Which is better?

I am partial to the original, but the remake was truer to the story. Either way both were good.

And your opinion's suspect based on your manner of expression. Just how old ARE you?

"Principles only mean something if you stick to them when they're INconvenient"

The original Thing is far superior to Carpenters because its main area of horror is what is conjuring in your head, not what is on the screen. Hawks directions is completely original. He projects the creatures motives and not his appearence or actions as the primary agent of terror. This is completely different from Carpenters, where he objectifies the fact that the creature is a disgusting shape shifting mutant. The creature in the original is far more clever and gives an ode to frankenstein or the early horror movies of the 20's and 30's. The acting and directing in the original is much tighter than the carpenters. The dialogue is far more interesting and is truly the essence of science fiction. If you haven't seen this movie i would recommend it unconditionally, no matter what your taste is. It is done very tastefully and is very similar to the twilight zone due to the fact that its makes you think more than it will shock you. Rating 9/10


Klaatu : "Your choice is simple. Join us and live in peace or pursue your present course and face obliteration. We shall be waiting for your answer. The decision rests with you."

I find it so funny that people engage in "which is better" arguments. I think the question is silly. What makes one film "better" than another?

I like both films but prefer the original for the overall look and feel. The remake is also great and features great special effects.

Why not "which one do you like better?" Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder and better/worse is a matter of opinion. Why can't people judge each film on its own merit and decide for themselves which one they like better? Also why does one have to win over the other? Can't you like both equally but differently and for different reasons?

Forget about trying to list the specific reasons such as story, acting, special effects, etc. Watch a film and like it or don't like it. Neither opinion is correct or incorrect. That's why it's called opinion.

Normally I like original versions better. I don’t know why. But for this movie the later version has some things working for it that the older version just couldn’t do. The creature changing shape would have been very hard in the 50’s. Both endings worked. Both fed the paranoia of the age.

In the original one of the service men asks the question “What if it can read our minds?” I don’t recall a similar note in the Carpenter version. I wish that had been explored, perhaps some one could re-re-make The Thing with that perspective. If I recall, and it has been years, the short story raised the issue.

My Father claims this was the scariest movie he had ever seen. He was born in ’36.

I say both movies are good. You have to keep both movies in perspective. The ’51 version was really a “B” movie. Per dollar spent the first was the best. Over all I favour the later one. I was born in ’60.

[deleted]

The original “The Thing - From Another World” was an excellent film and ably reflected the anti-Communist paranoia of the 1950s. The short story on which it was based, John W. Campbell’s classic tale, “Who Goes There?” was an even more paranoia-laced piece in which the alien from another world had the capacity to shape shift, to become the guy next to you, your best friend, etc. It was saying, essentially, we don’t really know each other–the person working next to you could be the enemy!

The original Christian Nyby/Howard Hawks classic was a tremendously frightening experience for a 10 year-old kid and I watched it whenever I could, as many times as I could. It was spooky and thrilling and it was funny–because the characters were believable, quirky, interesting, and insisted on talking one atop the other–just like real people did! (And like Howard Hawks characters almost always did!)

I read the Campbell story very soon after my first viewing and, at ten, it went a little past me. It seemed a lot more complicated than it needed to be...

When I heard John Carpenter was going to do a remake of “The Thing...” I felt it would most likely be a pointless exercise in moneymaking and little more.

The film came out and I thought it was okay, mildly disappointing, a bit over the top with the gore but a decent enough film. Not the original, but how could it be!?

My further recollection is that John Carpenter’s The Thing was not highly regarded when it first came out. My suspicion is that many critics and fans also compared it with the original and found it wanting.

Then I re-read Campbell’s story and realized: Carpenter had nailed it! He had gotten it right.

My feeling, now, is that both are excellent films and, while both drawn from the same source material, each show radical differences, each reflects the era in which it was made.

I see no reason why, at this remove from Carpenter’s film, another go at the source might bring us an equally excellent film. Of course our cultural animus, now, is not fear of the enemy within, but the enemy from the outside... Well, actually, I do see other reasons why it wouldn’t...but they are apart and separate from the craft of movie making and have to do more with the way movies are conceived and financed and the levels of expectation that accompany film making today. We have only to look at “Alien vs. Predator” or “Van Helsing” to see what I mean.

Come read the site: http://www.FeralFiction.com

I agree.

Whatever suspense Carpenter's version builds, it manages to ruin with gore made with cheesy stop-motion effects. I don't mind gore per se, but compare the effect it has on you, in comparison to, say, Alien, which is done in a completely different way. I *beep* hate stop-motion, even more than I hate that B-quality CGI you see in every second TV-series. Nothing about it looks convincing. Plus, I can't stand Kurt Russell and Carpenter's movies in general. You can spot them miles away, as a director, Carpenter sucks big time, but as a writer, he's above average.

I bet the book was much better than both movies.

----
Stop acting like a victim.