The Thing prequel?

[king_ghidorah]

[Tom R VanSlambrouck]

[Dr Kain]

[swfreakjpb]

[jellydonut25]

if this is too long, I apologize, but:

-even taking this film aside from the Carpenter film (which by setting itself up as a prequel of the Carpenter film and not a remake - the filmmaker's insistance, not mine - pretty much allows one to absolutely shred it to pieces for f*cking up the Carpenter universe), i was infuriated by the horrendous CGI...

-the rest of the film is not THAT bad, i mean, parts of it are, but the CGI is just absolutely horrible. video-game quality stuff here.

-the rest of the film is also not THAT good, either, that one can overlook the horrible CGI.

-the one and only thing this movie actually does right (and i mean 100% right, something to actually applaud the film for) is the notion that the Thing cannot copy inorganic material like tooth fillings and pins/rods in people's legs/arms.

-again, taking it aside from the carpenter remake (which calling this a prequel doesn't really allow one to do), the idea that it can hunt in thing-out mode could actually make for a cool monster movie (though a poor horror film). within the context of carpenter's universe, it is an almost unforgivable atrocity that flies in the face of everything that made the carpenter film work.

-again, taking it aside form the carpenter film, there's FAR too many examples of the thing purposely imperfectly copying things...for something that is supposed to imitate other lifeforms perfectly, it's like impressionist painting.

-considering the carpenter film, this film butchers the finding of the ufo and the unearthing of it with dynamite (not even featured in this film)

-general complaint: movies done by hollywood, california morons who have no concept of cold weather...if it's ANTARCTICA in the WINTER during a STORM, people would be wearing something to cover their face

-the cgi is horrible

-back to carpenter's universe, the axe in the door is F*CKING STUPID. what a horrible explanation for something that i think we all had assumed was an indication of the degenerating mental stability of the members of the base...not to mention, this entire film spends its time building up the idea that this Thing almost PREFERS to separate itself in order to hunt its prey, then when an arm gets chopped in half, it re-assembles itself?? for what F*CKING PURPOSE?!?! to have a "cool" scene in the movie is my ONLY guess.

-the "two bodies in one Thing" which i had personally always assumed was a Thing caught mid-transformation, or a Thing that had tried to transform in a desperate attempt to escape death, is also pretty lame

-the spaceship stuff is a$$.

-i did kinda like how they kept the whole notion of the tiny tentacles that fling out of the Thing even if they look like horrible CGI spaghetti noodles...seriously the CGI is absolute garbage here.

-jump scares...you know a movie is going to draw my ire and piss me right off when it uses the OLDEST trope in the damn book: "booga booga! jump scare!" which is a fake scare followed SHORTLY by the "real" scare, which is also a jump scare.

-the practical effects that they actually do use: they just make the CGI look even more ridiculously bad

-the final monster starting off as looking like the character it morphs from is so cheesy...the final monster itself though is actually pretty cool, and better than the final monster of the carpenter film, which is the only effect that always felt a little too static and never quite worked for me

-keeping any number of characters alive outside of the norwegians who chase off after the dog is just a BAD move.

-the score is decent, if not good

-the CGI is horrible

i had decided i was going to go into this movie leaving aside the carpenter film, because i knew it could never compare, but even on its own merits, its an assjob of a movie. decent score, generally bad effects, huge plot holes...as a film on its own, it's a fairly forgettable monster movie, which is bad enough on its own
then, if i consider it in relation to the carpenter film, it makes me HATE it with a passion that is so hot, i had to take of some clothes in fear that i would spontaneously combust.

[king_ghidorah]

[Dr Kain]

[mr.negativity]

[mr.negativity]

[mr.negativity]

[XvGojira]

I know that they're not going to, but I kind of hope that they distance this film from JC's movie, marketing-wise. Like not calling it "The Thing", as that would be the third movie with that title and one of them is a prequel. Call it "Who Goes There" or "Frozen Hell". Although my pessimistic side says if they use those titles they'll be subtitles, The Thing: Frozen Hell, to prop it up as a franchise they can milk it.

That said, I am not opposed to a new adaptation of the novella or unpublished novel. I do hope that it would allow the novel to be published and put out new editions of Who Goes There (if it's needed, trying to find the short story in the late 90's early 00's was a pain in the ass for me, I think I found pirated scan of it online eventually). Just be an adaptation of that and not JC's movie. And hopefully they won't get all their practical effects covered up by CGI like the prequel.

[Jinzo Ningen]

Practical effects should be the main driver of this film. The prequel's CGI looked like PlayStation 1-level junk. If they insist on CGI then it must be THE BEST bar none. Do NOT shop this out to third-tier wanna-bees.

The fact that the short story was actually a full-length novel really intrigues me. I have a very old hardcover of Campbell's works that I picked up so that I could read the original story that the '51 & '82 films were inspired by. It's pretty cool that we may yet see the "complete" story. Hell, even if the film never gets made I certainly hope they'll release the unabridged book in some form or other soon.

I would pray that they get some talent behind the camera for this. DelToro would be my first choice but he's booked solid until, like, the year 2052.

So... who else would do right by the book AND still pay props to the classic flicks????