Talk:The Creeping Terror

MST3K?
Can some one explain to others what is MST3K. Not everone is familiar with this. Is it a radio station, TV channel etc? If so a date or year when such mention was made would also be useful. Conce 03:26, 2005 August 14 (UTC)


 * I added a brief description to the MST3K reference a while back, but I'll also add a date for Creeping Terror's appearance shortly. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Monster description
The description of the monster is currently incredibly subjective, bordering on whimsy. We could use both a more objective description and perhaps quotes from published reviews for the more subjective elements, in an effort provide a neutral point of view and avoid original research. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. No matter how "cheap" a film's look may be perceived by someone it is all relative, and on top of this it is from 1964 which at the times of its release seems more impressive than the present just like every other science fiction and horror movie. I looked up Creeping Terror in my video movie guide and it is not 1 star, but 2. The plot does move along briskly. --Mole Man 03:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * … unlike the monster. &#9786; ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The story I heard was that Nelson did not understand that the sound heads on projectors are not in the same position as the lens and therefore did not realize that when editing the film the soundtrack had to precede the picture by more than a second to be in synch. Without the finances to correct this, he resorted to the fabled narration which is why so many scenes are cut like regular dialogue scenes but have a narrator paraphrasing what's being said. As with better executed films of this era (Corman etc.) the monster is the only thing that shows any creativity. It's laughable, but compare it to the alien "spacecraft" which is nothing more than a sheet of aluminum propped up against two trees. And close inspection has revealed (at least in the version I saw) masking tape rolling up the sides of the trooper's uniform pants as well as magnetic letters vibrating out of line on the sides of the cop cars. There's more to this tale but I've got to ditch the boss right now.


 * I'm afraid the above tale is exactly that — just a tale — unless backed up by a reliable source, preferably in print. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I heard this in the early seventies from Kit Parker, a San Jose based film distributor who supplied various bay area stations with prints of the worst movies the programmers could possibly sell to their bosses. He was also a frequent guest on the local Creature Features show and would go into great detail about how and why films failed as art and/or commerce and why they were so much fun to watch. He was the real progenitor of the 50 worst films of all time ethos that has inspired a whole discipline of film study. As for verification in print, I doubt anywhere but here has anyone taken the time to say anything at all about The Terror--life is just too short to hunt down every last contention made about something that sets better in the collective psyche as myth rather than hard science.

Silliphant and Lacky worked closely together to design and fabricate the original monster rig. Seven foot tall Lacky was very talented as a full scale puppeteer, and could do amazing things with the original monster. it could squinch down to just 2 1/2 feet tall, or tower to about 9 feet, all done by the lead man inside and his helpers. Too bad that creature wasn't used in the final film. Lacky's space ship design was also outstanding. It was a long flat-black wedge, that looks a bit like a "stealth fighter". It wasn't actually used in Nelson's version. Nativeborncal 03:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've emailed Silliphant and he can confirm the majority of the description of the monster. Anyone who has seen the film would agree that all insulting and scathing descriptions of it are not exageration, but accurate assesments of a badly designed prop that was laughable even by the standards of '50s & '60s B-movies. I would like to contact Nativeborn Californian to ask about his source of information. I have been collecting trivia on this film for some time, and would be interested in discussing it.


 * Whoever is posting this information without signing the posts continues to ignore the Wikipedia's "no original research" policy cited above. Personal affidavits and viewer opinions, however common they may be, are NOT published data. No amount of talk-page explanation will change this. Wikipedia is not a blog. If this person is "collecting trivia on this film", however, they should be in a good position to provide some published references which could be used as sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is any reliable published information on this film. I have been a fan of this film since I was a kid. I have read about it in a multitude of printed film guides, and there are many conflicting stories about it. As far as I can tell, these printed stories are perhaps the retelling of the various mythology of TCT over the years. One example is the story of the sound equipment falling into Lake Tahoe, yet other sources say it was never filmed in Lake Tahoe, while viewing the film the only body of water they are shooting by is a small creek, there are some scenes with properly synced dialog, and still other stories about technical difficulties or laziness or a silent camera being the reason for the lacking dialog. One of the great mysteries is who Art J. Nelson really is. There are several entries in IMDB that could be him, or he might be none of them. I'd like to hear from anyone who has some first hand accounts from the film, as I think this is the only reliable information at this point. gaira69@hotmail.com Gaira 08:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is quite troubling, as Wikipedia does not consider unpublished first-person accounts to be reliable sources. We may have to change this article to reflect only the contradictory published information, pointing out that there are no reliable accounts. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
hi, i dont know anything about this film but tried to do a cleanup. i removed the following text as part of the cleanup as it was either irrelevant as far as i could tell, or not verifiable. i left the cleanup tag as it could still be improved a lot. rgs, Catherine breillat 16:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Silliphant also ran the bizzare 9 story tall "Film Center Studios" in Glendale. Scene of several other famous "golden turkeys", like "The Incerdibly Strange Creatures..." The studio was a favorite with non-union producers, because this abandoned Masonic Temple building had a elevator that could be turned off...thwarting any crew staffing check by the over-age IATSE union agents.

Young Silliphant was very frustrated that the director didn't seem to get the idea that the story was "supposed" to be over the top, and would build progressively to a climax where the creature goes into a Lake Tahoe drive-in theater and eats the patrons in their parked cars! Pulling down the very window glass to ingest the distracted couples in the cars. Great stuff??? He reasoned, that if the film were actually to play, it would mainly surface in the drive ins.

Some say,for Nelson to avoid indictment, as the D.A. was supposedly contacted.

The resulting film is easily the worst directorial execution of a "promising, comic book style, over-the-top film treatment" in the annuals of Hollywood.

-- above text also posted by Catherine breillat at 16:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I cleaned up some of the plot errors using my 75min copy of TCT as a reference, added the MST3K episode number 606, and changed the running time to the theatrical 85min as documented at IMDB and mentioned the 75min TV cut as well. I forgot to log in when I did it, so the edits probably appear as anonimous. Gaira at 17:50, 30 January 2008


 * The IMDB seems to list the film at 75 minutes; perhaps the 85 minute figure was a typo. It would be interesting to know if there was a "tv cut", and how it differed from the original. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems that the only place that lists an 85 minute runtime is Wikipedia itself, or mirrors of Wikipedia. Ordinarily I would just change this, but Gaira seems to know a fair amount about the film. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Allan Silliphant
ok me again, i tidied it more, enough that i could remove the cleanup tag. BUT the article states the writer as Allan Silliphant, which according to imdb is a pseudonym of Al Silliman Jr. who directed The Stewardesses (1969) as per the article. unfortunately imdb does not list him as writer of The Creeping Terror: the 2 writers are Arthur Ross and Robert Silliphant. is somebody confusing Robert Silliphant and Allan Silliphant, who are different people according to imdb? or is imdb wrong? so i added a factual accuracy dispute tag. Catherine breillat 22:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

'''Norman Bridge::: Robert Silliphant and Allan Silliphant were full brothers and both were half brothers to Stirling Silliphant. The father in all three was Leigh Silliphant who has since died along with Stirling and Robert. Allan's whereabouts are unknown, although he was an alumnus of Glendale High School in Glendale, California on or about 1958. My e-mail is obg@pacific.net.th if any further discussion is needed. NB'''

-- above text posted by 58.8.153.224 at 22:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

so who wrote the creeping terror? allan or robert? and who directed the stwardesses? allan or robert? Zzzzz 00:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the case, Allan Silliphant did NOT write The Creeping Terror. That credit goes to Robert Silliphant who went on to write The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-up Zombies (1964). The wikitext should be changed to reflect this fact. Whether he also wrote as Allan Silliphant (and Allan Silliman is credited as writer of The Stewardesses) is unimportant to the article on The Creeping Terror but might deserve further investigation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.114.42.34 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the writing credit on top by removing Arthur Ross as writer. He is not listed as a writer on the credits to the film, and his credit first appears in Overlook Encyclopedia of film which confuses the entry for The Creature Walks Among Us with The Creeping Terror. This error is ofter repeated in material since then. I have replaced him with Al Sillman Jr (Aka Alan Silliphant) as he has been credited as the original writer by Michael Medved in his Golden Turkey research. After leaving the project, Robert came on as the writer and received the writing credit. William Thourlby has stated in an interview that Robert helped him finish the film when Arthur Nelson (Arthur White) left the production. Gaira 17:46, 300 January 2008

IMDB Reviews
Not sure whether, or how, to incorporate this info into the article, but as of January 30th 2006, 24 of the film's 93 reviews (26%) on the Internet Movie Database specifically call this film "the worst movie ever made", "the worst film ever made", or something along those lines. 15 of the reviews (16%) say it is worse than Plan 9, and 11 of the reviews (12%) say it is worse than Manos. It has a rating of 2.7 (significantly higher than the "bottom 100"), but most of the postitive reviews say things that make it clear the reviewer in fact believes the movie is bad. For example: However, despite what the opening paragraph of this article says, the movie is not listed on Films considered the worst ever, probably because it's not been critically reviewed by many reliable sources. (Rotten Tomatoes, for instance, has not assigned a freshness rating to this movie.) Although the movie gets quite bad marks (and amusingly harsh comments) from people who do review it, it has not achieved the level of notoriety and infamy that accompanies the films listed in that article. --Jonadab
 * (10 stars): "I don't believe that a worse movie could be made, intentionally or otherwise"
 * (10 stars): "the king of bad cinema."
 * (6 stars): "Bad, bad, BAD. ...  Bad movies at their worst."

Removed "Sequels"
A section on a couple of unofficial "sequels", two student films, that do not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability in film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brymc210 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Fetish Material
It's not necessarily suitable for an encyclopedic entry. But, come on. There's no way the director didn't have some form of vorarephilia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.17.151.47 (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)