So, the official trailer for the prequel to The Thing has hit the web and I must say. I am kind of looking forward to it.
A little history to explain things. In 1982 John Carpenter made a horror movie called The Thing. This actually a remake of a movie from the 50's called 'The thing from another world', which was an adaptation of a short story called 'Who Goes There!?'. Simple right? Anyway the 1982 movies was actually far truer to the origional story and is....one of the best movies ever made. There I said it, everything rocks about this film and I highly recommed that you watch it. During the day.
So yeah this movie takes place before the 1982 version and looks like it might work really well. If you've seen the thing 1982 you'll know that there are certain elements that actually would work really well for a prequel. Anyway thumbs up! I am super pumped about this movie! It's probably going to suck but...HOPE!
Here is the trailer:http:
And as a treat the trailer for the 1982 film:
-- Edited by neshta1 on Thursday 14th of July 2011 09:07:34 PM
__________________
"Smart people are very good at rationalizing unsmart ideas"- Michael Shermer (paraphrased)
It's VERY good stuff! If your into horror, obsiously. I've heard tha copies to find (For free) are a little hard. Honestly, if I had an extra DVD, I'd send it to you.....actually if you can access youtube, it's up there. Go watch it before it is taken off!
__________________
"Smart people are very good at rationalizing unsmart ideas"- Michael Shermer (paraphrased)
So, I have to ask, what did you think of the ending? Because it's left open I always like to dicuss how you felt it ended. Are they both infected? Was one of them? Share. Also if you wanted to just really dig into the story read this review, I found the behind the scenes info very informative.
I didn't experience the ending very well. In any case, the ending was vaguely written, so I don't have an opinion. If there is no sequel, it doesn't matter if either of them is infected. If there is a sequel, they could do at least one of five things.
Both infected.
One infected, both survive.
One infected, the other dies.
Neither infected, but one of the infected people survives.
Nobody survived, but they dig up a new Thing.
In 'Who Goes There!?' the Things are telepathic. That was good stuff. Ultimately, I thought the novella was better, but written special effects and props are free, so this is always the case. I liked the movie scene in the novella.
I have not read the novella yet. But film and books are totally different. I do not like to buy into the which is better thing.
The ending was vague on purpose. John Caprenter usually wrote his movies like that. The whole point of the ending is to take away what you want. It's one of the things I like about it.
Also in the movie, it is strongly hinted at that the 'things' are telepathic. At least that's how I read it. Also there is an unofficial thing card game. It looks really cool, it seems like the type of games you'd really enjoy.
One more note about the sequel thing. This new movies is a prequel to show what happened to the norweigen team.
__________________
"Smart people are very good at rationalizing unsmart ideas"- Michael Shermer (paraphrased)
I did not have any aspirations for the ending, so I guess I just thought "it is what it is". I guess I was also meta-watching the movie. Ie, trying to figure out how it ticks.
I guess I didn't pick up on the Things being telepathic in the movie. Care to read the novella already? http://www.scaryforkids.com/who-goes-there-by-john-w-campbell/
I figured that the prequel has to do with the Norwegian team.
I got confused as you mentioned a sequel I thought you were mistaking the prequel for a sequel. Sometimes you need to not Metawatch stuff. It's more fun to just get caught up in the story.
Speaking of figuring out how it ticks, did you enjoy that website?
__________________
"Smart people are very good at rationalizing unsmart ideas"- Michael Shermer (paraphrased)
Prequels and sequels require different hooks, although writers will result to an ass pull if they need to or otherwise just suck. The state of the world at the ending of a movie is the only thing that matters for a sequel. Hence my comments on the ending apply only to sequels. Likewise, the starting state is all that matters for a prequel, and this movie has a perfect setup.
Steven King wrote an article about the sad state of short stories in America. To sum it up, are they alive? Yes. Well? No. He also mentioned something to the effect of, the meta-reading writers do is dirty. =P
The website was fantastic, but I wish it broke the story down further.
Yeah I wish they broke it down more. Anyway you make good points. And one of the things the guy on the site mentioned is that the beginning of this movie actually looks alot like the end of a typical John Carpenter movie, which I thought was neat as he expressed an interest in seeing a Thing sequel and here we are.
__________________
"Smart people are very good at rationalizing unsmart ideas"- Michael Shermer (paraphrased)
Just read the novella. It was OK but not as good as the movie. The anit-gravity backpack was a little silly. Too much was explained of the monster and I felt no real sense of dread or paranoia. The monster could just be beaten up by a bunch of guys? In the movie the monster was truly a thing of dread, you could barely do anything to it short of using a flamethrower. While it was a OK story, it wasn't perfect. And although they are two different mediums and should not be compared....I like the movie better.
__________________
"Smart people are very good at rationalizing unsmart ideas"- Michael Shermer (paraphrased)
Details, details. They are versions of the same thing. In the movie, the Thing arrives at camp number two, whereas the whole story in the novella takes place in camp number one. Neither here nor there. Anti-gravity backpack VS anti-gravity UFO. They are both silly. As far as the munchkin factor of the Thing goes, it depends on what you are going for. Munchkin factor should be chosen for dramatic effect.
The movie also really botched a few things, as the website pointed out. Some of which I did not even notice, but really are off if you think about them. The novella also probably botched things, but I only read it once and I was not attempting to pull it apart.
Obviously the movie had a cooler presentation of the whole thing, but I feel they changed some things for the worst. The novella had some extra scenes I liked, like the one with the projector. Movie length is a function of budget. Fine. Also, in the novella I like how the biologist locked himself away and acted like they were all infected. I thought that was way better than the shed deal in the movie. I also like how at least one of the two donors was infected in the Novella, and there was nothing they could do really do about it. Also, they had clear communications in the novella and they needed to act like everything was OK so they did not draw attention and a rescue mission. I thought that was brilliant.
