The Thing Remake. Er…I Mean “Re-Imagining”

From SciFiWire:

Strike Entertainment and Universal Pictures will remake John Carpenter’s SF horror movie The Thing, with Battlestar Galactica executive producer Ronald D. Moore writing the script, Variety reported. The 1982 original dealt with a shapeshifting creature from outer space that terrorizes researchers at an Antarctic station. That film in turn was a remake of the 1951 classic SF movie The Thing From Another World, which was adapted from the 1938 short story “Who Goes There?” by legendary SF author John W. Campbell Jr.

The producers said they consider the new film to be more “a companion piece” to the Carpenter film than a note-for-note remake.

My initial reaction here is “What for?” But then again, that was my initial reaction to the “re-imagining” of Battlestar Galactica before I became a convert, so what do I know? (That last one is a rhetorical question. :))

5 thoughts on “The Thing Remake. Er…I Mean “Re-Imagining””

  1. I really hope they don’t ruin this with CGI. One fo the reason I still re-watch the Carpenter classic is the effects are models and seem to have a longer shelflife than CGI, which dates quickly. Anyways, The Thing loosk great on my DVD of it.

    As an example of CGI gone wrong, I think the original Matrix movie (with wirework) looks a lot btter than the sequels. Likewise Blade II looks tacky comared to Bade as the sprites are glaringly obvious in places.

  2. “The 1982 original dealt with a shapeshifting creature from outer space that terrorizes researchers at an Antarctic station. That film in turn was a remake of the 1951 classic SF movie…”

    Wouldn’t that mean that the 1951 was the original if 1982 was a remake?

    :O

    As for me, neither movie comes close to the creepy original story. Especially if you need it with the lights turned down low in the middle of a storm (if it’s a blizzard, you get bonus chill points).

    :O

  3. It should not comes as shock, but hollywood has officially run out of ideas. Both the 1951 and 1982 versions are great examples of genre filmaking. Why re-make them at all?

  4. As an aside, nothing comes close to The Blob in my book for creepy things from space coming to kill you. That 1958 Steve McQueen film scared the crap out of me – at the drive-in even. I didn’t think that film could be remade without becoming campy and yet I know many who think the 1988 version worked (I haven’t seen it myself.)

  5. Let me state that I have nothing against remakes–if they improve on the original.

    I think the mini-series version of Dune was an improvement over the David Lynch film.

    Peter Jackson has most certainly wiped the bad taste that the Ralph Bakshi version of LotR left.

    However…was the remake of the classic B&W film The Haunting better? Did buckets of blood, fancy SFX, big name stars make it a better movie?

    Nope!

    And what about that hilariously bad remake of Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho? Was that better?

    Nope!

    Would a remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still be better? How about Forbidden Planet? Star Trek V?

    Well, maybe the last one!

    But in general, I think that Hollywood should try an occasional original. Or maybe a book/story that hasn’t been filmed yet. Heck, if they want to pay consultant’s fees, I’ve probably got about 2,000 books in my personal library that have never been filmed and would probably make (in the right hands) excellent cinema.

    (H)

Comments are closed.