• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Rottenwatch: THE THING (Dir. A Crazy Swede, Mary Elizabeth Winstead)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tobor said:
It's officially called The Thing. The new movie is called The Thing.

The more I think about it, it's obviously a stunt to get people to think its a remake. Why that's seen as better marketing, I can't figure out.
Click to expand...

No. The official title is "John Carpenter's The Thing." It's contractual.
 
Those thinking this is a remake aren't wildly off base - to be consistent with the original's continuity, it pretty much has to be a loose remake of the Carpenter film.
 
Count Dookkake said:
No. The official title is "John Carpenter's The Thing." It's contractual.
Click to expand...
Uh huh. Meanwhile, look it up on Rotten Tomatoes, or IMDB, or Wikipedia, Its called The Thing. Wikipedia lists "John Carpenter's The Thing" as the alternate title.

Either way, it doesn't change my point.
 
Tobor said:
Uh huh. Meanwhile, look it up on Rotten Tomatoes, or IMDB, or Wikipedia, Its called The Thing. Wikipedia lists "John Carpenter's The Thing" as the alternate title.

Either way, it doesn't change my point.
Click to expand...
He's trolling dude, stop replying to him lol.
 
Tobor said:
Uh huh. Meanwhile, look it up on Rotten Tomatoes, or IMDB, or Wikipedia, Its called The Thing. Wikipedia lists "John Carpenter's The Thing" as the alternate title.

Either way, it doesn't change my point.
Click to expand...

No, it does not change your point, as my initial comment was intended as a joke for those in the know. That is until you piped up with some ignorance and then I was morally obligated to educate you.

None of the sources you cite matter. The contracts matter. The posters matter. The advertising matters. Not every director gets such a credit, but Carpenter does.


SilentProtagonist said:
He's trolling dude, stop replying to him lol.
Click to expand...

lol

Except I'm right.
 
Count Dookkake said:
No, it does not change your point, as my initial comment was intended as a joke for those in the know. That is until you piped up with some ignorance and then I was morally obligated to educate you.

None of the sources you cite matter. The contracts matter. The posters matter. The advertising matters. Not every director gets such a credit, but Carpenter does.
Click to expand...
My point was that the movie is referred to as The Thing, and titling this movie The Thing when it's not a remake is bizarre and spurious.
 
Count Dookkake said:
lol

Except I'm right.
Click to expand...
Haha I know, but obviously no one refers to 1982 movie as "John Carpenter's The Thing", it 95% of the time simply refereed to as The Thing. I know you're right, but you also know you're being silly, hence.. trolling.
 
Tobor said:
My point was that the movie is referred to as The Thing, and titling this movie The Thing when it's not a remake is bizarre and spurious.
Click to expand...

Yeah, even with the official difference in name, it is a weird decision. It seems to be having it both ways. Maybe even three ways.

It does kinda make one sliver of sense to me, though, given that I have long held the belief that most sequels are actually remakes anyway. At least the shittier ones.
 
Yeah, the titles are bit a confusing...a bit weird that it's prequel and not a remake if they're going with the same name.

BTW, has anyone seen the original movie, The Thing from Another World? They had it on TCM the other night, and it was pretty good.
 
Ultratech said:
BTW, has anyone seen the original movie, The Thing from Another World? They had it on TCM the other night, and it was pretty good.
Click to expand...
No, but apparently John Carpenter's The Thing is a remake of this movie.
Before "John Carpenter's The Thing" was released, "The Thing from Another World" was simply referred to as "The Thing" but was re titled (either officially or just in popular culture) after "John Carpenter's The Thing" came out to avoid confusion.

Yeah.
 
What the spongebob at the constant bickering over the title. Should have called it "Da Ting" to keep it in line with it being released in the modern era, as well as to save confusion. respek.
 
I'll def be seeing this once it hits bluray. Really have no desire to spend $12+ at the theater anymore besides superhero movies and big blockbusters.
 
John Carpenters "The Thing" is very close to the John Campbell Jr. short story / novella "Who Goes There." (Which is very good) "The Thing from Another World" is really not that related to the story other than the setting.

As such Carpenters Thing is not really a remake as much as it is a different version that goes back to the source material.
 
I still see no point for this film's existence. We already know what happened! Like, pretty much everything! They devoted a chunk of the first film to what happened.

A sequel would have been more interesting :/
 
zychi said:
I'll def be seeing this once it hits bluray. Really have no desire to spend $12+ at the theater anymore besides superhero movies and big blockbusters.
Click to expand...
Why would you only want to see horrible movies in a theatre?
 
MkRFM.gif

So ready.
 
I LOOOOVVVEEEDD the original. I'm still mad that there's a chick, and to make it worse a young chick and to make it even worse she's the main character. Still I'm definitely going to watch this.


NotTheGuyYouKill said:
I still see no point for this film's existence. We already know what happened! Like, pretty much everything! They devoted a chunk of the first film to what happened.

A sequel would have been more interesting :/
Click to expand...

Very true. And let me remind everyone that no where in the original footage of the Norwegians was there a woman. Just saying.
 
I always avoid horror movies, but I watched The thing last year just because it was always being praised on so many sites, forums and etc... it turn out one of my fav. movies ever!

Can't wait for this one
 
I am going to bring this to the Drive In with me! We so excited!

blair_done1.jpg

blair_done3.jpg


Hopefully people at the Drive In know what the hell this is.
 
Honestly from the trailer, it looks like just a remake of the first one but with different characters and set in the camp over from the first one. They discover the alien, it starts taking over people's bodies and then they have to find out who is the thing and who is human and we know how it ends in that they all die and then it spreads to the American camp. Been there, done that. I agree with the above poster that it seems to have no point (at least for fans of the original, maybe if you've never seen it then it's a good way to cash in on the concept).

I guess I"ll wait for the reviews to come in though.
 
NotTheGuyYouKill said:
I still see no point for this film's existence. We already know what happened! Like, pretty much everything! They devoted a chunk of the first film to what happened.

A sequel would have been more interesting :/
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think one of the best parts of the original (remake technically) is that the ending is so ambiguous.
 
It's interesting the The Thing (1982) wasn't really met so warmly when it came out. Some of the bad reviews are really interesting. Funny how a lot of them criticize the reliance on special effects and poor characterization.

I don't think this prequel/remake is going to be as good as Carpenter's film, but I imagine a lot of the criticism that the original film got will be recycled here as well.
 
VistraNorrez said:
It's interesting the The Thing (1982) wasn't really met so warmly when it came out. Some of the bad reviews are really interesting. Funny how a lot of them criticize the reliance on special effects and poor characterization.

I don't think this prequel/remake is going to be as good as Carpenter's film, but I imagine a lot of the criticism that the original film got will be recycled here as well.
Click to expand...

The same could be said of Blade Runner. Time is the great equalizer.
 
PhoncipleBone said:
I disagree. I think one of the best parts of the original (remake technically) is that the ending is so ambiguous.
Click to expand...

True enough, but I'm sure you can still keep the open ending intact and still make a sequel... heck, I'd even take a modern-day sequel in spirit with a different twist on the same concept instead of rehashing a story that we were already told.

Even making a direct sequel wouldn't necessarily have to bring back anyone from the first movie. I mean, someone's gonna come to investigate at some point...
 
NotTheGuyYouKill said:
True enough, but I'm sure you can still keep the open ending intact and still make a sequel... heck, I'd even take a modern-day sequel in spirit with a different twist on the same concept instead of rehashing a story that we were already told.

Even making a direct sequel wouldn't necessarily have to bring back anyone from the first movie. I mean, someone's gonna come to investigate at some point...
Click to expand...

But that would give away who survived and who didn't. And I would spend the entire time wondering if MacReady was an alien or not. I would rather have a remake than a sequel.

I feel dirty saying that.

On a side note, Rave Cinemas are showing the 1982 version in theaters this Thursday at 9pm. I made a thread, but had no love.

http://neogaf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=447165
 
The same could be said of Blade Runner. Time is the great equalizer.
Click to expand...
Speaking of, and in regards to both films and their box office fare/reviews, check out the movies that the public was seeing that year:

ET, Tootsie, Ghandi, Blade Runner, The Thing, Poltergeist, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Tron, Porky's, The World According the Garp, Star Trek II, The Dark Crystal

Weird year.
 
PhoncipleBone said:
I disagree. I think one of the best parts of the original (remake technically) is that the ending is so ambiguous.
Click to expand...

And the black guy is wearing a different coat when we see him after the base explodes. Continuity error, or intentional decision by Carpenter? I like to think it's the latter.
 
Chiggs said:
And the black guy is wearing a different coat when we see him after the base explodes. Continuity error, or intentional decision by Carpenter? I like to think it's the latter.
Click to expand...

As the youtube analysis pointed out, costume continuity was extremely strict in this film. And with the year delay before principal photography, small stuff like that were planned out in extreme detail. There's no way it was an error.
 
PhoncipleBone said:
But that would give away who survived and who didn't. And I would spend the entire time wondering if MacReady was an alien or not. I would rather have a remake than a sequel.

I feel dirty saying that.

On a side note, Rave Cinemas are showing the 1982 version in theaters this Thursday at 9pm. I made a thread, but had no love.

http://neogaf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=447165
Click to expand...

Well, by the time the team comes by to see what has happened, bodies could have decayed or something, fire could have spread and consumed the camp in the meantime, maybe there's a cleverer way of figuring it out.

I would just be more interested in adding more to the universe than retreading something we are already aware of, or just retelling the story, but with in the modern day.
 
So stoked for this, probably be firing up Carpenter's version on Netflix some time this week in preparation. Reviews aren't stopping me....

Hope they actually made good on their talk to use practical effects whenever possible. Oh and that Morricone score still creeps the the hell out of me. Such dread....apocalyptic....
 
An-Det said:
Oh awesome, I think I'll go to this. I get the Rave emails but I've tended to ignore them.
Click to expand...

My wife and I went for a few of the horror shows in August. It is awesome seeing these films with an audience on the big screen.
 
I came for a rottenwatch and left disappointed there are 0 reviews. Classic case of premature thread creation aka PTC.
 
Replicant said:
So who in this group who resembles
the Norwegian guy who ran out and chase the dog in the original
?
Click to expand...

you could probably count out the people who
can speak english
if i remember correctly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Rottenwatch: The Bride!
37
601
CGNoire replied
Actress Shannon Elizabeth is back with a vengeance. She's joined OnlyFans
2 3
132
1K
John Bilbo replied
Remember Elizabeth Smart? From kidnapping and sexual assault survivor to champion bodybuilder
3
172
Bojji replied
Project Hail Mary - Final Trailer
2 3 4
157
2K
Rentahamster replied
  • Poll
The next big thing in cell phones are wide foldables
2
85
270
Putonahappyface replied
Top Bottom