Talk:The Thing (1982 film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reference to Billson's 1997 book

Darkwarriorblake asked at WP:RX, in the thread "The Thing 1982, Anne Billson BFI book", which pages of Billson's 1997 book (ISBN 0-85170-566-9) support the statement in the article, "The film received negative reviews on its release, and hostility for its bleak tone and graphic violence."

"The film received negative reviews on its release, and hostility", is strongly supported by page 8, which reads, "When John Carpenter's The Thing was unleashed into cinemas in 1982, it received an almost unanimous critical drubbing on both sides of the Atlantic." The book goes on to name and quote eight critics, six of whom were negative.

"For its bleak tone" is a plausible summing up of the first two paragraphs of page 10, although bleak tone isn't mentioned in the context of critical reception.

"But The Thing went belly-up at the box-office, and not just because of the overwhelming blanket of negative criticism. Just as likely to have been a factor was the prevailing mood of the times. In 1982, the political philosophies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were filtering through to the masses, resulting in an overall feeling a long way from John Carpenter's ironic, subversive, anti-authoritarian tone. ... Carpenter's films evinced a cynical sensibility more in tune with the innovative, iconoclastic 70s, with their conspiracy theories and downbeat endings, than with the Mammon--worshipping workaholism of the yuppie decade ... Even more damaging ... [was E.T.]. Audiences weren't keen on the idea of a space monster which did unpleasant things to the human body. They preferred an alien equivalent of the teddy-bear and wanted reassurance that, if there were something out there, it would be benign. They also wanted the promise of life after death, the comfort of religious undertones, and a heartwarming love story with a sob-into-your-hanky sentimental ending. 'You must remember the time it [The Thing] was released was the summer of E.T',' says John Carpenter, 'And it was a very bleak and hopeless film.'"

The phrase "and graphic violence" misses the mark slightly. "And graphic special effects" would be a fairer paraphrase of the critical opinions detailed on pages 8 and 9:

"disgusting ... absolutely disgusting ... too phony looking to be disgusting ... special effects transformations were 'let loose on us by the bucketful, and satiation rather than horror is the result' ... stomach-turning special effects ... There was grudging general agreement that the special effects, though 'far too gory' ... were amazing, but this went hand in hand with an evident distrust of their presence in the first place. Special effects, according to the received critical wisdom, are cheap stunts with no integrity ... They pander to the baser instincts of the vulgar crowd and, if they involve blood, they're especially tasteless and unnecessary."

I leave it to editors here to adjust the citation and/or text as they see fit. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time and help Worldbruce Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The Thing Character

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) 17:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the Thing has any real character traits besides the urge to survive. It's only personality comes form what it has assimilated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosk1935 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Ending speculation by HAL333

HAL333 wishes to include speculation in the article that paints the deliberately ambiguous ending in a certain light. That is that Childs is the Thing because MacReady's bottle of Whiskey is actually a molotov cocktail (despite having no fuse) and that despite knowing everything the assimilated knows such that they can perfectly imitate them, they won't know what Whiskey should taste like. It's a theory, it's also entirely speculation and the only thing we see in the film for definite is that MacReady hands Childs a whiskey bottle and it ends with neither knowing who is the Thing. Two of the sources HAL333 has used to support the inclusion of this theory are WhatCulture and ScreenPrism, neither of which are reliable sources and the one that is reliable, the Huffpost article here, specifically has Kurt Russell ignoring the theory entirely and asserting the ending is only about the ambiguity between the two men. I am disputing the inclusion of this ending as fanfiction and I would appreciate the input of others to settle the matter completely.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with DWB. I don't think commentary from whatculture.com or screenprism.com should be included. Also, there seems to be some original research woven into this analysis, such as "This means that at-least one of them is the Thing." We should stick to what sources like Entertainment Weekly say and ignore fan analysis. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Bingo on what NinjaRobot said. We don't post fan theories. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Do not change the title of this again, you don't edit other people's comments. First of all you are edit warring over the content and while I can't use geolocate on Bosk's account, I would guess it is either yourself or someone you know given the edit they made, so you're violating WP: SOCK and WP: EDITWARRING. I'm gonna have to break this down point by point because you're deliberately ignoring what is being said to you:

• Why is Darkwarriorblake insisting that it is whisky. It never states such a specific thing, and you recently said that it was scotch. Both of which are wrong."

• Scotch whiskey is literally a thing that exists. So I'm not contradicting myself, I'm using two names for the same thing.

• "The Shining or Eraserhead, where you will find plenty of speculation about particular scenes of the film"

• Those films are not the same thing. They are supernatural films where film critics and analysts try to make sense of scenes given the information deliberately available in the film. There is no hidden meaning to the end of the Thing, one, or both, or neither of them can be the Thing and it is deliberately unprovable. This molotov theory is literally made up information. You're saying " The piece of fabric used as a fuse in a molotov cocktail can easily be removed." You are making stuff up to fit an argument.

Things like Dean Cundey saying that he added a glint of light to the eyes of people who were meant to be human is information. Or Child's clothes being different. Carpenter and Russell both ignore or directly refute the molotov idea because it is stupid and made up. There is never a point where MacReady leaves the exploding base on film with a Molotov cocktail. He runs for his life, leaving the Molotovs behind. But stopped, made another one, sat down by the camp with it with no fuse in it, no fire to light it, and the Thing, which knows absolutely everything the person it takes over knows, doesn't know what gasoline tastes like. This fan fiction theory is refuted easily in one sentence and backed up by NOONE involved in the film. It is fan fiction, and doesn't belong in a featured article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake I understand your concerns over the POV and original research aspect of the previous intended section and I have rectified it. I hope this serves as a proper compromise. Also, saying that scotch is the same as whisky is like saying that squares are rectangles. Scotch is a type of whiskey. Also, since you pointed out that Eraserhead and The Shining are supernatural, here are some sci-fi films where there is an analysis of the ending: 2001 and Blade Runner. I hope the new edit is to your liking. HAL333(talk) 20:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

No this isn't acceptable because it's not a molotov cocktail and there is never any implication that it was, similarly they have flat out said that it was a technical issue with lighting that meant Childs had no breath and not intentional, so it's making stuff up. It's adding stuff that is not there. The ONLY potential theory is that Dean Cundey has said he added a light of life to the eyes of Non-Things, and that is the ONLY thing not mentioned in that section. The rest is fan-theory make-believe and it doesn't belong in a Featured Article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 01:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

After watching it again I now realize that it is BS. The molotovs were destroyed by the thing But I think we should mention it, but discredit it with things like the quote from Kurt Russell, and maybe one from John Carpenter. I'll try to find a quote by Dean Cundey on that, but I thought that was only with palmer in the blood-testing scene. I think the breath theory and new jacket is interesting and should be mentioned. I'm sorry if I came across as aggressive and ignorant, I wasn't as familiar with editing Wikipedia as I am now. HAL333 03:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Should I remove the Molotov part? HAL333 04:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

More on References

So far, it appears that the article is looking good and shows promise about conveying the information that is available to us as a whole. I only wonder if there are any other sources that are available to us that are not reviews by journalist websites that we may be able to use. DiosXMachina (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Cast

While there is a casting section, there's no cast one, which is standard for film articles. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

NPV

Hi, considering the featured status of the article, does the unjustified recent edit of an unregistered user seems okay ? Regards CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit : 46.208.236.175 edited my comment (!) to remove the word "unjustified". IP is banned for 6 months. If anyone else has the time to check all their edits. I don't. CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It was justified, and it seems OK, yes. 46.208.236.175 (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Considering your ban and that are thought to be WP:BKFIP, I doubt. CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Remake?

The movie is oftentimes considered one of the greatest remakes ever made, despite the fact that it's not technically a "remake" but actually a second adaptation of the novella. I feel this should be represented in its critical reception section as it's frequently listed at the very top of many "greatest remake" lists. It's part of its overall critical reception, it is generally considered one of the greatest film remakes ever simply because there was a first adaptation of the book. Colliric (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

" Complex named it the ninth-best of the decade, calling it the "greatest genre remake of all time".[138]" - It's mentioned, but if its not "technically" a remake I'm not sure why it needs mentioning at all. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Article Update

Hi. Can I please add the names Norbert Weisser and Larry J. Franco to the table of cast members? If not, can you create a cast member list, and include them there? I just think it is unfair to only credit the 12 members of the research station, and nobody else. Also, if someone can find the people who operated the various Thing puppets, maybe they could be mentioned. Also, can I PLEASE edit the plot some? Blair is never shown transforming; you never see him between when he assimilates Gary & when the Blair-thing bursts from the ground. When Palmer reveals himself as a thing and attacks Windows, MacReady doesn't just "burn" them both; he blows Palmer up with a grenade. MacReady only burns Windows after he sees Windows starting to assimilate. Thank you. Jgwilliams873 (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you can't edit the plot? I didn't see that the article's currently protected? Just keep in mind that the summary should stay under 700 words per WP:FILMPLOT.

