I had the pleasure of going in to watch the newest The Thing (2011) without knowing a single thing about it or the original. Then I went home right away and watched the 1982 version. Since the films are titled the exact same, I’ll generally be referring to them by the year they came out. So how does The Thing compare with The Thing?
The Story: The 2011 The Thing isn’t a remake, it’s a prequel to the 1982 version (itself a remake of 1951’s The Thing from Another World), but there are still some similarities in the story. Both films follow a similar formula: the characters find out there’s an alien, learn that it’s a shapeshifter, come up with ways to test everyone to find out who is human and who isn’t, then come to the resolution that the alien must not escape no matter what. Despite the similarities, however, the characters found different ways of handling each step in the formula so that the two films were different and brought something new to the table. For instance, each film taught us a different way to test our pals to see if they are who they say they are. If someone claims not to have any fillings in their teeth, then we go to the blood. Blood doesn’t lie.
The 2011 film did a fantastic job taking notes from the 1982 film. I really felt like I was watching the sequel when I was watching the 1982 version even though it came out first. In John Carpenter’s The Thing, the characters went to explore a burned down camp, which was the camp in the 2011 film. Little touches like an axe stuck in the wall, a posed dead body, and the block of ice the alien came out of looked exactly the same even though the films were made almost 30 years apart. Even Lars’ grenade box from the beginning of the 1982 film was missing a couple and after seeing the 2011 film, you know why.
The Cast/Characters: The 1982 film stars my boy Kurt Russell as the main hero, R. J. MacReady. Starring alongside him are his epic beard and ridiculous hat. As always, Kurt Russell was a great protagonist. He was smart, tough, and good at thinking on his feet. The only thing lacking in the 1982 version are women.
Epic Beard
Ridiculous Hat!
The 2011 film includes a female as their main protagonist, Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). She, also, is an excellent protagonist. She’s far more observant and intelligent than most of the other folks around her, which is probably why she managed to keep on survivin’ even as people were getting torn to pieces around her. She also never needed saving and took charge in a time where everyone was freaking out – she was a graduate student who used her brains to survive, someone I’d refer to as ‘realistically badass.’ She didn’t suddenly go Rambo on the aliens and know how to do Wing Chun. She just stayed calm, used her head, picked up a flame thrower and torched some alien ass.
The Paranoia: A core part of The Thing is the paranoia it causes. Again, both films portray the paranoia well with everyone not trusting anyone and always turning on each other. For the audience, though, 1982 version kept things more of a mystery. In most scenes you really did have to wonder who was human and who was not. You really only know that Kurt Russell is okay, and even then there are some times when you have doubts about that. The prequel is a bit more liberal with budgeting the clues as to who isn’t human, so there wasn’t as much of a surprise when someone aliened-out. Either way, both films delivered in the high-tension department.
The Action: There were definitely way more explosions in The Thing (1982). They blew their whole camp up as opposed to the 2011 crew just burning theirs down. The ’11 film did, however, use the flame thrower sparingly, which results in lots of barbequed alien/people hybrids. The prequel also provided a beefier final showdown against the alien, as well.
The Thing Itself: The Thing (2011) pretty much used all CGI whereas the 1982 film used practical creature effects. There is a reason people cite the ’82 Thing time and time again as a classic ‘creature effects’ movie – the prosthetics and makeup all hold up so well that even in 2011 it’s still a terrifying and disgusting film. The CGI in the 2011 Thing served the purpose. Though it wasn’t always as gross as the ’82 version, the effects will still serve up a heaping helping of nightmares to any unwary moviegoers.
The Verdict: These two films complement each other well. It’s not a matter of “see this one, not that one.” You should see both! You can watch them in chronological order starting with the 2011 prequel first, then go back and watch John Carpenter’s version. And if you go see them with someone, make sure to keep an eye on them to make sure they’re still… human.
This is the Action Flick Chick, and you’ve just been kicked in the ass!
You’re aware the 1982 version was a remake itself of 1951’s “The Thing From Another World”? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044121/
After reading yet another great Action Chick review, I’m gonna have to go out and see the ’11 version. The ’84 version is one of my favorite movies of all time, ever. Especially due to the incredible makeup effects (and as a reason why I still think it’s foolish to rely on CGI solely for creature/horror effects) and the general atmosphere of isolation.
I had great reservations about this prequel, but after reading your review, I think I’m going to have to go check it out.
Thanks Action Chick!
As always I enjoy your reviews so much! I think that I may go out and see it as well with my daughter. we got her to watch the original months before the advertising came up for the 2011 one. I think we will really have a good time of it. ^_^
Thanks so much again my friend!
I never saw THE THING (1982) during its original theatrical release. I saw it a year or so later on VHS. Neddless to say, I thought it was awesome. It had the first movie monster since the Alien that was both nightmarish and believable. I still feel for those dogs in the pen! Just a testamant to John Carpenter and the production team as to how well THE THING holds up almost 30 years later. Great score by Carpenter too.
I saw THE THING (2011) on Saturday. Didn’t read any reviews beforehand. Just some negative comments on Twitter. I have to say that I thought THE THING (2011) was just fine. As good as ’82? No. But, entertaining nonethless.
I agree with Action Flick Chick on Mary Elizabeth Winstead. She was convincing in the role.
Thanks, that was good without being spoilery.
I’ve been looking forward to this new one, gotta find baby sitters!
I was on the fence about it, but now I gotta see it. Nice review.
@CT – And both were adapted from the novella WHO GOES THERE? by John W. Campbell. For the record, the ’82 version was much closer to the original story than the ’51 adaptation.
I have already endorsed the 2011 version as one of the best thought out and considerate prequel films to be made to date.
I have no desire to see the prequel. For one thing, I know how it ends. Seriously though, the original was great on many levels. It really played up the claustrophobia and paranoia. John Carpenter says there are two types of horror. The monster comes from beyond, or the monster comes from within, and he does a great job showcasing both. Seeing the trailer, it just has tons of action, and excitement showing that it kind of lost the whole point of what made the 82 version so damn good. You touched upon the paranoia in the original. In the prequels trailer, I can see who is duplicated. When you’re watching the original you don’t know unless you really dissect each scene as this guy did http://www.youtube.com/user/robag88#p/u/14/SppG-I_Dhxw
And Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom will always be the best prequel.
It is a matter of “see this one, not that one.”
The setting is the same, the circumstance and collective actions are the same. The plot and even title suggest remake more than they do prequel but then again prequels are never a good idea.
I saw this one last weekend. I have to disagree that it should be viewed by, well, anyone.
The only way it compliments Carpenter’s movie is because it takes it into consideration when setting up lore. Other than that, it was a CG fest with bland music/atmosphere that didn’t do anything for me.
Guess what, though? MacReady’s hat is totally bad ass, so you get a lot of points for being the first person to ever mention it as far as I know. I just watched the Carpenter one (again) the night before I saw the prequel, and that hat stood out like nothing else ever. The hat should have been the Thing at the end. No one, Kurt included, could have stood a chance against it.
Also, those last two photos are awesome. It doesn’t look like the one from the film, so what the hell is it?
I saw the 1982 version when it came out. I have it on DVD and I LOVE it! I am excited about the 2011 version and will see it when it comes out in my neck of the woods. Sounds fantastic.
Thanks for the wonderful review Katrina. As always, you are not only informative about films, but FUN!
Ok. Here’s one major problem I have with what I’ve seen. There is a clip showing The Thing bursting out of the block of ice. It’s just this huge explosion of ice with wood being thrown everywhere. But when you watch the original, it looks like it just got thawed out. There are no signs of a violent eruption out. It’s just style over substance. What’s the point of showing the axe in the door and the suicide if you’re going to ignore that. Style over substance.
You are one lucky girl to see these flicks in their intended order, you caught onto little things like Lars’ grenades, for example. I thought you were gonna like the female lead, and if you liked the actress, check out Scott Pilgrim, that movie kicked some ass too 🙂
the alien in this movies are quite intelligent and not easy to defeat so i think they should create a movie like “Alien vs. The Thing” or “Predator vs. The Thing” or a royal rumble between the three. lets see who will be the strongest.
I saw the “82” version and I like it better than the 2011 one. For one the special effects are a lot better where as the 2011 version used CGI and the suspense in the “82” version is more gripping.To me CGI takes away from a film and I don’t want to see it the more real you make the effects the better.
CT You are right but the 50’s version needed to be remade. Wasn’t james Arness the Thing. I guess come to think of it that is pretty scary LOL