the effects in this look fantastic. the cg has an obvious place but isn't over used. from the little they show in this the visuals look creepy as hell i definitely am going to give it a chance
This has to be one of the biggest rapes Hollywood has ever accomplished. Just the fact that they added women for the sex factor overlooks how cartoonish and lame the CGI is. They shouldn't call this "the thing" they should call it "Another remake, because we know you're stupid and like tits and action.
@TwoDayLionPass you saying that probably havnt watched the first film... this is a prequel, this is the norwegian camp from the first movie not the kurt russel camp :P
@obridong Why don't you go read "who goes there?" the short story "the thing" was based on. There are no women or Norwegians in it. In fact, in "The Thing" there is no mention of women in the Norwegian camp either. Wake up, you're a tool buying into hollywood selling you sex. This CGI looks like crap, if anything, it shows the people who made it didn't even appreciate the first one. The Kurt Russel camp? Huh,...
@TwoDayLionPass well this is the thing not who goes there? like you said based on. yes it didnt mention a woman on the first movie it also didnt mention an all men crew on the norwegian camp either, tho i agree on the cgi crap... but im after the story not the cgi.
@obridong I admire your faith in story telling, I really hope this movie isn't a cheap sleazy shocker. However, from experience I can say that it will most likely have weak story and a lot of T 'N A, along with a lot of flashy movements and boom sounds to keep people like TheNeognostic there distracted from the fact that this was made with a test audience to ensure major theater release. If the original "The thing" was released right now, I bet you'd have to search for a theater showing.
@obridong well i havent watched the movie yet... im still having my fingers crossed.. but since it is a prequel thus it will complete the series... either way i will enjoy it bad story or not. i'm a big fan of the first so it will be a waste if im not gonna watch this one :)
@TwoDayLionPass It isn't a remake, idiot. It's a prequel to Carpenter's '82 interpretion of 'Who goes there'. You really have a problem with there being even one female in the cast? That's telling.
@TheNeognostic Are you hitting on me? Because scummy homophobic assumption shows through out history that those who bash the most are often the most perverted. So I don't know what "that's telling" means, I have a problem with one female in the cast, it was not mentioned in the original. Consistency is important to we who don't want to just get rich by leeching off the idea someone else came up with by adding sex and illusions.
@TheNeognostic I think John Carpenter respected the story, he did it justice. I see no respect here. I see gimmicks. Fillers. It's a franchise of course, still, I like to think the human race has some integrity left, maybe you're the one to prove me wrong.
...trailer looks pretty good but all the reviews say this is terrible. carpenter's movie was easily one of the top 10 sci-fi horrors of all time. the "from the producers of damn of the dead" (yet another pointless remake) did manage to turn me off pretty good.
@evilsnakes1 I really don't mean to be a dick about these things, but seriously, in the words of John Waters, Sometimes you have to draw the line. John Carpenter's "The Thing" is a staple, I remember that movie blew my mind as a child. I don't want my children to have to deal with that shit flashy action CGI. I want them to see real gore effects, with real film making style, and innovation. It makes you imagine, not imagine everything is a video game.
...hmmmm, I'm 36 now and Dawn '78 has been one of my favorite movies for many years, zombie or otherwise, but it was a low-budget movie even by standards of those days, and so it is pretty much unwatchable to many people who don't appreciate/understand the intentional cheese factor. But as far as I'm concerned, the new one is simply a no-brainer remake, not scene-for scene, but close enough, and so for that the new one can not possibly even be in the running.
i must say the first time i heard of this i wasnt too impressed with the idea as i hold the Kurt Russel version very high in my all time fave movies but the more i see of this the more im getting exited coz lets face it what else do us horror fans have to look forward too this year... fucking Paranormal activity 3??!! :S
@MrAdammassacre Saying that you're going to see this movie because there's nothing else coming out is like male inmates screwing other male inmates because there are no women around.
HOLY CRAP this movie looks sick but sometimes you gota think how does this stuff pop up in there head like this good thing yet weird back to movie CRAZILY INTENSELY AWSOME
Kate survies, In end of movie, infected(The Thing) just slap her, but wont kill her. Its like Terminator 4 movie ending. Wont kill, only throw. In movie infected attacks 4 time Kate, but always he survives, but all other human dies in few sec.
Kate survies, In end of movie, infected(The Thing) just slap her, but wont kill her. Its like Terminator 4 movie ending. Wont kill, only throw. In movie infected attacks 4 time Kate, but always he survives, but all other human dies in few sec.
They have respected the audience. The producers fought for a prequel because they didn't want to tamper with the first film. They've shot in anamorphic format on 35mm film to avoid a digital look and they've used practical fx where possible. They examined footage from the first movie to accurately recreate the Norwegian camp. Nothing shown in the trailer would be out of place in the original.
@mamakunem btw, you pretentious asshole, the original thing also had CGI. In fact, they had flying saucer passing through the screen during the into. It was so shit. Go get a clue.
@ASKaPHYSICIST im not sure if you know this, but the The Thing from 1982 was a sequel. the original was, The Thing From Another World, that came in the 50's, and this new movie is a remake.
im not trying to be an ass to you, i just didnt know if you knew.
@superzilla784 aaccctually, The Thing from 1982 was a remake or reimagining or the 50s version. THIS film is the prequel since its about the norwegian team
NO, 1982's movie and 1951's movie are NOTHING alike, they are two separate and two very different movies. Both movies are adaptations of "Who Goes There" by John Campbell, 1951's movie was NOT the shapeshifter from the novel but just a dumbed down killer vegetable while 1982's movie is THE quintessential faithful adaptation
@ASKaPHYSICIST "btw, you pretentious asshole, the original thing also had CGI. In fact, they had flying saucer passing through the screen during the into." CGI = Computer Generated Imagery. The flying saucer at the beginning of the thing was not CGI, it was a model. Lights were added in post, but not using computers. You are correct, however, in saying that the original thing had CGI - but it is in the blocky computer simulation of the cells imitating. THAT was the limitation of CGI in 1982.
@mamakunem first of all, fuck you. Secondly, I have every right to dislike the first movie for it's special effects because they were destroying every bit of realism and suspense this movie could have had. There are great horror movies with the same limitations and they overcame them by skillfully hiding them. All the best horror movies only show you glimpses of the monster until the end. There is a good reason for that. This movie went full on monster effects in the beginning and it sucked
@ASKaPHYSICIST I think Carpenter was trying to break away from traditional horror movies in two ways: 1) By making the presentation of the creature more overt and in your face, breaking from horror convention with the intent to shock, and 2) by doing away with the "guy in a suit" type of monster. You COULD argue that this means The Thing has not aged well. If you dislike the practical effects that is your opinion, but Rob Bottin's work on The Thing is considered among the best in SFX history.
@caterpillarmarch The Blob ddint have a guy in a suit and that was in 1958. Neither did Freaks. And yes, it is my opinion. It is the guy I responded to who said it was wrong.
I really hope this trailer didn't show too much, otherwise we may end up knowing who is infected and such, killing the tensity most of us felt in the original on guessing who was human.
@ChimairaGod It's been said they only used CG where necessary and they tried to use mostly animatronics similar to the original. I have high hopes for the graphics
How stupid is it to show in trailer almost all interesting moments of movie like who is decoy/assimilated/killed...i hope move will be decent but trailer is one big spoiler fuckup
@0commanderkeen0 The CG is mostly revolving around the movements and transformations to make the practical effects look more "realistic" which you've got to admit helps it's just some practical effects back in the day looked kind of off too. But I mean that's what I heard they used practical effects for the creatures and CG on minor stuff to bring more realism though it might not be perfect the idea was well thought out. Most of the time puppetry is hard to look fluent and in some cases it
@RyoNoHikari i ain't saying that old school puppetry is better than CG effects, it does help out like you mentioned, but, i feel that movies now in days tend to exploit this far more than necessary...
there's many good examples of good puppetry animation in movies like the work of Jim Henson in 1986 "Labyrinth" and his great help in the original trilogy of "Star Wars" not to mention the great movie "The Dark Crystal" from 1982.
i will still see this movie cause of the nostalgia of the original
@0commanderkeen0 Understandable and same here about the nostalgia. I also think Marry Winstead isn't a bad horror actress first movie I saw her in was Final Destination 3. Would be interesting to see a cameo from the original cast like at the end or something like a hint of a glimps of somewhat of a continuation to John's version. I think people were really more interested in a sequel than a prequel Kurt is still a really good actor and still got some fire left in him. The ps2 game kind of felt
@RyoNoHikari yeah, the ps2 game is supossed to be the sequel to the 1982 movie, never got a chance to play any of the version(PC or PS2) but i heard that it kinda made the "story" of the movie some justice.
a hit and miss since I heard the logic was horrible in there, it was too repetitive and got boring after a while, and the graphics didn't really do the movie justice for me. Though it was one of the first of it's kind so I heard that allowed for command attributes having people follow your orders and such but the PCU from what I saw wasn't that responsive to your command or an ally would get in the way something like that. I especially find the game over repetitive with the crab heads and fuces
@CensoredSmiffy What are you talking about? 1. This isn't a remake, it's a prequel and 2. Not long after? The original was made almost 30 years ago...
For instance CG sucks as far as design goes but practical effects are limited and can only move a certain way using CG for the movement alone makes the effects stand out and come to life without as many limitations. Each has their flaws CG more noticeably because it hasn't come close to being worthy of becoming 4D as in being on the same plane as the real world stuff mixing isn't natural looking it looks fake but when using cg to help animate practical effects you have something more convincing.
