First Official Images from ‘The Thing’ Prequel

Published 4 years ago by , Updated July 18th, 2014 at 9:56 am,

Joel Edgerton in The Thing First Official Images from The Thing Prequel

John Carpenter’s The Thing is probably one of the most beloved science fiction/horror films of all time. Even though it was a box office failure when it was released in 1982, the film has garnered cult status and a large following. When news began circulating about a remake, there was a larger uproar – ultimately subsiding when it was revealed the new film would be a prequel showing the events that preceded Carpenter’s original film.

The Thing news has been quite scarce lately but today we’ve got official images from the film – ahead of the first footage being shown at New York City Comic Con. So does it look like the new film matches up to Carpenter’s classic?

The Thing‘s marketing campaign is kicking-in, leading up the film’s April 29th releaseUGO has released details of their set visit to The Thing and Hit Fix scored some new images from the film.

The 21st Century version of The Thing appears to share a lot with its 1980s counterpart. Star Joel Edgerton appears to be channeling original headliner Kurt Russell (although his beard is hardly a match for Russell’s facial fuzz) and the use of flamethrowers indicates that director Matthijis van Heijningen is keeping a lot of the iconic elements from Carpenter’s film.

the thing image 1 570x380 First Official Images from The Thing Prequel

What does seem to have changed, this time around, is the casting of a leading lady. The Thing 1.0 (technically 2.0 – since Carpenter’s film was a remake of a 1951 film) featured an all male cast, this time around Mary Elizabeth Winstead brings a touch of femininity to the proceedings.

It remains to be seen if her role is just added to give hero Edgerton a love interest – or if her casting has an integral role to play in the plot.

One thing that is being kept under wraps is the look of “The Thing.” Rob Bottin’s makeup effects in Carpenter’s film still hold up in today’s digital age – so Special Effects Creators, Alec Gillis and Tom Woodruff, will have to step up and deliver something that pleases fans of Carpenter’s film as well as modern audiences.

the thing image 2 570x380 First Official Images from The Thing Prequel

Gillis is confident their work will match The Thing‘s legacy:

“Like the Carpenter movie, we’re not showing The Thing in its pure form. This is an alien that is a host to whatever The Thing is doing to it. But what’s cool about this for us as creature effects designers is that we get to work within the language that was established by Carpenter and Rob Bottin in 1982, but we also get to add some of our own stuff in terms of original creature design, with creatures like this one, and then there’s another creature. There’s another creature at the end of the film, there’s another alien life form that The Thing mimics.”

In recent years, remakes of John Carpenter films have failed to match up to the originals – with The Fog, Assault on Precinct 13, and Halloween, failing to improve upon their “original” big brothers. Director Van Heijningen will have to work hard to ensure that his film works within the context of the original film – while offering modern audiences a film experience to get excited about.

Details are still pretty sparse – with more images and footage en route as we get closer to the film’s release. In the meantime, it looks like the “new” Thing might just be a good companion piece to the “old” Thing.

The Thing opens on April 29th 2011.

Sources: Hit Fix & UGO

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

33 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. Even thought it’s looking more like a remake than a prequel to Carpenter’s film, I’m still pretty excited about it.

  2. As much as I don’t like bad remakes, this one I’m excited about

    Remakes/reboots can be damn good (just saw A team and Predators). So I’m not against the idea, I just want it to be GOOD.

    • Neither. It’s a prequel (I know, I know..)

      • preditors is more of a sequal.

        the a-team was a great remake.i don`t say that too often.

        • Predators was more of a reboot than a sequel.

          • The fact that they verbally mention Arnold Schwarzenegger’s character by name makes it a sequel. PERIOD.

            • agreed^^

  3. I was far too young in 1982 to fool anyone I belonged in an R-rated thatre seat… but when it came out on VHS you bet my buds & I rented it! … And it scared the living *bleep* out of us! There was a “creepy” factor with that movie I had never experienced before. (A head sprouting legs, anyone?) An experience I wasn’t fond of repeating too often… and rarely have ever since.

    • “You gotta be f*****g kidding…” :-P

      • Ahh, the memories. (Shudder).

  4. What’s the point?

  5. i don`t see the need for it.it is about the sweeds…..i mean the Norwegians and we don`t need to see it.it was explained in the 1982 movie.it would be as silly as a full freddy kruger origin movie.

    the thing is one of those movies best as a stand alone movie.not every movie needs to be a franchise.

    • “not every movie needs to be a franchise”
      These, people, are genuine words of wisdom right there.
      Prime example The Matrix and Pirates Of The Caribbean.

  6. That’s a long wait till april..

  7. The third image down looks as though it’s inside the alien ship, which I always wanted to see something of in the Carpenter one. Similar to dealing with the “Space Jockey” in the proposed Alien prequel, though, it’ll inevitably wreck some of the mystery.

