Why no sequal to JC The Thing. - Page 2

Neopeius · January 31 2009, 10:22 PM

There is a cool PC/console game which takes place after the events of the movie (and presumably changes those events a bit).

I used to play it in the garage in the dark with the windows open to let the frigid winter breeze in. When the little Thingies would pop up at you, it was totally freaky.

Mr. Adventure · January 31 2009, 10:31 PM

It's on Sci-Fi Channel tonight, I should see if it's actually in true HD. How the hell did they manage to slip that in with Abominable, Yeti, Ice Spiders and Wyvern? I think someone's head is going to roll when they find out that they aired a half-way decent movie on Saturday night.

Neopeius wrote:

I used to play it in the garage in the dark with the windows open to let the frigid winter breeze in. When the little Thingies would pop up at you, it was totally freaky.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

Neopeius · February 1 2009, 05:53 AM

Mr. Adventure wrote:

Neopeius wrote:

I used to play it in the garage in the dark with the windows open to let the frigid winter breeze in. When the little Thingies would pop up at you, it was totally freaky.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

Totally serious.

I'm all about atmosphere.

Nardpuncher · February 1 2009, 11:38 AM

The worst thing about a possible sequel/prequel is that they'd use CG. There's something more visceral about using latex and rubber and fake blood and so on that CG can't match.
The thing is you know the creature isn't real anyway...but the practical effects are right there in front of the camera...while my eye can still spot the CG quite easily. Especially if it's creature effects (CG backgrounds and buildings are usually quite good).

Aquehonga · February 1 2009, 07:38 PM

Leave it alone I say. JC's film was a cover of an original THING from the late 1950's.

Not every movie has to be prequalled/sequalled.

J effing C

Admiral James Kirk · February 2 2009, 12:36 AM

Nardpuncher wrote:

The worst thing about a possible sequel/prequel is that they'd use CG. There's something more visceral about using latex and rubber and fake blood and so on that CG can't match.
The thing is you know the creature isn't real anyway...but the practical effects are right there in front of the camera...while my eye can still spot the CG quite easily. Especially if it's creature effects (CG backgrounds and buildings are usually quite good).

I've never understood that arguement though. Surely your eye can tell when something is a piece of rubber. A rubber Thing-dog is just as fake as a CGI Thing-dog and the big advantage to the CGI dog is you can't see the seams where the dog ends and the stuntman underneath begins.

The Squire of Gothos · February 2 2009, 12:48 AM

MeanJoePhaser wrote:

I prefer leaving it at the ambiguous ending...

Me too.

It was a nice ending. No dramatic shoot out, just Snake Plis... I mean Kurt Russell giving the alien a fuck you, then he's stuck in the cold, not even knowing if he's killed the damned thing. Why do we need to have everything handed to us on a plate?

As an aside, the first time I got to sit down and watch the thing was with my ex (something to thank her for, how's about that). After seeing every last detail for the first time, I could hardly bear to have her touch me in bed afterwards. Kissing me, hands running all over me, all I could thing of was the damned Thing!

Base_Delta_Zero · February 2 2009, 01:12 AM

Great, with Moore on this, we'll end up being confronted by the innate humanity of the Thing and how we're no better than it and maybe we actually deserve to be wiped out by it. The film will be alternately super awesome and hugely depressing. And gritty. And dark.

And the Norwegians will be Swedes and one of the Swedes will be a woman, cause Moore likes to change shit up.

...

No sequel unless Carpenter and Russell are in it.

And JC's The Thing is NOT a remake of that bullshit '50s flick. They're both independent adaptations of the original short story "Who Goes There?"

Mr. Adventure · February 2 2009, 06:32 AM

Aquehonga wrote:

Leave it alone I say. JC's film was a cover of an original THING from the late 1950's.

Not every movie has to be prequalled/sequalled.

J effing C

Not only that, it was a very faithful take on the source material, that is, the short story Who Goes There.

Nardpuncher · February 2 2009, 01:53 PM

Admiral James Kirk wrote:

Nardpuncher wrote:

The worst thing about a possible sequel/prequel is that they'd use CG. There's something more visceral about using latex and rubber and fake blood and so on that CG can't match.
The thing is you know the creature isn't real anyway...but the practical effects are right there in front of the camera...while my eye can still spot the CG quite easily. Especially if it's creature effects (CG backgrounds and buildings are usually quite good).

