John Carpenter talks about "The Thing from Another World" (1951) directed by Christian Nyby & Howard Hawks. Unfortunately it is not the best picture quality.
I was born in 1974. I remember seeing The Thing From Another World on Cinemax (of all places) when I was 10. Normally, 50's movies didn't really scare me. The Thing did. I remember telling my dad I saw it, and he basically just told me he didn't want to hear it. He was 10 himself when he first saw it and it literally traumatized him. He didn't even like to talk about it, it scared him that bad. To this day, I always joke with him about it. I've tried to get him to watch the remakes with me to no avail. His answer every time; "HELL NO!"
My take on the creature in the 1951 version is that the creature did not plan on coming to the planet, at least the way it did, but when loose, it killed and started creating more of itself using human blood. Now, whether it had an irrational hatred for humans and other beings is anyone's guess. It cannot be stated that self-preservation was the only motive to kill other beings. That is pure speculation, which you also get from Carpenter's version. We don't know the motives of the creature once let loose other than it replicates itself in other beings.
It’s really more of a conversation about the original so he can’t go too far off topic since it’s a tv interview that’s playing between scheduled movies, not an in depth interview. He might have even brought it up and it could have been edited out
Sometimes remakes are not an improvement on the original or even worse but Carpenter's remake of the Thing is not only better but it was the best horror/ sci- fi film ever!
It takes a film maker like Carpenter with respect for the source material, but not to the point of putting it on a pedestal. Picasso said that good artists borrow, great artists steal - I'd say that the best of the best know what to steal!
No, it's the most overrated science fiction/horror film ever, the favorite movie of cultural illiterates who think only in terms of special effects and gore.
The most terrifying science fiction pic ever made. The camp's isolation, the wind, the snow, the creature's blood thirstyness, and the ingenuity of the scientists and Air Force members, makes it No. 1.
I liked the 1951 version so much that I had to write a follow up. The THINGS from another world by Dan F Brereton. The alien being a plant based life form is brilliant.
What I loved about the 1951 version is that the Thing isn't an evil maniac, like it was depicted in the later version. The 1951 Thing was just a intelligent and determined being, who was only trying to survive. Yes, he killed people, and sled dogs. But only because he had to do it. And when you think about it, this is actually quite a rare concept in sci-fi movies.
I must of Watch this movie 100 times or more I remember channel 9 when I was a young kid it was called million movie and they had us playing all week long every night
Apart from the actor's effort in the acting, 1951 has never done anything in particular to be fascinating, at least to me. It's less of a "Oh no, there's an extraterrestrial being trying to kill us!" horror, but more or less "Oh no, there's humans and I'm a helpless walking brick!" thing. Not once the alien feels intimidating in the 1951 version. It's shot, crushed, mauled, burned, electrocuted to a crust, not to mention the movie only having about 10% of the plot from the original book. I love how much John appreciates it though, even though his version is definitely superior.
@@Nanu67-e9j The character writing and special effects are fantastic but where it has really not aged well at all is the tension wich is the backbone of horror, the movie is very transparently unwilling to kill any named character and the monster is just not scary so theres never any reason to get invested, i wish i could have been part of the generation that could see this movie for its merits back then but im just not. though i admit calling it garbage was hyperbolic back then but saying that its better than the first halloween? No, thats nonsense
@@yurdi_yuri It's still a great movie today. There isn't a single SF/horror filmmaker who emerged in the Seventies or Eighties who wasn't inspired by it.
I was born in 1974. I remember seeing The Thing From Another World on Cinemax (of all places) when I was 10. Normally, 50's movies didn't really scare me. The Thing did. I remember telling my dad I saw it, and he basically just told me he didn't want to hear it. He was 10 himself when he first saw it and it literally traumatized him. He didn't even like to talk about it, it scared him that bad. To this day, I always joke with him about it. I've tried to get him to watch the remakes with me to no avail. His answer every time; "HELL NO!"
My favorite concept about the 1951 version is that the humans were barely one step ahead of the alien until the last stand Alamo ending.
Great flick.
My take on the creature in the 1951 version is that the creature did not plan on coming to the planet, at least the way it did, but when loose, it killed and started creating more of itself using human blood. Now, whether it had an irrational hatred for humans and other beings is anyone's guess. It cannot be stated that self-preservation was the only motive to kill other beings. That is pure speculation, which you also get from Carpenter's version. We don't know the motives of the creature once let loose other than it replicates itself in other beings.
Why no mention of John W. Campbell's 'Who Goes There?' which was the main impetus of Carpenter's version?
Agree
It’s really more of a conversation about the original so he can’t go too far off topic since it’s a tv interview that’s playing between scheduled movies, not an in depth interview. He might have even brought it up and it could have been edited out
Sometimes remakes are not an improvement on the original or even worse but Carpenter's remake of the Thing is not only better but it was the best horror/ sci- fi film ever!
It takes a film maker like Carpenter with respect for the source material, but not to the point of putting it on a pedestal.
Picasso said that good artists borrow, great artists steal - I'd say that the best of the best know what to steal!
No it was not better than the original
No, it's the most overrated science fiction/horror film ever, the favorite movie of cultural illiterates who think only in terms of special effects and gore.
what show is this from?
It's from Turner Classic Movies (TCM).
the thing is John Carpenter's true Masterpiece Halloween is overrated..
is it true the thing from another world is based on Joe Biden?
The 1951 version is vastly superior to Carpenter's deranged version, je was trying to copy Alien with that crap. James Arness Thing had ambience
The most terrifying science fiction pic ever made. The camp's isolation, the wind, the snow, the creature's blood thirstyness, and the ingenuity of the scientists and Air Force members, makes it No. 1.
Agreed. I saw this on a snow day when I was 8 years old (1971). Still remember everything about that day, including my nightmares...
I liked the 1951 version so much that I had to write a follow up. The THINGS from another world by Dan F Brereton. The alien being a plant based life form is brilliant.
"Gained a little cache"? He's too modest. Everybody has seen The Thing. It's as much of a classic as the original. Magnificent film. Excellent.
What I loved about the 1951 version is that the Thing isn't an evil maniac, like it was depicted in the later version. The 1951 Thing was just a intelligent and determined being, who was only trying to survive. Yes, he killed people, and sled dogs. But only because he had to do it. And when you think about it, this is actually quite a rare concept in sci-fi movies.
"like it was depicted in the later version"? think we found somebody who didn't see it.
@plasticweapon glad someone said it because that was literally what The Thing was trying to do 🤦🏽♂️
You either didn’t see the 80s version or just didn’t get it.
Best movie ever made without a doubt
Indeed
Nah I don't think so.
The intro is iconic though.
I must of watched it 100 times or more and always watch it in the winter time
@@michaelpaskl1065 Yes, a good sci-fi horror film for a wintery evening.
I must of Watch this movie 100 times or more I remember channel 9 when I was a young kid it was called million movie and they had us playing all week long every night
My favorite movie when I was a kid and still is.
His movies stink...
😳🍿😳
It is an implacable life form, much like life. both the early and Carpenter's one a biological top predator versus mammals.
Holy crap! How did i miss Carp on TCM.
Apart from the actor's effort in the acting, 1951 has never done anything in particular to be fascinating, at least to me. It's less of a "Oh no, there's an extraterrestrial being trying to kill us!" horror, but more or less "Oh no, there's humans and I'm a helpless walking brick!" thing.
Not once the alien feels intimidating in the 1951 version. It's shot, crushed, mauled, burned, electrocuted to a crust, not to mention the movie only having about 10% of the plot from the original book.
I love how much John appreciates it though, even though his version is definitely superior.
it baffles me how an absolute genius could say anything postive about the Thing 1951 its outdated garbage
Because it was great for it's time
It's better than all of the Halloween films.. infact the thing from other world is really good..
@@Nanu67-e9j The character writing and special effects are fantastic but where it has really not aged well at all is the tension wich is the backbone of horror, the movie is very transparently unwilling to kill any named character and the monster is just not scary so theres never any reason to get invested, i wish i could have been part of the generation that could see this movie for its merits back then but im just not.
though i admit calling it garbage was hyperbolic back then but saying that its better than the first halloween? No, thats nonsense
Carpenter is not a genius, he's an overrated hack.
@@yurdi_yuri It's still a great movie today. There isn't a single SF/horror filmmaker who emerged in the Seventies or Eighties who wasn't inspired by it.
Carpenter says they threw gasoline on the thing. If you followed the movie then you knew it was kerosene that they used.