 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: What movie remake has improved on the original? (Thanks to mkuller) posted by clarkjohnsen on April 14, 2004 at 14:45:32:
The Thing
Follow Ups:
The original was campy and genuinely scarey and truly captured the paranoia of the era. Carpenter's version lacked any real shocks. He substitued gross latex and jello SFX for real thrills.
It was campy but it didn't make me jump once. It just made me laugh. IMO Carpenter's version was a much truer interpretation of an excellent book. It was quite creepy. You didn't know who was who. Great sense of paranoia. For me it still stands up. The original is just campy. But I know many feel the same as you but I think it is more because of nostalgia than the merits of the movie.
The original had a story that made sense, populated by real characters. In contrast, the remake was just a monochromatic romp. As entertaining as the remake might be, I find it hard to call it an improvement over the original in any area other than the special effects.
"The original had a story that made sense,"
The stories made sense in both movies they were just quite different. the ifrst was your typical Scifi B movie monster chases group of good guys plot. Very linear and very predictable. The second story was set up to create a sense of paranoia, both for the characters and the audience. Ity worked very well for me. What one prefers is personal choice." populated by real characters."
I didn't find the characters particularly real in the first one. In fact I found them painfully cliche of that genre. OTOH I thought the characters in the second were much richer and three dimensional. I also thought their reactions to what they faced to both more organic and more interesting and entertaining. I found myslef relating to them much much more than the original.
"In contrast, the remake was just a monochromatic romp."
I'd say the first one was much more so both literally and figuritively. The second one was far more chaotic (a good thing) and the turns were far less predictable. The plot lines of the characters were woven together quite nicely. There was nothing to weave in the original. It was a very linear singular plot line that bore a painful resemblence to about twenty other movies of it's ilk.
" As entertaining as the remake might be, I find it hard to call it an improvement over the original in any area other than the special effects."Fair enough. We have very different opinions on these movies.
I like both versions of The Thing but the scene in the original where the crew forms a large circle on the ice to indicate the size of the spaceship trapped in the ice beneath them is one of the creepiest moments in the history of sci fi films. The budget for the original movie was a fraction of the budget for Carpenter's remake but, like many '50s B- movies, it was made by professionals who cared about the what they were doing and did they best they could with the limited resources. And Margaret Sheriden's smart, tough character, even wrapped in an Artic parka, is hotter than Hallie Berrie in a swimsuit.My favorite moment in the remake is when Kurt Russell says "F**k you" to the alien before throwing the dynamite at it. That seemed to me to be exactly what most men would said in that situation.
n
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
