The Thing - 1st trailer - Page 2

I don't think anyone's complaining about a reboot per se, just that this one looks kind of half-assed.

And I thought Prometheus was split off from the Alien franchise to be more standalone? At any rate, I don't think this cast compares.

Obviously, you haven't seen the gawd awful The Howling Reborn trailer.

That is about as uninspiring of a trailer....

Doesn't look like anything new is being brought to the table, a simple B-movie remake.

Careful. Norwegians and the Swedes are not exactly buddy-buddy because of their respective histories.

As for the sequel, we all know how it's going to end. It's just a matter of getting out the stopwatch to see which cast figured out what's going on first.

I don't know how you top the monster imagery found in Carpenter's version. Certainly you can do more things with CG, but the originality and innovation of various appearances of the Thing will not be easily matched. Who's going to come up with a more edgy soundtrack, as well?

I'm curious if Mary Winstead will utter Kurt Russell's immortal line to the Thing at the end of the movie as well.

Victor

I just want to hear someone say Palmer's line when the head is crawling away.

"You got to be ****ing kidding!"

Should be interesting to see if they stay true to the original novella which if they do, won't match up with Carpenter's film.

In the story, they try to get to the space ship by using Thermite to melt the ice that is covering it. Unfortunately, the ship is made out of Magnesium and the Thermite ignites the Magnesium destroying the ship in the process.

That was done in the Carpenter film and should be done in this "prequel."

That is exactly what I thought. Production values look decent but, meh, there is not much hope for drama or discovery.

I feel the same way. I love the 1982 film and consider it one of my all time favorite movies. That said I am excited about a prequel and think although the potential is great the odds are against reinventing the wheel which is what needs to happen. I'll remIn hopeful though, fingers crossed!

The 82 movie is one of the best horror B-movies ever done IMO.

This trailer gives the impression of a film that looks to merely imitate, rather than bringing a new chapter to the story.

NOT what I wanted to see...

Id call Carpenter's the thing an A movie, quite honestly. It certainly wasnt a low budget, either.

What, you were in diapers in the mid 90's?

Both versions of The Thing were A movies that would've been B material in less capable hands. In fact most movies today, particularly science fiction movies, are B material with big budgets and lots of marketing hype. It's the select few like The Thing, Alien and Blade Runner that actually transcend their pulp origins and can be considered art.

+1

I would disagree. 1951's The Thing from Another World was a B movie, as defined by the credited director, actors, budget, etc. The status of John Carpenter's version is debatable. By some definitions, it is also a B movie (director, actors, etc.). By other definitions (including a budget of $15,000,000 ), it could be considered as an A movie.

The key here is the definition (murky as it is) of a B movie, not the artistic or entertainment value of the movies themselves. Lots of B movies are far better written, directed and acted and far more entertaining than most A movies.

I would love to see a proper reboot or sequel to the original Howling. One of the best werewolf movies ever made.

I'll have to check the trailer out for The Howling Reborn.

If it turns out to be entertaining, engrossing and scary I'll be happy. As a prequel, if it gets a newer/younger audience interested in the 1982 Carpenter film, then all the better.

You're spot on for much of this. Carpenter is definitely a B-movie director, which is the best I think. However, I think the biggest criteria for determining this is the budget. This budget for 1982 @ 15 million is totally an A-movie budget.

Usually, when I think of B-movies, I think of fun. Movies that are self aware, and they just intend on entertaining audiences. Limited in budget. The Thing is totally not that...it doesn't try to be funny, and it doesn't look like the actors are having that much fun shooting the movie out there in the cold. Grade A acting all around with a grade A cast.

Also, maybe most importantly, is that B movies tend to allow for more creative control by the directors. Directors usually have their hand in everything (think of Sam Raimi, Carpenter, etc). The Thing was a collaboration effort for Carpenter, which doesn't happen often with him. He didn't do the soundtrack, and he didn't write the story. He just directed it with his vision, much like what he did with Starman. With Carpenter's other movies, he usually has full reign in everything down to the story, writing, etc.

B-movies are usually independent, too. The Thing is definitely a studio movie.

I'd totally argue The Thing being an A movie, much like Scott's Alien. Prince of Darkness on the other hand, B movie. It doesn't necessarily go for "entertaining" or "campy" quality, but it's budget is nil (3 million), produced by an independent studio, and Carpenter had his hand in everything.

I've also believed that anything that has a "cult following" is definitely a B movie. I don't think it's possible to have a "cult following" with an "A" movie.

I think many of you are missing the main point here... Mary Elizabeth Winstead is the lead girl and that's a guaranteed viewing for me.

http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/wp-...Winstead-6.jpg

I was thinking the same thing when someone mentioned the success of this film spawining a sequel, I'd be thrilled to be able to see Carpenter's film on the big screen. Who knows maybe we'll be lucky enough to get a 30th anniversary limited release next year.

Good call. They better have added a jacuzzi scene!

Christian Nyby is the credited director, but most realize that Howard Hawks was the actual director. Probably the reason it's a snappy, well paced suspense film instead of the typical 1950's run of the mill, monster on the loose cheese-fest. And I'm not arguing that TTFAW was not intended to be a B pic, but the professional cast in front of the camera and Hawks behind it helped it to make it A picture quality. JMO.

I disagree. Star Wars series, Harry Potter series, Star Trek series, Blade Runner.

That's the fun thing about prequels: the follow up stories are already there. Took a friend to see 'Star Trek' a couple years back and suddenly she was curious about the original series (thank goodness for those remasters on Blu-ray). Between 'Batman Begins', 'Casino Royale' and 'X-Men: First Class', I'm glad Hollywood is doing something different than the typical sequel. So here's hoping for 'The Thing'.

Maybe just me, but I think the "prequel" thing (as it relates to this movie) is just to avoid the backlash of it being a remake.

Looks to me like they're going to have a short setup about the discovery, then just remake the first movie again (thus trying their best to avoid the whole "quit remaking movies that don't need to be remade" thing).

But I am cynical given that this movie is entirely unnecessary. I'll still be watching it though

Your post clearly defines B vs. A pictures. Despite what other people keep posting ("cult," "professional cast," "Howard Hawks," "independent vs. studio," etc.), the fact is that studios had two different divisions: A movies had bigger budgets, and B movies had smaller budgets.

In the case of "The Thing from..." it was a B picture, and that's probably why Hawks only served as producer. He just farmed out the directing duties to Nyby as a quickie B picture.

Doug

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thi...rld#cite_ref-1