Reply With QuoteLove the original. Fairly confident that the remake will be shite.Originally Posted by Skyman
Think this will make you smile :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8faq5amd ... r_embedded
The 1982 Carpenter version is one of my all time favourite action/SF films (memories of a first date with my now wife..........romantic choice eh? :wink: ). Anyone interested in the prequel due out early next month? Should be interesting, but early reviews are mixed -
http://www.fangoria.com/index.php?optio ... Itemid=181
Love the original. Fairly confident that the remake will be shite.
Think this will make you smile :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8faq5amd ... r_embedded
I'm sure it'll pale in comparison to the original, but I'll go see it anyway.
I took her to Cronenberg's The Fly :D :lol:
Like you I thought the original was amazing. The new one is a prequel, to be precise, set in the Norwegian camp. I'm told that it's ok, nothing more than that, but the creature transformations are very well done and thrillingly original.
The big buzz is around Prometheus. Ridley Scott's revisiting of the Alien universe.
I had forgotten how good this film is, not watched it for years...will be pencilling in a viewing this week for sure.Love the original. Fairly confident that the remake will be shite.
Think this will make you smile :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8faq5amd ... r_embedded
I sure as hell won't bother to watch the remake though....
It's been fairly heavily featured on Sky recently but apparently with a 12 certificate. I'm certain that when it was first released it was an 18 (or X). Anyone know for sure?
Cert 18 if I recall. Same is said on Empire. Perhaps cuts made on the SKY version?
Carpenter's The Thing is a remake of Howard Hawks' 1951 movie, The Thing From Another Planet. Carpenter's is good, but it's not
the original.
______
Jim.
Yes, you're right. But...I guess it was Carpenter's Thing that everyone took notice of. At least amongst film buffs. (Carpernter's thing? What am I saying?)
Agreed. Btw, I have just read the 1938 novella "Who Goes There?" by John W Campbell, upon which the the first two films are based, and perhaps surprisingly the Carpenter version is quite true to the book....until the end that is. :wink:Yes, you're right. But...I guess it was Carpenter's Thing that everyone took notice of. At least amongst film buffs. (Carpernter's thing? What am I saying?)
Here it is in pdf (if link works)
http://whogoesthere.info/book/whogoesthere.pdf
From the book 'Who goes there?"
Didn't I just say that...^^^^^^^^^ :wink:From the book 'Who goes there?"
Thanks, that's a fair read, and almost timeless, you wouldn't think it was written over 70 years ago.Agreed. Btw, I have just read the 1938 novella "Who Goes There?" by John W Campbell, upon which the the first two films are based, and perhaps surprisingly the Carpenter version is quite true to the book....until the end that is. :wink:Yes, you're right. But...I guess it was Carpenter's Thing that everyone took notice of. At least amongst film buffs. (Carpernter's thing? What am I saying?)
Here it is in pdf (if link works)
http://whogoesthere.info/book/whogoesthere.pdf
^^^^^^^^that was what I thought.
The Thing in the original film was played by James Arness who went on to play Matt Dillon in the long running American series called Gunsmoke. Just a piece of movie trivia that has always stuck in my head. I like both versions and am interested in the latest remake too.
I love the 82 version, Kurt Russell was fantastic and it was so open and claustrophobic. The prequel seems a bit of a mish mash, I believe there's a couple of Americans and they're the lead, but in the old one the Norwegian station wad meant to be non English speaking, none of the data was readable when they visited either, sounds like they're Americanising it, they should have just done a sequel.
Didn't I just say that...^^^^^^^^^ :wink:From the book 'Who goes there?":mrgreen:
:DAnd look what happened ;)I'm sure it'll pale in comparison to the original, but I'll go see it anyway.
I took her to Cronenberg's The Fly :D :lol:
Crazy biatch like that, it was bound to happen. The film was fine :blackeye:
I think the original is overrated :) it's good but Im not sure it warrants 'classic' status
Get thee out of here and be gone, you infidel! :D
I just don't think you can beat the original but I enjoyed the sequel. The spaceship segment at the end was a bit naff but the creature effects were well done.
:lol:From the book 'Who goes there?"
I hate prequels, just lazy marketeers milking the prize heffer, a sequel imoves the viewer onwards -or at least sideways- and thats a journey I want to take!
Also most prequels now (by 'New Hollywood' law) will invariably cast a woman in the role of the arse kicking, problem solving and wise cracking lead whether it makes any kind of sense or not and that really blows
Joe
I heard it's very similar to the original but with inferior special effects.
That sounds a bit odd when you consider what can be done now compared to 30 years ago.
If they've preserved the scene with the guy using the defibrillator on a man's chest which then grows teeth and bites his arms off .....
I'm in. :mrgreen:
Just...what? :error:
exactly what I was thinking, never been able to watch it all the way through as it gets a bit boring towards the end IMHO.
I went to see this on Sunday....and it was...ok...not fantastic but ok.
But holy cr*p it was loud! Not sure if they had the volume set wrong in the cinema, but it was literally painful to sit through the alien screams!
Watched it as well. Pretty enjoyable actually - and I'm a great fan of the "sequel" with Kurt. Just the transition at the end is a bit weak or maybe leaves some room for interpretation.
Posting Permissions