# The Thing scores 1982 vs 2011- what happened?



## dcoscina (Jan 31, 2012)

I just rented the prequel to The Thing (1982) which in of itself was a remake of the Howard Hawks '50s James Arness flick. I have to commend the filmmakers of the latest outing for trying to mesh things up to Carpenter's '80s film in terms of tone, lighting and mood. Not a lot of innovation but more a riff on some terrific set pieces from the Kurt Russell one. One thing that really disappointed me was Marco Beltrami's score. I've never been keen on his music even though he got glowing endorsements from the late Jerry Goldsmith and has a lot of music education. Looking at the glass half full, I found his academia background well suited to atmospheric or modernist stuff like Blade 2 or Mimic. But even there, Beltrami fell flat on The Thing. I don't know why it bothers me so much except I found Morricone's 1982 score to be one of the classic horror sci fi scores of its time and even perhaps one of the best outings in the genre ever. Morriconne channeled that highly chromatic, lack of tonal centred string fugal writing of Bartok's for much of his score but also was pressured (I believe) to mimic (pun intended) Carpenter's synth style of low pulsing ostinatos. Whatever the case, it worked. One of my favorite cues, Despair, is one long crescendo in the strings with the occasional brass statement. Lots of ornamentation gives the overall mood a sense of dread but it still feels like a piece of music. Beltrami's score imparts none of this claustrophobic feeling nor does it have any overall structural shape. It's very knee jerk.

I don't want get off on another "old scores are better than new ones" but The Thing is the second genre flick I've seen in the past month where the music really killed the film for me. Pity.

Here's the link to the Morricone cue. Amazing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRfsxyYy1I4


----------



## choc0thrax (Jan 31, 2012)

The Thing (1982) is a masterpiece. 

I haven't seen the new film because what's the point?

While I like the orchestral side of the score I find I prefer the simple plodding synth parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRgQhPTg ... age#t=158s


----------



## AndreP (Feb 1, 2012)

Interesting take on it. I haven't seen the remake, but I have the Marco Beltrami score and enjoy listening to it on its own. Also having the Morricone score, I tend to like them both on their own merits. Though, I'm wondering if my liking of the Beltrami score is more because I haven't heard the music in context of the movie. As far as 'what happened', I imagine that the new director, Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. had his own ideas of how the music should flow with the film as opposed to how John Carpenter and Ennio worked it out. 

Now I'm curious to watch the remake to see how the music was placed in the context of the film. Hopefully it won't ruin the Beltrami music for me, since I tend to enjoy listening to it on drives to work or long drives at night.


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 1, 2012)

BTW Beltrami has some sheet music on his site for The Thing if anyone cares:

http://www.marcobeltrami.com/the-thing


----------



## Lex (Feb 1, 2012)

I enjoyed the new one a lot...it can't be compared to Carpenter's, but it has it's own vibe and I just loved how it connects perfectly to the original.
And the score worked well, what the score was missing was Carpenter...

Same as choc0, my favorite cues from the original are the ones done by Carpenter working on Morricone's themes.

Morricone;s main theme is amazing, but it just becomes more dark and isolated once it's reduced and synthesized by Carpenter. A lot of the other cues done by Morricone himself were in all honesty too retro even for 1982.

The cue you linked is best example of it, he's rockin' like its 1956 there... 

alex


----------



## givemenoughrope (Feb 1, 2012)

Morricone and Carpenter vs. Beltrami and a 'prequel' (it was actually a remake disguised as a prequel). It's easy to believe that the new one would be pointless and just bad in comparison but you also have to remember that neither director or writers (not to mention the composer, forget it) actually gets to make the movie they probably want to make. So, it's not a shock at all really. 

What IS a shock is how many people who's opinions I actually trust that find this film to be a good companion to the Carpenter one. There's no tension, no moral ambiguity and no nihilistic ending that made the other one so compelling. The special fx didn't have a chance either. In fact, the only second of it that I found watchable was the very end during the credits when the dog is being chased...and guess who's music is playing then?

