“Remakes, sequels and prequels suck!” That’s the general consensus. Swiftly followed by accusations of laziness and lack of creativity. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Aliens, The Fly, and Dawn of the Dead (2004) proved that. And how? By building on the originality of the first film and adding to the respective canons.
Which brings me onto The Thing (2011) – a prequel in name only to John Carpenter’s 1982 classic. This is a remake with a few plants and a tacked on ending to try and avoid the negativity of “yet another remake“. But there’s so much more that leads to the film’s failure beyond obvious regurgitation so let’s explore!
1. We’ve Seen This Movie Already!
And it’s the film that this one is trying to prequel! In 1982’s The Thing, the Americans learn the Norwegians discovered something in the ice, the camp burned to the ground, and everyone died. But not what, why or how. We then we see the exact same events play out with the Americans and all the blanks are filled in.
So nothing can be done in the prequel that we haven’t already seen and we know how it ends because Kurt Russell and co saw the Norwegian camp and saved the dog. At least a sequel would mean we don’t know how it ends until we’ve actually seen it. More importantly, a sequel can take off in a new direction, like Aliens did.
Unfortunately, this prequel was dead in the water because we know what happened at the Norwegian camp and we know that a solitary dog-Thing escapes.
We are currently seeking Film contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Film contributor, click here.
14 Comments
Great article. I refuse to acknowledge this movie on every level. There is only one movie called ‘The Thing’ and thats Carpenters SEMINAL picture. It will be a cold day in hell before i sit and watch this tripe, Winstead (hubba hubba!) or not.
Thanks Willy2fly.
Not only do you share my sentiments on the film but also, and most especially, on Mary Elizabeth Winstead!
I didnt mind this version, it’s no where near as good as the original but it’s not bad either. You can see the director had love for John Carpenter’s original but was clearly restrained by the studios. Before the film came out, he said he wanted to use real, physical models instead of CGI but you can see that the film studio probably put their foot down on that idea.
***SPOILER*** (Just in case…)
I remember when it was first announced on IMDb that a “remake” of The Thing was in production. Then I looked at the cast – “Mary Elizabeth Winstead? Why?” I put this down to the fact that they were going to have a female (or two) in the film (so negating the idea that it was going to be a true remake), but the main storyline was going to be played out amongst the men in the film – not sexist, just an integral part of Carpenter’s masterpiece. How wrong I was!
If this film had nothing to do with the 1982 version, or was a stand alone horror flick (even though I don’t recognise a film being a true horror movie if it has a “15″ certificate), then I’d have put it down as an ok film. But to try and pass off the fact that the hero and survivor of the film was an American woman asked to tag along to the Norwegian site to help and assist with their findings? WTF? Aren’t there enough heroines in films like “Alien”, “Resident Evil”, or any other horror/thriller made??? So I don’t recognise it as anything to do with Carpenter’s classic – in my opinion, the greatest film ever made.
It’s supposed to be be a prequel just because it’s not a very good film does not change the fact that it’s supposed to take before the 1982 film.
Is this film as bad as the platinum dune remakes, nowhere near. Can some enjoyment be gleamed from this film despite the issues raised in this article, yes. Can this film hold a candle to John carpenter’s take, no but despite this is it enjoyable yes.
Are people over reacting over this movie, yes yes yes
Geez, I don’t get why so many people are panning the new one. Collin’s suicide was shown in a deleted scene. He was afraid of being absorbed by Splitface. I do agree that the characters weren’t as diverse with personalities. However, the Thing is justified being smarter in the Carpenter film. The clothes part is never proven, it could have been a method invented by the Thing to
shift suspicion to MacReady. Since it has no experience of Earth, it wouldn’t know the best moment to attack, which may
explain the Griggs attack. It may have crawled out the first time because the ship didn’t work, then, becoming desperate after
fighting humans, tried to go back, for we never are shown the ship is fully working, it might have lit up and then died again. And finally, if you knew it was a prequel, why see it if you knew what would happen and then bitch about that same fact?
Damian, quite a few things you’re wrong about there old chap.
1) Griggs’ deleted scene – it wasn’t in the final film. You can’t excuse bad story telling by saying “they shot it but they never used it”. You can’t expect people to be aware of deleted scenes or to buy the Blu Ray that features them A film MUST stand on its own and not reply on “deleted scenes” to flesh it out.
2) Also, Grigg’s demise is only the final aspect of a missed opportunity with him. He was non existent throughout the film and the device of the straight razor, so unique and compelling, was ignored.
3) Fans have spewed the nonsense that the THing “learnt” about humans and so adapted by the time the sequel came along. No one with sense buys that. A creature is hard wired for survival. The Thing’s basic nature would be to keep a low profile, exposing only when it needs to. The creature in the prequel ignored basic survival instinct.
4) Likewise you miss the point about the clothes. First, expecting anyone to believe that the shredded clothes in the sequel was a set up by the Thing to shift suspicion is just ludicrous and shamless retconning to try and make the prequel wqork.
6) But the main point about the clothes was to show how the prequel contradicts itself. It cannot replicate inorganic material yet Sam Carter is a thing and his clothes are immaculate. No rips and no blood. All of the attacks in the prequel featured copious amounts ofblood when the creature attacked.
