Which is better?

(Most of this is reprinted from other stuff I've written.)

Carpenter's The Thing '82 isn't the worst remake ever made, but it's not very good. They are two very different movies, but the fact that Carpenter chose to call the film "The Thing" implies that he was attempting to create a connection between the two films in the mind of his audience, and it is therefore a remake. If he wanted to be true to the short story, he should have called it "Who Goes There?" or chosen a new title. (He also reuses the title sequence.) Obviously Carpenter is asking for the movie to have it judged as though it were the same film. He must have known he would fail.

Carpenter deletes the following from the original film:

1. Good dialogue
2. Interesting direction, especially in the use of overlapping dialogue (Christian Nyby obviously leaning into the shadow of Howard Hawks)
3. A sense of comraderie/interaction between the characters, a.k.a. "humanity"
4. That feminine touch (no women)
5. Reasonable intelligence on the part of the characters
6. Humor
7. Non-gimmicky thrills
8. Heart

Carpenter ADDS:

1. "I dunno what the hell's in there, but it's weird and pissed off, whatever it is."
2. His, shall we say, economy of production values
3. Sweaty guys who grunt at each other
4. Blood
5. Typical horror movie stupidity on the part of the characters
6. A ponderous philosophical ending
7. Some admittedly bravura special effects
8. Kurt Russell

There's a newness to the original, too. You could compare it to some war movies of the period (like Dmytryk's Eight Iron Men with Lee Marvin), but there's a slightly different feel. By the time Carpenter got in on it, his own Halloween had created a cottage industry of stalking movies, and it was no longer new.


"Who's been carving their initials in the tomatoes?"

You could very well be right about there not being a completely faithful adaptation of the story. But I personaly think that a movie should stand on it's own merits, rather than being a retelling of what we have read in the book.

And yet no one has answered me. It seems that all of the fans of the 50's version say it had great atmespere, was suspensful, had romance, blah blah blah.

1. Great atmesphere. Common. It was just alright. By modern standards, it was quite poor. You want great atmosphere in and old movie, check out house on Haunted Hill, or Last Man On Earth. The latter in particular had a believable setting, by old movie standards.

2. Suspenseful? common. That's like saying creature from the black lagoon is suspensful. You knew exactly what was going to happen. "they go back to find the monster, but it's gone." They try to kill the monster and think they have, but its still alive. Their plot to kill the monster is inturrupted by the mad scientist, but, miraculesly, in the nic of time, it works and they kill the frankenstiens monster creature that we are supposed to be scared of

3. Romance. Okay. The romance was alright. It was on the beleivable side. But it was nothing you wouldn't see in just about every old movie that had romance. It was there, but it was a cliche for it to be there.

On the other hand, people are slamming John carpenters version. The say that it was full of mindless gore and effects, had no atmesphere, was just Kurt Russel playing a hero, was predictable, blah blah blah.

1. The effects were really quite good. But they really weren't that frequent. Actually, the reality is I think the effect look a little hokey by todays standards, and the movie suffers slightly when they are used for the most part. They are entertaining. But if you removed the effects, you might even have a better movie. By that logic, the movie is far from a hollow movie with nothing but effects.

2. No atmosphere? "you have to be *beep* kidding me" (to qoute the movie)The movie was nothing but atmosphere. One of the main points of the film was setting a mood in which the gore was believable. The scene when the men are going through the norweigen camp was very tense. At every turn you expected and attack. At every turn you ecpected the dog to turn into a monster. The scene in which they were testing the blood, you didn't know what would happen. I think, unless you knew what would happen, you were at the edge of your seat. The tension causing music was the best in a horror movie period this side of Jaws and Halloween. If that doesn't make great atmosphere, I don't know what does.

3. Kurt Russel was quite good. I can't really argue with the fact that he emerged as kind of the sole hero. But that doesn't mean his role was a bad one. It wasn't like he was the rag tag army commander who had been through hell and knew exactly what was goi9ng on. He just emerged as events progressed. And as you'll recall, at the end there is some possiblility left open that he was a carrier all along.

4. This one I can't argue with. It all comes down to how easily you see things coming. I will give you this one. It was on the predictable side. But, I have to assk you if the original was less predictable. Okay, I understand if as a 7 year old you didn't know what would happen. That's fine. But look at it from a modern perspective and and tell me it doesn't fall into the 50's monster movie mold. Just keep that in mind when you start bashing Carpenters movie for predictability.


Okay. That's my ten cents.

[deleted]

The one scene where the original movie has it over the John Carpenter remake is a simple one really. The captain has asked his love interest/secretary to the scientist about the blood supply, it cuts to the lab, where the lead scientist has been working alone. He has planted the seeds found in the severed hand and has been using plasma to feed them. When he shows them to the other scientists, he has one of them listen to a pulsating seed pod. He does so with a stethoscope, steps back and says, "like the sound of a new born baby." Watch the reactions of the others. To me, this is more horrible than all of the explosions Carpenter, Micheal Bay or any other modern director puts on a screen. An alien presence, using humans as food to feed their progeny.