Only 10 dollars on Google play. I just bought it. I was one of those people who loved John Carpenters version. Although in my defense I had no fckin clue about this one. Thank you sir.
I honestly don't think that was intended to be funny at all. Those actors did not actually have the sound effect while filming, so they are clarifying for the audience what broke.
@@gordonshea2698 That, exactly. There were other possibilities - we'd seen lots of glassware in a lab, for ex - and since the sound comes from off-camera giving the audience the hint was important.
I actually read the story "Who Goes There?" before I saw any of the movies. The lore goes that the author, who became legendary as editor of Astounding/ Analog, was never happy with the 1950s movie. The 1982 version did a lot more to capture the original idea, and also gave a more pessimistic take on human vs alien than Campbell usually allowed as author or editor.
I always love listening to james talking about horror movies. He's single handedly responsible for me getting me into older horror movies with monster madness. Thanks for that james ya legend.
I take issue the notion that Carpenter's version lacks subtlety. The obscurity of the sequence of events, the sheer lack of information given to the audience, the constant scheming and strategizing of both the protagonists and the thing itself, the myriad little touches and clues in the background, the tense power-dynamic subtext in all the dialogue; there's so much going on under the surface in that movie. I can totally respect preferring the original, but to say that all the movie has going for it is the special effects is objectively wrong.
Thank you, '51 is great and all, but it's still a metric lightyear from '82 which has sparked endless debate and theories about how the plot unfolds. There's a reason no one thinks of '51 anymore,'82 "assimilated" all its best elements and improved on them with a story about trust and isolation instead of a vegetable Frankenstein wondering around not killing anyone. That has to be kinda lame even back then.
The original was a proto-slasher. The remake was the premise played out. The importance of the original can be seen more in Halloween than in The Thing (1982).
I actually prefer Carpenter's one, not only cause of the effects, but because of that sustained sense of paranoia it gives off. That said, I think the original is definitely an underrated classic. This video was awesome, James.
Adam Naamee Azim Of course, as time went by in cinema, directors really tried to pull the audience in with feelings that the characters were also having. It only got better as cinema matured, but they were doing that in the beginning too as in To Kill A Mockingbird ☺️
ddtnbn Actually, the soundtrack in the Carpenter's version wasn't made by him, it was made by Ennio Morricone (most famous for many western movies) but as much I love Morricone, I think the soundtrack from the 1951 original is better. Those heavy brass stabs and the theremin are simply ideal for this style of movie, and nothing else works quite as well in my opinion.
For starters, the Nostalgia Critic has never been a critic. He's always been playing a phony character, who was basically a hack. Unfortunately, it spawned a tidal wave of other hacks, only interested in generating vitriol and buzz rather than actually critiquing things.
Really interesting points about the original, personally I'd have to disagree that Carpenter's lacks subtlety/psychelogical scares. The premise of a shapeshifting killer being amongst a closed-quarters group just offsets its often ambient atmosphere so well
So techically, James statement "It has overlapping dialogue, it's more natural" is a remake of Tom Savinis quote "There's overlapping dialogue, you hardly see that in movies today. It gives you a sense of realism..." xD
You could say the same about the original Scarface compared to the Pacino remake too. Whoops should have watched the full video, James ends up mentioning it towards the end.
Originally, the 1951 monster was supposed to be shown having shape-shifting ability like in the original novella and 1982 movie, but the idea was scrapped due to insufficient technical props at that time
Personally, I think this decision made for a better movie. I can only imagine the schlock it'd be seen as today had it attempted such aspects. And I think it would have only detracted from the core strengths of the movie.
I think that's a big factor in why a lot of people (myself included) prefer Carpenter's version to Hawks' version. The alien itself isn't all that interesting in Hawks' version. As Doctor Wolfula put it, it's basically Frankenstein's Monster without the pathos. On the other hand, the creature in Carpenter's version is an apocolyptic, Lovecraftian hellbeast that embodies paranoia and mistrust, which is what the story is all about.
That's really too bad. They could have had most of the transformations happen offscreen. There are lots of tricks that they could have done to make up for technical limitations.
My favorite part of the JC version that you didn’t really speak about was the supremely disconcerting paranoia resulting from the Thing being able to infect and impersonate people. It gave it a real “Salem witch trials” feel, where accusations were getting thrown all over the place and no one could be trusted. More than anything THAT is the specific quality that I liked most from his version.
I've seen the Carpenter version (definitely one of the greatest horror movies ever made), the 2011 prequel (substandard dialogue and slathering all that CG over perfectly good practical effects made me VERY MAD) and I've even read the original novella. But even though I have heard of the 1951 movie and knew that Carpenter's movie took inspiration from it, I've never seen it, and have never been able to find a copy. It's as if it never existed. But while I agree with you over the 1982 movie's relatively bland characterisations, I take issue with your remark that Carpenter's version had "no subtlety". It had subtleties, just not in the way Hawk's film presumably did. It keeps you guessing where the Thing is. You get the impression that the Thing is an evil mastermind, manipulating everyone from the shadows, using the crew's own paranoia and fear to divide and kill each other. Especially in that masterpiece ending, where you can't tell if Childs or MacReady are infected, if both of them are, or if none of them are. And unlike far too many monster movies today, the 1982 film actually doesn't show the monster very often, relying on the buildup of paranoia to drive the tension. So when you do see the monster, it's sudden, it's gory, and it never takes the same form twice, denying you any semblance of familiarity that would lessen its scare factor.
I think the, well I wouldnt go as far as call them bland, but the more underdeveloped characters of the 1982 The Thing actually worked in the movies favor, as it kept it more unpredictable. In another movie with very developed characters, you could predict which character was going to live and which ones werent, but it's not like that in the 1982 The Thing. I may just be a huge fan of The 1982 Thing, but I feel as if typical shortcomings of any other movie actually work in this movies favor.
My husband's dad gifted me the Hawk's version of The Thing for Christmas a few years ago and its definitely an underappreciated classic. As is The Fly!!
The 2011 version wasn’t really a remake as much as it was a prequel. It is confusing to me why they would give it the same title; but it is made clear at the end of the movie where they are chasing the dog in the helicopter that the 2011 version ends where the 1983 version begins.
At least you can actually avoid the 2011 prequel if you don't wanna watch it, thankfully. You do see enough about the Norwegian station in the 82 Thing.
Yes, ironically, the original changed its name to market off of success of the 80s version. Carpenter payed homage to the original but his movie had a different name.
"If you type in The Thing all you get is the Carpenter's version", said AVGN, as he mentioned 5 seconds earlier that the title of the originial isn't actually "The Thing".
Craig T the prequel dumbed down the monster and intrigue. Prequel only used what we saw in the 82 film by exploring the facility which has no reason to.
@@hopelessent.1700 a bit of a wasted opportunity, sure, and shame about what they did with the monster in the end but its still a good movie, come on now
John Carpenter’s “The Thing“ might have the best practical effects ever. That’s why it’s so tough to ignore I believe. It still holds up in today’s market because CGI has taken front seat for decades now. Even when practical would be more appealing to see we are still given CGI. So Carpenter’s version is almost the focal point of the argument between practical and CGI effects. If you’re in favor of the former, Carpenter’s “The Thing” is the perfect example of practical effects done extraordinarily well. The juxtaposition is made even greater with the latest version released. Many felt, myself included, the CGI was substandard and Carpenter’s out shined it decades earlier.
The weird thing is that the "latest" version originally embraced practical effects, then they decided CG was the way to go... and they ruined everything.
@@megaton_a "They" being the stupid studio executives/suits. Wasted Studio ADI's time, effort and money asking them to do the practical effects only to completely go over them with CGI in the end...
People were starting to get a little practical-crazy recently.... ...to the point where they don't even care what actually looks more real...as long as there's no CGI involved....which is just as silly.
I’m just watching the 1951 version. And realized the scene with them looking at the Geiger counter when the creature was approaching is just like the motion detectors scenes in aliens. LOL.
I think people like the carpenter version because of the mystery added to the movie on figuring out who’s who. It became a cult classic later on because of the analysis of the movie, how it was a lot deeper than what we actually take for what it is.
@@lindenstromberg6859 simple answer you can see Kurt Russell's breath at the end but you can't see the other guys breath in the cold air hmmmm food for thought right there. Brilliant film too.
@@peachycreations8787 I thought it was cause Childs drinking Macready's hand made Petrol molotov cocktail's, that you can even see earlier in the movie before he bombs the thing. The chuckle from Macready after childs drinks it. Childs is the thing alright.
My mom introduced me to The Thing when I was younger, but I seem to remember her being disappointed because she thought she rented the original, but ended up with the John Carpenter movie. Now, she really enjoyed it, but she wanted me to see the movie she grew up loving. It's great to see that someone from my generation is not only aware of the original, but appreciates it!
I just watched the 1951 version and the 1982 remake/readaptation back-to-back. It's really hard to say which one is definitively better, because they're both great in their own ways!
I still haven't seen the remake-prequel. The thing (no pun intended honest) that keeps me from giving it a chance is the idea - heavily promoted by fans of it - that the Thing is so uncharacteristically aggressive and recklessly exposes itself left and right in the remake-prequel because it's not used to hunting humans and hasn't learned to be more careful, subversive and stealthy in it's approach. The Thing arrived on Earth because it overtook a ship of super-advanced interstellar explorers that happened to accidentally collect it (because they liked collecting unique species from the various worlds they visited) - so it had by that point assimilated everything from primitive beasts to complex, highly evolved and intelligent creatures and yet, it still hadn't learned that caution and stealth were the best approach for survival and predation? Even primitive predatory animals on Earth know this as instinct. It just doesn't make sense.
@@StarryStarryNocturne What do you mean, all it needs to do is get out of the arctic and it will have the whole world in weeks. It probably knows that the ice caps can melt, and time doesnt matter to it. The thing won in the end.
You didn't mention Ridley Scott said he lifted scenes from The Thing for the movie Alien. The entire tracking the Alien through the ship, "It should be right on top of you", is the exact same scene with the Giger Counter from The Thing.
My favorite thing about Carpenter's Thing isn't the special fx, it's the blood test scene. And Morricone's music, I was very surprised to hear it in Hateful Eight but I was pleased that I recognized it haha. One track is also used in my favorite Japanese horror movie Noroi (The Curse).
You know whats really sad? what they did to the 2011 movie, the movie was supposed to have 100% practical effects but the studio made them covert all the practical effects with CGI, there is footage of some of it on youtube and it looks GREAT!, seriously, the movie would have been soooo much better.
You got results for the 1982 film when you looked up “The Thing” because the 1951 film is called “The Thing from Another World.” I looked up both and got results based on the exact title.
This is a great review. Honestly, the John Carpenter version is so iconic to me that I had never really though much about the original. Come to think of it, I haven't actually seen the original. I'm definitely going to watch it now. Thanks James!
I have to disagree in some aspects, the Carpenter version is also very tense and creepy, that feeling of insecurity, not knowing who the creature is among your own team mates is just terrifying. The original was a separate creature and people more or less had some kind of idea how to contain it, but the Carpenter version, practically tells you from the start there is no containment method for it, and that just blows your imagination away.
Also the 'Keep watching the skys' aspect is played out far more scarily in Carpenter's movie by having the computer simulation tell Blair how quickly the infection would take over the worlds population and the ambiguous ending.
I love how he talks about the overlapping dialogue and how there's no pause in the original The Thing to let jokes sink in, instead they are underplayed by keeping the dialogue flowing. And then he pauses... for an uncomfortably long time... to let his joke sink in. Well played. Well played.
I just played this video for a weekly film discussion group I've been hosting for friends on Zoom during the quarantine. My friend Van, who is in his 70s now and was once an extra in films like Godfather 2 and Serpico, loved it! He just mentioned last week how he was disheartened that most people have forgotten the original Thing, so this video made him feel better that some people remember how awesome it was. He saw the 1951 version on its release, aged 8 at the time, and says it's the only movie that made him run from the theater in horror! Some younger members of the group want to see it now too, so I consider that a win!
Im in my late 20s and I actually haven't seen the Carpenter version, only the original, and I also think its a great piece in movie history. This movie like The Day the Earth stood still are genre defining classics in science fiction. For different reasons but together their pacing is one of the things that set the tone for good science fiction story telling. It didn't have to be about how insane the scifi was, its about the atmosphere, pacing, and writing that gave seriousness to the situation.
i'm 41 now myself i saw the original The thing , when i was a kid about 8 years old and never knew about the remake either till about the time i was 15 , funny enough i'm amazed now how i didn't see the 82 one sooner seeing as how i was only 3 when it came out.
If it's a prequel, then why would they give it the same name? Not that I'm discrediting your post, I just find it baffling that a studio would create a film as a prequel to another film, but then give it the exact same title. I know that it's all because of marketing, but it comes off as a really illogical and nonsensical decision that only creates more confusion as time goes on.
Jordan3D I totally agree I had the same thoughts, it’s an interesting story it tells, it pretty much shows what happened to the one camp the crew comes across in the original that was in flames
@@Jordan3DS I don't understand why, you know The New halloween? For example, it is just called Halloween so I need to say Halloween (1979) and Halloween (2018). But I recommend you watch both The Thing 1982 and 2011 they até Very good, The Carpenter's version is superior but The prequel it's Very Fun to watch.
The thing from another World is one of my all time favorites. I love how John Wayne described the difference between Hawks(Prosse) vs Ford (poetry). (Although Nyby is credited with the direction for this movie.) The fast paced overlapping dialog was a staple in Hawks movies and a real treat. Glad you are giving this movie the credit it deserves.
Thank you, James. This movie does not get anywhere the love it deserves. My mom showed me this as a child and it is still the stick I measure movies like this against.
John Carpenter's The Thing is my favorite horror film of all time. I've still never seen the origin one. I knew it was a remake though. It's why I always call it 'John Carpenter's The Thing'.
I heard “Watch the skies” from Simon Pegg’s and Nick Frost’s “Paul” from the bar scene when there were two bumper stickers “watch the skies” or “Alien on board”
I'd disagree with James on that jumpscare part, carpenter's jumpscare didn't have the usual music followed by the high pitch sound effect when the monster popped out. It would happen almost like it was random and out of nowhere. It happened I wanna say three times in the film and then a usual jumpscare with music near the end when the dude got assimilated.
"The characters are kind of flat" Heartily disagree. Also if you're going to make such a bold negative claim about the Carpenter version, please ELABORATE. "The characters are kind of flat" deeply contradicts your other statement "I understand why people like the Carpenter version better". Apparently you don't understand if you think it's only liked because of the "special effects"
No, the onus is on you to explain why they aren't flat. And they ARE flat, unremarkable stereotypes, not helped by the fact that everyone in the cast except Wilford Brimley follows Russell's lead in sleepwalking through their part...with the exception of David Clennon, who is just plain awful and irritating.
Don't find them flat. They're burnt out, isolated but still have their quirks. It'd be very weird if they were all fast talking transatlantic sterotypes cracking off against each other.
I'm an '80s kid, but the '50s have always been my favorite decade for sci-fi. Seeing this film at a young age - along with This Island Earth, Forbidden Planet, War of the Worlds, and The Fly - had a lot to do with that, as did '80s tribute movies like Explorers and the remake of Invaders From Mars. I still make it a point to go back and watch a lot of those old films as often as I can. Long live the classics!
James: Imagine you favorite movie gets remade and no one talks about the original Me:...... Dude I'm a Toho monster fan that is my whole life Also a Dragonball fan (not Z)
I definitely understand where you are coming from with Toho, but the only Dragon Ball I enjoy is Z, but then again I'm not the biggest Anime fan so, anything that is a bit or a full on parody on anime amuses me, One Punch Man is epic
You speak for me my friend. I'm 58 and prefer the original 10 times more than Carpenters and I love Carpenter as much as anyone. That original, the cold, the crew always grabbing coffee and it just is a wonderful setting for this type of film. I love the characters and the monster....yet give me James Arness in makeup over the Carpenter takes anyday.
Let's also give it up for James Arness playing "The Thing" in the original. Seeing so much Gunsmoke I couldn't imagine Matt Dillon being an alien in a horror movie. But he killed it.
See, i understand your point with the whole "Thing remake removes original from history" point, I really do but if you google "the thing from another world" you do get the whole search history to do with the original. I don't believe it's been removed from history, sidelined for sure if you look for just The Thing.
james said that the 1951 version was still widely known as "The Thing" despite its full title of the thing from another world. so basically the 1951 version should still appear if it was still widely known. but sadly, it isnt.
THANK YOU! I love the Carpenter version, but Carpenter himself loves the Howard Hawks/Christian Nyby classic, so I doubt he would want his version to completely eclipse the original. Hawks had a skill at showing fast talking 'professionals,' also seen in His Girl Friday and Only Angels Have Wings, in a way that is compelling to watch. It annoys me when people just dismiss that version as a cheap B-movie when it's actually a sci-fi classic that was partially crafted by one of the greatest directors of all time. While the 80s movie is now rated about right, a classic of its time, the 50s film should be seen and respected as a great piece of science fiction in its own right.
Yesterday me and some friends played the new The Thing - The board game based mostly on the 1982 movie but we all knew the 1951 movie as our favorite. Great video!
Since the *Friday the 13th* game did so well, it would be nice if a *Thing* multiplayer game would be made too. The paranoia would settle in quickly and would make for a great experience, not knowing who to trust and that one of the other players is the creature. They could have environmental hazards, such as taking damage if you stay outside too long, and certain things that must be done as a team, so as to force the players to have to try and work together.
I think James will be happy to know that I was introduced to The Thing at 8 years old with the original Hawks version. My dad and I watched it on TV during the wintertime in Maine, which was the perfect environment.
Recently watched the original The Fly and The Thing on a double bill. I do love 50s Sci Fi. But I really feel you've downplayed Carpenter's film a little. I don't find the characters flat at all, a little burnt out but not flat. I also find plenty of natural humour in the 1982 film, some of the bickering is hysterical because it's so real and petty or just plain cold. Music, c'mon we have Ennio Morrocone emulating Carpenter's feel (So well some people think Carpenter did the music.) I remember that music from the beginning used to run chills down my spine. Over all I just love the cosmic horror of the 80's movie, it feels somewhat Lovecraftian at times due to it coming from pulp writer John Campbell. And that's kind of what is important, the novella was about a shape shifting 'Thing' that could be anyone and Hawk's movie is about a regenerating vegetable man.
You know, 1982 "The Thing" was just made in different time, and if i was honest, i like 1982 version because they used creativity with the virus alien comes with.
I disagree that the story is always more important, there can be lots of different foci for a movie, including special effects. Still, I love every time you shine a light on some classic movies that haven't gotten a ton of attention and the passion that carries you doing so! You're an amazing creator who has brought countless hours of joy to us, James.
@Adam Apocalypse I'm mildly ashamed that didn't click until he threw out the obvious "Oh! You thought I meant the John Carpenter one!?" line, for as long as I've been subbed to James and for as much as he's proven his chops as a film buff over the decades.
Where exactly the same things happen in the same order. I call it a premake. A remake marketed as a prequel with a few quick details thrown in so they can claim it's a prequel but still not have to actually come up with an original story.
@@darkwoods1954 because the team making it refused to do a straight 1:1 remake, and thought a prequel would be the best route, but also had been little wiggle room to work with. How would YOU make a prequel, and remember you MUST include the burned down Swedish base, the ice block, the axe in the wall, and the body with the slit throat, you know, all that iconic stuff in Carpenter's thing that made us (and Kurt Russel's character) think "wtf happened here?"
It's a soft reboot, but it also pointlessly retreads the plot of the 1982 one, which is why some people call it a remake. I guess it could be called a "soft remake" then, sort of like The Force Awakens, which did the same trick. (Putting "prequel" in the name is pointless since a prequel is just a sequel that goes backwards in time, it shouldn't get a special name for that.)
One of my favorites of the classic horror sci-fi genre. Actually had a treat about a year ago what I went to the Detroit Institute of Arts one day and during that summer they were doing showings of movies and the theater that was made in the late twenties that was connected to the DIA in the movie that they were showing that day was the thing from another world. Is an amazing experience watching an old movie in an old theater with a handful of other classic film fans. Something about that experience will stick with me for a long time.
@@ULTRAWIDE. Yes, though it's kind of interesting/cool that in overall storyline terms it's a direct prequel, but acts somewhat as a remake in terms of the general plot and mood etc. seeing as basically the exact same events unfold in both movies.
The Thing from another world was my dad's favorite movie. We watched it many times together. John Carpenter's The Thing was one of my favorite horror movies and we watched it together as well. Miss that guy, RIP dad.
Me and my dad loved watching the '82 version together. He liked the original, too, but I personally didn't see it until well after I'd seen the '82 original and I sought it out on my own.
I saw this movie back when I was 12 years old, I started appreciating old stuff from the 40's - 50's more thanks to the original The thing, now I have 17 years, I don't have a bunch of friends to talk about horror movies since they hate that genre because is too cliche at this point, but at least I'm happy to know the origins of such classic saga of all the story of cinema.
I love horror movies, some people ask why I love horror movies like I'm batshit crazy. How can you not love horror/ sci-fi element movies is the question.
@@nukecorruption The sad thing is that most of the scenes WERE filmed with practical effects...but they decided to go full CGI later. Which was the worst move any The Thing fan ever could´ve imagined.
My father showed me the original when I was a kid back in the 90’s. The worst part was how he would explain everything in such a way I was always scared that the Thing could be around the next corner. The hand suddenly moving on it’s own still gives me chills.
14:00 Pfft. You lost me from here out. Silence, silence, jump scare? Characters lacked personality? Kurt Russel, Keith David, Wilford Brimley, Donald Moffat all nailed their parts. The supporting cast was great too.
I actually never knew about the oldest one. John Carpenter's is one of my favorite movies. It's like a whodunnit murder mystery, but stranded in Antarctica with shape-shifting aliens. Awesome.
@@KRhetor Well if you consider not spoonfeeding the audience and hammering every point home a dozen times so that even the dumbest popcorn munching Chinese teenager will understand what's going to be sloppy then yes, Carpenter is a sloppy director.
James, you always manage to suck me into whatever you’re talking about. Even if it’s not something important to me personally, your passion just pulls me in and makes me interested in it anyway
The original 50’s ‘Thing’ I saw as a small child and it has always been one of my favourite films - top 20 all time for me Like you said, it’s a classic! Watching the original on television in the 1970’s as a preteen - it scared the heck out of me!! The visuals, the music and dialogue - it’s an amazing film in every way One thing you didn’t mention that I think is really interesting about this film - the confidence of these ‘Greatest Generation’ characters - after defeating global fascism - facing this alien invader - their all very competent in their jobs and there’s a vibe the characters all give off the entire film that they will prevail against this unknown invader - like they did against fascism It’s very different from the early 80’s vibe the characters from the Carpenter film give off of paranoia and being divided - it fit that 1970’s post Watergate world of mistrust and division Growing up in the 70’s - I just find that 50’s confidence and gumption to be really appealing
I've watched the 1950's "The Thing" hundreds of time's. Its one of my all time favorite films. John Carpenter's "The Thing" is definitely a classic though. I would easily recommend both for various reasons already stated by James.
This movie is a masterpiece. The tension and overlapping dialogue between the characters highlights their lack of communication, making the whole cast more vulnerable to the the Thing. No need for gore and guts. This is brilliant storytelling at its best.
I'm glad there's younger folks interested in the culture and history of horror films. Just wait until you get to why more modern horror movies are more meta because the literal style originals became somewhat stale and so going meta was a way to keep them fresh and continues to this day.
1:48 I can thank my father for my good taste in classic movies. I personally enjoy the minimalistic approach of the original thing. It is probably my favorite “horror” movie because it doesn’t rely on cheap scares. It was a tense watch when I was eight years old and I still hold great reverence for it today.
The 1951 version of The thing was always, and still is my favorite. It was the version i grew up watching on late night horror shows, and started a fifty year love of classic sci fi and horror. I also loved the 1982 John Carpenter version. Although I never really looked at it as a remake, but more as a pseudo sequel to the 1951 movie, so never really found myself comparing the two as remakes of the same movie. Then the 2011 prequel movie came out, and looking back i see the john Carpenter version was a sequel to a movie that hadn't even been made yet. I've watched the 2011 movie then the 1984 movie back to back and it works amazingly well for having a 27 year gap between them as one long and fairly seamless experience . Still, the 1951 Howard Hawks version is a true classic in every sense of the word that paved the way for a lot of films to come. If you haven't seen it, i wholeheartedly recommend giving it a try.
I wholeheartedly agree with James here, I was actually just having this conversation two months ago. Hopefully this will bring about at least a small resurgence of the original film's awareness.
I never refer to the Hawks' version as "The Thing." It's The Thing From Another World, and that's what I call it. It's the same reason I would never call Who Goes There by the title "The Thing". I also love both versions, but Carpenter's is my preferred adaptation. I disagree with your points on building suspense. I think both do it perfectly fine, but in different ways. If I'm in the mood for an old-school classic, I watch The Thing From Another World. Otherwise, I watch The Thing. And I don't mean that thing they made in 2011 that tried to replace the real The Thing. And that's the thing about The Thing.
The thing from another world is a classic monster movie, Carpenters The Thing is a psychological thriller and Mystery with great acting and maybe the most well aged visual effects ive ever seen. No comparison.
Please help fund 'In Search of Tomorrow' by clicking here: www.kickstarter.com/projects/creatorvc/in-search-of-tomorrow-80s-sci-fi-documentary
The Thing is highly rated and it’s still too underrated.
being a 80's film fan i immediately became a supporter!! -- way to go, James!
Only 10 dollars on Google play. I just bought it. I was one of those people who loved John Carpenters version. Although in my defense I had no fckin clue about this one. Thank you sir.
This is fun to watch.
2011 Thing is a "prequel"
There's nothing quite like listening to James talk about the things he enjoys.
'the thing's hah
As well as the things that frighten him.
*Jekyl and Hyde
Totally agree. The group discussions are ok, but his individual episodes are so much more interesting.
I see what you did here. hahhaha.
This game sucks
Listening to James talk about movies he likes makes me feel warm inside.
Use an enema. Flushes out the 'warm' fluids that have been impacted inside you.
@@jeanpaulmichell7243 Geez...
@@efuuu I mean, it is in-line with the Thing's assimilation process. Fluids go in, they come out altered.....
I feel so warm inside..my stomach mouth feels good.
If you like James so much then why dont’cha MARRY him?
"What was that?"
"Sounded like a window."
That one line makes me want to watch it. Sounds like a line you'd have heard in "Airplane!"
James Johnson 💯 correct! 😄
I honestly don't think that was intended to be funny at all. Those actors did not actually have the sound effect while filming, so they are clarifying for the audience what broke.
I think it was more a case that he was thinking out loud the implication being that something is either escaping through all coming in the window
@@gordonshea2698 That, exactly. There were other possibilities - we'd seen lots of glassware in a lab, for ex - and since the sound comes from off-camera giving the audience the hint was important.
A bah???
I actually read the story "Who Goes There?" before I saw any of the movies. The lore goes that the author, who became legendary as editor of Astounding/ Analog, was never happy with the 1950s movie. The 1982 version did a lot more to capture the original idea, and also gave a more pessimistic take on human vs alien than Campbell usually allowed as author or editor.
@matthew martin no, that he preferred the 1980s one because of the pessimistic angle
@@retro_jojo3159 That's funny, since Campbell died in 1971.
lo1bo2 what?
@@scottyboyca8162 @Retro_Jojo John W Campbell died in 1971 so he obviously didn't see Carpenter's version.
The original comment doesn’t say the author preferred the second one. Only that it fit his style more.
I always love listening to james talking about horror movies. He's single handedly responsible for me getting me into older horror movies with monster madness. Thanks for that james ya legend.
Monster Madness doubled as my watch list for a while haha
James has done this for me too. He is the reason I became an old school horror freak.
me too, I wouldn't be so hard into old movies without cinemassacre
I take issue the notion that Carpenter's version lacks subtlety. The obscurity of the sequence of events, the sheer lack of information given to the audience, the constant scheming and strategizing of both the protagonists and the thing itself, the myriad little touches and clues in the background, the tense power-dynamic subtext in all the dialogue; there's so much going on under the surface in that movie. I can totally respect preferring the original, but to say that all the movie has going for it is the special effects is objectively wrong.
John Carpenter’s is a masterpiece.
100% agree.
Wait people think carpenters doesn't have subbtlety? Its quite subtle
Thank you, '51 is great and all, but it's still a metric lightyear from '82 which has sparked endless debate and theories about how the plot unfolds. There's a reason no one thinks of '51 anymore,'82 "assimilated" all its best elements and improved on them with a story about trust and isolation instead of a vegetable Frankenstein wondering around not killing anyone. That has to be kinda lame even back then.
The original was a proto-slasher. The remake was the premise played out. The importance of the original can be seen more in Halloween than in The Thing (1982).
James, no offense to your dudes but you are way more insightful by yourself.
only videos of his i watch
Absofuckinglutely!
@Conrad Ferrus I guess he's a good writer (at least in reviews) and the "improv" or candid reviews with him and his guys are just not as good.
@Ios5513 how dare i?
Absolutely, I can't watch any of the videos with the other guys. Which is sad, because I like James content.
I actually prefer Carpenter's one, not only cause of the effects, but because of that sustained sense of paranoia it gives off. That said, I think the original is definitely an underrated classic. This video was awesome, James.
Adam Naamee Azim Of course, as time went by in cinema, directors really tried to pull the audience in with feelings that the characters were also having. It only got better as cinema matured, but they were doing that in the beginning too as in To Kill A Mockingbird ☺️
I absolutely agree with you the original is just something I hold dear to me from childhood with my dad
agreed not to mention the 2002 is a prequel
Carpenter's my favorite too. That sense of paranoia is brilliantly highlighted by his soundtrack, something he does better than almost anyone ever.
ddtnbn Actually, the soundtrack in the Carpenter's version wasn't made by him, it was made by Ennio Morricone (most famous for many western movies) but as much I love Morricone, I think the soundtrack from the 1951 original is better. Those heavy brass stabs and the theremin are simply ideal for this style of movie, and nothing else works quite as well in my opinion.
Old movies don't deserve to be left in the dark. Especially if they're good
Agreed
Well said.
Agree
love the iko pfp
Agree and Exactly
When James is a better nostalgia critic than the actual NC.
It helps that James talks about movies he loves, rather than just bashing them for yuks.
Bill CIA Wilson it's been this way since 2012
Ouch, that burn.
For starters, the Nostalgia Critic has never been a critic. He's always been playing a phony character, who was basically a hack. Unfortunately, it spawned a tidal wave of other hacks, only interested in generating vitriol and buzz rather than actually critiquing things.
because he is The real filmmaker
Really interesting points about the original, personally I'd have to disagree that Carpenter's lacks subtlety/psychelogical scares. The premise of a shapeshifting killer being amongst a closed-quarters group just offsets its often ambient atmosphere so well
So techically, James statement "It has overlapping dialogue, it's more natural" is a remake of Tom Savinis quote "There's overlapping dialogue, you hardly see that in movies today. It gives you a sense of realism..." xD
Remake or a Ripoff? Nobody knows!!!
sigh, such a lack of originality these days xD
Mr. Blonde started with Orson Welles
Uncut Gems must've blown his mind.
@@Fak3CakeJames version just happens to be one of the best ripoff ever.
A similar argument could be made how the remake of The Fly completely overshadowed the original.
I Hate to be that guy But I made an entire video on that subject-
Not seen the 50's version of The Fly but the remake was very good.
Same story with invasion of the body snatchers
You could say the same about the original Scarface compared to the Pacino remake too. Whoops should have watched the full video, James ends up mentioning it towards the end.
The Blob remake is another and even The War of the Worlds. Just almost every remake of the 50s era really is guilty of this.
Originally, the 1951 monster was supposed to be shown having shape-shifting ability like in the original novella and 1982 movie, but the idea was scrapped due to insufficient technical props at that time
Cool fact. I wonder if it was for the better we'll never know
Personally, I think this decision made for a better movie. I can only imagine the schlock it'd be seen as today had it attempted such aspects. And I think it would have only detracted from the core strengths of the movie.
I think that's a big factor in why a lot of people (myself included) prefer Carpenter's version to Hawks' version. The alien itself isn't all that interesting in Hawks' version. As Doctor Wolfula put it, it's basically Frankenstein's Monster without the pathos. On the other hand, the creature in Carpenter's version is an apocolyptic, Lovecraftian hellbeast that embodies paranoia and mistrust, which is what the story is all about.
@@KevinCarney91 Well put
That's really too bad. They could have had most of the transformations happen offscreen. There are lots of tricks that they could have done to make up for technical limitations.
My favorite part of the JC version that you didn’t really speak about was the supremely disconcerting paranoia resulting from the Thing being able to infect and impersonate people. It gave it a real “Salem witch trials” feel, where accusations were getting thrown all over the place and no one could be trusted.
More than anything THAT is the specific quality that I liked most from his version.
Like amogus?
Didn’t expect a review of my favorite horror movie
agreed
The remake was better.
Agreed. I love both.
Gary King same. Not big on horro,still love The Thing
One of the best movies of all time in any genre.
"I guess you could say, they are polar opposites"
Wow. You can see James trying not to laugh his ass off. Props for keeping a straight face.
Earlier he also said that he liked how the orignal took place in the ice snow, providing a great sense of ice-olation.
Now that he is one, that was a dad joke...
i like there was no cut there after he said it too
@@Destroyah5000 and right before that, he says the movie gives a chilling feeling
That pun was intentional. He knew it sounded stupid, but fun at the same time, as all puns do.
I've seen the Carpenter version (definitely one of the greatest horror movies ever made), the 2011 prequel (substandard dialogue and slathering all that CG over perfectly good practical effects made me VERY MAD) and I've even read the original novella. But even though I have heard of the 1951 movie and knew that Carpenter's movie took inspiration from it, I've never seen it, and have never been able to find a copy. It's as if it never existed.
But while I agree with you over the 1982 movie's relatively bland characterisations, I take issue with your remark that Carpenter's version had "no subtlety". It had subtleties, just not in the way Hawk's film presumably did. It keeps you guessing where the Thing is. You get the impression that the Thing is an evil mastermind, manipulating everyone from the shadows, using the crew's own paranoia and fear to divide and kill each other. Especially in that masterpiece ending, where you can't tell if Childs or MacReady are infected, if both of them are, or if none of them are. And unlike far too many monster movies today, the 1982 film actually doesn't show the monster very often, relying on the buildup of paranoia to drive the tension. So when you do see the monster, it's sudden, it's gory, and it never takes the same form twice, denying you any semblance of familiarity that would lessen its scare factor.
I think the, well I wouldnt go as far as call them bland, but the more underdeveloped characters of the 1982 The Thing actually worked in the movies favor, as it kept it more unpredictable. In another movie with very developed characters, you could predict which character was going to live and which ones werent, but it's not like that in the 1982 The Thing. I may just be a huge fan of The 1982 Thing, but I feel as if typical shortcomings of any other movie actually work in this movies favor.
I wish i could like this comment twice. My thoughts exactly.
This is EASILY my favorite horror movie!!!
The only thing i like about the 2011 remake is that the ending of the 2011 film is basically the beginning of the 1982 film
If you work in the Amundsen-Scott South Pole research station, then it’s tradition to watch all three ‘Thing’ films in a row just as winter sets in.
Then get paranoid about your co workers
😑😑😑😑😑😑😑😑
Sweet dreams.
Oh no :D
As far as I'm concerned, there are only 2 movies, Hawks and Carpenter.
Followed by compulsory blood tests and making sure the dogs are all accounted for.
more of these James, just you, a camera and an old movie to talk about...
fr man I love these types of videos!
I know right. Aren’t tony and Kieran obnoxious as hell.
I don't mind Tony and Kieran, but these are by far the best videos.
I like him better with 3 huge guys
My husband's dad gifted me the Hawk's version of The Thing for Christmas a few years ago and its definitely an underappreciated classic. As is The Fly!!
The 2011 version wasn’t really a remake as much as it was a prequel. It is confusing to me why they would give it the same title; but it is made clear at the end of the movie where they are chasing the dog in the helicopter that the 2011 version ends where the 1983 version begins.
I think being a prequel was supposed to be a twist ending or something. It wasn't very good either way.
30 years ago, four scientists saved New York.
It's more a premake
I was fine with imagining what happened
At least you can actually avoid the 2011 prequel if you don't wanna watch it, thankfully. You do see enough about the Norwegian station in the 82 Thing.
I've always heard the original referred to as "the thing from another world"
Same here.
The THING from another world -> John Carpenter's The THING -> The THING
-> the thong
Yes, ironically, the original changed its name to market off of success of the 80s version. Carpenter payed homage to the original but his movie had a different name.
This!
"If you type in The Thing all you get is the Carpenter's version", said AVGN, as he mentioned 5 seconds earlier that the title of the originial isn't actually "The Thing".
The 2011 movie isn't even a remake, its a prequel to the carpenter version.
Came here to say this. Both movies are great.
The 2011 prequel is an abomination.
Craig T the prequel dumbed down the monster and intrigue. Prequel only used what we saw in the 82 film by exploring the facility which has no reason to.
2011 movie goes so well with the orig... dunno how people can bash it so hard. I cant watch one without the other.
@@hopelessent.1700 a bit of a wasted opportunity, sure, and shame about what they did with the monster in the end but its still a good movie, come on now
John Carpenter’s “The Thing“ might have the best practical effects ever. That’s why it’s so tough to ignore I believe. It still holds up in today’s market because CGI has taken front seat for decades now. Even when practical would be more appealing to see we are still given CGI. So Carpenter’s version is almost the focal point of the argument between practical and CGI effects. If you’re in favor of the former, Carpenter’s “The Thing” is the perfect example of practical effects done extraordinarily well. The juxtaposition is made even greater with the latest version released. Many felt, myself included, the CGI was substandard and Carpenter’s out shined it decades earlier.
The weird thing is that the "latest" version originally embraced practical effects, then they decided CG was the way to go... and they ruined everything.
The thing 82 is quite memorable. The original Thing i admit i still haven't watched. Old movies can be pretty good.
I hate cgi, practical effects is the way to go
@@megaton_a
"They" being the stupid studio executives/suits. Wasted Studio ADI's time, effort and money asking them to do the practical effects only to completely go over them with CGI in the end...
People were starting to get a little practical-crazy recently....
...to the point where they don't even care what actually looks more real...as long as there's no CGI involved....which is just as silly.
I’m just watching the 1951 version. And realized the scene with them looking at the Geiger counter when the creature was approaching is just like the motion detectors scenes in aliens. LOL.
We just viewed it this night on "Svenguli" a syndicated scifi cable show.
Now try watching "Them!" and compare it to "Aliens" also. Aliens is a total remake of this movie.
The 80s gave us a trio of amazing Science-Horror remakes of films from the 50s. The Thing, The Fly and The Blob.
If you extend it to the late 70s, there's also Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
and unfortunately they'll likely be remade in the near future, if only to prevent the copyrights from going to the public domain...
I saw those classics as a kid...time for a re vist.
@@proZach380 Remade....by *DISNEY!* DUN DUN DUNNNNNNN!
Yea and the originals were all better
I think people like the carpenter version because of the mystery added to the movie on figuring out who’s who. It became a cult classic later on because of the analysis of the movie, how it was a lot deeper than what we actually take for what it is.
Also, the final scene of the Thing Carpenter is one of the great mysteries. Which one of them is the thing? Are either of them the thing?
@@lindenstromberg6859 simple answer you can see Kurt Russell's breath at the end but you can't see the other guys breath in the cold air hmmmm food for thought right there. Brilliant film too.
@@peachycreations8787 already debunked where producer came out to say it's still a mystery nobody knows.
@@peachycreations8787 I thought it was cause Childs drinking Macready's hand made Petrol molotov cocktail's, that you can even see earlier in the movie before he bombs the thing. The chuckle from Macready after childs drinks it. Childs is the thing alright.
@@butters742 Nah.. The Thing videogame is canon and in that game Childs is frozen to death - he wasn't the thing
My mom introduced me to The Thing when I was younger, but I seem to remember her being disappointed because she thought she rented the original, but ended up with the John Carpenter movie. Now, she really enjoyed it, but she wanted me to see the movie she grew up loving.
It's great to see that someone from my generation is not only aware of the original, but appreciates it!
I just watched the 1951 version and the 1982 remake/readaptation back-to-back. It's really hard to say which one is definitively better, because they're both great in their own ways!
I always love seeing you talk about something this passionately.
The 2011 “The Thing” is not a remake. It’s a prequel.
It's a bag of shite
And under rated. I would have seen it in the theater if they hadnt marketed it as a remake.
I still haven't seen the remake-prequel. The thing (no pun intended honest) that keeps me from giving it a chance is the idea - heavily promoted by fans of it - that the Thing is so uncharacteristically aggressive and recklessly exposes itself left and right in the remake-prequel because it's not used to hunting humans and hasn't learned to be more careful, subversive and stealthy in it's approach. The Thing arrived on Earth because it overtook a ship of super-advanced interstellar explorers that happened to accidentally collect it (because they liked collecting unique species from the various worlds they visited) - so it had by that point assimilated everything from primitive beasts to complex, highly evolved and intelligent creatures and yet, it still hadn't learned that caution and stealth were the best approach for survival and predation? Even primitive predatory animals on Earth know this as instinct. It just doesn't make sense.
@@StarryStarryNocturne What do you mean, all it needs to do is get out of the arctic and it will have the whole world in weeks. It probably knows that the ice caps can melt, and time doesnt matter to it. The thing won in the end.
And that is the problem. We already knew what happened at the Norwegian base. We didn't need a crappy knock off cgi fest to show us.
You didn't mention Ridley Scott said he lifted scenes from The Thing for the movie Alien. The entire tracking the Alien through the ship, "It should be right on top of you", is the exact same scene with the Giger Counter from The Thing.
I'm not sure if it's supposed to be a pun, looking at the subject matter, but it's Geiger counter ;)
Alien came before The Thing
@@Tobingtons No, Ridley Scott was talking about the 1951 version of The Thing. The 1951 version of The Thing is also John Carpenter's favorite movie.
My favorite thing about Carpenter's Thing isn't the special fx, it's the blood test scene. And Morricone's music, I was very surprised to hear it in Hateful Eight but I was pleased that I recognized it haha.
One track is also used in my favorite Japanese horror movie Noroi (The Curse).
You know whats really sad? what they did to the 2011 movie, the movie was supposed to have 100% practical effects but the studio made them covert all the practical effects with CGI, there is footage of some of it on youtube and it looks GREAT!, seriously, the movie would have been soooo much better.
Its a travesty.
Have you seen Harbinger Down?
I agree. Damn shame they won't even release an official version with the practicals and original ending.
@@ryantimony6669 Harbinger Down is laughable.
@@Th3BigBoy I agree. When I heard that most of the practical effect stuff was used for it, I watched it rightaway - boy, what a letdown.
The head crab scene shocked me when I watched it because it was so well done and holds up better than most, if not all, modern films
You got results for the 1982 film when you looked up “The Thing” because the 1951 film is called “The Thing from Another World.” I looked up both and got results based on the exact title.
The story "Who Goes There" was written by John Campbell, a legendary name from the Golden Age if Science Fiction.
And they recently released an extended edition (45 more pages). Search for "Frozen Hell" if you're interested.
@@Flayne009 And it's fantastic. I was on the kickstarter & i'm so happy
@@Flayne009 I need to read this. They are talking about making that a movie now. I hope its fantastic. I am so very hyped.
It was also inspired by "At the mountains of madness" by Lovecraft, very similar setting.
Follow Your Bliss, John Campbell?
This is a great review. Honestly, the John Carpenter version is so iconic to me that I had never really though much about the original. Come to think of it, I haven't actually seen the original. I'm definitely going to watch it now. Thanks James!
Watch it with the original Fly. There you have two examples of equally great sci fi movies.
dude, you saved it. my favourite guitar pedal is my “thing from another world” with the og poster as the art. thanks to you for introducing me to
I have to disagree in some aspects, the Carpenter version is also very tense and creepy, that feeling of insecurity, not knowing who the creature is among your own team mates is just terrifying. The original was a separate creature and people more or less had some kind of idea how to contain it, but the Carpenter version, practically tells you from the start there is no containment method for it, and that just blows your imagination away.
Also the 'Keep watching the skys' aspect is played out far more scarily in Carpenter's movie by having the computer simulation tell Blair how quickly the infection would take over the worlds population and the ambiguous ending.
"I guess you could say... they're polar opposites."
He really is a father, how amazing.
I love how he talks about the overlapping dialogue and how there's no pause in the original The Thing to let jokes sink in, instead they are underplayed by keeping the dialogue flowing. And then he pauses... for an uncomfortably long time... to let his joke sink in. Well played. Well played.
That’s why I always refer to the Carpenter version as “John Carpenter’s The Thing.”
Same here.
I always refer to it as just The Thing, and call the 1951 movie "The Thing from Another World" mostly because it's easier for whoever I'm talking to
@@lunaurum3515 I do the exact same thing
I just played this video for a weekly film discussion group I've been hosting for friends on Zoom during the quarantine. My friend Van, who is in his 70s now and was once an extra in films like Godfather 2 and Serpico, loved it! He just mentioned last week how he was disheartened that most people have forgotten the original Thing, so this video made him feel better that some people remember how awesome it was. He saw the 1951 version on its release, aged 8 at the time, and says it's the only movie that made him run from the theater in horror! Some younger members of the group want to see it now too, so I consider that a win!
Thanks for sharing this!
"movies are different from books"
Ahh, yes. *nods intellectually*
I never thought it was impossible to put days and weeks worth of text into 2 hour movies :O I'm shocked. SHOCKED. Well not that shocked.
lol
Sucks on pipe
''nods intellectually'' lol
Im in my late 20s and I actually haven't seen the Carpenter version, only the original, and I also think its a great piece in movie history. This movie like The Day the Earth stood still are genre defining classics in science fiction. For different reasons but together their pacing is one of the things that set the tone for good science fiction story telling. It didn't have to be about how insane the scifi was, its about the atmosphere, pacing, and writing that gave seriousness to the situation.
i'm 41 now myself i saw the original The thing , when i was a kid about 8 years old and never knew about the remake either till about the time i was 15 , funny enough i'm amazed now how i didn't see the 82 one sooner seeing as how i was only 3 when it came out.
I seen the 82 version last week. It was alright
The Thing (2011) it's not a remake, it's a prequel to Carpenter's The Thing (1982).
If it's a prequel, then why would they give it the same name? Not that I'm discrediting your post, I just find it baffling that a studio would create a film as a prequel to another film, but then give it the exact same title. I know that it's all because of marketing, but it comes off as a really illogical and nonsensical decision that only creates more confusion as time goes on.
Jordan3D I totally agree I had the same thoughts, it’s an interesting story it tells, it pretty much shows what happened to the one camp the crew comes across in the original that was in flames
Jordan3D Have you seen it? Regardless of the name, it takes place right before the 1982 movie so how could it be a remake...
@@Jordan3DS I don't understand why, you know The New halloween? For example, it is just called Halloween so I need to say Halloween (1979) and Halloween (2018). But I recommend you watch both The Thing 1982 and 2011 they até Very good, The Carpenter's version is superior but The prequel it's Very Fun to watch.
@@ethanthomas8518 The Prequel was shit.
The thing from another World is one of my all time favorites. I love how John Wayne described the difference between Hawks(Prosse) vs Ford (poetry). (Although Nyby is credited with the direction for this movie.) The fast paced overlapping dialog was a staple in Hawks movies and a real treat. Glad you are giving this movie the credit it deserves.
Thank you, James. This movie does not get anywhere the love it deserves. My mom showed me this as a child and it is still the stick I measure movies like this against.
John Carpenter's The Thing is my favorite horror film of all time. I've still never seen the origin one.
I knew it was a remake though. It's why I always call it 'John Carpenter's The Thing'.
Emperor Megas same
@@Spottedfeather yes it is.
@@bigkmoviesandgames Eh, it's more of a more faithful adaptation of the original novella.
Check it out. I'm 28 and I really enjoyed it. You can find it in online pretty easy.
It's good.
It’s ironic that halfway through this video is an ad for a game called “Destroy all Humans.”
which one?
@@lucasbiermann257 the remake
I got the same ad, too.
No, it’s fitting
I got Wendy breakfast ad.
"Watch the skies..." is one of the best closing lines of all time.
I heard “Watch the skies” from Simon Pegg’s and Nick Frost’s “Paul” from the bar scene when there were two bumper stickers “watch the skies” or “Alien on board”
Agreed.
Watch the skies, traveler!
That quote became the UFO phenomena rule number one.... Words to live by, right?
Watch the skiis
Standalone content from James Rolfe is so good that I almost wish that the quarantine never ends. 👌😅
@Smattless Stay golden👌
@Smattless you ever heard of jokes?
I'm surprised you haven't reviewed The Invisible Man 2020. Seeing as how you love the universe monsters.
Maybe it's on James's "To Do" list.
Hopefully for Monster Madness 2020.
he can also do the mummy movies
@Brandon Hibbard its on VOD
@@Dragonfury3000 I thought he already did, didn't he?
I'd disagree with James on that jumpscare part, carpenter's jumpscare didn't have the usual music followed by the high pitch sound effect when the monster popped out. It would happen almost like it was random and out of nowhere. It happened I wanna say three times in the film and then a usual jumpscare with music near the end when the dude got assimilated.
'Keep watching the skeeeees.................umm.....skies' - That teenager from the Simpsons where Homer sees the alien in the woods
"My work here is done."
James,
Can you do an in depth review of "THEM!"
I can't seem to find one online.
I feel you could do it justice.
I’ve felt the same way for a long time. Such a good movie and James is perfect for it.
Absolutely. This would be epic
BRO I would be able to die happy if he did that movie!
THEM is one of those movies i love to watch and has such a distinct sound to it!
100% love "THEM!', pretty sure sombody watched that one before writing "Aliens", there are a lot of plot similarities
"The characters are kind of flat" Heartily disagree. Also if you're going to make such a bold negative claim about the Carpenter version, please ELABORATE. "The characters are kind of flat" deeply contradicts your other statement "I understand why people like the Carpenter version better". Apparently you don't understand if you think it's only liked because of the "special effects"
No, the onus is on you to explain why they aren't flat. And they ARE flat, unremarkable stereotypes, not helped by the fact that everyone in the cast except Wilford Brimley follows Russell's lead in sleepwalking through their part...with the exception of David Clennon, who is just plain awful and irritating.
Don't find them flat. They're burnt out, isolated but still have their quirks. It'd be very weird if they were all fast talking transatlantic sterotypes cracking off against each other.
@@KRhetor
Did you even watch the same movie we did? Damn near every character was intelligent and convincing.
Those aren't contradictions, they don't even have anything to do with each other. Nor does he state it's only liked because of the special effects.
How dare you. Kurt Russell is amazing even in movies like Captain Ron and Overboard.
I'm an '80s kid, but the '50s have always been my favorite decade for sci-fi. Seeing this film at a young age - along with This Island Earth, Forbidden Planet, War of the Worlds, and The Fly - had a lot to do with that, as did '80s tribute movies like Explorers and the remake of Invaders From Mars. I still make it a point to go back and watch a lot of those old films as often as I can. Long live the classics!
James: Imagine you favorite movie gets remade and no one talks about the original
Me:...... Dude I'm a Toho monster fan that is my whole life
Also a Dragonball fan (not Z)
I definitely understand where you are coming from with Toho, but the only Dragon Ball I enjoy is Z, but then again I'm not the biggest Anime fan so, anything that is a bit or a full on parody on anime amuses me, One Punch Man is epic
I love Dragon Ball much more than Dragon Ball Z too.
@@edwarddore7617 Excel Saga is the best parody anime ever.
I implore you to give it a go.
Well Z is just a continuation of Dragon Ball, not a reboot. The original manga has both Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z covered.
You speak for me my friend. I'm 58 and prefer the original 10 times more than Carpenters and I love Carpenter as much as anyone. That original, the cold, the crew always grabbing coffee and it just is a wonderful setting for this type of film. I love the characters and the monster....yet give me James Arness in makeup over the Carpenter takes anyday.
Let's also give it up for James Arness playing "The Thing" in the original. Seeing so much Gunsmoke I couldn't imagine Matt Dillon being an alien in a horror movie. But he killed it.
Love both Hawks and Carpenter versions. Hawks version is on the top of my “snowed in” movie list.
One of my 'snowed in" Movies is "Snowbeast" (1977)
See, i understand your point with the whole "Thing remake removes original from history" point, I really do but if you google "the thing from another world" you do get the whole search history to do with the original. I don't believe it's been removed from history, sidelined for sure if you look for just The Thing.
james said that the 1951 version was still widely known as "The Thing" despite its full title of the thing from another world. so basically the 1951 version should still appear if it was still widely known. but sadly, it isnt.
THANK YOU! I love the Carpenter version, but Carpenter himself loves the Howard Hawks/Christian Nyby classic, so I doubt he would want his version to completely eclipse the original. Hawks had a skill at showing fast talking 'professionals,' also seen in His Girl Friday and Only Angels Have Wings, in a way that is compelling to watch. It annoys me when people just dismiss that version as a cheap B-movie when it's actually a sci-fi classic that was partially crafted by one of the greatest directors of all time. While the 80s movie is now rated about right, a classic of its time, the 50s film should be seen and respected as a great piece of science fiction in its own right.
"Watch the skies, traveler." -Guard, Skyrim
I used to watch the skies, until I took an arrow to the knee.
@@jordanjuarez8102 Congratulations!
Yesterday me and some friends played the new The Thing - The board game based mostly on the 1982 movie but we all knew the 1951 movie as our favorite. Great video!
Carpenter's the thing sequel is 2002 game" the thing". Which is criminally underrated game
True Patriot one of the best games from the decade
Since the *Friday the 13th* game did so well, it would be nice if a *Thing* multiplayer game would be made too. The paranoia would settle in quickly and would make for a great experience, not knowing who to trust and that one of the other players is the creature. They could have environmental hazards, such as taking damage if you stay outside too long, and certain things that must be done as a team, so as to force the players to have to try and work together.
I'm glad to still own the game in good condition. I'm about to get the game Obscure to add to my horror game collection
@@My-Name-Isnt-Important man predicted among us
I think James will be happy to know that I was introduced to The Thing at 8 years old with the original Hawks version. My dad and I watched it on TV during the wintertime in Maine, which was the perfect environment.
Recently watched the original The Fly and The Thing on a double bill. I do love 50s Sci Fi. But I really feel you've downplayed Carpenter's film a little. I don't find the characters flat at all, a little burnt out but not flat. I also find plenty of natural humour in the 1982 film, some of the bickering is hysterical because it's so real and petty or just plain cold. Music, c'mon we have Ennio Morrocone emulating Carpenter's feel (So well some people think Carpenter did the music.) I remember that music from the beginning used to run chills down my spine. Over all I just love the cosmic horror of the 80's movie, it feels somewhat Lovecraftian at times due to it coming from pulp writer John Campbell. And that's kind of what is important, the novella was about a shape shifting 'Thing' that could be anyone and Hawk's movie is about a regenerating vegetable man.
My thoughts exactly!
You know, 1982 "The Thing" was just made in different time, and if i was honest, i like 1982 version because they used creativity with the virus alien comes with.
The Thing by John Carpenter is my favorite movie and horror movie
I disagree that the story is always more important, there can be lots of different foci for a movie, including special effects. Still, I love every time you shine a light on some classic movies that haven't gotten a ton of attention and the passion that carries you doing so! You're an amazing creator who has brought countless hours of joy to us, James.
I saw the title and wondered “is he talking about the Carpenter version or the ORIGINAL”
1:12
@Adam Apocalypse
I'm mildly ashamed that didn't click until he threw out the obvious "Oh! You thought I meant the John Carpenter one!?" line, for as long as I've been subbed to James and for as much as he's proven his chops as a film buff over the decades.
The 2010’s The Thing isn’t a remake. It’s a prequel to John Carpenter’s The Thing.
Where exactly the same things happen in the same order. I call it a premake. A remake marketed as a prequel with a few quick details thrown in so they can claim it's a prequel but still not have to actually come up with an original story.
Dark Woods
I’m not defending the movie or being a smart ass to James. Was just pointing out that it’s a prequel.
Technically wouldnt that make it a remake of the original?
@@darkwoods1954 because the team making it refused to do a straight 1:1 remake, and thought a prequel would be the best route, but also had been little wiggle room to work with.
How would YOU make a prequel, and remember you MUST include the burned down Swedish base, the ice block, the axe in the wall, and the body with the slit throat, you know, all that iconic stuff in Carpenter's thing that made us (and Kurt Russel's character) think "wtf happened here?"
It's a soft reboot, but it also pointlessly retreads the plot of the 1982 one, which is why some people call it a remake. I guess it could be called a "soft remake" then, sort of like The Force Awakens, which did the same trick. (Putting "prequel" in the name is pointless since a prequel is just a sequel that goes backwards in time, it shouldn't get a special name for that.)
One of my favorites of the classic horror sci-fi genre. Actually had a treat about a year ago what I went to the Detroit Institute of Arts one day and during that summer they were doing showings of movies and the theater that was made in the late twenties that was connected to the DIA in the movie that they were showing that day was the thing from another world. Is an amazing experience watching an old movie in an old theater with a handful of other classic film fans. Something about that experience will stick with me for a long time.
The 2011 thing is technically a prequel
Yep
Not technically, it is.
@@ULTRAWIDE. Yes, though it's kind of interesting/cool that in overall storyline terms it's a direct prequel, but acts somewhat as a remake in terms of the general plot and mood etc. seeing as basically the exact same events unfold in both movies.
The 2011 The Thing is a Remake. They decived people telling them that it was a prequel.
A premake?
The Thing from another world was my dad's favorite movie. We watched it many times together. John Carpenter's The Thing was one of my favorite horror movies and we watched it together as well. Miss that guy, RIP dad.
I'm sorry for your loss. At least you have lots of happy memories of him until you get to see him again.
Me and my dad loved watching the '82 version together. He liked the original, too, but I personally didn't see it until well after I'd seen the '82 original and I sought it out on my own.
RIP dad, you sounded like a real cool dude
I'm so glad you mentioned In Search of Tomorrow. I had no idea that it existed, but now have it on my watchlist for this weekend.
I saw this movie back when I was 12 years old, I started appreciating old stuff from the 40's - 50's more thanks to the original The thing, now I have 17 years, I don't have a bunch of friends to talk about horror movies since they hate that genre because is too cliche at this point, but at least I'm happy to know the origins of such classic saga of all the story of cinema.
I love horror movies, some people ask why I love horror movies like I'm batshit crazy. How can you not love horror/ sci-fi element movies is the question.
The 2011 movie wasn’t a remake, it was a prequel.
Snap, I was going to point out it was a prequel too.
You spelled terrible prequel wrong
But with modern technology..... Hmmmm
I would've liked that movie more if they did it with practical effects like they were gonna originally, at least I think they were gonna
@@nukecorruption The sad thing is that most of the scenes WERE filmed with practical effects...but they decided to go full CGI later. Which was the worst move any The Thing fan ever could´ve imagined.
My father showed me the original when I was a kid back in the 90’s. The worst part was how he would explain everything in such a way I was always scared that the Thing could be around the next corner. The hand suddenly moving on it’s own still gives me chills.
14:00 Pfft. You lost me from here out. Silence, silence, jump scare? Characters lacked personality? Kurt Russel, Keith David, Wilford Brimley, Donald Moffat all nailed their parts. The supporting cast was great too.
I actually never knew about the oldest one. John Carpenter's is one of my favorite movies. It's like a whodunnit murder mystery, but stranded in Antarctica with shape-shifting aliens. Awesome.
You have no idea how happy it makes me to see that you're still doing your thing, and that you have 3 mil subs
I missed this kind of review of James esp. just him doing a Monster Madness video.
All of John Carpenter's movies have so many alternative theories to the meanings of the movies and why scenes were shot the way they were.
I've already mentioned elsewhere, but their are so many little details, such as the bllod cabinet mystery, and the clothing and coat hints.
It's less intentional and more due to Carpenter's sloppiness as a director and lack of attention to detail.
@@KRhetor Well if you consider not spoonfeeding the audience and hammering every point home a dozen times so that even the dumbest popcorn munching Chinese teenager will understand what's going to be sloppy then yes, Carpenter is a sloppy director.
@@poika22 tell em. I like to have open ended movies not everything needs to be plain as day
James, you always manage to suck me into whatever you’re talking about. Even if it’s not something important to me personally, your passion just pulls me in and makes me interested in it anyway
The original 50’s ‘Thing’ I saw as a small child and it has always been one of my favourite films - top 20 all time for me
Like you said, it’s a classic!
Watching the original on television in the 1970’s as a preteen - it scared the heck out of me!!
The visuals, the music and dialogue - it’s an amazing film in every way
One thing you didn’t mention that I think is really interesting about this film - the confidence of these ‘Greatest Generation’ characters - after defeating global fascism - facing this alien invader - their all very competent in their jobs and there’s a vibe the characters all give off the entire film that they will prevail against this unknown invader - like they did against fascism
It’s very different from the early 80’s vibe the characters from the Carpenter film give off of paranoia and being divided - it fit that 1970’s post Watergate world of mistrust and division
Growing up in the 70’s - I just find that 50’s confidence and gumption to be really appealing
I've watched the 1950's "The Thing" hundreds of time's. Its one of my all time favorite films. John Carpenter's "The Thing" is definitely a classic though. I would easily recommend both for various reasons already stated by James.
This movie is a masterpiece. The tension and overlapping dialogue between the characters highlights their lack of communication, making the whole cast more vulnerable to the the Thing. No need for gore and guts. This is brilliant storytelling at its best.
"That's when you school em" . Classic.
It's like "Parry this you filthy casual".
The 1980’s version is one my favorite horrow movies from my 2000’s childhood. I had no idea there was a 1950’s original, now im very interested in it
You have a long way to go if that’s the case. A lot of 1980s horror movies got inspired by those that came out in the 50s and 60s.
@Empowered Vagina How do you do giant ants without being silly
I'm glad there's younger folks interested in the culture and history of horror films. Just wait until you get to why more modern horror movies are more meta because the literal style originals became somewhat stale and so going meta was a way to keep them fresh and continues to this day.
Scarface (1932) itself is a re-make of a silent film called Underworld (1928) directed by Joseph von Sternberg
1:48 I can thank my father for my good taste in classic movies. I personally enjoy the minimalistic approach of the original thing. It is probably my favorite “horror” movie because it doesn’t rely on cheap scares. It was a tense watch when I was eight years old and I still hold great reverence for it today.
The 1951 version of The thing was always, and still is my favorite. It was the version i grew up watching on late night horror shows, and started a fifty year love of classic sci fi and horror. I also loved the 1982 John Carpenter version. Although I never really looked at it as a remake, but more as a pseudo sequel to the 1951 movie, so never really found myself comparing the two as remakes of the same movie. Then the 2011 prequel movie came out, and looking back i see the john Carpenter version was a sequel to a movie that hadn't even been made yet. I've watched the 2011 movie then the 1984 movie back to back and it works amazingly well for having a 27 year gap between them as one long and fairly seamless experience . Still, the 1951 Howard Hawks version is a true classic in every sense of the word that paved the way for a lot of films to come. If you haven't seen it, i wholeheartedly recommend giving it a try.
James is the most satisfying RUclipsr for scifi
I wholeheartedly agree with James here, I was actually just having this conversation two months ago. Hopefully this will bring about at least a small resurgence of the original film's awareness.
I never refer to the Hawks' version as "The Thing." It's The Thing From Another World, and that's what I call it. It's the same reason I would never call Who Goes There by the title "The Thing". I also love both versions, but Carpenter's is my preferred adaptation. I disagree with your points on building suspense. I think both do it perfectly fine, but in different ways.
If I'm in the mood for an old-school classic, I watch The Thing From Another World. Otherwise, I watch The Thing. And I don't mean that thing they made in 2011 that tried to replace the real The Thing.
And that's the thing about The Thing.
I love that pun!
The Thing From Another World, John Carpenter's The Thing, and The Thing, are three different movies and those are their titles.
The thing from another world is a classic monster movie, Carpenters The Thing is a psychological thriller and Mystery with great acting and maybe the most well aged visual effects ive ever seen. No comparison.
"What if it can read our minds?"
"Then he'll be real mad when he gets to me."