Talk:The Thing (1982 film): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →

HAL333 (talk | contribs)

2 user groups
46,728 edits
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
BRomero47 (talk | contribs)
31 edits
Update Linguistics in the Digital Age assignment details
Tag: dashboard.wikiedu.org [2.2]
archived
Line 34: Line 34:
}}
}}
{{AutoArchivingNotice|age=31|dounreplied=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|small=yes}}
{{AutoArchivingNotice|age=31|dounreplied=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|small=yes}}


== 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 [[User:Paleface Jack/The Thing (extraterrestrial)|here]].--[[User:Paleface Jack|Paleface Jack]] ([[User talk: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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Bosk1935|Bosk1935]] ([[User talk:Bosk1935#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bosk1935|contribs]]) 22:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Ending speculation by HAL333 ==

{{u|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.[[User: Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] / [[User talk: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 [[WP:NOR|original research]] woven into this analysis, such as {{tq|"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. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 04:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
::::Bingo on what NinjaRobot said. We don't post fan theories. [[User:Andrzejbanas|Andrzejbanas]] ([[User talk:Andrzejbanas|talk]]) 04:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
{{od}}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 {{u|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. [[User: Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] / [[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!]] 22:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
::::[[User: Darkwarriorblake|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. [[User:HAL333|<span style="background:red; color:white; padding:2px;">HAL</span>]][[User talk:HAL333|<span style="background:black; color:white; padding:2px;">333</span>]]([[User talk: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. [[User: Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] / [[User talk: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. [[User:HAL333|<span style="background:red; color:white; padding:2px;">HAL</span>]][[User talk:HAL333|<span style="background:black; color:white; padding:2px;">333</span>]] 03:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

::::::Should I remove the Molotov part? [[User:HAL333|<span style="background:red; color:white; padding:2px;">HAL</span>]][[User talk:HAL333|<span style="background:black; color:white; padding:2px;">333</span>]] 04:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


== More on References ==
== More on References ==

Revision as of 17:35, 25 January 2020

Featured articleThe Thing (1982 film) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 1, 2018Good article nomineeListed
July 31, 2018Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Template:Vital article

WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on February 18, 2018.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It was justified, and it seems OK, yes. 46.208.236.175 (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Considering your ban and that are thought to be WP:BKFIP, I doubt. CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

" 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)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F937537861