Your thoughts on the "The Thing" prequel?

[aeonpulse]

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 pissed. 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.

 

[crabra comander]

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.

 

[aeonpulse]

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.

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.

 

[JD]

It was fun.

 

[Clutch]

Lots of roll-your-eyes moments. None of that going on during Carpenter's version.

 

[Apollo]

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

as opposed to just another crappy reboot for a quick cash in.

 

[Jedi2016]

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.

 

[Apollo]

I'm surprised the Dvd/Bluray has not come out yet.

As they have not even made their money back yet

Ouch.. I thought it did better than that.

 

[CB2001]

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.

 

[aeonpulse]

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.

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.

 

[Jeyl]

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?

 

[MooCriket]

Tried to like it. The best I can say is that it was kinda, sorta okay. Kinda.

 

[robstyle]

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.

 

[Apollo]

Nothing shooting in a Freezer or a good couple of Cigars would'nt fix!

and worst is I dont buy they are actually cold or in a cold environment.

 

[StevenRogers84]

Watchable, but not at all memorable.

 

[ONEYE]

Never had the urge to see it.

 

[gyoung2993]

I wonder if its just a passing( Thing ).......lol

 

[Krel]

Nothing shooting in a Freezer or a good couple of Cigars would'nt fix!

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.

 

[0neiros]

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.

Ummmm...don't your local theaters have website listings??? That's how I check my Showtimes.

 

[Jedi2016]

I have the local theater showtimes bookmarked on my iPhone.. I can bring them up in seconds.