Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×



Details

Submitted on
July 12, 2007
Image Size
827 KB
Resolution
747×975
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
40,812 (2 today)
Favourites
1,536 (who?)
Comments
730
Downloads
639
×
The Thing by BryanBaugh The Thing by BryanBaugh
My tribute to one of the greatest horror films ever made, John Carpenter's 1982 version of "The Thing".

This is easily Carpenter's best film. All the elements - the writing, direction, acting, special effects, and music work together perfectly. It's got the fear of isolation AND paranoia, and some of the most brilliantly insane horror sequences ever put on film - thanks to Rob Bottin who, like Carpenter, was also doing the best work of his whloe career here. A perfect movie by any standard.
Add a Comment:
 
:icone3tv:
E3TV Feb 16, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I that movie and I lone this picture!!
Reply
:iconmarxand02:
This is my absolute favorite horror film ever made. :iconrainbowVomitplz: 
Reply
:iconmr-illusionist-1331:
Mr-Illusionist-1331 Feb 4, 2014  Student General Artist
Nice:badassplz: rewamp 
Reply
:iconbryanbaugh:
BryanBaugh Feb 5, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Thanks!
Reply
:iconattackman123136:
attackman123136 Jan 11, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
i love this film!
Reply
:iconragnar0z:
"I take every failure hard. The one I took the hardest was The Thing. My career would have been different if that had been a big hit. ..The movie was hated. Even by science-fiction fans. They thought that I had betrayed some kind of trust, and the piling on was insane. Even the original movie's director, Christian Nyby, was dissing me." 

-John Carpenter on the reception of The Thing

ET hit theaters around the same time, and perhaps people were more interested in family friendly alien visitation at the time. Either way, The Thing is damn fine film.
Reply
:iconcyrusgrissom:
Very awesome drawing to one of the best sci-fi/horror movies of all time.

I don't consider John Carpenter's The Thing to be a "remake" of The Thing From Another World because they are completely different films. They use the same source material, which comes from a short story entitled Who Goes There, but the movies take different directions with that material and are nothing alike because of it. I would consider Carpenter's version to be a remake if he had tried to reinvent the 1951 film and borrowed aspects from it, but he did not. 


A remake to me is The Blob or Hills have Eyes because they uses the same plots, takes aspects from it, and what not. Carpenter didn't do that. He made his own movie. He did not remake The Thing From Another World, which is why, and I repeat, they are entirely different films with different themes. 

In 1951, Howard Hawks and Christian Nyby made a film called "The Thing from Another World" and it was the first adaptation of the novella "Who Goes There" and it was a terrible terrible adaptation that hardly resembles anything like the book, there never was a film called "The Thing" in 1951. 

In 1982 John Carpenter unleashed a film called The Thing, sure there were 2 homages to the Howard Hawks film like the similar title card sequence and circle of men but everything about the 2 films like the location (one in the north pole and the other being the south), the characters, the discovery and origin of the spaceship, the discovery of the alien, the nature/methods of the alien including the monster itself (one is a humanoid plant frankenstein alien being that has only one form being that as it could reproduce itself/suck blood but it wasn't the shapeshifting bodysnatching being that imitated anyone or any creature like the actual "thing" in the novel where the other creature is a organism that could imitate other lifeforms by cell structure) etc. are worlds apart from each other. 

I consider them 2 separate and completely different adaptations of the same original source material "Who Goes There", the 1951 film was the first adaptation of it as it was quite a good movie but in truth it was a terrible terrible adaptation and Carpenter sticked closely. Carpenter has stated that it's not a remake but it is it's own independent film and a separate adaptation. 

Calling The Thing a "remake" is like saying every Dracula film is a "remake" of Nosferatu 1922 or Dracula 1931 or saying I Am Legend is a "remake" of Omega Man or saying Omega Man is a "remake" of Last Man on Earth, NO they are all separate adaptations of the same original source materials as even the I Am Legend movies have nothing to do with each other and very different from each other too. 

I consider remakes and re-adaptations to be 2 separate things, remakes are only for those based on original films and original screenplays not based on source material like say The Blob for example which is a TRUE remake. Re-adaptations are based on source material (books/comics/novellas) like say The Thing, Dracula, I Am Legend, Girl with Dragon Tattoo, Carrie etc. 

This film is the quintessential faithful adaptation of the novella
Reply
:iconbryanbaugh:
BryanBaugh Dec 22, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
I love all 3 movie versions of The Thing.

The original 1951 version is a classic, with some great scares (even if the physical appearance of James Arness as the walking vegetable Frankenstein leaves something to be desired). Plus I'm a Howard Hawks fan and the human characters in the original have that great, rapid Hawksian dialogue banter. It's like His Girl Friday in the Antarctic with a monster from outer space trying to kill you... I LOVE that vibe.

John Carpenter's 1982 remake of The Thing is simply one of the greatest horror films ever made, and easily Carpenter's best film. All the elements - the writing, direction, acting, special effects, and music work together perfectly.
One of my all-time favorite movies.

I went into the 2011 Thing prequel with very low expectations, but ended up enjoying it a lot, too. It not only does a beautiful job of recreating the world of Carpenter's film but also answers questions and offers explanations to many of the Carpenter film's most tantalizing mysteries - the origin of the melty two- faced monster being the best of them.
Reply
:iconcyrusgrissom:

Carpenter's film was NOT a "remake" it's a different movie, it was a remake in name only, it wasn't the same as the first movie. Even Tobey Kenneth agrees that the film should had not been called "the Thing" but "Who Goes There" and that he said "Carpenter is smarter than that and he should had never used references to my film".

They are 2 separate completely different movies
Reply
:iconbryanbaugh:
BryanBaugh Dec 22, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Okay well maybe you and Tobey Kenneth should go yell at Carpenter about this, instead of me!!

Sorry, but I am not an English teacher. Quibbling over different peoples' definitions of the word "remake" doesn't interest me very much. I just love The Thing!
Reply
Add a Comment: