Preserving the Thing

About a week or so ago I received an email by one of my Twitter buddies concerning The Thing prequel. Apparently the comment he wanted to leave on my review was too long, thus forcing him to email me it instead. He commented on why he doesn’t want to see the prequel and why the prequel might ruin the magic and mysteriousness of the Carpenter movie. While I liked the prequel and while it doesn’t ruin the magic for me, I thought this was a very interesting piece that I could not help but share.

I'm actually quite surprised you liked this at all, based on reading your review and knowing your love for the '82 film. I would say the ''82 film is in my top five favorite movies of all time, maybe the number 1 spot.

I have not seen this prequel and never will. Let me get that out of the way now, because I get heat from people saying I can't complain about something I haven't seen. I however say I CAN and WILL.

MacReady: "Now I'm gonna show you what I already know."

The idea of showing what happened at the Norwegian camp seems utter ridiculous to me now, as it was when I heard the film was going into production. The filmmakers stance of "we'll show you what happened, why the axe is in the door" cracked me up. Was there a huge number of '82 Thing fans looking for those answers, I have to believe that is not the case and I'll tell you why. When you watch Carpenter's movie the American's discovery at the Norwegian camp/station is foreshadowing of what they will soon encounter. We are offered small glimpses of information regarding the thing, how people reacted to it and where it came from. Seeing the burnt out camp, dead people, yes axes in doors (sweet Satan!) and the burned remains of a Thing mid-transform. This info also provides elements of mystery that are crucial to the story and tone of the film.

As the '82 film progresses, the Thing begins it's attack and paranoia set in and eventual battle up until the closing scene with MacReady and Childs. We can infer that what we just saw the Americans go through is essentially what the Norwegians went through without the requirement of a prequel film to fill in the blanks. Your own creative mind can fill in those blanks and I'd imagine do it in a much better fashion than this prequel does. Carpenter could have just as easily done the film from the stand point that the Americans discovered the alien, but he didn't and I don't think that was to lay any kind of groundwork for a prequel. All the information is there, all that is needed is in the '82 film.

Now, let me ask this. How can there be even a shred, a sliver of mystery or suspense to this prequel, when '82 fans know all the people from the Norwegian camp die and the Thing escapes? I can't get my head around that huge problem with this prequel.

Another huge issue I have with the prequel is what limited CGI I saw in the trailer. It looked atrocious, I laughed when I saw the thing come out of the block of ice. You said there are some practical effects in there, which is great, it sounds like the CGI is way overused and fake looking. That cast sounds utterly forgettable from what you said and that is a very very weak leg to this film I'd imagine. The '82 film had a fantastic cast that I know you love. If you didn't love the cast and their performances, this wouldn't be your favorite movie, bottom line. Your section about nitpicking the movie is also of grave interest to me and another warning sign to stay away from this film. If they are intent on showing every detail (because people wanted it for some ungodly reason) then why didn't it hone EXACTLY to the '82 film? It should be dead on.

I found the final minutes of the 2011 film on YouTube to see how the transitioned their film into the '82 film. Nice from the standpoint that they led right up to that films beginning, but I must ask. If someone is new to the Thing and watches this film first and then the '82 film after what many magical and fantastic things are killed for a moviegoer. For those people I feel truly sad. This prequel tries to bill itself with providing answers to questions it's actually killing for those new to The Thing…

This bit of dialogue is from one of my favorite scenes from the '82 film and the reason for me adding it to the end here is because this conversation for me kills an reason for the prequel.

MacReady: "I don't know, thousands of years ago it crashes, and this thing, gets thrown out or crawls out and it ends up freezing in the ice."

Garry: "The Norwegians get a hold of this, and they dig it out of the ice…"

MacReady: "Yes, Garry. They dig it up. They cart it back. It gets thawed out, it wakes up, probably not the best of moods. I don't know, I wasn't there!"

Childs: "How could this motherf@*ker wake up after thousands of years in the ice?"

George Bennings: "And how can it look like a dog?"

MacReady: "I don't know how. Because it's different then us, see. Because it's from outer space. What do you want from me? Ask him!"

Review - The Thing (2011)

Many of you know because of my Thing Week that The Thing (1982) is my favorite horror movie of all time for many reasons including one that trails back to my childhood. It was best home video experience I ever had and The Thing became a part of my life like no other horror movie. When I heard that The Thing was going to be remade, I shuttered to think how the CGI would replace the brilliant practical effects that Bottin had worked on. Then, it was released that it would be a prequel rather then a remake but even that made me cringe because I never wanted to know what happened to the Norwegian outpost. Most of the ominous mood and fright comes from not knowing what happened, leaving only your imagination to fill in the blanks. I isolated myself from this movie and when I saw the trailer I had a lot of doubts but it also made me curious to see what they could do. So, I patiently waited for it’s release and I sat in the middle of the theater waiting to be wowed by an unnecessary “premake.” So, what is my verdict on a prequel to a personally beloved horror movie… well, after I mulled over it that night I came to the conclusion that I enjoyed it. Yeah, I really liked it but I feel as though I must nitpick it here and there.

