Talk:The Thing from Another World
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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.
Conflict of Interest?
"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.
The Film's Title
It is my experience (although I'm sure that contemporary usage will support it) that the film was universally called simply The Thing, with its extended title forgotten, for three decades. The " ... From Another World" only resurfaced in order to distinguish it from the remake when that project came along. WHPratt (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
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.18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Preservation and restoration
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? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)