Most Active
Latest Headlines
- Werewolf Revealed from Howling Reborn
- Final Destination 5's Leading Lady Is...
- Snyder Describes Army of the Dead Zombies
- Let Me In French One-Sheet, MPAA Rating
- First Photos, Details on Creature Feature Bunyan
- WB Wants Supernatural's Kripke for Sandman
- Fox Commits to Joe Hill's Locke & Key
- Amer Team Have Title for Next Giallo
- A Peek at David Tennant's Peter Vincent in Fright Night
News
Edgerton on Universal's The Thing
Source:What's Playing
March 1, 2010
It appears there's still a lot of speculation running rampant about whether or not Universal's The Thing, directed by Matthijs van Heijningen is a remake or a prequel. Cast member Joel Edgerton lays it out to What's Playing by saying:
"Anyone who is a big fan of the John Carpenter version of The Thing knows that it starts on the American base station but the investigation of where the Thing has come from leads us to know something very bad has happened at the Norwegian base station and the prequel centres itself around there and what happened pre-Kurt Russell."
Edgerton's role? He plays the helicopter pilot and he joins leading lady Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Death Proof). Even though we were told shooting was to take place in Toronto, What's Playing says the production is settling into Vancouver. We'll know for sure soon enough.
"Anyone who is a big fan of the John Carpenter version of The Thing knows that it starts on the American base station but the investigation of where the Thing has come from leads us to know something very bad has happened at the Norwegian base station and the prequel centres itself around there and what happened pre-Kurt Russell."
Edgerton's role? He plays the helicopter pilot and he joins leading lady Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Death Proof). Even though we were told shooting was to take place in Toronto, What's Playing says the production is settling into Vancouver. We'll know for sure soon enough.
| | | 22 comments | | | Add a comment |
Comments
Posted by: Ziggy on March 1, 2010 at 20:03:03
Oh I bet they will be using pre 1982 technology too.
I bet they havent even thought of that aspect.
Posted by: djblack1313 on March 1, 2010 at 21:17:11
so Winstead and Edgerton are going to be playing Norwegian scientists? i hope not. i'm up for this but PLEASE DO NOT MAKE THIS A CGI MONSTER!!!!
Posted by: Space on March 1, 2010 at 21:37:48
John Carpenter's The Thing is one of my all time favorite movies. I hope they can do something useful with this movie and not just come across as foolish nonsense.
Posted by: ano nymous on March 1, 2010 at 21:54:40
no cgi puppies.
Posted by: Wyngarde on March 1, 2010 at 23:45:36
And we need this why exactly?
Posted by: evelz6 on March 2, 2010 at 00:04:30
I just re-watched it a couple of nights ago to get back into it all. IT STILL HOLDS UP MAN! I have been gloating to everyone about how the SFX are STILL unbelievable. The whole scene with Vance's transformation is IMO one of the best SFX sequences in Hollywood. It's flawless and stays creepy al the way until the head is charred. The look on his face as The Thing is outside his body, the way the head pulls itself under the desk to hide. That is just one scene. How can they "re-create" anything close to this in the prequel? NO CGI!!!! PERIOD! Use what Carpenter used and remain primitive. Keep it rough and grainy. Of course use some technology, but I want to have to guess if it is CGI or not. Bring in Rick Baker to fill in for Stan Winston. That would be MORE THAN ENOUGHT TO WIN ME OVER.
Thanks
Posted by: evelz6 on March 2, 2010 at 00:37:27
Oh, also. I COMPLETELY ignored Rob Bottin who is THE MAN of the SFX on this film. Stan was a big part but Bottin was in charge. This small fact escaped me and I wanted to correct it before it was pointed out. EITHER WAY, they should bring him in if he is open to it. Only one man can do this kind of work. Everyone should read the "little unknown facts" about this film and Bottin's hardships though the process, good stuff.
I like the chance to add some knowledge to THE BEGINNING of the film without destroying the original film from '82. I hope they even leave off in perfect continuation.
DONT SCREW UP ONE OF THE BEST SCI-FI FILMS EVER!
Posted by: kevmcdgll on March 2, 2010 at 01:39:59
they should remake the original 1950's version where they find the alien ship under the ice but make it so that it acts as a prequel to the john carpenter version. that way, they are killing two birds with one stone, making a remake and a prequel all at the same time.
Posted by: NateHawg on March 2, 2010 at 02:14:08
Not to get too fanboy or anything, but the original is a masterpiece of modern horror. One of Carpenter's best in my opinion, without a doubt. That's high praise considering his resume. Re-watched the original about 6 months ago and it hasn't lost a step, it's fantastic. The practical SFX, the music, and the cast for Christ's sake were all impeccable. I doubt we're gonna get anything as timeless as the blood-testing scene and I know for damn sure that we're not getting a badass Kurt Russell in tow. I'm sceptical, but certainly hopeful. We shall see....
Posted by: rigor morris on March 2, 2010 at 02:16:05
to quote a favorite line from the great ''the thing''....''you gotta be fnckin kidding !''
when will people leave classics alone ? the retelling of ''funny games'' was supposed to be even more intense being that the ORIGINAL director directed it but noooooooo. he managed to muck up his own movie.
i wont be contributing to this ill advised prequel or sequel. it has the stench of a money grab.
Posted by: rigor morris on March 2, 2010 at 02:28:34
the retelling of original classics that FAILED~
friday 13th (juliana guill is smokin though !!!!!)
psycho (''i know..ill ADD COLOR !!!!! CHA-CHING'' NOT!)
halloween 1 and 2(zombie needs to let go of his white trash fetish or stop making crap movies)
funny games(how can a director mess up redoing his own movie ?!?!?!?)
my bloody valentine (not really a classic but it failed. wasted 3d)
prom night (again, wasnt a classic but trumps the retelling)
the day the earth stood still. i regret i was one of the 14 people who ever saw this.
the hitcher......if they would have cut out 99.99999999 % of the runtime, it still would have been a craptastic remake.
sure, some guys get it right. but for the most part, the classics shockingly wind up in the hands of dolts.
Posted by: joe asylo on March 2, 2010 at 03:19:17
well it depend the direction they re heading with.
the carpenter i consider it a cult instant.
If they re going with cg, on the fx. Well is gonna ruin it completly, or not.
Posted by: My Left Eye Sees Ghosts on March 2, 2010 at 06:57:12
Let's make a deal Universal. You won't see my money and I won't see this truly pointless film. Yep, this will work for me.
Posted by: Charles Bronson's Moustache on March 2, 2010 at 07:27:54
Gillis and Woodruff are doing the effects. They did the suits on the AVP movies so you can bet there will at least be SOME latex-based beasties.
I'm just glad it's a prequel and not a remake.
Posted by: ILoveJohnCarpenter on March 2, 2010 at 08:31:23
Why is there a chick in this? I don't remember seeing any women in the footage of the "sweden" camp that the guys reviewed. They're off to a bad start with that decision!!
Posted by: Dedguy on March 2, 2010 at 08:37:29
Not that I'm really looking forward to this, but you guys know that Carpenter's version of The Thing was, itself, a remake, right? A brilliant freaking remake, but still a remake.
Posted by: DurantezInferno on March 2, 2010 at 10:28:21
Dedguy's right. it is a remake. of a movie based on a short story. the funny thing is that Carpanters remake was more closely two the orginal book which was written like 50 years prior to Carpteners, I think.
Well Moore, did said in an interview,that his thing is a conpanion Piece to Carpanters thing. meanning, its the same alien, jsut they can't really **** it up. Its it's own movie pretty much. so the only link to carps film is that its the same creature and it happend before. I wanted Carpenters thing II. I Herd It would center on Keith Davids charater and Kurt Rustells Charater. I WANT CARPANTER BACK T_T
Posted by: LOKI on March 2, 2010 at 23:20:29
They won't have a big budget, so if they go CGI monster(s), it will look like crap.....Outlander.
PLEASE don't screw this up!
Posted by: J on March 2, 2010 at 23:42:43
I just read all of these comments and guess what HOLLYWOOD? FANS DON'T LIKE CG VERY MUCH. Do it practical! Check out Practical Effects Group on Facebook.
Posted by: This is the truth on March 9, 2010 at 15:05:57
You fan boys have to all just stop. It's a classic" "i love it" "don't ruin the masterpiece" blah blah blah. The movie is being made, and I can almost guarantee you will all be seeing it when it's released, but keep pretending to be super cool.
Good night.
Posted by: metatron on March 9, 2010 at 15:46:44
YEH bring it on the thing prequel ..its loooong overdue
just hope they do it right and keep the chemistry of the first one ..like most of us agree no cgi or use a little as possible but with the same scary breathtaking effect...
with todays tech that shouldnt be an issue..
Posted by: rigor morris on March 16, 2010 at 00:10:02
@this is the truth;
certain movies deserve having ''fanboys'' take a stand. could anyone here accept britney spears redoing a rolling stones song or did anyone cheer on p doofy's rendition of kashmir ? sometimes enough is enough with retelling/remaking/redoing/rewhatever a story ?!?!?!? can hollywood PLEASE come up with an original idea ?!?!?!?!?
as for CGI hatred, i dont understand it. OBVIOUSLY there will never be skyscrapers tumbling down BUT it has to happen and be seen. alien invasions and big time war/battle scenes usually depend on CGIs. its just such a trendy thing to cry over. if the CGIs are done properly (as with ANY EFFECT), why not go with it ? id rather CGIs than ketchup and dirt.
as for seeing this money grab, i admit i will rent it. i will not be joining the hoards imbiciles with nothing better to do with $20 and 120 minutes of their time.
1
Add a comment