@Stickett Supposedly it's not all CG the creatures were all done with practical effects just the transformations were CG to smooth the movements might not be as great as JC's practical effects but at least they're trying. You gotta admit sometimes practical puppetry can look not so natural looking the way they move sometimes it's noticeable sometimes it's not. Take The Fly's remake with Jeff in it the practical effects were great but the movement kinda seemed a bit off too robotic like.
Yeah...and the original was just plain creepy..this looks too actiony. The old one emphasized on the transformations and the monsters, not them actually fighting.
If it ends the same way the 1984 film started then it's not a remake or even a backdoor remake. Thus making it a PREQUEL so just wait and find out and stop making assumptions seriously it's tiresome. :/ No offense intended just tired of seeing the word "remake" judgmentally labeled on this movie and they haven't seen it yet.
Here's the thing (hahaha- never mind) that I have a problem with: It does lot good, but it looks like the EXACT same movie with just CGI instead of animatronics. So, really, you're getting nothing new. Might as well just watch the original.
But I guess I can't speak until I've seen it. That's just my initial impression.
well the thing by John Carpenter will always be the best even though this is a prequel or whatever it is. but i am still going to watch this movie. It's not because Marie Elisabeth Winstead is hot, no not at all...=)
Im not being sexist but why do soooo many horror movies have to have the women as the main charecters? I wouldnt be so botherd but this trailer makes it look like it will only focus on the women and just have the men as some goofy idiots in the background
@TheMrPisstaker i agree with you alot of them have women as main stars i saw all 4 of the scream movies so far and most of the kills are women even the freddy and jason movies i think saw and child's play are the only one's to have men as the main star
@MrReigan111 lol I know that, I just loved the original and this looks good too apart from the fact the main charecters are new and women which I dont mind, I just dont want them to make the old charecters (which was one of the best bits in the original) look like jokes
@TheMrPisstaker I understand what you are saying and agree. But know one wants to see a man running and screaming while being pursued by a benevolent ( i cant spell lol) creature or killer. There is something alluring and appealing about a women being in perill. I know I sound misogdonistic but tis true and horror movies exploit that. I think thats part of the reason why horror movies are sucessful. But with a film like this a male cast definately works, they didnt want to do that again.
@coldrae You make some good points and Im not botherd now anyway because I found out this is actually a prequel not a reboot so having different main charecters makes alot more sense now :)
looks like a decent film. loved the 1982-3 version. i forget which year it is. but i like how it plays the story out as a prequel to the original. ( becasue it obviously came from the norweigen base.
@starkingbiker Uhhh.... CGI is more realistic. The models, you could see how they moved the "Thing" frame by frame and it is annoying to watch. People like to watch smooth motion when watching movies, people don't expect choppy frame rates with iMax movies.
@Lagaholic dont get me wrong i love CGI but im just saying that the older version had awesome models and crazy shit happening this looks more like any other horrorfilm remake wich is not bad just not that original
I mean they did say they were using practical effects and CG for some stuff like the transformations and smoother fluent movement for the creature effects so could be worth keeping that much in mind I'm still going to see if it holds up aliened with John Carpenter's version. I just hope they don't rely too much on jump scares those are overrated.
Version from '80s much much better.
Super4ndroid 2 months ago
damn i thought this was a remake then the trailer said Norwegian damn a prequel i'll definitely watch this. im a big fan of the first movie.
obridong 4 months ago
oooooh noooooo not the thing !!!!! anything but the thing !!!!
shadowq2 4 months ago
Like dead space 2 alien
battlefieldz312 4 months ago
This actually looks pretty sweet... and I'm not the biggest fan or horror movies, so this is actually saying something.
CelticMoonDust 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Going to watch it with my best friend tonight :D
hottiegirl110 4 months ago
the effects in this look fantastic. the cg has an obvious place but isn't over used. from the little they show in this the visuals look creepy as hell i definitely am going to give it a chance
publicastrations 4 months ago
This has to be one of the biggest rapes Hollywood has ever accomplished. Just the fact that they added women for the sex factor overlooks how cartoonish and lame the CGI is. They shouldn't call this "the thing" they should call it "Another remake, because we know you're stupid and like tits and action.
TwoDayLionPass 4 months ago
@TwoDayLionPass you saying that probably havnt watched the first film... this is a prequel, this is the norwegian camp from the first movie not the kurt russel camp :P
obridong 4 months ago
@obridong Prequels are lower than 3D releases.
TwoDayLionPass 4 months ago
Comment removed
TwoDayLionPass 4 months ago
@obridong Why don't you go read "who goes there?" the short story "the thing" was based on. There are no women or Norwegians in it. In fact, in "The Thing" there is no mention of women in the Norwegian camp either. Wake up, you're a tool buying into hollywood selling you sex. This CGI looks like crap, if anything, it shows the people who made it didn't even appreciate the first one. The Kurt Russel camp? Huh,...
