Which film remake do you think was better than the original?

 Agneepath (2012) was vast improvement over Agneepath (1990) in my opinion.

Agneepath is a cult classic no doubt but there are many problems with the film. Firstly, Amitabh looked too aged and his voice experiment was a total disaster. Hrithik Roshan played a middle aged man far convicningly without altering his voice.

Second, the character of Mithun Chakraborty was caricaturish and it adds nothing to the film in terms of narrative. Plus his South Indian accent was all over the place. New Agneepath did away with the character and added some new characters not in the original Agneepath like Rauf Lala played by Rishi Kapoor who became the highlight of the film.

Third was music. The music of old Agneepath was pretty ordinary with no standout songs. Kisko tha pata is hummable but other songs were passable at best. New Agneepath had brilliant soundtrack with songs like Abhi Mujhme Kahin, Saiyyan, Gun Guna re, Chikni Chameli etc.

The casting was appropriate in the new Agneepath with actors playing age appropriate roles. It was a bit of sore to see 42 year old Rohini Hattangadi playing the mother of 48 years old Bachchan. Also Neelam was cast to have a romantic subplot with Mithun. The new film made her character a school going girl and it helped well with the proceedings. Similarly Madhavi had previous little to do in Agneepath while Priyanka Chopra had a more defined role in the film.

One thing I like about the old Agneepath was that it was dark and gritty and had wonderful dialogues. But otherwise I consider the new Agneepath as the better film.

What are the differences between The Thing (2011) and the original movie?

 In many ways The Thing (2011) does what a good follow-up film should do. It expands on the world. It doesn't overdo it on the amount of references to events that happened in the previous film. It upped up the action, the rush, the adrenaline. Did it better, actually.

It's just…meaningless as a whole. All the good stuff's already been done.

The Thing (2011) is a prequel to John Carpenter's 1982 sci-fi horror.

In the 1982 one, a group of scientists run into...something from out this world.

The Thing came from another research camp, which was in ruins. All its inhabitants done for.

2011 goes back to see the events that transpired in that ruined camp.

Basing on 2011,

Dislikes:

The dialogue was too on the nose at times, especially compared to 1982's dialogue, which felt more natural.

I think Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a good actress otherwise but I did not like how her character, and the guy-in-charge's character, spoke at times. Very...um.."lecture-y"instead of a casual tone suited for conversations, which was what they were having.

1982 had a certain charm in the way they made supposedly one of the least smartest guys - the pilot in a team of mostly scientists - figure out a brilliant way to test if someone had The Thing. 2011 had...the smart science person do it. Who could have seen that coming?

The effects did nothing for me. Maybe I'm just sick and tired of CGI, but I did not care for the special effects here, especially since 1982 excelled in using practical effects.

The characters. Most of them felt like "copies," parallels of characters in the 1982 one. They look similar. Some acted similar. Whatever for? There was no need for this. They could have created entirely new characters.

Like:

I like how they zeroed in on how The-Thing-Can't-Replicate-Inorganic-Matter angle to save themselves.

The Thing, 2011. Whole movie felt unnecessary. It added very little to an already fully-told story. It used too much CGI, which was a low bar to clear because any CGI is too much when compared to how 1982 did it.

If there's one Thing you can gain from reading through this slop, use it as a reminder to consider rewatching 1982 this weekend.