PopSyndicate.com

You could very well be right about there not being a completely faithful adaptation of the story. But I personaly think that a movie should stand on it’s own merits, rather than being a retelling of what we have read in the book.

And yet no one has answered me. It seems that all of the fans of the 50’s version say it had great atmespere, was suspensful, had romance, blah blah blah.

1. Great atmesphere. Common. It was just alright. By modern standards, it was quite poor. You want great atmosphere in and old movie, check out house on Haunted Hill, or Last Man On Earth. The latter in particular had a believable setting, by old movie standards.

2. Suspenseful? common. That’s like saying creature from the black lagoon is suspensful. You knew exactly what was going to happen. “they go back to find the monster, but it’s gone.” They try to kill the monster and think they have, but its still alive. Their plot to kill the monster is inturrupted by the mad scientist, but, miraculesly, in the nic of time, it works and they kill the frankenstiens monster creature that we are supposed to be scared of

3. Romance. Okay. The romance was alright. It was on the beleivable side. But it was nothing you wouldn’t see in just about every old movie that had romance. It was there, but it was a cliche for it to be there.

On the other hand, people are slamming John carpenters version. The say that it was full of mindless gore and effects, had no atmesphere, was just Kurt Russel playing a hero, was predictable, blah blah blah.

1. The effects were really quite good. But they really weren’t that frequent. Actually, the reality is I think the effect look a little hokey by todays standards, and the movie suffers slightly when they are used for the most part. They are entertaining. But if you removed the effects, you might even have a better movie. By that logic, the movie is far from a hollow movie with nothing but effects.

2. No atmosphere? “you have to be *beep* kidding me” (to qoute the movie)The movie was nothing but atmosphere. One of the main points of the film was setting a mood in which the gore was believable. The scene when the men are going through the norweigen camp was very tense. At every turn you expected and attack. At every turn you ecpected the dog to turn into a monster. The scene in which they were testing the blood, you didn’t know what would happen. I think, unless you knew what would happen, you were at the edge of your seat. The tension causing music was the best in a horror movie period this side of Jaws and Halloween. If that doesn’t make great atmosphere, I don’t know what does.

3. Kurt Russel was quite good. I can’t really argue with the fact that he emerged as kind of the sole hero. But that doesn’t mean his role was a bad one. It wasn’t like he was the rag tag army commander who had been through hell and knew exactly what was goi9ng on. He just emerged as events progressed. And as you’ll recall, at the end there is some possiblility left open that he was a carrier all along.

4. This one I can’t argue with. It all comes down to how easily you see things coming. I will give you this one. It was on the predictable side. But, I have to assk you if the original was less predictable. Okay, I understand if as a 7 year old you didn’t know what would happen. That’s fine. But look at it from a modern perspective and and tell me it doesn’t fall into the 50’s monster movie mold. Just keep that in mind when you start bashing Carpenters movie for predictability.

Okay. That’s my ten cents

You forgot about the romance in Carpenters version.

There was a hot triangular tension amongst Childs, MacReady, and the monster. Everyone wanted MacReady to bottom, but he was uncertain of his position. He really wanted the monster out of the way so he could have Childs for himself. He likes his men like he likes his coffee… Once they finally got rid of the monster, though, the tension builds because MacReady still isn’t sure if he wants the kind of monster Childs is packing. When he finally made up his mind at the end it was left to your imagination if he would bottom or top for the nubian god.

This classic should have been called, “The Thing in My Pocket.”

I would argue that John Carpenter’s “The Thing” is a classic not because of its effects or acting, nor because of anything except its dramatic structure and screenplay.

Not only is there a classic and clockwork “Act One-Two-Three” dramatic structure, but within each “Act” in the film, there are “Chapters” which each begin and end with a “cliffhanger.”  Several sections of the film “fade to black” on a note of dramatic complication, prepositioned for advancing the dramatic momentum of the story.

Many of the “episodes” in the story can be easily separated from the rest of the film as “sequences” within themselves.  (This may sound ordinary or mundane, as though “every film does this,” but this is not true; every film should do this, but does not).  Example:  the Blood Test scene is a functional mini-drama contained within itself, like a little stageplay, and could function as a short film with a beginning, middle, and end.  [Note to NOTLP:  I’d like to see a NOTLP “reenactment” of this scene, if a screenplay could be found.  You could tie Freddy to the couch—or whomever so happens to be farting too much that day].

The screenplay is like a blueprint that aspiring screenwriters would do well to study.  This cannot be said for any of Carpenter’s other films—“Halloween” comes close, but the strengths of “Halloween” (IMHO) are centered in the director’s chair, where camera angles and background/foreground tension-shots are created.

The “Thing” screenplay contains “mini-climaxes” before each fade-to-black.  And in addition to the structural genius of the screenplay, the dialogue is also at the center of the drama (which, you would think, is always the case with any screenplay, and it should be, but isn’t):  “We’re going to find out who’s The Thing,” etc., helps to punctuate each dramatic structural break.  The drama is also “character-driven” to a large degree, or “archetype-driven” against a theme:  it’s “archetype vs. Thing Metaphor,” and this is embodied in the “archetypal dialogue”:  MacReady says “I know I’m human. And if you were all these things, then you’d just attack me right now, so some of you are still human. This thing doesn’t want to show itself, it wants to hide inside an imitation. It’ll fight if it has to, but it’s vulnerable out in the open. If it takes us over, then it has no more enemies, nobody left to kill it. And then it’s won.”

There are multiple levels of conflict within the film, beyond the “archetypal characters vs. Thing Metaphor”—there is also the “archetypal character vs. archetypal character” dimension which helps to complicate the drama.  Again, this should not be a surprising facet of a screenplay—every screenplay should have multiple dramas or conflicts running simultaneously.

But in the screenplay for “The Thing,” each separate conflict is “advanced” within each “episode” of the story, and each character conflict “worsens” or complicates the “primary conflict” against The Thing.

The screenplay itself is a gem, a clockwork with multiple moving parts, and built-in “chapter stops” that are “episodes” within themselves—each augmented and complimented by great acting chops, art direction, special effects, and the vintage Carpenter directorial style.

It might also be interesting for Uberfilmgeeks (like myself) to compare and contrast how Carpenter builds tension in “The Thing” vs. “Halloween.”  You’d think that Michael Myers/The Thing might have some similarities as “the Monster,” but Carpenter builds tension entirely differently with each Monster in the two films:  In “Halloween” tension is built when the Monster is visible; in “The Thing” the tension is built because The Monster is invisible.  Pretty cool.

Incidentally, the screenplay for “The Thing”?  Written by “Bill Lancaster,” who (according to IMDB:  http://imdb.com/name/nm0484111/) apparently wrote only two screenplays (including “The Thing”) in 27 years.

Hollywood apparently recognizes true talent, and stays away.

I think I’m in love. Judas will you marry me?

DZ - 17 June 2007 04:02 PM

I think I’m in love. Judas will you marry me?

Aw shucks, DZ, I’m just a beer-swillin’, NOTLP-loving, Neocon-hating, horror film-obsessed, blue-collar cog in the machine.

Perhaps a screenplay collaboration could be in the offing if kismet finds we’ve got the same peculiar horror-aesthetic?  God knows, the horror section at the video store is starved for creative efforts.

For starters, I liked both movies, although I have to say that I liked Carpenter’s a little better.  The 50’s flick was great for the era, but it was definitely from that era, with all of the cliches and foibles that 50’s monster movies bring with them.  I’ve read the story, too.  It’s great and I think both films did as much justice to it as the medium could at the time.

That being said, I don’t think either movie has aged very well.  The 50’s version may have five decades of time and a Cold War psychological backdrop to blame, but Carpenter’s doesn’t.  The effects haven’t really aged that well, and “archetype” in this case is largely a nice way of saying character cliches.  These characters aren’t original in any sense, but they are played by a solid core group of character actors. 

As for the fades-to-black, I just can’t accept “fade-to-black” as a “note of dramatic complication.”  My dad’s camcorder had this feature, for pete’s sake.  If we’re to take this at face value, then the VHS tape of my family’s 1985 vacation to the Gulf Coast is full of dramatic complication.

The movie isn’t a set of vignettes, and other than the blood testing scene (which was uber-cool, IMO), none of the individual scenes could stand alone and have any cohesive meaning.  The screenplay is decent, especially for its genre, but that’s all it is.  Is it something everyone should study?  Maybe if everyone is going to make monster movies.  But, the screenplay isn’t nearly at the top of the heap.  It’s decent for what it is, but it’s not exactly running in a pack with The Godfather, L.A. Confidential, Schindler’s List, or Apocalypse Now.

I can’t accept the point that the difference in Halloween and The Thing is the notion that the monster is visible in one while invisible in the other.  I don’t know about you, but a human head sprouting insect legs and crawling off is pretty damned visible to me.  While the monster in The Thing doesn’t have a defined shape, not only is it visible, but if you were to remove those portions of the movie without those special effects, you wouldn’t have much of a film left. 

The difference to me is that the action is focused in diametrically opposite directions.  The focus of the pacing in Halloween is on what Mike Meyers is either doing or about to do; the focus of the pacing in The Thing is what the characters, not the monster, are doing or about to do.  Thus, the pacing in Halloween is like a roller-coaster ride compared to The Thing, having more of a chase quality, while The Thing has a more brooding, psychological edge.

I really feel that, cool alien effects aside, the remake is basically a psychological horror movie. The scariest part, for me, was that you had no idea who was who. I don’t think the effects look hokey though - they’re way more real than the CGI crap they probably would use today.

Mike Bonds wrote:

That being said, I don’t think either movie has aged very well.  The 50’s version may have five decades of time and a Cold War psychological backdrop to blame, but Carpenter’s doesn’t.

Respectfully, I believe that Carpenter’s is more timeless and universal.  The 1950s’ version has political subtext if you stretch for it, and the 1950s’ version has that old-time 1950s’ retro-futurism.

The effects haven’t really aged that well, and “archetype” in this case is largely a nice way of saying character cliches.  These characters aren’t original in any sense, but they are played by a solid core group of character actors.

Maybe I’m like old parents who get stuck in their own era and cannot stand listening to today’s music from “those damn kids,” but I prefer pre-CGI special effects.  CGI takes me out of the movie trance, every single time.

As for the fades-to-black, I just can’t accept “fade-to-black” as a “note of dramatic complication.” My dad’s camcorder had this feature, for pete’s sake.  If we’re to take this at face value, then the VHS tape of my family’s 1985 vacation to the Gulf Coast is full of dramatic complication.

You missed my point completely, Mike.  Each “fade-to-black” doesn’t signify dramatic complication, it merely ends a chapter at a point of dramatic complication in the story.  Television dramas generally do this in three-part formats.  All I’m saying is that most films do not have this classic structure, which is a structure that does not inherently impart or imbue films with dramatic greatness, but that dramatic greatness is enhanced by classic structure.  Just ask Shakespeare or refer to any ordinary classic pop song (verse, chorus, verse, chorus, middle 8, final verse, final chorus).

The movie isn’t a set of vignettes, and other than the blood testing scene (which was uber-cool, IMO), none of the individual scenes could stand alone and have any cohesive meaning.  The screenplay is decent, especially for its genre, but that’s all it is.  Is it something everyone should study?  Maybe if everyone is going to make monster movies.  But, the screenplay isn’t nearly at the top of the heap.  It’s decent for what it is, but it’s not exactly running in a pack with The Godfather, L.A. Confidential, Schindler’s List, or Apocalypse Now.

I agree with all of your examples—all of them are in my Top 10 All-Time Favorites (except “The Godfather”)—but for a horror film, I will still argue that Carpenter’s “The Thing” has a great screenplay for a horror film.  The tension is built and developed with intelligence, pacing, and purpose, both thematically and dramatically, which is more than I can say for 90% of horror films.  Even among the “Great and Classic” horror pantheon, such as Cronenberg’s films or Carpenter’s other films, I believe that “The Thing”‘s screenplay outshines them.

I can’t accept the point that the difference in Halloween and The Thing is the notion that the monster is visible in one while invisible in the other.  I don’t know about you, but a human head sprouting insect legs and crawling off is pretty damned visible to me.  While the monster in The Thing doesn’t have a defined shape, not only is it visible, but if you were to remove those portions of the movie without those special effects, you wouldn’t have much of a film left.

The difference between the way that tension is built by the director, between “Halloween” and “The Thing” is that tension is built in “Halloween” when the monster is shown in backgrounds and sides-of-frame—more menacing because he is visible—whereas in “The Thing,” although the monster is indeed shown (obviously), the tension and paranoia is created by not seeing where or inside whom the monster lurks—more menacing when the monster is not visible, because the monster can adopt any form.  I don’t think there’s much of an argument to be had about this; it’s a fact of mechanics.  I never wrote that the monster is not shown in “The Thing.”

We may disagree about the greatness of “The Thing,” which is fine, and I’m not saying that “The Thing” is better than “Halloween.”  They’re two different approaches to horror, and I think it shows Carpenter’s greatness.