‘The Thing’ Prequel Clip: Mr. Eko Is Easily Rattled

Published 3 years ago by , Updated March 3rd, 2014 at 7:06 am,

thing prequel joel edgerton The Thing Prequel Clip: Mr. Eko Is Easily Rattled

Anyone who’s seen John Carpenter’s 1982 sci-fi paranoia thriller, The Thing, has long wondered exactly what happened to the Norwegian research team that encountered the titular creature, prior to the events of the film.

Okay, most people probably assumed they were all killed – save for the survivors who were chasing down the monster (in dog form), during the beginning of Carpenter’s movie. Nonetheless, a prequel that is (confusingly) also titled The Thing will be released soon, and promises to reveal the truth about that doomed scientific expedition.

The Thing teaser trailer was released a while ago, but it mostly indicated that director Matthijs van Heijningen had crafted a film almost identical to Carpenter’s. An actual clip has been released from the prequel, suggesting that the film will at least try attempt to be as scary as its predecessor.

Here is the official synopsis for the Thing prequel:

In the prelude to John Carpenter’s classic 1982 film of the same name, paleontologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) has traveled to Antarctica for the expedition of her lifetime. Joining a Norwegian scientific team that has stumbled across an extraterrestrial ship buried in the ice, she discovers an organism that seems to have died in the crash eons ago. But it is about to wake up. When a simple experiment frees the alien from its frozen prison, Kate must join the crew’s pilot, Carter (Edgerton), to keep it from killing them off one at a time. And in this vast, intense land, a parasite that can mimic anything it touches will pit human against human as it tries to survive and flourish.

Get an early (and very brief) look at the parasitic extraterrestrial in The Thing by watching the clip (via MTV) below:

-

Nightmare on Elm Street remake scriber Eric Heisserer also penned The Thing; assuming the above scene is anything to go by, that fact could show in the movie. The Elm Street remake was way too reliant on using cheap jump scares to give moviegoers a jolt, rather than building up tense atmosphere. It’s an approach that can quickly become predictable and tedious when overused.

Case in point: when you watched the Thing clip above, you probably jumped as a natural response to when Stig Henrik Hoff’s character spooked Derek (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje – a.k.a. Mr. Eko from Lost), but didn’t budge when the actual monster showed up. If much of the film plays that way, then people probably won’t be walking away very impressed.

The Thing 2011 trailer The Thing Prequel Clip: Mr. Eko Is Easily Rattled

Carpenter’s original Thing (itself, a re-interpretation of a previous film adaptation of a novella) ended up being quite effectively creepy, thanks to the use of some fantastic practical effects that brought the film’s mysterious alien to life – and a story that kept you guessing which human character would be revealed as an imposter. The Thing prequel, by comparison, is said to be using a combination of CGI and practical tools to effectively realize its namesake, but will ultimately suffer from the same issue that plagues all prequels: everyone watching pretty much knows exactly where the plot is eventually going to go.

We won’t know for certain if The Thing is be a dud or as scary as Carpenter’s film until it finally arrives in theaters on October 14th, 2011.

Source: MTV

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: the thing

21 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. Why?

  2. again, John Carpenter’s “The Thing” was NOT a “reinterpretation of a previous film adaptation” of the novella. The 1950′s film had absolutely NOTHING to do with the novella “Who Goes There”, while Carpenter’s “The Thing” was an almost scene-for-scene rendering of the novella.

    The “The Thing from Another World”, the creature didn’t imitate humans. It was a giant walking carrot. There was no question of “who is infected, who is not”. It was a 1950′s creature-feature, with James Arness in left-over Frankenstein costume as the titular walking carrot.

    The only things the two have in common: antarctic setting, alien creature. The “original” doesn’t merit being called a film “based upon” the novella, and Carpenter’s version deserves considerably MORE than to be called a vulgar “remake” of the first film.

    sadly, the video above won’t play for me :(

  3. That’s Stig Henrik Hoff, not Joel Edgerton.

    • My apologies, the two look quite similar (with beards) at first glance. :-P

      It’s been fixed.

  4. The clip is not encouraging.
    It looks like cheap thrills and
    not so special special effects.

    • I agree. What a cheap scare. What made Carpenters version a classic was the build up of suspense and the unpredictability of the creature. If this scene is the first reveal of the creature, I have to say it doesn’t look good. The dog kennel scene in Carpenters version was one of the best monster reveals ever.

      • You haven’t seen the film yet. Remember that.

        • There’s no denying that was a no-brainer reveal. Something really original better happen after that. As a fan of both other versions, I feel I represent the audience they have to impress, otherwise why make a prequel? I’m not trolling, I hope it’s good, I want it to be good. In this case the dog kennel scene was original and never seen before. Thats all I want and expect from professional film makers, originality. I have my fingers crossed for the Alien prequel.

  5. Just for the record, “The Thing From Another World,” a/k/a the “previous film adaptation” had one of the best directors of the day, Howard Hawks, associated with it. I believe it because of the way some of the indoor settings were filmed – with actors grouped closely together, and dialogue moving quickly back and forth. There was a lot of that in “Red River,” just to mention the first Hawks film that comes to mind. Also Nyby always said Hawks was the “guiding hand” (per IMDb).

    Speaking of dialogue, it’s so good that rumors of contributions by Ben Hecht and William Faulkner are very easy to believe.

    Yes, the monster was hokey even for its day, just as the shark “actor” in the first “Jaws” movie didn’t work very well. Both movies used the “less is more” approach to get around the problem, and it works in “The Thing From Another World” almost as well as it did in “Jaws.”

    “Jaws” was an incredible blockbuster, and “The Thing From Another World” was a science fiction B-movie, but it was special, I think because of Hawks involvement and the contributions of the writing team. They weren’t aiming for an Oscar – Hawks reportedly just wanted to do a science fiction movie. Within the decade, “Star Trek” would show there was a market, at least for a few seasons then and for all posterity now, for that “space western” type of entertainment.

    I felt kind of let down by the 1982 version, in comparison, but to each their own. Just wanted to stick up for the first “Thing” movie. It doesn’t belong in the same discussion with these two more recent versions, but that doesn’t detract from any of the three.

    • if you had read “Who Goes There” you would not feel let down by the 1982 version.

  6. I saw the original The Thing when it was released and many times since and they show what happened to the Norwegian team, remember they went to the camp and found burned bodies, some took their own life and the other two came into the American camp chasing the dog. One dying in the Helicopter explosion and the other being shot by Garry when he fired at the dog.

    • True they did show that but whose to say that was ALL of the Norwegian team, I don’t recall a precise count.

  7. Maybe they’ll do like Paranormal Activity and give us a setup for a sequel by putting the finale further in the future. I mean probably not, but I think that was one of the few prequels that worked very well because it gave an explanation for what we saw in the original that I don’t think was expected. Even if you don’t like the Paranormal Activity movies it’s hard to argue that that was an effective prequel, and there’s not many movies you can say that about. So if we’re lucky, maybe they’ll find a way to drop something unexpected in there for us that adds to the mythos.
    Or maybe it’ll be ass.

    • Don’t even mention that piece of crap “film” on the same screen as “The Thing,” not even the prequel. A child could have done something better than PA.. I pray no one would actually waste a dime on it, right?

  8. No minimal score for this one then.

  9. Looks like crap… cheap annoying jump scares, cheap looking cgi monster who by the way is surprisingly energetic for being frozen in ice for who knows how long and what’s with the sound effects, the monster sounds like someones stomach is growling.
    There’s no way this movie is gonna tie into the original and make any sense. The only way it could have worked is with all Norwegian characters and no Americans and maybe better writers, producers and directors.

  10. So when we bash this movie we’re going to have to say, “…I’m talking about the 2011 Thing not the good one with Kurt Russell.”

  11. I jumped and peed a block of ice when the guy yelled “Boo!”, even more so than when the “Thing-puppet” jumped out of the ice-block. I do know I will be buying the DVD on this one for sure!

  12. Mr Eko? C’mon, it’s Simon Adebisi!

  13. I agree with others about most of the strongly potential negatives, unfortunately…

    Also, it seems (just seems)like there might not even be any transmutation scenes, or at least, worthwhile ones. I have the impression that they are going to show mostly, or even totally, the pre or post-transformations, kinda like the video game did. This would shoot the film down many points, because the transmutations are what set this film apart from so many other “monster” movies.

    Most important, I hope against hope that they DO NOT try to make the creature a conscious one, rather than one that only eerily mimics conscious intelligence. A conscious alien Thing with an attempt to communicate? Oh no, I can just see that now… “Hello there, mind if I imitate you Miss Lloyd? Say, you look kinda hot to be in a movie like this, I think I’ll ‘do you’ last.” No, no, no!

    All the possible negatives aside, I never would expect this to be as good as Carpenter’s. I still think it will be exciting to see this, and I am anxious to see it. If my doubts named here are to be balanced, I’d say it will strike somewhere between my worst and best hopes. At the very least though, they must avoid the blunder of trying to make the creature conscious (in a human sense). If The Thing were able to become conscious, it would no longer have a reason to chose the survival method it does, AND it would outgrow the ability to change shape… Not to mention, the ability to reason with it would immediately eviscerate all of its creepy qualities.

    I’ll just try to enjoy this on its own merits. But if this ends up somehow even coming close to being as thrilling as Carpenter’s, I’ll reserve a great deal of praise for it.

    I’d say ignore the overly negative comments, but don’t expect anything as epic as before, either.

  14. You guys HAVE to see this tribute to the original, it’s pretty darn good!

<-- Taboola Alt -->