[Trailer] The Thing remake

[Krug]

News: Man Is Still The Warmest Place To Hide. THE THING Trailer.

Well some say it's a prequel but a lot of the scenes look similar to me..

 

[frankthedm]

Hmm, what they showed of the Thing looks more chitinous than the fleshy organic grotesquery of the first one.

 

[Kzach]

I'm often presented with situations that make me wonder about how people think and why people think the way they do. "The Thing" being called one of the greatest horror films ever made, presents me with one of those situations. I can't see a remake/prequel being any better simply because someone in Hollywood wants to capitalise on its cult status.

 

[Deset Gled]

Hmm, what they showed of the Thing looks more chitinous than the fleshy organic grotesquery of the first one.

I'm often presented with situations that make me wonder about how people think and why people think the way they do. "The Thing" being called one of the greatest horror films ever made, presents me with one of those situations. I can't see a remake/prequel being any better simply because someone in Hollywood wants to capitalise on its cult status.

You guys do realize that John Carpenter's version of The Thing was a remake of The Thing From Another World, released in 1951? IMNSHO,both of these films fall high on the list of Best Horror Films Ever made (although I will admit that the John Carpenter version ranks higher). If you haven't seen the original, run (don't walk) to see it. It will not have the pure special-effects-driven horror scenes that you saw in the JC version, but it has some very cool cinematography, and a very nice story line.

Personally, I will not judge this film until I see it. It has the potential to be amazing; it has potential to suck. An over-reliance on computer animation could kill it very easily, but the proper mesh between physical and animated effects could work well. The fact that I don't see John Carpenter's name on it makes me a little worried, but I don't know anything about the new director or cinematographer to know how worried I should be. The art and special effects departments are a mix of good and blah.

But so far, I like what I see. It looks like they're pulling the same trick that the JC version did, where it can be interpreted as either a continuation of the series or as a stand alone. The character conflicts shown in the preview imply that the plot is more like the '51 film that the JC version. I think I'll want to rewatch both versions before I see this one.

 

[Celtavian]

I'm often presented with situations that make me wonder about how people think and why people think the way they do. "The Thing" being called one of the greatest horror films ever made, presents me with one of those situations. I can't see a remake/prequel being any better simply because someone in Hollywood wants to capitalise on its cult status.

You seem to have the presumption that your opinion is better than others. It is no "situation". It is personal preference. Some people's preferences differ from your own. It is as simple as that. Once you stop thinking of your own opinion as superior to others, then smugness will no longer blind you from the reality that some things are good even if you don't think they are to a great many people.

I very much enjoyed The Thing. I found the claustrophobic, isolated environment and the idea of an alien monster copying your companions to be very frightening. Not knowing who is a human and who is a monster was one a conundrum that would frighten anyone. I thought the entire film was very well done and well acted. An enjoyable horror experience.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally, I'm a huge fan of both the B&W original and the Kurt Russell/John Carpenter remake (which is actually closer to the original story by John Campbell). Excellent sci-fi horror; each was a great exemplar of the best of their eras.

That said, I'm not so sure a prequel will do anyone any favors. Even though it looks like its storyline will be a tad closer to the original film, the problem is we kinda know where this one is going. There is a certain diminishment of dramatic potential.

A followup to the Kurt Russell/John Carpenter version would, I think, have greater potential. As would other treatments of the story, like retelling it from the Thing's point of view (such as done in Peter Watt's Hugo nominated story).

 

[freebfrost]

A followup to the Kurt Russell/John Carpenter version would, I think, have greater potential.

Actually, the sequel was already made as a video game.

As I recall, it did a excellent job of instilling you with the sense of fear, paranoia, and isolation that resonated throughout the 1982 movie. And you did find out what happens next for MacReady...

 

[falcarrion]

story line from the 1951 movie

Scientist at an Arctic research station discover a spacecraft buried in the ice. Upon closer examination, they discover the frozen pilot. All hell breaks loose when they take him back to their station and he is accidentally thawed out!

From the trailer you see the creature in a block of ice.
but I don't remember a dog in the first movie.
now in the JC version the dog is a important part. The movie open as two Norwegiansare trying to kill the dog from a helecopter.It is in the form of the dog that it gets into the american camp.

I have a feeling it might be a combo of both movies. The begining from the first movie and some of the best parts from the JC version.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The original script was by Ron Moore, who has a pretty good track record when it comes to reinventing genre classics. I'm less confident in the final version, but there's still a chance it can be good Lovecraftian horror.

 

[Kzach]

You seem to have the presumption that your opinion is better than others. It is no "situation". It is personal preference. Some people's preferences differ from your own. It is as simple as that. Once you stop thinking of your own opinion as superior to others, then smugness will no longer blind you from the reality that some things are good even if you don't think they are to a great many people.

You're assuming you know how I think and you attribute an inferred emotional status to my words that are based on little other than that assumption.

This is the equivalent of seeing someone with a shaved head walking down the street and screaming out, "NAZI!"

I shave my head because I hate hair, not Jews.