Which is better?

Like so many people, I again point out that they are two distinctly separate entities, both drawing from the same source material. The argument of which is better is therefore moot.

I will say this: When I watch the Carpenter interpretation (which I like very much), I don't so much get drawn into the story (somewhat) as enjoy the performances of some terrific actors, and marvel at the special effects in the movie. But there's little mounting tension, although it technically is a good, even great movie, it has no heart. It's just a $$$gazillion excuse to show off some great technical advances in special FX. And it's extremely nihilistic at the ending, little or no hope is left for the future of humanity.

When I watch the Hawkes/Nyby interpretation, the simplicity of the adaptation draws me right in, the mounting tension becomes almost excruciating, the characters are extremely likeable, the Us vs. Them part of the situation is something everyone identifies with, and I just enjoy it more because it was a film I discovered in my formative years. Yes, the monster is laughable, but that's what "suspension of belief" in watching a fantasy film is all about. You believe this "Frankenstein monster from outer space in a Nazi uniform" is actually a threat to all of humanity. And the film leaves the viewer with hope that if we "Keep Watching the Skies", we can fend off any attempt to invade our planet from without.

Anyway, that's MY take on the "which is better" argument. Perhaps the ultimate interpretation of this story is yet to be made....????