Monkey Boy, just wanted to say thanks - you have in part inspired the petition to Universal to release the original workprint that was screened to test audiences prior to the original April 2011 release date. This had started out as a call for a "practical effects cut" but I think everyone realises that Universal aren't about to spend any more money on this project.

It's been confirmed now by a couple of parties (ADI and one of the cast) that this original cut does exist. We're calling for Universal to release that as a digital download - this should involve a minimal budget. You can sign the petition at http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/thething

Also, Director Matthijs van Heijningen, the practical effects team from ADI and the team from Image Engine who did the CGI will be fielding questions from fans at the outpost 31 forums at http://thethingfan.11.forumer.com/viewforum.php... - we're hoping to find out more about this original cut in those discussions.

The Thing Thanks, Monkey Boy, for all your info. Where did you get the info that 'the thing' was a passenger on a ship piloted by 3-eyed aliens? That is very interesting. Also, do you remember hearing of a live, George Clooney produced version of The Thing that was announced at one point several years ago that was to have aired on NBC? I never heard any more on it, and next I heard was the prequel we got. And I would love to see the 'more practical effects' version of the 2011 Thing, but it would appear doubtful. But you never know. Who'd have thought we'd get a prequel 29 years later? FYI - The Thing and Blade Runner came out the same day in June of '82. Two genre classics underappreciated upon initial release.

This movie was a major dissapointment. Mostly because of the terible CGI graphics.
Too bad as most of them had been done as practical effects too - look here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_det...

But still I'm looking forward to watching it again and will buy this as soon as it comes out.
But I hope there'll be a director's cut at some point, too.

Some alternate titles they could have used:

That THING You Do!

He's A THING, She's a THING, Everyone's a THING THING

THE THINGIE

THE THING? Who Woulda THUNK It?

Hand Me That THING Over There!

You Know, THE THING Is...

This Just Isn't My THING

AnyTHING Else?

THE THING That Should Not Be

Do SomeTHING

and finally..

That One THING You Just Can't Live Without

I'm kinda in the camp of using the worst reviews, but out of context where they sound favorable.

'I couldn't believe my eyes...'

'My jaw was wide open in disbelief...'

'Somebody needs to win an award for this film...'

'My stomach was in knots the entire time..'

'It made me question my faith...'

'If dogs could play poker they would watch this with awe...'


And such.

If Shawn Edwards of Fox-TV was frightened by this film he's a pussy.

Monkey Boy wrote: "How does the thing copy clothing?"

It doesn't, it imitates the person under it.

Yeah, I know that but the point is it absorbs the person then issues forth an exact copy right? one that is all gooey and stuff so how come the clothes are clean?

Does it undress you first before it has you off? does it do the washing once it's copied you?

It's a massive unexplained hole in the way the creature operates and it's bugged me since I saw the original when McReady says that he thinks it rips through your clothing when it takes you over but the person who is the thing always ends up wearing the same clothes they had on before they got thinged.........

"How does the thing copy clothing?"

It doesn't, it imitates the person under it.

this movie is fantastic. It sets up the original 82 movie in away you will get goosebumps

Wow! What an improvement that revised artwork is(!)

If they had a limited edition Drew Struzan style alternate cover, I'd probably buy it on day one.

I remember seeing a video of someone walking through the Universal Halloween 'Thing' walkthrough attraction at the park, and there was a room in there that had a bunch of little lab animal cages that looked broken out from within...  was there anything like that on the cutting room floor?  I saw that before the film and was disappointed not to see any Rat-things or Rabbit-things in the film...  

(ps it was Fuchs that mentioned the eating from cans line)

That would have been awesome (that's my first usage of that word)! Would have loved to have seen a new version of 'a guy in a suit'.

Here you go. I wonder if these are the "extras" on the upcoming release...?

http://www.discoverychannel.ca/article.aspx?aid...

"I found some 'webisodes' on the FX"

Could you post the link(s)?

Yeah, that is a mystery. I'm gonna go with a contract as the reason.

Anyhow, cleaned out some of my bookmarks. Here's another "The Thing" link...

http://tinyurl.com/27jcrht

I don't recall that dialog between Sam and Jameson; forgot how Jameson died.

I want to be hopeful.

Let's be honest, the movie tanked at the box office.

It was made with a budget of $38 million (estimated). To date - including foreign B.O., the total of ticket sales for the feature is $27.4 million. How much was spent on advertising? It's still way in the red no matter how you spin it.

http://tinyurl.com/88auc57

Unless this flick pulls a "Firefly", huge home video sales. No, no we won't see a better version. I'm glad the studio won't release the film bare bones.

The situation sucks.

"I own nearly 1000 DVDs and BD's"

Cool. My DVD collection finally hit 1500 last month.

toonloon wrote: And what about the video footage that the americans recover in the Carpenter version which showed the crazy swedes blowing up the saucer? That definitely didn't happen.
That was the one glaring omission that I thought of too, but it could be explained that the Norwegians never actually uncovered the ship with their explosives as the archived footage in Carpenter's film never shows them examining the ship after setting off their detonations--their explosives may not have made much of a dent in getting close to the depth of the ship. The real problem I have with the ship is that when it is found by the Norwegians it's in some sort of ice cavern instead of embedded in solid ice. It makes for a nice visual, but it doesn't really make any sense.

toonloon wrote: And finally...Spoiler I think Carter was a thing after they got out the snow cat, although the funny look Kate gives him only serves to draw attention to the fact that she is looking for something amiss because his earring is in the correct ear at this point. It's only in the wrong ear when they return. So are we to assume that the Thing takes over Carter, puts his clothes back on intact and then rams the earring through an unpierced ear? Am I missing something? Or some Thing? Hmm...
Spoiler When they return to the snow cat at the end Carter doesn't have an earring at all, and it could be explained away that it fell out sometime during their escapade in the ship. It's only when Kate mentions the missing earring and Carter motions to the incorrect ear that she is able to confirm Carter is a Thing.

lol I was on aicn on The Thing review talkback trying to explain as well that this started out as a film with practical fx and puppets and so on and it got re-edited and reshoots were implemented due to an ambiguous test screening.  I personally enjoyed the film for what the director managed to leave in and they did do a great job tying it into the 82 film.

Also Monkey Boy, I remember seeing something on TV on either scifi channel or some other channel that was a making-of for The Thing prequel and they were showing the scene in the rec room being shot with the puppet on Eric Christian Olsen and were showing the puppeteer out of frame with the controls and from how that footage looked, it seems that the puppet's body is at least in the final film and maybe even some of the head because in the behind the scenes footage there was makeup connecting Olsen's face to the false head and it did not look that drastically different than what is in the released film.

Also I think the plot for The Thing direct to video sequel was ultimately used for The Thing video game that was on PC and XBOX and PS2 and that was actually a pretty decent game.

I liked the film.  I'm a serious John Carpenter fan, and I feel "The Thing" is the best film he's yet to make.  This prequel had a lot of genuine horror to it with the right suspense, tension, and atmosphere.  Where it falls short is creating memorable characters.  It's very hard to rival those in Carpenter's movie, but I feel that's the only significant place where this new movie falls short.  It's worth watching for the good quality horror.  The effects are decent, nothing amazing, but still creepy.

-NJM

I was optimistic about this when I heard of Ron Moore's involvement. Does anyone know why he left?

Others have been asking that. His character is there - then gone from the picture.

I read about that too, the arm bug. The death does makes sense, he did see two of his colleagues die in a very, very bad way.

I honestly don't know, could very well be cut in editing.

"MonkeyBoy, how are you getting this information?"

I've been following this movie since February of 2010. When this flick had an April 29th (2011) release. I'm a fanboy and the '82 film has a very special place in my heart.

I saw the Carpenter reboot in a drive-in (remember those?). I went in blind with my mom and her friend. No idea what I was about to see. In my entire cinematic life I've never been so terrified. I was nine years old. WTF?! I spent much of the film in the back seat, eyes closed - covering my ears (didn't want to hear the screams [on screen or from the audience]) and what is best described, the fetal postion. For that two hours I was messed up!!! It could've been horrible, going to bed that night and having vivid nightmares. Nope, didn't happen. The double bill was Clint Eastwood's "Firefox". By the time that was done, I was all good. Thank you Mr. Eastwood.

Never owned the Carpenter film on cassette, but I did buy the special edition laser disc and twice over on DVD.

Anyhow I've been following the subject for years, back when this was to be a two part mini-series on then called Sci-Fi Channel. I have that teleplay download (completed by Ronald D. Moore in 2009). Then you had that miss Carpenter tale; Fall of 2008, Carpenter and producer Marc Abraham were developing their own prequel (fell apart since JC wanted a budget that Universal wouldn't approve). By the way Abraham went on to produce the '11 version.

I've read every sc**p of info from then and continue to do so...

Here are some links...

Popular Mechanics interview with Tom Woodruff & Alec Gillis of Amalgamated Dynamics, Inc.
http://tinyurl.com/72sap44

Stills from the leaked b-roll footage, showing practical effects and a non CGI ice block
http://tinyurl.com/6tvoodh
http://tinyurl.com/7qxlfet
http://tinyurl.com/6wfnxzz
http://tinyurl.com/7h5n6k2

A gallery of production artwork by Robert Simons who did some of the concept art
http://tinyurl.com/7g2oxeh

Too many sources, they kinda blur now.

There was another cut plot point (2011), food contamination - mentioned by Bennings in the '82 film; everybody preparing their own meals. It happened here... the coffee. You see the beverage tray carried about ominously around the rec room. Kate brings the cup to her lips and almost drinks it, but was busy and puts down the cup.

This is rumor, I have no way (for now) of confirming. Early on there was a mention that did not get repeated. Maybe since it would've been a twist that they wanted to keep under wraps. The events unfold as if they just NOW found the organism and bring in Kate. In the time between her arrival, one or more of the Norwegians have already been overtaken.

This would explain why characters who didn't get exposed become imitations. But I can't say for certain. There were reshoots after the test screenings besides adding CGI. So things get real muddy.

Oh yeah, the introductions to Sam and his friend Jameson was different, they greet Kate and gang at McMurdo (I believe). Plus there was a direct connection to the '82 film. A picture of MacReady hanging on the wall with the words "don't fly with him".

- - -

You are correct Mlcm. It should be analyzing as presented, BUT there is a behind the scenes story that is just as important. And as you can see from the above links, it does exist. Or at least did, lost.

Looks, people bash Kurt Wimmer's 2006 feature, "Ultraviolet". And they have good reason. It's an okay movie, I was entertained. But I wouldn't call it a great motion picure. But there's a huge backstory.

The agreement was to create an R rated film, Wimmer did that. In post-production the studio changed their mind, PG-13. There was a fight and the studio took the movie away from him. The film lost twenty or so minutes (its run time now is eighty-eight minutes), characterization axed and effects redone. This is NOT the feature he made. When people are being so critical, they need to know what lead up to this... mess. The problem is that so little know about it. Their opinion could change knowing what had happened.

The same thing is happening again. People are bashing van Heijningen without knowing the bigger picture. Calling him a liar and far worse. He made a big point saying this much of this flick would be done for real; make-up, puppets and animatronics. The end result is mostly CGI.

It's messed up, man.

By the way, did you know there's a sex toy call the "Sqweel" that resembles that dog tongue flesh flower from the kennel scene (1982)? Ten silicone little tongues on a motorized wheel, creepy. I have subscription to AVN.

Sorry, this turned into a long post.

MonkeyBoy, how are you getting this information? Also, if the film is meant to stand on its own merits, we should be analyzing the text as presented, not a hypothetical version that doesn't exist. When critics analyze a D H Lawrence novel, they tend to examine the published draft, not the disparate and numerous drafts that came before. The text is the text. What is to be studied is what is within the text, not without

I have been a fan of John Carpenter's The Thing since I first saw it on VHS, I have 2 versions of it on DVD as well as the Blu Ray and HD-DVD versions.......

I really like this film, however to pick up on a couple of points made by Monkey Boy, I did get the sense that cuts had been made to character development and I felt that the creature was introduced too early and some of it's attacks were too out in the open where in Carpenter's film it used stealth to acheive it's goals in the main.

However one thing from Monkey Boy's post doesn't make sense to me, if there was only one snowcat left, then how did the creature get to the craft? if it took the snowcat then how did Kate and Carter get there?

Since the creature has been shown to freeze in subzero temperatures and we know that man also suffers the same fate, then they all would have required transportation in order to reach the ship, 2 snowcats make sense......

I will be buying it but I do hope that there is an alternative cut with more character work in it, just to expand upon some of the cast who ere underused.

*sigh*

I've been doing this online for weeks.

Okay.

Universal hired Matthijs van Heijningen, a first time director to exert control over him. By all accounts he did a massive job researching the project. Most of the effects were done practically with some CGI to enhance the finished product. Physical effects were done by Amalgamated Dynamics, Inc. (ADI). CGI work done by Image Engine.

The theatrical release (DVD/Blu) is the b*****d version. And may very well be the only version we ever see (since it bombed at the box office).

The film had a test screening which resulted in the butchering. The audience didn't react at all, silence. The studio thought it was the effects and had all the practical effects overlayed with CGI. Add to that, they cut out character development and pushed the creature's appearance sooner.

This is why I hate test screenings, the concept is fine. I agree with that. But the audience you get is random. You need horror fans for horror movies. RomComs for romantic comedies and so. The results you get are inaccurate.

The rec room scene where one of characters has his face melted into another was done practically. The effect took almost four months to complete. NONE of that is in the final film.

Gone is the bleak ending where Kate is dead. She survived, but will freeze to death (there is no snowcat left, the single vehicle was destroyed killing the beast). The ending now is... ambiguous.

I enjoyed the movie, but I'll be honest. It sucks that we didn't get the see the film as it was intended.

Worse yet, there are some reports that the 'director's cut' was lost. We only have the theatrical. This is 2011, how the hell can a current movie become lost? I guess that could happen it was store TOTALLY digital and that hard drive crashed. But why wouldn't there be additional copies?

I will be buying this. And continuing to point out the reasons why it failed.

And by the way, The Thing was NOT the pilot the craft. The true occupants were three eyed aliens who were explorer. They picked up this creature during their travels. It got out of its pod and infected/overtaking the crew. There was a fight on board, they lost. That's why the ship was wobbling in the 1982 film.

I thought it was good. It makes a great companion piece to the original film. I was surprised by how much detail went into tying this in with Carpenter's film.

This can't be the official artwork. It honestly looks like the tentative artwork for "Rise of the Planet of the Apes." This doesn't look bland, and I'll take it over those CGI covers anyday.