Support NeoGAF

[Daigoro]

how the fuck is this NOT a remake?

the title and the trailer all make it seem like its nothing but a remake.

no sir, i dont like it. and yet im somehow still interested in seeing it.

 

[SilentProtagonist]

and yet im somehow still interested in seeing it.

That's how they get away with it.

 

[BattleMonkey]

For those who have seen it, do they attempt to make it seem like it is set in the right time period to work as a prequel?

 

[Lionel Mandrake]

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

My theater isn't listing The Thing this Thursday. Is it definitely for all Rave theaters? They are playing Ghostbusters, which is just as good.

 

[Insane Metal]

First review is Fresh (kinda):

So while The Thing from Another World reflected Cold War paranoia and a science fiction meets 1950s monster movie aesthetic, and Carpenter’s The Thing had the mix of brilliant special effects with its bleak outlook on the future of humanity post-Vietnam and pre-AIDS, what does this new film say about 2011? There’s a vaguely anti-exploitation theme and some nods to psychoanalysis (the film has a curious oral fixation), but ultimately this is a film going through the motions, albeit with some of those motions being very entertaining. Sadly it seems to suggest that overall our current era is defined by very little as we all too easily settle for artifice, distraction and minimal sub-text rather than something of real substance. A large part of the audience for this film probably won’t care about the dominance of CGI effects, as that is what they have grown up experiencing and don’t consider it to be empty spectacle, but that doesn’t make it any better. Like the alien creature that should have been left buried in the snow, this 2011 film is initially a convincing replication of the real thing, but it eventually all comes undone.

***

http://blog.cinemaautopsy.com/2011/10/11/film-review-the-thing-2011/

 

[Snaku]

My theater isn't listing The Thing this Thursday. Is it definitely for all Rave theaters? They are playing Ghostbusters, which is just as good.

One Rave in town isn't showing either, but the other is showing both Ghostbusters and The Thing. I guess it's up to the theater.

 

[Erigu]

First review is Fresh (kinda):
http://blog.cinemaautopsy.com/2011/10/11/film-review-the-thing-2011/

Sounds exactly as I expected...

 

[Divius]

I wannaaaa see this and I hope it's good.

 

[Expendable.]

That review is very accurate.

 

[Snaku]

Added Rave Cinema screening info to the op. This is going to be the second coolest film screening I've been to this year, right behind Jurassic Park back in June.

 

[Insane Metal]

That review is very accurate.

Hm.

Sounds good enough for me, wan't expecting a classic. Seem to be enjoyable at the very least.

 

[Snaku]

Hm.

Sounds good enough for me, wan't expecting a classic. Seem to be enjoyable at the very least.

Twenty years from now it will be hailed for its stark reflection of our nihilistic and increasingly technologically alienated society. Or not.

Also seems like the reviewer's major gripe with the film is the over reliance on CGI. Yeah, practical fx were a big contributor to the lasting appeal of JC's The Thing, but if he were filming it today, it would be CG'd up the ass. That's just the way things are now. Seems kind of unfair to put the current movie going audience's tastes on the shoulders of this film, especially since going 100% practical fx would have undoubtedly jacked the budget way up. I think we're lucky we got this thing at all.

 

[SilentProtagonist]

Also seems like the reviewer's major gripe with the film is the over reliance on CGI. Yeah, practical fx were a big contributor to the lasting appeal of JC's The Thing, but if he were filming it today, it would be CG'd up the ass. That's just the way things are now. Seems kind of unfair to put the current movie going audience's tastes on the shoulders of this film, especially since going 100% practical fx would have undoubtedly jacked the budget way up. I think we're lucky we got this thing at all.

Truth.
When The Thing came out it WAS using state of the art special effects..

 

[Raistlin]

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.

if they thought they would need to pretend it was a remake to sell ... wouldn't they have ... you know ... just green-lit a remake instead?

 

[Raistlin]

First review is Fresh (kinda):



http://blog.cinemaautopsy.com/2011/10/11/film-review-the-thing-2011/

I'm really growing tired of pretentious filmphiles claiming CGI is inherently 'empty' ... as though puppets are automatically better.

It's a tool, and can be used well or poorly ... just like any other effect or prop.


I mean ... I generally prefer real effects ... but to automatically dismiss alternates outright is just snobbery

 

[SilentProtagonist]

I'm really growing tired of pretentious filmphiles claiming CGI is inherently 'empty' ... as though puppets are automatically better.

It's a tool, and can be used well or poorly ... just like any other effect or prop.


I mean ... I generally prefer real effects ... but to automatically dismiss alternates outright is just snobbery

In the future, movies will use CG to make it look like practical effects/puppetry instead of just looking totally realistic.

