That's all.
(Especially girls with pierced nose septums),
It was inventive and original and didn't need the usual love story do doo that Hollywood always throws in to try to get a demographic.
That was my biggest bug bare. We need a 'strong female protagonist' in it.
When I heard the other day that Olivia Munn had been cast in the new Predator reeboot/sequel, my heart sunk. Elpidia Carrillo's presence in the original was acceptable as it drove the plot forward (she was the reason Hawkins bought it first, she discovered it's blood, she was no sport).
But like the *beep* Predators (2010) they added a cold blooded killer woman, just because, God forbid, someone actually made a film without a female in it! Unfortunately in life, there are some situations where both genders aren't present.
Yeh who needs some airheaded bimbo with a cheesy love story to ruin the tension of the horror of a sci-fi horror story
"Unicorn, mermaid, vampire,sorceress! No name you'd give her would surprise me i love whom i love"
. . . don't forget Margaret Sheridan in the real original, The Thing From Another World, 1951.
"The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made." - Grouch
Actually the TRUE original source material was the 1938 novel Who Goes There by John W Campbell, The Thing from Another World was the first adaptation of the book, John Carpenter's The Thing was the second adaptation. Although Horror Express was an unofficial adaptation of the source material but extremely loose adaptation.
"Unicorn, mermaid, vampire,sorceress! No name you'd give her would surprise me i love whom i love"
Uhm this movie didn't have a love story or a woman with a pierced nose. Maybe you were watching another movie?
share^LMAO the_mgr!!
This is part of why the message boards are being shut down - Fools coming in on boards, lambasting crap they have no idea about and attempting to crush people who disagree. OF COURSE, THAT'S COUNTER PRODUCTIVE TO THE (any) FILM, it's marketing, casual discussion & entertainment.
IMDB - Because some Trolls need more than just a bridge. C'est la vi message boards, it was fun while it lasted!!
[deleted]
Well said MadmanZ
shareAre you on drugs? There was no love story... You obviously just feel threatened by strong women. WELL guess what: Nobody cares about your feelings.
The cast was 95% male, and you're saying this movie wasn't ENOUGH of a sausage fest for your liking? Get over yourself.
spydervein @ I was referring to what the trend of hollywood movies had been. They write in a popular young actress and some kind of small love story subplot to bring in the chicks into the theater. Now, the new trend is to bring in a popular young actress to be a tough, wise cracking, somersaulting, karate chopping, beat three guys up with scissor kicks in heels, character. All to bring in chicks into the movie theater. Also, the popular but short lived current trend right now in public is chicks with nose septum rings. That's what I was referring to. They are pushing this silly agenda of needing women who can be seen as strong as men in movies. The remake of THE THING wasn't bad, it could've been worse, but should give you a real insight into the pathetic and implausibly ridiculous trend of putting women in films for no reason. This movie was great because John Carpenter was a rascal and renegade for creating a movie that had non pretty boy effete, actors (Gosling anyone?) who were practically indistinguishable from each other because of all the facial hair (see Carpenters' own words in the documentary)
This remake is exhibit A in comparing that movie to this contemporary remake and this horribly silly feministic trend that will go away soon enough.
The original movie THE THING is quite great because you are surrounded by plausible men working in extreme conditions, who don't look pretty and size each other up routinely. It creates great atmosphere and is great for suspense and horror.
Like it or not this is a recipe for a great horror/action movie. THE END.
It's not "The End." Women work as firefighters, police officers in remote locations (i.e. Alaska), and they enlist in the military. Nothing you say will make those women disappear.
So, I'm sorry, but women who work tough jobs won't just "go away," and filmmakers won't stop casting women in lead roles anytime soon. You're mistaken.
LOL. Hey Norma Rae, settle down. Your histrionics via the internet keyboard is overboard. No one here is calling out any American working as police, firefighters et. al. LOL wow. If a woman thinks she can do those jobs that require brawn, strength and skill then by all means, good luck to her. And expect to be treated with the same force of reckoning as any would when dealing with brutality or laws of nature that are not discriminating. Most women cannot nor do not want to be involved in something that entails something so physically demanding and are not naturally and physically predisposed to do. This is not an argument. (Nor is this high school).
