Discuss A Coisa
Discuss → Movies → A Coisa → General
MAJOR differences in this and the 1982 story. (Spoilers)
posted by AxholioSTAFFMOD on March 15, 2017 at 12:43 PM
My wife and I watched both movies last night and there are some major screw ups in the story line in this film.
In the 1982 film while watching the recovered videos they show the Norwegians circling the alien ship... it is not deeply buried and at the bottom of a crevasse. They try to uncover it using thermite which causes it to burn and explode. In the prequel they blow the ship up with a grenade the night before the dog runs to the American camp. When MacReady goes to see the alien ship it's not even smoldering and it is covered in snow and looks as though it's been cold for a while.
At the end of the prequel the helicopter had just arrived at the Norwegian camp and the pilot is shocked to see the destruction. The pilot knows nothing about the Thing and is forced to chase after the dog, not really knowing why. In the 1982 film, when they arrive at the American camp the pilot knows everything about the dog (shouting warnings to the Americans) and is actively (in a panic) trying to shoot it. The Norwegian helicopter is loaded with several cans (14?) of kerosene and a case of grenades. Why?
We were really disappointed by the ending. It felt like they just tacked it on with no continuity at all. What happened to Kate? Does she just fade off into the snow? That whole plot line is unresolved. They should have never added the plot of going back to the ship. It was supposed to already have been destroyed.
In the 82 film the dogs were there as part of a sled team, and Clark was a vet/handler. Why was there a dog at the Norwegian camp? Was he just a pet? He has no part in the story except that they needed him for the ending. And he's thing'd early on in the film and never seen again til the end. Not even in creature form.
They did a great job but they took a turn and got lost. It's like they ran out of time and just stuck the ending on in order to tie it in to the 82 film.
Reply by ScochS
on April 6, 2017 at 5:19 PM
Hey Axholio -
Your comments mirror mine and are the source of a WHOLE LOT of complaining and outrage amongst many people in the Thing fan/community! You should have seen the IMDB boards before they were closed - the Director of this was nearly getting threats and all sort of insults. Before I explain what I've heard/read over the years, it is important to note that there was some SERIOUS interference from Production. And none of us casual fans have gleaned who all is to blame for what, exactly. And if someone else has insight, please, CORRECT whatever I write below! Also note: I liked the pre-quell/2011 Film...
We do know that the practical effects were, mostly washed over with CGI, due to a complaints from a pre-screening (I'm not even sure they were Horror/SciFi fans...) This is upsetting because since this movies release, lots of video's (on YouTube even!) have been released, showing just how awesome and creative the practical effects were. ADI (the SFX dudes on this movie, took it hard, which they should have, and made a movie as a result of the criticism about the FX in this 2011 Thing.) (P.S. The ADI practical effects showcase movie was Harbinger Down - made for very little $$ But was fun for me.)
So, the 1982 film shows the Swedish team (er, Norwegians) blowing up the site with Thermite. That even jives with what happened in the 1932(ish) book, Who Goes There, and the 1955(ish) Movie, The THing From Another World. For the 2011 film, I'd heard (which sounds stupid, cuz I'm no insider!) that someone figured out that there IS NO WAY THERMITE CAN BLOW UP 100K years of Ice. So, "they" changed it to be more believable. I for one, of many, think that if it was established that the ice was removed by an M&M rolling into the Flux capacitor, causing the ICE to blow, then by gawd, an M&M blew up the ICE! That's the way it was in the book, the 1955 film and in JC's movie!
Many of us agree, that the Prequel had a lot of great opportunities to explain some of the cool mysteries that the story, in general, left open. Like, what WAS in that ship? Who WAS the Alien/what did it look like originally/How did it end up crashing here? What we did get was a whole lot of didn't care to know info, like: Oh, there's a husky all right, but it doesn't look like Jed (the 1982 Oscar nominated dog! ;)) And yea, where's the rest of the dog's team? We got the, Hey, that's why that Axe is in the wall, explanation (cool, but didn't care.)
The ending was a definite nod to JC's/1982 movie. But it would've been cool to have the resolution here, that we couldn't get with JC's.
So, everything you wrote, is legit, has been voiced and has been debated for a LONG time. More people will come here also to echo all of that.
Like I said, I liked this movie. Mostly because the 1982 Thing is my favorite movie of all time and I just miss this awesome monster (that I think it the bestest monster ever!) I even like how it was made that much more aggressive and threatening. Some of the CGI even looked pretty good - Split face was cool/with an, um, interesting back story. Again, the frustrating part of this movie NOT making a lot of money, getting hammered by fans and generally jacking up some pretty obvious continuity from the 1982 movie, that will most likely be the reason we'll not get to let our imaginations run with what "Really" happened....
Regarding the above - someone make me a liar, because I'd like to know the real truth is there is anything more. Cheers!
Reply by tmdb13060682
on April 6, 2017 at 7:41 PM
I think the most important difference is that this one has Mary Elizabeth Winstead in it!
Love her!
Reply by tmdb65271336
on April 6, 2017 at 9:48 PM
COMPLETELY off-topic, but Axholio why in the name of god is your avatar Homer Simpson on an easy chair when it should be Butthead with his underwear pulled over his head?!!
Reply by Axholio
on April 7, 2017 at 2:18 AM
Because this is the avatar I had when IMDB went down and I needed to keep it so my IMDB friends will know I'm the same person... But you are partly right... It's supposed to be Beavis --- lol.
ScochS - I have read "Who Goes There", and have both other copies of this story. They did a great job with this one, but the story took a turn and it stopped being a prequel. That part sucked.
As a side... I think that the actual monster is a single cell organism that can genetically 'remember' any lifeforms it comes into contact with. The creatures we see in these movies are actually other aliens (or mixtures of other aliens) from other worlds... such as the pilot of the crashed saucer. I'm sure that has been discussed at length as well.
Reply by Nexus71
on December 22, 2018 at 9:26 PM
Hi there Axholio I read your comment and being a huge fan of both The Thing From Another World by Nyby and the '82 Carpenter movie(also read the original story Who goes There?) I was very sceptical about this movie at first but after seeing it I managed to look beyond the issues you already mentioned.But .... I did appreciate that this movie was trying to give the story about the Norwegians and what had happened to them and it did manage to create some background to the anonymous faces .also I appreciated that the story brings in some rather interesting points(for example it's inability to replicate metal like fillings and earrings)and insights about the nature of the creature and it's evolution.another thing I liked is that they tried to make a mix of the old Nyby movie and Carpenters film where some of the things were drafted from both movie(for example in both nyby's film and the 2011 film we have this slightly mad and obsessive scientist that is leading the team also in that movie we have a female main character etc etc).
And what Sochs spoke about that this movie had to deal with some major interference from the studio and that the movie that was released was not what the director had intended and that some major changes were made without the the consent of the director (and fellow Dutchman)is true.the Major changes were for example that the studio is to blame for the CGI smearing on the practical FX's which was against the direct wishes of the director that the FX were practical as much as possible because thee director was a huge fan of The Thing himself and because of that had wanted to use practical FX's as a homage to Carpenter's film.Also the movie was supposed to have a prequel scene where we see the spacecraft crash and the creature escaping from it.Another major change was the ending where what the creature was and why it was in the spacecraft would have been explained according the director.The story in a nutshell was that some alien explores where on some species sampling mission when they came across the creature they probably knew of it's ability to imitate (or not) but it was kept in a cage in the spacecraft .by some accident itescaped and managed to kill the original crew it crashed and tried to escape from the craft but got caught in a snowstorm and was frozen.Some footage of the original ending has survived and a part is also in the movie although it was made completely covered over by CGI into what the director now calls The Tetris ending.
As for the crater and thermite charges ( I always kind of thought that was an homage on Carpenter's behalf to the Nyby movie)But to my knowledge they didn't show the above view when Kate Lloyd start to investigate spacecraft found under the ice.It could be for instance that the Norwegians (before the other team arrived )did try thermite but that it only melted only a fraction of the ice but that the craft remained under the ice it was only at the end because of the explosion causing massive heat that all the ice melted o that the craft became visible to the eye and how Macready found it.(Maybe that will help).