Badmovies.org Forum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txjm94GnrPA


I have high hopes...

(please don't suck, please don't suck, please don't suck...)

 :bluesad:

no words...
edit, well maybe one: why??

She ain't no Kurt Russell, that's for sure. 

I love John Carpenter's film too much to give this one a fair chance.  I'll probably watch it, but I don't expect to be thrilled by it.  There's no way they'll top Bottin's effects for one thing.

I actually love the original The Thing [From Another World] too much to give John Carpenter's verison a fair chance... that and I can't stand intense gore.

John Carpenter's version is more true to the original John W. Campbell short story than the 1951 version.  I'm a fan of both of them.  As a plus, both have great scare moments that usually make first time viewers jump.

Just a heads up: this is a prequel not a remake.  Not sure if that helps but it sounds like some of you thought this was a remake. Apparently this one is heavy on practical effects.   I am not impressed by the trailer though and have adopted a wait and see approach.

True, I've heard the same about the faithfulness, but I just love the original more.

Looks like a remake to me, plus they're just calling it "The Thing".  :lookingup:

Basically, it looks like something that should just be going straight-to-DVD. It doesn't look that bad, I'll give it that, but everyone should just go and watch the 1982 version. Why waste your money?

It's a prequel, it explains what happened at the Norwegian camp. People can waste their money as they choose, I buy crappy VHS movies...you want to point out the fallacy in that?

Keep the posts polite.  You don't have to agree with someone, just keep the disagreement from becoming nothing more than insults.

Trekkie313:  You see what our webmaster wrote?  You could be nicer. 
In your short history of giving karma, you have knocked almost twice as often as you've applauded, and with a handful of times you've hit either the applaud or smite button, that's a high percentage.  Just what a TROLL would do.  You are certainly making an effort to earn multiple enemies on this forum, aren't you?  Circus is one of our most respected members.  It is silly for you to knock someone for disagreeing or for voicing an opinion.  What are you trying to prove?  Cut the crap.  

Totally agree with that one.  In the original film, just the scene of James Arness (all 6 or 7 feet of him!) standing in the doorway as he walked towards the trap they laid for him was scary. He looked very menacing in that makeup.  I go for the original Howard Hawks film myself.

Also, The Thing was one of the more serious sci-fi attempts in the 50's, of which ther weren't many, save for stuff like The Day The Earth Stood Still and Forbidden Planet.

Uhm, INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE, THE WAR OF THE WORLDS, ON THE BEACH... even dopey (and maybe great) movies like THEM!  EARTH VS. THE FLYING SAUCERS, 20 MILLION MILES TO EARTH , THE BLOB, etc. are all played seriously. 

Agreed: the movies you mentioned took sci-fi somewhat seriously in their own way.

But with The Thing, there was a true sense of menace that set it apart from other films:

You had a huge (and very scary looking) humanoid beast terrorizing a group of people cut off from help in the most remote and desolate place on earth, biding it's time as it took the group down one at a time until it felt it was on equal footing with the survivors.

Overall, there's a true sense of cold, hard terror to it that the other movies didn't have, and there were no false pretenses with it, and no dashing, handsome two-piece suit scientists or glamorous leading ladies doing the rescuing. It was a true exercise in the unknown that set it apart from it's peer films.

You say so. 
INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS

My main beef thus far with this supposed "prequel" is if this takes before the Carpenter film and deals with the Norwegian camp, why are they all speaking English?

Hey TORGO, nice to see you around.  I haven't seen you around as much these days.   :thumbup: :smile:

Thanks. I'm not able to get on here nearly as much as I used to but when I can I try to get on here and catch up on some stuff. I hope that you're doing well as well!

I'll buy that IOTBS was a serious movie as well, and a film dealing with a larger issue of a slow methodic takeover of the world, which I'd say is pretty serious in it's own right.

So I guess a better statement would be that for what they represented, both films stood out ahead of the others in their depiction of more serious events, be it one creature or a slow methodic takeover of the world based on then-current real world fears of a  invasion by a foreign enemy in the Cold War era.

Both are good movies  :smile:

...And, WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE is about the imminent destruction of the Earth. 
...And, WAR OF THE WORLDS is about invasion of Earth by hostile aliens intent on taking over. 
...And, ON THE BEACH is about poisoning and destruction of the human race by our own weapons...
I think these are all serious topics. 

Being one to have seen each and every one of these movies, I'd say so.  I guess I'm still an old softie for rubber suited giant humanoid aliens, this my love for The Thing and other monsters.

Oh yeah, I just thought of another, while it's quirky in it's own right:

IT! The Terror From Beyond Space. 

It could be just me, but I think that this one was one of the inspirations for Alien--you have a creature stowed away on a ship, slowly stalking the crew, AND you have the last crewman alive trying to explain to his peers that he did NOT kill off the crew, which sort of runs into the beginning of Alien 2 as per Ripley's dilemma upon returning to Earth.  Good stuff.