‘The Thing’ (New Version From Universal and Blumhouse)

[Guydowood]

thing.jpg

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

Never talk pre-release smack about the idea of remaking a classic film...that was a remake itself.

There are three great/very good films titled The Thing (the 1951 original, Carpenter's remake, and the underrated 2011 prequel), so I have room for another version in my collection, provided it turns out good.

Well - the 1951 film is just cheesey and bad. Remakes of severely dated films is one "thing" Like Cronenbergs The Fly - It blows away the original. There are other cases of this too.

Mostly though, a solid film that holds up well just doesnt need a redo.

[mastadge]

Originally Posted by Darkstream

Interesting, but then, why bother?

The Thing is not Invasion of the Body Snatchers. If it was, you might be able to get away with not having effects, but it's a totally different animal, so avoiding the morphing creature would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

???? It's about the thing being able to assume identities, not about the visual of it morphing. It's about the paranoia of not knowing who's human, not being able to trust your eyes or even your thoughts -- not about cool or grotesque effects.

[Martoto]

I hope they stay faithful to the sound of Windows dropping the keys to the blood storage.

[br3ttD]

Remakes.
'They're falling out of the skies like flies, man.'

Please get Rob Bottin out of retirement or whatever he's up to these days (real estate?). The world needs his creative brain.

[Zillamon51]

This doesn't even make financial sense. The Carpenter film bombed in theaters back in the day, building up its status as a fan-favorite in the years since. But the recent prequel also flopped, and is now being peddled on BD by Mill Creek. There's no track record of success here.

Blumhouse's forte is producing things w/ low budgets to minimize risk. But this property (as we know it) needs a healthy FX budget. How graphic is the original story? I'm getting a feeling they might go the PG-13 suspense route with this....

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by darkness2918

I mean if they’re gonna use parts of the full book that were never published it would be interesting to see the new stuff on screen. I love the Carpenter version & really like the 2011 prequel so I’m up for checking this out.

Exactly. There are 45 pages of back story that wasn't in the novella, so they have new material to work with compared to the previous films. I know people get so triggered when their precious films are remade, but it's not like this is hurting that movie. If anything it'll probably help it get even more popular with a new generation.

[Darkstream]

Originally Posted by mastadge

???? It's about the thing being able to assume identities, not about the visual of it morphing. It's about the paranoia of not knowing who's human, not being able to trust your eyes or even your thoughts -- not about cool or grotesque effects.

If you eliminate the spectacle of it and distill it down to being just a generic paranoia film, you might as well just take three steps back from what John Carpenter accomplished by adapting J.W. Campbell's Who Goes There? and you'll end up with another cheap adaptation like The Invasion, which was a shitty discount version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Why do you think the old Howard Hawks and Christian Nyby film at least gave you a vegetable man? Because although they couldn't do the morphing effects at the time, they knew you needed to at least see a creature of some sort. The creature and effects are every bit as important as the story at this point, or else audiences will end up disregarding this film, because we already have the gold standard that John Carpenter's The Thing gave us.

[GaragePoet]

i actually did like the prequel/remake but my enthusiasm for this one will depend pretty much on what the new story elements are... hard to be too upset about a remake since the "classic" that i love is itself a remake...

[KManX89]

So... a horror classic that didn't need remaking, from the studio fresh off their godawful Black Christmas remake.

What could possibly go wrong?

[Cremildo]

How can some people be so upset without even knowing who the writer and the director are?

[ditcin]

I would like to see the original concept of creature, "The Thing", done with three red eyes and in the short story. There were pre-concept drawings done for the 51' version that were abandoned - simply because the technology wasn't there at the time.
I had hoped in THE THING prequel they would have showed the three red eyes with it was in the ice.
We shall see.

[Shingster]

Yeah but that's not "The Thing", just its last alien victim before it crash landed on earth, so it's not really THAT important to the plot.

[Himmel]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

How can some people be so upset without even knowing who the writer and the director are?

Exactly.

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

How can some people be so upset without even knowing who the writer and the director are?

I think it's more of a distrust of Blumhouse and the high regard that many hold that film to.

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by Damon1281

Carpenter's remake wasn't necessary either.

Yes, it absolutely was, being a more honest and earnest adaptation of the original story.

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by panasonicst60

Practical effects then I'm in. CGI then I'm out.

This kind of ideology is beyond ignorant. If they do the CGI right, with time and creativity, it will look flawless. Imagine the level of CGI for Davy Jones, how wet and slimy and gross it was, but with The Thing and 14 years of digital advancement? That would look amazing. The problem with the CGI in the 2011 film is that they did a lot of amazing practical work and then quickly and shoddily put CGI on top of it. Some of it looks alright, but this is THE THING! It should look perfect!

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

This kind of ideology is beyond ignorant. If they do the CGI right, with time and creativity, it will look flawless. Imagine the level of CGI for Davy Jones, how wet and slimy and gross it was, but with The Thing and 14 years of digital advancement? That would look amazing. The problem with the CGI in the 2011 film is that they did a lot of amazing practical work and then quickly and shoddily put CGI on top of it. Some of it looks alright, but this is THE THING! It should look perfect!

You realize this is Blumhouse we're talking about here.

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by CelluloidPal

You realize this is Blumhouse we're talking about here.

I imagine this is going to have a budget of around $50 million or so. It's certainly possible to do practically perfect CGI at that budget. Look at District 9. That movie cost $30M over a decade ago. It can be done. It just takes skill. This is a big deal for Blumhouse.

But regardless, this shouldn't be made. Make something new. Remake a bad movie. Adapt a great novel. I mean, god damn, there are so many Lovecraft novels to adapt. Do that!

[Chaotic]

Blumhouse doesn't make movies that cost $50M or more. The budget will probably be $20M or so.