The Thing (2011 Prequel) discussion ... its not a remake!

[KingRanger]

the original The Thing, that this is a prequal to is from 1982 and this is in no way connected to the 1950's film I am ofcourse refereing to the fact that although Carpenters was a remake it was more faithful to the source material.

also I didnt mean it in that way im just saying the original from 1982 is quite dated now and I didnt say that was a bad thing, I personally prefer the puppets and anamatronics from that one over the CGI in the newer one

but over all I still prefer the new prequal, infact id say if you watch this prequal then the original you a almost complete story

edit: man my spelling and grammer is getting worse >.< FML!

Carpenters was great yes, but it was in no way faithful to the original film outside the setting.

The original from 1982 is not dated. It is only dated for people that think you have to have SUPER CGI OMG EFFECTS..

They are calling this a prequel, but it's a remake of Carpenters the thing with a chick thrown in to please women. The story is complete with just the 82 movie.

 

[ReD-X]

May I ask if you've seen the 1951 version of the film?

yup got it on DVD, havnt seen it in a few years so my memory of it is slightly vauge but it doesnt take a genious to realise the prequal is for the Carpenters version not the 1950's version one major give away being the ending of this 2011 version and the begining of the 1982 one.

edit:

also King its not dated for people who say about the CGI its dated in picture quality and technology what was availble at the time, ive already said I prefer the anamatronics to the CGI.

And I disagree with the story being complete with jus the 1982 version, for one thing the ending can leave you with many different ideas as to what happens to the survivors, and while its obvious from that film alone what happened in the norweigian camp, it was great to see it, and I do agree with you 100% that it is pretty much the same with just a women thrown in its place still doesnt stop me from prefering it, I presonally think Mary Winstead is more easy on the eyes then Kurt Russel

 

[dchoc]

YIKES!

 

[Forever Knight]

This remake was simply bad.

Prequel. Not a remake so pay attention.

 

[KingRanger]

Prequel. Not a remake so pay attention.

You can call it what ever makes you happy. This was a remake. Yeah they said it wasn't, but this was pretty much the same story as Carpenters the thing. It was just an awful movie, and I am glad there won't be anymore.

 

[Dark Heart]

Just to note the creature in the 2011 film is more Animatronic than CG. CG was only used for cosmetics such as exposed gears and extreme body parts.

 

[KingRanger]

Just to note the creature in the 2011 film is more Animatronic than CG. CG was only used for cosmetics such as exposed gears and extreme body parts.

I'm sorry but that just isn't true.

 

[dchoc]

In case people forgot...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai1T3KMRMpg"]John Carpenter's The Thing (1982) - Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Lustful Butchery]

Get ready mates, the Blu-ray is dropping by the end of next month. Going to reserve it at Amazon right now. :buttrock:

 

[wildwolf]

Carpenters was great yes, but it was in no way faithful to the original film outside the setting.

I think ReD-X meant that John Carpenter's The Thing was more faithful to the source material (Who Goes There?) than the 1951 film, The Thing from Another World, was.

The Thing from the 1951 film is very different from its original incarnation and the 1982/2011 versions. 1951 Thing is a plant-based humanoid that feeds on blood and can create more of itself from seeds contained in its body. The novella/1982/2011 Thing can imitate any animal-based life form, absorbing the respective hosts' personalities and memories along with their bodies.