Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General' started by SEANVALEN, Sep 15, 2008.
Are you saying "Sleeping Man with Mustache on Plane" isn't a Norwegian name??
As much as I want to see another sausage fest like Carpenter's, Hawks' original did have female characters and they fit in quite well, so there's hope. I think the idea of the prequel with the Norwegians is solid, but it looks like whoever is making it is only going to half-ass the continuity and just try and give us a rehash for teeny audiences.
Have to respectfully disagree on that. I felt the female characters in the original film served as little more than helpless scream machines waiting to be instructed and rescued by their male counterparts. I'm quick to dismiss criticism of films for having female characters that aren't "strong", as I hardly consider that a necessity for a good film. And I consider the merits of a film in the context of the era it was made, rather than immediately judge them by today's standards. But frankly you could have eliminated every female character from the original "Thing", and not made a dent in the film's quality - quite possibly it might have made it a tighter, better paced film. Could probably have eliminated a couple of the male characters - each time I've watched this film I keep expecting the actors to vanish as they turned sideways, their characters were that two dimensional.
As for the "original" story, the short story had no female characters - and Carpenter was getting back to those roots far more than he was the original film.
I'm judging on what little I've read, and the character shots, and I'm reaching the same conclusion. Just my flawed opinion, guilty of prejudice based on very little info. But I've been burnt putting my hand on that stove often enough to recognize what it looks like, and to stop putting my damn hand on it (I just let *other* people put their hand on it first!). This just smacks beginning to end of another "made for modern audiences" remake cash in. The Carpenter film set such a high bar that I neither expect nor require a follow-up to be that good in order to still be worth seeing. But I see a strong potential for pure unwatchable crap.
"How much CG is the production planning on using to create the alien? The scariest part Carpenter's work were the very real spider heads and flaying alien tentacles.
Alec Gillis (A.D.I. - Creature F/X, Creature and make-up effect co-designer): The interesting thing about this movie is that not only is there going to be real practical stuff that is completely animatronic and needs no digital embellishment, but there is also going to be a combination of the techniques. And the most interesting aspects of that, I think, are when you in a single frame and the two techniques working side-by-side....So it should be fun and chaotic, but still somehow rooted in reality. And I don't mean to trash digital…I have my opinions about how it should be used and how it should not be used, but we have the guys that did District 9. So even I, as a snobby animatronics and makeup guy, I look at that work and I go, "that is frickin' amazing work." So I think we're in very good hands on the digital end as well."
Sounds good to me
The combination of Animatronics and CGI from the District 9 team (the most photoreal CGI creatures I´ve EVER seen) should REALLY do the trick
I also like that a huge amount of the dialog will be in Norwegian, and not having them speak english with each other. And the biggest plus, they use REAL norwegians.
So I went to watch "The Change Up" last night and they showed a pretty long trailer for this complete with John Carpenter's original score. It's slated for release in October. The movie looks decent, but it needs to keep the Thing in the shadows and keep the 82 versions ambiguity to be any good.
I'm holding judgement until I see it but I'm hoping for the best cause The Thing is still my mother's favorite horror movie.
It's one of my favorite flicks period. It's like freaking perfect.
Here you go:
The official Red Band Trailer for The Thing
Yeah honey, you work that flamethrower.
What is it a chick flick?
The ONLY reason I will see this is because it ends exactly where 1982 film starts. So for the cool factor I want to see that. The helicopter chasing the dog running. Don't remember any woman in that scene, so here's wishing!
Here's the long version that debuted 2 months ago. How the hell did I miss this?
And for fun & comparison the 1982 version:
Even though I've liked Mary Elizabeth Winstead since she was on Wolf Lake she's never going to fill Kurt Russell's shoes. The long version of the trailer actually makes the movie look better but I think that's only due to the lack of CGI shown. No CGI in hell is ever going to replace Rob Bottin's effects. I will rent this someday but I already know it will suck.
The short, more recent, trailer really shows a ton a CGI, whereas the longer, older, trailer doesn't really elude to that. Nonetheless, it will be watched!
Ha! We both said basically the exact same thing CopyBoy!
I'm going to keep my expectations low but I am definitely interested in this.
Well, all the current trailer cliches are there. Could get good biz. It's crazy how STILL this is being marketed as THE THING...without letting audiences know that it leads up to...THE THING.
Oh my. I'm suddenly much less enthusiastic.
Keeping an open mind, but can't say I'm terribly excited. Lots and lots of CGI I'm seeing in that trailer, and after they boasted practical effects so much. Looks just like the events of the first one too. This IS a prequel right? Looks like remake..
Actually there is a couple of practical shots as well in the trailer (especially close ups) and not only CGI. Look again
And what´s the damn panic about CGI all the time?
It´s not exactly SyFy channel quality
Would Stop-Motion look more real?
Her beard is lacking.
I'm still hopeful for this, it looks good to me so I'm crossing my fingers.
Because within a year or two, it will look cheap and outdated. The tentacle through the chest in that trailer already looks questionable. While most practical effects look good for decades.
True but everybody should have known that CGI was gonna be a big part of this film.
Ha! It looks that way now.