The Thing remake

[satans-sadists]

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117999216.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

Universal will add a new chapter to "The Thing," lining up another take on the paranoid horror classic most recently brought to the screen by John Carpenter in 1982.
Studio has set "Battlestar Galactica" exec producer Ron Moore to write the script and commercials director Matthijs Van Heijningen to direct the re-imagining.

New project borrows heavily from the John W. Campbell Jr. short story "Who Goes There," the basis of the Carpenter film and 1951 Howard Hawks original "The Thing From Another World."

It is set in a Norwegian camp and chronicles how the shape-shifting alien was first discovered and overcame the inhabitants of that camp. Strike Entertainment's Eric Newman and Marc Abraham are producing. David Foster will be exec producer.

Van Heijningen has shot blurbs for brands including Toyota, Pepsi, Heineken, Bud Light and Visa. He is also developing "Army of the Dead" at Warner Bros. with producer Zack Snyder, who also crossed from commercials to features by directing the Strike-produced "Dawn of the Dead" remake.

[Workshed]

Ron Moore did a great job with BSG.

I've resigned myself to these remakes, as my copies of the originals will not burst into flames upon the release of the new films. Whatever, whatever. A good film is still a good film.

[spawningblue]

Glad to see it's not a remake, and is more of a prequel. Don't know how excited I am to see a commercial Director working on this project though. Fast cuts may be watchable on a slasher flick, but this is a film that needs a slow steady directing approach and pacing.

[Uncle Jay]

Well, this is better news than I thought it was going to be. Very interesting. You should change the title of this thread to "The Thing Prequel"...it's a bit misleading with "remake," because I was ready to tear this apart.

-UJ

[rijir]

Read all the details on this and it is really a remake. It says it starts with a helecopter crashing while chasing an infected dog. Sounds like a remake to me.

This is going to be crap. Ron Moore is a hack. This isn't good news.

[satans-sadists]

Don't know how excited I am to see a commercial Director working on this project though.

Doesn't sit well with me either. :nervous:

[maybrick]

Well, this is better news than I thought it was going to be. Very interesting. You should change the title of this thread to "The Thing Prequel"...it's a bit misleading with "remake," because I was ready to tear this apart.

-UJ

So what if it was, though? So was Carpenter's film. I see nothing wrong with a new adaptation of a novel or short story, it's the remakes that were originally written for the screen that I see as blasphemy. A hundred different directors could read a book and come up with a hundred different ways to transfer it to the screen, but when it comes to remaking a movie that's generally considered a classic there's very little they can do with the material other than to make it worse. It's extremely difficult to improve upon perfection. Gus Van Sant didn't even try with his PSYCHO remake, but Hitchcock diverged from the original text pretty substantially. He could've gone back to the Robert Bloch novel and come up with something just as unique. How many times and different ways has DRACULA been remade? How many of them are great films? Quite a lot of them by my calculation.

[spawningblue]

Read all the details on this and it is really a remake. It says it starts with a helecopter crashing while chasing an infected dog. Sounds like a remake to me.

This is going to be crap. Ron Moore is a hack. This isn't good news.

Where did you read that? The article that is linked to doesn't mention that scene. It just states that it takes place at a Norwegian camp where they discover the alien.

[X-human]

There's a difference between a remake and an adaptation; look it up in the dictionary. If a movie's good enough to remake, it probably doesn't need to be remade in the first place.

This sounds like a update/prequel. They may have the helicopter scene to connect the dots with the Carpenter film, but the plot clearly indicates that it's not a remake.

[Uncle Jay]

So what if it was, though? So was Carpenter's film. I see nothing wrong with a new adaptation of a novel or short story, it's the remakes that were originally written for the screen that I see as blasphemy. A hundred different directors could read a book and come up with a hundred different ways to transfer it to the screen, but when it comes to remaking a movie that's generally considered a classic there's very little they can do with the material other than to make it worse. It's extremely difficult to improve upon perfection. Gus Van Sant didn't even try with his PSYCHO remake, but Hitchcock diverged from the original text pretty substantially. He could've gone back to the Robert Bloch novel and come up with something just as unique. How many times and different ways has DRACULA been remade? How many of them are great films? Quite a lot of them by my calculation.

