|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Jan 28, 2020 13:08:59 GMT
screenrant.com/thing-movie-remake-universal-blumhouse-new-novel/But it will be a closer adaption of the original novel by Campbell, "Who Goes there?". I mean, personally, I'd rather see a sequel. The Thing is one of the few horror films I think still has options in terms of sequels because of how ambiguous the ending was. I would honestly love to see another film of the Thing actually getting out of Antarctica and even getting on main land.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jan 28, 2020 13:17:42 GMT
screenrant.com/thing-movie-remake-universal-blumhouse-new-novel/But it will be a closer adaption of the original novel by Campbell, "Who Goes there?". I mean, personally, I'd rather see a sequel. The Thing is one of the few horror films I think still has options in terms of sequels because of how ambiguous the ending was. I would honestly love to see another film of the Thing actually getting out of Antarctica and even getting on main land. Yeah... that's lame. They tried the prequel that was also a remake and it didn't really work. I wouldn't really want a sequel either, but I did recently hear about and read up on the sequel miniseries that SyFy channel (or at the time, I think, scifi channel) almost made, and it sounded kinda cool. It was gonna take place largely in the desert in the American southwest, and it was gonna be pretty stark and brutal and a direct sequel to the Carpenter film. Scifi was just coming off of a pretty well received Dune miniseries and were considering pumping a real budget and real talent into it. Not sure why they pulled the plug, but it's much more along the lines of what I'd rather see.
|
|
|
Post by James on Jan 28, 2020 13:33:25 GMT
I think leaving the ending of Carpenter’s film ambiguous adds to it. Making a sequel only takes away from it.
I would be fond of the idea of a more faithful adaptation to the book since I heard the movie is quite different, but this has already been rebooted...twice; the one from the 50’s is the real original film.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jan 28, 2020 16:25:09 GMT
I think leaving the ending of Carpenter’s film ambiguous adds to it. Making a sequel only takes away from it. I would be fond of the idea of a more faithful adaptation to the book since I heard the movie is quite different, but this has already been rebooted...twice; the one from the 50’s is the real original film. In this case, according to the article, the new movie will be based on the original story, plus an extra 45 pages of the original manuscript that had never been published or even really seen before. I guess that's kinda interesting, but yeah, it's just sort of yet another reboot. Check out some of the descriptions of The Return of the Thing miniseries. The plan was to distinctly answer the question at the end of the movie, which I'm not sure if I totally like and you clearly won't either, but some of the other ideas and approaches are pretty interesting and cool. It's a nice what if, but still sounds like the version of another The Thing movie that i'd most like to see.
|
|
|
Post by forca84 on Jan 28, 2020 18:10:10 GMT
The 1972 movie "Horror express" was an adaptation of "Who goes there?" as well. "The Thing" sequel had it's moments. But it wasn't a patch on the original. I'm kind of surprised they are attempting this again.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jan 28, 2020 18:38:48 GMT
Groan.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 28, 2020 19:11:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jan 28, 2020 19:24:09 GMT
Horror Express is great. Very Euro-feeling version of the story-especially as the Thing absorbs people's minds and makes some interesting remarks-especially when he possesses the monk Pujardov.
"Poor foolish monk-he loved you more than the promise of heaven!"
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jan 28, 2020 19:30:15 GMT
The 1972 movie "Horror express" was an adaptation of "Who goes there?" as well. "The Thing" sequel had it's moments. But it wasn't a patch on the original. I'm kind of surprised they are attempting this again. Was it? Officially? As far as I can see that's what people consider it, but it's not credited as such.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jan 28, 2020 19:31:28 GMT
Carpenter's The Thing is for me the greatest film ever. Personally I say go ahead remake/expand/re-adapt or whatever...it takes nothing from the film I love, and might be interesting to watch. If you don't like the idea, don't see it. Simple really. Pretty much my attitude to all remakes.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jan 28, 2020 23:41:41 GMT
HE is about a creature dug up in the ice that thaws out and starts absorbing people. I guess it is not a true version of the story since the creature is not contagious-there is only one alien-and he has to willfully transfer his spirit to another. He can also manipulate the dead (I suppose they might be considered infected by him in a way). If the 82' Thing was on the train, no one would have escaped.
