The Thing prequel - Any News?

[Charlie]

Originally Posted by Mr Cairo

..... also i would imagine that after failing at the Norg base with an all out attack it would try something different at Cap Usa and go for a more insidious approach so that would cover the different attitude of the Thing in the two films

I guess it depends how you look at it. The dog thing was the first thing assimilated, and then hid for the rest of the film, so it may not even have been aware of what was going on. It may even have to rely on the brain of the host to perform anything other than instinct

[trollface]

I've just watched it, and it was okay, but nothing special. Wholly predictable, down to every single twist and jump-scare. And I'm going to disagree with what people in this thread have said and say that I thought the monster was rather unimaginative, drawing so heavily as it did on the one from the Carpenter film, even though there was more variety of design in the Carpenter film. They should have had the guts to do more of their own thing, both with the effects and with the plot.

But, as I say, it was okay. I don't regret watching it, even if I can't see myself ever having much of a hankering for watching it again.

Originally Posted by Charlie

Overall, I did enjoy it, but I will need a couple more watches, to see if there are any hidden clues, or teasers like Carpenters version that make the experience a little deeper.

If you mean clues as to who is and is not the thing, then any in Carpenter's film will be accidental, seeing as none of the cast, nor Carpenter himself knew who was the Thing and who wasn't in any given scene other than those where it's obvious.

[Charlie]

Originally Posted by trollface

If you mean clues as to who is and is not the thing, then any in Carpenter's film will be accidental, seeing as none of the cast, nor Carpenter himself knew who was the Thing and who wasn't in any given scene other than those where it's obvious.

There is other stuff, though. Like the keys, and Childs. Definately a thing, in my book.

On rewatching...

I have to say there were a few things that bug me. Like the intact ship, or the fact it things out at random, when it didnt need to. Also, the whole helicopter sequence just does not make any sense.

I have to agree with you on the visual aspect.

At times there was just too much going on. It would just burst open with teeth and mouthes all over.

I got the feeling from the first film that it would take a while to reconfigure its body, or was perhaps painful. Perhaps because its a colony rather than an individual, and it doesnt act as with a single mind or thought, and that it only did this to feed, or as a defence mechanism, as if the mind controling the person was no longer in control (perhaps not even knowing its a thing).

The story just was nowhere near as polished as the original. It needed a bot of work.

And as much as I want to not like it, I find that I think its alright. Not great, by any means. But better than most of the stuff I have seen recently.

[trollface]

Originally Posted by Charlie

I got the feeling from the first film that it would take a while to reconfigure its body, or was perhaps painful.

That's the impression I got, too. In particular, there was a parallel in this film, I think, that didn't work at all. In the original, you first see the Thing as being able to be more than one individual when they burn it and the head separates from the rest of its body. That was slow and painful, and it did it because all of the rest of it was on fire. In the prequel, it separated its hands easily and for no discernible reason whatsoever other than to reveal to everyone that it was the Thing.

But what I really meant about the lack of imagination visually is that there was nothing there we hadn't seen before. Every monster was made up of bits that we'd seen in the previous film, and they all seemed to be variations on a big mouth with tentacles coming out of it and human faces. But look at the above-mentioned head separation. Once separated, it grows spider legs. That's something we'd not seen before in the film, and was something that we didn't see again. Yet with this one, once you'd seen the first Thing, you'd seen them all. Sure, some were hands, and some were torsos, etc. but they all basically looked the same.

Carpenter's film gave the impression that it was transforming into bits and pieces of creatures it had previously absorbed. This one gave the impression that these things were its native form.

[Knappos]

I liked it. But not a great deal.

I think the whole things with the fillings in place of the blood tests was very tense.

The whole chunk of ice bit was done better in the 1951 film, as was the discovery of the ship. I think the pace was just too fast for the film. It should have slow boiled. I mean, as a Thing movie we knew what would happen with the ice. But rather than discover that the Thing was out, it had to burst out. So everyone knew right away and then things just happened too fast.

The reveal on the helicopter was nonsensical. Absurd. And they survived the crash? Balls.

Also, once it got to a point it feel a bit check-listy.

Although I had forgotten about matey in the cupboard for the end as it linked with the 1982 film.

So, yeah it's good. They didn't stretch anything or break new ground and the previous two films both did it better but it wasn't unenjoyable. It's only a one watch film for me though.

[rodders]

I watched this for the first time the other day and whilst it didn't compare to John Carpenters version, it was still enjoyable.

I do think that they did well on the paranoia aspect of the story.

I would have liked for them to have taken a different direction here. The fact that once the thing absorbed someone, it could interact with us and the fact that it had the knowledge to start the space ship hinted at intelligence. That's more frightening than the aggression of this creature. I also thought that sex would've been a good twist (bear with me) If one of the female protagonists had slept with someone who later turned out to be one of these creatures. Did it happen before they were absorbed? Has she been absorbed from within? What if some people survived, could they risk letting her get back to the mainland? Just a thought.

Overall i liked it. Next time, i'll be watching the two back to back.

[Charlie]

Originally Posted by rodders

I do think that they did well on the paranoia aspect of the story....

... I also thought that sex would've been a good twist...

I actually thought thats the one bit that was lacking. Apart from the filling scene, there was no real tension or paranoia.

One person died in the shower, and considering it is likely to have been both the norwegian woman Juiette, and Edvard, the base commander, who can say