The Thing (2011) (PREQUEL to the 1982 version)

imdb ^ | July 22, 2011 | imdb

[jimfree]

now on the other hand, I thought the first remake of ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’(1978) was better than the original(1956)...(though I like the original)....I hear there have been other remakes since....but WHY.

Sutherland was fabulous in the remake. Absolutely chilling flick. I recently saw the original again - outstanding. 56 and 78 are one of the great original-remake film combinations.

[Rummyfan]

I believe the original film “The Thing” was filmed back in the early fifties ...

The original was produced by Howard Hawks and featured the trademark rapid-fire dialogue typical of Hawks' films. Pretty much a no-name cast although a pre-Gunsmoke James Arness played The Thing. One of my all-time favorite sci-fi films, from the fifties or any other era for that matter.

As for the 1982 version.... the first ten minutes were great but it devolved into a special-effects extravaganza.

[EQAndyBuzz]

I can’t wait until “jaws the prequel” comes out.

My sources at MSNBC say a young Scheider and friends are on a party boat on a blue fishing trip. There they meet a father and son the son played by a Richard Dreyfuss.

After several hours of fishing, Scheider hooks into something pretty big. As Scheider is fighting the fish and being dragged all over the boat, the young Dreyfuss says it might be a shark.

Well Scheider gets the fish to the boat and sure enough it is what appears to be a sand shark in the 30 pound range. Dreyfuss starts pleading with his father to make the bad men release the shark.

Hence they do.

[agere_contra]

I agree. ‘The Thing from Another World’ was superb. Carpenter’s effort quickly became one special effects set-piece after another.

[Molon Labbie]

Excellent movie which scared the chit (and stomach contents) out of the audience. It made more money in video and dvd releases than in theatres.

It’s on streaming on Netflix.

[ladyvet]

Love the 82 version. First movie I saw with Kurt Russell all grown up, Goldie is a lucky girl.

[Jack Deth]

Hi, guys:

Carpenter knew he couldn’t compete with Howard Hawks’ overlaid dialogue and palpable sense of claustrophobia. So Carpenter substituted paranoia instead and leaned heavily on over-the-top, superbly executed special effects.

Of the two, I still prefer Hawks’ original and see no sense in a third even more lame attempt to mess with near perfection.

Jack.

[Rummyfan]

...now on the other hand, I thought the first remake of ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’(1978) was better than the original(1956)...

I preferred the original Snatchers, mostly because it had Dana Wynter...

[MHGinTN]

You’re just stuck on the physics of cantilevered hemispheres.

[BattleFlag]

As a Sci-Fi/Horror fan as with any movie I watch, my test for whether or not any given movie is "good" is, did I receive entertainment value commensurate with the time it took to watch it? Whether it's what I perceive to be a redundant remake or not. I'd much rather watch an entertaining and well made remake than an implausible, boring or "stupid" original theme. And of course the problem is not always the original idea but how it was brought to the screen, how it was executed.

Having said all this I'll say that often there does seem to be a lack of originality in the projects film companies choose to work on. The biggest reason being the possible financial return as a motivator. The hope that an idea or concept will be recognized by the film going public thereby increasing the chance they will buy the product is obvious. One example of this is the casting of Tom Cruise in "Interview With The Vampire". He did the job I guess but there had to be other actors better suited for the role and having read the books I felt he in no way fit the persona of Lestat. Many casting choices could be second guessed but this one to me was a very bad one.

I remember when I'd seen that there was yet another remake of King Kong in the works that it seemed somewhat ridiculous. And for a long time I didn't watch it because of this. But I finally watched the movie and was thoroughly impressed and entertained. Same for the latest Star Trek remake if not more so. Having watched it recently I can say that as with Peter Jackson's King Kong, it passed my "worthwhile" test.

So I will most definitely be checking this prequel out being a fan of the 1982 flick and also having vivid memories of the original from my childhood.

With modern production values and the right execution it's likely to pass the test.

PS: I really like the idea of discussing movies and music and getting the thoughts and impressions of others. Is there a spot on FR that is best suited for this?

[EveningStar]

Yes. The 1982 John Carpenter version was much more faithful to the original Campbell story. But for me, the 1951 Howard Hawks version is much better. The Carpenter version, rather than being scary, was just non-stop gore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_from_Another_World

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_%28film%29

[hattend]

Kate partners with Sam Carter

I'd love to partner up, even shack up, with Sam Carter

[hattend]

Is there a spot on FR that is best suited for this?

In the upper right of your screen, you should see "General/Chat".

That is the place best suited

[altura]

I liked the original Thing with James Arness.

I can’t stand movies in which a bad creature can assume the looks and identity of anyone so I didn’t much like the 1982 film though it was well acted.

Won’t be seeing this one.

And, whoever’s whining about movie threads, don’t go on them. I love movies and I love movie threads.

[Jmouse007]

“They ALL DIE!”. That is exactly what I thought when I read the premise for the movie. Who wants to waste two plus hours watching this when you know from the outset that EVERYONE is going to die a gruesome death? Why bother caring about any of the characters; they are all dead, so why bother?

[NucSubs]

The 1982 flick is not only far superior, but it is far more accurate to the original story. The 1952 version is almost a totally different story.

[NucSubs]

“He met a most satisfying end just before the Army dudes juiced the Thing.”

Uh...he wasn’t killed. He was just shoved out of the way.

[BattleFlag]

There is the option of escape however improbable. If only one of the team was able to escape somehow that would not logically been a missing part of the 1982 film. The Americans never did talk to anyone on the Norwegian team so they wouldn't know of such a thing.

Plausible?

Many Sci-Fi/Horror plots end with only one survivor.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

I always thought that he was killed since he doesn’t show up again after the Thing is fried and the end credits begin rolling.

[Rummyfan]

It is mentioned by one of his scientist colleagues that he has gotten medical attention and is resting comfortably. Hey, if you’ve watched it a dozen times like I have you pick up on these details!