The Thing (2011) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Future Films



Message


Empire Admin -> The Thing (2011) (21/6/2011 2:38:53 PM)

Post your comments on this article




Mojo -> RE: The Thing 2011 (12/7/2011 11:36:49 AM)

[image]http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/the-thing-teaser-poster.jpg[/image]

New poster looks fantastic, captured the tone of the original perfectly.

Is it time to get excited about this film yet, or are people still bitter about the fact that it is being made? I'm a huge fan of Carpenter's version and at first I was annoyed by them making this film but after seeing the images they've released and now this poster I can't help but get excited about it. When Mac explored the Norwegian's outpost in the first movie I always wondered how it all went down there, and now we get to see that.

[image]http://blastr.com/uploads/TheThingPrequelMoviePics7.jpg[/image]

[image]http://blastr.com/assets_c/2010/10/TheThingPrequelMoviePicsLead-thumb-550x338-48716.jpg[/image]


I love the look of it so far, hopefully a trailer will be here soon to give us a proper glimpse of things to come. But from now on, colour me excited.




Scott_ -> RE: The Thing 2011 (12/7/2011 11:50:16 AM)

Cool poster. I wasn't sure about the idea of this at first but it's not a straight remake so theres a chance it will be good, it's got a decent cast so I'm kinda looking forward to it now. Plus isn't the dude who wrote Battlestar Galactica on scripting duties here aswell? Thats can't hurt the chances of it being good.




NCC1701A -> RE: The Thing 2011 (12/7/2011 11:51:10 AM)

Liked the 1950s verison and loved the 80s remake but not really seen much of any thing about this new film yet.




Mojo -> RE: The Thing 2011 (12/7/2011 12:08:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NCC1701A

Liked the 1950s verison and loved the 80s remake but not really seen much of any thing about this new film yet.


If you check out the facebook page that somebody linked to above, there's tons of stills from the movie and some behind the scenes photographs. It all looks spot on if you ask me.




film man aidy -> RE: The Thing 2011 (12/7/2011 11:05:23 PM)

Am interested in seeing this, but the nature of the title is absurd. The prequel to the remake with the same name. I think a lot of people will see this thinking that they are getting a straight remake of the 80's version( and in many ways they may be right). Am guessing it will turn out a bit like Predators, where it's heart is in the right place, but it ultimately is too much of a homage to the original. Expect ***.




NCC1701A -> RE: The Thing 2011 (13/7/2011 6:58:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mojo



If you check out the facebook page that somebody linked to above, there's tons of stills from the movie and some behind the scenes photographs. It all looks spot on if you ask me.

Thank you for link had a look and yes it does look quite good thank you again.




Mojo -> RE: The Thing 2011 (15/7/2011 12:24:58 AM)

Trailer is on Empire's front page:

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=31480

I still have hope that this film will be a worthy prequel to Carpenter's film. It looks like they've nailed the paranoid tension, and the little nod to the original soundtrack by Carpenter was awesome. I thought i saw a little bit too much CGI in what few effects shots I saw.




fuzzy -> RE: The Thing 2011 (15/7/2011 9:30:41 AM)

Any suggests for a title they should have gone with? Using the word 'Thing' I can only come up with terrible titles so far... The First Thing, Before The Thing, Thingameejig.....




Snake-Eyes -> RE: The Thing 2011 (15/7/2011 9:36:09 AM)

NO.




Dead Mike -> RE: The Thing 2011 (15/7/2011 12:49:30 PM)

From the trailer it looks like a straight (Platinum dunes stylee) remake rather than a prequel?




darth silas -> RE: The Thing 2011 (15/7/2011 6:50:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dead Mike

From the trailer it looks like a straight (Platinum dunes stylee) remake rather than a prequel?


I agree.Looks like a remake to me.Though its hard to imagine it being much different since the norweigans were in pretty much the same situation as Mcreadys crew-Isolated.Few in number.Being stalled by a shape shifting alien(etc).

Still,we all know its going to have a pretty bleak ending.NOONE is going to survive!

