The CineFiles: John Carpenter's The Thing Vs The Thing (2011)
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 01. 2012
- A comparison between JOHN CARPENTER'S THE THING and the recent THING prequel. Taken very seriously within a format ripped off from Charlie Rose.
- Krátké a kreslené filmy
Anyone else catch that meaty fart at 6:01
yes
@@krustylesponge6250 Damn! you picked up on something that 'lingered' for 4 years! i've met some intelligent people before....but YOU sir....are a 'fart-smeller!
I still have hope at somepoint John Carpenter will decide to make a sequel to this film The Thing ..he has to know how many of his fans both young and old still love/support this film would love see a sequel as well and a proper prequel
I'm 99% sure that ain't happening. John hasnt made a movie in a long time he says he likes just chilling now adays and he's made like 1 sequel to a movie he's done
One of the strengths of the 1982 Thing was the all-male cast. I love women, but adding a female character would have changed the entire dynamic of the film.
AIDS wasn't really an issue until a couple of years after Carpenter's The Thing was released.
Did you just make that up? Where did you hear that from? I have never heard John Carpenter say that.
Craig Zimmerman well, there was the female computer voice but, she didn't last long!
The Primordial no,because the story the film based on had all male characters
Which makes sense because it was written in the 1930's
Carpener's The Thing is the greatest horror film ever made
It has a special significance for me since the subject is one of only two movie "monsters", if that's the appropriate term, that ever gave me nightmares (the other being Godzilla, and I was a kid then). It's the only movie I ever memorized every line of.
Yep! The absolute best!
That's hard to say because horror movies all have different jandras vampire zombie werewolf you could almost but the first thing as a thriller 😉
John Carpenter's use of foreshadowing works perfectly in The Thing. When the movie started, we learn that Macready loved to play chess and we see that he hates to lose, even destroying his own computer in a kamikaze move, which is mirrored excellently in his encounter with The Thing.
The movie at it's core boiled down to a chess match between Macready and The Thing and when it seemed he might lose Macready's kamikaze nature to win at all costs comes once again to the forefront.
I just found you guys. love the content!!!! I can watch this all day! good job guys!!!
The nosering. I thought I was the only one who noticed that. Outpost31 a very good fan site, did confirm to me back in 2003, that it was a fraternity thing. You can clearly see it in the blood bag scene where they are accusing each other for destroying them.
I miss this show.
agreed
Yup, the original Cinefiles line up (Edwin, Eric, Michael and Jeff) was one of the best review/discussion shows about cinema on CZcams.
The problem they ran into was that they simply didn't film enough content on frequent basis specifically for youtube. I remember I was subscribed years ago and it would sometimes be months without an upload and I just kinda forgot the show existed. I think they should've really prioritized making videos specifically for youtube instead of doing the cable access show or whatever they did and porting the footage to youtube.
Christian James
The show is still being made. Eric Cohen has replaced Edwin Samuelson as anchorman and Mike and Jeff are still regulars. I can't remember which website they're hosted on (it might be Thisisinfamous, or it could have changed again), but if you look up Eric on Facebook I'm sure you'll get a like. I do miss Edwin a lot though.
Numinous20111 Yeah they still do the show, but it's not the same anymore. You can really tell Edwin was kinda the brains behind choosing the topics and setting everything up. They could've been way bigger, especially since they started at the beginning of CZcams, but I think they simply needed more guidance.
LOVE LOVE LOVE!!!.. YOU mentioned Twinkle Twinkle Killer Cane!!!
Ninth Configuration is one of the most underrated films!!! Great picture!
i need to get my hands on that four issued comic series, sounds badass
It kinda sucks
At 6:14 Had to add my two cents here. Big fan of John Carpenter's The Thing and Thing From Another World. But since this is a prequel, you could argue that since this is the first interaction the creature has with humans, it will make mistakes and that by the time it entered MacReady's camp that it had learned that humans are very paranoid and to use that paranoia against them, hence, the more guarded stealth. Great show, you guys!
The cine files deserves a lot more views than it gets
Many thanks. Hope to continue cranking out new episodes for a while.
Thank you for the flashback to the james Bond episode. I would have had to watch the whole damn thing myself to find that clip.
Apparently the original ending suggested that the alien spacecraft was basically invaded by the shapeshifting virus and that's what caused it to crash land on Earth. The creature killing the humans is NOT what was piloting the ship. But the almighty studio deemed it "too confusing." That ending and being allowed to keep the practical effects and I think we'd have a very different opinion of this movie.
Great analysis guys...I am glad to see someone else loves films as much. Kudos!
Carpenter's monster had CHARACTER; a kind of proxy dynamic made through the characters, whereas the prequel had characters you'd find in your box of cereal
I would have liked some discussion of the 50's film, but I understand how you framed the discussion. Just would have liked to know what you guys thought of it and whether that kind of approach would / could be used now.
lol, why are you guys hanging out with each other? the dude in the hat was obviously presenting. but make sure to interrupt him every 3 seconds after he starts talking. Ever heard of depositing after agreeing? Your "friends" are extremely rude.
Introgauge .C haha its like they wait for him to start and give him zero chance of finishing sentence , you can here him frustrated, just cut him dead constantly
All these years I've been thinking the same thing
Yeah check from 8:56 constant one sided interruptions
My only point is: just like in Alien, there are 2 CREATURES. The first is the actual alien who flew the spacecraft, the 2nd is the Thing, which in essence, is a virus the 1st alien is infected with.
***** Yeah, but now someone brought up the fact that (Wilfred Brimley) was building a spaceship underground in the movie, and how do I reconcile that? Perhaps, the Thing keeps the memories of any creature it already infected? IDK.
Yes, that's the case. But because of that, you have to assume that the creature possesses a great deal of knowledge and intelligence. It's absolutely ruthless and violent when threatened, but that's a matter of survival. Part of what makes it so scary is that combination of sophistication and savagery. In the new version, it was more like just a rabid animal or something.
12:48 FYI Stan Winston was brought in to work on the the thing dog kennel scene. Because Rob Bottin was really swamped with working on the film at that time, cool little fact.
@92Tribeca I do my best, but I admit there's always room for improvement. I do appreciate you giving some credit. I do hope you understand why I was upset by your initial comments as you made it seem like I brought nothing to the show. BTW, are you affiliated with the 92Y in Tribeca?
Also, in regards to hearing the scream when the chick torches the guy at the end; There is absolutely a scream, both the high pitched squeal and a lower pitched roar. In fact, if you look closely you'll see there are tendrils coming off the guys chest as he thrashes around on fire.
Hello cinefiles! I got t a new CZcams account and had to say I love your program. Keep the shows coming.
@snake2006 Yeah, there were scenes in the sequel that were cut implying Lars was accident prone, hence the dropped grenade.
Part of some of the stuff the ass producers changed at the end featured another alien that was the pilot in the ship. It was covered up with the dumb big pixels effect. The pilot had collected specimens, including the Thing which escaped in the crash.
You mentioned something about it being implied that the thing flew the spaceship. Originally, there was another entity on the ship. Studio ADI, who reased footage of their practical effects after the movie was CGI'd over, show finished models of an alien entity designed for the ship scenes which never made it to the final film. This would have sewn up the problems you point out, but someone thought it was best left out.
Good review. The John Carpenter film was about subtlety, the prequel was a borderline action flick. And I don't think there should have been any women in it, because one of them would simply be destined to survive or be a cliche heroine, which was the case. You kinda had a better idea of who might have been infected and who wasn't. In the 82 version I had no clue who was infected until they were exposed, and like these guys mentioned, I was so fond of every character and wanted them to outwit and win against the alien.
Sharing this one on my facebook. Greetings from Sweden!
Plus, nobody knows what the Thing really looks like. We see what it is in this movie, but it could have imitated a million life forms throughout its existence, so its current form could merely be the most recent lifeform that it imitated.
It's likely a mutant virus that ate its way up the food chain. It probably has no real form but what it borrowed on it's way up the evolutionary ladder.
Chris Duncan it was actually a single-celled organism that takes over the cells of the creature that it is exposed to.
Chris Duncan There's a movie also like that called Blood Glacier. Its not in English, but its a fantastic movie. A weird ending though, but really good.
why is there so much hate here? Thanks for all your efforts guys and yes Edwin I do watch every single one of these. Again - THANK YOU
Great talk guys. I agree with almost everything especially the CGI. What about a new Night stalker? Any thoughts? :-)
It was Ed Flanders in "The Ninth Configuration," not Richard Dysart. Although, interestingly, Richard Dysart was the coach in the original stage cast of "That Championship Season" written by Jason Miller, who was Father Karras in "The Exorcist" which was written by William Peter Blatty who also wrote...drumroll......."The Ninth Configuration!" Sadly all three of those actors are no longer with us. Dysart just passed away less than a year ago.
