Mataesfola wrote: |
WTF? Leave "The Thing" alone! Why, oh why must they conspurcate every classic I ever loved? |
lol. JohnC's The Thing is itself a remake of a trully great scifi. So that is kinda redundant comment. You should check otu teh original some time.. it is frickn sweet. It is not one of the top scifi's of all time for no reason. I dare you to find a movie history doco on science fiction that dose not mention it in a major way. (introduced a number of cinima first stuff for dealing with monsters - (EG:- The human torch sequence, doorway sequence, lightning sequence etc etc)
IMDB and wikipedia fail to mention "the thing" and only credit "the thing from another world" But thre is much more of the film The Thing in this film than that other one... finding it in the ice, set in antartic, boddy swaping (well mind control in this film) charicter dynamics.
TaKYoN wrote: |
spudthedestroyer wrote: | That's ironic; John Carpenter's masterpiece leaves the ending ultra-ambiguous, whilst with this prequel you know the ending before you even see the opening credits |
While I am more than capable of enjoying a prequel, I still get that 'I already know how this ends' sensation. It can be hard to blot that out sometimes whilst I watch it. They had best not fuck this shit up. |
Meh.... people know the ending in films more often than they think... Like in Die Hard 4... anyone not think McLane would win the day? So we know they all die, but then we would expect that as JohnC's remake they all died.... so I think I would complain if they didn't all die
I am sure people will get over it.
The thing i am interested in (pun intended) is how the thing itself will look. Part of of freatness of the thing was the special effects... can CG really hold a candel to those old school awesome models?