Discuss: Norwegians in 'The Thing' Prequel? Not So Fast
Filed under: Classics, Horror, Mystery & Suspense, Universal, Remakes and Sequels
"Wwwwwwwwait a Second! There's no NORWEGIANS in the CAMPBELL story!!" That's what I thought (and what Scott Weinberg put into words for me) when I clicked through Monika's mention of the planned new version of The Thing and read the article in Variety. Here's why: I hate it when filmmakers are (apparently) unfamiliar with the story they're basing their film on.
The sentence that made my eyes bug out? "New project borrows heavily from the John W. Campbell Jr. short story 'Who Goes There,' the basis of the [John] Carpenter film and 1951 Howard Hawks original The Thing From Another World. It is set in a Norwegian camp and chronicles how the shape-shifting alien was first discovered and overcame the inhabitants of that camp."
WRONG WRONG WRONG! I dug out my copy of the story, originally published in 1938, and read it again, just to make sure. There is no Norwegian camp in the story. It starts with the discovery of the alien -- referred to constantly as "the thing" -- in an Antarctic scientific camp, flashes back to reveal how it was discovered, and then follows the horror of what happens when the creature is thawed after 20 million years frozen in the ice.
The first version in 1951 sent a military unit to the Arctic base (flipping the world upside down), added a reporter plus a woman scientist to the mix as a love interest, and made the nightmarish creature from Campbell's story ("three red eyes, and that blue hair like crawling worms") into a humanoid played by James Arness (the future Marshall Dillon of TV's Gunsmoke). It was a fast-paced, black and white suspenser that worked quite well, thanks, no doubt, to producer Howard Hawks.
Carpenter's version, with a script by Bill Lancaster (The Bad News Bears), junked the love interest, junked the soldiers, junked the reporter, and stuck much, much closer to Campbell's original story. The story's setting returned to the South Pole. The alien is decidedly non-humanoid and a shape shifter, much as described in the story, albeit with one crucial element that was left out of the movie. (Carpenter's film also left out the cows, reduced the size of the camp from 37 men to 12, invented several episodes, and changed the ending.) The 1982 edition was filled with considerable explicit gore and profanity, yes, but it was also brimming with tension, excitement, and awesome physical effects. And to the point at hand: Carpenter's film added the Norwegians.
Variety may well have based their story on information provided by Universal Studios or the production company, Strike Entertainment. But scripter Ronald Moore cannot 'borrow heavily' from Campbell's story to write a prequel, because that story was not a part of the original; it exists entirely within the script by Bill Lancaster for John Carpenter's The Thing in 1982. And the fact that the filmmakers may not have even read the story they say they're basing their film on is highly disturbing to me, especially when that story was chosen by the members of the Science Fiction Writers of America as one of the greatest science fiction novellas of all time.
But I'm sensitive like that. How about you?
Black Friday Movie Deals: Best Buy
Sex and Nudity Don't Draw You to the Movies?
What Makes a Real Vampire?
Robert Downey Jr. Wants to Retire?
Jaycee Dugard's Horrific Story to Get a Sleazy Adaptation
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1-29-2009 @ 11:05PM
Mr. R said...
Well name it a prequel to Carpenter's The Thing instead of the novel then. I think Norway is getting its head on for new scary films like Let The Right one In, this might be fun, give them a chance and don't be so Trekkie about this whole thing. It would make good cinematic sense to find out who that crazy guy with the goggles is. Lighten up.
Reply
1-30-2009 @ 9:18AM
finishdish said...
Mr is dead right. I want to see the story of the crazy guy with the goggles. A great observation.
I'm now going to call Carpenter's version "The Crazy Guy with the Giant Hat". Nice. I guess he would be on the poster for this new version?
All things Thing.
1-29-2009 @ 11:30PM
Dan said...
I am pretty offended and enraged beyond words that they would even screw with the formula of The Thing AT ALL. I don't give a shit if it's a remake, sequel, prequel....I hope it crashes and burns. The Thing is my favorite horror movie of all time, and it need not be fucked with in any way, shape, or form. I read the article, and the dude whose making it sounds like he is solid, but goddamnit, why can't anybody come up with any original ideas anymore? Hollywood really needs to get their heads out of their asses and stop "re-imagining" movies that do not need any damn re-imagination!
Reply
1-30-2009 @ 7:19AM
j said...
What he said /|\
1-30-2009 @ 3:05AM
Peter Hall said...
There was a Fango issue a year or so ago about The Abandoned. I distinctly remember Nacho Cerda mentioning that Universal had called him about taking over a few properties, the only one of which was of interest being The Thing reboot. I remember him saying he would be interested if they began with the Norwegians finding the dig and climaxed with the opening dog-chase scene of Carpenter's masterpiece.
Now a Nacho Cerda directed, Ronald D. Moore scripted The Thing entirely from the perspective of the Norwegians is something I would be very, very, very interested in. As it stands, I'm still interested because of the brilliant Moore's involvement. I would be stunned to learn he hasn't read the original story to the point of memorization. I bet the confusion is purely in the PR department.
Though considering Cerda was interested contingent on the Norwegian camp angle and that Cerda is not directing...well, I bet the studio runs with the silly brother mumbojumbo. Oh well. John Carpenter's The Thing is still my favorite horror movie of all time. A new one won't change that one bit.
Reply
1-30-2009 @ 9:12AM
finishdish said...
Dear Book Readers,
The description consists of two sentences. These two sentences next to each other, do not automatically (or AUTOMATICALLY as the article Mmmmmmmmmmight State)... conflict.
The new movie CAN borrow heavily from the book, AND be set in a Norwegian camp. At the same time. Simultaneously. And that's how it should be.
"New project borrows heavily from the John W. Campbell Jr. short story 'Who Goes There,' the basis of the [John] Carpenter film and 1951 Howard Hawks original The Thing From Another World. It is set in a Norwegian camp and chronicles how the shape-shifting alien was first discovered and overcame the inhabitants of that camp."
Yep. No problem.
Also, a prequel to The Thing (which as we all know is a sequel to The Thing) is not a "re-boot" of The Thing.
Is the movie intended to book-end the Carpenter's film? It would seem. I would hope. Please do. Are they replacing Macready with a Norwegian? Maybe a third sentence will explain that.
Who would rather this project not be attempted? Haven't you wondered how things unfolded at the Norwegian camp?
BTW
http://www.outpost31.com/todd/stewart2009.html
Shame on you. All thing Thing!
Reply
1-30-2009 @ 9:25AM
Kevin said...
Hey, how rough is this movie in the gore department? They put it up on Hulu.com a while back, and was thinking about watching it at work (don't ask me how, but my job has a llliitttllleeee bit of free time available every day) but I don't want to throw something up on my computer screen that might make a coworker throw up if they catch a glimpse. And I know, feel free to bombard me with insults for never having seen it in the first place. I never really liked horror movies until recently, so I've got a lot of making up to do in the genre; I've never seen the original Friday the 13th or NoES either, and I grew up in the 80's...for shame :(
Reply
1-30-2009 @ 10:50AM
ML said...
Judging from the Variety mini-article, it's hard to tell what exactly they have in mind and whether or not they have read the original story. I was disappointed that Carpenter found it necessary to pay homage to The Thing (which, frankly, I always thought was over-rated and bore nearly no resemblance to the story it was supposedly based upon other than being set in the Antarctic), but that is certainly his prerogative! I would rather see (finally) a remake based entirely upon the original story without any baggage tying it to the original version. ... But then, I think the original story was pretty good and only needs a couple of minor updates to become a pretty great film.
Reply
3-09-2009 @ 8:32PM
wade ogletree said...
I'm left wondering, as I often am with blogs, if the writer's tirade is real or just "good copy".
It's a prequel to the Carpenter film, set in the Norwegian camp...that's a given. In how to develop it from there, they turn to "Who Goes There" looking for more original tidbits that perhaps were overlooked in the other movies.
Wrong? Wrong? Wrong?
I don't think so.
Wade
Reply