The Thing (2011) - Page 3

who said that ship was this aliens'?

Since this alien was an "impostor" having able to fly a ship clearly isn't that big of a deal.
Also the ship is not that big like it was in ID4 not even close.
My issues as far as the story and how it ties up with the 1982 version are:

The before mentioned fall of the snow truck when they found the ship, I agree they shouldn't survive that, not to mention to excavate the ship like that in 48hrs.
What happened to Kate? There was no sign of the 2 snow trucks or the entire tunnel system the Norwegians constructed to have access to the ship, when the Americans arrive in the 1982 version, which was supposed to be the next day and there was no storm yet. Also how some of the Norwegians got infected are rather mysterious, which was true to the Crapenter film as well in some cases anyway. I think movies like these should give us some clues without making them too obvious. Of course this could leave the audience more surprised or bored depending what type of viewer you are.

My other issues where with the creatures looks. It seems that Woodroof and Gillis worked on the Alien franchise far too long to create something original here, and frankly not very scary either. Too bad we didn't get too see the original "Ice monster" since there was no chance for that in the Carpenter film. Which reminds me the "Blair monster" was lame indeed, as a concept and the execution of it as well. The "Sander" one in this film was boring as the rest of them, but it was at least executed well, so technology can matter.
Anyway all in all I liked this film, and if they had fixed the continual issues, this could have been even better.

To be fair, even back in the day that was considered a very low budget cheesy exploitation flick. It was never regarded as a classic. The original "invasion of the body snatchers" was and still is a classic.

Rented this one yesterday........ I'm not sure where I stand on this. Definitely to much cgi used. As a stand alone movies this is ok but if your using as a prequel you should take some notes from the JC version. The alien doesn't even look or act the same way.
Is it me or did the American at the end of the movie look a little like Kurt Russel. Not sure if that was intended or not. As a prequel you don't copy scenes from the movie you prequel either. Like I said as a stand alone this is fine but as a tie in they lost me.

They originally used practical effects. Then the studio jumped in and said they had to use CG.

Bummer. That may have made the movie more tolerable. I really disliked the cgi used in this movie. The JC version effects still creep me out to this day .

The original movie did include footage from what is now the prequel, via camcorder recordings, but I agree that one shouldn't reference the original movie in a prequel in any way, shape or form as it then becomes too confusing separating the two.

Because they ignored this principle, I thought I was watching the original movie at times, whilst watching the prequel. I really hated how they duplicated the blood test and the tying up on the couch and the alien whose head splits open on the couch and ... in the prequel.

My main disappointment is that they didn't replicate those camcorder recordings during the prequel, as this would have tied them together without having to make them almost the same. For example, the explorers standing around the perimeter of the spacecraft whilst it was still embedded in the ice; and the use of thermite charges to free the spacecraft from the ice (the prequel completely changed the storyline here).

I do like Thing '11 but the videotape ****-up annoyed me too, not least because the movie fills in so many other '82 beats perfectly. It's like they completely forgot about the recordings, which clearly show the Norwegian group standing around the exposed ship - a ship that doesn't get unearthed until the very end of the '11 version. It could be argued that a storm covered the ship up again, but that's descending to Lucas style levels of filling in the blanks.

One could argue that at the beginning of Carpenter's version that the ship was quite functional as it fell to Earth but was under attack from within - like the Thing trying to take over the original occupant(s).

A lot of good comments on the lack of continuity/common sense in certain aspects of the story although as a whole I thought they did well.

In the prequel, the sign on the door where the frozen alien is stored (in the norwegian camp) says "Storage Room" in english. I just rewatched The Thing and the sign was difficult to make out because it was covered with frost. Anyone know if the same mistake was present in Carpenters movie?

You guys have to remember something: The Thing (1982) was considered an artistic flop as well as a financial flop. It wasn't until 20 years later that it became a classic.

Carpenter himself went into a multi-year depression because of how the film was received.

Food for thought on how the 2011 might improve as time goes by.

You are sadly mistaken.

"The Thing" was in the top ten box office releases for three weeks.

Here are a few of the films that John Carpenter's "The Thing" was up against back in july 1982:

Blade Runner
Poltergeist
Rocky III
Tron
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Raiders of the Lost Ark (re-issued)

and last but not least....
E.T., which was completely obliterating box office records at the time.

Meanwhile, word of mouth was saying that "The Thing" was a disturbingly violent and gory film, and people stayed away in droves.

The fate of "The Thing" totally changed when it was released on VHS, and later laserdisc. That's when the word of mouth started to change as people who were warned against seeing the film actually watched it and found it to be a gripping thriller.

As far as this new remake/reimagining/prequel The Thing goes, it had wide release, and is available on DVD and digital download, as well as High Definition distribution on Blu-ray. It will eventually pass from the public memory, except for those few who will watch it without being familiar with the vastly superior film that it ripped off.

Yep, I saw The Thing when it first came out in video, I'm prety sure I rented it on Betamax. I'm getting old!

First saw it on Betamax too... it scared the sh!t out of me at the time and I loved every icky frame.

The remake/prequel is a total waste of time.

John Carpenter's version with its practical Rob Bottin created visual effects for the win!!

I enjoyed the film despite its continuity errors and homage overdose. The one thing that really does piss me off though is the way in which the ship is exposed. As others have mentioned, thermite charges were what exposed the ship. I have a feeling that it was the studio that decided it would be much more dynamic if it was the ship's engines that melted the exterior icecap during the finale. Alternatively, they could have made it so that they tried to blow up the top layer first but it still didn't uncover the ship below.

The director says in the commentary that they deliberately ignored that plot point because they didn't feel that it was realistic.....in a movie about a shape-shifting alien organism.

Really? I don't remember them saying it was unrealistic, just giving it a brief acknowledgement and then quickly changing the subject.

Love this movie too. If anybody is looking for a good read, check out The Things by Peter Watts. I read it somewhere on the internet...I think it was Clarkesworld Magazine...try doing a search. It's a short story done from the perspective of the alien, it's very good.

Kilgore, that is not the mark of a financial or literary success. Being in the Top 10 for 3 weeks is NOTHING.....you should be #1 or #2 for a few weeks AND be in the Top 10 for 2 months. Hell, even "Porky's" was #1 for 7 weeks that year !! LOL

The movie was considered a flop. Nobody understood all the subtleties and the misdirection and confusion about who was or was not "The Thing." Audiences and critics were expecting a remake with a clear simple storyline similar to the 1951 classic.

Lastly, the proof that the film was a dud -- esp. with the critics -- was John Carpenter's reaction. He went into a multi-year depression. That's how upset he was about the critical reaction to "The Thing."

Yes, that was part of the problem: heavy competition against a bunch of films that now we consider classics. I'm sure that didn't help. Had "The Thing" been released in February or October or some off-peak time, it probably would have done better with the public, though probably not with the critics.

Eh....not any more than slasher films which were in vouge back then.....the word of mouth was that you had a confusing movie and a weird ending. The average movie goer -- not a Sci-Fi fan -- would not be able to give it a thumbs up. Certainly the critics didn't (have to check what Siskel & Ebert "At The Movies" said about it.....).

True, and people looked at it in a different light. Borderline-bad movies can sometimes improve over time as people reassess. That's what happened I think. Also, the internet and magazines like FANGORIA explained a bit in detail what wasn't clear from the movie itself.

In 20 years, this film will be higher-rated than it is now, though I agree not as highly as the 1982 movie. But again, go back and read the reviews in 1982....they were terrible.

I still need to get this movie. I'm glad to see a lot of opinions on this release!