I don't have an opinion on the cast members currently. DonIago (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Minor cast aren't needed in the cast list. Not sure where fairness comes into it. They are named further down the article. And MacReady does burn them both, I distinctly remember Palmer being very much on fire. Him throwing a grenade at him after he falls down is a minor detail that is not necessary to understand that Palmer is dead. Similarly, the reader knows that Windows is now infected beyond saving, and is burned. The thing at the end is Blair, and there is a difference between the Blair that kills Garry and the Blair that faces MacReady, so he does transform. You're complaining about Semantics vs Readability. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

AN EXTRA SECTION I COULD ADD

I am willing to write a new section for this article, as based upon the prequel, so to connect what the characters saw when they went to other base - for eg- the dead man found had a backstory an was named Colin - so i could add in a small section to help viewers understand who the earlier victims were - is that ok? VC 23:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcorani (talk • contribs)

That "section" is called The Thing (2011 film) Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

IN REPLY

Not really as thats just a separate film article - an so doesnt join-up to the first film, an so you have to click elsewhere to read it. But what i'm proposing is proper rundown, like a checklist for reference, to join the dots. Something then, more compact as a tie-in for comparison than long an wordy article. VC 22:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcorani (talk • contribs)

There's a separate article for a reason. None of that backstory existed for this film. WP: UNIVERSE, in-universe info is meant to be kept to a minimum. A plot section is basically the most allowed. You're talking about taking the plot of the 2011 film and adding a section for it here so people know the backstory to a dead hunk of meat. It's not needed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Horror Express

I let the addition of Horror Express sit while I researched it and can not find any evidence to back it up. I've never heard of the film while researching this one. I looked up "Keep Watching the Skies" here @ Web Archive and can find no mention of the film in it at all even at the pages listed. I know its the 2010 edition but it's got Catwomen from the Moon in there so it seems unlikely they out that specific entry or dedicated 11 pages to it when most are 2-4. The article for Horror Express itself merely says it is based on Who Goes There. Nowhere in the article is that sourced. The few sites I can find that mention both Horror Express and Who Goes There like this and this only raise that the two are similar, and not that any direct creditable influence took place or that the film was explicitly based on the book. As such I find the claim, at the moment, to not be credible. If the version of Keep Watching the Skies you are using has this in, please take a photo and share it with us. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi - sorry for the late reply. I don't have a copy of the book, as I took the source featured in both the Horror Express and The Thing From Another World at face value. However, I will have a look out for any other sources that clearly mention if Horror Express was derived from Who Goes There?. PatTheMoron (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Case for the inclusion of 'Among Us' as a cultural impact mention.

This game has had a significant cultural presence, and it has been noted that Carpenter's film plays a large influence in the structure and premise of the game. As a piece of pop culture, Among Us has been incredibly popular and well known - perhaps more so than 'The Thing' ever has, in the mainstream - so much like the mention of 'The Hateful Eight's similarities to The Thing, it seems rather crucial that such a massive cultural item should be mentioned in the film's cultural impact.

Got some front to say that a game released this year has had more impact than a film that has influenced nearly 40 years of cinema and games, apparently including the one you're talking about. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a pretty extreme claim (i.e., Among Us has a greater cultural presence and impact than The Thing does); I'm also less than convinced that meme creation is a sign of a "significant cultural presence" than that of a passing fad. That said, there's no justification here for it having a separate paragraph of its own rather than simply being mentioned alongside other video games in the first paragraph. Grandpallama (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Can we get some sources for the claim that The Thing was an influence upon Among Us? DonIago (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

DonIago, in fairness, the IP provided a RS in the reverted edit. I don't object to a mention of the game alongside the other videogames, but it's unclear as to why it deserves such prominence. Grandpallama (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, based on the OP it wasn't clear to me that a source had been provided. I agree that without more evidence that Among Us is an especially notable instance of The Thing having an impact on a subsequent work...and I'm not sure we have enough distance from the former to establish what kind of legacy it may have...it seems more appropriate to include this mention with the other video games rather than giving it a standalone paragraph. DonIago (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Nihilistic tone

The phrase "an audience living through a recession, diametrically opposed to The Thing's nihilistic tone" seems to me entirely meaningless. Is the person who wrote this trying to say that the audience disliked it because they were living through a recession? If so, then the language can be easily improved here.

