so what are we doing here

[solarbird]

I didn’t really say in the first post; the idea with these horror film polls is that we’ve got two going now, two more next week, then the last week of October, we’ll take all the winners and put them up against the Universal classics to have our CHAMPION OF HORRORS! October is a pretty big horror film month around the Lair, and some of our favourites are going to be showing up in these polls, and I wonder how much of that will be shared.

So if you’re into these films, go clickie, and let’s see what comes out on top.

Apparently the Thing prequel isn’t getting much love in reviews – the Rotten Tomatoes score is a fairly sad 30%, even if the audience reaction is much better. I’m a little surprised by that, honestly; I’m particularly perplexed by one reviewer’s comment that it was dull. While it has its flaws, it wastes no time getting things moving and keeps up a pretty solid pace throughout.

I did want to talk about the film a little more, though, mostly about two topics.

First, there’s a fanon for the whole series – everything except the novella, really – that the Thing itself isn’t actually the alien that built the spaceship, but is what brought the spaceship down.

That ties in for me particularly strongly with this prequel, and I’m wondering whether that’s intentional. It’s always bothered me that the Thing is really kind of stupid – and it’s significantly worse in this version. I have an extension of the fanon that the Thing is not entirely intelligent; that it can use the intelligence of the beings it operates, but doesn’t really integrate that intelligence well into its own being. It’s sort of a puppeteer, rather than an integrator.

That works very well in this film, and well in Carpenter’s, and to a lesser degree, works in the novella. It fits less well with the 1951 vaguely carrot-monster-ish version, but, well, it’s a modern fanon.

not this carrot monster

For another take on that intelligence question entirely, however, you will certainly enjoy Peter Watts’ short story, The Things, which takes rather the opposite approach and is just a lovely piece of creepy, creepy work.

Secondly, and on the plus side, I’m really happy that we finally have an entry in this mythos that passes the Bechdel Test. Kate Lloyd is functionally the Ellen Ripley of this film, albeit one coming from a different emotional starting point. My take on this was that this is entirely intentional; and for me, it’s the most overdue update to the entire concept.

all out of bubblegum

Much of the rest, I touched upon already; reasonable characters, an interesting reshading and invocation of the original; I liked that a lot of the dialogue was in Norwegian, and wish it’d been a bit more than it was, but with three American characters and an American audience, that’s kind of unavoidable.

Keep an eye on the shows page, I have some show announcements coming up soon! A couple of dates are already pencilled in; one’s even in ink, but I’m waiting for a couple more pieces of mail before I get completely specific.

I’ve never done a house concert before! It’s new! and exciting! I’m still looking for opportunities to the north (Lower Mainland in particular), and Portland, which should tell you something about where my pencil marks are at this point. XD

Have a good weekend, everybody!

Mirrored from Crime and the Blog of Evil. Come check out our music at:
Bandcamp (full album streaming) | Videos | iTunes | Amazon | CD Baby

Comments

[westrider.livejournal.com]

Dude. I'm loving that Peter Watts story. Reminds me of the best parts of At the Mountains of Madness. The bits where Lovecraft does his best to get his readers to see through the minds of the Old Ones, actually identify with what have always, in his previous stories, been the Unspeakable enemies.

[solarbird]

I read it when it first came out - I think nihilistic_kid pointed it out at the time, he used to be an editor for Clarkesworld - and, well, yeah. Sympathetic! To a point. XD

[westrider.livejournal.com]

Well, come on, you've gotta have a twist, right?

Actually, it reminds me of something I've wanted to set up in a story for a while, but I don't think I'm a good enough writer to pull off yet: Set up two groups that are both sympathetic and "good", and then stick them in a situation where they basically have to fight it out anyway.

Because that's what happens in many real world conflicts. It's not about good and evil, right and wrong, it's just about incompatibility.

At least in the short term. I'd probably have to give it an ending that left open the possibility of an eventual mutualistic solution, or it'd get too nihilistic even for me.

[solarbird]

I don't think that's nihilistic. It's more realistic, often.

[westrider.livejournal.com]

Depends on how it's presented and plays out, I guess. What was in my mind was approaching Warhammer 40K "In the Grim Darkness of the Far Future There Is Only WAR!" levels. I kind of want to keep it short of that.

Also, I'm not the best at staying in touch with reality. I try to shade my impression of what's "real" toward the optimistic, so as to keep myself functional. That may well be colouring my perception of where this lands on the spectrum as well.

In the end, though, that is a good point. Sometimes reality is just depressing and fucked up. Maybe best just to run with it as a tragedy.

[samildanach.livejournal.com]

The Watts story is wonderful, and I think it deserved the Hugo.

This is where I need Tenjou-san, nodding

[solarbird]

When I gave up on Asimov's and Analog and all those? I kept reading Clarkesworld.