Mainly I think the reason I've reached this point is because I've heard the concept, and in many ways, what is being planned almost enhances John Carpenter's movie.
Instead of remaking or reimagining The Thing, the new plan is apparently a prequel which takes place in the Norwegian camp in Antarctica during days and weeks preceding the events of the 1982 movie. Those of you who have seen The Thing will likely remember that film began with a dog being chased by Norwegians in a helicopter.
Now, there are movies that get sequels and prequels that don't really warrant them narratively, and I think a lot of you out there can think of more than one that fits that description. However, the Norwegian camp scenario does have some promise, and a movie that covers that storyline at least competently (and hopefully keeping the movie in the early 1980's) will add additional back story to the tale told by John Carpenter.
So until I hear something that makes me once again sour on the idea of a revisit to the frozen wastes of Antarctica circa 1982, I am now in a state of cautious optimism about this project. Especially since Ronald Moore is supposedly writing the script, and we all know how he worked his magic on Battlestar Galactica.
Honestly, I never thought I would have such feelings about Hollywood revisiting The Thing.
Tags:
2 comments:
Here's one reason why I think the Thing prequel is going to suck: CGI. Rob Bottin's painstaking and amazing FX work in Carpenter's version is exhibit A in the argument for why practical FX often trumps CGI. In this age of CGI, I doubt the makers of the prequel are going to keep it old-school.
I hadn't considered that. I am worried about that now, because I too liked the practical effects so much better than anything CGI could accomplish.
Post a Comment