In Honor of the Original Movie "The Thing"

[kinev]

Fun Fact: In the 1982 remake, the Norwegian guy killed in the beginning of the movie reveals the whole plot to the Americans...in Norwegian. He basically tells them

Spoiler

that it's not a dog, it's imitating a dog and to kill it. Then he gets shot by the "good guys".

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Fun Fact: In the 1982 remake, the Norwegian guy killed in the beginning of the movie reveals the whole plot to the Americans...in Norwegian. He basically tells them

Spoiler

that it's not a dog, it's imitating a dog and to kill it. Then he gets shot by the "good guys".

I would have assumed he was saying something along those lines, and that we were not provided subtitles since the Americans hearing him didn't understand him either (obviously it would spoil the surprise if we knew what was coming).

 

[Ricochet]

I just saw the new prequel. Like PingSpike said, it's pretty faithful to the 1982 film. I enjoyed it. It really adds nothing new or plow new ground though. So some may feel disappointed in that sense. I wish we would learn more about the alien ship. So whatever we found out in the Kurt Russell film, that was it.

 

[jhansman]

Sorry, but Carpenters 'remake' was a weak effort. The original remains one of the true 50s scifi classics. We've all just been spoiled by all this CGI crap; Avatar and its ilk have ruined our imaginations.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Sorry, but Carpenters 'remake' was weak effort. The original remains one of the true 50s scifi classics. We've all just been spoiled by all this CGI crap; Avatar and its ilk have ruined our imaginations.

You're entitled to your opinion, but there's no question the Carpenter film was more true to the source material than the '50s film, and I for one loved it. To me the special effects still look great 20 years later, and this was long before CGI existed.

 

[djnsmith7]

The prequel is a good movie, & I would recommend watching it, but I like the '82 film more.

 

[RearAdmiral]

I just saw the new prequel. Like PingSpike said, it's pretty faithful to the 1982 film. I enjoyed it. It really adds nothing new or plow new ground though. So some may feel disappointed in that sense. I wish we would learn more about the alien ship. So whatever we found out in the Kurt Russell film, that was it.

More like how does an extremely violent giant spider vagina with teeth have an epic huge spaceship?

 

[PingSpike]

You're entitled to your opinion, but there's no question the Carpenter film was more true to the source material than the '50s film, and I for one loved it. To me the special effects still look great 20 years later, and this was long before CGI existed.

One could make a very good argument that Carpenter's version is not a remake of the 50s film at all. It is a film adaptation of the novella, the same as the 50s film was.

I was hoping they would explore the nature of the creature a little more in this one. But they really didn't give us anything new. I think we can sort of assume its aggressive and virus like, probably absorbing everything on a world and then dying out and going dormant or having to expand outward? Its apparently highly intelligent and mechanically capable since it manages to build a nuclear space craft from helicopter parts in about a day? That part is pretty hard to swallow. I guess we could argue it absorbs the knowledge of whoever it copies, making each individual creature the sum of its entire race. Maybe the creatures goal is to absorb all knowledge and genetic material in the entire universe into itself, thereby constantly improving.

 

[PingSpike]

More like how does an extremely violent giant spider vagina with teeth have an epic huge spaceship?

Who says it built that spaceship?