THE THING (Prequel/Remake) Teaser Poster & Trailer (1 Viewer)

[dpippel]

Technically Carpenter's film isn't a remake. It was his adaptation (and a much more faithful one) of the same John Campbell short story, "Who Goes There?", that Howard Hawks' 1951 movie was based upon.

 

[TravisR]

The Thing is a remake. There's no shame in that. A movie isn't good or bad because it's a remake so there's and no need to make up an excuse for why it isn't one.

 

[dpippel]

I disagree. Carpenter's film bears almost no similarities to Hawks', but is very much in-line with the story by Campbell. Read it. There's a big difference between basing your work on the same source material and remaking a movie. And you're right that there's no shame in a direct remake, the current flood of Hollywood crap notwithstanding.

 

[TravisR]

I disagree. Carpenter's film bears almost no similarities to Hawks', but is very much in-line with the story by Campbell. Read it. There's a big difference between basing your work on the same source material and remaking a movie.

If there's almost no similarities between The Thing and The Thing From Another World then you can say the same for many remakes. I can't tell you how many horror remakes that I've seen that are basically an in-name-only remake but no one makes any distinction about those movies not really being remakes.

 

[dpippel]

As I said, the difference here is that both movies are based on a short story, and Carpenter's film is far more faithful to that story. Therefore...

 

[Don Solosan]

"If there's almost no similarities between The Thing and The Thing From Another World then you can say the same for many remakes." The big difference, probably, is that those horror movies you're talking about were originals, not based on other material. Like Halloween. If you make a new Halloween, there's no other source material to mine than the original movies. Thus, it's a remake, even if they go in a completely new direction with it. The Thing From Another World was only inspired by Campbell's story. Carpenter's version was firmly based on the story and much more faithful. Therefore it's not a remake of the first movie, it only shares the common inspiration.

 

[TravisR]

As I said, the difference here is that both movies are based on a short story, and Carpenter's film is far more faithful to that story. Therefore...

I see your point but, to me, it's splitting hairs. If it's been made as a movie before and it's being made again, it's a remake.

The big difference, probably, is that those horror movies you're talking about were originals, not based on other material.

The remake of When A Stranger Calls is based on an urban legend. The original uses that urban legend for its opening 10 or 15 minutes and the remake makes an entire movie out of the urban legend. Outside of the opening, the movies are different (way more different than The Things) but I never saw anyone say that the When A Stranger Calls remake wasn't a remake because it was based on an urban legend.

 

[Don Solosan]

"but I never saw anyone say that the When A Stranger Calls remake wasn't a remake because it was based on an urban legend." Maybe because urban legends aren't set in stone. They have lots of variations, so it kind of depends on what area you live in which version you hear and think of as "the legend." I remember when The Crow came out (I grew up in the Detroit area, where the story was set), people from other parts of the country had screwy ideas about whether or not Devil's Night was real (it is) and what it entailed (mostly small pranks, but for a while in the inner city, a lot of fires in abandoned buildings).

 

[dpippel]

Originally Posted by TravisR

I see your point but, to me, it's splitting hairs. If it's been made as a movie before and it's being made again, it's a remake.

We'll just have to disagree on that one. If Carpenter had based his 1982 film on the work that Hawks did in "The Thing from Another World", *that* would be a remake. Basing it on the same source material is a completely different beast IMO and isn't splitting hairs at all. It's like two painters interpreting the same landscape on two separate canvasses.

 

[Rhett_Y]

I am actually excited to see this. Remake or prequel. Either way I am game!

 

[Johnny Angell]

 

We'll just have to disagree on that one. If Carpenter had based his 1982 film on the work that Hawks did in "The Thing from Another World", *that* would be a remake. Basing it on the same source material is a completely different beast IMO and isn't splitting hairs at all. It's like two painters interpreting the same landscape on two separate canvasses.

I have to agree with you. The two previous Things were completely different takes on an original short story. Carpenter, IMHO, did not do a remake. I agree it can get fuzzy determining whether a movie is a remake or not, but these two aren't fuzzy for me. This latest movie, if it proves to be as similar to Carpenter's take as it currently looks, will be a remake, even if it is a prequel. But that's a judgement to be made later.

 

[WadeLil]

I always figured this was a prequel,dont know why there any debate.If its becuz of similar scenes to the 82 original,well its a continuation of the same events that happened nd 82...just earlier.the setting makes similarities unavoidable.

 

[Tony Whalen]

I'm cautiously optimistic about this. HUGE fan of the 82 flick... Hope this is worthy of it. I read somewhere that they reverse-engineered the sets from the destroyed base in Carpenters film. Hope so.. Was always curious about the frozen body with the slashed wrists... Wonder if we'll get explanations for such things? I'm just curious to see if the effects hold a candle to Rob Bottin's amazing physical work.... Or if it's all gonna be cgi...

 

[SWFF]

Sad to see how much CGI really went into this movie. Just about all, save some bodies, the abominations on display in this RED BAND trailer ARE CG creations.

 

[dpippel]

I realize that the mechanical effects in Carpenter's film carry a lot of nostalgia, but I don't understand the aversion to CGI. There are pluses and minuses to both approaches but a well done effect is, in my mind anyway, a well done effect. Doesn't matter if it's physical or virtual. My problem with CGI is that in many cases it's overused, and in many cases it's poorly executed. The use of the virtual camera in many CGI effects sequences is also poorly executed IMO. Take those factors out of the equation and there's no reason that computer effects can't serve the film just as well as any other technology. Everything has its place.

 

[TravisR]

There are pluses and minuses to both approaches but a well done effect is, in my mind anyway, a well done effect.

Yeah, I mean I love The Thing and think there's some amazing effects work in it but there are some shots that look exactly like what they are- a makeup effect.

 

[Ron-P]

This looks much more like a remake than a prequel but either way, it looks good.

 

[Sam Favate]

I see Ron Moore is no longer credited with writing this. Was his script thrown out was he just re-written out?

 

[montrealfilmguy]

Best Sinatra voice ever.Kudos for awesome lyrics. No drinking or eating while watching this as you may not recover. one of the comments, I saw Sinatra and Dean Martin perform this at the Desert Inn. It was magical. Dean was such a ham. He kept chasing Sinatra 'round the stage with a needle trying to prick his hand for a blood sample.

 

[cineMANIAC]

I'm actually looking forward to watching this tomorrow. I think the anticipation has more to do with the fact that I love Carpenter's film so much that going to see this "prequel" feels like an opportunity to experience watching the '82 film for the first time while still knowing what to expect, if this makes any sense. I'm not going to read any reviews prior to watching the film - I'll just go see it and decide for myself if it stinks. If it's good, I'll consider it a companion piece to the great Carpenter version.