Badmovies.org Forum

So I've seen media that show a The Thing remake remake -- due October.
Watched the trailer online.

Anyone know anything more about it?  Will it suck?  Will it even belong in the same conversation as the ultra-gory and wonderfully claustrophobic John Carpenter film?

When Carpenter remade the 1951 classic,he went back to the original source-John Campbell's "Who Goes There?" Unlike the 1951 version-which showed very little of the monster,the Carpenter movie went all out.
The remake doesn't seem very original....and the director of the new one...this is his first movie! Carpenter is a great horror and action director.
I'm not optimistic.

I would believe the story would be more justified with a research crew finds R.J. MacReady and Childs frozen bodies and neither of them are infected, but the scraps are also found and then thawed out.

It seems that the re-make version is a Norwegians prequel to the 1982 movie, but it also seems "modern" based upon the trailer.

I'm not sure why they need to remake the 1982 version at the first place, the special effects are still standing and I bet all new viewers will jump in the heated blood scene. I also feel a justified remake should be NC-17 or it makes no sense. I dont see it happen especially since we are in the age of lite R (PG-13).

I'm not very optimistic.  From the trailer it looks like one of those movies that will be a moderately entertaining waste of 90 minutes, and by the next day you'll have forgotten you ever watched it.  Of course there's also a pretty fair chance that it will absolutely suck.

Well first of all, it's not a remake at all.  It's a prequel that tells of the events 3 days before the team from John Carpenter's film shows up (Personally, I think they should have added a subtitle to avoid the confusion).  Frankly, I'm not really interested in seeing this film.  Not out of the fact that it could be bad, but for the fact that I know how it already ends.  Everyone's going to end up dying since this leads into the 1982 film.  That and I don't like the 80's film anyways.

One saving grace to that one would be if they were gunning for a sequel to this new version, and did a retcon of the story, or a reboot if you will, but rebooting it from the 'prequel' rather than from the Carpenter version.  That'd be interesting in any case as it'd throw fans off guard.


I'm still with you though, in that I can see the film ending with that helicopter guy chasing down the dog, credits roll.

Or... one of the female scientist rescues MacReady and Childs from the cold with some snow vehicle and it took her a good number of days to reach the American base. (odd that the Norwegians girls seems *hot* while the American scientist in the 1982 movie seemed like they have not washed in weeks...)

I've personlly would like to see the movie where the alien craft picked up the thing and had to crash onto Earth. Everybody seems to assume the thing is the owner of the spaceship, I would like to believe he was a hitchhiker.

So, a prequel. That may be even worse.

It looks like it might be good, seeing it's more of a prequel than a remake. The monster will probably be CGI, though, which is lame in comparison to Carpenter's film.

Numerous interviews have stated that the only CGI used was to augment the animatronic and physical effects. I'm really tired of people fretting over it.

... Excuse me for not seeing those interviews. Seeing contemporary Hollywood, it was a valid assumption that the monster would be CGI.

Looks like a poor copy of the 1982 version. Pointless...

5 bucks says they use CGI that looks like your typical Sci-Fi Sunday Afternoon Special.

100 bucks says whatever effects they use don't look half as good as the original.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say I never thought Carpenter's version was anything to tell your grand children about.  It's entertaining and has a few good scenes, but I didn't think there was much of a climax.  Overall, just a wild special-effects fest.  (After saying this, I also need to admit I dig this DVD out about once a year and watch it . . . one of those odd movies that's not anywhere near the top of my "favorites" list . . . but I can't stop watching it for some reason.  In fact, I watched it about a week ago!)  Some day, someone will cut open my brain and find strange things in there.

I love the 1982 film. It's at the top of my John Carpenter list, and just high on my list in general. I love the atmosphere of it. I'll see if this version speaks to me or not. On the surface I don't think it's too jaded to assume that it's just another example of an idea-bankrupt Hollywood cashing in on classics.

I love the film, but I sort of agree...

There's a stop motion monster which looks a bit rubbish compared to all the awesome cool stuffer we saw before.
A anamatronic minature wouldv'e been cooler.