This reminds me of when I saw District 9 with some friends and they said that the puppetry looked fake and lame. My god...

 

[MarkMclovin]

I'm going to spoiler this question about the first film, just in case.

Spoiler

So if this new movie's main character is the woman, yet in the '82 movie, it ends with the 2 guys chasing the dog, does this mean that she dies before-hand?

I watched the first movie in HD just the other day, but I can't remember if the

Spoiler

person who blows up from the grenade is a man or not.

 

[Fallout-NL]

I'm really growing tired of pretentious filmphiles claiming CGI is inherently 'empty' ... as though puppets are automatically better.

It's a tool, and can be used well or poorly ... just like any other effect or prop.


I mean ... I generally prefer real effects ... but to automatically dismiss alternates outright is just snobbery

You'd be right if someone had made a better monster movie (with CG) than the 1982 'The Thing'.

But there simply isn't.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

My theater isn't listing The Thing this Thursday. Is it definitely for all Rave theaters? They are playing Ghostbusters, which is just as good.

Dammit! Mine is showing Ghostbusters at 7, and The Thing at 9! FUCK. I was off all day Thursday, but scheduled an interview for 5pm somewhere over an hour from home. I probably wont make it in time for Ghostbusters. I would love to see that again.

 

[Busty]

Sounds good enough for me, wasn't expecting a classic.

What a curious thing to say.

 

[ymmv]

Those crazy swedes with their bicycles, windmills and pot, always clogging around...

Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. is such a Swedish name ....


...



..


.

Not really, the director is Dutch.

 

[Bluemercury]

Well the guy's attention to detail is freaky, he even got the original chopper and all....:

 

[Tobor]

if they thought they would need to pretend it was a remake to sell ... wouldn't they have ... you know ... just green-lit a remake instead?

That's why I said I can't figure it out. Lol.

 

[jgminto]

That's why I said I can't figure it out. Lol.

Maybe they wanted to pleasantly surprise people expecting a shitty remake?

 

[Peru]

premiere

 

[The Hermit]

Maybe they wanted to pleasantly surprise people expecting a shitty remake?

I rather a new movie than a remake of a classic... the original is way to good to deserve a shitty remake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8faq5amdK30

The Thing Musical

This thing (lol) is awesome!

 

[Insane Metal]

Uh oh, 2 fresh, 2 rotten =(

 

[Expendable.]

Uh oh, 2 fresh, 2 rotten =(

One negative reviewer thinks this was a remake.

 

[Insane Metal]

One negative reviewer thinks this was a remake.

LOL

I didn't even read them. That's lame from the website.

edit

I know you can't talk anything else about the movie until the 14th, but based on what you said before, how would you rate the movie? 3/5 like the review I quoted?

 

[Erigu]

One negative reviewer thinks this was a remake.

Then again, based on what the plot appears to be, I wouldn't blame him, personally.

 

[Speedymanic]

Then again, based on what the plot appears to be, I wouldn't blame him, personally.

How could anyone mistake this for a remake? It's pretty obviously not a remake, only someone who hasn't seen the original movie could mistake it for a remake...what happened to the Norwegian camp is something nearly all TT fans have wanted to know from the moment it was introduced in the original...

 

[Expendable.]

I know you can't talk anything else about the movie until the 14th, but based on what you said before, how would you rate the movie? 3/5 like the review I quoted?

Yes.

 

[Insane Metal]

Yes.

K then, thanks.

 

[Deified Data]

I don't remember the titular "Thing" being unearthed as an actual, scary creature. Wasn't it some sort of pathogen or something that infected the people and turned them into the monster? I've only seen this movie once.

 

[Insane Metal]

I don't remember the titular "Thing" being unearthed as an actual, scary creature. Wasn't it some sort of pathogen or something that infected the people and turned them into the monster? I've only seen this movie once.

There was one creature.

 

[Fox1304]

Just saw this at a french premiere.

Pretty average for me. Not a lot of surprises.

Decent CGI, very reminiscent of I AM LEGEND I thought.

Nothing bad in the actors, the scenery, dialogs or anything, but no sparkle either.
Some interesting scenes of who's who, and a few clever moments. A bit of disgusting horror, but again nothing we've never seen before.

I found the end of the ending very clever and amazing though.

I'd rate it 3/5 + 0.5 for the ending

 

[xxracerxx]

I don't remember the titular "Thing" being unearthed as an actual, scary creature. Wasn't it some sort of pathogen or something that infected the people and turned them into the monster? I've only seen this movie once.

Nah it was a "Thing" in a

Spoiler

block of ice that they found in the other countries science lab (where this film takes place).

 

[Expendable.]

Just saw this at a french premiere.

Pretty average for me. Not a lot of surprises.

Decent CGI, very reminiscent of I AM LEGEND I thought.

Nothing bad in the actors, the scenery, dialogs or anything, but no sparkle either.
Some interesting scenes of who's who, and a few clever moments. A bit of disgusting horror, but again nothing we've never seen before.

I found the end of the ending very clever and amazing though.

I'd rate it 3/5 + 0.5 for the ending

By end, you don't mean

Spoiler

the credits tying it to the original, but the "twist", right?

. If so, I agree. Loved that.

 

[Fox1304]

By end, you don't mean

Spoiler

the credits tying it to the original, but the "twist", right?

. If so, I agree. Loved that.

Ending spoiler :

Spoiler

Yes, I was totally bummed when the credits started to roll, was thinking " No way, they really had the balls to stop here ? " but the linking to the original kicked in, and it was excellent. Totally hated the spaceship part though.

 

[Deified Data]

There was one creature.

lol, I need to rewatch this movie. I recall enjoying it.

 

[Expendable.]

Ending spoiler :

Spoiler

Yes, I was totally bummed when the credits started to roll, was thinking " No way, they really had the balls to stop here ? " but the linking to the original kicked in, and it was excellent. Totally hated the spaceship part though.

Ugh, I hated that. Felt so forced. Oh, well.

 

[Fox1304]

Ugh, I hated that. Felt so forced. Oh, well.

Yeah I didn't see the point. Was unnecessary and really not interesting.

 

[Expendable.]

Yeah I didn't see the point. Was unnecessary and really not interesting.

I'm talking about the part you loved. What I did love, however, was the

Spoiler

Edgerton thing at the end

.

 

[scar tissue]

But I already know how it ends!

this. kinda stupid, shoulda been a reboot.
or, you know, just leave the legacy of this awesome movie alone?

 

[Erigu]

How could anyone mistake this for a remake? It's pretty obviously not a remake, only someone who hasn't seen the original movie could mistake it for a remake...what happened to the Norwegian camp is something nearly all TT fans have wanted to know from the moment it was introduced in the original...

"Pretty much the same thing that happened to the US one"?
Hence my comment above.

 

[Fox1304]

I'm talking about the part you loved. What I did love, however, was the

Spoiler

Edgerton thing at the end

.

Ah ... well ...
I actually had no idea that

Spoiler

the movie was about the other base, and that it was linked to the first this way. I only had some faint memories of the original movie, so when I saw all the ending scenes, everything connected in my mind flashed in my memory. But about that Edgertong thing ... is that the scene about the earring ? If so I loved it too. Especially when I thought " wait don't kill him, maybe he lost it during the chase or something "

but then ...

 

[Snaku]

My sister is all of a sudden interested in horror, and I was thinking about taking her to see Carpenter's Thing on Thursday, but can I get her into an R rated film? She's 16, and I'm 27.

or, you know, just leave the legacy of this awesome movie alone?

It's a decent prequel from what people are saying. It's not like it's colorizing King Kong '33 or some shit.

 

[Father_Brain]

How could anyone mistake this for a remake? It's pretty obviously not a remake, only someone who hasn't seen the original movie could mistake it for a remake...what happened to the Norwegian camp is something nearly all TT fans have wanted to know from the moment it was introduced in the original...

It is a remake, albeit a loose one. Essentially the same premise, essentially the same plot, essentially the same setting. It even pretty much has to end on a similar note in order to maintain continuity with the Carpenter film. The most significant difference is the characters, and that's not enough to not make it a remake - there are plenty of unquestioned remakes with significantly different characters from the films they're based on.

 

[Nappuccino]

It is a remake, albeit a loose one. Essentially the same premise, essentially the same plot, essentially the same setting. It even pretty much has to end on a similar note in order to maintain continuity with the Carpenter film. The most significant difference is the characters, and that's not enough to not make it a remake - there are plenty of unquestioned remakes with significantly different characters from the films they're based on.

When it is established in the story that the same thing happened once before, and then a movie goes to show what happened once before, it is still a prequel. You're seeing events that are pretty much defined by the first movie.

It just so happens that those events are similar to what happens in the original remake.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Nah it was a "Thing" in a

Spoiler

block of ice that they found in the other countries science lab (where this film takes place).

One of the things I liked about the Carpenter version is we don't see the form the Thing is in when the Norwegian team finds it. We have no idea what it looked like, just a general size. From the ads and trailers, it looks like we see the original form in this one, which is too bad. I took it as a bad sign, revealing too much. Mystery is good.

Hope to be wrong and a glimpse is all I get. Bailing out of the thread now that the spoiler tags are rolling in. I'm seeing this Friday night.