The Thing (2011)

[Starbeast]

[Quokka]

I would have preferred a sequel, thank god it's not a 3rd remake, high hopes for the prequel

[Triceratops]

Well, I've been waiting a long time for this one. Too bad they can't revive the original cast and begin where they left off. I've always liked the remake, one of the best of the best SF classics.

Chris

[Quokka]

I just had a look on IMD and it mentions that even though it starts as a prequel it may at some point catch up with the begining of The Thing (probably the helicopter scene) and then run parallel with it so it doesn't have to finish as a set up for the 1982 movie.

Could be a good idea but it's also convienient for the mandatory sequels.

[Triceratops]

Interesting...there were some tribute scenes, paying homage to Russels' movie...bits and pieces or flashbacks. I never understood why it didn't have a sequel to the 82 version.

chris

[j. d. worthington]

"Tribute scenes"? Perhaps; but it looks more to me as if we're seeing direct copies inserted into this one in lieu of doing something original with their own set-up. I'm afraid that it looks far too much like a rehash to have me running a temperature over it. I'm not entirely closed to the idea (even of a remake), but I'm going to have to see some very high marks from reviewers I trust before I make much effort to see this.

[Rodders]

I'm very much looking forward to seeing this.

[steve12553]

I'm not sure. I really enjoyed both earlier version of the film. I read the novel(la) and thoroughly enjoyed it. Maybe you can go on the the same thrill ride every 30 years or so and make it work. Maybe not. The '51 version was tense and scary and thoughtful. I rewatch it every so often. The '82 version went back to original story and pulled the shapeshifting concept back in and was scary and tense in it's own right. So many remakes and years later sequel/prequels fail because they load the film with special effects and lose the story and the characters.

[D_Davis]

I had really high hopes for this all the way up until the point that I actually watched the trailer.

[P.G.Bell]

Hmmm. I love the '82 version and I'm certainly not against the idea of them doing another one but, on the strength of the trailer, this appears to be as much remake as sequel.

[No One]

The immediate problem I see with this is that it's touted as a prequel but, as J.d says, it basically looks like a re-hash. We know what happens at the Swedish camp (sorry, Norwegian ). At best this will only echo the events of Carpenter's version and I don't see much point in that.

Plus, they should be speaking in nonsensical, made-up, Norwegian.

Even if the CGI - and I fancy there'll be a lot of that - is spectacularly well done, this doesn't seem to offer anything original. Same old same old.

[HoopyFrood]

I was all to set to up in arms about this, but then I ended up researching and posting an article as my first task in my job the other day.

I was worried about too much CGI (anyone who knows me knows it's a big pet peeve of mine) but apparently the director wanted to retain a lot of practical, on-screen monsterness, mostly because actors react better to things that are actually there. A monster suit was made for the beastie, as well as other animatronic bits, and CGI is more used as extension of the creature rather than the whole thing.

The main woman is apparently influenced by Ellen Ripley and the actress specifically decided to forgo any romantic contact for her character with the other characters in order to retain the paranoia that made the previous film awesome.

So maybe it'll be all right. Or, seeing as the trailer does seem to suggest we've going to be seeing the same things as last time, it'll just be Carpenter's film with a more womanly Kurt Russell.

[Rodders]

If it's done well does it matter if it's a rehash?

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Rodders

If it's done well does it matter if it's a rehash?

By definition, a "rehash" is something which only repeats what has been done before; it doesn't improve on it in any significant way. That being the case... yes, I'd say it matters. What's the point of doing again, no better and not different in any substantive fashion (leaving aside the technological advances, which are not really a reason for doing a remake in themselves), something which has been done before? It becomes nothing more than a glorified five-finger exercise, in that case; and the resources and talent could be much better used doing something original and creative instead. Especially when we're talking about a film (the Carpenter version) which is still quite easily available. Were it a "lost" film or somesuch, there might be reason, but as it is....

(Though I shouldn't have to make this point, I suppose it's best to do so: as I said earlier, if I hear from people whose opinions I respect that this is indeed a film which can stand on its own merits, is something original and striking, then that's quite another thing. But going on what is available so far... that seems an unlikely scenario.)

[steve12553]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

...What's the point of doing again, no better and not different in any substantive fashion (leaving aside the technological advances, which are not really a reason for doing a remake in themselves), something which has been done before? ... Especially when we're talking about a film (the Carpenter version) which is still quite easily available. Were it a "lost" film or somesuch, there might be reason, but as it is....

(Though I shouldn't have to make this point, I suppose it's best to do so: as I said earlier, if I hear from people whose opinions I respect that this is indeed a film which can stand on its own merits, is something original and striking, then that's quite another thing. But going on what is available so far... that seems an unlikely scenario.)

Let me add two points. First, when Carpenter remade the Hawks film he returned to the original story and used the newly available technology to help deliver what the author wrote. (Something they couldn't do in 1951). CGI would not make near enough difference to justify a remake.
Second, the back story they are trying to make needs to be better than the original to justify its existence because we know how it ends. Otherwise we end up with the Star Wars prequels: lots of action and drama but we don't really care.