It's so much better than the remakes it's not even funny. Scotty for life.
It's so much better than the remakes it's not even funny. Scotty for life
Austin Ortiz
Other urls found in this thread:
Connor Myers
Give it a rest, you contrarian faggot.
Isaac Evans
This is the first time I've ever posted a thread about this movie. Go watch it faggot. It's great. It's an actual movie and not just a series of random events like the 80s one and not a boring CGI abomination like the 2011 one.
Chase Watson
Is this true?
Nolan Bailey
The 50s version is pure B movie garbage. This isnt up for debate. Bad sets, bad actors, bad script.
>A string of random events
It's not the movie's fault that you're retarded
Carter Barnes
h-he's fast...
youtu.be
Ryan Robinson
You haven't seen this movie. I have, it has two or three good scenes and the rest of the movie is extremely boring. It's a Universal horror rip-off except less good than those movies.
Samuel Long
I agree with the other user, the movie is nothing special, even compared to other 50s sci-fi movies. Plus the girl is useless.
Jayden Diaz
what movie?
Easton Reed
not him but you're a straight up pleb fsggot if you think Howard Hawks and Ben Hecht's screenplay is bad.
Logan King
You're silly. It was an excellent movie but it had nothing to do with John W. Campbell's paranoid shape-shifter premise. It was about a vegetable monster.
They didn't have the FX technology in the 50s to pull off an actual adaptation.
Samuel Rivera
My sentiments exactly. Classic sci fi flick, but the '82 version is Carpenter's masterwork. Howard Hawks peaked with Bringing Up Baby
Tyler Phillips
>bad script
Have you seen 80s The Thing? The script is shit. The alien is sometimes smart and sometimes just a roaring monster that gets itself killed. The men constantly break away from each other and die. It's inconsistent generic horror tripe.
Jordan Nelson
I'm with these anons. Fifties original is fine for it's time.
Jordan Rodriguez
As opposed to the 50s thing where he’s basically The Mummy from space.
Matthew Robinson
The 50s one has wit and likable characters. The only clever thing in the 80s movie is the blood test and it's pretty much taken straight from the original story.
Noah Diaz
And the special effects which are miles better than the 50s thing. And I disagree it’s witty, it’s very dated. I like the women there only serving coffee and being wallpaper.
Jayden Ward
Here's a lesser known original that actually is better than the more popular remake
Dylan Davis
>remakes
they arent remakes both are made off the short story and the 2011 is a prequel ya retard
Isaiah Lewis
The special effects are shit. They're over-exaggerated and look like wet rubber. Tons of scenes literally just exist to show off the effects they made. That sort of overindulgence isn't in the 50s movie cause it had other more important shit to focus on, like the characters and their plans.
>And I disagree it’s witty
The dialogue is snappy as hell and there's way more believability in the 50s movie, it goes into the science way more than the 80s movie which just has that laughable computer simulation cause there's no cleverness in that script.
Ryder Williams
wow you have really bad taste in movies
Angel Barnes
Carpenter's adaptation is miles closer to Who Goes There, which is an amazing story with heavy themes of paranoia and incomprehensible terrors
The 50s version is just arctic scientists vs Frankenstein
Gabriel Sanders
I like both. 50s movie is cool and the influence it had over Carpenter's horror movies is obvious.