The story is much like Carpenter’s film. A group of Norwegians locate a crashed alien saucer that has been buried under the ice for thousands of years. They enlist the help of two American scientists to help them figure out what crawled out of the ship and froze beneath all the ice. In the midst of their celebration, the alien entity thaws out of the ice and begins killing and replicated anybody that comes in its way. Now, the outpost residents must find a way to stop the alien before it reaches a populated area but how do they know who is human and who is a thing? Paranoia settles in and the storm outside is getting worse and worse.

So what exactly did Matthijs van Heiningen, the director, do that made me like this movie. Well, understand that I am not praising this movie and although I liked it… I don’t think it was flawless or brilliantly directed. However, what I really loved was all the little nods to Carpenter’s film that were scattered throughout the movie. These are little things that would go overlooked in some people’s book and would provoke some people to say that this film was more of a remake then a prequel. They explain why there was an axe stuck in the door, they explain what that two-headed thing was and what it was like when it was alive and in that respect there was a wonderful tribute to Norris’ death (think spider legs, upside down heads and open chests). There is a wonderful nod to the cinematography from the Carpenter film; the scene where the camera trucks forward to reveal the big block of ice that held the alien. This shot was so small and minute that not many people would even realize it was from Carpenter’s film. There’s many more throughout the film that made me pleased.

Now, what about the characters? Are they as good as Carpenter’s cast and does our new heroine resemble MacReady and his sarcastic and tired frame of attitude? The cast is great but I feel as though they are mostly forgettable except for one person who I think was the best character. As for our heroine, Kate Lloyd, although she does have that survivor woman persona she doesn’t really stand out to me as being unique. MacReady, to me, was unique because he was sort of an anti-hero; he drank, he had a temper, he was tired, worn out and on the edge of going crazy. Lloyd is any typical survivor girl from any given horror movie but I still liked her. She took things into her own hands and understood what the thing was. There are two Americans that look and occasionally act like Childs and MacReady and the person who lives to the end (and where the Carpenter movie begins), he was a badass and it’s tragic to see what would inevitably happen to him.

And now for the meat of the movie: the special effects and how the creature looks. As much as I wanted it to have practical effects I had to abandon that hope a while ago and I accepted that this movie would heavily use CGI. The film does use CGI but it also uses a good variety of practical effects but before I get into that I want to comment on my love/hate relationship with the CGI of this film. I hate the CGI because, like in most horror movies that use it, it looks a little unpolished and cheesy at times. It felt like a video game, ironically because the director stated that he never based anything off the video game adaptation. Some of the CGI made me laugh and say, “Oh man, really?” However, I love the CGI because for the first time I saw the Thing almost exactly how I wanted to see it for a long time. I saw somebody’s chest open up with red tendrils wrapping around somebody. I saw the two-headed thing crab-walking and attacking people and I saw a one-on-one battle with somebody and the Thing. It was a pleasure but too bad it was done with some iffy CGI. As for the practical effects, they were good and they looked painful and slimy just as they did back in ’82. I feel as though, at times, they used CGI when it involved the Thing attacking and running around but for the most part they used practical effects as much as they could. I respect that.

So now lets get into some fan nitpicking here. One of the biggest errors or problems that I found, choose your poison, was the discovery of the alien craft. In Carpenter’s film, the Americans were looking over the tapes they took from the Norwegian camp. The tape clearly shows the Norwegians forming a circle around the craft and then blowing open the layers of ice that buried it. Similarly, this was done in the Howard Hawks adaptation in the 50’s. However, in the prequel, we never see the Norwegians forming the circle and it isn’t until the end where they finally blow open the ice encasing and it wasn’t even by dynamite. When the ship was activated, the engines blew open the ice above it as if they tired to create their own version of how the ship was exposed. Another thing, maybe I didn’t see it the right way or maybe I’m right, but in Carpenter’s film… they find a body with a slit throat. The person obviously cuts his throat with a straight razor but in this prequel the man cuts himself (I think) with a hacksaw. It’s really nitpicky of me to bring this up but as a fan of the original it’s my duty to do so. Personally, for me, the biggest problem was seeing them discover the shape of the craft and blowing it up… it’s like a staple scene in the entire franchise and it was never committed to the final version.

The other big problem that I had with this film that the Carpenter film had was the mood. In Carpenter’s film, the colors were ranging on heavy blues and oranges in order to simulate hot and cold temperatures. By doing this he made me feel like I was trapped in a cold and dark place where my only salvation was gravitating to somewhere warm and… orange. Plus, the entire film is a dark piece, not just figuratively but it’s a very dark place with a lot of shadows and some dim lights. While the prequel gives me that cold feeling with it’s use of blues and light blue coloring, it doesn’t at all give me a sense of darkness and seclusion. This problem was expected and it’s very difficult to replicate so I won’t knock the movie for it but it’s something that I would have like to have seen done.