    Another issue I’m still unclear about is whether the Thing actually HAS a natural form, or whether it’s a microscopic infectious agent – like a virus. Although whatever they dig out out of the ice must have been flying the ship, presumably it’s just another assimilated species, so that ties in with what Gillis is saying about not showing it in its “pure form”.

    • Carpenters film needed no chicks, neither does this one, but whatever lol.i mean technically Carpenters had no female, it did have a female computer voice.

      • All-male crew as well (on the location shooting anyway). I remember Kurt Russell saying on the commentary that it instantly cut out any form of competition between the actors. I think that’s at least one reason why as far as trapped-ensemble-cast movies go, it’s one of the best. Gave it a unique dynamic.

  8. Now this is interesting, I been waiting for many month to see if there any picture of the cast during the setting now I got it and I satisfy with how all the cast face expression it shows that this movie will have an intensities and thrilling ride.I have full confidence that The Thing prequel will be a great movie in 2011.

  9. One of my all time fav. Can’t wait to see the remake with today’s technology

  10. Soooo, when are they going to remake Ghost of Mars lol.

    • i liked ghosts of mars and don`t want a remake of it.

      • Wasn’t that already a remake of Assault On Precinct 13, The Fog and Prince Of Darkness? :-)

        • asault on precinct 13 and the fog were remaked.

          not prince of darkness as far as i know.

          • No, I mean it comes across like a bad mashup of all three (on Mars)!

            • hahahahaha Dentist. it wasnt even a precinct 13 in Carpenters movie if i remember correctly. they realy need to stop remaking his films, seriously man, its getting old

  11. I’m totally on board for (seeing it with Rickster! abandon, in theaters!) this film mainly because the casting looks good and its not in 3D,,,

    Support that be Disney acth!

    • LOL youre funny 790

  12. I really hope they go for prosthetics rather than CGI, I loved the head coming off and turning into a spider!

  13. Whoever is doing this prequel is obviously not understanding the CONCEPT behind the STORY of “Who Goes There”, of which Carpenter’s “The Thing” was a VERY accurate rendition to film (it’s VERY close to the original book, certainly immensely more-so than the earlier “The Thing from Another World” was).

    You never know what the “original” creature looks like, because it may actually HAVE no “original form”.

    Obviously, this is going to be a HUGE hit, and then some idiot will be hired to do the sequel, and of course they will try to invent some mythology for the film… forgetting that it’s BASED ON A BOOK. And we’ll end up on some low-budget jungle planet with Adrien Brody, and sci-fi nerds arguing about “original thing” and “uber-thing” and which would win in a battle against Buffy the Vampire Slayer……….

  14. I totally agree with Mike. Some people never should have been involved in the project, Big Hollywood Executives, and they sure never have read the book. It would have been better if they would have sticked to the original idea: the Thing has no original form, the story needed no chick, it’s a Norwegian Scientific Team…

    • I agree. And they mostly had side burns and full beards- not peach fuzz or scruff. But they put a woman in there probably because of “todays culture”. It’s about feminism. You know the score. They will probably have her be a leader of the research team, which, I’m sorry, would NOT happen back in 1982. There was little tolerance for female authority figures back then. Would never happen. So if they put some scenes of her as a leader already in there, they better scrap it because that’s not the way it was. It’s about 1982 ideals and culture- not 21st century ideals and culture. So they better stick to that. However, Carpenter DID have a woman to play one of the roles in his 1982 film, but she got sick or something and he had to find someone else on short notice.

  15. Well since this prequel will no doubt take place in 1982, please don’t screw up the continuity. It pisses me off when you have movies take place in the 70′s and 80′s or whatever and they still, in some way, put in “today’s” BS ideals and a “touch” of “todays” hair styles and/or attitudes. That’s BS, it f***s up, the continuity and f***s up the film in general. Don’t give us a watered down history lesson with this prequel. Take us back in time EXACTLY TO THAT TIME- which means 80′s ideals, 80′s culture, booze and of course cigarette smoking- no exceptions. “Red Dragon” (which took place in 88 instead of 96) had loads of f***ed up continuity- the worst of it omitting smoking 99% of the film which was a huge screw up- as that was NOT how it was back in those days. This prequel has a good plot in my opinion, but I WILL scrutinize it.

    And hopefully the woman in the film doesn’t turn into a Ripley/Rambo type of character or I will lambaste the film. You didn’t have too many Rambo Masculine Feminist types back then and if you did, they were merely laughed at. I’m not being a woman hater. I’m simply saying the way it was back then. There was no room for women Rambos.

    • Correction: With “Red Dragon”, I meant to say it took place in 88 instead of “86″- not “96″. Like I said, if they’re doing a prequel set ini 1982, have the appearances, cultural trends and whatever else was back then- with no one iota of todays ideals. We’re not talking about TODAY. F*** today. We’re talking about YESTERDAY. So if you’re going to talk about yesterday or yesteryear or whatever, you better talk totally about it. And hopefully they don’t CGI it to death either which would be a lazy man’s approach. Do both if possible. Put some solid hard effort into it.