I've never understood that arguement though. Surely your eye can tell when something is a piece of rubber. A rubber Thing-dog is just as fake as a CGI Thing-dog and the big advantage to the CGI dog is you can't see the seams where the dog ends and the stuntman underneath begins.

What it is is that I've already suspended my disbelief, I know there's no alien there, but when they use rubber and latex and whatnot...that stuff is really in front of the camera. The eye can see that and it helps to make it seem more real.

sojourner · February 2 2009, 05:57 PM

I haven't seen this movie in a long time, but I always thought of JC's version as a sequel to the 50's version. The main thing that leads me to this is the scene where they are viewing the videos/films the Norwegians made of the ufo. those clips look exactly like clips from the original movie.

Base_Delta_Zero · February 2 2009, 09:20 PM

sojourner wrote:

I haven't seen this movie in a long time, but I always thought of JC's version as a sequel to the 50's version. The main thing that leads me to this is the scene where they are viewing the videos/films the Norwegians made of the ufo. those clips look exactly like clips from the original movie.

The 50s version takes place in the 50s, yes? The 80s one takes place in the 80s. Unless the 50s cast were all secretly Norwegians and hung out in Antarctica for thirty years before all dying horrible deaths a couple days before the start of JC's film, I'd say sequel doesn't really fit.

sojourner · February 4 2009, 08:58 AM

Starkers · February 4 2009, 01:57 PM

sojourner wrote:

I haven't seen this movie in a long time, but I always thought of JC's version as a sequel to the 50's version. The main thing that leads me to this is the scene where they are viewing the videos/films the Norwegians made of the ufo. those clips look exactly like clips from the original movie.

I think it's just a homage to the 50s film (not the first time Carpenter did this)

The Thing is a film that doesn't need a sequel. There's little point. Either the Thing is dead in the end (and probably so are Childes and MacCready) or else the Thing survived. Frankly if it survived mankind is screwed.

DaleC76 · February 5 2009, 12:24 AM

MeanJoePhaser wrote:

There were a few Darkhorse Comic miniseries sequels. I only read the first one; it was pretty well done.

On the DVD, Carpenter himself said he considered the Dark House miniseries to be the sequel to the film.

January 31 2009, 10:22 PM	#16
Neopeius Admiral Location: OSF Headquarters	Re: Why no sequal to JC The Thing. There is a cool PC/console game which takes place after the events of the movie (and presumably changes those events a bit). I used to play it in the garage in the dark with the windows open to let the frigid winter breeze in. When the little Thingies would pop up at you, it was totally freaky. __________________ "When God gives you lemons, you find a new God."

February 1 2009, 11:38 AM	#19
Nardpuncher Rear Admiral Location: Taipei	Re: Why no sequal to JC The Thing. The worst thing about a possible sequel/prequel is that they'd use CG. There's something more visceral about using latex and rubber and fake blood and so on that CG can't match. The thing is you know the creature isn't real anyway...but the practical effects are right there in front of the camera...while my eye can still spot the CG quite easily. Especially if it's creature effects (CG backgrounds and buildings are usually quite good).

February 1 2009, 07:38 PM	#20
Aquehonga Fleet Captain Location: nuSpringville Transbus Hub: there be Yukon deers on them buses!	Re: Why no sequal to JC The Thing. Leave it alone I say. JC's film was a cover of an original THING from the late 1950's. Not every movie has to be prequalled/sequalled. J effing C

February 2 2009, 01:12 AM	#23
Base_Delta_Zero Commodore Location: Maine	Re: Why no sequal to JC The Thing. Great, with Moore on this, we'll end up being confronted by the innate humanity of the Thing and how we're no better than it and maybe we actually deserve to be wiped out by it. The film will be alternately super awesome and hugely depressing. And gritty. And dark. And the Norwegians will be Swedes and one of the Swedes will be a woman, cause Moore likes to change shit up. ... No sequel unless Carpenter and Russell are in it. And JC's The Thing is NOT a remake of that bullshit '50s flick. They're both independent adaptations of the original short story "Who Goes There?"

February 2 2009, 05:57 PM	#26
sojourner Vice Admiral Location: I'm at WKRP	Re: Why no sequal to JC The Thing. I haven't seen this movie in a long time, but I always thought of JC's version as a sequel to the 50's version. The main thing that leads me to this is the scene where they are viewing the videos/films the Norwegians made of the ufo. those clips look exactly like clips from the original movie. __________________ Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

February 4 2009, 08:58 AM	#28
sojourner Vice Admiral Location: I'm at WKRP	Re: Why no sequal to JC The Thing. __________________ Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...