The Thing - prequel to John Carpenter’s 1982 movie

I think the problem with remakes is that you have to ask: "How is Carpenter relevant today?"

His original movies were so influential and have been "borrowed" from so frequently, that the ideas will not seem fresh upon being revisited.

<insert Hollywood is nearly bankrupt of originality comment here>
 
Castiel said:
Aye, for the time they were brilliant....but they are considered dodgy by todays standards.
Click to expand...

Wot?! I cant think of a modern film that has bettered the fx without resorting to CGI?

Having seen the original in digital at the cinema and also on Blu-ray the effects hold up amazingly well.
 
Watched the film , in the scope of most films nowadays its ok .
i think they made it a perqual as there would never better the john carpenter original , well remake , advice go see it make your own minds up , but was ok , a lot worse you could do with hour 45 mins ;),
 
I saw this the other night and one thing that stood out for me, and slightly ruined the movie, was the day/night cycle at the Antarctic. I was led to believe that they had six months of daylight followed by six months of night down there, yet in this movie it was just like normal.
 
n111ck said:
Wot?! I cant think of a modern film that has bettered the fx without resorting to CGI?

Having seen the original in digital at the cinema and also on Blu-ray the effects hold up amazingly well.
Click to expand...

Resorting to CGI?????

Techniques aside, SFX are either better or they are not, how it is accomplished is immaterial to that.

I too own Carpenter's The Thing and while by standards at the time they are technically very good, although not in the same league as Alien before it or Blade Runner which was released in the same year......they really are not by what would be expected today.

However, it is subjective to the viewer so there is not much point arguing about it.
 
Malevolence said:
I saw this the other night and one thing that stood out for me, and slightly ruined the movie, was the day/night cycle at the Antarctic. I was led to believe that they had six months of daylight followed by six months of night down there, yet in this movie it was just like normal.
Click to expand...

In a way, but it goes from no sun setting to no sun rising, and various degrees inbetween. So right in the middle of the soltices you would have a 12/12 split.
 
Castiel said:
Resorting to CGI?????

Techniques aside, SFX are either better or they are not, how it is accomplished is immaterial to that.

I too own Carpenter's The Thing and while by standards at the time they are technically very good, although not in the same league as Alien before it or Blade Runner which was released in the same year......they really are not by what would be expected today.

However, it is subjective to the viewer so there is not much point arguing about it.
Click to expand...

The Things SFX were mind bogglingly ambitious for the time, a multi-transforming morphing alien that do anything and look like anything. Most directors would have given up and waited for CGI. But JC said '**** it' and did it anyway. With spectacular effect!
 
I don't normally post about films but The Thing is one of my favourite films and I was looking forward to the prequel. To be honest I actually liked it but what really got me were the poor special effects. The film from 1982 looked a lot better (head-spider...) but this film just made it look...tacky.

Minor continuity errors but nothing that detracts from the story that much but it certainly wasn't as tense/atmospheric as the first one.
 
Thought the score was good, very in keeping with the Carpenter movie, also thought they captured the look of that films as well.

My problem was that all the characters were interchangeable and instantly forgettable. It was just a large group of Scandinavian men and I’m sure that there is a better descriptive word for that, maybe a ‘Beard’ or a ‘Skyrim’ of Scandinavian men.

In the Carpenter movie the characters were all so well fleshed out and individual, so when they finally bought it you felt it.

Also, the total paranoia of the original was missing, which lets face it is the whole point of the movie.

.
 
I don't see why people think John Carpenter is a good director (and did a better job), he's made some of the most shoddy films I've ever seen, Vampires for instance.
 
ChroniC said:
I don't see why people think John Carpenter is a good director (and did a better job), he's made some of the most shoddy films I've ever seen, Vampires for instance.
Click to expand...

The Thing
Halloween
Big Trouble in Little China Town
Escape from New York

3 of these films would be in my top 20 but I don’t think he’s made much else that I’m interested in.

Vampires was shocking!!! .
 
alastair79 said:
The Thing
Halloween
Big Trouble in Little China Town
Escape from New York

3 of these films would be in my top 20 but I don’t think he’s made much else that I’m interested in.

Vampires was shocking!!! .
Click to expand...

Don't forget The Fog and In the Mouth of Madness. The latter is one of the must tragically under-appreciated pieces of modern horror out there.
 
alastair79 said:
The Thing
Halloween
Big Trouble in Little China Town
Escape from New York

3 of these films would be in my top 20 but I don’t think he’s made much else that I’m interested in.

Vampires was shocking!!! .
Click to expand...

Pffft if you like.

The Thing was good
Halloween was ok, but every other incarnation is horrendous.
Big trouble in little china and Escape from New York are both average in the 80s and Kurt Russell is a poo in both of them (and will never live up to Arnie's films)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom