Why was this film shit on at release, but praised as a great film decades later?
E.T. was in theaters at the same time. That should tell you enough.
Most people only knew the story from the 1950s film, and not the original 1938 novel and so they had zero expectation of the graphic transformations and body horror in the film.
Plus Aids was on the rise in the country and so body horror was considered... insensitive.
It was one of the most graphic films ever released at the time, and people thought it was disgusting and degenerate.
Carpenter took the failure really personally, because he felt like he had made a really excellent film.
E.T. is a feel good films about aliens, and a p. good film at that.
The Thing is a paranoid film about aliens, a p. good film too, but after E.T. nobody wanted to see graphic alien transformations and shit.
Oh please The 2011 was mishandled by the writers. They showed the cunning Thing trapping Mary Elizabeth Winstead but then show off the comical effects. They could've had the BRILLIANT use of language barriers between the American and Norwegian characters and they do it in one fucking scene and it's over in five minutes. Instead of playing on paranoia like the first one, it was all flash and no substance.
Because Pulp Fiction. With Pulp Fiction, the America viewing public finally acknowledged all the films they once saw as a "guilty pleasures" as legitimate art. All of a sudden Texas Chainsaw Massacre was inducted into New York's Museum of Modern Art. Slasher films were revived and shared movie theaters with "high art". Now people had an excuse to say all the crappy movies they had seen were important. All of a sudden academic papers were being written on the virtues of Ernest films.
Quality of writing dipped, because people were more concerned with "impressions to ideas" or used it as an excuse not to actually learn anything so they could justify sitting alone masturbating to porn, rather than reading book. It was another excuse for our generation to feel entitled to their tastes, and consequently defend them inarticulately.
>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."
Fucking 1980s audience. At least we got Big Trouble In Little China I guess.
Are you implying The Thing is some kind of guilty pleasure? Did you actually see it?
And this dumb down of writing you speak of started back with Jaws, you don't remember all the fucking Charles Bronson movies and similar ilk? This "second" quality of writing dip you speak of happened with the internet getting bigger, and now we have a third one starting from 2009-now.
Actually Carpenter admitted that there was a female character in the movie but the actress got knocked up during production so Carpenter let her go and said fuck recasting. Kept it a men's club basically
There's a lot of factors throughout the 20th century that contributed to it, but I posit that it was primarily the evolution of the internet that has us in the current state of affairs for writing. The internet allows you to look up whatever the fuck you want in seconds. It lowered the average person's attention span, so movies had to compensate.
I mean good lord we live in a world where The Winter Soldier is seen as a genuinely good film somehow.
Special effects can now pad out the parts that would be boring. Also movies have too much potential to make money even if theyre shit so why fuck it up by making something that would only appeal to half of the population when you can remake star wars another 3 times?
1. Wasn't what people were expecting.
2. It ended in an unresolved way that made people think they were gonna have to wait for a sequel.
3. At the time people just didn't realize how deep it was I guess.
The Fly didn't have people turning inside out and turning into visceral abominations that had most people, including the original director, leaving the theatre.
The Fly was pretty tame. Also Jeff Goldblum was a huge box office draw in the 80's
It's more to do with economics than you'd think. Many of the great screenwriters have retired or moved on due to the continual fuckd-overness that studios do. You can notice a catastrophic decline in new screenplays almost immediately after the last Writer's Guild strike ended.
Don't pay Jennifer Lawrence 90 million and the screenwriter 250,000. That's not how you get good scripts. Instead of raising the pay etc neo-Hollywood opted to market harder/make more reboots/more remakes/more sequels.
And now we're here. Look at TFA - subpar writing 0 originality but made 4 billion. Capeshit is much the same. As long as plebs spend money on bullshit this trend will continue.
Because it was quickly dismissed as gorehound dreck with no substance.
It took years for the incredibly high level quality of suspense, paranoia, mystery, and subtext to really be noticed and appreciated.
Same with Blade Runner but for different reasons. Blade Runner theatrical cut is dogshit, and it didn't get GOAT until Final Cut.
Different sort of gross. The body horror shit like Goldblum pulling off his nails and the maggot baby are not quite the same thing.
Also The Fly pinned all of it's special effects to a romance story.
Look how two of the most articulate, bravado works of screeenwriting of the year, by the two best writers of their era got snubbed at oscars (Sorkin and Tarantino), basically memes have ruined cinema, and memes have ruined the last 30 years of generation
A bunch of even worse shit got left on the cutting room floor. There was deleted scene where Brundle had an insect leg growing out of his side that he amputated by biting off that honestly almost made me throw up. Then another scene where he combines a monkey and a cat that ends up being so awful he immediately beats it to death with a crowbar.
Call me pessimistic but it'll only get worse. Mid-budget films are near dead as it is. And people won't leave their house to go to the theater unless it's some kind of "social" event ala Star Wars or the upcoming Cloverfield spinoff.
He's said elsewhere that the movie was designed to be ambiguous. The point being that the audience isn't supposed to be sure that Childs is or is not the thing.
On the director's commentary, though, he and Kurt Russell both personally agree that they believe Childs has been assimilated. At the same time, Keith David says in every interview and at every convention that he is just as convinced that Childs was not the thing.
The fun of the movie resides in that ambiguity. Speculating and presenting a case is way more fun than knowing one way or the other.
Why spoil the fun J.C.?
I'll take your notion a step further and say that the appearance of youtube has encouraged screenwriters to write for scenes rather than structure. If the audience is always looking to dissect your movie and share clips with their friends online, then you write to that style.
Watch a lot of the seminal American "classics" to come out of the 1960s and 1970s.
Back then they allowed a screenwriter time to open up a premise. Now we're given very easy distinctions instead of ambiguities and movies that take patience to build a sense of being (two things the Thing excels with).
Best actor desu
>everything else he's made is dumpster tier
Yeah he took the poor reception to The Thing pretty hard: >>65124584
What is it, I think he spent two years story-boarding The Thing? He could've been one of the greats, but that's not to say I don't enjoy his movies immensely.
you didn't mention it on purpose did you?
I personally don't like it, but I left it out because I know a lot of people do and I understand why.
They Live is a meme movie. It's fine if you like it, I like it too, but it's a fucking retarded movie, and to use it as an accolade for literally unironically the best director in the world is just as retarded.
Exactly. It was without a doubt his magnum opus, and he knew it. Then it got shat on by every critic and viewer ever. It must have destroyed him.
At least now people can appreciate it. I hope that means something to him. ;_;
It died right away
Eh, Big Trouble in Little China, They Live, and Assault on Precinct 13 are all worth a watch because they're more imaginative than your average Hollywood movie.
Escape From New York is also up there with Halloween and In the Mouth of Madness. The Thing stands alone as possibly the greatest horror AND greatest Sci-Fi movie of all-time.
The reality is that he hasn't made a movie worth seeing in more than 20 years though. Shit sucks.
He lost his touch for whatever reason.
>one side is white
>one side is black
>Mac is cornered like at the end of his chess game
>shown in the past, when he fried the circuits, that he will cheat to lose
I see you watch Rob Ager's videos too.
>instead of ambiguities and movies that take patience to build a sense of being
This is the real crux of it I feel. I'm not going to pretend ALL movies back in the day were fantastic, but they weren't afraid of letting things simmer. But nowadays if you let things go slow for too long the audience is turned off. Youtube, the internet as a whole has been a large contributor to this.
I actually like Ghosts of Mars and Vampires
John Carpenter movies were ALWAYS shitty you fucking retards
his lack of pretentiousness is part of what makes them good
yeah, his earlier classic movies had some more inventiveness or creativity in them but his later stuff isn't any worse than something like The Fog or Assault on Precinct 13 which are entertaining but unspectacular. Thats like his later shit. Entertaining but unspectacular. Nothing wrong with em.
He probably had zero money to work with after They Live anyways so you can't blame him for his output.
You're preaching to the choir mate. I dig all his movies I just think he could've been really great if The Thing was received differently. Though maybe it would've given him a big ego like Shyamalan, who knows.
>Though maybe it would've given him a big ego like Shyamalan, who knows.
I don't think so. Carpenter is far too grounded and workmanlike to be influenced by his ego. If his movies were received better, he'd simply have made more movies with less constrained budgets.
It's weird that my two favorite horror movies are basically the same story but with the sexes reversed.
>paranoia and monsters in the expanse of a cabin isolated in Antarctica
>paranoia and monsters in the claustrophobia of a cave deep underground
it was from a few years ago, i don't remembrer much from it except for the part where he stated that he was just enjoying his free time playing video games and not doing much else
I'd much rather play a John Carpenter horror game.
He's said multiple times he would love to make a game, and he's been gaming longer than most people on this board have even been alive. I think it would turn out pretty great.
It was alright. The main problem it had was that it just wasn't... original enough. It didn't do enough with the concept. Compared to like, the Evil Dead sequelboot with the cute girl actually did some (arguably) new things with the premise.
The Thing prequel was just kind of a waste. Maybe studio interference or something? I know they built TONS of actual physical props for it, only to use CG for every goddamn thing at the end.
>The organism is inherently selfish, and would betray other assimilated organisms to attain its goals.
I don't think it's selfish since all assimilated organisms are really just pieces of one whole. Yes it will sacrifice assimilated pieces, but only to protect the greater whole by causing diversions or drawing attention away from its main self.
That's pretty much what he's done his whole career.
For awhile after Kojima left I as hoping they might hand the Silent Hill project over to John Carpenter. It would have been even better.
Yeah, but add his name to it and you'll already grab big interest.
Say Carpenter was a writer and let him compose a song. It could work depending on if he has good ideas left in him.
Yeah I get that.
They had a lot of physical props? Maybe the movie would have looked a bit better with those physical ones. But I do have to admit despite its' flaws the movie did give me the same type of scare that the original thing did, just not to the same degree unfortunately.
>I don't think it's selfish since all assimilated organisms are really just pieces of one whole
Wrong. Each piece has it's own independent survival instinct. MacReady-thing had a better chance of making it out of the quarantine area, and allowing a human to witness it's aiding the other organism's destruction ensures no suspicion will be raised toward it. They are not a hive mind.
This. Plus it has all the characteristics of a movie that neckbeard hipster faggots end up praising, in addition to being old. Every movie made around that time period is considered the best thing ever by the people here.
>which makes it clear it's one organism that can split itself at will but still only has one mind
No read the John Campbell story. Even in the MOVIE, even piece was an individual which its own instinct for survival. That's why Norris head fled the other section of the body. It's supposed to be a highly selfish organism.
> Krager attempts to add to the thread
> anon talks shit and wastes everyone's time
You sound pretty faggy to me, anon.
> calls Krager a newfag
> doesn't know Krager's been posting for a while now.
Lurk moar or kill yourself, you underaged faggot.
I can see why it was blasted by critics personally. The characters are not deep or interesting. You are given no real reason to care about them and a lot of assumptions are made by the characters that can be supported.
However Critics have come to realize (mostly) they could not see the forest for the trees. They were looking too much at specifics that are usually important that they failed to observe the movie as a whole.
As a whole it is an execellent suspense movie that works as a psychological thriller and monster movie. Also though the characters are not deep they are well acted and you don't automatically need deep characters to tell a good story.
>bros, something has infiltrated our tight knit group and is making our former friends hostile
>doesn't even need an alien for them to turn on each other
>goddamnit, you sluts can't find your own man!