T Nation

The New Thing


#1

Well this movie is coming out on Friday and I'll go, even though I'm expecting it to be mediocre.

I hope there are some iconic transformations made by the Thing, as most everything it did in the first movie (the 1982 one, not the 1951 one smart ass!) was such pure nightmare fuel. Or even better...it felt like something from a nightmare (or acid trip) that Carpenter put on film.

I will hopefully lose about 10lbs after the movie as the carpenter movie stops me from eating pizza for about a month.


#2

I haven't watched it for a loooooong time.

The one sequence I remember:
Man has an apparent heart attack.
Another man puts heart paddles on his chest, but heart attack man's ribs open up and bite the other man's hands off.
Snake Plissken burns the body, but the head comes off and sprouts legs like a spider and starts walking away. Snake then burns it too.

PRICELESS as a 13yr old back then.

Almost as good as watching the Alien chestburster come out of Kane's chest for the first time.

I'll take my son to see this remake.


#3

I'm iffy in remakes but The 2nd Thing with Kurt Russel was a classic for a whole other goulish reason.
The make-up artist and machines they used for the special effects was classic. I still get freaked at the mechanical transformation fro
The cast into monsters.

Something about some CGI it's just to to..clean for lack of a better word.


#4

totally agree four60, its why i love all the old ray harryhausen movies too


#5

I have seen it about 5 times over the last few years. That scene is still awesome, mostly because you know those are animatronix effects, but they work especially for that time period.

I think the script here will be decent....but I think many will gripe about the effects. For one, yo can't possibly expect them to avoid CGI in the year 2011. It is almost cheaper now to do it by computer than to try to bring the old make up crew back for a redo...not to mention, make up effects have even come a long way since then.

Bottom line, the Kurt Russel Thing would look completely different if done today and I think we just need to accept that.

They are avoiding showing the monster in most previews. I am assuming they are making last minute touch ups.

I'm going to see it no matter what.

I just hope they do it right.


#6

The original was fucking awesome, I just pray they don't screw this up bad. The best part about it to me was how intelligently the characters dealt with the problem, to the best of their abilities. Most of their decisions I was thinking "Shit, that's exactly what I would do"...can't say that about many horror movies.


#7

Just to clarify it is not a remake. It is a prequel to the 1982 film. Bear that in mind when going to watch it.


#8

I understand "X"'s point. And I have no issue with the CGI process. But there is something to perfect about it at times. With a grit and grime type of movie like the Thing or Aliens it's best if it's not all CGI.

I'm not sure but I almost think our eye picks up the details like flesh flopping from one side to the next or blood not splattering in perfect identical ways. I hope they find a happy medium. Im looking forward to it. If it's Sci fi or horror I'm in not always good but I'll still watch.

By the way guys the last Fast & Furious was actually kinda good mainly do to actual stunts.


#9

Check out the tagline: "it's not human. yet". It suggests that the thing can't mimic other species on contact, and it used the Norwegian camp as a way to gradually adapt.


#10

#11

LOL.

Yep.

I haven't seen that in years, but I remember as a kid watching it a few times.

Great story/movie(s). I think if they can capture the same convincing tension from the 80's flick this should be great.


#12

The worst thing about prequels is you know how they are going to end. You kind of loose some of the suspense when you know who's gonna win in the end. I wonder if the last scene will be a first person view from the helicopter as explosives are dropped, or maybe first person view from the dog as it's running from one camp to another.


#13

Of course they will have to use CGI, but as four60 said, no matter what your eye can just tell. So even though they may need to use CG in 2011, it doesn't mean we have to like it or think it looks better than practical stuff.

I just hope they don't have stuff like the Thing running down a hallway roaring and jumping...basically "showing off".


#14

it's a prequel? so that means the characters will be the norwegians?
i am looking forward to the movie, and i have to disagree with you all, and nards, who seems to be a john carpenter fan.
i was long hoping for a remake of Thing, because i thought the story was a classic pod person kind of paranoia story, like that twillight zone episode, but could have become way more popular if the monster effects werent so disgusting.


#15

I think they said it is a mix of Norwegians and Americans. Obviously Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Joel Edgerton are not Norwegian.


#16

Yeah, all we knew from the first movie is that it was a "Norwegian camp"...and that the two helicopter passengers were "assumed" to be the last surviving members and that they could not speak English. Everything else is up in the air.

I mean, even the Dog that escaped may not be the only "thing" that survived seeing as it can become multiple entities apparently.


#17

It needs to be alone and in close contact with the host in order to mimic it. So I'm assuming once it breaks free from the ice it begins stalking and isolating its prey. Shit, when the host dog was put in the cage it took all of 30 seconds for it to start going after the other dogs in the cage.

To me, the tagline is clearly implying that it simply hasn't mimicked human beings because it's been trapped in a ice coffin for 10,000 years


#18

I'm expecting to be disappointed.

One, because I was pretty young when I saw the first one so it completely scared the shit out of me. The scene where Kurt Russell is trying to figure out which guys could be the thing by dipping the hot needle into the blood and they are all tied together and the one guy starts transforming whereas the other guys are stuck to him. Yeah, scared the shit out of me haha.

And second, because I just don't like CGI in my scary movies. Monsters are imaginary to begin with, so using CGI just reinforces that fact. The Russell one brought those monsters to life. The whole experience, even the sound effects sent chills down your spine.

And finally, I'm wondering if they can even do anything new with the story. If its going to just be a cookie cutter film with the same plot as its "sequel" then its going to be boring as hell. They will probably try to use the same music too.

In my opinion, if they can't do anything to the story to make this film unique, then they are just wasting time.


#19

http://www.themarysue.com/spoilers-study/

According to this study, knowing the outcome increases the overall enjoyment of the story (for most people).


#20

I have to agree...if it is written well. The new Star Trek was essentially a prequel (as well as a reboot) and what helped make it work is we as the audience already knew who was going to team up....and what was interesting was watching how the pieces fell together.

All we know from the last movie is that part of "the thing" survived and that two of the people left alive don't speak English. That is essentially ALL they need to work towards.

That leaves open tons of ground.