Talk:The Thing (film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Can someone who knows about Battlenet and games and stuff like that (I know zero about video games) read the last paragraph on this article? It's about a movie, so I don't know if it belongs here. It certainly needs to be NPOVed ("one of the funnest use map settings map ever" --- I can get rid of "funnest" but I have no idea what a "map setting map" is. Is that a typo?) Ensiform 23:40, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Done now Ensiform 03:01, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Wasn't there also a comic book about The Thing?
Yes. Dark Horse Comics released a comic book set after the movie.
- Since it's mentioned in the Sequel section that the Dark Horse comic is the same direction Carpenter would have set his sequel in, perhaps a line or two about the plot of the comic would be appropriate. CFLeon 22:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] AIDS reference
People were worried about AIDS in 1982? I doubt it. This text should probably be removed. Uucp 17:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Not impossible though. See AIDS origin. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 17:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mini-series
The article mentions that a mini-series was announced in 2004 and says to search the Internet Movie Database for details. I've looked but I cant find any info about a mini-series based on The Thing at imdb.com or anywhere else. Does anyone else have any info about it? DarthJesus 08:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hostages in Iran?
Why is that mentioned at all? Those hostages were released following the inaguration of of President Ronald Wilson Reagan in 1980. This movie was released in 1982.
-
- Actually, it was January, 1981. Reagan was elected in '80.Tommyt 17:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The game is the official sequel to the movie
Is it? I always thought it was more of a spin-off. Geoff B 01:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Apparently. You do find the corpse of Childs frozen to the beam; exactly where he was in the end of the movie.
[edit] Norwegian?
What the 'Norwegian' man shouts at the others during the opening incident with the Husky is certainly not the Norwegian language. As an aside, I have the special edition of the movie with commentary from both Carpenter and Kurt Russel, and I believe Carpenter did actually mention that it was an ad-libbed made-up language the actor used for the scene.
Ironically though, the helicopter marked with 'Norge' is indeed the Norwegian word for 'Norway'. 217.136.63.226 08:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Guh. Should have read all the way through the article to the Trivia section before commenting. My bad folks. 217.136.63.226 08:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
MP5? Anyone else thing that was a Heckler & Koch G3 with a scope the Norwegian was shooting?
Definitely not MP5. I am watching the film now (freezing frames), and it appears to be a G3 as the commenter suggests above.
[edit] Removing the "Dog-Thing escapes thru roof" part of plot
I'm changing the plot outline here because the writer has subscribed to the common, although mistaken, belief that part of the Dog-Thing escaped from the kennel through the ceiling. It's a common mistake; I used to think it myself. But after repeated viewings on widescreen, it's obvious that is NOT what happens. I've borrowed Outpost 31's response to this common question since it answers all this in detail:
Q: Did the dog-Thing escape through the roof?
A: The answer is an unequivocal, "No." Because of fullscreen versions of The Thing from the 80s and early 90s, it was a common misconception that at least one Thing had escaped from the kennel. But there are multiple reasons that conclusively disprove this notion.
We see the clawed hands break through the rafters and pull the dog-Thing up off the floor. The creature subsequently lodges itself into the upper right-hand corner of the cage. (You can even see the cage's corner when the "flesh flower" attacks Childs.) When he enters the cage, Childs casts his eyes upwards at the Thing above. Likewise, judging from the first-person perspective used, the "flesh flower" that attacks Childs does so from above. When Childs activates the flamethrower, he aims it upwards. Finally, the flaming mass is seen falling to the floor. (One really needs a widescreen version of the film to see this.)
All this points to the conclusion that the Thing which Childs hit with the flamethrower was located at the ceiling of the cage. In other words, the Thing which broke into the ceiling had not left the cage but was instead fried by Childs. This goes a long way towards explaining why the men aren't the least bit concerned about a Thing being on the loose. Woodson 20:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV and citing sources!
I have made edits to this article as I believe parts of the article as they were on the 5th of August 2006 were no NPOV. The article also lacks citations!
"film was lambasted by critics for its special make-up effects, created by Rob Bottin, which were seen as excessively bloody and repulsive."
No citation of source. I have added a citation.
"The film fared poorly at the box office, mainly due to the release of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial"
There is no proof of this. I have changed it to read: "fared poorly at the box office, possibly due to the release of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial"
I have also added to this "due to the release of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial"... "as speculated by Carpenter himself and writers that have written about him, such as Michelle Le Blanc and Colin Odell. Carpenter speculated himself that the audience for horror movies had shrunk when questioned about the failure of The Thing in the book Prince of Darkness."
I think this is a bit messy, maybe we should rewrite this part.
"Yet its reputation improved in the late nineties through home video releases. It is now regarded by the majority of Carpenter's admirers as one of his finest films. A collector's edition DVD was released in 1999."
Where is the proof of it's improved reputation?
"regarded by the majority of Carpenter's admirers as one of his finest films"
I've deleted this line as i find it is perhaps obsolete, unless somone wants to find sources and prove to some degree that the writers of those sources are Carpenter admirers!
Instead I have given an example of the popularity of the film, citing the IMDB Top 250.
"This film is the first installment in Carpenter's 'Apocalypse Trilogy', followed by 1987's Prince of Darkness and 1995's In the Mouth of Madness."
Is it? Is it really a trilogy? Is this information factual? Does it belong in an encyclopedia!?
"The Thing was the fifth film shot with Dean Cundey as his Director of Photography (following Halloween, The Fog, Escape From New York and Halloween II. Cundey and Carpenter re-teamed one more time in 1986 with Big Trouble in Little China)—all of these films share a unique camera style and palette and it is, coincidently, these films that are acknowledged by fans to be amongst Carpenters career highlights."
I've changed "fifth" to "fourth" as Carpenter only officially produced "Halloween II". The sentances about 'Big Touble in Little China' I find irrelevant and opinion and have therefore deleted them!
"Just as the 1951 film had taken advantage of the national mood to enhance its terror effect, this film did likewise. The early 1980s were a period of low public morale in American history; the nation was experiencing poor economic conditions and high unemployment. For many, the United States was appearing more and more isolated and vulnerable to outside attack, much like the crew of the Antarctic outpost in the film."
I've deleted this. It's a lot of opinion and speculation. It should not appear in the article, it belongs in a film review or academic discourse on the film etc.
I want to do more but I'm off to work soon, so, discuss...
- Carpenter himself mentions his Apocalypse Trilogy many, many times, in interviews and probably most prominently in DVD commentaries for those films. Geoff B 18:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed Merge
I would recommend keeping these articles separate so as not to make it overlong. Mallanox 23:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose merge I agree with Mallanox. The article is a good length as it is, and the video game is a good length as well; adding them together will just create an article of prodigious length. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 23:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. There is no need at all to merge the two articles. Geoff B 23:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Plot section/trivia
This plot is really long. We need to work on shortening it. Also, I moved/removed all the trivia in line with the wikipedia guideline. Let's keep an eye on any information that gets added. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 00:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Definitely. We can really get it down by changing it into an actual synopsis rather than a blow-by-blow account of what happens.Geoff B 02:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
What's the best way to go about it, do you think? Start from scratch or just remove from what's there? I'll put a WIP tag on it. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 03:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- When I and a few other editors did The Descent's plot section, which was in a similar state, we started from scratch. It's a bit of a bugger to start with, but much easier once you get past that initial point. Any other opinions? Geoff B 03:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Did you make a temporary page at which to write it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zepheus (talk • contribs).
- Nope, but that might be a good idea. Geoff B 10 October 2006 (UTC)