MovieChat Forums > The Thing from Another World (1951) Discussion > The Original is Superior!!

The Original is Superior!!

posted 12 years ago by PWTempleman
40 replies | jump to latest

I hate people all listing The Thing or Invasion Of The Body Snatchers or The Fly remakes as superior then the originals. When I ask them to explain they come out with crap answers.

Like:

1. The Effects are better.

Well, that's unfair to judge consider that the originals could only use the effects that they had in their decade during the time.

2. The Acting is Better.

Again it's unfair to talk about considering in the 50's this was what was expected of acting and dialogue.

The originals I find have a better atmosphere and great suspense. Have they dated? Not in me opinion but I am someone who can watch these kind of movies and I think that is the biggest problem. Most "film fans" I use the word loosely don't have a great understanding of film history or look past the 1960's or even look across the world or different genres.

We need to keep these older films alive and healthy. I am a big fan of these kind of dated classics and I know I'm not the only one out there on this forum.

[–] BrainGremlin 12 years ago

When I ask them to explain they come out with crap answers.

I'm making a huge assumption, but this sounds suspiciously like "I haven't asked anyone, ever, but I'm sure they'd all just act like children about it; after all, they prefer the *GASP* modern remakes!".

I don't find the points you listed to be unfair at all, either way. Age shouldn't warrant some quality handicap, certainly not on a level of personal enjoyment; the effects ARE better. The acting IS better. And in a horror film with some focus on shock (...well, all have a focus on that, if in different ways), these MATTER. Or so I think. Can you honestly say the remake of The Fly didn't get under your skin? The acting and the effects were *essential* to that experience. It's a part of film making like anything else. That some people need those qualities is understandable. Sure, in the '50s it was standard and you didn't know what you were missing (perhaps unrealism was even required to the audience at the time, as to not get too involved). But cinema has evolved, and realism has become more and more important for people's ability to suspend their disbelief (if that's what they seek to do, of course). When you no longer need a child's imagination, it can understandably become difficult to force it. Personally, I enjoy old films greatly, but I can't say I'm fully immersed in them. And I can't help that, no matter how much "cinematic" knowledge I possess. But standing somewhere in the middle on this issue -- if that affects my perception -- I can safely say that the arguements on both sides are equally as redundant, yours most certainly no less.

Anyway, I think you should really stop acting like you're among the "enlightened few". The way you put "film fans" in citation marks (...like I did now) says more about your view of yourself than your view of cinema. Saying they don't "understand" because they aren't like you is assumptive and arrogant. (Also, I'm sure there are many areas of cinema you haven't explored or even want to. Doesn't make you any less of a film buff.) Besides, how in the hell does the preference of modern movies constitute the disrespect/unappreciation/ignorance of old cinema? Sounds like an assumption stemmed from myopia... which is bizarre. Or come to think of it, isn't that always the case...?

In any case, if you feel so entitled to an opinion, let people have theirs. Whatever reasons they have (mine might not be theirs), let them prefer the remakes without resorting to derogation. Just stick to the substantial arguments you yourself seek.

---
Sad story. You got a smoke?

[–] montrossboc-1 12 years ago

Sorry, Kurt Russell's The Thing and Jeff Goldblum's The Fly remakes are better films than the originals.

Of course, I'm just expressing my opinion.

You are certainly entitled to yours.

Short Cut, Draw Blood

[–] KRhetor 12 years ago

The acting in the 1951 film is far superior. No one in the 1982 film other than Brimley and Moffitt bothers to define or delineate their characters and they either sleepwalk through or chew the scenery in their roles. The 1951 film features a terrific ensemble cast who do an amazing job with the script's great proto-Joss Whedon dialogue. Which is ultimately what it all comes down to: the 1951 film had a far better script than the 1982 film.

[–] nickm2 12 years ago

You HIT IT! That is what I felt since I first saw the Carpenter version; sure it was cool but the character all seemed at odds at each other: Whites vs Blacks; Stoners vs Drinkers; Young vs Old; straight laced Military(or Militaristic) vs slobby Civilians; The 1951 version seemed to have that sort of tight knit well oiled, comfortable 'crew' that were a staple of movies like "Battleground";

[–] PreachCaleb 12 years ago

That was the point of the Carpenter version: paranoia.

They were tight knit in the 1951 version because there was no worry that one of them was an alien monster.

Straightedge means I'm better than you.

[–] MayoGalway 12 years ago

I agree. As a kid in the 50's i saw the three classic movies mentioned and agree that they were great however hokie they may have been in parts. All the remakes were excellent, in color, and able to use special effects to enhance the story-line. If Russell and Goldblum weren't perfect the movies would fail. The 50's movie had a cohesive group of people dealing with a single vegative monster. While the Russell version has a decidedly different "Thing" to deal with. An "Alien", "Hidden" incubating monster. That leads the group to trust no one. Great reworking of the original.

[–] brautigan-126-784250 10 years ago

Excepting Wilfred Brimley, I agree with you.

Wilfred Brimley was great, though.

[–] gtbarker 9 years ago

I totally disagree. I thought the actors all did a great job defining their characters in the remake, in fact that's one of the reasons I like the film so much.

'Well I've got two words for you - STFU'

[–] john-hitchcock 12 years ago

Well, I won't deny that the Thing From Another World is a bit dated in its effects but at the same time when I first saw it I was actually rather pleasantly surprised by them. I remember finding out about the Thing From Another World through the 1982 film, and was (understandably) disappointed to find out that the Thing was a "vegetable" instead of a shape-shifting inhuman monstrosity. Of course, once I sat down and actually saw the film I was rather pleasantly surprised by the way they handled the Thing in this version, and I could sort of see how it might have been scary in its time.

Still, the two films are entirely different from each other. It's not like True Grit where you can compare the individual performances of the characters and the way they handle specific moments- both films use an entirely different story, with the Carpenter film opting to be closer to the original novella than the 1951 film. I do still enjoy watching this film but I'm going to go out and say that the Carpenter film is just as good. Comparing and contrasting them is one thing, but if you want any chance of labelling either one as "better" or "worse", you'll have to dig a lot deeper than the effects and the acting.

In fact technically, I'd almost be willing to go out and say the characters are a bit better in the 1982 version. The 1951 version had a few too many characters and while the main characters (The air force guys, Nikki, Dr. Carrington) do okay, many of the supporting characters are a bit underdeveloped. Heck, the body count consists of a couple off-screen deaths of characters we barely know (and do we ever see them before that?). The 1982 film had a much smaller cast, allowing it to work with a more claustrophobic environment and better show the idea of a group of men who normally work together being turned against themselves by something entirely unknown, not to mention that the characters are a bit smarter- there's no crazy scientist who actively tries to work behind MacReady's back and sabotage his attempts to destroy the Thing in the name of scientific interest. The closest thing to that is Blair, who tries to study the Thing but ends up going crazy and trying to contain it to keep it from spreading to civilization (at least, that's one interpretation).

We need to keep these older films alive and healthy. I am a big fan of these kind of dated classics and I know I'm not the only one out there on this forum.

I know what you mean. I've been trying to do that for years without success.

If Clint Eastwood and Chuck Norris got into a fight, Clint Eastwood would probably win.

[–] SimplySteve 12 years ago

Listen, I love both versions. If certian people do think the original outdated and boring, sorry for them, but they are entitled to thier opinion non the less.

The sheer fact that Carpenter adores the '51 version is good enough for me. He pays homage to it both in the remake, and 4 years earlier in Halloween.
Carpenters respect for the original is clear, and i'm sure he wanted to do as great a job on the remake as possible because of that very respect. What he came up with, to me, is a sci-fi classic and i think he should be proud of it. At first i found it over the top disgusting, and that took away from my overall enjoyment of the film. But the serious, slow build of paranoia was handled intelligently. And the gore simply doesn't get to me anymore.

I first watched the '51 version on a sunday afternoon with my friends, and we were absolutely glued to the TV (Black & White set, so it didn't matter anyway). Fell in love with it onsight! Aside from Invasion of The Body Snatchers, the BEST sci-fi film to come out of the 50's, and one of the best of all time.

Both are deserving classics in thier own right.

My top 20 sci-fi favorites http://www.imdb.com/list/qpbLlkAEjY4/

.

[–] TalesfromTheCryptfan 12 years ago

1951's version strayed away from the original 1938 story "Who Goes There" by John Campbell, it's good as it's own movie but still one of the worst adaptations of a book ever.

Carpenter's movie is NOT a remake except in name only. Carpenter's version is by far a more faithful adaptation of the story and it's the true original as it is based on the story.

You killed Captain Clown, YOU KILLED CAPTAIN CLOWN-The Joker on Batman TAS

[–] 1bilbo 12 years ago

Carpenter`s film is far superior in many ways.

1. He did not include a stupid eye-candy female doing fetish tie-ups of her boyfriend.

2. The b/w version has dialogue that is verbose - I get the impression that the actors were told to make up their own responses as the film went on.

The dated special effects don`t matter at all - they would normally be part of the charm of an old movie. In fact it is the first half of the Carpenter version that is the best - before the effects kick in.

[–] will-694 12 years ago

Yeah, we don't want any women coming in a messing up our science fiction stories. Science fiction is a man's world . . . full of manly men who are only interested in doing manly things . . . /rolleyes

Really? "Fetish tie-ups?" Is that what you got out of that scene? How very sad for you.

You must be a college student.

[–] Knag 11 years ago

1bilbo didnt say sci-fi movies should only have men in them, his post actually said the complete opposite which makes your comment totally idiotic. the women in this flick was serving as eye candy and nothing more.

[–] maxloh-1 12 years ago

don't be ridiculous. Movies are judged by their total entertainment value. Not some sort of arbitrary scoring system that compensates for age, budget, or other uncontrollable factors.

http://www.maxloh.com/soundtracks/
http://smptv.net/student.php?id=101

[–] will-694 12 years ago

I too prefer the original even though it was far less faithful to Campbells' "Who Goes There?" than the Carpenter version.

I especially enjoy the banter among the main characters and Margarett Sheridan rocked as Nikki, just the right touch of sexiness with intellect and humor.

If anything, the 1982 version lacked any compelling, likeable characters.

[–] WeirdRaptor 12 years ago

While I appreciate the remakes for what they are, I much prefer the originals, too, because they don't rely on blood and gore to get their point across.

"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf

[–] will-694 12 years ago

Agreed. The Carpenter movie was typical of the science-horror flicks at the time. Get all the gore and special effects crammed into the film as you can. Don't worry about the characters or the plot, just make it violent and gory.

That's what makes some of the mid-century films so much better than their latter day remakes. My first experience with that phenomenon was with The Haunting. The original had no special effect to speak of . . . a couple of book pages turning and some loud banging in one scene. The source of horror and goosebumps for the audience came solely from the acting. No need for high-dollar special effects.

[–] ilon 11 years ago

I may agree on many horror movies in the 80s doing that, but that's not what I think about these specific titles.