Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Feb 12, 2012 - 9:02 AM   
 By:   DeputyRiley   (Member)

Just saw both films for the first time, and watched the prequel first to preserve narrative chronology. It was very fun to watch it this way. Don't ask me how I managed to put off watching Carpenter's version all my life, but I am very happy to have waited and then paired it up with the prequel for a truly kickass horror 'n monster double feature. I don't know how many of you can recall the feeling of watching Carpenter's version for the first time, but I now wholeheartedly agree with its classic status. The prequel is not as good, but still excellent, and the two films work so well together when watched back-to-back. I am somewhat glad I watched Heijningen's version first; if I had seen this prequel after Carpenter's version I may have been more disappointed. As it was, the prequel introduced me to the Thing universe, and the 1982 iteration stepped up the game to classic level. Ultimately, the recent prequel felt more constrained by studio-mandated mainstream quality of the indescribable sort; not a terrible thing in and of itself, but in comparison to Carpenter's more lean, shock-minded, outside-the-box mentality, the prequel doesn't have quite as sharp of an edge. The 1982 version was razor-sharp its entire running time. I preferred Rob Bottin's more inventive and commanding makeup effects over Alec Gillis and Tom Woodruff's CGI effects, although both were superior entries in each artistic realm.

It's always an interesting phenomenon to me to watch remakes or modern prequels...I never know what my opinion will be. In the case of The Hitcher I saw the remake (2007) before I saw the 1986 original. The novelty of the story, the shocks, the slick and stylized direction, and the introduction to the Hitcher universe made me appreciate the remake more than the original. Even though both were great, the remake had a nastier, dirtier feel to it that was perversely entertaining. Similarly, I saw the 2003 Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake before I saw the 1974 original, and again preferred the remake, this time vastly so. I still hold it as the best horror film ever made...for my particular moods and tastes, anyway. Seeing the 1974 original didn't have enough slick, polish, and humorlessness to appeal quite as much (I do realize that was the point), although having said that there are parts of the original that are classic and horrifying. Watching the two Thing films, this is one of the few cases where even though I saw the "newer" movie first, I still found the 1982 version to be superior. I think it's a lot of fun to see remakes/originals/prequels in odd order sometimes. I also prefer to watch Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning before the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake from 2003 because of the story chronology.

Finally, even though Marco Beltrami is my favorite composer, I can't compare his and Carpenter/Morricone's approach. They are different animals, spare thematic nods notwithstanding, and each score fits its respective film like a mitten. The spare, nightmarish Carpenter/Morricone score fit the 1982 film's raging paranoia and terror perfectly, while the operatic, bombastic Beltrami score completely worked in the 2011 prequel's favor, adding significant orchestral firepower to the sonic palette and this time giving the Thing more of a musical voice.

 
 Posted:   Feb 12, 2012 - 9:07 AM   
 By:   mastadge   (Member)

Just saw both films for the first time, and watched the prequel first to preserve narrative chronology.

I've just picked up Carpenter's The Thing, also with the intention of having a double feature when the new one arrives!

 
 Posted:   Feb 12, 2012 - 9:08 AM   
 By:   Deadwalker   (Member)

Yes, but in the 2011 film they got the Dog wrong both times. Two different dogs. One we see in the beginning of the film and the dog that runs out at the end. How can you not find a dog that looks 95 similar to the original with all the dogs in the world.?

They also tried to fool us by using footage from the 1982 version a the end when the dog was being chased.

Also they ignored the Norwegians planting Thermal Charges into the ice to expose the ship.

 
 Posted:   Feb 12, 2012 - 9:21 AM   
 By:   DeputyRiley   (Member)

Just saw both films for the first time, and watched the prequel first to preserve narrative chronology.

I've just picked up Carpenter's The Thing, also with the intention of having a double feature when the new one arrives!


Have you not seen either of them Mastadge?

 
 
 Posted:   Feb 12, 2012 - 10:06 AM   
 By:   jfallon   (Member)

Blud I totally agree! For me the biggest plot hole was the lack of scene planting
thermal charges. How does one explain how the ship was uncovered and blown
up at the begining of Carpenters version???

 
 Posted:   Feb 12, 2012 - 10:18 AM   
 By:   mastadge   (Member)

Have you not seen either of them Mastadge?

I've seen the original several times, but not since the days of VHS. I'm very much looking forward to rediscovering it.

 
 
 Posted:   Feb 12, 2012 - 10:33 AM   
 By:   robtoliver   (Member)

Also they ignored the Norwegians planting Thermal Charges into the ice to expose the ship.

They address this in the commentary. They didn't ignore it as much as they realized how unworkable the idea was. Just how would they use thermal charges to reveal such a large area? That would take a lot of charges, and a lot of time, and not likely to result in the perfectly circular appearance we see.

Perhaps the charges were used to create the side tunnel they used to access the ship? That seems like a reaonable idea that doesn't conflict too much with the 82 film.

 
 Posted:   Feb 12, 2012 - 12:23 PM   
 By:   Mr. Jack   (Member)


Perhaps the charges were used to create the side tunnel they used to access the ship? That seems like a reaonable idea that doesn't conflict too much with the 82 film.


I can accept that interpretation. I mean, how did that cave/tunnel get to be there in the first place?

 
 
 Posted:   Feb 12, 2012 - 12:36 PM   
 By:   Francis   (Member)

The whole ending of the prequel in the ship was poorly conceived and a bit of a letdown; they could've done so much more there.

 
 
 Posted:   Feb 11, 2020 - 1:40 AM   
 By:   SoldierofFortune   (Member)

After a long time, I give it a replay (it was one of my favs of 2011), and yes, still has.

It is a tremendous horror score, with a nice orchestration and themes (a lot of goldsmithonian and goldenthanial elements in his action/horror tracks) and his homage to the original heartbeat effect, is nice.

Maybe isn't as good as Hellboy, I, Robot or Mimic... but is a tremendously enjoyment as a fan of Beltrami.

 
 
 Posted:   Feb 13, 2020 - 7:54 PM   
 By:   Xebec   (Member)

I play it frequently and really like it. Some really interesting stuff throughout. Actually better outside of the film than in it. It's great.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2020 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved...