What are you watching tonight?

AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
View attachment 53635

This show is so fuggin awesome

This dude is the perfect cast the series nails it it feels like I'm reading the books again

Way better then the Tom Cruise bullcrap
Yeah, I am loving the Reacher TV series so far. Hope it stays this good. Hardcore. My kind of series. :D

The guy who plays Reacher played “Hawk” in the Titans TV series and “Aquaman“ in the Smallville TV series. He’s definitely built like a Super Hero. :D
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
Yeah, I am loving the Reacher TV series so far. Hope it stays this good. Hardcore. My kind of series. :D

The guy who plays Reacher played “Hawk” in the Titans TV series and “Aquaman“ in the Smallville TV series. He’s definitely built like a Super Hero. :D
That's where I'd seen him before!
 
D

Danzilla31

Audioholic Spartan
Yeah, I am loving the Reacher TV series so far. Hope it stays this good. Hardcore. My kind of series. :D

The guy who plays Reacher played “Hawk” in the Titans TV series and “Aquaman“ in the Smallville TV series. He’s definitely built like a Super Hero. :D
It is a hard-core series I love it every bit as hard as the books
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
I have to try Reacher....thanks for alerting me to it.
But tonight, am going into the War Room!

 
Kaskade89052

Kaskade89052

Audioholic Samurai
Not as good as the first but still a great movie
If you take it for what it is -- an attempt at a prequel story concerning what happened at the Norwegian camp -- it's enjoyable. It can't really be compared to Carpenter's classic, which most people do, because they think it's a remake of HIS remake, which it's NOT.

Some things irk me about this prequel, though, no matter how many times I watch it or get smitten by the good things about it -- first of all, they never should have called it The Thing, as this creates confusion and makes people think, as I stated above, it's a remake of the 1982 remake. I always thought they should have called this The Thing: Beginnings or maybe even Who Goes There, named after the novella the original story was based on. I said the same thing about the 2018 Halloween sequel -- why call that Halloween? It's already been done for the 1978 original plus Zombie's remake, so why keep calling it the same thing? Not that Halloween Kills or Halloween Ends is much better...

Also, some of the events -- as close as they got them -- in the prequel just don't add up when comparing them to Carpenter's film in terms of continuity. Some are excellent and do match up, such as when they drag the ice block to that room (that they find in Carpenter's film) or when they find the two-headed creature. But what about the moment in Carpenter's film when they're watching the video of the Norwegians when they're placing the charges and flags around the ship, trying to blow it up....why wasn't that shown in the prequel? It was if it never happened.

Also, with regard to the aforementioned two-headed creature -- it was cool in terms of how they set this up, with Winstead's character burning it outside with the flamethrower for MacReady and Copper to find in Carpenter's take later on...but that creature didn't make any sense logistically. It is suggested this thing was an Edvard imitation (in the 2011 film), and when it attacks Adam in the rec room, it basically attaches to his face and becomes a massive two-headed creature with multiple limbs (and then starts randomly attacking everyone at the camp, which the creature we know would never do...it wants to remain hidden so no one figures out what is going on, unless it's attacked). But as I just said, this isn't the way this organism works -- it wouldn't have run around the camp as some unfinished mutation trying to kill people...it would want to assimilate Adam after it was "discovered" in the rec room as being the Edvard character, but instead what we get is a monster that is basically just there for shock value.

Then, there's the issue of Sander -- it's suggested at the end that Sander is the creature when he's seen driving off to the ship. We end up learning that
he is the "master creature" after the reveal in the ship at the conclusion, which felt like they were trying to rip off the huge "Blair monster" from the end of the 82 film, but this just doesn't make sense to me being that there were other creatures already running about, including the mutated Adam/Edvard Thing and, of course, the dog (who was apparently hiding out throughout the proceedings so he could escape at the end and run to the American camp, setting up John Carpenter's The Thing).

If you can look past some of the inaccuracies with regard to continuity, it stands alone as an effective prequel (taking that awful CGI out of the equation).
 
NINaudio

NINaudio

Audioholic Samurai
Oh....you mentioned it was on your table, right.....didn't realize it was unopened.
We still use Netflix disc delivery, so that's why it was on our table. We watched it this weekend. I thought it looked quite good. Most of the time it looked very sharp and clear and it was only in the lowly lit areas that you would notice the graininess of the film.
 
John Parks

John Parks

Audioholic Samurai
I've been watching the Mr. Mercedes series and am almost through Season 1. It was originally release on Audience Network (AT&T) which I never had/paid for but is now showing on Peacock (I subscribed so the wife and I can watch Yellowstone, which is... okay). So far, it is a really good interpretation of the King book. Brian Gleeson does a great job in his role but, truth be told, when I read the book(s) I firmly had Clancy Brown as my pick to play Hodges...
1644439012361.png
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top