You need to understand that Howard Hawks interpreted Campbell's work into a standard 50's monster film, where as John Carpenter took Campbell's story and keep it more faithful to the original concept in which it was intended and made a horror masterpiece, with cutting edge make-up and mechanical effects. Both were great, but "John Carpenter's The Thing" is a masterwork in horror lore. To go ahead and remake what Carpenter perfected (especially in this time of failed remakes of classics) is lunacy, unless a director with outstanding credentials like Spielberg, Scorsese, Polanski, Tarantino, Scott or even Fincher; a director with potency and something to say...came in, then I can understand a remake with that caliber of filmmaker.

Some remakes worked, I liked Snyder's "Dawn of the Dead" and Zombie's "Halloween"...but at least they both had something different to say. But some movies need to be left alone: "Psycho," "The Omen," "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "The Hitcher", "Carrie"...countless others were remade poorly, with inferior directors compared to their predecessors. Try to at least match them with quality filmmakers like I've mentioned before (but no one will touch it, because remaking a classic is ludicrous).

So, according to your logic with remaking adapted screenplays, you'd condone a remake of "The Exorcist" or "Jaws"?

-UJ

[Matt89]

So, according to your logic with remaking adapted screenplays, you'd condone a remake of "The Exorcist" or "Jaws"?

-UJ

The Exorcist was already remade as Beyond the Door and Jaws was remade as Great White. :D

~Matt

[Uncle Jay]

The Exorcist was already remade as Beyond the Door and Jaws was remade as Great White. :D

~Matt

Ripped-off is more the word. But at least they were fun!

-UJ

[rijir]

Where did you read that? The article that is linked to doesn't mention that scene. It just states that it takes place at a Norwegian camp where they discover the alien.

There have been a number of stories in the past few weeks. One mentions that MacReady's brother will be in the cast. Sounds like a lame connection. Especially since he wasnt Norwegian.

I have no faith in Moore to make anything worthwhile.

[maybrick]

You need to understand that Howard Hawks interpreted Campbell's work into a standard 50's monster film, where as John Carpenter took Campbell's story and keep it more faithful to the original concept in which it was intended and made a horror masterpiece, with cutting edge make-up and mechanical effects. Both were great, but "John Carpenter's The Thing" is a masterwork in horror lore. To go ahead and remake what Carpenter perfected (especially in this time of failed remakes of classics) is lunacy, unless a director with outstanding credentials like Spielberg, Scorsese, Polanski, Tarantino, Scott or even Fincher; a director with potency and something to say...came in, then I can understand a remake with that caliber of filmmaker.

Some remakes worked, I liked Snyder's "Dawn of the Dead" and Zombie's "Halloween"...but at least they both had something different to say. But some movies need to be left alone: "Psycho," "The Omen," "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "The Hitcher", "Carrie"...countless others were remade poorly, with inferior directors compared to their predecessors. Try to at least match them with quality filmmakers like I've mentioned before (but no one will touch it, because remaking a classic is ludicrous).

So, according to your logic with remaking adapted screenplays, you'd condone a remake of "The Exorcist" or "Jaws"?

-UJ

Yes, I would. And I'm sorry, but as much of a fan I am of Hitchcock's version of PSYCHO, it is not very true to the source material. More than any other movie I can think of at the moment, PSYCHO is the most worthy of a new adaptation (not just a shot by shot remake).

Again, if all filmmakers took your point of view regarding remakes, we wouldn't have THE THING '82, INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS '78, and Hammer Films would never have existed (as we know it).

[Fistfuck]

There's a difference between a remake and an adaptation; look it up in the dictionary.

Thank you. Can we make this post a sticky?

[Harry Warden]

Yes, I would. And I'm sorry, but as much of a fan I am of Hitchcock's version of PSYCHO, it is not very true to the source material. More than any other movie I can think of at the moment, PSYCHO is the most worthy of a new adaptation (not just a shot by shot remake).

Again, if all filmmakers took your point of view regarding remakes, we wouldn't have THE THING '82, INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS '78, and Hammer Films would never have existed (as we know it).


I have to agree with Maybrick on this. I was one of those who cringed when I heard that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was being remade. I had never heard of Marcus Nispel and almost threw up at the thought of his tampering with a "classic". I went to the theater to see his remake and really enjoyed it. It wasn't an exact remake, but it was close and most remakes are not exactly the same. I personally still think the Hooper's original is still better, but Nispel did a terrific job. Anymore, I couldn't care less if they decide to remake a movie. If somebody feels they can tackle a remake of the Exorcist, more power to them. It doesn't mean I will like it, but IMO, I would like to see the vision of new, untested filmmakers with classic films. Classics have been made and remade time and again in other genre's, so why not horror. On that note, I am looking forward to the new prequel of The Thing from Universal.

[Anaestheus]

I'm a gushing fan of BSG so that has me pretty excited alone. But considering that the source material has spawned two of my favorite films also has me pretty curious about this project.

Overall, I'm not against remakes as much as I am against lazy film making. My main frustration with remakes is more the idea that studios fund so many recycled ideas rather than risk money on something original. It's not that the films are getting remade, it's that they are getting remade without any thought put into them to justify the updating. But, I'll gladly suffer the existence of remakes of Hills Have Eyes or Texas Chainsaw Massacre if it means that I get to occasionally have a Fly or Invasion of the Body Snatchers. So, hopefully the new Thing will be of that caliber.

[Myron Breck]

...but as much of a fan I am of Hitchcock's version of PSYCHO, it is not very true to the source material..

Really? I kind of remember it being pretty close (Norman Bates and onscreen violence aside). But it has been a while since I read it. Can you cite me some more instances, that the Big Blue Box format? :p

[maybrick]

Really? I kind of remember it being pretty close (Norman Bates and onscreen violence aside). But it has been a while since I read it. Can you cite me some more instances, that the Big Blue Box format? :p

Truthfully, I haven't read it. However, I do know that Hitchcock did make the decision to make Norman more likeable and that in the book he was fat and scuzzy. While the change is perfectly understandable for 1960, that kind of characterization would fit right in to today's horror climate. That alone would make PSYCHO a very different film.

[Uncle Jay]

Yes, I would. And I'm sorry, but as much of a fan I am of Hitchcock's version of PSYCHO, it is not very true to the source material. More than any other movie I can think of at the moment, PSYCHO is the most worthy of a new adaptation (not just a shot by shot remake).

Again, if all filmmakers took your point of view regarding remakes, we wouldn't have THE THING '82, INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS '78, and Hammer Films would never have existed (as we know it).

First off, as I said, some remakes do work, but 9 times out of 10 they do not.

Secondly, as far as "Dracula" is concerned, Universal, Hammer and the like, weren't remaking Bram Stoker's Dracula each and every time. They took the character and just went with it in different directions, they aren't remakes. And when they decided to actually tackle the book faithfully (tried to anyway), notice that they got a well-respected director to handle the duty, Franics Ford Coppola.

As far as "The Thing" and "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," these were classic films from the 50s, iconic even. But you also need to understand, this was at a time where there was no violence, gore, profanity, nudity...and other essential elements to make films more realistic. Philip Kaufman, a gifted filmmaker, made an impressive and more tangible version of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" in 1978, a time were films were a bit more realistic and reached new levels, hence its success. As I stated previously, with "The Thing," John Carpenter told Campbell's story and keep it more faithful to the original concept in which it was intended and made a horror masterpiece, with cutting edge make-up and mechanical effects.

These films do not need to be remade again! For the record, it's established that "The Thing" film in topic is in fact a prequel per that first post.

Furthermore in 1960, "Psycho" was a groundbreaking film in its day, and Hitchcock broke barriers with his more serious level of horror, before there were film ratings. In this time, "Psycho" is rated R. You tell me what purpose it served to remake "Psycho?" Gus Van Sant brought nothing to the table, in fact all he did was copy Hitchcock. Complete waste of time!

Final word, there are films that should be remade and that shouldn't. "The Thing" should not be remade!

-UJ

[Anaestheus]

Side note. Frankly, I always had a smidge of respect for Van Sant for doing Psycho shot for shot. To me that was his way of pointing out that there was no reason to remake Psycho. The studios would have made one anyway, and I think he did it in a pretty ballsy way that allowed him to give the studio the finger for the idiocy of the idea in the first place.

[maybrick]

First off, as I said, some remakes do work, but 9 times out of 10 they do not.

Secondly, as far as "Dracula" is concerned, Universal, Hammer and the like, weren't remaking Bram Stoker's Dracula each and every time. They took the character and just went with it in different directions, they aren't remakes. And when they decided to actually tackle the book faithfully (tried to anyway), notice that they got a well-respected director to handle the duty, Franics Ford Coppola.

As far as "The Thing" and "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," these were classic films from the 50s, iconic even. But you also need to understand, this was at a time where there was no violence, gore, profanity, nudity...and other essential elements to make films more realistic. Philip Kaufman, a gifted filmmaker, made an impressive and more tangible version of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" in 1978, a time were films were a bit more realistic and reached new levels, hence its success. As I stated previously, with "The Thing," John Carpenter told Campbell's story and keep it more faithful to the original concept in which it was intended and made a horror masterpiece, with cutting edge make-up and mechanical effects.

These films do not need to be remade again! For the record, it's established that "The Thing" film in topic is in fact a prequel per that first post.

Furthermore in 1960, "Psycho" was a groundbreaking film in its day, and Hitchcock broke barriers with his more serious level of horror, before there were film ratings. In this time, "Psycho" is rated R. You tell me what purpose it served to remake "Psycho?" Gus Van Sant brought nothing to the table, in fact all he did was copy Hitchcock. Complete waste of time!

Final word, there are films that should be remade and that shouldn't. "The Thing" should not be remade!

-UJ

I already said that Psycho deserves a real adaptation, not just a shot by shot remake. I was referring to Gus Van Sant, but I guess you missed that part.

It's my opinion that there's no reason that I can see that filmmakers couldn't do for THE THING what they did for DRACULA. The only difference here is that DRACULA has been done so much that further adaptations are acceptable. And for what it's worth and for a lot of reasons that I won't go into here, Coppola's film is almost nothing like Stoker's novel.

[Uncle Jay]

It's my opinion that there's no reason that I can see that filmmakers couldn't do for THE THING what they did for DRACULA. The only difference here is that DRACULA has been done so much that further adaptations are acceptable.

Well you're entitled to your opinion, but a remake of "The Thing" is a huge mistake. A prequel (like we're geting) or a sequel/continuation is more the way to go. I guess I'm bias because "John Carpenter's The Thing" is indeed my favorite horror film, and I personally think it should be left alone.

And for what it's worth and for a lot of reasons that I won't go into here, Coppola's film is almost nothing like Stoker's novel.

I guess you missed the part where I said "And when they decided to actually tackle the book faithfully (tried to anyway)".

-UJ

[maybrick]

I guess you missed the part where I said "And when they decided to actually tackle the book faithfully (tried to anyway)".

-UJ

I didn't miss it, I just seriously doubt they ever intended to make a faithful adaptation of the book, despite their claims. If they did, they never would've added in any of that reincarnation crap (among other things).

[spawningblue]

First off, as I said, some remakes do work, but 9 times out of 10 they do not.

Secondly, as far as "Dracula" is concerned, Universal, Hammer and the like, weren't remaking Bram Stoker's Dracula each and every time. They took the character and just went with it in different directions, they aren't remakes. And when they decided to actually tackle the book faithfully (tried to anyway), notice that they got a well-respected director to handle the duty, Franics Ford Coppola.

As far as "The Thing" and "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," these were classic films from the 50s, iconic even. But you also need to understand, this was at a time where there was no violence, gore, profanity, nudity...and other essential elements to make films more realistic. Philip Kaufman, a gifted filmmaker, made an impressive and more tangible version of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" in 1978, a time were films were a bit more realistic and reached new levels, hence its success. As I stated previously, with "The Thing," John Carpenter told Campbell's story and keep it more faithful to the original concept in which it was intended and made a horror masterpiece, with cutting edge make-up and mechanical effects.

These films do not need to be remade again! For the record, it's established that "The Thing" film in topic is in fact a prequel per that first post.

Furthermore in 1960, "Psycho" was a groundbreaking film in its day, and Hitchcock broke barriers with his more serious level of horror, before there were film ratings. In this time, "Psycho" is rated R. You tell me what purpose it served to remake "Psycho?" Gus Van Sant brought nothing to the table, in fact all he did was copy Hitchcock. Complete waste of time!

Final word, there are films that should be remade and that shouldn't. "The Thing" should not be remade!

-UJ

I'm not saying Psycho needs to remade, I could care less really as I take remakes for what they are, and give them a shot. The ones that are good I like, and the ones that are bad I hate, end of story. They never change my opinion of the original film.

But back to Psycho, according to your opinion, the original Thing and Invasion were made in the 50's when gore, nudity, ect weren't allowed to be showed, so it was okay for them to do a new adaptation adding in all those things. So in that thinking, wouldn't it be okay to remake Psycho, as it was made in a time when they weren't allowed to show anything either. Should they redo it with full on bush in the shower scene, and lots of gore! Not trying to be a dick or anything, but that's just what I got from reading your opinion.

[Matt89]

But back to Psycho, according to your opinion, the original Thing and Invasion were made in the 50's when gore, nudity, ect weren't allowed to be showed, so it was okay for them to do a new adaptation adding in all those things. So in that thinking, wouldn't it be okay to remake Psycho, as it was made in a time when they weren't allowed to show anything either. Should they redo it with full on bush in the shower scene, and lots of gore! Not trying to be a dick or anything, but that's just what I got from reading your opinion.

Honestly, I'd agree with this. The only reason nobody's tackled a full-out "reimagining" of Psycho is because it's "Hitchcock" and he's so respected in the film world that it's as if nobody would ever DARE remake one of his films. But if done right, and if they added a bit of style and suspense, Psycho could be a really good remake. But yeah, a lot of the restrictions put on horror films in the '30s, '40s and '50s were because of the Hollywood Production Code. It wouldn't allow for such things to be shown. I guess that's why a lot were remade, but because of The Production Code, it enabled these films to be chock full of suspense because remember, "it's not what you see, but what you don't see"...

I guess the Production Code actually helped a lot of them out because suspense is timeless, '40s and '50s special effects would've dated the films HORRIBLY.

~Matt

[Uncle Jay]

But back to Psycho, according to your opinion, the original Thing and Invasion were made in the 50's when gore, nudity, ect weren't allowed to be showed, so it was okay for them to do a new adaptation adding in all those things. So in that thinking, wouldn't it be okay to remake Psycho, as it was made in a time when they weren't allowed to show anything either. Should they redo it with full on bush in the shower scene, and lots of gore! Not trying to be a dick or anything, but that's just what I got from reading your opinion.

"Psycho" did show a good sense of violence and horror, and was a groundbreaking effort in exploring dangerous waters. Also, Hitchcock's vision is a masterpiece, and that's a tough act to follow. And I'm saying that if you are going to remake greatness, don't half-ass it or copy it "frame for frame."

Most (not all) of these remakes are half-assed! The quality is not matched.

-UJ

[Uncle Jay]

But if done right, and if they added a bit of style and suspense, Psycho could be a really good remake. But yeah, a lot of the restrictions put on horror films in the '30s, '40s and '50s were because of the Hollywood Production Code. It wouldn't allow for such things to be shown. I guess that's why a lot were remade, but because of The Production Code, it enabled these films to be chock full of suspense because remember, "it's not what you see, but what you don't see"...

I guess the Production Code actually helped a lot of them out because suspense is timeless, '40s and '50s special effects would've dated the films HORRIBLY.

~Matt

Yeah so you agree with me, I stated this earlier. If you got some iconic top-notch talent behind the camera, like Spielberg, Scorsese etc., the remake might be worth checking out. But most of the time, remakes are given to inferior filmmakers. (Not that Gus Van Sant is a generic filmmaker, but his "frame-for-frame" take was really a waste of fucking time).

They should remake failures...they have a better chance at getting it right.

-UJ

[Matt89]

They should remake failures...they have a better chance at getting it right.

-UJ

Yeah for real. Remake Troll 2 or something that was crap. I like to think that if a movie is a masterpiece, or well-made for that matter, what's the point in remaking it? Sure you might want to make it appeal to a modern crowd, but in that case, if it HAS held up well, RE-RELEASE it! (Like they did with Blade Runner, Alien and Gone With the Wind). If a movie failed, then yeah I think that's grounds to remake it. The only exception I can think of is yes, Snyder's version of Dawn of the Dead. He brought something new to it. Much like Kaufman did with Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Carpenter did with The Thing. Occasionaly they get a remake right, but most of the time they're so half-assed there was no point in remaking it to begin with.

But what's funny are remakes like The Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes. They're remaking two of the films Craven made that he actually got RIGHT! Why don't you remake the other 85% of the movies he fucked up ROYALLY? Like Deadly Friend or some fucking crap like that. Leave the good ones alone.

~Matt

[maybrick]

If you got some iconic top-notch talent behind the camera, like Spielberg, Scorsese etc., the remake might be worth checking out.

No offense, but that's kind of a rather worthless statement to make, imo. Just because the person directing is a no-name is no guarantee that the movie is going to be bad any more than a well known name is a guarantee that the movie will be good. Two of the biggest crapfest remakes in recent memory to me is KING KONG and the aforementioned DRACULA, and Zack Snyder was a virtual unknown before he directed DAWN OF THE DEAD. The truth is, once a director makes a name for him or herself they have the complete freedom to choose their own projects and unless a film is near and dear to their heart they'll almost never choose to make a remake. While I can understand having grave misgivings regarding remakes, ultimately you never know how good it is until it hits the screen. Not to say I'm exactly thrilled in seeing a CGI "Thing", but the precedent in the story being retold was broken with Carpenter so I can't really be driven to care that all that much in it being done again.

[Uncle Jay]

Two of the biggest crapfest remakes in recent memory to me is KING KONG and the aforementioned DRACULA

Your in the minority about King Kong, which, in my opinion was amazing, and Bram Stoker's Dracula, although incorrect to most of the book, has its audience. They are far from crapfests. And both are 1000 times better than the remakes of Psycho and The Omen, two of the main remakes off the top of my head that insult the intelligence.

Zack Snyder was a virtual unknown before he directed DAWN OF THE DEAD.

As I said, some do work.

-UJ

[maybrick]

Your in the minority about King Kong, which, in my opinion was amazing, and Bram Stoker's Dracula, although incorrect to most of the book, has its audience.

EVERY movie has it's audience, and that includes Psycho and The Omen.

They are far from crapfests.

Crapfests are in the eye of the beholder. All well and good if you could enjoy King Kong and Dracula, but I thought they were too overindulgent and ego driven to work.

[MrVess]

The filth responsible for this have apparently decided on a premaquel, for now. (http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/14971)

At least part of the film will deal with the base of the Swedes - they're Norwegians, Mac - and with MacReady's brother. Back in those 80s, that hack Carpenter completely ignored the story of the MacReady family, who dedicated their lives to scientific research in Antarctica and strategically placed themselves throughout various bases. But since the new "Thing" will be in much better hands - specifically, those of the talented prop operator of five Pepsi and beer commercials - I just cannot wait for its following premakesequel, dealing with the action-filled adventures of MacReady's young and handsome cousin from the Vostok station.

[Matt89]

Just because the person directing is a no-name is no guarantee that the movie is going to be bad any more than a well known name is a guarantee that the movie will be good.

Oh, the GREAT FLAW of the AUTEUR THEORY. (Like saying the worst film by Alfred Hitchcock (Topaz?) is still better than the best film by some relatively unknown director.) Damn you, André Bazin! :rolleyes:

~Matt

[rijir]

The filth responsible for this have apparently decided on a premaquel, for now. (http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/14971)

At least part of the film will deal with the base of the Swedes - they're Norwegians, Mac - and with MacReady's brother. Back in those 80s, that hack Carpenter completely ignored the story of the MacReady family, who dedicated their lives to scientific research in Antarctica and strategically placed themselves throughout various bases. But since the new "Thing" will be in much better hands - specifically, those of the talented prop operator of five Pepsi and beer commercials - I just cannot wait for its following premakesequel, dealing with the action-filled adventures of MacReady's young and handsome cousin from the Vostok station.

Maybe they can CGI Kurt Russell's face onto the actor playing his brother. Or just cast Kurt in the roll as his twin. I don't see any plot issues here.
And they can even use the same running joke in the film as the Norwegians refer to the American camp nearby as those "crazy Sweeds".

Remember this is being written by the guy who lacks all creativity Ronald Moore(on) who's Battlestar Galactica universe is littered with material that should only be found on earth (Hummer vehicles, etc..) but set in space far from earth. Figure that out.

[Criswell]

More Hollywood pointlessness.........