ITT: Remakes that weren't really remakes.

It was a fucking prequel, everything about it was labeled a prequel, who the fuck keeps calling it a remake?

>>82316489
I think it's because it basically is a remake disguised as a prequel.

>>82316458
It was enjoyable

>>82316458
is this worth a watch, I mean I already know it wont compare to the orginal.

>>82316598
No. The special effects are godawful.

>>82316598
not really

they added american characters so everyone has to speak english and make it "relatable" to american audiences

they spent money on making practical effects with CGI touch ups to make them perfect but for some reason just put CGI entirely all over it ruining everything's look and wasting the effects artists time and work.

the thing does some random stupid shit for no reason and generally the film is lackluster as fuck

>the thing 2011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKTy7XEGWfc

>>82316458
Wish the prequel played with paranoia and suspicion longer. Offed like 8 people in a span of three minutes which sucked.

ayy the thing is my shit

>>82316458

The original thing.

File: THE THING.png (478KB, 2144x2476px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 2144x2476px

>>82316598

I like it but most people don't. I think that if your expectations are reasonably low then you'll be fine. Personally I recommend you give it a shot, I feel it's an interesting companion piece but I'm in the minority. And it does have an interesting spin on a few story elements and a few really cool creature shots, the regrettable CGI notwithstanding.

The attached image is a hyper-autistic analysis of both movies. You've been warned, though to be honest it shouldn't really spoil much...

>>82316458
>alien ship isn't the thing's
>it's actually the ship of an alien race who's been collecting aliens across the galaxy and the thing broke out and assimilated and killed everyone then crashed on earth

Damn shame about the PS2 cgi.

>>82316598
Definitely. It's nowhere near as good as the original, but it's still a lot of fun if you like the setting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjuLZwlDxh8

>>82316698

Name a random, out-of-character behavior exhibited by the thing in the prequel, and explain why it is wrong.

>>82317055
what the fuck dude

>>82317438
the main issue being the thing out on the helicopter, while the helictoper was heading back

1. why thing out on a flying helicopter
2. why not wait and see whats happening?

the thing in the original (carpenter) waited until the very last chance or a prime chance to kill/infect someone

doing it in a flying helicopter is suicide and will mostly likely destroy the helictoper, ya know, the thing that will take you to the mainland

>>82317506

a) The Thing is still very new to this particular species. Less than 24 hours, in fact. In particular, it has already seen first-hand the extreme speed and prejudice with which these particular meat-bags waste its own - given this, and especially in light of other successful infections, there are options on the table.

Nevertheless, it knows very well that other things are ready in the base, and so it's doing a fairly safe divide-and-conquer tactic here. It wins either way. And if all the crew are implicated, what then? No, let's try something audacious and keep them off-balance, for now-we just might wrest control of the chopper while we're at it...

Remember that we do not reckon time the same way. It is perfectly content to wait another hundred thousand years, or else another day to spread. It's all the same.

>>82317173
coming from someone who liked it, i dont remember anything about that

>>82317055
who the fuck in their right mind made this?

>>82316810
What do you think John Carpenter's The Thing is a remake of? I already know you're wrong but I'm just curious.

>>82318037
It's just speculation but I agree the ship most likely didn't originally belong to the thing.

>>82316523

kind of like how star wars 7 is a remake disguised as a sequel.

>>82317438
The scene with the chopper is pure retardation, the Thing literally had won right there, it was in its way out.

And then for barely any reason it goes RARGHFALRGBARGH and ruins its victory.

I fucking hated how in order to force the american characters into the station, they pull that idea that there are people aware of the ship's existence.

File: 6127697.jpg (44KB, 447x309px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 447x309px

Whats with all this prequel shilling recently?

>>82318506
what's the other 10-15%?

>>82318246
u retarded son?

Scarface

>>82318407

You did not pay attention to the scene. I will not tell you why, and yes, I do know why. Watch the scene again to understand why you are actually wrong about this, or get some other anon to tell you.

>>82318534
Traps, which are totally not homo.

>>82318589
John Carpenter's The Thing is an adaptation of a novella called 'Who Goes There?'. It's not a remake of anything.

>>82318678
It's a remake of the thing from another world

>>82318678
So you are retarded.

>>82318707
Nope. Those movies are both adaptations of the same source material. They have very little in common with each other. John Carpenter's version is much more faithful.

>>82318626
Yes, whatshername was suspicious. No, it doesn't matter, at that point of the movie nobody gave a shit about her opinions. Shit, if I recall correctly, she suspected of the wrong person.

File: notAremake.png (439KB, 640x752px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 640x752px

>>82318744
>not a remake

>The Thing (1982 film), a remake of the 1951 film, directed by John Carpenter, more closely following the original novella Who Goes There?

Really makes you think.

>>82318863
That's called an homage, son. The Thing From Another World's plot diverges quite a bit from the original story.

>>82318968
fuck you the own people call it a reboot/re-make

>>82318968
r u retarded?

>>82319019
Got a source on that buddy?

>>82319047
Carpenter's The Thing would be a remake if it used the 1951 movie as its primary inspiration. It doesn't and instead more closely follows the plot of the original novella. Similarly, I wouldn't call Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory a remake of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

>>82319143
Nor would I call Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings a remake of the Ralph Bakshi/Rankin Bass versions.

>>82316698

I remember hearing they had lots of practical fx but the big movie execs were like NOPE AUDIENCES WANT CGI and made them go over everything to make it look like more "real"

>>82316489
Giving it the same title as the original was a mistake.

Is this the best film to be poorly reviewed?

>>82318782

You still haven't hit on EXACTLY the one thing that you failed to remember.

It's a very simple thing which is right there in the scene.

File: actionkino.jpg (130KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1280x720px

>>82316458
If you consider it a remake

>>82320011
nobody considers it a remake

its another part of the mad max story

I have a question.

What would the thing do if and after it infected everything on the planet?

Would it just chill out and continue civilization?

>>82320125
Yeah, just party up with all the other Things.

>>82320125

My personal view: it would simultaneously continue to inhabit Earth as the human species, and proceed normally (most of the time) like same species, while at the same time immediately re-deploying spacecraft in every direction it knows to check, in a bid to infect others.

This view is partially informed (and reinforced, perhaps) by the final scene of the Body Snatchers remake (please ignore the annoying opening 5-second bump):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nFXIPdseQA

This is what it would actually look like, once it had won, or was on the brink of winning. Notice how /peaceful/ the drones are, as they file through the hallway. They're just inhabiting the husks, and going through the motions, like the large cells that they are.

It's only once they come into contact with a remaining victim that they again rear their ugly heads...

>>82317055
What in the name of autism is this?

so who built the spaceship she found at the end?