The Thing (2011) prequel (with spoilers for The Thing)

raigraphixs

Distinguished Member
From the company behind Slither


There have been rumours about a sequel to John Carpenter's iconic horror nugget The Thing since the day the film opened in 1982. While the likes of Frank Darabont and George Clooney have flirted with ideas and Dark Horse comics has put a story to paper, nothing even close to concrete has emerged.

But now Fangoria is reporting that a follow-up – or, more accurately, a prequel – is currently scurrying through the Arctic development stations of Strike Entertainment.

The company behind the Dawn Of The Dead remake and Slither (which has a deal with Thing-makers Universal) is said to be hunting around for a screenwriter to make the dream a reality.Can this latest attempt make it to the screen? And, more importantly, should it?



Alot of fans think they should let it be and not do another one, some in favour as there is alot to explore/origns in a prequel. It could end up closer to alien if set in space. A sequel would harm the great ending of JC version, so a prequel could take on its own identity, and hopefully not tarnish the JC version if it turns out like Alien vs Predator, weak.
 
Last edited:

Marc

Distinguished Member
a prequel might be good, but it definitely couldn't be a direct prequel since we already know most of what happened to the previous team at the base, plus they were all norwegian or something..
 

Brother

Novice Member
Well it's a great idea as long as it's done well. That is unlikely I suspect but the guys did a great job of the dawn of the dead remake and I have heard very good things about slither which I look forward to seeing.
 

MrBlofeldt

Banned
I would not be against a prequel or a sequel, while I did indeed love the John Carpenter original, I think a sequel (in particular) might actually be a good idea, if it was given a kind of omega man/Iam legend/dawn of the dead/salems lot kind of feel to it, again you could create a movie that depicts the world succumbing to the Thing, and leave the ending with a one similar to that of the original, this might seem a little derivative and un-original, but everyone loves and ending with a question mark...

...as for a prequel, I don't mind, and would certainly go see it, but I find I get annoyed with prequels as ultimately I know what will happen in the end, and it spoils the magic somewhat...

...Just my thoughts on the matter
 

pRot3us

Distinguished Member
Not sure about this, as said we know what happened directly before and this is the only possible prequel I could see being made and would be very similar to the original film (but with norwegians), the only other possible prequel being eskimos finding it thousands of years before I suppose.

I'm not sure a sequel would work either as it would basically just be another Invasion of the Bodysnatchers, rather than an I am Legend type film.
 

the klang

Novice Member
prequel ?maybe,but given the presents of CGI dont ya think what ever they do it will end up a "bubblegum not really scary could have done more "effort that promises to be the scariest most horrific film since the last one!!!but is in fact an insult to the original and even on its own without the shadow of carpenter anywhere to be seen is a waist of time.IMO
 

raigraphixs

Distinguished Member
Marc Abraham the producer on The Thing reboot, to be written by Battlestar Galactica's Ronald Moore, Abraham was asked if his new film would be a sequel or a remake, he replied “This is more of a prequel than a sequel… It's going to take place in the same time frame. These are the events leading up to the 1982 film.”


But don't we already know what happens to the build up to The Thing?, the Norwegians find the spacecraft, take back the alien, the shape-shifter kills them and now as a dog runs for its own life outside into the wintery artic. Thereafter The Thing movie proper starts with Russell and crew.

So are they completely going to ruin the build up, or pardon the expression, just give us the same old thing that happens in JC film so retread old ground with updated effects work? I dont suppose that will concern the studio as the name 'The Thing' is the biggest drawn. Personally a sequel with Russell would be well cool.

But one thing it has going for it is writer/producer Ronald Moore, the man who re-imagined Battlestar Galactica television series, and we all know how that turned out :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
The Thing is a movie that covers its nose, and tail, therefore there can be no other movies, apart from a remake.
 

Garrett

Moderator
The Thing is a movie that covers its nose, and tail, therefore there can be no other movies, apart from a remake.
There is some debate about the end of the film as to whether it was the end, also there was a comic out that continued fro where the end of the film ended and went on for about 6 issues I think by Dark Horse.
 

Marc

Distinguished Member
The (rubbish) pc game was also a direct sequel to the film, as far as i recall you take control of mcready and the other guy has vanished, presumably the 'thing'
 

CrazyHorse

Well-known Member
The Thing is a movie that covers its nose, and tail, therefore there can be no other movies, apart from a remake.
Quite wrong actually! Carpenter's "The Thing" is left completely open ended, with the two surviving characters (and the audience) wondering if one or the other (or both!) have been taken over by the creature or remain human.

It's a perfect ending in my opinion.

There's also the possibility that the creature didn't die in the explosion/fire and it could be buried in the snow, frozen alive, just waiting for some curious explorers to dig it up again!

But when it comes to a sequel/prequel...I'm not sure they should bother. As someone has said, a prequel has its dramatic problems as viewers of the first film automatically know the outcome. And prequel or sequel is likely to be full of CGI, which no matter how well it's done, usually isn't half as inventive as traditional make-up & animatronic FX.
 

Crabman32

Novice Member
Quite wrong actually! Carpenter's "The Thing" is left completely open ended, with the two surviving characters (and the audience) wondering if one or the other (or both!) have been taken over by the creature or remain human.

It's a perfect ending in my opinion.

There's also the possibility that the creature didn't die in the explosion/fire and it could be buried in the snow, frozen alive, just waiting for some curious explorers to dig it up again!

But when it comes to a sequel/prequel...I'm not sure they should bother. As someone has said, a prequel has its dramatic problems as viewers of the first film automatically know the outcome. And prequel or sequel is likely to be full of CGI, which no matter how well it's done, usually isn't half as inventive as traditional make-up & animatronic FX.
What he said.
 
I prefer CGI.
 

raigraphixs

Distinguished Member
I prefer CGI.
there you have it in a 'nut'shell :D

thats fine its your call, even though i love cgi and im not against it, in films a animatronic character, you know it has substance, its actually there on the set, the actors can see it, it the closest you will get to it being real.

CGI is the opposite, yes if you cant do puppetry/advanced animatronics for films like Transformers, then cgi is the only way. Films like The Thing and Alien movies are made for animatronic creatures. I bet the actors are scared on set being chased by one off those in the dark, instead of a crew member running with a paper head on a stick for the cgi alternative :D
 
there you have it in a 'nut'shell :D

thats fine its your call, even though i love cgi and im not against it, in films a animatronic character, you know it has substance, its actually there on the set, the actors can see it, it the closest you will get to it being real.

CGI is the opposite, yes if you cant do puppetry/advanced animatronics for films like Transformers, then cgi is the only way. Films like The Thing and Alien movies are made for animatronic creatures. I bet the actors are scared on set being chased by one off those in the dark, instead of a crew member running with a paper head on a stick for the cgi alternative :D
The only thing that you ever see with your eyes is light. CGI is metamorphic light, and animatronics are the light that reaches your eyes that originated from jerky metal pins. When actors see a jerky, metal head doing the tango, I don't know why they would get scared!
 
Last edited:

raigraphixs

Distinguished Member
The only thing that you ever see with your eyes is light. CGI is metamorphic light, and animatronics are the light that reaches your eyes that originated from jerky metal pins. When actors see a jerky, metal head doing the tango, I don't know why they would get scared!
:confused: lost me buddy
 
:confused: lost me buddy
Well, the simple way to put it is that animatronics can be scanned with lasers to make them into 3D CGI models, so there is never any advantage over CGI in any respect.
 

quarry2006

Well-known Member
there you have it in a 'nut'shell :D

thats fine its your call, even though i love cgi and im not against it, in films a animatronic character, you know it has substance, its actually there on the set, the actors can see it, it the closest you will get to it being real.

CGI is the opposite, yes if you cant do puppetry/advanced animatronics for films like Transformers, then cgi is the only way. Films like The Thing and Alien movies are made for animatronic creatures. I bet the actors are scared on set being chased by one off those in the dark, instead of a crew member running with a paper head on a stick for the cgi alternative :D
Well, surely at that point they would do what they're paid to do: act.

The conceit that animatronics and "old fashioned" sfx are somehow more real than CGI is a strange one. The only thing that's real on the set is the actors; everything else is just make believe. I think CGI is sometimes at its best when it doesn't try to look real - the Star Wars prequels are the films most often dragged out for abuse in this area so to use them as an example, Jar Jar Binks, for instance, was supposed to look like a man in a suit rather than an actual creature; Yoda, at the same time, was made to behave like the old muppet from the original films. Conversely, Gollum was an attempt to make a CGI character totally believable and I think it's a success.

