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
They are completely different movies. John Carpenter's takes the premise of the research team finding something in the ice, but from then on the plots diverge. The latter film is far better in every possible aspect.
shareCarpenter's. No doubt.
The Thing from Another World has the heavy concept of "after war-cold war" and the sillyness to use phrases like "the greatest news since the split of the Red Sea". Was the time America was the best brand new empire, long before Vietnan put a large spot on this.
Well, it's all about History. 1951 version shows the wonders of the perfect American Way (as most Sci-fi from this time do). USA was invencible. After Vietnan things changed so Carpenter could show things more reasonable.
[deleted]
they are 2 VERY different movies! although the original was not represetitive of the book ,it was a very well done suspenseful movie.even being over 50 years old , i have popped it in on the weekend with the lights out,watched it with people who have nevr seen it and we still enjoy the movie.Carpenters movie was also great.both films meade you feel trapped with the crews & feel the frustration of the actors plight.special effects were obviouslly better in Carpenters' but it wasn't great because of the effects,the effects just made it that much more dramtic. see both movies if you're a sci-fi ,horror fan
share
Both are good movies. I like the older one, as the reactions seem to me more in line with what military men would actually do. But both films were good.
- K.
I'm sorry, the correct answer was 'Mormons'.
I think the John Carpenter version is better because it doesn't rely much on dialogue like the 1951 version did. The Carpenter version is also more streamlined unlike the 1951 version which added a rather unnecessary love-interest subplot. But I still think the 1951 version is great.
In any case, the 1951 version seems more of a sci-fi film whereas the Carpenter version is more of a horror film.
"Your hair was darker then."
"My heart was lighter then."
Without a doubt, the John Carpenter version. It captures the fear and paranoia wonderfully and was a groundbreaking movie for it's time. Not to say the 1951 version is bad though.
share[deleted]
Both are terrific but i like the remake more since it's more accurate to the book.
"You gotta be Fking kidding"-The Thing.
I watched Carpenter's last night. I really enjoy and admire both films. If an evil demon was going around destroying films and I could only save one, I'd save the 1951; I'd sure miss Carpenter's, though. I think that, in the 1951, there are more sights that stick in my imagination; and the suspense was handled better; also, I enjoy the conflict between the military and the scientists, and the disagreement regarding whether the alien should die. this is not to deny that Carpenter's picture has its own strong points. As to which film is closer to the book, I've never been inclined to view this as an essential question in evaluating the film.
shareHaving seen both of these recently, I'd say that Carpenter's The Thing is a superior piece of sci-fi (or horror); but the Hawks/Nyby The Thing from Another World is a vastly superior film. By that I mean to say that Carpenter's movie is a solid piece of genre filmmaking, whereas the Hawks movie is something completely different--the sublime expression of a personal worldview that takes on some of the trappings of the sci-fi genre. In Hawks's movie, you see a great artist engage with, and often transcend, his genre and his story material; Carpenter, I'm afraid, just doesn't have that in him. (And you can see the same difference in quality when you compare Hawks's Rio Bravo to Carpenter's loose remake, Assault on Precinct 13.)
Look, if you come to The Thing from Another World looking solely for the pleasures of a sci-fi/horror film, you'll be sorely disappointed. Judged on the terms by which such movies are typically judged, it seems kinda lame and incompetent: there's not much suspense, the monster is laughable, they don't even seem to try to come up with a compelling pseudo-science account of the nature of the threat, etc. (And no, its age is no excuse for these things.) Really, the movie seems to squander its premise. Which is exactly what Carpenter's The Thing doesn't do: it understands and draws out the feelings of isolation and paranoia that naturally flow out of the underlying scenario (viz. you're trapped in close quarters with a deadly and deceptive killing machine on the loose). It's a solid working through of that premise--but there's the rub (and it's a big one!): The Thing doesn't seem to be much more than a film that develops a clever premise. And I think it's just that The Thing from Another World isn't just a movie that develops a clever premise; indeed, it hardly seems to care about developing its premise at all. Hawks, as usual, is up to something completely different.
Now, bear with me as I get pretentious, and a little ridiculous. When you come to The Thing from Another World with a little knowledge of the Hawksian worldview, the weaknesses of the movie as a piece of genre filmmaking start to seem deliberate and, in fact, crucial to what the movie is trying to do. Hawks's The Thing from Another World fails at developing the story's underlying premise--fails to develop a compelling monster, fails to generate suspense, etc.--because the premise is inadequate to what the film is trying to do. The trappings of the sci-fi genre, and the assumptions underlying the movies premise, crumble in Hawks's hands; the material is inferior to the artist, and the material loses. The genre, and the particular story here, simply can't contain a lot of the crucial elements of the Hawksian worldview: the camaraderie among the characters, the appreciation for professionalism and competence, the optimism about the powers of the group, the sense of joie de vivre even in the face of mortal danger, and the generosity of spirit displayed in the treatment of all the characters (notice that the journalist even salvages the reputation of the scientist--and he receives plaudits from the soldiers for doing so--at the very end of the film).
Why doesn't The Thing from Another World have a compelling, scary monster? Because the story Hawks is telling isn't about the monster; it's about the characters and their relations to one another. Why don't the characters display much paranoia and distrust of one another in this impossible situation? Because the characters like and trust one another; you can feel this in every frame of the movie. It's what makes them so loveable, it's why I root like hell for them, and it's why I'm happy when they win. Why doesn't the movie generate much suspense? Because we know these people are intelligent and competent, and that they're in a group that works well together. They're too smart and too good at what they do to lose, and, on some level, they know it as well as we do. This gives them a sort of nobility and dignity.
So I think a lot of what's going on here is that the Hawksian worldview just doesn't jibe with this sci-fi story. But the central elements of Hawks's worldview--and the efficient and evocative ways in which he embodies them in this movie--are simply more important and more beautiful than anything you'd find in a more competent piece of sci-fi--like, say, Carpenter's The Thing. And that's a problem for the sci-fi genre (and for this story) rather than a problem for Hawks's worldview.
Good essay, wvq2. I get it and agree.
Looking at it more narrowly:
The Thing From Another World, which is one of my all-time favorite movies, would be a good movie without the monster. And the more I think about, the more I think it would be better. The monster is simply the weakest part of the movie.
In contrast, The Thing - which I also like, just not as much - goes nowhere without the monster.
Move along. Nothing to see here.share
[deleted]
Just want to bump wvq2's reply!
The relevant question is "better as what?" Much like 1951's The Day the Earth stood still (or even the 1958 vs 1986 The Fly), the 1951's The Thing from Another World is a movie that used (in fact, "started/created") the sci-fi movies trope BEFORE they become the tropes they were in the 1980's. And the more apparently "ordinary/normal" the characters/events are, the better sci-fi or horror works for me-- it's called dramatic development. The more "surprises/shocks" a movie tries to spring, the less overall impact it has.
In fact, I never warmed up to the John Carpenter's Thing (1982) precisely because it went for the (by-then) obvious sci-fi/horror route.... It certainly works better (than the 1951 adapation) AS a horror movie, but beyond the "gross out" horror factor, there was nothing particularly memorable (or enjoyable) about it to me. And I'm speaking as someone who doesn't mind John Carpenter or sci-fi/horror to begin with.
I mean, from the way it concentrates on the characters rather than the monster, it's clear that 1951's The Thing from Another World obviously sets out to be an adventure-mystery rather than some horror shockfest. And its re-watchability lies in how much you enjoy watching the characters interact with each other rather than the monster tearing up stuff.
And I'm afraid I have to point it out to fans of John Carpenter's Thing (1982), that it's not any more "realistic" or "believable" just because it is more recent and has more modern production values-- it is just as "dated" or "datable" and bears the mark of its times and director just like the 1951 adapatation.... I mean, John Carpenter deliberately "time-stamps" his movie 1982 and shows a "chess machine"!!!
Again, productions values aside, how is an angsty and emo crew (post Vietnam War America?) somehow more "realistic" or "believable" than a competent and composed one (post World War II America?). And when is having the crew dissecting the monster IMMEDIATELY without proper quarantine procedures (ALREADY a sci-fi/horror trope in 1982) more "realistic" or "believable" than trying to staying the hell away from it while waiting for further instructions/info?
If the OP wanted to know "which is better?", then comparisons should really be made between The Thing (1982) and Alien (1979), or "Terrore nello Spazio (Planet of Vampires)" or even "Terror from Beyond Space"-- cos these films definitely share more common thematic/stylistic elements between them than the 1951's Thing. Even critics notice the similarities with Alien (1979) when The Thing (1982) was released and pointed out that Alien (1979) did it better.
And no, it wasn't simply because Alien (1979) had a bigger budget-- it was because Alien, like the 1951 Thing, showed a cast/crew that was actually more realistically/believably "grounded" in their particular settings... e.g. the dumb moves made by the cast/crew (as the sci-fi/horror trope goes) in Alien and the 1951 Thing just make much more sense character/plot-wise than in 1982 Thing, where the slasher movie vibe (where we almost expect/anticipate the stupidity of the victims) is much stronger.
I mean, just compare the first "reveal" of the monster/alien in both Alien (1979) and 1951 Thing happens in the presence of the cast/crew and in fact CONCENTRATES on the cast/crew reaction; vs the the first "reveal" of the monster/alien in the Thing (1982) in all its gore/glory, but in the ABSENCE of the cast/crew-- and it's clear that the 1982 Thing is actually trying to be a "monster/slasher" movie showcase, when both Alien (1979) and 1951 Thing are still trying to build up the characters/drama.
I'm not trying to "put down" The Thing (1982)-- cos it works on it own and certainly get points for bringing out the themes of the source material (the thing "shapeshifting") and showing the gore-- but any "comparison" threads begs the question of what is the exact "criteria/context"?
If you care enough to go around telling people you don't care... you obviously care.
Carpenters, by far. It's better in pretty much every way. This one is still an excellent 50's monster movie, but Carpenters blows it away.
sharewvq's essay was very good and enlightening about Hawks. I liked it. And just to add it's noted Hawks' films are "fluid, fast and functional" and that there is alot of "physicality" in his films. And for some reason Hawks has this concern over hands. He seems to have this motif of concentrating on hands in his films. Take a look in the Thing where the scientists are examining its torn off hand and when the Thing breaks through the door you see its large hand come through the side with the splinters flying all over the place. And in his other films you have visible hand shaking by a character (Martin in Rio Bravo), the burning of a fliers hands in "Only Angels Have Wings" and Douglas losing a finger from his hand in "Big Sky".
shareJohn Carpenter did the better one. The original was ok.
share