The Thing (2011)

[darthviper107]

i was thinking about the ending..maybe he was not a creature..but it was her who was the monster..i will need to see it again..but i was just wondering because he was begging for his life and he could of attacked her at anytime..

He was a creature because he was missing his earing

And when he screamed he was making a creature scream

Plus, there was an interview with the screenwriter and it was clear that he was one of them.

 

[freestylex06x]

it was disappointing because i thought the point of a prequel was to explain the alien's origin more and show its background. they filmed and included some of that stuff only to take it out for the released version of the film.

 

[Leonidas]

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txjm94GnrPA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txjm94GnrPA[/ame]

 

[hairlesswookiee]

It's actually a prequel, not a remake.

Carpenter's was a remake.

Yes! Surprisingly that not many people know this.

It's a prequel.

 

[TheObsoleteMan]

Yes! Surprisingly that not many people know this.

It's not that surprising. The Thing From Another World was already around 30 years old when Carpenter remade it. Throw into the mix that it's only loosely based on the original and really has more in common with Invasion of the Bodysnatchers and you can see how some might not instantly link Carpenter's version with the original.

 

[darthviper107]

it was disappointing because i thought the point of a prequel was to explain the alien's origin more and show its background. they filmed and included some of that stuff only to take it out for the released version of the film.

For something like this it's better to know less about the alien's background. The whole spaceship part was just terrible because of that.

 

[Biojex]

For something like this it's better to know less about the alien's background. The whole spaceship part was just terrible because of that.

I agree. We did learn a little about them though. We learned they have way more advanced versions of tetris than we do. Which that weird glowie computer thing could only have been.

 

[darthviper107]

I agree. We did learn a little about them though. We learned they have way more advanced versions of tetris than we do. Which that weird glowie computer thing could only have been.

The main reason I wish the spaceship part wasn't in there is because up until then we didn't know if the thing was actually the alien from the spaceship or if it was the reason for the crash (like Alien).

They did too much to let us know for sure that it was the owner of the ship since it was able to start it up.

 

[freestylex06x]

lol it wasn't the owner man. it was a thing that another alien race collected but it took over. the reason it can control the ship is because it already assimilated the ship's previous owner and retained their memories.

 

[EVILFACE]

Thought it was a pretty good tie in with the 80's flick.

 

[CelticPredator]

Me too.

Anyway, even when I saw the original, I never assumed the Thing owned that ship. Look at the way that thing is wobbling at the beginning of The Thing 82. It's clearly not being piloted right.

But, that doesn't mean it's not an intelligent creature. It knows how to construct.

 

[EVILFACE]

I agree with that. The alien prolly replicated the maker of the ship and went on his way.

 

[Michael Crawford]

It's not that surprising. The Thing From Another World was already around 30 years old when Carpenter remade it. Throw into the mix that it's only loosely based on the original and really has more in common with Invasion of the Bodysnatchers and you can see how some might not instantly link Carpenter's version with the original.

Carpenter's film wasn't a remake of the 50's film. They went back to the original story, and his film was much closer to that than the 50's flick.

 

[TheObsoleteMan]

Carpenter's film wasn't a remake of the 50's film. They went back to the original story, and his film was much closer to that than the 50's flick.

Ah, well then, I just learned something new.

 

[Blood Electricity]

I actually wrote a huge friggin paper about the thing and the thing from another world. Well, not about just that, but about 15 pages worth. I'm interested in seeing this film for that reason.

The point of my paper was to look at remakes, or re-imaginings or whatever you want to call it, and see how they differ based on the historical context of the time they were created in. The focus was purely on the visual aspects of each film.

Regardless of whether or not carpenter's is a remake, they both can be argued to be about cold war struggles.

 

[Adolfo]

I liked this prequel...tied in very well right to the end with the 1982 version...done well and it was really great to watch a genuine monster movie again...I liked it alot...the extras on the bluray make it worth it too...some great deleted scenes too...My only negative is that it was not as suspenseful as The sequel was but nonetheless great and next and last negative applies to all 3 things as well as all great films...I wish I coulda seen more of the creature and history..

 

[RIDDICK]

CG ruined the magic because of which I'm still fear to watch Carpenter's film.
Monsters were too monotonous and uninventive.
The plot is full of logical inconsistencies with the original.

Imo decent movie and that's all.
It was trying to be different but in the end feels too much like a remake.

 

[BuddyGus]

Rewatched this again last night. Saw it in the theater before, but watched it with the wifey this time. She liked it but still wiil not watch the one with Russell.

I liked it and it stood up to a second viewing. Carpenter's is still superior by far.

 

[hairlesswookiee]

CG ruined the magic because of which I'm still fear to watch Carpenter's film.
Monsters were too monotonous and uninventive.
The plot is full of logical inconsistencies with the original.

Imo decent movie and that's all.
It was trying to be different but in the end feels too much like a remake.

This seems like a fair review of the movie. I still think they should've stuck with the practical effects on this one, and just use CGI for the transformations if they needed to.

 

[Centurion]

Carpenter's film wasn't a remake of the 50's film. They went back to the original story, and his film was much closer to that than the 50's flick.

This.
Instead, Carpenter's film went back to the books and followed it a lot closer than the 50's film. The 1982 version is my favorite of the two.

I still need to watch the 2011 version. I'm planning to buy the blu ray, sight unseen, once it hits the bargain bin.