Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General' started by SEANVALEN, Sep 15, 2008.
No...I guess you didn't understand what they were trying to do...I mean the end sequence that basically set up Carpenter's version. I suggest you look up the meaning of the word prequel
Its also the only part of the movie that could be considered a prequel.
Actually, no. It's the only part of the film that CAN'T be considered a prequel. It's the only part that could be considered a remake, but even then as has been pointed out most of the shots were reused from the 1982 film.
How can it be considered the only part that's a prequel when you've already said it's a shot for shot remake????
Jesus, you really didn´t like the movie...
Lars appears at the Norwegian camp and shoots at Matias. He then orders him to show his fillings to prove he is a human. The Thing, in the form of Lars' deceased dog, escapes from a building and runs away while Lars and Matias board the helicopter...all of which are not in the 1982 film, but we are led to believe, precede the 1982 film, thus implying the logic of a prequel. Everything after that is practically shot for shot identical to the opening of the 1982 film...dog in snow, POV angle, etc.
And what shots did they use from the 1982 film? I've watched the ending to the "prequel" about 4 times now and have not seen any direct scenes taken from the 1982 film, nor have I have seen any mention of it online. Did I get a different version or something?
Also, I never said The Thing 2011 was a shot for shot remake...its a remake, yes, but hardly shot for shot.
But how do you really feel about this film?
The end of the film in the helicopter which you say is shot for shot of the original opening actually uses footage from the originals opening. Funny how they look so similar hey...
It appears the only scene lifted from the 1982 film is the dog running through the snow seeing as it’s a completely different dog than the one that runs out of the building in the beginning of the sequence. Other than that, everything in the helicopter is a newly re-shot sequence because aside from the headgear it’s a slightly different wardrobe than what “Lars” is the wearing in the 1982 film. Lars in 1982 The Thing is wearing a fur hooded parka, 2011 Lars is not.
Either way pretty damn lazy on the filmmakers part because A. You have two different dogs. B. How hard is it to shoot a dog running through the snow and then add the helicopter in post?
I thought this prequel was mostly boring and pointless in whatever it tried to add to the original film's storyline.
The dumbest group of scientists and explorers get together to spend a weekend together in the frozen tundra with an alien--and they don't want to tell anybody. They decide it's best to cut the frozen alien out of the ice in a very thin block and then leave it unattended in a shed to thaw. Then they poke at it with an electric drill. Then they are surprised when it escapes and kills them all.
Maybe it's been a while since I saw the original, but I found the filmmaker's use of CGI effects got completely out of hand in the creature design. How exactly was this giant alien with tentacles and gaping vagina mouths with hundreds of teeth hiding inside a dog and humans? It was awesome when it would explode, but I wondered how it could fit all of its appendages inside these guys. Or, I wondered how it could extend the flesh of the hosts to such extremes in size and shape. The scale felt so off that I stopped looking for any clues because the fucking thing could just erupt out of (or from) anyone. Maybe such questions of practicality are pointless here, as--again--the audience is asked to watch smart people drill for aliens and then party like it's 1982!
The most egregious "Wait, why did this prequel need to happen?" moment came when they did the alien test. It's not deja vu if you really have seen it before.
And the earring bit could have been very inspired--a subtle catch by the hero. Instead, she announces it not once but twice. Maybe the filmmakers expected everyone to be asleep at this point so they felt the need to remind us that, yes, the guy once had an earring, and that no, it was in the other ear.
Or maybe they expected everyone who watched this to be about as smart as the scientists. This one felt like a big rehash and a trying one at that.
Not a bad prequel, but yeah, the CGI is over the top unfortunately. Almost like watching the creatures in Resident Evil that run around on all fours - it's pretty bad. I do like how they set it up to segue right into the 1982 version though.
The man character looks like that chick that sucks on George's peach pit from Seinfeld.
There are precisely 2 shots from the 1982 film used... the wide angle of the dog n chopper in the snow... and the shot of the angle from the chopper looking down at the dog... everything else was reshot... and they also made a big mistake too... "Lars" isn't the one shooting in Carpenter's movie... if you look closely in JC's... the guy shooting is the one who blows up, the pilot runs out and starts shooting at the dog and people on the ground and gets shot in the eye by garry... how lazy is that on the remake writers/director/etc... In the prequel, Lars is wearing the pilots clothes (from JC's)... and in the original, that "Lars" is wearing a big grey parka... with a hole in the sleeve... not a navy blue snowsuit... Gah!!!
You know, I'm not really a fan of CGI but I thought it was used to good effect here. The thing is, Bottin's work is the zenith, pretty much the gold standard for special effects, even to this day. There was no way they could practically match that, so they went a different route. Here the CGI isn't just trying to do what Bottin did but worse, instead it's trying to show some effects that even Bottin couldn't do, like showing how two faces meld together. I liked the creativity of the effects, and again while they can never match the original I think they took it in a different direction and in the process fleshed out the whole creature and the kind of, um, things it's able to do.
And tying it back to the original is totally awesome. You could really see the respect there, which is missing from most remakes/reboots/prequels/whatever. Of the post TCM remake cycle, I still think this one is the best, or at least head and shoulders with other top entries.
I like this film it's cool to watch it before John Carpenter's version back 2 back!!! the prequel is like an appetizer before the main course of the 82 version!
I really liked the prequel.
Sure, it was disappointing that they replaced a lot of the practical effects with CGI. But it´s far from as bad as many makes it out to be.
And as mentioned above, it works great as a double feature with the 1982 film
The movie's back on HBO. It's funny, this feels like deja vu from some months back on the other forum. My post then and my feelings now are still the same.
I've been watching and listening to this one a bit over the days. I'm trying to find the good parts. Really attempting to see if it's worth owning. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is one of those actresses who should be able to make a movie worth owning by herself. But this is The Thing. A prequel and in some ways remake of one of the best sci-fi horror movies. A movie that really takes away from the opening of Carpenter's The Thing if you've never seen it before. The 2011 version has good acting, a good soundtrack, and even the CGI isn't that bad. But that deep feeling of dread and paranoia is gone. Or it is certainly no where near as strong as in the Carpenter version. I can't bring myself to own this movie despite all of Mary Elizabeth Winstead's strong scenes. I even think her intro humming "Who Can It Be Now?" is pretty cool.
I'm still surprised we didn't get a version on dvd/blu with most of the practical effects unaltered. There was a lot of work put into the practical effects, its gotta suck to have pretty muchh all of it done over with CGI.
I recall reading a post or story that there was another cut of the film with less action. But if they released this alternate cut along with version with less CGI then the studio would look stupid if more people liked that version.
You can't mess with the original Thing. It's like trying to remake Alien or Aliens. There is no point.
Damn straight. James Arness made for one super bad assed monster.