Comments on: Commentary: Why The Thing sequel/prequel/remake isn’t necessary

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:18:57 +0000

U see what u have here is Hollywood suits listening to people lament the old days of great Hollywood film making, and their mindless, bland, brain-numbed and dull response is to think, wait a minute, why dont we try rebooting those old movies and everyone will love us again, except the fact is, theres no one with any real artisitic integrity whose willing to try and take that job on, in order to do the resulting movies justice. What made the thing so great was the whole atmosphere of paranoia among the guys in the camp. Whats so hilariouly funny about this whole remake matter is that yes, the Carpenter movie was a remake but back in those days when he made The Thing, Hollywood was still making great remakes. Today, what have we got-shiiiiiittttt, thats what!!!!! Take out that masterful direction, take out that masterfully created paranoia, insert cgi thing.Insert ice cube bad ass nigga with attitude, insert one liner and capgun and hey presto youve got a brand spanking new Thing headed straight to DVD at a shop near you complete with pg rating. The idea of making this movie a prequel sucks for every god damn reason everyone on here has already commented upon, and then some. A sequel would have been the correct way to go but of course that would have made far too much sense to be feasible. In my opinion this Thing sequel/prequel is guarenteed to blow, and its not even out the door yet. Itll be complete and utterly shiteticious! Now theres a new word for a new level of crapness yet to be surpassed!!!Im so fed up with Hollywood remakes and seeing em screw up almost every adaptation that I started this post hoping to give an inteligent thought out citique opinion on this new Thing movie but because everytime I think about the topic it makes me want to hurl chunks so much, Im afraid this will have to do.

By: wilfredo brimelez

wilfredo brimelez — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:35:32 +0000

due to b brand budget constraints this funky blunky prequel thing is a nonstop express train to the pawn shop on bzink st. 2 weeks after release.thats because a chinaman couldnt hock a double counterfeit contraband copy on the 7 train for 50 cents.bizank!

By: wilfred brimelee

wilfred brimelee — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 05:49:59 +0000

the mysteriusness is the suggestion of “what” about everything,the norge camp,spaceship,origins,intentions,distrust,survival,the ending,etc.carpenter used this effectively to such a degree you would have to see the movie 5 times to comprehend all the nuances of the angles.bingzank.also,the prequel sequel idea has many directions that can be followed,they should let carpenter make one let the other wannabees make one,should draw attention and attract interest since its never been done before in movie making.blunky.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:52:39 +0000

Thanks, Dan!

I completely agree about the ending. It’s both satisfying and open-ended.

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:01:57 +0000

Great commentary. I agree a prequel is unnecessary.
A better sort of prequel might be done with Ridley Scott’s “Alien” in which we find out the origins of the distress signal and the dead fossilized creature on the alien spacecraft.
However, I think they could bring back “the Thing” with an original storyline, perhaps in outer space. There’s no need to prequel or sequel anything. Just come up with a NEW story involving a new human encounter with this strange life form. Every time they pre-se-quel movies, they tend to screw it up. Witness the AvP movies that just seem to get worse with each re-telling.
Also, if they do a new movie around “the Thing” I would hope for two things: first, get a really quality director to do it, and keep the cgi to a minimum. And second, DON’T try to explain everything or deconstruct the mystery around the creature. The reason Carpenter’s movie is so great is because of the endless debates I’ve had with friends about the origins of the creature, it’s biology, who was infected first, and the beautiful ambiguity of the ending where McCready and Child’s might be things. The movie lasts because new generations of film buffs can ponder these mysteries.
Love your site. Dan.

By: The Dark

The Dark — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 20:14:05 +0000

Thanks! I’ve added your site to my links.

By: Metal Mikey

Metal Mikey — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:58:51 +0000

Prequel- We already know what happened to the Norwegians. Unless the “Thing” turns into some massively crazy shit, the story has no real surprises, so the project is pointless.

Sequel- As much as I love John Carpenter’s film… which is an annual Christmas tradition for me, by the by… I would not wish to see a film continuation. Most likely because I would not want to see a CGI “Thing” movie. (And you KNOW that a sequel would just carry that effects curse along with it.)

Remake- A SECOND remaking of “The Thing from Outer Space”?!? Absurdity in motion, folks.

By: Teen*Idol

Teen*Idol — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:52:49 +0000

Yeah this is yet another terrible idea. Just as bad as that Predator reboot in the works. Robert Rodriguez is set to produce (I LOVE everything Rodriguez is involved with), but this is just another unnecessary reboot/remake/reimagination-ugh whatever. He’s also planning to make it with more than one Predator in the jungle, and obviously no Arnold. NO THANKS!

By: Lee Sands

Lee Sands — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:06:21 +0000

Some audio drama group made a radio version of this last year but apparently they can’t put it up for download. It also has the same plot like what happened to the other base.

Frankly I’m just glad Sci-Fi Channel didn’t get there hands on this and do that remake of the 1st film like they wanted.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:48:13 +0000

I agree. As I said on the forum thread, we already know pretty much exactly what happened at the other base, so who cares? Also: Are these characters going to be speaking English?

One of the interesting angles of the Norwegian base was that it was a separate group of people, the dynamic that even on the most remote part of the planet we have humans separated into distinct camps. American-izing the cast to any degree would do a disservice.

Or maybe I’m ignorant and Norwegians typically speak English anyway – I don’t know much about them, to be honest

And on the sequel side, the ending of Carpenter’s film is beautiful, “Let’s wait and see what happens.” I don’t see any sequel living up to that.