The Thing (2011 prequel early draft script) review…

The Thing (2011 prequel early draft script) review after the break…

The Thing (2011 prequel early draft script) review…

I suppose that I’m old enough now to experience the phenomenon known as the “movie re-boot.” In actuality, I’ve been experiencing this trend for quite some time but only now has the technique become fashionable enough to occur as frequently as it had. Everyone from James Bond to Batman has been re-booted. King Kong and Godzilla have both had modern re-makes.

Some franchises don’t get re-booted, though, but simply get long-awaited sequels. The Star Wars prequels are a popular example of a franchise emerging from movie mothballs to add on to rather then re-make the franchise. “The Godfather Part III” was nearly two decades later then it previous installment. “The Two Jakes” was the long-in-waiting sequel to “Chinatown” while “The Hustler” had to wait a generation before it’s sequel, “The Color of Money.” Recently, two new franchises have added long-awaited installments – “Predators” is, realistically, “Predator 3” while “TRON: Legacy” debuts nearly 28 years after it’s predecessor, “TRON.”

Fans of the franchises obviously have concerns whenever a movie franchise “re-boots.” Lore established during the series initial run may not be taken as canon with the re-boot. Consider the recent re-boot of “Star Trek,” which radically alters the deeply entrenched Star Trek mythos that has taken decades to develop. The television series re-boot of “Battlestar Galactica” created similar controversy when it decided to alter several major aspects of the series, so much so that many fans of the original series sarcastically titled the new offering “Galactica 90210.”

It is hard to imagine that, 28 years ago, the horror movie “The Thing” would become it’s own franchise and yet, if you look at it’s entire history, people would have realized that it was due for another installment. Starting out as a short story, the story was soon turned into a 1950’s movie. Nearly 30 years later, a young director named John Carpenter would update the movie to feature then state-of-the-art special effects. Purveyors of the original short story and movie cried foul to this new gore-filled, blood-soaked re-telling. The movie, having the misfortune to open in a year when a movie about an adorable alien and the boy who finds it swept across theaters, was mostly ignored and any thoughts of a sequel was quickly dismissed.

Like all initially ignored movies, though, it slowly began to gain a cult following during re-issues on VHS and playing in syndication on local television channels. With the rise of DVDs and the Internet, the franchise became popular enough to have it’s own video game (albeit a poorly received one) and premium action figures. Hints about a possible expansion of the franchise has abounded for years. John Carpenter himself once stated he worked on a possible sequel, set immediately after the events of the 1982 “The Thing.” Work was supposedly done on a television mini-series before that project fell through.

Only within the last 18 months has there been actual, concrete statements that an expansion of the franchise, a prequel, been in the works. In fact, as this is written, principal photography has ended and the post-production work on the prequel (the music, special effects and editing) has begun. In a few more months, the prequel (also named “The Thing”) will be hitting theaters near you (or, a few months later depending upon where you live in the world… Or, not a few months later if you pirate the movie off of the internet, which you shouldn’t).

I make no claim that the script that I read was the shooting script for the actual movie. Unless you worked on the movie or are very familiar with someone who worked on the movie, you will never know if a script you read was slightly altered, drastically altered or if the script is completely faked from the actual shooting script. Further still, re-shoots taking place weeks or months after principal photography can greatly alter a film for any number of reasons (for instance, poor audience testing could force a different ending).

Yet the characters in the script match the characters known to exist in the actual film and both the plot of the script and that of the movie are the same: That the story is a prequel and is set within the Norwegian camp where the entire franchise originated. If the script is a complete fake, it is a well-written fake in the regard that it is properly formatted into a movie script.

To re-educate those who have no knowledge of “The Thing” franchise, the story is about an outpost in the Antarctic that is confronted by an alien species with the ability to to take over any life form and duplicate that life form perfectly. Unlike a human body where cells work together, each cell from the alien is it’s own separate life form – Infection is fatal for the host organism. The outpost is eventually blown up in an attempt to eliminate “The Thing,” with the two last survivors wondering at the film’s end if either one is The Thing.

The prequel takes place at the Norwegian base featured in the 1982 film where “The Thing” originates.

In the prequel, three American scientists, along with an American chopper crew, joins the Norwegian outpost just as it’s outbreak of the alien menace is unfolding. As they learn of the menace, they must figure out how to stop the menace (if they can) before they are all “converted” into Things.

Overall, the script does what it needs to do to be a mainstream horror movie. The original was lightly criticized as being a male-only movie with no females in the cast. This prequel has two women, one of which eventually turns into the main heroine. Also, The thing mythos is slightly retconned so that the Norwegian camp is considerably less Norwegian and more international. I was half-surprised when I found out that they couldn’t squeeze a Russian or an Asian into the script just for good measure.

The script is more “Predators” then “Star Wars: Episode I” when tackling it’s subject material, meaning that the script more then casually follows in the footsteps of it’s original source material. To be fair, the two movies for The Thing franchise have similar settings – Each is an arctic outpost in the middle of nowhere. However, one who has seen the 1982 film can not help but, upon reading this script, note more then just a few similarities. For instance, each movie has a scene where the crew sees the transformation of a person into a thing firsthand. Also, each movie has a “group test” scene, where the survivors figure out a test to see who is human and who isn’t. Finally, each movie ends with the utter collapse of the camp.

This prequel has a few disadvantages in that the ending was already written for it. We already know that two Norwegians fail to kill the Dog-Thing. We already know that the Norwegian camp blows up, that people are found frozen and impaled.

Therefore, the movie has to shoehorn into it an actual movie that works around these disadvantages. I strongly suspect that the retconning of the Norwegian camp to make it far less Norwegian was to favor an American audience and also give some broad international appeal. I’m not sure just how many women are going to look at this movie and think to themselves, “Yup, my Friday night has just been filled” simply because a woman gets a major role and turns out to be the lead hero never mind the lead heroine. Maybe the scriptwriter had seen the movie “Aliens” one too many times. After all, how realistic is it in the early 1980’s to have a lot of women roaming around the Antarctic?

Even though the script needed to account for the usual “You can’t call anyone or travel anywhere” (in this case, opening the UFO causes both because of some sort of magnetic disturbance), it still felt forced and out of place. Yes, you can’t have characters simply walk away but, at the same time, was the mere act of opening the UFO enough to justify both?

A lot of the script reads like it is trying to hit purposeful beats, as though the notes that the scriptwriter got back are literally addressed in sudden chunks of script. For instance, the script wants to acknowledge that it is the 1980’s by having both a Rubik’s Cube and an episode of the TV series “Mork and Mindy” playing. As though to belabor the point that we are back in the 1980’s, there is a brief and none-too-subtle discussion of the movie “Star Wars.” Did the original 1982 movie have to go to these lengths? Hardly. MacReady played a computer chess game on a period computer of it’s time and Windows read a period magazine.

There are nice touches throughout this script that pay homage to the 1982 movie without outright copying it. A picture of MacReady early on is subtle but distinct. The “new rule” about how Things copy life forms, that they can’t copy inorganic metals, was a nice feature and is a nice complement to the original “Every cell is it’s own living animal” rule.

Yet there are so many instances in this script where you simply feel like you’re reading an updated version of the 1982 film. For instance, Carter is the new MacReady; Sanders is the new Blair; etc. so forth. Copper is killed on suspicion that he’s an alien (he wasn’t) and, in this script, a similar fate befalls a character. The alien in the original movie tries to make it’s own spaceship while the alien in this script literally tries to take the original spaceship. Finally, there’s a “twist” ending that simply leaves a lot to be desired and opens up more loopholes then it closes. While I won’t spoil it directly, why would a Thing, all alone with a human, continue it’s ruse even while knowing that it is the last human around? It makes no sense.

“The Thing” is an ironic script – It is a script about a creature that imitates other creatures, which itself imitates a pretty good script that does the exact same thing. I find myself wondering just why I would want to wade into a movie theater to see a film that I’ve already seen that I already have on DVD. Perhaps this reasoning is why “Predators” had such a lackluster box office run – Because it was simply “Predator” with better special effects. I fear that the same thing will befall this movie as well given it’s script.

Advertisements

39 Responses to “The Thing (2011 prequel early draft script) review…”

  1. Blog Do Gabriel Says:

    I think the thing 2011 will be more a homage to the original than a original movie, but since the movie inself is now a cult i think the homage is well come, copy or not, its good to see the noregian camp events, the thing spaceship, but the true is, if this movie make money enough to universal, maybe we see the thing spread across, maybe another movie or serie, and i think that is not the way to the thing continue.

    nice post by the way and salutes from Brazil

  2. Lutonaut Says:

    Thank you for visiting my blog.

    Having now seen second-rate copies of the latest trailer for this movie, it appears as though there are some “New York City” scenes at the introduction of the film. These scenes were not included in the “leaked” script that I was given, as those characters were introduced getting off of a plane that had landed in Antarctica. In my opinion, the Antarctica introduction for the characters feels better then if we first meet the characters in a city setting because it is a tighter script and gets into the story quicker.

    However, to be fair, an introductory city setting would also allow the movie to establish the fact that it is still the 1980’s and therefore eliminate (again, in my opinion) a redundant scene (or two) later on in the script that has some very forced 1980’s references in them.

    We shall see how the film succeeds.

    Again, thank you for visiting my blog.

  3. Blog Do Gabriel Says:

    Hi, in the leaked trailer the first scene in the trailer maybe could be the first scene of the movie, (maybe, showing the spaceship fallem from another point of view will be nice) but for all the material gathering from the internet i think the movie will have a good impact, lets cross finger, because this movie is the chance of universal getting back his prestige(and lots of money, of course), by the way, any ideas when the universal will release a trailer, i´m crazy to see…

    thanks buddy, see ya…

  4. Hugooagogo Says:

    A collection of modern movie characters forego their modeling contracts to journey to MacMurdo and be upstaged by a gorgeous looking fossil digger as they are manipulated to demise in exactly a way that fits the exposition of Carpenter’s The Thing.

  5. Uyen Says:

    Was the script you reviewed written by Ron Moore or Eric Heisserer?

    • Lutonaut Says:

      Thank you for reading my blog. I apologize for the delay.

      If I remember correctly, it claimed to have been written by Eric Heisserer although there was some question as to how much “Heisserer” there was in it. I no longer have the script although, judging by the brief “semi-teaser” trailer released, an introductory city scene has already been added to the movie that was not in the script that I read.

      Again, thank you for reading my blog and I apologize for the delay in replying to you.

  6. Big Ike Says:

    The New York scene is a cool touch to make it connect to our world and remind us whets at stake. The Thing works best with Carpenters formula isolation, hostile envoirment, and mistrust. Sure its going to hit the similar notes of 1982s version but it be cool to see it again with todays tech. But The Thing wont be as clear in this one because its learning. I Carpenter’s Thing it knew how to stay in the background. I think at worst it will be a fun popcorn flick, if done right it can come close to carpenters and or a classic

  7. Big Ike Says:

    plus if they want to make it a franchise you would have to start here, I think the 2011 world is ready for “The Thing” vs in 1982. I notice my father who was soo hyped it was coming out, he saw the 1951s version and he loved Alien, he surprsingly hated 1982s version. But i was 7 and i thought it equal Alien and fear factor topped it. But it appear my generation loved it now we are making the movies the director of this is huge fan and only few years older so, I think its time. If any sequels just pick up from Carpenters.

    • Lutonaut Says:

      Hi and thanks for reading my blog.

      We shall see how modern audiences and critics react to the “Prequel Thing” soon enough. Any movie, no matter how awful, will always have it’s adherents. “The Thing” was once regarded as such a film, with contemporary critics shunning the movie as being too gory and violence-laden while contemporary audiences decided to adore a friendlier alien who liked Reese’s Pieces. Over time, the 1982 Thing became well-regarded amongst mainstream critics and audiences alike. It may be several years after the release of “Prequel Thing” before a generally-accepted consensus of the movie emerges.

      However, there are some elements concerning “Prequel Thing” that I generally dislike, based upon the information I’ve obtained about it. First and foremost is the “retconning” of the Norwegian camp into a multi-culturally diverse camp, complete with gender balance. I understand that Hollywood is a business and everyone enjoys paying their bills on time and in full; The international box office has considerable might and demographically-narrow films rarely perform well enough there to generate a profit. If 1982 Thing, though, can become a considerably perpetual draw with an all-male, all-American, mostly-white, mostly-unknown cast… Why can’t similar success occur with a genuine Norwegian camp filled with… Norwegians? I find the retconning very distasteful and very crass, especially to the die-hard fans of the original who kept that film alive on life support for so many years until the film reached the tipping point where the fan base began to grow.

