The Thing MASTER THREAD..... and THE new THING Jan 31 - Reviews

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by bigdaddyhorse

Prequel, although at times it feels like a remake. They did do a great job with the end scenes of this looking and feeling exactly like the opening scenes of Carpenter's. I'll give it another chance someday, but have watched twice and don't care much for it besides the ending. The original is probably my favorite movie of all time.

The 1982 THE THING is a film like The Shining in that it has an especially well-written script which uses complex and advanced psychology to communicate hidden narratives.

The new pre-qual THE THING is not a great film, nor is it a bad film. I call it:

"The Thing 2011; One Imagining That could have Lead up to John Carpenter's The Thing"

It's a long title, but that's what it is. It's not a film that has hidden narratives like the 1982 version.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by coloncatastrophe

Just curious, was the new version a remake or prequel? It seems like they couldn't decide, so did both. It ruins any enjoyment I could have gotten from it, aside from Winstead.

The Thing (2011) is a prequel that tells the story of what happened at the Norwegian base camp. It does an impressive job of matching up to specific scenes and images from the John Carpenter film.

This prequel does sort of play out like a retread of the John Carpenter film in certain ways, because of the setting and because of the basic plot framework, but it changes a few things around to keep the concept fresh.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

It is best to see the Carpenter film first, but that film and the prequel make for a fun double-feature night.

+1

Thing '11 isn't fit to lick the boots of Carpenter's movie, but so help me I still enjoy it. You could perhaps construe the blundering uncultured behaviour of The Thing in the premake as a metaphor for the film itself, i.e. it's all sound and fury but nothing's going on underneath.

Compare that to the smarter, more insidious way that it behaves in the '82 flick; like the movie, it's got a lot more going on than what you see on the surface. The two films make for a cracking double-bill precisely because of that contrast in styles.

It's a shame that Thing '11 didn't do the business, as I'd love to have seen a third movie tieing together the survivors of both incidents.

[Villiam Hayes]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

Just making sure.

The Carpenter version is just awesome. And for 1982, and it was beyond awesome.

Yeah I have seen it a couple of times before but the last time was years ago,I will pick it up soon and see what I make of it on Blu-ray.

[coloncatastrophe]

With the replies, and forgive me if some of my complaints don't quite match up as I have only watched it once and wasn't all too interested in when I watched, but it made very little sense. I felt like the prequel was trying to take certain scenes from Carpenter's version, mix them in as a throw back, and try to build off of that. It didn't work. I'm supposed to believe quite a few events unfolded the EXACT same way in the span of a month or so on the most isolated place on the planet? And why, WHY did they have to show the interior of the ship? There was no mystery left. Bleh.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by coloncatastrophe

With the replies, and forgive me if some of my complaints don't quite match up as I have only watched it once and wasn't all too interested in when I watched, but it made very little sense. I felt like the prequel was trying to take certain scenes from Carpenter's version, mix them in as a throw back, and try to build off of that. It didn't work. I'm supposed to believe quite a few events unfolded the EXACT same way in the span of a month or so on the most isolated place on the planet? And why, WHY did they have to show the interior of the ship? There was no mystery left. Bleh.

You are 100% correct.
The prequel was simply an A-B-C horror movie. No depth. No hidden narrative. Simply a possible scenario of WHAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED. Nothing more.

And not only should the prequel NEVER had shown the interior of the ship... it shouldnt have the balls to assume that two people merged when infected! That split face corpse from the 1982 version was one face splitting when mutating, not two faces merging!!!!! Blasphemy!!!

-

[Geoff D]

The '11 movie assumes everything that we see in the '82 flick, why get so bent out of shape about one creature?

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The '11 movie assumes everything that we see in the '82 flick, why get so bent out of shape about one creature?

because the other assumtions were...

...assumptions. No wrong. No right.

The splitting-face guy was never two people merging. Never. It was always reported (behind the scenes. Research it) as being one guys' face sliding - not two guys faces merging. That's annoying to me (and I'm FAR from alone)

[Sherlock_Jr]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

You are 100% correct.
The prequel was simply an A-B-C horror movie. No depth. No hidden narrative. Simply a possible scenario of WHAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED. Nothing more.

And not only should the prequel NEVER had shown the interior of the ship... it shouldnt have the balls to assume that two people merged when infected! That split face corpse from the 1982 version was one face splitting when mutating, not two faces merging!!!!! Blasphemy!!!

-

No offense, but all sequels/prequels are about what might have happened either before or next. That's called storytelling. If something isn't alluded to in the context of the movie, then it's open for change. No one cares what's said behind the scenes. If it's not stated directly in the film, then anything can be "assumed."

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by Sherlock_Jr

No offense, but all sequels/prequels are about what might have happened either before or next. That's called storytelling. If something isn't alluded to in the context of the movie, then it's open for change. No one cares what's said behind the scenes. If it's not stated directly in the film, then anything can be "assumed."

???

Sorry. Don't understand.

The prequel COULD HAVE been more than what it was. Instead we got a fly-by-night, run of the mil horror story.

Its absolutely nothing like the 1982 film. No subtext, no parallel narratives, no advanced psychology to illustrate hidden narratives.... etc

I'm trying to make ya understand. The "What might have happened" in it is fine. Its just, that's all it is!!

The 1982 film is not simply a cool horror film. Its way more

--

[vidjunkie]

I am actually going to take a different approach to using the HD DVD video since it is by far better then the BD video, I am going to swap the video out from the retail BD and keep all intact but with replaced video.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Sherlock_Jr

No offense, but all sequels/prequels are about what might have happened either before or next. That's called storytelling. If something isn't alluded to in the context of the movie, then it's open for change. No one cares what's said behind the scenes. If it's not stated directly in the film, then anything can be "assumed."

Indeed. Instead we must do some "research" as to why twoface can't POSSIBLY be a combined organism. Sheesh. And I thought Star Wars nuts were bad for that sort of thing...

[The Passenger]

this has always been one of my favorites...

Drew the man behind the poster the official thread of Drew Struzan and his work