Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

THE THING (From Another World)


Recommended Posts

I, too, prefer the Carpenter version, although I still like the Hawks version, as well. I also prefer the Bogart version of The Maltese Falcon. That's a good remake.  B)

 

 

Bogart can't compare with Cortez.  And Bebe Daniels is tons sexier than Mary Astor.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I, too, prefer the Carpenter version, although I still like the Hawks version, as well. I also prefer the Bogart version of The Maltese Falcon. That's a good remake.  B)

 

Lawrence, I knew you'd know of all on here. Where & who started this topic?

 

& I like most easily vote for Hawks-(though all say he didn't also direct it, but it's obviously Hawks all the way & C. Nyby got the credit? & I recall 1st going to & reviewing the Carpenter 1982 rehash & did not like it at first (**) Over the yrs I rate it a bit higher (**1/2) but still no match for the 1951 classic Another thing about carpenter is he does his own scores, including the classic & even legendary one for "Halloween" & the lesser 1980 "The Fog"

 

Pretty good to you fellow TCM-ITES on knowing Arness-(was 6'7) & Graves were bros & both chose to be interred in Glendale's "Forest Lawn" & it's off putting by staff "Great Maus."

Link to post
Share on other sites

recently got to see Angie Dickson-(l931) along with Eddie Muller-(you guys were correct, he should be a regular TCM host & daily. Ben's likable enough-(TRIVIA: Check out his face & then look at *J.L. Mankiewicz & *H. Mankiewicz you can obviously see the genetics playing part in his face.)

 

but Ben just doesn't seem to eat & drink movies, like Mr. 0sborne

 

& though I've only known Eddie under a month, maybe he that true passion

 

Back to the incredibally SEXY Angie I can obviously see why guys went for her-(my father adored her & Ann-Margret), especially in the 1970, when on Carson & those heavyweight & tremendous Dean Martin Celebrity Roasts"-(A TIP: *"Chairman of the Board: Sinatra) only did 1, the one for himself & it's the funniest too, Don Rickles tears up the place!)

 

Anyway, her Film Festival interview-(youtube) she said Hawks seemed craggy & impatet, she thinks it was because he was mostly taken for granted in his career & only was up for BD for 1941's "Sergeant York" & during "Rio Bravo" he said he refused to work with any big stars-(MM in "Getlemen Prefer Blondes")

 

By the way she's still In Love with Francis Albert

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bogart can't compare with Cortez.  And Bebe Daniels is tons sexier than Mary Astor.

 

Sorry slayton, but the time I watched the '31 version of The Maltese Falcon, what stuck me most about it was how, for want of better adjectives, smarmy and shallow seeming Ricardo Cortez's Sam Spade was than Bogie's. It seemed to me as if Cortez delivers almost all of his dialogue throughout with the same glib-like sneer on his face, and thus I felt Bogie added much more depth to the role.

 

So no, can't agree with ya here, ol' buddy.

 

(...but we do have agreement on your Daniels/Astor comparison...sorry MissW, wherever you are) ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah,  someone that prefers a remake over the original.   That is very rare in these parts.   

 

I haven't see the Carpenter film so I can't compare,  but I did feel the remake of True Grit was superior to the original (mainly because of the acting chops of the two supporting lead players (Damon and Steinfeld over Campbell and Darby).

 

 

When I first saw the 1982 remake, thought it was quite horrific.  Very few films scare me nowadays.  Haven't seen the 2011 remake yet.

 

the-thing11-uk-poster.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry slayton, but the time I watched the '31 version of The Maltese Falcon, what stuck me most about it was how, for want of better adjectives, smarmy and shallow seeming Ricardo Cortez's Sam Spade was than Bogie's. It seemed to me as if Cortez delivers almost all of his dialogue throughout with the same glib-like sneer on his face, and thus I felt Bogie added much more depth to the role.

 

So no, can't agree with ya here, ol' buddy.

 

(...but we do have agreement on your Daniels/Astor comparison...sorry MissW, wherever you are) ;)

 

 

Once again, I am nettled to the point of exasperation at the lack of an emoticon with it's tongue in its cheek.  In this great age of technology and innovation, when we have cruise control, the mute button, and flashlight apps for our phones, can no one devise such a valuable tool for communication in chat rooms?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, I am nettled to the point of exasperation at the lack of an emoticon with it's tongue in its cheek.  In this great age of technology and innovation, when we have cruise control, the mute button, and flashlight apps for our phones, can no one devise such a valuable tool for communication in chat rooms?

