Lite mode. Switch to Full
invert_colors
logout
/int/
/int/
Post a Replyarrow_backarrow_downward
United KingdomBernd2025-03-21 01:50:46 · 1yNo. 337574reply
I envision myself in Hollywood, directing my production. Act*r dogs are complaining about me, saying I'm too harsh and my sequel is esoteric.
I dismiss them by the dozens. Because I'm so much stronger than them they complain about me to studio executives.
I'm told that after this farce is out of the way, I'll never work again. As I sit in my chair at the premier I see the face of god - CREATIVE FULFILMENT.
I finally did it, I finally made an epic sequel to The Thing (1982), wherein the thing travels from place to place helping people, engaging with their troubles and learning that limited, self contained sentient life has a peculiar value and potential. From ladybirds and butterflies to cats and dogs and hogs and apes and men, the thing discovers itself reflected in an other whose independent existence it had heretofore rejected as little more than a food source.
Credits roll over footage of a billowing, miles wide sheet of flesh soaring over London as crowds of friendly Pakistanis and Africans cheer and clap for the thing as it embarks on a journey to parts unknown.
 
If you could, would you assume the attributes of the thing, from Carpenter's classic film The Thing (1982), with all that it entails? What would you do?
IsraelBernd2025-03-23 05:29:53 · 1yNo. 337659reply
It sounds like an amazing idea for a sequel.
HungaryBernd2025-03-25 08:18:00 · 1yNo. 337737reply
I recently learnt that they made a sequel to Titanic, the Titanic II.
I feel exactly the same reading the plot of The Thing II.
IsraelBernd2025-03-25 15:23:04 · 1yNo. 337746reply
Holy kino, and the poster is only a ship, the actors of thus masterpiece aren't even important
United StatesBernd2025-03-25 15:30:50 · 1yNo. 337748reply
/int/Post a Replyarrow_backarrow_upward