The Thing 2011

[walker 0]

Hi all

A remake of the classic The Thing film

UKjErC2JLQc

Release Date: 10/14/2011

Wonder if it will be as good as the John Carpenter version with Kurt Russell in the lead?

Kind Regards walker

[Gunter Severloh 3948]

Cool!

I seen the original a few times, looks like this might turn out good, seems to be a remake. I like the fact that in the trailer,

and hope in the full movie that the music and sound that was in the original is in there.

I like the parts where they go into more of the creature, and where it was from, what it does, ect,.

it really makes a great story.

[OrLoK 20]

Hello all,

I heard it was going to be a prequel or sequel to the film.

I doubt It will get as much recognition as the John Carpenter film, as that was groundbreaking "effects wise" for the time.

I hope they do it justice, if its a pure remake, the Assault on Precint 13 was a disgrace.

rgds

LoK

(oh you know the JC version was already a remake of a 40's/50's film called "the thing from beyond the stars" or some such)

Edited September 21, 2011 by orlok

[Warin 0]

Good heavens. A remake of a remake! Third time around... Crazy. I know a few people in a tiny little town here in British Columbia that have phone books saved from when they were filming there, as the actors all stayed in town and got phones and ended up being listed in thte directory.

[jblackrupert 14]

Can't be any worse then what Lucas has did to Star wars.

[VanhA-ICON 11]

No no no no no!!

What the hell is the matter with hollywood? Remake after remake..

Fresh out of ideas it seems. No wonder they copy all the hits from great asian titles coming out of Japan and South Korea.

:pistols:

[icebreakr 3100]

And they film a remake of a *classic*!!!11one what are they trying to achieve here? Oh right, money....

[aservieL 10]

That's really cool.

[max power 21]

Good heavens. A remake of a remake! Third time around... Crazy. I know a few people in a tiny little town here in British Columbia that have phone books saved from when they were filming there, as the actors all stayed in town and got phones and ended up being listed in thte directory.

Well, it's not a remake of a remake. Both the 1951 The Thing from Another World and the 1982 The Thing are after the same 1938 story, Who goes there? by John W. Campbell. The second film is actually closer to the original story however it kind of has elements of the original adaptation's Cold War allegory, and a very close remake of the title sequence.

I think this film is supposed to take place in the Norwegian camp established at the beginning of John Carpenter's film. Of course, because it is Hollywood, there must be an American present as the main character. I am a *huge* fan of the original film. I do not have high hopes for this one, however. In the trailer, the main character seemed to know too much. I hate it when omniscient characters encounter otherwordly horror with a knowing, "are you sure you should be doing that? Don't open that doooo-oooor". Main characters should be representative of the audience as they are reacting to these situations AS IF THEY WERE THERE, not as a jaded bunch of teenagers watching a horror film.

[froggyluv 2130]

I hate it when omniscient characters encounter otherwordly horror with a knowing, "are you sure you should be doing that? Don't open that doooo-oooor". Main characters should be representative of the audience as they are reacting to these situations AS IF THEY WERE THERE, not as a jaded bunch of teenagers watching a horror film.

Original had interesting characters, great pacing, mood, lighting etc...

Another thing, too often in today's films (especially American), it feels like your watching kids (young adults) trying to act like men rather then actually being them. Anybody who was a fan of 70/80's rugged drunks like Lee Marvin, Bronson, Coburn knows what Im talkin bout. Shoot, Russell seems rugged hardcore compared to the new breed.

Anyways, *sings* "Men, men, Men,men, men..we're Men in Tiiights..."

[svendejong 0]

I really hope the movie will be good, the director is a nice bloke, ive worked with him in the past.

The original (carpenters I mean) is a great movie, very tense.

[dmarkwick 261]

Not exactly a remake, but a prequel. But, we all know it'll be more or less the same :)

I'm looking forward to it, I'm a big fan of the 1982 film, my only worry is that it'll be CGI-tastic.

I hope the movie ends with two Norwegians chasing after a dog in a helicopter.... :)

[icebreakr 3100]

Prequel is another marketing word for a remake... same as new Alien ;)

[[aps]gnat 28]

Original had interesting characters, great pacing, mood, lighting etc...

