@ GothicStorm:

The point you're missing (or refusing to accept) is that this movie is basically a remake in everything that matters. The only thing that differs is that it tries to pull a chronological fast one by dealing with the Norweigians, but as several reviewers have said already, it might as well be a remake in terms of plot. For all my unhappiness with the Star Wars prequels, at least they didn't copy and paste the plot and setting from the first trilogy and call it something new.

@ Wallyrus:

To your points:

- No, the movie makes PERFECT sense if MacReady is still human. The point and power of the ending was in its ambiguous nature. Are they human? Is one of them a Thing? Are they BOTH Things? Arguments have been made for all conclusions.

- MacReady not looking well? You mean from the sleep deprivation, chronic stress, and paranoia he had to be feeling? That's not evidence. Also, "looking ill" is not a symptom of being a Thing. In fact, Things copy their victims' health conditions, so illness means nothing.

- Just because the movie is called The Thing doesn't mean it survives. That means nothing.

Just got back from seeing it. Loved it. And the only thing that everyone says is left open is left open pretty wide. But it doesn't detract from the movie by any means. The acting was solid and the effects were awesome. It ties into the 82 movie nicely. Most worthy of being called a prequel.

 I saw this movie today also and it's not as bad as many people are making it out to be. I thought the acting was solid also. There was enough suspense to keep you on the edge and the effects were pretty decent. That was one gruesome looking "Thing".  At least technology allowed them to do the things that John Carpenter probably would have done in 82 if the technology was there.  I still love the original the best but if I were to grade this movie, I would give it at least a "B".

Just got back from seeing this. I found it to be very fun and entertaining, lots of good surprises and the director did a good job of building suspense.  I think the C grade is a little unfair.  If you grade the film as a stand alone, it could easily be a B.  but of course there is no way to escape the comparison.  On the other hand, how many ways are there to depict being stuck in an Antartic camp with an alien?  In fact there are not only parellels to the 1982 movie but also to the 1951 "Thing From Another World."

 top4biz  com

 @MrEvil 

The way the movie was shot & edited indicates that that scene, where he is recording his tape, was the last time we see MacReady alive.  The Thing IS the protagonist of the story.  In any good story it is only permissible, without the audience feeling betrayed by the storyteller, to kill a character that the audience cares about if they have done something to deserve an exit. (Usually by overcoming, or refusing to overcome, their character flaws.)…  Now watch the movie again, every single character that the audience cares about dies only after coming to grips with the reality of their situation and becoming a direct threat to the protagonist, The Thing.

 The only evidence provided that MacReady is human until the end is provided by MacReady himself.  He's the one who designed the parameters of the hot needle test, he's the one who tells us how the thing "works", he's the one who decides to lock Blair in the shed with all the tools he needs to build a spaceship  (…and leaves him with a saliva contaminated bottle of vodka), he's the one whom Fuchs is warning about the cellular assimilation option (immediately before his own death).

We see him playing chess at the beginning so we know he has at least a basic understanding of strategy which, when assimilated, the Thing would inherit.  All the other Things are going for sloppy hail Mary plays, building spaceships etc.  The MacReady-Thing is taking a more stealthy, clever, long-term strategy.  He even works against the other Things, sacrificing pawns, to deflect suspicion on behalf of the other characters and the audience.  

Saw it last night and was pleasantly suprised. It was well made and quite entertaining. Obviously it's not as good as the Carpenter version (which is one of my favorite movies btw) so if that's your expectations going in you will be disapointed. That being said I really enjoyed it and is worth checking out if not in theaters then defintely on dvd. I'd give it a B- minus.

@ Wallyrus

Ok, let's go at this a bit:

- Any good story? No, I've read and watched many good stories where good characters are killed off for tragic reasons. A good HORROR story makes you root for the characters who get killed, flaws or not. Because that's what makes it scary. Because that's the definition of horror. Too many horror stories make their characters frequently unlikeable or just walking bags of blood and gore because it stops being about scarying the audience and more about giving the audience gruesome kills.

The Thing is not the protagonist just because its name is the title, just like Gremlins or The Blob or any number of horror movies that have the monster's name as the title. The Thing is not the focal character - it is the threat. We do not root for it, we do not want it to win, and we sympathize with the HUMAN characters.

- See, I don't agree with your hypothesis at all. There have been discussions about whether MacReady was really a Thing. The movie tries to make us question his humanity. There's also the possibility that the Things were so independent that they'd work against each other... which I never bought because it makes no sense in the context of the film. But here's the problem, one which you actually brought up. The famous Hot Needle scene. MacReady either has everyone else tied up or held at flamethrower point as blood is collected. MacReady has the entire camp incapacitated. Considering how amorphous the Thing is, how strong and fast it can react (remember the dog-assimilation scene?), MacReady could have killed or assimilated EVERYONE at that time. When they exposed one of the other men as a Thing, they all very nearly bought it right there. If MacReady was a Thing (at that point), he would have acted right then.

I can't think of a single good reason why he wouldn't. If the Thing's objective was to assimilate everyone and wait for rescue, MacReady went at it terribly. Hell, one or two well-placed sticks of dynamite would have solved his problems. But he didn't. So while you can argue that MacReady MIGHT be a Thing at the very end, after his short battle with the Blair-Thing, I see no evidence that he was one before that.

- Last Point: playing chess doesn't make you good at strategy... especially since MacReady killed the computer with a glass of alcohol. What that scene represents is that MacReady is willing to destroy his source of entertainment rather than let the computer beat him. In other words, he's willing to committ total destruction rather than let an opponent win. Foreshadowing much?

I have no intention of seeing this movie.  The 1982 version of The Thing, like many of Carpenter's films, are wildly overpraised.  I say stick to the original 1951 version instead and forget the remake and pointless prequel.