"The Thing From Another World" 1951--Blu-ray release restored by Warner Archive

MIA on Blu-ray for too long a time, "The Thing From Another World" received it's Blu-ray release today 11/27. Warner Archive did the restoration which, no doubt, uses multiple sources since, as I recall, the original negative had substantial damage to it.

Warner has done a very nice restoration here and this includes the trailer. Sadly, no commentary or special features of note. While I love the work Warner has done here, I would have recommended a commentary track at least discussing the making of the film as there are interviews galore around with Nyby, Tobey and others from the cast that could be collated and quoted in a commentary.

Still, a very nice job on the restoration from Warner. There are some subtle (very subtle) differences in some sequences suggesting the multiple sources but they are integrated nearly seamlessly.

I still love the burn in titles which Carpenter copied for his film version as a homage to the original film. It's a great film even if isn't very faithful to the story. There's another nice homage when they spread out to measure the size of the ship under the ice. Hawks overlapping rapid fire dialog is front and center in the Charles Lederer adaption (he wrote "His Girl Friday", "The Front Page" (with Ben Hecht) and the original "Ocean's 11".

The theremin (which was used very effectively by Bernard Herrmann in the more optimistic "The Day the Earth Stood Still" released the same year) makes a musical cameo in the score by Dimitri Tiomkin.

Nice tense direction by Christian Nyby (Nyby insists that he directed the film but that Hawks provided guidence and supervision including on set discussions after Nyby had blocked out the scenes, worked with the actors, etc.) which I tend to believe (and that Hawks supervised his work on set as the producer of the film). One could argue for Hawks having co-director status but I think we need to give Nyby the benefit of the doubt (some actors like Tobey stated that Hawks directed with Nyby while others indicated that Nyby directed but consulted with Hawks and sought his input into the production). It certainly has the hallmarks of Hawks directing style but, as Nyby pointed out, when studying under a great master, you adopt the traits of the person you study under at least initially (it should be noted that Nyby's other films are not that much like "The Thing from Another World" but, again, working under Hawks supervision could argue for that since he was in control of the production).

Studio bound (except for stock footage and some second unit work and, perhaps, some location shooting briefly by Nyby) the film is--thankfully--presented in its original black and white presentation and the original aspect ratio.

A pity that Nyby and Tobey didn't appreciate Carpenter's film (which, admittedly, is graphic and powerful effects but they work, like "Alien", to enhance the film rather than distract).

 

I always found it interesting that Paul Frees appears in the film without credit. The film reportedly also had some polishing to the script done by Hawks and Hecht (who collaborated with Lederer on a number of projects).

 

In agreement with every point, except that I have a slightly different perspective on John Carpenter's The Thing not being very faithful to the story. John Carpenter's film may not be faithful as a remake of the earlier Hawks/Nyby film, but it's actually more faithful to the novella "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell (originally written under the pseudonym Don A. Stuart) first published in Astounding Science-Fiction, August 1938. That story is the basis for both films.

Each film has it's strengths. If there's a limitation to the first filmed version, it's that the FX required to believably film the horrific alien vision Campbell describes in his novella just weren't available in the 1950's. That said, the tight direction and music score were quite effective and B&W cinematography superb. John Carpenter's film is more skewed toward polar exploration through international bases with less of a cold war military feel to it. The FX in Carpenter's film are still SOTA creepy and completely alien in the extreme, very much like Campbell's original story.


Cat

 

I remember reading somewhere about a scene deleted from the film actually showing the dogs hanging in the greenhouse but cut. Too bad some of that stuff no longer exists.

 

GREAT MOVIE! One of my all time favorites. The way everyone talks over each other makes it more real. Never cared for the remakes.

 

I'm getting this! thanks...

 

Warner Archive's notes about the release:

A Note on Our Upcoming Release of Howard Hawks’ Production of The Thing From Another World

Yes, this new master has been sourced from 35mm film elements. The restored "missing" sequences have been taken from later generation elements, so subtle and slight differences will be discernible. However, the restoration work has been under way for quite some in order to bring the release up to our customary high standards and we are quite pleased with the results. In addition, the opening titles have been corrected to the proper size and aspect ratio for the first time since its original release. Interested parties should look out for an upcoming Warner Archive Collection Podcast in which we will go into greater and more in depth details. As always, thanks for your support - and "keep watching the skies!"

 

Where was this sourced from? Their website?

As I mentioned in my first post, someone who knows what they are looking for will see the differences but they are so subtle that it didn't impact my enjoyment of the film. Normally I might think that their statement was hyperbole but the proof is in the Blu-ray itself.

I'm happy to hear they didn't use the 16mm footage for those sequences as it would be a bad match.

They did stellar work as mentioned. I've never been disappointed by Warner Archive as they don't really do revisionist color timing choices, haven't gone for the teal deal, etc.

 

The text was from the Warner Archive Facebook page. It sounds like they really wanted to get this as good as possible.

 

I was actually referring to the original film as not being faithful (sorry for the confusion). They took the premise, the creature in the ice, the stalking of the group all, etc. but the rest of it was removed, changed or repurposed in the film. Surprisingly, though, for a 1951 film, it's about as close as they could possibly get with the technology of the time and standards for what would considered to be a film that could be released.

I love both films but for very different reasons. Carpenter's is a masterpiece of tension, suspense, effects with a brilliant ensemble cast that bring the characters to life but could have been little more than sketches for the characters (a credit to the actors to be sure, Carpenter and even Lancaster's script).

So I quite agree with you.

When I saw it in theaters in 1982 I loved it and just couldn't get WHY it was so hated by critics (but usually that happens with a film that is so radically different from expectations that it is misunderstood--look at "Blade Runner", even "2001" didn't have universal acclaim when it was made. It comes down to people's expectations and an inability to accept something really different that challenges their perceptions).

 

I figured that and had read it there but couldn't remember if it was there or on some discussion. Thanks for that. That's why I was sure that they used 35mm footage for the new transfer and had searched the world for the best elements available. Steve's probably right though that the original negative doesn't exist anymore. I thought portions might still exist but it sounds like it is completely gone. Either way, they did a great job with the transfer. I wish other studios were as careful. They have among the best asset/restoration teams around.

 

The only catch is, you have to dress up like a Carrot.

 

There's an old Leonard Maltin article about a visit to the LoC nitrate vaults where they talk about how the negative succumbed to nitrate decomposition rather exceptionally early, IIRC.

The collector Wade Williams said (on the Home Theater Forum I believe) that he supplied a 35mm print to Warner with the missing footage for them to copy years back, but he wasn't sure if that's the source of the restored footage in the new restoration or not. From the sounds of things, Warner held out for a long time to piece together the absolute best extant materials, and then finally decided that nothing better was likely to show up and they could do a decent job with what they had.

 

I received this Blu-ray yesterday and can confirm it's the best this movie has ever looked on any home video release, despite the slightly lesser quality footage to make it a complete version of the film. Warner Archive has really been hitting them out of the park lately and I have very high hopes for their "Horror Of Dracula" Blu-ray release in a few weeks.

 

In the 80's this movie was put out in color. Bet it took some of the spookiness away from it.

 

Why, why, why put the huge Arness face on the cover, a huge reveal? Especially when the film only showed fleeting glimpses. Everybody’s seen it? Nope. I have family who never has. I bought it anyway, but sheesh.

 

The score to this film is masterful!!!....am recovering from heart surgery....glad to be here to experience blu ray of this great film soon...thanks Steve for the technical info on disolve shots, never new that before.

 

That was John Carpenter's remake, not the 1951 film. I would argue that the 1982 film was hundreds of times more frightening, but it doesn't take away from the artistry and subtlety of the 1951 original.

 

It's weird how that happens. There's a lack of judgement that happens sometimes, and it's not always the mastering engineer's fault: there are often studio people in the room who say, "no, no! I can still hear the noise!" Rick Chace used to say, "you have to leave some noise in the signal or else it sounds too dead, too artificial. A little bit of noise acts as kind of a 'perfume' that helps the track overall." But as you know, one of the most dangerous things in the business is when a non-technical exec has a position of power.

Almost all dissolves prior to the 1990s were down a couple of optical generations, so you do see a difference in sharpness and contrast once the dissolve kicks in. Fox and Columbia were particularly awful: they do a thing called "cut-in opticals" where the entire picture would change right on the first frame of the dissolve because they were too cheap to do a dupe on the entire scene. Finding a way to match that in mastering is very difficult, but we always try to minimize the blow.

There were a handful of directors who noticed and cared about this problem, and they would request an A/B roll dissolve on an optical printer to avoid the additional optical generations, but that was rare. I have seen it, though. From about 2002-2003 on, Digital Intermediates took over and that was the end of dupes for most productions. My problem there is not enough younger technicians understand the need for a film-style (logarithmic) dissolve, which has a different "feel" than a video (linear) dissolve. A true film dissolve is not the same thing, and I have gotten into a few fights in post-production when dealing with people who didn't know the difference. From my perspective, a film-style dissolve looks better.

 

It was colorised though.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32r965

 

Not in 1982.

A colorized version of the original film was released in 1989 on VHS by Turner Home Entertainment; it was billed as an "RKO Color Classic".

The Thing from Another World - Wikipedia