John Carpenters The THING gets "companion piece?"

I don't know what to think about this announcement today on Bloody Disgusting, 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.

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.

(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!

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.

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.

Yeah, generally that's true...although Carpenter's was a remake too.

You're right Wor-Gar! The exception that proves the rule!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by William Shatners Toupee:
"Antarctica is not teeming with life."

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

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.

Anton Phibes said:

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.

Click to expand...

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..

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.

decadentdave said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

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.

You haven't read the Dark Horse comic. Picks up with Mac and Childes. Excellent read.