86.238.240.24 (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

This is probably a reference to the John Carpenter quote later on in the article: "...audiences rejected The Thing for its nihilistic, depressing viewpoint at a time when the United States was in the midst of a recession." You could probably change the line to reflect that it's a quote from Carpenter. ― TaltosKieronTalk 14:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. That's the obvious source, of which the text is already a close paraphrase. I don't find there to be anything meaningless bout it, though; the meaning is pretty clear. Grandpallama (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure what is confusing about it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thematic analysis discussion

For Darkwarriorblake who asked about the quotes I used - it's from this section in the Vice article by Patrick Marlborough that was already featured in the article:
"The Thing is not a promotion or projection of manliness, so much as it's a scathing examination of it. It is about male frailty. In a film where intimacy, confession, and empathy are the only ways to out the monster, we (at first) find our characters trapped in their pride and stunted emotional growth, literally unable to confront what is at hand for fear of embarrassment or exposure. The Thing is the collapse of masculine spaces by way of masculinity's falseness."
So I clarified the language from it being a critical take on masculinity to it being what he said, a "scathing examination" of manliness, which seems like a small difference but I want to make sure he's being cited accurately rather than us Wikipedia editors interpreting what he said with a related word that isn't completely synonymous. Thanks for asking! Aryncoltzien (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I was asking about the full chunk of text removed that was sourced to Strange Horizons. Similarly, the first edit removed a piece about Lancaster saying it was a quote when it was not, but the quote IN the article says the same thing without being a copyvio. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Patrick Marlborough / Noah Berlatsky Quotes Irrelevant?

Not sure if his quotes are entirely necessary to this wiki page since his "analysis" is completely countered and overturned 2 paragraphs later by Orrin Grey who summarizes, as stated in the movie itself, that the Thing "imitates an individual perfectly with memories and behaviors." Patrick's quote stating "Identifying the Thing requires intimacy, confession, and empathy to out the creature," is just an objectively wrong misreading of The Thing and could mislead viewers of this wiki page, as the most significant plot point in the movie is that only a blood test could show who was really The Thing. In that same paragraph mentioning Orrin Grey, it also references the potential HIV/homosexual themes, so that also makes Noah's/Patrick's paragraph redundant. The paragraph as a whole seems to include quotes that don't offer any real insight into the film other than the general personal opinions of the writers and not the intent nor design of the film as a whole. Just as another example to further prove this point, it also mentions how there's "penetration" and "tentacles" as justification for a "homosexual reading of the monster", disregarding the various clearly vaginal design, such as Palmer's head splitting open vertically, and the flower-like appendage that blossoms from the dog Thing. Overall the paragraph in question reeks of irrelevancy and significant bias. Crun31 (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a section about how people interpret the film, they're not all going to see it the same way. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Your comment seems to purposely avoid defending the redundancy mentioned, so am I to assume I'm correct about that? Secondly, not all interpretations should be treated as equal, or need to be given a platform.Crun31 (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

You know what they say about assuming. I believe all the content is relevant as it is. You're dismissing the homosexual reading because you personally interpret the alien design as akin to a vagina? It's interpretations from reliable sources, it's going to vary based on the author and it will demonstrate a bias if it isn't in harmony with what you personally believe. But the sources are reliable and the content similarly so. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I stated in the post that the homosexual reading was already mentioned, hence the redundancy. You would know this if you actually read my post.Crun31 (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

not all interpretations should be treated as equal, or need to be given a platform Agreed, which is why the sourced interpretations from respected publications merit inclusion, while hot-take original analyses on the article talkpage don't merit, well, inclusion or the removal of the sourced interpretations. Grandpallama (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Appeal to authority is not an argument, nor a counter to my claim. You should also take some time to read what Wikipedia is about, as it is communally edited and cited, including on the talk page, which is why it exists. You sound like a new user. Here, familiarize yourself with the basics; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Editing - The "respectedness" of a publication is irrelevant as to the content that it publishes. Perhaps you should take some more journalism and publishing classes at your local community college? Whatever the discontent, I'm removing the section for its redundancy and will continue to do so until I see a proper counter-argument for leaving it in. Its misogyny, redundancy, and counter-information to the actual plot of the film is irrelevant to the discussion. The "level of respectedness" does not change any of that, nor do any other appeals to authority. Crun31 (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you haven't read it, it's more misandrist if anything, it's about men being emotionally closed off, the only mention of women is their absence. These are reliable sources of professionals giving their analysis of the film, things being contradictory doesn't matter, it's not giving a definitive interpretation of the film it is giving interpretationS of the film from reliable sources. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Them being professionals is irrelevant since they are not reliably interpreting what actually happens in the films and inventing scenarios that don't exist. The quote by Patrick Marlborough states that the "Thing requires intimacy, confession, and empathy" in order to discover it, which is completely and verifiably false. The only way in the film they were able to discover it was through a blood test because, as stated in the film, it creates an absolutely perfect imitation. The "Thematic Analysis" section is filled with very clear ideological preconceived notions and should either be noted as such within, or have the texts removed.Crun31 (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The section is called "thematic analysis" not "what the film is about," it's a section for professional analysis of aspects of the film. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

"The most hated movie of all time"

I've been doing some research on this and I'm not sure the claim of the Cinefantastique cover (in the Reception section) is accurate. I see there's a link to a Den of Geek article but I can't find anything about the original magazine article. I downloaded a PDF of the issue of the magazine with the special effects artist on the cover but it was basically a 27 page article talking about how great the effects were. I don't see any other issues that seem to fit this bill. I'm really new at all this and I didn't want to delete the whole chunk just in case I'm wrong. Crowslang (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Crowslang. The article makes it seem like Cinefantastique was part of the negative reception, but the review in the Vol 11 No. 4 issue is quite positive, and the Vol 13 No. 2-3 double issue says no such thing on the cover. (Won't link due to copyvio, but Google should find an archive.org set pretty easily.) Sounds like somebody got their wires crossed - which frankly calls into question that Ryan Lambie source as a whole, yet it seems disturbingly frequently cited. The introduction on page 3 says, in reference to the poor box office, that:

The national critics had a field day. Audiences stayed away in droves. Even the makeup union complained loudly. In all, it may be the most unloved monster in movie history. But it's also the most incredible display of special effects makeup in at least a decade—a tour de force by 24-year-old Rob Boltin. (p.3)

I think the "most unloved monster" is the germ from which this idea grew, but that's very different from "most hated movie". From within the actual article:

THE THING has emerged as one of the most imporant horror films in years. Although the film failed to perform at the box office, and the visceral visuals raised the ire of most critics, the significance of Rob Boltin's stunning achievements may be inestimable. For better or worse—and there is plenty of ammunition on both counts—THE THING is something of a touchstone, a reference point against which all other horror films (and movie monsters) must henceforth be judged. (p.49)

Sadly, the Thing may be the most unloved movie monster in history. The total cost of THE THING was $15 million. plus advertising, prints and interest... Of course, the savage critical reaction to the film didn’t help much, either. THE THING seems to have been particularly vilified and misunderstood... In essence, Carpenter may have been skewered by his own success. (p. 74)

Basically, Cinefantastique actually seems like a really good source on contemporary reactions (especially the 1982 issue), but it's a very positive one, considering it "sad" that The Thing had a negative reaction from critics. It certainly doesn't seem to indicate that the film was the "most hated", although I suppose it's possible I missed it somewhere. @Darkwarriorblake:, any thoughts? SnowFire (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I did look at this in July and forgot about it. I don't think it brings Lambie in general into question, this seems like something that has been misrepresented over time because it's not the first time I've heard about it being called the most hated film, and re-reading it, it doesn't say it said that ON the cover, just that it printed an issue with The Thing on its cover, and asked "X". I've corrected that issue in the article at least. I can have a read through the magazine later but at the moment I'm too busy as it seems like a pretty length segment in the November-December 1982 issue. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 12:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I think unfortunately this "quote" had been on here for long enough that people were using this as a source for it. When I was looking for the original quote I found a ton of low-effort articles mentioning it presumably sourced from the wiki article Crowslang (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Description of plot reverted without explanation or discussion

Darkwarriorblake What I particularly dislike about the editing behavior of some editors on WP is when they link to a WP page of rules telling me I did not follow those rules... here they are (with link)... and it turns out that I did but THEY did not.

That was the case here. I clearly explained my edit in my edit summary ("That was totally incomprehensible. I just watched the film and clarified it.") Then you reverted w/o an edit summary at all - which violates the rules. Only when I restored my improvement - and you reverted it a second time - did you provide any explanation, though still not in Talk, saying in the edit summary "That's not how it works, if you make a change and it's undone it's WP: BRD which means you take it to the talk page."

So for clarification of the rules on this matter here is the Revert part: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and only if you cannot immediately refine it. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one." (Emphasis mine.)

You reverted the first time w/o explanation. So tell me, who didn't follow the rules WP: BRD you linked at me?

So now let's discuss details as to why my improvement is "needlessly wordy", because I disagree of course. I made the edit as I was watching the film. I went to the WP page to see what the plot said, and realized I would have been unable to understand what had actually transpired in that first scene if I hadn't just watched it. In short, I think the original description was needlessly curt and confusing. I think adding a few words makes it much clearer as to what transpired in this scene (and it was a pivotal one - esp if one had just watched the prequel film as I had). Specifically, reading "The staff observes as... inadvertently blows up the helicopter... with a stray grenade" in the original plot description leaves the reader with unnecessary questions (why were there grenades on a helicopter at all, and why would one go off inadvertently?) My change ("...firing at the dog and dropping grenades without success. The helicopter lands and the researchers witness one of the two occupants accidentally blow up the helicopter and himself with a grenade.") answers those questions I thought pretty succinctly. They were attempting to kill the dog with grenades they had thrown from the chopper while chasing it!) I'm open to compromise of course, but let's discuss it here. Rp2006 (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Noone is questioning why there are grenades and your changes were not an improvement. I didn't leave an edit summary the first time because I don't have time to respond to everyone making an edit. He could have had grenades on his belt, it doesn't matter, we don't have to say "And then he shot the man with a gun he got from the gun shop," it doesn't matter where he got the gun. I disagree with your changes and think they were not an improvement. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 10:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

First... you offered no apology for the BS of pointing me to a rule you ignored and I complied with. Saying you don't have time to follow rules is no excuse. AND, so nice that you are psychic and can decree that "Noone [who ever read the original text] is questioning" I for one certainly did, which is why I took the effort to make the change to make it clearer for others... Is this a case of refusing to allow improvements because you wrote it? Your behavior here is exactly what drives away editors from trying to improve Wikipedia. Do any other editor have an opinion on this? Rp2006 (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Stumbled onto this conversation while reverting a vandal on the page and for whatever it's worth, I agree that the suggested edit is really wordy; I would have reverted it, too, for unnecessary specifics. More to the point, it's very awkward and clunky. IMO it introduced more confusion by making a long, wandering sentence; I had to read it twice to make sure I was following it correctly. And I've seen this movie so many times I practically have it memorized. Our plot sections are not supposed to be a scene by scene breakdown, nor are they supposed to duplicate, in text, the experience of watching the film. They are there to support the real world information in the rest of the article. Millahnna (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The Thing (Character)

Honestly, I'm amazed that nobody's thought to make a character page for the actual creature yet.

(Tyrian Watts (talk) 09:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC))

Thematic Analysis - Removed Marlborough Statements

I removed Patrick Marlborough's statements. They're from VICE media, which does not have consensus either way validating them as a reliable source. It also seems to include agenda driven remarks which disregard the plot and story directly. Due to the lack of reliability, its contrary, misleading interpretations, and lack of significance, I think it should be left out. If someone has another gay reading of it from a reliable source, I more than welcome them to add it.VirtualRebound22 (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Strange you consider commentary around openness between men to be a "gay reading", but Vice is a reliable source unless you can prove otherwise and it is the author's analysis of the film's content. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Sequels section expanded

As was stated the page Who Goes There? according to these two sources John Carpenter may be involved in a sequel to this film. So should that be included in the sequels section? 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

You mean one source, which looks dubious and states that Carpenter said "I don’t know if there will be, there may be a Thing 2."? Both are the same link. ภץאคгöร 20:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I thought I copied the other one it’s this here sorry. 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Even with the second source and following the first source through to it's origin at The Hollywood Reporter, it's basically just rumor and hearsay and Wikipedia is not a news site. Unless there are serious talks reported this doesn't seem something worth mentioning, it's been four years since they said they were remaking The Thing based on Who Goes There? and there hasn't been an update since. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Then why do I even bother with this kind of stuff. Since it means absolutely nothing. 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it means nothing, it's just not a very detailed piece of news at the moment in time. If we mention every time someone discusses a Thing sequel then it's going to be a long section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Reception section is too negative?

This is such a bizarre article. What century was it written in? Nowadays The Thing is considered a classic horror movie. You can consistently find it on best-horror-movie lists. Here it's #13 at IGN. It has an 8.2/10 on IMDB. Anyway, I'm just wondering about the awkwardness of this article. The Reception section should be more of a redemption story. Right now it doesn't seem entirely accurate, at least not 2023. 98.156.185.48 (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

It's literally discussed in Legacy. DonQuixote (talk) 04:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The convention in film articles is that 'Reception' documents the reception of the film at the time of release, when that differs substantially from later views. This is valuable for putting the film in historic context. Walkersam (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Filming locations

My recent edit changing the filming location from "in Juneau" to "near Juneau" was reverted by @Darkwarriorblake with the comment "Sourced", but it seems the sources were not checked. One cite on this passage (GamesRadar+ 2008) claims shooting was "above Juno[sic]," and the other (Freer 2016) does not mention Juneau or shooting locations at all, and neither are particularly high quality.

I changed the language because sources elsewhere on the page explicitly identify the primary shooting location as being in Alaska, but nearer to Stewart, BC. After reviewing all the relevant cites in greater depth these are what I find.

GamesRadar+ 2008 quotes Carpenter with "We shot in Alaska above Juno in the Alaskan ice fields. Then we came back here to Los Angeles, then we went back up to British Columbia – so it was quite a shoot."

Hemphill 2017 quotes Cundey: "A scout found a place outside of Stewart, British Columbia, which was the last ice-free port up the coast of Canada."

Abrams 2016: "Masur: We stayed at a town called Stewart in British Columbia. We weirdly had to drive from British Columbia through Alaska, and then through Alaska to get to the set." ... "David: It took about an hour and a half to drive up the mountain to the set."

Cohen 2011b appears to be a primary source from producer Stuart Cohen: "John made the decision to cast Kurt on the day we left to film the initial ice field sequences above Juneau in early June, 1981. There he also shot the footage of Mac flying to the Norwegian Camp and the flying saucer ( the helicopter pilot filling in )[...]"

Beresford 2017: "Once the cast was assembled, they headed off to the set in British Columbia. After flying from Los Angeles to Vancouver and then on to Prince Rupert in British Columbia, bad weather forced the cast to take a six-hour bus ride for the final leg of the trip."

Corrigan 2017: not mentioned.

Freer 2016: not mentioned.

Swires 1982b: dead link.

It seems clear from the sources which quote cast and crew that the primary on-location shoot was some distance into Alaska from Stewart, BC. The 27-mile (43 km) figure may be from the dead Swires 1982b, but it does generally jive with the "hour and a half drive" assuming it was through difficult conditions.

Cohen and Carpenter's quotes seem also to support that some second unit footage was shot nearer to Juneau, but I can't see any reason why anything would be shot *in* Juneau.

My initial edits were based on a generous assumption that the language citing Juneau was referring in a general sense to the primary location, which you could argue is in the 'Juneau area,' but I see now that it was more likely confusion due to the fact that some footage does seem to have been shot nearer to Juneau. The text claiming principal photography took place in Juneau, however, is simply wrong, as this was not principal photography, and was not *in* the city of Juneau.

Unless someone can point to some contradicting sources I missed, I will correct all these passages and clean up the cites (Corrigan 2017 in particular seems to be failing verification everywhere it is used, and I suspect was SEO spam). I'll leave the distance figure for now and flag the Swires cite in hopes that someone else can locate a copy to verify against. Walkersam (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Reference problem

Reference no. 37 is a link that doesn't give a viable source 46.196.76.85 (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)