THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews

Trekker4747 · October 14 2011, 01:48 AM

Taking place three days before the events of the John Carpenter film, paleontologist Kate Lloyd is recruited by scientist Sander Halversen and his assistant Adam Goodman to join a Norwegian scientific team that has stumbled across a crashed extraterrestrial spaceship buried beneath the ice of Antarctica. They discover the frozen corpse of a creature that seems to have died in the crash eons ago.

After recovering the creature in a frozen block of ice, they transport it back to their base and conduct an experiment which frees the alien from its frozen prison. Kate joins the crew's pilot, Carter, to keep it from killing and imitating them one at a time, using its uncanny ability to mimic any life form it absorbs through digestion, and potentially reaching civilization.

Obiwanshinobi · October 14 2011, 02:37 AM

I hope it will be good. Absolutely adore Mary Elizabeth Winstead!

Trekker4747 · October 14 2011, 02:57 AM

Adore her too, will likely go see this movie with my buddy Saturday evening, will report back with my review that night.

Roger Ebert gave it a negative review (2.5 stars):

This version of "The Thing," directed by Matthijs van Heijningen Jr., provides such graphic and detailed views of the creature that we are essentially reduced to looking at special effects, and being aware that we are.

It's another one of his reviews that focuses less on the craft or the plot of the movie itself but more in the illogic of the creature imitating people and then exposing itself as a fraud. It's a bit more detailed than his "Nemesis" review where he criticized the movie for not lining up with how he thinks electricity will work in 400 years, but it's another one of those reviews where the movie's plot illogic overcomes the "craft" of the movie. (Comparatively, he was kind to "Real Steel" even though that movie's plot is just as thin if you were to analyze it.)

"The Thing" is a 39% ("Rotten") at Rotten Tomatoes based on 59 reviews. (22% "Rotten" based on 18 "Top Critic" reviews.)

Spaceman Spiff · October 14 2011, 07:14 AM

Ebert didn't like Carpenter's version, either.

Trekker4747 · October 14 2011, 11:44 AM

Spookman Spiff wrote:

Ebert didn't like Carpenter's version, either.

Well, Ebert's a fool then.

Moodib · October 14 2011, 07:13 PM

Suprisingly well made and fun prequel to the 1982 Sci-fi horror masterpiece which itself remains the definitive and faithful adaptation of John Campbell's novel "Who Goes There".

I can't wait to go to Universal next Friday and check out horror nights's Thing maze

od0_ital · October 14 2011, 07:21 PM

Average

Saw it at a free screenin' the other night...I wasn't too impressed, but then I just saw the original for the first time a couple of months ago, so its still fresh in my mind.

Praetor_Shinzon · October 14 2011, 08:45 PM

i'm off to see this. i doubt it will be as good as Carpenter's version, but it does look like fun.

RAMA · October 14 2011, 08:53 PM

Trekker4747 wrote:

Spookman Spiff wrote:

Ebert didn't like Carpenter's version, either.

Well, Ebert's a fool then.

LOT'S of people hated it and still do.

RAMA · October 14 2011, 08:54 PM

Why is it that none of the characters in the trailer look or sound Norwegian?

RAMA

Trekker4747 · October 14 2011, 08:59 PM

RAMA wrote:

Why is it that none of the characters in the trailer look or sound Norwegian?

RAMA

MEW's character is an American brought in to consult on what the Norwegians discovered, not sure on why everyone else "doesn't sound Norwegian" but then I'm not sure I can say what I think a Norwegian sounds like.

As for the original being disliked in its day, I suppose. But I see it as just one of those "cult classics." I mean Kurt Russell, Wilford Brimley, a giant mouth opening up out of a guy's chest and chomping off a doctor's arms?! The inexplicable idea that apparently flame-throwers are standard equipment at the south pole?!

What is there to not like!

davejames · October 14 2011, 10:08 PM

The impression I get is that most people at the time were too turned off by the blood and gore to appreciate anything else about the film.

As for the new movie, I'll most likely wait for the rental. Hearing that it's basically just a rehash of the previous movie, only with a lot more CGI, doesn't exactly inspire much confidence.

Base_Delta_Zero · October 14 2011, 11:42 PM

Half the cast are damn Swedes, I mean Norwegians, so they better sound Norwegian.

This was excellent and you'll regret not seeing it in theatres. I was really worried it would just be a premake with CGI, but the beats they hit are actually pretty good and remind you of the 82 film rather than rip it off, while establishing their own beats as well. Being two teams of scientists, they come up with similar ideas, and the Things counter them in similar ways, but seriously, there's not a lot of ways to do things down at the South Pole. Copy shit. Get unmasked by some type of test. Slaughter people. Shoot it (not too effective), Kill it with fire! ... ??? ... Profit?

I thought they did especially well at setting up the aftermath to match (nearly) seamlessly with 82. The acting was good, sets great, CGI decent (seen better, seen worse, didn't throw me out of the film and while not as disgusting as the 82 practical effects, were pretty icky). I got head-faked at least once with who was a Thing, though some take-overs you knew were going to happen.

The setting was so cool to see again. Makes me wish At the Mountains of Madness hadn't fallen through.

Oh! They had musical cues/beats from 82 that instantly set the mood, too.

Ebert has his head up his ass still from not liking the first one. Typical of him, he misses plot points, references and inferences that are pretty plain to see, just so he can complain about shit. If I had a dollar for every time Ebert complained about shit that didn't even happen in the film, I'd have at least ten dollars.

Here's a clue or two, Ebert...The Thing didn't build that spaceship, it's last victim did. It uses a weird amalgam of body-parts because it is on an alien world and it takes time to figure out exactly what would be the best bodyform to morph into, let alone to do the morphing. Whenever a Thing separates, it no longer has any allegiance to its disparate parts. Each little bit of the Thing is interested in protecting itself, not the whole or the group. That's why it reveals itself and splits up to attack or runs away.

Anyway... If you liked the first one at all, you'll enjoy this addition to the Thingverse.

And there's definitely an opening for a sequel to 82 that could

spoilers!

link the survivors? of both films together...

At the Russian just base 50 miles north. We can make it!

Maybe even include some military guys this time or KGB, really get into the Meta who's a commie vibe of 82.

Admiral2 · October 15 2011, 01:22 AM

Excellent!

Manages to be reminiscent of both the 1950's and 1982 movies and still be its own movie...a sick, sick movie with several eye-hiding moments!

Sweet!

Praetor_Shinzon · October 15 2011, 02:59 AM

just got back from seeing this and i really enjoyed it. its a nice set up for the 82 film. sometimes it feels like you are watching the 82 film. the monsters are pretty gross looking and a bit over the top at times. its a fun film and if you enjoy the 82 Thing you will enjoy this.

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

October 14 2011, 02:37 AM	#2
Obiwanshinobi Rear Admiral Location: ObiWanShinobi	Re: THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews I hope it will be good. Absolutely adore Mary Elizabeth Winstead!

October 14 2011, 07:14 AM	#4
Spaceman Spiff Intrepid Explorer	Re: THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews Ebert didn't like Carpenter's version, either. __________________ "Love means never having to say you're ugly." - Dr. Phibes

October 14 2011, 07:13 PM	#6
Moodib Lieutenant	Re: THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews Suprisingly well made and fun prequel to the 1982 Sci-fi horror masterpiece which itself remains the definitive and faithful adaptation of John Campbell's novel "Who Goes There". I can't wait to go to Universal next Friday and check out horror nights's Thing maze

October 14 2011, 07:21 PM	#7
od0_ital Admiral Location: Austin, Texas	Re: THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews Average Saw it at a free screenin' the other night...I wasn't too impressed, but then I just saw the original for the first time a couple of months ago, so its still fresh in my mind. __________________ od0's bucket od0's facebook

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

October 14 2011, 08:45 PM	#8
Praetor_Shinzon Rear Admiral Location: Virginia	Re: THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews i'm off to see this. i doubt it will be as good as Carpenter's version, but it does look like fun.

