# The Thing (2011)



## Pauly (Jul 21, 2011)

Yes, it's "what went down at the Norwegian camp...btw there were secret Americans there nobody knew about!"



That said, it sounds as if they are at least intending to try and make a film that does justice to the (quite classic) original. Maybe it'll be amazing?! Maybe it'll suck.

In other news though, I found this (apparently famous) piece of fan-fic that tells the Carpenter film from a er... different perspective.

Clarkesworld Magazine - Online Science Fiction and Fantasy : The Things by Peter Watts


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 21, 2011)

When I heard about this film and looked at who was involved, I wasn't impressed.

However, after watching that trailer I am definitely now interested.


----------



## SilenceIsACrime (Jul 21, 2011)

Ok, The Thing is one of my favorite movies of all time - I am REALLY NOT OK WITH THIS.

I *cannot stand* CG effects; that is why the original kicked so much ass, what with all the amazing puppetry and things. The Thing was _actually there_.

I am totally going to go see it anyway, but I will be a skeptic until proven otherwise.

Also - it seems to me like it is part prequel/part remake as a lot of those scenes look familiar....


----------



## Marv Attaxx (Jul 21, 2011)

I love the Carpenter Thing 
Watched it last week to see if it still manages to freak me out. It did 
Also: Mary E. Winstead


----------



## Origin (Jul 21, 2011)

Strikes me as completely unnecessary.  It was a classic/great on its own. But if it has potential more power to em  very unlikely I'll go see it without Kurt but yeah haha.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jul 21, 2011)

I am excited for this as much as I am skeptical. The original movie is imo one of the greatest horror films of all time and stilll stands tall above modern horrors. It still creeps me the fuck out. I heard about a remake/prequel a while back and got excited. Been waiting for a while to see the trailer. I am pleased to see that it looks a lot of like the original, even some of the characters looks the same. That said, CGI is just never as scary as practical stuff, which is why The Thing holds its own so well against today's horrors. They had to rely on making practical effects look as real as possible, and it looked great. The acting was brilliant too, and I don't want to sound sexist but judging from this trailer they're going for the strong female lead which hasn't worked since Ripley in Alien. 

This film is basically a reboot I think, taking influence from the original while expanding on it.


----------



## Pauly (Jul 21, 2011)

Re: the CG, they intend on using as little as necessary and are relying more on practical effects, if you read the IMDB/Wiki trivia. Re: the Ripley reference... that's exactly what they're doing, if you read what's on the wiki page so far. Perhaps I should copy-pasta it.



> Development
> &#8220;It&#8217;s a really fascinating way to construct a story because we're doing it by autopsy, by examining very, very closely everything we know about the Norwegian camp and about the events that happened there from photos and video footage that&#8217;s recovered, from a visit to the base, the director, producer and I have gone through it countless times marking, you know, there&#8217;s a fire axe in the door, we have to account for that&#8230;were having to reverse engineer it, so those details all matter to us &#8216;cause it all has to make sense.&#8221;
> &#8212; Eric Heisserer describing the process of creating a script that is consistent with the first film.[15]
> After creating the Dawn of the Dead remake, producers Marc Abraham and Eric Newman began to look through the Universal Studios library to find new properties to work on. Upon finding John Carpenter's 1982 film The Thing, the two convinced Universal to create a prequel instead of a remake, as they found remaking Carpenter's film would be like "paint(ing) a mustache on the Mona Lisa"[16] Eric Newman explained; "I'd be the first to say no one should ever try to do Jaws again and I certainly wouldn't want to see anyone remake The Exorcist... And we really felt the same way about The Thing. It's a great film. But once we realized there was a new story to tell, with the same characters and the same world, but from a very different point of view, we took it as a challenge. It's the story about the guys who are just ghosts in Carpenter's movie - they're already dead. But having Universal give us a chance to tell their story was irresistible."[17]
> ...


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jul 21, 2011)

Hmm fair play. We shall see.


----------



## Pauly (Jul 21, 2011)

P.S I think one of the awesome things about the concept of The Thing, which I hope is explored further, is the idea that those who are Thing'ed, don't necessarily even know they'e copies of themselves (e.g. the guy who has the heart attack because he's a perfect copy with the same heart condition), until it becomes necessary for the biomass inside them to take on a different form, and presumably use the matter of the brain for other squishy purposes. Creepy.

The only thing that always bugged me was that even though it was clearly sentient since it was making an means of escape and obviously had a great big saucer for a ride, 'it' is hard to define since there is never really one 'thing' in the film, it's spread out like a virus between many characters. 

One reason why I enjoyed the fan-fic (the guy does write proper sci-fi btw) was because it made the creature into a coherent entity that is literally the sum of it's parts and something far removed from biology on Earth (bar funguses, I guess). Great big flying saucer, dumb kill everything alien is less appealing a concept.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jul 21, 2011)

I relate it to the flood in Halo; it's a concious virus, infecting other organisms to use their biomass as both energy and a means of physical movement.


----------



## SilenceIsACrime (Jul 21, 2011)

Alright, after reading what Pauly posted I am significantly less annoyed and actually pretty damn excited about this. The fact that they are paying so much attention to details from the first movie as well as using traditional special effects is a huge swing in the right direction.

Too bad Kurt and his amazing hat probably won't make a cameo....


----------



## chronocide (Jul 21, 2011)

Just so people realise, the "original" is a remake, though it's far better than the true original.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Jul 21, 2011)

Want to see very bad.


----------



## SilenceIsACrime (Jul 22, 2011)

So I was perusing the comments of this trailer on YouTube and someone said that they are using the same CGI that was in the movie District 9. If this is the case.... ohmyfuckinggodddddd 

I, for one, was extremely upset when Avatar won "Best Visual Effects" over District 9. Might just be me, though.


----------



## DavyH (Jul 22, 2011)

Love/hate/love/hate/love/hate/love/hate....

I can see this happening to me with this film...

The Carpenter version is without doubt one of the best (the best?) SF/horror films ever made, years ahead of its time and still holds its own in terms of quality of visuals. The casting was inspired and the suspense was pants-shittingly awesome.

I don't see it being beaten, but if this version even approaches it, it'll be well worth a look. Pauly's great find above makes it look like there has at least been some care and attention.

As for the production team, I must confess to being one of the two people worldwide who admits to enjoying the Dawn of the Dead remake.

OK I've convinced myself. I can't fucking wait!


----------



## Triple-J (Jul 22, 2011)

I like the trailer but I'm still unsure about it as it seems to cop the vibe of the original very closely and I think that might end up being it's weakness but I'm pretty sure it can't be as bad as some of the horror remakes we've seen recently as this seems to have had some thought and effort put into it. 

It's great to see all the love for Carpenter's version here though as it's one those movies which many people love but is kind of underground really as it never seems to make those "50 greatest movies ever!" type lists.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 22, 2011)

Pauly said:


> Great Wall of China of text



Ok, now I am excite.


----------



## Pauly (Jul 22, 2011)

I think copping the original is reasonably fair game, after all the film came out in the early 80's and is more of a cult classic than a box office one. Doing it as a prequel keeps, as the director said, it from treading on untouchable turf (should be called Thing not THE Thing though, has to prove itself worthy!) while reintroducing people to the story.

There's this uber poor quality Comic Con trailer I found as well:


This will be the perfect date movie!


----------



## technomancer (Jul 22, 2011)

chronocide said:


> Just so people realise, the "original" is a remake, though it's far better than the true original.



Yup, mainly because the Carpenter version follows the novella Who Goes There that they're both based on much more closely. IIRC the novella was awesome and well worth a read.

I'm really looking forward to seeing this, and have been for quite a while. Carpenter's The Thing is one of my favorite movies.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 22, 2011)

I am now watching the "original" to celebrate this joyous news.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 22, 2011)

I always forget how utterly horrifying this film is.


----------



## Pauly (Jul 22, 2011)

Yup. Although it's been a while since I saw it, as I said earlier in the thread, I think it's made implicit that The Thing copies it's victims so perfectly that they themselves don't even realise that aren't human any more, which makes for a load of extra creepiness, as a simple case of 'alien pretending to be human and trying not to look out of place' is much less horrifying. 

You'd fully believe you were normal until your body turned inside out of it's own accord!


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 22, 2011)

Pauly said:


> Yup. Although it's been a while since I saw it, as I said earlier in the thread, I think it's made implicit that The Thing copies it's victims so perfectly that they themselves don't even realise that aren't human any more, which makes for a load of extra creepiness, as a simple case of 'alien pretending to be human and trying not to look out of place' is much less horrifying. You'd fully believe you were normal until your body turned inside out of it's own accord!



I'm not so sure. With things like the blood going missing it's possible that The Thing is aware of what it is when it takes over a host. If anything I think that makes it scarier, the fact that it is able to disguise itself as a human...


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jul 22, 2011)

Maybe the copies it makes are just 'vehicles' on autopilot, occassionaly steered towards an ultimate goal enabling the creature to reveal itself. I suppose by making a copy and letting that copy do what that person would do normally, you don't run the risk of blowing your cover until last minute. Then you can take full control.


----------



## Xaios (Jul 22, 2011)

Marv Attaxx said:


> Also: Mary E. Winstead



Oh yeah.

Not really sure what to think about the trailers. I guess we'll see.


----------



## Pauly (Jul 22, 2011)

Not all the characters get infected 'spectacularly', and as Blair states, it only takes a cell of it inside you for it to start taking over your whole body. Naturally from a biological point of view, it could take over the whole body except the mind, and the person would perhaps be none the wiser, or even if it had copied over the mind, since it retains that persons memories and knowledge, it could subtly influence the copy of the person who thought they were the human. Not to mention, it's brain is presumably spread through it's biomass, with the most basic components being creatures of instinct (petri dish), and the bigger things being able to build min-spaceship.

In the DVD version it's stated that Norris has a heart condition, it and it seems even though is a Thing, as he's such a perfect copy his heart is still weak and thus suffers an attack. It's only when his body is 'attacked' by a defibrillator that the thing reveals itself.



> On the Thing DVD, Charles Hallahan (Norris) points to the scene in which the men appoint MacReady as leader of the group following Windows' attempt to retrieve a shotgun from storage. Norris, who is presumably the Thing at this point, is originally offered the role of leader but declines stating that he doesn't believe he is up for it. Hallahan states that he always believed Norris knew at this point something was wrong with him and declined the offer because of the feeling that he may be the Thing.



There are other characters who presumably get infected subtly like Palmer, possibly Blair, and a popular theory with Fuchs is that he realised he was infected and killed himself, as crisping that lovely biomatter wasn't a very Thing thing to do.

I am slightly influenced by the fan-fic I linked though, as I feel it's a proper fleshing out of the creature's biology and M.O, where as the film is somewhat vague about it all, other than it acts like an animal at times but displays great intelligence at others.


----------



## Bobo (Jul 23, 2011)

Hopefully this is epic, I'm excited fo sho. I just don't wanna see the puppies get it :-/


----------



## GazPots (Jul 26, 2011)

Just watched the Carpenter version again last night.


Fucking awesome yet utterly horrifying. Loved it.


----------



## ShadyDavey (Jul 26, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I always forget how utterly horrifying this film is.


 

Both lauded and criticized for the extremely visceral effects at the time. Let me express my opinion succinctly:

It's the only horror movie I own on DVD.


----------



## GazPots (Jul 26, 2011)

The head that detatched itself and spouts legs was classic.


The characters reaction when they see it scuttling away is priceless.


----------



## ShadowFactoryX (Jul 27, 2011)

very interested in seeing this now


----------



## Pauly (Aug 4, 2011)

Slightly different trailer. Watch out for a cameo from split-face!


----------



## stevemcqueen (Aug 6, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I am now watching the "original" to celebrate this joyous news.



My wife and I are about to turn it on After reading the "Great Wall Of China" text, I am excited as well. The original is on of my favorite horror movies. I love older horror movies when they didn't have cg and it was all puppetry. It is just so much more disgusting and disturbing to me.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Aug 7, 2011)

I'm super excited for this after reading whats been posted in this thread. The Thing is THEE best horror film ever. This film looks like it will be a fitting addition to the legendary story.

I'll be the first to call that everyone dies and the film ends with the helicopter chasing the dog.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 7, 2011)

leftyguitarjoe said:


> I'll be the first to call that everyone dies and the film ends with the helicopter chasing the dog.



I think that'll go without saying.


----------



## beneharris (Aug 7, 2011)

bostjan said:


> I think that'll go without saying.



it better. If it's a prequel, that's really the only logical thing. Although, weren't they supposed to be Norwegian?


----------



## GazPots (Aug 8, 2011)

Well some are. The side of one of the trucks has Oslo scientific something something printed on it.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Aug 8, 2011)

I just watched the 1982 film again. Its still awesome


----------



## GazPots (Aug 9, 2011)

I don't think there will ever be a time when it _*isn't*_ awesome.


----------



## thedonal (Aug 17, 2011)

I've a little hope for the prequel, even thought like Titanic, you know how it'll end.

I too adore the original (and the old original too!)- it's one of those rare films that seems to disgust me more as I get older!


----------



## SilenceIsACrime (Sep 26, 2011)

For those who haven't seen - new trailer with lots of juicy bits 



Not gonna lie, looks like there is going to be a lot more reliance on CG than I had hoped, but I am *still stoked.*


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 26, 2011)

SilenceIsACrime said:


> Not gonna lie, looks like there is going to be a lot more reliance on CG than I had hoped


 
It can't be any more disappointing than Romero using friggin' CG _bloosplatter_ in Land of the Dead. That's like... like... someone who's known for... something... doing... a different thing!

Dammit, now I've gone and made myself sad.


----------



## ittoa666 (Sep 27, 2011)

I am so disappointed that they are making the alien a big creature that you see. That was the magic behind the first remake. You never saw it, yet it was intense and scary. Now it's just a bigass monster making copies instead of an unknown force. Whatever. 

At least Mary E. is still hot. Brb. Gonna go fap to deathproof.

Also,


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 27, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> It can't be any more disappointing than Romero using friggin' CG _bloosplatter_ in Land of the Dead. That's like... like... someone who's known for... something... doing... a different thing!
> 
> Dammit, now I've gone and made myself sad.



Tbh Romero needs to stop making films. His recent ones have been meh.


----------



## MFB (Sep 27, 2011)

He lost it at "Land of the Dead" and I haven't watched anything since then, but from what I've heard - they are NOT good...at all


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 27, 2011)

MFB said:


> He lost it at "Land of the Dead" and I haven't watched anything since then, but from what I've heard - they are NOT good...at all


 
For what it's worth, I enjoyed Diary of the Dead more than Land of the Dead, but that isn't really saying very much. If he's done anything since then, I haven't bothered.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 28, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> For what it's worth, I enjoyed Diary of the Dead more than Land of the Dead, but that isn't really saying very much. If he's done anything since then, I haven't bothered.



Yeah I agree, there were some good bits in Diary. Land was meh though.


----------



## SilenceIsACrime (Oct 6, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> Yeah I agree, there were some good bits in Diary. Land was meh though.



*mod edit: we have spoiler tags, use them*

*spoiler of awesome death alert*



Spoiler



Like the Amish guy taking out the zombie with the scythe through his _own face_?? One of the coolest movie deaths I can think of.



Oh, and only a week (and 3 1/2 hours) until The Thing.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 14, 2011)

Reviews for this are rolling in and they don't look good...

Critic Reviews for The Thing at Metacritic

God damn it, Roger Ebert is the best damn critic alive.


----------



## Xaios (Oct 14, 2011)

That makes me sad.


----------



## technomancer (Oct 14, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Reviews for this are rolling in and they don't look good...
> 
> Critic Reviews for The Thing at Metacritic
> 
> God damn it, Roger Ebert is the best damn critic alive.



I tend to go more by audience reaction for anything horror / sci-fi / comic based given there are a LOT of critics that pan anything in those genres. Audience reaction is 76% positive on Rotten Tomatoes

The Thing - Rotten Tomatoes


----------



## ShadyDavey (Oct 14, 2011)

Critics have agendas a lot of the time - their objectivity is sometimes questionable but I also tend to listen to the fans who are still capable of setting their own opinions aside if they sit through a turkey.


