f13.net

So they are making a new "The Thing" movie. Here is the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txjm94GnrPA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txjm94GnrPA)

and by comparision here is the one from the old movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouZkkIsLiNg

Yeah I know which one I will be watching again... :oh_i_see:

(Hollywood, stop raping my childhood/teenage years)

Well, this one is a prequel about the Norwegians so it shouldn't mess to much with the original.

Yeah, this is a prequel, not a remake.  Actually looking somewhat forward to it, as I loved the John Carpenter version.  Could suck, but I'm willing to give it a chance since there's an opportunity for a decent story this way.

I'm also kind of curious how they're going to transition the end of this one into the beginning of the other movie.

Ronald Moore's first project after the end of Battlestar was to write the script for this.  But then they eventually canned his and let the guy who wrote the Nightmare on Elm Street Remake script do it instead...

If Starbuck was the frozen thing, then BSG would have had a better ending.

Agreed.

I just hope the creatures are completely...

<removes sunglasses>

Out of this world.

(http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/10/105287/1735968-csi_miami_yeah.jpg)

Looks like this thing should have been kept...

...on ice!

Silly puns aside, it really looks more like a remake pretending to be a prequel than an actual prequel.

Well in fairness I'm not sure where else they'd have gone with it. Remote arctic base with slightly unbalanced characters that discovers shape shifting alien that starts to kill people off (cue paranoia and constant fear of everyone around you as well as mystery creature). If they're doing this as a horror then I don't see many other angles to approach it from, what will mark it out as a prequel rather than remake is going to be the characters they've placed in it.

Nah, I think they're trying to make it prequel'ish enough.  It looks like they are going to spend time revealing more about the alien craft, and probably give all sorts of back story to the aliens race and other origin story stuff.  That will be on top of it being a clone of the first movie with the same situation and nemesis.  Now whether its a bad idea or not to try and give an origin story to the alien, we'll see, but that's usually the point of a prequel movie.

Americans?

Hey, I just looked at the cast list on IMDB, and most of them aren't Americans.  So your safe there!

His safe where?

A friend who considers The Thing to be one of the best movies ever was able to see the new one five weeks early thanks to a friend at Carmike.  He says it is fantastic.  Although I am skeptical since the original had Kurt Russell and no women, while this one seems to avoid both those points.

As someone who loves the original, that's reassuring. 

The commercials for this have looked terrible.  They've looked like typical "monster picks off redshirts one-by-one" type affairs.  The real draw of the first film is that the monsters were basically just people:  they are content to lie low and play it cautiously, or they were secretly building an escape vehicle.  The monsters "win" by holding out until the next crew arrives.  The humans know this, so they're getting increasing on edge and paranoid, and are acting as monstrous as the Things.

I know the film is based on a Joe Campbell story, but it's the fact that the Things are very much like people that draws the most parallels to the Lovecraft "At the Mountains of Madness."  The original version of The Thing is the closest we've ever gotten to a good Lovecraft adaption.

One of the potential problems is that we know the ending, We know that they are all going to die, so its going to have to be something interesting to avoid it just being a film about redshirts.

I don't think disapproval here is about raping childhood. This is just very unnecessary. Besides, it's not like they had action figures and saturday morning cartoon versions of the Thing. I remember loving the Swamp Thing like that, but not the Thing. This movie was never infantile to spark that kind of liking when we were young. I'm sure a lot of kids probably weren't even allowed to see it.

Although I wouldn't stop anyone from trying to remake it (and fail). Just like Conan. It might get more people to watch the original anyways.

The John Campbell Jr. story ("Who Goes There?") is really good by the way. Very close to the Carpenter version and super creepy. It's one of the few things I've read that made me not want to go to bed.

Also to nitpick a bit multiple people are referring to the "original" but there was a 1951 film "The Thing from Another World" that is also sometimes known as simply "The Thing" that the Carpenter version is a "remake" of. That's what I think of when I think of the original. (It's not very good IMO)

I'm hoping the new movie is good, the makers have said the right things, but in the end if it's bad I don't think I care too much.

Doh.  My brain switched John Campbell with Joseph Campbell.


(http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090520201357/en.futurama/images/e/ee/225px-Number_1_0.png)

True, though "John Carpenter's The Thing" is more of a re-adaption of the same source material, like 60's TV Batman to 80's Film Batman, then it is a remake of the "The Thing from Another World."


One big reason to hope this film does well:  Guillermo del Toro is trying to get a studio to back his planned (supposedly very faithful) "At the Mountains of Madness" adaption.  If the The Thing (2011) is big, I'm sure someone will throw money at him to produce another Antarctic horror movie.  I mostly think del Toro is mediocre (besides Cronos), but wish him luck. 

Wait, what.. this is a del toro movie? *suddenly interested*

I've only seen Pan's and the Hellboy movies, but I like the design/look of them (besides the stories, of course). Not sure if he's entirely responsible for that, but it's pretty similar across all of those movies, so I'll just say he is. He has his own style as much as Carpenter did. At least this wouldn't be a standard popcorn remake.

edit: Nevermind.. I misread that.

No, this isn't a Del Toro movie. He wants to make his own "The Thing" with a budget of $150m and Tom Cruise. Apparently, because it's going to be a "faithful" adaptation of one of Howie Lovecraft's stories, this'll make it sell.

I think we've covered the "selling media based on niche geek interests to mass market" topic several times on these boards.

I've been gone from these boards for awhile. I'll have to catch up on that (very compelling) topic.

edit: Actually, that's interesting. I think it's good to find that angle to niche things. Spread the love. Fuck geek elitism. Things don't have to be watered down or anything.

A couple of things:

1.  You're misinterpreting the lesson.  Selling media based niche geek interests, like any niche interest, is fine and a successful strategy.  Overbudgeting for niche geek interests, like Firefly or Scott Pilgrim, is where you go wrong.

A Game of Thrones is a niche geek interest, compared to the mass-market.  It's successful because HBO learned their fucking lessons about keeping costs to projected buys down after the budget disasters that were Rome and Deadwood.

2.  No one is saying it will sell.  It'll probably be a financial blunder if they try to make it as a big budget Hollywood blockbuster, especially since Lovecraft is largely considered to be unfilmable and any of the many film adaptions so far have been....  bad.  If some studio gets suckered into giving it a try, though, I won't argue.

3.  Lovecraft isn't niche.  He or the Chtulhu mythos is name checked all over the place, going right back to Rod Serling's Night Gallery which had multiple Lovecraft based shorts on to dozens of movies (most terrible), and used as the basis for multiple Metallica songs.  Lovecraft still shows up in conventional media, most recently on Supernatural where both he and Cthulthu were plot points.

Hell, the first time I heard about anything Lovecraft was good old Saturday morning cartoons where the Real Ghostbusters ran into both the Necronomicon and Cthulthu.

Both Neil Gaiman and Stephen King are good for at least one Lovecraftian horror story in each collection they put out, and dozens of midlisters have been making their living by digging in Lovecraft's backyard for decades.


Lovecraftian horror is basically the backbone for most modern horror, and has crept into everything from video games (Call of Cthulthu, Eternal Darkness, WoW) to tabletop war games (Warhammer) to CCGs (MtG) to RPGs (everyone from DnD on has taken a crack at it from time to time). 

That's not even getting into the really strange shit....  like the connections between Lovecraft and the Ancient Astronauts/Chariots of the Gods crowd.

You're funny.  And kinda wrong.

Lovecraftian horror shows up in a lot of places but Lovecraft himself is very niche. "Based on the works of Lovecraft" means absolutely nothing to most people.

If your a nerd, i mean the type that actually writes your own shit, then ya you know lovecraft. Lovecraftean themes sell (mostly among the less creatively inclined nerd masses), lovecraft itself is obscure niche reserved for the type of geeks that would probably unleash said cosmic horrors if they were real.

Yah, fair point.  "Lovecraft" isn't well known, but Lovecraftian themes and influences are literally all over the place even if not generally referred to as such.  Alien, for instance.  Or to get back to the subject, John Campbell was an editor at the magazine that ran "At the Mountains of Madness" and many have speculated about a connection/inspiration from the Lovecraft story.




Actually, the obscure niche reference would be hoping for an adaption of Machen's The Great God Pan or Algernon Blackwood's "The Willows."

Lovecraft was an awesome poet!  :grin:


 :awesome_for_real: :ye_gods: :awesome_for_real: :ye_gods: :uhrr:

I admit, I haven't read that much Lovecraft. I should get around to it.

I've read a lot of Robert E Howard's stuff though. Apparently Lovecraft considered his style scarier (when he wanted to be), while Howard considered Lovecraft his influence.

Pretty sure that Scott Pilgrim made all its money back plus a tidy profit once it hit DVD/Blu-Ray.

And speaking of Del Toro, AtMoM is dead (http://www.newsinfilm.com/2011/03/10/details-on-guillermo-del-toros-pacific-rim/). But he's working on Not!Evangelion instead.

Scott Pilgrim is a great movie.  :awesome_for_real:

Bah Already answered further into the thread

Events of The Thing told from the Thing's perspective.

http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/

Awesome. Thanks for the link.

That's a Bloodworth.  I think it was even linked in the Thing thread.

It's worth the read though !

Haha, glorious story! That made my day. Properly better then the prequel.

Stray:
My problem with hollywood is twofold. First why make remakes/prequels/sequels, when they add nothing original to a story - seeing the same old story unfolded with only new actors and effects does not do it for me. Maybe for you, but not for me. In the case of the Thing prequel, it very much seems to have degenerated into a generic horror film. Also in my mind, bad remakes/prequels/sequels also tends to tarnish the original's story by cluttering the background story/plot/characters/themes up. Maybe not so much a problem for people who have seen the original first and then all the shitty followers. But for those younglings who sees perhaps the second before the first, it will most definitely change how they perceive the original story - they already have a framework which they just put the original into - making it less of an experience. Sometimes one should just let the story end and stop trying to reanimate something that is already perfect or unique.

Secondly, money spend on remakes/prequels/sequels is money that could have been given to filmmakers, who actually have an original idea they want to make into a film.

Oh Stop it.

The Thing was a generic horror film.  Sorry, but it was.

Sure, it was one of the fucking best movies I've ever seen, but don't put it on a plinth for fucks sake.

Your tarnish argument is also baws.  Empire Strikes Back is no less great for the fucking prequels.

You MIGHT be right about it merely being a replay but, you know, so what ?  Gonna buy Diablo III ?

It seems we have a squabble on our hands here.

You are quite right I was kinda putting it on a plinth - where it properly does not belong based if based on more objective criteria. Still the way it handled the balance between the suspense elements in the frozen inhumane antarctic tundra and the shock effects in the battles where the thing mutates and fights for survival was eminent. Don't you agree? Also I thought the premise and ending was both great.

Would you say that sequels/prequels/remakes on the level of the Empire Strikes Back is the common norm? Because while you can name a sequel that is great, I would properly be able to name 5 or 10 sequels that turned out mediocre or bad. So if there ever was a generalization to be made here, it would properly be that the movies after the original one is of a lower quality (the profit might be higher through) compared to the first one. But as to any generalization there is exemptions such as the Empire Strikes Back.  

As for buying Diablo 3, actually no I will properly not be buying it. All through this decision is not only based on it being a reply, but also time constraints. I did not buy Starcraft 2 either for that matter. And if I was going to buy Diablo 3, it would not be because of the gameplay or story, but because my friends brought it and wants to play it together in a group. Sometimes we do/play stuff just because so we can have that group experience which bound us together or reaffirms the bound. It does not mean I don't like the stuff, but that if it was only me and there was alternatives, I would properly allocate my time differently. It's the same reason why I went in seeing the newest shitty Transformers movie - not because I liked it, but because some friends wanted to see it. It was a group bounding experience, and nothing more for me.  

Also while The Thing did not spawn "action figures and saturday morning cartoon versions of the Thing" it was commercialized quite a bit, according to wikipedia:  "It was subsequently 'novelized' in 1982, adapted into a comic book miniseries published by Dark Horse Comics, and was followed by a video game sequel in 2002, with a film prequel due for release in 2011.". For what reasons? Perhaps to expand the universe, and explore its themes, characters, plot even further. Or to just generate money. Since I have not been into contact with the other "The Things" products I actually can't say, but I always thought that the original was perfect the way it was.

Edit: okay hehe, actually The Thing did spawn action figures apparantly:

Psycho.

In terms of camera work, jump scares, music cues, casting, etc, The Thing really was not a generic horror movie.

Oh shush.

 :why_so_serious:

Bumpity.  Anyone seen this?

Reviews seem....somewhat negative.

I'm gonna watch the early matinee during lunch. Should be a good way to start the week.

Yeah, I'm not hearing good things either, from reviews. Hope people adjust their expectations accordingly or there is gonna be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Edit: that said, the original got very scathing reviews from many quarters.

I'm going to watch the original again, haven't seen it in about 20 years but I remember the sound effects being great at building tension.

Original was on Sky Classics the other night.

I was dog tired and needing my bed, but I still ended up watching the whole thing.  Just such a good movie.

It did ?  Evidence for the lulz ?

Carpenter interview in Time Out last year (http://newyork.timeout.com/arts-culture/film/1654199/street-fighting-men)

Fuck E.T.

Ouch. 

Though that interview was great.  I loved all the political discussion of Escape from New York, and how he described Kurt Russell as being to the right of Attila the Hun.   :awesome_for_real:

So I saw this yesterday.  Positives were the tense paranoid set pieces, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead with a flamethrower (:drillf:).  Negatives were overuse of the CGI monster (sometimes it looked good and sometimes it looked ridiculous) and some severe plot stupidness at the end.

Overall I'd put it in the "fun stupid monster movie" category.  So it's probably going to dash some hopes.

Just being lazy on the internetz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(1982_film)

Hoooooo boy. Just arrived back from this. Where to start...

If you're the rare person who has never seen the Carpenter version, then I highly recommend seeing this in theaters because things (!) are only going to get better for you when it's time to visit the classic from the 80s. This one is mostly competent and there's some strong tension early on.

For everyone else, I'll spoiler the rest in case you want to keep yourself pure until a first viewing. No major details, just some general thoughts:

It's funny that all during production the people making the movie claimed to "get it" and said they would be using mostly practical effects and a few high quality CGI effects.

A thread about The Thing where I did not repost http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT7AH4JyuNs yet? This will not stand.

Best music video ever.

About the CGI, it's disappointing. I just read an interview with the director, published yesterday. He sort-of commits to the effects being half CG, but it's more like 90% digital. In all the adds you see the practical work, but that's just a tiny part of the movie. Maybe most of it was left on the cutting room floor. In the end, it's Universal tinkering so much to bolster a franchise that they end up stepping on their own dicks.

interview with spoilers (http://io9.com/5849650/the-director-of-the-thing-reveals-the-aliens-secret-backstory?tag=interview)

The director talks around the studio micro-managing the project a bit. Meh. It was still pretty good even though I'm not in love with the final product. I'd watch it again. The Zombie Zombie version is better.

Being stuck in the hospital, I watched the original last night on Netflix. The critics were right.
The ending was horrible.

And Alien did the suspense part much better.

That was sort of the point, Sand. 

Noooo.

All of which is beside the point. People like things, especially movies, wrapped up in nice neat little packages with tidy endings. Hence the hate of the movie.

It's nice to know I'm not People.

 :oh_i_see:

Also, I would hardly call that ending tidy.

(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/44058/johnstewart_facepalm.gif)

Quick Question :  What would have satisfied ?  I'm seriously asking without menacing intent.  I know there was an alternative ending shot that sounds like it would have sucked balls.  What would have been your end ?

I would have had Kurt Russell turn into a blonde in a bikini with twin miniguns, who blows up the Thing and then flies back to civilization while Aerosmith plays in the background.

Kurt Russel should have come out of the closest.

 The last thing The Thing needs is some tacked on happy bullshit ending to please test audiences.

The entire movie is about dread, isolation, bleakness and paranoia and the ending fits all that perfectly.

Same ending they had for Alien or any other scifi/horror movie. Hero/innocent lives and monster dies (or atleast we think it does).
See Alien, Pitch Black, The Shining, Cujo, Predator, etc etc etc.

Go watch those movies and leaved the thing alone. :why_so_serious:

Pretty sure this is the first time I've seen someone argue that all movies should be the same.

The ending was the best bit about it.

Sand, sometimes the monsters win.

Actually, in MOST cases the monsters win.

I think that's why I liked The Thing so much. 

The end of the original Thing is one of my most favorite moments in cinematic history.

Two guys staring across from each other, both armed.  Once good friends, as far as they know, either could an alien/monster clone.  As certain death descends upon them in the form of a freezing arctic night, the only thing they can do is stare at each other in tense paranoia, waiting to see who will freeze or attack first, illuminated the light of the burning wreckage of their only means of survival.

Maybe one of them is the Thing, and one will attack the other soon.  Maybe they killed they Thing, and both men are normal, thus dooming themselves to die out of paranoia.

That is just awesome.  Fuck standard Hollywood endings.

I'm not sure Sand has actually seen any of the films he's quoted otherwise he'd be aware of how much he was talking out of his arse. I can believe he's seen Cujo though but including it in that list of films says more about him than the film.

I'm not really sure I would count Pitch Black in the list of 'Triumphant Hero Wins Despite All Odds' either.

I mean, Riddick was a psychopath and everyone else worth a damn died.

 :uhrr:

Not to mention that they just escaped the planet rather than kill all the monsters.

Also, Alien: Ripley destroyed the Nostromo (failing to kill the alien in the process - something she had to fix a little while later) and escaped in a short range escape shuttle in the middle of deep space with distinct possibilty that she might not get rescued. All the while being aware that there were hundreds of eggs left in the derelict ship on LV-426.

Also, The Shining: the Overlook Hotel seems to be the real monster of the piece, claiming the lives of the last caretaker's family before Jack Torrance goes mad and it's still left standing at the end of the film.

Not in the book though.  And King hated the film.

Actually, I hated the film too. Probably because of Nicholson.

Sand also probably thinks there needs to be a love interest for MacReedy and then he can truly live happily ever after...  :uhrr:


The ending of 'The Thing' is perfect.

Let's all bear in mind Different Strokes for Different Folks.

After all, this discussion spawned because people disliked it when it came out, which is STILL baffling me.

How exactly would that work and not feel fucking retarded? They were trapped in the middle of the goddamn Antarctic. Their only shelter was gone. There was no radio, no one to rescue them, no reason anyone would have come looking for them in time to make it. It would have made audiences go "Wait, WHAT?" And it would have ended up forgotten as "That movie that started so good but had a shit stupid ending."

Except the fact that they did film that.

 :why_so_serious:

Luckily, they didn't release that, because it would have been fuckstupid.

Agreed.

Loved the video Ingmar. Also, Sand, do you know you are a cartoon of yourself sometimes?

Like Ironwood said different strokes for different folks. No need to get all uppity with your hip selves because you loved The Thing.
It was received poorly by reviewers and didnt do all that great at the box office, so its not like Im hanging out on some thin limb all alone in my dislike.

I just feel IRL is dark enough and the bad guys often always win, so I like my book or movies to have slightly happier endings.  :why_so_serious: :heart:

Im a Princess Bride kind of guy!

That's because Princess Bride is like Stardust :  Utterly awesome.

Well then next time maybe try saying that you don't like downer endings, instead of just shooting from the hip. Or not. Whatever.

The thing (hah) that I liked about the ending was that it left little credible room for some dumb sequel. It was the final suicide solution to prevent the plague. Sure, it was a downer that they all died, but it was an awesome sacrifice on the part of MacReady that made the movie positive to me. The best part is that Kurt Russel could pull it off believably, without excessive macho heroics ala Sigourney Weaver in Aliens.

I've also been thinking a bit about why this movie is a successful scary movie, and I think its because in a sense, the creature is not presented as anything other than an organism. There's no deviance, there's no 'malicious intent', its just a force of nature. Its impersonal and implacable. The music, with its drone beat, also lends to the theme of an inexorable approach of something inevitable that doesn't try to scare you, or beat around the bush, it just is. That in my mind is far far more scary than similar types of boogie men, such as They Live or Invasion of the Body Snatchers. In those, there's a sinister quality, an evil intent, a power grab for domination that just isn't there in The Thing. In The Thing, its just a danged virus of sorts that has all the qualities of a thoughtless force of nature that you can't control, or second guess, or get your mind around. It just IS.

Um, not really.

See, if Childs was alien then the world was fucked.  It was kinda that simple.

I like it because it was actually a downplayed End of The World film.

 :awesome_for_real:

Woops, you're right. Its been a while. I presume the assumption is that if one of them is the thing, it'll survive to infect the rescue party.

Even if there's not a rescue party, it froze for millenia.

When we destroy the glaciers, it's coming for us.

lol.

*At a science conference somewhere*

“And so you see, ladies and gentleman, this is why it is vital that we stop global warming!”

*crickets*

The only thing in They Live that is supposed to be scary is how close to home it hits.

I have to admit I found the Thing pretty confusing when I saw it, because they swaped gears in the middle. Was it a creature that ate other creatures and assumed their form like they said at the start? Or was it a disease that turned people into goo? Which was it? And how come that guy was human one second, had a heart attack and next second his intestines were trying to bite someones face off? How come that guy had no idea he was the monster and the next second his head was tapdancing out the room? And if it was just a disease how come it ate Bennings and they caught it turning into him afterwards? And how did all these people get infected anyway other than by plot?

I mean the short story did a good job trying to tie all this together but it make no sense at the time to me. Different strokes and all that.

One theory says that you may not know you're the Thing because the transition into the other is so complete. Or maybe the Thing is just that good at mimicry. I believe it can be both. Say you get infected through a tiny cut in your arm, and the whole day you're doing lab experiments. Meanwhile, the Thing has taken over every fiber of your body. Someone walks in to see what you're so busy with and before you can look up, the world goes black, because the Thing has activated itself and you cease to exist. You're not even a vessel anymore. And the person who just popped in to check on you is being swallowed whole by a creature that looks like the cross between a bear trap and a squid. The ambiguity is the beauty of the movie.

To add to that, Carpenter based his version on people's reactions to the AIDS epidemic during the early 80s.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044121/ ?
 :oh_i_see:

This is cool. Can you tell me where you found this out?

About a month ago, I watched the Blu-Ray version which has a commentary by Carpenter & Russell. Carpenter plays with his cards held tight, but that was one of the big nuggets he had.

I said the original Thing.  Not the original "Thing from another world."   :-P

Actually the quoptes section from that IMDB link is hilarious

Is that the same commentary as the DVD where it's quite clear they're drinking and smoking all the way through it?

The Thing from Another World is pretty cheesy IMO. Yeah, the bad guy is a super vegetable and he doesn't take over people IIRC.

Ha, It might have been because Russell keeps trying to imagine what the Thing was like on other worlds but Carpenter doesn't bite. And then Russell makes a crack about Wilford Brimley being "a long way from those oatmeal commercials" before laughing hysterically.

I think Empire did a long interview with Russell and Carpenter for "The Thing"'s anniversary release. Doesn't look to be online though.

Watched it last night. Was pretty predictable.

I've realized I'm not a fan of the,"fake scare, haha fooled you here's the real scare!" scene/writing.

The best part was the music/ending by far.

BUMP!!!

Just finished watching this. At first I was like "hmm...this doesn't seem too bad." Then I was like "this is pretty good, guess the critics were wrong. I mean, it may not be the original but it's pretty decent." Then it turned into a CGi shitfest and I was like "ok, yeah, it's bad." Once it turns into a bad two-headed CGI dog thing chasing people around it gets really dumb.

Also the lead-in to the Carpenter version was nonsense.

What's sad is that they did some absolutely amazing practical creature effects (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBzpT7VmSaU), and then spoiled it with shitty writing, acting, and CG.

While watching the movie towards the end I was thinking "what the hell is this blue and yellow 3D Dot Heroes thing? And can The Thing actually fly this ship?"

Then I did a little digging. Turns out that blue-yellow dot thing was added to cover up the pilot of the ship hanging there, apparently there was some stuff cut that established that The Thing was a captive on the ship, not a crew member.

Well, that's lame.

That pretty much describes the whole film. None of it made much sense and pretty much ignored the rules set up in the first film. I don't normally have too much issue with that unless it's hamfisted and lazy and serves no purpose.

Which is pretty much this film in a nutshell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT7AH4JyuNs <-- just watch this homage to The Thing for 1½ hour straight, and you will be more entertained than watching the real movie. 

That was awesome, apart from the god-awful music.  :awesome_for_real:

I kinda like it.

But they said the same about the main theme song in the original.  :awesome_for_real:

This movie was fucking terrible. It wasn't bad enough to be worth watching for "so bad it's good," it was just bad. The effects were terrible (especially the bits in the ship at the end) and the ending was even worse. I also don't remember the critter being able to talk quite so much in the original movie. It didn't look like 1982. I don't understand why they didn't just start over instead of trying and failing miserably to shoehorn this to the beginning of the first movie.

Or just, you know, not remake a classic.

I hope that was sarcasm.  That song is fucking awesome!