Is what i just posted there count as a spoiler?[;)]




kumar -> RE: The Thing 2011 (15/7/2011 9:17:39 PM)

The trailer looks very eerie and I imagine some parts will be very atmospheric. The only difference I see between this and the 80s Thing is the addition of an extra woman. I imagine this will be good for first time viewers but for anyone that has seen the other one I dont see this being more than a 3 star affair- though of course I would like to be wrong. And Silas, though you might have spoiled it for people not seeing Carpenters film, its a good point- there wont be much tension in the end because we know the out come.





fuzzy -> RE: The Thing 2011 (16/7/2011 1:24:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kumar

The trailer looks very eerie and I imagine some parts will be very atmospheric. The only difference I see between this and the 80s Thing is the addition of an extra woman. I imagine this will be good for first time viewers but for anyone that has seen the other one I dont see this being more than a 3 star affair- though of course I would like to be wrong. And Silas, though you might have spoiled it for people not seeing Carpenters film, its a good point- there wont be much tension in the end because we know the out come.




I suppose you could say the same about the SW prequels, especially ROTS. It's how the characters get to that point is, I guess, the main draw.




CORLEONE -> RE: The Thing 2011 (18/7/2011 11:56:39 PM)

Kurt Russell > Mary Elizabeth Winstead.




UTB -> RE: The Thing 2011 (19/7/2011 1:28:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fuzzy

Any suggests for a title they should have gone with? Using the word 'Thing' I can only come up with terrible titles so far... The First Thing, Before The Thing, Thingameejig.....


The Thingy




ukacidman -> RE: The Thing 2011 (19/7/2011 10:49:21 AM)

trailer is looking good... I now having something to lookforwadr to this October..

how avout just calling it "THING"




JIm R -> RE: The Thing 2011 (19/7/2011 10:52:58 AM)

'No, you're all wrong it's not John Carpenter's The Thing, it's a truely ORIGINAL re-hash of John Carpenter's The Thing, all brand new ideas and conepts, yes, siree, it's all brand new'

Rated 15 and coming to a cinema near you in October 2011




Saltire -> RE: The Thing 2011 (19/7/2011 7:38:30 PM)

Won't be watching it as I refuse to watch any of the remakes Hollywood is now notorious at doing. The other two films are far better I can fully predict here before even the damn thing comes out.




CORLEONE -> RE: The Thing 2011 (19/7/2011 11:40:03 PM)

I want it to be good, but I know it won't be. Still, we'll always have the original. This will take nothing away from that.




HERMES_67 -> the thing 2011 (19/8/2011 8:54:06 PM)

lets hope its not another "War of the worlds", i loved the original - lets hope this compliments it.......




donnellym3 -> December (23/8/2011 2:20:55 AM)

Why is almost every territory other than the Uk getting this in October and we have to wait till December? Surely distributors must realise that by then it will be freely downloadable on the internet,? Staggering release dates makes no sense these days - not to mention pissing everyone one off who was looking forward to seeing 'The Thing' in October...




ScottiE -> RE: December (24/8/2011 5:55:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: donnellym3

Why is almost every territory other than the Uk getting this in October and we have to wait till December? Surely distributors must realise that by then it will be freely downloadable on the internet,? Staggering release dates makes no sense these days - not to mention pissing everyone one off who was looking forward to seeing 'The Thing' in October...




I agree with you mate. mind you. first god dam week of winter




The REAL Bozz -> RE: December (24/8/2011 6:26:27 PM)

I'm happy . Early word of mouth is solid. The only criticism is it's a bit pointless so we all know how it's gonna end. On the end of that is word the film solid, good scares, creature fx and gore. At the very least it's gonna make cool companion piece and at least it's not a remake.[&:]




Rosie_101 -> RE: The Thing 2011 (20/9/2011 9:56:10 AM)


quote:


Is it time to get excited about this film yet, or are people still bitter about the fact that it is being made? I'm a huge fan of Carpenter's version and at first I was annoyed by them making this film but after seeing the images they've released and now this poster I can't help but get excited about it.


I agree - to a point.

There'll be no middle ground for this movie. It'll either be lauded from the heights or utterly panned. At first I though no way am I going to see this but I've mellowed a bit since and I'm prepared to give it a chance.

I get the feeling that the clip in the trailer of your woman creeping around with the flame thrower borrows heavily from Sigourney Weaver in "Alien". I also get the feeling that, unlike Carpenter's movie where the remaining two were condemned to death by hypothermia, she will survive.

In the trailer I saw at the cinema I think I caught a snatch of Ennio Morricone's theme from the 1982 film. Does anyone know if his music is being used in the new version?




rich -> RE: The Thing 2011 (21/9/2011 12:39:03 AM)

Wow the CG is even worse in the new trailer




jcthefirst -> RE: The Thing 2011 (21/9/2011 11:04:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rich

Wow the CG is even worse in the new trailer


Really? I thought it looked quite good.

Although they look a bit Dead Space-y.




MonsterCat -> RE: The Thing 2011 (21/9/2011 11:58:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rich

Wow the CG is even worse in the new trailer


The footage in the trailer might not be representative of the finished product, though.




Rosie_101 -> RE: December (21/9/2011 2:07:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: The REAL Bozz

I'm happy . Early word of mouth is solid. The only criticism is it's a bit pointless so we all know how it's gonna end. On the end of that is word the film solid, good scares, creature fx and gore. At the very least it's gonna make cool companion piece and at least it's not a remake.[&:]


Are you sure?

The blinking lights on the alien ship indicate to me that the thing will scarper off whence it came with a flea in it's (no doubt many) ears from a leading lady who looks like she's way too smart and important to get bumped off.

But....

I stand to be corrected.




Gazz -> RE: The Thing (2011) (21/9/2011 3:51:02 PM)

Prepare for a rant...

The Thing ranks among my favourite films of all time and though I'm largely open to the idea of some kind of continuation of the mythos I've approached this particular prequel with some caution. I was willing to look beyond the fact that a prequel to Carpenter's film is completely unnecessary (since his film had already provided the answer as to what had happened to the Norwegian crew as the exact same thing befalls their American counterparts on Outpost #31). See, I do understand that they're trying to re-establish a franchise by taking it to it's roots. However, when the trailer came about it became clear to me that what we were looking at was technically a remake. It appears to be hitting all the same beats but with none of the class, taking it's redundancy to a whole new level.

But they can at least get the monsters right, right?

Early in production when the filmmakers and special effects crew (ADI: the men who turned the Aliens into 'Pumpkinhead' clones) began talking of how the effects would be 90% practical and 10% digital I took some flak on various message boards for reminding folks that we've been through this sort of bullshit fan pandering from filmmakers and studios before. I went on to say that the film's biggest hurdle effects wise would be with the filmmakers and whether or not they'd lose faith and simply CG scan the practical creatures they had. Looking at the latest trailer that exact scenario appears to be the case and another horror fanbase is up in arms about the fact that they may have been lied to once more.

Now, I'm not one of those people who automatically dismisses any use of CGI and i think many films have shown that the practice has more than it's fair share of uses, but not one CGI monster shot from any of the current trailers or clips has me sold on it's use in this film so far. Nor has any monster shot come close to some of Bottin (and to a lesser degree Winston's) amazing work with the Carpenter original. I mean look at this:

http://planetmut.com/wp-content/uploads//2011/08/splitface.jpg

And compare it to this:

http://i56.tinypic.com/11ii9tw.jpg

I know which one I find more horrific.

The effects just look like average CGI work and probably for the reason that it would have been extremely difficult to execute the creature practically, especially because it appears they've changed it's attitude from being a stealthy imitator of men and woman, moving in the dark and assimilating those it catches alone, to a more action orientated and generic horror monster willing to expose itself to rush groups of people. And I guess that's part of the problem for me. Here we have a creature known for creeping in the dark and yet we are being shown it to act completely out of character, attacking groups of individuals without being provoked and essentially bum rushing it's victims in clear view of others. For what? A couple of cheap scares it appears. Talking of cheap scares lets move on to this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACP-h4W9xHM

In the above clip for the film we see the creature burst from it's ice coffin and through the roof, in direct view of one of the camps individuals. This is not later in the film when the group has been whittled away or when the creature is making a desperate effort to assimilate an individual after being found out. This is how we're introduced to the creature, not as a methodical eerie presence that roams freely throughout the compound but as a mindless monster that simply explodes onto the screen. These are the types of actions that simply wouldn't have took place in Carpenters film. Wouldn't it have been scarier if the creature would have escaped silently much like when it attempts to take over Bennings? It simply lies in wait for it's moment alone with the character, moving slowly and cautiously. There are no loud noises, screams or even signs of a struggle on the same magnitude as shown in that MTV clip. What if the characters return to the ice block the following day to find it mysteriously empty? That way it would have also had a whole night to silently assimilate anyone it finds alone. But instead the creature just bursts out of the fucking ice like "fuck Y'all, I'm outta this muthafucker!!!".

All signs appear to be pointing towards this film being a complete mess. It was redundant from the start but had potential to give us a few old school scares but looking at this trailer campaign it seems to me that the filmmakers simply have no idea what made Carpenter's film so special. And that they're willing to give away so many of the film's potential twists, like in who the creature is hiding (y'know, exactly the kind of paranoia inducing mystery that made the original work) is a telling sign indeed.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is 'fuck this film'.




Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.03125