When it comes to horror movie remakes or prequels, the original creator’s opinion often carries significant weight, especially for fans. John Carpenter’s 1982 masterpiece, The Thing, is no exception. As anticipation built for the 2011 prequel, many wondered: what did Carpenter himself think? Did he endorse this new vision, or was he critical of revisiting his iconic film?
Conflicting reports and interpretations have circulated, leaving fans puzzled about Carpenter’s true feelings. Did he give the prequel his blessing, as some claimed? Or was he completely detached, or even negative about it? Let’s delve into the direct quotes and statements from Carpenter and those involved to clarify his actual stance.
Carpenter’s Own Words: Noncommittal to Mildly Negative
John Carpenter himself has addressed the prequel numerous times, and his statements consistently paint a picture of non-involvement and a lack of enthusiasm. In a fan site Q&A, he directly refuted rumors of his blessing or cameo:
Q. There are rumours going about that you a) gave the producers of The Thing Prequel your blessing and b) you were being lined up for a cameo role – is there any truth to these rumours or are they just lies?
A. And the rumors are not true.
This quote clearly shuts down the idea of any endorsement or active participation. Further emphasizing his distance from the project, in a 2010 interview, Carpenter stated:
Q: Were you at all involved in that process, when people were deciding whether they should do it and what it should look like?
A: No, no one asked me anything. Universal owns the movie and I was just a hired gun on that film.
This reveals that Universal, the studio owning The Thing, proceeded with the prequel without consulting Carpenter. He highlights his limited role in the original film’s ownership, reinforcing his lack of influence over the prequel.
Even when asked about the prequel’s progress during production, Carpenter’s response in another interview is notably detached and almost sarcastic:
Q: You know I went to the set of the prequel of THE THING that Universal is doing and…
A: Oh yeah? How did it look?
His question “How did it look?” suggests he had minimal information and was genuinely curious, rather than informed or involved. His subsequent lighthearted comment about the lead actress further underscores a tone of amusement rather than serious engagement:
A: Well, I know they have a photo of a very attractive looking girl with a flamethrower in her hands.
Q: Yes.
A: Now how bad can this movie be? (laughs) I saw that and said, “This has to be great!”
Finally, in a brief statement to Digital Spy, Carpenter succinctly summarized his position:
Universal has made a prequel to The Thing. They’ve already shot it. It’s a prequel to my film and I didn’t have anything to do with it. So I don’t know what to say. That’s their choice.
And on Twitter in 2011, he admitted he hadn’t even seen the finished product:
I haven’t seen THE THING prequel. I hope it’s good. One improvement on my movie: they have a babe, a very talented actress.
These quotes, spanning from pre-production to after release, consistently show Carpenter’s distance and lack of input. His comments range from simply stating his non-involvement to making lighthearted, slightly sarcastic remarks.
The Prequel Director’s Claim of a “Blessing”
In contrast to Carpenter’s narrative, Matthijs van Heijningen Jr., the director of the prequel, offered a different perspective in a fan site Q&A:
Q: What were the main reasons to keep away Carpenter from the film?
A: We didn’t keep him away. He gave his blessings but wanted to stay away.
And:
Q: Have you spoken with John Carpenter since the release of your movie? And, if so, what input did he have for you?
A: No I haven’t. He gave his blessings and that was it.
Van Heijningen explicitly states that Carpenter “gave his blessings.” However, given Carpenter’s direct denials and consistent statements of non-involvement, this claim seems questionable. It’s possible that “blessing” was interpreted loosely, perhaps based on a polite, non-obstructive stance from Carpenter rather than an enthusiastic endorsement.
Producer Perspectives: No Involvement, But “Make Me Rich!”
David Foster, producer of both the 1982 Thing and the prequel, provides a more nuanced view that aligns with Carpenter’s account. In an interview, Foster describes Carpenter’s general attitude towards remakes, using their experience with The Fog remake as an example:
John’s attitude is amazing. I called him one day and said, ‘Why don’t we remake The Fog?’ and he said, ‘Yeah, go ahead, make me rich!’
John’s attitude is that he will personally never remake any of his films. He said, ‘I’ve done them once; that was my vision of the film. I’m happy to be a producer with you, and we can work together with the writer on the script, but I don’t want to talk to the director if it’s possible, because I don’t want him to think I’m looking over his shoulder.’ His attitude is that this is Matthijs’ vision of the movie he wants to make and it’s not the same story.
Foster clarifies that Carpenter’s stance is one of non-interference and acceptance of the studio’s decision, rather than active participation or a blessing. Carpenter’s “make me rich!” comment suggests a pragmatic, business-oriented view, rather than creative endorsement.
Stuart Cohen, producer of the 1982 film, offered a concise “no comment” when asked about the prequel, citing his professional relationship with another producer involved in the prequel. This silence further emphasizes the distance between the original creators and the new project.
Conclusion: No Blessing, Just Business as Usual
Analyzing the quotes and accounts, it becomes clear that John Carpenter did not give the prequel his blessing in any meaningful sense. His statements consistently show a lack of involvement, consultation, or enthusiastic support. While he didn’t actively oppose the prequel (likely due to lack of ownership rights), his stance ranges from noncommittal curiosity to mild negativity.
The director’s claim of a “blessing” seems to be a misinterpretation or exaggeration. More accurately, Carpenter adopted a hands-off approach, acknowledging Universal’s right to proceed with the prequel while maintaining his distance.
Ultimately, Carpenter’s perspective on the prequel appears to be pragmatic and business-oriented. He recognizes Hollywood’s commercial nature and accepts the studio’s decisions, even if he isn’t creatively invested in them. For fans seeking Carpenter’s endorsement of the prequel, the evidence suggests they won’t find it. Instead, they find a director who moved on from The Thing long ago and viewed the prequel as simply “their choice.”
