This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: Canadian / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Horror High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Fiction High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Antarctica Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Antarctica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antarctica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AntarcticaWikipedia:WikiProject AntarcticaTemplate:WikiProject AntarcticaAntarctica Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Animation: Films Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as Low-importance).

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. 86.129.200.222 (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

surprised too how much every1 hated flick at time. oh well. times change.Dreaded hall monitor (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/aug/27/the-thing-john-carpenter Doravale (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)DoravaleDoravale (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Scr★pIron^IV 14:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing on the film's critical reassessment. There should be a section on that added.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes-- not credited as such in this film and clearly indicated as such-- but still very useful information. tahc ^chat 19:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Entertaining perhaps, but I fail to see how it's useful. As they weren't named nor intended to be named within the context of this film, to the best of my knowledge, it seems like off-topic trivia to me. Does it impact the film if they have names? Is there any real-world discussion of their names with regards to this film? DonIago (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Doniago, they are two random Norwegians in the film, the 2011 film provides more context but it doesn't affect this film. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does affect this film. The 2011 film provides an origin and backstory for the Thing, and the two Norwegians. These comments allow those who want to to understand the two films and the transition better.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections says "Sections with lists of miscellaneous information... should be avoided.... Such information is better presented in an organized way."

This is not adding a list or trivia section; it is information presented in an organized way. tahc ^chat 01:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial information, though. Their names have no bearing on the film. Let me ask you this: have any reliable sources discussed the Norwegians in the 2011 film in the context of this film? Something like "it's great that they finally get names and backgrounds!" If you can provide such a source I'd be much more convinced in favor of its inclusion. DonIago (talk) 02:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of this article tells us "The film subsequently spawned... a prequel film with the same title on October 14, 2011." If the 2011 prequel film really has no relation to this film, then it would be off topic to make this reference to it in the lead of this article. If you want to leave the lead as it is then you are inconsistent.

Further more it is silly to expect a citation and discussion of every fact in a article; something like "it's great that they finally tell us the color of the sky!" Do you really think the fact may be questioned by someone? Do you think there may have been a different pair of Norwegians chasing the same thing-dog in a helocopter?

Why do really want to censor such information? Are you hoping to leave some people unclear on the relation between the films? Do you hate the 2011 film and want people to forget it exists? tahc ^chat 03:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm on a systematic quest to eliminate all knowledge of the 2011 film; that's clearly the only reasonable explanation. Sorry, but when you decide to go for hyperbole you really damage your own credibility. If other editors feel the material is appropriate for inclusion I won't object, but until then I see at least myself and DWB don't believe it should be added. Good day. DonIago (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to give even one reason to eliminate this information, and you forsake discussion of all the reasons to include it. Calling it "trivial" information is just a restatement your own view that it is not "useful" information. If there is such a reasonable explanation of your view, then why do you not share it? tahc ^chat 15:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the information is trivial, and at least two editors seem to feel it is, then that is sufficient grounds for exclusion. The information does not exist within the context of this film itself and you've provided no evidence that any sources feel the information which only came to light upon the production of a later film was pertinent to this one.

If you have a problem with this, you're welcome to ask for other editors to speak up at WT:FILM or other pertinent pages, or consider other forms of WP:DR. I can't imagine that I have much else to say about this unless other editors chime in with additional perspectives. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with DWB and DonIago. The two films are not the same, and the names of characters in the prequel do not impact this film in the slightest. To give an example (I know, WP:OTHERSTUFF, but hear me out): just because the vampire in the original Fright Night is named Jerry Dandridge doesn't necessarily mean the character in the remake shares his surname. In this case, the characters are unnamed in this film, and therefore should remain unnamed in this film's article. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 18:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A remake does not try to tell more of the same story. It is a retelling of a story with the same premise. A prequil is telling more of the same story-- and so they can shown the same characters played by different actors. The situation on Fright Night not informative here at all. tahc ^chat 19:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMPLOT says to keep the plot "self-contained" and for the "Cast" section to focus on the actors, with character information going in the plot instead - but we can't mention the characters' prequel-given names if we're keeping the plot self-contained. I think the only place for this is "Sequels and prequel", which already has "The prequel focuses on the Norwegian crew that first discovered the alien" and could certainly be expanded to mention that it has a character overlap. --McGeddon (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be in universe to add information from sources other than this film. I especially don't like the idea of retroactively naming characters that had no name in the original film. However, a note could be stated somewhere that these characters are named and given back stories in the prequel, like McGeddon suggests. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "Sequels and prequel" section already; I don't see a small mention of this being out of place there. Emphasis on "small". DonIago (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.outpost31.com/FanThings/FanEssays/All_About_The_Thing.pdf

This ebook has been on the further reading section for a couple of years, seemingly without swamping the page with unnecessary links to fan sites, etc. Positive reviews exist on the web. Example below. Would like to suggest this is put back.

From reading the Wikipedia page, I came across an ebook written by a guy named Robert Meakin called All About The Thing This ebook is 135 pages of detail and instrospection about the movie. I tell you, I started reading it and then I couldn’t stop. I cued up the movie again and went through the scenes with the ebook open. Pretty riveting stuff! Source: http://hypertransitory.com/blog/2011/10/14/the-thing-about-the-thing/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.78.101 (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything that makes this link a unique resource or recognized authority? It certainly does look comprehensive, but I'm not convinced that it satisfies our guidelines. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's under a folder called FanEssays doesn't instill me with a great deal of confidence that it would constitute a reliable source, sorry to say. DonIago (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting to be a bit much. Now someone removed the Rotten Tomatoes and associated external links in favor of a producer's blog? I reverted this, as we've got a more-or-less standardized set of external links that are described in MOS:FILM, and these sites are part of it. I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but we shouldn't link every tangentially related blog, fansite, and/or analysis, even if the blogs are by written a producer on the film. Unless it has some direct, obvious connection this this specific film, a producer's blog should be linked from his own biographical article, not here. If he's notable, people can follow the link to his article and access the blog from there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t describe the book/extended essay as a recognised authority by any means but I think it may qualify as a unique and interesting resource, partly because it is so comprehensive. 1) It consciously seeks to adopt a close textual reading of the film, instead of being concerned with the production process. 2) It shows that this film has the richness (or is believed to have it by some people) that means someone can write a textual analysis that runs to some 130 pages. 3) It is reasonably written. 4) It demonstrates at great length the ambiguity that seems to contribute to the continued interest in this film. 5) It is almost like a pop version of that Roland Barthes essay S/Z.

I would argue that these factors make it a unique resource. However, I am not a contributor to Wikipedia, so am happy to leave that decision to others.

86.155.78.101 (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Friday, 2nd January, 2015.[reply]

That's a pretty decent argument. I can publicize this discussion to WikiProject Film and see if we can get more input. By the way, anyone who edits an article is a contributor; you shouldn't consider yourself an outsider. Just because you don't have an account doesn't make you any less of an important part of building the encyclopedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A self-published fan essay, however comprehensive, well-written, or unique a resource, is not a reliable source per Wikipedia. It might also not pass per #4 and #11 here. Lets see other editors' input. 86.155, like NinjaRobotPirate said, anyone, registered or not, who edits constructively is a contributor. --Lapadite (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

#4 here says if it's not a reliable source it may be used if it contains information from reliable sources.--Lapadite (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it qualifies as a valuable external link. It is not a reliable source in itself and does not contain information from reliable sources, as far as I can tell. This film is not lacking in academic coverage, though it may not be available electronically. There are items listed at WorldCat.org and Google Scholar. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]