEQUELS that were derivative of their respective films that came before them. I never heard anyone call FRIDAY the 13th PART 4 a remake even though it's basically the same movie as part 2 and 3. Never heard someone call Jaws 2 a remake even though it's pretty much a rehash of the first one.

With that being said, I was initially against making another THE THING as John Carpenter's film is one of my top ten favorite horror films of all time. However the trailer has won me over and I am willing to at least give it a shot. It does seem like it could be derivative but it at least looks like they tried to make a seriously good film. Plus I like the idea of the language barrier creating even more of a feeling of distrust and paranoia.

Besides, the Norwegians gave us the Cold Prey flicks so I am willing to give them another shot!
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-30-2011, 11:48 AM
How they approach the FX is gonna make or break this thing for me. So far it looks 100% CG...

Weak.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-05-2011, 01:02 AM
I liked the feel of the trailer but if this is a prequel, isn't everyone just gonna die except for 2 norwegians who take off in a 'copter to chase the dog (leading into the 1982 version)?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-19-2011, 03:43 PM
The new trailer is...actually, pretty good.

http://www.joblo.com/horror-movies/n...reature-action
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-20-2011, 03:34 AM
I'll give it a try, you never know it might surprise me and deliver, however, I still have my doubts. Nothing can compare to John Carpenter's '82 version. The trailers look promising, however, too much CGI for the creature effects. Bring back the practical effects and if they're smart end this new prequel with the initial set-up of the '82 version; with the two Noreweigan dudes in the helicopter chasing the dog/creature.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-20-2011, 09:38 AM
Yeah, I do think that the cgi is not necessary, especially considering what the original managed to pull off. From what I've heard (which is little, through the grapevine) word of mouth hasn't been too favourable for The Thing. But, like you said, poquesfan, this may be surprising. The promotion for this has been uneven at best.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-20-2011, 09:53 AM
I watched the redband, and I saw the 'Thing' more times in that trailer than I did in the entire John Carpenter 82 version.
To me, that's a bad sign. One of the things that made Carpenters "The Thing" so memorable, was that it kept the suspense going. When you did see the 'thing' it was always a shocking and horrific experience.
This new one shows way too much. It looks like it'll rely on 'jump' scares as opposed to any real suspense.
I guess there will be the suspense of 'when is the next jump scare going to happen?'
I'm going to be there opening day, but the trailer really disappoints me. I hope the actual film won't.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-23-2011, 11:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeMovie View Post
I watched the redband, and I saw the 'Thing' more times in that trailer than I did in the entire John Carpenter 82 version.
To me, that's a bad sign. One of the things that made Carpenters "The Thing" so memorable, was that it kept the suspense going. When you did see the 'thing' it was always a shocking and horrific experience.
This new one shows way too much. It looks like it'll rely on 'jump' scares as opposed to any real suspense.
I guess there will be the suspense of 'when is the next jump scare going to happen?'
I'm going to be there opening day, but the trailer really disappoints me. I hope the actual film won't.
Saying that you don't see much of the monster in The Thing is like saying you don't see much of the lightsabers in Star Wars. Freaking. Nuts.

By the way, the original Thing had several jump scares. They're not a new invention, just a familiar one, and the actual problem that tends to annoy viewers is that some movies use them for false alarms. See Insidious for an example of how excessive jump scares can actually be really scary.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-24-2011, 12:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chelovek View Post
Saying that you don't see much of the monster in The Thing is like saying you don't see much of the lightsabers in Star Wars. Freaking. Nuts.

By the way, the original Thing had several jump scares. They're not a new invention, just a familiar one, and the actual problem that tends to annoy viewers is that some movies use them for false alarms. See Insidious for an example of how excessive jump scares can actually be really scary.
Yes, you see the Thing a lot in the original. I don't believe I said anywhere in my post that you don't. I said that I saw the Thing more times in the trailer for the prequel than I did in the entire original Thing. That may be a slight over exaggeration.

Theres the initial dogs scene in the original thing. Theres the scene where they operate on the dead guy and his head comes off and becomes a spider thing and what not. Plus his body does all this other cool weird shit.
Then theres the scene where they test blood and the guy shoots up to the ceiling. Then theres the end of the movie where you see the giant thing.

Thats 4 scenes. All done incredibly well. All awesome and memorable. In between those scenes there was this whole trust politics going on. There was a lot of suspense in those in between scenes.

In this redband trailer, I saw what looked to be at least just as many individual scenes showing 'the thing'. Seeing as they probably won't show EVERY thing scene in the trailer, I'm guessing there will be even more in the movie itself.

Which leads me back to my post.

Obviously I don't know how the movie will play out. I haven't seen it yet. But from the trailer, it looks like they're taking the modern mainstream horror flick approach.
And that approach is, show the monsters a lot, and kill a lot of people in gruesome ways, and rely solely on jump scares.

In the original thing, I remember maybe 2-3 scenes of jump scares. However, there was lots of suspenseful scenes that had no jumps to speak of. That's part of what made it so great for me.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-24-2011, 01:08 AM
Here's a Russian version. It features some great SPLIT-FACE footage at the very end. Watch for it. It is awesome!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZbXr61vsiI
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-24-2011, 01:10 AM
This is also very cool

http://www.thethingmovie.net/main.html
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump