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.

Just saw it after being on the fence if I should even bother. It's about what you would expect, but not completely.

So was it a good thing or bad thing for you?

In the grand scheme of things, you have to basically consider this an extension of the Carpenter remake.

Not too terribly thrilled on some of the action shots and the CGI, but it was a nice homage to the movie it ties in with.

WarOne wrote:
Not too terribly thrilled on some of the action shots and the CGI, but it was a nice homage to the movie it ties in with.

This is what I expected - I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm definately going to see it.

I first saw Carpenter's remake of 'The Thing' when I was 7-8. My grandfather promised to show me a scary movie when I was sleeping over for a weekend. He pops in the tape, and promptly fell asleep.

What I saw next scarred me for life. And, nowadays, 'The Thing' is now one of my favorites movies. I place it somewhere in between Jurassic Park (favorite movie) and Independence Day (pretty damn awesome).

Not even the girl from Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is a strong enough incentive to make me go to this movie.

halonachos wrote:So was it a good thing or bad thing for you?

It was better than another generic slasher movie but not as good as the Alien franchise. I give it 7 out of 10.

infinite_array wrote:I place it somewhere in between Jurassic Park (favorite movie) and Independence Day (pretty damn awesome).

You sir have an exquisite taste in movies.

Im looking forward to seeing this. The thing creeped me out good and proper the first time i saw it and im hoping this will too.

Well personally I loved this movie. It had everything in it that I want. The makers seemed to be a bit anal in connecting this movie to the 1982 movie. (The fireaxe, the dog at the end, etc.)

However the events in the movie seemed to rush by. It felt like a really fast version of the first one. I liked the 1982 version a lot more because you got to know some of the characters a bit more. Most of the Swedes seemed a bit generic IMO. If you are a fan of the other two, please go see the new one. If you still refuse to see it for some odd reason then go watch Footloose or Dolphin Tale and tell us about how you like those movies so much!

Lord Scythican wrote:
However the events in the movie seemed to rush by. It felt like a really fast version of the first one. I liked the 1982 version a lot more because you got to know some of the characters a bit more. Most of the Swedes seemed a bit generic IMO.

This happens alot in horror cinema today. Characters are there to die, and the movie gets along with it quite quickly because well...they make no illusions about what the characters are there to do and therefore do it as quickly as possible.

Which is kill them if I didn't make that quite clear.

WarOne wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:
However the events in the movie seemed to rush by. It felt like a really fast version of the first one. I liked the 1982 version a lot more because you got to know some of the characters a bit more. Most of the Swedes seemed a bit generic IMO.

This happens alot in horror cinema today. Characters are there to die, and the movie gets along with it quite quickly because well...they make no illusions about what the characters are there to do and therefore do it as quickly as possible.

Which is kill them if I didn't make that quite clear.

That was one of the great aspects (perhaps the key-stone) of the original though, that other than Kurt Russell (and even he wasn't that big when the movie was made) you didn't really know who would cop it next or who would turn out to be the thing.

The bit where all of them are tied to their chairs and McReady is testing their blood with the hot wire is probably one of the most tense and uncomfortable pieces of viewing in the history of cinema.

Thanks for the comments guys, as long as it isn't a complete stinker (and therefore so bad that it can actually damage memory of the previous movie - Terminator 3 for instance) I will go and see it.

Pacific wrote:

That was one of the great aspects (perhaps the key-stone) of the original though, that other than Kurt Russell (and even he wasn't that big when the movie was made) you didn't really know who would cop it next or who would turn out to be the thing.

But that is the Thing in a nutshell. The tense and drama filled moments was what made the 1982 Thing great. This time around, the tension and drama make way for the visual effects and the office pool for who gets to die next.

Lord Scythican wrote:Most of the Swedes seemed a bit generic IMO.

They're Norwegians, a small difference you know. If they were Swedes then it would totally contradict the John Carpenter version.

One of the things (Haaaaaaa, pun) I'm worried about in the movie is that apparently The Thing is a bit more aggressive than it was in the Carpenter film.

Which, I suppose, could be explained by thinking, 'Ok, so it's aggressive towards the Norwegians, then it tries to change its gameplan when it gets to the American base after realizing that the whole 'jump out and scare 'em' doesn't really work'.

I was very disappointed.

I don't feel there is anything more to say.

halonachos wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:Most of the Swedes seemed a bit generic IMO.

They're Norwegians, a small difference you know. If they were Swedes then it would totally contradict the John Carpenter version.

You totally missed my joke!

I was playing off the bit where Macready kept calling them swedes.

“Hey! Sweden!” – “They're Norwegian, Mac.”

After seeing it a second time, I've had a revelation. It seemed that this one was considerably less disgusting than the John Carpenter film, and now I know why. In the first one, all of the effects were real physical things that the actors really interacted with. In this one, it's all CGI, which never seems as real as genuine physical effects.

warpcrafter wrote:After seeing it a second time, I've had a revelation. It seemed that this one was considerably less disgusting than the John Carpenter film, and now I know why. In the first one, all of the effects were real physical things that the actors really interacted with. In this one, it's all CGI, which never seems as real as genuine physical effects.

Spoiler:

I wish there would have been more to do with the ship at the end, I was curious to know more about the thing's technology, more about it besides the fact that it's a slimy monster.

I totally agree. It is sort of like those CGI cartoons compared to something like Wallace & Grommit. The use of a real environment makes it a lot better.

Perfect example of CGI sucks for actors to be able to act, is watch Episode 1-3 of starwars. Any fight where its a Jedi with some random CGI thing (specially when Obi Wan fights Grevious, dear lord that was bad) they just have horrible reactions, because they are fighting the air, they are chasing the air, they are talking....TO THE AIR!

I thought it was a 5, totally average. Better CGI still can't create suspense or foreboding. They should have shown the creature less and built up the drama a little more slowly.