The Thing prequel

[Solo4114]

Finally saw this the other day.

As a standalone film, I thought it was fine. A reasonably entertaining way to kill 2 hours. As a film connected to the Carpenter film...it was fairly weak in that it struck me it was pretty much the exact same film.

I appreciated the acting. I thought that part was solid throughout. I appreciated Kate's character and I see the comparisons to Ripley -- but Ripley in Alien, not Aliens when she's a gung-ho war mama. The F/X were fine, but not particularly impressive.

All that said, I can't help but wonder....why? Why bother? The film didn't really shed any more light on what the Carpenter film addressed. The Norwegian team was massacred and their base destroyed. The beats in the film were almost identical, down to the "let's do a test!" bit.

And then there were the rather incomprehensible bits like the attack in the helicopter and why didn't the Carter-thing just fry Kate in the ship, and then get off planet? Or gobble her up when they first set out after the one who was trying to take off? I mean, why not just get in the snowcat, she hops in, and then LUNCHTIME OM NOM NOM!!! I didn't think about this stuff while watching (except for the helicopter bit) but in retrospect it's a bit weak.

Also, if two severed things can re-merge into one, why don't ALL the various satellite things re-merge into a single entity whenever they're near? It's not so much that I want to impart human thought processes to the Thing, but as a logical plotting element, why wouldn't that happen? Also, if the Thing can simply absorbify everyone it even touches or infect them with the smallest particle of itself...why not just hock a loogie in to the water supply and have done with it? Or walk around patting everyone on the back or shaking hands and then just sit back and wait? Or go all tentacly and shoot out fifteen tentacles at once to zap everyone once they're in a room since, apparently, conservation of matter has no meaning to The Thing (which, in fairness, is a criticism for the original).


At any rate, as I said, a serviceable film and in some ways a fun trip back...but I still like the Carpenter version better and find it FAR more impressive. This one was just a retread of the same story with different characters and a few different plot points.

And, of course, we still don't know WHAT the Thing is, WHY it was on a ship, and what it was doing on earth. Personally, I think it's part of a sentient single hive-mind consciousness like WH40K Tyranids. Although you'd have to wonder why it flies an inorganic ship, then.

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

Well, if that's the case, I recommend referring to Carpenter's film as Carpenter's film or as John Carpenter's The Thing so not to confuse people. Anyone who has seen all three movies hears "the original", they automatically think of The Thing from Another World by Howard Hawk, not John Carpenter's The Thing. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just suggesting so to clarify which film is being referred to for those who aren't familiar with them (though I know most of us have seen all three films, I know that somewhere, there's at least one user who hasn't seen the Carpenter film and/or the prequel to Carpenter's film.

In the context of this thread I think it's pretty obvious 'the original' is most likely to be referring to Carpenter's film, since that's what the preek is preeking. A reference to Hawks' version in the post you picked on doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense.

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

Also, if the Thing can simply absorbify everyone it even touches or infect them with the smallest particle of itself...why not just hock a loogie in to the water supply and have done with it? Or walk around patting everyone on the back or shaking hands and then just sit back and wait? Or go all tentacly and shoot out fifteen tentacles at once to zap everyone once they're in a room since, apparently, conservation of matter has no meaning to The Thing (which, in fairness, is a criticism for the original).


And, of course, we still don't know WHAT the Thing is, WHY it was on a ship, and what it was doing on earth. Personally, I think it's part of a sentient single hive-mind consciousness like WH40K Tyranids. Although you'd have to wonder why it flies an inorganic ship, then.

1st para. Ha ha you're right of course. It means the Carpenter film is absolute nonsense too, lol... I'm throwing my copy in the trash.

2nd para. This sounds like a saving grace to me. Pity it's not one we're going to find in the upcoming Scott dealie.

 

[terryr]

It's kind of a Super Alien. In the Alien movies, the creature uses some host DNA to fit into local conditions. The Thing just uses a sample to recreate the host completely, also to fit into local conditions.
The Alien and The Thing came from the same place, or same lab.

 

[Robiwon]

Wait, the Thing survived at the end of JC's movie? Who was it, MacReady or Childs?

 

[CB2001]

Wait, the Thing survived at the end of JC's movie? Who was it, MacReady or Childs?

It depends on what ending you go with:
1. MacReady and Childs are both human, the Thing is dead, both freeze to death.
2. Childs a thing, MacReady is human, both freeze to death/sleep.
3. A piece of the Thing survived, turned into the Thing-Dog again and runs off after the sun comes up in an attempt to find another place full of people (this is a cut alternate ending for TV)
4. MacReady and Childs were both human, Childs dies by freezing to death, MacReady is rescued, tested and it is confirmed that he is not a Thing, and neither was Childs.

 

[Solo4114]

Why do we think Childs dies and/or is a Thing?

 

[CB2001]

Why do we think Childs dies and/or is a Thing?

Well, one ending is reported to have been filmed and/or shown on TV is that MacReady is rescued and taken to McMurdo's medical unit where his blood is tested and its confirmed he's not a Thing. In this ending, Childs dies from freezing to death and his blood is tested and is also confirmed to be human. This ending wasn't included on the DVD release, but it has been reported by John Carpenter (I think it was on the audio commentary track with him and Kurt Russell). The ending the way it is, there's a good chance that Childs and MacReady froze to death if they were both human. And in the 2002 The Thing video game, in which Carpenter was a consultant and guest-starred in, when the player examines the remains of Outpost 31 in the first level, you see Childs' dead body where he and Mac sat down and Mac's footprints leading off into the darkness and snow.

As for the possibility of Childs being a Thing, it's really simple: Childs goes missing after he is last seen outside the main building's entrance (before the Blair-Thing kills the generator in an attempt to go to sleep in the cold again until rescue comes). We've followed MacReady since the blood test and the destruction of the Palmer-Thing to where MacReady destroys the Blair-Thing in the generator basement, and in the timeframe we've seen, there is no way MacReady is a Thing. But due to Childs going missing after Nauls spotted him, there is more than enough likely hood that its been almost 30 minutes between the last time seen by any of the humans to when he turns up behind MacReady to draw suspicion to being a Thing (as a Thing needs anywhere between 15 minutes to an hour to completely take over and imitate a human being, the best example being Bennings in the storage room. Windows was gone for minutes to go get the keys from Garry. When he got back minutes later, he found the Thing having a hold of Bennings and trying to mimic him. By the time Windows got help and Mac, Fuchs and Windows chased after him, Bennings-Thing was almost done mimicking him and it would have looked and acted just like him if it had more time to fully assimilate). So, due to the amount of time that passes between the time that Nauls last spotted Childs to the moment that Childs turns back up behind MacReady is at least 30 minutes, which, if Childs was infected, for him to be completely assimilated.

I hope I've clarified that up as good as I could get it. If what I've said doesn't make sense, let me know, and I'll try again to explain it more clearly.

 

[Jeyl]

CB2001, do you honor The Thing prequel for being part of the original Carpenter movie?

 

[CB2001]

CB2001, do you honor The Thing prequel for being part of the original Carpenter movie?

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. Are you asking me if I hold the prequel in the same regard as the Carpenter film because it ties into Carpenter's film or are you asking me if it I see the prequel and Carpenter's film equally because they both are a part of the same story universe?

 

[Jeyl]

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. Are you asking me if I hold the prequel in the same regard as the Carpenter film because it ties into Carpenter's film or are you asking me if it I see the prequel and Carpenter's film equally because they both are a part of the same story universe?

The latter. Like do you accept the events in the prequel film like they actually happened in the Carpenter film? An opposite example for me would be Alien3 not being a part of the same universe as ALIEN and ALIENS. I hate Alien3!

 

[Solo4114]

The latter. Like do you accept the events in the prequel film like they actually happened in the Carpenter film? An opposite example for me would be Alien3 not being a part of the same universe as ALIEN and ALIENS. I hate Alien3!

 

[CB2001]

The latter. Like do you accept the events in the prequel film like they actually happened in the Carpenter film? An opposite example for me would be Alien3 not being a part of the same universe as ALIEN and ALIENS. I hate Alien3!

Well, I accept the way Carpenter portrayed it in his film, but I don't ignore the possibility of how it happened in the prequel. Honestly, applaud the makers of the prequel for at least attempting to get the details right, but I do believe the studios and/or the producers screwed things up in the mix. The fact of the matter is, I like the prequel because it serves as a reminder of what happened to those "crazy Swedes", that with the prequel, we're watching ghosts. We know what happened and what was going to happen with the characters from the first frame, just as much we knew what was going to happen at the last minute of the film, where that Dog was heading and that at the moment that Lars and the pilot took off after it, we know what's going to happen to both of them, and we knew that just minutes away, the men of Outpost #31 going about their daily routine completely unaware of the horror they are about to encounter, including MacReady being up in his shack, drinking J&B and playing computer chess.

 

[Solo4114]

Yeah, I appreciated that aspect of the film as well. I do, however, question the "need" for a prequel. I don't find that it added a ton. It was just an excuse to show pretty much the same stuff with more grotesque monsters. To me, the Carpenter film just stands head and shoulders above the prequel, even though it's considerably older. I rewatched it this Halloween and damn it, it STILL holds up, stop-motion photography and all. It's STILL creepy because the IDEA is solid, because the ACTING is solid, and because the overall mood of the film is terrifying. Although I'll confess curiosity as to what the Thing was and what the story was with its ship, I'm good with that. I don't need the answers. Same with the Norwegians. They dug up something in the ice, it got free, and they died fighting it. All I need to know, really. The prequel, therefore, is superfluous to me. Not bad, mind you. For a prequel I thought it was decent. But...nothing special. Decent, not great.


Now, THIS, on the other hand is AWESOME.

 

[SSgt Burton]

Although I'll confess curiosity as to what the Thing was and what the story was with its ship

Okay I'm really late to the party with this thread, so if what I'm about to say has already been mentioned/discussed I apologize for the repetition---

The opening sequence of John Carpenter's The Thing shows the spacecraft out of control headed for Antarctica. This shot that lasts less than a minute sets up in a nutshell the events of the entire film-

The "possible" premise is that the ship originally had "other" aliens on board, that were systematically picked off one by one by the "Thing" alien. The ship was not The Thing's but rather belonged to the other aliens.

So when the ship is seen out of control headed for Antarctica, it could be a result of an alien showdown between The Thing, and an "Alien MacReady-like" character. Either the ship lost control as a result of the showdown, or the MacReady-alien deliberately crashed it into Earth in a suicide run hoping to take the Thing with it.

(Another possibility is that the Aliens killed each other in their own paranoia, much like what happened at the American camp, and the Thing simply hid while the ship crashed.)

The MacReady-alien died in the crash (and for whatever reason was not preserved) and the Thing survived.

The Thing may have played this scenario out on countless Worlds before ending up on Earth.


Kevin

 

[Kerr Avon]

As bad as that movie was, I didn't think anything could top it.

Until "Highlander: The Source"

 

[Solo4114]

I can't recall if I've seen The Source. I think I missed that one.

 

[terryr]

...
So when the ship is seen out of control headed for Antarctica, it could be a result of an alien showdown between The Thing, and an "Alien MacReady-like" character. Either the ship lost control as a result of the showdown, or the MacReady-alien deliberately crashed it into Earth in a suicide run hoping to take the Thing with it.

(Another possibility is that the Aliens killed each other in their own paranoia, much like what happened at the American camp, and the Thing simply hid while the ship crashed.)

....
Kevin

Or the Thing doesn't have an exact knowledge of the original. It may look alike, and sound alike, but not have its learned skills. Like how to fly a spaceship.
But then the prequel shows it giving the ole college try.

 

[Kerr Avon]

I can't recall if I've seen The Source. I think I missed that one.

If you want to feel better about having seen "Highlander 2" watch "The Source" You'll wish for days of storytelling like H2.

 

[Flagg]

I can't recall if I've seen The Source. I think I missed that one.

You may not of seen that movie but you didn't miss a thing...