 
|
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 |
67.166.204.16
In Reply to: "Starman" posted by rico on March 17, 2005 at 08:07:50:
...but the flick John Carpenter made just two years prior to this is so much better, and truer to the author's original intent, in my estimation.
It's just my opinion, but Starman seems more of a soapy "feel good" mainstream drama with SF elements than a well crafted SF flick. Even though its a fun film to watch and occasionally well acted, the telegraphed romantic developments arising from Jeff Bridges's and Karen Allen's co-dependent interactions coupled with an overreliance on awkward fish-out-of-water situations that Bridges manages to get into and out of with relative ease cause Starman to veer off its designated SF course and down the road to predictable melodrama. In that respect if no other Starman comes dangerously close to Orville Redenbacher territory (i.e., pop-corn).To sum up my conclusions on Starman, even though it's a well done film, it just plays a little too "safe" for thoughtful SF cinema.
Conversely, John Carpenter's The Thing, based on the novelette "Who Goes There" by Don A. Stuart (aka John W. Campbell) appearing in the Aug. '38 Astounding SF pulp, is much closer to the author's concept than the 1950's filmed version produced by Howard Hawks. Not to take anything away from the popular 50's flick with its Cold War allegory and James Arness's uncredited "Vegitable Man" portrayal of the elusive alien, it just wasn't John W. Campbell's vision.
Carpenter's incredibly chilling SF flick, irrespective of its Antarctic setting, delivers perhaps the most "alien" looking alien (i.e., in both appearance & behavior) ever imagined for the cinema. While John Carpenter may have taken most of the credit for what ended up on the screen, it's very much John W. Campbell's original work which somehow managed to weather the icy indifference of hacked-out Hollywood rewrites.
AuPh
Follow Ups:
The Thing a good film? I mean the Carpenter version! You must be jocking! Well I saw it once and I remember vidly how bad it was, The Hawk one was far better!
I agree but his point is that Carpenter's is closer to the original story.
That was not only this one point! As I did nor read the novel, I could say nothing about this. But he state that Carpenter film was excellent, and THAT was my point.
Is his right?
...and all this time I thought that it was my point. ;^)AuPh
nt
As Bugs would probably say, "What a maroon!" ;^DAuPh
While we may differ preference-wise as to which "Thing" is best, I was not dissing the earlier version. I just feel that Campbell's story actually made it to the screen in Carpenter's version, which is rare for any inspired source material, much less SF. BTW, unless I'm mistaken, even John Carpenter considers The Thing his best film.Cheers,
AuPh
Yes, I really AM serious: John Carpenter's The Thing IS a good film; in fact, it's an EXCELLENT film, and thankfully not a remake of the earlier film!Granted, you don't like the Carpenter film; that's fine, you'll get no argument from me regarding your tastes in cinema or, arguably, the lack thereof. However, just calling the '82 version a bad film because YOU didn't like it is more of a reflection on your viewpoint than on the film, IMHO. Please note that I didn't say Howard Hawk's production was "bad" even though it was directed by Christian Nyby who, as demonstrated by the link below, was a journeyman director more known for helming Bonanza & Kojak TV episodes than well received films.
The 1950's treatment of this classic suspense story, The Thing from Another World, served it's purpose as a reflection of the U.S. paranoia during the Cold War, nuclear escalation and McCarthyism, BUT it wasn't John W. Campbell's SF novelette "Who Goes There?" Director Carpenter's achievement was in shooting a screenplay that respected the original vision in Campbell's best known tale. That is why, regardless of your SUBJECTIVE dislike of this movie, John Carpenter's The Thing, from Bill Lancaster's fine screenplay, is the better of the two films.
That is MY objective, albeit none-too-humble opinion, but here is another from Absolute Astronomy:
"Who Goes There? has been twice adapted as a motion picture: rather loosely in 1951 as The Thing From Another World and more faithfully in 1982 by director John Carpenter as the film The Thing, from the Bill Lancaster screenplay."
Source:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/W/Wh/Who_Goes_There.htmCheers,
AuPh
Influate his poor ego.
The Thing was " Instant junk ".
Nobody could say it better.
- http://movies2.nytimes.com/mem/movies/review.html?title1=&title2=THING, THE (MOVIE)&reviewer=Vincent Canby&v_id=49462&oref=login (Open in New Window)
You want reviews? I got'cha reviews right here:http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~vampire/thing/t-review.htm -("Carpenter's 1982 remake complicates Howard Hawks' original by dissolving the camaraderie and mini-democracy of the arctic outpost besieged by an alien life form. While Hawks' film was a reiteration in the horror genre, of the tenets of the true-blue American war film, with a unit composed of distinct, idiosyncratic individuals joining in a common cause, Carpenter's film is infected with the cynicism and self-preservation instinct of an age far from the solidarity of the post-War, Cold War years. Distrustful and wary of one another from the start, when a parasitic alien is introduced into the compound by a group of Norwegian scientists, the men's suspicions expand tenfold. As the monster replicates and hides itself inside their bodies, each man becomes a potential enemy -- the dissolution of their own ranks is even more profound and destructive from within than anything the monster can do from without.")
http://www.scifimoviepage.com/thing.html -("John Carpenter's re-make of the 1951 classic The Thing From Another World (also based on John W. Campbell's short story Who Goes There?). Readers who have seen both movies and read the story on which it is based maintains that Carpenter's version is more true to its source.")
http://www.moviesonline.ca/film311.htm
http://www.dvdfile.com/software/review/dvd-video/thing_1982.htm
http://www.horrorwatch.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=95 -("I have to say The Thing is the best of John Carpenter's work.")
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1021244-thing/ -(82% posiitive)
http://www.nixflix.com/reviews/thething.htm -("The Thing is a man's movie ..." - Is this why you're having a problem with The Thing, Mssr. patrick?)
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/26/143819.php -("This is one of those slightly strange films; I'd guess that many, many more people have heard of it than have actually seen it, which is a damn shame because it's proof that John Carpenter at least used to be able to do great things, even if he's slipped a bit more recently...")
http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.html?id=163 -("After just one viewing, The Thing easily makes my top ten list...")
http://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com/review.php?movie=2453 -("It doesn't get much better than this. Tight story, built-in tension, and a cast that's simply a joy to watch. "The Thing" is one of those movies where you get to see a bunch of guys confined in a small space implode under extreme pressure, but it has a few defining ingredients that place it a cut above the standard fare. Way, way above.")
...and so on! Care to try again? :o)
Cheers,
AuPh
But it fits to you to confuse quality for noise and sensibility for quantity.
It will not go further in this matter as it is boring.
;^)
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 ]
