The thing 2011

[piet11111]

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2985204761/ <- trailer

I loved the original and i hope this movie will be able to live up to my impossible standards as a fan from the original movie that i consider the best horror movie of all time.

Anyone else excited about this movie ?

[Magón]

I like that it has the guy from Animal Kingdom, he was good in that movie. I also like it has the chick from Death Proof who was the cheerleader. Not sure on how well she'll do in the movie, but if she takes some pointers from the guy from Animal Kingdom, she should do alright in it.

[Pirate Utopian]

A remake of a remake? I know it's something everyone says but I'm so sick of remakes. Every now and then there is an okay one but most of the time it's just shit.
They're even gonna remake Footloose.

[Per Levy]

A remake of a remake? I know it's something everyone says but I'm so sick of remakes. Every now and then there is an okay one but most of the time it's just shit.
They're even gonna remake Footloose.

well its not really a remake, more like a prequel. well the people who are doing the thing 2011 said that there is no reason to remake the original because its perfect. so they make the prequel wich will focus on the norwegian antartic station, where the thing was first discovered.

[piet11111]

A remake of a remake? I know it's something everyone says but I'm so sick of remakes. Every now and then there is an okay one but most of the time it's just shit.
They're even gonna remake Footloose.

You seriously consider the thing from 1982 a remake ?

The original had space F-ing vampire broccoli !

[Pirate Utopian]

Hmmm... I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.

The 1982 version was remake. Just not a shot-for-shot one, it followed the basic outline of the orignal story.

[piet11111]

Hmmm... I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.

The 1982 version was remake. Just not a shot-for-shot one, it followed the basic outline of the orignal story.

Look i have read the short story and seen the 50's movie the 1982 movie was much closer to the short story then the 50's movie that is best left forgotten.

The difference to the two movies was so great that in my opinion the 1982 movie was not a remake but only shares the source story as inspiration and the location.

[Pirate Utopian]

I liked the 50s movie. The Carpenter version is way better though.

[Invader Zim]

Look i have read the short story and seen the 50's movie the 1982 movie was much closer to the short story then the 50's movie that is best left forgotten.

The difference to the two movies was so great that in my opinion the 1982 movie was not a remake but only shares the source story as inspiration and the location.


Not according to the library of congress who deemed it culturally relevent enough to select it for preservation.

PS. Love the Carpenter version, Kurt Russell flame throwing a mandible monster. Gold.

[coda]

oh no!.. i didn't hear they made a remake. I love the original---as far as i know the Carpenter film was the original -- and don't have much hope in a remake. Remakes, unless the original was really bad-- just seem so redundant and well,..... unoriginal. (for the millions of dollars spent on films.. they should be coming out with some new shit!!!) I know.. I know.. they didn't have the current technology and special effects back then.. but, only on rare occasions does it work beyond the original concept.
examples: king kong(s), House of wax, Diabolique, DOA, Psycho, Cape Fear----the list goes on....

[Euronymous]

oh no!.. i didn't hear they made a remake. I love the original---as far as i know the Carpenter film was the original -- and don't have much hope in a remake. Remakes, unless the original was really bad-- just seem so redundant and well,..... unoriginal. (for the millions of dollars spent on films.. they should be coming out with some new shit!!!) I know.. I know.. they didn't have the current technology and special effects back then.. but, only on rare occasions does it work beyond the original concept.
examples: king kong(s), House of wax, Diabolique, DOA, Psycho, Cape Fear----the list goes on....

It's a prequel. The sequel was made into a video game, which is quite good as well.

[coda]

Thanks for letting me know it's a preequal -- that changes everything then!! :0

and just to clarify:

<< examples: king kong(s), House of wax, Diabolique, DOA, Psycho, Cape Fear----the list goes on.... >>

all those remakes sucked!

ps.. if its a prequel.. then it's only appropriate that Kurt Russell be given a part in it!

[00000000000]

Prequel is more forgivable and likely to succeed than a remake (apart from Star Wars Eps 1 - 3 of course).
Still don't see why we can't have more original ideas and movies instead of constant re-hashes, re-launching franchises, remakes, sequels, prequels etc.

I mean....they're going to remake Short Circuit!!! Blasphemy!!

[piet11111]

The videogame was reasonable but it did not live up to the movie.
The testing of those with you was completely useless too it was better not too test them and get some use out of them instead of having them monster out on you.
Besides in my first play through i had tested them and they turned out clean only to go into the next room and having one of them monster out on me as a scripted event.

Also it was too much a shooter instead of the psychological fear of not knowing if those with you are the thing.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Still don't see why we can't have more original ideas and movies instead of constant re-hashes, re-launching franchises, remakes, sequels, prequels etc.

Yeah I think they are hoping to make a franchise out of this - hence the "origin story"/prequel aspect.

Why does Hollywood do this? Well Hollywood has always been wary of original material. In the "Golden Age" of Hollywood virtually everything was based on something else, a play, novel, or radio program ... even if the resulting film had little to no connection to the source material.

Why is Hollywood like this? A: Capitalism:lol:

Seriously, how do you sell something to investors if there is no way to show its potential to bring in a return? Saying, "well market research shows that 70% of moviegoers like thrillers" doesn't really do much, but if you say, "The Thing" still sells this much in merchandize every year, still does well in rentals, etc, then you have a more attractive argument as to why people should put millions of dollars into a product that can't be market-tested on it's own until it's 70% completed (advance screenings etc).

They even know that squeals tend to drop off, but the success of the first movie in a franchise can generally be seen as a guarantee that the next one will at least do 60% (I pulled that number out of my ass, but I'm sure they have some figure generally for sequels) on the first weekend as the original. I think even Hollywood realizes that people are sick of unoriginal movies and all the franchises but an untested premise and characters is just much more of a gamble - it might pay off bigger, but chances are, a mediocre original movie will do worse financially than a mediocre addition to a franchise.

With something like Harry Potter, for example, the studio can estimate about how much they expect to make off their big summer movies and plan their production based on that projection. Companies with more basic and tangable commodities can guess at sales because they offer a product with a demand not based on more or less intangible things. No one says, I don't know if I can trust the Twinkies this month and so stores can guess how many they will probably sell, and make their orders.

On top of that merchandizing and other ancillary profits for franchises is much more lucrative. So even if Alien V Predator was hated, it still probably increased revenues from comic book and video game and T-shirt sales and all sorts of other things that the studios slapped a HR Geiger monster onto.

[Invader Zim]

Still don't see why we can't have more original ideas and movies instead of constant re-hashes, re-launching franchises, remakes, sequels, prequels etc.

Come on, it isn't like there aren't hundreds of new films, which aren't re-hashes of old material, that come out every year.

[Rss]

If they ever re-remake Little Shop of Horrors with shitty CGI effects, I'm so gonna rage. Little Shop of Horrors 1986 remake is one of my favorite films.

[Luc]

Reminds me of AVP. Looks good though, too bad I don't watch movies:lol:

[00000000000]

If they ever re-remake Little Shop of Horrors with shitty CGI effects, I'm so gonna rage. Little Shop of Horrors 1986 remake is one of my favorite films.

I concur...'Feed me Seeeeymooooore'. Brilliant film

[00000000000]

Come on, it isn't like there aren't hundreds of new films, which aren't re-hashes of old material, that come out every year.

Sure, not disputing that at all, just you have to really look to find them...I suppose, paradoxically, I wish the mainstream cinema was less...mainstream. Edgy, interesting movies more widely available in your local cine, replacing Twilight (please god don't let that start a twilight debate)

[coda]

I read the prequal will follow the Norwegian crew that discovered The Thing before the dog arrived on base. As long as they don't deconstruct the monster as they usually do with prequels, then I don't have a problem with it.

check this out for all anal/obsessive fans (like me!)
http://outpost31.com/media/All_About_The_Thing.pdf

[x359594]

The 1951 version The Thing From Another World that was credited to Christian Nyby but actually directed by Howard Hawks is the subject of an excellent re-evaluation in the current issue of CineAction by Tony Williams, an insightful Marxist critic.

As is well known, Hawks exercised a big influence on John Carpenter, particularly in his use of off screen space.

The short story Who Goes There? is by John Campbell, a pretty good writer and a better editor but also a right wing crack pot. Carpenter's movie retains the shape shifting creature of the Campbell short story, so in that respect it's closer to Campbell's intention than the Hawks movie, which was made at a time when special effects technology wasn't up to the task.

[o well this is ok I guess]

If they ever re-remake Little Shop of Horrors with shitty CGI effects, I'm so gonna rage. Little Shop of Horrors 1986 remake is one of my favorite films. Come now, we've known Hollywood long enough to know that nothing is sacred.
Don't speculate, expect.