The REAL Original...

Not everyone is unaware of the earlier film, and some of us like Carpenter when he was at his best, the feel he could give a movie.

I own Carpenter's and the new one, but will buy the original if I come across it. I like all of them.


I prefer Carpenter's though.

Also, the REAL original is the story that the first film was based on.

Caprpenter's film was closer to the original story than the first film.

This is true. Plus a lot of movies are based on books. But only people who read take issue with those interpretations. Which leaves out like 80% of this current generation.

First of all, there is no such film called "The Thing" in 1951, just The Thing from Another World. Second, Carpenter's The Thing isn't a remake of the earlier film they have a similar name but they are 2 completely different films, and people only call it a "remake" because of the earlier film but fans of Carpenter's film and the book know it's not a remake but rather a new adaptation. The name The Thing comes from the star in the book yet Carpenter's film has only 2 homages to the earlier film like the title card and circle of men and those are it. Everything like the location (one in the north pole and the other the south), the nature/methods of the alien (the monster in Hawk's film has only one form being a vampiric bloodsucking vegetable humanoid Frankenstein who can reproduce itself but it wasn't the imitator from the original source material) where the other monster is a shapeshifting being that can imitate any living creature it touches, the characters and their background, the origin and discovery of the spaceship and all that are very worlds apart from each other. I consider them to be 2 separate adaptations, Hawks film is a very good movie but in reality its one of the worst book to film adaptations of all time just like The Running Man or The Lawmower Man or World War Z etc. where Carpenter's film is it's own entity that is an excellent adaptation of the source material. Carpenter may had grew up with the earlier film then later on in college he read the original novella Who Goes There which was different than the film he grew up and liked the original story more as he said when he set out to do his film he didn't want to remake the earlier film as it would be foolish to compete with Howard Hawks as instead he returned back to the original book that started it all.

Somebody who makes a film based on the novel Moby Dick is not "remaking" John Huston's film. They're making a new film based on the same literary source material and that's what The Thing is. he definition of a remake is "a motion picture based on a film produced earlier" which is not the case with the John Carpenter film. A scene by scene copy of the original film (as Gus van Sant did uselessly with Hitchcock's Psycho), updated with more F/X or more gore and based on the screenplay of the earlier film or even on a screenplay not based on any existing source material like books, novellas and comics/graphic novels like say The Blob or Ocean's 11 are true remakes. If The Thing was a remake then the writer of the earlier film's screenplay would had been credited he wasn't.

To call The Thing a "remake" of The Thing from Another World would be like saying that every Dracula movie is a "remake" of the Bela Lugosi film or the silent film Nosferatu which is factually incorrect. Obviously they are all separate adaptions of the Bram Stoker novel. Another good example are the films I Am Legend, The Omega Man and The Last Man on Earth all based on the Richard Matheson novel I Am Legend. None of the films have anything to do with each other aside from all being based on the same source material. Calling a new film based on a novel filmed before a remake cheapens it a bit, when like i said they are separate adaptations.

I just like to educate people the differences between remakes and adaptation.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Thing, Stephen King's The Shining, Lord of the Rings, Dredd, Dracula, Frankenstein, The Omega Man/I Am Legend, Romeo and Juliet, A Christmas Carol, Amazing Spider-Man, Let Me In, the upcoming IT 2 part movies, War of the Worlds, Casino Royale etc. are adaptations of source material being books and novellas. Including being separate adaptations.

Night of the Living Dead, The Fog, Halloween, Maniac, Hills Have eyes, A nightmare on Elm Street, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Freaky Friday, House on Haunted Hill, Ocean's 11, King Kong, Father of the Bride, The Nutty Professor, Ocean's 11, Thomas Crown Affair, Godzilla, Angels in the Outfield, The Fog etc. those are remakes in every sense of the word.

"If this is torture, chain me to the wall"-Oliver and Company

I've ran into a few pillocks on here, but you're up there mate! Next time you think of slating other people for (in your mind) being ignorant, get your facts right and you won't look such a twat.

I'm aware of all versions. However the newest film is obviously a remake of the 1982 film. The 1982 film and the 1951 film are themselves very different films. This one however is a copy of the 82 film.

Yet another boring post in which a person can't tell the difference between quality and their own nostalgia.

Enjoy your terrible fifties version.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people can be so arrogant, condescending, and ignorant at the same time.