7) “It may have crawled out the first time…it might have lit up then died again” – just more desperate guesswork. There is a difference between unanswered points (where did the creature come from? Why did it crash?) and contradictions, stupidity & plot holes that stop you in your tracks and make you go “huh?”
8) As for bitching it’s a prequel – it’s a valid criticism. One that could have bene made without seeing it but even you, I’m sure, will agree one should a film before passing comment. And if the film was good then it would be a fact that could be over looked. Don’t blame the messenger for delivering the truth about this film’s inconsistencies and flaws. The Thing, as a prequel, was a bad idea from the start. I said it when it was announced it was going into production and I’m saying it now. The difference being that with the film completed, I’ve been proved right
I agree with you Ice9, but everyone keeps incorrectly referring to the slit-throat razor guy as Griggs. In the prequel it was the Colin character. Griggs was the schlub who turned thing on the helicopter, in what perhaps the worst CGI moment I’ve seen on film in the past 10 years.
Spot on article! Summed up my thoughts exactly and also detailed nuances I wasn’t aware of. Never sat easy with me it being a prequel and now I know why. Great job!
There’s one thing this well-thought-out and well-written article missed. Blatant disregard for continuity. The Carpenter film shows the Norwegians blowing the ice up over the ship with thermite charges. The prequel’s director is on record as saying that he didn’t think that was possible, so they eliminated that and went with the scenario as filmed, the ice melts on the ships startup. This is his comment from a Q/A on Outpost31. “Exactly, we just examined how plausible these were and the crater of the ship was one of them. It was just unbelievable that the Norwegians scientists would have created such a big and clean looking crater. To tell you the truth I long wrestled with that because I wanted to stay as close as possible to the original story.” There’s two things inherently wrong with that statement.
1. If the audience is buying a 10,000 year old frozen alien thawed out and started imitating people, it’s quite a bit inept to think that they wouldn’t suspend disbelief enough to buy that the thermite would be enough to melt the ice?
2. You’re doing a prequel to a largely successful cult film. You don’t have the leeway to make a change like that. A sequel, yes, but a prequel, no. Carpenter filmed a scene where the American group looks at the video footage and watches them blow up the ice. That’s not your call to change. If Carpenter filmed flying bunnies menting the ice with lasers, it’s up to you to film it for the prequel.
The other issue involves the characters themselves. First and foremost, the name of Jans Bolen has been changed to Lars. Granted, it’s in a deleted scene in the Carpenter version, but still it’s widely known the man shot by Garry is Jans Bolen. Why change it?
But the other, HUGE goof is that the prequel sets up that Lars is the shooter and Mattias is the pilot. They then set it up that Matias gets blown up, and Lars is shot by Garry (He’s Jans Bolen). But this is incorrect. Upon watching Carpenter’s, you can see the shooter has rips in his parka and it’s fur-lined around the collar. When the helicopter lands, you can see the pilot leaves on the opposite side of the helicopter, carrying the gun. You see the man with the ripped parka fumble the grenade, and blow himself up. The Norwegian left standing is wearing an undamaged parka without a fur-lined collar. It’s absolutely not the man in the ripped clothes we see leaning out of the helicopter shooting at the dog.
The prequel director tried to claim it was an error in editing in the Carpenter film, something that the Carpenter film’s producer, Stuart Cohen (Who occasionally frequents IMDB with updates to his Thing-related blog) took offense too:
The opening was not a mistake on our part. Nor did we mix it up by accident.I had no wish to revisit this topic, and Mr. van Heijningen Jr. is certainly entitled to his interpetation of events, but the idea that we were somehow at fault and careless in the scenes execution is bothersome. For the record in our film Norbert Weisser, Screen Actors Guild member and the only one entitled to speak dialogue on camera is the pilot shot by Garry. When casting John had Norbert improvise his dialogue, a process he repeated here. Larry Franco, John’s esteemed assistant director,is the shooter in the helicopter. With no dialogue, reduced to frantic arm gestures, he blows both himself and the helicopter up…
It would be different if the prequel director admitted he screwed a few things up. But to say that the reason it was wrong in his film was because Carpenter screwed it up is beyond low. I see he has no film projects scheduled since the prequel. Gee I wonder why?
Bullet number one: we’ve seen this movie already.
Not necessarily. We shouldn’t assume everyone makes an effort to watch classic films, or are old enough to have seen Carpenter’s film when it came out in 82′. Carpenter’s film is 30 years old, that would make it a golden oldie. So for the fan base who mainly point their interests in current and recent films, this would not seem like a retread to them.
Great article; the Edvard-Adam split-face assimilation scene is the only enjoyable part of this film. The only thing I disagree with in this analysis of everything wrong with it is the idea that Edgerton’s character can’t get infected without a drop of blood or ripped clothing. In the original film, Fuchs states that he believes it’s possible that inadvertent contact with just one particle of the thing can infect an entire organism over time, and suggested they only eat out of cans as a result. Also, at no time do we see evidence of Norris or Palmer (who were clearly imitations for much of the film) having been fully assimilated at one time, unlike what is suspected with MacReady.
Also, one could object (and many have) that the Bennings-thing emerged in the snow with the original Bennings’s clothes intact. I think this was an error on Carpenter’s part. Of course, you could argue that Bennings was in a store room full of clothes, and perhaps coincidently had access to nearly identical replacement clothing.