Prequel to 'The Thing'

[henry_9305]

 

[def28]

Looks good. Love me some Mary Elizabeth Winstead.

Cool to see a remake/prequel that resembles the tone of the original. Alot of these remakes are nothing more then bad cover songs.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I think it looks well made and has tried very hard to match the aesthetic of the Carpernter movie so you feel you're in the same time and place, which of course will lead to some feeling it looks too much like a remake, but I think there's enough in the trailer to suggest the film has it's own ideas, it's certainly got some nice visuals.

Where abouts was the movie filmed?

 

[def28]

Where abouts was the movie filmed?

Pinewoods Toronto Studio, Port lands according to Wiki.

 

[dark_b]

yes the problem is that the movie looks to clean and slick.

and i think blue lens flares dont work in horror movies.the same with blue lighting. your brain makes a connection to summer blockbuster which is a big mistake.
which is why they are doing it. the producer think that if the movie looks clean it will make money. when we have every 5-10 years proof that a horror movie needs to look dirty and uncomfortable.

this movie looks like it will fail on every level possible.

 

[nightwing06]

I was impressed when i saw footage at Comic Con last year and with the cast interviews so i will definitely check it out

 

[mikeboydus]

Scott's Alien is full of lens flares.

John Carpenter's The Thing is full of lens flares and one of the first films to use blue lighting.

Cameron's Aliens uses lens flare and he uses blue lighting in almost all his films.

I would be annoyed if they didn't use lens flares and blue lighting.

 

[dark_b]

the problem are the digital lens flares IMO.

and on Alien,Aliens and Thing they used natural blue lightign with real blue lights. here they are using saturated cgi generated blue light. meh. its like Snyder made the movie.

 

[kickass]

yes the problem is that the movie looks to clean and slick.

and i think blue lens flares dont work in horror movies.the same with blue lighting. your brain makes a connection to summer blockbuster which is a big mistake.
which is why they are doing it. the producer think that if the movie looks clean it will make money. when we have every 5-10 years proof that a horror movie needs to look dirty and uncomfortable.

this movie looks like it will fail on every level possible.

Thank you! UGH!
This is exactly what I was saying a couple of pages before.

Look, here's the deal, and I find it's the same problem with a lot of horror films these days........

The cinematography is too crisp, too clean, too bland.
It adds absolutely no atmosphere at all.
Everything looks cool instead of looking threatening and uncomfortable for our characters.

Is this because everything is shot digitally now? I don't know. But these filmmakers need to stop making everything look so clean. There's no texture, everything looks FLAT.

The acting is there, the set pieces are there, the music is there, the scares are (hopefully) there, but the images look blah. And unfortunatley that's something that remians from the start to the finish of the film.

 

[CelticPredator]

yes the problem is that the movie looks to clean and slick.

and i think blue lens flares dont work in horror movies.the same with blue lighting. your brain makes a connection to summer blockbuster which is a big mistake.
which is why they are doing it. the producer think that if the movie looks clean it will make money. when we have every 5-10 years proof that a horror movie needs to look dirty and uncomfortable.

this movie looks like it will fail on every level possible.

No, all these opinions are just ****ing you, and not another single person on this planet.

Or maybe one person. But still. You're crazy.

 

[CelticPredator]

Oh and guess what...the CARPENTER FLICK HAD LENS FLARES AS ****ING WELL.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I do think that it looks a little too clean, but other than that, this movie looks awesome.

 

[CelticPredator]

It's clean because our technology is better. I mean....the only difference between this one and the last one is age. The Carpenter flick aged in look. This movie is brand new.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Pinewoods Toronto Studio, Port lands according to Wiki.

Thanks, they certainly got some great exterior shots.

 

[Arc-Light]

yes the problem is that the movie looks to clean and slick.

and i think blue lens flares dont work in horror movies.the same with blue lighting. your brain makes a connection to summer blockbuster which is a big mistake.
which is why they are doing it. the producer think that if the movie looks clean it will make money. when we have every 5-10 years proof that a horror movie needs to look dirty and uncomfortable.

this movie looks like it will fail on every level possible.

lol this movie will fail because of blue lens flares,...... really i mean really!!!!!

 

[Pink Ranger]

Thanks, they certainly got some great exterior shots.

Yeah, it's not hard to make parts of Toronto look like a desolate Arctic wasteland.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

What looks so good about this trailer to people on the net? To me it looks like yet another trite 2000's horror film.

I'm all up for a well made remake of a film but this looks like The Thing staring a woman and with CGI. Also, why does every modern horror film have to star a woman? They ruined the Silent Hill film by going that route. I dug the Dawn of the Dead and TCM remakes but this so-called prequel/covert remake looks pointless.

The Thing is one of those rare grown up 80's horror. It's not staring a bunch of 20 somethings playing teens, it's violent in a real sickening way and bleak beyond belief. The ending is not hopeful in any way. This new Thing looks too slick, it's staring a chick who looks like she's in her early 20's and doesn't look right for her role already and there already look like too many homages are at play.

Carpenter's film was a remake but only a little. Besides the title card it's almost completely different from the cheesy 1950's version, it's based more on the original story "Who Goes There?" than the James Arness in a space suit version. I'd be for this movie if it seemed like it was doing it's own thing but right now it looks like a cash grab of a movie that actually tanked at the boxoffice so...how much cash is the studio expecting from it?

 

[zanos]

Boy, all that waiting for a crappy teaser, lol.

 

[Asr]

I agree that the trailer doesn't make the movie look very promising - at least as a fan of the Carpenter movie. I'm with I SEE SPIDEY on why Carpenter's movie was awesome, but another thing that movie really had going for it was the slow pacing and suspense - but I just don't see either of those elements making it into a movie nowadays. The fast editing in the trailer made it look completely counterpoint to Carpenter's version. If the trailer was edited to play out a lot differently I'd be more hopeful. Literally the only thing I liked about the trailer was the ending music that recalls the original's score.

The homage level looks about on level with the Predator homages from Predators (2010) - or in other words, completely absurd. I thought I even saw the beginnings of a spider-head in the trailer?

 

[dark_b]

Oh and guess what...the CARPENTER FLICK HAD LENS FLARES AS ****ING WELL.

you know very good the that lens flares today look different. digital. and that in the 80's they used more glowing blooms . is this the right word?

and a little fog would also help.

 

[dark_b]

It's clean because our technology is better. I mean....the only difference between this one and the last one is age. The Carpenter flick aged in look. This movie is brand new.

Shutter Island. it was realesed in 2010. it was done with new technology. so new cameras. and it looks like a modern movie. but everything in the movie was deisgned to look creepy,uncomfortable and dirty. it looks in a way rusty hehehe. plus it has fantastic atmosphere. clouds and fog alos help.
so why Shutter Island works? because an old director is using oldschool techniques .

this movie is trying to looke like al lthe remakes. Chainsaw massacre,Freddy,.......

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

It's clean because our technology is better. I mean....the only difference between this one and the last one is age. The Carpenter flick aged in look. This movie is brand new.

This is actually something we can agree with for once.

 

[Secret Fawful]

I'd hate to see the moaning and groaning there would be if the movie wasn't trying it's hardest to stay true to the original.

 

[gregtestagent]

you know very good the that lens flares today look different. digital. and that in the 80's they used more glowing blooms . is this the right word?

and a little fog would also help.

This isn't Planet Terror, they won't make it look like it was shot in the 80's. And fog as in lens fogging up or real fog? because one looks bad on screen and the other is impossible in that climate. Try again future cinematography director.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Just caught the trailer on XBL. Looks awesome! Anyone who says otherwise clearly feels differently.