Remake when?
>>70941152
when you're mum shaves her legs the play the thing
>>70941152
We got a mediocre prequel a few years ago and it bombed hard so the studio won't touch The Thing for a long time.
>>70941242
it bombed because they used cgi
>>70941458
Naw it bombed because it sucked. The effects where horrible but they would be forgivable if the story was good.
I'm okay with a remake but only if Carpenter directs it and the original cast comes back
>>70941242
>>70941917
I thought it was pretty well done. the atmosphere was great and the performances were fine. I also didn't mind the cgi effects, they were serviceable. yeah it sucked that they put stupid cgi over well made practical effects, but that's not something I get mad over.
>>70941152
Try 30 years. bumping first to keep thread alive.
>>70941152
Hoprefully fucking never, that shit is prefect as is. Have you seen the reboot/prequel or whatever.
fuck that noise.
>>70941152
The original is kinomatographique enough.
they already made one and it was garbage.
>>70943548
As others have pointed out, there was a prequel/"remake" five years ago, which was a failure. That said, I personally liked it, found it to be a decent companion piece, and I know I have a minority opinion on this.
The exact reason for my "30 years" comment is that "official" Thing movies now have a very well-established patteren of happening every 30 years. The Christian Nyby/Hawks original dropped in 1951, Carpenter's Master Class was given in 1982, and the prequel dropped 2011.
As for the original short story, consider the following: that came out in 1938. Fucker is almost 80 years old. The Thing is an old property! Not only that, but Orson Welles' radio dramatization of War of the Worlds happened /within a few weeks/ of the original publication of "Who Goes There?" 1938 was therefore a seminal year for science fiction.
didnt they make a bunch of practical effects for the prequel a few years back then replace it all with CGI
