Your thoughts on the "The Thing" prequel?

Discussion in 'Entertainment and Movie Talk' started by aeonpulse, Jan 13, 2012.

  1. aeonpulse

    aeonpulse Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    1,606
    First of all, John Carpenter's "The Thing" is one of my all-time favorite horror films. I've seen it hundreds of times, and there still isn't a single second of the film that bores me.

    When I originally heard about a new Thing film, like most fans of the original, I was *. Then later I found out that it was going to actually be a prequel instead of a reboot, and I became interested. I read more and more about it as the release date approached, and by the time it actually hit theaters I was actually excited, and hopeful.

    And I WASN'T dissapointed. I think a lot of people we're ready to hate it before even seeing it, just for the fact that it's a new take on a classic. Hollywood's been pumping out a ton of remakes, and for the most part they suck. Hell, a big part of me was expecting to walk out of the theater let down. But despite the film's shortcomings, I really, really enjoyed it. The whole film is esentially a love letter to Carpenter's version. I really liked how the Norwegian's story was handeled, and how many of the deaths and events match up with what MacReady and co. discover when coming upon the Norwegian installation. Sure, the CGI was a bit distracting, but I felt it was handeled well. And the character development was a bit weak, but whatever.

    Does it match Carpenter's? Not a chance. But I'm happy it was handeled the way it was, as opposed to just another crappy reboot for a quick cash in. Seriously, the movie isn't perfect, but it could have been much, much worse.
     
  2. crabra comander

    crabra comander Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,466
    I thought it was great, it had a new spin on the "TEST", had a great version of the unchanged alien, and tied both stories together very well. Great twist ending to with the guy and the girl. Also, if I saw correctly, there is actually quite a bit less CGI than you'd think, it's a making of on Youtube.
     
  3. aeonpulse

    aeonpulse Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    1,606
    Yeah, you're right. I was pretty pleased with the actual amount of CGI. I was mainly referring to the scene in the helicopter, and the scene with the "two-faced" Thing.
     
  4. JD

    JD Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,275
    It was fun.
     
  5. Clutch

    Clutch Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,336
    Lots of roll-your-eyes moments. None of that going on during Carpenter's version. :)
     
  6. Apollo

    Apollo Legendary Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    5,035
    While not a re-boot I thought it was horrible.

    :lol Glad to see they lost their shirt at the box-office on this one because it BOMBED!!!! :lol

    16, 928, 670 Domestic

    10, 500, 00 Foreign, for a total of 27, 428, 670 in release for 35 Days.

    :lol Man o Man did that film bomb! :lol


     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2012
  7. Jedi2016

    Jedi2016 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Ouch.. I thought it did better than that.

    It was better than I was expecting it to be. I think they marketed it more as if it were a remake, and the trailer made it look like more of the same from the first film. Rather than help, that might actually have hurt their chances, since a lot of people probably saw the trailer and said "Yeah, seen it" because they have the DVD at home. But while watching it, the action and plot do actually come out quite a bit different than the first film, I was pleased to see that.
     
  8. Apollo

    Apollo Legendary Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    5,035
    I'm surprised the Dvd/Bluray has not come out yet.

    As they have not even made their money back yet


     
  9. CB2001

    CB2001 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,155
    My dad and I are both fans of Carpenter's The Thing. We both found it was okay, but it wasn't bad and it wasn't great. Honestly, the overuse of CG is what slowed the film down to a crawl for both of us. But, we both commended the producers for attempting to stay in continuity as possible, but Universal screwed up the film by forcing them to cut out a lot of the character and story and replacing nearly all of the practical creature effects with CG instead of using all the practical effects and limiting the CG.

    My dad hopes that they'll release an unrated version of the film on DVD, hoping that the original practical effects footage will be included, as well as the deleted character scenes. I myself don't have that hope, as I don't believe Universal would risk to show that they made a mistake by releasing such material.
     
  10. aeonpulse

    aeonpulse Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    1,606
    Huh, I had read about cut scenes involving more story and character development, but I had no idea there were scenes they originally shot with anamatronics that were replaced with CGI. That's a real shame. Boo on you, Universal.
     
  11. Jeyl

    Jeyl Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,670
    Universal... Universal... It's like the studio planned to use CGI from the start and lied to the film makers so they would make the film under the false sense of assurance that it would have practical effects. I mean, who was going to take a CGI Thing seriously when the people making the prequel knew what made the original Thing work?
     
  12. MooCriket

    MooCriket Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,366
    Tried to like it. The best I can say is that it was kinda, sorta okay. Kinda.
     