Maybe there could've been some cool stuff with the ship that was being built.

I did like the ambiguity of the ending though.

I was hoping for the sort of intensity and suspense Carpenter generated in ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 and HALLOWEEN.  Instead, all he could come up with was "f**k you, too!"  But I did like the final dialogue exchange between Kurt Russell and Keith David.

This movie is a prequel  that tells the story of the Norweign camp that dug up the ship.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0905372/

Trekkie313, don't know why you smote me for my opinion?? I wasn't aware that you made this movie...  :lookingup:

I make a point of not karma smiting for matters of taste.  If we started that here, where would it all stop?

Hmm.  So a movie about the doomed Norwegians... and we know that how it ends is that two Norwegians fly off in a copter, sniping and throwing thermite at a malamute.  Probably it'll be a gore-fest, hopefully not deathly CGI'd to the hilt.  But, agree, I don't have high hopes from what I am hearing.  Thank you all for your info.

-yawns-

The only film that should ever, ever be remade is Night of the Lepus.
The original just wasn't insane enough.

I'm up for an Explorers remake where the aliens don't turn out all goofy. The Thing does actually lend itself well to a sequel (a prequel seems rather pointless to me)...although you know a sequel would likely suck too unless they got a real talented director at the helm.

People would be outraged if they tried to do a sequel, The Thing video game tried to do it...but in the worst way possible. McCready lives!

Just watched the trailer for the movie, I have mixed feelings about.  It seems to be a prequel for John Carpenters version but it seems like the took a lot of elements from the 1982 movie.  I hope that they show what is inside the ship.  I always wanted to see what was inside the ship in the 1982 movie.  Since these guys are supposed to be Swedish, the director should have had them speaking a Swedish dialect and had subtitles to add to the realism.  I will watch it, but only when it comes out on DVD/Netflix.

Later,

John

While I disagree with the only film thing, I do agree with Night of the Lepus.  It should go the Piranha 3D route (parody/tribute film) and just go nuts, because frankly, that's the only way it could be good with that premise.

Now as for this prequel upcoming, I refer that I'm still not interested in it and the 80's remake of the original.  Now, for the films based off or around 80's stuff, I'm seeing the Footloose remake!  Whose with me!?

How can you not be interested in one of the best horror movie ever made?  :lookingup:

Prequels will go down as one of the most lame trends in a few years once eyeryone loses that "hey, we're seeing a new movie!" feeling. :lookingup:

If you pay attention in the trailer, you might notice the split faced burned body we saw in the original thing is seen running around briefly in the trailer.  Kind of interesting.

I never got the point of 'prequels'. You pretty much know where everybody is going to wind up. To me it's like after listening to someone tell a story they suddenly say "Oh, wait! I forgot to tell you this part!".

I'm trying to think of a prequel I have a lick of use for or like. I guess I'm supposed to say THE GODFATHER PART II but I'm not that crazy over the 'Godfather' movies.

The prequel parts in The Godfather II are also only like an hour of the film and are used to parallel the events of the "sequel" part of the film.  It also doesn't get to the point of the beginning of The Godfather, and includes many characters we've never seen before.  In other words, yeah, we know Vito will be Don eventually, but we don't know the fates of many characters or how he got there.


How about Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom?

When I saw this when it originally released to theaters I had no idea it was supposed to be a 'prequel'. I recall in post-release interviews Spielberg and Lucas discussing this being a 'prequel' to to the first film. This was news to most everyone who had seen it. :teddyr:

I just saw the trailer on the boob tube and it looks just like the John Carpenter version.  I had not seen the official trailer I would have written this off as a remake instead of a prequel.

Later,

John

(http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr154/Raffine/criswell_predicts.jpg)


Some Swedes find a crash landed shape shifting Thing.

Mahem and carnage follows.

SPOILER ALERT!



The Thing turns into a doggy and runs away.


The End.

I'm planning on seeing it. It just might be a good movie in it's own right.

In a place,
Where there is nothing.
They found...

(wait for it)

(wait some more)

(little longer)

SOMETHING!

Only if Wilford Brimley's in it.

Diabeetus.