Wait a Minute - The Thing Remake is Actually a Prequel?!

September 13, 2008
Source: Latino Review

The Thing

We've known about the remake of John Carpenter's The Thing that's been in development for a while, but we haven't ever actually written about it before, what a shame. So now that Latino Review has brought some exciting news on the remake today, I thought it would be a great time to write about it. George Roush talked with producer Marc Abraham recently and was able to chat with him about the remake -- but wait, it's not a remake. So what is it? "This is more of a prequel than a sequel… it's going to be taking place in the same time frame." So what exactly does that mean we'll see? Abrams explained that this film will show "the events leading up to the 1982 film." Very smart move on Abraham's part.

I've you've been living a secluded life and haven't ever actually seen The Thing, it's about scientists in the Antarctic that are confronted by a shape-shifting alien. In the film, we're introduced to an American research team (led by Kurt Russell) that is sent to investigate a Norwegian research team that was massacred by the alien. As far as we know, the origin of the alien and/or how it got to earth was never revealed. As George predicts, this prequel might show us how the alien got here and the story about the Norwegian scientists who were killed before we joined in. For reasons I can't exactly explain, this sounds pretty badass and I'll admit that I'm genuinely excited to see this movie come together in this way.

I know that The Thing is one of those classic thrillers that falls into the category of films that should never, ever be remade. And that's why this news is not only a relief but actually quite intriguing to hear about. As long as Abraham gets a strong writer and a director than can compete with John Carpenter (if that's even possible?), then we've got nothing to worry about. Maybe it'll start off with the arrival of the alien and jump ahead to the time when the 1982 film took place - which to me sounds like a perfect idea for a modern day prequel. This is the only update that Latino Review has on this remake, so for now, we'll be waiting to hear more. What do you make of this news? Does a prequel sound better than a remake?

Find more posts: Hype, Movie News, Opinions



you spelled IF wrong, you said I've. lol anyway, im pretty excited about this, loved The Thing, so this should be good.

ck on Sep 13, 2008


I adore The Thing, it's in my Top 5 of all time, so I'm delighted this is a prequel rather than a remake. The original is absolutely classic, and gave plenty of scope for fitting a prequel into the storyline - the idea that The Things had been coming here for thousands of years... I'll definitely be looking out for this one. When is it supposed to be out?

Tied to this fucking couch! on Sep 13, 2008


This sounds like a bad idea. The Thing is a classic;it does not need a prequel.We don't need to know how the alien got there. No doubt all the effects will be CGI (yuck). Lets try something original people.

Agent X on Sep 13, 2008


Don't forget that The Thing itself IS a remake.

vegeta on Sep 13, 2008


THATS IT!!! IM GONNA FUCKING KILL SOMEONE!!!!! Some movies you just leave alone. This is my 2nd favorite movie of all time. LEAVE IT ALONE HOLLYWOOD!!!

REAL6 on Sep 13, 2008


The Thing is a remake already so I am glad its not another remake. A prequel would be nice because the stuff that always interests me is the "before" story in situations like that. As much as I like being dumped into a situation that I just gave to deal with ... I still have questions and I'm very curious. The movie does show you them finding the ship in the snow, and how big it is, etc ... in that grainy film they find. So you have some idea. A prequel though is pretty much going to end up being a repeat of what we saw Kurt's team go through ...

E on Sep 13, 2008


But what about the orginal??? The one with Matt Dillion?

D-9 on Sep 13, 2008


Yeah I agree "E" it would be pretty much like Kurts team finding the dog, and going through all the shit they did. Also the Thing arrived on Earth in a UFO its the first scene in the film. (Ah so we know how it got here)

790 on Sep 13, 2008


Abrams explained that this film will show "the events leading up to the 1982 film." Very smart move on Abraham's part. ^^^might want to fix that^^^

Christopher on Sep 13, 2008


I'm very glad to hear that they're not remaking it (a remake of a remake would just be silly). I've always wondered about the events leading up to the beginning of The Thing, so this prequel sounds like an awesome idea to me.

Drew on Sep 13, 2008


A prequel sounds like some more spin. Like re-imagining. Of course if it's good, I'm for it. But that's the big question.

Piper on Sep 13, 2008


first, The Thing IS NOT a remake...the Howard Hawks film borrowed very little from the original story "Who Goes There?"..John Carpenter's version should be considered the "original" in that it follows very closely the original story and characters...couple more errors on your synopsis, Alex...Kurt Russel wass not the expedition leader...he was just the helo pilot...the American research team only sent some guys to check on the Norwegians after the incident with the dog...prior to that they were just 2 seperate research teams doing scientific stufff in the to a sequel/prequel, what can they do different except to change the group of people who get all digested by the alien??? doubt it wil be all that interesting...Carpenter's version can stand alone....

moldybread on Sep 13, 2008


@ vegeta - THANK YOU! @ moldybread - John Carpenter's vision may have remained closer to the original source material, but it is definitely a remake of The Thing from Another World. I've seen both films and while I prefer Carpenter's version, they both have many similarities. I personally think that part of the film's charm is the unknown. The audience never really knows what the alien is or where it came from and I think that's important to what makes Carpenter's version so great.

poormovietaste on Sep 13, 2008


the original was absolutely terrifying

twispious on Sep 13, 2008


The Thing is the one movie I saw more than 10 times when it came out. I grew up in NYC and we would see this thing every day for over a week! It was amazing and probably John Carpenters best movie besides Halloween and Escape from New York. This movie and Rick Bakers amazing special effects work was one of a kind. Who can ever forget the couch scene when everyone was tied up, that was pure madness!!!! Amazing classic movie and one of my top 5 movies of all time..... As for the prequel, great idea as we didn't get the full story in the 1982 movie. Awesome!

bronxkid on Sep 13, 2008


Whoa too fast, Rick did makeup on this flick , The Thing with Two Heads! Not the Thing....... He played a gorilla in this movie.

bronxkid on Sep 13, 2008


In the opening title scene it clearly shows an alien spacecraft crashing into the earths atmosphere, thats were it came from

david a on Sep 14, 2008


Moldybread. Argueing that the 1982 film is the original would have made Jean Baudrillard smile. It's very hyper-real, "a copy with no original." It is not a slam in the least, just an observation. As for a prequel, we will see. It sounds like an okay idea, but if done poorly it could be Sci-Fi channel craptastic.

goudos on Sep 14, 2008



alex on Sep 14, 2008


Wherever you stand on the 1982 version being a remake or not (I think of it as another adaptation of the same story), it's without question the definitive version. So remaking it would be beyond pointless. A prequel is infinitely preferable.

Daaaave on Sep 14, 2008


I'd prefer a prequel or a sequel rather than a remake. The "original" '82 version is about as perfect as you can possibly get that premise onto film. A remake would be pointless. A prequel/sequel might add something worthwhile to the overall story, though that's a bit unlikely.

kevjohn on Sep 15, 2008


True, in essence we already were told in the 1982 film that the alien came from a crash landing space ship. BUT... The ship appeared to be in a state of disarray, probably cause by the alien (the "thing") wreaking havoc on the ship which probably belonged to another intelligent alien life form. How/where/when did they get introduced the the "thing?" What do they look like and where might they have been heading? A side note here too, is that they do determine due to the dept of the ice that the ship and the organism was found in the the ship arrived here on Earth something on the order of tens of thousands of years ago. The character played by Ed Grimly explained some of his scientific analysis of the alien based on his brief studies which clued to us some behavioral patterns of the "thing." Later on, Kurt Russell's character breaks it down that the "thing" is not the sum of all it's parts but all of it parts are individually intelligent. They all shared the ability to act together or not to survive. To me this realization was alluding to the audience that the "thing" was indeed a communal, unicellular organism similar to corrals but with an obvious deadly twist. So what is the "thing" really? What does it really look like? Remember, in the 1982 film we were shown a bunch of morphology but they were all attempts by the "thing" to use "adapted" morphology as a means to absorb other organisms and escape when cornered. In other words, it would use imitation in whole or in part. Hopefully the prequel answers some of these questions!

