The Thing (remake)

[danny_galaga]

Didn't even know there was one until yesterday! So had a look today. Not bad, I can't really say why it doesn't really grab me. My experience of "The Thing" is I read the short story in primary school and loved it. Saw the original movie for the first time only a few years ago and boy were the effects dated. I know a lot of people here will rave about the original, but with virgin "The Thing" eyes, it really didn't cut it. But this current one, maybe it's somewhere between the book and the original movie.

I quite liked the effects, and there seemed to be a lot of old fashioned model/puppet work. I know some people here lament all the CGI in modern movies, so maybe this would be worth seeing for that. It still uses much CGI of course, I imagine especially for outdoor scenes and the buried spaceship.

3/5

my score for recent movies you may have seen:

  5/5 - The Way Back, The Kings Speech, Michael Clayton, In Bruges, Gran Torino, Mary and Max

4.5/5 - Taken, Iron Man, Reign Over Me, Watchmen, The girl with the dragon tattoo

  4/5 - True Grit, Traitor, Bedtime Stories, Sunshine, pineapple express

3.5/5 - 300, Max Payne, You dont mess with the Zohan, Yes Man

  3/5 - That new Indiana Jones flick, Disturbia, That new TMNT flick,

2.5/5 - Angels and Demons

  2/5 - The Love Guru. Note: My 2 is probably someone elses 1. Just leaving room for worse!

[hypernova]

I had heard this one is a prequel.  Apparently, the one from the 80s was already a remake of an even older version?

This is one scary movie I am actually interested in, because the one from the 80s that I saw as an 8 year-old or however long ago it was scared the hell out of me for many years.

[Mikezilla]

Yup. All correct points Hypernova.

It scared the hell out of me too when I saw it. I was born in 82 so I didnt see it til I was about 12 or so, and man, it scared the beejeezus out of me. Im looking forward to this one, but I still think they should have made a sequel to the "original" from 82. We already know what happens. The alien escapes, they try to kill it, a lone piece of it gets away and bam. Enter Kurt Russell etc.

Question Danny. Did they show Mary Elizabeths ass at all? I swear, I didnt think of her much until I saw Scott Pilgrim and man. There is something about that chick that turns me on. 

As most of you know, Im a HUGE fan of practical effects, and I only like CGI when its absolutly necessary. I think thats part of why I liked the original so much.

[danny_galaga]

Question Danny. Did they show Mary Elizabeths ass at all? I swear, I didnt think of her much until I saw Scott Pilgrim and man. There is something about that chick that turns me on. 

It's winter time in Antarctica. What do you think? 

[SNAAKE]

NO ass

[vcoleiro1]

Ok, so I watched the movie last night with a friend. I wont spoil the story line but just say that the film was ok, not great, not bad, just ok. Is it worth watching?. Yes , I think its worth seeing. Is it as good as the 1982 John Carpenter movie ? No, but it does have some of the elements the 82 version did. ie the who's the thing and who's human element. The biggest problem I have with the movie is timing, it moved a little to quickly for you to feel fear or anxiety for the characters as it just whipped over some of the good stuff. For example the whole atmosphere of fear about who was real and who wasn't , was lost as these scenes went by to quickly to appreciate the atmosphere they were trying to create.

If you watch it, stay for the credits , there's a scene played during the credits which ties it into the 82 version. Worst attempt ever in my opinion to try and create a prequel just by adding an adhoc scene in the credits. No wonder people are still calling it a remake rather than a prequel .

Anyway 3/5 for me.

[danny_galaga]

Ok, so I watched the movie last night with a friend. I wont spoil the story line but just say that the film was ok, not great, not bad, just ok. Is it worth watching?. Yes , I think its worth seeing. Is it as good as the 1982 John Carpenter movie ? No, but it does have some of the elements the 82 version did. ie the who's the thing and who's human element. The biggest problem I have with the movie is timing, it moved a little to quickly for you to feel fear or anxiety for the characters as it just whipped over some of the good stuff. For example the whole atmosphere of fear about who was real and who wasn't , was lost as these scenes went by to quickly to appreciate the atmosphere they were trying to create.

If you watch it, stay for the credits , there's a scene played during the credits which ties it into the 82 version. Worst attempt ever in my opinion to try and create a prequel just by adding an adhoc scene in the credits. No wonder people are still calling it a remake rather than a prequel .

Anyway 3/5 for me.

I noticed Ennio Moricone did the score for both (",)

Just watched the opening credits for the 1982 version. Might rewatch the whole thing...

[danny_galaga]

Ok, now I've rewatched the 1982 version I honestly can't see why people don't consider it a prequel? It's almost seamless  

and is more enjoyable the second time around after having seen the prequel. At the end of the prequel you have the Norwegian chopper LKK land, a dog bursts out of a building and the chopper with gunman gives chase. At the beginning of the 1982 version, you see Norwegian chopper LKK chasing down the dog, land near the American base etc etc. Exactly the same chopper.

The prequel copies the Norwegian set as much as possible from the 1982 version. The basement with the block of ice looks the same. Even the block of ice with the middle section missing. At the end, we see a guy has cut his own throat just like in the 1982 version. We end up with a two headed monster that gets burnt in the prequel, that the Americans in the 1982 version take back to their base. A little less seamless is the UFO crash site though. In the 1982 movie, the Norwegians blew up the ice around it to get to it. In the prequel they find a tunnel which leads to the crash site 100 meters or more under the surface.

What I didn't enjoy about the 1982 version the first time I saw it (aside form the dated effects, which this time around didn't bother me as much) was the fact it was quite different to the short story. In the short story, they find the alien and decide to thaw it out.  In the story one of the humans disables the station aircraft by smashing the magnetos. He knows the alien will want to leave for a populated area and knows he's gonna have to die there with the alien to save humanity. In the 1982 version, the helicopter is disabled by Blair, seemingly for similar reasons to the story, but later McReady etc find a hidden warren where Blair appears to have been building an aircraft of some sort with parts from the helicopter.

In a general sense, the prequel more closely fits the original story, the 1982 version being a true sequel of the book, if not the 1950s movie. I can't for the life of me remember how the book ends. If I can find it (it was in a book of short sci fi stories of various authors) I'll read it again. Just going to check wiki for the 1950s movie. Ok, the 1950's movie is the least like the original story, other than having an optimistic ending. In the book three guys survive, having just prevented The Thing from taking off in it's aircraft, and there's no hint that any of them are alien. Happy ending (",)

Now I've watched it again, I like the way the 1982 film ends, with two of them, and not knowing if maybe one is alien or not.

Hmmm, read a synopsis of the book, and actually most of the characters are in the 1982 movie, and Blair builds an aircraft! So actually, the main difference to the original story is there was only an American base, and it is they who thaw out the alien. It was still such a different beginning to the book that I didn't like it the first time I saw it. The blood test made it to the 1982 movie too. Wasn't sure if it was in the book or not...



So, the two together work quite well. Watch this years, and then revisit the 1982 version.

[gryhnd]

Saw the original movie for the first time only a few years ago and boy were the effects dated.

Just to point out, the 1982 version is not the original. The original (The Thing from Another World) is from 1951

[Mikezilla]

In the end of the 82 version, it is implied that Childs is the alien, because when he breathes, no breath is shown due to the cold. If you notice, Macready is blowing all kinds of breath, while childs doesnt. They leave it at that. I think they should have made a sequel, and they go to the site and see macready frozen in the ice, and they find childs off somewhere like he tried to get away... I dont know, something like that.

[spoot]

In the end of the 82 version, it is implied that Childs is the alien, because when he breathes, no breath is shown due to the cold. If you notice, Macready is blowing all kinds of breath, while childs doesnt. They leave it at that.

Oh crap, I never noticed that.  I just loved they were looking at each with a "you human" look.   Sigh, might have to go rewatch that now.

[Mikezilla]

In the end of the 82 version, it is implied that Childs is the alien, because when he breathes, no breath is shown due to the cold. If you notice, Macready is blowing all kinds of breath, while childs doesnt. They leave it at that.

Oh crap, I never noticed that.  I just loved they were looking at each with a "you human" look.   Sigh, might have to go rewatch that now.

Yeah check it out. I didnt really notice it either, but I watched the special features on the DVD and John Carpenter said it himself that he wanted you to have kind of a WTF moment.

[dextercf]

I'm norwegian, just saying!

[Ond]

I've watched this film over the years, the first time was on the films release at the drive in with some mates, we didn't even have a car, we just dragged a bench seat out to where our car would've been  . It's a great favourite of mine including the original story 'Who goes there' by John Campbell.  Yeah the effects are dated now but I've never thought about it that way, the real hook of the film is the paranoia that builds up and how they deal with not knowing who is who.  It's one of those films you can re-watch every now and then and enjoy all over.  I don't expect much of the new version but will see it.  Eventually.

I never really thought either Mac or Childs was the alien at the end just that they were stuck, leaving the story open ended.


"they're not Swedes Mac, they're Norwegian" 

[danny_galaga]

Saw the original movie for the first time only a few years ago and boy were the effects dated.

Just to point out, the 1982 version is not the original. The original (The Thing from Another World) is from 1951

I do mention as much in the spoiler alert above. It is the least like the book...

You know, having now seen the prequel and then the 1982 version soon after, I'm inclined to say that they are more than the sum of the parts. I actually enjoyed the 1982 version more for having just seen the prequel. Pity it was on youtube, and the last part was someone filming their telly with a hand held mobile phone 

Supporting each other, I give them 3.5/5 (",)

[Bootay]

I haven't seen this new one yet, but I enjoy both the 1951, and 1982 versions. The original 1951 version is much shorter and obviously not as effect heavy. But the story is quite similar. Some of you younger guys might not be able to enjoy it because it is B&W. I personally enjoy the old B&W 1950s sci-fi/horror movies though.

The 1982 version is one of my all time favorite sci-fi/horror films. When I watch movies I don't try to compare them to today's standards, I compare them to the time's standards. I think that for the time the 1982 version had stellar effects. And I think that they still hold up pretty well for the most part.

[Mikezilla]

The 1982 version is one of my all time favorite sci-fi/horror films. When I watch movies I don't try to compare them to today's standards, I compare them to the time's standards. I think that for the time the 1982 version had stellar effects. And I think that they still hold up pretty well for the most part.

Same here. I think Kurt Russell is a great actor, at least in those type of movies. The effects were done by Rob Bottin, and that was his second movie after Pirhana. A few of his movies inspired me to try and get into creature effects when I was a kid... but...computers ruined everything and now Im a bank manager. 

[Bootay]

The 1982 version is one of my all time favorite sci-fi/horror films. When I watch movies I don't try to compare them to today's standards, I compare them to the time's standards. I think that for the time the 1982 version had stellar effects. And I think that they still hold up pretty well for the most part.

Same here. I think Kurt Russell is a great actor, at least in those type of movies. The effects were done by Rob Bottin, and that was his second movie after Pirhana. A few of his movies inspired me to try and get into creature effects when I was a kid... but...computers ruined everything and now Im a bank manager. 

HA! Funny. Same here. Tom Savini and a few others inspired me to get into special effects and then computers came and ruined it all. Now I work in Tech Support/Web Design.