THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews

[Set Harth]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

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

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

Well, Ebert's a fool then.

Seconded.

Base_Delta_Zero wrote:

---

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.

Like the TCW film supposedly not mentioning the Force.

[Harvey]

Ebert's not a fool, but he never did get the 82 version of the movie so it's no surprise that he didn't care for this one, which -- judging from the trailer -- is pretty faithful to the Carpenter version of the movie.

I wonder what Ebert thinks of the Hawks/Nyby version?

[Spaceman Spiff]

Or he might not be a fool; he just happened to dislike the movie.

It does happen, Internet.

[NJOberheim]

I'm a huge fan of the Carpenter version. It's probably in my top 3 films of all time. I've watched it many times, quote lines from it, etc. I was skeptical that they would be able to capture the magic again but went in with an open mind.

I enjoyed the movie. I was very happy with how much attention to detail went into tying in the events of the prequel to the orginal. They pretty much thought of everything. Down to why there was an axe embedded in a door when Mcgready went to the norweigen camp in the orginal.

I only have two complaints. The CGI wasnt bad but it looked like...CGI. I think it would have been awesome if they didnt go the CGI route but of course that's a pipe dream.

The other complaint was the movement and behaviour of the creature was different. For one, it moved way too fast. I know, its because its CGI and they have the ability to do that now, but there was something so creepy about the orginal's slow movements. Also, the new creature was in the offensive, rather then like in the orginal where it seemed to be more concerned with being hidden and was a lot more strategic in it's attacks.

That being said, I enjoyed it, and am happy with how faithful the producer was to the orginal.

[Galileo7]

NJOberheim wrote:

---

I enjoyed the movie. I was very happy with how much attention to detail went into tying in the events of the prequel to the orginal. They pretty much thought of everything. Down to why there was an axe embedded in a door when Mcgready went to the norweigen camp in the orginal.

Agreed.

[Set Harth]

Spookman Spiff wrote:

---

Or he might not be a fool; he just happened to dislike the movie.

Obi-Wan Kenobi would say that his followers are the bigger fools.

[bryce]

What era is this film set in - modern day? Or 1982?

Just been wondering...

[Base_Delta_Zero]

bryce wrote:

---

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

[bryce]

Base_Delta_Zero wrote:

---

...it's a prequel ... so just before the events of the first one in '82

So....they are not trying to reset the date of the original film and update it to 2011? This new movie is set in '82 with 80's tech (no computers laptops, etc...) Right?

I was wondering which way they'd go with that...as modern sci-i audiences tend to expect laptops and computers and DNA analyzers and cell phones, etc in films where an alien biology is examined....but as there where none in the '82 version, that would be problematic...glad they stayed faithful to the time and setting and such...

[sidious618]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

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.

That's not at all what Ebert's review of Nemesis was like. Disagree with the man all you want, I often do, but don't just blatantly make things up.

[Trekker4747]

sidious618 wrote:

---

That's not at all what Ebert's review of Nemesis was like. Disagree with the man all you want, I often do, but don't just blatantly make things up.

I just re-read it. I may have over stated things, but he does spend more time nit-picking the movie more than he does discussing the actual aspects of the movie like plot, story, acting, stuff like that.

Anyway....

The Thing

My Grade: B+

John Carpenter's "The Thing" is one of those 1980s classics that's just a testament to the kind of story teller and craftsman he is. The movie focused on an isolated group of Americans at an Antarctican base dealing with fear and uncertainty when faced with a new danger. The movie would work alone if everything was just manifestations of their madness while isolated during a Antarctican winter storm but whole new element of terror is brought in with the memetic-creature that terrorizes the base over the course of the movie.

Itself a remake of a 1950s movie, Carpenter's "The Thing" is a classic that is often imitated or referenced to in other places -most notably an early episode of "The X-Files."

Here we are over 20 years later and we're presented with a "prequel" movie that gives us some back story about what happened at the Norwegian base an hour away from the American one from several days before hand literally right up to when the first movie began.

It's 1982 and an American researcher/scientist in the field of paleontology is tasked with traveling to The South Pole for a group of Norwegians to give her professional opinion on an amazing discovery. That amazing discovery turns out to be a space-ship buried under the Antarctic ice for 100 millenia along with the frozen form of an unknown creature.

Before too long the frozen creature escapes and the researchers discover that the being is able to imitate the form of a biological creature in comes into contact with almost perfectly.

The movie is almost note-for-note the same as the original, paranoia sets in with the group over who is real and who isn't, a simple test is worked out to figure out who is human and who isn't, and we're shown that high-level explosives, fire-arms, and flame-throwers are apparently standard equipment for South Pole research.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead is our lead character, the called upon American scientist, and pretty much plays the Kurt Russel role although with a lot less badassness and a lot more hotness, though she certainly has her moments of badassery.

The special-effects (re: CGI) is used pretty well here in depicting the creature and how it imitates life forms and the movie does a great job of showing nods to the original even setting up a few key, and subtle, plot points and details. The usual paranoia sets in with the usual suspects given the unreasoned stink-eye, the lovable screw-ball characters and maybe the occasional "oh no, that guy got it!"

In short, it's a fun movie that any fan of the original is sure to enjoy. The effects are good, action pretty decent but much of the charm just comes from the cues to the original and setting things up. There's even a crack in the door open for a possible sequel. Or a coincide-quel? A genuine, chronological sequel?

Just a couple of nit-picks I want to make: (SPOILERS)

1. When Katie Lloyd (MEW) rides in the helicopter en route to the Norwegian base a fellow American -working at the base- asks her how a basketball team he follows is faring, seemingly under the impression they're playing. We're told through both dialogue and opening credits that it's Winter in Antarctica (as it is in the original movie) which means it's Summer in the Northern Hemisphere and basketball is played in the Winter. This is fairly "common" in movies or stories that take place in the SH but with reference to the NH (or vice/versa), they don't always acknowledge the seasons in the NH and SH are opposite one another.

2. The movies explains quite a bit about the events between the two movies, but doesn't seem to explain why the spaceship is missing by the time the Americans get to it in the opening to the original.

3. Close to the end our surviving characters mention traveling to a nearby Russian base, little to no mention is made of the American one that is either just as far away if not closer. (At one point it's said the Russian base is 50-miles away from the Norwegian one, in the original the Norwegian base is a one-hour helicopter ride away from the American base. It's possible the Russian base is closer to the Norwegian one if only by a bit, but it seemed odd little to no mention is made of the American base.

4. I could quibble the helicopter at the end of this movie differs in color and livery from the helicopter at the beginning of the original.

So....they are not trying to reset the date of the original film and update it to 2011? This new movie is set in '82 with 80's tech (no computers laptops, etc...) Right?

The technology and other references to time period lines up nicely with the movie being set in the 1980s accepting that doctors and scientists would have access to computers and specialized equipment. This movie takes place from four days or so before the events of the first movie literally right up to the moment the first movie begins after its title card.

[OsmiumJohnnycake]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

2. The movies explains quite a bit about the events between the two movies, but doesn't seem to explain why the spaceship is missing by the time the Americans get to it in the opening to the original.

The spaceship is still there in the original when they go out to investigate the site.

[Trekker4747]

Yeah, I rewatched the original last night and saw the space ship was still there, I was thinking of the scene in "The X-Files" movie where Scully and Mulder are on the edge of where the space-ship takes off.

[NJOberheim]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

3. Close to the end our surviving characters mention traveling to a nearby Russian base, little to no mention is made of the American one that is either just as far away if not closer. (At one point it's said the Russian base is 50-miles away from the Norwegian one, in the original the Norwegian base is a one-hour helicopter ride away from the American base. It's possible the Russian base is closer to the Norwegian one if only by a bit, but it seemed odd little to no mention is made of the American base.

SPOILERS!!!




I thought the same thing. Since the Carter character was already infected when he suggested the Russian camp, he could have just been making it up to take Kate over.

Or, maybe the writers took some artistic freedom just to set things up for a possibe sequel. Maybe Kate, McGready, and Childs some how find each other and they make their way to the Russian camp.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Spookman Spiff wrote:

---

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

I really like and respect Roger Ebert.

Contrary to Trekker4747's misrepresentation of it, Ebert's review of Nemesis was dead-on - in a few brief and witty sentences he summed up the essence of what was wrong with Star Trek by that point in time; he basically wrote an early epitaph for the first four decades of the thing.

In movie after movie after movie I have to sit through sequences during which the captain is tersely informed that the front shield is down to 60 percent, or the back shield is down to 10 percent, or the side shield is leaking energy, and the captain tersely orders that power be shifted from the back to the sides or all put in the front, or whatever, and I'm thinking, life is too short to sit through 10 movies in which the power is shifted around on these shields. The shields have been losing power for decades now...

It couldn't be stated much better or more entertainingly than that.