12

At the end of The Thing (2011), Lars and his friend pursue a possibly infected dog which runs away from the facility. They chase the dog on a helicopter and Lars tries to shoot the dog from some distance. After a few shots, he can't kill it; and during the last shot, the camera shows the gun and the screen goes black.

What happens there? Could he kill it or does something happen in the helicopter?

Improve this question
1
  • 4
    The dog survives and arrives at an American station, this is what starts the Carpenter version from 1982. The survival of Kate in the new prequel is keeping the franchise open for a sequel to the original Carpenter film (Assuming she survives and isn't infected). Kate could make it to another camp (maybe Russian) to warn people, thus leading an exploration team to eventually find Macready and Childs dead/frozen or still waiting out the fire in the first film. (Lars chasing the dog in the helicopter and arriving at the American station starts that chain of events).
    – BB Stacker
    Dec 13, 2012 at 12:36

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
18

It is retroactively setting up the "original" The Thing (1982) for which it is a prequel. The starting scene of the 1982 movie is two Norwegians in a helicopter chasing and shooting at a sled dog that finds its way to an American camp.

Improve this answer
7
  • 6
    Yes! I highly recommend watching the prequel and then immediately watching the original. The amount of detail they paid attention to in the prequel is pretty awesome!
    – DForck42
    Feb 2, 2012 at 15:01
  • 3
    Second that. I have been a strong lover of the original after hearing about the reviews stayed away from the new one but rented it last weekend. It was pretty good!
    – Dredd
    Feb 7, 2012 at 21:16
  • 4
    Yesterday, I watched the original. It's a 30-year-old movie, but still a very good one.
    – Mehper C. Palavuzlar
    Feb 8, 2012 at 12:10
  • @MehperC.Palavuzlar: You say that as if you expect newer movies to be better than old.
    – mmyers
    May 10, 2012 at 22:45
  • 3
    @MehperC.Palavuzlar And in fact it's effects were pretty much a milestone of its time. But unfortunately those effects were also too heavy for their time, making the critics and audience reject it and thus missing the quality and much more subtle horror of the actual story. It was only much later that this movie got the appreciation it deserves.
    – Napoleon Wilson ♦
    Dec 12, 2012 at 17:38
2

WOW. I never imagined that anyone would have seen the mediocre prequel but not the ridiculously amazing original movie, which is an absolute classic, and perhaps the greatest exemplar of its genre. Excuse me while I compose myself and recover from the shock...

The filmmakers had the idea that the prequel should end exactly where the original movie begins - namely, with the Norwegians in the helicopter chasing the dog-Thing. If you actually sit down and watch the two movies back to back, you will see that this is pretty much the way it works out. The prequel did almost everything wrong, but this is one of the few exceptions to that rule.

The screenwriter, a man named Eric Heisserer, did an interview with the website Quiet Earth, which seems to be offline at the moment, but I have the relevant extract from the discussion.

If we do this right — I just spoke on the phone today with [Producer] Eric Newman on the phone today, he's on set up in Toronto [and] he said things are going well. But if we can pull this off, this movie will work perfectly [as] the first half of a double feature. So that the last shot of this film will be two Norwegians and a chopper chasing after a dog. And you can plug in Carpenter's film and they will both feel and look as they have been made around the same time.

Seriously, though- you really need to watch the REAL version of The Thing - the one John Carpenter made.

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    Well, your emotions are interesting and I definitely share them (though, the prequel wasn't mediocre in my mind, but sure, there isn't anything that could not be inferior to the '82 movie), but I fail to see in which way this adds so much more to the already 3 years old accepted answer, or you might want to flesh it out a little more to point out in which way it does.
    – Napoleon Wilson ♦
    Jul 6, 2015 at 8:21
  • @NapoleonWilson - Now it includes a quote from the screenwriter. If and when I find more information, I will add it.
    – Wad Cheber
    Jul 6, 2015 at 9:40

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .