Yes, we did know who was being killed in the original and that made the deaths shocking. From what you're saying, I'm surprised they don't even distinguish the Norwegians from the Americans. It sounds lazy. Is it at least interesting to watch them react to the lurking presence of the thing? It goes without saying that one of the most thrilling aspects of the original was watching the group disintegrate into a state of paranoia as they realized the creature could imitate any one of them.

[/quote]From what you're saying, I'm surprised they don't even distinguish the Norwegians from the Americans. It sounds lazy. Is it at least interesting to watch them react to the lurking presence of the thing? It goes without saying that one of the most thrilling aspects of the original was watching the group disintegrate into a state of paranoia as they realized the creature could imitate any one of them.[/quote]

With one or two exceptions, most of the characters were interchangeable monster-bait. But I thought the movie did a decent job showing the group fall apart with rampant paranoia. And I'll give them credit: they came up with a novel test to distinguish humans and Things that was completely different from the test used in Carpenter's version.

Agreed. One of the things that kinda bugged me on repeated Alien / Aliens watching is that in Alien, one of the best sequences you have is with the motion tracker, which was improvised by the freighter crew. Fast forward to Aliens and now this technology is all of a sudden standard equipment; in retrospect it seemed that the writers were kinda ripping off from the original in a lazy kind of way.

In the new Thing, I was happy that they came up with a different way to test people that was different than Rusell's solution. The execution of the test in the scenes are similar enough to maybe claim "rip-off", but the mechanics were sufficiently different.

*sigh*

Aliens clearly states that Ripley spent 57 years in hypersleep.

That is MORE than enough time for something jury-rigged in the first film to have become standard kit in the sequel.

Not to mention it would make sense for the military to have tracking equipment.

Where the inventors of the initial contraption all perished with the prototype? I'm not arguing the time lag in the film's chronology; I'm arguing the lack of originality on the part of the film-makers. The technology too closely resembled the original (albeit in more compact and more portable form). It was a useful tool to heighten suspense, but at the end of the day, it was just a flashier retread from the first movie.

Or maybe it was an homage....

Hey, slksc,

I just saw this movie last night. It is effective in some parts, but as a whole it doesn't measure up to Carpenter's "Thing." It is unbelievable how interchangeable these characters are. The only characters that stand out really are Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Adewale Akkinouye Akbaje (probably a misspelling, but he's Mr. Eko from Lost), Joel Edgerton, and Lars. Lars was easily my favorite character from the Norwegians. Of course I could predict from the beginning that



While I was watching the film, I remembered your comments; I couldn't remember any of their names and they start to blend together near the middle. However, I do agree that there are scenes, like the creative re-imagining of the blood test scene, where the paranoia can be felt. There are also some good jump scares.

What hampers the film is the CGI. Many people have commented that the filmmakers tried to rely on practical effects as much as possible, but they were "enhanced" with CGI. The enhancement was all-consuming. The effects had an overly shiny, intangible appearance, as if computers were used to recreate the viscous film that appeared over the creatures from the original film.

By the way, who was this helicopter pilot?

Yes, because no one has ever invented the same system or a product independently in the history of mankind.

Like Karl Benz and Henry Ford. Oops I mean like Nikola Tesla and Guglielmo Marconi. Wait, I meant like Elisha Gray and Alexander Graham Bell. Argh...I meant like the Wright Brothers and Gustave Whitehead...augh...why does this keep happening to me!

Anyway, if you want to get hung up on bothersome minutia from the Alien series, I'd be glad to go for an aeon with regard to the inconsistent appearance of the USS Sulaco and its cryotubes between Aliens and Alien^3.

Even without the time lag, I don't find it implausible that the military might have something as standard equipment that the crew of a civilian freighter would have to jury-rig.

Again, you're missing my point and your needless condescension (from your Al Gore <sighs> to your supercilious "history of inventors") is quite out of place. I'm not saying that the invention of this motion tracker was an impossibility; what I AM saying was that the writers of the sequel were too lazy to come up with their own idea and instead copied from the original movie a device that was improvised by the civilian crew. Not totally implausible, but I give the writers of the new The Thing movie more credit for coming up with their own idea on how to tell human from copy. Don't get your Aliens-fanboy-nose all out of joint.

I don't know how anyone could say that this movie lacks in the paranoia department. It's true that it's more focused on action and scares than the 1982 film, but the paranoia is constant. Characters are always giving each other suspicious looks, accusing each other of being Things, yelling about who can't be trusted, and one of the characters tries to use xenophobia to turn the Americans and Norwegians against each other.

My main beef with the prequel is that it's such a rehash of Carpenter's film, right down to individual scenes. The only thing it really adds is monster agility: the creatures weren't able to move around much in 1982, but the Thing actually gets to chase people in the prequel. I've heard a lot of people complain about the third act, but that was my favorite part, because that's when the film finally broke away from Carpenter.

And yes, the characters are mostly interchangeable. I was hoping that the film would take advantage of the prequel potential, that we would actually learn something about the people who worked in the Norwegian camp. I like that the details match up so well with the 1982 film, but nothing significant is added. I wanted to be able to watch the Carpenter film, see the guy in the chair with his throat cut, and think, "Hey, that guy was a real character in the prequel." Instead, I just think, "Hey, there's that guy who I still know nothing about."

Carpenter's film is my second favorite movie (after Blade Runner), and I was prepared to hate the prequel just like any other crazed fanboy, but I consider it mostly a success. I think it does more right than it does wrong, and it has an energy and life to it that, in my opinion, the Dawn of the Dead remake lacked. I watched the 1982 film again right after seeing the prequel, and I thought they flowed together well. Of course it doesn't match what Carpenter did, but it's a good companion piece.

And yet, I do wish that it had been a bit more.

Johnny,
Have you considered that a movie series set in the same universe is going to have the same basic technology and that the movie makers don't generally need to invent new technologies for each entry without good reason? Usually this is considered consistency rather than unoriginality. In general, I have to admit I'd rather prefer a different story that allows the characters to develop and grow (but with the same technology) rather than rehashing the same story but with different technology.

Your argument is akin to saying that George Lucas should have invented different kinds of lightsabers for the Jedi for each of the movies, methods of travels other than hyperspace, and various kinds of blasters, (oh I don't know, like ones for the stormtroopers that can actually be aimed properly...) rather then simply changing colors, giving Darth Maul a double, or having Darth Saruman sporting a stylish anglular one. I mean come on! He should have taken the time and creative energy to come up with completely different styles of weaponry and modes of travel for each movie. It's not like he sat around and spent a lot of time on the dialogue or anything.
-Jeremy