MovieChat Forums > The Thing (1982) Discussion > The 1951 version was better.

The 1951 version was better.

posted 8 years ago by mhansen-25806
63 replies | jump to latest

More story, less gore.

"I’ve had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn’t it." - Groucho Marx

[–] Edward_de_Vere 8 years ago

More story, less gore.

The problem with the 1951 version is that it doesn't make use of the most interesting premise of Who Goes There - the notion that the alien can perfectly imitate human (and animal) hosts to remain undetected. Without that, you just have a monster alien movie. With that premise, you have a combination of a whodunit mystery and sci-fi horror genre rolled into one. That's what makes Carpenter's The Thing more interesting.

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

While true what Edward mentions regarding the 51 film distancing itself from the novella's premise, there's a little more to it than just another "monster alien movie." Comparing the two seems almost inapplicable aside from the same source. It was a vastly different audience and times of the world back then.

Themes I've read the film makers were striving for included focus on the Cold War atmosphere, and people's growing distrust with science, i.e. thanks to science we can now destroy ourselves. So the goal wasn't to make another typical 50's alien monster movie and TTFAW has been credited (along with The Day The Earth Stood Still) as blazing the trail for future sci-fi themes in cinema.

That said, while the 82 film follows the characteristics of the alien more closely, there's some aspects of the 51 film that did indeed follow the novella more closely than Carpenter's film.

I enjoy a replay of the 51 film once in awhile, but not nearly as much as the 82 film.

---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

[–] Edward_de_Vere 8 years ago

omparing the two seems almost inapplicable aside from the same source. It was a vastly different audience and times of the world back then.

I agree with this, which is why I never thought of Carpenter's film as a "remake" of Hawks' film. Rather, it was an independent adaptation of the same source material.

[–] cohenstuart 8 years ago

The phrase, Mr.de Vere, I always used was "re-fashioning". This was picked up and used by Universal's publicity department and also used by John. You will see evidence of this in the superb supplementals section of the new Scream disc...

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

I agree with this, which is why I never thought of Carpenter's film as a "remake" of Hawks' film.

Early on I assumed it was a remake, but I saw the 82 film before reading the novella. It was really Carpenter's film that sparked me to read the novella.

---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

[–] Tom_Rocks 8 years ago

I wonder how things would have happened if the shape-shifting alien from the 1982 John Carpenter movie had actually been at the Base in the original 1951 movie.

[–] etsis 8 years ago

I love both films. I don't think they had the special effects tech back in 51 to convincingly show a shape shifting alien, which is why I've always thought it was left out. But one thing where I think the Hawks film excels is in the characters. Very believable and realistic characters. This was a Hawks trademark. His use of things like overlapping dialog always made his characters seem very real. Check out pictures like Bringing Up Baby and His Girl Friday.

Compared to Hawks' version, the characters in Carpenter's film seem like two dimensional stereotypes, almost like comic book figures.

[–] Edward_de_Vere 8 years ago

I love both films. I don't think they had the special effects tech back in 51 to convincingly show a shape shifting alien, which is why I've always thought it was left out.

You're probably right that technical constraints on 1950's F/X may have been the reason why Hawks' film didn't use the shape shifting/imitation aspect of the alien in the story. It may have worked if the shape-shifting itself was entirely off-screen, which would be more effective than watching obviously fake special effects.

But one thing where I think the Hawks film excels is in the characters. Very believable and realistic characters. This was a Hawks trademark.

My favorite Hawks film is probably Red River - it was also one of John Wayne's best roles.

I'd also add that the characters are very believable in Carpenter's film. Because the cast mostly consists of very good character actors rather than celebrities (apart from Russell, to some degree), you really believe that you're watching staff working and interacting on an Antarctic base rather than actors strutting around on a set.

[–] etsis 8 years ago

Because the cast mostly consists of very good character actors rather than celebrities (apart from Russell, to some degree), you really believe that you're watching staff working and interacting on an Antarctic base rather than actors strutting around on a set.

I hear what you're saying about the character actors. although I think there was a bit of scenery chewing going on, and Kurt Russell strutting around in a giant cowboy hat in Antarctica was a little over the top.

P.S. I agree, Red River is a great film.

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

I hear what you're saying about the character actors. although I think there was a bit of scenery chewing going on, and Kurt Russell strutting around in a giant cowboy hat in Antarctica was a little over the top.

In the novel, MacReady always wears a large parka and was just the weatherman. I say large because Mac was a behemoth of a man in the novel.

The film's Mac is modeled on the very popular character types of that time - Indy Jones and Han Solo....Or that is my bet, not claiming that is fact. But the cowboy hat, the Indy Jones leather jacket, John Wayne gun holster, gave him a more glorious occupation as helicopter pilot, a frequent whisky tipper - which he isn't in the novel - that all spells another typical Hollywood Hero/Bad Boy.

It's totally unrealistic he prances around the frozen tundra in just a leather jacket, but they couldn't cover up their star in a large parka. Despite all that Hollywood makeover of Mac, still one of my favorite characters in film.

---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

[–] GorchBrother 8 years ago

I don't think Russell's MacReady was typical of anything of that period, except perhaps the kind of loner, anit-hero attitude that he inevitably brings with him from Snake Plissken.

The hat he wears is actually a campaign hat, as recently seen on Pharrel Williams. It's not a cowboy hat.

MacReady was intended to be just one of the ensemble but nearer shooting it was felt that the audience might need someone to focus on at critical parts of the film. When you're making a movie that is about everyone distrusting each other, you still need to have one character that the audience feels they want to trust and be trusted even if they have no evidence that they absolutely should. And that sentimental tendency that the audience is willing to afford Mac is brilliantly and brutally punctured when he has to kill Clark, who at first seems the least hot-headed but also the most likely "thing" in the room thanks to his affinity with the dogs which itself adds a layer of sentiment onto his character that resurfaces the moment after he gets killed and we then discover he was human all along.

The fact that Mac seems to fill a hero role is the catalyst that makes the rest of the characters tragic fates more compelling IMO.

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

The hat he wears is actually a campaign hat, as recently seen on Pharrel Williams. It's not a cowboy hat.

It's a cowboy hat.

Now take a Victorian movie, a cowboy movie, a futuristic movie, a gladiator movie, a prehistoric movie, and countless other period movies, which movie would that hat best fit in the story's environment? A cowboy movie.

MacReady was intended to be just one of the ensemble but nearer shooting it was felt that the audience might need someone to focus on at critical parts of the film. When you're making a movie that is about everyone distrusting each other, you still need to have one character that the audience feels they want to trust and be trusted even if they have no evidence that they absolutely should.

And there's not more a trusting character for the audience than an Indy Jones type character. The novel's Mac, a huge 6' 4" weatherman cloaked in a large parka wouldn't seem less trusting to me than a whisky tipping, gun totin', chopper jockey Indy Solo.

And that sentimental tendency that the audience is willing to afford Mac is brilliantly and brutally punctured when he has to kill Clark, who at first seems the least hot-headed but also the most likely "thing" in the room thanks to his affinity with the dogs which itself adds a layer of sentiment onto his character that resurfaces the moment after he gets killed and we then discover he was human all along.

The fact that Mac seems to fill a hero role is the catalyst that makes the rest of the characters tragic fates more compelling IMO.

Understood, but none of that has anything to do with how they visually modeled Mac as a Hollywood Hero/Bad Boy.

---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

[–] GorchBrother 8 years ago

It's a cowboy hat.

Now take a Victorian movie, a cowboy movie, a futuristic movie, a gladiator movie, a prehistoric movie, and countless other period movies, which movie would that hat best fit in the story's environment? A cowboy movie.

It's definitely a Campaign Hat. I've never seen one western where a cowboy wore a campaign hat. The closest thing is the Wild Bunch (who weren't even cowboys) in their US Army uniforms at the beginning of the film. And that film was partly about the fact the days of "cowboys" were long gone anyway.

In movies where the hat is key to the audience identifying them as the hero, they almost never take that hat off.

Understood, but none of that has anything to do with how they visually modeled Mac as a Hollywood Hero/Bad Boy.

No it just shows that any perception of trustworthiness or heroism is not reliable here, regardless of what the audience or the characters hang it on.

Books don't try to be movies and movies don't try to be books (thank heavens). So I don't know what you're trying to say.

