The Original is Superior!!

I don't know that you can say "the acting is better" in the remakes than in the originals. The character development, the interplay between characters, and the obvious warmth between the various characters, in The Thing original is some of the best writing and acting I've come across in any film.

Margaret Sheridan simply smokes in her role. Kenneth Tobey was great as were most of the rest of the cast. Hawkes really made a serious movie about something that had little real purchase with the general public. Not many big named producers would try to make a serious sci-fi picture back then.

This is on of my five favorite classic sci-fi films . . . along with The Day The Earth Stood Still, This Island Earth, Forbidden Planet, When Worlds Collide

For me, the dialogue (and Margaret Sheridan--I think Nikki may be my favorite sci-fi film female lead) makes the film.

You're right, the original... story is better ("Who Goes There"), and that story was brilliantly adapted by Carpenter's movie. The 1951 adaptation, though, was a terrible adaptation that unimaginatively followed the monster movie formula of the times, with just a small touch of "guns are better than science".

Also, acting and dialogue weren't generally "worse" in 1950 than in 1980, what a strange point to make.

In any case, the films are so different (since the 1951 version couldn't care less of the original script) that anyone could prefer one over the other. I sure prefer Carpenter's adaptation, even though I don't generally like him as a director, it's way more unique and imaginative and striking (and faithful).

First things first:
I have only watched: The Thing and The Fly remake and none of the originals.

It's not unfair at all to critic on those things. Movies have to hold up to be truly good. I don't know if the acting in the original was worse (as you say). However I found that age and acting don't have much in common. Actually my 2 favorite acting performances are from the year the original "The Thing" came out. I'm talking about Brando and Leigh in "A streetcar named desire". If the acting in Carpenter's version is better it's a very valid critism in my opinion.

Let's talk about effects: This one is tricky. If movies are only considered good because of their effects they will very likely not be remembered. However if there are other things about them they will be remembered. A movie isn't just effects and if the effects fit nicely into the movie it's allright. Metropolis has some great effects. It wouldn't be hard to remake them nowadays. However the effects in Metropolis are still amazing because they fit the story so well (Oh and I loved the dead walking). Old movies actually have one advantage: Often the CGI in new movies does not work that well (or it's overused). In old movies the effects were often way better crafted and thought about because they actually had to make it by hand. That said: The effects from Carpenter's Thing are still amazing by todays standards because noone does this anymore and they'll just hardly reach the look of the effects with CGI. The effects were the best about Carpenter's Thing. But they were amazing (among the very very best).

It's not really unfair either. The effects made the movie in Carpenter's Thing. Movies shouldn't rely in their effects to make them good (they will most likely not hold up if they do). However with theese exeptional effects The Thing still hlds up.

I'll watch the original The Thing sometime (I actually wanted to watch it before Carpenter's version). It might be better or it may not. I'm open for it.


Perhaps you want to check out:
Körkarlen (1921)
,
Vampyr (1932)
and Nosferatu (1922)

All are in my top 4 (while Shining is #1) and simply amazig horror movies (although The Thing might be rather Sci-Fi).




You see things; and you say Why? But I dream things that never were and I say Why not?

[deleted]

[deleted]

The original "the Thing" is a very solid monster flick and I like the camaraderie of the characters. The remake is closer to the source but not better, just different. I think I like creature mimicking other animals and humans in the remake - the original is just this Frankenstein Monster type whom we see precious little, which works to its benefit. I am not comparing but I like both films equally.

Jerry at the Movies
http://jerrysaravia.blogspot.com/

Standards of horror evolve along with cinematic technology, and the technology usually leads. When we see films involving a metamorphosis, we're usually seeing something that could also have been done back in the 1940's, but would probably have been considered "too scary" to show. Just look at the evolution of what's depicted in the "Bodysnatcher" genre. Today we see vampire humans turning into vampire bats; or people turning into werewolves or monstrous insects. We even expect it. I like the older movies, too, but now when I watch them, I get more into everything else than the fear factor -- like the sets, the use of music, make-up, etc. Some of the films just can't be re-made. "Mary Shelly's Frankenstein" is much closer to the original story than the one starring Boris Karloff, but it not nearly as scary. The first Frankenstein film was a silent. I've seen what's left of it and it's not scary or particularly atmospheric to me, but it scared audiences when it was first released.

well, again there is no right or wrong answer, as you said they are of different genres

laughing, watch the 1951

scaring, watch the 1982