HOME | DD
OliverInk — The Thing From Another World
#earth #moon #planet #space #thething #thing #thethingfromanotherworld #flyingsaucer #spacecraft #spaceship
Published: 2019-03-03 00:24:34 +0000 UTC; Views: 1372; Favourites: 49; Downloads: 28
Redirect to original
Description
Earth - www.pixelstalk.net/wp-content/…Flying Saucer - fantastic-plastic.com/THE_THIN…
Moon - pngimg.com/download/25389
Disclaimer: I do not claim ownership of any of the original artwork used, unless specifically stated otherwise. All of my photomanipulation pieces are freely made for education, research and mutual enjoyment, allowed under the Fair Use doctrine.
Related content
Comments: 35
Awesome
MacReady: I don't know. Thousands of years ago it crashes, and this thing... gets thrown out, or crawls out, and it ends up freezing in the ice.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Blow it up! Blow it up!
...How did "MaCready Survive?"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Makes room for a sequel, perhaps "Alien vs The Thing." Even if you rightfully hated "Alien vs Predator," Antarctica does also have xenomorphs!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for the comments... yes that sounds cool.
The only thing I really disliked about all the Antarctica base was it was so damn dark it was very hard to make out details... Sadly, a very obvious way to go cheap on special effects.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Daylight xenomorph and thing attacks, although that technically happened in "Alien Covenant," could an interesting change. Isn't both of their strengths based on stealth?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'd say stealth is very much important aspects with both, other than ruthlessness.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It's very cold... in space.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
At the Mountains of Madness by H.P. Lovecraft was published in 1936; Who Goes There? by John W. Campbell Jr. was in 1938, so admitting a direct link at the time may have risked a copyright lawsuit.
Given Campbell's story came out 2 years after Lovecraft's, and is likewise set in Antarctica, it's possible he was inspired by the earlier tale. Both Lovecraft and Campbell also published several tales in the magazine "Amazing Tales".
Shoggoths can detach pieces of itself and combine with other bits of itself or other shoggoths as the needs arose. The Goat of 1000 Young is a reference to a lake-sized shoggoth that is constantly "giving birth" to numerous smaller shoggoths of various sizes, shapes, and imitative forms. It's quite likely The Thing in Campbell's story was drawn from Lovecraft's shoggoths, though with the added ability to turn any living thing into itself, it's arguably an even more horrific menace.
In the 1930's, many authors often borrowed ideas or expanded on on them. There are a number of authors who borrowed heavily from Lovecraft. Just look at how many horror movies reference the Necronomicon (totally made up by Lovecraft) or make mention of the mad Arab, Al Hazred. There are also several collections of tales based on the mythos of H.P. Lovecraft, by various authors.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I remember seeing that flying saucer and thinking........somehow.......that Chewbacca must have lost a game.......and threw the damn thing out of the ship.....
It looks suspiciously like the holographic game-board from the Millenium Falcon!
Great job here!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Do you mean John Carpenter's The Thing or the later one from 2011?
The original idea for all three movies came from a decent read called Who Goes There by John W. Campbell.
What's also cool is that a full manuscript called Frozen Hell was found after Campbell's passing, which reportedly paints a much more complete picture, and is still a Kickstarter project to be released as an Ebook...
www.kickstarter.com/projects/w…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, i was referring to John Carpenter's movie, though your title suggests you were thinking of the 1950s original which i also liked (did you know it was marshall Matt Dillon aka James Arness in the monster costume?) from the time i was a young boy. never saw the 2011 one, actually.
And yes i've read the original story too; also since i was a kid. It was available online too for a while, though an attempt to add the link here failed because the page i got sent to is now blank.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I was thinking of the story and the movies, even though I never saw the 2011 one or checked out the game based on it.
You will be pleased to know I located Who Goes There as a free online book you can read here...
www.goldenageofscifi.info/eboo…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I thought you might have been.
You ever see that made-up Classics Illustrated cover someone made featuring the thing in all its three-eyed vicious glory?
i.pinimg.com/originals/29/8a/3…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes!
It's been some time but that's a cool cover of what the artist envisioned as The Thing.
You can definitely see how it inspired the cover art by Bob Eggleton for Frozen Hell -
ksr-ugc.imgix.net/assets/023/2…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'd have loved to read that issue of CI!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Seeing the liberties Howard Hawks took with the story for his 1951 movie proves the premise can be taken in a number of different directions.
That comic book concept is fine by me.
I'd also like to see one set in the future where some hapless starship crew comes across a world of those creatures, as well as an alien spaceship with one that has its full faculties.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Howard Hawkes was supposedly limited by the movie budget, but $1.6 million was pretty good for a movie at that time (1951 btw; not 1955). However, effects technology was probably a pretty limiting factor. After all, this was a full 26 years before Star Wars (original version), and even 15 years before Star Trek. They probably just couldn't do a convincing shape-shifter even with the budget and altered the story into something that they could actually realistically film. By the time John Carpenter made his remake 30 years had passed, and the effects technology was moving along at light speed... allowing for a much more faithful adaptation. but even the earlier version is well worth watching today imo for the suspense and fine acting; though the treatment of how real scientists are viewed (and portrayed) strikes me as a tad flawed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I love the '51 movie for many reason, though would have liked the creature to have been more in line with the book.
Bottomline for me is that it's enjoyably rewatchable.
The Thing from '82 greatly focused on special FX and was much more in your face gory.
A much more faithful version of Campbell's tale, but at least for me, not very enjoyable to rewatch.
Some horror and scifi movies suffer terribly from adding zero humor or lack showing the best of the human condition when faced with challenges along the way.
Even though Lovecraft stated his view that man held the lowest place on the cosmic totem pole, many of his tales do show that resistance is not futile.
Campbell also gave God credit in his story for allowing his uber monster from taking us all out.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Each version of the Thin story has its particular strengths other versions might lack, though as i said i never saw the latest movie version so I can't judge its merits. But yeah I agree that the 1982 version is less enjoyable to watch than the 1951 version despite its superior effects.
I know just what you mean about the need for a least some humor. One outstanding example of a lack of it that imo really hurt a series was Space: 1999. Another example of a show that had a lot of humor that made the series more popular was Lost in Space. Just compare the original (and humorless) pilot with what they came up with later when Dr Smith and the robot were added to the mix - even before either started hamming it up. Smith's over-the-top villainy had touches of humor in it even from the start - let alone before he became a clown. it's one reason why the show, ridiculous as it was, consistently out-performed Star Trek in their original airings. It was only in syndication after all that star trek achieved real success as far as viewer interest was concerned. I think humor was also one reason why Tom Baker is the most popular of the Doctor Whos.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And I'd add the remake of Battlestar Galactica right in there.
It had it's points but it was all about conflict with the Cylons as well as the crew mates.
In any real military service, that sort of thing would grab plenty of the wrong kind of attention.
As far as Star Trek, some of the fan favs of all the shows were the funny ones.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Never saw the remake of Battlestar, so i'll take *your* word for *that*.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Like other disappointing shows, mesmerizing FX lure you into a windowless van with promises of candy and a warm puppy.
What could have been and wasn't seems to be par for the course when studio execs steal the reins from real creative minds and talent.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know what you mean. Older shows and movies have not have had the glitter of more modern efforts, but it seems to me like they often had more solid scripts. Just watch "The Black Cat" (1941) on the Svengoolie show a few days ago for example, and though I'd never seen it before and had little knowledge of what it as about, I found it quite engaging nonetheless. More modern movies just don't pull me in so readily like that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Saw that too!
True enough.
Hopefully feedback will lead to better.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It’s a bird!
It’s a plane!
It’s... it’s...!
It’s just an astronaut’s dinner plate...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The astronaut inside actually has you in mind for its dinner plate!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1