He's nothing like Indiana Jones, he's nothing like John Wayne (that would be Jack Burton). He's an Vietnam vet chopper pilot on the bottom of the world, cutf of from civillisation and he can do and wear whatever he damn likes, whether he's going to be James Bond, John Wayne or Ward Bond, or anything else similarly incongruous in Antarctica. It's purely an anachronism that provides colour. It's western imagery but that's because film-makers like Carpenter and his heroes like Leone can't help themselves with "cinema cinema".

I wouldn't say MacReady is modeled on a cowboy/hero/bad boy just because of a hat he wears for part of the picture. Mostly because he doesn't play a bad boy/hero character. Just a character who is set slightly apart from the others. It's the audience who perhaps models MacReeady that way, as they are want to do.

If they had wanted to "model" his character that way they could have rewritten it, but they didn't. They just gave him a hat.

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

and he can do and wear whatever he damn likes

Well then by golly, I say we thumbs up him wearing a cowboy or campaign hat........and a leather jacket.......and a six gun holster....and frequently carrying a JB bottle.

(Though I think a whip would have completed the image )

I wouldn't say MacReady is modeled on a cowboy/hero/bad boy just because of a hat he wears for part of the picture.

Tell us honestly and sincerely, you would prance around the frozen tundra Antarctica where it can get 100 below zero in just a leather jacket? Be honest.

---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

[–] etsis 8 years ago

Well then by golly, I say we thumbs up him wearing a cowboy or campaign hat........and a leather jacket.......and a six gun holster....and frequently carrying a JB bottle.

(Though I think a whip would have completed the image)

Yeah, I don't think there's any doubt MacReady was a bit of an anti-hero stereotype from that time period. Antisocial loner, lives apart from the others, dumps his drink down the chess computer, etc.

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

Yeah, I don't think there's any doubt MacReady was a bit of an anti-hero stereotype from that time period.

Exactly. It's totally opposite in every way of the real MacReady in the novel. But despite the Hollywood makeover, he's still one of my favorite characters in film.

---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

[–] Marmadukebagelhole 8 years ago

What do you mean, "thumbs up" him wearing a hat? What's wrong with the character MacReady wearing that hat?

Glasgow's FOREMOST authority.

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

👍

---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

[–] Marmadukebagelhole 8 years ago

What? So you've noticed that Mac wears a wardrobe that looks nothing like the other guys wardrobe and nothing like Indiana Jones either. But doesn't match what's in the book so it must be like..... Indiana Jones.

Well done. "Flaw" found. Who do I kill?

Do you really think you're being analytical or ciritical because you've noticed a difference between novella and film (which it is only loosely based on, but still closer than the 51 movie) and the calling "Hollywood makeover" because people remember Indiana Jones and John Wayne wearing a hat?

Glasgow's FOREMOST authority.

[–] GorchBrother 8 years ago

I don't know what you mean? Is this really some huge transgression? What are you getting at?

Tell us honestly and sincerely, you would...

I have never judged films based on what I Imagine would do, and I'm not about to start with The Thing, thirty odd years down the line.

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

I have never judged films based on what I Imagine would do, and I'm not about to start with The Thing, thirty odd years down the line.

My question does not require "imagination" to answer. It's a simple yes or no question. In fact, the question is specifically addressed to you more so than requiring any imagining on the film on your part.

Would you prance around the frozen tundra Antarctica where it can get 100 below zero in just a leather jacket?

---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

[–] GorchBrother 8 years ago

I wouldn't rely on a leather jacket to protect me from 100 below zero temperatures.

I don't see any prancing around and the movie does not convey or even suggest that it is 100 below. According to the dialogue inter hasn't really started yet (in spite of the title card).

The point is, I am not judging the film as a drearily realistic depiction of an American base in Antarctica's personnel and I am certainly not judging that "realism" on what I imagine I would do or wear if it was me and not the Vietnam vet chopper pilot who's somewhat apart from the rest of the men and whose role only requires him going outside to board and fly a helicopter. (prancing around)

Also I am not bothered that the character departs from the book in this area. The story remains the same.

Lars in the prequel was big guy in a parka. Should I applaud The Thing (2011) over this movie for its superior realism or fidelity to the novella Who Goes There?

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

I wouldn't rely on a leather jacket to protect me from 100 below zero temperatures.

Nor did the original MacReady.

I don't see any prancing around and the movie does not convey or even suggest that it is 100 below.

Well if you had read my post you would have seen I didn't say it was 100 below, I said it can get to 100 below.

Pay closer attention to the dialogue next time and you will see where it "suggests that it is 100 below"....

MacReady: "ln six hours, it'll be 100 below in here."

Secondly, don't take prancing so literally, anyone with common sense would understand the intent used in that sentence. Either you're "playing dumb" or that description bothered you.

"A character moving about through the camp and the region with just a leather jacket." There, that should help whether you were truly struggling with comprehension or feeling sensitive about the description.

According to the dialogue inter hasn't really started yet (in spite of the title card).

I see. You seem to be showing a pattern of not paying much attention to dialogue.....

Very early in the film, MacReady: "First GD week of winter."

The point is, I am not judging the film as a drearily realistic depiction of an American base in Antarctica's personnel and I am certainly not judging that "realism" on what I imagine I would do or wear if it was me and not the Vietnam vet chopper pilot who's somewhat apart from the rest of the men and whose role only requires him going outside to board and fly a helicopter. (prancing around)

I'm not judging the film on the Hollywood makeover either. I've expressed here over the years it's one of my favorite films and explained here in this very thread Mac is one of my favorite all time film characters. So I have no idea what point you were making.

Also I am not bothered that the character departs from the book in this area. The story remains the same.

Okay. Thanks for sharing. However, the story is not the same.

Some claim TTFAW 51 is the "worst adaptation ever" and the 82 film is "true to the novella." This can't be further from the truth.

I recall no Norwegians in the novel, in fact I recall no visit to a Norwegian camp. In fact, no Norwegians or Norwegian camp even exist in the novel period. Van Wall is the pilot, Palmer is Connant among other name changes, Clark is an alien, Fuchs doesn't exist, Garry was an alien early in the story, the alien's abilities is limited in the film. In the novel, the alien has more abilities besides just assimilation.

Some claim the 51 film "limited" the alien, not showing it's true nature. But the same for the 82 film, it limited the alien's abilities. There's quite a few other differences. And the 51 film adheres to the original novel more than the 82 film in many examples.

Point is, I'm glad it's not the same story. Lancaster's version is better than the original novel, imo.

Lars in the prequel was big guy in a parka. Should I applaud The Thing (2011) over this movie for its superior realism or fidelity to the novella Who Goes There?

Well that's certainly your prerogative, but a character's coat is certainly not something I would judge an entire film.

Wait...am I sensing correctly you think if someone discusses a flaw of a film, you automatically think that person dislikes that film as a whole?

---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

[–] GorchBrother 8 years ago

Well that's certainly your prerogative, but a character's coat is certainly not something I would judge an entire film.

Ok. So why are you so eager for me to make some kind of judgement on the character's jacket in the film?

I just don't have much enthusiasm for calling out differnces between films and books. Macready having a nondescript wardrobe like in the book has no material effect on the story in the film so why go there?

By the way you can prance about in places where it can get to 100 below wearing almost anything you like. As long as you are suitably attired whenever it is 100 below, and you remain indoors too. Since its the first week of winter, which last about six months down there, I doubt it would be anything like 100 below. The rest of the men seem to be fairly comfortable outside the base. One of them doesn't even put his parka on until he's already prancing around outside. So watching the movie, it did not seem unfeasible that Mac preferred leather, just incongruous (heaven forbid).

If I was not watching the film and instead trying to assess its propriety or integrity based on wardrobe choices made for the novella and the characters which it is loosely based on , then it might be a problem. Like I said. I don't go looking for problems like that.

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

So why are you so eager for me to make some kind of judgement on the character's jacket in the film?

I'm not eager and I don't care, it's your prerogative is what I said. Maybe you don't know what prerogative means.

I just don't have much enthusiasm for calling out differnces between films and books

Thanks for sharing your personal preferences. I hopefully assume you do not expect others to align with your personal preferences.

Macready having a nondescript wardrobe like in the book has no material effect on the story in the film so why go there?

You trying to label it as nondescript is inaccurate. It has to do with protection. I don't know how anyone could not see that.

By the way you can prance about in places where it can get to 100 below wearing almost anything you like.

Sure you can. You can also jump into a swimming pool filled with broken glass, doesn't mean it would be smart, yes? No? Maybe?

As long as you are suitably attired whenever it is 100 below, and you remain indoors too.

You already admitted yourself you would not brave 100 below weather with just a leather jacket. That would not be considered suitably attired.

Since its the first week of winter, which last about six months down there, I doubt it would be anything like 100 below.

Are you suggesting Mac was lying when he said it was going to be 100 below?

The rest of the men seem to be fairly comfortable outside the base.

Ummm...maybe because they were wearing parkas?

One of them doesn't even put his parka on until he's already prancing around outside.

Yea, if I heard gunshots, I might also run WHILE putting on a coat on, ya think?

So watching the movie, it did not seem unfeasible that Mac preferred leather, just incongruous (heaven forbid).

Fair enough, you call it incongruous, I call it Hollywood makeover - a leather jacket, cowboy hat, chopper jockey, JB swigging, gun totin' Indy Solo. Our differing descriptions should be able to co-exist just fine.

If I was not watching the film and instead trying to assess its propriety or integrity based on wardrobe choices made for the novella and the characters which it is loosely based on , then it might be a problem.

Okay....not sure why you're sharing how you would and would not view a film, that has nothing to do with my claim Mac's appearance was a Hollywood makeover.

Like I said. I don't go looking for problems like that.

I see no one here accusing you of that.

---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

[–] GorchBrother 8 years ago

I'm not eager and I don't care..... I see no one here accusing you of that.

Then why is it important enough for you to spend four posts trying to pin me down to supporting your comparative assessment of the appropriateness of Mac's jackets in book and the film? About whether or not I give it the thumbs up.

I do understand it's my prerogative. It's funny you should insinuate that I don't understand that and then later wonder why I should want to explain my attitude. Guess what? It's my prerogative.

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

If you didn't want me to discuss it any further, you shouldn't have butted in, in the first place. At any time - after your second reply, fourth reply, whatever, all you had to do is just scroll pass my input.

I think we get it now, you apparently take it as a personal insult if someone discusses any flaw of a film you admire. Perhaps you're new to cinema and haven't yet developed a more analytical film perspective. That will come in time, good luck.

---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

[–] GorchBrother 8 years ago

It's a flaw of the film now? You said you weren't judging it on those terms.

I gave you my impression of what it was. Just an eccentric choice of wardrobe for an individualistic character, rather than simply aping Indiana Jones, as you put it.

I'm sorry if my analysis of the film isn't deep enough to share your facile interpretations of hats and jackets.

So having an analytical perspective means giving the thumbs up or not to the realism of deliberately incongruous hats. You learn something new almost every day.

Here's my analysis again of the hat and jacket that's causing you such anxiety

MacReady was intended to be just one of the ensemble but nearer shooting it was felt that the audience might need someone to focus on at critical parts of the film. When you're making a movie that is about everyone distrusting each other, you still need to have one character that the audience feels they want to trust and be trusted even if they have no evidence that they absolutely should. And that sentimental tendency that the audience is willing to afford Mac is brilliantly and brutally punctured when he has to kill Clark, who at first seems the least hot-headed but also the most likely "thing" in the room thanks to his affinity with the dogs. Which itself adds a layer of sentiment onto his character that resurfaces the moment after he gets killed and we then discover he was human all along.

Or maybe it's just a "hollywood" thing. Because he should be wearing a parka like, you know? Instead of looking like Indiana Jones, which he doesn't. Mmmm. That's so analytical.

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

You might check out "The Film Appreciation Book" by Jim Piper. It's not a bad film appreciation book for beginners. It touches on the basics of film appreciation and never goes much deeper than generalizations. Piper steers away from the more advance cinematic terms, so you should be able to follow it fairly well.

It's available on Amazon.

---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

[–] GorchBrother 8 years ago

It sounds like you read only the chapters on hats that people shouldn't wear in Antarctica if the novella says otherwise. Was that too much for you to handle and you had to quit?

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

Not sounding familiar, but Piper does make a comic book version of his film appreciation for beginners, perhaps you would be better off to start off with that. A text only with no cartoons version may be too daunting for you.

---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

[–] GorchBrother 8 years ago

Your familiarity with these sources explains the "depth" of your analysis.

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

Your unnecessary hurt feelings in this thread explains your thin skin regarding your pet movies.

---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

[–] Marmadukebagelhole 8 years ago

Your fixation on hat flaws and people agreeing with you about them conveys your acute autism.

Welcome to ignore, twerp. Have fun looking like a wanker when you reply to this.

Glasgow's FOREMOST authority.

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

Welcome to ignore

Works for me. You have always been an incessant whiner more than I can stomach anyway. Now I do believe Mary Sue is calling you at the Star Wars board. Run along, run along.

---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

[–] GorchBrother 8 years ago

For at least four posts were desperate to get me to falsely support a half-baked theory about one hat, then complained about me not ignoring you instead of telling you I disagreed with your banal argument. My feelings aren't hurt. Your feelings sound like they are very confused while you scramble for some kind of coherent point.

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

by GorchBrother » (Thu Sep 15 2016 06:28:06)

My feelings aren't hurt.

Oh yea.....his feelings are definitely hurt. 

---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

[–] GorchBrother 8 years ago

And you seem to enjoy a career of being the only person who agrees with you on any board. Sounds like a lifetime of hurt.

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

I'm the only person? lol.....

by etsis » (Fri Sep 9 2016 10:52:05)

Yeah, I don't think there's any doubt MacReady was a bit of an anti-hero stereotype from that time period.

Gorchbrother opens mouth inserts foot.

Btw, don't think I didn't notice you two, Marmadukebagelhole and Gorchbrother often pair up to spat with a third member in other forums.

Oh what a happy coincidence you two randomly showed up in this thread and it worked out so well for you that Marmaduke not only shared the exact same view as yours but he also writes with the same sentence structure as you.

Must be so comforting you have a "buddy" who always shows up to have your back. 

Makes me wonder which is the real account and which is the sock account.

Scratch that, not really that curious. Anyone who uses a "fake buddy" to back his argument....well that's just pathetically sad.

---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

[–] GorchBrother 8 years ago

Thanks very much. I love it when I hear this rubbish about Marmadukebagehole. Then I know that the person is floundering.

Sentence structure? Never met so many experts on it.

"Who can't use the Force now?! I can still use the Force!" - Yarael Poof

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

Whatever, sock guy.

---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

[–] Marmadukebagelhole 8 years ago

The guy never said he didn't want to discuss it. He just didn't want to slap you on the back for identifying, wrongly, that Macready is modelled after Indiana Jones.

Glasgow's FOREMOST authority.

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

by Marmadukebagelhole » (Thu Sep 15 2016 06:14:53)

Macready is modelled after Indiana Jones.

Agreed. 

---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

[–] Marmadukebagelhole 8 years ago

Kurt Russell doesn't even wear a hat in most of the next JC film he's in. Please provide deep analysis based on this fact. San Franciso doesn't have any magical Kung Fu masters fighting in the street either so ... maybe it's not realistic. I would have to read the book to know what I should think about the film, I suppose.

Glasgow's FOREMOST authority.

[–] JordanMichaelKoch 8 years ago

More story? You mean a giant carrot that looks like a human is more compelling than life at a cellular level that can look and act like anything it assimilates?

Sure, 1951 had less gore. You got us there. By that logic, War Horse is Spielberg's best war film.

The Thing is highly regarded today by both critics and audiences alike while the 51 version is considered, "That one old sci fi movie that's like a long Twilight Zone episode."

But you're just a troll anyway, so I really shouldn't even bother.

[–] Edward_de_Vere 8 years ago

The Thing is highly regarded today by both critics and audiences alike while the 51 version is considered, "That one old sci fi movie that's like a long Twilight Zone episode."

I consider The Thing from Another World to be one of Howard Hawks' weaker films. Red River and To Have and Have Not still hold up today as two of the best in their genre (especially Red River), while TTFAW mostly seems like a campy scifi period piece.

You mean a giant carrot that looks like a human is more compelling than life at a cellular level that can look and act like anything it assimilates?

I agree, TTFAW would have been a far more interesting film if they used the premise of shape-shifting and host imitation, as opposed to the premise of an intelligent, blood-sucking carrot.

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

I agree, TTFAW would have been a far more interesting film if they used the premise of shape-shifting and host imitation, as opposed to the premise of an intelligent, blood-sucking carrot.

Seems I recall an article awhile back James Arness felt humiliated dressing up as the carrot monster. He hated that role.

---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

[–] mhansen-25806 8 years ago

Seems I recall an article awhile back James Arness felt humiliated dressing up as the carrot monster. He hated that role.

That's my understanding, too. However, a job is a job. A paycheck is a paycheck, especially for a young actor.

"I’ve had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn’t it." - Groucho Marx

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

More story? You mean a giant carrot that looks like a human is more compelling than life at a cellular level that can look and act like anything it assimilates?

If that's all you got out of the story, then I can see why you don't think much of it.

Sure, 1951 had less gore. You got us there. By that logic, War Horse is Spielberg's best war film.

People using the excuse of more gore as a negativity wears thin. There's no hard and fast rule filmmakers must limit the gore to produce a quality film. That's the fans' imposed rule and not shared by all fans. And Carpenter's The Thing inserts the gore as a seamless blend. Granted the well played paranoia alone gives the threat of the alien an undeniable dread, but imo the gore is also vital to convey the truly horrific nature of the alien.

"That one old sci fi movie that's like a long Twilight Zone episode."

I would like to see these professional analysis quotes where you are getting that, unless you're just quoting someone in the forum. TTFAW has it's own inventory of accolades comparable to the 82 film.

But you're just a troll anyway, so I really shouldn't even bother.

Posting only four words to open a thread for what's been an ongoing debate certainly seems trollish.

---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

[–] mhansen-25806 8 years ago

Posting only four words to open a thread for what's been an ongoing debate certainly seems trollish.

Count again. The 1951 version was better. More story, less gore. Do eight words, four numbers and three punctuation marks satisfy you?

Besides, this whole thing is my opinion. I'm sure some preferred the 1982 version to the original. There may be some who prefer the 2011 version to both earlier works. I haven't seen it, yet, but each to his own. Lighten up.

"I’ve had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn’t it." - Groucho Marx

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

He has to include the thread title to get it to 8 words. 

---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

[–] mhansen-25806 8 years ago

whatever

"I’ve had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn’t it." - Groucho Marx

[–] liscarkat (19418) a year ago

"I would like to see more professional analysis quotes..."

Why? Can't you cope with someone thinking for himself, without attributing everything to some "expert"? This is an informal forum, not a term paper. There is no obligation to cite sources.

[–] mhansen-25806 8 years ago

More story? You mean a giant carrot that looks like a human is more compelling than life at a cellular level that can look and act like anything it assimilates?

I'll admit that. I wasn't familiar with James Arness the first time I saw the film, but later on, "Hey. That's obviously James Arness."

The Thing is highly regarded today by both critics and audiences alike while the 51 version is considered, "That one old sci fi movie that's like a long Twilight Zone episode."

If you prefer the 1982 version, fine. I still prefer the 1951 version and I love the original Twilight Zone.

But you're just a troll anyway, so I really shouldn't even bother.

Now, now, be nice. 

"I’ve had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn’t it." - Groucho Marx

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

by etsis » (Fri Sep 9 2016 10:52:05)

Yeah, I don't think there's any doubt MacReady was a bit of an anti-hero stereotype from that time period.



Good to see someone in this thread gets it.

---------------------------------
Inger, you must rot, because the times are rotten.

[–] brianwhite5 8 years ago

The 1951 film is a good B movie, the Carpenter version is a superbly crafted A movie - comparisons are meaningless.

[–] mhansen-25806 8 years ago

You prefer the Carpenter version and I prefer the 1951 version. OK. Artistic comparisons are mostly subjective anyway.

"The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made." - Grouch

[–] [deleted] a year ago

That's all well and good OP but you need to understand that fans of The Thing (1982) love it because of all the added gore and explosions. They don't really care much for the story.

[–] e3e34ifj (1912) a year ago

I think you're trolling at this point...