      Writing a prequel or a sequel to a renown film such as “The Thing” is akin to a backhanded punishment because some faction of the film’s fan base is not going to be satisfied (see: Phantom Menace, The) regardless of what is done. Sometimes, like in the case of the movie “TRON”, you just have to let some franchises go. You can’t resuscitate them all and sometimes they just work better as a solo effort.

      We shall see, though – It would be fantastic to be proven wrong and that you can, to mutilate the phrase, really go home again.

      Again, thank you your comment and for reading my blog.

  8. Frank Kling Says:

    From what I understand “The Thing” prequel remains consistent with the characteristics that made the original movie incredible so I will be seeing the movie and encouraging all of my friends to do the same!

  9. Big Ike Says:

    Does anyone know when the offical trailer for The Thing is coming out?

  10. Ilpalazzo Says:

    Frank Kling – the ‘characteristics’ that made the original movie incredible where the actual characters and the actors that portrayed them. I will go ahead and say it now, the actors in the new one, like ALL actors this generation, will suck. And no amount of CGI effects will deter from scenes you’ll want to fast forward because of horrid cardboard acting.

  11. gabriel Says:

    yeah, maybe this new generations of actors suck, but i think as a fan, maybe we should have a leap of faith in this new movie because this can be a new chance to see these great monsters films of the 80 back, yes maybe this movie can be a total failure or not, i will look forward and hope to see in the theathers a great movie and perhaps we see the beginning of a new generations of monsters movie back, so folks, lets cross finger and hope for the best…

  12. Zach Says:

    The question I keep asking myself is if this is a story that needs to be told. I can’t think of a good prequel movie. This just seems like another attempt by Hollywood to get a lot of money. I really hope they don’t use CGI. What made the John Carpenter one so great was the non computer effects. I can only pray that whoever is directing chooses to minimize the use of CGI. The Thing was the scariest movie I had ever seen as a child, and I was really disappointed to hear them making a prequel. Thanks for the blog!

    • Lutonaut Says:

      Hi Zach and thank you for reading my blog.

      I can only surmise that they will use CGI to some degree. I do not hold the passion that some people have for this topic; If used correctly, CGI can greatly enhance a director’s ability to convey a story as originally envisioned. People often forget that past directors have made use of technologies that were cutting edge in their time. Those directors, had they been given the opportunity, would have also been disposed to use CGI as well. I will write that I always appreciate movies that utilize older forms of special effects as such a dedication is often an artistic one. For instance, while I am not a fan of “dark and edgy” stop-motion animation, I do appreciate efforts involving stop-motion animation, even if it does have severe limitations in comparison to CGI. I would enjoy seeing more efforts involving stop-motion animation if they did not involve “dark and edgy” imagery that Hollywood deems necessary in order to attract the largest possible PG-13 crowd.

      I must admit that, at this point, I am almost indifferent to the idea of this “reboot-prequel.” It certainly sounds like it was made for more of an international, broad-based appeal audience which is a markedly different direction then the original. Unfortunately, Hollywood can not ignore reality and the reality is that the overseas market for movies is extraordinarily lucrative if you fashion a film a certain way. For instance, the film “Prince of Persia” performed poorly in the United States but recovered considerably in the overseas market. Also, despite lukewarm (for the franchise) business domestically, the latest “Pirates” movie has performed spectacularly in the foreign market.

      Regardless, when the film is eventually released, all of these questions whether or not too much CGI was used or whether the film pandered too much to a crowd who doesn’t appreciate the original as much as it’s fans do will be answered and many people will have many opinions about it. Until then, we can only wait…

      Again, thank you for reading my blog.

  13. Linda Pennings Says:

    I found the latest trailer. To be honest, it doesn’t look very promising. The trailer itself is already a bad cut and it feels that the acting is no better than a B-movie. I hope i am mistaken as I am a huge fan of the two old movies of The Thing.
    See the trailer here:

    • Lutonaut Says:

      Hi Linda and thank you for reading my blog.

      There are several aspects of this prequel that, if true, I am not overly enthused about. I understand, though, that what Thing fans want and what is economically feasible to sell to the worldwide market are most likely drastically different from one another. As the premiere of this movie moves closer, I find myself becoming more disinterested. I think it’s safe to say that everyone wants to be pleasantly surprised but are bracing for the worst. Thank you for providing a link to the trailer.

      Again, thank you for reading my blog.

  14. Blake S. Davis Says:

    A bit disappointed in a prequel since we know how it ends. But, I consider Carpenter’s movie to be one of the best “B” horor sf movies of all time –

  15. andreas Says:

    I am a huge fan of the short story as well as both previous versions of The Thing. I am one who believes the scariest movies are the ones which could actually be true. Of course there are other entities out there in the universe. Who knows what they look like, behave, or what values they have. So I appreciate sci-fi movies like these. I don’t expect a lot from the prequel, but I will support it anyway.

  16. Hunter Says:

    It would be great if somebody did an outright sequel set a year or two after the original set say in a random small community who go about their lives unknowingly that they could be the last ‘humans’ left on the planet, several members travel in and out each day for work and also say some visitors enter town. Imagine the distrust when after a few strange goings on the thing is caught mid-transformation. Then they being to realise all is not ok with the outside world with inconsisencies with news broadcasts ect, are the visitors human? Are the guys who travel out of town the carriers ect? I’m good characters could be created in this scenario. And it would take the ‘franchise’ in another direction from the antartic settings giving it its own identity. I’ve just thought of this on the spot so I’m sure with some care a professional screenwriter could develop a good structure for a sequal which compliments yet builds on the orignial instead of being a like for like rehash in Antartica.

    • Lutonaut Says:

      Hi Hunter and thank you for reading my blog.

      I read a treatment for a two-part mini-series that was being planned by USA Networks that was somewhat similar to what you were describing. While, obviously, that proposal fell through (and, as a result, we’ll never know what kind of revisions would have been made to the treatment prior to shooting), it did feature a “What if The Thing got out into civilization?” scenario. Unfortunately, I’m not sure the current version of the treatment that I read resolved that question very well although, to be fair, the demands of a non-R-rated TV mini-series is probably an unfair restraint on The Thing’s intellectual property. One fundamental limitation concerning The Thing is that the villain is so powerful (can turn into anything, can create improvised creatures, only needs to infect someone a little to win, can spread rapidly) that you need a lot of external limitations (geographic environment, social isolation, etc.) in order for the opposing force to have a fair chance in defeating it. The mini-series treatment that I read about would probably cause a lot of Thing purists to be up in arms as it took a lot of liberties with The Thing’s abilities in order to make a “Thing versus Small Isolated Town” dramatically feasible.

      Again, thank you for reading my blog.

      • hunter Says:

        To be honest a 2 part TV miniseries under the constraints of mainstream non-R rated broadcast means it was probably for the best tha tthe project wasn’t greenlit. Although perhaps the notion of the Things abilities to manipulate any living organsim to spread and conquer prey (such as bacteria ect) would mean cold Antartica isolation would indeed be the last hope of humans evading being assimulated – so the isolated community setting probably wouldn’t be feasible with this in mind. Perhaps the only logical way would be that The Thing would be allergic to a certain strain of dna/blood type ect which would either mean some humans cannot be assimilated or the replicants are somehow identifable to the remaining humans (not by x-ray sunglasses or anything like that – athough that is another Carpenter film which could be exanded upon given the right script and talent).

        As for the CGI argument I agree that the latest technologies should be used for SFX. Used subtly they do add to an experience, but shouldn’t be overused for the sake, you can spot a green screen set a mile off.

  17. Graham Schmidt Says:

    This movie just shows that Hollywood is full of writers that have no creative ideas of their own. Yes John Carpenter “Re made” The Thing but he pretty much gutted it and made it his own. This 2011 version is pretty much the same movie but ironically with worse special effects.. Blue screens and computer techs ruin gory movies like the thing…because….its cheap and quick…I mean why would anyone want to take there time and show an interest in old time special effects(1982 Thing). Thats why this movie will be forgotten about in 10 years and the 82 version will keep on keepin on.

    • Lutonaut Says:

      Hi Graham and thank you for reading my blog.

      Unfortunately, writers and directors are often not the driving force in Hollywood but producers, movie studios and the money that is behind them. Movies are huge financial risks and, like gambling, most do not make a significant profit to justify the enormous amount of risk and capital involved.

