Talk:The Thing (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Thing (film) article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] Game

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 maps" is. Is that a typo?) Ensiform 23:40, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Done now Ensiform 03:01, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comic

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)
As it ran to 3 mini-series and carried the story on I think it is worth an entry so I red linked it: The Thing from Another World. (Emperor 01:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

[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)
  Stem cell research and kowledge is not that new.  In the early "stone age" of the
studies this may have been and may still be a concern.  You know the whole plot of the
movie "The Thing".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.129.123 (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Although there was at the time not a great deal known about AIDS, there was in '82 a general concern that a "new" epidemic was spreading. (Even if, in retrospect, most everyone was naive to just how fast and far it would spread). See, for example, [1] To the extent that the characters in The Thing are portrayed as reacting to a poorly understood threat, and carried a sense of "anyone of us could be infected," the connection to AIDS is probably no exageration. While in 1982, one's risk at contracting AIDS was quite low, the media gave a clear impression that contracting it was tantamount to a death sentence. Another useful source of this historical perspective is at [2] C d h (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2008 (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.

It is Norwegian (Bokmål-close IIRC) and it does look like a G3 of some sort, but not the kind used by the Norwegian military. -- Nidator 21:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[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)


I guess this isn't exactly citing sources, but I thought this page had too many headings anyway. What is the deal with listing it on the bottom as a "Lovecraftian movie"? It has nothing to do with Lovecraft. All of the other movies in the category were (more or less) based on Lovecraft stories, whereas this one was not. Certainly if Lovecraft was alive he would probably be a fan of the movie, and probably John W. Campbell, Jr. was influenced by Lovecraft, but that doesn't make this anymore Lovecraftian than, say, In the Mouth of Madness (which I think is more overtly influenced by Lovecraft: the movie being a pun on a Lovecraft story, in fact), or even Prince of Darkness. I am going to remove it and if someone wants to put it back, fine. But it doesn't belong in a category of "Lovecraftian" just as Stephen King movies don't belong in the category, despite him also being a professed fan of Lovecraft. 75.166.34.176 03:37, 28 September 2007 (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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zepheus (talk • contribs)

Nope, but that might be a good idea. Geoff B 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree the plot section is long, however, it's one of the most comprehensive film plot description on wikipedia (that I know of). Seems a shame to delete parts of it. Mainly because I also think the plot outline is well written eventhough it's on the long side. Pokerface 28 January 2007

On the long side is putting it lightly. The plot section, AFAIK, is meant to be about 400-600 words (longer if the plot is very complicated, which is not the case here), and this looks to be about 3,000. I think it's long past the time it was changed, and I'll see if I can figure out something. Geoff B 22:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cold War Metaphor

In a local cable TV channel (Canal 13 Cable), circa 4 years ago I saw an interview of Carpenter asked about the relation between "Alien" and "The Thing", I added this to "Critical reception and themes":

Also, in an interview, Carpenter said that the film was a metaphor of the cold war paranoic feelings between americans, "...is my neighbor a communist?".

I been looking for the interview (video or transcript) or another source some hours.

Can I re-add this? Or with an explanation of it was in a chilean channel (circa 2002) and in a show just of "intellectual interviews".

Sorry for my poor english. --Peewack 07:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You could re-add it, but if it's not verifiable then someone will end up removing it again. Do you have any sort of reference for it at all? Geoff B 08:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


The plot summary is way too freaking long. It's very unnecessarily detailed. Somebody pare it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.111.63.98 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Trivia

An anonymous user added an extreme amount of trivia, which I removed per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. Some of it looks useful but need citations. Note: I have edited the contents somewhat and removed MANY entries. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 02:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Premiered on June 11th, 1982 at the Alfred Hitchcock Theatre in L.A. for a special cast and crew screening.
  • Opened on June 25th, 1982 (the same night as Blade Runner) at a total cost of $15 million plus advertising and prints. $1.5 million alone was spent on the special effects. Grossed $13.8 million in the first 3 weeks at the box office and then dropped out of sight.
  • Carpenter and crew adamantly stressed they were NOT re-making Howard Hawks 1951 "The Thing" but making a film version of the 1938 original novella "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell. To promote this they had the short story printed up in a re-release booklet complete with movie artwork.
  • During promotional & press campaigns for the film Rob Bottin wore a t-shirt which read: "I Love E.T."
  • Christian Nyby, director of the original 1951 The Thing said after first viewing Carpenter's version, "If you want blood, go to the slaughterhouse. All in all, it's a terrific commercial for J&B Scotch."
  • The film was originally banned upon release in Finland.
  • Certain home video releases of the film had copyright problems with Stevie Wonder's "Superstitious". The song was dubbed over with "One Chain Don't Make No Prison" by The Four Tops. On the DVD it is back to Stevie Wonder's "Superstitious".
  • The Norwegian dog was played by a half-dog, half-wolf hybrid named 'Jed'. He acted all his parts eerily well and was extremely quiet and well-behaved on the set.
  • Stan Winston was called in to do the effects for the Dog-Thing. He agreed to take on the task but did not want screen credit to take away from Rob Bottin's show. Nevertheless he is recognized in the end credits: "A Special Thanks to Stan Winston."
  • To match the Antarctic atmosphere on the Los Angeles soundstages for interior scenes the sets were refrigerated down to 40 F while it hovered around 90 F outside.
  • Filming The Thing took 57 weeks to complete. Rob Bottin worked 7 days a week for the entire duration, often sleeping at the Studio and living off of pop and candy bars. After the conclusion of filming Rob had to check himself into the hospital to recover from serious stress and fatigue.
  • The prime-time television CBS airing of The Thing was quite a different version, having most of the gore edited out and the profanity dubbed over. Interestingly though extra narration was added to the opening scenes of the film introducing and describing the characters at the camp. (Norris has his heart condition pointed out here as well.) The scene with Blair at his computer has an extra voice narration by Wilford Brimley reading the wording on his screen. Also when Blair attacks Garry he repeats one of his lines from his rant in the radio room. Depending on when you believe Blair was taken over, before or after his outburst, this makes no sense.
Let's keep (but not in a seperate section):
  • same night as Bladerunner - this (and ET) could help explain the film's poor ticket sales.
  • Carpenter's basing the film on the original short story. This is relevant.
  • Voiceover in some versions explaining Norris's heart condition.
The rest is for fans only, and they probably have the information aleady. Any other views? Totnesmartin 21:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
We can keep the trivia we feel is notable while still deleting the trivia section. The info can be turned into prose and put into Production or Alternate versions/endings or something. Geoff B 03:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Bladerunner done, Original story reference already in the intro. I can't find a convenient spot for Norris's heart. Totnesmartin 14:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
You may want to add it into or create a section about the TV version. It has an additional voiceover about the characters, is cut for violence, and has a different ending IIRC. Geoff B 14:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I think I'm going to have to. Totnesmartin 14:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who's an alien at the end

I haven't seen this film for ages but a channel here in the UK did an evening devoted to the film when I was a kid. I remember that it explained one of the guys at the end was a baddie and it listed two things proving it. I can't remember what the first one was, but the second one was that no steam comes from the guys mouth when he breathes. I think it was Kurt's Russel's character but I can't be sure. Anybody care to check up on this? -SantaHul--81.101.3.9 23:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The steam thing is just the lighting of the scene. That UK showing (the one with the green alien at the end right?) is just opinion, so it should not be included on the wiki. As it stands, we do not know if MacReady or Childs are human or alien; we just know they're there and breathing as the film cuts to credits. Parjay 00:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Personaly I think that neither are the alien. Think about it, there's 4 possible premises:
1 - Neither are things
2 - Both are things
3 - Childs is a thing but not Mcready
4 - Mcready is a thing but not Childs
premise 2 failes because if both are things then there wouldn't be any need for the paranoid conversation.
premise 3 failes because if Childs was a thing he'd have attacked, since Mcready was defenceless and he was armed with a flamethrower.
premise 4 failes because if Mcready were a thing then why would he huddle up next to an armed man? With it's ship destroyed it's only option would be to freeze itself again and wait for a rescue team. 81.131.36.82 23:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I think neither is The Thing. McReady was proven not to be the thing by the flame wire test. He could only have been infected in the final confrontation, which could not have been the case because he destroyed it before he escaped. Childs was also proven not to be the Thing by the test, and if he got infected later, he would have probably wanted to be frozen and discovered later, and wouldnt have come back to the base. EgraS (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Narrator

I'm currently watching the movie on TNT and there's a narrator. He's told the audience the setting, introduced all the characters and said their backstory. Can anyone find who did it or why it's in this version but not in others (like my DVD)?

That's the TV version with some edits that Carpenter has nothing to do with. See the website outpost31.com for more info. Parjay 10:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Even if Carpenter doesn't like it, it still exists, in an official-enough version to be broadcast. It should go in. Totnesmartin 17:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Who said it shouldn't? The guy was asking what it WAS. Parjay 17:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegian

Is that bit of "Norwegian" a few minutes in real Norwegian, phonetic Norwgian or an invented language that sounds Norwegian? Totnesmartin 08:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, it's mentioned in the commentary that the dialogue was provided by a Norwegian member of the crew, and was spoken phonetically by an American. Geoff B 09:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, indeed it is. Parjay 15:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Little bit more info: "At the beginning of the film the Norwegian with the rifle is the second unit director and associate producer as well as Kurt Russell's (then) brother-in-law, Larry J. Franco. According to John Carpenter, on the commentary track, Franco is not speaking Norwegian but making up the dialog. "Schmergsdorf" as Carpenter puts it. The subtitles, however, give the impression he is speaking Norwegian. The words spoken are actually understandable for Norwegians. Albeit broken Norwegian, the line goes: "Se til helvete og kom dere vekk. Det er ikke en bikkje, det er en slags ting! Det imiterer en bikkje, det er ikke virkelig! KOM DERE VEKK IDIOTER!!" This translates to: "Get the hell outta there. That's not a dog, it's some sort of thing! It's imitating a dog, it isn't real! GET AWAY YOU IDIOTS!!"" Parjay 16:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot extension

The plot could do with an extention as in comarison to most other articles, its rather short. Stabby Joe 21:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Thing lives on?

Why isn't it mentioned that in the end of the film a dog is seen running off in the snow. This dog appears to be the same dog attacked by the thing suggesting it is the thing and its escaping in the dog's body. This should be part of the list of possibilities of the thing surviving in the film . Can anyone clarify why it isn't? [Marball] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marball (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't know what version of the film that is, but it's not the original version. No dog runs off into the snow at the end on my DVD of The Thing, or any version I have ever seen. An American edited-for-TV version? Geoff B (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
From here [3]

The television broadcast version of The Thing sometimes has an unknown person narrate the beginning of the film. He introduces all of the characters as they appear and gives a brief blurb about their goals/reasons for being there. At the end of the film, the narrator returns once more to deliver a haunting speech, and then a shot of the Huskie running away from the burning base is shown. This version often appears on TNT or TBS. This version also has so much of the gore edited out that originally deleted scenes are used as time fillers to extend existing scenes.

Although I've not seen this version myself. ~ NossB (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, I saw it on the Scifi channel. It was a special though, an entire marathon of John Carpenter films. [Marball] january 24 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.214.14.129 (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This may be beyond the point, but didn't Childs say at the end that Blair was seen escaping into the snowstorm proving that The Thing lives on? EgraS (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

He said he thought he saw Blair, and besides Blair was in the building where Childs was in, killing two of his comrades. April 12 2008 [NickStick]

[edit] Based on old school sci-fi story?

I think I've read a story by one of the old school sci-fi masters, probably Keith Laumer, Murray Leinster or someone who had this story in an anthology.

It's in one of the free library books over at Baen Books.

Shouldn't this be mentioned? 220.227.184.147 (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Scifiguy

The film is based on an old school sci-fi novella, namely John W. Campbell, Jr.'s Who Goes There?. This is mentioned in the article already. - Nreive (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What happens to Clark

Ive read the entire sypnosis and it says absolutely nothing on Clark's fate. Could someone put in Clark's fate if they know it please. --69.124.57.51 (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Added some detail of what happens to Clark. -- Nreive (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

The Thing: Terror Takes Shape should be merged into The Thing (film), possibly after the Reception section. As the talk page states "is this page neccessary? does it really contribute anything that cannot be incorperated into the page 'The Thing'?" Nreive (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A sound idea. Geoff B (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Merge. Nothing ground-breaking there, that can't be covered in a blurb here. Tool2Die4 (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Merge. I'm not really sure why it has its own article in the first place. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 08:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. Merged relevant content into DVD part of Release section. Nreive (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy addition

Do you think it's worth mentioning that Venom: Shiver was most likely inspired by The Thing? The Venom clone was developed in an Tundra environment, it killed the entire facility save for one person in order to lure more hosts, it made its way to the next base by taking over one of the Husky sled dogs and after that began to kill and possesses the people at the new base until only one human remained, using the "Who's infected?" angle to psychologically mess with the protagonists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.125.84 (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)