Pajiba

While I understand and fully support your impotent rage at this project (and all other lackluster remakes) isn't this a prequel of sorts? Not a strict remake? This is the Norwegians, right?

Not that it makes it right, but I'll admit, I'm more intrigued than rage-y.

And then there’s the dude from Fired Up!.

Which one? (Can't watch the video at work) The funny blond or the smarmy brunette? It makes a difference.

I thought yesterday it was confirmed that this is a prequel, not a remake. (Again, can't watch the video. Damn work filters.)

I actually really like Eric Christian Olsen. But then I have a soft spot for everyone who was in Not Another Teen Movie.

Fuck your yankee bluejeans! It's not one of those movie movies.

So if this is the "prequel" to the 1982 remake of the original does that mean we still have a remake of the remake to look forward to?
Awwwwesome.

So torn on this. I love Carpenter's film, and if this can work into the same canon story instead of trying to replace it, then bully. But the trailer editting makes it look like it's full of cheap "boo scares," rather than anything that builds suspense.

As long as it ends with the helicopter scene that Carpenter's film opens with, I can probably forgive them.

For a remake, the basic plot structure looked eerily similar to that of the 1982 version. Right down to the computer generated graphic of the alien cell taking over a host cell.

Not that I am complaining. It looked decent, seeing as it's a fairly basic plot structure to begin with. The only place that really bears the white of consideration is how good the FX are.

Considering the talent behind the original, they've got a pretty steep bar to reach.

That and the music. Maybe it's just the homage to the original, brooding score that the new trailer had at the end.

The thing (see what i did there?) that bothers me about this is, when you set up more or less the same characters in the identical situation, where is there to go that the American crew didn't go? Is making one of them a woman going to bring a more "womanly touch" to the paranoia and carnage? I can't see where the plot line could possibly go that's new and interesting, before we even get to the fact that we know how it has to end.

I suppose then that this film will just have the first ten minutes of The Thing stapled on as an ending, where the two surviving Norwegians in the helicopter chase the Thing-dog and are quickly shot dead by the Americans.

This IS a remake. I know they're claiming it's a prequel but that doesn't make sense, especially since no obvious attempt has been made to date it backwards and if anything, it seems to be set present day.

How can you call it a prequel when it IS just a remake?

I mean a bunch of burly, bearded dudes with flamethrowers running around in the snow?
What possible new story could you tell?
They can't possibly give us more information about the aliens since they claim its a PREQUEL which means the characters would have the same limited technology as the Americans did in the (sort of) original which means they can in no way fully explore what they've discovered.

Also why is there a woman in this film? To me, a big part of why The Thing was so great was the overriding dick swinging of it all. Wasn't a big part of the whole film about the distrust and paranoia that breeds between men? Not 'man', as in Humankind....but MEN? Blokes? How they express it and deal with it? (In most cases, badly. In MacReedy's case, Badassly)

So why is a woman thrown into the mix? I'd much rather see a bunch of hot blond North Men surrounded by snow and enemies having berserker rages when that fucking dog escapes at the end. I could watch that all day.

ALSO, Mary Elisabeth Winstead is a fucking chameleon.

One of the the elements about the 1982 version that I like to this very day is the innovation behind the practical special effects despite having a small budget, no such thing as CGI as of that time, and how well much of it has held up in the years since then. I have since learned how to do many of these effects myself and am saddened by modern filmmakers who have abandoned them in favor of FX done in a computer. They cleaner, faster, and cheaper to create but far from better. Sometimes the older ways are still best and this film is a clinic on many of the best. If you can, watch the extensive "Making Of" features on DVD.

To anyone who argues that some of the effects are now clunky and dated- honestly they still hold up far better than many of the cheap CGI effects that are commonplace now. One of the reasons why the "82 movie does indeed look as real as it does is because for all intended purposes they are. Nothing holds up to film evolution forever, but I have to be honest, knowing what they had available, it would be hard pressed to duplicate these effects differently and get the same great results.

The trailer looks like an imitation of the first one (not unlike the alien itself) I don't know if it will result as a true homage, an interesting prequel, or just another failed cash grab. I will say that if they hold off on modern CGI except perhaps for post-production clean-up and attempt to make this movie in much the same methods as the '82 version, then they might bookend nicely. But if they fall into a CGI pitfall, they will look nothing like one another and will share very little beyond their name. 30 years later and John Carpenter's version still is must in peoples' libraries. I challenge this one to achieve that kind of staying power.

Actually the radio contact is to do with a storm.

It's stated early in the film that weather interference has shut down contact over most of the contintent for a while, my boyfriend seems to remember him saying 'for at least a month' and he's seen the film like, a thousand times. This month alone.

It's the same storm which later, briefly hits the American camp right as shit really hits the fan.

Macreedy is even reluctant to fly into it, which he has to do to investigate the Norwegians camp.

So sorry, not aliens or flying saucers, just bad weather and a handy plot contrivance of having all the radios destroyed JUST IN CASE the storm blows over.

So it makes sense that the Norwegians wouldn't have been able to contact any one at all while their own apocalypse was taking place.

It's apparently relatively common in the Antarctic (or was?) that radio contact can be completely lost for days or weeks at a time and people generally accept it and just have enough stocks and provisions to last them through not being able to send a request for more.

Why aren't they speaking Norwegian? This is no prequel.

Eh, looks a bit generic

chick's got one expression

Nadine, sweetheart, it only hews so closely to the 1982 version because they wanted it to be consistent with the best sci-fi/horror movie ever ... isn't that obvious?

Jenvegas, Carpenter's was not a remake of a remake. It was, to be sure, a more technically accurate adaptation of the original work.

Agree with most of the positive comments here, and there are few. But in the end, Waytensee, I agree. The trailer gives away too much.

No, no, no, no, no, no, NO. No. No. NO. Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Why, why, why, why, why, why, WHY? Why? Why? WHY? WHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHY?

I'm done now.

As a huge fan of the 1982 The Thing, the trailer kind of works for me due to the female lead. And it really is just a great story, isolated from the rest of the world, and the humans become the prey...a great plot device that has been successfully used over and over whether it is vampires (30 Days of Night) or zombies (28 Days Later).

I just hope they do not use CGI and instead stick to the latex and the goo! So much better (also in Alien / Aliens)...