|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 5, 2021 20:13:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jcush on Jul 5, 2021 20:31:52 GMT
The Thing
|
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Jul 5, 2021 20:41:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 5, 2021 20:45:26 GMT
1982
Not even remotely close.
|
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Jul 5, 2021 21:11:31 GMT
Both are good. Tie for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Jul 5, 2021 21:17:28 GMT
I can comfortably give this to Carpenter's film.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 5, 2021 21:36:30 GMT
Both are good. Tie for me. I didn't care much for the 1951 movie overall (just watched it last night), but I do think the fact that The Thing is a plant-based being is neat. I think that it just looked like a human with a big forehead and claws is very silly though.
|
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Jul 5, 2021 22:03:50 GMT
1982
|
|
|
|
Post by movielover on Jul 5, 2021 23:02:23 GMT
The Thing (1982)
|
|
|
|
Post by phantomparticle on Jul 6, 2021 2:14:28 GMT
I hated Carpenter's version the first time I saw it. Don't care for a lot of blood and gore in movies, to begin with. However, the alien is closer to the monster in the original book, and I've come to like it a lot more after subsequent viewings.
Still, I'm going with the 1951 film. The cast was far more engaging, there were enough hair raising moments and nothing in the remake tops that scene in which the creature is set afire and rampages through a room screeching like a cat with it's tail in a blender. I believe someone in the documentary Keep Watching the Skies refers to it as "the only scene in movie history lit by a human torch."
|
|
|
|
Post by rudeboy on Jul 6, 2021 2:41:47 GMT
This is a tough one because both are classics of their era and genre. I’ll give a vote to the 1951 film which I feel is perhaps a little underrated these days, but it’s awfully close and I could go with Carpenter’s film on another day.
|
|
mgmarshall
Junior Member
@mgmarshall
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 3,338
|
Post by mgmarshall on Jul 6, 2021 2:44:06 GMT
The original is a solid A-budget sci-fi flick. The remake is one of the greatest horror movies ever made.
That prequel shall not be spoken of in my presence.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,522
Likes: 558
|
Post by gw on Jul 6, 2021 2:46:52 GMT
I definitely prefer the John Carpenter version. The other was a chatty boring film with an obvious man in a suit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jul 6, 2021 2:52:20 GMT
The Thing 1982 is more thingish.
But I don't think the 1951 movie is bad at all--it's just that if you want to see a scary thing--the 1982 version is the one.
I agree that the characters are not as developed as in the 1951 version though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Xcalatë on Jul 6, 2021 7:56:43 GMT
1982.
|
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on Jul 6, 2021 11:19:36 GMT
The original is a solid A-budget sci-fi flick. The remake is one of the greatest horror movies ever made. That prequel shall not be spoken of in my presence.Amen to that!
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 6, 2021 11:20:03 GMT
The original is a solid A-budget sci-fi flick. The remake is one of the greatest horror movies ever made. That prequel shall not be spoken of in my presence.Amen to that! I third that.
|
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on Jul 6, 2021 11:23:37 GMT
I gave a slight edge to the 1982 movie but the 1951 is pretty good.
|
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Jul 6, 2021 11:37:59 GMT
The original is a solid A-budget sci-fi flick. The remake is one of the greatest horror movies ever made. That prequel shall not be spoken of in my presence.Amen to that! The so called “prequel” felt like a straight up remake until the end credits scene. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jul 6, 2021 11:49:34 GMT
The so called “prequel” felt like a straight up remake until the end credits scene. There is also the fact that they are Norwegian (most of them) and to be fair, the circumstances would have been similar. That is part of the reason it is so unnecessary.
|
|