However, my strange, milque toast, white knight, friend -- what was being referred to in this movie is the trend in hollywood toward a monetary, trendy (TRENDY) effort to put female characters in roles that challenge us to suspend more disbelief than ever, when female characters are written to boundlessly do somersaults, scissor kicks, and hurtle men 2 to 3 times their own weight into the air as well as disarm bombs, fix complex engines, have sex without getting pregnant and pull a burning plane with a faulty engine and stuck joy stick up and save 300 passengers, all in high heels. These are actual movies in which only a few men on earth can do --- my keyboard, white knight, who defends the honor of women, lass.
hollywood as a entity (by the way) is interested in making money only. They go with trends.
It's just a cyclical, temporary trend that will fade as other millennial fads will, as all trends fade.
Final note, men and women are tiring of the extraneous spectacle too. It is a entertainment, cultural fad in the movies and it will fade.
THE END.
If stating facts makes me a white knight, then so be it! However you want to rationalize your outrage at this imaginary injustice that Hollywood has done to you.
when female characters are written to boundlessly do somersaults, scissor kicks, and hurtle men 2 to 3 times their own weight into the air as well as disarm bombs, fix complex engines, have sex without getting pregnant and pull a burning plane with a faulty engine and stuck joy stick up and save 300 passengers, all in high heels.
sydervein - rationalize outrage? LOL. I'm content over here my man.
Just stating the facts. You won't get it because statistically people programmed into a thinking takes years if ever to change.
It's called an echo chamber or confirmation bias. You actually think you're making great points and defending women in the world. LOL. No dude. No offense. You are not. What you're doing is upholding a group think created from the mines of American privileged, non minority women.
You do know that women around the world roll their eyes at this silly effort to some how assert female strength.
I travel a lot and I've been to a lot of countries. A woman the other day was mockingly being clear that women already have strength and power and that it is without question that they are equal to men.
Women for eons upon eons know how to use their feminine strength. They don't need a white knight to attempt to validate them.
Use your well meaning approach and fight for "equality" for ethnicities and the impoverished. Leave the "gender wars/politics" toward those fresh out of women's studies classes and those who have a bitter chip on their shoulder against the men who've done them wrong and need to work it out in therapy. These privileged women will either will work it out in therapy or they'll continue their road toward having a oppositional relationship with their "partners (hipster word)." And be miserable and seen as for the rest of their life.
As far as The Thing, remaking it was one thing. Simply to make money from something wonderful, unique and fresh (no women, no love story, great practical, on camera creature effects).
They remake it and add a woman, they use digital efx. Their greedy attempt to try to make the film better stripped it of what made it good in the first place and created a movie that is not only inferior and now, not unique at all. Of course, I'm using a solipsistic argument that will make you go: "Na uh. No, it's a better move...I think the girl was great...blah blah blah." The French say "de gustibus non eat disputandum," which means that you cannot account for taste, which is sarcastic.
I know that there are a lot of dudes who love to see girls in tight clothes doing karate, scissor kicks, somersaults and throwing around men 7 times their size - in heels. It's a fetish or it's a nerd thing or you name it. I realize that you may fall in this camp. That's cool. Do your thing. We can't all account for taste.
Love ya. Kiss and hugs. :)
I shouldn't have to do this, but I'll ask my question again:
What, pray tell, happened in "The Thing (2011)" that was remotely similar to what you've described above?
spydervein, ok, since you asked nicely, and though I said it already, I'll repeat it: what made the 1982 film unique, and very, very good is that fact that they didn't do the mistake that movie studios do all the time now. That is cast a "female lead."
They didn't cast a female with the desire to bring in women. Or a certain demographic. They made a movie, it appears, on the merits of story not demographic or because it tested well with a pre selected audience. There are no gender politics in it. What we have is a story with men. Smelly, bearded, not trying to look pretty, rugged men. The millennials that are fresh out of college with their marketing and business degrees working in hollywood through nepotism in a executive role would already have a schematic blue print, test marketed demographic in mind before this film ever shot the first scene. They would try to find a Ryan Gosling looking dude (LOL) and definitely some sort of woman who would create sexual tension and a overt or subtle romantic subplot. This is hollywood. It devalues inspired work for the sake of $$. And ignorant audiences passively put up with it or feed off of its agenda.
I brought up scissor kicks and butt kicking women because it's hollywood's new trendy character, to, again bring in chicks. And its also for dudes who fetish off of this. It's a trend. And all trends fade. You missed my point, however, either willfully or purposefully, I don't know, to assert your counter. Maybe you mean well.
