Carpenters Version also.
Nothing like giving your cast a little "Method" to their Acting!
Nothing like giving your cast a little "Method" to their Acting!
Your thoughts on the "The Thing" prequel?
- Thread starter aeonpulse
- Start date
chad951
New Member
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.
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.
AxiomUltra
Active Member
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
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
JD
Master Member
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.
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.
chad951
New Member
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.
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.
JD
Master Member
They're in business to make money. But how this movie pandered to "mindless teenagers" is beyond me.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.
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?!?
chad951
New Member
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.
Jedi2016
Sr Member
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).
SFX were disappointing (especially so given they went out of their way to promise great effects). Decent watch but a wholly forgettable movie.
AxiomUltra
Active Member
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
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
tsenecal
Well-Known Member
for those of us that missed it in the theatre, the wait for it on dvd or bluray won't be long...
i just found this on imdb.com:
Thing, The (2011) on DVD & Blu-ray | Trailers, bonus features, cast photos & more | Universal Studios Entertainment Portal
i just found this on imdb.com:
Thing, The (2011) on DVD & Blu-ray | Trailers, bonus features, cast photos & more | Universal Studios Entertainment Portal
Kit Rae
Sr Member
So did the original.
Actually it did worse due to E.T., but iirc it made more money in it's initial release
Similar threads
