View Single Post
Old October 17 2011, 06:37 PM   #47
Out there, somewhere...
Trekker4747's Avatar
Location: Kansas City
Re: THE THING (2011): Discussion, Spoilers, Reviews

Moodib wrote: View Post
1982's movie was NOT THE ORIGINAL!

The original was made in 1951 called The Thing from Another World, while that movie was good it was a poor adaptation of the book "Who Goes There" by John Campbell because they had to make it a bit romantic and they didn't have the right technology for special effects to make the creature a shapeshifter, instead we got a killer carrot vampire alien.

1982's version had better improved technology and was the quintessential faithful adaptation of the novel as it finally had the shapeshifter including the characters from the book.
Why, thank you Captain Pedantic!

For the purposes of this movie and this discussion Carpenter's version is "the original" as this movie is direct prequel to it and the 1950s movie is immaterial and irrelevant to this discussion, hell it's irrelevant to any discussion about Carpenter's version. In fact, as you noted, the two movies are so different that comparing the two is, well, silly.

For all intents and purposes -especially in this conversation- Carpenter's movie is "the original." Also, note in my post the use of quotes around "original" which should imply that I'm acknowledging that the Carpenter '82 version isn't the original but it is in the context of this discussion.

Galileo7 wrote: View Post
NJOberheim wrote: View Post
Or, maybe the writers took some artistic freedom just to set things up for a possibe sequel. Maybe Kate, McGready, and Childs some how find each other and they make their way to the Russian camp.
I like this idea, but at the same time I'm not sure how they'd pull off having Childs and McReady in any possible future movie without re-casting the parts or using an obviously very aged Russell and Keith David and, frankly, I don't think you can recast Russell.
Trekker4747 is offline   Reply With Quote