TwoDayLionPass 4 months ago
@TwoDayLionPass well this is the thing not who goes there? like you said based on. yes it didnt mention a woman on the first movie it also didnt mention an all men crew on the norwegian camp either, tho i agree on the cgi crap... but im after the story not the cgi.
obridong 4 months ago
@obridong I admire your faith in story telling, I really hope this movie isn't a cheap sleazy shocker. However, from experience I can say that it will most likely have weak story and a lot of T 'N A, along with a lot of flashy movements and boom sounds to keep people like TheNeognostic there distracted from the fact that this was made with a test audience to ensure major theater release. If the original "The thing" was released right now, I bet you'd have to search for a theater showing.
TwoDayLionPass 4 months ago
@obridong well i havent watched the movie yet... im still having my fingers crossed.. but since it is a prequel thus it will complete the series... either way i will enjoy it bad story or not. i'm a big fan of the first so it will be a waste if im not gonna watch this one :)
obridong 3 months ago
@TwoDayLionPass It isn't a remake, idiot. It's a prequel to Carpenter's '82 interpretion of 'Who goes there'. You really have a problem with there being even one female in the cast? That's telling.
TheNeognostic 4 months ago
@TheNeognostic Are you hitting on me? Because scummy homophobic assumption shows through out history that those who bash the most are often the most perverted. So I don't know what "that's telling" means, I have a problem with one female in the cast, it was not mentioned in the original. Consistency is important to we who don't want to just get rich by leeching off the idea someone else came up with by adding sex and illusions.
TwoDayLionPass 4 months ago
@TheNeognostic I think John Carpenter respected the story, he did it justice. I see no respect here. I see gimmicks. Fillers. It's a franchise of course, still, I like to think the human race has some integrity left, maybe you're the one to prove me wrong.
TwoDayLionPass 4 months ago
@TwoDayLionPass
...trailer looks pretty good but all the reviews say this is terrible. carpenter's movie was easily one of the top 10 sci-fi horrors of all time. the "from the producers of damn of the dead" (yet another pointless remake) did manage to turn me off pretty good.
evilsnakes1 3 months ago
@evilsnakes1 I really don't mean to be a dick about these things, but seriously, in the words of John Waters, Sometimes you have to draw the line. John Carpenter's "The Thing" is a staple, I remember that movie blew my mind as a child. I don't want my children to have to deal with that shit flashy action CGI. I want them to see real gore effects, with real film making style, and innovation. It makes you imagine, not imagine everything is a video game.
TwoDayLionPass 3 months ago
@evilsnakes1
What do you think of people who say Dawn 2004 is better than the old one?
Johnlindsey289 2 months ago
@Johnlindsey289
...hmmmm, I'm 36 now and Dawn '78 has been one of my favorite movies for many years, zombie or otherwise, but it was a low-budget movie even by standards of those days, and so it is pretty much unwatchable to many people who don't appreciate/understand the intentional cheese factor. But as far as I'm concerned, the new one is simply a no-brainer remake, not scene-for scene, but close enough, and so for that the new one can not possibly even be in the running.
evilsnakes1 2 months ago
a- thats good for me
thittdc 4 months ago
at the very end the lady transforming behind mary looks like shes from dead space
WhatIsUpWithStuff 4 months ago
Can't wait for this one.love the way they tied it to the original with the husky turning out to be the scientists pet!
dangerman22379 5 months ago
i must say the first time i heard of this i wasnt too impressed with the idea as i hold the Kurt Russel version very high in my all time fave movies but the more i see of this the more im getting exited coz lets face it what else do us horror fans have to look forward too this year... fucking Paranormal activity 3??!! :S
MrAdammassacre 5 months ago
@MrAdammassacre Saying that you're going to see this movie because there's nothing else coming out is like male inmates screwing other male inmates because there are no women around.
TwoDayLionPass 4 months ago
BTW, 0:54 Yes that is a Girl Thing O_o
DathanielTDK 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Knowing what became of these people in the original movie, I'm pretty sure that they all die in the end.
kaydee66781 5 months ago
Comment removed
kaydee66781 5 months ago
I loved the first one in 1982 ...hope this one is good
WHITEOUTbomber8 5 months ago
@WHITEOUTbomber8
The 1982 film was a remake of the 1951 film.
cryptozoan 5 months ago
HOLY CRAP this movie looks sick but sometimes you gota think how does this stuff pop up in there head like this good thing yet weird back to movie CRAZILY INTENSELY AWSOME
ELITEXSHADOW 5 months ago
@RiddickTWO Yeah, but they will probably also make a reboot of the original one, if this makes good money.
MrSqueevoot 5 months ago
Thank god this is a prequel and not another shitty reboot. BTW, this prequel looks phenomenal.
RiddickTWO 5 months ago
I readed Script.
Kate survies, In end of movie, infected(The Thing) just slap her, but wont kill her. Its like Terminator 4 movie ending. Wont kill, only throw. In movie infected attacks 4 time Kate, but always he survives, but all other human dies in few sec.
MrBombTube 5 months ago
@MrBombTube ever heard of a thing called grammar?
darkabomination345 5 months ago
I readed Script.
