Topic: Who thinks The Thing (1982) is the most faithful adaptation?

It was NOT a remake of the 1951 film "The Thing From Another World" besides the name, they are 2 separate films that have little in common, sure there are 2 homages to the 1951 film since Carpenter is a Hawks fan such like circle of men and the opening titles and the only thing they have in common is alien and snow, that's just it.

They share a title/name but everything like the location (one set in the north pole and the other in the south pole), the characters, the discovery of the alien, the origin of the spaceship, the nature/methods of the alien (one was a dumbed down killer vegetable monster that could reproduce itself and was a lumbering hulking creature but it wasn't the imitator from the original story while the other has the parasitic alien organism that could imitate other lifeforms by cells), ways to kill the monster (one by electricity and one by fire), the situations of the humans etc. are both very different from each other.

Both films are adaptations of John Campbell's 1938 novella "Who Goes There"  which was a scary novella that is quite influential. The 1951 movie is a good movie as it's own but it ranks as one of the worst book to film adaptations ever as it was nothing like the original Campbell story and stayed too far from it. Carpenter's film is a standalone film that is by far the quintessential more faithful adaptation of the story that did Campbell's tale justice as did what Christian Nyby/Howard Hawks ignored, i mean Carpenter is a fan of the 1951 film but a bigger fan of Campbell's story as i'm glad he went back to re-adapt the story as it's a re-adaptation and not a remake of the earlier film.

Re: Who thinks The Thing (1982) is the most faithful adaptation?

This came up a while back and you're right, The Thing is NOT a remake of Howard Hawks' The Thing from Another World.  They're two entirely different movies based on the same source novella.  I haven't read Who Goes There since I was ten or eleven (some thirty years ago) and don't remember every little detail, but I do know that Carp's flick is by far the more faithful of the two. 

The original isn't a bad film at all and still holds up well in many respects (love the famous bit where big ol' James Arness comes lumbering in through the door) but Carp's version is one of the my all-time top ten favorite horror flicks.  The acting is exceptional across the board, the cinematography and direction are sparse but masterful, the movie just oozes tension and suspense and, IMO, Rob Bottin's prosthetic work has yet to be matched to this day.

Incidentally, I consider The Thing (2011) more a remake than a prequel.  The filmmakers copied everything Carpenter did from the original to such a large degree that it may as well have had his name on it.

Re: Who thinks The Thing (1982) is the most faithful adaptation?

Totally agree. I think there'll always be more comparison between the movies, rather than taking them as wholly separate adaptations, which isn't right.

Haven't got much to add except for following on from Lon's last point about the 2011 version. I heard that they were originally going for a straight up remake, but then the idea changed to make it fit in as a "prequel". Though it definitely comes across as a copy of Carpenter's. Especially with some of the blatant parallel characters like the helicopter pilot trying to be MacReady.

Whilst not a bad movie, I felt it would have been better for it to go its own way. Annoyingly, for all the effort they put in to connect the details between the two movies - going as far to map out the layout of the Norwegian camp - they messed up the continuity with the ship.