I need to cut this review short but as I stated before, I liked this movie and I thought it was a fantastic prequel to Carpenter’s film as well as a tribute to Campbell’s novella and Hawks’ film. The ending, which trails into to where Carpenter’s film picks up, was one of the very few moments where I got chills of nostalgia. The score, the cinematography and the “cut to black” ending made me smile like never before. It’s even more tragic when you find out what character ends up making it through till the end only to know that he eventually gets shot and killed. With all this being said, I still won’t consider this to be as perfect as the ’82 classic and when I refer to The Thing, I will always be referring to Carpenter’s film. If I ever expose people to The Thing, I’ll only expose them to the Carpenter’s film unless they are really interested. I feel as though this movie is like the black sheep but a black sheep that I have some respect towards. It was an unnecessary prequel that still diminishes the horror and imagination that was in Carpenter’s film but at least they did a fine job of adapting it. If anything, it gives me even more respect to Carpenter’s Thing.

My Thoughts on the Thing Prequel

As many of you know, especially after Thing Week… I am a hardcore fan of John Carpenter’s The Thing. You already know how I was exposed to it and why it is my favorite horror movie of all time but when I heard they were doing a remake, I couldn’t believe it because the first was so flawless. Then rumors began to surface that it wasn’t a remake but rather a prequel that starred MacReady’s brother, which doesn’t make sense because the first camp that was attacked was Norwegian. So, like a cynic, I decided to not follow the hype or anything about this prequel until I saw a trailer and just yesterday Bloody Disgusting released the trailer for The Thing (Prequel) along with the poster (pictured above). I know some might want to know what I think of it but first I want to express my feelings towards the poster.

I like the poster. I like it a lot. Is it the best horror poster ever? No but it does seem to be very stylized while still keeping that Carpenter-y feel. The big bold white letters that spells out ‘The Thing’ and inside the letters is “human” on the verge of becoming its full form. If you look at his right hand you’ll notice that it’s full-blown alien and I couldn’t help but think of the scene when the group, from the original, encounter the Bennings Thing running in the snow. He falls to his knees clutching his right hand, which looks like a giant deformed crab claw, tilts his head back and howls at the group before getting torched. That’s what this poster reminded me of. However, the more I look at it the more I can see just how bad (for lack of a better term) this was photoshopped. I’m still happy with it.

Note: As you watch the trailer below, keep an ear out for the Ennio Morricone score they use. I don't know if it's directly from the The Thing or if it's reproduced.

As for the trailer itself… it looks exactly like how I thought it would be. It reveals nothing about what the Thing will look like and rightfully so but I couldn’t help but get this feeling of redundancy. To many people, including myself, the original 1951 movie was already sort of a prequel to the John Carpenter film so watching this trailer made me feel like I was watching a remake of The Thing From Another World. It didn’t feel flashy to me, which is good but it did seem to be in favor of more action sequences than building an ominous/paranoid atmosphere. I would still end up seeing the film not because I’m excited but because I would like to know how they think the Norwegian incident went down. Again, it feels very redundant because we already know what will happen in the end… two Norwegians escape trying to shoot a dog that they believe is the Thing but end up getting killed in the process. If that’s not how it ends then I guess it’s not really a prequel but rather a remake of the ’51 film. However, there are some specific things in the trailer that I noticed that I want to briefly discuss

To me it feels a little out of place to have a female in The Thing if only because the Carpenter film was so cold and “manly.” This makes me believe even further that this film will be more of an adaption of the Howard Hawks film than a prequel to the John Carpenter film. Still, since it seems like she is the main heroine and we’ll have to wait and see if she can be better than MacReady.

There’s that nice big block of CGI ice that has our lovable alien friend in it. In the third picture, if you’ve seen The Thing as much as I have, you’ll notice that the shot that shows the ice block sitting in the dark was directly taken from Carpenter’s film. The camera slowly movies forward along the small balcony that overlooks the encased alien. So I guess they are going for some level of homage here.

The next couple of scenes are short, almost like flash-frames, but they are of the alien on its back either dead or just barely alive. I don’t like CGI and I’m sure a majority of the film will incorporate CGI monsters and attack scenes but after seeing these two scenes, I might have something to hold on to that they might have some practical effects as well. The practical effects and puppetry was a staple (almost iconic) in Carpenter’s Thing so why not carry on that tradition.

Also, instead of creepy upside-down head spiders, we’re getting crab-like snake things that grab people’s heads. Fine by me.

Overall, I have faith in Universal because they seem to take care of their horror movies considering the entire company was founded on horror but that still doesn’t mean that the film had to be made. I felt the same way about Wolfman but I still enjoyed it. I can only hope that this film will inspire others to seek out the Carpenter film, and the Hawks film for that matter, to see what true paranoia is.