Which is better? - The Thing from Another World (1951) Discussion

[–] wireless-phil 14 years ago

The 1951 version is a classic!
They can't change that no matter how many re-makes the make!
Watched it several times since I was a kid,it was made the same year I was born.
It was on TCM a few weeks ago, but I missed it.
With the 2011 version, we'll have to wait and see?

reply

[–] 398 14 years ago

Excellent essay by wvq2.

I think it a very useful point that the major theme of THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD might not be about a monster or communism but something else entirely. The Thing represents a threat to the whole world and to man, as was the atomic bomb, but is overcome because men can and do work together.

I note that Hawks was a friend of William Faulkner and worked with him. In 1950 Faulkner wrote in his Nobel acceptance speech that "there are no longer questions of the spirit. There is only one question: when will I be blown up?"

Faulkner went to say that many young writers were engulfed by cynicism and write of "defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, and victories without hope and worst of all, without pity and compassion." Such men "write as if they stood among and watched the end of man. I decline to accept the end of man."

Faulkner concludes with "the writer's privilige is to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past."

I can't help but think of Hawks and this movie when reading that.

reply

[–] Strazdamonas 14 years ago

I liked both of them and Carpenters version is very different, so treating it as a different movir i say Carpenters version is better. But treating it as a same movie carpenter didnt try to make the same thing really. so you can treat it as the same thing anyway.

----------
"Common sense is not so common."
- Voltaire

reply

[–] reyntiens_danny 13 years ago

After reading your question I watched both in a row... I actually would say that John Carpenter's The Thing, is more of a sequel than a remake.... Both are brilliant in their own way.... Both are great story telling, which is rare in Cinema today (Although Rise of the planets of the Apes is an exception, if that scrip doesn't get Oscar nominated than I'm giving up on films) Both represent the times they were made in but truly, there is no doubt in that both films are worthy to be called art.

reply

[–] Tresix 13 years ago

At first, I didn't particularly like Carpenter's remake. It certainly followed the original short story's plot more closely and technological advances allowed the monster to be shown in all of its metamorphic glory. Time, I think, has finally caught up to the remake and it's quite good. The original is more traditional "Us vs. Them" sci-fi while the remake has a little more layering to it. However, there is still one scene in the original that still has me leaping out of my seat to this day: the first time the men encounter The Thing in that doorway…!

Yippee: "For king!"
Yappee: "For country!"
Yahooie: "And, most of all, for 10¢ an hour!"

reply

[–] SimplySteve 13 years ago

However, there is still one scene in the original that still has me leaping out of my seat to this day: the first time the men encounter The Thing in that doorway…

You, and everyone else my friend!

Funny, what makes our thrill even more ironic...we practically KNOW it's coming!!

.

reply

[–] evilchickennugget 13 years ago

Original is best, better direction, better acting, only thing it was lacking in was action.

reply

[–] johny3 13 years ago

1982 version was vastly superior. I can appreciate the 1951 version, but it just doesn't throw you into the story as much. The acting and pacing were better in 1982.

Oh ... hello, Buster. Here’s a candy bar. No, I’m withholding it. Look at me, “getting off.”

reply

[–] aciolino 13 years ago

Good lord, no comparison, but if you must, the ORIGINAL.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 13 years ago

They´re pretty equally strong pretty much in all areas - except for the ending which in this earlier picture was a major let down in terms of suspense, not to mention special effects. Very bland and uninvolving. Meanwhile, Carpeter´s opus ends on a truly devastating, disquieting note of course... hence 1951 film gets a 7,5/10 and the 1982 one 8/10. Both are good, smart films with well developed characters, snappy dialogue and general air of authenticity.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] lazarus-37 13 years ago

I much prefer Carpanter's version. Main downside of the original was social club atmosphere - most of the time characters were happily chatting, flirting with that lady while enjoying a good coffee. That Frankenstein carrot monster was only nuisance, he hasn't even killed anybody. And that was supposed to be SF-horror, right ?

reply

[–] manchof1 13 years ago

Carpenter's version, I wasn't so much a fan of the Frankenstein monster in this movie.

reply