That said, I do enjoy some of Beltrami's score away from the film. (It goes without saying that I more than enjoy EM's score with and without the film. It's a milestone for the genre, no question.)


----------



## Ed (Feb 1, 2012)

Well personally I really liked Beltrami's score, very effective and inspiring in how he approached it. I will be using it as a reference in the future. i thought movie was pretty good too the only thing that suffered was the CGI which was a shame, apparently they made them use less real props than they wanted to (but that is just going from what I read in a YT comment) The end wasnt as satisfying, the original movie had some great lighting especially at the end and that really helped for me make it genuinely creepy at times. Although how the final sequence of the new one leads onto the events of the first film is satisfying.



> it was actually a remake disguised as a prequel)



Not sure how you can say that, it was the other way around. People usually end up thinking its a remake mainly because its got the exact same name but in fact every part of it is different to a remake and it seems very conciousness that its taking place before the first movie in every respect. Its works perfectly as a prequel. In no way does it make any sense to call it a remake.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Feb 1, 2012)

They wanted to produce a remake but judging by the end product (read: weak) there was no way to do that and keep the storyline intact. No one is going to watch a half dozen freezing, paranoid, and blue-balled middle-aged men have at it and then just die (even though the other ended up becoming a renowned classic), so they had to morph it into a prequel where they can filter it through the predictable PC machine. They had a character who looked and acted like MacReady and another who resembled Childs. They kept the name. I can almost see the rewrite meetings descending into this. 

Watch these back to back on a screen or in a theatre and tell me they are even in the same world. That shouldn't be too tough (ask yourself what other director is like John Carpenter). I'm trying to imagine at present who could make a great counterpart to the 1982 film b/c I doubt even JC would be up to the task. Maybe Refn.


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 1, 2012)

Morricone composed all of the music for the original as far as I know though was given the mandate of having some Carpenter inspired cues with synth. Regardless it comes off really well. Beltrami's is predictable fluff. I think Greenwood's There Will be Blood is scarier than Beltrami's effort.


----------



## Niah (Feb 1, 2012)

choc0thrax @ Wed Feb 01 said:


> The Thing (1982) is a masterpiece.
> 
> I haven't seen the new film because what's the point?
> 
> ...



Exactly.


----------



## Ed (Feb 1, 2012)

givemenoughrope @ Wed Feb 01 said:


> Watch these back to back on a screen or in a theatre and tell me they are even in the same world. That shouldn't be too tough (ask yourself what other director is like John Carpenter). I'm trying to imagine at present who could make a great counterpart to the 1982 film b/c I doubt even JC would be up to the task. Maybe Refn.



*Shrugs*

I dunno I think its in your head. I hadn't seen The Thing until recently and i watched the original one day then the next I watched the new one. I didnt have this giant expectation for the new or old film to fill and I think I can judge it in a far more unbiased way. To me I can see where the new ones flaws are, but I really just dont see what you see. Your criticisms of it seem like you've never seen a horror film sequel before. They are almost always basically the same. This one was actually a lot cleverer than it had to be, cleverer than i expected it to be and cleverer than its been given credit for since it actually did a good job of connecting to the first film and explain backstory that was merely hinted at in the first. You cant ask for a whole lot more than that. Could it have been better? Sure, but so could a lot of films but for some reason this one is given more hate than it deserves

If you think about it, The Thing as the original isnt as amazing as it is made out to be. It was directed well, it was shot well, it had some great suspense and it had some really ingenious effects especially for the time. But the story wasnt really that clever and it still doesnt try and say much more for the audience other than making them wonder who's going to be killed off next and which guy if any of them will survive. It had a really good idea that I found was disappointing didnt take further. At the time it came out sure it was much more innovative, of course, but come on if they make a prequel what did you really expect them to do? Monster kills almost everyone, give backstory. What else do you want? Its not brilliant and the first is still better, but it did it well, over all. A lot of people see films when they are younger and end up having this nostalgic connection to it so if they make a sequel or a remake in their eyes it can never ever be as good and will always be terrible. I know I have it too, so I know the feeling. As far as The Thing, I certainly enjoyed it, but to be honest I enjoyed the movie Sphere far more than The Thing, even though that has been rated low by a lot of people. It had its own problems, really with the end of the film which was very lazy and disappointing, but up till the end its a great psychological sci-fi thriller.

I did think 28 Weeks Later sucked ballz which for some reason has 71% on Rotten Tomatoes. Sphere OTOH only has 12%. I have no idea why people liked 28 Weeks Later, it was terrible in just about every way. I had just watched Sunshine when I saw it mind you, which is beautiful.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Feb 1, 2012)

If you are going to judge it by what happens (Monster kills everyone) then, yea, they are basically the same. They might as well just say what happens so you can go home.

See it in a theatre. It's got that Carpenter atmosphere and eeriness that is rarely matched.


----------



## Ed (Feb 1, 2012)

givemenoughrope @ Wed Feb 01 said:


> If you are going to judge it by what happens (Monster kills everyone) then, yea, they are basically the same. They might as well just say what happens so you can go home.



I did say this... _"*it had some great suspense and it had some really ingenious effects especially for the time.* But the story wasnt really that clever and it still doesnt try and say much more for the audience other than making them wonder who's going to be killed off next and which guy if any of them will survive. I*t had a really good idea that I found was disappointing didnt take further. *"_

I think Carpenter is overrated in all honesty. He has done some good stuff, but the stories really don't have much substance. That is my problem with The Thing. I mean as a horror movie it is above average in many ways, but I find plenty of horror movies better overall. Monster chases people around, people die. Thats his formula. Thats probably 90% of all horror movie formulas. I get bored. The Thing had a more interesting idea at its heart, and it was more interesting than just a monster killing people, but of wasn't exploited enough. It could have been much more of a psychological horror. I didn't expect it would be more, but I give it props for the nice suspense, effects and lighting. Quite enjoyable and what it did right it did very well. I give the new one props for having more of a story and there was some nice suspense too and the intentional links all the way through to the original. (although as I say the end CGI heavy section annoyed me and brought it down) If it was a normal sequel to a normal movie made today, it wouldnt get as much dislike, thats why i think its more to do with peoples nostalgia. 



> See it in a theatre. It's got that Carpenter atmosphere and eeriness that is rarely matched.



True I didnt see it in a theatre, nor any Carpenter film in a theatre. But I have seen plenty of films in the cinema, Ive seen plenty of films alone in the dark with headphones on. In fact I have found I get into the film much more if I do that with the only exception of big blockbusters because I miss the effects on a big screen. But horrors? Give me a dark room, alone and good headphones and they still manage to scare me afterwards. Have you seen Vanishing on 7th Street? Terrible film, because they go absolutely nowhere with it with a ridiculously unsatisfying ending, but it has some really nice sequences too. A film that would be better appreciated in the cinema but the fact that its a story where stuff happens for no reason and that makes no sense at any point and they have no idea where to go with it still means it has a lot of problems. That the kind of movie that deserves to be said to be bad. Although as I say 28 Weeks Later is just a bad cheap movie and should have gone straight to DVD and yet it gets good reviews. I dont get it.

Anyway... Ive made my point


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 1, 2012)

Ed @ Wed Feb 01 said:


> I give the new one props for having more of a story and there was some nice suspense too and the intentional links all the way through to the original.



Wow, even more story? I think I have to watch this now. How much more story? 1 scoop? 2 scoops of story?

I may watch this movie to see just how much of a redundant watered down cash grab this thing is. /oo\ ^>|


----------



## Ed (Feb 1, 2012)

choc0thrax @ Wed Feb 01 said:


> Ed @ Wed Feb 01 said:
> 
> 
> > I give the new one props for having more of a story and there was some nice suspense too and the intentional links all the way through to the original.
> ...



Keep low expectations and you cant be disappointed :D

When I say it has more of a story I mean they went out of their way to take what wasnt explained in the original, like what the Norwegians were doing there, what happened to them, why they were out there, how that guy ended up chasing that dog at the beginning etc and make the story work with that. The first one didnt really care to much because they didnt need to explain anything so to me it felt like the story was a little richer because of that, but only that.

I did think it got a bit too sci-fi epicness and CGI for the final climax for my taste... but that didnt happen for long. Considering what people said abut the CGI Im surprised how much real props they did use and when they did it worked well. Its amazing that the real props stand the test of time and the CGI already looks bad right now. Some parts were bad, but all in all, it was fairly satisfying after having just watched the original and was expecting a literal remake.


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 1, 2012)

Ed @ Wed Feb 01 said:


> When I say it has more of a story I mean they went out of their way to take what wasnt explained in the original, like what the Norwegians were doing there, what happened to them, why they were out there, how that guy ended up chasing that dog at the end etc and make the story work with that. The first one didnt really care to much because they didnt need to explain anything so to me it felt like the story was a little richer because of that, but only that.



You've got it backwards. Not explaining those things- leaving them as mysteries is part of why the first film is so good. Look at the end of that film. They leave it open ended which was a great choice. Mystery = good.

Alien is one of the greatest horror films ever. It's so good they have a part of the film where the crew finds an abandoned ship with a giant "space jockey" in a cockpit which could spawn it's own film(and has: prometheus) and they leave it to mystery. One of my favourite things about Alien. 

You know, another thing that bothers me about this Thing "prequel" is that it probably killed off del Toro's Mountains of Madness which is quite similar. But better.


----------



## Ed (Feb 1, 2012)

If you dont want to have it explained, you will not like the new one :D



> You know, another thing that bothers me about this Thing "prequel" is that it probably killed off del Toro's Mountains of Madness which is quite similar. But better.



Afraid I dont know what you are talking about here. Too lazy to google. I had an operation today and Im disapointed they gave me morphine but not Tramadol yet they did the same thing last time. That stuff is amazing. /offtopic Im still slightly out of it.


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 1, 2012)

I already know what happens since the original isn't quite as mysterious as you think. By watching the original I know that:

- Team of weirdly speaking scientists discover alien craft.

- Team finds alien stuck in ice.

- Team thaws alien.

- Alien behaves rudely.

- People die.

- Assimilated dog escapes.

- Two scientists jump in a copter to stop it.

- The two scientists die.

- Dog acts creepy around new fresh friends.


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 1, 2012)

Ed @ Wed Feb 01 said:


> Afraid I dont know what you are talking about here. Too lazy to google. I had an operation today and Im disapointed they gave me morphine but not Tramadol yet they did the same thing last time. That stuff is amazing. /offtopic Im still slightly out of it.



Would've been a big expensive movie and would have the same sort of alien that assimilates people. Takes place like in the arctic. Huskies die. blah blah.


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 1, 2012)

I agree with choco. If you look at the greatest horror films like The Exorcist or The Shining they don't go into details about why things happen. It's that randomicity that makes things all that much scarier. When they remade The Shining for tv some years back they followed Kings novel more closely than Kubrick but it was just awful. Less is more often.


----------



## Synesthesia (Feb 1, 2012)

choc0thrax @ Thu Feb 02 said:


> I already know what happens since the original isn't quite as mysterious as you think. By watching the original I know that:
> 
> - Team of weirdly speaking scientists discover alien craft.
> 
> ...



Aw.. now you've ruined it for me.

:mrgreen:


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 1, 2012)

dcoscina @ Wed Feb 01 said:


> I agree with choco. If you look at the greatest horror films like The Exorcist or The Shining they don't go into details about why things happen. It's that randomicity that makes things all that much scarier. When they remade The Shining for tv some years back they followed Kings novel more closely than Kubrick but it was just awful. Less is more often.



Exposition kills horror. A lot of horror films have an exposition dump around the middle of act 2. Anything beyond that point is often less scary than the first half of the film because too much has been explained. This is where you can often blame a producer who's paranoid people won't understand what's going on. Look at the remake of The Crazies. Not a bad film but some absolute moron decided they needed to insert CG sky surveillance shots that basically say "y'all are dumb, you see those jets the protag just looked up at? Do they have any significance? Jesus! Don't think about it! cause here's their CG POV looking down with numbers and crap scrolling across the screen. Yup, government alright."

Something older horror films do a little better is the slow build. How long does it take for the Alien in Alien to show up? How long before we see Regan's bed acting oddly? Quite a while. Insidious has a slow build but gets killed by all the astral projection exposition that gets dumped on us.

One thing I'll never understand is how Paranormal Activity does so well. It has the slow build thing going on but I just can't feel anything. I don't even come anywhere close to scared, it's like watching paint dry. I think it's that it's all seen through a camera so I feel detached. The character's stakes are not my stakes. Why do I care what happens? Make that door swing slightly ajar. Knock over that dude's important documents. I don't care.


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 1, 2012)

Synesthesia @ Wed Feb 01 said:


> choc0thrax @ Thu Feb 02 said:
> 
> 
> > I already know what happens since the original isn't quite as mysterious as you think. By watching the original I know that:
> ...



You should still see it. Ed says the story is really rich so there's probably a lot I didn't mention. It's still unclear exactly how many more scoops of story it has over the original, or whether there are raisins in it.


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 1, 2012)

I should also mention that talking about horror films while house sitting my friends place late at night is creeping me out. I just heard a door open upstairs and the cat is staring at something down the hall but nothing's there. I'm going back to my newly built condo where noone's had a chance to have killed themselves in it.


----------



## Lex (Feb 2, 2012)

choc0thrax @ Thu Feb 02 said:


> I should also mention that talking about horror films while house sitting my friends place late at night is creeping me out. I just heard a door open upstairs and the cat is staring at something down the hall but nothing's there. I'm going back to my newly built condo where noone's had a chance to have killed themselves in it.



Or you can film it with your mobile and call it "Abnormal Happenings part 1".

alex


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 2, 2012)

Lex @ Thu Feb 02 said:


> choc0thrax @ Thu Feb 02 said:
> 
> 
> > I should also mention that talking about horror films while house sitting my friends place late at night is creeping me out. I just heard a door open upstairs and the cat is staring at something down the hall but nothing's there. I'm going back to my newly built condo where noone's had a chance to have killed themselves in it.
> ...



That would require me going into scary places. I've decided to strap a small camera on the cat and just exec produce from a distance. We're gonna edit out all my offscreen crying in post.


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 2, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovxk7qnV ... age#t=287s

BTW here's 3 nerd idiots discussing the Carpenter vs. the new one.

Worth watching just for the guy in the flannel shirt. Lock up your daughters...


----------



## Ed (Feb 2, 2012)

choc0thrax @ Wed Feb 01 said:


> You should still see it. Ed says the story is really rich so there's probably a lot I didn't mention. It's still unclear exactly how many more scoops of story it has over the original, or whether there are raisins in it.



Whoa don't go crazy, Im not saying its *that *good :D


----------



## Lex (Feb 2, 2012)

choc0thrax @ Thu Feb 02 said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovxk7qnV4kE&feature=player_detailpage#t=287s
> 
> BTW here's 3 nerd idiots discussing the Carpenter vs. the new one.
> 
> Worth watching just for the guy in the flannel shirt. Lock up your daughters...



...don't see a difference between this and watching 3 random guys masturbate in a dark room, aroused only by the sound their own voice.


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 2, 2012)

Lex @ Thu Feb 02 said:


> choc0thrax @ Thu Feb 02 said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovxk7qnV4kE&feature=player_detailpage#t=287s
> ...



Yeah, it's terrible. But that guy in the flannel... jesus, dude, go shopping. At the very least spend a hundred bucks at an H&M or something. And I'm sure there's free tips online for improving posture.

And what's with the other two. They look like out of work henchmen.


----------



## Udo (Feb 2, 2012)

choc0thrax @ Fri Feb 03 said:


> Lex @ Thu Feb 02 said:
> 
> 
> > choc0thrax @ Thu Feb 02 said:
> ...


Jeeez, you guys are sooo easily side-tracked by superficialities :wink: . It sounds like an inteligent discussion (not having seen either movie  ) .... and never mind the way they're dressed, just concentrate on the essence of the discussion. :lol:


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 2, 2012)

For effective horror films and scores, the Exorcism of Emily Rose was a very good film and score (by Chris Young). It was well filmed and well paced. IMO


----------



## bsound76 (Feb 2, 2012)

I would wear that flannel shirt.

But I think I've seen both KD Lang and Ellen Degeneres were that same hat.


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 2, 2012)

It's more than just the clothes, it's the expressions on their faces: http://www.endlessvideo.com/watch?v=Ovx ... &end=5m52s


----------



## jleckie (Feb 2, 2012)

Udo @ Thu Feb 02 said:


> Jeeez, you guys are sooo easily side-tracked by superficialities :wink: . It sounds like an inteligent discussion (not having seen either movie  ) .... and never mind the way they're dressed, just concentrate on the essence of the discussion. :lol:



no kidding... The interview izznt even funny.


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 2, 2012)

jleckie @ Thu Feb 02 said:


> Udo @ Thu Feb 02 said:
> 
> 
> > Jeeez, you guys are sooo easily side-tracked by superficialities :wink: . It sounds like an inteligent discussion (not having seen either movie  ) .... and never mind the way they're dressed, just concentrate on the essence of the discussion. :lol:
> ...



Yeah but it wasn't sposed to be funny. _-)


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 3, 2012)

Ok so I saw the new film today. It sucked.

I think the overall reason this 2011 is so lousy and forgettable is there are no characters. Characters are pretty integral to a movie. You could almost say they're the most important part. :wink: The Carpenter version had MacReady, Childs, Windows, Garry, crotchety old Wilford Brimley as Blair, etc. These were actual characters. These people were interesting.

In the 1982 version very early on we see the compound inhabitants lounging around together playing a simple game of ping pong. Then we see MacReady sitting alone, drinking, and playing a chess wizard game. He gets checkmated and pours his drink into the machine. In about 45 seconds we know he is a loner, more tactical than others, short temper etc. In 45 seconds he has more character than the entire cast of the 2011 version.

Also interesting is that at the end of the film when MacReady meets his potential opponent-- Childs -- he hands him a drink. Perhaps he knows he's been checkmated but can't do anything about it.

In the 2011 version I can only remember one person's name and that's Kate, and only because Joel Edgerton screams her name near the end. They're all throwaway characters in a paint by numbers film. 

The CG is just terrible in the 2011 version. How am I supposed to be scared by something that is not even physically there? 

I also didn't understand the logic of the characters in the new version. No one radios for help? There's like 30 people standing around and no one takes it upon themselves to try to get help? They just don't cause the movie's bad guy who's only bad because the movie needs him to be says they need to keep it on the down low. They find a ship. Maybe I can believe that they wouldn't contact anyone. But then the alien breaks free and flies through the ceiling. At this point still no one bothers to get help. Alien kills your friend. Nahhhhh let's just study how it killed him. None of us even remember the dude's name anyways!

The only music I recall is that really cool music that shows up during the end credits and the helicopter stuff. Beltrami really hit that part out of the park.


