Movie Theater Thing
- Thread starter KHOOKS
- Start date
Re: Thing
More high tech special effects,which will take away from the movies suspense. More than likely worth the time,but still not as good. There are way too many movies that are being remade. Writers are havinga hard time coming up with any worth while plots (the cause for reality TV). Some of the other movies that are being considered, They Live , Robo-Cop, Alien Mine (which sucked anyway, might be an improvement). Basicaly if your an 80's child or older you can " wax nostalgic " as the song goes.
More high tech special effects,which will take away from the movies suspense. More than likely worth the time,but still not as good. There are way too many movies that are being remade. Writers are havinga hard time coming up with any worth while plots (the cause for reality TV). Some of the other movies that are being considered, They Live , Robo-Cop, Alien Mine (which sucked anyway, might be an improvement). Basicaly if your an 80's child or older you can " wax nostalgic " as the song goes.
Re: Thing
It's not that writers are having a hard time coming up with good ideas or lack creativity. The problem is the economy sucks, the studios for the most part have had a rough few years lately, so they aren't taking the risks they used to take on new stuff. Instead, they are making what they feel are safe bets by doing remakes of classics.
All of the new, creativity is coming out of premium networks like HBO and Showtime, not to mention the indie market.
It's not that writers are having a hard time coming up with good ideas or lack creativity. The problem is the economy sucks, the studios for the most part have had a rough few years lately, so they aren't taking the risks they used to take on new stuff. Instead, they are making what they feel are safe bets by doing remakes of classics.
All of the new, creativity is coming out of premium networks like HBO and Showtime, not to mention the indie market.
Re: Thing
This isn't supposed to be a remake:
1st iteration was an adaption of "Who Goes There", a short story written in 1938 by R. W. Campbell (writing as Don A Stuart). Starring James Arness as the alien, it was pretty loose with the original story.
Remake was with Kurt Russell, and followed the story line very closely. It was scary on the order of hte written story, in that it made one think about how would one approach this problem.
THIS version is supposed to occur BEFORE the events in the Kurt Russell version. This is what happens at the <span style="color: #FF0000">Scandahoovian</span> antarctic station, before we see the helicopter chasing the dog in the beginning of the Kurt Russell version. The original discovery, and salvage, the creature looks different (it's first exposure to earth creatures), the clues on their video (which we see in the Kurt Russell version) suggest to the Doc to being cellular investigation should be played out in this film..
There is a rumor that the characters McCready and Childs show up at the end of this film (the beginning of the original story).
This release has potential, if the production lives up to it.
This isn't supposed to be a remake:
1st iteration was an adaption of "Who Goes There", a short story written in 1938 by R. W. Campbell (writing as Don A Stuart). Starring James Arness as the alien, it was pretty loose with the original story.
Remake was with Kurt Russell, and followed the story line very closely. It was scary on the order of hte written story, in that it made one think about how would one approach this problem.
THIS version is supposed to occur BEFORE the events in the Kurt Russell version. This is what happens at the <span style="color: #FF0000">Scandahoovian</span> antarctic station, before we see the helicopter chasing the dog in the beginning of the Kurt Russell version. The original discovery, and salvage, the creature looks different (it's first exposure to earth creatures), the clues on their video (which we see in the Kurt Russell version) suggest to the Doc to being cellular investigation should be played out in this film..
There is a rumor that the characters McCready and Childs show up at the end of this film (the beginning of the original story).
This release has potential, if the production lives up to it.
Re: Thing
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hankpac</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This isn't supposed to be a remake:
1st iteration was an adaption of "Who Goes There", a short story written in 1938 by R. W. Campbell (writing as Don A Stuart). Starring James Arness as the alien, it was pretty loose with the original story.
Remake was with Kurt Russell, and followed the story line very closely. It was scary on the order of hte written story, in that it made one think about how would one approach this problem.
THIS version is supposed to occur BEFORE the events in the Kurt Russell version. This is what happens at the Norwegian antarctic station, before we see the helicopter chasing the dog in the beginning of the Kurt Russell version. The original discovery, and salvage, the creature looks different (it's first exposure to earth creatures), the clues on their video (which we see in the Kurt Russell version) suggest to the Doc to being cellular investigation should be played out in this film..
There is a rumor that the characters McCready and Childs show up at the end of this film (the beginning of the original story).
This release has potential, if the production lives up to it. </div></div>
Fixed it for you.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hankpac</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This isn't supposed to be a remake:
1st iteration was an adaption of "Who Goes There", a short story written in 1938 by R. W. Campbell (writing as Don A Stuart). Starring James Arness as the alien, it was pretty loose with the original story.
Remake was with Kurt Russell, and followed the story line very closely. It was scary on the order of hte written story, in that it made one think about how would one approach this problem.
THIS version is supposed to occur BEFORE the events in the Kurt Russell version. This is what happens at the Norwegian antarctic station, before we see the helicopter chasing the dog in the beginning of the Kurt Russell version. The original discovery, and salvage, the creature looks different (it's first exposure to earth creatures), the clues on their video (which we see in the Kurt Russell version) suggest to the Doc to being cellular investigation should be played out in this film..
There is a rumor that the characters McCready and Childs show up at the end of this film (the beginning of the original story).
This release has potential, if the production lives up to it. </div></div>
Fixed it for you.
Re: Thing
I don't think it can stand up to the original. A women in place of kurt russel is just weird to me for some reason. Kinda like Whiteout but with aliens.
I don't think it can stand up to the original. A women in place of kurt russel is just weird to me for some reason. Kinda like Whiteout but with aliens.
Re: Thing
People this is not a remake, it is a prequel centered around the events of the Norwegian discovery of the alien before Kurt Russell and his team. My guess is the end of this film will have something to do with the two Norwegians in the helicopter chasing the dog that the Kurt Russell film opens with.
Not suggesting this film is even worth paying the price of admission but I will just to see how believable the story is leading up to the other film.
People this is not a remake, it is a prequel centered around the events of the Norwegian discovery of the alien before Kurt Russell and his team. My guess is the end of this film will have something to do with the two Norwegians in the helicopter chasing the dog that the Kurt Russell film opens with.
Not suggesting this film is even worth paying the price of admission but I will just to see how believable the story is leading up to the other film.
Re: Thing
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hankpac</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This isn't supposed to be a remake:
1st iteration was an adaption of "Who Goes There", a short story written in 1938 by R. W. Campbell (writing as Don A Stuart). Starring James Arness as the alien, it was pretty loose with the original story.
Remake was with Kurt Russell, and followed the story line very closely. It was scary on the order of hte written story, in that it made one think about how would one approach this problem.
THIS version is supposed to occur BEFORE the events in the Kurt Russell version. This is what happens at the Swedish antarctic station, before we see the helicopter chasing the dog in the beginning of the Kurt Russell version. The original discovery, and salvage, the creature looks different (it's first exposure to earth creatures), the clues on their video (which we see in the Kurt Russell version) suggest to the Doc to being cellular investigation should be played out in this film..
There is a rumor that the characters McCready and Childs show up at the end of this film (the beginning of the original story).
This release has potential, if the production lives up to it. </div></div>
Oh good. I saw the trailer last night and went into a rant about how the 1st movie was awesome and it didn't need remade. I'm glad this clears it up. I look forward to checking it out.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hankpac</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This isn't supposed to be a remake:
1st iteration was an adaption of "Who Goes There", a short story written in 1938 by R. W. Campbell (writing as Don A Stuart). Starring James Arness as the alien, it was pretty loose with the original story.
Remake was with Kurt Russell, and followed the story line very closely. It was scary on the order of hte written story, in that it made one think about how would one approach this problem.
THIS version is supposed to occur BEFORE the events in the Kurt Russell version. This is what happens at the Swedish antarctic station, before we see the helicopter chasing the dog in the beginning of the Kurt Russell version. The original discovery, and salvage, the creature looks different (it's first exposure to earth creatures), the clues on their video (which we see in the Kurt Russell version) suggest to the Doc to being cellular investigation should be played out in this film..
There is a rumor that the characters McCready and Childs show up at the end of this film (the beginning of the original story).
This release has potential, if the production lives up to it. </div></div>
Oh good. I saw the trailer last night and went into a rant about how the 1st movie was awesome and it didn't need remade. I'm glad this clears it up. I look forward to checking it out.
Re: Thing
corrected it for me...This isn't supposed to be a remake:
1st iteration was an adaption of "Who Goes There", a short story written in 1938 by R. W. Campbell (writing as Don A Stuart). Starring James Arness as the alien, it was pretty loose with the original story.
Remake was with Kurt Russell, and followed the story line very closely. It was scary on the order of hte written story, in that it made one think about how would one approach this problem.
THIS version is supposed to occur BEFORE the events in the Kurt Russell version. This is what happens at the <span style="color: #FF0000">Scandahoovian</span> antarctic station, before we see the helicopter chasing the dog in the beginning of the Kurt Russell version. The original discovery, and salvage, the creature looks different (it's first exposure to earth creatures), the clues on their video (which we see in the Kurt Russell version) suggest to the Doc to being cellular investigation should be played out in this film..
There is a rumor that the characters McCready and Childs show up at the end of this film (the beginning of the original story).
This release has potential, if the production lives up to it.
corrected it for me...This isn't supposed to be a remake:
1st iteration was an adaption of "Who Goes There", a short story written in 1938 by R. W. Campbell (writing as Don A Stuart). Starring James Arness as the alien, it was pretty loose with the original story.
Remake was with Kurt Russell, and followed the story line very closely. It was scary on the order of hte written story, in that it made one think about how would one approach this problem.
THIS version is supposed to occur BEFORE the events in the Kurt Russell version. This is what happens at the <span style="color: #FF0000">Scandahoovian</span> antarctic station, before we see the helicopter chasing the dog in the beginning of the Kurt Russell version. The original discovery, and salvage, the creature looks different (it's first exposure to earth creatures), the clues on their video (which we see in the Kurt Russell version) suggest to the Doc to being cellular investigation should be played out in this film..
There is a rumor that the characters McCready and Childs show up at the end of this film (the beginning of the original story).
This release has potential, if the production lives up to it.
Re: Thing
Even as a prequel, what do you think the idea of the story is? It's how the alien kills people and folks become paranoid...just like the first one.
Even as a prequel, what do you think the idea of the story is? It's how the alien kills people and folks become paranoid...just like the first one.
Re: Thing
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sean the Nailer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">^^^ link no good.
</div></div>
Fixed it. Thanks.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sean the Nailer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">^^^ link no good.
</div></div>
Fixed it. Thanks.
Re: Thing
Granted this is supposed to be a prequel to the Kurt Russel version, but take off the last 5 minutes of this movie, and it's basically the same movie.
Granted this is supposed to be a prequel to the Kurt Russel version, but take off the last 5 minutes of this movie, and it's basically the same movie.
Re: Thing
With the advances in CGI/special effects, I think this movie will be worth watching. I'm a ltiile concerned with how Mary Elizabeth Winstead's acting will be tailored to this movie's needs. I wasn't too impressed with her acting in previous films.
Also, seeing as how Matt Damon isn't in it, I'm sure it will be just fine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWTzyU5MFgM
With the advances in CGI/special effects, I think this movie will be worth watching. I'm a ltiile concerned with how Mary Elizabeth Winstead's acting will be tailored to this movie's needs. I wasn't too impressed with her acting in previous films.
Also, seeing as how Matt Damon isn't in it, I'm sure it will be just fine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWTzyU5MFgM
Re: Thing
I have to say, Carpenter's "The Thing" was probably the first movie that scared the living shit out of me as a kid. And I'm glad to say it was one of the first films I bought on Blu-Ray, but who knows where this new movie will go.
On that note...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8faq5amdK30
I have to say, Carpenter's "The Thing" was probably the first movie that scared the living shit out of me as a kid. And I'm glad to say it was one of the first films I bought on Blu-Ray, but who knows where this new movie will go.
On that note...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8faq5amdK30
Re: Thing
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Iamironman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Granted this is supposed to be a prequel to the Kurt Russel version, but take off the last 5 minutes of this movie, and it's basically the same movie. </div></div>
Have you seen it?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Iamironman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Granted this is supposed to be a prequel to the Kurt Russel version, but take off the last 5 minutes of this movie, and it's basically the same movie. </div></div>
Have you seen it?
Re: Thing
Here's a scoop I just got from a buddy who saw a screening:
Anne and I saw The Thing last night. It's a prequel, not a remake or a reboot, it's faithful to the tone of the 1982 film, and sets up the events of that film so perfectly, you could watch them as a double feature. I thought it was great.
It's a prequel to the 1982 John Carpenter movie, which is one of my favorite movies of all time, and easily the best Sci-Fi/Horror film ever made. Normally, I would flat out refuse to see it, because I thought it was a remake/reboot, and I'm sick to death of those things. However, I'd heard that they gotten a lot of the practical effects guys together for it, and that was intriguing to me. When a bunch of friends were getting together to see it last night, that was all I needed to go ahead and give it a chance.
So, full disclosure: it turns out that my friend Eric wrote it. How I didn't remember this until I saw his name in the credits is a mystery, especially considering that the whole reason we all got together last night was specifically to watch it with him.
(This is what happens when I have Writer's Brain, and all I can think about is the story I'm working on. My mental CPU is at 180% and there's no virtual memory available for other tasks.)
Anyway, I really liked the movie. It's a prequel to the 1982 film, and it tells the story of the discovery of The Thing by the Norwegians, and what it does to them. It's scary, it's gory, and it does an absolutely fantastic job of respecting Carpenter's film, both in tone and story.
My only complaint is that one of the actors makes a really bad choice to play essentially the same note through the whole movie, which robs his character of what could have been a very satisfying arc.
When I mentioned on Twitter last night that I gave it 4.5/5 (the .5 being taken away for the aforementioned complaint), a bunch of people replied to me with various versions of "I hated it and you're stupid for liking it," which sort of baffles me. Now, as an unabashed fan of the 1982 film, maybe I have a connection to the story and the mythos that the average 20-something doesn't, but I don't think you need to be a fan of Carpenter's movie to enjoy this one.
Here's a scoop I just got from a buddy who saw a screening:
Anne and I saw The Thing last night. It's a prequel, not a remake or a reboot, it's faithful to the tone of the 1982 film, and sets up the events of that film so perfectly, you could watch them as a double feature. I thought it was great.
It's a prequel to the 1982 John Carpenter movie, which is one of my favorite movies of all time, and easily the best Sci-Fi/Horror film ever made. Normally, I would flat out refuse to see it, because I thought it was a remake/reboot, and I'm sick to death of those things. However, I'd heard that they gotten a lot of the practical effects guys together for it, and that was intriguing to me. When a bunch of friends were getting together to see it last night, that was all I needed to go ahead and give it a chance.
So, full disclosure: it turns out that my friend Eric wrote it. How I didn't remember this until I saw his name in the credits is a mystery, especially considering that the whole reason we all got together last night was specifically to watch it with him.
(This is what happens when I have Writer's Brain, and all I can think about is the story I'm working on. My mental CPU is at 180% and there's no virtual memory available for other tasks.)
Anyway, I really liked the movie. It's a prequel to the 1982 film, and it tells the story of the discovery of The Thing by the Norwegians, and what it does to them. It's scary, it's gory, and it does an absolutely fantastic job of respecting Carpenter's film, both in tone and story.
My only complaint is that one of the actors makes a really bad choice to play essentially the same note through the whole movie, which robs his character of what could have been a very satisfying arc.
When I mentioned on Twitter last night that I gave it 4.5/5 (the .5 being taken away for the aforementioned complaint), a bunch of people replied to me with various versions of "I hated it and you're stupid for liking it," which sort of baffles me. Now, as an unabashed fan of the 1982 film, maybe I have a connection to the story and the mythos that the average 20-something doesn't, but I don't think you need to be a fan of Carpenter's movie to enjoy this one.
Re: Thing
I saw it in the theater today (I go to the theater maybe ONCE a year). As a huge fan of the Kurt Russell film I really enjoyed this, while overall it did not surpass or outdo that film. Without any spoilers, I'll just say the continuity is great and leaves off exactly where the 1980's film begins with only one seemingly untied/loose end that maybe someone can explain to me later. Plus it reminded me how at one point I owned a real HK-93
I saw it in the theater today (I go to the theater maybe ONCE a year). As a huge fan of the Kurt Russell film I really enjoyed this, while overall it did not surpass or outdo that film. Without any spoilers, I'll just say the continuity is great and leaves off exactly where the 1980's film begins with only one seemingly untied/loose end that maybe someone can explain to me later. Plus it reminded me how at one point I owned a real HK-93
Re: Thing
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dark Horse</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Iamironman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Granted this is supposed to be a prequel to the Kurt Russel version, but take off the last 5 minutes of this movie, and it's basically the same movie. </div></div>
Have you seen it? </div></div>
I was going to go see it last week, but the movie times didn't fit my schedule. If I miss it at the budget theater, I'll probably put it on my Netflix queue. I already added the 1951 movie. Been about 20 years since I have seen that one. Luckily the 1982 version was just on cable a couple weeks ago. I can't believe how much of that one I forgot too.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dark Horse</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Iamironman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Granted this is supposed to be a prequel to the Kurt Russel version, but take off the last 5 minutes of this movie, and it's basically the same movie. </div></div>
Have you seen it? </div></div>
I was going to go see it last week, but the movie times didn't fit my schedule. If I miss it at the budget theater, I'll probably put it on my Netflix queue. I already added the 1951 movie. Been about 20 years since I have seen that one. Luckily the 1982 version was just on cable a couple weeks ago. I can't believe how much of that one I forgot too.
Re: Thing
I just finished watching the 1951 version. I was actually surprised at how good it was (considering it was from 1951). I like the way there was actually some similarities from this version to the 1982 version.
I just finished watching the 1951 version. I was actually surprised at how good it was (considering it was from 1951). I like the way there was actually some similarities from this version to the 1982 version.
Re: Thing
The 1951 version was one of my first Sci-fi movies, and one I thoroughly enjoyed (read: scared shitless). Watching the later version I reflected "that's how it SHOULD have been done", Especially since having read John W. Campbell's original short story "Who goes There?". It is an absolute classic in chillers.
The craft falling to earth is not mentioned in the written story, it is later deduced by the Earthmen. If I remember right, the dog and the neighboring camp is not in the original story either. The effort to stick closely to the story by Carpenter is appreciated.
A prequel of more of the same would be great. Perhaps I will see it while I am in town for the holidays.
The 1951 version was one of my first Sci-fi movies, and one I thoroughly enjoyed (read: scared shitless). Watching the later version I reflected "that's how it SHOULD have been done", Especially since having read John W. Campbell's original short story "Who goes There?". It is an absolute classic in chillers.
The craft falling to earth is not mentioned in the written story, it is later deduced by the Earthmen. If I remember right, the dog and the neighboring camp is not in the original story either. The effort to stick closely to the story by Carpenter is appreciated.
A prequel of more of the same would be great. Perhaps I will see it while I am in town for the holidays.
