The Thing Prequel

Discussion in 'General' started by SEANVALEN, Sep 15, 2008.

  1. shift

    shift Hot as shit!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,463
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    - TeXaS -
    Didnt get time around the weekend to see it, but I plan on it here very soon :)

    Thanks for the quick review from the one's whom did get to see it. Lucky basterd's!! ;)
     
  2. MorallySound

    MorallySound Mad Mutilator

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    8,002
    Likes Received:
    1,804
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Canada
    Just got back from this, and while I definitely have a few major complaints (too much is shown, over explained, reliance on CGI, and there were a few scenes that could have worked much better other ways) I enjoyed it quite a bit more than I expected. It was entertaining.

    While it holds nothing up to Carpenter's film in terms of actually generating suspense, isolation, and mystery, this prequel isn't terrible. The cast here were all pretty decent and I enjoyed Mary Elizabeth Winstead as the lead. There are at times it feels it's too similar, as far as structure, to Carpenter's film, at least they were able to creatively find alternate methods - the testing scene comes to mind. It's not original nor is it really frightening, but they did a good job at coming up with their own story for connecting the dots Carpenter's film left for them to work from and through that I was able to go along for the ride. Worth at least checking out. 3 out of 5.
     
  3. Chunkblower

    Chunkblower Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    402
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    Kind of surprised at the love this seems to be getting. I give it credit for trying to stay faithful to, and respectful of, the original but that's about as far as I can go. For me it failed in every important way: no suspense, no scares, the creature designs were unimaginative and the characters poorly developed. I knew going in that it would never even come close to the original but, even on it's own terms, I thought it was pretty much a total disaster.
     
  4. inkmachine

    inkmachine Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Flint, MI
    I'm very very surprised as well at the love this piece of.....shi...err...'film' seems to be getting.

    I was excited about the potential this move had and I fell for an early interview with Tom Woodruff & Alec Guiness about their love and respect for the practical effects mastery of Rob Bottin in the John Carpenter version. I knew that was dangerous territory I was letting myself wander into, especially after being a fan of the Carpenter version and watching it untold times.

    But, after that interview I stayed away from all other press and early review concerning it.

    Yesterday I went to go see it with an open mind.

    Yesterday, 103 minutes later, I stormed out of the theater with such a scowl on my face that one person who was walking out of the movie next to me looked at me and said "yea....I'm pissed too."

    I suppose I'll put some of this in "spoiler text" just in case someone is reading it that doesn't want to know the poop they will encounter when seeing this.....

    The only thing they got right about this movie and that actually gave me goosebumps was...
    at the very end during the credits when the helicopter arrives and they go up and start shooting at the dog and the wonderful music by Ennio Morricone began playing....and I realized the only reason this got me excited is because I was tricked into thinking I was about to watch Carpenter's The Thing right after the credits...LOL...which I did once I got home!!!

    There was a certain amount of gravity to Carpenter's film. You know what I'm saying? I mean...you felt something heavy when you watched that movie.

    This movie simply could not capture that feel. Oh, it tried and tried and tried, but it ever succeeded. All of the characters in Carpenter's version seemed like real people...real personalities...each was very different from the other and unique. No one in this movie had that 'aura' about them.

    Now...for 'The Thing' itself....downright disappointing and infuriating.

    Personally, I don't want to see 'The Thing' running around attacking everyone as if it was every other monster in every other movie. There was always something different about Carpenter's monster. When it attacked you to absorb you....it was private. We didn't get to see it at the 'moment of impact' so to speak. To me...that added so much...drama and suspense to Carpenter's movie. It made me wonder "Man what the fuck happens exactly when it does get hold of you!" But just because I wondered that to myself, never actually meant that I wanted to see that on the screen. Ever. It takes something away from the experience I think.

    The effects...well...yes, they were CGI. Were they any better than other CGI effects of today? Nope. At the most, I can simply say they served the purpose of the movie having some sort of special effects I guess. I know I know...everyone says Rob Bottin's effects can't be beat and to all who say it...you are all absolutely correct and I stand by your side. Yes, Bottin's work was latex, but what he was able to make that latex do was simply amazing. In my mind, it's never been achieved in CGI and I don't really see how it will be able to be in the future.

    Also, if you're going to show us how certain scenes hinted at in Carpenter's actually took place and make a large point of focusing in on it
    like the melted two headed 'Thing'
    ... and this is a PREQUEL so anything in the movie after it should be considered the source material to work backward from....PLEASE use your CGI wizardry to make that part which you are focusing on look spot on or even slightly close to the version which comes after it. For those of you who have seen this new version...I'm sure you have to agree.

    Anyway...I could go on and on nitpicking this drek.

    I'll sum it up this way.

    I'm fucking ashamed that I put my money toward this movies box office total.

    End result for me = lesson learned dumbass....don't go in with an open mind because your original gut reaction is almost always spot on and correct
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2011
  5. Anthropophagus

    Anthropophagus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Messages:
    4,049
    Likes Received:
    391
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Canada
    I wouldn't be so hard on yourself, our love and sentimental feelings about many of these films we watched as teenagers lead us to shell out for sequels and remakes with at the very least reasonable expectations.
    I have been resisting seeing this for awhile now as the original is one of my favorites, however I am still reeling from the lesson learned from the 'Fright Night' remake and will do my best to avoid this one.
     
  6. Fall Break

    Fall Break Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Newfoundland, Canada
    Was pumped when I saw it, and MEW was was better then I expected, she is always easy on the eyes too. Just didn't like how then finished her story. It's got nothing on the original but will see this again on blu-ray once it's released.
     
  7. russweiss

    russweiss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,203
    Likes Received:
    1,932
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I also consider this to be more a remake than prequel. I had mixed feelings about the film. Had I never seen Carpenter's version I would have liked it more but of course I couldn't help but compare it and it simply fell short.
     
  8. Ash28M

    Ash28M Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,063
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Mississauga, ON, Canada
    Whether or not you liked the film is one thing but do you really go into a remake/prequel/sequel with such high exceptions that you are visibly devastated when it doesn't pan out? I don't know if it's just me but I always go into these things expecting the worst and hoping for the best.

    On another note I'm surprised that many of you were disappointed with the creature effects. I dislike CGI on the most part but I thought this film got it right. I thought they were imaginative with some of the designs and it didn't look cartoonish to me.

    Of course it was never going to be as good as the original. Did anyone really expect it to be?
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2011
  9. rijir

    rijir Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Messages:
    471
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I read an article once years ago about why stop motion is scarier than CGI. And that was the answer. It DID exist. Even though it was a miniature "creature" it actually was real rather than just pixels on the screen.
     
  10. elDomenechHDG

    elDomenechHDG Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,807
    Likes Received:
    193
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    NYC
    The CGI wasn't Playstation/SyFy Channel-level, for the most part, so they got that right. Also, the film looks remarkably "retro", like it could've been made in 1982. I was very happy about that. And the end-credit sequence that leads into the Carpenter film was great. It felt like an outtake from the '82 film.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2011
  11. Zombie Dude

    Zombie Dude Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    Messages:
    7,143
    Likes Received:
    2,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    Part of the footage from the helicopter at the end is actually from Carpenter's version ;)
     
  12. baggio

    baggio Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,740
    Likes Received:
    1,396
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This bothered me about the new film.

    I feel that the teeth fillings & jewelry, the creature can't mimic "non living shapes" was a bad move imo. It dared or at least brought to the attention to viewer that, how the hell can the creature wear the clothes? Plus the clothes being perfectly "unharmed" after the alien violently engulfed another body.

    At least with Carpenter's version, that question may have been on the minds of the viewer, but the problem of making sense wasn't made worse by the characters actions/dialog in the movie.

    Does anybody agree with this opinion?
     
  13. Darga

    Darga Narcissistic Personality

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    1,577
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    It didn't bother me too much-probably because I'm not sure exactly what was supposed to have happened. Did the alien change into fresh clothes after the transformation? I dunno. Maybe I'm not understanding your question. What got me was the commander who claimed they couldn't check him because he had porcelain fillings or teeth or whatever he was saying. Porcelain is not organic, it's mineral, so the alien shouldn't have been able to copy that either....
     
  14. baggio

    baggio Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,740
    Likes Received:
    1,396
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I guess what I'm trying to say is:
    that in Carpenters movie, it is strange that the creature goes in & out of the people without damaging any clothing. Characters don't change their clothes either(especially once the men are aware of the creature) .... and no character in the movie talks about this point. So the viewer, in a sense let's this theory go, and just becomes a mystery so to speak. But, in the new film, the characters are full aware that the creature can't reproduce teeth filling & such. Plus they show much more of how the creature "takes over" another body. So this leads the the viewer to that WTF moment. Why the hell aren't the clothes ripped up, when jumping from body to body? And why aren't the characters questioning that, yet they know about the teeth filling thing?

    So that's why I felt this was a bad move. They should have not had a scene at all about the teeth checking. The whole creature can only transform to a living thing should have never been brought up. It looked like the director was trying way to hard to have the "blood test" moment/scene from Carpenter's movie. Also the "new" Thing should have not had the characters know(only the viewer would know) that the creature was jumping from body to body, until the end of the movie. It would have made a better & scarier movie. In other words it took the the men in Carpenter's film to figure out the body takeover theory ..... well that and the guys in the helicopter in the beginning of the film. Which leads back to the prequel, hense that's why they should have waited to the very end for the characters to find out that revelation.

    And good point on the Porcelain thing. I agree there.

    Maybe this better explains.
     
  15. Ash28M

    Ash28M Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,063
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Mississauga, ON, Canada
    Correct me if i'm wrong but..

    Didn't they just say the alien couldn't reproduce metal?

    Either way stop nitpicking the film. Just enjoy the ride as simply an inferior but still well done IMO companion piece to the Original. I thought we were done trying to even compare these films to the Originals. Every good film is going to be remade, get over it, that ship has sailed. Some of you guys seem to hate these films before you see them and if that's the case why pay to watch them at all?
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2011
  16. Severn

    Severn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Maryland
    Normally I agree with that aspect but this particular movie holds the Carpenter movie so close to the chest that not only is it impossible not to compare it to the original one but it invites comparison.

    I always thought a straight-up remake would have been ideal. That way it would have set up its own rules, its own aesthetics and really it would have given us something new.
     
  17. KGBRadioMoskow

    KGBRadioMoskow Makes any meat boneless!

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    1,563
    Likes Received:
    902
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not especially. The face-grab takeover by Blair at the end of the flick made it very clear that a stated assumption the characters were working with - that the thing has to violently and cloth tearingly attack - was false. Chillingly so.

    Wasn't the only assumption they made that was likely wrong - they also thought the level of takeover contamination was so low that Clark should have been infected just from the face full of dog slobber he got at the movie's start.

    But that was the whole point, part of what made the movie what it was - the characters didn't know who to trust or what to believe, and were certain to get some of it *wrong*. It shouldn't be taken as a discontinuity or contradiction what was assumed didn't always follow events. IMO it was intentional plot design that the characters were in error in their assumption, not that their stating it made it concrete canon for fanboy discussion.
     
  18. rhett

    rhett Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    9,418
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Canada
    I don't have any time today to read the thread but I will come back and check later. I just wanted to say that I saw it tonight and I couldn't believe how much I enjoyed it. I was pretty giddy by the end of it and the way the film wraps up, I haven't been that excited at the end of a movie for some time. I just thought it was great fan service and one that does what the good sequels/prequels/remakes do by not just copying the same scenarios from the original and instead building on the mythos. I had a lot of reservations about this, but man, I was so impressed. Bravo.
     
  19. deepred

    deepred Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    837
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Is this better than the Elm Street remake? I see it has the same writer.
     
  20. Ash28M

    Ash28M Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,063
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Mississauga, ON, Canada
    Yes, but that's not saying much.
     

Share This Page