The Thing (2011) movie trailer

I saw The Thing (remake) as a 12 year old kid in a theater with my older brother. They let me in as it was a crummy second-run place that had $2 movie matinees. Scared the crap out of me.

I still think (some) of the older special effects work is better than modern CGI.

Originally Posted by Drithius
So, I finally took a look at that trailer and, while the movie looks ok, it's missing something…. Kurt Russel ! Or, more seriously, a strong lead. Does anyone else miss the days of Russel, Stallone, Arnold, Willis? Movies today seem so devoid of strong action heroes.

Did you pre-order Duke Nukem Forever?

In my opinion the "strong action heroes" of the 80-ies were pretty absurd.

Originally Posted by Ovenall
I still think (some) of the older special effects work is better than modern CGI.

I completely agree, and the director apparently feels the same way.

I think CGI is way overused in the majority of today's movies. Personally, I can't stand it. 99% of the time it simply breaks the immersion for me, as CGI is still a long way off from looking "real" imo.

The only exception so far for me has been Gollum in the LotR trilogy.

Originally Posted by JemyM
In my opinion the "strong action heroes" of the 80-ies were pretty absurd.

That's part of what made them the movies so memorable and fun though. What do we have today? Shia Lebouf? lol.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Did you check out the Wikipedia link above? It's a prequel, and I think it's a great idea. It could be a sequel, remake, or whatever, but that isn't going to determine whether or not it ends up being a good movie.

Oops, I missed that. I just watched the trailer. Cheers.

Originally Posted by Drithius
That's part of what made them the movies so memorable and fun though. What do we have today? Shia Lebouf? lol.

The days of big muscle men are over. Now it's the geeks get all the chicks…

The Thing is one of the best horror movies and really hope the prequel to be a good film. While i like the idea of a prequel more than sequel, and also it's make by its own fans, it could still be a disappointment.

Originally Posted by Drithius
That's part of what made them the movies so memorable and fun though. What do we have today? Shia Lebouf? lol.

What we have today is satire mostly, because the action heroes of the 80'ies were so over-the-top that it's difficult to make a "serious" movie like that today. We actually watch movies like that once in awhile just because they are funny.

Just got back from seeing it… I wasn't disappointed.

First off, the attention to details and continuity in this movie is absolutely phenomenal. If it wasn't for the obviously more modern special effects, you would almost think the two movies were filmed back to back instead of nearly 30 years apart. Everything in John Carpenter's film was set up with near perfection. These guys weren't kidding when they talked about "reverse engineering" the 1982 film.

Speaking of special effects, I was blown away by some of the scenes in this movie. I thought they were some of the best FX I've seen outside of AAA Hollywood blockbusters. CGI was used a lot more than they had indicated, but it was done to perfection, and not overblown like it is in so many films.

The acting isn't going to win any academy awards, but it rarely does in this genre. Nothing really stood out as being exceptionally good or bad in regards to the cast, but the overall chemistry was decent enough.

If you're a fan of the original, it's a must-see. If it's been awhile since you've watched John Carpenter's film then do yourself a favor and re-watch that first, or plan on watching it shortly after. It will make you appreciate this film even more.

That is good news. It has been long to see any good horror movies from John Carpenter, at least now we get one even though it's not directed by him.

I read a (very short) impression on another forum, he claimed the movie was bascily more of an action movie now and not at all like the original, he gave it a 5/10.. Not sure what to think yet

Originally Posted by vurt
I read a (very short) impression on another forum, he claimed the movie was bascily more of an action movie now and not at all like the original, he gave it a 5/10.. Not sure what to think yet

I would recommend seeing it and judging for yourself.

For anyone who's interested, Dark Horse Comics has a free digital Thing comic. It has nothing to do with the films, but I thought it was a fun read.



https://digital.darkhorse.com/profil…ing-full-book/

yeah i've been looking forward to it for quite some time, but i doubt it will be shown in cinemas here. hopefully it wont be too long before there's a blu-ray release..

I love the John Carpenter film (and own an original VHS copy) so am naturally very skeptical about even the concept of this film. CGI isn't everything - in fact it can ruin films for me if it's garish and too obviously fake.

ButIf it even has half of the tension, otherworldliness and sheer paranoia of the original film, it'll be worth a look.

I'm willing to give it a chance and will keep an eye out on the local cinemas.

"The Thing ! It Came From The Movies !"

Originally Posted by JDR13
First off, the attention to details and continuity in this movie is absolutely phenomenal. If it wasn't for the obviously more modern special effects, you would almost think the two movies were filmed back to back instead of nearly 30 years apart. Everything in John Carpenter's film was set up with near perfection. These guys weren't kidding when they talked about "reverse engineering" the 1982 film.

…
If you're a fan of the original, it's a must-see.

Just saw it myself and I totally agree. Having seen the original say…. 15 times by now (starting at age 12 at its VHS release) I was blow away by the faithfulness. It is a must see for fans of the original Carpenter film. Just seeing the end with the original score and the pontoon helicopter was fantastic.

My only critique of the film is that unlike the 1982 version this wasn't an actors film. If you have ever heard the DVD commentary, Kurt Russell essentially says the script could have been a play and I'd agree, and it is a great cast ensemble. The 2011 version's characters are largely forgettable. Of course, Kurt Russell has huge screen presence, but his lines are quotable so kudos to the 1982 script. Nothing really equivalent here in that aspect.

But it is a minor gripe on what is clearly a labor of love for Heijningen. Carpenter should be ecstatic about this massive tribute.

Nice to hear more positive things about this, can't wait.

just noticed it has 6.7 on IMDB. Very impressive rating for a horror/scifi. Pandorum has 6.8 as a comparison, and imo a really great movie, in kind of, the same genre.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Now that I stand corrected, I can have more hope for the project. I must say my experience with these "reboots" or whatever we want to call them has NOT been good. But from what you're telling me, there's hope yet

Well, here's where I need to mention Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) and Dawn of the Dead (2004) as examples of remakes that, for me, have been excellent. Of course, the 1993 version, Body Snatchers was pretty atrocious.

Originally Posted by Thaurin
Well, here's where I need to mention Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) and Dawn of the Dead (2004) as examples of remakes that, for me, have been excellent. Of course, the 1993 version, Body Snatchers was pretty atrocious.

Well, The Thing (1981) was kinda a remake as well, and it was utterly fantastic.

It's not that remaking/rebooting/"prequel-ing" films is a universally bad idea, but the way Hollywood has been going about it the last 10 years or so have yielded VERY few good results.

They've even managed to totally destroy certain concepts along the way, with the worst case recently being Star Trek. Oh, I know a lot of people love it - but I think it's one of the most destructive examples of franchise milking I've ever seen.

But I'm interested in this one still, though IMDB ratings suggest that I shouldn't be too optimistic.

Then again, there are movies that get rated as low as 5 that I love, so it's not a guarentee. Also, some of the top-250 are utter crap in my mind, so the reverse is even less reliable

The 1981 Thing was not really a remake of the Fifties movie but a true-to-the-book movie adaptation of the story 'Who goes there?' by John W.Campbell. The Fifties 'Thing' was based on the same story, but very, very loosely - 'inspired by' fits the bill better IMO.
Okay, so the story's ending was a tad worse than that of the Carpenter movie, and they used pitchforks instead of flamethrowers, but basically Carpenter's version was very faithful to the original story, regarding both details and atmosphere.