THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews

[publiusr]

Viewpoint of The Thing
http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/

Spoilers
http://scarecrowblog.wordpress.com/2...ings/#more-189
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(2011_film)

[jefferiestubes8]

semi-related.
Since all 3 films are based on the 1938 novel Who Goes There? there was a radio drama done in 2002 on the story Who Goes There?.

It has been adapted as a radio drama by BBC RADIO at 2002.01.24.

according to Wikipedia.
Length : 28 Minutes
Does anyone know if it is available anywhere?

I'm still on the fence about seeing the new film.

[publiusr]

Here are views of the spacecraft itself
http://www.robertdraws.com/2011/10/t...ncept-art.html

The original--
http://thething.ca/blueprints.html
scroll down to no. 71
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/2865...es_and_tv.html

[Odon]

As to what happened with Carter, the last thing we see before switching to the Kate vs. Sander-Thing action is that Carter has heard something, presumably the Thing stalking him. When he makes a reappearance, Kate has already made the Thing swallow the grenade, so it would make more sense to act human, lure her into the snocat where she can't run away easily and assimilate her, doubling the Thing's chances of making it to the outside world.

As for not mentioning the American base, that was just so Kate wouldn't drive in that direction for the sequel. And yeah, the way it just cuts away from her is annoying. They could at least of had her snocat's lights driving away into the storm until they were swallowed up or something.

My brother and I returned from holiday and found to our surprise that this movie which had only been playing for a couple of weeks had already left the mainstream cinemas and were showing in the independents - we decided to watch it quickly before it stopped showing!

Conclusions: As a sci-fi horror movie it stands up well, and is worth seeing on that point. As a successor to The Thing (1982) however I was disappointed. Frankly I was expecting to be on the edge of my seat for the entire movie, but that didn't happen (it didn't help that one of the creepiest moments - when Kate is lured away by the Juliette-Thing - had already been spoiled by the trailer). One thing I felt was lacking in the '82 movie (especially as I'd read the Alan Dean Foster novelisation) was an all-out shitfight between humans and alien, but it felt more like they were ticking the boxes from the '82 movie (that's how the axe got there, that's where the two-face Thing came from, the guy who commited suicide was, umm...when exactly did he kill himself?) I thought the "tooth-test" idea was very clever, and was hoping for more cleverness - especially after reading Peter Watt's short story "The Things" I was looking for some insights into the creature. Or a twist like the female protagonist turning out to be the Thing, and in a way that stands up to scrutiny afterwards. And the Thing in it's 'natural' (or previous) form hiding under the hut was good - the well-lit CGI later versions less so.

There's nothing about it that's bad, just not as good as I was hoping.

[Immolatus]

Question?


Spoiler




What happened to the thing in the helicopter that crashed? did they mention it? if not then does that mean there is another one running around? did it seem like everyone was getting infected a whole lot faster in this movie then in the original (just soemthing I noticed). saw it with my son, who never seen the original, and he was sacred out of his pants. reminded me of myself when I saw the original.

[Trekker4747]

THE ORIGINAL IS NOT THE JOHN CARPENTER VERSION IT WAS ONE MADE IN 1888 WITH AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT NAME!!!!!!!!

Sorry, it just seems like whenever someone mentions the Carpenter version as being the "original" when compared to this movie people have to make that statement.

I don't think we're clearly told what happened to The Thing in the crash of the helicopter, or even how the survivors got back from the supposedly inaccessible crash site. It's probably a genuine plot hole in the movie.

[Base_Delta_Zero]

If the helicopter landed on its tail, it's possible GriggsThing was crushed and then burned by avgas, while Carter and Jameson were saved by their safety harnesses and managed to crawl from the wreck.

As for it being inaccessible, I believe it was Edvard, the team leader, who pointed out the site was impossible to reach and everyone just nodded their heads in shock. As he was almost certainly EdvardThing at this point, he would not have wanted anyone to investigate the crash caused by GriggsThing. He then insisted Carter and Jameson be killed the moment they returned to camp, later that evening, when right after the crash he had been downplaying the possibility of the Thing imitating anyone.

If Edvard was a Thing at the time of the crash, the survival and return of the crew is not a plot hole.

[Mike Farley]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

THE ORIGINAL IS NOT THE JOHN CARPENTER VERSION IT WAS ONE MADE IN 1888 WITH AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT NAME!!!!!!!!

I would love to see a 19th century version of THE THING.

[Trekker4747]

That might actually be pretty cool.

[Immolatus]

[QUOTE=Trekker4747;5371142]THE ORIGINAL IS NOT THE JOHN CARPENTER VERSION IT WAS ONE MADE IN 1888 WITH AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT NAME!!!!!!!!

Sorry, it just seems like whenever someone mentions the Carpenter version as being the "original" when compared to this movie people have to make that statement.
QUOTE]

I'm aware that there is a 50's version (which I like as well) but for this discussion I'll just refer to Carpenter version as original.

at what point was Evard infected? everyone got infected pretty fast

[Sindatur]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

THE ORIGINAL IS NOT THE JOHN CARPENTER VERSION IT WAS ONE MADE IN 1888 WITH AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT NAME!!!!!!!!

Sorry, it just seems like whenever someone mentions the Carpenter version as being the "original" when compared to this movie people have to make that statement.

I don't think we're clearly told what happened to The Thing in the crash of the helicopter, or even how the survivors got back from the supposedly inaccessible crash site. It's probably a genuine plot hole in the movie.

???? What was it called? I'm aware of of the 1951 Thing From Another World, and the John Carpenter Remake, and now this sequel. The First Motion Picture wasn't even made until 1888, are you saying an Adapatation of the Thing was amongst the first Motion Pictures? Strange for Wikipedia not to mention it?

In Fact, from this Wikipedia Page, it appears the 1951 movie is the original work
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing

[Servo]

Sindatur wrote:

---

???? What was it called? I'm aware of of the 1951 Thing From Another World, and the John Carpenter Remake, and now this sequel. The First Motion Picture wasn't even made until 1888, are you saying an Adapatation of the Thing was amongst the first Motion Pictures? Strange for Wikipedia not to mention it?

In Fact, from this Wikipedia Page, it appears the 1951 movie is the original work
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing

"Humour. It is a difficult concept."

[Trekker4747]

Indeed.

I was being snarky.

Whenever a commenter, reviewer or one of the on-line video reviewers on Channel Awesome reviewed this new Thing movie they called the Carpenter version "the original."

Which... it is. At least for this context as this movie is a direct prequel to the Carpenter movie which also happens to be the movie most likely to be in the public consciousness and not some movie made 60 years ago with no connection to either movie aside from similar plot points.

Anyway, whenever someone called the Carpenter movie "the original" compared to his movie some pendants were quick to point out that Carpenter's movie was not "the original" but the 1951 movie is.

Which, again, might be the case given the 1951 movie was the first adaptation of the story to film it has no connections to this movie. As far as this movie is concerned the Carpenter movie is "the original."

[Immolatus]

publiusr wrote:

---

Viewpoint of The Thing
http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/

Spoilers
http://scarecrowblog.wordpress.com/2...ings/#more-189
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(2011_film)

interesting read. it would have been interesting to get the Things point of view or at least comunicate with it. alway wondered was it just an animal, was it afraid, was it evil.

[RAMA]

FInally saw the movie...I liked the beginning in the sense that it was a scientific expedition, and they didn't try to make everyone seem stupid, but the movie lacked a bit of energy. Many of the scenes were lesser versions of one from the 1982 movie. Overall, it's not nearly as bad as it could of been, but it doesn't really stand out either. C-Average

RAMA