Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Its a prequel, as covered in another thread.

BloodyDisgusting.com wrote:“It’s a really fascinating way to construct a story because we're doing it by autopsy, by examining very, very closely everything we know about the Norwegian camp and about the events that happened there from photos and video footage that’s recovered, from a visit to the base, the director, producer and I have gone through it countless times marking, you know, there’s a fire axe in the door, we have to account for that…we're having to reverse engineer it, so those details all matter to us ‘cause it all has to make sense.”
— Eric Heisserer describing the process of creating a script that is consistent with the first film

When I saw the trailer I was hoping it would be a "At the Mountains of Madness" film...then I realized what it was and I wept.

There are three or so movies based off of a short story, there are bound to be similarities. But the director appears to be Norwegian and we all know that Norwegians make the best movies.

I hope that the entire movie is in Norwegian, and subtitled. Though I know that's not the case.

This is a prequel that truly did not need to happen, and which cannot possibly improve the mythos.

lord commissar klimino wrote:im a fan of the old one cause it wasn't CGI and had real special effect models. now everythings CGI and i dont like it as much.

this is obviously CGI, which will take away a huge part of why i liked the movie,so i doubt ill like it.

You and me both buddy. I say bring out the animatronics and the puppets, I want to actually SEE what the monsters are, not see how talented a computer tech is


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:I hope that the entire movie is in Norwegian, and subtitled. Though I know that's not the case.

This is a prequel that truly did not need to happen, and which cannot possibly improve the mythos.

Well, they wanted to make a movie, and realized people HATE all the remakes of good movies *coughclashofthetitanscough* So they thought "Hey..... how can we make a movie that isnt really a remake of a good movie.......*rubs chin* this script popped out of that brain storm session

KingCracker wrote:

lord commissar klimino wrote:im a fan of the old one cause it wasn't CGI and had real special effect models. now everythings CGI and i dont like it as much.

this is obviously CGI, which will take away a huge part of why i liked the movie,so i doubt ill like it.

You and me both buddy. I say bring out the animatronics and the puppets, I want to actually SEE what the monsters are, not see how talented a computer tech is

i just hate it. also lots of movie nowadays seem to always have eye candy, action,and comedy 1st, story 2nd i loved how the old movies story flowed. it dint have any huge action sequences. heck,the ones it had were short and ended quickly,and in flames

The last movie whose story I really liked was "The Town" but before that one.....god I dunno...its beena few years I can tell ya that

Eye candy is annoying. Now if theres a scene where the main character is in a club or something then yes eye candy makes sense. Having an eye candy receptionist in a dentist office or smoking hot mail lady just doesnt make sense. Ive never seen either of those in real life being hot, the best was an "Now Id F her" but Im a man, I say that about most things with tits

I'll accept it, I was always one of those guys who wondered why something was the way it was in a horror movie. They say that the Norwegians got messed up, but how they got messed up wasn't known. Besides, the 82 version of the thing had plenty of special effects for that time period, a lot like Star Wars.

Howard A Treesong wrote:I'll give it a shot. Is it an 18 rating? There are too many films now cutting down on the gore to get the kids in. Where are all the 15 films? There are hardly any, they are all 12A, for the kids.

The film is supposed to account for everything we see of the Norwegian base in the first film. And we know how it ends, I suppose. But it makes it hard to wonder how they will have and twists or surprises in it.



Did anyone ever play "the Thing" scenario for Necromunda?

I did once, it was ridiculous and killed someone's entire gang, in the end we decided to pretend the game never happened.

That's a good point actually, too many film makers this day are restricted by studio harking the sound of 'ker-ching' of teenage pocket money, and force a compromise in the vision of the film. Case in point, the original Aliens Vs. Predator - yes, the movie would still have been gak no doubt, but the camera pulling away from chestbursters etc. I think marked a low point in the movie.

As others have mentioned, again this film will be a CGI fest no doubt - and I'm sorry, call me old fashioned, but I think it just can't compete for small scale stuff like puppetry and actual model making can (compare Aliens 3 and 4 to the first 2 for example, and even Star Wars for that matter). The effects in the John Carpenter movie somehow pull it off.

In any case, I think nothing in this film will be able to match 'that scene' (the one where he is testing the blood) - which I think is the most intense and uncomfortable sequence in any movie ever made.

Haha yes I remember 'The Thing' scenario, the creature was massively powerful, really the controlling player had to use a bit of self restraint and play 'in character' (i.e. do the odd illogical move) for the players to stand a chance. Otherwise, well, yes it would kill an entire gang

Personally, I think the most intense scene in a movie, is in U-571, when they are trying to go under the ships that are depth charging them and try to fake their own explosion. But I will agree, the blood test scene was incredibly tense. You just had no idea who the hell it was

KingCracker wrote:Personally, I think the most intense scene in a movie, is in U-571, when they are trying to go under the ships that are depth charging them and try to fake their own explosion. But I will agree, the blood test scene was incredibly tense. You just had no idea who the hell it was

Actually I took my mom to see the 80s version. We laughed quite a bit at the "special effects." We though they were trying to be gross for grossness sake and it took a lot out of the way of the more tense moments.

The blood test scene wasn't intense. You know what was going to happen. It would have been better had nothying happened or if something interrupted it halfway through.

Of course you knew what would happen, that argument can be used on ANY movie. The part in U-571, you KNOW they were going to make it, because it was only half done, doesnt ruin the fact that it was intense. Same with that part in Old Country for Old Men, when the hick was in his hotel room, with the lights off, and you could see the shadows under the door......you KNEW he was going to get away, but it was still intense. So yea, that scene was intense.

The original Thing was a work of art in my mind. Created at a time when Sci-Fi didn't necessarily mean you were making a 'B' movie from the start.

Second only to 'Forbidden Planet' in my all-time favorites list.

Carpenter did nothing to make the original 'Thing' any better. In fact, he took a movie designed to invoke fear by leaving much to the imagination (as much as the small special effects budget) in the completely opposite direction. By making a disgusting special effect horror fest out of it.

Uhlan wrote:The original Thing was a work of art in my mind. Created at a time when Sci-Fi didn't necessarily mean you were making a 'B' movie from the start.

Second only to 'Forbidden Planet' in my all-time favorites list.

Carpenter did nothing to make the original 'Thing' any better. In fact, he took a movie designed to invoke fear by leaving much to the imagination (as much as the small special effects budget) in the completely opposite direction. By making a disgusting special effect horror fest out of it.

EXACTLY.
I fear this remake will follow the Carpenter pattern.

Frazzled wrote:

Uhlan wrote:The original Thing was a work of art in my mind. Created at a time when Sci-Fi didn't necessarily mean you were making a 'B' movie from the start.

Second only to 'Forbidden Planet' in my all-time favorites list.

Carpenter did nothing to make the original 'Thing' any better. In fact, he took a movie designed to invoke fear by leaving much to the imagination (as much as the small special effects budget) in the completely opposite direction. By making a disgusting special effect horror fest out of it.

EXACTLY.
I fear this remake will follow the Carpenter pattern.

Its based off of the script of the Carpenter movie. Besides, who here thinks the movie Aliens was fantastic, just a quick show of hands?

halonachos wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Uhlan wrote:The original Thing was a work of art in my mind. Created at a time when Sci-Fi didn't necessarily mean you were making a 'B' movie from the start.

Second only to 'Forbidden Planet' in my all-time favorites list.

Carpenter did nothing to make the original 'Thing' any better. In fact, he took a movie designed to invoke fear by leaving much to the imagination (as much as the small special effects budget) in the completely opposite direction. By making a disgusting special effect horror fest out of it.

EXACTLY.
I fear this remake will follow the Carpenter pattern.

Its based off of the script of the Carpenter movie. Besides, who here thinks the movie Aliens was fantastic, just a quick show of hands?

*raises hand*

i personally liked the story of carpenters. and the effects. i could care less bout the original black and white one.

Aye, Kurt Russel is awesome.

Frazzled wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Personally, I think the most intense scene in a movie, is in U-571, when they are trying to go under the ships that are depth charging them and try to fake their own explosion. But I will agree, the blood test scene was incredibly tense. You just had no idea who the hell it was

Actually I took my mom to see the 80s version. We laughed quite a bit at the "special effects." We though they were trying to be gross for grossness sake and it took a lot out of the way of the more tense moments.

The blood test scene wasn't intense. You know what was going to happen. It would have been better had nothying happened or if something interrupted it halfway through.

I still think it is one of Carpenter's finest moments. The music has stopped in the background, and the only noise is the slight hiss of the flamethrower. The shot pauses for about 5 seconds before he puts the needle into the blood. Nothing happens. In comparison McReady does the next test without the lingering camera shot and with the preamble of them talking to each other when the blood jumps out of the plate I think many people jumped out of their seat too

I agree though the effects are pretty cheesy, I think when the head falls onto the ground, grows legs and then walks off, and the stoner guy turns to see it and says "You've got to be fething kidding me" that again was reflecting the thoughts of the audience at that time

And, I think all sequences in submarine movies pale in comparison to Das Boot, damn that film was tense. I think perhaps one of the most emotive and painful movies I have ever seen, from beginning to end.

Frazzled wrote:

Melchiour wrote:The special effects that Rob Bottin did for the original Thing were just too awesome and too original. I have a hard time believing CGI will live up to his legacy.

Blasphemer. Thats not the original Thing. Desi Arnes was the original thing, and he was one badass killer carrot.

Double blasphemer, Desi Arnes was a Cuban drummer better known as Lucy's husband Ricky on the old I love Lucy show back in the 50's.
It was James Arness, Matt Dillon from gunsmoke, who played the thing.

Such a pointless film. We know what happens at the camp.

They try and freeze The Thing, it gets away disguised as one of the dogs. The remaining survivors chase it and die/get killed at the American camp.

Now if this was a sequel and involved hundreds if not thousands of 'Things' in a big city and starred Arnold, I would be down with this project.

Hell they could even call it 'Things', that's half the battle.

Vhot are theeeese things! YEARGH!

Do the blood test! DO IT NOW! Do it, I'm right here! C'MON!

It's not a TUMOUR! It's a alien mutagenic virus

Medium of Death wrote:
Such a pointless film. We know what happens at the camp.

They try and freeze The Thing, it gets away disguised as one of the dogs. The remaining survivors chase it and die/get killed at the American camp.

Now if this was a sequel and involved hundreds if not thousands of 'Things' in a big city and starred Arnold, I would be down with this project.

Hell they could even call it 'Things', that's half the battle.

How the hell would it leave Antarctica, besides if you watch the movie you can see that the Thing gets blown to hell by Kurt Russel.

Fish. Part of it could have gotten to the water, and turned into a fish. Cmon, they made a sequel to Planet of the Apes with less to go on then that

KingCracker wrote:Fish. Part of it could have gotten to the water, and turned into a fish. Cmon, they made a sequel to Planet of the Apes with less to go on then that

Yeah but the Thing doesn't like heat so swimming through tropical waters isn't really its thing.

Since when was the water around Antarctica warm?

It could, at no time, traverse the freezing conditions of where it had landed.

That was what held it prisoner, it was discovered frozen and was still trapped in the camp when it woke, trying to escape via human means of transport.

It's organic, subject to the same physical laws as us in subzero temperatures.

The Thing is one of the only films to ever give me nightmares (though I was about 8 when I watched it ).

Watched it since and it is awesome.

Just hope that this film stands up to the original.

Melchiour wrote:The special effects that Rob Bottin did for the original Thing were just too awesome and too original. I have a hard time believing CGI will live up to his legacy.

First, I have to say I love The Thing. I first saw it when I was 7-8, when my Grandfather put me up in a spare bedroom and put the movie on for me (using the VCR. Damn.)

Needless to say, I saw -ing scarred.

But now I love it. It's such a great movie on so many levels.

As to Melchiour's comment - I've heard tell that they're actually using the same techniques that they used in the original remake.

I quite enjoyed the 80s version. Part of it is definitely being shocked and amazed by the fx when I was a kid, but I still think JC's version has excellent suspense and horror. Some of that is the high quality of the original story, of course.

The trailer does not impress me, but the below-quoted passage makes me somewhat optimistic. It does sound like it's being made by fellow geeks. So it might be cool.

halonachos wrote:Its a prequel, as covered in another thread.

BloodyDisgusting.com wrote:“It’s a really fascinating way to construct a story because we're doing it by autopsy, by examining very, very closely everything we know about the Norwegian camp and about the events that happened there from photos and video footage that’s recovered, from a visit to the base, the director, producer and I have gone through it countless times marking, you know, there’s a fire axe in the door, we have to account for that…we're having to reverse engineer it, so those details all matter to us ‘cause it all has to make sense.”
— Eric Heisserer describing the process of creating a script that is consistent with the first film

halonachos wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:
Such a pointless film. We know what happens at the camp.

They try and freeze The Thing, it gets away disguised as one of the dogs. The remaining survivors chase it and die/get killed at the American camp.

Now if this was a sequel and involved hundreds if not thousands of 'Things' in a big city and starred Arnold, I would be down with this project.

Hell they could even call it 'Things', that's half the battle.

How the hell would it leave Antarctica, besides if you watch the movie you can see that the Thing gets blown to hell by Kurt Russel.

If you watch the movie, you would know that the 'Thing' replicates on a cellular level, and even the one that was torched still lived. They had to completely soak it in gasoline and burn it in a pit to destroy it.

Blowing it up only spread its biological material around the camp.

I'm willing to give this one some latitude. Prequels have a bad... horrific, track record but I'm willing to see how it goes. The only big issue is while I can understand the attraction of trying to craft a script around what we have already seen from the first movie I don't really feel like there's any burning need to actually see what exactly happened.