Actually I simply assumed it was some sort of hover craft (more plausible) then an actual flying craft. It wanted to get to the shore not back into space.
This is funny I actually did not like the novella that much. The dialogue felt fake, and the prose was extremely hard to follow. There are numerous times where an action scene was glossed over completly! And not in a good imagine it yourself way but in a ooh! You missed it way. The descriptive bits were simply terrible! I had NO idea if this facility was above ground, below ground, what colour it was, how many building there were or even the size of each room!
Also regarding munchkin facter....A monster that you can beat up, let alone TOUCH is not as scary as one you can't even get near! THe things in the Novella were esentially wussies! Why is it that you have a genetic compulsion to always love an origional version!?
While the Novella had some good ideas. I just felt that is was written faily poorly, it was a problem of execution for me, not really ideas.
__________________
"Smart people are very good at rationalizing unsmart ideas"- Michael Shermer (paraphrased)
Well, I don't think action scenes really work in prose. As I mentioned, there were so important plot details the movie changed. I thought those points were better in the novella. Having said all that, they are versions of the same thing, so all of the same key ideas are there. The primary difference is execution.
I think the monster you need to get near is scarier than the one you can fight from a safe distance. Not that that rebuts your point.
For what it is worth, my Thing experience was a mixture of the novella and the movie. I'm just complaining because the stuff I thought was better in the novella was not in the movie. I otherwise got the best of both worlds.
I could point you to quite a few books I've read that had good action scenes.
And NO NO NO! You are not listening to me. What I mean to say is this:
Monster A: Can get near can defeat in unnarmed combat, are able to touch and grab without any trouble = NOT SCARY
Monster B: Cannot touch, cannot be hurt or harmed by melee weapons or unarmed blows can ONLY be HURT and somewhat stopped through extreme heat (Fire) = MOre scary.
A monster that you can tangle with and boot in the face is not as scary as an ever present force of destruction. I can't see how you can argue this.
__________________
"Smart people are very good at rationalizing unsmart ideas"- Michael Shermer (paraphrased)
I understood you the first time and I said I did not rebut your point.
The scarier monster depends on the story. If a flamethrower is the only thing that can kill a monster, but your protagonists have a working flamethrower, the monster is only so scary. It is a very simple setup. Do you have flamethrower or equivalent? No? Run or die. Yes? Torch monster.
Munchkin factor is a cheap way to make a scary monster. I sincerely believe that a vulnerable scary monster is possible, but it is way harder to write. It is all about the execution.
I'm not saying munchkin monsters suck. Depends on what you are going for. Use dramatic effect to cater to your audience.
Oh OK as long as we understnad each other. A good example of over mucnkining a monster would be in some slashers. Scream is one of the worst perpertrators which gives the killer rather amazing feats of strength considereing they end up being a normal college girl with absolutly no combat training what so ever. It was a little silly. And it is a flaw that can occur in slashers.
__________________
"Smart people are very good at rationalizing unsmart ideas"- Michael Shermer (paraphrased)
Sure. A munchkin monster can be dramatically effective. So can a surprise reveal. The parts do necessarily not make a better whole. Didn't they change the ending for one of the Scream movies?
I could only stand the first one. The whole point of a slasher is to create a monster that could be anyone, a grounded normal human being. It get's a little stupid when you munchkin that.
Unless you go the supernatural route it just seems silly to me.
__________________
"Smart people are very good at rationalizing unsmart ideas"- Michael Shermer (paraphrased)
Presumably the slasher is not psychologically grounded and normal. I guess the whole Scream series struck me a steaming pile of Hollywood cow blessings. But, that is what I think of most of Hollywood. This may just be a side effect of Sturgeon's Law.
I've watched a lot of horror movies and I will say, most are bad. Some are in the so-bad-its-good. But, yeah Horror is one of the genres that is very difficult to do right. The slasher sub-genre has been in danger nearly since it's beginning.
Here are a list of some decent to very good slasher movies:
Friday the 13th (The first one, yes it is pretty good and has a most excellent twist at the end. It is one of the first slashers and is a merger of mystery and exploitation genres)
Halloween (Another John Carpenter film, quite subtle and restrained for a horror flick)
Black Christmas (Generally considered the best of the genre, though I like Halloween better)
Nightmare on elm street
While it ususally houses crap every genre and region of art produces good examples. Caligula is a crazy, depraived almost unwatchable movie, but some consider it quite a good film.
__________________
"Smart people are very good at rationalizing unsmart ideas"- Michael Shermer (paraphrased)
I've developed a taste for watching some of the worst movies I could find. This clminated in watching a movie called Birdemic a few weeks ago...I haven't watched a bad horror movie since. It's going to take me some time before I recover.
__________________
"Smart people are very good at rationalizing unsmart ideas"- Michael Shermer (paraphrased)
Yeah, I have also experienced the trauma from bad stuff. For a change of pace, try watching Kannazuki no Miko. It has a cool name, but it is a very horribly executed yuri anime. If I recall correctly, the theme songs were pretty good.
...Wait your cure is too watch more bad stuff!? Why would I do that!? Unless it's some sort of reverse therapy!
Actually the reason I like to watch bad stuff is that I find it more inspiring to watch then great stuff. If I watch a great movie IO think 'wow, why should I even be trying! I could never get this good!'
But when I watch terrible stuff I think 'Hey this is bad' and I list off all the ways in which it is terrible which makes me able to pick apart stuff better. It shows me how things should and should not be done.
__________________
"Smart people are very good at rationalizing unsmart ideas"- Michael Shermer (paraphrased)
