Which is better?


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

reply

I saw it a long time ago and I can't really remember it, but I did see clips of it on a tv show the other day and it looks quite impressive still. Both movies are based on a book called "Who Goes There?", and because of the obvious technical advances between the two films, the remake was able to be truer to the book than the original was and have a shape shifting alien. The original had to make do with a straight forward monster, typical of those type of movies from that era.
Out of all the remakes that have come out over the years, I would say that John Carpenter's The Thing is the best.

reply

The monster in this reminded me of Frankenstein, but I still liked the movie.

"The values I should in high regard don't mean a thing to me"
-Sonata Arctica, "Misplaced"

reply

Friends, the monster LOOKS like Frankensteins Monster because they couldn't come up with a design that Howard Hawks liked. Finally in desperation and probably exasperation, he just blurted out, "Get a big guy, and put him in Frankenstein make-up and a Nazi uniform!!!". And a classic was born. That was how I always perceived the Thing, even when I first saw the movie on late night television when I was about 5. Then years later I discovered "Starlog" magazine, and found out how right I was. Later.

reply

because of the obvious technical advances between the two films, the remake was able to be truer to the book than the original was and have a shape shifting alien.


I don't know why you and others say that the original was unable, or at least less able, to present a shape shifting alien. In the original story, as well as I remember -- and I've read it many times -- the alien is never seen shifting shapes. You don't have to see weird shapes to know that it has replaced someone.

I don't know why the first film version chose not to follow the main premise of the story. I always thought it was a shame. It was a good monster movie, but that's all it was.


"The more you drive, the less intelligent you are"
-- Repo Man

reply

I just read "Who Goes There?" (finished it 20 minutes ago) and it has the monster shape-shifting in several scenes. The first time is when the cook is murdered, but then grows scales and talons to defend itself when they go to electrocute his body, as it was really a thing playing dead.

The blood test scene is almost spot-on with Carpenter's version, with several of the things revealing themselves just before or as their blood is tested.

Finally, the thing in Blair's cabin shape-shifts several times during the final fight.

John Carpenter's is much truer to the original story, even using many of the names from the original (this version uses none of the names), like McReady, Doc Copper, Blair, Clark, Garry and Norris.

The dog pen scene is close in both the original and Carpenter's as well.

The main changes were technological (as 40+ years had passed between the original being written and the Carpenter film's production), the number of people in the camp (there were many more people in the original, as well as more things), and who was infected and who wasn't.

Overall, Carpenter's version was much, much closer than this version. The only thing this movie had in common with the original story is that they found an alien frozen in the ice and electrocuted it.

reply

Quite simply, an apples and oranges comparison.
Both fine films. Carpenter stuck more to the novella, special effects
not as much available in 51.
When I watch both films, I don't even THINK about a comparison.
I simply sit back and enjoy both.
My fav of the two?
I guess I've gotta go with the original because of the
ground breaking-ness of the first.
We had been breast-fed on gory special effects by the time
the remake arrived.
Note: IMHO, I still think they could have toned down the
bloody gore and jacked up more 'thrills' (which they did do anyway)
in the remake. Hey! Two very fine films....

reply

I agree both versions have their own merits. In both there is a menace from the creature. In the original you never know when he'll pop up out of nowhere and attack and in the remake you can never quite be sure which of the 'human' characters is in fact an alien in disguise.

reply

I don't think you can compare them really. I love both for different reasons.

The original is a nicely paced, action/sci-fi movie, with great dialogue and suspense.

The remake is more true to the original Short Story, and is more Horror/scare-you-out-of-your-pants. The gore is a tad excessive, and the alien tends to raise eyebrows/questions because of its sheer wierdness, but it tries to be more of a horror movie than a sci-fi, whic is fine by me.

reply

The reason the alien looks so weird is that it has stored the DNA/look of thousands of beings (that it has imitated) and when it is confronted by hostile creatures (the scientists) it tries to transform to something which would help it get the advantage. It never really gets to finish in the gory scenes where it often looks so weird. It's probably trying different shapes at the same time (for example he had a human head, and then it grew out insect-like legs... so he seemed to combine several forms at once, but never got to finish any of them). So I did not think that it was too weird. A little yes, but I was able to patch it up by thinking how it could have been.

I have not seen the '51 The Thing, but I really like the '82 The Thing.

reply

As far as I know, they considered following the novella faithfully in the original movie but decided it was TOO intense and frightening. This was a time when Freaks was still considered too frightening to be shown. I do like both movies, but much prefer the older one, I suppose because its closer to my age, and I find it more comfortable.

reply

It isn't better and it doesn't reflect the short story by John Campbell. John Carpenter's version actully rocks tons more than the pittiful The Thing From Anther World. How the short story goes is that the thing is a virus and not a stupid plant thing, plus the plant thing didn't change into any one or took them over. In the short story the creature takes the people one by one. In the 50's version the thing hardly kills or takes over anyone. Can I get a w00t w00t.




"YEAH WELL *beep* YOU TOO"
Kurt Russle as MacReady.

reply

No, you cannot. If, oh I don't know, you had read up on this movie, you would know that Hawks was told he could not use some 'body snatcher' creature. Forced to conform with mainstream Hollywood, Hawks did a hell of a job. Low body count, or the lack of dominating another's genes, does not take away from the script-written dialogue, acting, or camera work.

"That's refreshing Jenner, usually you're screaming about us."

reply

> In the 50's version the thing hardly kills or takes over anyone.

Yeah, well I can definitely see with that definition of what a good
movie is why you would like the remake better, and why I think it
ultimately sucks bad.

reply

How absolutely PATHETIC and somewhat disgusting, that you judge whether a movie is good by the dead body count. I get so tired of killing in movies, and it's people like YOU that is the reason the rest of us are subjected to this kind of garbage: they MUST have killings in movies to entertain people. Then people wonder why we have so much gun violence.

reply

Well, before you go calling someone disgusting and blaming people for killing in movies, why don't you be sure you understand the IMDB comment system so that you get the right person to blame. I in no way said or implied that I think body count has anything positive to do with a movie and do not appreciate being misquoted and/or called names. How stupid do you have to be to not know how to hit reply in the post you are trying to comment on.

reply

Well ONE thing is for sure, this time I PAYED ATTENTION to who I was replying to. I have an opinion of YOU as well, and I will take the high road. You should consider that.

reply

OK I'll consider that, for all the good it does either of us. Glad you were able to figure out the message board system ... assuming that you really were replying to me! :-)

reply

Has anyone of you even read the 1938 short story by John W Campbell which is what the The Thing was based on, the Hawks movie was nothing like it at all, simply a man in a costume looking stupid but by 50s audiences, it was most likely terrifying.

The Carpenter movie is VERY close to the book in its idea and IF Hawks had made his movie like the short story portrayed it, people in the 50s WOULD have known TRUE terror, the only problem is that it would probably never have been allowed onto the big screen because of the shocking scenes we would have witnessed at the time.

I for one, love the Carpenter remake and to remake it once again would be a travesty because the film is a cult classic and still terrifies me today, i only wish i could see every scene that ended up on the cutting room floor to piece together how it could have ended up looking like.

reply

I've been trying to find the original book version of THE THING, I'd love to read it. As far as the 1950's movie, I finally got to see it. It is almost like a prequel to the 1982 version, because in the 50's version the main characters are the ones to dig out the Thing from the ground (in the remake another campsite does this first, then the main characters find it).
In the 1950's movie, they almost make fun of it themselves, with jokes about the "carrot man". But it's great to see the original, it's a lot of fun seeing those old movies.
As far as any remake in the works, we all know it will SUCK big-time. They'll use CGI and use all pretty young actors, and probably throw in a female character with a love story too.
Bleeehhh!

reply

Jesus, tomkth, now you're dogging HYPOTHETICAL remakes without ever seeing them or who might be in them? Even a remake in the abstract twists your pink panties into a bunch? You need to get laid, get high, get SOMEthing. Oh yeah... get a LIFE. You stupid little turd.

reply

Seems to me I remember a pretty young actress and a love story in the 1950s movie. The original story is pretty good, but was hardly unique for its time. A common fear, apparently as I remember reading several stories about people one way or another being taken over by some alien. The Body Snatchers was one such version, but I do remember a few that involved the critter ingesting, or absorbing the victim in some way, then taking its place. And then there are the doppelgangers of an even earlier time.

reply

[deleted]

Do you like the '51 version?



.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I first saw the original in a theater when I was
9 years old. Seeing this movie on the big screen
at that age is something hard to forget. Even then
I recall being struck by the natural sounding
overlapping dialogue. The fact that they kept the
alien underwraps built the suspense. I probably viewed
it 2 or 3 times, back then they didn't clear the theater
after each showing.
To me, the original is a classic I'll never forget

reply

how about them both being better? there's an awesome
script combining both as a sequal, its at
thethingfromanotherworld.webs.com

all you need to do is read the 2min synopsis to get
the full story

myspace.com/andyfightsforanimals

reply

In the 1950's version, no one would have gone to
see the movie if it had creepy things overtaking
people. It was a time when rationality and concrete
reality reigned in the nation. Science fiction
survived because of magazines and a book club.

reply

"In the 1950's version, no one would have gone to
see the movie if it had creepy things overtaking
people."

Really? Because in '56 they made a movie called "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" that became a classic. Perhaps you've heard of it?

reply

Dude, the 1950s screen was loaded with science-fiction movies! Some were camp; some were classics, like "The Thing From Another World" and "Invasion of the Body-Snatchers."

reply

I don't think you can compare them really. I love both for different reasons.exactly right!

reply

The best version is the X-Files episode "Ice".


reply

[deleted]

Coldmetal491 is a person who knows about things that suck.Take which Bush is better George Sr or George Jr , trick question yes u r right again they both suck.

reply

Yeah that X-Files "ICE" episode was pretty damn good.

reply

I think the original is better. Unusual for the early sci-fi movies, it didn't preach the 'stop acting like little children and grow up' message of other movies of the time. Like The Day the Earth Stood Still.
The best part of Carpenter's version was the score. The gore in the movie was too much and the movie suffered for it.

If it bleeds, we can kill it.

reply

I totally agree with you on your answer , had a good cast as well including the original smoker of sci-fi films Kenneth Tobey.

reply

[deleted]

They are very different movies. While I agree with some of the other respondents about the gore, there was a lot, the tone, feel, and general attitude of the two films are quite different.

I like both movies, but each for different reasons. The first was a great thriller with more action, humor, and interaction between the characters. For the most part, they behave as though they enjoy each other's company. Wisecracking abounds. There are women too!

The remake is a darker, paranoid film. The characters don't seem to like each other in the first place, so having shape-shifting creature around that can emulate anyone just makes things worse. Oh yeah, no women. The gore may approach being a bit much, but the nature of it heightens the element of fear. No one knows who's next, or who goes there.

reply

The original "The Thing" is the basis for a lot of great sci-fi Horror movies today. Can you see the strong influences it had on sci-fi series' like the Alien movies? People trapped in a remote location with a killing machine. Even down to useing the Gieger counter to build suspense like they used the motion detectors in "Alien" and "Aliens". A lot of current directors like Scott, Cameron, Spielburg, etc. had to have been influenced by this movie because you see so many of its' elements in movies made today. The original "The Thing" is one of the best sci-fi classics there is.

"We are what we are, and we're doing the best we can"

reply

[deleted]

Without doubt, the gore heightens the feel of Carpenter's The Thing. But seeing a chest turn into a mouth and biting off hands or seeing a Husky's head peel, or 'bloom' like a flower wasn't exactly palatable for me.
I say the gore was over done because most people I know, can't get past the blood and guts to feel the suspense.

Damn, I saw the movie (born in '82) about age 7 or 8(yeah, yeah not a movie for kids), and the image of the dog's head still pops into my mind and gives me a chill.

If it bleeds, we can kill it.

reply

[deleted]

You're right it is the basis of most sci-fi movies, but it isn't worth watching more than once. The story line in John Carpenter's version is way better and it's true to the short story by John Campbell.





"YEAH WELL *beep* YOU TOO"
Kurt Russle as MacReady.

reply

This is your opinion, my opinion is that it is worth watching more than once.

I didn't say the gore was a substitute for suspense, it was/is supposed to accentuate it, but, my opinion, cancels it out. And no, the majority of the blood and gore was rich, red, mammalian blood. The only purple blood I remember is when the Norris creature crapped out.

"That's refreshing Jenner, usually you're screaming about us."

reply

I would definitely say the original b&w is the best. There is nothing like the old grit of the timeless flick with its subtle second meanings in the dialog... and the score IS the film; I would have it as my number one personal top ten movie score. If you haven't seen it, I obviously highly recommend that you do. I've seen it enough times to quote the entire movie.

and I second the night terrors to be had from seeing the "dogs" scene in the Carpenters' rendition.

reply

I notice that a lot of posters say that they like both films but for very different reasons. I have to agree with that assessment.

The original version is a great film that substitutes great dialog and acting for special effects and a shape changing "Thing." Keep in mind that the original version came out in the 1950's and the technology to do all of the "modern" special effects just does not exist at that time. My favorite part of the original "Thing" is the quick, fast-paced dialog and the depth of the characters. It is one of my favorite films to be sure.

The Carpenter version of the "Thing" is a great film as well, but in a different way. The overall feeling of the film is darker and the "Thing" itself is a whole different idea. This film stays closer to the vison of the book and the sense of paranoia and distrust is the best part of the film. After the film concludes, viewers are left with an unsettled feeling because of the excellent work of Carpenter in setting up this paranoia.

Both films are wonderful and should be seen to at least show the contrasting ideas of the two directors and how different film making in the 1980's was from the 1950's.

reply