Bloody Disgusting beat the trades to the punch two weeks ago but this morning the upcoming The Thing prequel-remake has been thrust into the web-weary gaze of the crusty and blog-fearing by getting a story in Daily Variety (though even they ran it first on the web, last night).

After agreeing that Matthijs Van Hejningen has been appointed as director and that Ronald D. Moore’s screenplay for a “Norwegian camp prequel” will be used, Variety don’t really tell us anything we didn’t already know so I’ll instead go back to Bloody Disgusting for the quote meat.

“The prequel takes place from the Norwegian camps point of view. An American scientific expedition to the frozen wastes of the Antarctic is interrupted by a group of seemingly mad Norwegians pursuing and shooting a dog.

During the night, the dog mutates and attacks other dogs in the cage and members of the team that investigate. The team soon realize that an alien life-form with the ability to take over bodies is on the loose and they don’t know who may already have been taken over.”

Van Heijningen is pushing to make the lead character none other than R.J Macready’s brother!”

The internets are divided. Some think this will likely be a good film - Moore, after all, has won himself legions of fans with Battlestar Galactica. Some think this will likely be a bad film - John Carpenter’s first remake is so cherished, particularly by the generation of geeks currently controlling the most Wordpress and Blogger dashboards worldwide, and the original Christian-Nyby Howard Hawks adaptation is deeply beloved too.

From a wee browse about, the second division do seem to be somewhat stronger in number.

So which will it be? My personal prediction is that it will, in fact, be a good film. Possibly not as good as either of the previous two incarnations, but a rather good film all the same.

I’ve seen a decent sized handful of Matthijs Van Hejningen’s commercials, and he’s clearly very talented. Without putting too fine a point on it and instead relying on a blunt cliche, he knows how to use the camera to tell a story. He definitely knows how to get shots that are suitably inflected but don’t draw attention to their inflection - which marks him out as a rare thing in the ranks of commercial directors… and, actually, you know what? I don’t really care what film he’s making, I’m just glad he’s making one.

On the down side? Well, the practical effects in Carpenter’s film are almost certainly unbeatable; the “brother” rumour seems just plain silly; mounting a prequel that actually seems certain to replicate many events of the original story sounds like an unnecessary wriggle to avoid the term “remake”; I’m mainly familiar with Ronald D. Moore via his Star Trek work and… well, I didn’t really like it.

Don’t crucify me (yet): I’m waiting for a good Battlestar DVD opportunity to arise, then I’ll leap right in from the beginning. If you care that much about me not having seen the show, then feel free and buy me the discs. Right. Okay. I knew you didn’t really mind.

Matthijs Van Hejningen is also attached to direct Army of the Dead, a Zack Snyder-conceived and reputedly epic undead-actioner set around a zombie swamped Las Vegas. Maybe the most disappointing thing for me (ahem) is that this potentially very interesting film will now be derailed and, as is always possible in such cases, prevented from ever coming to light. Gotta love them zombies.

Oh - and for the record, I absolutely love Carpenter’s film and even use it in class a fair bit, and while the first film isn’t a favourite of mine, per se, I do enjoy it greatly.

Related Posts with Thumbnails

  • Hugoagogo
    Carpenter's film couldn't be improved on. Period. A cast of pretty Dawson's Creek drama students will taint it for sure. Anyone try watching The Fog remake? Despicable!
  • As long as they don't ruin it with special effects. I want old school effects with makeup and props and dummies!
  • I'm a fan of the original Thing and would hope that they would make it scarier than the last Thing movie. It was a good movie but it needs to be scarier.
  • This just proves that Hollywood is officially a creative desert devoid of any trace of imagination or courage.
  • Another *Tick* for hollywoods orginality
  • Though I love Moore's work on Galactica, he did help write Kirks Death in Star Trek 7.
    This is has CGI written all over it.
  • Mr B
    I am willing to give this a chance. Especially if it's a prequel. Ron D Moore has certainly grown quite a bit from Star Trek, and he'll suprise you at how quickly the kid gloves come off. He's well aware of the typical tropes and has done spectacularly well in avoiding them with BSG.

    I think he can definately do justice to the general theme of "We can't trust anyone."
  • Wanna Job
    Well said, Mr. Moore... I mean B
  • Haymaker
    Man John Carpenter's The Thing, is one of my favorite moves let alone my favorite horror movie. Not sure how I feel about this. If its an actual prequel taking place from the Norwegian camps point of view, it could be an interesting addition to the story, seeing them finding and exploring the space etc. But if it tries to do a remake of it or even a sequel... nope don't want it done...
  • dlb
    A prequel... a predecessor to an idea that lead to the overall story to The Thing

    explaining ambiguity = NOT PROFOUND
  • ejs
    we already know what happens. this is stupid. Why dont studios remake BAD movies that had promising stories?
  • Weyland_Yutani
    Exactly. Other than the whole "chopping up the ice thing", the audience already knows what happened to the Norwegian camp = what happened to the American camp. Changing the characters is just a cute way to disguise a remake. Lame.

    It's especially silly when you consider that there was an excellent sequal that was in comic form. It's been many years since I've seen it, but I recall that despite the conceit of Mac getting rescued, it was pretty cool. Cool comic book ideas are almost always discarded. The AVP films are a good example of that failure.

    Regardless, a sequel is as dumb as a prequel. Neither rely on anything new.

    Support New Science Fiction
  • Weyland_Yutani
    Exactly. Other than the whole "chopping up the ice thing", the audience already knows what happened to the Norwegian camp = what happened to the American camp. Changing the characters is just a cute way to disguise a remake. Lame.

    It's especially silly when you consider that there was an excellent sequal that was in comic form. It's been many years since I've seen it, but I recall that despite the conceit of Mac getting rescued, it was pretty cool. Cool comic book ideas are almost always discarded. The AVP films are a good example of that failure.

    Support New Science Fiction
  • Palmer
    Fuck no, simple as that.
  • biggles12
    WOEFUL.
  • The "man behind the green curtain" is directing this flick. Prequel my ass.
    Man up and say remake.
  • I'm amazed that The Thing hasn't already been remade.
  • I agree, they have done so many un worthy remakes over the last decade that really shouldnt have had a chance.
  • I loved Carpenter's 'The Thing', but I have always had this deep curiosity to know what happened before Kurt Russell and his team started getting incredibly paranoid. I know it was touched upon in the original (visiting the site, seeing the 'creature', talking about it, etc), but I want more, and from the sounds of this article, this sounds incredibly much more like a remake rather than the more interesting (IMO) premise of an ACTUAL prequel.
  • I would love to read the entire article but sometimes they do seem a bit redundant. Nothing against the writing - it's well done, there's just too much. Try to think of it like a chef, where your words are the ingredients and you don't want to waste too much or give it away so to speak. Customers should not be leaving with doggy bags. That said, they're raping everything with remakes and prequels and sequels, why not this? Hollywood sucks.
  • tzu
    i really do enjoy brendons posts. why the hell should everything be like in a damn fastfoodrestaurant?? sometimes good things need a little bit of time (and this article wasnt really long).
  • If it's a prequel, why not give it a subtitle (The Thing: Origins). I'ts just like the new tron; it was suppose to be called Tron 2 but currently it's going by just....Tron.

    Is this the trend in Hollywood? So Iron Man 2 should be called...Iron Man?
  • Try Tony Stark: Iron Man
  • Remakes of any sort, blow big ass monkey chunks!!!!, Get a clue and get some orginality Hollywood.
  • God dammit................just......god dammit all
  • G-dubs
    How much of a "big fan" could the writer at B/D - or Brends, for that matter, in this recycling - if no one has bothered to point out that:

    "The prequel takes place from the Norwegian camps point of view. An American scientific expedition to the frozen wastes of the Antarctic is interrupted by a group of seemingly mad Norwegians pursuing and shooting a dog. During the night, the dog mutates and attacks other dogs in the cage and members of the team that investigate. The team soon realize that an alien life-form with the ability to take over bodies is on the loose and they don’t know who may already have been taken over.”

    Is a garbled and misunderstanding of the premise entirely, likely caused by someone front-loading the final sentence of the synopsis they read. Everything after the first sentence is merely a description of the opening incidents of Carpenter's masterpiece. The final sentence then read "the prequel is the Norwegian's story from their point of view."

    Which makes sense. What does not make any sense, however - which marks it as merely a rumor - is the "Macready's brother" idea. Macready was not - and hardly sounds - Norwegian. If his own brother had been at that neighboring camp, Macready would have clearly known about it in the events of JC's film. It would involve an unswallowable retcon.

    Any fan of the 'original remake' would have been able to recognize what happened instantly.
  • Well, I can see that it is a representation of the Carpenter film - hence my comments about this prequel being likely to replicate events, and how the term "prequel" is probably just a device to avoid saying "remake".

    And I don't think we'll see this brother stuff either.
  • Goat
    This is a freakin' travesty.

    The Thing does not need new Hollywood to muck it up. This is how I see this crap going down:

    It will be a contemporary take on The Thing story. I see it having more technology than the 1982 rendition - yes, I know this goes against the report, but once the execs. get ahold of the script, I would bet gold that they bump it up to the 2000's, or at least late 90's.

    They will indeed use MacReady's unnaturally younger brother, by shoe-horning him in as a young buck who has a defiant, anti-hero attitude, much like RJ, but with silly catch lines that make him funny. I see them casting a beardless sex-symbol who is more apt to play RJ's son...which, as it might turn out, could also be a horrible idea.

    There will be at least 1 female character, who will be a romantic interest - which is something that is totally against the dichotomy of the original films. Oh, and she will be one of the survivors too.

    I see this going in the direction of AvP with a slice of Deep Blue Sea. I wouldn't be surprised if it were butchered to a PG-13 rating either.

    I hope that I'm wrong.
  • I feel like I should at least pretend to to be shocked/surprised/outraged/disgusted/angered, but really... are we surprised by news like this anymore? I get the feeling that audiences - even the 'general movie-going public' which trash like this cash in on - are starting to wake up and realize. You're off to a bad start when the general vibe around your film before production begins is negative.

    Having said that, I must admit I am looking forward to seeing and support to remake of The Birds with Naomi Watts starring. That intrigues me to hell!
  • Opopop
    Brendon could you please try to make your posts less lengthy? We do not really care about your own life that much... Dont get me wrong, I like your posts, but it takes so long to read them and I end by skimming them instead.
  • I quote the great Steven Tobolowski, as heard on the /filmcast, "The problem with American film is that it is derivative". That said, I will give Ronald Moore the chance to do just about anything. BSG is derivative but managed to far, far surpass the original.
  • Shouldn't Hollywood come up with some new ideas? A prequel to a 26 year old movie, really? The Thing was a great movie, and it doesn't need a prequel.
  • jcf
    Well if you were really a film buff you'd realize that 'Hollywood' has been 're-making' movies since shortly after they first started making movies. There is nothing new in what people seem to think is just a current trend.
  • Oh trust me, I am well aware of the history here. Why is it that when I say I think it's lame and unoriginal to remake a movie, people always assume I'm talking about current and future remakes? Sure, there are a lot of remakes that have been done recently, and a lot more on the horizon, but there have also been many many remakes in the past that are equally horrible. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough to jcf. I hate remakes from the very first one through modern ones.

    It's not a trend, and it's not stopping any time soon, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't hope it does stop one day.
  • Hell yes! Well said.

    I'm sick and freaking tired of hearing about all these damned remakes/reboots/re-imaginings. Where's the originality? It's all a money thing. Blood sucking leeches in the studio's just trying to pinch a few more bucks out of a great film. The Thing was perfect the way it was. Don't try to remake it, what is the point in that? IF someone can explain to me a good reason why to do it without bringing up money, I'll shut up. But I don't think anyone can do that.

    This thing has to stop. I'm not going to say ALL remakes are bad, but the overwhelming majority of them are a waste of time and money. It's pointless. But they just can't stop! Everything needs to get remade! NO it doesn't. I wrote a bit on remakes/reboots over on the site I write for, and in doing research for that piece, I found a lot of shocking projects currently in development.

    Did any of you know that Madonna is currently shopping a remake of Casablanca? She want's to direct AND STAR! Now that's ridiculous. And the worst part is that there are actually studio's listening and considering her project! Casablanca was one of the best films of all time. I don't care how old it is, there is absolutely no reason to remake it. And why cast Madonna? Is anyone wowed by her acting prowess? It's just stupid.
  • Grammar_Nazi
    Please use apostrophes correctly.

    want's
    studio's

    WTF
  • What a fitting name.

    I apologize to the almighty Grammar_Nazi for typing too fast and screwing up my apostrophes. I am willing to admit that this clearly makes me a loser . And you are very clearly the coolest guy here for correcting me.

    Thanks!
  • Mecline
    I am a huge fan of Carpenter's The Thing and have to say, I'm excited to see how this goes down. I hope they just decide to go with the prequel and not just make another re-make of a horror classic though. A movie depicting the Norwegians finding the craft, getting infected and ending with one lone man chasing this dog across the arctic waste just to get killed trying to "save" the original crew would be AWESOME. In the end its not going to impact on how good the 1982 version is, but a well done prequel could make a good addition to extend the story.
  • DontSteal Thisidea
    It's actually two men chasing the dog in the helicopter, one dies after he back-hands a grenade (and foolishly looks for it- a bit silly) into the deep snow by the helicopter. Then the other goes blasting his semi automatic into the American camp. Yes, I'm tapping into my inner The Thing-geek for this info. Also, happen to be an insider. Many conversations about possible story elements for this piece.

    The prequel can work but it is very obvious. Prequel makes a better TV mini series. But there are other ways to make a film on The Thing subject... but I'm not telling, that's my little secret.

    Always willing to hold off judgment about someone attached as writer or director but it usually smacks of bad re-envisioning when your TV people get involved. This little screen to big screen transition is killing a great medium. The movie experience is not meant to be of the Ipod mentality of smaller is better. I almost always get that sense when TV makers become film makers. However, I do hold all judgment on JJ Abrams- he is the man so far!

    But what are you going to do because even the original people who make an amazing movie can't create a good remake... ex. The Fog. Sorry Mr. Carpenter. What do you do you filmmakers? Well, how about start with a better wishlist of talent. No not actors, I mean writers and directors. Easer said then done? Yes, because Hollywood is becoming DC West with its politics. And no, because there is still tons of talent on the fringe waiting for its break. Find the new talent Hollywood! But I digress.
  • im starting to salivate. this may turn out to be AMAZING
  • Lame.

    yet another announcement about a prequel. How fucking original and clever.
  • This will be great news when Jim Carrey, Nick Cage, and Seth Rogen, are cast as the leads. Until that time, I will withhold my judgment.
  • Guest
    Well, I'm against this entirely on principle, The Thing is one of the most effective horror movies ever made. But it's hard to object to a remake (or prequel or reimagining or whatever) seeing as it's a remake itself. There's probably a BBS in 1982 where people were proto-flaming John Carpenter for daring to mess with the original.
blog comments powered by Disqus