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.