PDA

View Full Version : THE THING (Remake/Prequel) Teaser Poster Revealed



Shawn Francis
07-12-2011, 12:09 PM
1620

Todd Jordan
07-12-2011, 01:12 PM
FUCK this remake. I hope it fails at the box office worse than Carpenter's remake. If they stay away from the CGI wankery, I'll give it a chance. If they put a female in the cast, I won't give it the time of day.

Who am I kidding. They could remake this with the original cast (the ones still alive) and I still wouldn't give it the time of day.

...I need to go check out that website...

Jimmy Simard
07-12-2011, 01:30 PM
One fact I remember quite well from the VHS day is that a movie with quote like "from the producer of..." or "from the director of..." didn't worth my time. I learned the lesson fast and will use it with this film...

Shawn Francis
07-12-2011, 01:34 PM
...I need to go check out that website...

That website won't tell you anything, it's the studio's site, not one dedicated solely to the movie, and all it has on it is the general plot.

Todd Jordan
07-12-2011, 01:48 PM
I looked on IMDB. A bunch of pretty people I've never heard of, directed by a guy who does commercials...PASS.

Mike T
07-12-2011, 01:58 PM
Y'know, against popular opinion, I'm going to give this one at least the benefit of the doubt until I see it. The original is one of my all-time favourites (Rob Bottin's "bugs" still freak me out). That said, I can understand the general response this prequel has had thus far. Afterall, how do you make a prequel to a "classic" (or, OTH, film that has clearly been a "love it or hate it" experience for so many for nearly thirty years). It might be a success, but something tells me it might also bomb at the box office as big as the original did... :think:

Nolando
07-12-2011, 03:59 PM
It's just pointless, tho' - the "prequel" story was told in the first :20 min. or so of Carpenter's movie.

And it has a couple of broads in the cast but the lead is Mary Elizabeth Winstead - the kinda gal that if she had me around she'd never need toilet paper...

Paul L
07-12-2011, 07:28 PM
It's just pointless, tho' - the "prequel" story was told in the first :20 min. or so of Carpenter's movie.
Wasn't there a series of comics in the late-1990s that were based on Carpenter's premise for the sequel that he was at one time planning to make?

There's an interview here (http://io9.com/5654684/first-inside-look-at-the-thing-prequel-shows-why-it-may-be-awesome-after-all), dated from October 2010, with some of the 'movers and shakers' behind THE THING prequel. There's a suggestion that they may lay their hands on THEY LIVE, which is the only Carpenter film that I might like more than THE THING.

Not to sound like a sexist prig, but (other than for commercial reasons) I don't understand why the producers of this prequel have felt the need to graft a contemporary 'Final Girl'/'independent woman' archetype (ie, the young American paleontologist played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead) onto this prequel, which if it is indeed set before the Carpenter film (which the interview suggests), seems to go against what would seem to be the period setting of the film. The original THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD had a Hawksian female character who fit naturally into the fabric of the movie, but Carpenter's movie was arguably more authentic in its representation of an all-male group - as (IIRC) Anne Bilson argued in her BFI book on Carpenter's THE THING. I may be proven wrong, but Winstead's character seems grafted onto the concept simply as a sop to the conventions of modern US horror movies with their crypto-feminist emphasis on the 'Final Girl'. That's not to denigrate the achievements of female scientists, but I get the impression that Winstead has simply been cast to 'sex up' the material and to draw in female viewers (who will identify with a female lead) and young male viewers (who will desire the female lead) - as per most mainstream horror films these days.

Todd Jordan
07-12-2011, 07:43 PM
You don't sound at all like a sexist pig. You sound like a realist.

Seeing that poster almost makes me angry.

Mike T
07-12-2011, 10:46 PM
It's just pointless, tho' - the "prequel" story was told in the first :20 min. or so of Carpenter's movie.

See, this is why I have certain trepidations with the prequel. The original was a self-contained story.


Wasn't there a series of comics in the late-1990s that were based on Carpenter's premise for the sequel that he was at one time planning to make?

Somewhere, amongst everything in all the magazine and books I have in storage, I have that set. From memory it was a fairly faithful continuation of the story, but I'd have to dredge through everything and find them to have a look again and see if I still feel that's the case. The thing that sticks in my head is that Childs turned out to be a thing...

