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

[–] burbs82 19 years ago

I'm sorry, but I found nothing in the original that was even remotely suspenseful, except the whopping TWO scenes where the monster busts open the doors. I'll give him credit. That plant-man sure can open doors with the best of them.

But all the characters in the original react as if this type of thing happens everyday. Am I just not watching it in the right frame of mind? I mean, I can appreciate a good black and white movie. I consider the original 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' to be one of the best and most effective horror/sci-fi films ever made, and far better than both of the remakes that followed it...but this? I just can't get past the fact that NOTHING going on in the movie seems to surprise anybody except one scientist and the guy that frees the Thing from the ice block, and even that guy becomes completely expressionless after that initial scene. You just can't empathize with people like that. I know it's post WWII, and America's on a huge ego trip from just winning the big one, but that still doesn't explain the complete LACK of interest that most of the main characters show towards the situation they've been placed in.

As for Carpenter's version being too "gory", I'm sorry, but I was born in 1982. I guess I'm just not as offended or surprised by it as others. Rob Bottin's effects in 'The Thing' are brilliant, and shine as some of the best (If not THE best) animatronic FX work in horror history...but I'll be the first person to tell you that a hollow movie with good effects is just that...a hollow movie with good effects, and therefor it would still suck, like most big-budget horror to come out in the past few years. Carpenter's version is NOT hollow. The characters, the isolation/atmosphere, the paranoia, and the score are all put together flawlessly. Carpenter is, in my opinion, THE best director in the genre. 'In the Mouth of Madness' still stands as one of my three favorite horror films, and equals 'The Exorcist' as one of the two scariest horror films I've ever seen.

reply

[–] NoJealousy 18 years ago

The Thing from Another World-7

The Thing-6

reply

[–] Gigeralien 18 years ago

As a stand alone movie I think the '82 Thing is great. The thing from another world from '51 is good for it's time as have a lot of other different movies that have been based on their same books originally. But for me... I prefer John Carpenters '82 version of "Who goes there?"

reply

[–] imwithstupid_35 18 years ago

The Carpenter version, it's in my top 10.

my ymdb site

http://www.ymdb.com/mehsuggeth/l35858_ukuk.html

reply

[–] RedemptionArk 18 years ago

I like them both. They're from different decades, and they were both among the best horror/sci-fi films of their decade.

reply

[–] clancyt-2 18 years ago

the original may very well be the best sci-fi film ever..however,the "re-make"
was outstanding.. kudos to carpenter for recogninizing the importance of having his film be substantially different(and a little closer to campbell's short story"who goes there")..in both cases the movies had excellent lighting and music,as well great ensembles of actors..kurt russell and kenneth tobey each made classic heroes,although russell played him more as an anti-hero..this is one of the best message boards on imdb,not as many bomb-throwers

reply

[–] mvance-1 18 years ago

The original is a classic. The remake is a fun one-timer.
Wasn't "Red Grant" the name of the villain in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE? Steve.

reply

[–] dgcrow 18 years ago

I agree. Every time I see the original I'm a little more impressed with it. Great ensemble acting, good suspense.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zombie8 18 years ago

Both movies are awesome respectively.Carpenters Remake is IMO the best remake ever.The gore is well placed for an 80s film and Kurt Russel is great as the lead character and the story is well written. Personally I only like Carpenters films up to Prince of Darkness.And about "spotting his films a mile away"..well yea thats called "recognizing his style" I really dont care either way wether or not people like his style and films cause I know I do.So save your probable nasty retort.
All of Carpenters films even the ones I don't like are far better than any of the Saw,Hostel,Wrong Turn,Hills Have Eyes,TCM remakes and premakes that are out there today.And The original Thing Is a masterpice of the 50s.

"Surely you cant be serious.I am serious ,and stop calling me shirley!"

reply

[–] freaky_dave 18 years ago

I liked both films, but like people have compared The Howling an American Werewolf, I find myself comparing these two films. In my opinion, I found Carpenter's movie to be much scarier and giving off a more hopeless feeling. Granted the difference in both films is probably because of the years they were out. 1951 and 1981 are different eras in time as everybody knows. My final conclusion would be that Carpenter's version was better because it followed the story it was based on much better, and because of this it was more about paranoia then anything. Just one person's opinion anyway.

reply

[–] filmmakeracf 18 years ago

they are both equal. Groundbreaking films for their time.

filmmakeracf

reply

[–] tomcon21 18 years ago

I just saw the original for the first time. I'd like to think I'm cultured enough, knowlegdeable enough, to be able to appreciate the original film-- but alas, I found it slow moving, wordy, and dated.

I know I should take into account the time and climate in which the movie was released. But, being a fan of the 1981 remake, as well as other horror films-- Night of the Living Dead, Psycho, Jaws, The Birds, I just couldn't get into this one.

reply