Horror Movie Podcast Ep. 054: The Thing From Another World (1951) vs. John Carpenter’s The Thing (1982) vs. The Thing (2011)

 Vs The Thing

Who goes there? It appears to be Episode 054 of HORROR MOVIE PODCAST, where we’re Dead Serious About Horror Movies… On this show, we’re bringing you and EPIC “Versus” episode where we review all three version of THE THING. And we’re joined by special guests Kill Bill Kill and Mattroid from The SciFi Podcast (A must-listen!) Join us! Thanks for listening.

CLICK HERE TO MAKE SURE YOUR CITY IS REPRESENTED ON THE HMP T-SHIRTS!

Horror Movie Podcast is now a weekly show that’s released every Friday. If you’d like to support our show, please subscribe to our podcast free in iTunes, and leave us a review! And remember, we love getting your voice mails, so call in with more recommendations and comments at this number: (801) 382-8789 Thanks for listening to Horror Movie Podcast!


SHOW NOTES:

I. Introduction
— Welcome sci-fi guests Kill Bill Kill and Mattroid
Make sure your city is on the HMP Shirt!
— Explanation of this Versus episode


[ 0:11:14 ] II. Feature Review: THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD (1951)
Jay of the Dead = 5 ( Low-priority Rental )
Wolfman Josh = 7 ( Rental )
Dr. Shock = 7.5 ( Rental )
Kill Bill Kill = 7 ( Rental )
Mattroid = 6 ( Low-priority Rental )


[ 1:16:07 ] III. Feature Review: John Carpenter’s THE THING (1982)
Jay of the Dead = 10 ( Buy it! / Masterpiece )
Wolfman Josh = 10 ( Buy it! )
Dr. Shock = 10 ( Buy it! )
Kill Bill Kill = 10 ( Buy it! )
Mattroid = 10 ( Buy it! )


[ 2:28:42 ] IV. Feature Review: THE THING (2011)
Jay of the Dead = 7.5 ( Strong Rental )
Wolfman Josh = 8 ( Buy it!/Give it Secret Kisses )
Dr. Shock = 7 ( Buy it! )
Kill Bill Kill = 5.5 ( Avoid )
Mattroid = 6.5 ( Buy it! )


V. Wrap-Up / Plugs / Ending


JOIN US NEXT WEEK ON HMP: Episode 055, when we review the original Poltergeist (1982) and its brand-new remake Poltergeist (2015) with Dr. Walking Dead!


NOTE FOR NEWCOMERS: If you love this podcast, there are 36 episodes of two other great podcasts that precede this one. Just scroll back through our archives, or use the links in the sidebar on the right.

Leave a comment or e-mail us here: HorrorMoviePodcast@gmail.com

LINKS FOR THIS EPISODE:

Listen to Mattroid, STATION and Kill Bill Kill on The SciFi Podcast (A must-listen!)

Read Mattroid’s columns (as Gary the Unicorn) at HeraldExtra.com

Dr. Shock’s DVD Infatuation is now on Facebook

Wolfman Josh’s links:
Wolfman Josh on Twitter: @IcarusArts
Wolfman covers movies streaming online on: Movie Stream Cast

Dr. Shock’s links:
Dr. Shock’s daily movie review Web site: DVD Infatuation.com
Dr. Shock on Twitter: @DVDinfatuation
Dr. Shock’s other horror podcast: Land of the Creeps

Jay of the Dead’s links:
Jay of the Dead and Horror Movie Podcast Official Twitter: @HorrorMovieCast
Jay of the Dead covers new releases in theaters on: Movie Podcast Weekly
And if you’d like to e-mail Jay of the Dead with a good Beastly Freaks recommendation: BeastlyFreaks@gmail.com

Dr. Walking Dead’s links:
Dr. Walking Dead on Twitter: @DrWalkingDead
Dr. Walking Dead’s books American Zombie Gothic and Triumph of The Walking Dead

You can always contact us by e-mailing HorrorMoviePodcast@gmail.com. Or you can call and leave us a voice mail at: (801) 382-8789. And you can leave us a comment in the show notes for this episode.

Special thanks goes out to singer-songwriter Frederick Ingram for the use of his music for Horror Movie Podcast.

If you like Horror Movie Podcast, please subscribe and leave us a review in iTunes. If you want to support the show, we have PayPal buttons on our sister site, Movie Podcast Weekly.com, in the right-hand sidebar where you can make a one-time donation or you can become a recurring donor for just $2 per month. (Every little bit helps!)

Thanks for listening, and join us again next Friday for HORROR MOVIE PODCAST!

106 thoughts on “Horror Movie Podcast Ep. 054: The Thing From Another World (1951) vs. John Carpenter’s The Thing (1982) vs. The Thing (2011)

  1. I love that The Thing (1982) got 10s all across the board. Is there another movie that has been as highly revered as this one from all of the hosts? I think Dino is the only person in the planet who hates this movie. May the universe have mercy on his pour soul.

    • What? Come on, Dino! Are you kiddin’ me, Man? Even ol’ Jay of the Dead rates John Carpenter’s “The Thing” sufficiently high…

      Tell it, Dino. This is a “safe place.” Tell us why you’re not into it.

      JOTD

      • I think Juan’s exaggerating a little. I believe Dino likes the movie just fine but isn’t quite as over-the-moon about it as most of us. Even so, he’s probably insane.

        • I think David’s trying to minimize the damage. But if my memory serves me right—and most of the times it does—he said something along the lines of “I hate this movie goshdarn it! Now get off my lawn you nettlesome juvenile delinquents!”. Or something like that. I don’t know. Don’t quote me on that.

          • Haha I was still referring to Dino, but yes, you were the inspiration for that nettlesome comment. It’s a neat little word. I like how it just rolls out of one’s tongue and into the wind…

      • @JOTD – My very first email to you/the show was essentially a confessional over my tepid feelings for John Carpenter’s THE THING (and, by tepid, I mean not wanting to hide it under my pillow and give it secret kisses kind of love for the movie). In that email, dated April 2, 2014 (I intentionally didn’t send it the day before because I didn’t want you to think it was an April Fools joke), I said I’m not a huge fan of the film and would only rate it a 7 or 8 out of 10. I continued by saying that bothered me since it’s considered such a horror classic, and almost universally revered among horror fans today. I’ve re-watched the film several times because I wonder if I’m just missing something. There’s nothing about the movie I dislike, it just doesn’t click for me. And, while my appreciation of the film has increased (as is evident by my current 9/10 rating), I’m still not over-the-moon crazy about it.

        In that same email I asked if there were any horror classics that you just didn’t like. That’s a can of worms you didn’t want to open at the time, but I’m curious to know which “classics” just don’t tickle your fancy. For me, the two that instantly come to mind are John Carpenter’s THE THING and POLTERGEIST (1982). And, while I do appreciate and like THE THING (9/10), I really am not a huge fan of the original POLTERGEIST (7/10).

        JOTD (and Doc, Wolfman Josh, Juan, David, etc), I laid my cards on the table. Your turn.

        • I think my 8.5 ratings for both Halloween and The Shining, might be considered heretical to some.

          As far as modern classics go, I’m not a huge fan of either “28 Days Later” or “[Rec]”, the former maybe being a 6.5 and the latter even less (although it redeems itself somewhat with that terrifying final sequence).

          And following Dark Mark’s comment I’m embarrased to admit that I’ve never actually seen “Rosemary’s Baby”.

          • Why does it feel like your 8.5 for THE SHINING is payback for my 9 rating of THE THING?

            I’m a little surprised to hear you’re not a fan of [REC]. Is it a found footage thing?

            And shame on you for ROSEMARY’S BABY. Shame.

            All joking aside, I’m shocked that you haven’t seen it yet, given your fondness of classic horror.

  2. I am really loving this episode so far. The perfect guests, Jay professing his predilection for hermaphroditic monsters, Josh eating a pickle. What’s not to like?

    I certainly appreciated Dr. Shock pre-empting the inevitable tantrum I would most likely have had had you fellows not brought up the wonderful “Matango” in your plant-monsters discussion (though I think it’s worth noting that, similar to Jay’s description of “The Ruins”, most of the tension and conflict in “Matango” comes from the human characters and the situation rather than the local crypto-flora) but I was kind of surprised that no one mentioned “Day of the Triffids” or the vegetable nature of the pod-people in “Invasion of the Bodysnatchers”!

    Of course the subject of vegetable monsters isn’t really what this episode’s about. No, what it’s really about is Josh calling Jay out on his populist-yet-slightly-condescending approach to the rating of older movies. I think Josh’s argument got a little lost in the shuffle though. I couldn’t help but feel as though the others got the impression that Josh was suggesting an intrinsic delineation between cerebral appreciation and entertainment when really he was saying that entertainment value is entirely subjective therefore rendering Jay’s statement* that “folks who prefer entertaining movies should avoid this” problematic. I often feel that Jay’s implication in this regard is that older movies, by virtue of their slower paces and less elaborate visuals, are inherently less entertaining than the comparatively fast paced, glossy modern fare. To me those “old movie” elements are a big part of what makes them so entertaining. The strange stagey acting, the graduated, sedate tempo of the narrative, the artificiality of the sets, the muted restraint of the period etiquette contrasting with sweepingly prominent subtext, the homespun special effects, the melodramatic music etc. All these things are elements that add a huge amount of entertainment value to a film in my view and not just for the sake of appreciating the historical importance in some sort of clinical, academic way (which I think is how Jay might imagine Josh getting his kicks) but in the way that it’s just a fascinatingly different and interesting approach. These old movies have a unique atmosphere and provide a totally different experience than the viewing of a film from the modern day. Their in-built oldness is exactly what makes them so entertaining because they offer something entirely removed from what we’ve become accustomed too.

    But the subjective semantics of entertainment aren’t really what this episode is about. What this episode is really about is the horror of the communists among us!

    *the following statement as quoted her is a complete fabrication.

    • *the following statement as quoted HERE is a complete fabrication

      Also, Jay, I’m sorry for seemingly picking on you again. As much as it might seem I complain I honestly wouldn’t have you any other way. You’re the best and I love you man!

    • Well, I’m glad at least Davud understood what I was saying. I think I did pretty well illuminating my point with my rating and recommendation, but you’re right that it seemed mostly lost in the others during the body of the review. You’ve expressed it perfectly here, David, so thank you for articulating that better.

    • Apologies for elaborating on this already bloated comment but I just feel the need to clarify that I do very much appreciate Jay being the voice of folks more inclined towards the trappings of more modern storytelling techniques. I don’t want it to seem that I have any problem at all with Jay rating older movies in the way that he does; part of what’s so great about the dynamic of this podcast is the way each host has a specific and usefully identifiable appreciation for film. I have no doubt that there’s a huge portion of horror fans out there who just don’t have a taste for those older films and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that at all, nor is there anything wrong with Jay taking the role of advisor to that subset.

      My problem is with the implication that “entertainment value” is in some way synonymous with “modernity” or “fast pacing”. I’d describe myself in exactly the same way as Jay; the main reason I watch movies is to be entertained. I just think it’s important to promote the fact that older movies often ARE entertaining.

      • Again, I feel exactly the same way, David. It’s not about his tastes.

        I could not care less whether someone likes older movies or not. I just don’t like the implication that my enjoyment isn’t as legitimate. It’s similar to Jay’s reoccurring rant about the “sacred cows” of cinema. He appreciates but doesn’t enjoy a certain classic film and so assumes that others must feel the same and only rate said film highly because they are “supposed to.”

        Once again, you were much more articulate in your explanation than me.

        • I’ve been re-listening to the podcast and I think you did great at articulating your point, Wolfman (that’s what she said) but I can only imagine how much harder it is to elaborate on such a discussion and structure an argument off the top of your head while 4 other guys are also offering their opinions and there’s the lurking worry of rambling or going too off topic. I don’t know how you guys do it.

        • Josh wrote: “I just don’t like the implication that my enjoyment isn’t as legitimate.”

          I never said that. I never implied it. That’s not how I feel, and I told you so on the podcast. Multiple times. So, what more can I do? You’re attributing a sentiment to me that I don’t have.

          Josh, you don’t have to feel insecure or threatened: I readily acknowledge that your enjoyment of older movies is just as legitimate as my enjoyment of newer ones.

          During MY rating, however, I’m going to underscore and highlight MY preferences, not yours.

          JOTD

    • David,
      It was so simple. So simple. Josh made it complicated by not accepting or believing what I was saying. And now you’re encouraging him… ha ha.

      It’s this easy: The most important aspect of movies to me is “entertainment value” or, “the level of entertainment or enjoyment I get out of watching a movie.” That’s my No. 1 criterion for judgment.

      So, all I was saying is that I personally (for me) rate movies on how entertained I am as a modern viewer / child of the ’80s. (If I had been born in 1910, then the movies of the ’20s would have surely dazzled and entertained me.) But as a product of the modern technologies of the cinema, I am much less entertained by older films because of their slower pace, black and white, etc.

      I wasn’t making a value judgment about whether they are impressive or well made. I was merely saying, they don’t entertain me as much as more modern films, so here’s my rating to reflect that. So, for those out there who share my same sensibilities, this is where I fall.

      But you’ll notice from this conversation that Josh keeps trying to force other sentiments upon me that I don’t share. And even though I would tell him that it was not accurate, he seemed to not believe me.

      I was telling the truth.

      What astounds me most about Josh’s comments (and yours) is that you guys are essentially critiquing my own personal **subjective opinion.** How can you two intelligent guys try to dismantle my personal tastes of preferring modern films over older movies?

      In other words, if I made a declaration that I prefer grapes over grapefruit, it’s like you and Josh are trying to find fault with the reasons I find grapefruit a little bitter to my palate. You may like grapefruit, but it’s still not as sweet to me as grapes. : )

      JOTD

      • Jay, as I tried to make clear with my second comment in this particular thread, I totally appreciate the way you rate movies with the intent of providing a sincere and useful reference for those with similar sensibilities as yourself. I will defend to the death your right to hold those sensibilities and let them be reflected in your ratings. Not only does this approach allow the section of the audience with a similarly modernist predilection to relate to your scores in particular but it also helps me when my shifting moods take to a place where nothing seems more appealing than a straightforward, action-packed, thrill-ride type movie. When that’s the kind of flick I’m after then I know I can rely on you to guide me and provide slices of purely horrific entertainment in the vein of “Animal” or “Husk”. I am grateful for that as much as I am grateful to have Doc recommending older movies and supernatural fair and Josh informing me of foreign stuff I didn’t know existed and arty stuff that challenges me.

        My only issue was with this sentence:

        “As a film critic you could judge it for its quality and what it could do at the time but I just want listeners to know with my rating I’m judging it for how a modern audience would perceive it, and its overall entertainment value”

        Maybe I’m reading it wrong but I got the implicit suggestion here that you might think that critics coming in with higher ratings for the movie (or older films in general) are likely notching up their ratings by a few points due to a consideration of the period context rather than focusing solely on entertainment value. That maybe so in some cases but my aim with the above comments was simply to clarify that not all of us who rate older movies highly do so with some kind of bias weighted by a detached academic appreciation for their historicity. When I give “Metropolis” a 10/10, sure I do so with awareness that it’s a very old film, but it’s still getting a 10/10 purely for its ability to entertain. No strings attached. I come at it exactly the same way that you do.

        Anyway, I hope it doesn’t seem like I’m being aspersive towards your opinions, Jay. I just want to be clear that older movies can be 10/10’s to some of us in the “modern audience” even when rated solely based on entertainment value. That’s all. I’m not out to “dismantle your personal tastes”. In fact that’s the last thing I’d want to do because those are a big part of what make you such a great and unique host! And I apologise sincerely if I have misinterpreted the subtext of anything you said.

        • Don’t let him guilt trip you, David. You are right on and he shouldn’t be taking any of this personally. We are clearly NOT trying to dismantle his personal tastes.

          I mean, I’m certainly not above critiquing Jason’s (or anyone’s) personal subjective tastes, which may be why he is confused here. I do think there is a difference between good taste and bad taste. That’s just not AT ALL what this is about. In fact, I’m arguing the exact opposite.

      • Jay, you’re totally missing the point and, in fact, flipping it in a complete 180 degrees.

        If you were to say, “this is how I see things” that would be normal and what I’d expect anyone to do. But, when you say, “as someone who watches movies primarily for entertainment” as you did on the podcast, you’re creating a vacuum for a variety of implications and judgement of people who feel differently about the movie than you do. Or when you say, ” as a modern viewer / child of the ’80s” you’re making a false connection between those factors and your tastes. What is that, a questionable analogy? I’m a bit rusty on my logical fallacies. All of us talking about this movie on this podcast were both modern viewers and children and children of the 80s–and yet we have a wide diversity of opinion about what entertains us.

        • I think everyone here’s missing the point. This is a horror podcast. We should be talking about horror movies, not beer, rating systems, pie charts and noodles!

    • Hahaha. I just subscribed to your podcast after the Pumpkinhead reviews you and Jay did. I loved your episode on Cannibal Holocaust. I watched it for the first time a month ago and couldn’t get it out of my head for weeks. It’s more thought-provoking than I expected.

    • It is two hours later for Dave than all of the rest of us, three hours later than me when I’m in LA, so he is usually starting at 11pm and he goes to work at like 5am. We are happy just to have him, poor guy.

      • Was the background huffing-and-hawing even demonstrably attributable to Doc? He’s certainly a hell of a trooper for podcasting so late so it’d be absolutely understandable but it’s unlike him to yawn so recklessly. I just assumed that Andy Howell was making an unannounced guest appearance.

        Either way the yawning and pyjama noises didn’t detract at all from this tremendous episode!

        • Thanks!

          And yes, it was definitely Dave.

          Sorry to thrown you under the bus, buddy. I only did bc it’s not a big deal to us either. We love ya regardless. You’re an all-star.

          • A few background yawns are the tiniest price to pay for what Dave brings to the podcast. He’s brilliant even when he’s sleepy.

          • It’s odd, because I don’t remember being “more” tired this time around than usual (and half the time, when I wasn’t talking, I’m pretty sure I had my mic on mute b/c I did quite a bit of typing)

            But hey… if it was me, it was me! I’ll be mindful of it going forward.

          • Well, I certainly didn’t think it was “annoying as hell.” Again, you bring so much value to the show, Dave, I don’t see why anyone would care beyond just commenting on it as David did here. I suppose it could have been someone else, but it sounded like you, I know it wasn’t me bc I heard it live ,and I’ve known Matt and Bill going on 15+ years and it didn’t sound like them. From my point of view. No biggie. We’re lucky just to have you.

          • Yeah, the more I think about it, it was definitely me. I was using a different set-up that, thankfully, I retired after that ep, so at least it won’t be an issue going forward.

            And thanks, Josh, for the support! Much appreciated, my friend

    • Great episode, loved it but the constant heavy breathing noise on the background was annoying as hell :$

    • Am I the only one who always gets “Terrorvision” (1986) and “Terrorgram” (1990) mixed up? I think I’ve seen the latter but not the former but when I hear either title I always think it’s just a single movie.

      • “Terrorvision” is the one with the alien monster and Mary Woronov in it, right? I never made the connection to “The Thing”. It would be fun to re-watch it. I remember that it had a kid’s movie vibe, but the parents were swingers. Oh, the 80’s.

  3. Before I saw The Thing From Another World (1951), I’d first read about it in Famous Monsters of Filmland, and for some reason I was half-expecting the carrot man to be orange in color.