  13. robstyle

    robstyle Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,560
    actually the early table meetings had both sides and effects people agreeing CGI enhancement of practical effects when it came to instances such as tentacles, walking and morphing. There was to be everything possible practical then more money was brought in and a new fx shop signed with the prior guys pushed out. The new shop I hear had super limited time to complete things and went as far as take people off the street to do some of the work. Not sure if thats fact but its what ive heard. I did see some of the original raw non CGI footage and it just didnt look right. Not sure if it was lighting or the way it was shot but it just didnt look right yet some stuff just didnt work. Where the powers that be screwed up was the time frame. Instead of allowing things to be done proper, they wanted things done NOW. This lead to the issues at hand which forced massive reshoots and CGI work costing even more money than if it was done right the first time.

    As far as the movie, dull, not worth a second watch, has the look as if its filmed on a sound stage (nothing lived in, just drab and perfectly staged), lighting is too hot, strait edges everywhere, too much shaky cam, acting not the best, and worst is I dont buy they are actually cold or in a cold environment.
     
  14. Apollo

    Apollo Legendary Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    5,035
    Nothing shooting in a Freezer or a good couple of Cigars would'nt fix! ;)


     
  15. StevenRogers84

    StevenRogers84 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Watchable, but not at all memorable.
     
  16. ONEYE

    ONEYE Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,981
    Never had the urge to see it.
     
  17. gyoung2993

    gyoung2993 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    I wonder if its just a passing( Thing ).......lol
     
  18. Krel

    Krel Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,241
    That's what they did when they filmed "The Thing From Another World". They built all of the sets inside of a freezer to get an authentic, I'm-freezing-my-but-off-here look. :lol

    I haven't seen a film at the theater in about, five, or six years. AMC bought the local theaters, and stopped putting the show times in the paper, or their phone numbers in the phone book. I figure that if they are going to make it that hard to find out the showtimes, then I can wait for the dvd.

    David.
     
  19. 0neiros

    0neiros Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,790
    Ummmm...don't your local theaters have website listings??? That's how I check my Showtimes.
     
  20. Jedi2016

    Jedi2016 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    I have the local theater showtimes bookmarked on my iPhone.. I can bring them up in seconds.
     
  21. Apollo

    Apollo Legendary Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    5,035
    Carpenters Version also.

    Nothing like giving your cast a little "Method" to their Acting! :D

     
  22. 0neiros

    0neiros Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,790
    Some movies NEED to be seen on the big screen, The Thing Prequel isn't one of them. However I did enjoy it, it did what it set out to do, and am going to watch them back to back.
     
  23. chad951

    chad951 New Member

    Trophy Points:
    17
    John Carpenter's "The Thing" is by far my favorite movie of all time followed by Aliens then Alien. I cannot remember the last time I had this much anticipation for a new movie. I followed the many years of speculation about the prequel/sequel developments. When it was confirmed that the prequel was being made I about jumped out of my shoes with excitement. I was so thrilled to hear that Amalgamated Dynamics was handling the practical effects and also that the movie would mainly rely on practical creature effects like the Carpenter version pioneered. I simply could not wait for opening day.

    Eventually the opening day arrived. I tried to go into the movie with low expectations as I have very little faith in Hollywood anymore. I did however have high hopes about the prequel based on the details leaked by the director, actors, production team, and special effects team previous to the release. After the dust finally settled from the screening I felt cheated. We were told that the film would rely on practical effects but in the end most of the practical effects were replaced with soulless CGI. The story felt rush and was not allowed to have the intelligent, slow burn pace as of the original. Character development was pretty much kept to an absolute minimum in lieu of more action sequences.

    The decision to alter the cut of the film was apparently decided upon after the initial test screening surveys were reviewed. It seems that the demographic chosen for the test screenings suffered from the all too common ADD driven attitude that wanted less story and more monster sooner in the movie. Unfortunately, the studio and director caved to these childish suggestions and delayed the release of the film in order to replace most of the fantastic practical effects with CGI and also re-cut the movie to fit a more "Micheal Bay" type action feel.

    That being said, the action in the film did not kill the experience for me. I am truly a sucker for a good action movie but action is not what "The Thing" is all about. This type of story is about the suspense of not seeing the alien right away and also not knowing who is who. This type of feeling is not achieve with wiz bang action sequences and a hurried story line. The idea of the unknown is what made John Carpenter's remake so fantastic. Story aside, I felt the prequel was cast well and I even loved the idea of the female protagonist but sadly the story and pace of the film left so much to be desired for the "adult" demographic. I was also very disappointed in the inconsistencies with the details that attempted linked the original and prequel together.

    The prequel's director previously stated that he was making every effort to stay true to John W. Campbell's original short story "Who goes there?" and to Carpenter's 1982 vision of the story. Sadly I felt the director missed this mark by a mile. The prequel did indeed feel like a rehash of the Carpenter version at times. There was very little chance of getting around this feeling though as the new film dealt with the same creature in an almost identical environment and situation. That being said, there was plenty of opportunity for originality but I guess the studio nixed that idea in hopes of a sure thing based on what material was already out there. I will admit there were original ideas in the film and some parts of the film I was very happy with but I feel that the attempt to link the film to the Carpenter version was poorly executed.

    First off, the way in which the saucer is found is totally off the mark from the Carpenter version. In Carpenter's version we see that the Norwegian's discovered the craft just below the surface of the ice as presented in the recovered VHS footage from the Norwegian camp. This is consistent with the original 1951 film version. Why the director thought it was a good idea to change this part of the story is beyond me. He might as well continued on with his own interpretation of the story and completely ignored the Carpenter version since he started out with such a huge deviation from the established story.

    The second major detail that I did not like about the prequel was that the saucer was totally redesigned for some odd reason. What was the purpose for this? The director and production team stated that during the preparation for the new film they examined every minute detail of the Carpenter version and were going to stay true to those details so that a definite continuity would exist between the two films. The director has also admitted that he used quite a bit of information from the outpost31.com website to help fill in some of the unseen details for the new film. If this was the case, why not use the original saucer design plans that are available in the forums for that site. The new design felt generic and I felt it could have been used in any old sci-fi flick. The Carpenter version's saucer design felt archaic and rustic. It kind of felt like the ship was pieced together like the Millenium Falcon. It really made me think about who built it, the thing or another race. The redesign did not instill any of those feelings in me. It felt cold and generic. Couple the saucer design change with the new way in which the ship was discovered and the prequel is already off to a bad start for fans of the Carpenter version.

    Another major issue I have with the prequel is that the creature found in the ice block was not the three red eyed alien as portrayed in the original short story. This is what true fans of this franchise were hoping for. What we are given is a very vague insect form. I expected insect traits from some of the things incarnations but I was hoping the ice block alien would be more humanoid like. Not necessarily bipedal but somehow closer to a humanoid form than an insect. Apparently, they filmed a practical effects sequence with such a creature inside of the saucer but it has not been confirmed where in the movie this original scene appeared.

    The last few sticking points for me were the lack of explanation on how the radio operator was able to slit his wrists and throat. Basically the entire end sequence aboard the saucer. And finally the sheer laziness of the production staff with attempting to find a dog that even remotely looked like Jed (Husky from 1982 version). Come on.

    All in all, I was disappointed with the version of the prequel that we were shown in theaters. Mainly because I had such high hopes for this film based on what the film's creators had previously stated in interviews. I am also left with the feeling that there is still more to be seen that could be fantastic. I base this feeling on the fact that the demographic chosen for the pre-screening of the film disliked that cut. That tells me that the original cut is most likely the superior version of the film and would have appealed more to the true fans of the franchise than the retooled version does. Sadly, according to the director, there is no current plans to release the original cut of the film. Not releasing the original cut on home video would be a huge mistake in my opinion. Why not give us fans both complete cuts on Blu-Ray and let us decide which is better? Universal could potentially make the true fans happy while almost certainly earning the profit they originally sought for this film.
     
  24. AxiomUltra

    AxiomUltra Active Member

    Trophy Points:
    341
    I don't know if anyone has already posted this, but here is an FX reel from ADI - the group that did the monster effects in the new film. I haven't seen it yet, and read that the final film didn't live up to the hype. But I am impressed with the work that this group did on the sculptures.

    That being said, this reel does contain spoilers of what the creatures forms look like in the film. Many of them are only half built so that they could be composited with CG elements.

    The Thing 2011/ Creatures by ADI.mov - YouTube
     
  25. JD

    JD Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,275
    Well, let's face it: you went into the movie witha strong bias. If the original The Thing is your favorite film, youo're going in with strong expectations no matter how hard you tried to dismss those feelings.

    Also based on your comments you also have a strong prejudice against computer effects. How a plastic, clay, styrofoam, resin, metal, etc. has anymore life than something digital is beyond me. It's laughable how many of us have this built in dislike of CGI - I'm not sure if it's arrogance or ignorance - but, it's just silly to think that good CGI is any worse/better than practical effects.

    You also make an accusation of the studio/director "caving in' to 'childish suggestions.' Is that supposed to be an ironic accusation? This a multi-million dollar film with those millions of dollars on the line - people must get paid - so yes, of course, good business is going to test the film and adjust it accordingly. I don't know if what you're saying is quite true - I didn't see or hear much of altering the film to cater to a specific audience. But, it is a modern film - it's not 1982 and we can't expect the same type of movie experience.

    But, "Michael Bay?" I didn't get anything close to a Bay film when I saw this movie. C'Mon... you're pusing it there. I saw way too much homage to the original movie, way too much suspense and I didn't see the over-the-top/glossy type stuff I expect from a Bay film.

    I enjoyed the original The Thing and liked this sequel. Neither will ever be a favorite movie of mine, but I'll enjoy both for what they are. And I think the 2011 film is just about what I'd expect as a prequel to a film nearly 20 years later... it's more modern with updates and touches here and there to remind us enough of a movie from 1982.

     
  26. chad951

    chad951 New Member

    Trophy Points:
    17
    JD,

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I guess the point I was trying to get across in my rant was that I am sick of hollywood pandering to mindless teenagers. I have no doubt that there is an acceptable version of this film. Unfortunately for us it was replaced with the substandard film we shown in theaters because impatient teenagers got what they wanted because studios know they are the only movie going demographic. I'm surprised the movie wasn't rated PG and filmed with the cast from Glee. Ha, now I am just being a grumpy eighties kid. ;)
     
  27. Jedi2016

    Jedi2016 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    It does make me wonder if there's some kind of director's cut hiding in a vault somewhere.
     
  28. micdavis

    micdavis Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,326
    I wasn't even aware it had come out yet.

    I guess it came and went that fast.
     
  29. JD

    JD Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,275
    They're in business to make money. But how this movie pandered to "mindless teenagers" is beyond me.

    I saw the film twice - and other than the 'cute girl factor' (which was not really a point - this movie was a Rated R movie... I sure didn't see the glitz and glamor, no sparkly vampires, no wizards or transforming cars - this wasn't a Michael Bay explosion a minute spectacle. I didn't see Leonardo, Angelina, Ryan Reynolds or any name star out there promoting this on Jay Leno.

    This might not've been your movie. But, judging by the box office receipts it really didn't pander to any audience. You're definitely being grumpy - go to the movies to have fun and try enjoying the flick instead of whom the studio is "pandering" (cough) to.

    It wasn't a terrible movie... and it sure as hell didn't seem to be pandering to teenagers - I mean, aren't horror movies supposed to be psuedo-documentaries now?!?
     
  30. Apollo

    Apollo Legendary Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    5,035
    35 days!

    You sneezed you missed it!


     
  31. micdavis

    micdavis Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,326
    What was it called?

    No one here has called it anything but the Thing Prequel.
     
  32. chad951

    chad951 New Member

    Trophy Points:
    17

    Seriously, I was joking. The "mindless teenagers" statement symbolizes what Hollywood has become. This is the only demographic that attends movies. Yes, the movie was rated R. I viewed the film twice myself. Yes, my critisim about the movie is a bit harsh but that is because I am such an avid fan of the original and because I felt the director promised us more than what we were given. I know for a fact there is an alternate cut of the film that utilized even gorier practical special effects. This alternate version is said to be cut in a way to provide a "slow burn" presentation of the story with less of the monster so early in the film. My comments about a "Micheal Bay" feel are simply my way of emphising that this movie was more about the wiz ban CGI special effects and a much quicker cut in story than the origial. We simply disagree on the quality of the film. I honestly have no idea why you are so defensive of the film. You like it alot and defend it, I don't. So what? I guess you would have been one of the folks in the pre-screening group to give the original cut a thumbs down. We will only know if you were right if Universal decides to release that version. I suspect they will down the line because as you said they are in the business of making money. I wish they were in the business of making better movies though.
     
  33. micdavis

    micdavis Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,326
    Don't forget, although you didn't think so at the time, YOU used to be the mindless teenager. No generation ever thinks the older generation "gets" them. Then when you look back later, it becomes they don't make'em like they used to.

    Circle of life baby. :lol
     
  34. Jedi2016

    Jedi2016 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    The official title is The Thing. Which happens to be the exact same title of John Carpenter's 1982 film. So we have to come up with something to differentiate them. The other way I've seen it is as The Thing (2011).
     
  35. letmebestormy

    letmebestormy Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    1,146
    SFX were disappointing (especially so given they went out of their way to promise great effects). Decent watch but a wholly forgettable movie.
     
  36. AxiomUltra

    AxiomUltra Active Member

    Trophy Points:
    341
    Hmm, so is it that the SFX reel by ADI that I watched showed shots that didn't make it in the movie?

    Or where the shots dramatically changed, or dumbed down in post?

    Or is it just that am I the only one that thought the animatronics where pretty neat? :rolleyes because it sounds like the final product doesn't end up looking too impressive :(
     
  37. tsenecal

    tsenecal Member

    Trophy Points:
    191
  38. Kit Rae

    Kit Rae Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    866
    So did the original.
     
  39. Apollo

    Apollo Legendary Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    5,035
    Actually it did worse due to E.T., but iirc it made more money in it's initial release



     

Share This Page