RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,266
Posts: 5,349,553
Members: 24,614
Currently online: 486
Newest member: robyn

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Ships Of The Line Design Contest
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Next Weekend: Shore Leave 36!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

True Trek History To Be Penned
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Insight Editions Announces Three Trek Books For 2015
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

To Be Takei Review by Spencer Blohm
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Mulgrew: Playing Red
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Hallmark 2015 Trek Ornaments
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Funko Mini Spock
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science Fiction & Fantasy

Science Fiction & Fantasy Farscape, Babylon 5, Star Wars, Firefly, vampires, genre books and film.

View Poll Results: Grade THE THING
Excellent 5 20.83%
Good 14 58.33%
Average 5 20.83%
Bad 0 0%
Terrible 0 0%
Voters: 24. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 16 2011, 05:13 PM   #31
TremblingBluStar
Vice Admiral
 
TremblingBluStar's Avatar
 
Location: Fort Dodge, IA
Re: THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews

Notable Internet reviewers Spoony and Brad Jones reviewed the film, and neither liked it.

I'm reserving judgment, but will not be seeing it in the theater.

http://spoonyexperiment.com/

http://thecinemasnob.com/
TremblingBluStar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 16 2011, 05:49 PM   #32
Kail
Commodore
 
Kail's Avatar
 
Location: Ga.
Re: THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews

First, I'm a huge fan of the 82 version, and went into the theater expecting to be disappointed, but was pleasantly surprised. I liked it. Great idea having the protagonist be a female as the 82 version was such a boys club. Others have mentioned how the PTB hit all the important points to fall in line with 82. There were also some great tribute shots to the 82 version that I loved. For example the shot coming over the rail to establish the block of ice. Certain parts were derivative, but I don't think there was any way to avoid that to some degree. The creature was great, I had no problem with the CGI. The film gave me all I wanted from a prequel and I can recommend it to any fan of the Carpenter film. Was the film perfect? No, but I think it was as good as it could be. Thumbs up!
__________________
Star Trek: The Animated Series
http://startrekanimated.com

I'm very selective about the reality I accept.
Kail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 16 2011, 05:52 PM   #33
OsmiumJohnnycake
Fleet Captain
 
Re: THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews

While I enjoyed the movie, the end result is too much of a remake even though it's also a very faithful prequel. In the original, you are in the dark about what exactly happened at the Norwegian base like the characters are. That is, until things start happening and then you can pretty much figure it out.

If the 2011 version came out first and the 1982 version was The Thing II, I suspect everyone would complain because they just payed $x to see the same movie again with no new ideas. This movie's main achievement is being a faithful prequel that really syncs up with the original with most of the details. But it leaves me wondering why they'd even bother to make it. If they'd just done a remake, they'd be more free to do new things with the basic idea at the core.

And even within the confines of making it sync up well, they could have, you know, not made scenes just like the original (the conversation around the fire, for example). It probably didn't help that I watched the original again Friday night then went to see a Saturday matinee.

I do have one question. They estimated (in the original version at least) that the spaceship must have crashed something like 100,000 years ago based on the depth and the ice surrounding it. And surely the alien didn't make it very far from the ship before it froze. But the alien is in pretty shallow ice compared to the ship. On some level that's logical since a ship crashing might make a crater. But they seemed to make the age estimate when they found the ship. The alien was what, no more than a foot below the ice, right? I mean based on both movies and the drill they used to take a sample. So the ship either crashed a lot more recently or the alien wandered for a looong time and then returned before it froze (which doesn't make any sense). Am I misunderstanding anything? I know it isn't incredibly important.
OsmiumJohnnycake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 16 2011, 10:41 PM   #34
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews

I loved it myself

Some links:

www.outpost31.com


Nice animated trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H39L8fLvXqw
http://sknr.net/2011/10/13/the-thing/ --Review
http://arts.nationalpost.com/2011/10...pot-the-thing/
http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/...ic.php?t=93907
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 16 2011, 11:18 PM   #35
Spaceman Spiff
Intrepid Explorer
 
Spaceman Spiff's Avatar
 
Re: THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews

Base_Delta_Zero wrote: View Post
bryce wrote: View Post
What era is this film set in - modern day? Or 1982?

Just been wondering...
...it's a prequel ... so just before the events of the first one in '82
Yep. There's even text at the beginning stating that the movie takes place in '82. And there are a few instances where radios are playing songs from the time. It's a straightforward prequel, not really trying to fudge it. Except with the title, I guess.

It was a perfectly serviceable monster movie. There weren't really any missteps that I can think of right now, aside from minor plot nitpicks. The performances are good. The effects are pretty good in most shots, particularly in the first half of the movie. Once things start skittering up walls and such, the effects aren't as good.

It doesn't quite have the pervasive sense of dread and paranoia that Carpenter's version has.

Still, I think it's worth seeing as a matinee.
__________________
"Love means never having to say you're ugly."
- Dr. Phibes
Spaceman Spiff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 16 2011, 11:38 PM   #36
OsmiumJohnnycake
Fleet Captain
 
Re: THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews

The opening credits mentioned "Who Goes There?" but I don't think I saw a mention of Bill Lancaster, John Carpenter or Rob Bottin. (Ennio Morricone did get a credit.) I find that weird since nowhere does it explicitly mention it's a sequel/prequel, nor does the title suggest it. The creature design was clearly based on Bottin's vision of the alien. The story was clearly based on the 1982 version. And there were even shots that duplicated Carpenter's movie. So I was a little surprised to not see them mentioned anywhere. Or did I miss it?
OsmiumJohnnycake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2011, 12:14 AM   #37
Set Harth
Rear Admiral
 
Set Harth's Avatar
 
Location: Gallifrey Falls
Re: THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews

OsmiumJohnnycake wrote: View Post
I find that weird since nowhere does it explicitly mention it's a sequel/prequel, nor does the title suggest it.
It would be somewhat unlikely for the title to indicate prequel status - unless it was called The Thing: The Beginning or something. If this had been a series with installments called "Thing One" and "Thing Two", I guess you could have called a prequel Thing Zero.
__________________
"In the future... do I make it?"
"No."
Set Harth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2011, 12:18 AM   #38
OsmiumJohnnycake
Fleet Captain
 
Re: THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews

I don't have The Thing Bluray, so maybe they've already changed the title to Episode IV: The American Base.
OsmiumJohnnycake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2011, 12:19 AM   #39
Set Harth
Rear Admiral
 
Set Harth's Avatar
 
Location: Gallifrey Falls
Re: THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews

Episode IV: The Norwegian Shoots First
__________________
"In the future... do I make it?"
"No."
Set Harth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2011, 12:30 AM   #40
Spaceman Spiff
Intrepid Explorer
 
Spaceman Spiff's Avatar
 
Re: THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews

Set Harth wrote: View Post
OsmiumJohnnycake wrote: View Post
I find that weird since nowhere does it explicitly mention it's a sequel/prequel, nor does the title suggest it.
It would be somewhat unlikely for the title to indicate prequel status - unless it was called The Thing: The Beginning or something. If this had been a series with installments called "Thing One" and "Thing Two", I guess you could have called a prequel Thing Zero.
Or The Thing From Another World.





(I'm kidding, of course. This is TrekBBS, so one must specify.)
__________________
"Love means never having to say you're ugly."
- Dr. Phibes
Spaceman Spiff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2011, 01:04 AM   #41
OsmiumJohnnycake
Fleet Captain
 
Re: THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews

I know there are rules or laws with which I'm not familiar with that dictate when people get credit. And I suppose some frozen corpses and person in a winter outfit shooting at a dog might not constitute a "based on characters created by" credit. I can't recall if Aliens credited H.R. Giger or if he was involved in any way beyond the first film. I know I've seen a "based on a screenplay by" credit before. I'm just curious what makes those kinds of credits pop up sometimes and not here (again, unless I missed something).
OsmiumJohnnycake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2011, 01:56 AM   #42
Trekker4747
Fleet Admiral
 
Trekker4747's Avatar
 
Location: Kansas City
Re: THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews

TremblingBluStar wrote: View Post
Notable Internet reviewers Spoony and Brad Jones reviewed the film, and neither liked it.

I'm reserving judgment, but will not be seeing it in the theater.

http://spoonyexperiment.com/

http://thecinemasnob.com/
Spoony and Brad were unnecessarily harsh on it and seemed going in either expecting too much or with too high of an opinion of the "original." I mean I love the original and its a classic movie in its own right but it's hardly flawless. This movie is hardly perfect and, yeah, probably doesn't compare to the "original" but, for me, it was good entertainment and I really liked how it ties in to the original with all of the hints, beats, and cues.

I'd say it's well worth catching in the theater.

I do agree with Spoony that this movie fails to really deliver the sense of isolation and bitter, terrible, cold of Antarctica. But the first movie was hardly consistent there either, there's a couple of scenes where the characters are outside, at night, with -40 temperatures and they're either just pulling on their coats as they get outside or wearing them opened up. There's a scene where one of the guys goes outside to investigate a noise and discovers McReady's jumpsuit and his coat isn't zipped closed and his wearing no eye/face/head protection. This is during the time the storm was supposedly hitting them hard according to McReady's log he did just moments earlier.

I think Spoony also points out the movie did little to establish it as being in the 1980s but I think I sort of like that. Most movies that want to over-establish themselves in the past will go overboard with to many wink-winks at the audience and the time. I mean, did we need to see someone in the hall of Katie's lab talking on a Zach Morris style phone going, "Dude! I'm talking on a CELL PHONE!" Should Katie have had the one-sided pony tail while chewing on bubble gum?

How much "establishment" do you need to set the time period? The clothing looked to not be much different than what the guys in the original wear and no piece of equipment stuck out to me as being out of place or time. Sure the movie didn't go out of its way to say "Hey! This is 1982!" but it didn't do anything that said "Hey, this is sort-of 2011-y!" either. It stood out, to me, as being "null time." The original stands out as being 1982 mostly from the use of the equipment (the computers, TV, VCR) but only because back then that was common equipment. Today I think it'd just stand out as the movie makers going, "Hey! It's 1982! Michael Jackson is still black!"

I also think the "suspense" of things was muted mostly on purpose. Fans of the original are going to know what's going to happen, what the thing does, etc. So there's nothing to build suspense about. We already know and are even shown that things aren't right here and out of place. We're shown them drilling into the ice block and we know as movie viewers that's not a good idea. In the original there's more suspense because the audience isn't clued in to anything being a miss simply beyond them determining the Norwegian pilot/gunman had possibly going mad.

Nope, I really liked this movie.

Last edited by Trekker4747; October 17 2011 at 02:09 AM.
Trekker4747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2011, 02:17 AM   #43
Kail
Commodore
 
Kail's Avatar
 
Location: Ga.
Re: THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews

I just found the lyrics to the song the Norwegians were singing in the bar. It goes like this...
"We just found an alien and now we're going to die!" Look for it on iTunes.
__________________
Star Trek: The Animated Series
http://startrekanimated.com

I'm very selective about the reality I accept.
Kail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2011, 02:40 AM   #44
Spaceman Spiff
Intrepid Explorer
 
Spaceman Spiff's Avatar
 
Re: THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews

Nice find.
__________________
"Love means never having to say you're ugly."
- Dr. Phibes
Spaceman Spiff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2011, 05:41 PM   #45
Moodib
Lieutenant
 
Re: THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews

1982's movie was NOT THE ORIGINAL!

The original was made in 1951 called The Thing from Another World, while that movie was good it was a poor adaptation of the book "Who Goes There" by John Campbell because they had to make it a bit romantic and they didn't have the right technology for special effects to make the creature a shapeshifter, instead we got a killer carrot vampire alien.

1982's version had better improved technology and was the quintessential faithful adaptation of the novel as it finally had the shapeshifter including the characters from the book.
Moodib is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
horror

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.