Talk:The Thing (1982 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The director said one of them is "the thing" - but won't say which one. It's probably worth adding in that one of them is infected in the ending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SixMillionStrong (talkcontribs) 14:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Reception reworking[edit]

Does anyone else agree that the "critical reception" section needs some reworking? Right now it sounds way too slanted towards dislike of the film. It's got 80% on RT and that's pretty positive overall, yet the critical reception section is absolutel bloated with negative quotes. (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

surprised too how much every1 hated flick at time. oh well. times change.Dreaded hall monitor (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Largely due to the reception it received upon release, which was negative, so I think it's fair (as far as it goes). It'll be interesting to see what we can turn up from later years. Geoff B (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm adding a comment here - apologies if I get it wrong or if my etiquette is off; it's the first time I've done this.

I researched 1982 reviews of The Thing while writing my BFI Modern Classics book on the film (published in 1997), and found only two which could have been interpreted as positive (my main source was the BFI library in London, which was obviously skewed more towards British reviews than American ones). The reception was not just negative, but overwhelmingly antipathetic - the critics actively loathed and were disgusted by the film, to a degree that I found astonishing at the time of its release; I quote some of them in my book. This "official" view (later echoed in Film guides like Leonard Maltin's, or recycled in TV pages whenever The Thing turned up on TV) remained prevalent throughout most of the 1990s, though by then I'd become aware there were a lot of people like me who loved it. It's one of the reasons I chose to write about the film for the BFI - I felt it was time someone countered the "official" view. (This, of course, was in the days before a critical consensus could easily be challenged on blogs or forums.)

Which is to say - I think it's important to preserve an idea of the initial critical reaction in the Wikipedia entry.

There are a couple of critics' quotes in this piece I wrote for The Guardian in 2009; they're fairly typical: Doravale (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)DoravaleDoravale (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Doravale/Anne Billson here again. I notice The Thing is said to have had a "mixed reception" on its release. This isn't accurate. It had an overwhelmingly negative reaction, as I have detailed in my note above. A "mixed reaction" I take to mean some people liked it, others didn't - which I don't think is applicable in this case. I read the reviews when the film came out in 1982 and again in the mid-1990s when I was researching the book and, believe me, I have rarely encountered a consensus as negative as this one. I realise there has since been a revision of opinion and the film is now popular, and certainly the entry should reflect this, but I think "mixed reception" at the time of its release is misleading. Doravale (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I, for one, appreciate the effort you put into the research. I have no issue with the change, given your expertise on the topic. My only fear is that it is original research and could be construed as a policy violation. Your best bet in this circumstance would be to have the change cited specifically to the book, and done by someone else, as some might see it as a conflict of interest. I will do that for you. ScrpIronIV 14:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Negative CRITICAL reaction - it made $20M in the U.S. alone - so a good many people saw it and everyone I know that saw it at the time (including myself) loved it. (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Thing (1982 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Thing (creature) Article[edit]

Looking at this article and ones related to Campbell's classic short story, I have noticed that there isn't any article on The Thing itself which is very surprising considering there is more than enough information and sources to have an article on it. That being said it would be nice if an article was made on the Thing alien.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

You are referring to Who Goes There? (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes.--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup and Reorganization[edit]

This article is underdeveloped, with many sources either dead links or are unsourced. This article also needs to be reorganized, with several section expanded in more detail. Tha article also needs to have its sources updated since several of these citations are dead links or outdated. The Production section is too short and has several points of information that are missing citations. It should be expanded with unsourced material given proper citations, and if there is enough information, it could be split into several sub-sections such as development, casting, filming, and design. The Reception section should be split into initial response the film received and its later more positive response and reevaluation with more reviews from notable critics added to each respective sub-section. The soundtrack section has several pieces of information that is unsourced and should be given proper citations, and (if possible) reception of the film's soundtrack added to the article. This article has a lot of potential to be a Featured Article but, in order for that to happen, the above listed issues and suggestions need to occur in order for it to meet Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards of a well developed and properly sourced article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but all that will take a lot of work. Well, I guess if we work section-by-section, maybe it won't be so bad. User:NinjaRobotPirate/sandbox has a few links to useful sources on Google Books, and I know some of them discuss The Thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The film did recently get released as an ultimate collector's edition on October 2016 yet it's never mentioned in this article. One of may things that aren't in the article (sighs).--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)