John Carpenter's The Thing is 35 this year!

[TomServofan]

Hard to believe this masterpiece of Sci-fi/horror is 35 this year! it bombed at the box-office and got mixed reviews, it became a cult classic over night thanks to video, cable, TV, laserdisc, DVD, blu-ray etc. over the years and many fansites and a huge fandom and became a newly rediscovered classic.

[Sacred Knight]

The CPR scene is one of the coolest scenes in the history of cool scenes.

[JBatmanFan05]

Just one of those visionary films. Love the 1951 Hawks film too. Carpenter knew how to stay faithful to something but add new aspects to it.

[Elmo]

I like the 50s film better, but Carpenter's is a closer adaptation of the source material and he's always been a masterful filmmaker and artist, truly capable of creating a creepy and uncomfortable atmosphere in his work. One of my favorite people.

EDIT: The sequel, Prince of Darkness, is great and highly underrated. Definitely recommend it.

[Cyke]

One of the best movies horror flicks of all time, bar none.

Of course, I've watched it dozens of times and can't bring myself to snack on *anything* while watching it.

But even to this day, I take great pleasure in meeting people who've never seen the movie, because then when I show it to them, they're never prepared for the ride. *especially* the aforementioned CPR scene.

I also have a soft spot for the prequel. It's not genius by any means and it's no doubt derivative at times, but I was generally impressed with the various ways it connected back to the 1982 film.

[williamtheday]

The Thing From Antarctica! That movie traumatized the little centaur girl.

[Surf]

My favorite Keith David movie and one of literally only a handful of movies that I've ever owned on at least 3 formats. VHS, DVD and Blu-Ray. If it ever gets another theater release for nostalgia I will most definitely be in line.

I do buy some laser-discs (I don't even own a player) when I see them at Half-Price books but I've never ran into The Thing, I keep looking though.

[GOLGO 13]

Possibly the greatest remake ever made. Superior in every way.

Whoever foolishly agrees to do a remake of this is in for a world of hate if he (she?) doesn't top it.

[Kirby101]

Good movie, but i prefer the 50s Hawks film as well. I never liked the rubber monsters. I didn't go "cool monsters" I went, "look at the rubber puppets".
Of course outside of Escape from New York and Big Trouble, I am not a big Carpenter fan. Halloween never did anything for me.

[Phoenixx9]

Wow, where did all that time (35 years) go??

[TomServofan]

Possibly the greatest remake ever made. Superior in every way.

Whoever foolishly agrees to do a remake of this is in for a world of hate if he (she?) doesn't top it.

Just one of those visionary films. Love the 1951 Hawks film too. Carpenter knew how to stay faithful to something but add new aspects to it.

I don't really consider The Thing to be a "remake" of The Thing from Another World, there is no such film called "The Thing" in 1951, just The Thing from Another World. Second, Carpenter's The Thing isn't a remake of the earlier film they little in common but they are 2 completely different films, and people only call it a "remake" because of the earlier film but fans of Carpenter's film and the book know it's not a remake but rather a new adaptation of John W Campbell's Who Goes There. The name The Thing comes from the star in the book yet Carpenter's film has only 1 homage to the earlier film like the title card of the earlier film which was called The Thing from Another World and this one being called The Thing and that is it. Everything like the location (one in the north pole and the other the south), the nature/methods of the alien (the monster in Hawk's film has only one form being a vampiric bloodsucking vegetable humanoid Frankenstein who can reproduce itself but it wasn't the imitator from the original source material) where the other monster is a shapeshifting being that can imitate any living creature it touches, the characters and their background, the origin and discovery of the spaceship and all that are very worlds apart from each other. I consider them to be 2 separate adaptations of the book, Hawks film is a very good movie but in reality its a poor adaptation of the original 1938 source material just like The Lawmower Man or World War Z etc. where Carpenter's film is it's own entity that is an excellent adaptation of the source material. Carpenter may had grew up with the earlier film then later on in college he read the original novella Who Goes There which was different than the film he grew up and liked the original story more as he said when he set out to do his film he didn't want to remake the earlier film as it would be foolish to compete with Howard Hawks as instead he returned back to the original book that started it all.

Somebody who makes a film 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 and that's what The Thing is. he definition of a remake is "a motion picture based on a film produced earlier" which is not the case with the John Carpenter film. A scene by scene copy of the original film (as Gus van Sant did uselessly with Hitchcock's Psycho), updated with more F/X or more gore and based on the screenplay of the earlier film or even on a screenplay not based on any existing source material like books like say The Blob or Ocean's 11 are true remakes. If The Thing was a remake then the writer of the earlier film's screenplay would had been credited he wasn't.

To call The Thing a "remake" of The Thing from Another World would be like saying that every Dracula movie is a "remake" of the Bela Lugosi film or the silent film Nosferatu which is factually incorrect. Obviously they are all separate adaptions of the Bram Stoker novel, same for Mahunter and Red Dragon. Another good example are the films I Am Legend, The Omega Man and The Last Man on Earth all based on the Richard Matheson novel I Am Legend. None of the films have anything to do with each other aside from all being based on the same source material. Calling a new film based on a novel filmed before a remake cheapens it a bit, when like i said they are separate adaptations.



differences between remakes and book adaptation.


Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Thing, Stephen King's The Shining, Lord of the Rings, Dracula, Frankenstein, The Omega Man/I Am Legend/Last man on Earth, Romeo and Juliet, A Christmas Carol, True Grit, IT, War of the Worlds, Casino Royale etc. are adaptations of source material being books and novellas. Including being separate adaptations.


Night of the Living Dead, The Fog, Halloween, Maniac, Hills Have eyes, A nightmare on Elm Street, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Freaky Friday, House on Haunted Hill, Ocean's 11, King Kong, Father of the Bride, The Nutty Professor, Ocean's 11, Scarface, Thomas Crown Affair, Godzilla, Angels in the Outfield, The Fog etc. those are remakes even the ones i mentioned on horror remakes you prefer over the originals in every sense of the word.

Now Scarface of Magnificent Seven are the best remakes ever and true remakes.

[Kirby101]

The only disagreement I have with you Tom is that the examples you mention are very well known literary properties. Everyone knows Moby Dick is a great novel. Many. many more people know the 50s "Thing" movie than Campbell's "Who Goes There". And carpenter obviously knew that, or he would have used that title is he was simply making a new adaptation.
I get your finer points, but movies like this will continue to be called remakes when the original film is more well known than the source. Sorry, but everyone considers Burton's "Charlie" as a remake of "Willy Wonka", even Gene Wilder (who hated it.)