----------



## Furtive Glance (Oct 14, 2011)

Aw come on guys. Here, cheer up:



edit: And having watched that now, like, 4 times, that movie really is wonderfully-done, effects-wise.


----------



## Electric Wizard (Oct 15, 2011)

Screw the critics. I saw it tonight and was pleasantly surprised. I didn't go in expecting it to top Carpenter's, which it didn't, but it was still better than I anticipated.

I'll say a few things without trying to spoil anything:

One downside is that they've lost a lot of the subtlety of the older one. So, you do see quite a bit of the titular _Thing_. I'm going to play devil's advocate and say that a cool way to interpret that is to take it that the creature has learned that it needs to be more sneaky by the time Macready rolls in.

I really did like how they approached the prequel aspect, and I think they handled that in the best way possible.


Spoiler



The end of this movie is the beginning of the old one. This takes place roughly 48 hours before.



Overall worth the ticket price if you liked the old one, IMO. Plus dat Winstead


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Oct 15, 2011)

technomancer said:


> I tend to go more by audience reaction for anything horror / sci-fi / comic based given there are a LOT of critics that pan anything in those genres. Audience reaction is 76% positive on Rotten Tomatoes
> 
> The Thing - Rotten Tomatoes



I trust few critics, but I find I usually agree with most Metascores. The one I look out for is Roger Ebert though, he's a near-flawless critic.



ShadyDavey said:


> Critics have agendas a lot of the time - their objectivity is sometimes questionable but I also tend to listen to the fans who are still capable of setting their own opinions aside if they sit through a turkey.



This is exactly why I like Ebert; he has no agenda. He scores a film on what it promises to be and judges it on it's own merits, like any self-respecting critic should.


----------



## thatguy87 (Oct 16, 2011)

I just saw the 1982 film for the first time. I was laughing most of the time but still a good movie.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Oct 16, 2011)

thatguy87 said:


> I just saw the 1982 film for the first time. I was laughing most of the time but still a good movie.



Laughing from FEAR?!?!?!?!


----------



## GazPots (Oct 17, 2011)

^ He fucking better be.


----------



## SilenceIsACrime (Oct 18, 2011)

Electric Wizard said:


> One downside is that they've lost a lot of the subtlety of the older one. So, you do see quite a bit of the titular _Thing_. I'm going to play devil's advocate and say that a cool way to interpret that is to take it that the creature has learned that it needs to be more sneaky by the time Macready rolls in.


 
I definitely agree and will also choose to interpret it that way!


----------



## zappatton2 (Oct 27, 2011)

Finally saw this last night, doesn't hold a candle to the 1982 movie, but if I pretend I never saw that one, this was a good movie on it's own, certainly some disturbing scenes anyway.


----------



## SilenceIsACrime (Oct 30, 2011)

Kinda threw this costume together at the last minute so it could be better, but I think it got the point across....







RJ MacReady, helicopter pilot, US Outpost no. 31

It was such a pain trying to find a hat that looked even REMOTELY like Kurt's. I had to take some camo hat and spray paint it brown 

And no, no one but my best friend knew who I was. It's a shame that no one today seems to know this movie.


----------



## Sepultorture (Oct 30, 2011)

Fan of the 1982 classic and definitely had to go see the prequel.

my thoughts, definitely has the vibe of the original, the pacing is a little different and the thing definitively comes out more active and aggressive as well as passive, unlike the original where the thing did most of it's work covertly. nothing wrong with that at all. the CG element was actually pretty cool and lent to some gruesome sequences which i enjoyed. pot holes i didn't get after wathing this were, why the hell did it go outside and freeze when it coulda just got back in the ship, turned it on and flew off to somewhere warm. also what the hell happens to the chick, that left open and kinda annoying, atleast at the end of the original thing Childs and McCready sat there and supposedly froze to death.

little shit i know, but over al i effing loved the movie, didn't depart to mcuh from the original in feel and tone


----------

