I'm entirely more excited about this movie than I feel like I should be.

10/12/2011 11:23:34 PM

The 80's version is overrated, imo.

10/12/2011 11:58:43 PM

^what

10/12/2011 11:59:43 PM

^
I thought about it, and edited before I read your post. Not horrible, but overrated.

10/13/2011 12:00:45 AM

^^^^agreed

10/13/2011 7:05:46 AM

no way! the biting off of the arms scene is total epic schlock

10/13/2011 1:08:24 PM

I thought the original was great. Especially for its time. Watched it recently for the first time.

10/13/2011 1:43:54 PM

the original is a classic

[Edited on October 13, 2011 at 5:41 PM. Reason : coupon]

10/13/2011 5:40:50 PM

It's been playing on encore (I think) lately. It was on when I went to bed last night and when I woke up. Got to see the arms scene again and the head turned into a spider thing.

10/14/2011 10:58:40 AM

When you guys say "the original," are you referring to the 1951 version?

That one's pretty good, too.

10/14/2011 7:01:35 PM

oic what u did

10/15/2011 12:17:43 AM

"Oh, marko!"

10/15/2011 1:59:17 AM

The original is a classic, the 80s version is sci-fi horror awesomeness, and this new version looks like a poorly cast CG fest that will no doubt suck balls compared to either of the two predecessors. No thanks.

[Edited on October 17, 2011 at 9:38 AM. Reason : .]

10/17/2011 9:36:56 AM

I thought this latest version was better than expected. CGI wasn't entirely overdone, and I thought they did a pretty good job of bridging the gap to the 1982 movie. The pacing could've been slower, especially once "The Thing" started picking off people. I guess we are only to wonder what happened to Mary Elizabeth Winstead just like with Kurt Russell/Keith David?

10/20/2011 8:00:39 AM

few thoughts on ^

1. I agree the CGI wasn't overdone until about the last half hour.
2. The same goes for pacing, as you noted. It started off really good but then ramped up too quickly.
3. Beyond "telling the world," it doesn't matter too much what happens to her I guess. She presumably isn't infected so whether she dies in the snow or somehow finds the Russian station, it doesn't matter too much. Plus you gotta figure the world will find out one way or the other (someone survives or they end up getting eaten).

Having just watched the 1982 version, I enjoyed the homages it pays to that movies. There's quite a few scenes that are similar, but not identical.

This one is just more of a horror movie / monster flick straight out whereas the other had more suspense.

[Edited on October 20, 2011 at 9:08 AM. Reason : d]

10/20/2011 9:08:45 AM

Someone on IMDB made a good point about what you mention the movie being more of a horror/monster flick---that the thing had not encountered humans prior to being frozen in ice, therefore it was visible more often than in the 1982 movie. It had to work on honing its skills to be more elusive/hidden among the group. Not sure if that was unintentional or not, but I thought it was a good theory.

10/20/2011 9:29:58 AM

yeah i made that same point to my gf after the movie as well. not sure if it was intentional. i said it "learned its lesson."

10/20/2011 11:46:01 AM

The '82 version is one of my all time favorite movies, so I'm a little bias... but I thought it was good for what it was; which as pointed out, was more of a typical creature/monster genre movie.

Quote :

"I thought they did a pretty good job of bridging the gap to the 1982 movie. The pacing could've been slower, especially once "The Thing" started picking off people."

It tied nicely into the other version, but I had no clue going in that this was meant to be a "prequel." And having given it some thought, I just don't understand why they bothered to call this a prequel. Especially considering how much of the plot and scenes are so similar to the '82 version. If I watched this, and then turned around and watched the John Carpenter version (haven't seen the original), I'd be like "WTF... this is not really a continuation, it's the same damn story at another location." The only real difference is the very beginning, and the very end. Everything else is basically the same.

Agreed that I prefer the pacing of the '82 version, which was much more suspenseful. This version leaned heavily on your typical scare tactics of things jumping out (literally), and what not.

[Edited on October 22, 2011 at 11:05 AM. Reason : l]

10/22/2011 11:00:09 AM

^yeah the best part of the 82' version was the paranoia.

10/23/2011 2:19:41 AM

yep, hardly any real paranoia at all. Even the "test" scene, which is one of the very best scenes in John Carpenter's version, was not suspenseful. I like that they used a different test, but the problem is that the test they came up with wasn't definitive at all. It could only be used to exclude people, not identify the thing.


Anyone who's thinking about seeing this who has not seen the John Carpenter's 1982 version, just watch the John Carpenter version. The effects in it still hold up 30 years later and the story is pretty much the same, just executed better.

10/23/2011 7:24:16 PM

Thought Mary Elisabeth Ellis was in this, was somewhat interested. Found out she wasn't -> who gives a shit.

10/23/2011 10:33:48 PM

I've read that the scariest part of the 1982 film was the needle drawing blood.

Here is an excellent film analysis of the movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SppG-I_Dhxw

10/23/2011 10:56:02 PM