Comments

  • Unsurprisingly, that looks kinda lame. :(
  • Yeah, not sure how I feel about it right now. Here is another one.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiHA3bLNrqs
  • I heard about this a while back. It's supposed to take place at the norwegan camp from the first film; that seems to be populated by americans??? I'm not impressed with that trailer, but I have such a love for the original, "the thing from another world", and carpenters "the thing" that I will no doubt watch this, I still think they shouyld do a sequel, with mcready captive in a secure base, running test on the remnants of the thing.
  • Man, The Thing was one of my all time favourite movies - I hope they don't screw this up :(

  • Unsurprisingly, that looks kinda lame. :(

    Eh, that first trailer linked is actually a fan trailer using bits and pieces from other films and even a video game...
    The second trailer in the thread seems to be the real deal though.
  • Oh, that second trailer is better, but still looks kinda bad - the writing seems terrible, what with the lady explaining everything clearly through dialogue (and that's just in the trailer).
  • Being a fan of Carpenter's version, I'll watch this out of curiosity (but I'm sure I won't go to the theaters for it), but I have a feeling it will fail.
    I did hear that it's supposed to take place prior to Kurt Russle's gang, but I didn't know Norwegians spoke English so well.
  • Yeah, I will probably check this out at some point, but not in a theater, and I fully expect it to be horrible.
  • This looks awesome to me. :D
  • I remember watching 'The thing from another world' in my science fiction class back in high school. This movie could be good, but it looks too horror movie-ish in that trailer. Which isn't necessarily bad, but I just didn't expect (don't want this) to be more horror than it is Sci-Fi. The original was an alien wasn't it?
  • the thing was a horror film and a freaking great one. This, this looks like it's the same idea just replayed. I mean I get that it tells us the story before snake bliskin arrived, but was it really necessary to bring it back? I'd have preferred a whole new premise devised to scare the crap out of me rather than another thing clone.
  • Haven't seen it in a while so don't remember much from it. Like I said it could be good, but the trailer is just edited in the very cheesy horror movie type way which just makes me feel like I'm watching one of those bad PG-13 horror trailers.
  • edited July 2011

    Haven't seen it in a while so don't remember much from it. Like I said it could be good, but the trailer is just edited in the very cheesy horror movie type way which just makes me feel like I'm watching one of those bad PG-13 horror trailers.

    This is exactly the feeling I got as well. There's just something about it that seems not as mature as Carpenter's take, and the photography seems too crisp and pretty. That, plus Mary Elizabeth Winstead, CGI, and the lack of non-deliberate-looking facial hair, and it has a much too "clean" feel to it. Something tells me that when comparing the two, the 2011 version is going to have considerably less atmosphere (and therefore less dread) than the 1982 version, although the shots toward the end of the trailer show promise.
    Like I said, I'd still be interested in checking it out, but I don't expect it to be anywhere near as good as Carpenter's vision.
  • I'm betting hard cash right now that the 2011 remake/prequel won't have a practical spider-head effect.

  • I'm betting hard cash right now that the 2011 remake/prequel won't have a practical spider-head effect.

    Yes, movies these days need more practical spider-head effects!

Sign in to comment

Leave a Comment