Talk:The Thing from Another World

message: Is it permitted to enclose an external link for a site where the film in question is reviewed and presented? The external link points to a site run by a published film writer, director, actor and television personality in Tokyo, Japan (English language).
I am trying to keep the link to The Cinemated Man alive and well because it is informative, useful and the author is a recognized authority.
But each day the links are removed under the guise of 'personal website'. The Cinemated Man site is published by blogspot and the editors are removing it for that reason or claiming the edit is 'spam'.
First of all, it is clearly not spam.
Secondly, even though is is published by blogspot, it is not a daily blog but rather a film review and presentation site. The site is non profit and contains no ads of any kind - not even ad sense, it is informational and is not a 'social networking' entity such as Myspace or Facebook.
Finally, the inclusion of The Cinemated Man link on Wikipedia is a helpful resource for those interested in the films in question. Keeping the link alive can only add to the wealth of resources at Wikipedia. Deleting it can only narrow Wiki's scope.
Also, the external links to Google Video, which has the film in its entirety are also being removed by the same editors for the same reasons. Humbleradio (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links?

message: "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is."
Why are you deleting the link without discussing the issue? Why are you not letting the community decide whether or not the link is spam, self promotion, or conflict of interest?
Your actions are that of vandalism. I am at a loss as to why you feel the need to squelch certain links, and yet let other remain, even those that are invalid and pointing to inactive sites.
Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humbleradio (talk • contribs) 03:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of Interest?

message: Why are my edits being reverted and considered vandalism? All I'm doing is updating the infox according to the manual of style. Which now include screenplay fields, based on fields and studio fields.173.88.129.35 (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: IMO the article could use some mention of preservation problems with this classic film. It was shot at the tail end of the nitrate film era, and the original negative, although still extant, is apparently now an unusable mess. I have yet to see a really good print, either in a theater or on video; they always look to be a couple of generations down the line, maybe even blown back up to 35mm from a 16mm reduction element made for TV syndication in the '50s. Sound quality is also suggestive of the limitations of the smaller format, to the detriment of Tiomkin's dramatic music. Compare the clearer sound and clean sparkling B&W in good prints of the same year's Day the Earth Stood Still. Entirely watchable, but the audiovisual experience is not what it could be. Maybe digital restoration software has matured to the extent that we can now pull it back to something much closer to the quality of an original 1951 release print without doing anything arbitrary or dishonest? 66.249.174.92 (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: the blu-ray disc looks very good 50.111.216.187 (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preservation and restoration 

message: This article is incomplete and needs to be expanded in more detail than what it currently is. The production section seems to be too short and should be expanded in more detail than what it currently has. Information on the film's development, casting and filming should be added to the article with proper citations for its information. Then article is also missing important information on the film's theatrical and home media releases which needs to be added to the article, again with proper citations. The reception section also seems too short and more reviews from notable critics added to it (Box office grossing should be moved to a release section), and information on the film's legacy should be split into it's own section and expanded upon. This article, like most articles, has potential. It just needs more work done to it in order to qualify for GA and FA status.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup and Expansion 

message: So I've noticed for a while now that there isn't any article on the character of The Thing, which is kind of sad considering how significant the character actually is. As such I started a draft for the character which people can work on expanding. I will include the link to it here.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Thing (character) 

message: I removed the quote that had been in Note 1, "And let's get the record straight. The film was directed by Howard Hawks. Verifiably directed by Howard Hawks. He let his editor, Christian Nyby, take credit. But the kind of feeling between the male characters — the camaraderie, the group of men that has to fight off the evil — it's all pure Hawksian". This quote is cited to, but not specifically attributed to, John Carpenter, who would have an interest in the subject as the director of the remake, The Thing (1982 film), but who was 3 years old and living in upstate New York when The Thing from Another World was made and thus would have no personal knowledge of the direction of the film. In any event, the fact that the film was "Hawksian" can be explained by the fact that Hawks was the film's producer and, by the accounts of all involved, deeply involved in the making of the film, without necessarily establishing that he was the director. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Several actors and film crew have attested that Hawks really directed the film and/or supervised the scenes b Nyby .... 50.111.216.187 (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Carpenter quote