      I can not completely disregard CGI special effects – People must remember that forward-thinking directors have always used the latest technologies for their time. Had 1977 George Lucas been given the option of using physical effects or CGI, he would have used CGI. Had 1982 John Carpenter had the same option, he would have also used CGI. If you pulled aside James Cameron today and gave him a choice of using the CGI technologies of today or those that are developed 40 years from now, he would most definitely use the future CGI. Having written all of that, CGI is like any other tool – If used judiciously in conjunction with a good script, good directing, good production values and good acting, then it is seamlessly integrated and becomes part of a worthwhile film. Too often, CGI is often used as the “MSG” of a production, covering up deficiencies in other areas of a movie. Also, CGI has yet to mature whereby they look synonymous with physical effects.

      So, yes – I agree with you that CGI is often an inferior choice for special effects. To blame CGI solely for a movie being horrible would not be fair to CGI – Bad movies are as much a team effort as a good movie.

      I have a feeling that this latest version of “The Thing” will not deter my opinion that the 1982 Thing was a very good movie and worthy of it’s continued Cult status.

      Again, thank you for reading my blog.

    • Mr.Will Says:

      Just to say, Carpenter’s version is a classic, but not completely his own idea – I remember thinking it followed the short story pretty much to the letter (updating it only to include a weary vietnam vet character!).
      Im actually encouraged by this remake/reboot as it seems to be trying to add to the lineage rather than rebrand it as cool and modern. And while I agree, most CGI cannot compare with good camera trickery (seeing Lou Ferrigno shot from overhead with a fisheye lens while he stands over a little girl is FAR more powerful than any CGI version of the HULK), the old school has its limitations too – nobody was ever convinced by stop down motion! I’m ready to see this one!

  18. BFGLOOM Says:

    Anyway you can spoil us or atleast ME with the ending…? In the end the thing is left alone w only one human left. but who and how?

    • Lutonaut Says:

      Hi BFGLOOM and thank you for reading my blog.

      Sure – Let me reveal the ending… The Thing escapes as a dog and is chased by two Norwegians in a helicopter. 🙂 Sorry. I couldn’t resist.

      In all seriousness, I’m hoping that the ending that I read is ultimately different then what is in the movie. After the movie premieres, I’ll be happy to reveal the ending that I read in the script. I will provide one tiny hint about the ending that I read, though… Ears. That’s all I’ll write about that.

      Again, thank you for reading my blog.

  19. BFGLOOM Says:

    Ears? Can u email it to me maybe? I read scripts before seeing thr film all the time, Im faily certain they changed the ending anyway. Who r the last two people? The human which is who and the thing, pretending to be?

  20. Anito Says:

    Congratulations !!! Your blog is amazing and your post, very very interesting.
    Well, in the trailler says the same producers of Dawn of the Dead, but not
    the same director Zack Snyder, of this movie.
    I like girls with strong personality in these sci-fi movies and I hope another
    “Ripley” comes back in this one. Sigourney Weaver forever …

  21. BFGLOOM Says:

    Ok so U meant ears as in Carter…….They show that IN THE TRAILER dude…….You could have spoiled that. And YES, the ending is still in the script somewhat.

  22. BFGLOOM Says:

    Film i meant

  23. Patrick Friel Says:

    I worked at a restaurant in Burbank when the 1982 version was released. One of the writers on Bill Lancaster’s team shared with me an ending that was ultimately shelved.
    After his rescue and return to the States and “recovery” in the hospital MacReady’s character provides a preview of what the sequel has to offer. Think “Contagion” on some bad-ass monster ‘roids.
    As for Rob Bottin’s monster effects they were considered gross in an extremely obnoxious way. Summing it up better than myself, a middle aged couple sitting behind me had the man observe to his wife: “Oh God, I never thought that watching after birth explode all over the place was to be considered entertainment.” That pretty much said it for middle-America. Audiences were turned off and ticked off so, when describing what they saw to their friends ( this is where “word of mouth” comes in) they didn’t exactly convey what Carpenter/Bottin envisioned.

  24. Lutonaut Says:

    Hello Everyone, and thank you for reading my blog.

    While I usually attempt to answer non-spam, non-ridiculous replies individually, it seems that “The Thing 2011” is generating a lot of buzz here on my blog. As a result, there’s also a lot of replies and replying to each and every one of them would involve a lot more time then I would usually invest.

    First, I’d like to apologize if anyone’s comments aren’t being displayed immediately. I know how frustrating it is to write an impassioned or informed opinion and then not see it show up. I’ve written those types of replies and have experienced being silenced in that form. However, my delays in displaying your posts are not intentional but work- and “real life”-related. This blog is not the beginning nor end to my day and, sometimes, I may not even log into it for a week or two at a time.

    Second, I do not know how the movie ends, just how it ends in an early draft of the script. There are plenty of websites that reveal the endings to movies even before those movies premiere – Search Engines are your friend. I’m going to make the decision to be respectful to the movie’s participants by not revealing the ending that I read until after the movie premieres in the United States.

    Again, thank you everyone for reading my blog.

  25. BFGLOOM Says:

    Obviously there are LOTS of sites if I said I read scripts prior to the films release………Whats the point in the late reply when the ending was already found anyway….? And AGAIN, its the same ending!!! Its SHOWN in EVERY TRAILER for the film! You can clearly see Carter being lit on fire inside of the truck, not much of a spoiler at all actually. After it premieres they’ll have already seen the ending or read the rewrite of the script like I did.

  26. Conan Wright Layton Says:

    Nice blog!

    I, for one, am interested in the premake but I will take what it has to offer with a grain of salt. Nowadays, it seems more appropriate to wait for the DVD/Blu-ray release because usually they have some form of a director’s cut that potentially fixes any mistakes in the plot from the original theatrical run.

    So far, the reviews of The Thing 2011 have not been kind. However, I will not pass judgement until I’ve learnt that some deleted or altered scenes may be offered in a future home release.

    By the way, I think the best remake of John Carpenter’s The Thing was from 1993 in The X-Files episode called ‘Ice’. It’s a great homage and superbly crafted. You should view it sometime if you already haven’t.

  27. Lutonaut Says:

    Hello Everyone and thank you for reading my blog.

    OK, the movie has premiered and I promised that I would reveal the ending I read in the script. Although I have not seen the movie, the ending of the movie and the script appear to be the same – Carter is an alien and what’s her name can tell the difference because the earring is on a different ear. The woman and Carter are the last two alive (discounting the two Norwegians who go after the dog in order to keep the beginning of the 1982 movie), with Carter being killed.

    Feel free to vent, pro or con about the film. Feel free to discuss with spoilers or without. Do make an attempt to keep the discussion civil; I’m not afraid of deleting comments so please don’t put me in that position.

    Again, thanks to everyone for reading my blog.

  28. DeadKarl Says:

    Saw it today. Loved John Carpenter’s, liked this one pretty much. Can’t figure out why the alien would return to the spaceship and try to start it. If the alien could do that, why didn’t it do it when it crashed 100,000 years ago?

  29. DTG Reviews Says:

    I still like John Carpenter’s THE THING, which is truer to its source material John W. Campbell, Jr.’s pulp sci-fi story, “Who Goes There?” but this prequel is pretty good too mixing thrills with laughs in a cleverly plotted story.

  30. BigIke Says:

    I liked the Prequel. Pretty good. Now its not on the level of 1982’s “The Thing”. What it lacked was suspense . Now the tooth test scene that was very suspenseful, and the beat of encrino’s theme humanity music with out the melody very good. But the other Thing-outs were too easy. I do get it the thing was learning, thats why the dog-thing stayed hidden the whole time. Kate was great. The movie had some terrific actors but short and thin parts. Adam he could have floored us with comedy , until his demise, mis-direction with Giggles cool, but we see him Thing out in the trailer. Jullette wow, they could try to dragg out her thing out, they could have walked to another room, and then discuss more on the plan of action, then they could had person walk up and act suspicious, man tons of stuff. Now todays audience lack the patience for suspense, more into gore, but gore is not scary, suspense the monster in your head is always scary than the monster ythe movie provides for you. Carter -thing cool touch a bit of a stretch. Since no clothes were ripped. But putting those things together can give us a possible answer to Childs, most likely he was a thing, since the thing can take over with out rip clothes. And since that dog-thing was so patient one can assume Blair was a thing all along wanting to be alone by acting crazy. The other factor its not as scary is that as isolated as we thought, a hidden Russian base not far, and American base from Carpenter, so it makes Antartica pretty populated, where as Kurt we felt he was all alone when the Blair-thing attacked him. But it was pretty good would be interesting to see if they make a 3rd 1 with kate and Mac.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: