the answer is no, whichever one you meant by the original.
Ahem, one can only assume that the original poster is referring to John Carpenter's "original" film, as he has the 2011 The Thing as the topic of discussion -- and Howard Hawks' film is a different animal.
the answer is no, whichever one you meant by the original.
Ahem, one can only assume that the original poster is referring to John Carpenter's "original" film, as he has the 2011 The Thing as the topic of discussion -- and Howard Hawks' film is a different animal.
Sadly, there was a LOT of studio interference. This video explains some things HERE. There was to be A LOT of practical FX. The 2011 movie SHOULD'VE been better! Damn shame!
tmdb53400018 的回复
于 2017 年 06 月 24 日 5:43下午
Absolutely not. It's too derivative of Carpenter's take, and the special effects can't hold a candle to his film's.
BarkingBaphomet 的回复
于 2017 年 06 月 24 日 8:33下午
the answer is no, whichever one you meant by the original.
tmdb53400018 的回复
于 2017 年 06 月 24 日 8:52下午
Ahem, one can only assume that the original poster is referring to John Carpenter's "original" film, as he has the 2011 The Thing as the topic of discussion -- and Howard Hawks' film is a different animal.
tmdb43737777 的回复
于 2017 年 06 月 24 日 9:24下午
Nope. The original is a classic
BarkingBaphomet 的回复
于 2017 年 06 月 24 日 9:38下午
i thought he was referring to this.
tmdb53400018 的回复
于 2017 年 06 月 24 日 10:26下午
Of course! How could I forget ?
Irina 的回复
于 2017 年 11 月 07 日 1:14下午
Both "The Thing From Another World" (1951) and its brilliant REMAKE "The Thing" (1982) are 100x better than this one
jorgito2001 的回复
于 2019 年 04 月 18 日 9:45上午
Sadly, there was a LOT of studio interference. This video explains some things HERE. There was to be A LOT of practical FX. The 2011 movie SHOULD'VE been better! Damn shame!