|
|
Post by sostie on Jun 22, 2017 9:39:03 GMT
An adaptation that almost completely ignores the story (they left snow in there, but couldn't even set it on the same Pole). It ranks for me as one of the worst adaptations ever Homages to Hawks...one of Carpenter's favourite directors. Both Carpenter and Russell have said it isn't a remake of TTFAW It's not a remake. Saying this isn't a remake is like saying Carrie 2013 isn't a remake. Saying it is a remake is like saying Muppet's Christmas Carol is a remake of Scrooge, or one of the earlier filmed versions. Or Baz Luhrmann's version of Romeo & Juliet is a remake of George Cukor's I can't speak for Carrie because I haven't read the novel or seen the remake. But I find it difficult to see JC's The Thing as a remake of TTFAW. John Carpenter's The Thing and the original story share characters, nature of the creature and what it can do, how it was discovered, location of story etc TTFAW has different characters, different location, different creature with different abilities, different discovery of the creature/spacecraft, different ending etc etc. Other than a couple of very brief homages what aspect of TTFAW was a source/remade in the JC film? None. They have little in common other than a creature that is alien and snow. Also if it was a remake of TTFAW the screenwriter of that film would be credited in the later film. Yes it's a remake of the story, but not of TTFAW. The original story is the source for both films, but one decided to ignore almost every aspect of that source |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jun 22, 2017 9:45:05 GMT
Didn't care who was in danger because we were not introduced to anyone and had no back story about them. That's a fair criticism. We don't really know anything about the characters beyond their role in the camp. Even that we have to infer from interactions and subtleties. I kind of like that aspect tho over is getting loads of exposition dumped on us for seemingly no real reason. Feels more real not to know. They would've already gotten to know enough about each other that they wouldn't need to harp on their families back home or their personal troubles throughout their life. These are all relatively solitary people and it shines through more than anything else. |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jun 22, 2017 10:23:09 GMT
There's a lot of people who prefer the original but they are usually older and dying off.They do have some legitimate points on why they prefer the original from what I have read. I prefer the remake but dont think its perfect. I think the Norris scene is the peak, then it slides a bit with Palmer, and the final monster is underwhelming thanks to dark lighting. I had a laugh at the first sentence. A rueful laugh, but a laugh. Appreciate sentence #2. I don't compare movies on a one to one basis. I liked TTFAW when I saw it as a kid in the theater. I enjoy re-watching it now. I HATED Carpenter's TT when I saw it in the theater as an adult. I would never watch it again. You refer to the Norris and Palmer scenes. I had no idea who was who in the film and that is one of my biggest complaints about it. Someone disappeared and everyone was frantically looking for him and I was sitting there wondering "Who is it that is missing ? "Which one was he ?" That's a problem about this "dying off" group of movie goers, we tend to prefer films with characters who can be identified, motives for actions and actual dialogue that moves the plot along, plus we don't mind the lack of color. I did like that Carpenter used the credits card style from TTFAW but the movie went downhill from there for me. A shame because I had looked forward to seeing it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2017 10:34:27 GMT
I love the original movie (and yes, Carpenter's one IS a remake. Duh.)
I don't know that I'd say it's better, though. It's a different take on the material, which given the technical and budget constraints of the time it had to be. They wanted to do a shapeshifting alien, apparently, but there was just no way to achieve it back then. Their Thing is a bit generic, just a Frankenstein's Monster really, but it works well.
I do think people tend to idolise Carpenter's movie a little more than they should. It's a fantastic film, a perfect 10 even, but if we're honest about it the special effects have not held up as well as everyone seems to claim. Yes, they were groundbreaking at the time, but looked at now they look like what they are, rubber monsters.
|
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Jun 22, 2017 10:36:52 GMT
Saying this isn't a remake is like saying Carrie 2013 isn't a remake. Saying it is a remake is like saying Muppet's Christmas Carol is a remake of Scrooge, or one of the earlier filmed versions. Or Baz Luhrmann's version of Romeo & Juliet is a remake of George Cukor's I can't speak for Carrie because I haven't read the novel or seen the remake. But I find it difficult to see JC's The Thing as a remake of TTFAW. John Carpenter's The Thing and the original story share characters, nature of the creature and what it can do, how it was discovered, location of story etc TTFAW has different characters, different location, different creature with different abilities, different discovery of the creature/spacecraft, different ending etc etc. Other than a couple of very brief homages what aspect of TTFAW was a source/remade in the JC film? None. They have little in common other than a creature that is alien and snow. Also if it was a remake of TTFAW the screenwriter of that film would be credited in the later film. Yes it's a remake of the story, but not of TTFAW. The original story is the source for both films, but one decided to ignore almost every aspect of that source I suggest you do watch the original Carrie and the 2013 Carrie to see what I mean. They didn't even get Carrie's description right in either movie. In the book Carrie was overweight and had really bad acne. In the original movie she was played by sissy spacek who was really thin and was just weird looking. Carrie was played by Chloe grace moretz in the remake who was way too pretty to be playing Carrie. The 2013 remake followed the same notes as the original and added nothing from the book. It's why I don't see remakes of books made into movies as adaptions. Because most of the time they stray farther from the book and follow more of the original movie. Also watch the original Haunting and the remake with Liam Neeson to see what I mean. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jun 22, 2017 14:33:52 GMT
I did like that Carpenter used the credits card style from TTFAW but the movie went downhill from there for me. A shame because I had looked forward to seeing it. Haha sorry about the line. I wasn't trying to be mean spirited--my mind was just in robot mode. One of the more interesting criticisms I saw was the notion that Carpenter's idea of a protagonist is a California stereotype of a tough guy (comparing Kenneth Tobey to Kurt Russell, or the lead in Assault on Precinct 13). I do get the gist of what they were saying. Personally, I think Carpenter let Rob Bottin have a little too much creative freedom. The FX are great but maybe some shadow would have added something. Or leaving something to the imagination. There is one deleted scene of a character seeing someone wearing a parka sneaking off into a corridor and I think that is one spooky scene. I think it could have used a little more of that. But I still rate it highly and wish I saw it in a theater. There's a similar debate about the 1950s Invasion of the Body Snatchers vs the 1978 one. |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jun 22, 2017 14:51:08 GMT
Primemovermithrax Pejorative Don't worry, I didn't take the "old and dying off" comment as mean spirited. I find that too many of the new films in general rely way too much on the FX and just don't bother with writing actual story or real dialogue. Costs way too much to go to see a film to come out of the theater wondering what happened and why (other than that things blew up and got bloody.)
|
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Jun 22, 2017 16:33:57 GMT
On Occasion, when The Thing is shown on a non-pay station, the movie opens up with the names a a small description of each of the characters.
|
|