And straying partly OT: whatever became of Rob Bottin? I seem to remember reading somewhere that not long after either Fight Club or Charlie's Angels he pretty much got jack of the industry and just walked away from it all?

Paul Casey
07-13-2011, 07:53 AM
THE THING video game was a sequel, too. It was really good and really hard.

Todd Jordan
07-13-2011, 08:28 AM
I was really good and really hard.

A little bit off-topic innit?

Toyboy
07-13-2011, 02:47 PM
I played the THING game at Ian's house. Ran around the camp for 15 minutes then gave up.

Paul Casey
07-14-2011, 07:55 AM
It was really good and really hard.


I played the THING game at Ian's house. Ran around the camp for 15 minutes then gave up.

Alison played it and then married him.

Roderick
07-14-2011, 11:42 AM
Jeez, how many of you guys have played with Ian's thing?

Todd Jordan
07-14-2011, 11:58 AM
I have merely enjoyed his farts.

Roderick
07-14-2011, 12:14 PM
All I got was a punch in the nutz.

Paul Casey
07-14-2011, 12:40 PM
It's better than a toe to the butthorn.

Roderick
07-14-2011, 12:41 PM
Boy needs to clip his toenails more often.

Roderick
07-14-2011, 03:34 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g2kASeEXUo

You can see Toyboy running around the camp at the 2:11 mark.

Shawn Francis
07-14-2011, 04:24 PM
Looking forward to this, but it looks more like a remake. And, where the hell are the Norwegians? Anyway, still gotta see it.

Todd Jordan
07-14-2011, 04:57 PM
Looks

Todd Jordan
07-14-2011, 04:57 PM
Like

Todd Jordan
07-14-2011, 04:58 PM
Ca-ca.

Paul L
07-14-2011, 06:36 PM
THE THING video game was a sequel, too. It was really good and really hard.
Very true. In all seriousness, it was one of the better movie-to-video game adaptations I've played.

Toyboy
07-14-2011, 07:08 PM
You can see Toyboy running around the camp at the 2:11 mark.

Yeah, that was me.

Um, I don't give a shit, personally, that there are women in this movie, but how about some women that are old or ugly. Real people. Why can't there be like a female version of Wilford Brimley in there? Cast Gemma Jones or Kathy Bates or some shit. And the dudes. Have old dudes like Richard Dysart types. Fat, old, ugly fucks is what I want. Quit prettying this shit up.

Paul L
07-14-2011, 07:10 PM
Somewhere, amongst everything in all the magazine and books I have in storage, I have that set. From memory it was a fairly faithful continuation of the story, but I'd have to dredge through everything and find them to have a look again and see if I still feel that's the case. The thing that sticks in my head is that Childs turned out to be a thing...
That's it! And there was some business on a submarine after MacReady and Childs were rescued by Russians, wasn't there? If I remember correctly, that series was closely based on Carpenter's ideas for a sequel to THE THING. (Btw, sad fact number one: my parents' now very elderly cat is named R J MacReady.)

Paul L
07-14-2011, 07:11 PM
Um, I don't give a shit, personally, that there are women in this movie, but how about some women that are old or ugly. Real people. Why can't there be like a female version of Wilford Brimley in there? Cast Gemma Jones or Kathy Bates or some shit. And the dudes. Have old dudes like Richard Dysart types. Fat, old, ugly fucks is what I want. Quit prettying this shit up.
Hear hear.

I'd like to have seen a cast that included (for example) Rutger Hauer and Jeroen Krabbe. Those are the kinds of actors that need to be in this type of material - seasoned performers. Or Peter Weller. Can you imagine a movie based on THE THING with that kind of cast?

Edit: keep typing THE TING instead of THE THING. Perhaps subconsciously I want to see Basil Wallace reprising his role as Screwface but in the Antarctic.

Paul Casey
07-14-2011, 07:41 PM
Looking forward to this, but it looks more like a remake. And, where the hell are the Norwegians? Anyway, still gotta see it.

There's a Norwegian flag flying at the base when the chopper lands at the beginning.

Shawn Francis
07-15-2011, 12:53 PM
I just expected to hear someone talking Norweigian. The helicopter pilots better.

Shawn Francis
07-15-2011, 12:55 PM
1621

Todd Jordan
07-15-2011, 04:23 PM
Looks like bugs from Starship Troopers. Or The Mist.

Shawn Francis
07-15-2011, 05:39 PM
I'm lodging my first complaint of this flick. Todd's right. You can see the clear differences, at least, in that photo, of the FX in this new movie and the nightmarish shit Bottin came up with in Carpenter's movie. Why the FX in THAT movie worked so well, and scared the shit out of me, was that you had no idea what the fuck you were looking at. Bottin took the human form and distorted and mutated it, and threw in some shit I couldn't identify, still can't to this day. That up there I can readily identify as something related to a bug. If ALL the FX are along these lines, the movie sinks like a rock.

Shawn Francis
07-15-2011, 05:40 PM
The more I look at that trailer the more it convinces me they did 90% remake and 10% prequel.

Shawn Francis
08-21-2011, 07:33 PM
Go here (http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/46609/thing-pictorial-behind-scenes-blow-out-see-some-creatures?view=%2Fgallery%2Fthing11%2Fthing13x#gal lery)and here (http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/The-Thing-Prequel/191901360821245?sk=photos)for lots of monster FX shots. You can see, though, the difference in what Bottin created and the direction this new version is taking.

Dom D
08-22-2011, 01:40 AM
This has to be the most pointless remake yet. Every Sci Fi/Fantasy series has already done a The Thing episode (X Files had a good one) and then you've got your movies like The Faculty that wish they were The Thing. Surely the whole thing is done to death at this point.

Mike T
08-22-2011, 08:57 AM
As I said, I'm over the whole "remake hater" mentality and will happily look this one up once it hits BD (as cinemagoing with a three year old is null).

Dom D
08-22-2011, 06:06 PM
I wasn't approaching it as a "remake hater" though. I'm just saying that elements of this story have been so freely ripped off by other films that they wont have much impact anymore. For instance will it do the blood testing scene? The original Things blood test is still the best* but it's been done a million times now and I'm not sure I want to sit through another one.

*Honourable mention to Supernatural where the blood test was swapped for the characters electrocuting one another: "Hey I got a pacemeaker!" "Then you better hope it's a good one." Zap!

Mike T
08-23-2011, 02:43 AM
I wasn't approaching it as a "remake hater" though.

My apologies, Dom. That wasn't directed at you; it just had the unlucky misfortune of following your post. :blush:

I made comment in the "remakes" thread that, having been around forty-odd years, that remakes (and in some cases, remakes of remakes) have made up a significant part of my (genre) movie-going life. Draculas, Frankensteins, Mummies, Wolfmen, Dorian Grays, Dr Jekylls, Jess Franco remaking his Vampyros Lesbos or Dr Orloff over and over again...even Carpenter's original film essentially being a remake of the 1951 film. Remakes are just part of the genre tableau -- and for a long while I found myself running along with the various "remake haters" across a number of forums, websites, blogs and print media. But in the last couple of weeks I had an epiphany and I've re-evaluated my position on a lot of stuff genre-related and have determined that I've allowed opinion, often ill-informed at that, sway my thoughts and how I approach genre fare (being that I regularly write about it). And I'm done with that side of things...

But I do agree with you in relation to Carpenter's film in that, although it was a box-office bomb, it has gone on to be one of the most influential loss-of-identity/invasion sci-fi thrillers made and everyone has taken their crack at homages.

Todd Jordan
08-23-2011, 08:54 AM
*Honourable mention to Supernatural where the blood test was swapped for the characters electrocuting one another: "Hey I got a pacemeaker!" "Then you better hope it's a good one." Zap!

Yeah that was a good homage. That show is pretty good for doing that and doing it well.

Shawn Francis
09-07-2011, 12:01 PM
Ever wonder how the thing escaped from it's ice encased tomb? Well, click here (http://www.mtv.com/videos/movies/688110/the-thing-exclusive-clip.jhtml?xrs=playershare_fb)and see how it happened. It's the first released clip from the movie.

Barry M
09-07-2011, 12:16 PM
I honestly never did, but it reminds me of Leonard Cohen's poem "For Anne" (http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/for-anne/). (This ain't it.)

With the thing gone,
who wonders how it escaped
from its ice-encased tomb?
Not that I did wonder,
But I do wonder
Now that it's gone.

Sorry, Leonard.

I still don't really wonder, actually.

Todd Jordan
09-07-2011, 12:26 PM
I thought it was nothing more than they dug up the thing in a block of ice and it thawed enough for a cell to get loose and infect someone or something.

I don't even want to go to the link. They feel people are too stupid to come to their own conclusion so they have to explain it? Fuck them. They'll probably give it some sort of voice or conscience too. And put in a message that all creatures, big and small, should live in harmony.

FUCK them and FUCK this movie.

Todd Jordan
09-07-2011, 12:27 PM
The Thing replicated the word "something" I only typed it once. Went back and checked. Maybe they can explain that too.

Shawn Francis
09-07-2011, 01:13 PM
CLIP SPOILER COMING . . . TURN BACK NOW . . . TOO LATE: The thing simply bursts out of the block of ice and escapes into the ceiling. It's also quite clear the glimpse you see of it is PURE CGI. A little disheartening, but, come hell or high water, I'm still gonna go and see it.

Shawn Francis
09-13-2011, 03:09 PM
First TV spot.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iufSJwGi5Nc&feature=feedlik

Todd Jordan
09-13-2011, 04:27 PM
When are they going to stop making every movie look like every movie with these fucking trailers. They're all the same. That trailer does not make me want to see the movie. It has the total opposite effect on me. I didn't even have the sound on and I know exactly how it sounded.

Shawn Francis
09-13-2011, 04:29 PM
Great, now there's some debate on THE THING's facebook page whether this is real, or fan made. I initially took this a REAL commercial.

Todd Jordan
09-13-2011, 04:30 PM
It looks like the typical shit trailer any studio would pump out. Why would you think it anything but a legit trailer?

Shawn Francis
09-13-2011, 04:45 PM
I have to admit I hate myself just a little for wanting to see this so bad, but I NEED to see this. I am aware this could in no way possible live up to, or eclipse Carpenter's version. Like the other remakes that hit this past August, it's curiosity that makes me want to see it. For the record, I thought the DON'T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK remake was quite good. No, it doesn't come anywhere near the power the original has over me, but I thought it was good nevertheless.

Shawn Francis
09-13-2011, 04:49 PM
Just to make you even more nuts about remakes, Todd. I heard today POINT BREAK is getting remade.

Shawn Francis
09-15-2011, 06:26 PM
Awesome new trailer! You see a bit more of THE THING!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dpcxVKsx24&feature=youtu.be

Shawn Francis
09-19-2011, 02:44 PM
A little bit shocked to see just how much CGI went into this movie. Just about ALL the monstrosities on display in this RED BAND trailer ARE CG.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqnYZ1mM77U

Alex K.
09-19-2011, 03:29 PM
Ya' know, instead of just remaking the original and adding a chick, why not expand on that story? Take it in a different direction, explore the origin of this creature a little bit, figure out what it wants to do (is it some sort of Alien Prisoner that landed on our planet and wants to go home, or does it want to kill everyone?) or something. It's just so pointless. The only good to come of it is that more people will be exposed to the Carpenter Masterpiece and Carpenter will get another fat royalty check.

Todd Jordan
10-10-2011, 09:44 AM
I'm planning on going to see it this weekend. I'll try to be open-minded but it won't be easy. I'll report back. I could probably write it ahead of time and not be far off.

Ian Jane
10-10-2011, 09:45 AM
You probably could but I dunno, it looks like it'll be better than a lot of what's hitting theaters lately.

Todd Jordan
10-10-2011, 11:28 AM
I hope so. But I'll hit a matinee so I don't waste too much money.

I've only seen Alien vs. Predator once (which was enough), but for some reason the trailers remind me of that movie.

Shawn Francis
10-11-2011, 02:10 PM
Fangoria review (http://www.fangoria.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5797%3Athe-thing-2011-film-review&catid=50%3Amovies-tv&Itemid=181)

Todd Jordan
10-11-2011, 07:36 PM
Link no good.

Ian Jane
10-11-2011, 07:41 PM
It did work earlier, I saw it. Weird. Maybe Fangoria exploded from all the fucking pop ups.

Shawn Francis
10-11-2011, 10:32 PM
Just rechecked it since I also got it linked on my DVD NEWS FLASH page and that link doesn't work either. Fango just took it down. Wonder why?

Shawn Francis
10-12-2011, 07:33 PM
Link is back up.

Shawn Francis
10-15-2011, 07:00 PM
My two cents:

Ennio Morricone's score was used a tad in the beginning, and a lot during the first half of the ending credits. Don't leave once those credits pop up, the linking material that connects the prequel to Carpenter's version is interspersed through out. The opening credits, specifically THE THING title is burned onto the screen similar to Hawk's AND Carpenter's, just with the aid of computers this time.

In my opinion, 90-99% of the monster and gore FX were done with CG. And, yes, the CG was VERY good. I did notice that CG has allowed the thing to be more of a predator, meaning the attack sequences are quick and you can show a lot of movement and leaping. The only CG effect I didn't like was the "big monster" at the end. Carpenter had the Blair-monster, this 21st century version has got a counterpart, too, except the grafting of the human face upon the Lovecraftian nightmare looked too absurd, too at odds with the abomination around it. Not until the face exploded into a maw and teeth and tentacles did it look more "in tune" with the rest of the body.

The last half of the movie takes place WITHIN the spaceccraft itself. But, like with the '81 version I never thought the creature was the owner, or the pilot. It comes off as being too primitive, despite it's expert camouflage ability. I imagined it to be something that was either being carted back for study, or for captivity, on another planet, or something created for invasion purposes, that didn't quite get delivered due to the ship's crashing.

The creature Benning's and Macready find in the snow, with the stretched face, is a major creature in the prequel. The monster FX is clearly different from what Bottin created. The only scene that really had an impact on me was the thing's first appearance. In the '81 version, it was the dog kennel sequence. here, it's this guy that get's dragged under the building. You never quite see ALL of it, but the parts that were lighted was weird and creepy, and reminded me a little bit of the alien from Alien Contamination. This huge mouth, the body being dragged into it.

The only thing that's still a mystery is the lead woman's demise. Kate, I think, was her character's name. Her last scene is seated in the driver's side of a tractor, the wiper going, the snow falling, and her face looking like she's in shock. Then you move into the closing credits and the linking material. Did she freeze to death? Obviously, her body was never discovered in the '81 movie, so what happened to her? Is that a setup for a sequel?

The blood test sequence has a counterpart here, too. The let's-see-if-you've-got-fillings-in-your-mouth sequence, for the creature, obviously, can't duplicate inanimate material.

All in all , I liked, and WILL probably pick it up on DVD, if I got the money, that is.

Ian Jane
10-15-2011, 07:58 PM
I'm going to wait for home video for this one. I just can't get excited enough to justify the cost of seeing this in the theater (which tends to be considerably more than buying the Blu-ray/DVD).

The Silly Swede
10-15-2011, 08:08 PM
I'm going to wait for home video for this one. I just can't get excited enough to justify the cost of seeing this in the theater (which tends to be considerably more than buying the Blu-ray/DVD).

I am 100% in concurrance. There is no way I splash up the cash for this until it is home viewing time.

Shawn Francis
10-15-2011, 08:28 PM
I'm going to wait for home video for this one. I just can't get excited enough to justify the cost of seeing this in the theater (which tends to be considerably more than buying the Blu-ray/DVD).

This seems to be the general consensus. Apparently me and ONE other person I know of saw this, or WANTED to, see this in a theater. I'm a big fan of the the original, so I just had to know. I was mostly curious as to how much CG was going to be utilized. Apparently, a lot. I still liked it, even though it really never had a chance to compete with Carpenter's version. The ONLY real problem I had was the demise of the lead girl. We NEVER see it. Does that mean there might be a sequel around the corner? Hmmm.

Todd Jordan
10-15-2011, 08:33 PM
I haven't read Shawn's post yet because I'm waiting to see the movie first. Going tomorrow night. I should write a review first and see how close I was.

Shawn Francis
10-15-2011, 10:08 PM
Don't leave once the end credits start, the scenes that link the movie to Carpenter's play out among it, for a little while.

Todd Jordan
10-15-2011, 11:26 PM
Oh I never leave until the credits are done. I'm usually one of a couple people left in the theater.

Shawn Francis
10-16-2011, 11:27 AM
Saw another remark about this movie and I have yet to come across one that is positive. Sure it's light years away from what Carpenter did, but I didn't think it was THAT bad. I felt the same about the DON'T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK remake. I re-watched the trailer this morning and saw some dialogue that was NOT in the movie. I bet they'll be an "extended version" on DVD when it comes out.

Shawn Francis
10-16-2011, 04:40 PM
Got this from THE THING- PREQUEL's facebook page: "Universal's early Halloween entry The Thing opened to No. 3 with $8.7 million, unable to crack $10 million as the studio had hoped for and becoming the latest horror film to disappoint. The Thing received a B- CinemaScore, with males making up 57 percent of the audience.

"It slightly underperformed," said Universal president of distribution Nikki Rocco, noting that the movie is likely to make up ground on DVD&BlueRay."

Todd Jordan
10-16-2011, 10:43 PM
No spoilers.

Well I didn't think it sucked. CGFX aside (and yeah they were pretty well done), it lacked a number of elements that made Carpenter's so awesome. I never really got the sense of isolation, which is huge. I never felt the tension and paranoia the real version has, and what paranoia there was seemed forced. Too many characters that looked the same made it tough to keep track of people, so it was tough to feel empathy. One huge thing I didn't like was the music. Carpenter's version played no music (that I recall) during the juicy and horrific parts, just noises. In this one the music is too dramatic and in your face, rather than Morricone's music seemed almost like a creeping wave.

Another thing is aside from a few spots this never felt to me like a prequel, but really just a remake. The events pretty much happen the same way as in Carpenter's and there just didn't seem to anything new to the story that this movie brings. I did however dig the way they tied the two movies ending and beginning together. That was done well. And a couple of the FX sequences looked pretty cool, even though they were CG or CG over physical effects. But they don't have that organic feel that Bottin's and Stan Winston's had.

That's about it. I don't regret seeing it, but it was pretty run of the mill. And I hated the entire spaceship sequence.

Robin Bougie
10-17-2011, 02:45 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYjDVCwKr6A

Shawn Francis
10-17-2011, 04:12 PM
Loyal THING fans, read this and find out exactly what went wrong with the movie. Some of it was a fight between do we stick with practical or do ALL CG? But ONLY some of it. Very enlightening. Screenwriter, Eric Heisserer gets candid!

BLOODY DISGUSTING INTERVIEW (http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/26758)

Dom D
10-17-2011, 07:00 PM
Screenwriters have a lot to say for themselves these days. First there was the Conan guy and now this. Got to wonder why you would be this candid while the film is in release. At least wait till it's been on DVD a while before you slam it. Heisserer might be disappointed with what did with the film but it's the studios film and they paid him for his work. Poor form.

Ian Jane
10-18-2011, 09:39 AM
Be interesting to see if Heisserer pops up on a commentary when it hits BD/DVD.

Shawn Francis
10-18-2011, 11:43 AM
Sounds like they actually had a worthy flick there. See, it just goes to show ya, Hollywood absolutely refuses to do put any extensive, practical FX in a movie these days. Of course, there were script issues with this movie, but it kills me that they started out saying, "We're gonna go ALL practical FX with this," and the studio fucked it up. They're right, though, nowadays you could never make THE THING the way Carpenter made it. You gotta get to the punch these days, sacrificing story as much as possible. I re-watched the trailer a few days ago and noticed dialogue that wasn't in the movie. I'll assume the eventual DVD MIGHT be of the "extended cut" variety. I agree with Todd, somewhat, the whole ending INSIDE the spaceship didn't need to happen. I didn't hate it, I mean, it was all right, but all in all that whole spaceship-thing NEEDED to remain ambiguous.

Tom D.
10-23-2011, 11:45 AM
It was fine for a sunday afternoon matinee.

Goldberg
10-30-2011, 07:07 PM
I saw it two weeks ago. It was OK. I would have preferred EVEN MORE of the Thing monster, but I liked what I saw.

The link back to the original at the end seemed like some tacked on bullshit a bunch of Hollywood cocksuckers thought up after a coke binge whilst sitting in a jacuzzi one summery LA afternoon.

It was like listening to some contemporary garage band on Goner Records or whatever, when you can always listen to, I dunno The Sonics!!