The Thing Prequel

Discussion in 'General' started by SEANVALEN, Sep 15, 2008.

  1. baggio

    baggio Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,696
    Likes Received:
    1,371
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So...... I can't form my opinion on any movie I choose to do so?

    Errrr...... Get over what? When did I say I was against this particular remake?



    And I saw the movie. In fact, the ONLY problem I had in the movie was the that ONE thing that I stated. I never said anything bad about the acting, CGI, cinematography, music, action, tension, etc...

    And by the way, didn't you say something about the music score?


    Nitpicking? or is it different when you do it?
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2011
  2. Ash28M

    Ash28M Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,063
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Mississauga, ON, Canada
    Well I didn't conclude due to my nitpicking that it was bad movie, you did. I think it's a good movie.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2011
  3. baggio

    baggio Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,696
    Likes Received:
    1,371
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I didn't say it was a bad movie. I said it was a bad MOVE in the new version. If the thing that I pointed out was changed it would have been a better, real good movie imo. That being said, I still think it's a good for a Thing double feature. You almost have to now to watch it now.






    Which brings me to this new question:

    What does everyone (that has seen the film), and likes it, think the order should be if one was watching a double feature? Yourself or if you were showing the 2 movies to someone that hasn't seen them yet.

    For someone that hasn't seen them yet, strangely I may lean on seeing Carpenter's film first. Somehow the impact of the ending in the "new" movie might play out better if you see it second. I know that sounds weird, but I can't put my finger on it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2011
  4. Ash28M

    Ash28M Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,063
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Mississauga, ON, Canada
    Your right sorry I miss-read your spoiler. For someone who hasn't seen it I think you have to go with the original first. Other wise I have no problem watching this one first.
     
  5. Darga

    Darga Narcissistic Personality

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    1,572
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    I don't believe I was nitpicking. If someone brings up a discussion point that I'm also interested in I'm going to throw in my two cents. I'm a biologist by profession, so it's pretty hard for me not to examine these types of details pretty closely just out of curiosity. I enjoyed the movie quite a bit myself. My only real complaint is that it didn't really add much to what was already covered in the original.

    And for someone who hadn't seen either I would most certainly recommend viewing Carpenter's film first. I would think that seeing the remake/prequel first would take something away from the experience.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2011
  6. spawningblue

    spawningblue Deadite

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    5,068
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
    I saw this on opening weekend and enjoyed it quite a bit. Just going to re-post my review that I wrote up in the October viewings thread. I gave it a 7 out of 10.

    The Thing (2011) - I think everyone should be able to enjoy this prequel as long as you can separate it from Carpenter's masterpiece. First lets get everything out of the way, the excellent score is gone, the characters aren't as interesting, Carpenter's supreme Direction is missing, the effects don't even compare, and most importantly the tension is for the most part no where to be found. That being said, it's still better then most of the tripe that hits theaters these days. Just know going in that this is a faster and more action packed movie. The alien doesn't stay hidden as a replicate for very long, it is constantly showing it's disgusting form throughout, even chasing people several times through the halls. It's a bit of a shame, but this is a different film, a Thing for modern audiences I guess. I'm sure fans of the 50s film felt the same way when they watched Carpenter's take. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is pretty good in this, even if she is no Kurt Russell. She has become the new genre woman, and it was nice to see her playing an intelligent and strong woman instead of the weak practically nude women found in most horror films these days as well. It sounds like I didn't like the film, so again I must say that I did enjoy it, it's just good to set expectations low compared to Carpenter's film or you will come away disappointed.
     
  7. elDomenechHDG

    elDomenechHDG Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,797
    Likes Received:
    193
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    NYC
    So does anyone know if this was a flop at the box office? I liked the film enough to look forward to the eventual Blu-ray release - hopefully there will be some sort of longer cut along with the theatrical version. It would be a shame if the film completely failed. It wasn't all that bad IMO.
     
  8. Shawn Francis

    Shawn Francis New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    Messages:
    714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    Yes, it was.
     
  9. russweiss

    russweiss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,109
    Likes Received:
    1,834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    According to IMDB the film cost 35 million to make and will take in less than 20 million U.S. boxoffice.
     
  10. elDomenechHDG

    elDomenechHDG Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,797
    Likes Received:
    193
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    NYC
    I wouldn't call it a catastrophic failure but, still, it lost 15 mil. Maybe it'll make up the rest in DVD/BD sales.
     
  11. fceurich39

    fceurich39 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,428
    Likes Received:
    823
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Ira's Toys store
    when is the blu-ray coming out and 2 versions of the film would be awesome universal has done that alot in the past
     
  12. MorallySound

    MorallySound Mad Mutilator

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    7,978
    Likes Received:
    1,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Canada
  13. hots4

    hots4 Dogs In White

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,062
    Likes Received:
    1,293
    Trophy Points:
    113
    WOW some of that stuff is amazing, so why oh why after spending the time to make practical effects do they mostly use CGI in the finished movie, it makes no sense.
     
  14. MorallySound

    MorallySound Mad Mutilator

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    7,978
    Likes Received:
    1,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Canada
    Pretty much all of those practical effects were in the movie. They were just touched up/blended in in most cases, but yes, they still relied too heavily on CGI for the rest of the effects in the film.
     
  15. hots4

    hots4 Dogs In White

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,062
    Likes Received:
    1,293
    Trophy Points:
    113
    they were a little bit more than touched up/blended, completely covered in quite a few of the scenes.
     
  16. MacReady

    MacReady New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Hey, Sweden!
    I wanted to see it at one of the local theaters, but it was gone after the first weekend.
     
  17. shift

    shift Hot as shit!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,463
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    - TeXaS -
    If they made movies like they did in the early eighties it would not have such a high price in budget. CGI or not, they could easily used the same technology / special effects as they did making the original "The Thing".
    ~ But we all know everything is mostly done with computers because too much makeup / craft with hands are a thing of the past. Such lazy ass hats they drive computer technology to make things work, when really it is not needed. Directors just go to far depending on CGI / special effects. Sad thing is, movie still can be ass when they do go to far. :(
     
  18. Zombie Dude

    Zombie Dude Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    Messages:
    7,052
    Likes Received:
    1,943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    I'm hoping we get a additional version when the film is released with more of the practical work put in. After watching that practical effects video posted above, I can't believe they opted to go with digital. That stuff was simply amazing.

    It's stuff like this that makes me hate studio influence. They were right on track till Universal stuck their noses in it.
     
  19. Zombie Dude

    Zombie Dude Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    Messages:
    7,052
    Likes Received:
    1,943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
  20. Mikey Horror

    Mikey Horror Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,382
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Just got through watching this and while I did enjoy it, it breaks my heart to think how much better it could have been had they went with the practical effects because a lot of the CGI was pretty weak. I just don't understand movie studios sometimes. I can see going the CGI route from day one, but to pay to have the practical effects created and THEN decide to use CGI is just ridiculous. If they already paid for the practical effects, why the hell not use them?! Hollywood just needs to realize that CGI is just not as convincing as they seem to think it is.
     

Share This Page