It was a lame cliché they felt they had to shoehorn in Americans and women as the main characters, and have them as the only smart ones. I'm American myself, but why make a prequel about the Norwegian camp when you obviously don't want to make it about the Norwegians. They should've just made a straight sequel 29 years after the last event. It seemed planned to suck the way they did it.
shareAgreed, putting americans in there killed the movie completely.. it's lilke.. hey.. the Norwegians don'tknow shit.. but the americans will save the day again..!
shareYeah pretty lame. And they spun it where the one staff member who made it to the American base happened to be the only one who couldn't speak English. How very convenient.
Was expecting a wholly Norwegian staff for the Norwegian camp lol.
I understand that truthfully assuming this all happened, that yes the camp would have been exclusively Male and Norwegian.
However, Mary Elizabeth Winstead added a much needed feminine presence to the film. That's one thing the 1982 version sorely lacks.
she was in it so to do a Ripley meets The Thing thing. she even looks like a young Sigourney Weaver
shareThe 1982 version didn't "sorely lack" anything.
shareI'm fine with all male. No need to have females everywhere.
shareI bet a sequel, written by a good writer, could be as interesting as the BR sequel (and what symmetry that would make!).
shareTotally dude. The biggest issue with this movie is the fact there are some stupid girls in it. As soon as they cast a girl in this it was curtains, it could never measure up to the sausage fest that is JC's The Thing. The only thing that would have made this worse is if she got her yucky boobs out. Gross. Thank god they didn't do that or I would have jumped out my bedroom window!
shareIn the original screenplay by Ronald D. Moore it featured a almost completely foreign cast + 1 American doctor.
share