| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Lawrence Nepodahl |
|||
|
I wish someone would come out with HORROR EXPRESS, with EXTRAS; IE., a Featurette plus a Commentary would be nice. I also like the music from that film. I
still have the record with the music on one side and H.J. Salter music on the other.
|
|||
Mark Hodgson |
|||
|
Was Ennio Morricone given a Carpenter temp track to emulate? None of his past work ever sounded like this. It sounds like a typical Carpenter soundtrack.
Has the blow-up sex-doll ever reappeared? Carpenter joked that she was the only woman in the film. Russell was originally playing computer chess, opposite her sitting in a chair, at the start of the film (at least in the UK theatrical version). She disappeared for the TV version and hasn't been seen on home video since. |
|||
aboo43078 |
|||
|
NO ONE MENTIONS THAT THE MOVIE ALIEN IS A DIRECT STEAL OF "WHO GOES THERE?"--IT EVEN HAS THE DISCOVERY SCENE LIKE IN WGT WHERE THEY TEST BLOOD.....
A LEGEND IN MY OWN MIND....
..AND ONE IN YOURS SOON ENOUGH!!!! |
|||
blackbiped |
|||
|
What scene in ALIEN are you referring to?
Legend, oh legend, the third wheel legend...always in the way.
|
|||
aboo43078 |
|||
|
All the humans are in the same area and they test blood or what ever and the monster comes out. Same scene in Carpenters The Thing as in Alien.
It's the same story set on a space ship. Alien is The Thing is Who Goes There? It is all the same story....plot--whatever.
A LEGEND IN MY OWN MIND....
..AND ONE IN YOURS SOON ENOUGH!!!! |
|||
Reegs |
|||
|
Abs -
I don't think that you're aware of the history behind all these movies. Joseph Campbell's novella Who Goes There? was the inspiration for Howard Hawkes' The Thing From Another World. The situation of that movie became the blueprint for countless other movies (and just about every piece of direct-to-video merde on The SciFi Channel). 1985's IT! The Terror From Beyond Space was TTFAW set aboard a space ship. Alien was an updated (and bigger budgeted) version of IT! (which everyone denied but I believe quietly paid off the producers of it anyway). John Carpenter's The Thing went back to Campbell's original story, so you can't say that Carpenter ripped-off Alien, because Alien, if effect, ripped-off Carpenter before Carpenter even made his movie based on a story that Hawkes used to make a movie that inspired ... (I'm getting a headache). Suppose you invent a machine so you can go back in time to tell yourself how to invent a machine so you can go back in time to tell yourself how to invent a machine .... Anyway - 1951 vs. 1982: two different movies, two different eras, so they can NOT be compared, so please stop. 1982 is NOT a remake of 1951. First saw '51 on Million Dollar Movie, first saw '82 on tape. Enjoyed them both, but I do have a few bones to pick with '82, particularly: if each cell of this thing is an individual critter (as demonstrated by the blood sample avoiding the hot wire) and can lay dormant for a few thousand centuries, do NOT blow it up into a zillion little pieces.
Last Edited By: Reegs
05/16/08 8:38 AM.
Edited 2 times.
|
|||
blackbiped |
|||
Reegs wrote:
Legend, oh legend, the third wheel legend...always in the way.
|
|||
skelton knaggs |
|||
|
Odd thing seldom mentioned..........
I saw THE THING first day of release, and during a kitchen scene with Nauls, he's listening to some music on a boom box. The song playing was Stevie Wonders Superstition. Upon subsequent viewing the music was changed to a Santana song. Anybody else notice this musical publishing rights switcher roo. |
|||
aboo43078 |
|||
|
Reegs you're making my point. I know and understand all that. I JUST SAID IT WRONG. SORRY.
A LEGEND IN MY OWN MIND....
..AND ONE IN YOURS SOON ENOUGH!!!! |
|||
Jeffrey Allen Rydell |
|||
skelton knaggs wrote:"Superstition" has been reinstated for some time now.
- Jeff
|
|||
Spoiler II |
|||
|
I don't think he was as worried about those 1000s of pieces seeing as after the explosion occurred they became 1000s of horribly charred beyond recognition
pieces. Even tho the alien plays by its own set of rules,they at least follow the consistent rule of nature that almost all biological entities don't
respond well to being burned alive.
The limits of 1982 SPFX pretty much kept us from ever seeing just what would happen if those 1000 pieces did run wild and i for one would like to see that. CGI can be a very annoying tool or an awesome one in the right hands and i would like to see what someone who gave a damn about the subject matter could do with a CGI follow up. You thought Rob Bottin coughed up some weird stuff,the possibilities now are completely endless and thats my main CGI gripe. Quit giving us stuff we have seen over and over again (dinosaurs,etc). Give us some truly startling material to behold sometime. |
|||
Reegs |
|||
aboo43078 wrote: Hey, no prob, Abs. I was in a windy mood that day, anyway. |
|||
Andrew Kidd |
|||
Spoiler II wrote: That's what I find most hilarious about the fanboy whining about the possibility of a third THING film. The same people who sneer at the 1951 film for not being at the 1982 film's level of effects and technology are all up in arms about the possibility of contemporary FX being used. Horrors! CGI would actually make it more effective; in the original novella, which I just re-read, the transformations are very quick and furtive, without much time to dwell on them and computer graphics would be able to depict this very well. |
|||
blackbiped |
|||
|
To me, that's an indication that the use of CGI doesn't always represent progress or improvement, especially over the good old fashioned animatronics
of Rob Bottin. I don't think Carpenter's '82 THING itself would be any more impressive with digital effects, and likely less so.
Legend, oh legend, the third wheel legend...always in the way.
|
|||
Lunkenstein |
|||
|
Agreed. I'm pretty much CGIed out myself. There's no mystery; I find it difficult to believe in when used as monster monsters now. Backgrounds, set/make-up enhancements - ok, full-fledged creatures - my belly's full. Generally
speaking, '80s monster effects still look great to me and I think they reached a pinnacle. It really hit home when I re-watched THE FLY (1986) recently.
|
|||
bipolarber |
|||
|
One of the other things (sorry, pun) about this movie that created a lot of tension in the audiance was, this film came out in 1982... AIDS had only just been
identified, and given it's now infamous acronym. At the time, no one really knew how it was spread, or who might have been infected. It was absolutely
errie to be sitting in a theatre, watching THE THING, and wondering to yourself if maybe someone else in the auditorium might have been carrying the
sickness... All too easily reflected in the themes of the movie. Totally terrifying!
The first time I saw it, it was at the Ogden theatre in Denver. (A second run house, similar to today's dollar flicks) It was on a double feature with the remake of "Cat People." I had gone there to watch them both, but my friends, (one of whom was science fiction author Ed Bryant) left after "Cats." Ed, noticing I was staying to watch The Thing, gave me a disapproving look and muttered something about "there's no accounting for taste.." Well, Ed, I think time has pretty much vindicated me. At the time of release, it was considered "glop horror" porn. Unfortunately, most critics didn't see past all the rudely biological special effects, and see that the REAL horror of this movie was in it's themes of suspicion, and paranoia. And as far as the effects go: has anyone ever noticed that the only time you see blood on scree is, 1) on the burned jacket, 2) when the blood supply is sabotaged, and 3) during the "hot wire" test. I think Carpenter was shooting for making the gore somewhat abstract... non human in nature, so that you got the idea that the THING wasn't actually ripping itself apart, but changing it's shape. The blood was kept primarily to the humans. |
|||
Quarterman |
|||
|
As much as I love John Carpenter, this film is quite dull and unexciting. What was once breakthrough spfx sequestered character development and menace for a
few moments worth of eyecandy. Not to mention the fact The Thing feels like a poor man's retread of vastly superior film Ridley Scott's Alien.
The alien creature invades or rather infiltrates a small group of human beings, in Alien, a parasite is attached to Kane's face like an umbilical cord and in The Thing, the alien arrives assimilated as a dog belonging to a nearby Norwegian outpost. In the John W Campbell story, the Americans themselves actually excavate the ship and the frozen alien the latter they bring back to camp with them and by thawing it out from the block of ice that held it captive they unintentionally reawaken it from a frozen slumber. Where they immediately discover the thing is missing and re-encounter a very much alive and angry thing while it is attacking the sleigh dogs. In this regard, Howard Hawks' The Thing From Another World follows the story abit more closely otherwise departs from the story more entirely. In the story, the American outpost has alittle over 30 personnel and about half of them get infected or assimilated. Here is where another Alien influence plays a role, it is interesting that both films have three survivors attempting the act of rigging the ship/facility for self destruction in order to destroy the alien menace and ultimately save humanity from being further invaded. In both examples, the two companion survivors get separated from the hero and are killed by the alien shortly there after. The surviving hero succeeds in destroying the ship/facility and destroying the immediate alien threat all alone in a final suspenseful stand-off (differences Alien has a strongwilled but reluctant female protagonist rather than the tough-as-nails masculine anti-hero archetype) but both face a doubtful future themselves. In contrast to Alien, both conclusions of The Thing and Who Goes There are similar in they leave with an open end casting doubt that the alien is truly vanquished and the threat thwarted. Quintessentially, many consider Alien a big influence on The Thing, alot of parallels both in theme and style and I definitely agree. But undoubtably Who Goes There influenced Alien, vast stark empty environments, small pocket of humanity isolated from civilization, the discovery of an alien derelict spacecraft, and subsequent monster on the loose in confined spaces and additionally the films It! The Terror From Beyond Space! (1958) and Terrore nello spazio (1965). |
|||
Tonygirbs |
|||
|
Boy oh boy. The Thing is dull & exciting, no offence but you must watch some pretty exciting films. The tension, outbreaks of action & pure terror make
this one of the most thrilling & exciting films I've seen. But one man's meat etc.....each to their own.
I really don't think this film & Alien can be compared too closely. I also believe to do so does both films an injustice. They share the slow build, the tension, the alien infiltration, the feelings of isolation. But I never felt paranoia during Alien. I never felt the mystery of who, who next, how do we know!!! I love both films but, purely personal obviously, I find The Thing a much better film. It is a film I revisit very often, the characters, the story's twists, the look, the creature itself, the way it looks (God Carpenter was truly something special then). It is to me one of those rare occaisions when everything & everyone is on top of their game, love it, love it. Oh, and, practical effects rule in certain situations, can you imagine the initial outbreak from the dog, the chest/mouth etc with cgi, thank god this was made back then. That's my two pennies worth anyway. |
|||
blackbiped |
|||
Tonygirbs wrote: I certainly agree with you there. CGI just can't compare with that kind of stuff. Sure, you can "do anything" with CGI, but you can do anything in a Bugs Bunny cartoon, too.
Legend, oh legend, the third wheel legend...always in the way.
|
|||
Quarterman |
|||
Tonygirbs wrote: |
|||