 

Ah! So you're sayin' your previous post would have best been served with an emoji showing his tongue firmly planted in his little cheek then, eh slayton?! Yeah, it does seem our drop-down selection of them for use around here is somewhat limited, doesn't it.

 

(...sorry...as you can tell, I thought your comment was made in earnest)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah! So you're sayin' your previous post would have best been served with an emoji showing his tongue firmly planted in his little cheek then, eh slayton?! Yeah, it does seem our drop-down selection of them for use around here is somewhat limited, doesn't it.

 

(...sorry...as you can tell, I thought your comment was made in earnest)

 

 

No need to apologize.  The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in your interpretation, but in that huge grand canyon in our technology.  Much as I loathe emoticons, that is the one I would use.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote some time ago on the boards how much I love both versions of The Thing.  It's hard to pick a favorite because I love them both for different reasons.  I was a kid the first time I saw the original on TV and it certainly scared me.  It still creeps me out and I enjoy the soundtrack, the dialogue, acting, everything.  I still watch it often when TCM runs it. 

 

But I also love the John Carpenter version.  I saw it twice in the theater and on DVD.  It is extremely scary and  (SPOILER ALERT) the scene with the dogs penned up with the thing-dog is one of the most frightening things I've ever seen.  (I can handle the human gore but animals getting hurt - even if it's make believe - really bothers me).  Rob Bottin's special effects are just awesome and considering he did them with little money or time is quite impressive.

 

I guess it depends on my mood - do I go for the gross-out from my young adulthood or do I go for the more subtle-yet still scary thrills from my childhood when I was just getting into horror?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like both the '51 version and Carpenter's remake.  And for different reasons.

 

The old one because it IS a "classic", and quite uniquely concieved for it's time.  A malevolent space alien made up of VEGETABLE MATTER?  Heh...."Send THAT vegetable to those starving kids in China Ma!"  ;)

 

The remake also due to it's cleverly creative approach.  Plus, the outstanding cast didn't hurt either.

 

But, I wasn't AWARE of a 2011 remake.  :wacko:

 

 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like both the '51 version and Carpenter's remake.  And for different reasons.

 

The old one because it IS a "classic", and quite uniquely concieved for it's time.  A malevolent space alien made up of VEGETABLE MATTER?  Heh...."Send THAT vegetable to those starving kids in China Ma!"  ;)

 

The remake also due to it's cleverly creative approach.  Plus, the outstanding cast didn't hurt either.

 

But, I wasn't AWARE of a 2011 remake.  :wacko:

 

 

Sepiatone

 

The 2011 film was actually a prequel to the Carpenter film, set in the Norwegian outpost that first discovered the creature frozen in the ice. They added a couple of American characters so that US audiences wouldn't have to listen to a bunch of Norwegians for 90 minutes. As you can imagine, a lot of CGI was used.

 

the-thing-2011-movie-still-4.jpg

 

the-thing-2011-crop-2_1327985236.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

The original version has something no remake will ever have - a Dimitri Tiomkin score. This may be the only sci-fi film he ever scored (somebody can check if they like).

 

When the film begins, we see the two crossed rifles for Winchester Pictures, and the music sounds like the opening to a western. Then Tiomkin lowers the boom. Listen to how he adds another layer of suspense every time the Geiger counters start ticking. Makes my skin crawl.

 

The film is as relevant today as it was in the 50s. We are still arguing over who knows best - government or scientists. Ditto for The Day The Earth Stood Still.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent point about the effectiveness Tiomkin's score, Rich. Certainly it's a major contribution to The Thing.

 

But I also like the famous Hawksian overlapping dialogue scenes, adding a realistic low key credibility to the bantering among the film's characters.

 

9978520_orig.png

 

"Danny, you and your damn jokes! 'Go on, somebody. Open the door. I bet it's the Avon Lady.'"

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2011 film a PREQUEL Lawrence?

 

Now, THAT might make it more interesting to me.  Y'know.....See for  myself and not take everyone else's word for it?

