5 Reasons The John Carpenter Thing Is Better Than The 2011 Prequel

The thing, de John Carpenter, was released in 1982 to a poor reception, but has since been revered as a cult classic, ranking among some of the best-known and best horror films. However, as some may not recall, a prequel (confusingly also titled The thing) premiered in 2011. Although this prequel also received a poor reception, it has definitely not become a cult classic, and many people have forgotten or decided to ignore its existence.

From the characters, the soundtrack, and much more, there are a number of reasons why Carpenter’s original film is better regarded than its prequel. And while some may enjoy the prequel, most will agree that it lacks the storytelling level and emotional punch of the first film. The director of the prequel, Matthijs van Heijningen Jr., decided not only to make the story lead directly to the events of the original, but also made many events closely resemble Carpenter’s story, making both films easily comparable. .

The 1982 thing stands out for the development of the characters

In the prequel, however, Mary Elizabeth Winstead takes center stage as paleontologist Kate Lloyd. Although Kate isn’t necessarily a bad lead, she’s slower in action than MacReady and lacks any real defining traits other than being smart. And although some of the secondary characters stand out more than others, it is clear who is expendable and will be the first to go, unlike the original, where each character has its utility.

The John Carpenter thing surprises with practical effects, not CGI

The Thing of Carpenter is famous for her incredible use of practical effects. He uses almost every trick in the book, from stop motion, using reverse images, puppets, and even hiring an amputee with both arms missing for when the doctor is attacked. Some consider that The thing it’s the pinnacle of practical effects, so the prequel suffers even more from using too much CGI for the monster. Although some of the CGI works, many of them make the monster appear much more ridiculous and unrealistic. And to top it off, many members of the production team have said that they used well-made practical effects during filming, but decided to replace them with CGI during post-production to attract more audiences, which was clearly unsuccessful.

The Thing prequel shows too much creature

Continuing with the different use of effects, another aspect of why the original works better is the treatment of the creature. MacReady insists on saying that it will only reveal itself when it has an advantage or is vulnerable, so the creature is rarely seen. This increases the paranoia and tension and makes the big reveal even more shocking. However, in the prequel, the creature has no problem not only revealing itself, but chasing people around the base in full view. While this works with many monsters from traditional movies, making it The thing What was so special was that the public never knew where he was.

The thing, from 1982, has a suspenseful scoreThe end of The Thing perfectly punctuates Carpenter’s film

One thing the prequel does well is continuity. The ending leads straight to the original movie, with all the characters and props in the right place where they should be. While this is somewhat satisfying, the ending has the same problem as many prequels: there is no surprise as to what happens to the characters. The public already knows who dies, who does not survive and where the creature is. Therefore, the horror and satisfying ending of the original comes from the fact that there are no clear answers. There are two characters left, without knowing if one of them is the creature and if it even comes out alive … and that’s when the credits roll. Until his last moments, The thing by Carpenter maintains the feeling of distrust and paranoia, establishing it as a classic of terror.

Many Thanks To The following Website For This Valuable Content.
5 Reasons The John Carpenter Thing Is Better Than The 2011 Prequel