The Thing prequel

**Mwynn** · 07-09-2012, 08:03 AM

This is now showing on Cinemax. The ending makes no sense at all. Put aside the terrible CGI. The lack of consequences and the way they force things in to line up with the original movie. Back to the ending. Two people enter the Alien ship. One with a grenade the other a flamethrower. The character with the flamethrower has an earring. After blowing up The Thing and the ship the character has now lost his earring. He is then killed by the other character. Now everything we know about the thing says that being taken over is a violent act. How did said earring character keep said flamethrower and all his clothing. Was he over taken by The Thing leave the ship changes his clothes and come back? There were only two people left why did earring Thing not attack and assimilate the other character.

Biofungus · 07-09-2012, 09:57 AM

Um, it was the *other guy* not the flame thrower guy who was taken over (he kills flamethrower guy and then he's left, all by his alien-lonesome, for Kurt Russel to come in and kick his ass).

The earring issue was a gaffe most likely.

**Mwynn** · 07-09-2012, 10:06 AM

You mean she. The Earring thing was not a gaffe because she brought it up. She said it was how she knew he was human earlier. The earring was missing when they came out of the ship. He reached for the wrong ear when she mentioned it missing. I called him Flamethrower guy because he had the Flamethrower for the final battle.

Biofungus · 07-09-2012, 11:44 AM

Okay, but I still don't understand your confusion. Violent or not, the thing doesn't exactly "make an obvious mess in the corner" when it kills and mimics someone. So why is the inclusion of the flame thrower (when it takes/mimics the clothing normally anyway) so questionable?

**Mwynn** · 07-09-2012, 12:08 PM

The Thing did not mimic clothing. It could only do organic living things. Each time someone is assimilated it is a violent messy change. The point is not the flamethrower it is the clothing.

Also there is no confusion from me. It is bad writing. Something someone should have brought up in Post production.

Biofungus · 07-09-2012, 07:45 PM

It's been awhile since I've seen the Kurt Russel version (I have it on blu-ray but haven't watched it yet), but wasn't the Thing taking people's clothing after assimilating them? So maybe it was meant to show the progression, ie the Thing learning.

Bishop · 07-09-2012, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biofungus

It's been awhile since I've seen the Kurt Russel version (I have it on blu-ray but haven't watched it yet), but wasn't the Thing taking people's clothing after assimilating them?

Yes, and it wasn't always messy. They never found the remains of those that were taken over, and they never knew who to trust.

CHWolf · 07-09-2012, 08:34 PM

The real question is why there hasn't been a porn version called The Thong.

Biofungus · 07-09-2012, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHWolf

The real question is why there hasn't been a porn version called The Thong.

Because "The Thing" works equally well as a title in porn and mainstream

Biofungus · 07-09-2012, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bishop

Yes, and it wasn't always messy. They never found the remains of those that were taken over, and they never knew who to trust.

So basically:

Marvin is complaining about how the prequel attempts to have the ending mesh up with the beginning of the original, then calling shenanigans when it does?

**Mwynn** · 07-09-2012, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bishop

Yes, and it wasn't always messy. They never found the remains of those that were taken over, and they never knew who to trust.

There would not be remains. Because the attacked person is pretty much eaten and or absorbed by The Thing. Try watching both movies when any character is shown being taken over. You have ripped clothes in the original and a pool of blood and rejected tooth fillings in the prequel. It would have always been messy, yet they had time to clean up the mess afterwards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biofungus

So basically:

Marvin is complaining about how the prequel attempts to have the ending mesh up with the beginning of the original, then calling shenanigans when it does?

Come on when did I type anything like that. In the prequel you have a man enter the spaceship not human and leave the same ship non-human wearing the same clothes he went in with. Not possible.

Biofungus · 07-10-2012, 01:24 PM

Then maybe it's just poor editing? Maybe there was more of a time gap, etc. wherein it did have time to take the guy's clothing. Plus, there's the deus ex of it being the Things ship to begin with. Maybe it had some little insta-clean setting

Bishop · 07-10-2012, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mwynn

There would not be remains. Because the attacked person is pretty much eaten and or absorbed by The Thing. Try watching both movies when any character is shown being taken over. You have ripped clothes in the original and a pool of blood and rejected tooth fillings in the prequel. It would have always been messy, yet they had time to clean up the mess afterwards.

Come on when did I type anything like that. In the prequel you have a man enter the spaceship not human and leave the same ship non-human wearing the same clothes he went in with. Not possible.

Weird... I forgot that scene, and I just watched this movie a few months ago. I was thinking the primary time things got messy was when the Thing revealed itself, transforming its host into a bloody mess. I just remember the frightening thing being the paranoia, because you never knew who was human and who was Thing.

Justice41 · 07-10-2012, 02:45 PM

Meh, I was just glad they cleared up where the guys in the Helicopter chasing the pooch came from.

DiabloCodySux · 08-26-2012, 02:18 AM

I've tried to finish watching this film (on dvd) over 5 times.

I loved the Carpenter version since I saw it in the Cinema. Over and over again.

Loved the Hawkes (inaccurate) version of "Who Goes There?" too.

07-09-2012, 08:03 AM	#1
Mwynn On THE EDGE Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Haven Posts: 23,240	The Thing prequel This is now showing on Cinemax. The ending makes no sense at all. Put aside the terrible CGI. The lack of consequences and the way they force things in to line up with the original movie. Back to the ending. Two people enter the Alien ship. One with a grenade the other a flamethrower. The character with the flamethrower has an earring. After blowing up The Thing and the ship the character has now lost his earring. He is then killed by the other character. Now everything we know about the thing says that being taken over is a violent act. How did said earring character keep said flamethrower and all his clothing. Was he over taken by The Thing leave the ship changes his clothes and come back? There were only two people left why did earring Thing not attack and assimilate the other character. __________________ www.goldengoatstudios.com Buy Digital Webbing Comics. Or Bucho will foreclose on the orphanage. The Edge issue one Diamond code : NOV121048 The Edge Online The Edge Facebook

07-09-2012, 10:06 AM	#3
Mwynn On THE EDGE Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Haven Posts: 23,240	You mean she. The Earring thing was not a gaffe because she brought it up. She said it was how she knew he was human earlier. The earring was missing when they came out of the ship. He reached for the wrong ear when she mentioned it missing. I called him Flamethrower guy because he had the Flamethrower for the final battle. __________________ www.goldengoatstudios.com Buy Digital Webbing Comics. Or Bucho will foreclose on the orphanage. The Edge issue one Diamond code : NOV121048 The Edge Online The Edge Facebook

07-09-2012, 12:08 PM	#5
Mwynn On THE EDGE Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Haven Posts: 23,240	The Thing did not mimic clothing. It could only do organic living things. Each time someone is assimilated it is a violent messy change. The point is not the flamethrower it is the clothing. Also there is no confusion from me. It is bad writing. Something someone should have brought up in Post production. __________________ www.goldengoatstudios.com Buy Digital Webbing Comics. Or Bucho will foreclose on the orphanage. The Edge issue one Diamond code : NOV121048 The Edge Online The Edge Facebook

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-09-2012, 09:57 AM	#2
Biofungus Not for your amusement Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Nega-Earth Posts: 22,083	Um, it was the other guy not the flame thrower guy who was taken over (he kills flamethrower guy and then he's left, all by his alien-lonesome, for Kurt Russel to come in and kick his ass). The earring issue was a gaffe most likely.

07-09-2012, 11:44 AM	#4
Biofungus Not for your amusement Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Nega-Earth Posts: 22,083	Okay, but I still don't understand your confusion. Violent or not, the thing doesn't exactly "make an obvious mess in the corner" when it kills and mimics someone. So why is the inclusion of the flame thrower (when it takes/mimics the clothing normally anyway) so questionable?

07-09-2012, 07:45 PM	#6
Biofungus Not for your amusement Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Nega-Earth Posts: 22,083	It's been awhile since I've seen the Kurt Russel version (I have it on blu-ray but haven't watched it yet), but wasn't the Thing taking people's clothing after assimilating them? So maybe it was meant to show the progression, ie the Thing learning.

07-09-2012, 08:34 PM	#8
CHWolf BARF JR. Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: In the Conservatory, with the Revolver. Posts: 5,606	The real question is why there hasn't been a porn version called The Thong.

07-10-2012, 01:24 PM	#12
Biofungus Not for your amusement Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Nega-Earth Posts: 22,083	Then maybe it's just poor editing? Maybe there was more of a time gap, etc. wherein it did have time to take the guy's clothing. Plus, there's the deus ex of it being the Things ship to begin with. Maybe it had some little insta-clean setting

07-10-2012, 02:45 PM	#14
Justice41 Piss Off Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 9,369	Meh, I was just glad they cleared up where the guys in the Helicopter chasing the pooch came from.

08-26-2012, 02:18 AM	#15
DiabloCodySux LikesDaRumbaInDaBumba Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: NoFreeArtLand Posts: 190	I've tried to finish watching this film (on dvd) over 5 times. I loved the Carpenter version since I saw it in the Cinema. Over and over again. Loved the Hawkes (inaccurate) version of "Who Goes There?" too.