The New Thing

Off Topic
21

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Chilliwack wrote:

[quote]Bujo wrote:
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.[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

I’m with this. I’m not sure you guys are young enough to remember the talk when the “Aliens” movie came out. People were like ehh it will never match the suspense. But they went another route with the same Good guy Bad guy idea and it was at least to me a Better movie. Not as suspensfull but better.

My only gripe is if the do go all CGI. They need to up the anti to bring in more grit and grime. Becuase some CGI is just to clean. Its why movies like Avatar work they make it like a painting soemthing you can frame so neat and clean. Only with a movie like the THING you don’t want to frame any of those scenes.

Those are Nightmares.

22

[quote]d1chet wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:
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.[/quote]
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[/quote]

I have to touch on something here … While I’m not saying the Thing when put in the cage [b]couldn’t[\b] immediately start infecting the other dogs, but it didn’t.

It’s very subtle, but the initial Thing attack on the dogs happened hours later in the middle of the night after everyone else had gone to bed. The Thing didn’t want to be disturbed so it could successful transfer it’s information into the other dogs, and it knew that when everyone was asleep was it’s best chance.

It just so happened that MacReady was up getting something to eat from the kitchen (right down the hall from kennel) and heard the commotion. He actually didn’t even know what was going on when he pulled the fire alarm to get everyone out of bed, he just knew something was wrong.

23

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Chilliwack wrote:

[quote]Bujo wrote:
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.[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

I’ve read interviews about the production of this prequel. It appears that the director is completely recreating the Norweigian camp from stills and shots from the John Carpenter one, right down to the most minute detail.

I’m with y’all that, yea, we know the outcome, but seeing how everything happens is going to be really awesome. I can’t wait to see the guy in the chair. You know what I’m talking about.

Also, right after I watch this prequel, I’m coming home and watching the John Carpenter one …

Shit, I wish I owned a movie theater, I’d have a double feature

24

Good Movie!! Worth the Price!

No Spoilers!!!

You will become Paranoid.

The CGI was pretty DAMN good!

And One Character is a F@(king VIKING!!!

Go Watch Enjoy

25

Watched the Carpenter '82 flick again this week.

It still stands the test of time. Knowing the story from seeing the film many times didn’t change a thing for me.

The only thing that feels ‘dated’ is the wide pan shot when they’re exploring the spaceship. Other than that, the analog effects are still quite clever and certainly deserved the awards they got back in the day.

I think the CGI will be convincing. They have to have a compelling story and tension, though. If the dialog sucks, the movie will suck balls.

26

This is very funny and very well done:

John Carpenter's THE THING: THE MUSICAL - YouTube!

27

Let me try that again…

28

Nards: That was fantastic

SO … I saw The Thing (2011) today: first let me say Carpenter is a much better director than the guy who directed this one. The performances were top notch from the 1982 cast; I always felt like I was IN the movie rather than this one where I felt like I was just watching the movie.

The CGI didn’t add enough to The Thing. For the most part, I felt like the animatronics from the 1982 movie were more frightening than the CGI in the prequel. Also, some of the scenes and some of the story line/plot was a little TOO much like John Carpenter’s. I don’t mean the overall plot, I mean there’s not much deviation from the original story that you could go (Who Goes There is the original story the John Carpenter vehicle was derived from). What I mean is some of the things that happen are taken straight from 1982’s The Thing. Like when they were happening I kept thinking how lame and unimaginative this particular scene was.

Some of the story development felt a little rushed compared to how the 1982 version played out. Like, it took them a little while to really comprehend what was happening and Blair’s (aka Wilfred Brimley’s character) computer automated forecast really put a sense of urgency to the movie, where this one was lacking that. The way they portray the gravity of the situation in this one, the audience HAD to trust that the character’s knew what they were talking about.

With that being said, the acting was pretty good, as was the dialogue. I think Mary Elizabeth Winstead held her own and her character wasn’t just a MacReady wanna-be. The Norwegian/foreign actors were good too. The recreation of the Norwegian camp was phenomenal and impressive. Unfortunately, I don’t think that this movie would turn people who haven’t seen John Carpenter’s The Thing onto watching it. I understand that Carpenter’s movie was/is one of the best done horror/scifi movies and is on a lot of “Best Of” lists, and I know that that’s a big bill to hold up to, I just think this film, while I’ll probably watch it again, fell far short.

I’d recommend, however, a matinee viewing of it. I would’ve been stoked if a theater around me was offering a double feature mainly because the way The Thing (2011) ties beautifully and seamlessly into how Carpenter’s The Thing begins.

29

[quote]d1chet wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:
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.[/quote]
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[/quote]

What I meant was that the creature has already used the Norwegian camp as a way to acclimatize itself to human DNA by the time it gets to the American camp, so it can adapt faster than it otherwise would. The non-human shapes it takes in Carpenter’s version may not be anything like its original form; they are just other species it absorbed along the way - and who knows how many worlds it might’ve ravaged on its journey…

Its “intelligence” and ability to build a spacecraft may even have been hijacked from other species…

So, by saying it “isn’t human yet”, it assumes even more alien forms than we see in The Thing '82, because it has no experience of life on Earth.

