THE THING (2011) in Current Horror, Sci-Fi and Fantasy Films Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

THE THING (2011)

Author	Comment
delgadosaur		#61	[-]
Mar 11 12 6:41 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I agree, rider. I just think this property should have been in the hands of a better class of filmmaker, no offense. There's some fun here, but interspersed with false tensions and overly-staged boo stuff that does not pay off. I really never got an insight into the character of the...bad guy, for lack of a better turn. He seemed really flat to me. I liked the gag at the end with the earring, and I respected how the filmmakers appreciated Carpenter's film, but this should have been handled by someone of a better filmmaking pedigree. There's the false scare where the guy is peering over the frozen rectangle, but the pair coming out of the gloom and surviving the crash felt well done to me. Also felt that the action sequences should have been a little more kinetic and frenzied. THe one guy lay on the floor for too long before the face melting gag, again liked the idea but it just takes too long to get there. I just would have made it even clearer that she makes it to the russian camp and then cut back to the coda instead of having it play over the end credits. Some of the monsters are cool but the big guy at the end was a letdown for me. Just clumsy fun that should have and could have been a taught thriller .
	Remove this ad
Gossamer		#62	[-]
Mar 11 12 7:11 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Well. I'm not really adding anything new here at all. Just my experience. I was actually starting to look forward to seeing this film. After talking to the guys at our rental store I backed off again. Hearing that this was just a remake of the Carpenter version didn't strike me as something I needed to see. But this gave me the inkling to watch the original Carpenter film. Just noticed that it was on Netflex (which in Canada Netflix Sucks!) My son who just turned thirteen was home with the Chickenpox so I saw opportunity knocking to watch it with him. We had a blast. Personally I don't think Carpenter made anything better than this. So again came the thoughts of checking out the new version. Now being told that this was just a remake and not a prequel I started to enjoy the changes made. My son who obviously has better eyes than myself really enjoyed seeing things he saw in the original. For example the light above the pool table and he actually picked up on the ax scene. Oblivious Dad just went Hey Nice Homage. Now the next thing that happens is that we are both saying "Prequel!" and wouldn't it be cool if it tied into the original. Bam!!! The end scene with the famous dog chase did just that. I watched the films one day apart with my Chickenpoxed son and had a really good time. The older I get the more I think it's better to have no expectations watching a movie. You enjoy them more or let down less. My Website WE DID IT
borchabob		#63	[-]
Mar 12 12 11:29 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I don't understand how anyone would call this a remake unless your talking about The Thing From Another World, and that's even a bit of a stretch.
Carl Eyesnheart		#64	[-]
Mar 13 12 9:38 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	A question: are flame throwers common place in science stations in Antartica, or is it just a coincidence that the Norwegians and the Americans had them? It just seems like an odd weapon to have lying around. I get that the place is really cold, so are they tools down there? My fanzine all about Rock N Roll: www.sonicruin.com
delgadosaur		#65	[-]
Mar 13 12 2:34 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	That's a great question Carl
Carl Eyesnheart		#66	[-]
Mar 13 12 5:19 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I was watching the new one today and thinking to myself "gee, they also have a flame thrower . . . that just seems odd." Also, when watching it again, I get the sneaking suspicion that this movie did start life as a remake, but then somebody changed gears on it and made it a prequel, then rewrote certain scenes while leaving others scenes still intact. There are too many scenes that do play similar to the '82 film. Scenes like the meeting in the snow crawler thing (like Mac and the other guy), the Americans breaking out and holding everybody at flame-thrower point (like Mac). The idea about the blood being a re-write into the fillings. Etc., etc. etc. My fanzine all about Rock N Roll: www.sonicruin.com
Andy Sheets		#67	[-]
Mar 17 12 11:26 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Carl Eyesnheart wrote: A question: are flame throwers common place in science stations in Antartica, or is it just a coincidence that the Norwegians and the Americans had them? It just seems like an odd weapon to have lying around. I get that the place is really cold, so are they tools down there? Nah, I've read that there are no weapons of any kind in Antarctica. They're scientists, not soldiers - what would they shoot? The use of guns and flamethrowers apparently has been a gag to actual Antarctic scientists going back to the Carpenter film, although it does get most everything else right about the setting. I thought the new one was alright. It's just that most of what it does right happens because it's taking cues from the original movie. It's not very imaginative.
Steve R		#68	[-]
Mar 18 12 9:18 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Just saw the new one. Very good intentions and a decent start. The poor story continuity and flat characters hurt it for me. As far as the f/x go, Rob Bottin wins by such a long shot. I also didn't feel the location was exploited very well. Most of the films set way out in snow country from 30 Days of Night to even Fargo make much better use of the locale. Ya gotta have characters in these. Not a fair comparison at all but look at MacReady in Carpenter's. We first see him pouring the rest of a drink down the shute of a computer game that beats him in chess. Then he dons this ridiculous Mexican hat to go out to fly the chopper. However during all that he comes across as very confident and a man who knows what he is doing. Dependable. Strong. Richard Masur had such love and understanding for his dogs that added yet another great layer to all the early suspicions. It gets me why the hell a studio would spend so much money on a script that just really needs to be better. That's the cheapest thing to fix before you shoot. There's very few left in the studios that can read anymore. Too many cooks that can't cook in the kitchen.
G Vallejo		#69	[-]
Mar 18 12 3:23 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Maybe the flamethrowers are for heating/thawing things quickly? Just watched this today, and my netflix rental DVD lists all the bonus features, but if you actually click on said bonus features, it tells you the DVD is a rental and if you want to see any bonus features go buy the real thing. Wrong move. I frequently buy DVDs I like after renting them, but not this one. Ever. When I rent a DVD, I am renting the DVD that has been released. Now I will find the deleted scenes on youtube or somewhere else, and watch them there. I liked the film well enough, but it was far too close to the original to call a prequel. Calling it "The Thing" when it's supposed to be a prequel/separate movie isn't a good idea in the first place. On the plus side, I thought the method the woman devised to detect the Things was pretty clever, and pretty simple at the same time. And I didn't have a problem with Norwegians speaking English and/or Norwegian throughout the film. I had a problem with Americans being there in the first place, since nothing in the first film seemed to indicate they were there. I had a few unanswered questions... SPOILERS What happened to Lars when he seemed to be grabbed in the shed? I know it's supposed to be a false scare, but something happened there, and then he came out unscathed later. It's just lazy writing. Plus, who was the guy that sliced his wrists and froze? The guy they found in the first movie. And when did he do it? I missed that part. Also, since these things are so hard to kill (it seemed that every one of the big things that got torched revived later, or else lived for the 82 movie), there's still another one (or two) in the copter crash up in the mountain. Also, wasn't the UFO destroyed in the videotape the 82 movie characters found? Unless I missed something, it was still intact, if damaged, at the end of this one. A perfect Monster has no end...
Bob Meyer		#70	[-]
Mar 18 12 10:00 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Steve R wrote: Just saw the new one. Very good intentions and a decent start. The poor story continuity and flat characters hurt it for me. As far as the f/x go, Rob Bottin wins by such a long shot. I also didn't feel the location was exploited very well. Most of the films set way out in snow country from 30 Days of Night to even Fargo make much better use of the locale. Agreed on all counts. One of the strengths of Carpenter's version and Bottin's SFX was the "I've never seen THAT before!" effect. The new one has CGI that we've seen EVERYWHERE before. We've seen the story before too - this was a re-make, no matter what they say (complete with the idea that a remake always has to change things just to separate it from the original). It does start off OK, though. And they somehow managed to dovetail the final scene into the beginning of Carpenter's original, so a couple of points for that, I guess. It gets me why the hell a studio would spend so much money on a script that just really needs to be better. That's the cheapest thing to fix before you shoot. There's very few left in the studios that can read anymore. Too many cooks that can't cook in the kitchen. It sounds like a lot of the time the many cooks take a good script and cut all the life out of it. Didn't Ron Moore write an early version that was subsequently re-written?
	Remove this ad
Carl Eyesnheart		#71	[-]
Mar 19 12 10:01 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I'm watching the blu-ray of the Carpenter film right now. Why I had I never noticed that Doc has a nose ring before? My fanzine all about Rock N Roll: www.sonicruin.com
MacXoftheMounted		#72	[-]
Mar 19 12 11:38 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Still have NO idea how they escaped from that crevasse... MacXoftheMounted.....................formerly known as Professor Von X
Carl Eyesnheart		#73	[-]
Mar 19 12 3:51 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	A radio to the base and a rope from the base and rescue group would take care of that. My fanzine all about Rock N Roll: www.sonicruin.com
Spoiler II		#74	[-]
Mar 20 12 12:21 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Carl Eyesnheart wrote: A radio to the base and a rope from the base and rescue group would take care of that. Just take a snippet of dialogue from another Carpenter film: "How'd you get out of there?"..."Wasn't easy!". End of loose plot point.
Carl Eyesnheart		#75	[-]
Mar 20 12 9:34 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	They are in a very treacherous part of the world, I would expect that they have the simplest of survival gear, including some form of spelunking gear or equipment for repelling. Drawing a blank right now, are those the right terms? My fanzine all about Rock N Roll: www.sonicruin.com
Spoiler II		#76	[-]
Mar 25 12 1:30 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Finally caught up with this via Netflix and it's a waaaayyy distant third behind the other two films in the THING sweepstakes. Too much of everything kills it. Too much plotting through cliched dialogue. Too much of the Thing running around with its tendrils a whippin' in the frosty air over and over again. The alien seems to be some sort of mass murderer,making no real effort to conceal itself and duplicate the staff and opting to kill off various uninteresting cast members left and right (and usually with a pointy crustacean like appendage through the torso). I don't know if it's because my TV is too decent for it's own good but the CGI looked abominable. I cringed whenever a transformation scene happened because the jarring effects work killed off any good will the story was trying to build up. I tried but simply couldn't find much to like about it at all. Where as in the original,you pulled for the heroes to pool their resources and defeat a superior foe and in Carpenter's version,you could theorize all day who was a Thing until your skull hurt, i never found the plight of this films characters interesting and their random murders/disappearances went by without a second thought. Too bad..i still think they should have made a sequel in a completely different locale and given us someThing we haven't seen twice already.
Carl Eyesnheart		#77	[-]
Mar 26 12 1:18 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Spoiler II wrote: Finally caught up with this via Netflix and it's a waaaayyy distant third behind the other two films in the THING sweepstakes. Too much of everything kills it. Too much plotting through cliched dialogue. Too much of the Thing running around with its tendrils a whippin' in the frosty air over and over again. The alien seems to be some sort of mass murderer,making no real effort to conceal itself and duplicate the staff and opting to kill off various uninteresting cast members left and right (and usually with a pointy crustacean like appendage through the torso). I don't know if it's because my TV is too decent for it's own good but the CGI looked abominable. I cringed whenever a transformation scene happened because the jarring effects work killed off any good will the story was trying to build up. I tried but simply couldn't find much to like about it at all. Where as in the original,you pulled for the heroes to pool their resources and defeat a superior foe and in Carpenter's version,you could theorize all day who was a Thing until your skull hurt, i never found the plight of this films characters interesting and their random murders/disappearances went by without a second thought. Too bad..i still think they should have made a sequel in a completely different locale and given us someThing we haven't seen twice already. I agree with that completely. My fanzine all about Rock N Roll: www.sonicruin.com
Badfinger		#78	[-]
Mar 27 12 8:09 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Carl Eyesnheart wrote: Spoiler II wrote: Finally caught up with this via Netflix and it's a waaaayyy distant third behind the other two films in the THING sweepstakes. Too much of everything kills it. Too much plotting through cliched dialogue. Too much of the Thing running around with its tendrils a whippin' in the frosty air over and over again. The alien seems to be some sort of mass murderer,making no real effort to conceal itself and duplicate the staff and opting to kill off various uninteresting cast members left and right (and usually with a pointy crustacean like appendage through the torso). I don't know if it's because my TV is too decent for it's own good but the CGI looked abominable. I cringed whenever a transformation scene happened because the jarring effects work killed off any good will the story was trying to build up. I tried but simply couldn't find much to like about it at all. Where as in the original,you pulled for the heroes to pool their resources and defeat a superior foe and in Carpenter's version,you could theorize all day who was a Thing until your skull hurt, i never found the plight of this films characters interesting and their random murders/disappearances went by without a second thought. Too bad..i still think they should have made a sequel in a completely different locale and given us someThing we haven't seen twice already. I agree with that completely. This was one of the many issues I had with it as well (an issue it coincidentally shared with the FRIGHT NIGHT remake).
Bob Meyer		#79	[-]
Mar 29 12 7:54 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Spoiler II wrote: Too bad..i still think they should have made a sequel in a completely different locale and given us someThing we haven't seen twice already. They still can, I guess. Did the "prequel" make enough money to warrant another one? Why not bring back MacReady and Childs? Kurt Russell and Keith David are still working. All you need is a smart script that keeps the audience wondering if either, both, or neither of them is The Thing...or maybe the team that found them after 30 years have become "infiltrated"? Why have they been in hiding for all that time and how did they survive? And why does every sentence I write end in a question mark? I have to admit that actually explaining what happened at the end of Carpenter's original would ruin one of the great "Wow!" endings of all time.
hermanthegerm		#80	[-]
Apr 10 12 11:58 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Finally caught up with this. The characters seem dumber: they are unbelieving/surprised/caught unawares at developments even after finding a spaceship with a living 10,000 y.o. alien in it! The main thing about the very original is how smart/efficient they all were! The whole misguided scientist should have been taken out. What a tired cliche it is by now! Much unnecessary exposition. Some lame, unnecessary humor. The second half gets better, as the first half is suprisingly unsuspenseful even if it features quite a few open attacks (maybe even because of them. Once it's in the open the Thing should be easy to kill, no matter what.) It seems Japanese anime (even Yellow Submarine?) has influenced this remake, as much as it was influenced by Carpenter and Scott. The points of contact are nifty, but you really have to give credit to Carpenter for having them set up in the first place to begin with. It does suffer with comparison with Carpenter's Thing, as it's too much of 'been there, done that': A double feature would probably be quite tiring. "There is a lot of money tied up in this film and people expect to hear a boom when something blows up, so I'll give them a boom." George Lucas as quoted by Harlan Ellison's WATCHING Last Edited By: hermanthegerm Apr 10 12 12:14 PM. Edited 1 times.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

THE THING (2011)