David’s Comments (group member since Jan 29, 2012)

David’s comments from the Q&A with David Warren group.

I haven't actually watched the Scream Awards in years. It's no longer horror? That stinks... But I agree 100% with what you said. Why can't there be a horror movie that is just an awesome flick? Why does it have to have some kind of meaning?

Anyway, last night my wife and I watched the prequel to John Carpernter's The Thing and really enjoyed it. We originally saw it in the theaters and then bought it last night on Blu-Ray.

There's been a lot of talk about Carpenter's film not being "the original." We are all aware of the 1951 film. However, the 1951 version has almost nothing to do with the novel with which it is supposedly based on (Who Goes There?)whereas the '82 version stays overall faithful to the book.

So, in the context of this film being a prequel to Carpenter's film and NOT the '51 film, it does indeed make Carpenter's "the original."

When Kurt Russell discovers the base in the '82 version, it is in shambles and deformed, burnt bodies are found. (As well as one human body) The creator's job of the new film is to paint the picture of what actally happened at that base before Kurt arrived.

One can see that they took extreme care to try and recreate the scene to be as close as it could be to the '82 version. From the room "The Thing" was stored in to the axe in the door to the obvious ending, everything was explained at least to my satisfaction.

Was it perfect? No. A little too much CGI? Maybe. Did they do a great job? Yes. Any normal fan of the '82 version should enjoy this as well.

Agree? Disagree? What do you think?

The horror genre in my opinion is often underrated. They even have their own awards show (Scream Awards) since they rarely make the Academy Awards. Critics I feel are also quick to trash a horror movie. There are exceptions of course, but overall I think that the horror genre is looked at as the red-headed stepchild of genres. I hope that I am helping to change that!