Thread: 50's thing vs. 80's Thing: which do you chose?

Very true. James Arness' Thing was tame compared to the morphing monster from Carpenter's film. In the 50s, however, they didn't have the technology to produce such a beast, or if they had tried it might have been laughable to see. As I remember the short story, the alien was humanoid and covered in blue, wormlike hair.

I just saw the Hawks version the other night, and it's a terrific picture. I also laughed because I remember seeing it as a kid and being furious with the scientist who turned off the electricity at the height of the third act. Great, snappy dialogue too. Having written this, the scene in the Carpenter version where they dowse the buy with the big hands, set him on fire and Mac wonders who is who is genuinely creepy.

JimPV wrote: Godziwolf wrote: The dynamite makes sense in the context of the plan -- they need to freeze the creature. The lack of attack is explained in the book, actually. The Thing is such a good mimic that it's not clear if the various Things can identify each other, and it tends to only attack when its certain of success. Remember, in the last scene, neither might be Things, and even if one or both were, given the circumstances, it...

I have the 1951 shortened version that has a John Carpenter commentary. Picked it up at a convention. It is a decent commentary with some good information but after listening to it from start to finish I believe I and probably all those on this thread could do a better commentary for Hawks classic! That said, I do recommend it for those completists out there.

Godziwolf wrote: The dynamite makes sense in the context of the plan -- they need to freeze the creature. The lack of attack is explained in the book, actually. The Thing is such a good mimic that it's not clear if the various Things can identify each other, and it tends to only attack when its certain of success. Remember, in the last scene, neither might be Things, and even if one or both were, given the circumstances, it wouldn't...

I saw Carpenter's movie first too. I like both but I will have to go with the 80's Thing.

Carpenter's THING all the way for me... tense, scary, suspenseful. And that's saying something, considering how much I am always slamming "modern remakes" (though in all fairness, I'm mainly criticizing the '90s and '00s epidemic there). I've been meaning to watch the 1951 film again soon, maybe even tonight actually, but to me it's just always been so damn talky and dull. I've always...

IMHO it's apples and oranges; film techniques as well as audience expectations changed greatly in the years between the two movies. I like them both but maybe it's my age showing, the 50's version sends chills up my spine. The special effects were very good in the 80's version and the 50's version did have a B movie look to it, but that was also part of it's charm for me. Bob Burns Halloween extravaganza was based...

I'm with Cinema Bill - apples to oranges, like 'em both, prefer the 50's version.

A rare case in which the remake surpasses the original. Forget the gore; "The Thing" is a freakshow from opening to closing. It plays like a great mystery and the paranoia of not knowing who is real and not real makes this version a real roller coaster ride. I suppose a good chunk of the credit goes to Carpenter, who supposedly more closely bases his script on the source material. Still, the original is far from unworthy, and...