As for The Thing, I think they should - if, indeed they use CGI - try and make the creature look as close to an animatronic as possible, rather than going the route of trying to make it look real. A harder trick to pull off, but more satisfying in the long run, especially for the fans of the original film.
 

Marc

Distinguished Member
i think the best of both worlds is to combine the technologies. Take Jurassic Park for instance, some scenes in that movie, like the T Rex escaping from the compound are a perfect example of how you can mix the two technologies and have breathtaking results. That still stands up as one of the best examples of cgi and animatronic animation despite being 15 years old.
 

CrazyHorse

Well-known Member
As for The Thing, I think they should - if, indeed they use CGI - try and make the creature look as close to an animatronic as possible, rather than going the route of trying to make it look real. A harder trick to pull off, but more satisfying in the long run, especially for the fans of the original film.

Then why not just use animatronics in the first place!? :confused: :rolleyes:
 

CrazyHorse

Well-known Member
i think the best of both worlds is to combine the technologies. Take Jurassic Park for instance, some scenes in that movie, like the T Rex escaping from the compound are a perfect example of how you can mix the two technologies and have breathtaking results. That still stands up as one of the best examples of cgi and animatronic animation despite being 15 years old.
I actually agree with this very much. Often the best way of fooling an audience is to use as many different techniques and tricks as you can to sell gag.

I just think there's often a tendency with some filmmakers to automatically assume CGI is the answer to all their problems, when in my opinion it's obviously not! That's just lazy thinking.

Of course you will always get some complete computer nerds who are so enamoured by the technology, they can't see anything else. Hiya Pincho! :hiya: :D
 

quarry2006

Well-known Member
I think it can be lazy thinking and, if they don't have the cash and the ingenuiety to see it through, it shows up all too well on the screen. ILM and WETA, for example, are only as good as the people who've hired them for the job.

The idea, though, that it's somehow easier to do it all with CGI is wrong.

When you say, why not do it with animatronics in the first place, Crazyhorse, what I meant with my post was, if they're going to do it with CGI, it actually looks more impressive when...oh, what's the use?! If someone likes CGI they're a computer nerd; there's really no discussing the issue with someone who has such a narrow view!
 

CrazyHorse

Well-known Member
I think it can be lazy thinking and, if they don't have the cash and the ingenuiety to see it through, it shows up all too well on the screen. ILM and WETA, for example, are only as good as the people who've hired them for the job.
Agreed.

The idea, though, that it's somehow easier to do it all with CGI is wrong.
I never said 'easier' anywhere in my post. I just think it's too often the first (or only) port of call for some filmmakers when it comes to solving certain problems.

When you say, why not do it with animatronics in the first place, Crazyhorse, what I meant with my post was, if they're going to do it with CGI, it actually looks more impressive when...oh, what's the use?!
Oh don't give up so easily, convince me man! :)

If someone likes CGI they're a computer nerd
Actually, that was a slightly tongue-in-cheek jibe at Pincho who at times I'm convinced would be more at home living in Tron's world than on this humble rock of ours! But if it touched a nerve with you, then well if the shoe fits...:D

there's really no discussing the issue with someone who has such a narrow view!
Them's fightin' words boy! :mad:;)

Really, if I've just whole heartedly agreed with Marc's post in that I consider the best way to fool audiences with FX work is to use varied techniques to achieve said results, how can I have a narrow view of such matters?! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

quarry2006

Well-known Member
Heh, my post was a little p*ssy wasn't it? Sorry, Crazyhorse, I must have been having a bad day.

I retract some of what I said.

I know you didn't say you thought CGI was easier - that wasn't meant to look like an implication, but it is said by a lot of people who don't like it.

I have no convincing arguments, though, I'm afraid. If it works, then it's fine by me. I feel that in films such as the Star Wars prequels and The Lord Of The Rings, it suspends my disbelief pefectly well. Of course, I'm sure some uses of CGI will not date well but the same can be said for all sfx, CGI or otherwise; we've all watched films years later and said "god, I can't believe I was convinced by that".
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Best Hi-Fi products of 2020, Plus Best of the Month for TV Shows & Movies

Latest News

Best Projectors of 2020 - Editor's Choice Awards
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
What's new on Sky and NOW TV UK for December 2020
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
PS5 vs. Xbox Series X: Which Next-Gen Console is Best?
  • By Rik Henderson
  • Published
Black Friday 2020: Best UK deals currently available
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom