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

domtheone

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.


Can, argue with that. The Jurassic fillms still hold superbly well today. Be interesting to see what they're like in HD.

I think during one (Jurassic 3) of the T Rex fights (possible with that huge mother of a dinosuar), one was CGI and the other old school. I remember listening to one of the commentaries on the track where they were discussing which was which and how hard it was to spot which was which.

I don't think I could until I found out:D
 

CrazyHorse

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

No probs mate, I have my share of those days too and I'm sure it has shown in some of my own posts occasionally. :)

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 perfectly 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".

I agree with you, if it works then it doesn't matter what technique was used. It may come over that I'm really anti CG but that's not the case at all. There have been wonderful moments in modern cinema that couldn't have been put on screen without it! But I still believe that there is an over-reliance on CGI when older, more traditional methods could be just as effective in certain cases if used properly.

Take for example the forthcoming remake of 'The Wolf Man' starring Benicio Del Toro & Anthony Hopkins. Now Rick Baker was hired to do prosthetic make-up FX and he has created a fantastic, ferocious looking man-beast - a superb updating of the old Chaney wolfman. You've probably seen the pics around the net somewhere. Yet I was extremely saddened to hear that they have decided to go with CGI for the transformation scenes! And of course, so was Baker! He even constructed appliances and animatronic pieces to demonstrate his idea for the transformation, but the filmmakers weren't interested. Now this is the guy who won an Oscar for his FX on American Werewolf, so you'd think they'd at least let him shoot some test footage his way...but no. CGI it is! I find it a little sad. I'd love to see what Baker would do with a full werewolf transformation 27 years after American Werewolf, using newer materials and better, more refined animatronics. But unfortunately it isn't to be.

I bet they just want the transformation in one long shot. No cutting, no different angles, no possible build up of extra tension, just 'oooh, look how clever we can be!'.

And that's basically the fear I have for 'The Thing' prequel/sequel too.

Anyway enough already! Sorry that turned into a bit of a rant, but I hope you see where I'm coming from.
 
No probs mate, I have my share of those days too and I'm sure it has shown in some of my own posts occasionally. :)



I agree with you, if it works then it doesn't matter what technique was used. It may come over that I'm really anti CG but that's not the case at all. There have been wonderful moments in modern cinema that couldn't have been put on screen without it! But I still believe that there is an over-reliance on CGI when older, more traditional methods could be just as effective in certain cases if used properly.

Take for example the forthcoming remake of 'The Wolf Man' starring Benicio Del Toro & Anthony Hopkins. Now Rick Baker was hired to do prosthetic make-up FX and he has created a fantastic, ferocious looking man-beast - a superb updating of the old Chaney wolfman. You've probably seen the pics around the net somewhere. Yet I was extremely saddened to hear that they have decided to go with CGI for the transformation scenes! And of course, so was Baker! He even constructed appliances and animatronic pieces to demonstrate his idea for the transformation, but the filmmakers weren't interested. Now this is the guy who won an Oscar for his FX on American Werewolf, so you'd think they'd at least let him shoot some test footage his way...but no. CGI it is! I find it a little sad. I'd love to see what Baker would do with a full werewolf transformation 27 years after American Werewolf, using newer materials and better, more refined animatronics. But unfortunately it isn't to be.

I bet they just want the transformation in one long shot. No cutting, no different angles, no possible build up of extra tension, just 'oooh, look how clever we can be!'.

And that's basically the fear I have for 'The Thing' prequel/sequel too.

Anyway enough already! Sorry that turned into a bit of a rant, but I hope you see where I'm coming from.

The American Werewolf transformation is really terrible compared to the Thriller Video Transformation. But both are old... I think that hair growth is perfect for CGI, and very difficult for animatronics, or stop motion.
 

CrazyHorse

Well-known Member
The American Werewolf transformation is really terrible compared to the Thriller Video Transformation. But both are old... I think that hair growth is perfect for CGI, and very difficult for animatronics, or stop motion.

I bet you think the CGI work in 'American Werewolf in Paris' is great don't you Pincho! :rolleyes:
 

crimsoneagle

Active Member
;)
No it isn't, they're very similar indeed.

Actually, I quite like The Company of Wolves transformations, but I know others don't.

Steve W

Yep watched this a few days ago and the transformation is amazing even now !!!
Great film too.... :thumbsup:
You dont have bad taste Pecker ;)
 
I bet you think the CGI work in 'American Werewolf in Paris' is great don't you Pincho! :rolleyes:

Haven't seen it. The Thriller one is the only one that I like.
 

aprout

Distinguished Member
The American Werewolf transformation was stunning at the time & still holds up 25+ years down the line.

I don't have a problem with using CGI for the transformation, as long as it's well done & the finished article looks the same as the make up job on Benicio Del Toro.

Take a look at Wes Craven's woeful Cursed for how not to do it. They had a full animatronic suit & a full CGI werewolf. A) the cgi is appalling, & B) it's looks nothing like the suit at all! :nono: :thumbsdow


Anyways, back on topic. Any sequel/prequel to The Thing will never, ever, live up to fan's expectations. Leave it alone!

;)
 

dazza1011

Novice Member
this idea should just be left alone

on the CGI / animatronic argument if done well animatronic can look good and in the instances of American Werewolf In London, The Thing, Men In Black ( the little alien in the head ) they still stand up well today the problem is that lazy filmakers use CGI for everything as they believe it is the answer for everything.

The best way IMHO is to use it sparingly for things that are virtually impossible for an animatronic creature to do i.e running etc
 
this idea should just be left alone

on the CGI / animatronic argument if done well animatronic can look good and in the instances of American Werewolf In London, The Thing, Men In Black ( the little alien in the head ) they still stand up well today the problem is that lazy filmakers use CGI for everything as they believe it is the answer for everything.

The best way IMHO is to use it sparingly for things that are virtually impossible for an animatronic creature to do i.e running etc

My favourite animatronic is the robot in Judge Dredd, and because it is climbed on, it would be harder to do in CGI.
 

raigraphixs

Distinguished Member
Plot details, which sounds similar to the JC version, and not a clear prequel.

In the screenplay by Ronald D. Moore, the prequel takes place from the Norwegian camps point of view. An American scientific expedition to the frozen wastes of the Antarctic is interrupted by a group of seemingly mad Norwegians pursuing and shooting a dog.

The helicopter pursuing the dog crashes leaving no explanation for the chase.

During the night, the dog mutates and attacks other dogs in the cage and members of the team that investigate. The team soon realize that an alien life-form with the ability to take over bodies is on the loose and they don't know who may already have been taken over.
 
Plot details, which sounds similar to the JC version, and not a clear prequel.

In the screenplay by Ronald D. Moore, the prequel takes place from the Norwegian camps point of view. An American scientific expedition to the frozen wastes of the Antarctic is interrupted by a group of seemingly mad Norwegians pursuing and shooting a dog.

The helicopter pursuing the dog crashes leaving no explanation for the chase.

During the night, the dog mutates and attacks other dogs in the cage and members of the team that investigate. The team soon realize that an alien life-form with the ability to take over bodies is on the loose and they don't know who may already have been taken over.

That's probably a mistake, because that is 'The Thing'
 

raigraphixs

Distinguished Member
More dodgy rumors.


Matthijs Van Heijningen Jr. is attached to direct The Thing prequel for Universal & Zack Snyder's (director of 300, Watchmen) company 'Strike Entertainment'.

It will focus on the Norwegian camps in the Antarctic that were ravaged by the alien first before the Americans (in The Thing) discovered them. Van Heijningen is pushing to make the lead character of his prequel that of R.J. MacReady's brother; in the original, MacReady was played by Kurt Russell.
 

Marc

Distinguished Member
More dodgy rumors.


Matthijs Van Heijningen Jr. is attached to direct The Thing prequel for Universal & Zack Snyder's (director of 300, Watchmen) company 'Strike Entertainment'.

It will focus on the Norwegian camps in the Antarctic that were ravaged by the alien first before the Americans (in The Thing) discovered them. Van Heijningen is pushing to make the lead character of his prequel that of R.J. MacReady's brother; in the original, MacReady was played by Kurt Russell.

:rolleyes: what would MacReady's brother be doing in a norwegian camp? And wouldn't Jan Stig MacReady have told his brother if he was going off on an expedition with a bunch of norwegians?
 

TW ALBIEE

Well-known Member
Please say they don't remake it,effects did not drive the original it was the sense of foreboding and dread.Carpenter has not had much good input in the last 10 years but leave his original alone.
 

The Snake

Banned
:rolleyes: what would MacReady's brother be doing in a norwegian camp? And wouldn't Jan Stig MacReady have told his brother if he was going off on an expedition with a bunch of norwegians?

Yes, its the blunking silly season:rotfl:.

Perhaps there is some twist, perhaps MacReady has an ulterior motive for not telling him, perhaps he ran of with brother MacReady's wife and she's also in the Norwegian camp and he thought perhaps to avoid a snow ball fight he wouldn't tell him.

The son of MacReady (MacReady Jnr) can be in a Russian camp just over the way and they can do a follow up to what happened after the end of the Thing.

His Dad, MacReady, turns up at the camp to drop some birthday presents off and then turns into the thing, his son wrestles with his conscience on whether to kill his dad, not knowing he real mom and dad died in the Norwegian camp.

He has to kill the thing of course because this sister is in the German camp just down the road, along with a couple of old school friends.
 

Marc

Distinguished Member
Yes, its the blunking silly season:rotfl:.

Perhaps there is some twist, perhaps MacReady has an ulterior motive for not telling him, perhaps he ran of with brother MacReady's wife and she's also in the Norwegian camp and he thought perhaps to avoid a snow ball fight he wouldn't tell him.

The son of MacReady (MacReady Jnr) can be in a Russian camp just over the way and they can do a follow up to what happened after the end of the Thing.

His Dad, MacReady, turns up at the camp to drop some birthday presents off and then turns into the thing, his son wrestles with his conscience on whether to kill his dad, not knowing he real mom and dad died in the Norwegian camp.

He has to kill the thing of course because this sister is in the German camp just down the road, along with a couple of old school friends.

i love the fact he managed to turn up with birthday presents despite being an alien, in the middle of the arctic :D
 
More dodgy rumors.


Matthijs Van Heijningen Jr. is attached to direct The Thing prequel for Universal & Zack Snyder's (director of 300, Watchmen) company 'Strike Entertainment'.

It will focus on the Norwegian camps in the Antarctic that were ravaged by the alien first before the Americans (in The Thing) discovered them. Van Heijningen is pushing to make the lead character of his prequel that of R.J. MacReady's brother; in the original, MacReady was played by Kurt Russell.

Why does his brother even need to be in the movie? First they roll back the story, and dilute it, now they roll back the lead character, and dilute him...

The dog will be diluted to a puppy...

The snow will be diluted to rain....

The Alien will be diluted to bigfoot..

The music will be diluted to Girls Aloud...

The explosives will be diluted to fireworks...

The spaceship will be diluted to a blimp...

:D
 

raigraphixs

Distinguished Member
Universal has officially announced 'The Thing Prequel', so no longer a rumor. As reported before Ronald D. Moore (BSG tv reboot) will write the script for the prequel, which has to be the one saving grace for this film. Director Matthijs Van Heijningen is still attached to direct.

The new project borrows heavily from the John W. Campbell Jr. short story "Who Goes There," the basis of the Carpenter film and 1951 Howard Hawks original "The Thing From Another World."

It is set in a Norwegian camp and chronicles how the shape-shifting alien was first discovered and overcame the inhabitants of that camp. Strike Entertainment's Eric Newman and Marc Abraham are producing. David Foster will be exec producer.
 
Last edited:

CrazyHorse

Well-known Member
Still seems like a pointless prequel to me...although I hope to be proved wrong and it turns out to be a worthwhile movie.

Going to be hard to beat the atmosphere of Carpenter's version for me though.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Q Acoustics Q3030i, Humax Aura, Roku Streambar & WandaVision Reviews and more...

Latest News

Falcon Acoustics launches Q7 speaker kit
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Polk launches React soundbar with Alexa
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
What's new on Amazon Prime Video UK for February 2021
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Dolby honoured by National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Sky announces huge original TV show and movie lineup for 2021
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom