Was anyone burned during this sequence? It looks as if the door, next to Margaret Sheriden or her stunt double, is on fire. Thanks. Duane
shareI just watched the movie again last night and paid particular attention to the the fire sequence. Unless I am missing something, that was a truly dangerous moment for the actors. They were in a very confined space with a real and spreading fire.
Jeez!
There is no way a movie-maker could get away with that today.
Windmills do not work that way!
According to the commentary track on the DVD and to several articles I read about this movie over the years, no one has ever spotted anything phony about this scene -- and no one knows for certain just how Howard Hawks (who directed many sequences) managed to get it on film without burning everyone and everything in sight. I've watched it in slo-mo and stop-mo on my DVD players, and I don't see a gimmick anywhere. I understand the scene was rehearsed for days, but was filmed in one take by two or three cameras.
The scene really sticks in my mind. I saw it in its original 1952 release as a kid. It scared the c--- out of me then (at one point I nearly hid behind the seat in front of me!) and it's still spellbinding today -- even though I have most of the script memorized by now.
The remake, besides being totally unnecessary, had me yawning within 10 minutes. I left three times, once for more popcorn, once to just take a quick walk around the lobby to keep me awake, and again for the restroom. Had I not held out a little hope that something genuinely non-hokey might happen before the remake ended, I would have walked out early and looked for another movie. What a waste.
Nitpicky
I have to assume that your reference to the remake is John Carpenter's The Thing. You might consider giving this film another chance. I can certianly understand your deep appreciation for these fine classics, and the thought of any remake these days has me cringing, especially if the production follows the original story line too closely (i.e. Psycho). However, Carpenter's production really went a different direction other than the general scenario and plot. Plus the special effects for the time, around '82 was far and away some of the best in the business. Add that to the fine acting and attention to direction, I thought this movie became a new classic.
"It's as nose as the plain on your face."
sanlyn, you're only saying that because you're nothing but a big fat scardy pants, just own up to it. BTW it's not a remake at all. it's another telling of the original short story. I don't see any carrot men in your "remake."
I have enough faith in my judgment to recognize a stinker.
sanlyn said he was a kid. It was a time of paranoia in the 50s and being burned by nuclear radiation was one of the fears, so I think he would react to the fire scene. I suppose we think of it as being put in a microwave oven or severe internal burns today.
EDIT: The kerosene fire burning scene was awesome. That was a live stunt in the pre-OSHA days.
I just saw it won an award for National Film Registry from the National Film Preservation Board, USA (only win). The kerosene sequence must have been one of the reasons. If not, it should be. LOL.
shareJust finished watching the movie again with my partner Katie as I am introducing her to 50's Sci Fi. In all I totally agree with your comments. In my opinion a remake has to be better than the original, or filmed in some form of diferent perpective, and even then if it's not good enough; don't bother.
This fabulous classic did not qualify for a remake, irrespective of what 'Carpenters' fans think. Just discovered that the location was Montana national Park!....
I'll start off with the obvious: "better" is clearly a subjective term.
Secondly, John Carpenter's "The Thing" was NOT a remake of "The Thing From Another World" -- they are both adaptations of the same short story, "Who Goes There?". Ironically, Carpenter's version, the second adaptation, was FAR more faithful to the original source material.
Irrespective of what you think, both films are classics and have rabid cult followings to this day. That said, I'll never understand those who hate one and love the other. Both are phenomenal and are remarkably rewarding even after multiple viewings.
In my "subjective" opinion anyway...
^^^^^ LOVE 'EM BOTH!
____________
Raithen: Good post!
shareBoth films were great, the 2011 prequel started off good filling in the blanks, but ended up too much like Carpenter's film. I don't understand why anyone would take issue with the 51 or 82 films. Both were excellent in their own ways, and the scripts in both were great as far as making characters that were likable in their own ways.
shareI think all the actors went on with their careers so no one (stunt actors) involved were really hurt.
There was a lot of quick cuts in that short scene, so it's likely that there were a few clever use of perspective/editing to hide any stunt men or safety crew/equipment.
But the "kerosene burst" is probably the read deal aka a "practical effect"-- I sat up when it happened... cos all of slow-motion, close-up "explosion effects" in movies can't "prepare" you for how real flames/fires work...
If you care enough to go around telling people you don't care... you obviously care.
There's no doubt in my mind that there was nothing fake about that kerosene scene, absolutely jaw dropping bit of stuntwork.
As for the remake, I will always direct people toward The Thing as a shining example of how to remake something (especially when it's a classic), Carpenter updated the themes, strengthened the weak spots (TFAW is badly hamstrung by a bad looking monster)and brought something new to the table also.
That said I have absolutely no faith in the new remak.. sorry, sorry, prequel.
Why quote other people when I like the sound of my own voice?
I'm sorry for chiming in, but not with an answer for the OP question...
It's just the scene being talked about... I've ALWAYS found it to be incredible!
I just thought it was cool to see others talking about it. I really like the re-make, but I don't think there is anything in it that can compare to the pulse-pounding excitement of those two minutes of terror!
I love this movie!
*************
It almost seems like there's a line added later to account for that, because later Margaret Sheridan's character quips something about, "the last time you saw me I was on fire!" or whatever.
Also, reading through the comments here, the stunt work is amazing, but it's also very unusual from a cinematography standpoint. When Turner Classic Movies showed this in a marathon the other night, later that night there was a documentary, WATCH THE SKIES, which referenced THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD as well as other 1950s scifi movies. George Lucas, (or maybe James Cameron/Spielberg/Ridley Scott), talks about how unusual this scene is, where the lighting is entirely done by the monster being on fire, there's no other light in the scene, which is very unusual for a film from this time period.
----
As an aside, here's something I don't get in the movie. Early on, when they're still back in Anchorage, guys start referencing how there's an unusual celebrity up at the arctic base --- she's a pinup star, or a movie star, or whatever. I'd have to rewatch it to be sure, but, I think at least one of the guys on the flight crew references it, and then later, the general references it.
They're obviously referencing the Margaret Sheridan character, so it sort of makes the expectation --- if she's a pinup star/movie star, why is she at the arctic base, some sort of publicity stunt or something.
But when they actually get up there.... she just seems to be an ordinary (well, extraordinarily attractive) secretary. I don't get it. Why all the reference to a pinup star/movie star/whatever? Did I miss something?
Unless the guys are just ribbing their captain for his little encounter with her in the recent past. i.e., she is just a secretary, and they're just being funny when they reference her as a "pinup star", etc. But if that's the case, it's weird that the "shut the door!" general seems to be in on it too.
-----------
Finally, some might find this interesting. There's a book out by Dan F. Brereton called THE THINGS (FROM ANOTHER WORLD). I won't put a hyperlink here, but if you search on Amazon on Dan F. Brereton you'll find it.
I haven't read it, but it's variously described as a sequel to the 1951 film, or a retelling of the original John W. Campbell novella "Who Goes There?" retold from the point of view from the monster (in other words, THE THINGS are the humans).
I do beleive they are having a go at the Captain. All through the movie they are busting his chops about the girl.
shareMy girlfriend couldn't even believe it. I'd seen the film many times before, and I thought this was a great scene, but as a child/teen, I never paid attention to how dangerous it was as a stunt. I kept rewinding it because my GF commented on how the kerosene was almost poured on top of the actress in the corner. That must of put off some insane heat. Then they actually had the room full of actors putting out what appeared to be a huge fire, and Tobey and Sheridan actually had a decent fire going on that mattress.
shareWhen describing to Scotty the occupants of the base up north of Anchorage, the men refer to a "Pin-up GIRL" (not star) about whom they relate that "Captain Hendry can give you any data you want". So of course they're referring to Nikki and gently ribbing the Captain about having a girlfriend.
I got that as a kid; how could adults miss it?
I think your response was ment for algomeysa. He was asking about the pin up comments.
share[deleted]