Kate survies, In end of movie, infected(The Thing) just slap her, but wont kill her. Its like Terminator 4 movie ending. Wont kill, only throw. In movie infected attacks 4 time Kate, but always he survives, but all other human dies in few sec.
MrBombTube 5 months ago
@MrBombTube my god do you speak english ? because i can't read this shit
rodgod82 5 months ago
In Script, Kate(Women) still survies. Infected in end of movie just slap him, but wont kill her.
Its like Terminator 4. Terminator just throws, but wont kill.
Ye, Kate survives in movie.
MrBombTube 5 months ago
They have respected the audience. The producers fought for a prequel because they didn't want to tamper with the first film. They've shot in anamorphic format on 35mm film to avoid a digital look and they've used practical fx where possible. They examined footage from the first movie to accurately recreate the Norwegian camp. Nothing shown in the trailer would be out of place in the original.
iAMVyt 5 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@iAMVyt "Nothing shown in the trailer would be out of place in the original."
except the bland as hell, and shitty acting, and the obvious total lack of atmosphere. LOL
wow
GlengarryGlennBeck 5 months ago
Good monsters... resident evil like.
leonidasx666 5 months ago
WTF BOUT NORWEGIAN GUYS? :(
2KelemeNt 5 months ago
Sooo... The Thing is actually just a Virus or something like that?
SlicedAndDiced 5 months ago
@SlicedAndDiced no its an alien
MrNeyus 5 months ago
@mamakunem btw, you pretentious asshole, the original thing also had CGI. In fact, they had flying saucer passing through the screen during the into. It was so shit. Go get a clue.
ASKaPHYSICIST 5 months ago
@ASKaPHYSICIST im not sure if you know this, but the The Thing from 1982 was a sequel. the original was, The Thing From Another World, that came in the 50's, and this new movie is a remake.
im not trying to be an ass to you, i just didnt know if you knew.
superzilla784 5 months ago
@superzilla784 aaccctually, The Thing from 1982 was a remake or reimagining or the 50s version. THIS film is the prequel since its about the norwegian team
solidsnakegx35 5 months ago
@superzilla784
NO, 1982's movie and 1951's movie are NOTHING alike, they are two separate and two very different movies. Both movies are adaptations of "Who Goes There" by John Campbell, 1951's movie was NOT the shapeshifter from the novel but just a dumbed down killer vegetable while 1982's movie is THE quintessential faithful adaptation
Johnlindsey289 2 months ago
@Johnlindsey289 i cant remeber what i said, and i cant even find the comment, i have no idea why your telling me this.
i already know the 1951 version and 1982 version are nothing alike, your comment was painful to read.
superzilla784 2 months ago
@ASKaPHYSICIST "btw, you pretentious asshole, the original thing also had CGI. In fact, they had flying saucer passing through the screen during the into." CGI = Computer Generated Imagery. The flying saucer at the beginning of the thing was not CGI, it was a model. Lights were added in post, but not using computers. You are correct, however, in saying that the original thing had CGI - but it is in the blocky computer simulation of the cells imitating. THAT was the limitation of CGI in 1982.
caterpillarmarch 5 months ago
@mamakunem first of all, fuck you. Secondly, I have every right to dislike the first movie for it's special effects because they were destroying every bit of realism and suspense this movie could have had. There are great horror movies with the same limitations and they overcame them by skillfully hiding them. All the best horror movies only show you glimpses of the monster until the end. There is a good reason for that. This movie went full on monster effects in the beginning and it sucked
ASKaPHYSICIST 5 months ago
@ASKaPHYSICIST I think Carpenter was trying to break away from traditional horror movies in two ways: 1) By making the presentation of the creature more overt and in your face, breaking from horror convention with the intent to shock, and 2) by doing away with the "guy in a suit" type of monster. You COULD argue that this means The Thing has not aged well. If you dislike the practical effects that is your opinion, but Rob Bottin's work on The Thing is considered among the best in SFX history.
caterpillarmarch 5 months ago
@caterpillarmarch The Blob ddint have a guy in a suit and that was in 1958. Neither did Freaks. And yes, it is my opinion. It is the guy I responded to who said it was wrong.
ASKaPHYSICIST 5 months ago
I really hope this trailer didn't show too much, otherwise we may end up knowing who is infected and such, killing the tensity most of us felt in the original on guessing who was human.
Mulluns 5 months ago
0:52 You need to kinda frame by frame it.
gorillazhead 5 months ago
I didnt like the first version but mainly because of the poor special effects. This could be interesting.
ASKaPHYSICIST 5 months ago
@ASKaPHYSICIST What do you expect? It was from the early 80's. Still, other than that, it was a great classic horror film.
RiddickTWO 5 months ago
@RiddickTWO Alien was from the 70s and that was way better.
ASKaPHYSICIST 5 months ago
Best way to end the movie, is to show Macready from the second base!!!
