Prequel to 'The Thing' - Part 1

[chamber-music]

For me CGI monsters aren't scary because CGI is intangible. Despite technological advances CGI still often lacks texture especially bad CGI which looks like graphics from 90s Playstation games which put in a real world setting look even worst.

Practical stuff like the Pale Man in Pan's Labyrinth still looks good to me.

 

[HopeOfTheFuture]

Damn it. I wanted to see this movie in theatres, wanted to go this week. Seems it only hit theatres for 2 (perhaps 3 but no more) weeks here. DAMN IT DAMN IT DAMN IT :-(

 

[Eggyman]

I watched this the other night. Not anywhere near as bad as I thought it'd be. Compared to some stuff that's released, it's actually pretty good. Let's face it, it's never going to be as good as Carpenter's. No amount of talent and artistic f***ery would be able to compete with almost 30 years of praise and all the nostalgic bullsh** that comes with it. I'm admitting this. Everything is subjective and tinted by the past no matter how hard we try to be unbiased on the current product.

The CGI... It's always going to be a heated topic. Practical is better. I agree. But not comparing the two very different approaches is key. By CGI standards, the effects aren't bad at all. Quite good, in fact. You can normaly tell when something's CGI. People raved about Arnold's likeness in Terminator Salvation, but to me it didn't work. Maybe because I'd heard the praise and wasn't that impressed.

The acting was okay--nothing spectacular but there isn't much I could fault.

The film's main drawback, and this was preordained, is that we know what happens. We know what the last scene is going to be, what it has to be. Yes, they managed to mix it up a little bit. All the way through I'm thinking, 'Who are the guys in the hellicopter going to be? Who's going to chase the dog?' That was it. For me, that isn't enough. That's all it is: A two-hour film to see who gets in the helicopter. The story was born with a disability. It never had a chance to have a normal life. It won't be able to limp through the next 30 years and stay with people like Carpenter's. But we can't expect that from it. I wouldn't have expected it from the original. Nothing can make it that far with the weight of so much expectation on its shoulders.

It's a good film for what it is. I was never expecting a game changer, and being a prequel to a film released 29 years ago, how could it be? Take it for what it is, and it ain't bad. Rather this than Saw X or some such sh**.

7/10

 

[The Morningstar]

I agree Eggyman. I haven't seen it yet, but from the very start I was kinda like "This movie is kinda redundant". We already know what happens, and it's gonna just be like the first film but with replacement characters.

I'll give it a chance though when it's on DVD/Blu-Ray.

 

[CelticPredator]

Well yeah. But still. I'll take redundent, same old same old, then something new and worse.

Nightmare on Elm Street Remake.

 

[DorkyFresh]

As a fan of the original movie I thought it was pretty good. There was some moments of the movie that got my heart pounding and it was cool to be able to see these things move in full motion. I get the feeling that the filmmakers had their hearts in the right place and had the utmost respect for the original film.

That being said, the execution wasn't nearly as well as it could have been. There was almost next to no suspense and it seems like the filmmakers didn't really take the time to figure out how these things work. Not only that but none of the characters had any charisma and the play on the paranoia aspect of the original was very minimal, which was a big missed opportunity considering the language barrier in this film. The ending was also pretty anti-climactic. I understand they had to explain how the ship wasn't covered in snow anymore, but they could've done better.

This film isn't bad, but it certainly shows both the evolution and devolution of film in the last few decades. It shows the evolution of visuals and sound very nicely but it also illustrates an important aspect of film making that has diminished in our generation of A.D.D. ridden films.....and that is pacing. If you watch the original, it took its time to set up everything. It showed why you should care for each of the characters even if you might not like them. It was very patient, so that the parts that got your adrenaline rushing was more intense and heightened than if you get action, scare, action, scare...one right after another. Unfortunately this film, along with many others that are being made today, does none of that and favors to get all the "boring" stuff out of the way in order to get to the overload of juicy stuff.


As a fan of the original movie, I quite enjoyed seeing more monsters (even if most of them are just variants of the sideways mouthed, ribbed tooth Thing from the original) and in full mobility, but as a fan of movies in general it saddens me to see that movies now-a-days value the scenes with thrills more than the overall experience.

 

[enterthemadness]

The ending is stupid and makes NO sense with the 82 movie...seriously...we SAW in 82 movie they used thermite explosions to uncover ship. And let's say I'm wrong on that part, the two snow vehicles were not there in 82.

FAIL.

But still entertaining movie.