Dave on Sep 15, 2008


Prequel would be pointless because we don't need a hyperliteral explanation of how the alien got there. The very beginning of the 1982 movie explains it. Carpenter's version is amazingly close to the 1930s short story "Who Goes There" on which both "Things" are based by John Campbell. If it is necessary to do a followup of any kind, it would be what happens to whoever subsequently discovers the wrecked and frozen base.

Boomzilla on Sep 15, 2008


I agree Boomzilla,,, most prequels are a waste of time anyway. Thank Lucas for the prequel !!! Yeah thanks.

790 on Sep 15, 2008


A friend of mine actually had a 2-part comic which was the sequel to the 1982 film and explained what happened after the exploision with Macready n Childs sitting in the snow. They ended up getting rescued by a search team and where on a ship of some kind on the ocean. Some of the crew were infected and Childs ended up dying somehow as well. Always thought that was going to end up as the film sequel. Anyhow they should not bother with a prequel. I've really found that news to be somewhat anti climactic!!

Mr P on Sep 18, 2008


If anyone should make a prequel, it should be the Norwegians!

Flosi on Sep 30, 2008


Well, reguardless, this is a picture that still has lots of potential. Has to be rated 'R' or they shouldn't bother.

Moonty on Oct 4, 2008


I think it would be agreat idea. will we would be able to see all the chaos that happened at the Norwegian's outpost. but will the movie be in english?

Said on Oct 5, 2008


but will the movie be in english? Yup. But with DIALECT!!!!! (you it's foreign and stuff...)

drasimov on Oct 12, 2008


First and for most I think The THING is by fair the number one scary flim out there fair more real then Alien and I would say it would be a great idea to have a prequl yes at the start of the film you do see the UFO come down to earth but what happen's from there like how does it all happen on the first out post for the Norwegians like how do they see it is it a form of a dog like the US Post or is it something differnt and how does it all start out), Yes we all know what happen to the US Post but how did it all start ? Think about that they go up and go to the Norwegians post and they ck out the inside like alot of stuff went on blood and Ice on the body's dead for who know's how long the paper work that the Doctor took the Alien that was outside the Norwegians post and then they take it back to study what happen. There is alot more to this story then meets the eye and I think by fair they need to go for it with a Perqul by fair. Yes this is a classic but the story is not done in my book and when they end making this they need to go with a old school style (NO CGI) they need to go 35 fram by fram and have the film the same way they had it in 1983.

