16 replies to this topic

[Prime]

Today, the first official poster for The Thing (2011) was released by Universal Studios. The movie is a prequel to John Carpenter's cult classic movie The Thing (1982), which was a loose remake of The Thing from Another World (1951)

If you've never seen the 1982 movie, I'll give you the skinny. A group researchers located in the Antarctica are being attacked by an shapeshifting alien lifeform which is taking over them one by one in a desperate bid for survival. Panic spreads among the group as they don't know who to trust, but one thing is certain, they have to find out who is the thing before it takes them all over...

Here's the trailer to Carpenter's Thing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouZkkIsLiNg

This new The Thing like I said before is a prequel to the 1982 movie. Universal were originally planning to remake it but the producers convinced the studio to do a prequel to Carpenters movie as remaking it would be like "painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa". Plus this is a prequel that can work as in Carpenter's movie, we learn that a Norwegian research camp has already crossed paths with the thing and everyone at the camp is dead. So it'll be great to see what happened to them.

I for one have been waiting for this movie since I first heard about it, being a big fan of Carpenter's The Thing. It was planned for release this April, but they did reshoots and as such it's been pushed back to October. But now that the poster has been released, I'm hoping for a trailer soon...

[DLTN]

I will see it. Worst case scenario, it will suck but interest in original will revive and we will probs get a flashy Blu Ray release of it, but best case... it will rock!

[Shadow]

Isn't it abit confusing to call the prequel to The Thing 'The Thing'?
I mean, people at the video stores see the two side by side on the shelf and will think the new one is a remake.

[Prime]

Isn't it abit confusing to call the prequel to The Thing 'The Thing'?
I mean, people at the video stores see the two side by side on the shelf and will think the new one is a remake.

Well that will be a bit of a problem, but the actual complete title for the 1982 movie is John Carpenter's The Thing so to me it'll be:

Prequel: The Thing
Originial: John Carpenter's The Thing

Now granted not everyone is going to see it as such, but I think the reason for calling it The Thing is because they want the general average joe audience to think this is a stand alone movie rather then a prequel to a movie nearly 30 years old.

[Ther2view]

I haven't seen it in years, but in the 1982 version don't they watch footage of the 1951 version and said it was some previous account of an attack or something. I maybe thinking of a different horror remake (Seriously, there are a lot!) but if I'm right, wouldn't that make the 1951 movie a prequel and the 1982 version a sequel? So is this a prequel to the sequel and a sequel to the prequel, or a prequel to the prequel of the sequel?!?! AND WHATS THE ORIGINAL STORY?!?!?!

Also, think of the names! Both the 1951 and 1982 versions I hear called The Thing, and now this movie. There's also the original book all this is based on, but I don't remember what it's called. If all the films come out on box set it may be hard to tell them apart. Regardless, sounds like a cool movie.

[Shadow]

The 1951 was called The Thing From Another World. The Thing movie from '82 is a remake of that one. The stock footage was just kind of a clever insert since the thing from another world took place in the north pole and wouldn't really make sense if it was a canon backstory.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

I haven't seen the John Carpenter film yet, but I have seen The Thing from Another World. I really need to see John Carpenter's films, because the 50's film was just boring and stupid for even 50's "B" sci-fi movies.

[Prime]

I haven't seen it in years, but in the 1982 version don't they watch footage of the 1951 version and said it was some previous account of an attack or something. I maybe thinking of a different horror remake (Seriously, there are a lot!) but if I'm right, wouldn't that make the 1951 movie a prequel and the 1982 version a sequel? So is this a prequel to the sequel and a sequel to the prequel, or a prequel to the prequel of the sequel?!?! AND WHATS THE ORIGINAL STORY?!?!?!

Also, think of the names! Both the 1951 and 1982 versions I hear called The Thing, and now this movie. There's also the original book all this is based on, but I don't remember what it's called. If all the films come out on box set it may be hard to tell them apart. Regardless, sounds like a cool movie.

Your probably confusing the fact that John Carpenter used footage from The Thing from Another World (1951) in his movie Halloween (1978) since Carpenter actually owned his own print of the original Thing movie. No footage from the original was used in the 1982 Thing movie. The 1982 Thing movie and the upcoming 2011 Thing movie are not linked to the 1951 movie in any way storywise.

The short story the movies was based off is titled Who Goes There?

So just to be clear, this new movie is a prequel to the 1982 Thing movie. So storywise it'll go:

The Thing (2011)
John Carpenter's The Thing (1982)

[Vlad Yvhv]

I haven't seen it in years, but in the 1982 version don't they watch footage of the 1951 version and said it was some previous account of an attack or something. I maybe thinking of a different horror remake (Seriously, there are a lot!) but if I'm right, wouldn't that make the 1951 movie a prequel and the 1982 version a sequel? So is this a prequel to the sequel and a sequel to the prequel, or a prequel to the prequel of the sequel?!?! AND WHATS THE ORIGINAL STORY?!?!?!

Also, think of the names! Both the 1951 and 1982 versions I hear called The Thing, and now this movie. There's also the original book all this is based on, but I don't remember what it's called. If all the films come out on box set it may be hard to tell them apart. Regardless, sounds like a cool movie.

The old version isn't referenced in Carpenter's version. You're probly mistaking the footage taken from the Norwegian camp as footage from the old movie. They found some tapes of the Norwegians unearthing the ship.

The origional story is called "Who Goes There?". Carpenter's version is quite faithful to the source material, with some of the hokey "this was written before we knew so much about science and biology" stuff removed or modified. The old version was just a classic 50's era monster movie and is rather forgettable. It has little to do with "Who Goes There?" at all.

This is a prequel to the remake. The remake that dethroned the original movie and the source material as the definitive version. It's probly not an origin story, so much as a "what happened prior to those guys chasing Jed in the copter? And just what the hell was the Thing like before it assimilated them and their sled dog?" story. Basically, they're trying to answer questions that've plagued the fans since Carpenter's movie was released. Some of which're still hotly debated on the Outpost 31 forums.

Speaking of which: Their section on the movie, which should shed some light on the movie and why it's being made. I don't visit that section much. But you may find some posts that I've made if you dig around in the older topics that were moved when the movie was given its own section on the forums.

[Shadow]

http://www.youtube.c...=uHzlAjpDSEM#ws

[DLTN]

Looks... alright actually.

[Ther2view]

Ok, well like I said, I haven't seen the 1982 version in years, 10 years I think. The reason why I ask is I recently saw this review from James Rolfe (Angry Video Game Nerd). Warning to people, this review contains spoilers and harsh language. The Thing review is the second of these three.

<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/AYGMjC4C" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="390" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" ></embed>

I'm not saying you're wrong, but what is he talking about when he says referencing the first movie then?

[Prime]

Ok, well like I said, I haven't seen the 1982 version in years, 10 years I think. The reason why I ask is I recently saw this review from James Rolfe (Angry Video Game Nerd). Warning to people, this review contains spoilers and harsh language. The Thing review is the second of these three.

<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/AYGMjC4C" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="390" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" ></embed>

I'm not saying you're wrong, but what is he talking about when he says referencing the first movie then?

Well just because he says "in a strange way it's kind of like a sequel" doesn't mean it's a sequel at all.

In The Thing from Another World (1951), the whole movie is set in the North Pole and there's that scene where the researchers try to blow up the space in from the ice. Where as in The Thing (1982) the movie is set in the South Pole (like the original short story). As for the unearthing the space ship sequence, our main characters in the 1982 movie don't unearth the ship, instead it was another group of researchers set a few days before the 1982 movie, but we can see video footage of them using explosives to free the ship from it's ice prison. Now this doesn't mean that scene from the 1951 movie is the same one seen on the monitor when Kurt Russel and co are watching when they are going through the other researcher's tapes. And just because James Rolfe says it's like they are referencing the team from the 1951 movie and thus it kind of makes it a sequel, doesn't make it so. The team that unearths the spaceship from the 1951 movie are Americans, yet the team who unearth the spaceship in the 1982 movie (and thus the 2011 movie) are Norwegian.

It's not uncommon for remakes to make references to the original movie. Friday the 13th (2009) contained plot elements and references to the first four movies on the franchise. Does that mean it a sequel? Not at all.

[Ther2view]

Oh yeah, I understand. I didn't mean that "Because James Rolfe said it it's true!", I was just explaining why I was confused and asking for clarification. Also, I haven't seen the original 1951 movie, so I thought the scenes in it were from that movie, but my mistake. Hmm, I think I'll watch The Thing tonight, since I found it on Netflix. Thanks for the clarification.

[Vlad Yvhv]

Behold: The ultimate source for info on The Thing.

[DLTN]

Cheers for the link, Im exploring it now...

[Vlad Yvhv]

Well, the prequel is here and I've seen it. It was worth the trip and the money-scrounging. I haven't seen a movie in the theaters since the first AvP... It's a must-see for fans of Carpenter's The Thing. Works rather well, though, there are a couple of contiuity problems. But they actually did a good job of not actually wrecking the contiuity beyond not having the ship exposed to the open air. Plus, we finally get to see what's in the ship.