New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Kim Hollis: The Thing, a remake of the *1982* not-hit-movie-but-still-a-cult-classic, made $8.5 million over the weekend. Should Universal be happy with this result?

Bruce Hall: No, because the 2001 edition earned even less in proportion to its budget than the original did. Not only that, John Carpenter's version was a truly groundbreaking film. The love it's earned since its release is well deserved, and I don't see this version being anything near that kind of achievement. And being a prequel, the new version was sort of locked into a certain sequence of events from a creative standpoint. Watching a horror movie hit most of the same beats as the original might work for the Scream or Final Destination crowd, but in this case it doesn't make for a very rich viewing experience. But I doubt all that was on the minds of most consumers this weekend. If anybody was anticipating another version of The Thing, it was a relative handful of dorks and fanboys like myself - and that's exactly who showed up this weekend. Expect to see a Thing with no legs, and expect a bargain when it eventually drops on Blu-Ray, bundled with the original. I'd buy THAT for a dollar.

Matthew Huntley: No, because the production budget and P&A costs likely add up to over $60 million, and this being a horror movie and all, which are prone to very short legs anyway, it probably won't cover a third of that by the time it leaves theaters. Even with Halloween around the corner, there isn't much hope this movie will recover. I haven't seen it yet, but the trailer made it seem too mediocre to find interesting and just another attempt to cash in on the popularity of the 1982 version, only with a female hero (nothing against this of course) and digital effects. I'll take Kurt Russell and practical effects any day, and it would appear I'm not alone.

Shalimar Sahota: No, and on the basis of this there's a chance that it could end up making less than Carpenter's version, which would be a real blow to Universal. That many have been mistaken into thinking that this is a remake rather then a prequel hasn't helped matters. Further confusion arises when viewing the trailer and we see that the film has a group of beardy looking scientists in the same Antarctic setting, and soon they're seen wielding flamethrowers. The thought of a Thing prequel sounded like a good idea to me, but by simply offering the same scenarios and scares, I imagine that the film simply hasn't done enough to distance itself. Carpenter's film is held in such high regard and I imagine fans have made their opinion on this prequel (which some still think is a remake) by simply refusing to go and see it.

Brett Beach: I have to wonder how well they honestly thought this would do. Like Blade Runner and Tron, this flopped in June of 1982 - when the public was in the mood for Cuddly ET and Captain Kirk - only to become a cult hit (probably the cultiest of those three). Like Footloose, to an extent, you have the audience that grew to love it in the last 25 years probably skeptical of a re/do/boot/make and a younger generation wondering what's in it for them. Poor reviews topped it all off.

I personally am looking forward to seeing it (in a double feature with Drive next weekend) for what I note is the key difference between the two films: casting a woman in the lead. Considering that the breakdown of male social groups was a key theme in Carpenter's version, this either will do something with such a change, or . . . it won't.

David Mumpower: I agreed with Curt David's (always hilarious) evaluation of The Thing in last Friday's This Weekend Watch This. The Thing has had quite entertaining commercials that turned me from a Pushing Daisies quote of "OH HEEEEEELL NO!" to "Hmm, that looks pretty good." So, kudos to the people who cut the trailers, especially since the movie is by all accounts awful. Mr. Huntley is absolutely correct about the negative cost of The Thing making a clear loser in the short term. The only way it avoids that fate long term is if it proves to be every bit the cult classic the original became. That seems...unlikely. Mary Elizabeth Winstead deserves a better box office fate, Live Free Or Die Hard notwithstanding.

Continued:       1       2