From: psperson@old.netcom.invalid   
      
   On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 08:22:10 -0700 (PDT), Mark Leeper   
    wrote:   
      
   >June 25 is the fortieth anniversary of the release of JOHN   
   >CARPENTER'S THE THING (not to be confused with THE THING FROM   
   >ANOTHER WORLd (1951) or THE THING (2011)).  Given that it is forty   
   >years old, and based on a story that is about seventy-five years   
   >old, THERE WILL BE SPOILERS!  Briefly, this is a logic puzzle mixed   
   >with an alien invasion story.   
   >   
   >I started by saying, "My reaction to the opening of this film was   
   >different from other people's. This film is based on "Who Goes   
   >There?" by John W. Campbell, Jr., opens with a helicopter chasing a   
   >dog across a large snowy field.  Now I generally like dogs and with   
   >this one my usual reaction would have been rooting for the dog but   
   >being very familiar with the story, my reaction was "Get that   
   >sucker!"   
      
   It lost points with me at that point and kept going downhill.   
      
   Note that I /really/ like the original!   
      
   >For that matter, the Norwegian spoken by the pilot at the beginning   
   >of the film gives away the plot, shouting that the dog isn't really   
   >a dog, it's some sort of thing imitating a dog.   
   >   
   >While this was not exactly John Carpenter's breakthrough film--it   
   >came after after DARK STAR, ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13, HALLOWEEN, and   
   >ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK--but it may well be his best film.  However,   
   >it was a commercial and critical flop at the time, and only over   
   >the years has its gained the stature that it has.  (It scores 8.2   
   >out of 10 on the IMDB, and 83% on Rotten Tomatoes.)   
   >   
   >The original story, and the first movie, were set in the Arctic,   
   >but this movie is moved to Antarctica.  When the story was written,   
   >and the first movie made, permanent bases were fairly common in the   
   >Arctic, but not in Antarctica.  Moving it to Antarctica gives it   
   >some hints of H. P. Lovecraft and the Elder Gods.   
      
   I suppose it might. It didn't matter to me, one way or the other.   
      
   I said I really liked the original, I never said a new version   
   couldn't change the location, pointless as that might be.   
      
   Snow, after all, is /snow/, whether Arctic or Antarctic, so the   
   scenery is the same.   
      
   >It might help one's understanding of the film if one can remember   
   >what characters had what names, but personally I have never found   
   >anyone who could keep the characters straight.  Is that perhaps to   
   >emphasize how they are all part of a Protean entity with no   
   >permanent individuality?   
      
   Or is it because the filmmakers had no  understanding of the use of   
   makeup and characterization to distinguish the characters?   
      
   I had the same problem with one of the earlier Avengers movies -- we   
   saw five or six male Avengers (plus one or two females), but they were   
   not in uniform, and I couldn't tell one from another.   
      
   >Jed the dog deserves an acting award.  I'm serious about that.   
   >This dog is better than Boris Karloff at appearing menacing and   
   >also mysterious.  And he never looked at the camera, the dolly, or   
   >the crew (which is a common acting animal problem).   
      
   Take a look at the trailer to the 1934 /The Black Cat/ and consider   
   how it uses Karloff to inspire awe and fear in the audience -- by   
   showing him sitting up in bed.   
      
   Can the dog do that? I suspect not.   
      
   Also, just because none of the /footage/ shows the dog looking at the   
   camera, the dolly, or the crew doesn't mean he/she didn't do so. It   
   just means they managed to piece together enough of his takes to avoid   
   the problem.   
      
   You are right about animal actors, though. The DVD of /Brotherhood of   
   the Wolf/ has a short film which includes footage showing what they   
   went through to get a lamb to do what they wanted rather than what it   
   wanted. Nothing dangerous; they just wanted to shoot it browsing in a   
   specific location. A lot of coaxing was required, as it had other   
   ideas.   
      
   >Here you have a base made up mostly of scientists, and the only one   
   >really thinking is the helicopter pilot?  (In the original movie   
   >it's the airplane pilot and the secretary.  There seems to be some   
   >implication that she has some scientific position, but we see her   
   >typing, making coffee, and doing other non-scientific stuff.)   
      
   She also takes his notes for him, which would require a certain   
   familiarity with scientific terminology, if only to be able to spell   
   the words he uses. And trusted to keep any sensitive information   
   private. Then again, she could be a grad student, who can say?   
      
   >Childs (Keith David)'s voice may be familiar, since he has narrated   
   >many PBS documentaries.  Other than Ken Russell and Wilford   
   >Brimley, though, there are not a lot of familiar faces (which may   
   >be why it's hard to keep the characters straight).   
   >   
   >Rating: +3 (-4 to +4), or 9/10.   
   --   
   "I begin to envy Petronius."   
   "I have envied him long since."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)