I haven’t seen the new movie yet, but the Carpenter version runs on paranoia, as did the original black and white version…

30

I saw this last night. I liked it. Bottom line, it is not a waste of film. It was a good effort…however, you can’t expect some completely new take because it isn’t. They literally tied this movie in with the first frame for frame at the end of the movie. When it comes out on dvd, i will have to look real hard to see if they even used a new dog or somehow cgi’d this one to look just like the one from the 1982 Thing.

The lead woman in this does a good job and can act. Her role fits for that of a woman in 1982 even though I could have seen them pull a Ripley and and make her bad ass. They didn’t. They went for “more real” as far as her character. She is knowledgeable and thinks quickly, but because she is a woman, her voice is walked over until shit gets real.

This does seem rushed in a way…but if it were longer, people would be complaining about how slow it is. To me,. it looked like scenes were edited to keep the pace faster.

Remember, the 1982 thing was released and largely ignored in movie theaters…because it came out the same week as E.T.

They focused HEAVILY on the “who can we trust” angle. They pulled it off because frankly, the way they played how this creature acts, I can’t be sure the host even knows it has been taken over until it changes.

The CGI effects were not overdone. They were used to create what they show in the 1982 thing…like how the burned “Thing” in the first movie got to be that way. they recreated the whole Norwegian base so well it looked like the same set. The Ax stuck in the wall…we now see why it is still there.

Either way, for every faulty you may want to point out, the bottom line is the acting was decent, the black guy still dies, the tension of who is who does play out well and they do act as a true prequel.

I respect the effort.

I just HOPE there is an extended version that drags out the tension more. This needed more scenes like that.

SPOILER:

I like how they avoided the exact same gimick as far as how you tell who is real and who isn’t. They planned to use the blood as a test (like the 1982 thing), but they ended up using “nonbiologicals” to tell…like fillings or implants. The Thing can’t copy inorganic material.

31

*** MAYBE A SPOILER IF YOU HAVEN’T SEEN THE 1982 FLICK ***

I guess the one thing most can guess is that not only does ‘the black guy die’, but so does the chick (unless somehow she is the helicopter pilot).

If that’s not the case, don’t tell me.

32

Spoiler-

Because of what we now know about how this thing behaves, there could potentially be dozens of them out there just waiting for a host. This isn’t just one entity. The 1982 movie touched on it but this really sent it home that we are royally screwed if this thing gets out.

This could be a set up for a whole series of movies if they wanted…but leaving the confines of the ice environment, they would have to find some other quarantined facility for a movie because the truth is, we are just fucked if it is loose.

33

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Spoiler-

Because of what we now know about how this thing behaves, there could potentially be dozens of them out there just waiting for a host. This isn’t just one entity. The 1982 movie touched on it but this really sent it home that we are royally screwed if this thing gets out.

This could be a set up for a whole series of movies if they wanted…but leaving the confines of the ice environment, they would have to find some other quarantined facility for a movie because the truth is, we are just fucked if it is loose.[/quote]

What was the projection if the thing reached inhabited land on Blaire’s computer? Something like 720 hours until entire world population is contaminated? Yea, we’d be pretty fucked if something like the thing reached civilization

34

Saw it last night and thought it was pretty damn good. The chi definitely wasn’t overdone (though I prefer the look and feel of the original) and the pace was good, though it did feel a little rushed.

Spoiler

Do any of ya’ll think the Conan O’brien clone was still human when she torches him? Know she mentioned the earring on the wrong side, but don’t think we ever actually see it. Why would the alien just let her take the flame thrower?

35

Spoiler:

He was missing that earring from the moment they hooked back up in the spaceship. I really wish they hadn’t said it out loud in the movie because I was already looking for it. I think it would have been WAY cooler if she hadn’t said shit about it until she torched him.

36

I haven’t read most of the posts because they all contain spoilers but i cant wait to see the new one looks great

37

[quote]Blackaggar wrote:
I haven’t read most of the posts because they all contain spoilers but i cant wait to see the new one looks great[/quote]

Sorry about the spoilers. Don’t read the last one with whiteflash. The others shouldn’t wreck it for you though.

38

I just saw it and liked it.

The times when the Thing changes were not as nightmarishly memorable as those from the 1982 film…I still feel like I can eat spaghetti tonight. They also didn’t have that coolness to them like the '82 film.

I mean you can explain the stuff in the '82 film…like “The fat guy starts having a heart attack and they put him on the table and when the doc goes to use the paddles on him his chest splits open and there’s even a hollow air-escaping sound, and these huge brown teeth clamp shut and bite the doctors arms off then the Thing’s head stretches and the skin snaps and little green corpuscle thingies burst and green pus comes out and the head stretches down like melted cheese and then crab-like spider legs break out from the head.”

Shit…I feel a little sick just writing that out!

But other than that it was still very good and I’m just saying that they should have had some guy on acid think of some better, weirder ways for the Thing to change.

39

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Spoiler:

He was missing that earring from the moment they hooked back up in the spaceship. I really wish they hadn’t said it out loud in the movie because I was already looking for it. I think it would have been WAY cooler if she hadn’t said shit about it until she torched him.[/quote]

Ah. We saw it at an Alamo draft house, and while a cool place to see a movie it’s not suited for suspense 'cause the waitress is constantly popping in and out.

Spoiler

As the black guy from Oz was checking the ice block the waitress dropped of our drinks and stuck her head in front of my line of vision LITERALLY as the thing busted out and I completely missed it.

40

Amazing…so Nards and I like the same movie?

Spooky.