Yes. I don’t see how it could be adapted to film though.
What did you think of it?

I found it really interesting and enjoyable, although as it's almost entirely in the voice of creature reflecting its thoughts, an adaptation wouldn't look much different from the original 1982 film as all the actual action is the same. It'd maybe even be possible to make a "remix" of the film by adding narration from the creature on top. It's mainly interesting as a supplement to the original film though, not a replacement.

Yeah, I liked it too. I thought it was patterned after the original short story, but apparently it's based on the Carpenter version. I normally don't like it when other writers do stuff like this, write unofficial sequels/prequels/side stories, but I thought the angle the writer came up with was really creative. Like you said, a nice little "supplement," side story, or un-official telling.

...the studios wouldn't be afraid to produce remakes?

If they hadn't made a Thing prequel, I'd be fine with another remake about now. But just make it different enough to warrant a remake.
The 50s Fly compared to the 80s one is drastically different, and they're equally good in their own way.
I haven't seen the full version of The Thing From Another World, but I'm guessing the 80s one is just as different to it, as the Cronenberg's Fly is to the Vincent Price one.

Remakes have been part of Hollywood/Movie making since forever. People losing their shit over them and acting like the world is ending and Hollywood is falling apart is NEW AND RIDICULOUS. Don't want to see it? Don't. It's just that simple.

The prequel would have been awesome if they stuck to keeping CGI out of it. Even the filmmakers were upset about it being forced on them. The CGI used was FN terrible and if any Hollywood franchise demands practical effects it should be The Thing.

I like the Frozen Hell title. Would I love to see a follow up with Kurt Russel ... sure. But I just don't see it working at this point without 1980s John Carpenter.

Yeah, I forgot people are throwing themselves out of windows and going crazy in the streets because Pet Sematary got remade.

Fan outrage is nothing new. People "lost their shit" just because they cast Michael Keaton as Batman back in 1989.

As for film remakes, if more people had TomOpus's opinion on the net...what? What difference would it make for you?

The problem isn't people getting upset over remakes. The reason people get upset is that these are usually bad remakes. When a good remake happens, people tend to like it and not complain. Some even like it better than the original. Heck, John Carpenter's "The Thing" even counts as one of those good remakes. Of all the remakes of the past 20 years, how many have been good? How many have even been better than the original? That's a very short list and that's the reason people complain.

Cuing announcement about The Rock’s involvement in 10 ... 9 ...

To paraphrase Sturgeon, 99% of everything is crap. All of the original movies of the past 20 years, how many have been good? Sure, you can name a lot of good movies, but there's 10x as many that were crap and quickly forgotten about. Remake rub people the wrong way because there's an immediate point of comparison, and due to the ever increasing availability and convenience to watch the older version, many don't see it as "necessary" to tell the same story a slightly different way. Instead, we get "originals" that tell a slightly different story the same way as hundreds of other films were told.

Prior to television and home video, movies were remade just so people could see it again in theaters, like a new production of a play. We're still ok with plays being remounted, but many have gotten the idea that since you can still see the old movie, why bother with a new version.

I view them like song covers. A lot of covers, in fact, most, suck. Oftentimes they'll make the cover sound just like the original, which isn't that interesting. Sometimes they'll try something new with the song though, and even though many of those fail, the successful ones bring something new and can stand on their own. So I pick and choose and only listen to the covers I like, instead of bemoaning that "all covers suck" and suggesting that musicians only record new material.

That said, I'm not convinced that this proposed remake has anything new to add to the 1982 film.

This Plus, I always view Remakes/Reboots as a chance to introduce someone to the original.

This is exactly the reason I hate this ongoing remake trend. I’ve had so many conversations with coworkers and other uninformed people who weren’t aware they were watching a remake. I fully understand we on this board are film fans and probably know more than the average person.
I really feel it’s partly a generational thing. “Kids” these days don’t do the legwork to dip into the past.

But see, why "hate" it? You do realize that if it hadn't been for that remake/reboot...they NEVER would have had a reason to have that enlightening convo with you right? How would they have known an original film existed? How about looking at it in this more positive light?

Years ago I read where they asked Gene Simmons why KISS released so many "Best of" albums. A question I had asked many times as a KISS fan...Well, Gene basically said that there were always new people to introduce to KISS. You know what? That made perfect sense.

Are remakes more prevalent now than in the past?
As for "kids" not doing the legwork, I'm surprised that alot of my younger friends and co-workers are up on the same 70s and 80s films that I grew up on and are fans too. With Netflix and Hulu and all these other streaming services there's easier access to old films.

I think back in the day sequels were looked at in the same way as remakes are today. They were even mocking the idea of them in other movies like Back to the Future II, ironically, and Spaceballs (Jaws 19 and Rocky 5000).

If remakes ARE more prevalent I think it's because less people are going to the movies outside of the big budget franchises (Marvel, Star Wars, DC, etc) so they want to lessen the risk and use familiar IPs.