Universal and Blumhouse Developing New Version of ‘The Thing’

Goatface said:

really i don't know if anyone can top the 1982 movie

Click to expand...

They can't.

This thread is over.

Budget is not a metric.

The Thing was made with 15m and was a flop. Transformers 4 was made with 500,000,000,000,000m and made 1703184197401237402134792310479 dollars.

There is literally nothing else you ever need to know about movie making and the business of Hollywood than this. If this doesn't spell it out for you, then you need to lose a chromosome.

Budget is not a metric.

The entire concept of comparing budget to quality should be met with roving death squads who bury you in a shallow grave and then piss into the mouth-hole of your rotting corpse.

The novella Who Goes There is really good if someone is looking for a bit more of The Thing. Unfortunately The Thing From Outer Space isn't very good and neither is the soft reboot prequel thing from a few years ago.

So you've got one good written story and one good movie. There's at least two different sequel comic series and they're alright for what they are. Macready is alive in both of them AND in the video game!

Goatface said:

The Thing wasn't a flop.

Click to expand...

Budget:
$15,000,000 (estimated)

Opening Weekend USA:
$3,107,897, 27 June 1982

Gross USA:
$19,629,760

Cumulative Worldwide Gross:
$19,629,760

It squeaked out a tiny profit after many years. By the standards of its time, it was a flop.

The Room made more money than this over the course of time. Would you argue that it was NOT a flop?

Goatface said:

The Thing wasn't a flop.
There is no way in hell they can make a movie like this on the cheap. does it need a $100m, no. how fucking great would The Thing have been if was made for $2m back in 82, would have gotten this guy again
View attachment 246090

sure this can be made on the cheap with cgi and green screens and be total garbage or be made $25m budget with full set, fake snow with practical effects and still be total garbage. having a budget at least gives them options to be good or not bases on their choices, and not have it look like something from the syfy channel.

Click to expand...

My point, Goatface, is that budget is nothing. It is not a metric.

Give me a low budget movie with good dialogue and a solid plot with halfway decent actors (Pulp Fiction) and I will take that movie over any number of Transformers or Avatars or Terminator sequels.

Budget means nothing. The only thing a budget can do is support a good writer and a couple of good actors.

Have you not seen the Star Wars prequels and sequels? Huge budgets, shit writing.

Look at the original Blair Witch or even the more modern movie The VVitch. Both lower budget movies that are amazingly good because they had good writing and acting.

Look at Tremors. Quite possibly one of the best movies ever made, and it was a B movie. The original Alien was not a blockbuster, but it is still considered one of the best movies of all time.

Budget means nothing. Throwing money at The Thing does not make a good movie. In fact, on a psychological level, it will probably mean that the movie has a better chance of being pure shit. One of the magical things about Carpenter's 1982 The Thing is the very fact that he was constrained.

It's a lightning in a bottle type of thing. You can't just simply purchase it with a checkbook.

Budget matters only to the extent that it doesn't restrict the writer/director's vision for the story. It's like humans... you need a certain amount of money to have your essentials taken care of, but after that money doesn't buy much happiness. Try to make The Thing on $1 million and it probably is worse because it becomes too restrictive in what you can do, or your production value gets so low it's difficult to get immersed. But if you go from $15 million to $50 million, it doesn't mean it will be better.

Also, on bigger budget pictures, there tends to be more oversight by producers and executives, depending on how well the director is trusted, since it's more important that they don't lose money.

Edit: Original Blair Witch was horrrrrrible. Even the theater I was in laughed at the end. Interesting how so many people feel differently about it. Still, no mistaking it launched a horror genre.

DickTrickle said:

Budget matters only to the extent that it doesn't restrict the writer/director's vision for the story. It's like humans... you need a certain amount of money to have your essentials taken care of, but after that money doesn't buy much happiness. Try to make The Thing on $1 million and it probably is worse because it becomes too restrictive in what you can do, or your production value gets so low it's difficult to get immersed. But if you go from $15 million to $50 million, it doesn't mean it will be better.

Also, on bigger budget pictures, there tends to be more oversight by producers and executives, depending on how well the director is trusted, since it's more important that they don't lose money.

Edit: Original Blair Witch was horrrrrrible. Even the theater I was in laughed at the end. Interesting how so many people feel differently about it. Still, no mistaking it launched a horror genre.

Click to expand...

More oversight only means less risk.

But less risk means less reward.

The way it is currently set up, no movie will ever lose money, but no movie will ever be great.

AngryGerbil said:

More oversight only means less risk.

But less risk means less reward.

The way it is currently set up, no movie will ever lose money, but no movie will ever be great.

Click to expand...

I wasn't saying oversight was a good thing. I was pointing that out as a negative of higher budget films. It's rare that someone like Peter Jackson just gets a shitload of money and goes about his merry way.

so, they going for a third remake? which one was the commercially successful one? the CGI wont be realistically gruesome like the Carpenter version, will not be scary. does anyone know about the easter egg in Halloween? where the movie the kids are watching is actually The Thing From Another Planet.

The audience - - - - - - - - > new movie

Chukzombi said:

so, they going for a third remake? which one was the commercially successful one? the CGI wont be realistically gruesome like the Carpenter version, will not be scary. does anyone know about the easter egg in Halloween? where the movie the kids are watching is actually The Thing From Another Planet.

Click to expand...

I think The Thing might be the single greatest special effects movie ever made. The other two I'd put up there is the original Star Wars and Jurassic Park.

These fucks need to come up with something original. Leave my childhood favorites alone.

Rajaah said:

The 1982 movie is my favorite movie of all time.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1977) is #2 and a good look at what the world might be like if The Thing reached the mainland, so sometimes I watch it as a pseudo-sequel.

Rounding out my top five are probably T1/T2/Aliens, in no particular order.

As for this remake....ehhh. It already kinda got remade in 2011 with the prequel movie that followed all the same beats as the 1982 movie. That movie was... fine (Mary-Elizabeth Winstead is hawt) but it was also really unnecessary, and it'd be even less necessary now. Doesn't Blumhouse also have a track record of making weird social justice-y movies the last few years?

Click to expand...

Great...a social justice version of The Thing. A group of women scientists/researchers are attacked in the arctic by Harvey Weinstein.

Hosix said:

Great...a social justice version of The Thing. A group of women scientists/researchers are attacked in the arctic by Harvey Weinstein.

Click to expand...

Go on...

15m in 1982 is almost 40m today.

I have a better idea....these tards should just do a sequel to the 1982 version. Kill off the remaining characters alive at the end. Start with the rescue.