In my eyes it's like comparing Iron Maiden to Metallica.
Iron Maiden being the Kurt Russell version and Metallica being the prequel. I know some will think that's a good thing. But to me I would piss on one if they were on fire so as to save it... and I'd let the other fucker burn till there was nothing left then piss on the ashes and laugh.
LOL That's an interesting analogy ! To me, a big difference between the Kurt Russel Thing and the Prequel is the special effects ...Animatronics, special costumes, prosthetics vs. the overuse, in my opinion, of CGI digital animation which detracts from the overall creative presentation and makes the monster look more cartoonish ...
I think "The Thing" prequel repreasents some of the best of todays combination of all aspects of movie monster creation, but still, in my opinion, there was a little bit too much CGI digital animation which makes the monster look less real, and thus less scary
I am not suprised that Harley, and others, prefer the CGI dominant special effects in the Prequel over the Kurt Russell version,...but I'm old school on this issue and I prefer '80's and '90's special effects like HellRaiser, Poltergeist, Demon Night, Night of the Demons, The Blob, etc......before CGI became so prevalent.
Also I agree about the plot in the Prequel not being that original...I think that is what kind of confused me originally. In that the Prequel claims not to be a copy of the Kurt Russel version, but the story was similar enough to that version to make it actually seem like a re-make, with just some minor changes to character and plot....
But I still think "The Thing" Prequel is a pretty good movie overall...especially if you like CGI, and you haven't seen the original.