Mr. G- on Nov 26, 2008


Maybe I'm optimistic, but I see great possibilities here. I've always known The Thing is the only movie that will ever scare me. The monster, the organism, is terrifying, the kind of thing that borders on impossible, yet somewhere out there in the universe waiting for us could be something just like it. I can sort of understand people's reluctance to see something made that doesn't do the original justice, but that's similar to never wanting to have sex again because it probably won't be as good as that night 3 years ago.. Here's what I'm thinking: We never found out whether all the men (and maybe women?) in the Norwegian camp were killed or taken over by The Thing. Maybe some of them had left for some reason. Granted, it would have been a bad time when they were expecting the blizzard, but maybe things weren't going well for them even before they thawed the original alien. Maybe the UFO was emitting some kind of signal that was interfering with communications on all frequencies and they realized they were short on some supplies before the blizzard hit, so they headed out toward the next camp over. Upon returning to their camp with supplies, they saw the the same aftermath that we saw. By that time, they may have had no alternatives but to bunker in there during the blizzard. During that time maybe they don't see any of the living moving organisms, but they can tell that some kind of massacre or mass insanity happened. They can't help but wonder if it might be related to the alien somehow, maybe an alien virus that causes insanity in humans. When the blizzard dies down, they head out toward the American base. As they get there, they find Macready and Childs both in bad shape from exposure to the cold. Macready, even on the edge of unconsciousness, eyes them with suspicion and can barely speak what he's trying to say, that they all need to take the test. Macready passes out and wakes up to see that the Nowegians have him in one of the structures that wasn't totally destroyed, the building patched up a bit using some of the wreckage. He suddenly becomes alert and grabs the nearest weapon-like object he can find, then calms down a bit when he realizes that so far the norwegians aren't showing signs of hostility or transformation. They've found some way to heat the small building temporarily (this may be a stretch; I tend to think I could devise a way to keep warm, but then, I've never been in such extreme temperatures). And where am I going with this? They get rescued. The helicopter pilot who brings them back is an old friend of Macready's, which is lucky for Macready, because he has something extremely important to tell the world before it's too late. He realizes that the whole area needs a good nuking and he's deadset on it. The rest is predictable to some degree, but that certainly doesn't mean the next movies would have to be predictable in the way they play out. Obviously, the government doesn't nuke the areas of infection. At least, not until they get plenty of samples and the spaceship. They're all brought to the nearest "area51-like" secret facility. Macready, Childs (if he survived exposure to the cold), and the norwegians are held there and tested for infection. After being there for months, Macready runs into his friend, the pilot, who tells him he had been involved in the UFO transport and he heard that they had a run-in with The Thing on-board and it took losing several military men to it before they had decided to torch everything inside and completely sterilize the interior before moving it. Upon hearing this, Macready is pissed off that they didn't listen to him. His friend tries to calm him down and assures him that the government realizes what it's doing and what it is they're dealing with. Macready assures him they don't. End of prequel. The sequel proves Macready right. Okay, it's a really rough outline for a plot that could use some tweaking, but this is about how I've thought a sequel could unfold. We'd need to find someone who can act the part of Macready, and okay, someone to act the part of Childs, assuming he survived. I'd like to see both survive, but it might work better if only one did, because then there's only a single voice that the military is deciding to ignore. And I don't want to see either of them infected, at least not in the beginning of the sequel. The original actors are so much older now that I'm afraid it just wouldn't work to have them reprise their roles. Probably it would be better to find some younger actors who look and can act the parts well.

Turpin on Jan 27, 2009


I thought I should add, it's going to be really difficult to treat a prequel properly. As far as I know, we more or less knew everything we needed to know about the Norwegian camp. But if part of the reason is to set up some important story elements that we weren't aware of for a sequel to be possible, then it would be better justified. Personally, I would have preferred sequels. Yes, plural, sequelS. But understand, I'm talking about sequels with excellent stories each as bone chilling and isolating in each its own way as the first. And we should never feel completely safe. And we should always jump out of our seats when it decides to show itself. Some things can vary, but if that air of paranoia isn't present, it's not The Thing. And none of The Thing movies should ever have the slogan "this time, it's war". That was okay for Aliens I suppose, but the best we can hope for with he Thing is our own survival. We need a writer and director who COMPLETELY understand what The Thing is. The Thing is simultaneously one and many. Each individual part can think, but only in simple terms, basically instinct. However, get a large enough mass of The Thing, and they become an intelligent being. In the same way that each part can remember and share with the others the "blueprints" of the species they've assimilated, they also contribute thinking ability to the rest that they're connected with. To put it simply The Thing doesn't have a brain; It IS its brain. And that brain manages to work seperately from the brain in the head of the creature or person that The Thing is impersonating. So, that creature that it's simulating is a perfect imitation. That brain's every thought is exactly the same as if it were the real person who's being immitated. Otherwise, The Thing would be found out much more easily. The Thing, able to reproduce and make everything in the fake person work with near 100% accuracy, still doesn't necessarily understand the species its immitating. Though it's created a perfect duplicate of the person's brain, The Thing's thoughts don't speak the same "language". Over time, as it observes the person's behavior and studies the brain's input-output, it begins to learn that language, but probably never becomes any more fluent than it needs to. After all, The Thing's whole mechanism is based on strategy, survival, ingestion, and multiplication. It is only interested in gaining an edge on the species it's trying to assimilate. And the more intelligent beings it assimilates over time, the more intelligent it becomes by process of observation. It is willing to let the simulated brain attack a seperate Thing, but not itself (for instance if the person it's simulating started to suspect that he is a Thing and decided to take himself out). I think it probably is able to erase the last hour or so of a person's memories once it's assimilated them so that they won't suspect their own assimilation. Now that I've said all that, I should say, we're talking about a fictional monster here, and many of these statements I've made about its nature can go either way, but these are the theories I have about what would make something like The Thing tick. I've analyzed the movies more than any grown man should and I wanted to put these ideas out here as a template for a googling writer or director who maybe hasn't thought as much about the nature of The Thing as I have to find and hopefully use. One more thing (THING lol), the worst thing you can do to a monster movie is FULLY explain everything there is to know about the monster to the audience. It should never be fully explained. It's important that those writing the stories and directing know everything about the monster, just as it was important that George Lucas understood for his own purposes the intimate details of what makes The Force work, but to explain these things and make the audience fully educated on them is to take away all the mystique that makes something fantastic or blood-curdling. Need I mention the Alien franchise, or the Predator franchise, or the Alien vs Predator p.o.s. franchise? Also, I think Fuchs killed himself when he realized he was infected, or perhaps he realized he was a 100% assimilation. Those complaining about The Thing going against the idea of a human soul should ponder that one for a bit. 😀 You were a hero, Fuchs. Too bad you couldn't make it to the sequel, but at least the Thing in you didn't.

Turpin on Jan 27, 2009


John Carpenter's The Thing was, and still is, a truly excellent film in its own right, doubly so when considering that it is in fact an adaptation of a short story and a remake of another excellent classic from 1951. Its a huge relief to hear that instead of a remake poducers plan to film a prequel - very smart move, especially given the difficulty of coming up with a decent idea for a sequel, which would inevitably spoil the deliberately open ending of Carpenter's film. I do, however, have a few concerns: 1) The effects: pray to God that the prequel doesn't go the CG-heavy route that it could easily do. Maintain the '80s feel and look of the first film with prosthetic and animatronic effects! With the advances that have been made in the past 27 years, physical effects could look awesome, as well as being much easier to do than back in the early days when Carpenter and Bottin were working on The Thing. CG effects should be reserved for matte shots and the spaceship crash, if that should be shown at all. 2) The cast: should the cast speak English with US accents, or have Norwegian accents, or speak Norwegian? One of the things that made The Thing so great was its sense of verisimilitude and convincing portrayal of the real world. N.B. the Norwegians spoke Norwegian in the 1982 film, and the American characters couldn't understand them. 3) I've heard a rumour that MacReady's brother will be one of the characters in the new film. WHAT?? Hope this is just a rumour and will remain so. 4) The music: Ennio Morricone's score was minimalist, chilling and very atmospheric, furmly emphasising the psychological aspect to the horror of the fost film. Hopefully the new film will continue the trend, without lazy 'jump' blasts of music or load action cues - keep it simple, keep it creepy. 5) The visual style: I hope the new director keeps the same "natural" look to the film as Carpenter did, and the same smooth, eerie camera work and editing (no stylised handheld or MTV edits as current filmmakers are wont to do!). Again, verisimilitude is key. Other than this, I only hope the screenplay, direction, editing and cast can live up to their predecessors - tension, paranoia, characterisation and a credible plot are hard to attain, but many films have done it in the past, so hopefully this will too. There's a strong pedigree to follow - not only Carpenter's film, but also Howard Hawks' film and even the excellent video game - so the filmmakers have a challenge on their hands. But that's what filmmaking is all about, isn't it? Good luck to them!

Rob Mc on Feb 4, 2009


@19 ... Nope "Does a prequel sound better than a remake?" Yes! Don't screw with the JC version.. But as the above link jabs at.. there is no new ideas.. The best we can hope for is to reuse the old ones properly.

Dating in Toronto on Mar 23, 2009


I watch "The Thing" every time I see it come on. A prequel is preferable to a remake since there is no way to remake John Carpenter's version!

Tx Bry on Jul 20, 2009


Have you ever went round friends with some cans to watch the best movie from your past (which he/she hasnt seen yet) only to be left to look a fool cause its not quite how you remember?? I have. Pet Cemetry The Thing Deadly Friend Class of 1999 There just a few i can think of right now. There unfortunetly now boring and visually awful to the point of being funny. Ive just had a little boy and if in -18 years from now i sit him down to watch The Thing(Carpenter) i imagine he would never speak to me again. Remakes are a must guys, ideas move on visuals get better and we demand more from a film. Im most looking forward to Childsplay remake i loved the original and watched it over again, but i watched it the other day and its now a bit pap. You can see its man in a chucky suit with camera zoomed out, 1st on voodoo guys kitchen worktop and then again after being burnt. Promote remakes. Re-live your best films with friends and family(who havent yet seen it) without looking a old timer/fool. Pet Cemetry would also be awesome re-done

gordio on Jan 4, 2010


I like scary movies and there simply haven't been any worthwhile since The Thing in my opinion. So I say bring on a prequel, a remake,sequels, whatever. Just do a good job on them! Some examples of what I'd like to see that we didn't get to see in the 1982 movie: 1. What is it like to watch someone in a group get attacked because he's the only one human? 2. What is it like to watch someone's reaction when they realize they're being taken over from the inside? 3. Can it hide in a drain? 4. How would the government and its secret contingencies be prepared for something like a Thing outbreak? 5. What would it be like to watch an attractive female taken over? 6. What would it be like to not know whether you're human or not, because it got to you, but you quickly amputated the limb, but you're not sure if it got into your blood stream. (I got this from the Dark Horse comic, but it would be great to see in movie form). 7. I want to see The Thing scrutinized under a microscope by the best science available today only to dumbfound scientists because it's like nothing they can even imagine ever existing, so completely different from anything on Earth. 8. What actually would happen if it took over an entire planet full of wildlife? If we visited that planet, would the wildlife act normally, or normally at first and then change, or would the entire planet be a writhing mass of tentacles, teeth, and spider limbs? 9. What would it be like to see a plant taken over? 10. After a prolonged struggle by some new characters to keep The Thing from getting out in the open, I want to see the horror on their faces as they realize they're watching it take over a bird and has almost formed enough to take flight and escape. 11. I want to see someone swat at a bug that bit him and suddenly realize as he's watching the remains of the bug moving around oddly on his hand. Things I DON't want to see in A Thing movie, because they would ruin the whole idea of what it is: 1. The Thing speaking to us. It's a monster. We may not know all its intentions, but one thing it doesn't do is talk to us. It wouldn't even if it could. This is the stupidest mistake they made with The Thing video game. 2. The Thing should not become something that moves super-fast at all times like I imagine some people would like to see because "fast things are scarier". The Thing is already far-fetched enough with its rapid ability to form bone structures and shape bio-tissue as fast as it does. More abilities would erase hope as well as believability, totally ruining the whole thing. 3. It doesn't imitate inanimate non-living objects, even as temporary camouflage. It just doesn't. This was a mistake made in one of the Dark Horse's The Thing comic book series. I think it became a pillow or a jacket liner or some other dumb thing. 4. Even though it theoretically COULD hide down a toilet drain just waiting for the next customer to sit down over it, let's not actually have that happen in a movie, okay? Maybe use that as a quick bit of humor as we see somebody plunge the drain after just leaving a conversation about what it might be capable of. No more ideas coming to me at the moment, so I'll end my thoughts with this one: The template is well defined by John Carpenter and John Campbell. Stick to it.

Turpin on Jan 7, 2010


Uhh you got your facts wrong. Kurt Russel is the actor of the leader of the team. The leaders name is R.J. Maccreedy and he wasent sent down there to investigate the Norweigen research team he was just sent down there just for research. What you might be thinking of when you said that is when they were reviewing the tapes of the team when they went to their camp to see if everything was ok after they shot the Norweigen man and his helicopter exploded. also it was revealed how the alien got there. At the beginning of the movie it shows the UFO flying to Earth and it lights into a fireball as soon as it passes the Earths atmosphere. The UFO under the tool shed was the same one but it was being repaired by Blaire who of course took the parts from the helicopter and tracter to make it look like he was trying to not let the infection spread when he was doing quite the opposite. But I think they should make the sequel because inbetween the game and the movie there is so much stuff to be answered! Like how Childs dies and how Maccreedy gets another helicopter (that part was kind of wierd).Maybe he could make a sequel to the game instead like with both of the characters together. Say after Mccreedy and Blake killed Witley a head thing secretly latched onto the helicopter. But then their helicopter runs out of fuel and lands in like a small town. Or at least somewhere not very populated. Say maybe Africa. Like their shanty towns. And Mccreedy and Blake are already together so we can see both of them fighting together. He might be able to bring up new kinds of ''Things'' in the process because its a different enviornment,different people,different landscape and different temperatures . It would be cool because they both know as much as each other. They both know the things can only be killed by fire , they know what it looks like first hand , they both know how to keep trust and morale on a high , and they both have fully lost there teams and survived to tell about it. Or maybe he could start off with Naul waking up in the ashes after he ran off at the end of the movie. Because we still don't know if he is dead or alive.The last thing we saw of him was him walking off before Maccreedy was attacked by Blaire's Thing. And John could get help from Black and the other studios that were involved in making the game. Because I know people would pay good money to see another "The Thing" movie. I mean it was indeed the greatest movie of all time and loved by everyone. .And now that he would have more help and the new technology and animation this could be the most amazing movie that ever projected on the theatre screen and haunted us in our head.

Jonny on Jan 23, 2010


The Thing game cannot be cannon. To understand why I feel this way and for a good laugh at possibly the most hilarious ranting negative game review that ever has been or will be, watch SpoonyOne's review of The Thing game on Youtube or Googlevideo. Or you could play the game, but I don't recommend it. Take it from someone who played it twice just to make sure I hated it as much as I though I did. Understand though, primarily the reason I hated the game was because it got The Thing wrong in numerous ways. Contrary to what I said in one of my rants above, I do think there's plenty of reason for a prequel. I don't know why I said we knew everything we needed to know about the Norwegian camp, because that isn't really true when you think about it. The norwegians were the first to see the The Thing in its "original" form. Okay, not its original form, but the first form that "civilized" humans had ever laid eyes on. And based on the description in Campbell's story, it was other-worldly and monstrous, even to the point of giving the men who were contemplating thawing it out nightmares that it might come back to life. Imagine being there to see what it was like before it had encountered any earth-life whatsoever, and the horror when the men realized the monster they were facing even exceeded their nightmares. This could be good, like watching the original all over again, but not knowing what's going to happen from one moment to the next, because it's a NEW MOVIE. 🙂 But yeah, I'd like to see what happens to Mcready and Childs, and I think if they're making a prequel, it would be nice to somehow see that at the end of the prequel. You know, have the prequel start with the discovery of the buried UFO and end with Mcready and Childs getting saved by survivors from the Norwegian camp. Or just show the team or whoever is sent in to investigate who show up months later, setting up a sequel with all new characters. Even let Macready die, for realism. Sure he was a good character, but let's face it, unless there was help coming immediately after the last minute of the original, he and Childs were frozen solid within hours. It's frigin cold down there. It's alright, Kurt Russel's getting too old to play the part anyway, and I don't think we should turn Macready into a male Ripley, always the sole survivor and eternal anti-Thing.

Turpin on Jan 24, 2010


I see where you are coming from and now I partly agree with you. It would be nice to see what happened at the Norweigen camp site because it seems like they just skipped a whole nother movie. I've been watching Spoonys video for a long time too. I think he just tries to be funny and only says the negative things about it because it didnt quite assume the position of being similar to the movie. But to tell you the truth and speak of the possibilities of there being a prequel or a sequel they are very good at all. The fact that he doesnt have much help or belief in making this movie I extremely doubt a upcoming sepuel or prequel.

jonny on Jan 27, 2010


Just do HP Lovecraft's " At The Mountains of Madness" as a big budget film, not some half assed sci fi channel low budget poorly directed and produced affair. Same location, similar horror, different story. I think "The Thing" was a virus like creature. If you could prevent it from assimiliating and replicating new hosts/victims, I think it might have a limited lifespan. Apart from being able to stay in suspened animation by freezing.

Tom on Feb 8, 2010

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed -or- daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main account on twitter:
For the latest posts only - follow this one:

Add our updates to your Feedly - click here

Get the latest posts sent in Telegram Telegram