October 14 2011, 08:54 PM	#10
RAMA Vice Admiral Location: NJ, USA	Re: THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews Why is it that none of the characters in the trailer look or sound Norwegian? RAMA __________________ “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”—Stephen R. Covey

October 14 2011, 10:08 PM	#12
davejames Vice Admiral Location: Sac, Ca	Re: THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews The impression I get is that most people at the time were too turned off by the blood and gore to appreciate anything else about the film. As for the new movie, I'll most likely wait for the rental. Hearing that it's basically just a rehash of the previous movie, only with a lot more CGI, doesn't exactly inspire much confidence.

October 14 2011, 11:42 PM	#13
Base_Delta_Zero Commodore Location: Maine	Re: THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews Half the cast are damn Swedes, I mean Norwegians, so they better sound Norwegian. This was excellent and you'll regret not seeing it in theatres. I was really worried it would just be a premake with CGI, but the beats they hit are actually pretty good and remind you of the 82 film rather than rip it off, while establishing their own beats as well. Being two teams of scientists, they come up with similar ideas, and the Things counter them in similar ways, but seriously, there's not a lot of ways to do things down at the South Pole. Copy shit. Get unmasked by some type of test. Slaughter people. Shoot it (not too effective), Kill it with fire! ... ??? ... Profit? I thought they did especially well at setting up the aftermath to match (nearly) seamlessly with 82. The acting was good, sets great, CGI decent (seen better, seen worse, didn't throw me out of the film and while not as disgusting as the 82 practical effects, were pretty icky). I got head-faked at least once with who was a Thing, though some take-overs you knew were going to happen. The setting was so cool to see again. Makes me wish At the Mountains of Madness hadn't fallen through. Oh! They had musical cues/beats from 82 that instantly set the mood, too. Ebert has his head up his ass still from not liking the first one. Typical of him, he misses plot points, references and inferences that are pretty plain to see, just so he can complain about shit. If I had a dollar for every time Ebert complained about shit that didn't even happen in the film, I'd have at least ten dollars. Here's a clue or two, Ebert...The Thing didn't build that spaceship, it's last victim did. It uses a weird amalgam of body-parts because it is on an alien world and it takes time to figure out exactly what would be the best bodyform to morph into, let alone to do the morphing. Whenever a Thing separates, it no longer has any allegiance to its disparate parts. Each little bit of the Thing is interested in protecting itself, not the whole or the group. That's why it reveals itself and splits up to attack or runs away. Anyway... If you liked the first one at all, you'll enjoy this addition to the Thingverse. And there's definitely an opening for a sequel to 82 that could spoilers! link the survivors? of both films together... At the Russian just base 50 miles north. We can make it! Maybe even include some military guys this time or KGB, really get into the Meta who's a commie vibe of 82. Last edited by Base_Delta_Zero; October 14 2011 at 11:58 PM.

October 15 2011, 01:22 AM	#14
Admiral2 Vice Admiral Location: The PIT, in Utah...	Re: THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews Excellent! Manages to be reminiscent of both the 1950's and 1982 movies and still be its own movie...a sick, sick movie with several eye-hiding moments! Sweet! __________________ "Actually that one scene is quite representative of the film: driving a classic off a cliff and thoroughly trashing it." -Warped9 on ST09

October 15 2011, 02:59 AM	#15
Praetor_Shinzon Rear Admiral Location: Virginia	Re: THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews just got back from seeing this and i really enjoyed it. its a nice set up for the 82 film. sometimes it feels like you are watching the 82 film. the monsters are pretty gross looking and a bit over the top at times. its a fun film and if you enjoy the 82 Thing you will enjoy this.