 

 

Sepiatone

 

I always recommend seeing a movie for yourself. Even is everyone else in the world loves or hates a particular movie, you may feel differently (I know I often do). The 2011 film is a prequel, and is very beholden to the Carpenter version. You may wish to watch that one again before the 2011 version, because the new film has a lot of visual nods to the Carpenter film. One drawback of being a prequel, though, is you already have a rough idea of where everything will end up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always recommend seeing a movie for yourself. Even is everyone else in the world loves or hates a particular movie, you may feel differently (I know I often do). The 2011 film is a prequel, and is very beholden to the Carpenter version. You may wish to watch that one again before the 2011 version, because the new film has a lot of visual nods to the Carpenter film. One drawback of being a prequel, though, is you already have a rough idea of where everything will end up.

My issue with the prequel, is that it is too beholden to Carpenter's, vastly superior film.  No reason for its existence, imo.  Whereas Carpenter's film isn't really a remake of the original, but more a closer telling of the original story.  That's really the reason so many can love both versions.  They're so different.  The prequel just does what Carpenter did, so it nothing you haven't seen before.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent point about the effectiveness Tiomkin's score, Rich. Certainly it's a major contribution to The Thing.

 

But I also like the famous Hawksian overlapping dialogue scenes, adding a realistic low key credibility to the bantering among the film's characters.

 

The overlapping dialogue also contributes to the suspense. When people are talking over each other, it's as if no one is listening to each other, and the audience wants to scream "shut up and work on this together, will you?" Again, this is relevant today.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...

In reply to seeing the widescreen magnificatiom of the 1/1.37 original (supposedly HD), it sucks. Most of the time the actors seem to be bumping their heads on the top of the new frame or having them cut off just above the ears due to the non-selective reframing top and bottom. Also, the grain was magnified making everything fuzzy, a negative result just like what was explained in the anti pan-&-scan featurette that TCM used to air regularly. What is the point of this? Now the younger audience needs fake and badly executed widescreen in order to accept a black and white classic? PLEASE don't do this to the original 1954 "Gojira".

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually like the original versions of certain movies over the remakes but there have been exceptions (including the Bogart version of THE MALTESE FALCON).

I like the Hawks version of THE THING but I did like Carpenter's version a bit better (haven't seen the recent version though).

I enjoy both Hawks' TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT and Michael Curtiz' THE BREAKING POINT equally.

Even though I am not a huge Lindsay Lohan fan by any means, I did like the 1998 THE PARENT TRAP update real well (such a shame she turned into such a train wreck).

And I really enjoyed the 3:10 TO YUMA film with Russell Crowe and Christian Bale lots better than the original version with Glenn Ford and Van Heflin.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mvksmall said:

In reply to seeing the widescreen magnificatiom of the 1/1.37 original (supposedly HD), it sucks. Most of the time the actors seem to be bumping their heads on the top of the new frame or having them cut off just above the ears due to the non-selective reframing top and bottom. Also, the grain was magnified making everything fuzzy, a negative result just like what was explained in the anti pan-&-scan featurette that TCM used to air regularly. What is the point of this? Now the younger audience needs fake and badly executed widescreen in order to accept a black and white classic? PLEASE don't do this to the original 1954 "Gojira".

 

I'm not sure which versions were theatrically shown, but going by the size/positioning of the title credits, it appears that RKO intended (or at least allowed) for the film to be shown widescreen with top/bottom cropping.

Earlier 1:1.37 broadcast

5a4eef547a282_TheThingFromAnotherWorld-credits137.thumb.jpg.994366963071e89819595bf1fc13a272.jpg

 

More recent 1:1.78 broadcast

5a4eef55aea41_TheThingFromAnotherWorld-credits178.thumb.jpg.937645abbb3d9afca0c26b420c9b1b59.jpg

TCM has aired the film in both ratios, most recently preferring the widescreen/cropped version. Another film - Lizzie - which has similarly sized/positioned credit titles, has also been shown in both versions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ray Faiola said:

That 1:137 frame is still from the vertically squeezed reissue titles

 

Hmm - you might be right...

5a4f767ab3515_TheThingFromAnotherWorld.TS_snapshot_00_03.12_2018_01.05_05_54_18.thumb.jpg.00dc74e89a117afd363bf72b9db6f0a5.jpg

... assuming that the MPAA logo for that period would normally be oval rather than round.

16288508150_81121082b2_b.jpg

Wonder why/when someone went to the trouble of squeezing the titles for the 1:1.37 version that TCM previously used to air? I guess it was done to allow the same print to be used for broadcast in either ratio.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 8:28 PM, Eλευθερί said:

No love for this one here.

 

Carpenter's remake is a masterpiece, as far as I am concerned.

 

The Thing from Another World is just weak tea by comparison.

Aaack!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...