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!
Un film, une émission télévisée ou un artiste est introuvable ? Connectez-vous afin de créer une nouvelle fiche.
Réponse de tmdb53400018
le 24 juin 2017 à 17h43
Absolutely not. It's too derivative of Carpenter's take, and the special effects can't hold a candle to his film's.
Réponse de BarkingBaphomet
le 24 juin 2017 à 20h33
the answer is no, whichever one you meant by the original.
Réponse de tmdb53400018
le 24 juin 2017 à 20h52
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.
Réponse de tmdb43737777
le 24 juin 2017 à 21h24
Nope. The original is a classic
Réponse de BarkingBaphomet
le 24 juin 2017 à 21h38
i thought he was referring to this.
Réponse de tmdb53400018
le 24 juin 2017 à 22h26
Of course! How could I forget ?
Réponse de Irina
le 7 novembre 2017 à 13h14
Both "The Thing From Another World" (1951) and its brilliant REMAKE "The Thing" (1982) are 100x better than this one
Réponse de jorgito2001
le 18 avril 2019 à 09h45
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!