The Thing (2011) Trailer...

[mickey]

Greetings,

This is a prequel that I am looking forward to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txjm94GnrPA



mickey

[Jimbo]

I've been looking forward to this myself. John Carpenter's The Thing is still one of my favorite sci-fi/horror films.

[mickey]

Greetings Jimbo,

John Carpenter's The Thing still stands up to this day. People are still debating the ending (only I really know). John Carpenter has a way of dropping knowledge in his movies to a sleeping public. The subject matter predated the media outbreak of AIDS and strongly paralleled what the virus was about. Additionally, there were attempts to destroy the AiIDS virus by heating the blood. Any modality that evolved outside the medical community was quickly attacked and ridiculed.

mickey

[Jimbo]

Hey, mickey.

I never really thought of The Thing in that light. But yes, I was aware that John Carpenter did drop hints in his films (or some of them, anyway). For me, a lot of the appeal of his films was their 'low-techness' (I just made up a word). And although some of the effects in his movies appear very dated by today's standards, IMO that somehow adds to their charm and to their menacing atmosphere. They simply would not be the same if they were packed with CGI like the movies today. Which is one thing about this prequel that I'm not so sure about.

To use some non-John Carpenter films as examples of what I mean, compare the werewolf transformation scenes in the original The Howling and those in Van Helsing or the Underworld movies. IMO, even with its low-budget, the visceral impact of The Howling's scene resonates far more than the computer-generated effects of current films.

Also, as in Carpenter's The Thing, sometimes the monster you barely see carries far more menace than the one you see too much of.

[mickey]

I agree.


mickey

[Jimbo]

It's a pretty decent film as prequels go. It does stay pretty true to what supposedly happened to the Norwegian research station in the 1982 film. I will offer the opinion that...


*slight spoiler*


...as I expected, the creature is shown too much, too soon, and too often. This prequel is a much louder film than John Carpenter's movie. Perhaps you can infer that the creature learned from this and became more stealthy.

While it lacks the suspense and creepy atmosphere of the 1982 movie, it's not a bad movie at all. John Carpenter's movie remains the best The Thing by far.

[Scott R. Brown]

You guys DO realize Carpenter's film was a remake of The Thing from Another World, 1951 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044121/), right?

I have never seen the original myself, but my mom swore it was better than Carpenter's version!

[Jimbo]

Yes, The Thing From Another World was the first version I ever saw. It's a good movie, but I actually feel that John Carpenter's version is better. That's why I said that his version was the best one.

The creature in the original was played by James Arness, quite a bit different from the remake(s).

Clearly, John Carpenter was quite a fan or the original. You can spot the beginning of it playing on a TV set in the first Halloween.

[mickey]

Greetings,

What was great about the original movie was the dialogue. Instead of one line then another, there were interruptions. This was before Woody Allen's (it actually hurt to type that quasi incestuous man's name) Bullets Over Broadway.
I had the chance to hear radio broadcasts of both movies. Though both were good, the original version was a little better in this format.

John Carpenter's version still rules.


mickey

[TenTigers]

Dude-Woody Allen is every man's hero.
He raised a wife!

Uber-cool.:cool:

[sanjuro_ronin]

Dude-Woody Allen is every man's hero.
He raised a wife!

Uber-cool.:cool:

The uck factor is that is to high for measurements !

[GeneChing]

You guys DO realize Carpenter's film was a remake of The Thing from Another World, 1951 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044121/), right?

I have never seen the original myself, but my mom swore it was better than Carpenter's version!I thought Carpenter's version was better than the original, personally. His was more Lovecraftian.

The Thing is based on the novella Who Goes There? by John W. Campbell, Jr. originally published in 1938. I've always held that this was derivative of H.P. Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness, published in 1931. I think Carpenter was familiar with Lovecraft's work, because his take on The Thing just hit that Lovecraft tone.

[Scott R. Brown]

I thought Carpenter's version was better than the original, personally. His was more Lovecraftian.

The Thing is based on the novella Who Goes There? by John W. Campbell, Jr. originally published in 1938. I've always held that this was derivative of H.P. Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness, published in 1931. I think Carpenter was familiar with Lovecraft's work, because his take on The Thing just hit that Lovecraft tone.

Oh Great Gene, Thanks for bringing up books no one will every be able to find!:p

[Jimbo]

I thought Carpenter's version was better than the original, personally. His was more Lovecraftian.

The Thing is based on the novella Who Goes There? by John W. Campbell, Jr. originally published in 1938. I've always held that this was derivative of H.P. Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness, published in 1931. I think Carpenter was familiar with Lovecraft's work, because his take on The Thing just hit that Lovecraft tone.

Back in the mid-'90s or so, Carpenter directed a Lovecraft-based movie, In The Mouth of Madness starring Sam Neill (sp?). I don't think it was a big hit, as Carpenter had already passed his creative peak by that time.

John Carpenter made some great movies, though most of them seem really dated now. Including Starman, which I just watched again after about 20 years, although its basic message still resonates. IMO, Carpenter's The Thing has aged the best of all of them.