Another thing, too often in today's films (especially American), it feels like your watching kids (young adults) trying to act like men rather then actually being them. Anybody who was a fan of 70/80's rugged drunks like Lee Marvin, Bronson, Coburn knows what Im talkin bout. Shoot, Russell seems rugged hardcore compared to the new breed.

Anyways, *sings* "Men, men, Men,men, men..we're Men in Tiiights..."

Agree.

But this one looks like it is not *complete* crap .... just average ;)

Might watch at the cinema

[PELHAM 10]

I was a big fan of all versions of the film and Kurt Russell's acting and character, along with the rest of the cast, were inspired. If you have not seen the 1950's version make sure you watch it. It's an inspired film for it's day.

Here we have another unimaginative Hollywood remake that seems to follow the original word for word. So why bother? $$$$$ I guess?

My problem with it:

Since Aliens and Sigourney Weaver, have you noticed that nearly all science fiction films now have to include a woman as the strong lead character that saves the day?

I don't have a problem with women getting their fair share, as in Captain Kirk's day it was a little ridiculous and they were nothing but sex object furniture, but 95% of films since Aliens?? Come on Hollywood get some imagination. They get one film that works and the formula is then set in stone.

Out of all the women I know, I can't think of 1 that does not run shrieking into another room when confronted by a tiny house spider. Yet we are expected to believe they will confront a howling, six foot multi-legged, tentacle wriggling space monster with the same fortitude as a Zen master?

If you want to see some good inspired Sci-Fi don't miss this. It's one of the best I have seen in years:

Moon staring Sam Rockwell, Kevin Spacey and directed by Duncan Jones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_%28film%29

Edited September 21, 2011 by PELHAM

[[aps]gnat 28]

Women and Aliens ..... dude! Where have you been?

Don't you know all Aliens want our women! ;)

[VanhA-ICON 11]

Gnat;2025420']

Don't you know all Aliens want our women! ;)

That only proves that their scouting has failed bad, if they're unaware of the PMS.

[icebreakr 3100]

That's why they mastered the anal probing techicques to shut 'em up.

[bangtail 0]

The Thing is probably my all time favourite Horror-Sci Fi film.

Rob Bottin's creatures have never really been surpassed IMHO and hopefully they don't over do the CGI (I notice others have voiced concern here as well).

Im glad they are telling the story of what happened at the Swedish Norwegian camp ;)

Trying to remake the 1982 film would have been an excercise in futility. For whatever reason, the cast in the 1982 version worked incredibly well together and the feeling of uneasiness and distrust could not have been more palpable.

Edited September 21, 2011 by BangTail

[h - 169]

That trailer was horibble, made me decide not to watch that movie, ever.

If a 2 minute trailer has all stupid horror movie cliches ever made and gets boring after 45 seconds I wonder how mind numbingly boring the 2 hour movie itself will be.

And oh the originality, they even ripped off Carpenter's music...

[CameronMcDonald 146]

I loved The Thing, but I have my doubts that this will get anywhere near as unnerving.

...I know I'm human...

[dmarkwick 261]

For whatever reason, the cast in the 1982 version worked incredibly well together and the feeling of uneasiness and distrust could not have been more palpable.

The Thing (1982) is one of very few movies that has no female cast at all. I wouldn't like to be misunderstood as misogynistic, but I think sometimes removing unnecessary elements can help concentrate an atmosphere yes? ;)

[bangtail 0]

Yes, it removes the 'we all have to save the female no matter what else is happening' dynamic and the 'one of us has to bed the female' dynamic which are both distracting and unnecessary in a film like The Thing.

I don't think it is in any way misogynistic, and further to that, it was contextually accurate for the time.

I'm not sold on the new one tbh but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt ;)

Edited September 22, 2011 by BangTail

[mrcash2009 0]

Or in good old 21st century style ... "the female must over compensate and become as strong as, if not stronger than the males or we will upset feminists" dynamic :)

I dont mind who is in it as long as the cgi is a mix of "its actually their" mechanics to hark back to the original and no love interest focused crap with the female looking good all the time and no pointless "wet look moments". Then again the trailer already smacks of that being the focus ... so Sigourney Weaver part 2 I assume (and then hope not).

Oh and the woman's head explodes into a spider along with many others.

Also I hope they dont latch onto this back story of alien invasion of the future (our time) to fit in with all other alien crap lately.

Edited September 22, 2011 by mrcash2009

[solidsnake2384 10]

I hope no dogs get brutally killed in this one. :(