John Carpenter's The Thing
 

Picked this up at Suncoast yesterday and must say, Carpenter's earlier works before he hit these stupid lame-a*s horror flicks are much better. I've seen it before but always caught the edited for tv version. I realize this is a remake, but from what I got from the interviews on the disc is that this was a much better version of The Thing than the original 1950's flick.

What are your thoughts about this movie?

As about five of us said in the re-makes thread, we consider the 1982 version of The Thing THE best re-make of all-time. I think it is easily John Carpenter's best film too.

The documentary included on the DVD (which is the same as the older LD) is flat-out excellent and amazingly comprehensive. It's also a must see letterboxed, as the cropping for TV really ruins the composition and mood.

WOW!! Something Holden and I agree on. All of the scenes involving an imitation of someone always grosses me out. It's very cool though. In fact, on the documentary they even razz Bottin, the creature effects guy, for wanting perfect lighting on his plastic creations. Great great movie.

I've never seen it. Is it really, really sick?

The effects are really disgusting at times, but mostly slimy disgusting rather than bloody disgusting, if you get the fine distinction.

Carpenter's goal when it came to representing the actual Thing itself was to push for something completely new. He says that up until that time Alien monsters had just about always come down to a man in a costume. Even in a really great modern movie like Ridley Scott's Alien, when all is said and done, it's a guy in a suit. He contends that the audience's eye can always detect the inherently human motions, even disguised in the best of costumes, and that somehow lessens the imagination's peril. What he wanted was something decidedly inhuman, to never resoprt to "a guy in a suit".

As a result, Rob Bottin created some very elaborate and inventive monsters, stuff that really hadn't been seen or tried before. Bottin would go on to work on such movies as SE7EN, Total Recall, RoboCop and Legend, but The Thing was the first time he was really in charge and working on such a grand scale. Carpenter gave the kid a chance and it really paid off on-screen.

We could describe some of the best effects to you, but you'd do better just to rent it and see them for yourself, Sades.

I try to watch The Thing at least once every year, on the night of the first big snowfall.

I think I'll give it a shot. I usually like a good scary movie. I don't mind sleeping with the lights on for a few nights.;D

I've always loved this film. Some friends and I snuck into it at the mall when it opened and I've watched it again every opportunity I have had. There is something inherently creepy about being stuck in the cold with no one around for miles and to me this film plays on that as well on the obvious fear from the creature.

As for the original... well... how scary can Matt Dillon (James Arness, Gunsmoke) be dressed as the Tin Man?

I thought The Orignal was great Toose. It's just that you have to think of it as a movie when special effects were just being toyed around with. The audience had never seen anything like it before.

As for The Revamping of The Thing by John Carpenter it's excellant so Sades like I said to AKA23 rent the DVD or buy it cause the widescreen really pays of with Dean Cundey's cinematography and the Audio Commentary is very funny also as Holden Said The Documantary is very good and informative and has a running time of 1hour 20 mins.

One more thing I'd like to mention is Ennio Morricone's Soundtrack which is Amazing and adds to the thrill & suspence of the movie tremendously.

That's what Carpenter didn't like about the original. It didn't stick with the book. In the orginal, the alien was a Frankenstein-type creature, so it really lacked the effect to make it scary.

With Bottin's creature, it's really hard to make a clear decision on who you think is the alien and who isn't. Since this creature can imitate a human or anything with cell structure it makes it hard to discern between what's real and what isn't.

I suggest you rent it if you haven't seen it. As Holden said, it's more slimy disgusting, than bloody disgusting (there is a fair share of bloodshed though).

I know Jefferies, it was good for it's time. I was born into the era of watching Arness on TV every night as Marshall Dillon and couldn't shake that when I saw the original "Thing". I kept expecting him to bellow "Festus! Have you seen Miss Kitty?!"

The Thing 8.5/10
 

Great to see the love in the room for one of the few remakes that improve or enhance the original. Couldnt agree with you guys more.

Just bought the DVD for this bad boy last month and ive watche dit a couple a times since. Own it and have seen it many times on VHS and once at the movies but I couldnt be happier with seeing it in all its widescreen glory. Still ahs an impact and the FX are top notch with far more detail.

Arguably John Carpenter's finest efforts and definetly one of the finest sci fi/thrillers alongside Don Siegel's INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS and Ridley Scott's ALIEN.

Beautifully shot with some of the most imaginitive FX ever captured on film. The story too is inspired and all the cast keep teh tension at boiling point. Backed by that tremendous score you can do nothing else but hope fro the best and knwo the worst is coming.

An all time fave that everyone should see as a nice compendium to the recent DOG SOLDIERS.

I liked The Thing, then again, I'm a Carpenter fan...probably one of the couple.

I agree his career went down the ****ter, somewhere after They Live, with In the Mouth of Madness being the only standout in his latter work (although, when hard pressed, I'll admit I enjoyed Vampire$ and Ghosts of Mars).

Carpenter's The Thing is just a great, great film. In my top ten or twelve favorites.

It is to 1982 what An American Werewolf In London is to 1981.

This movie's awesome. Whenever it's on TV, I'm there. I give it a 10 out of 10.

This is one of the few films i remember seeing when i was child and it actually made me cry. All i remember is watching the scene where the doc is about to put the difribulator on that guys chest and it just opens and MUNCH eats his hands off :sick: Then the head pulls off the dead guy and runs away screaming! :eek:

A brilliant Sci-Fi Horror. It SO Gruesome and atmospheric you have to love it :yup:

There is a scene which I really like but which gets cut during television screening. :mad: It's when the dog/alien gets put in with the other dogs and it skins one of the canines alive.


I also love the bit where they are tied up waiting to be tested and they all start freaking when 'the thing shows itself. I think that part's hilarious. :laugh:

It is indeed my all time favourite horror movie.

<-------- Only person in the world who didn't particularly care about The Thing.

I loved this movie, it started out so nice, I am an animal lover and the dog was so nice, then all hell breaks loose, very scary and gory, I have to cover my eyes in some parts, I am such a sissy. :yup:

John Carpenter's The Thing has got to be one of my all-time favourites. I think the effects for its time was damn good. The humour at times was just right, second to another favourite of mine, Tremors.

I agree completely. This is one of my favourite horror films and the effects are used so well that it wouldn't be laughed at today. One of the best, I'm glad I'm not the only one to think so.

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

The Thing is real classic from king of atmosphere, John Carpenter, and one of the most famous horrors which is, nowadays, a lot more easier to classify as a psychological thriller than a horror movie.
As a psychological thriller film works wonderfully. Horror elements fits perfectly and the atmosphere is brilliantly polished with scenery and music and special effects are pretty impressive for 80's. Many scenes in the film are still striking and recognizable. That's what makes the film special, but pretty much everything else falls under mediocrity.
The cast led by Kurt Russell did a solid job, and for many people Russell is most recognizable as MacReady. Here we come to the big problem of characterization. It is not strange for Carpenter that the main characters are superficial and purpose of many of them is only to die. Almost every his story is successful despite this, but that does not diminish the fact that this is still a big problem because the easiest way for audience to connect with film is through the characters. Also, some characters must behave totally illogical for story to be successful, what especially in the modern era, is very annoying.
But in total The Thing deserves a high mark. Especially because of the brilliant atmosphere and interest that it creates.

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

Just read up on the thread... I wouldn't class Carpenter's The Thing as a remake.

As I said in my own review of it, it's simply based on the same book that the 1951 film was.

If you class it as a remake, then yes, it's the best remake ever made. But simply, it isn't a remake.

The movie from 2011, titled also as The Thing... is definitely a remake but a remake of Carpenter's film. It's supposed to be a prequel to Carpenter's masterpiece, but only comes across as cheap and unimaginitive. They not only used scenes that mirror the 1982 film but they even lifted dialogue directly from it too.

Agree with Schimo to an extent though, a lot of the characters are basically cannon fodder but that's the point of the film to a certain extent.
It's a case of you know they're going to get chomped, but you never know who is next, what order the story will unravel and it adds to the tension of the screenplay.

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

This movie is amazing, as everybody knows already. I loved it's dark,cold atmosphere, pitch-perfect suspense, and excellent practical SFX.

One of those very rare instances where the remake was better than the original...exciting and gripping film.

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

The 2011 film can't be a remake and a prequel at the same time - those terms are mutually exclusive, and fan-service homage tossed in (similar dialogue or call-outs to beloved scenes from the 1982 flick etc) is just that - fan service and homage. This isn't a matter of opinion, btw; it just isn't. A remake would have the same characters, and the same events, and this film has neither - it's clearly and obviously a prequel that takes place at the Norwegian camp that spawns the dog that shows up at the beginning of the 1982 Carpenter film. It even dovetails into the 1982 film, showing the people in the helicopter chasing the dog towards the American camp.

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

How scary would you rate this movie? I have yet to see it?

Carpenter's Thing wasn't a remake, it was much closer to the 1935 John Campbell book Who Goes There? than the older version. The 1951 Thing was excellent as a low budget re-imagining of the book, but Carpenter's version was pretty close to the semi-original Campbell book. It's worth noting that Who Goes There was itself inspired by Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness, which was inspired by a chapter in Poe's only novel The Narrative of A Gordon Pym. None of the movies (especially the 2011 "prequel") is as good as Lovecraft's story, which had a movie version in the works to be done by Guillermo Del Toro. Elements of the story also appeared in The X Files. Unfortunately the investor interest in Madness dried up when James Cameron filmed a similar extraterrestrial version of the plot in Prometheus.

I think the most fun with The Thing is trying to figure out the labyrinth of mystery involving who's infected, and what the hey is going on in the background. It's a bit like The Shining in terms of background complexity.


First off, and this is major, the infected people.

There's a few obvious ones, people who are revealed to never be infected offscreen, and are proven to be unaffected and still remain unaffected before and after the blood testing scene. These are:

R.J. MacReady - suspected when shirt collar was found.
Nauls - looked suspicious, but ultimately innocent.
Windows - suspected for minor things, including trying to grab a shotgun.
Clark - suspected of being infected by Dog-Thing.
Copper (Doc) - never suspected to a great extent.
Gary - suspected of getting to the blood.

There's a few that either are shown getting infected, or elsewise are easy to conclude when and how it happened:

Fuchs - burns himself alive, presumably when about to be infected. Reasonable to assume he's never infected.
Bennings - gets infected by Split-Face remnants. Dies before being able to assimilate all the way.

The real issue, and the thing that makes arguing this movie so dang fun, comes from the few that are never shown onscreen how they came to be infected. These are:

Palmer - shown to be a Thing in blood testing scene, but could have been infected from the very start.
Norris - shown to be a Thing in the chest Defibrillation scene, but could have been infected from the very start.
Blair - shown to be infected once the spacecraft is discovered, but could have been infected anytime after he creates the computer program.
Childs - although shown not to be infected in the blood test scene, there's still the issue of after. He's left alone for a while, and then just wanders back in.

Now for the questions. The biggest issues come from the first three: Palmer, Norris, and Blair. If they were infected early on, how early? This changes the perspective of their actions later on in the film.

Another big one is the question of Childs being infected. If he was, that means The Thing won. If he wasn't, that means humanity won.

There's also a few more minor questions scattered throughout. Who got to the blood? It wasn't Windows since we hear him drop it, and it certainly wouldn't be any of the 'cleared' people. This connects with the three infected potentials in a big way.



Anyway, I agree that this is a very good movie. It's surprisingly deep, and goes beyond what most conventional movies tend to do.

There's no such film in 1951 called The Thing! it's called The Thing from Another World.

Carpenter's film The Thing isn't a remake of the earlier film, TTFAW is a damned good movie but a poor adaptation of the book. Carpenter's film is not a remake of the earlier film as they got little in common other than snowy place and alien from space. Yet the location (one in the north pole and the other south pole), the monster (In the book the creature is a shapeshifting being that can imitate any living person or animal where in TTFAW the creature has only one form a living vegetable humanoid Frankenstein vampire creature that can reproduce itself but didn't imitate into anyone where in Carpenter's film the creature can imitate into anyone and any living creature just like the creature in the book), characters and all are very different from each other. The creature's name The Thing is the villain in the book in which both TTFA and The Thing are from. The 2 films aren't anything alike.

I consider them 2 very different films and 2 separate films, Carpenter's film is actually a new adaptation of the 1938 book Who Goes There by John W Campbell as it's a good adaptation, Hawk's film The Thing from Another World is a very loose adaptation and a separate adaptation as well.

Whenever someone makes a movie based on the novel Moby Dick is not "remaking" John Huston's film, They're making a new film based on the same literary source material. That's what The Thing is, not a remake of the 1951 movie TTFAW but rather a new adaptation of the original source material.

To me, the definition of a remake is when it's based on a motion picture produced earlier and it's original screenplay (one that is not based on any existing source material like comics, novellas and books) like say The Blob, A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Hills Have Eyes etc. TRUE remakes in every sense.

It would be like saying every Dracula film is a "remake" of the 1931 film or the silent classic Nosferatu, NO they are all separate and different adaptation of the same source material. Another example is the films Last Man on Earth, Omega Man and I Am Legend which are all separate and completely different adaptations of the original source material which have nothing to do with each other. Same goes for Nolan's Batman Trilogy which aren't remakes of the earlier Batman films while The Dark Knight is a sequel while not a remake of 89's Batman because of Joker and stuff as it's a completely different story with a different Joker as i consider Nolan's trilogy to be a separate adaptation of the comics and graphic novels. Calling a new film based on an old comic previously film or a new film based on a novel filmed before a remake cheapens it a bit, when like i said they are separate adaptations.

But anyway, this movie is a masterpiece and one of the reasons 1982 was a fantastic year for movies, my birth year. I saw this on video when my big brother rented it when i was 5 and thought it was scary as hell, i re-rented it at age 12 and loved it and became one of my faves. A brilliant mix of horror and sci-fi just like Alien and Aliens, it has that Lovecraftian feel and nice performances even by Kurt Russell to the 80s Quaker Oats commercial guy without his mustache.

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

I’m taking my entire convo from the Shoutbox and reorganising it for here…


I reckon it was Blair who was hit first.
He spent a lot of time with the split-face body, even touching his mouth with his pencil after he'd touched the body with the same pencil.
He goes mad, smashes up a load of equipment like radio gear and vehicles, and they lock him up in the tool shed... but I think Blair's behaviour was all a front.
He did build that ship, so there was no need really for him to escape using the radios and the chopper.
Smashing up the chopper and radios was the Thing's way of stopping the humans from getting away, or getting back to the world so they could spill the secrets of its existence.
Earlier in the film when Blair hadn't totally been overtaken was when he was simulating on the computer. He’d been infected, but not totally taken over and probably didn't know he was changing. Or maybe he did as his simulation on the computer showed a percentage rate for one or more team members being infected.


It was proven afterwards that though he was locked away, he was still able to move around underneath the base.
Blair was only locked up for a day or two but had managed to tunnel under the shed with no tools to help him, and then build almost an entire ship using spare parts from the smashed up chopper and tractor.
So he must have started digging and building the moment he was locked in the shed. This also means, once alone, totally isolated, the Thing's cells were able to take Blair over in whatever gruesome way it wanted with nobody knowing.
That says to me Blair was infected a long time before he went mad and smashed up all that equipment and vehicles.

I agree with all other ideas though, it simply could be any of them who were turned first.
Even at the end, MacReady sums it up... "If either of us have any surprises for each other, I don't think we're in any shape to do anything about it".
So, Were either of them turned at the end? Or were they both human?

That's the point though too with the shadow figure with the dog, it looked like Norris, but the shadow wasn't played by Charlie Hallahan... meaning it might not have been him. I always took it as Norris though tbh.

Also the argument over leadership... "Norris, I don't see anyone objecting to you"
And Norris, nervously, says he’s not up to it.
Norris knew something was wrong.
Whether he was the Thing backing down from the limelight and keeping attention off itself, or whether it was Norris being genuinely scared... or Norris simply under attack at a cellular level and Norris deep down knew something was wrong.
Like with Blair, I think the assimilation of Norris took a while rather than some grande attack.

If Norris was the Thing at that point though, and was backing down from the limelight to stay hidden… my theory on the Thing wanting to hide rather than fight is proven: I always took it as the Thing will only infect when it has to. I mean, really really must for survival.


I mean, for a while it was sitting doing nothing.
It was only when the guys started trying to hunt it out and when they stumbled upon it, that it became aggressive... or in Norris' case, when his heart gave out (which I think was a side effect of it taking him over) the Thing had no choice but to fight, and then flight.
It's only when they start poking around and it has no other choice, that it shows itself. The other example is when Palmer's blood is tested. The Thing had no other choice but to attack, or go nuts, to survive.

When it took over Bennings, it was I agree, an unprovoked attack, but remember, all it had at that moment in time was a chewed up body, that split-face body, and more than likely only one other person on the camp.
That means only one person and a dead mutilated body was the Thing. That’s not enough to ensure survival.
Also, that body would have given away its secrets if it ever made it back to the world.
MacReady said too: "The Thing doesn't want to be found, it wants to hide inside an imitation. It'll fight if it has to, but is vulnerable in the open."
It needed to ‘get out’, it needed to imitate another person so it had a solid chance of escape, and so took over Bennings giving it two bodies (maybe three, we’re not sure how many it had taken over to start with), meaning it stands a better chance of survival.
Sadly for the Thing, it got caught in the act.

I agree that the 2011 The Thing is a prequel (even if it started production as a remake), but there have been remakes that don't have the exact same characters/events and only really share the same premise e.g. Dawn of the Dead or Planet of the Apes. Bad examples, but they exist.

SPOILERS AHEAD

There is a brief scene early on in the movie where the dog-thing is wandering around the base and ends up walking into one character's living quarters. This character is by himself and only seen in silhouette - you never find out for sure who it is. Based on the shadow's appearance of thick, curly hair, it is implied to be either be Palmer or Norris (I'm inclined to think Norris myself). It has been never been confirmed - when questioned about it, Carpenter has said he doesn't know and refuses to answer it anymore. Blair most likely gets infected any time after he is imprisoned in the tool shed. As far as their actions go, it's never confirmed just how much an infected person is actually aware of whether or not they are a Thing - there are several instances of behaviour that could be interpreted either way, such as Norris's refusal to take command of the situation being a sign of either his nervous disposition or the Thing trying not to draw attention to itself.

When it comes to Childs at the end, consider the possibility that Mac has also been infected at some point. There's no telling how much time has passed between him blowing up the Blair-thing in the generator room and him running into Childs. Seeing as he was in charge of the blood test, it's entirely possible that he rigged it in his favour. That's why he says to Childs "if we have any surprises for each other", implying that he knows Childs suspects him as much of being a Thing as he suspects Childs. It once again ties into whether or not they know they're infected or not. It's also entirely possible that neither one of them is infected or both of them are and are either unaware or hiding it. Of course, if we were to take the videogame sequel as canon then they were both human.

As for who got to the blood - hmm, I should have paid attention to that when I re-watched it a few weeks ago. To me, it's almost irrelevant - Windows drops the keys and the next time they're acknowledged, it's once the blood's been spilled. It's another question that doesn't really need a concrete answer provided by the film.

I would say they're very aware of it. I mean Blair was building an alien spacecraft with the purpose of escaping, not to mention sneaking up on Gary to infect him. Also, Palmer's facial expression before the blood testing scene is a dead giveaway that he's aware the jig is up.

How aware they are is interesting, considering how they turn into gross monsters when they get caught. Maybe it's a defense mechanism they can't turn off or something.

quoting Childs from the movie:

CHILDS
The fire's got the temperature way
up all over camp... won't last long
though.

They're basically in sub-zero temperatures the entire time. When the final scene starts, the flames are still quite high, so it couldn't have been more then a few minutes. As shown with Bennings, it takes at least a few minutes for it to change one into a Thing, potentially 5 to 10 minutes.Within the context of the film, it seems unlikely that The Thing would be in a position to very quickly infect MacReady, when he basically just (potentially completely) blew up The Thing in an explosion strong enough to destroy the entire facility.

If MacReady was actually infected since getting lost in the snow, why would he even bother coming back? If it weren't for his intervention, Norris-Thing and Palmer-Thing would have easily taken care of the rest of the crew. Think about it, MacReady was the one who suggested the idea of the blood test in the first place. What would he have to gain by ratting out his fellow Thing?

Childs makes the most sense as being the Thing, for the simple fact that we don't see him for the entire climax. Considering how sneaky Blair-Thing is, it's highly likely he just got infected when he was all alone.


For the purpose of argument I say we exclude the videogame and movie prequel. Only information provided by what's in the actual film should count, I'd say.

Yeah, it does seem to vary from character to character. Norris is an interesting case because his nervousness only foreshadows his heart attack, which goes against the Thing's instinct for concealment. There is no reason for a Thing to have a heart attack, and its decision to chew off Copper's arms is clearly a reaction to the defibrillator unit.

Another factor of the Thing's nebulous nature is just how easily it can infect someone else. The only time we actually see the Thing visibly assimilating a person is Bennings (you could also count the dogs in the kennel), and that's just because the two-faced corpse came back to life and started in on the deliberate, violent infection. If Blair's computer simulation is any indication (which, granted, it could very well not be), then it's possible that having any of the Thing's cells (which are all apparently autonomous right down to the slightest drop of blood if the test scene is any indication) enter one's body could cause the process to start from the inside and subtly take one over. You do make a good point about the ending, though the way that it is paced isn't an inconsiderable factor. We go from Mac throwing the dynamite and making a break for it, then the explosions that send the whole camp up in flames, and the next thing we know he's stumbled back to some other part of the base (and has apparently acquired a blanket in the process - from where? Who knows?).

There's also the question of whether or not other Things can consciously recognise each other as Things. At one point Mac states that he's human and that if everyone else was a Thing then they'd all attack him at the same time, which may or may not be true (him being human or Things being aware of each other or both). If the Thing's mission is self-preservation then it could very well be playing an elaborate chess game with the survivors (which is actually foreshadowed well by Mac playing computer chess at the beginning - his decision to pour whiskey on the computer and destroy it also foreshadows the fact that he would rather destroy the camp than "lose" to the Thing), such as having a secretly-infected Palmer point out the spider-head as it tries to escape.

To this end, an unwittingly infected Mac might be a pawn in the Thing's endgame. If Mac is already (unwittingly?) infected, then his plans actually work out surprisingly well for the Thing. Sure, Mac kills several Things over the course of the film, but if he's already infected then killing them off (aware of his nature as a Thing or not) is just a means to an end. His unintentionally causing the deaths of several other survivors still makes sense - and he can disguise it as him doing the best he can to fight the creature. It's his idea to do the blood test, which only adds to the theory that he can rig it, plus he ties all the suspects to the same couch so if a Thing is outed then it can kill other humans (as Palmer-thing does with Windows). Also, if Mac is already a Thing, then blowing up the base is the perfect way to preserve himself because it guarantees that any remaining humans will die of exposure while he/it can freeze as planned.

I've naturally considered the possibility that Childs is a Thing, and there is evidence to bear it out - the chief proponent is that the final scene is lit in such a way so that Mac's breath can be seen turning to ice in the air, whereas Childs' breath does not show up and implies that he is not actually breathing, therefore he isn't a Thing. Of course, that flies in the face of the idea that Things can replicate the humans perfectly. In any case, if Mac is infected then the fact that he decides to share his last bottle of whiskey with Childs at the very end could be seen as a deliberate attempt at infection (notice how, after Childs drinks from the bottle, Mac gives off a very satisfied little smile...)

Yeah, especially when certain revelations from the prequel actually undercut the main film itself.

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

Just sat watching...


53 minutes in, when Blair is being locked in the tool shed...


Mac takes a drink from the vodka bottle... and leaves it with Blair...


Could Mac have already been a Thing? And was transferring some Thing Germs to the bottle so Blair would get infected while he was locked away in isolation?


Interesting too is that after Mac leaves, Blair looks at the bottle suspiciously just before the scene ends.

Excellent movie...where remakes are concerned, I would put it in the top 5.

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

I do hope that's a joke Gideon...

Why would it be?

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

It's not a remake.


It's like saying the LOTR and Hobbit trilogies are remakes of the 1970s and 80s cartoons.

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

If it's going to be like that...

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

I don't know. Whilst its based on the same material and differs a lot from the original Nyby/Hawks film, John Carpenter definitely saw The Thing and decided he want to remake it paying tribute to Hawks but also incorporating modern technology to make the monster more effective. I think there's enough in common, and reason to believe Carpenter was deliberately giving a new take on a work from a director he admired, to call it a 'remake'. In Halloween it's even shown playing on TV. So I think there's enough with Carpenter's admiration for Hawks and the original film to call it a remake, as much as it is an update and different film too.

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

Well, ok... LOTR is a remake too then.

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

Captain America: The First Avenger is a remake of the 1990 film and Man Of Steel is a remake of the 1978 Superman: The Movie as well too.


They're based on the same book... just because one was made a few years before, doesn't mean the latter movie is a remake of the first.

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

Well no, not really. It doesn't take parts and pay tribute to parts from the original, deliberately choosing to make the film on the basis for their admiration for the original and want to elevate it with new technology, it works pretty much directly from the books as far as I'm aware and ignores the films.

When I watch The Thing by John Carpenter I can clearly see that he has the original in mind. I haven't seen Assault on Precinct 13, but that's meant to be a remake of Rio Bravo too, another Hawks film, John Carpenter acknowledges his influences but also transforms the story and adds his own modern touches.

I just think there's too much their, similarities between the films, for it not to be considered at least in part a remake. That's not to see it's not a re imagining or whatever either, though.

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

But as far as I'm aware both those 'remakes' work almost entirely from other material and ignore the films that were made before. That isn't the case for The Thing.

Semantics suck. Look at the opening titles of both The Things and decide for yourself. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2robymIWw5I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSGz4P5rGPo

Dang dude! This is interesting. Let's see if we can find any more suspicious stuff from MacReady then.



I think a more direct comparison would be comparing the original Fly to the 1986 remake. Completely different movies, except for some very base elements. The Thing is a remake, but it remakes it to the extent of being its own thing.

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

I've just watched with the commentary on. Carpenter and Russell.


They couldn't decide if Mac was infected or not.

It's worth keeping the chronology in mind. The novella "Who Goes There?" was written in 1938. The Thing From Another World was the first movie (1951), made in a time with small budgets and minimal FX. Shape shifters were not on the menu, but the movie did capture quite well the isolation and claustrophobia of being in a polar installation with a predator; it's my personal favorite of that movie theme. The shape shifter of text became a humanoid vegetable (only needing a rubber suit). The plot idea was reprised again with significant differences in the 1972 Horror Express. Carpenter's 1982 Thing was closest to Campbell's novella and with much more in the way of available FX, notably the ability to have shape shifters and the blood that is repelled by heat. The more recent Thing, being a prequel, was OK but not up to either TTFAW or Carpenter's version. There are also several X Files episodes that picked up on the Big Theme of polar explorers encountering non-human horror.

What I find interesting in all these is a theme that's way older than movies themselves. All of these stories have common threads back to Poe's Narrative of A Gordon Pym (with a chapter on the southern polar region) and the Exploring Expedition of 1838, a real journey, commanded by Charles Wilkes. The "Ex Ex" discovered that there is land down there, scared the bejeeeses out the crew and provided another archetype, notably the crazy, obsessive, driven captain who was the prototype for Captain Ahab. The plot was picked up again by HP Lovecraft in 1931 in At the Mountains of Madness, where yet another Antarctic expedition is confronted by the remains of an ancient alien civilization only survived by a shape shifting horror. Lovecraft's story has never been filmed but was hinted at in the extra-terrestrial Prometheus (and hence followed by the Alien movies) and may be made by Del Toro (or maybe not). It could be a terrific movie or it may never happen, but I wish it would.

So which of these is best? My money's on 1951 TTFAW for a minimalist, black and white classic and Carpenter for executing Campbell's story. I really do wish, however, that someone (not necessarily Del Toro) would go to the roots and make Mountains of Madness.

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

Awesome movie by an awesome director (one of my all-time favorite)

I rated it: -

Just saw it.

I absolutely loved it, they didn't waste a minute in the entire film. The ending was great as well, my interpretation was that MacReady filled the bottle in gasoline or something fatal and wanted to wait to see if Childs would die of poisoning, or live so he'd know that he was "The Thing".

Also, Kurt Russell is a bonafide badass.

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

But I do see where people are coming from with Mac being it. Leaving the bottle with the doc, and then giving another bottle to Childs. I guess that's what makes it so good, is there's no real answer.

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

Glad you liked it, Cole! I am over the moon for Carpenter's The Thing!

I'm thrilled that you liked it so much.

Yes, he is! :)

i'm very fond of the 80s. it had so many great movies, from all genres, and off course i am very fond of The Thing, amazing atmosphere, intro scene, music, the whole feel of mystery in the film, great direction from carpenter, sci fi horror at its best, wish they do movies like this these days....

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

Thread bump!

Sitting watching... something just came to my attention.
Might be this CoVid thing going around has made me paranoid.

The debate on the move after all these year is whether or not Mac and Childs... are not human.

I think Mac is a Thing.

Blair goes apesh*t... and gets locked away in the toolshed.
Mac talks with him for a minute... takes a swig from a vodka bottle, and leaves it on the table for Blair.

Just as the scene ends, Blair looks at the bottle.
Could just be a look.
Like, ok, I'm here. I'll have a drink and calm down.
Or it could be foreshadowing.

Did Mac take a swig from the bottle so he could infect it?
As in, get some "Thing Stuff" on the rim of the bottle so Blair would be infected when he then took a drink?
I think he did. I think Mac, acting as the most "even tempered" of the group (as he says to Childs in front of the entire group), and the fact that even when alone, he plays that same role of calm, collected and sane...

Talking Windows down when the shotgun situation comes up, and Gary gives up his gun... shows Mac as a cool, calm leader too...

... and this is what allows him to move about the group unsuspected.

When Fuchs questions the fact that Blair is being locked away, and that he needs Blair's help for blood tests... Mac immediately puts him down saying "He's too far gone, Fuchs"
Leaving Blair alone, with an infected bottle... is the perfect situation to take Blair over.

Mac also speaks to the group after the blood storage is sabotaged.
"I know I'm human, and if all you were all these Things then you would just attack me right now, so some of you are still human. This Thing doesn't want to show itself, it wants to hide inside an imitation. It'll fight if it has to, but it's vulnerable out in the open. If it takes us over, then it has no more enemies, nobody left to kill it. And then it's won."
If Mac is a Thing... he just totally and utterly exposed his vulnerability and exposed his entire plan.

But, as far as the others in the group go... they would be thinking subconsciously: What kind of creature would do such a thing? Expose its own weakness? Its own vulnerabilities? Mac must be a human.
The entire thing is a ploy to get the group under his control. Cleverly, the Thing, Mac, is simply playing a role.

Ok, the argument can be made for the hot needle blood test... but Mac is the only one who touches any blood samples.
It's Mac that does the needle test... and Mac is the one who calls the shots on who gets tied up, and who doesn't.
As leader, sure, he has to make those decisions... but making certain choices, even so far as tying up a Thing (Palmer)... makes the others trust him.
Sacrificing one Thing... still means Mac goes unnoticed by the others.

Also, the only other contact anyone has with Blair, is when Mac, Nauls and Windows go out to him during the storm and ask if he's seen Fuchs... and yet it's only Mac who talks directly to Blair.
Going by what Blair says to Mac about Fuchs... Blair isn't fully taken over yet.
So Mac was just making sure. Having a check kinda thing.

Mac and Nauls then head to Mac's cabin... without Windows.
Mac sees the opportunity to get himself, and one other, alone.
Immediately afterward though, Nauls cuts Mac loose because of the ripped clothing... and Mac still manages to get back to camp too.

---

The Blair thing though... Mac drinking from the bottle and leaving it with Blair just set off my entire chain of thoughts on this.

... if Mac is discovered, and even killed... his sacrifice is ok.
Just like Palmer's sacrifice is ok.
Because Blair is still unaccounted for. Alone. In a shed.
Blair is a backup plan. If the Thing that is within the group fails, then Blair is still there to build a ship and escape.

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

**** SAKE! Forgot about the thing on my Countdown list

I'm actually annoyed. Probably in my personal top 10 too, and most re-watched top 5 over past decade.

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

Definitely list worthy

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

I like how Rodent bumped the thread just to end up making the same observation about the vodka bottle that he made five years and one page ago.

Anyway, if Suspiria can crack the all-time top 100 then I'm extremely confident that The Thing will make the list.

If it does, how high do you reckon it'll be?

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

Somewhere between 30 and 60 - maybe closer to the former than the latter.

Probably not as high as it would be if I'd remembered to put in on my list.

I'll guess 55th

Likewise!

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

This one should be in the top 3 scifi horror films ever

Dang, I never even realised :D

My two posts are almost identical as well :laugh:
Weird how stuff gets forgotten then re-realised, and you think it's an original idea.

And me I love the original thing from another world. I thought and many of my family and friends think the remake is not even worth watching.
Just like creature from the black lagoon, I thought I heard somewhere they are thinking of a reboot, not too sure how good it would be.
But I think they learned when they were going to try a breakfast club remake, you can’t remake a perfect 80s film and I’m so glad they didn’t try , it would’ve been terrible

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

MacReady is a Thing.

Along with my previous posts about the various things Mac gets up to and says...

I'm just watching now... and I've spotted a new one.

"It cut the power"
"That's suicide!"
"Not for that Thing. It wants to freeze now. Fall asleep in the cold until the rescue team finds it"
"Whadda we do?"
"Whatever happens we can't let that Thing freeze again. Maybe we'll just warm things up a little around here"

Mac says it wants to freeze until its found. Ok, the argument is that Mac and the other know this is how it can survive... freeze, wait, then respawn.
However...

Mac uses a double negative to knock the survivors (Nauls and Garry) off track.
He uses the case of "attack is the best defence"...

This "attack", will allow The Thing to freeze.

The Thing has learned to play mind games.
It knows freezing solid and awaiting a rescue team is its way out.
Mac, The Thing... basically goads the others into destroying their own only hope of survival.

Mac is a Thing.
No doubt in my mind.

^eh, but if the Thing had wrecked the generator by that point anyway then it's not like they had any real choice.

Just remembered this and in the end it managed to make it as high as #20. A pleasant surprise, then.

Yeah but hoomuns can survive with a small space and a small fire, for quite a while.

Blaire cutting the power, Mac's reaction is... blow the base to holy-hell?
Does that make sense?

"We're going to kill The Thing, by giving it more cold and ensuring we definitely die"

Mac is a Thing.

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

I think that if one of the two are infected, it would most likely be Childs.

I don't think there's enough evidence which implies that MacReady could've been infected. After killing the giant alien in the end, he seemed to escaped the area in time before it blew up. Though sure, something could've gotten to him sometime after that (to be fair, it isn't stated whether Garry and Nauls were blown up in the blast when they were assimilated in the final act, which raises questions on their whereabouts). There's more evidence to indicate that Childs was infected though. In fact, in the room Childs was waiting in before he ran off into the snow, there was a staircase in there leading down to a room where Blair had access to (who had been infected long before that scene), meaning he could've easily gotten to him (there was also a fairly mysterious camera pan which drew attention to the staircase). I also found it strange that Childs would run off into the snow alone without telling the others since they were still fairly close by (or, at least, yell to them about it or motion for them to follow him), but idk. Maybe he just didn't think of that. Who knows.

Anyways, my money is still on Childs being infected.

They released a comic book that continues the story, if anyone's interested in that.

The video game also ties in with it. I tried playing it years ago but I couldn't get into it.

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

It's a schoedinger cat. The ending is deliberately ambiguous. It's neither a secret puzzle with well placed clues to find, nor a reality with a historical truth to reveal. It's an open end. Meaning that any interpretation that "collapses its superposition" is wrong.

The vibe I get is that they're both humans (that creature would probably not relax, chat and toy with its next prey - okay forget the cat analogy then), but "knowing" it is not fun, neither is "knowing" one is -or both are- an alien. The cool ending is the incertitude : the viewers' and the characters' (maximized if it's both characters'). But It really doesn't strike me an an enigma movie. More of a straightforward lead-you-to-follow-my-tale movie. If there was an answer, it wouldn't be hidden, the spectators would be openly channeled to it. They are, to that ambiguity.

So if there are hints one way of the other, I imagine them to be overlooked by the writer or over-interpreted by the public. And I dismiss them to go back to what I assume the intended ending narration. The unknown (the actually undefined).

Not buying it.

Agreed.

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

I love both The Thing from Another World and The 80's The Thing (Carpenter's version). The later iteration sucks. If you read the original novella, John Campbell's 1938 Who Goes There, it's obvious that Carpenter's version is much closer to that since it has a shape shifting monster. You can download Campbell's version on PD sites since copyrights have expired.

What I like about The Thing From Another World, however, it the low budget, cheap FX, WW II sort of feel, the conversational banter, the urgent sense of danger and the fact that they don't show the costumed humanoid monster very much. The brief glimpses are enough to convince you that it's a monster, without much detail. Christian Nyby did a great job with a "buddy movie" in that one

Even so, that still seems like a vulnerable and untenable position - few enough people left that they can't even set up a sentry system because they can't trust the person on watch to avoid infection, no telling when the rescue team will come and whether they'll survive long enough to warn them, and also the question of whether they even have the resources to build a fire and sustain themselves for that long (not to mention how anti-climactic that would be). I don't think Mac's plan is necessarily Thing logic so much as it is an extension of who he already was - his first scene shows him pouring a drink into a chess computer when it's checkmated him and that foreshadows him deciding to blow up the base rather than let the Thing win.

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

I just got confirmation on Letterboxd that Carpenter and Blumhouse are both thinking about doing a sequel.

This should be framed and hung somewhere.

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

Kurt Russell Breaks Down His Most Iconic Characters
00:00 Kurt Russell's Iconic Characters
00:14 Escape from New York
04:15 The Thing
09:36 Tombstone
15:03 Death Proof
17:51 The Hateful Eight
20:35 Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood
21:46 Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
22:20 The Christmas Chronicles
23:51 Monarch: Legacy of Monsters
https://youtu.be/GGHXWF7LeZI?si=mQTHB4uWFa6O_5ts

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

20:35. coolest

Re: John Carpenter's The Thing
 

*the essential horror movie for everyone