Pajiba

So this movie ends with the two main characters flying off somewhere while the remaining Norwegians track the escaping dog through the snow to the US outpost? How could it NOT end this way?

Ugh. I just don't care. The Thing is a brilliant fucking movie. This is going to be a CGI'd to death pale shadow. At least it's not a remake. Now if they announce Rob Bottin is coming on board to do practical effects you'll get my interest. Otherwise, fuck off.

God this just sounds embarrassing. Why? Because the movie is 30 years old and there are tweeners who haven't seen the '82 version and who will pay to watch anything drenched in blood. Got to spend their money on something, might as well be a movie where Norwegians speak perfect English and have Australian accents fighting space aliens with Lyme disease. 30 Million opening weekend. Gayr-in-teed.

There's going to be a chick in this version? That kinda ruins the whole thing.

UGH UGH UGH UGH UGH

This is the wrong way to start a Monday.

Just another example of the Industry's laziness, and
servile willingness to latch on to any idea, whereupon they think they might be able to make a fast buck.
There is very little originality lurking around Hollywood these days.

Oh, and it will also be in 3D! Yessssss!

Spoiler alert, or something. But honestly, who hasn't seen the ending if you are posting in this thread?

bleujayone, both Macready and Childs died at the end of the movie. The camp was destroyed, the fires were going out soon, and it would be 100 degrees below zero in just a half-hour or so. They drink whiskey until they die.

It's an amazing ending.

I own the 1982 version, and this news is disgusting. They had better not remake "Prince of Darkness" or "They Live", because if they do, I am buying a cannon of some sort.

Here's a novel idea: re-release the original with new marketing. Spend $10-20m and watch the dollars roll in from people who remember and recognize its greatness and want to see it on the big screen. It's win-win.

One of the things I liked about the original was that there was no ridiculous romance going on in the background of the horror film. I rooted for the characters based on the fact that I wanted them to survive or at least set things on fire, not the fact that I wanted them to fuck (shit, bad mental picture of MacReady and Childs; I blame Universal). That just ruins horror movies. I mean, really, if I was in Antarctica, the sub-zero temps alone would take romance off the table, but in a situation where there is a horrific human mimicking, body 'sploding alien running around hiding among my limited romantic prospects...fuck no. Aside from the potential horrific death that could ensue following a human on Thing liaison, what about evil body-splitting death babies? Oh wait, sorry, I'm confusing this with Twilight. Nonetheless! Remaking this film is reprehensible and including any sort of romantic subtext in it is even worse. Plus, that description of Edgerton's character made want to stab a Care Bear.

Well look on the bright side, at least the original will still be there.

The only way this works is if a frozen Kurt Russell and Keith David show up to take a POV dump on the audience right before the credits roll.

Which is to say, uh.. It won't. And no, I don't want to see my idea, either.

So sad, this sucks.

Sequel my shiny metal ass. It was a much more faithful adaptation of Campbell's "Who Goes There". Anyway, fuck these plans in the sloppy bum.

Sorry, but this is so silly.

"The Thing" this time around will be great or it will suck depending on one thing and one thing alone, the execution. If it sucks, the 1982 and '51 versions will still be alive and unharmed. This kind of fanboy caterwhauling is, frankly, a waste of time.

No one complains when someone makes a new version of "Hamlet" or "Romeo and Juliet." While it would be nice to see Hollywood try something new every once in a while in this genre -- particularly considering all the good science-fiction stories and novels there are that have still been untouched -- there's absolutely nothing wrong with updating old properties.

Remake or sequel, it doesn't matter. Someone was bitching JUST LIKE THIS when they heard that that no-talent John Carpenter was messing with the "perfect" 1951 film. Nothing ever really changes.

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

This has never rung more true.

"The Thing" is one of my top 5 favorite horror movies, only trailing behind "Pet Semetary" (scariest fucking movie ever made) and "Dawn of the Dead." It's amazing. The tone, the acting, the script, the direction, the effects; it's a perfect movie. It is a once in a lifetime confluence of divinity.

That being said, they're going to remake it. Not only this, but everything. Someday, they're going to remake "Pet Semetary." Someday they're going to remake "Infection." Someday they're going to remake "Killer Klowns from Outer Space." It happens. It has become the norm for the industry.

When the new movie is released I'm not going to see it in theatres. I won't go. Not because I'm picketing it or anything (I was first in line to see Snyder's "Dawn of the Dead" remake), but because I'm poor. And I'll probably regret not selling plasma or something so I CAN see it.

So okay, it's not necessary. It wasn't necessary to remake "The Shining." It wasn't necessary to remake "Texas Chainsaw Massacre." It wasn't necessary to remake "Prom Night" (oh, fuck off). But they're gonna do it anyway and there is nothing we can do to stop them.

So fuck it. We can't beat them. We might as well join them.

that story was awesome, i didn't even realise til after i read it that it was by peter watts.

If this is a must, at least get steven sommers to direct so it can be a solidly anally raped with a chainsaw adaptation eer remake

Skewicide --

It's not THAT you're complaining about movies, but HOW you're complaining about movies. As with movies, it's all in the execution. If this new version of "The Thing" (or really John W. Campbell's "Who Goes There") turns out to be well done, all the caterwhauling will immediately stop. It's all in the execution.

I would add to Mr. Monkey's list of remakes: "A Fistful of Dollars" (a very literal rip-off of "Yojimbo" that was such an act of plagerism and followed the original so closely that Kurosawa sued, won and is now credited on the screenplay), every version) "Reservoir Dogs" (QT famously borrowed the plot of Ringo Lam's "City on Fire" though he definitely made it his own) every version but the first, silent version of "Three Godfathers," "The Thief of Baghdad," "The Three Musketeers," "Hamlet" and "Romeo and Juliet" (oh, we can't have "West Side Story" -- another remake). The list is pretty much endless.

Look, I'm the first to criticize Hollywood for being too timid and constantly recycling old properties but the problem is mostly HOW they approach remaking them. Obviously, if you're going to do a new version of an old story, you should have something new and worthwhile to say with it. It was, for example, actually kind of a cool idea to have Tim Burton remake "Planet of the Apes." He really could have gone to town creating an entirely new world based on the ideas from the original film, however, he didn't and the movie turned out to be a pointless piece of crap. Similarly, Neil Labute could have brought something worthwhile to his version of "The Wicker Man" (the '73 version being one of my favorite movies) but he completely and utterly missed the point of the original film (i.e., religious conflict) and instead of elaborating on that point brought his own bizarre issue with feminine power to it and made one of the worst films in recent memory, instead. Them's the breaks but it doesn't necessarily mean he shouldn't have tried.

As Roger Ebert said so wisely so long ago, movies are not what they are about, but how they are about it.

Punctuation is my master now. :)