Was The Thing's panning upon release the beginning of John Carpenters disillusionment with the films industry?

Was The Thing's panning upon release the beginning of John Carpenters disillusionment with the films industry?

Attached: DJ9Kg5aWAAIBshR.jpg (800x1200, 171.6K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=GA4Ozqt7338
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

yes

I like it how it took two decades for this piece of shit to be ironically hip

it makes for a good board game

I didn't know it was panned. Great movie.

What was the smallest the Thing could be and still infect others? Could it exist in a tiny insect?

That's the way he tells it. Honestly, I think the real issue is that it revealed his limitations.

I heard somewhere that ET fucked it over. People just spent time watching a movie about a lovable little alien man, they didn't want to see a horrifying one.

critics were retarded back then, just as they are now

That was exactly it.
I remember hearing him say it in a documentary or some interview.
ET came first and it fucked him over big time. He underestimated the impact it would have. People did not want an unstoppable alien entity, they wanted a loveable creature.

It managed to flee as tiny drops of blood during the test but without enough mass it couldn't think very well.
I'd imagine some of it's structure has to at least simulate a brain for higher function beyond fight or flee, it could only construct it's spaceship as a human.

to me the thing is more lovable, when you it assimilate you you will never be never alone.
a tale of true friendship.

Attached: kawaji thing.jpg (450x450, 118.79K)

You perspective is too deep for the masses.
ET GO HOME - BRAVO SPIELBERG

Casting people who could act might have helped.

Love Carpenter. Love The Thing. But my god in most of his interviews he comes across as a totally miserable and bitter bastard. Completely ungrateful that he has multiple films considered all out classics. MANY fans all over the world. Will always be considered one of if not the greatest horror director of all time. Earned enough of a living from doing a dream job that he didn't have to get a year round 9-5 grind job. Yes the studios dicked him a round a bit. Yes several of his movies didn't get the credit they deserved upon release. Boo hoo. It's like he's butthurt that he never got paid super ridiculous money to churn out super high budget tripe or something. Oh no. You didn't get the chance to sell out completely. Woe is you John. Like I said I love the guy but he seems really ungrateful for the quality of life he has been afforded and the creative opportunities he's had.

Yeah, as a dog it could hide itself but but lacked the intelligence to be really tricky until it had infected a human, it gave the game away when locked in with other dogs, if it had just waited everyone would be assimilated.

He's bitter at David Cronenberg too, basically because Cronenberg escaped the genre ghetto and he didn't. That said, I'd be bitter if I made a masterpiece like Memoirs of an Invisible Man, unironically the best film ever made using that concept, and then people condemned it for not being cliched enough to pigeonhole. Best thing Chevy Chase ever did, too.

This is a great description of Wes Craven, but for some reason you call him John Carpenter throughout, weird.

is Childs The Thing ?
youtube.com/watch?v=GA4Ozqt7338

>Completely ungrateful that he has multiple films considered all out classics
That doesn't give him money.

Licensing them all to get shittily remade probably brought him in a few bob though, didn't it?

No.

Contrarian faggot

I was a true hive mind

It needed to be the best film he had ever made, and it wasn't because his taciturn/existential/abstracted Hawksianisms don't suit the situation or the scale. Hawks' own The Thing was far more lively. It would probably have been better if he had made some other large-scale films first, but as it is you have his very condensed, dry aesthetic personality spread over too lavish a production. It's not bad, but it's not a masterpiece; the immoderate praise it gets is probably down to people feeling that Carpenter got a raw deal somehow.

Craven wasn't bitter and cynical in every interview. The guy seemed truly happy for his life.

He needed his cunt pissed in.

I dunno, ask him you faggot

He made PLENTY of money. The man hasn't made a film in almost 20 years and didn't have to get a proper job. He's rich. By rich I mean he probably "only" has like 2-10 million in his bank account. He seems bitter that he doesn't have like a 100 plus million. Again boo fucking hoo. It's like dude you're John Carpenter. You're loved. You're rich. Rightfully so. Enjoy your life and maybe don't be a bitter abrasive fuck in every interview.

Or perhaps it's praised because people like it you fucking tryhard. Whether his philosophy or tributes "fit the scale" or whatever the hell your babbling about is true or not the film is insanely ATMOSPHERIC and stylish and ripe with an air of paranoia and dread. If you can't appreciate it for the atmosphere alone then I don't know what to tell you. Keep being a pretentious contrarian though.

Grow the fuck up kid, your hysteria is effeminate.

let's be honest, without the screenplay that movie would be nowhere near as good as it actually is. what I dislike about The Thing is shit that I bet John Carpenter shoehorned in

>what I dislike about The Thing is shit that I bet John Carpenter shoehorned in
Such as? I don't disagree necessarily, but what are some examples?

desu they're very small issues. like the Norwegians at the start with the pipe bomb, that's almost slapstick. there was a better way of handling that without making it look like a Laurel and Hardy sketch. then again, the soundtrack was very good and has aged well, so there's that

So did the thing always automatically knew who else was infected?