The poster for The Thing has arrived.
This isn’t a remake of the John Carpenter classic, but it is a prequel to that movie that tells us what happened before Kurt Russell tripped over it in the snow.
Stephen Schleicher
Stephen Schleicher began his career writing for the Digital Media Online community of sites, including Digital Producer and Creative Mac covering all aspects of the digital content creation industry. He then moved on to consumer technology, and began the Coolness Roundup podcast. A writing fool, Stephen has freelanced for Sci-Fi Channel's Technology Blog, and Gizmodo. Still longing for the good ol' days, Stephen launched Major Spoilers in July 2006, because he is a glutton for punishment. You can follow him on Twitter @MajorSpoilers and tell him your darkest secrets...
16 Comments
But they’re both called The Thing? So dumb.
its the same “thing”…. so yeah. they couldnt have called it “the other thing”. and “the thing earlier ” just doesnt sound right. i suppose you would be in approval if it were called “the thing: reloaded” or some shit like that right? because really i think its a fine name as long as the movie is as good or better than the john carpenter take on the original “the thing from another world”. they could have called it that, but then its already taken too.
I see it as being a little strange to name a movie designed to be a prequel the exact same name as the movie it’s supposed to take place before. It’d be fine if it was supposed to be a direct remake of the movie (which I know was a remake too). Maybe it’s just me since this appears to be the first time in which a prequel has had the same name as the movie it’s taking place before and there’s no precendent for it. It’s still going to be a pain talking to someone younger about The Thing and realizing 10 minutes in that you’re talking about two different movies entirely. Granted that kind of thing happened a lot with remakes too when I worked at the video store for a few years.
If the movie work well with a R rating, maybe it will help for Mountains of Madness.
Mountains of Madness NEEDS to happen. there is just soo much creepy in that story i need to see it on screen.
I see both points, though I’m leaning towards Matthew’s opinion here. True, it’s silly that two movies that tell two stories set in the same universe have the same title, but I can’t off-hand think of a good title, with the possible exception of The Thing 2: Thing Harder, that works for this movie — especially since it’s a prequel.
Also, it implies that you don’t need any experience with Carpenter’s film to enjoy the film, which most prequels fail to deliver on. If this movie works, I think it’s cool that a lot of younger people will go into this movie without any knowledge of Carpenter’s film, enjoy it, and then go home and watch a true classic in the horror genre.
Yeah, Braggo’s got a point: the title’s dumb.
They should have called it “The Previous Thing” and presto; box-office gold.
“From the producers of Dawn of the Dead”
PASS!
the dawn of the dead remake was amazing.
Awesome.
The sarcasm is strong with this one.
I really liked the remake of Dawn of the Dead. I love the original but I can’t really compare the two, they’re really two entirely different movies predicated upon a similar skeletal framework. The original had it’s deeper meanings about consumerism and all that and the new one was just a badass popcorn flick. I can watch them both equally as often, but I feel that they both totally have their place.
@Matthew – word! I’ve already got my Miskatonic University Expedition shirt.
Crack out the lasagna. While Howard Hawks’ version relied heavily on suspense and dialogue (and James Arness in a carrot outfit), Carpenter’s had both suspense and loads of gore. I can’t imagine what they have in mind for the prequel, but if they do a good job it ought to be pretty cool.
Carpenter’s also had some of the very best physical effects I’ve ever seen in a movie. I’d rather see tons of that over computer effects any day.
I actually disagree with Matthew. I think it is dumb naming the prequel the exact same as Carpenter’s original. That would imply that is actually a remake and since it apparently isn’t, it is pointless. They know that this ‘The Thing’ will be the one that people born in the past 15 years will identify as the only ‘The Thing’ as they wouldn’t have seen Carpenter’s film. The producers are banking on the fact that many of their target audience won’t have seen the 1982 film.
As for another title of the ‘prequel’? That’s what they pay people for, surely? They could have come up with something, just because we can’t doesn’t mean there isn’t a suitable name out there……
Agreed.