I've yet to see the movie, so I can't really defend or attack it, but there is something I'd like to say: something tells me that several people here have already had it in their mind that they were going to hate this movie long before the movie was even released.
Okay, obviously that doesn't apply to everyone, rather I'm just saying that appears to be the vibe I'm getting from these comments. What I find interesting to are the people who say "Oh, it's not suspenseful at all, it has none of the paranoia and is just creature chases and scares!", mostly because on reflection, how else could it have been done? I'm willing to bet that had this movie stayed true to all of that and was basically the 82 version again, people would just say "It's the same damn movie, just watch the original!", and since I'm sure thats what the director thought the reaction would be like if they did that, he decided to change it.
Again, I haven't seen it so I can't say if this is fully true or if it works, but from what I'm hearing this is again filed with alot of chase sequences and jump scares, to which I think to myself "That's the only way it could work". Seeing as how we already now what the end conclusion is going to be because of the intro to the 82 version, simply doing a stealth creature seems rather odd. Think about it, the Thing itself in the prequel would be un-aware of the harm humans can pose to it, confidant that it's strong enough on it's own to just face the humans head on without having to use most of it's survival techniques, which I'm guessing in turn leads to it learning the hard way that humans can harm it pretty easily, which in turn seems to turn the Thing to a confident and cocky brute (2011 version) to a nervous yet strategic hunter (1982 version). This difference in character type means that the pace of the movie will also be different. After all, having a brutish creature in a stealth and suspense setting would be like trying to snipe someone with a chainsaw, different but impractical. That said, I'm open to the idea that this may be wrong once I see the movie, so this won't be a definitive response or defense untill then, rather speculation based on what I've heard.
As for the CG debate, I must say that the 82 versions effects were tremendous, expecially for it's time and in some cases even today (although there are effects towards the end that aren't as impressive and haven't really aged that well), and I will also say that I do indeed find practical effects (only in Horror movies mind you) to be more effective than CG, and even when not as effective the offness of the practical effects help to lend to a sense of distrubance that the offness of CG can't really capture. That said however, when I heard that the same studio that did the CG for this did the CG for District 9, it made me wonder if the complaints about the CG come from people who were purposefully looking for something to complain about as oppossed to actual problems that the studio should've noticed.