Which is better?

I'm actually someone who loves black and white horror/sci-fi. I love the original 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' more than both of the remakes, I love Hitchcock's 'Psycho', Corman's 'Bucket of Blood' and alot of his other B&W films, 'Invaders From Mars', I love the original 'Twilight Zone' series, etc...

But I'm sorry, even judging it by 50's standards, the original 'The Thing From Another World' has some problems. For one, the entire cast acts like they're reading from a teleprompter. Other B&W films have great acting. Kevin McCarthy gives one of the best performances I've ever seen in 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers'. The cast of 'The Thing From Another World' are like robots. Far more frightening than even the plant-creature itself. That's really my biggest issue with the original version. Whatever it accomplishes in a solid story, innovative camera work, good visual effects, etc., is brought WAY down by the deadpan cast.

Carpenter's version is superior in acting, atmosphere (Carpenter captures isolation, mood, paranoia perfectly), suspense, and yes, effects. And I can't STAND people complaining about the ambiguous ending... That was pure genius on Carpenter's part. Why do people need to be spoon fed an ending? It's not an upbeat film, but then again... Should it be? It is basically a doomsday scenario for earth if one of the infected survives. Should these guys NOT be freaked out, like the characters in the original, who just go through the motions as if plant-creatures conspire to take over Earth every day? Seriously, it's not a criticism of black and white films, or 50's horror/sci-fi. I love both. But the acting puts the original in the b-movie category under the 'so-bad-it's-actually-funny' banner. It's an enjoyable film, but if the actors hadn't spoken to one another like they were reading the evening news, I would've enjoyed it more.

"Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name."

The Thing is better.

The original Thing was the first of its kind. The first of the sci fi flicks. It had snappy dialog, decent special effects for 1951, and a good versus evil premise characteristic of cold war movies. I have watched it over 10 times and it still excites me. The second Carpenter version was confusing, boring and laden with gratuitus gore.

After being told the original is amazing compared with the remake I downloaded it off the net. My mum said the remake is better because people died lol and the thing was a better monster also the women was terrible in it.

But my thoughts where they where pretty much on par, but the remake must get a point or two more, the actors are a lot better, the monster is better, and there are more kills, the charaters are more developed too.

The big thing that destroyed the original for me was the doctor he was shockingly bad.

I think they're completely different movies. The Thing From Another World is fun to watch and has great characters and great dialogue, particularly from the reporter and the love interest (don't remember any of their names). Even though it's essentially a horror movie, it's very lighthearted. Carpenter's version is more gloomy and atmospheric. It captures a wonderful sense of isolation and paranoia. The characters aren't as likable (but then again, I don't think they were necessarily supposed to be), the special effects were brilliant, the acting was mostly good, and the direction was effectively chilling. Plus the ambiguous ending worked for the movie rather than against it.

Both are great films. They're just great in different ways.

Potatoes are what we eat!

although the remake is closer to the short story by Campbell,and the effects are obviously superior,i still prefer the 1951 original.the script is better,the cast are superb and there`s just a "feel" of isolation and suspicion about the film which is more evident than the 1982 version.kenneth tobey and douglas spencer are particularly good in the original.love it!

I think some of the fans of this film are being a bit "snobbish" towards those who like the later adaptation of "Who Goes There?" (which is not a novel but a quite excellent short story which is available here http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Highrise/3756/jc/who/bonusid.htm)saying if they liker the newer version they must be "children" or only into gore and effects.

I don't like to judge films on the grounds of effects, colours (I actually like the effect monochrome has on films, hence I am a fan of "film noir" and also many "horror" and "sci-fi" films of the "silver age" as I like to call it) if so then I would judge many of my favourite films quite poorly.
I am a fan of such films as James Whale's 'Frankenstein', the universal 'Mummy' films, Murnau's 'Nosferatu', Edison's Company adaptation of 'Frankenstein', many 50s Sci-Fi films and Huston's noirs...all of which are indeed old, black and white and when featuring a creature, tended to be on the unrealistic side (with the exception of 'Nosferatu' in which Graf Orlock is very realistic even today in my opinion).

When it comes to 'The Thing From Another World' which I first watched one afternoon passing the time as I do watching a vintage movie, however compared to many older films and ones of the 1950s I didn't enjoy it as much, I thought the pacing was slightly rushed in places and a little slow in other places, I thought the "Thing" was quite ridiculous for a creature from that era (many quite unnerving or well designed "monsters", regardless of realism, can be found in the "creature features" of the 1940s and 1950s); he was, to be frank, a large bald man with some quite bad skin which look like he should get them looked at by a doctor. Some may counter that by saying something like "well in the 1950s folk thought that he was scary and realistic" however, and this may vary by location, my father who was born in 1945 and thus not exactly an "old fogey" when 'The Thing From Another World' was released thought, as did most of his friends, the adults and acquaintances, that the "Thing" was decidedly unscary (he puts it's success down to the culture in the US at the time...I cannot, myself, make comment upon this) and "boring", and though film making has moved on I do pride myself in being able to appreciate old-school effects and costumes (as my father was, I am still impressed with a lot of the designs and effects used in the original Quatermass series, also from the 1950s). I would not put the failure of the "Thing" down to his costume per se, but more to his uninspired design. Whether or not that design was the original choice of the directors is besides the point as it was the design we got.

Another reason I am not too impressed (though I am far from hating) 'The Thing From Another World' is a reason some may groan about; the fact that no one dies in the film, or is seriously hurt. I am not one who prises death-upon-death-upon-death-upon-death if it is unneeded or done in very poor taste, however with this type of storyline we need to see (imagination helps but the Director and writers should also use their imaginations as well as letting the audience use theirs exclusively, it's a symbiotic relationship, they all feed of the fertile minds of each other) that the "Thing" is dangerous, and the event depicted (to probably misquote the film) is "the greatest battle man has ever fought" rather than how some of the scenes turned out some American Servicemen beating up a bald man around the base. That is a line that I found laughable after the two world wars and while Korea was being fought over, that the "Thing" was the greatest threat. Compare the bombs, trenches and general misery of World War One (or even 'All Quiet On The Western Front' use something from "film-land") to a grouchy vegetable man with a hangover...it's ludicrous.

Also some seem to prefer the fact that all the characters (bar the scientists...evil or foolish folk that they are a lot of the time in film-land) are "buddy-buddy" and the base also has women, but I find that such things detract from the atmosphere, from the claustrophobia and the general feeling that these are men that are cut of from civilisation that they are trying to save while they also try to remain alive. The lead actress was also very wooden in my opinion, but that is only my personal taste as is much of what I am writing, however I shall not dwell on that.

And before I get pigeon-holed into being a "hater" of the film I'd like to point out some things I liked about the film. I was impressed by the cinematography generally but especially in the scene in which they discover the craft and are setting flags around the site (a scene that resurfaced in the 1980s version) and also the scene with the burning "Thing" (which was again loosely referenced in the later film). The burning title sequence was iconic and very impressive, especially for it's time in my opinion. And lastly, my favourite feature was the use of over-lapping dialogue (something the later adaptation lacks for the most part) which is still rarely used even today despite the inherent realism of that type of dialogue.

So overall, I found 'The Thing From Another World' an enjoyable, fun, Sunday afternoon type film, but not as much of the classic as I think many make it out to be. I found many similar movies to be handled in a far better manner.

'The Thing' is on the other hand one of my all-time favourite films; not because it is modern, has gore (which actually repulses me at times, which I think it should) or an explosion but because I like it's "Lovecraftian" qualities. I loved it's pacing, the fact it doesn't simply answer all the questions, which some on this board find annoying but I hate being "talked down to" with a film...instead I like it when I am allowed to use my brain and imagination in conjunction with the Director's vision. I am glad we cannot be sure what the "Thing" looked like in it's natural form, how its assimilation fully works or whether the ship was its ship or "invaded" another being's vessel.

I also didn't find the effects excessive, especially in the way "slashers" and other modern horror and science fiction films rely on (usually unrealistic computer generated effects) to trick the viewer into thinking they are afraid by using them for cheap shocks. I agree 'The Thing' did have shock moments (as did 'The Thing From Another World) but not at the expense of over-all mood of the film.

The criticism of the characters in 'The Thing' is also unjust as it's mostly based solely on the fact they are (perceived as) unlikeable and flawed, but how many in real life are as perfect as the heroes of many an old 'B-movie' with a big square jaw and no character flaws in any meaningful way, unless it's being too nice or foolhardy (aka "heroic" in "old-school lingo"). Shucks!

And to top it all of, the music! The music in 'The Thing' was done by Il Maestro himself Ennio Morricone, a man who could create mood where there was none just by his excellent skills as a composer.

I think that sums up (more-or-less) my views on why I prefer 'The Thing' as a film as well as many other sci-fi/horror films of the era in which 'The Thing From Another World' was made.

"Nothings gonna change my world!"

Well, I FINALLY got around to watching this movie last night (for the first time), and I loved it. First and foremost, I absolutely loved the dialogue and the banter between the characters. I suppose this is one of the aspects people like or dislike most about the movie so you can just add me to the list "likes". I also loved the way the monster would make his "entrance". That was just too cool. I won't deny that I also found the movie campy but that much is to be expected. There wasn't very much suspense for me but there were a couple of moments. The interaction between some of the characters was so lighthearted and charming that it was hard to maintain a sense of tension. (slight spoiler)I really liked the way the story began and the discovery of the spaceship/creature. In a sense it tied into what we didn't see in the '82 version with regards to the Norwegians. Granted, this is me making my OWN association between the two. The idea that the "eskimos" got the hell out of there when they brought the creature back to camp was great.

All in all, I thought it was very entertaining but the '82 film certainly didn't need all the gore to be the "scarier" of the two (as some have implied). It may sound silly but I actually clapped at the end. haha I really did enjoy this movie. Apparently moreso than I thought I would. I didn't have time to convert the DVD for my iPod, otherwise I'd be at work playing it right now! Now that I've seen both movies I can safely say that there is clearly room for both. They each take a completely different approach to the same great story and in my opinion they both do a great job at it. Btw, all of the complaining about there being women in the movie is completely unnecessary. The story was in no way hindered by the presence of female characters.

With that said, I still prefer The Thing '82, which is basically my all-time favorite movie. They are both great movies but for completely different reasons.



U
lllook
gr8
2dá!