----------



## Lex (Feb 3, 2012)

choc0thrax @ Fri Feb 03 said:


> Ok so I saw the new film today. It sucked.
> 
> I think the overall reason this 2011 is so lousy and forgettable is there are no characters. Characters are pretty integral to a movie. You could almost say they're the most important part. :wink: The Carpenter version had MacReady, Childs, Windows, Garry, crotchety old Wilford Brimley as Blair, etc. These were actual characters. These people were interesting.
> 
> ...



Yeah this pretty much nails all the flaws....but I still liked it, I think largely cause it had enough "nods" and connection with the 1982 one...

Maybe I enjoyed it cause I was expecting something as bad as Elm Street remake, or Chainsaw remakes or 13th....and this was surely better...

alex


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 3, 2012)

Lex @ Fri Feb 03 said:


> choc0thrax @ Fri Feb 03 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok so I saw the new film today. It sucked.
> ...



The nods to the original were the spots where I rolled my eyes. They were especially painful as they came off looking like a student film doing an homage to a classic. 

The elm street remake is interesting to watch to understand everything not to do in horror. Mainly it shows how important a slow build is.

P.S. we may just have pretty different taste when it comes to horror. I swear I remember you thinking Alien 3 was the best Alien film.


----------



## gaz (Feb 3, 2012)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the original 'The Thing' movie 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX4Hva5ZAXw


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 3, 2012)

gaz @ Fri Feb 03 said:


> I'm surprised no one has mentioned the original 'The Thing' movie
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX4Hva5ZAXw



I've been sort of interested in watching it. It would be interesting to see how 3 films each roughly made 30 years apart compare to each other.


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 3, 2012)

choc0thrax @ Fri Feb 03 said:


> gaz @ Fri Feb 03 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm surprised no one has mentioned the original 'The Thing' movie
> ...



I remember watching that one on Magic Shadows (with host Elwy Yost) and it scared the crap outta me. James Arness as this giant carrot monster running around mauling people (in B&W) was very scary.

Then I saw The Thing (1982) and couldn't sleep for weeks. The thought that I could be taken over by a single cell of the creature did a number on me.

This latest version just didn't inspire. I've seen some decent horror films these days but this one was not one of them.


----------



## Lex (Feb 3, 2012)

choc0thrax @ Fri Feb 03 said:


> P.S. we may just have pretty different taste when it comes to horror. I swear I remember you thinking Alien 3 was the best Alien film.



Ha! Good memory...thats true, but only cause I'm fanatic about Goldenthals score there...same way I watched Milius CONAN probably 100 times...so I'm very off about these two.

alex


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 3, 2012)

Lex @ Fri Feb 03 said:


> choc0thrax @ Fri Feb 03 said:
> 
> 
> > P.S. we may just have pretty different taste when it comes to horror. I swear I remember you thinking Alien 3 was the best Alien film.
> ...



I actually have a terrible memory. 8) I just always remember when someone says the 3rd is the best. o=?


----------



## Niah (Feb 3, 2012)

choc0thrax @ Thu Feb 02 said:


> Ed @ Wed Feb 01 said:
> 
> 
> > When I say it has more of a story I mean they went out of their way to take what wasnt explained in the original, like what the Norwegians were doing there, what happened to them, why they were out there, how that guy ended up chasing that dog at the end etc and make the story work with that. The first one didnt really care to much because they didnt need to explain anything so to me it felt like the story was a little richer because of that, but only that.
> ...



True, love alien it's a total masterpiece but I must confess I hated the director's cut. First of all ridley scott cut down some minutes of the film to make the pacing faster because he thought it was too slow, which I disagree and then he added that scene where ripley encounters dallas cocooned which for me kinda was unecessary and it kills some of that mystery you are talking about. Lets see what Prometheus brings but I'm not keeping my hopes why. The last two decades have been pretty bad for horror, unless we are talking about asian horror.


----------