    Speaking of plant-based creature feature monsters: thanks to the soggy confrontation with the ambulatory carnivorous plants, Day of the Triffids (1963) had put me off greens for a long time.

    Venus Flytrap Man of The Mutations (1973) is strangely threatening in concept: sort of a cross between a pro wrestler and fanged cabbage.

    That defibrillator scene in The Thing (1982) reminded me of Venus Fly Trap Man,, with its toothy abdominal maw.

    • Excellent examples. A few of you have mentioned Day of the Triffids. Totally spaced that one. Also, huge oversight by whoever colored the movie to make the monster green instead of carrot orange. That would have been hilarious.

  4. You know guys, I kind of half watched the 2011 movie and very unfairly made up my mind that I hated it. I can’t deny that I approached it in a close-minded way and didn’t give it anywhere near enough of my attention to actually form an objective opinion. I just saw the bad CGI and said “why take one of the coolest, most impressive elements of the ’82 version (the SFX) and screw them up so bad.” It seemed totally compromised to me, almost like if someone remade a classic like “Psycho” but stripped it of it’s eerie atmospheric brilliance by modernising it, shooting it in colour and replacing Anthony Perkins with a lesser actor! Madness!

    This episode has really made me feel like I need to reassess the 2011 movie though. It seems tragic to me that the filmmakers intended the final product to mainly feature practical effects in homage to Carpenters movie and then some boneheaded executives came along and decided, in all their vacuous anti-wisdom, that those practical effects needed to be covered up by CGI. “I hear all the kids are raving about a movie called Birdemic! They just love those shitty bird Gifs. Forget high quality, believable special effects, the real money is in making everything look awful and fake! Now excuse me gentlemen, I have an appointment with Martin Scorsese to talk about recasting the actors in his new film. Tommy Wiseau is the leading man who’ll sell the most tickets and popcorn these days! And then I need to talk to E.L James about rewriting The Bible.”

    I hate those greedy, art-raping suits!

    So, anyway. My point is that I feel bad dismissing a movie that was maybe made with the best intentions by people who genuinely love the Carpenter version just because of retarded studio interference. It kind of makes me wish that they could release an un-cgi’ed version as a special edition or something. I know effects aren’t everything though so I’m willing to give the film more of a fair shake and see if I can appreciate it more on a story/suspense kind of level.

      • I don’t even know which “R” word I shouldn’t have said. “raping”? or “retarded”. Maybe even “release”.

        Either way I didn’t realise that was your beer staff, I thought you were just happy to see me.

        • Sorry guys, I guess I got carried away on my rant and honestly didn’t even realise what I’d typed. It’s one of those words that just slips in because when I was younger it was used so casually. Which is probably pretty awful really.

          I will say that I think that PSA is going a bit too far though. Comparing a word like “retarded” which has several totally inoffensive connotations and usages (being a perfectly acceptable synonym for “delayed”) with the N word and any of those other racial slurs which are almost singularly derogatory and offensive seems kind of an ill-considered “shock” tactic. I’m all for not offending people but I do find the certain words that the PC think-tanks deem inappropriate a little puzzling sometimes while similar terms are totally acceptable. Why is “idiot” an okay pejorative term? Etymologically it’s very similar to “retarded”. A term used to categorise people with mental disabilities which has evolved to become a commonplace insult. Is there really much of a difference?

          That’s not to defend my usage however, or to excuse me my lack of consideration. Again, I apologise if any offence was caused.

          • Haha David you crack me up! I honestly didn’t take offense by it and my pointing it out was just my sick and twisted way of playing around. I know Josh has a problem with that word and it’s certainly understandable. I think I’m on the same boat as you on the issue, but I do try not to use it too often, particularly in writing as I have more time to think and be “politically correct”, which is something that I am not a fan of but will abide to it out of respect for others. Anyway, don’t feel bad.

          • Well I’m sympathetic to most politically correct causes, I think the intentions are almost always righteous. But I also think that in certain instances politically correct thinking, regarding semantics at least, fails to take into consideration the neologistic nature of language or how important of a role context plays when it comes to definitive meaning. Really to say that any given word is inherently “bad” is probably a far too simplistic dilution of linguistics. And when it borders on censorship I get very wary.

            At the end of the day though if I said the “R” word in front of somebody who was disabled then I’d walk away feeling like a horrible jerk. When that’s the case it’s probably best not to use the word in any kind of casual situation.

        • >Wolfman Josh on May 25, 2015 at 9:22 pm said:
          “Rape: also not good. But, I think we can probably agree on that.”

          Probably?…

      • >Juan on May 24, 2015 at 4:31 pm said:
        “Josh, David said the r word *points beer staff at him*”

        Nicely done.

    • I actually agreed with most of your thoughts on the remake, David. Actually, I thought you were probably kinder to the remake than I am as I totally hated it- for a number of reasons, not just the bad CGI. Really, that movie me feel as though I had taken a belt-sander to the base of my skull and turned it on low but still pressed really hard. Not a fun experience for me and kind of at a loss having heard the other opinions on the film- not the first time I’ve disagreed, though. I have my own taste, I suppose.

  5. I had such a fun time on this episode. Thank you so much to Jay, Josh and Doc for inviting me on. I did get some personal feedback that I didn’t talk very much on this episode, for that I am sorry. I’m not sure why, I guess I was just so happy talking about one of my favorite movies of all time.

    And please don’t forget to listen and subscribe the “The Sci-Fi Podcast” on the Movie Podcast Network.

    Thank you for all who listen, it really does mean the world to me.

    Kill Bill Kill (William Solo Jr.)

  6. Boy it was cool to hear that Mattroid checked out “Robinson Crusoe on Mars”!

    Matt, is it actually the same movie you remembered from when you were a kid?

        • That is correct. Remembering so little of it the effect it had on seeking it two decades latter wasn’t as glorious as I’d hoped, but it was still great. And to have a quandary answered after so long? Bless you, David. You’re a saint.

          • Well I think it’s almost an inevitability that a distant and half remembered movie experience from childhood won’t quite live up to expectation when revisited as an adult. I’m just glad the mystery is solved for you. There’s nothing more frustrating than having vivid snippets of film floating around in your head untethered from categorical context. It drives me nuts and I sometimes end up concluding that whatever I’m remembering was actually a dream or trick of memory.

  7. So this is slightly of topic of the episode, but I know a few of the other listeners live near or in Portland, Oregon and I wanted to let the nearby Argento Fans know that the Hollywood Theatre is showing a 35mm print of “Susipiria” tomorrow night (5/26).
    They often show older horror movies and they had John Cartpenter’s “The Thing” playing a couple months back.

    • Is Portland, Oregon actually exactly the same in real life as it’s portrayal in “Portlandia”? I sure hope so!

      • From an outsiders point of view, Portandia is to Portland as Spinal Tap is to Black Sabbath. I absolutely love it there, EXCEPT, I will say, it’s the only place in the U.S. where people smoke cigarettes as heavily as you European folk.

        • “I will say, it’s the only place in the U.S. where people smoke cigarettes as heavily as you European folk.”

          Tell me about it. Sometimes you can’t walk down the street without someone blowing a cloud of noxious smoke directly into your face here. I’ve even had people throw lit cigarettes at me as I walk past, sometimes ruining my clothes. These are the kind of things that have turned me into the male equivalent of a misanthropic, reclusive cat-lady.

      • Have they done an episode about backyard beekeeping or professional hula-hoopers yet? It is a great city to be an artist and indulge in eccentricities, if you can get past all the mustaches and bird art (I actually like a lot of the bird art).

        • I don’t even know what bird art is but I’m assuming it’s a step up from the mouldering, regurgitated kebabs and blood stains that decorate my town. And I’d take moustachioed hipsters over racist chavs any day of the week!

  8. By the way, MATTROID, I totally missed the METROID reference in your name. Somehow I always thought it was a cross between Matt (Mathew?) and the word droid. But Metroid makes so much more sense haha. Are you a videogame fan? If so, we need to have one of those game nights like you described in this episode. I’m a huge videogame nerd and maybe you should even think about having a videogame podcast… just saying. Now let’s play some Mario Kart!

      • I honestly don’t recognize it and after going back to listen to it, I still don’t :/

        I love Metroid, but I’m more of a Mario/Zelda/Megaman kind of guy if you know what I mean. Josh, how about a Nintendo documentary? There’s a few crappy non-licensed “documentaries” out there, but meh. I think they have such a rich history and their ideas are so crazy and out there that if any one videogame company deserves a well-made documentary, it’s Nintendo. Just sayin’ bro.

    • I’m in the same boat as you, Juan. When it clicked in this episode I was like “how did I not see that before.”

      I’ve mentioned before that I’m not much of a gamer but “Super Metroid” is probably in my top 5 games of all time nonetheless.

      • Metroid (side scrolling) for the win. Always for the win. I love Zelda, God of War, Mario, but mostly NES and SNES games. Station is the ultimate old school gamer, she kills it. We do big NES/SNES game nights on our garage with a projector…tons of fun.

        But yes, Mattroid is a play on Metroid, and we fully plan to have reviews of games on up coming episodes. I plan to do a Metroid episode too, even though it might be a lot less the other hosts and a lot more me and a guest or two since William and Station are less familiar.

        Also, I’m working on my Samus tattoo and I can’t wait to get it done. I’ll make sure to post pictures.

        • I’m all for a NES doc, by the way. If Josh would just stop working for money and be my personal movie-maker slave guy there would be so many super high quality and fairly pointless documentaries and movies. But he’s worth way more than I can pay, even if I have great ideas (which I might just have). But I am all for an NES doc, Wolfman style.

          And David, Super Metroid is THE BEST game of all time.

          • We need to clone Josh. Then we can have one Josh that goes out and earns money and spends time with his family and a second Josh that’s just a slave who produces podcasts and indulges our obscure documentary whims.

        • Metroid is awesome. I always made the Mattroid/Metroid connection, but also just assumed the name was a mashup of Matt and droid. God of War is probably my favorite “modern” game, but I stopped after the PS2 and Gamecube/Wii era so I’m sure there’s other great stuff out there now. I was also a big fan of Eternal Darkness…

    • Metroid, cool! Yea, I though it was Matt + Android. I love those games, especially Super Metroid. Glad to see there’s lots of love out there for it. Gotta rate Zelda and Mario just ahead of it, though. What a weird conversation for a horror movie post. We must all love the same stuff but who doesn’t like movies, video games and beer?!

      • Don’t drink but I am DEFINITELY a Nintendo ADDICT. Zelda, Mario, Pokemon, Metroid. They can have ps4 as long as I have my NES, SNES, N64, GameCube, and Wii U I’m good 😀

  9. Great episode once again guys! I’m glad you mostly gave respect to “The Thing” (2011) which I felt was excellent. Like you guys, I had ZERO expectations for that one and I put it on one day with the lights out and was blown away. The introduction scene was just awesome; I really had no idea where that was going at first. It was original that it didn’t begin with a kill like we see in so many horror movies, but rather it just started the whole conflict. I think that was cool that they didn’t pointlessly kill off those guys in the snowcat before the movie really started.
    It created more of a guessing game and this story needed many characters like Carpenter’s film to be an effective suspense/tension tale.
    I think the 2011 movie works as both a great prequel AND a sort of re-make given the pace of the film, the themes, and the suspense. The only thing I wish they’d change was the title. That made some confusion, but I guess they wanted to lure the fans from the Carpenter version. The title should have been something entirely different or with some kind of sub-title. (“The Thing: Origins” or something like that).
    I was a little disappointed that you guys didn’t discuss your specific theories about which characters were the “thing” in the 1982 version. The stuff you guys brought up was great, and I guess at some point you have to stop recording when discussing this classic movie (There’s so much!), but I’m curious to read/hear your thoughts.
    When did Palmer become copied? What happened to Nauls? Who got into the blood supply? Was Fuchs killed by someone or did he burn himself? All these questions…I love it!
    If you look on IMDB and various other discussion boards, there are several theories about who turned when, and who was never a “thing” all along. It’s fascinating stuff and the ambiguity of not just the ending, but the whole story, is part of what makes this so re-watchable.
    I guess I’d love to see if anyone has any crazy theories about this (from the 1982 version).
    Also, can’t wait to hear your review of the new “Poltergeist.” I’m counting on you guys to be the deciding factor on whether I go see this movie or not, as I value your opinions!

  10. Nice discussion and depth on such a landmark film.

    One of the touchstones of John Carpenter’s “The Thing” that I was surprised did not get discussed was how the first cut of the film did not focus on MacReady as the protagonist but rather that the film itself was more of an ensemble piece. All of the actors went in thinking they were the “star” of the film and all of them were kind of upset with the final cut, where Russell wound up being the focus of the story. I always found that bit of trivia to be one of the most interesting aspects of the film and kind of wonder what the story would have been had they gone with one of the earlier cuts of the film.

    But with regard to the pre-sequel-remake-reboot-travesty. The computer generated F/X weren’t just bad for their time, they were downright wretched and made worse by the fact that they were mapped over practical effects and didn’t match the film in any way. The acting was not good, the lead character felt like a pastiche of Bridget Fonda’s character from Lake Placid without the endearing qualities of that depthless character, the story was jumbled and confused, and the film ultimately suffered from trying to be too many things all at once and yet succeeding at none.

    OLDER MOVIE APPRECIATION:

    I love older movies. I don’t “appreciate” them for what they did at the time- I like them for the movies that they ARE, for the entertainment they provide, and for the experiences that I have had. I don’t just “appreciate” a film like the original Wolfman, I actually enjoy it. I actually am scared while I watch that film, I love Juniors portrayal of Larry Talbot and the cinematography and the effects in the film. I don’t appreciate it “for its time”- I think it is a far superior film to the new millennium remake and does a far better job of telling the story. I appreciate the view that Jay doesn’t like the older movies, but that really isn’t a reflection of the “entertainment” value of a film- it speaks more to Jays taste alone.

    With that said, the original movie was a decent sci-fi alien flick but I wouldn’t put it in the horror category at all.

    In defense of plants being scary:

    I’m honestly surprised at Jays statement regarding the level of fright in a plant. It doesn’t “sound” scary, perhaps- but the truth of the matter is that is where the terror really lies. It doesn’t look scary- it looks harmless and guileless and that’s where it lures its prey. And I’m going to be honest, I don’t think they’ve been utilized to their full cinematic effect but I find the concept horrifying enough. Especially in a movie like “The Ruins”, where the monster is designed to be anything BUT scary to the viewer- it’s lush, it’s beautiful, and it’s perfectly hidden until the moment where it strikes. Scratch that, it never really strikes- it just starts to feed and it’s in you before you realize it. It’s basically a Venus flytrap taken to the extreme. Something that takes root within, that grows, that devours slowly and you can’t get it out because every cut just makes it worse. It’s not going to jump out at you, it’s not going to tear you to pieces, but it’s going to eat you anyway and there’s nothing you can do about it. Have you ever seen a tree growing out of a rock? Having something grow out of you, having roots inside of you, having a seat grow and feed- that scares the heck out of me. You may think of Audrey II, but I think of Stephen King being devoured in Creepshow.

    The concept was handled a little better in the Sutherland version of the Body Snatcher film. Where we see the roots digging in and rebuilding a new body within the pod, sucking the nutrients from the body, devouring it. It’s not just replacing you- it’s eating you while you sleep. What do you do against something that’s going to be reaching out for you no matter what- this is very similar to the slow zombie threat. It will come for you and it will eat you.

    And if you weren’t scared of the woods in Evil Dead, then I have no idea where to proceed from. The Tree in poltergeist? The Guardian (1990)?

  11. Great episode, hosts and guests! I saw The Thing (1951) as a kid loved it. I was surprised to see how much you guys liked it too. Remember, a 5 on Jay’s bell curve is a pretty good rating.

    I sat down in the late 90’s to watch The Thing (1982) and was blown away by Carpenter’s version! In the movie Halloween, Carpenter has The Thing (1951) playing on the TV while Laurie is babysitting.

    When The Thing (2011) came out I was expecting an unnecessary remake, but what I really wanted to see was the story of what happened to the Norwegian outpost. That’s exactly what I got! I was surprised because everyone kept calling it a remake, but after this podcast I understand why. I didn’t notice the CGI until the second watch and that was my biggest complaint.

  12. I accepted the challenge and watched all 3 “in order,” even purchasing The Thing From Another World from Amazon to be able to do so (I own the 1982 and rented the 2011 version). I thought each one was good as a stand alone…not sure the 3 work all that great chronologically..some of the supposed ties seem like a far stretch. And I feel that more love would be shown for the 2011 if the 1982 was never made and it didn’t assume a relationship with the 1951 Thing From Another World. CGI is CGI….no sense hatin’ on it…..and I actually thought the creature was really creepy in the 2011 version because the shape of it reminded me of when Linda Blair comes down the stairs upside down and backwards (not sure how else to describe it) in The Exorcist, which I have always found profoundly disturbing…it actually hurts my brain to look at it.

    With all that said, I will just close by saying that John Carpenter’s The Thing is hands down my favorite movie of all time (narrowly beating out They Live), it’s a 10…..buy it, rent it, own it, love it!

  13. I’m finally back from my hiatus (aka California)…

    Just finished listening to this episode, and thought it was excellent. I was especially glad to hear the 2011 prequel/remake so well-received (mostly). I remember enjoying it when I saw it a few years ago, and came in at a 7/10.

    Now, time to play catch-up on the comments.

      • #werd

        Curious timing how my hiatus corresponded with HMP’s THE THING and POLTERGEIST episodes, the two horror classics I “hate” the most.

        • Yes, curious indeed………

          And I’d like to retract my previous use of the phrase “lock up your daughters”. There’s just no jocularity left in that idiom anymore. Joseph Fritzl ruined it for everyone.

          Anyway, I hope you had a great time in California, old chap. I noted the numerous West Coast IPA entries on untappd.

          • I always have a great time in Cali. It’s much more our speed out there.

            Unfortunately I was not able to try as many as I wanted while out there. Difficult to go out drinking with the five year old son and pregnant wife. And our friends in San Francisco who spent the second half of the trip with are trying to cut down on their alcohol consumption.

            Oh well, I’ll just have to move there…

          • Glad to be back on the boards, though. I was missing the great film discussion.

  14. @Wolfman Josh/JOTD – You should get a “VERSUS” theme button up on the sidebar to collect all of these awesome episodes. Dare I say (hope), with INSIDIOUS and SINISTER sequels coming out this summer that we’re in store for even more VERSUS awesomeness?…

  15. Guys – Based on your reviews of The Thing (2011), I picked it up over the weekend. This was my second attempt, as I had fallen asleep the first time I tried watching it on cable. I attributed it to just being too tired and not all that thrilled about the movie to begin with. I’m a big fan of Carpenter’s film and felt that remaking or expanding on his film was completely unnecessary. However, just hearing that you guys didn’t hate the 2011 film was enough for me to give it one more shot.

    I’m still not all the way through, but I’ll try and muscle through the last thirty mintutes or so, but I’m largely unimpressed. Part of it is the lame CGI effects for sure. But the film just doesn’t succeed at building tension the way Carpenter did so brilliantly. The worst crime is that this 2011 film just isn’t scary or exciting. It just…is. It seems the filmmakers noticed this too, as this is one of those maddening Blu-Rays that have me straining to hear dialogue and then leaping for the volume button when either the Thing appears, or the scene changes. Annoying. Are these volume jumps supposed to be substitutes for scares?

    Anyway, I enjoyed this episode immensely, as I have all of them folks. I look forward to more vs. episodes. You guys do great work!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *