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
"Better" is a judgement call, a matter of taste. They are both true classics (which says a lot for the remake) and there is no reason you can't enjoy both neither, or either.
share[deleted]
Both movies are great, but I find the earlier one much more enjoyable. But I am an old movie buff, so maybe my judgment is clouded. 8)
shareI think the thing that pissed me off about the remake was that it started out so interesting, and by the end I felt that they had just ruined what was a good idea. I really disliked it for that reason, plus it left out any human aspect, as well as suspense, and the alien, as scary as it was was really stupid. The virus DNA thing is a quirky idea but would never work for an organism in reality, because it cannot read ahead what they genes are going to express, and if it could it would just design its body to be the most efficient to start with. The remake was ludicrous except for its initial scare value.
It's pretty obvious - John Carpenter's The Thing was a movie adaptation of the original short story (not a book as so many have claimed). The short story, titled 'Who Goes There?' was, and still is, terrifying to me. the central point is one of paranoia and lack of trust because of a creature which can become anything or anyone.
The 1951 movie is a red-scare abortion which removes all of the central themes of the story and replaces it with a walking, blood-drinking vegetable, and an anti-communist overtone. It completely strips the basic story and the only elements that remain are:
spaceship
alien being
research team
antarctica
Thereby rendering whatever credibility it may have started out with moot. It's not the original story, quit calling the 1981 movie a 'remake' - John Carpenter's film is an 'adaptation' of the short story for the screen. the 1951 movie had nothing at all to do with the story.
Sebastyen Storm
Emperor of the Sovreign State of Firefly Valley
of course Carpenter`s Version.
much better in 1982 The Thing:
- atmosphere
- soundtrack
- acting
- claustrophobic feeling (the hawks version didn`t have this)
- really dangerous alien
- the dog scene
and it has much more suspense, mainly because you cannot trust the characters, everyone of them may be infected. yeah, its pretty gory and the images may be disgusting... but it doesn`t destroy the atmosphere and suspense...
the Nyby/Hawks Version is pretty nice, but compared to Carpenter`s version, it loses in nearly every aspect.
The biggest problem I had with the '82 remake is the lack of resolution at the end of the film. I know that the IMDB board for the remake has tons of discussion going on about what Carpenter meant, but you came out of the theater shaking your head.
Either have the humans win or lose. Don't give us a tie or leave the ending in doubt.
Granted, it was an original ending -- not resolving the conflict. But I didn't like it.
The original is a joke. The remake is FARRRRR better. Not just for effects but story, suspense etc. The remake is really creepy and the whole 'dont know who to trust' is really creepy and done well. In the original there's no creepy music or effects or anything. The whole UFO idea is only suggested which sucks. The whole film feels like a soap as they talk to their wives and drink coffee.
I'm a big fan of classic films like The Wizard of Oz, Night of the Living Dead (both versions) The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (original), The Fly (both versions) but I know the original Things bad cause its not got any of the points that makes horror movies classic.
Another thing, the original is based loosly on the novel but the remake is based fully on it. The remake stays true to the novel a lot more and I'm sure the writer sees his novel come to life like his image of the novel in the remake.
[deleted]
The biggest problem I had with the '82 remake is the lack of resolution at the end of the film. I know that the IMDB board for the remake has tons of discussion going on about what Carpenter meant, but you came out of the theater shaking your head.
Either have the humans win or lose. Don't give us a tie or leave the ending in doubt.
Granted, it was an original ending -- not resolving the conflict. But I didn't like it. -CK427
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. The theatre I was in, the audience booed when the screen went black and the credits came up. Carpenter (so I've heard) had filmed an ending where Russel's character (MaCready) has just gotten the blood test results back, and he's human. I don't know what was supposed to happen with Chiles. But he changed the ending for whatever reason. The remake remains in my top ten films of all time despite the ending-which I DESPISED as well. THAT'S the REAL reason it bombed when it was released-and it's a damn shame that Carp did it to himself. I CANNOT STAND films that have no resolution, and I have to believe the majority of film buffs/moviegoers feel the same way.
Granted, it was an original ending -- not resolving the conflict. But I didn't like it. -CK427
The real story ends with a bird flying out of the camp and the survivors wondering if it was the thing or not. It's been a while since I've read it, but it ends something like that, which is kind of the ending Carpenter implied - is the thing still alive?
The ending is the best scene in the whole movie.
shareI like both movies, but for very different reasons.
I think the original is a fun buddy movie that could stand on its own without a monster, but with the monster becomes a top-notch SF movie with great suspense and action.
I especially love the snappy dialog, and Kenneth Tobey is perfect as the officer in charge, or who tries to be in charge of such an eclectic and unruly group.
I like the remake as a gory horror movie, and partly because it is true to the short story/novella on which the story is based - Who Goes There?
John Carpenter's version is much better. The camera was too distant and static in the original and I wasn't really thrilled in any scene while watching it. And I really don't think that old movies are always old fashioned. Seven samurai is one of my favourite movies and it doesn't look dated.
share[deleted]
This is an interesting debate. For some reason a few of the supporters of the Carpenter version have a condescending arrogance in their posts. They imply that if you do not agree that the Carpenter film is far superior you are stupid.
At the risk of being considered déclassé I will state that I have seen the Hawks version at least twenty times. Tomorrow morning, or latter today to be precise I will make that at least twenty one. On the other hand I fond the Carpenter film to be tedious, excessively gory and have seen it only once. However I respect Carpenter as a director. I have decided to give his film another chance. They are different films. Vastly different interpretations. The 51 film has aged quite well. The adroit use of overlapping dialogue gives a mood that is lacking form any films. You feel more like an onlooker instead of someone the actor is talking to.
However I admit that the effects in the 82 version were first rate and if you like gore and horror it may be your cup of tea. it was just over the top for me.
I am willing to bet that 30 years from now film aficionado's will still talk about THE THING FORM ANOTHER WORLD while THE THING will just be a footnote in film history
Very well stated. I happen to like both versions, the first one being one of my favorite films, not just sci-fi. The overlapping dialogue present in this film stands out almost unlike any other. It actually sounds the way people usually hold conversations! That being said, I can see why some of the younger crowd might be a little bored with the first version since it's mostly talk and very few things explode. Just kidding.
The second film, at the time of its release, had some of the best special effects I had ever seen. Sure, it's a bit gory, but nothing that would turn a sci-fi fan off. I remember watching it over and over again on cable when the movie channels of old used to run the same film 5 or 6 times a day. My friends and I used to know the lines verbatim. I think it's a bit scarier due to the gore, but neither film is that frightening. I think both have their merits.
By the way, that Kevin Bacon degrees of separation thing is better done through Carpenter's remake. It seems that everyone in his version shows up throughout TV and film during the 80's, 90's and present.
> This is an interesting debate. For some reason a few of the
> supporters of the Carpenter version have a condescending
> arrogance in their posts. They imply that if you do not
> agree that the Carpenter film is far superior you are stupid.
I think that is because as a group they are probably younger
and the ones impressed with eye-candy unable to see, and therefore
acknowledge the real value of a film. Most people these days,
probably because it is all Hollywood dishese out, seem to like
effects, and rare happenings in movies, as opposed to reality.
Of course they are arrogant if they are in some way in denial
of reality ... and that is what Hollywood and the media seems
to be programming people for - a rude insensitive dark hopeless
world where the most you can hope for is some distracting
spectacle until you are dead.
I agree with your footnote as well. When I saw the remake it
was so creepy in the beginning that I had really high hopes and
thought it was going to be really good. It had no characters,
pacing, suspense, or reality to me, but it did have some special
effects that really wowed me for a few months until I kept seeing
the same thing over and over again in every other movie - ho-hum.
[deleted]
>> The original is trite mundane overacted and no atmosphere.
Wow, you are so used to the super-special-effect-blow-up-everything
type of blockbuster that you cannot even see the underlying genius
of "The Thing From Another World".
I'll bet you cannot stand classical music either, because your
senses are just too over-stimulated from raucous pounding and
yelling you just think it is worthless.
The fact is that this movie is a classic, or I would not have
been viewing it a few weeks back in the Stanford Theater in Palo
Alto with a whole big crowd of other people. At this point, I
see no theaters bringing back Carpenter's "The Thing".
I saw "The Thing From Another World" on TV as a kid, and loved
it from the start. I also remember clearly going to see Carpenter's
version at the AMC Old Mill in Palo Alto when it debuted. I was
swept away with with the cool, at that time, never seen before
effects, but when the movie was done, I had to admit, it left me
sad that there was nothing to it. There was no humanity to that
movie at all, it is all effects and violence. I consider that
a failure.
A quiet scene that erupts in blood when an alien pops out of
a dog suddenly is not tension ... you have a lot to learn, so
may I suggest that you turn down the volume and start listening
and looking carefully at the underlying structure of a movie
instead of how many car crashes, severed jugulars, or pairs of
breasts you can count.
same story just done two different ways. both movies were good.
shareWow. Most of the time I can undersand why people love a movie, even if I don't a agree. I can understand who people can hate a movie. I can certainly undersand why people would hate the remake. personaly, it is one of my favorite horror films of all. The music was amazing. the acting was very good. The paranoid atmosphere engrossed me. But I can understand why people wouldn't like it. It was very violent, and in scattered parts very indulgent.So yes, I can undersand why you would say souless buckets of gore.
But how on earth can so many people like the original? I have watched alot of 50's monster movies. I don't really like most of them, actually. I would say this one is better than most. But common. It was just so campy and cliched. I would call it a completely different movie then the remake. It was just a decent 50's monster movie. nothing more. Nothing less. I can understand you saying the "remake" had no suspense, but I cannot see how it had any less suspense than the original. If you want to see a great old monster movie, apart from the Universal Dracula/ mummy flicks, check out Vincent Price's the last man on earth. It is proof that old horror movies could actually be serious and actually move people 50 years later.