AudreyHepburnLover11 5 months ago
This looks good but it will be hard to beat the gore of the 1982 version....when it comes 2 horror movies CGI films are not always better...
ChimairaGod 5 months ago
@ChimairaGod It's been said they only used CG where necessary and they tried to use mostly animatronics similar to the original. I have high hopes for the graphics
Achilles32094 5 months ago
Looks the exact same as original just better graphics
skiierxxdevin 5 months ago
Things are looking good.
bubulovesgrosminet 5 months ago
awesome !!!
MrShimizoo 5 months ago
I was gunna say lame how can they re-do a redone classic, but if this is a prequel AWESOME!
mkots666 5 months ago
well, half the movie is spoiled now because it just showed who's infected...that's what i hate about trailers, they show too much soemtimes
sladerfoster 5 months ago
Not to sound weird but Mary Elizabeth Winstead has a really great scream!
fleurdubijou 5 months ago 9
@fleurdubijou I completly agree and was thinking the exact same thing!!
coldrae 5 months ago
This is a prequel that takes place 3 days before the John carpenter film.
snarst 5 months ago
no remake.. very nice! But Mccready ruled !
Djune 5 months ago
reminded me of [PROTOTYPE] :P
TheMMAN90 5 months ago in playlist Meer video's van trailers
Ooh, Norway.
Emsilbea 5 months ago
Be honest, it's like Dead space's necromorph. but this is a good movie to wait for~
ShakerLouie 5 months ago
How stupid is it to show in trailer almost all interesting moments of movie like who is decoy/assimilated/killed...i hope move will be decent but trailer is one big spoiler fuckup
Gizminator 5 months ago
Oh my god! What is that thing!? - It's the thing! - WHAT!?
MrJimmyDz 5 months ago
it ain't a "remake" it's actually a prequel to the 1982 "The Thing" from Jhon Carpenter.
in this "prequel" they narrate the story before the 1982 movie.
Heavy on CG, but, i look foward on watching this prequel, it wont top the original but im sure it will give some insight on the "thing".
0commanderkeen0 5 months ago
@0commanderkeen0 The CG is mostly revolving around the movements and transformations to make the practical effects look more "realistic" which you've got to admit helps it's just some practical effects back in the day looked kind of off too. But I mean that's what I heard they used practical effects for the creatures and CG on minor stuff to bring more realism though it might not be perfect the idea was well thought out. Most of the time puppetry is hard to look fluent and in some cases it
RyoNoHikari 5 months ago
@RyoNoHikari i ain't saying that old school puppetry is better than CG effects, it does help out like you mentioned, but, i feel that movies now in days tend to exploit this far more than necessary...
there's many good examples of good puppetry animation in movies like the work of Jim Henson in 1986 "Labyrinth" and his great help in the original trilogy of "Star Wars" not to mention the great movie "The Dark Crystal" from 1982.
i will still see this movie cause of the nostalgia of the original
0commanderkeen0 5 months ago
@0commanderkeen0 Understandable and same here about the nostalgia. I also think Marry Winstead isn't a bad horror actress first movie I saw her in was Final Destination 3. Would be interesting to see a cameo from the original cast like at the end or something like a hint of a glimps of somewhat of a continuation to John's version. I think people were really more interested in a sequel than a prequel Kurt is still a really good actor and still got some fire left in him. The ps2 game kind of felt
RyoNoHikari 5 months ago
@RyoNoHikari yeah, the ps2 game is supossed to be the sequel to the 1982 movie, never got a chance to play any of the version(PC or PS2) but i heard that it kinda made the "story" of the movie some justice.
0commanderkeen0 5 months ago
a hit and miss since I heard the logic was horrible in there, it was too repetitive and got boring after a while, and the graphics didn't really do the movie justice for me. Though it was one of the first of it's kind so I heard that allowed for command attributes having people follow your orders and such but the PCU from what I saw wasn't that responsive to your command or an ally would get in the way something like that. I especially find the game over repetitive with the crab heads and fuces
RyoNoHikari 5 months ago
box repairing which is pretty much most of the game.
RyoNoHikari 5 months ago
takes up to more than 1 person to move a puppet. Watch the making of the remake of The Fly to know what I'm talking about.
RyoNoHikari 5 months ago
@RyoNoHikari yeah, now waht you mean, i remember watching all the work that took the original "Alien"(1979) crew to move the old alien puppet.
0commanderkeen0 5 months ago
shouldnt of made a reboot but a sequel instead
smokea27 5 months ago
@smokea27 It isn't a reboot, it's a prequel. It's the Norwegians that are already dead in the original movie.
HavikZeroX 5 months ago
I really don't understand the film industry at the moment, why are they remaking so many modern classics not long after they were originally made?
CensoredSmiffy 5 months ago
@CensoredSmiffy What are you talking about? 1. This isn't a remake, it's a prequel and 2. Not long after? The original was made almost 30 years ago...
HavikZeroX 5 months ago
@CensoredSmiffy
1982's movie was NOT the original
Johnlindsey289 2 months ago
Don't make fun of Norwegians!!
ibanezgr 5 months ago
Spoiler alert much? Fuck!
coldplayISshit 5 months ago
If this "thing" is so fucking amazing how did it manage to become near-extinct in the first place?
hitch4645 5 months ago in playlist More videos from trailers
@hitch4645 Clearly you haven't seen the original movie.
HavikZeroX 5 months ago
Rated R means Boobs will be flying all over!
iamzero79 5 months ago
Watching this makes me feel old. But cool looking remake, just a movie, don't take it so seriously.
yoseppijoe 5 months ago
For instance CG sucks as far as design goes but practical effects are limited and can only move a certain way using CG for the movement alone makes the effects stand out and come to life without as many limitations. Each has their flaws CG more noticeably because it hasn't come close to being worthy of becoming 4D as in being on the same plane as the real world stuff mixing isn't natural looking it looks fake but when using cg to help animate practical effects you have something more convincing.
RyoNoHikari 5 months ago
It just doesn't look scary. I don't know why but the animatronics were frightening and the cgi in this just looks fake.
Stickett 5 months ago 5
@Stickett Supposedly it's not all CG the creatures were all done with practical effects just the transformations were CG to smooth the movements might not be as great as JC's practical effects but at least they're trying. You gotta admit sometimes practical puppetry can look not so natural looking the way they move sometimes it's noticeable sometimes it's not. Take The Fly's remake with Jeff in it the practical effects were great but the movement kinda seemed a bit off too robotic like.
RyoNoHikari 5 months ago
@Stickett
Yeah...and the original was just plain creepy..this looks too actiony. The old one emphasized on the transformations and the monsters, not them actually fighting.
thefallenone600 5 months ago
If it ends the same way the 1984 film started then it's not a remake or even a backdoor remake. Thus making it a PREQUEL so just wait and find out and stop making assumptions seriously it's tiresome. :/ No offense intended just tired of seeing the word "remake" judgmentally labeled on this movie and they haven't seen it yet.
RyoNoHikari 5 months ago
I can't wait too take a date too see this. Looks like it will be a great remake!!!!
imonlyoneman38 5 months ago
Here's the thing (hahaha- never mind) that I have a problem with: It does lot good, but it looks like the EXACT same movie with just CGI instead of animatronics. So, really, you're getting nothing new. Might as well just watch the original.
But I guess I can't speak until I've seen it. That's just my initial impression.
GoldenFlither15 5 months ago
@anglkng1 Its a science fiction movie, chill.
xJasonsDaMan2 5 months ago
I would watch that I've watched the Kurt Russel version
Mavrickhunter234 5 months ago
now i already know half of who dies /: damn trailers
2NiB4 5 months ago
So, basically the eighth episode of the first season of The X-Files?
Oh my god, why do I know that...... WHAT IS HAPPENING TO ME?!?!
Seriously, though. This does look good. Even though it's a rehash of sorts.
DevoutPatriot 5 months ago
Why remake 'The Thing' It's still a good movie! :( don't need a remake... remake something else like Jurassic Park or something :P
PSNDanjam123 5 months ago
@PSNDanjam123 its not a remake
Zuroq 5 months ago in playlist More videos from trailers
@Zuroq Isn't it, i swear The Thing is already a movie :P
PSNDanjam123 5 months ago
@PSNDanjam123
The Thing 1982 wasn't the original
Johnlindsey289 2 months ago
@Johnlindsey289 Oh my mistake soz.
PSNDanjam123 2 months ago
what kind of rating is R?
PARTYORWHAT 5 months ago
@PARTYORWHAT restricted, meaning over 18 i think
darkabomination345 5 months ago
@PARTYORWHAT rich people ;)
Breaking1337 5 months ago
this is a remake of a classic, still looks good though
MrVohamanah 5 months ago
@MrVohamanah not a remake its a prequel of the first
punktodeath1 5 months ago
This is definitely like Dead Space...
TimealReverse 5 months ago
@TimealReverse ........
mark33850 5 months ago
@TimealReverse
climb back in your hole. this is NOT like deadspace
PARTYORWHAT 5 months ago
HOLY SHIT!!! 8O
TheRFILMS 5 months ago
this is fucked up.
but it might be interesting.
TheFlaminhot4u 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This actually looks pretty scary.
whuboi962011 5 months ago in playlist More videos from trailers
its exaclty like "the thing" the other movie :P
JakFooO 5 months ago
hell ... that " thing " look beautiful :D
mostwanted431 5 months ago
The norweigan trolls seems far more scary, because THEY ACTUALLY EXIST.
IckbobGamingAndMore 5 months ago 9
@IckbobGamingAndMore no they dont! :DDD
AssassinKea1 5 months ago
does this mean Diablo 3 is out?
constipationnow 5 months ago
well the thing by John Carpenter will always be the best even though this is a prequel or whatever it is. but i am still going to watch this movie. It's not because Marie Elisabeth Winstead is hot, no not at all...=)
Nosensefornonsense 5 months ago
Im not being sexist but why do soooo many horror movies have to have the women as the main charecters? I wouldnt be so botherd but this trailer makes it look like it will only focus on the women and just have the men as some goofy idiots in the background
TheMrPisstaker 5 months ago
@TheMrPisstaker i agree with you alot of them have women as main stars i saw all 4 of the scream movies so far and most of the kills are women even the freddy and jason movies i think saw and child's play are the only one's to have men as the main star
glorie712 5 months ago
@TheMrPisstaker well in some cases women are smarter than men :)
MrReigan111 5 months ago
@MrReigan111 lol I know that, I just loved the original and this looks good too apart from the fact the main charecters are new and women which I dont mind, I just dont want them to make the old charecters (which was one of the best bits in the original) look like jokes
TheMrPisstaker 5 months ago
@TheMrPisstaker I understand what you are saying and agree. But know one wants to see a man running and screaming while being pursued by a benevolent ( i cant spell lol) creature or killer. There is something alluring and appealing about a women being in perill. I know I sound misogdonistic but tis true and horror movies exploit that. I think thats part of the reason why horror movies are sucessful. But with a film like this a male cast definately works, they didnt want to do that again.
coldrae 5 months ago
@coldrae You make some good points and Im not botherd now anyway because I found out this is actually a prequel not a reboot so having different main charecters makes alot more sense now :)
TheMrPisstaker 5 months ago
@TheMrPisstaker I was the same, I was annoyed with it until I realized it was the story about the team before the original.
lizbaxterUT 5 months ago
This looks Wicked!:)
Kennichu 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAYUM that looks scary.
N1ghtM4re115 5 months ago
DAYUM that looks scary.
N1ghtM4re115 5 months ago
How does this relate to the original? The original only had male characters if i remember correctly
ContempoJOSH 5 months ago
The sequel will be named "Lady Gaga"
njimko23 5 months ago 66
@njimko23 lol you just made my day
HoangTrongNghia 5 months ago
@njimko23 Or "The Think 2"
Spazzwillingtonx2 5 months ago in playlist More videos from trailers
ugly son of a beach
deimantasz1 5 months ago
whoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. sweet.
LoadedVikes55 5 months ago
It's a remake of the old The Thing!
pithikoulis 5 months ago
@pithikoulis its actually a prequal
xxb3astXX1 5 months ago
YES!!!!!!!!
BboyJovi 5 months ago
I'm actually quite surprised by this okay it's only a trailer but it looks promising, fingers crossed it will turn out to be a good horror movie.
Rayman408 5 months ago
Fucking Necromorphs.
eirho11 5 months ago 3
@eirho11 Where's my Ripper?
AmbientImpact 5 months ago
looks like a decent film. loved the 1982-3 version. i forget which year it is. but i like how it plays the story out as a prequel to the original. ( becasue it obviously came from the norweigen base.
MojoSmelz 5 months ago
:) Okay, kind of excited now.
GoldenFlither15 5 months ago
thats what you get for making fun of Norwegians!
Alfie871 5 months ago
wooooow still cgi is overused
starkingbiker 5 months ago
@starkingbiker Where do you want them to go? Actually film in -60 degree weather and breed a REAL alien called "The Thing"? lol derp.
Lagaholic 5 months ago
@Lagaholic they should make the models that were handmade in the older version
starkingbiker 5 months ago
@starkingbiker Uhhh.... CGI is more realistic. The models, you could see how they moved the "Thing" frame by frame and it is annoying to watch. People like to watch smooth motion when watching movies, people don't expect choppy frame rates with iMax movies.
Lagaholic 5 months ago
@Lagaholic dont get me wrong i love CGI but im just saying that the older version had awesome models and crazy shit happening this looks more like any other horrorfilm remake wich is not bad just not that original
starkingbiker 5 months ago
It's f**k'ing amazing! :D
naculets 5 months ago
Can't beat Cameron. Animatronics > CGI.
joaocorreiamedia 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Norwegians RULE!!!!
/watch?v=31vRUyukiMI&feature=related
YourVidsSucks 5 months ago 12
@YourVidsSucks stop
spalooch45 5 months ago
This looks cool actually.
DT0M 5 months ago 78
This has been flagged as spam show
@DT0M So sterile computer animations don't bother you at all?
Schneboll 5 months ago
@DT0M Yeah I was gonna be like "DAMN"
TkyoSam 5 months ago
meh, remake... :|
JackPidwell 5 months ago
@JackPidwell no its a prequel
blakeanduu 5 months ago
I mean they did say they were using practical effects and CG for some stuff like the transformations and smoother fluent movement for the creature effects so could be worth keeping that much in mind I'm still going to see if it holds up aliened with John Carpenter's version. I just hope they don't rely too much on jump scares those are overrated.
RyoNoHikari 5 months ago