The Thing From Another World (1951)

The remake is more frightening - and has better special effects - but the original has it all over the remake with dialogue and characters, both of which are more important to me.

And as much as I love Kurt Russell...well, Kenneth Tobey was the man. So cool.

McCarthy's biggest moves (and press attention) were around 1954; the film predates the public awareness of what he was doing. You're looking for Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (1956).

There's a lot of rumors on whether Howard Hawks ghost-directed this, and it certainly works as a Hawks movie - all about professionals getting work done and bantering while they do it.

The characters in the original are, you know, 50's science fiction characters. You can hardly expect them to have much in the way of personality, it's like Silver Age comic book characters.

Bingo.

Once rumor, now fact. Confirmed in at least one Hawks biography by cast and crew members.

I watched this recently and was greatly entertained. An awesome movie that bears enough dissimilarity to the Carpenter version that I can easily keep them separate in my mind. "Scotty, did you get a picture?"

I love the way that the scientist is portrayed as misguided for wanting to learn something about the alien before they blow the shit out of it. Our military hero's response is basically "Shut the hell up, egghead".

Depressingly relevant to today's America, actually.

Thsi film was directed by Hawks like Poltergiest was directed by Spielberg. Everyone knows it, no one will say it usually. Both of the producers and directors will never admit as much. That said, THE THING is not THE THING. Comparing the two is unfair. I like both, for different reasons. I prefer THE THING to most of the classic 50's horror films, perhaps because I'm a Hawks man. The film finds itself silly, the Carpenter does not.

You're right. It is a very anti science and scientist story. Even before the discovery of the flying saucer and the monster's escape from the ice, Tobey and all the other military types are constantly talking down to and condescending to the lab boys. Later even the ones who agree with their shoot first and ask no questions ever idea are still treated as simple fools who can't be trusted to take care of themselves. Maybe this was Hawks way of blaming scientist for the atom bomb and taking the fun out of war.

Really like this flick. One thing is the soldiers act like combat veterans, they don't shit their pants at the first sign of trouble, 7-foot alien not withstanding. These guys act like like guys who flew over Germany, landed at Guadalcanal, etc. Deserves much more love than it gets, although Carpenter always gives it its due.

Well, you're saying that as if it's an unusual touch. No movie of that era would ever show soldiers being cowardly or running from danger. That's just the standard soldier depiction of the time.

Just rewatched this yesterday. First time in many, many years. But after watching Carpenter's on Blu Ray, and reading Who Goes There, I thought I should finish out the experience.

There's a lot here that I love. The dialogue (both writing and delivery) is top notch, the performances are great, and it's loaded with atmosphere. Curiously, I found myself wishing that this great character film wasn't being interrupted by the silly monster. And it is silly. Even given the limitations of the time, it displays a lack of imagination. When you compare it to The Creature From the Black Lagoon, or even Karloff's Frankenstein, it's seriously lacking in the design department.

I'm still flabbergasted by the idea of adapting Who Goes There and ousting the central premise of the story. That's a mystery beyond reckoning, so I tried not to think about it.

And I still find myself alienated by the attitudes. Yes, sign of the times and all that. Still, I find myself bristling at the idea that we're supposed to think it's okay to see the military walk in and basically take over a research facility. To me, the desire to study and learn from the creature is perfectly reasonable, and in fact, the only sane response. Instead, the lead researcher is continuously painted as a complete kook with his head way up his ass. Even for the 1950's, it's aggressively anti-science.

However, extra points for the theremin score.

Still not sure whether to consider The Thing a remake or another adaptation of the Who Goes There.

Thinking about that just makes me shudder at the thought of the new The Thing remake. It just seems so pointless because it's retreading really really old ground. I mean I read it could be about the Norwegian team but...why? I know shit crashed, came out, repeat shit from The Thing, and then the dog escaped.

"Even for the 1950's"? I'd say most movies from that era - and especially sci-fi- were very much pro-science, as the great leap forward that will allow us to reach the stars/have robot maids. Granted, the mad scientist/science gone too far tropes were also popular (post-Hiroshima fallout and all), but I haven't seen many films that punish the scientist characters for following their guidelines as The Thing... does. You're right that it's a pretty rotten message; I was rooting for the scientists for most of the movie. But that kinda adds to it, as well - makes it all the more scary and tragic (tho I'm sure contemporary audiences might not have shared this feeling of ambuiguity, happily jeering the eggheads from the get-go.)

Well if they were so pro-science, how come most scientist were killed or eaten by their own creations? What about The Fly? That was a classic tale of science gone wrong with the right intentions. Well...sort've...I remember the scientist being an egotistical dickwad at the beginning.

I mean it's true every time there was a crisis in a 1950s Sci-Fi film, the scientists were the last line of defense after the military gets its ass handed to them. But they usually caused the shit happening in the first place..

Probably done for the same reason Bradbury's It Came From Outer Space treatment and the subsequent Harry Essex screenplay had a more visible monster(s) thrown into it during production, the studio probably felt they needed an uncomplicated, tangible creature for audiences to latch onto. A shapeshifting alien was probably thought to be too complicated for the no-frills creature feature RKO was interested in making at the time. Ironically, It Came From Outer Space's xenomorphs are ultimately more in line with the alien in Who Goes There.

I think most of those movies are conflicted. There's a certain fear of science, mostly because of the Cold War arms race and the spectres of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; but there is also a clear sense of wonder at the possibilities of science, via space exploration, rayguns and robot pals.

Forbidden Planet comes to mind. It stands in awe of the possibilities while simultaneously warning of the dangers.

This far and nobody has mentioned that jaw dropping fire stunt? Shame on you.

I agree that the creature design is lacking. But, they're smart enough not to dwell on the look for long. What's the best lit look, the door opening jump scare? (Which is a fabulously staged scene, btw.) And the cinematography is top notch throughout.

I agree that the view of the scientist is kinda dicey, but there's definitely a Commie air around Carrington with that fur hat of his. And he's a stereotypical cold intellectual. He's somewhat Mr. Spock to Tobey's Kirk.

I'd say the first real pro science science fiction film from '50s was George Pal's version of The War of the Worlds. In that Gene Barry's scientist lead is smart, fascinated by all that is happening, a take action guy and gets the girl in the end.