People sure did talk a lot in the 50's
It seemed like everyone wanted to cram as many words as possible into each sentence.
shareKinda like today's generation, except with texting.
shareYeah, dialogue, characterization, actual thought really is a drag. Much better to sit vacantly with your mouth open watching a lot of CGI thrown at you from the screen.
shareI'm 52. I actually DESPISE today's texting... I don't even own one of those 'dumbphones'.
I'm also a huge fan of horror movies, dating from the 1900s with movies like DR. CALIGARI, to the classic Universal Monsters, to all sorts of other 1930s, 1940s, and 1950's science fiction and horror movies.
I dislike most of today's brain-dead, "in your face, nothing but SFX" mind-numbing CGI effects-driven movies.
I prefer my films to have characters and interesting dialogue.
All that said -- I TOO FIND "THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD" A TALKY BORE!!
I'm surprised by that, JoeKarlosi. I suppose I can understand saying the film is talky, but a bore? It's one of the most suspenseful and scary sci-fi films ever made. Or is it just the talk you find boring? Do you like other "talky" films such as 12 Angry Men or Witness for the Prosecution?
The Thing From Another World actually has one of the best, most literate scripts (and great direction by Howard Hawks) of any science-fiction film. "Talky" perhaps, but the talk is intelligent, witty and helps build the suspense and move the story along. Sorry you don't like it.
Or is it just the talk you find boring? Do you like other "talky" films such as 12 Angry Men or Witness for the Prosecution?
I haven't seen WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION, but I do love 12 ANGRY MEN and I own it, and have watched it many times. I find it very involving, with great actors. 12 ANGRY MEN is a film I often recommend to younger people who will not watch black and white movies, or find them "boring". So as I've tried to explain, it's not that I don't enjoy well-written films with intriguing characters and storylines in general; it's just that for some reason none of that works for me with THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD. But I'm glad you mentioned 12 ANGRY MEN; it's the perfect example of what a well-done movie can be, without even showing much more than men talking in a court room.
The Thing From Another World actually has one of the best, most literate scripts (and great direction by Howard Hawks) of any science-fiction film. "Talky" perhaps, but the talk is intelligent, witty and helps build the suspense and move the story along. Sorry you don't like it.
I'm glad you mentioned Howard Hawks, as I feel that is the reason so many serious film buffs tend to love the movie and accept it as a legitimate piece of work; I think that if someone else had directed it -- say some no-name 1950s sci-fi hack director -- the same movie scholars might not be as quick to praise it. But I personally don't see anything in the film that makes the movie "build suspense", nor do I feel "it moves the story along"; on the contrary, I find that things sort of sit still. At least when watching the movie in modern times; perhaps it really felt terrifying in 1951. But even the monster in this film comes off as silly and uninspired, with his bald head and clothing. I also realize why they originally cut out the so-called "bondage" sequence... it only added even more lethargy and slowness to the film, IMO.
I even enjoy THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN very much, which is a good example of another film which some people call "too talky". I'll also mention another 1950s sci-fi movie I love watching, even though it too relies on much talk and exposition: NIGHT OF THE DEMON (or CURSE OF THE DEMON in the US). So there is just something about THE THING that doesn't work for me.
Yeah, dialogue, characterization, actual thought really is a drag. Much better to sit vacantly with your mouth open watching a lot of CGI thrown at you from the screen.
You see, I LOVE this quote! I agree with you, and this generally sounds like something I myself would write, and something that I always say myself about today's brainless films and utterly assaulting CGI explosions! (I am a real CGI hater). However, THE THING is just an exception which doesn't work for me. share
You must see Witness for the Prosecution. Terrific film, primarily a courtroom drama as you might guess, based on a play by Agatha Christie and directed by Billy Wilder. It had several Oscar nominations (in 1957, like 12 Angry Men), and was the last film completed by Tyrone Power. It's being re-released on DVD and Blu-ray on July 11.
I'm glad you mentioned Howard Hawks, as I feel that is the reason so many serious film buffs tend to love the movie and accept it as a legitimate piece of work; I think that if someone else had directed it -- say some no-name 1950s sci-fi hack director -- the same movie scholars might not be as quick to praise it. But I personally don't see anything in the film that makes the movie "build suspense", nor do I feel "it moves the story along"; on the contrary, I find that things sort of sit still. At least when watching the movie in modern times; perhaps it really felt terrifying in 1951. But even the monster in this film comes off as silly and uninspired, with his bald head and clothing. I also realize why they originally cut out the so-called "bondage" sequence... it only added even more lethargy and slowness to the film, IMO.
I agree that this film receives extra attention because of Hawks's presence, but I don't think anyone would feel differently about it if someone else had helmed it. And, of course, someone else did direct it -- at least, supposedly and in the credits. Hawks's longtime editor, Christian Nyby, wanted to direct. Hawks gave him the screen credit and never claimed what every other cast member confirmed, that Hawks himself really directed the movie, with Nyby basically fronting for him. Even Hawks had his failures. I'm sure if most people thought The Thing was a bad film they'd say so, Hawks or no Hawks.
But that bondage scene was not "originally cut out". It was in the film when it was released in 1951. It and about six minutes of other scenes were deleted from reissue prints in the 1970s, cutting the film to 80 minutes from 87. Apparently this was done to make it easier for local TV stations to show the movie in a 90-minute time slot (with commercials). This was the only print widely available until the late 90s, when the original was finally restored. I happen to like that scene. It's just good character development. (Incidentally, one of the 1970s cuts took out the exchange where the radioman tells Captain Hendry that the storm is preventing their signals from reaching Anchorage, but that they're picking up Anchorage because they have a stronger signal. By deleting this the viewer couldn't understand why they could get radio signals in but not send them out. Very clumsy.)
I have both The Andromeda Strain and Night of the Demon too. The former is a bit slow and needs some energy in places but is okay. The latter is very scary. In the 50s limits on special effects caused most sci-fi or horror films to use a lot of dialogue and character development to move the story. Hence the expository sequences in The Thing From Another World. Like you said, it just doesn't work for you. It does for me -- one of my very favorite films of any kind.
Anyway, we'll just have to agree to have different reactions to the film. As I said before, fair enough. Life would be dull if everyone felt the same way. Sometimes I like being an outlier to public opinion too!
Glad you liked my previous quote on CGI vs. plot and character development! Our different reactions to TTFAW notwithstanding, it seems we probably agree about films much more than not. share
Yes, I would bet we would tend to agree more than not. I just wanted to validate that my non-enjoyment of THE THING was not because I was some kid who only was willing to watch today's lousy and overblown CGI-infested movies! (Having said this, I do enjoy Carpenter's THING... more because of the tensions in wondering who is who than for the wild effects; but all the same, at least those effects are physical and not CGI-rendered). Good talking with you.
shareOh, I realized from your prior posts you were not a CGI freak! It's obvious you appreciate substance over mindless effects. (I don't mind CGI if the film is good and has something more to it than just CGI.) Anyway, in that we have much in common.
Except I don't like Carpenter's The Thing. It does have the suspense you mention, but I found the effects more gory than truly scary or effective, and worst of all the script and characters were mostly dislikable jerks. Eventually I was rooting for the alien.
I'll close by again recommending Witness for the Prosecution to you. If you get TCM, it's being broadcast on Tuesday, June 17 (2014, for those who read this years from now!), at 12:15 AM EDT. I would also recommend Anatomy of a Murder, if you haven't seen that one: 1959, with James Stewart, perhaps the best courtroom drama ever.
See you again.
I'm surprised you received a serious, polite reply. Rarely I have seen a post as presumptuous as yours. Are you by any chance one of the film's producers? Because I do not see any other reason for making such high and mighty statements. Yours is just an opinion, not absolute truth. Oh wait, I suppose you are just a snob who is only able to appreciate films as old as himself, bashing everything else. Quality is regardless of age, for your information.
Back to this supposedly superior film;
The talk is anything but intelligent, witty or suspenseful.
As for this borefest being "one of the scariest sci-fi films ever made" - I have never been less scared in my whole life. Sorry you liked it.
🐺 Boycott movies that involve real animal violence (& their directors) 🐾
Rarely I have seen a post as presumptuous as yours.
Well, there's yours, for starters.
As for your closing statements:
Back to this supposedly superior film;
The talk is anything but intelligent, witty or suspenseful.
As for this borefest being "one of the scariest sci-fi films ever made" - I have never been less scared in my whole life.
This is what is called an "opinion". Yet stated as flat fact. Not made with any respect, allowance for other points of view, or explanation. In fact, its nature calls to mind something I recently read:
I do not see any other reason for making such high and mighty statements. Yours is just an opinion, not absolute truth.
Perhaps you should heed the wisdom you're so free with to others.
As to,
Oh wait, I suppose you are just a snob who is only able to appreciate films as old as himself, bashing everything else. Quality is regardless of age, for your information.
You know nothing about me, my knowledge or preferences. I could with as much knowledge of you -- and as much respect for others as you evince -- say that you are an idiot with no knowledge of or appreciation for the quality of anything made before you were born. (Incidentally, The Thing was made before I was born.) I might or might not be accurate. It would simply be a case of ignorance answering more ignorance...except that I'm aware of my lack of knowledge about you, whoever you are.
Anyway, I don't know (or care) why you took such offense to anything I wrote. The person I was speaking with and I disagreed about this movie but didn't resort to smarmy nastiness as you have. You're free to make any comment you wish but don't go lecturing others about the kind of posts we write when you fail so abysmally to do likewise. And don't write nasty pronouncements about what kind of person someone is when all you're showing is your own pettiness and ignorance.
Oh:
Sorry you liked it.
Yes, always end with a sincere comment. share
I found the dialogue too rapid and too 'unnatural'. No one speaks like that. Other than that and the obnoxious 'scientist with the fake powdered gray hair', I like the movie.
If I don't suit chu, you kin cut mah thoat!