Which is better?
Which version is better? This version or John Carpenter's? Or would you consider them completely different movies? I haven't seen this unfortunatley.
Take off every Zig
I actually just finished watching this movie last night, interested in the idea of seeing how it compared to the Carpenter film.
Now I know that out of the two films, this one was the more successful initially, as it was widely praised by critics and enjoyed by moviegoers, while the Carpenter film was initially a huge flop and many critics hated it and some of them still do- I actually have found in a movie guid by renowned film critic Leonard Maltin while giving the Thing From Another World four stars and praising it he gave the Carpenter film two and a half, and described it as, and I quote:
“More faithful to the original story, but nonstop parade of slimy, repulsive special effects turns this into a freak show and drowns most of the suspense”
I'm really not kidding. This is the book right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Maltin's_Movie_Guide
Now that said, I'm going to start talking about my own perspective on the films.
Now I haven't read "Who Goes There?" so this is largely based on Wikipedia's plot summary, but most people say the Carpenter film is more true to the original book. Yes, technically, that one was closer, but with this film I could see elements of the original story. Naturally there was the whole thing (no pun intended) about the flying saucer being found, and the alien being recovered from the ice. One thing I also couldn't help noticing was the scene where the severed hand comes to life, it might have been a coincidence, but it did seem to remind me of the idea brought up in the Carpenter film that every piece of the thing functioned independently.
Now in terms of cast, I will have to go out and say I liked the Carpenter film's better. Don't get me wrong, the acting in this film was fine, the characters were likeable, but my main problem would just be that I felt there were too many people. Now technically speaking this would actually be another area in which the Thing From Another World is closer to the original story (which if I'm not mistaken had roughly 37 people, while the Carpenter film simplified it down to 12), but my main issue was that with so many people in a movie that wasn't even that long (just under an hour and a half), it was really hard to keep track of who's who with a few exceptions (i.e. The Captain, his girlfriend, the scientist who wanted to communicate with the Thing, the journalist). With the Carpenter film, there were only 12, which I think made it easier for us to get to know them early on. Also I will go out and say that it helped that the Carpenter film gave each of the 12 men a very distinct look. Here I found that a good chunk of them were guys with short hair in air force jackets. This isn't neccessarily a bad thing as problems like these can happen in even the best of war films, but I personally just found it easier to connect with the cast of the Carpenter film.
Now let's look at the Thing itself. I will admit I was pleasantly surprised by the way they handled the Thing in this version. I thought it was interesting that it was a literal vegetable alien, and the idea of a life form from a planet where the places of plants and animals were opposite that of Earth was actually kinda intriguing. Now on the other hand, I think the Carpenter film did a better job of creating a sense of paranoia. In the Hawks film, it was more like "There's an alien running around, watch out". There was a sense of terror, but more so in that they just didn't know when the Thing was going to strike. Meanwhile, the Carpenter film used the set-up of the original story, making the scenario not so much "Watch out for the alien" as "There's an alien running around this base and it could be any one of us". The fact that nobody is sure who to trust I think adds a certain level of fear that wasn't in the original.
I will admit I was pleasantly surprised by the effects on the Thing in the Hawks film. I liked how it very rarely appeared on screen, and whenever it did, it was only seen for a few seconds or from a distance. That certainly helped given that the "Thing" was just a guy dressed up like Frankenstein's monster, so showing it as little as possible was definitely a wise move. That said, the Carpenter film is notorious for its brilliant practical effects. Much like the Hawks film, the Thing only appears in a handful of scattered scenes, but I liked the angle that Carpenter went with, namely that the Thing doesn't have to have a specific appearance, because it's a shapeshift, meaning the Thing can be anything. I also liked the fact that when the Thing does show itself, it actually looks like something inhuman, a creature the likes of which has never been seen on Earth before. Ultimately I'd have to say that both worked.
If Clint Eastwood and Chuck Norris got into a fight, Clint Eastwood would probably win.