Why do they have to be dead? If one is the creature, it ain’t dead.
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
[quote]Stern wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
[quote]Stern wrote:
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
[quote]Nards wrote:
I never see horror movies in the theater as my girlfriend doesn’t like them…so whose titties do I hide my face in for the scary parts?!?
Though I will go by myself if I must for the new The Thing.[/quote]
But they have a woman as the protagonist in The Thing remake. Weak. She won’t even die, I’d bet 5 internet dollars on it.[/quote]
She has to die. She isn’t in the first one and there were no other survivors bar the pilot and rubbish sniper…
THEY BETTER NOT FUCK THIS UP WOL!?!?[/quote]
- She’s a woman
- Its 2011
When’s the last time you’ve seen the female protagonist lose in a horror movie? Exactly. I’m pretty sure she’ll live.
Even Kurt Russell and Keith David didn’t survive in Carpenter’s movie.
[/quote]
Actually, they didn’t show if one of them survived, did they? That thing can hibernate for thousands of years.[/quote]
Indeed and that is part of the enjoyable ambiguity of the final scene - as Childs and MacReady muse over the fact either of them could be the thing. I’d read somewhere that Childs comes back with a different colour jacket than the one he left the base camp with when he heads of to set up explosives, but haven’t had a chance to check it out properly yet. Probably nonsense but may be worth keeping an eye out for when you next see it.
[/quote]
Like I said, MacReady and Childs didn’t survive. No fire, no shelter, and no communications to the outside world. They’re dead. The only way they could survive is if they have the characters in the upcoming prequel search the Antartica for another base that may have come in contact with the Thing.
So they’re dead.[/quote]
A tip for you Wol; if ever you should stumble upon a bear, in the dead of winter, and it appears dead - don’t go poking it with sticks. =P
But anyway, mind and keep that internet fiver close to your keyboard! 
Also, as far as a woman lead, I think we are past the “predictable woman hero” era of movies…at least I hope so. Yeah, they may keep her alive…but if that is written well and they end up making two more bad ass movies, I am all for it.
This up to the WRITERS and the guy shooting the camera. Both of them decide what makes a good movie.
I don’t give a shit if she lives…if they make me love the concept.
She does look “weak” though for a female lead.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why do they have to be dead? If one is the creature, it ain’t dead.[/quote]
If one is the creature, that means the person who’s form its taking is dead. Either the Thing killed him or he’s lost in the Antartica freezing to death.
They have no transportation, no shelter, no heat, and no communications. Everyone died and hopefully the Thing died too.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, as far as a woman lead, I think we are past the “predictable woman hero” era of movies…at least I hope so. Yeah, they may keep her alive…but if that is written well and they end up making two more bad ass movies, I am all for it.
This up to the WRITERS and the guy shooting the camera. Both of them decide what makes a good movie.
I don’t give a shit if she lives…if they make me love the concept.
She does look “weak” though for a female lead.[/quote]
I don’t mind if a female character lives and DESERVES to live. I want her fighting, clawing, and struggling. Jamie Lee Curtis in the Halloween series was a fighter. She was cut up, beat up, bruised, and still stayed alive. And in the second movie, she could barely walk.
I don’t want to see a line of guys get iced just so a female lead can survive. I want her to earn it like anyone else.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]SSC wrote:
I’m not sure if I can bring myself to watch this. It looks like it has potential but I loved the first one and I’m pretty reluctant to continue supporting Hollywood simply remaking movies from 20-30 years ago. It’s pathetic.
And they’re remaking The Thing… seriously? WTF?[/quote]
The Thing is a remake of The Thing From Another World:
For a b-movie it’s pretty good. [/quote]
It’s actually more of a sequel than a remake[/quote]
Who told you that? The creatures in each respective movie are totally different in nature.
The alien in the 1951 version is basically a humanoid plant with a fixed shape. They analyze it in the movie.[/quote]
From what I’ve read Carpenter did this as a sequal that’s why the Swede’s base is burned down all you got to do is go online there is plenty of info on Carpenter’s being a sequel
Ouch number 4 at the box office
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]SSC wrote:
I’m not sure if I can bring myself to watch this. It looks like it has potential but I loved the first one and I’m pretty reluctant to continue supporting Hollywood simply remaking movies from 20-30 years ago. It’s pathetic.
And they’re remaking The Thing… seriously? WTF?[/quote]
The Thing is a remake of The Thing From Another World:
For a b-movie it’s pretty good. [/quote]
It’s actually more of a sequel than a remake[/quote]
Who told you that? The creatures in each respective movie are totally different in nature.
The alien in the 1951 version is basically a humanoid plant with a fixed shape. They analyze it in the movie.[/quote]
From what I’ve read Carpenter did this as a sequal that’s why the Swede’s base is burned down all you got to do is go online there is plenty of info on Carpenter’s being a sequel[/quote]
Short of a direct quote from John Carpenter saying his version is a sequel (I’ve never seen one), I’m not buying anything trying to present The Thing as a direct follow-up.
Yes, Carpenter has said he was a fan of the original, but everything I’ve read points to him going back to the short story that also inspired the original movie.
The characters in The Thing From Another World are not from the Norwegian camp in The Thing. They are all Americans.
As I said above, the biggest stumbling block for the prequel argument is the nature of the alien itself. Both movies treat them as distinct creatures- if there was even a passing similarity between the two, I could accept TTFAW as a prequel of sorts.
Unfortunately, both movies describe the nature of each respective E.T in detail and in very different terms.
Here’s a video about the making of The Thing and Carpenter says rather than remaking the 1951 movie he went to the source; the original short story. He says this in the first minute of the clip.