 

[Spider-Man Luvr28]

Slashfilm posted this:

When The Thing was released earlier this year, there were some viewers who weren’t thrilled with the degree to which CGI was used to bring the movie’s alien creature to life. John Carpenter’s 1982 movie of the same name, for which this year’s film is a prequel, is a landmark in the use of practical effects. Early in the development of the ’11 movie, we’d heard that it would feature a good mix of practical and CGI effects work. The final release edit countered that assertion; at the very least, it seemed to have a lot of CGI painted over the practical effects.

Now a video posted by Amalgamated Dynamics, Inc., the company that did the film’s practical effects, shows a lot of the unvarnished work done for the movie. It looks great, and features a good look at what may be the alien’s ‘original’ form — or at least the form that landed on Earth.

The practical effects look so freakin' awesome. I wish they'd kept it as is.

[YT]-2bsXC-uhXQ[/YT]

 

[HopeOfTheFuture]

Very interesting video!!! Hope they will include a version of the film with the practical effects (instead of the theatrical cgi version) one day on bluray.

But that would be wishfull thinking as they will never do that.

 

[Still Wynning]

Slashfilm posted this:



The practical effects look so freakin' awesome. I wish they'd kept it as is.

[YT]-2bsXC-uhXQ[/YT]

What the hell?!? Those effects were freakin' incredible!!! Why didn't they use those in the final cut of the film???


Note to Universal: Next time someone tries to make a film like this, let the actual filmmakers and crew do their work and mind your own damn business!!!!!

 

[corby]

If those practical effects had just been retouched with cg instead of completely painted over, the monster would have looked so much better!

 

[DorkyFresh]

Not sure about the rest, but I know they used the costume for the Juliette Thing then added CG components to it.

 

[HopeOfTheFuture]

The Julliete Thing reveal looked different in the Comic Con footage. There it looked like more practical effects. But yeah, probably the effects were not finished at that time.

 

[Kane52630]

Slashfilm posted this:



The practical effects look so freakin' awesome. I wish they'd kept it as is.

[YT]-2bsXC-uhXQ[/YT]

Sad to see that the studio had to intervened with CGI when you got great practical effects from talented people. I'm all for practical effects and CGI but it all depends on the movie and for a movie like this, you use practical always.

 

[Kane52630]

Slashfilm posted this:



The practical effects look so freakin' awesome. I wish they'd kept it as is.

[YT]-2bsXC-uhXQ[/YT]

Sad to see that the studio had to intervened with CGI when you got great practical effects from talented people. I'm all for practical effects and CGI but it all depends on the movie and for a movie like this, you use practical always.

 

[Kane52630]

Slashfilm posted this:



The practical effects look so freakin' awesome. I wish they'd kept it as is.

[YT]-2bsXC-uhXQ[/YT]

Sad to see that the studio had to intervened with CGI when you got great practical effects from talented people. I'm all for practical effects and CGI but it all depends on the movie and for a movie like this, you use practical always.

 

[moviedoors]

I saw it at a dollar theater a couple of weeks ago. Even with modest expectations I didn't like it. The creature acted totally out of character from the one in Carpenter's film. It goes into crazy transformations for absolutely no reason. Why did it transform in the helicopter? Why did it randomly decide to freak out when they were helping the injured man? Why, when it was established in a prior scene that it can break apart and the pieces have a hive like will, didn't it break into pieces and absorb Winsted when she hid in a tunnel? I didn't see the creature that would bide its time and attack strategically unless it got cornered. And that fused-faced body in the first film? You're telling me it started to absorb someone half-way and then just stop? Really?

I hated that scientist character. "Don't contradict me in front of the other men." What is this, a ****in submarine? Those types of reckless scientist characters should stay in the 50's where they're at least quaintly humorous. They infuriate me in 21st century filmmaking.

The wrap up at the end was beyond lazy. Oh yeah, here's the dog that we only showed you earlier because this has to match up to Carpenter's movie. Oh yeah, here's that guy that committed suicide. Sure, we never followed through on when, why, or how it happened, but we gotta make a bridge! Here's a complete non-ending that rides the coattails of an infinitely superior movie but has no closure on its own merit.

What happened to Winsted's character at the end? Did she drive off to the Russian camp in the one of two vehicles that was supposed to be disabled? What a vague, ball-less, studio copout. What happened to the Norwegians accidentally blowing up the site of the spacecraft? Sorry, a single grenade wouldn't do that sort of damage. Where was the nihilistic despair? The true paranoia? The bleak no-one-makes-it-unscathed ending? Hell, where were the frost covered beards?

And for a movie that's supposed to function as a prologue to the Carpenter masterpiece and stand on its own, it sure does go out of its way to ape every memorable beat of his film, only crappier. This was barely a prequel. It was a unimaginative remake masquerading as a prequel.

This was nothing but a rote, pale, safe, unimaginative quasi remake of an immeasurably better film.

I can't just pretend like I've never seen Carpenter's movie. This movie depends on that movie to have a purpose at all. They are designed as companion pieces, so it's fair game to compare and measure the two against each other.

Big, giant, MEH!!!

 

[Spider-Man Luvr28]

The Thing got a nomination at the 10th annual Visual Effects Society:

Outstanding Animated Character in a Live Action Feature Motion Picture

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 - Ukranian Ironbelly
Yasunobu Arahori
Tom Bracht
Gavin Harrison
Chris Lentz

Paul - Paul
Anders Beer
Julian Foddy
Jody Johnson
David Lowry

Rise of the Planet of the Apes - Caesar
Daniel Barrett
Florian Fernandez
Matthew Muntean
Eric Reynolds

The Thing - Edvard/Adam
Lyndon Barrois
Fred Chapman
Greg Massie
Marco Menco



http://www.visualeffectssociety.com/10th-annual-ves-awards-nominees

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

The effects were good, it's too bad the movie wasn't. It's entertaining though and I do like looking at the effects so I will probably see it again on DVD in the future. It's kinda like Terminator Salvation in that respect, It's a crappy movie that I will watch for the CGI.

 

[Spider-Man Luvr28]

Review of the blu-ray:

During the commentary track by director Matthijs van Heijningen and producer Eric Newman, it is revealed that they ditched the whole blowing the ship out of the ice thing because they didn't think anyone would believe that ten Norwegians and a female scientist would be able to do such a thing. It was just too unrealistic. Ponder that if you will. Aliens crash landing on Earth and mimicking humans? That's well within the realm of reality, but a group of people exploding something in the ice? That's just pushing the boundaries of reality too damned far. Out of everything that could possibly be the real reason this plot point wasn't followed through on, it being too unrealistic was the least possible answer I thought it would be. I mean, really, how ridiculous can you be?

And the idiocy doesn't stop there either. No matter whom you speak to about this flick, everyone says the same thing... in the last twenty minutes when they decide they need to follow the thing into its ship, the movie goes way off the rails and turns into a CGI-laden mess. That had to be the result of studio tinkering, right? Nope. Turns out that was the plan all along.

Oh, and that cartoonish monstrosity at the end? It was decided at the last second that the final form of the thing should include the face of the film's villian because it would signify the culmination of Kate Lloyd's journey as she spent the entire movie fending off both the thing and the nefarious Dr. Sander Halvorson. Reshoots were mentioned, but it was nothing huge. All this crap... it was all planned. All thought out. All given the green light.

The special features in the end are pretty sparse. Other than the informative and infuriating commentary by director van Heijningen and producer Newman, we get a couple of deleted and extended scenes that are home to a bit more alien action, a nearly 15-minute making-of called The Thing Evolves, and a 4-minute look at the film's various fire effects. That's about it.

Special Features

• Audio commentary with director Matthijs van Heijningen and producer Eric Newman
• Deleted and extended scenes
• The Thing Evolves featurette
• Fire and Ice featurette

http://www.dreadcentral.com/reviews/thing-blu-ray-dvd

 

[HopeOfTheFuture]

Too bad they never used the ending of the script or didn't film it.

I hope they will put online descriptions of the deleted scenes. Thanks for posting the review.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I love it when inferior directors from inferior films take a swipe at a great film.

The Thing covert remake will never be as good, as entertaining or as effective as the first remake of The Thing From Another World. Never.

 

[Balthus Dire]

It's not a remake. It's a prequel.


Also, I do wish they would've included a "Director's Cut" or something with the original ending, but I guess they didn't shoot it after all.

And I just watched that practical effects reel...I have to admit, that was pretty incredible and would've looked great on film. Totally weird that they didn't go that route.

 

[Spider-Man Luvr28]

And I just watched that practical effects reel...I have to admit, that was pretty incredible and would've looked great on film. Totally weird that they didn't go that route.

Mmhm. I agree. Especially since before the whole reshoots and all, the director & cast kept saying it was all practical effects and whatever.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

It's not a remake. It's a prequel.


Also, I do wish they would've included a "Director's Cut" or something with the original ending, but I guess they didn't shoot it after all.

And I just watched that practical effects reel...I have to admit, that was pretty incredible and would've looked great on film. Totally weird that they didn't go that route.

I wrote "Covert Remake." I know what words mean and how to use them. In my opinion it was a covert remake of the first film, plan and simple.