Prequel to 'The Thing'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Those aren't nearly as grotesque and disturbing as some of the stuff in the original, but I'm going to be optimistic and assume that's only the tip of the iceberg.
 
They don't want to spoil their best effects before the movie is out so I doubt very much we've seen the goriest bits yet.
 
The thing (no pun intended) that's baffling me about this is that a lot of people, ESPECIALLY if you look at the comments for the youtube official encode of the new red-band trailer, have been calling this a remake when they CLEARLY haven't seen this movie or probably even the original. Why are they doing this? I mean, it's not like Mary Elizabeth Winstead's character's last name is Macready or anything, so she's not a different take on the awesome Kurt Russell character from the John Carpenter film. So why all the remake labeling? Can someone explain this?

EDIT: Although it could because they both have the exact same title. If so, I can explain the reasoning behind this (I was at the panel for this nearly a year ago at NYCC). The reason the director and writers used the same title is because they didn't want to be generic with calling it something like "The Thing: The Beginning" or some crap like that, and I can 100% agree with that.
 
the same title and it looks like the same movie.
 
the same title and it looks like the same movie.
As I thought. Just because it looks similar, DOES NOT MAKE IT A REMAKE OF THE SAME STORY. Again, as we know, it's a prequel about the previous Norwegian team. Why can't these fools look that fact up online? It's not that hard!
 
^ But that's why people think it's a remake.

People are stupid. Everyone *****ed about Cloverfield making them sick. But if they did 2 minutes of research, they would know it was a handycam movie. Idiots. **** them.
 
You shouldn't have to look up if a movie is a remake or not, this new one from the trailers looks like one.
 
There were no norweigans at Outpost 31. Cept the dead ones.


Also, we live in a day and age where finding information isn't too hard. Do some research people...:D
 
It should've just been a remake of its own instead of actually trying to tie into the original.

After watching the trailer, it looks great and this might be another "remake" I'll enjoy watching.
 
As I thought. Just because it looks similar, DOES NOT MAKE IT A REMAKE OF THE SAME STORY. Again, as we know, it's a prequel about the previous Norwegian team. Why can't these fools look that fact up online? It's not that hard!

^ But that's why people think it's a remake.

People are stupid. Everyone *****ed about Cloverfield making them sick. But if they did 2 minutes of research, they would know it was a handycam movie. Idiots. **** them.
Or how about the people making the movie not call it "The Thing"? :huh:
I haven't seen many movies whose prequel (or sequel) have the exact same name as their predecessors. Its idiotic to expect people to do "research" on a movie title.
 
He's got you there. If I were making a sequel, prequel, equal, whatever-quel then I'd try to seperate my movie title from the original so as to not confuse people on what it is I'm making. Kind of like how they should've kept The Thing: The Beginning. Although The Thing: Origins sounds better IMO it's too much like a rip-off of another franchise.
 
It also doesn't help the fact that the movie itself looks the same.
 
As I thought. Just because it looks similar, DOES NOT MAKE IT A REMAKE OF THE SAME STORY. Again, as we know, it's a prequel about the previous Norwegian team. Why can't these fools look that fact up online? It's not that hard!
time out. you asked why general public thinks its the same. i gave you a normal logical answer. why the f... should the general public search online info about this movie when the studio made it look the same? why not a different title and why the f... doesnt it look different?you should be angry at the studio since they are making the same movie with different names


why is it hard for geeks to understand that geeks are different? yes we are geeks. fanboys. fan-whatever. we do research before wathing movies. but thats because we are fanboys or geeks.
 
Its like this whole thread is on some sick circle with this remake argument.

I look stuff up.(Ok occasionally I don't) I see the film is "supposed" to be a prequel...but it looks like a remake...deal with it!

I mean even Luke Skywalker's uncle looks to be pimpin a Kurt Russell look
 
New (at least for me) redband trailer:
http://uk.ign.com/videos/2011/09/19/the-thing-red-band-trailer

Since the site won't show the trailer to me, I found this youtube link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BszfaTisOsE


WARNING: it spoils at lot
the dog that runs away could be the dog that they are hunting in the first movie, and 00:00:39 shows a face (bigger "monster") in the background.
Is 00:00:52 the last version of the Thing that the Kate kills (for anyone who read the leaked script)?\

The shot of the hand on 00:00:34 is played backwards (notice the shoe bursting open in the background if you play it backwards).

Looks like it's a big CGI heavy. Perhaps a bit too much.
 
Last edited:
Can't find it. Where's the "survival" button and the clip (and I guess we're talking about the thing site, not the facebook page).

On The Thing site, click the red dot above where it says survival camp and after it loads, move to the left and click on the "trust no one" button to see the clip.

Edit: The film's YT channel posted a video of Splitface:

[YT]33cPsuSuQTg&feature=player_embedded#![/YT]
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"