PDA

View Full Version : John Carpenters The THING gets "companion piece?"



William Shatners Toupee
11-17-2006, 11:19 AM
I don't know what to think about this announcement today on Bloody Disgusting (http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/7658), from "Variety".

Strike Entertainment and Universal Pictures will remake John Carpenter's frightener "The Thing."

Script will be written by "Battlestar Galactica" exec producer Ronald D. Moore. The 1982 original dealt with a shape-shifting creature from outer space that terrorizes researchers at an Antarctic facility, according to Variety.

Strike partners Marc Abraham and Eric Newman will produce and the company will co-finance the remake, to which Universal owned the rights. David Foster, who produced the original film, will exec produce.

Carpenter's film continued the storyline of the Howard Hawks-directed "The Thing From Another World." That 1951 film starred James Arness as an alien monster that wiped out workers at an Army radar station.

Carpenter's film opened with a team arriving to find that encampment has been wiped out. The alien moved from the body of one team member to another, so it was never quite clear who the villain was.

Both pictures were based on the John W. Campbell Jr. 1938 short story "Who Goes There?"

The producers said they consider the new film to be more "a companion piece" to the Carpenter film than a note-for-note remake.

Carpenter recently saw remakes done of his films "The Fog" and "Assault on Precinct 13," and Dimension Films has Rob Zombie reviving the Carpenter classic "Halloween" in what Zombie calls a cross between a remake and a prequel.

Strike's last redo foray was "Dawn of the Dead."

Moore, who's repped by CAA, just scripted an "I, Robot" sequel for Fox.

John Carpenter's the Thing is my favorite movie of all time. I don't really think it needs a re-make. Yet calling it a "companion piece" almost makes it sound like a "loose sequel", so who knows? If the threat starts fresh at a different location with different characters, I would be more happy.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b263/aaaaaaaaaa123/thing-banner.gif

Batty
11-17-2006, 11:34 AM
I've been leery of a remake/sequel to Carpenter's The Thing, but if Moore is connected to it, I'm all for it. Battlestar Galactica is my favorite show on tv right now.

William Shatners Toupee
11-17-2006, 11:49 AM
(UPDATE?) I've read in comments elsewhere that SFX apparently reported on this a while back and that it is reported to take place on a tropical island, ala Lost meets the Thing.

Interesting if true, but tricky to do a story that way. Antarctica is not teeming with life. On an island, The THING could take over an isolated entire island pretty quickly- insects, plants, birds, turtles, polar bears--- oh wait, that's the other show! :)

Even down to the micro-organisms in the sea-water. Cetainly the spin wouldn't be it trying to survive there. it would be home free. But the people there--- screwed!

Wor-Gar
11-17-2006, 11:58 AM
Carpenter's THE THING is one of my favorite films. But I wouldn't mind a remake just to see how they'd do it today. The island thing sounds interesting, different anyway. You'll never beat that antarctic setting though; it was perfect.

dekadentdave
11-17-2006, 12:33 PM
The island sounds dumb. The antarctic was such a frightening environment for John Carpenter's and really created an atmosphere of desolation. This remake sounds terrible, as all remakes are.

Wor-Gar
11-17-2006, 12:37 PM
Yeah, generally that's true...although Carpenter's was a remake too. :D

dekadentdave
11-17-2006, 12:41 PM
You're right Wor-Gar! The exception that proves the rule!

Wor-Gar
11-17-2006, 12:49 PM
I don't want to tarnish Carpenter's THING, but I have to admit I am curious what they'll do. If its bad, which is most likely, it will just fade away like so many unworthy remakes do... but there is the slight chance that it might be good. I'm trying to remain optimistic. :o

Its such a great basic premise that it would seem to have so many ways to go with it to make it unique. If you go with the classic "confined/isolated" setting then you could do an island, or in a nuclear submarine, or any other 'Die Hard' type scenario. You could also open it up to be more like "Body Snacthers", where many more people could be 'it' -- like a small town or something. I don't know, just trying to see some possibilities for a retelling.

Anton Phibes
11-17-2006, 01:20 PM
Well, everyone who has read any of my posts knows that I am primarily old school when it comes to "Monster Movies". There are only a handful of films that are in my collection from 1975-present. John Carpenter's Thing is one of them. This movie, despite the year it was made or who made it, is simply one of those films like "Psycho" where cinemagic is created. It even surpasses the Howard Hawkes film in my opinion. While I consider it unnecessary to remake a film like this, the 1982 version will not be tarnished by a remake a sequel or anything else. It's a really good film.

Why the remake may or may not be good, if it fails to capture the elements that made Carpenter's film a classic it will be a flash in the pan throw away. I fear the incredible hands on effects work and tensioned acting of the original will be replaced with a myriad of CGI effects in the remake. I am sick of CGI and really hope they avoid this route. As Wilfrid Brimley stated in the 1982 version: "If that things gets to the mainland it'll infect everything on the face of the earth, and nothing will stop it." So the tropical island idea reeks in my considered opinion. Too much access to life. Sea life, Fowls, etc. Antarctica is a wasteland. The only suspects were people. That's what made it so suspenseful. Who could you trust? "Who goes there?"

When you stray too far from the source material in a remake, you wind up with a film that doesn't compliment the original at all. It's simply its own vehicle with the name of the original title attached to it for marketing's sake. A few good examples of this are The Mummy remake by Stephen Sommers and The Dawn of the Dead remake. Those films could have just as easily been labled something generic like "Ancient Evil Reborn" and "Undead Outbreak" and it would have been adequate. Because those films don't bear a whole lot of resemblance to their source material. They don't compliment them, they leech off of them.

Alice Adrenochrome
11-17-2006, 01:21 PM
If there's one film out there in movie land that doesn't need a remake, it's got to be Carpenters "The Thing". It's perfect. The claustrophobic atmosphere in the movie is so authentic and intense, it cannot be topped.

Lembas Eater
11-17-2006, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by William Shatners Toupee:
"Antarctica is not teeming with life."

WHAT?? You haven't seen HAPPY FEET yet???

King Darkness
11-17-2006, 08:51 PM
Remakes, re-images, "companion pieces" are all the rage right now. Just like comic movies. Hollywood latches onto something they think works and runs with it. Like anything else you will have hits and misses. Some good some bad. I have an open mind to all these types of movies right now and will judge the product when it is released. I love The Thing, one of my fav all time movies, so I'm interested to see whats done with this.

darth dypshyt
11-17-2006, 08:56 PM
When you stray too far from the source material in a remake, you wind up with a film that doesn't compliment the original at all. It's simply its own vehicle with the name of the original title attached to it for marketing's sake. A few good examples of this are The Mummy remake by Stephen Sommers and The Dawn of the Dead remake. Those films could have just as easily been labled something generic like "Ancient Evil Reborn" and "Undead Outbreak" and it would have been adequate. Because those films don't bear a whole lot of resemblance to their source material. They don't compliment them, they leech off of them.

You are right, that's why they do it Anton. Hollywood is just about out of ideas, especially when it comes to horror/suspense...So, they just keep on re-hashing the good ones. I am surprised that Carpenters The Thing, wasn't re-done about 5-10 years ago. But, I think they should leave well enough alone...or at the very least, sure , make a movie with the same themes, storyline or whatever...but, pick a different title.

And calling it "The Thing returns" doesn't count..

dekadentdave
11-17-2006, 10:18 PM
That's how I feel about Battlestar Galactica. Has NOTHING to do with the original except in name only. Should have called it something else instead of leeching off of an established and recognizeable franchise to achieve success.

William Shatners Toupee
11-19-2006, 08:55 AM
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b263/aaaaaaaaaa123/thing-banner.gif

:lol

Badism
11-20-2006, 06:57 PM
That's how I feel about Battlestar Galactica. Has NOTHING to do with the original except in name only. Should have called it something else instead of leeching off of an established and recognizeable franchise to achieve success.

It's success comes from being the best show on television, not it's name. One could argue the name hurts it seeing as how the original show is one of the cheesiest sci-fi programs in history.

dekadentdave
11-20-2006, 07:07 PM
The original Galactica had a mythology that was a synthesis of egyptology with Star Wars that became its own distinctive style. From the moment I heard Patrick MacNee give the voice over to Stu Phillips romantic score I, as a 6 year old boy, was taken into its epic science fiction mythology. Dirk Benedict will ALWAYS be Starbuck, not some tom boy chick. This new show is Space Above and Beyond, or SOMETHING that is not the original mythology established by Glen Larson. For God's sake, why didn't Ron Moore just change the names of the characters and call it something else? He could have made his own original franchise instead of sanctimoniously cannibalizing the original.

2000man
11-21-2006, 07:44 AM
I have accepted long ago that many movies I love will be re-made. I don't like it, but the best I am able to do is not support it. I've heard rumours of a Thing re-make for years

foolkiller
11-21-2006, 07:54 AM
I love the original thing and I'm not a horror movie fan. I don't like the idea of a remak but I could see a sequel that picked up whether the original left off. Macready and Childs in the snow waiting each other out. They definitely leave it open for a potenial sequel.

dekadentdave
11-21-2006, 11:09 AM
You haven't read the Dark Horse comic. Picks up with Mac and Childes. Excellent read.

Rhodes
11-21-2006, 11:41 AM
John Carpenter is my favorite director of all time. I have his movies, read his book and I totally love his remake of the Thing. I personally have no gripes with this new upcoming remake. If it flops it'll make John's movie look that much better and if it succeeds then we're all in for a good time at the movies.

Mookeylama
11-21-2006, 04:20 PM
I love the original thing and I'm not a horror movie fan. I don't like the idea of a remak but I could see a sequel that picked up whether the original left off. Macready and Childs in the snow waiting each other out. They definitely leave it open for a potenial sequel.

also there's a video game (multi platform i think) that takes place right after the movie. sheds a little light on things. probably not as much as the comics tho, but it's a decent vid game.

Amanaman
11-21-2006, 04:34 PM
I may be talking out of my arse here, but you CAN'T remake The Thing. It's like remaking a Kurosawa movie. A homage to The Thing, in a different setting, with tight story/editing, sure, I'll watch it, but it won't ever top the original!

Rhodes
11-21-2006, 08:11 PM
I may be talking out of my arse here, but you CAN'T remake The Thing. It's like remaking a Kurosawa movie. A homage to The Thing, in a different setting, with tight story/editing, sure, I'll watch it, but it won't ever top the original!

The last homage to The Thing I remember seeing was The Faculty and I would really rather forget that ever came out.

EVILFACE
11-21-2006, 08:33 PM
I may be talking out of my arse here, but you CAN'T remake The Thing. It's like remaking a Kurosawa movie. A homage to The Thing, in a different setting, with tight story/editing, sure, I'll watch it, but it won't ever top the original!

As good as the The Thing is, it was a remake of the The Thing from Another World, so I don't see why it can't be remade again. Remakes have no affect on the works before them.

EVILFACE
11-21-2006, 08:34 PM
The last homage to The Thing I remember seeing was The Faculty and I would really rather forget that ever came out.

The Faculty was more of a remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, prolly the most mimicked film ever.

LordAzrael
11-21-2006, 08:45 PM
That's how I feel about Battlestar Galactica. Has NOTHING to do with the original except in name only. Should have called it something else instead of leeching off of an established and recognizeable franchise to achieve success.

And yet if it was called something else it would be criticised as a BSG ripoff.

in the case of BSG I don't have a problem with the "reimagining" to update it to the 90's. I think its a little harsh to say it has nothing to do with the orginal. Whilst alot of those old shows have great nostalgia value even the good ones appear a bit campy or cheesy to our modern tastes.

LordAzrael
11-21-2006, 08:47 PM
Remakes are nothing knew btw.

Check out "Last Man Standing" which is a remake of "A Fistful of Dollars" which is a remake of "Yojimbo". As long as they do something different with the core idea I'm in favour of it as opposed to the dreadful remake attempts that are almost identical shot for shot - like the Omen - which add nothing.

dekadentdave
11-21-2006, 09:31 PM
And yet if it was called something else it would be criticised as a BSG ripoff.

in the case of BSG I don't have a problem with the "reimagining" to update it to the 90's. I think its a little harsh to say it has nothing to do with the orginal. Whilst alot of those old shows have great nostalgia value even the good ones appear a bit campy or cheesy to our modern tastes.

And yet even the original Battlestar was criticized as a ripoff of Star Wars. Change the names and establish a new mythology and it becomes something entirely different and, oh my god, "original!" :idea

Problem is, nobody wants to take a chance on an original idea anymore which is why Hollywood is content with re-making and re-imagining everything it has already made. Ron Moore could have had his own original franchise ala JMS and Babylon 5 but instead he just re-worked Glen Larson's into what he wanted it to be. He Trekified it. That is a travesty.

LordAzrael
11-22-2006, 05:34 AM
I may be talking out of my arse here, but you CAN'T remake The Thing. It's like remaking a Kurosawa movie. A homage to The Thing, in a different setting, with tight story/editing, sure, I'll watch it, but it won't ever top the original!

You know the irony here. Kurosawa's "Throne of Blood" is a remake of Macbeth..........

screamingmetal
11-22-2006, 02:44 PM
Yeah, I'm in the camp that thinks this is a terrible idea. If they did set it on an island I bet Hollywood would make sure there'll be a bunch of teens there in bikinis and a upbeat ending. :monkey2

The original was alright, Carpenter's remake is simply amazing. If they made a sequel in Antarctica I'd be less opposed to a new film.

And the new Battlestar Galactica is amazing television. The characters and plots are complex and each show is tense. I know Ronald D. Moore would do the Carpenter film well, but the producers might insist on teenagers in bikinis. :banghead

Amanaman
11-22-2006, 03:10 PM
Heh, you guys are showing your age! I wasn't aware The Thing was a direct remake of something, but it wouldn't surprise me, in a way everything's a remake of something prior. But you can't top the 'tied to this ****ing couch' line.