HOME | DD

TheDeviantMakepeace In reply to JohnSpartan1982 [2011-08-24 15:23:34 +0000 UTC]

It's not a remake of Carpenters? Interesting, I wonder what it'll be then.

oh, yeah. I've actually read the original short story and was really surprised to see how both movies came from that one little story. Very cool.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Proj077 In reply to TheDeviantMakepeace [2011-09-21 14:35:31 +0000 UTC]

The new one is a prequle, it takes place in the Norwegian camp that found The Thing first.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheDeviantMakepeace In reply to Proj077 [2011-09-21 15:38:17 +0000 UTC]

Interesting. thanks man

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Proj077 In reply to TheDeviantMakepeace [2011-09-21 18:30:22 +0000 UTC]

Welcome, I'm a big fan of John Carpender's Take on the fransice but unfortunetly I've never seen this version. How good is it?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheDeviantMakepeace In reply to Proj077 [2011-09-21 20:09:01 +0000 UTC]

The original The Thing is one of my all time favorite movies. I'd actually, and honestly, wish I could watch it more often but my memory's so good I think I've got the whole memorized shot for shot by now. ~Highly~ recommended. Netflix away!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JohnSpartan1982 In reply to TheDeviantMakepeace [2012-01-02 05:18:54 +0000 UTC]

Did you think 1982's version was more true to the novel?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheDeviantMakepeace In reply to JohnSpartan1982 [2012-01-02 05:24:43 +0000 UTC]

I think what impressed me about reading the original short story was how both movies clearly sprang from it. That's cool. But, specifically, which one is more true? I don't know if I could say. I certainly prefer the original so I'm not sure I could be unbiased here.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JohnSpartan1982 In reply to TheDeviantMakepeace [2012-01-06 22:42:31 +0000 UTC]

But do you think Carpenter's remake respected this version yet remains true to the brilliant novella that inspired 1951's version? John Carpenter loves this movie since he was 4 when he saw it in a 1953 re-issue and has left an impression on him, he even showed it on the film "Halloween". He also read the novella in college and loved it, his film was a tribute to both 1951 and the novel.

Only problem 1951's version didn't have the shapeshifting virus creature, probably due to the lack of technology in special effects in the 50's and instead we got a killer vegetable frankenstein bloodsucker that feeds only on blood and didn't shapeshift or infect anyone.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheDeviantMakepeace In reply to JohnSpartan1982 [2012-01-07 01:58:02 +0000 UTC]

Not gonna lie for a second. Won't even try. I'm not anywhere near smart enough to talk about either version "respecting" the novella . All I know is that their both cool even though I prefer the original as the Carpenter one is a little too gory for me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0