But to finally reiterate, in regards to "THE THING (2011)," Winstead's character is a conscious attempt upon the hollywood machine to try to maximize their investment to bring in a woman to bring in female audiences. And in that one stroke alone, destroyed the specialness of what made THE THING so interesting.
(useless disclaimer: women characters do not necessarily ruin or make movies better. I hope I'm making a case to someone bright and well meaning, without some ridiculous, gender politic bias to grind. Though, the scissor kicking woman character in movies often ruin what may already be a bad movie and often make it worse and more difficult to suspend disbelief. Depends on the genre too I guess).
Did you like THE THING that was made in 1983? If you did, why or why not? Do you think Winstead's character would fit in that movie? If you said yes, think about it in terms of paranoia and each person taking care of their own self.
I think a lot of new movies sci-fi horror movies suffer from the desire to maximize $$ and market research and the desire to copy Alien's format of Ripley being such a great character. It wasn't made to make a statement about women (the argument is ridiculous). Women and men are equal and good at DIFFERENT things. Ripley, being so iconic and hollywood afraid of doing something unique (like THE THING 1983), they just try to repackage and remanufacture whatever they think a demographic will bring in more money. They think "wow, Ripley is a hit in Alien, let's make sure and have a strong female lead (no matter what the story is)! Maybe we will be rich."
What we have is a story with men. Smelly, bearded, not trying to look pretty, rugged men.
They would try to find a Ryan Gosling looking dude (LOL) and definitely some sort of woman who would create sexual tension and a overt or subtle romantic subplot.
I brought up scissor kicks and butt kicking women because it's hollywood's new trendy character, to, again bring in chicks. And its also for dudes who fetish off of this. It's a trend. And all trends fade.
Winstead's character is a conscious attempt upon the hollywood machine to try to maximize their investment to bring in a woman to bring in female audiences. And in that one stroke alone, destroyed the specialness of what made THE THING so interesting.
They think "wow, Ripley is a hit in Alien, let's make sure and have a strong female lead (no matter what the story is)! Maybe we will be rich."
LOl. I tried, you lost me at your speechifying "(speaking into a microphone with bad feed back - clearing throat) Women have been leading roles for years....(blah blah blah)," diatribe. lol as if ever that needed to be said. You are arguing from silence and making claims that don't need to be made. Are you trying out for the debate club? Trying to get a girl to like you? There's no one to win over dude. It doesn't work like that. You don't win over girls acting like one nor defending their honor like that. Sorry. Nothing worse than a dude making appeasing soundbites for chicks. It's pathetic.
I made a case and it flew over you because your too interested in valiantly (but failing) to save the honor of women who don't need that kind of condescension. But you don't get it. I didn't expect to have a intellectual conversation with you - I mean, you ranted on (hilariously I might add) about all the endeavors women have made and.. why dude. It's ridiculous. That was never the argument. And for the record, I don't need your milque toast, limp wristed, norma rae ranting a-- telling me where I should direct my comments and to what page.
And anyone who argues using the word "butt hurt," should really shut up before he hurts himself trying to think. Now go away and go change your smelly diapers. You jackas....
LOL.
I'm not your pen pal.
Bahaha! I see you weren't able to refute my solid points. It seems you run out of steam when presented with logic and facts... Typical internet whiner. Like I said, go cry on a board where your bellyaching is actually relevant to the movie being discussed; you just look silly and confused.
It is HILARIOUS that you accuse me of ranting. I didn't rant; I picked apart the 500 word short essay you wrote me in YOUR PREVIOUS POST. Do you have the memory of a goldfish? Are you suffering from early-onset Alzheimer's? You say you're not my "pen pal" but you sure present yourself that way! Don't start a conversation that you can't finish, wimp.
It's also funny to see you break down and start throwing insults at me while ignoring the points I made. Your online tantrum greatly amuses me. Come back to the discussion when you're ready to talk, you big crybaby.
What is it about The Thing (1982) that draws in the most dude bro 'no girls allowed' types of dudes?
Carpenter's movie is good because of the special FX, Cundey's cinematography, the action set pieces, the cast of actors and Morricone's simplistic Carpenter-esque OST. (Not to mention Carpenter's direction.)
Nothing to do with a lack of women. In fact having some women in it would have arguably improved it. What harm would they have done? Brought cooties onto the set?