|
|
|
Post by wolf359 on Jan 29, 2020 0:26:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by forca84 on Jan 29, 2020 2:39:39 GMT
The 1972 movie "Horror express" was an adaptation of "Who goes there?" as well. "The Thing" sequel had it's moments. But it wasn't a patch on the original. I'm kind of surprised they are attempting this again. Was it? Officially? As far as I can see that's what people consider it, but it's not credited as such. Let me have my moment in the Sun!! ×D This thread makes me wanna watch "The Thing from another World", "Horror Express", and "The Thing" back to back now.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jan 29, 2020 3:32:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Jan 29, 2020 8:30:21 GMT
screenrant.com/thing-movie-remake-universal-blumhouse-new-novel/But it will be a closer adaption of the original novel by Campbell, "Who Goes there?". I mean, personally, I'd rather see a sequel. The Thing is one of the few horror films I think still has options in terms of sequels because of how ambiguous the ending was. I would honestly love to see another film of the Thing actually getting out of Antarctica and even getting on main land. I love the Kurt Russell one and didn't much like the 'sequel' or whatever it was, so I'm in two minds as to this. Isn't Blumhouse equated with B movies?
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jan 29, 2020 11:34:43 GMT
screenrant.com/thing-movie-remake-universal-blumhouse-new-novel/But it will be a closer adaption of the original novel by Campbell, "Who Goes there?". I mean, personally, I'd rather see a sequel. The Thing is one of the few horror films I think still has options in terms of sequels because of how ambiguous the ending was. I would honestly love to see another film of the Thing actually getting out of Antarctica and even getting on main land. I love the Kurt Russell one and didn't much like the 'sequel' or whatever it was, so I'm in two minds as to this. Isn't Blumhouse equated with B movies? It is what they are equated to when you initially hear the name, but they have some decent films under their belt - Split, Purge films, the new Halloween, Get Out, Belko Experiment, Happy Death Day, Upgrade etc. And few non genre films as well - Whiplash and BlacKkKlansman
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jan 29, 2020 11:56:39 GMT
Was it? Officially? As far as I can see that's what people consider it, but it's not credited as such. Let me have my moment in the Sun!! ×D This thread makes me wanna watch "The Thing from another World", "Horror Express", and "The Thing" back to back now. Hey, if you can carve out that kinda free time that's a fun way to spend a day. A few other confined, claustrophobic, desolate, wintery, paranoid horror films could round out a good snowbound weekend.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jan 29, 2020 21:54:44 GMT
screenrant.com/thing-movie-remake-universal-blumhouse-new-novel/But it will be a closer adaption of the original novel by Campbell, "Who Goes there?". I mean, personally, I'd rather see a sequel. The Thing is one of the few horror films I think still has options in terms of sequels because of how ambiguous the ending was. I would honestly love to see another film of the Thing actually getting out of Antarctica and even getting on main land. That ending is one of the reasons I wouldn't want a sequel at all. It's perfect. There's no need to ruin that by trying to answer something that doesn't need an answer.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jan 29, 2020 22:19:28 GMT
I regret I never saw the Thing in a theater even though I knew about it from Famous Monsters. The Norris Thing was shown in detail. It was a very popular movie on home video.
Blumhouse is like the new Weinstein Company. You got the big international conglomerates (Universal, Disney etc), but since people get bored with that stuff, there has to be alternatives--so Blumhouse is there to provide it--unfortunately they peddle the same political messages as the big companies, just packaged in horror or exploitation. Even in its day AIP was somewhat leftist in philosophy, but not so much that they wouldn't hire a Vincent Price. These days, if an actor like Price was coming out of the corporate studio system into his 60s, he would not be hired by a Blumhouse because he represents too much of the old establishment.
Even the 1982 Thing was progressive for its time. The author of Keep Watching the Skies, Bill Warren, did a great analysis of Carpenter's protagonists and the difference between Kurt Russell and Kenneth Tobey. Fascinating observation which made me realize there was a "softening" of male protagonists decade by decade.
BTW-I knew someone who went to Antarctica for one of those research outpost assignments (he also ironically, came from the town in British Columbia where parts of the 82 Thing were shot)--he said you could throw a bucket of hot water out the door in Antarctica and it would freeze before it hit the ground.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2020 19:02:03 GMT
Nothing can beat the 1982 version.
|
|