IT’S THE BOOZE TALKIN’: The Thing (2011) prequel? Looks like a straight up remake to me!

Last Updated on August 5, 2021

One of the scariest movies ever made has to be John Carpenter’s THE THING. Released in 1982 at about the same time as POLTERGIEST and E.T., it was initially brushed under the rug when it hit theaters. But as soon as it hit video it gained a life of its own and is now the renowned example of the awesome mixture of terror, special effects, musical score, and Kurt Russell’s immaculate beard. With a solid supporting cast and an atmosphere to boot, THE THING did exactly what remakes are supposed to do: offer something new for the audience, not the same ol’ thing they got with the original. That’s right, for those not in the know, THE THING is a remake of THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD, although most people don’t know that because THE THING has its own unique look, tone, and feel that the original just didn’t have. Great movie, great remake, and the perfect example of what a directorial genius John Carpenter was in the early 1980s. In a few weeks THE THING’s 2011 prequel is set to release with just one problem: it looks more like a shot-for-shot remake than a flippin’ prequel!

Goddamnit, this irritates the shit out of me. A prequel is supposed to give light to a story that happened before the events of said film, or show what crazy journey certain characters (in this case, the alien in question) went through leading up to the original film—a prequel is not a f*ckin’ shot-for-shot remake of the original, nor is it a rehash of the same goddamn story. It should be something different, not the same ol’ thing—because that’s a remake. And judging from the stills, trailers, clips, and all-around press that we’ve seen thus far for THE THING, this shit is about as remake as it gets. I don’t care if the storyline sorta sits on the edge of ‘what happened to the dog running away from the Norwegian camp’ that jump-started the original film—when the events that take place within the film mimic / recreate the events that take place in the original, that shit’s a remake plain and simple.

Also, since when do prequels keep the same name as the original? They could have called it THE THING 2: NORWEGIAN CAMP, or better yet, THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD, using the original title that THE THING (1982) remade, thus being a little more original than keeping the same freaking name, the same style of title work / font, the same pretty much everything, making it a little easier to swallow the idea that it’s a prequel. But they didn’t—they kept it the same through-and-through and as we’ve seen in the past, remakes of great films that attempt to go the same direction as the original always fails. Do something different and maybe the end result will be solid flick that stands on its own and maybe people will forget it’s a remake at all and accept it as its own film. THE THING (2011) is all about saying that it’s from the producers of DAWN OF THE DEAD (2004)—but why the f*ck should that matter? They obviously didn’t go the same route in terms of creating a unique look and feel, and let’s face it—the producers had nothing to do with the awesomeness of DAWN OF THE DEAD, that shit was the genius work of director Zack Snyder. At least he went in a different direction and didn’t recreate each shot and scene to mimic the original.

I can already hear the argument here: but THE THING (1982) was a remake. To that, I say, see above: it retold the same general story but did so in a unique and creative way that was all its own. See also David Cronenberg’s THE FLY (1986) for another example of how a remake is supposed to roll. A lot of people seem to be complaining about the special effects and look of the alien monster being revealed in the trailers and clips already released in the film, claiming the practical effects of the original still looks 100% better than the CGI route they went with here. While I’m not arguing against that thought, I will say that the effects in the trailer look pretty damn good and I’m not gonna knock it for not going the same route as the original—at least they’re doing something different (even if the CGI effects are essentially the same as the original’s practical effects).

Speaking of different, the other argument against me is having Mary Elizabeth Winstead as the lead role instead of Joel Edgerton (or rather, a chick instead of a dude). That may be true… but have you seen Edgerton’s beard? It’s summoning the spirit of Russell’s epic beard from 1982. As for Winstead, I’ll just say…they appear to be doing a great job making her look as unattractive as possible, which is a damn crazy thing to do considering how hot she is. But damn does she look plain Jane in this thing… which is a goddamn crime if you ask me.

Maybe it’s the booze talkin’, but calling THE THING (2011) a prequel of THE THING (1982) when it’s obviously a shot-for-shot remake is deceiving, stupid, and f*cking ridiculous. Own up and call it what it is: a remake. Regardless of which, shame on them for not really doing anything different than what Carpenter already did some 30 years ago , thus defeating the real reason to remake something in the first place. The only upside I see coming out of this is the increase of interest in Carpenter’s original to folks who may have otherwise have never seen it before (for shame!). Then maybe a whole new generation of movie lovers will begin to appreciate the epicness of Carpenter’s vision, score, and how he handled the film’s special effects. Not to mention Russell’s epic beard.