Many thanks. I would recommend making a request on the FB discussion page if you would like us to cover it.
that's what i like to believe. when the thing first thaws out, it probably doesn't know where it's at or anything. so it is confused and surrounded by people, so it either has to fight or flight. it chooses to fight, and when it realizes that that doesn't work to well it then chooses flight (hiding).
The 2011 film also left out a lot of the subtext, both on religion and McCarthyism, from the Carpenter film. You guys are right, the more recent film is just a mindless monster movie, whereas, Carpenter's film is a puzzle that no one, to this day, has been able to piece together, perfectly.
It most certainly is not just a "mindless monster movie"
Turn on the SyFy channel for comparison.
srty srtyy if that film didn't have the coattails of the Carpenter film to ride on, it would've been a SyFy channel monster movie.
I've heard some speculation that the thing is such a rampaging monster in the prequel because this was the first time it had ever encountered humans and didn't think of them as much of a challenge. By the end of the prequel, it had learned that humans were much more dangerous than it originally thought so that's why it is much methodical in the Carpenter film.
The original was made in the 1950s. It was called The Thing From Another World.
I like the format of your videos, but I think everyone having a computer to reference information during the conversation would help it a lot.
I'm still a little confused about the creature. Does it absorb its host's memories as well as its DNA and imitate them perfectly, or does it just hide inside the host's body while the host is unaware until the creature transforms them?
@mikerants Was it the dog that had it's head split open? That wasn't that bad and creepy as hell the way it was shaking and then it just exploded it's head outwards like a flower. Very creepy, I was only 16 years old when it came out, so I was impressed. The other effects were also great, but copies of aliens from another world, so it didn't need to look like anything specific. It just needed to look as bizarre as possible.
My theory about why people say in the 2011 version, the creature was a mindless killing machine and in the original it was more sneaky; I believe that in the prequel when it's first thawed its a mindless killing machine and not concerned with being so disguised because on previous worlds and stuff "the thing" never encountered an intelligent and violent species as man and just acted by instinct and maybe thought humans would be easy prey. And even though it was burned at the end of the prequel the cells were still alive and maybe it kind of learned a lesson, because its an intelligent being; so it adapted its way of thinking and decided that being more covert is a better way.
Darn I never actually thought of it that way. You have a good point.
***** It could make sense either way. Let's not forget that intelligent beings have the propensity to make bad decisions. The Thing might be intelligent, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that it wasn't as careful as it should have been when it was first awoken.
srty srtyy "Hahaha, these stupid organisms are still using fossil fuels, this will be easy- THESE FOSSIL FUELS BURN LIKE HELL!"
"Remember that when you look hard and long into the Abyss, the Abyss also looks into you" As a response to Judge rez, it's entirely possible that the thing had not encounted intelligent humanoids or at least, emotional humanoids before. It's host is clearly an influence on it, here and there, if not in form than at least in intelligence. There's nothing to say that when it eats something, and absorbs all those memories and skills, it has no way of defending its consciousness from in part, becoming that victim. In this way, there might have been times when the thing ate a particular creature or infected one and the host's mindset or will was so dominant in the thing's own will that it preferred to identify as the host instead. It's entirely possible the thing didn't want to part itself from Carter, it understood his motivations, it took perhaps some mis-guided liking for the human condition. After beating out the other alien, and with no ship to use, where could it have gone? Sure it could conquer the planet and eat everything, but what would it do after that? Be stuck on a rock out in space? Clearly, some ulterior motivation had replaced the survival narrative. These guys mentioned that the ship might have been a prison craft, sans wards or guards. Would it be fair to say, that the alien after learning enough, had decided it didn't need to go balls to the wall. It could take an extended, though perhaps bloody vacation here on earth. Or perhaps something about Kate had become likable, perhaps it's grown too accustomed to her voice and face, perhaps ever attatched to her emotionally? Who knows..
I'm really surprised you didn't discuss 'The Thing From Another World' and the Carpenter 'The Thing' instead. Didn't Alan Dean Foster's novelisation of the 1982 film have a longer ending between Childs and MacCready? Did Burt Lancaster's son wirte the 1982 screenplay? With 'Prometheus' due in 2012, do you guys think you could be having this same discussion, with the same conclusions, next year. Can you clarify Carpenter and Morricone's working relationship: did Carpenter rework the score?
That dude on the right is really angry. XD
well , i think the creature in the prequel is "a mindless killing monster" is because its still learning , the thing learns from its mistakes
I kind of agree with the original reviews in 1982. I think the admittedly amazing practical effects should have been used more sparingly until the end, because the climax is a bit of a let-down, compared to the blood test scene. I understand that McCready gets the idea for the blood test from the heart attack scene, but it's overkill to have those two scenes follow immediately after each other and it leaves very little left for the final confrontation in the generator room. We also don't get enough of the creepy/eerie scenes like McCready looking at his cabin and saying he left the lights off when he left (which is as unnerving as any explicit gore scene in the film for me), or the simple shot of Childs(?) leaving the station (as seen by Gary).
Kind of a joke review... In the Prequel the monster is killing a lot, yes, but if you actually pay attention, it's not used to imitating yet. Remember, it hasn't been in contact with humans. When they find it it's in it's most primal form in the ice. Then it's brought up. Comes back and starts assimilating. By the end it's learning to blend more. Hence going into the SEQUEL which is the 82 techinically, it's learned to adapt more and be more stealthy to survive. It ALMOST gets away with it at the very end of the 2011. Then going into the next camp. It knows how to preserve more. It wasn't used to the dogs. So that was a mistake on its part. but then with the humans it's had time to adapt to clothing and trying to "Spread". Pretty obvious when you think of it that way
Wesley Lecruidant bro... the thing is literally genetically programmed to be able to imitate, that's a bad excuse
this was the show at its best with just these 3 guys, they bounce of each other well, when ever just one of these guys is missing the show is not as good
Richard Dysart is not in the movie "Twinkle, Twinkle Killer Kane" (aka The Ninth Configuration). I think Michael Foltz is mixing Dysart up with Ed Flanders.
the one thing I noticed is thathe other base they were talking about was outpost 39 which is the us base
New episode, wohoo!
Would the thing keep the originals tattoos, or would that be expelled as well?
Great video, lot of good points.
I for one liked "The Fillings Test", it was meant to only separate anyway, not to find out. Decent enough.
I dont wanna be nitpickin, but in the first issue of The Thing comic-book sequel mentioned, it was a Japanese research ship that
rescues McReady and then something happens with these guerillas and so forth. Cant remember what.
Edwin, great show man. But my man Ed, this comparable is clearly describe old school filmmaking and new filmmaking. The old movies, The Thing, TCM 1974, Predator 1987, they're all memorable, characters we like, feel for. Today movies, are forgetable. The other day Torque came on cable, I totally forgot about this movie, it made me realized 90% of movies from the mid 90's till now are forgetable. You guys MUST do a SHOW on this subject PLEASE!!!!!
anyone know what carpenter thinks to the re-make?
I can't keep watching this train wreck of a discussion. You have one odd guy,sporting a train operators hat/lumberjack outfit.. Nasally voice,etc. Then these other two keep interrupting one another,every single time they speak.
Well said!
3 'uber-nerds'...who keep having to prove..that, they know 'one more fact'..than the guy sitting next to 'em.
The THING is also a Vietnam film. Gary, who was presumably a veteran of precious wars...the situation is beyond his ability..hence his discomfort about dealing with the situation and his reluctance to take charge. Macready, who was presumably a Vietnam vet is able to deal with things better as he’s used to a different type of warfare where an ambush could happen at any time and the rules of conventional warfare have broken down. The enemy amongst us. Are these are allies or are the the Vietcong?
Can we get a 'The Thing vs Alien' film?
i didn't have to much of an issue with the 2011 version, they did use practical effects mixed with cgi..i think it worked fairly well
Your understanding is Correct and Jim O'Neill needs to do more research.
at 16:59 when you guys are talking about the helicopter scene from the prequel and why the monster crashed the plane. Could it also be possible that the Thing was intelligent enough to think that if it didn't kill everyone at the base word of it's existence would get out very quickly resulting in global military forces hunting it down? Then again that's probably reading too much into it considering the screenwriters for the 2011 "The Thing" only skimmed the Spark Notes.
hey heres a thought you guys could do a show about the highlander films
Eric's idea should've been the film, that Russian Base side-quest/infection sounds much better than the ultimate fate of the identikit Norwegians at Thule. Nearly 10-years too late to comment!
Interesting thoughts lads, nice video. Carpenter's The Thing is a classic.
I just noticed the nose ring on blu ray also there's purple blood on the thing that I never noticed until blu ray
You guys MUST do an episode with Patton Oswalt on the panel. Or Joe Pilato. Or both.
I wonder if Stuart Cohen my brother and producer of The Thing has seen this. I found it quite interesting. I have forwarded it to him in Nevada City.
Stan Winston did the transforming dog in the John Carpenter's "The Thing"
I LOVE that you guys love John Carpenter's "The Thing"! I agree: that's one of the most underrated films of all time. You guys pretty much nailed the prequel from 2011. I would be interested in hearing you Cinefiles dudes discuss the original "Thing From Another World" [1951]. I think the original is a fabulous film; also one of the most underrated films of all time. While it lacks Carpenter's paranoia about one's own comrades in a closed environment, the original Thing is a great movie.
yeah you're right. Also there are other examples of intelligence, it acted normal to be on that chopper so it could get to a high populated area, and only exposed itself when it knew something was wrong and they were going to land right back down. When it was aware how smart Kate was it devised a plan to isolate her and attack, with the whole "keys are in the desk" plan. It only went rampaging through the halls after her because by then its cover was blown. The Thing in 2011 was very smart.
I like Erics ideas at 8:18, how about the branched off team come across a burned up Childs and a frozen Macready
@AduneStormwind exactly ,i didnt why those guys in this review dont get that ,i personally like the first half of film ,because of the tension , before it breaks out ,and im guessing but the laid low and infected ppl on the side,because theres no other explanation on who got infected first we knew in the 82 version who got infected first " Norris"...
The original backstory - which the director developed for the film - conceived the Pilot as part of an advanced, space-faring alien race. Following the director’s concept, a scientific crew composed of members of this race collects and classifies various alien lifeforms from different planets across the infinity of the cosmos, storing them inside research pods. Unaware of the oncoming disaster, the crew of extraterrestrials accidentally find the Thing - disguised as another lifeform - which then proceeds to break free of containment, and assimilate both the alien researchers and the specimens they had collected. The last remaining crewmember, the Pilot, severs its own ‘breathing tube’, killing itself, and making the ship crash on purpose, with the intention of killing the Thing. The creature however survives, erupts from the craft and escapes - only to stop a few hundreds of meters away and freeze.
Exactly what was killing itself in a helicopter crash supposed to accomplish?
In the 82 version the alien used noisy tentacle attacks only when it had no hands available to use its noiseless "hand over mouth" attack. There was no reason to resort to a tentacle attack in the "keys are in the desk" plan. I really don't think the 2011 writers understood the 82 film.
The thing is that the all of the aliens on the 2011 are animatronic monsters the only issue is that they painted over them with cgi
The Thing 2011 was good for what it was.
The biggest downside of it was that the studio forced the creators to apply CGI onto the meaty practical effects they had. On top of that, the studio changed the whole spaceship segment at the end of the movie. In the original version Kate finds the original pilot of the spaceship.
cage i also found it to slot into the more experienced thing from the john carpenter movie...it had experience with humans and played people off each other rather than risking its frontal assault like on the Norwegians. it makes more sense that way.
@92Tribeca Actually, one of the reasons, if not the MAIN reason, Jeff is no longer on the Cinefiles is because he felt he didn't get to say enough. Of course, we still love Jeff and value his film opinions THUS he has Unfinished Business. And he loves it rather than trying to figure out when and what to say in the midst of all of us uber-talkative film geeks. Anyway, IF we would get picked up (Saints Preserve Us!), I'd want Jeff back on, for the record.
Yes they did a lot of practical effects I think you can check those out at ADI workshop. They even had a proper Alien at the ending but were forced by the studio to pick a monster. Prequel was basicly just a moneygrab without deeper meanings behind it sadly.
Completely on point.
"Slyness, sneakiness to it..." Yes. This creature definitely had a *mind* and you could tell from the first moment one of the dogs escaped to the US camp. The way it looked out the window in that one scene.
The prequel devolves the creature into one of the mindless alien cliches all too typical of modern alien horror films.
You have to understand that the alien's first encounter with humans is in that prequel. In my opinion the alien evolves throughout the movie and becomes smarter and smarter.
I think as previously stated that the Thing had never encountered humans before, so it didn't know how dangerous it was exposing itself without caution.
It obviously learned from it mistakes so it was more sneaky in John Carpenter's movie, paranoid like the humans if you will.
Something else I liked about the prequel is that you learn more as to why Lars just opened fire at the dog. He was clearly expecting the Thing to continue like it did in the Norwegian base and just attack randomly. However it didn't and went into hiding as a dog, biding its time. The Americans simply thought Lars was insane, gripped by cabin fever or something, which the Thing used to its advantage.
The Thing, transforming has never been a quiet event. That's why it tries to sometimes choose its spots carefully. When it transforms in the kennel in the 82 movie it was not a quiet event at all. Just all the guys were not near the kennel. It was the other dogs going ballistic that caught attention. When it tried to get Kate yeah it made a lot of noise but did anyone hear it? No. Only her escaping and screaming got attention. Even Karl who was only down the hall didn't hear anything
Here's an interesting fact about the way to tell who is who if you are looking inside peoples mouths to see if they have porcelain teeth. What you do is get a UV light, you can tell if someone has real teeth or fake ones, the porcelain teeth will show dark when beside a standard healthy tooth which will show white in compared.
Johnny Rekall accept uv light in 1982 probably wouldn't be available...
The 2011 was not horrible. I am glad a movie was even made to be honest. John Carpenter's The Thing is my favorite film of all time. I honestly did not expect another movie. The game had it's pros and cons as well. It was fun following the 2011 film from announcement to release. Hopefully another one can be made.
For the record, Richard Dysart wasn't in St. Elsewhere or The Ninth Configuration/Twinkle Twinkle Killer Kane; you're thinking of Ed Flanders. In fairness, Flanders and Dysart look pretty strikingly similar.
they should make a seekwill to the movie or a prequel witch shows the origins of the thing
i have 2 questions about the prequel...how do Juliette (Kim Bubbs) and Griggs (Paul Braunstein) get infected...there isn't even a hint of when it happens...unless i'm really off regarding the movie's plot..
Mak Berny juliette is infected right after she leaves the lab when most of the crew are examining the remains of the thing after the first encounter where they burn it under the portable/building.
Mak Berny and Griggs went to get booze on the chopper when they were celebrating in the rec room. The thing must have encountered him right after it escaped the ice block and before they organized the search party.
I think there is lot to be said for the 1950s version. The way they track the alien by its life signs and the fact that there is a strong female character. It was clearly an influence on Aliens
I fell for the Charlie Rose format and laughed with milk coming out of my nose when the host Edwin says "Oh fuk it, we're going to talk about the Thing prequel as well".
Imagine that on the Charlie Rose show for real.
It was sad that the original 'The Thing' was released a few weeks after that soppy block-buster ET film. I mean i liked ET, but have never watched it since........but i have watched 'The Thing' many times over the years. The new prequel film of 'The Thing' is actually pretty good, though i didn't understand it when they started speaking Norwegian.......:)
woah! wait a minute... Childs and MacReady cant be rescued by a submarine because they are in the ANTARCTIC - which is a solid land mass unlike the Arctic where could feasibly happen - and they couldnt have walked to coast because know that its a thousand miles to the coast (or at least a long way).
@cinefiles Watch the commentary and documentary about the 1982 THE THING. Rob Bottin did NOT do all the effects, in fact there were 3 different companies that worked on this film and one was... Stan Winston, so he DID work on the 1982 version.
And Yes, he did say 2 homages was too much in the James Bond thing.
I heard the alien death roar when the girl torched the earring dude.
Enjoyed this discussion and nice to know about the other endin where mac and childs were rescued. Im a big fan of the Carpenter movie and really enjoyed the prequel but think its no way as bad as your makin it out to be. You should review it for what it is and maybe not compare it so much with Carpenters version. Big trouble in little china, The thing and They live are my favorite Carpenter movies and are actually some of my all time favorites. 80s and early 90s for movies will always rule!
it was just trying to survive , thats why it went back to its ship, for the same reason they found blair' s ship in the 82 version..
I wonder if the Thing's ability to change into creatures it absorbs is a genetically engineered trait that allows a space traveler to survive on different planets. By becoming an indigenous lifeform, it is fully capable of surviving in even the most inhospitable environments provided some sort of life exists there. I would imagine human space travelers being just as hostile to aliens they encountered if they felt threatened. And perhaps the numerous shape changes drove it insane.
I don;t think this film went straight to video. I remember watching it in the drive in theater. Also, this was before the advent of home video as a common medium. I would wager that most fans who saw this early watched it on cable, not home video.
I know it's a major nitpick, but it is part of the background of the film. I could be wrong, of course, but in 1982 almost nobody owned a VCR.
You said a remake ? What did you expected to see ? Jamaican on bobsled, Ancient gods of Egypt, Goonies ? It's a prequel !