The 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.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 25, 2022.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 1, 2018 Good article nominee Listed July 31, 2018 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This  level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Guild of Copy Editors This 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 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). United States: Cinema Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as High-importance). Library of Congress Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress 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.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

you have Dr. Cooper's name wrong, it's not "Dr. Copper".

please correct this. 2601:245:8104:7EF0:74B3:8B77:5715:924B (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is Dr Copper. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody who saw the film in the 1980s or the 1990s ever saw it at home in this high quality, widescreen aspect ratio. It's a completely different film and it shows that Carpenter was decades ahead of his time. There's a few details this FA-quality article misses or glosses over:

1. In an interview, Carpenter emphasizes the "uncertainty" of the ending (its defining characteristic) as the reason it failed at the box office,[1] and there's a lot of truth to this, but there's nothing in the article about this. The fact remains, US film audiences in 1982 were fairly unsophisticated (they had just voted for Ronald Reagan in a landslide, enough said) and went to films to have their hands held and wanted to be told what happened. They did not want to use their brains or to view the paranoia in their own hearts and minds like a mirror being held up.
2. The criticism of the film's pacing and continuity by Spencer seems off, but the claim that it was "devoid of warmth or humanity" is essentially correct (for various reasons I won't go into here). One of the interesting things about the pacing is that US audiences were not really used to this type of film, yet it is this kind of pacing today, in 2025, that dominates the majority of action films. Again, Carpenter was many years ahead of his time, and audiences were not yet ready for what he was doing.
3. In the home media section, it is said in passing that Sidney Sheinberg "edited a version of the film for network television broadcast, which added narration and a different ending, where the Thing imitates a dog and escapes the ruined camp." This was the version I grew up with, and quite frankly, it was horrible. What confuses me here is reading it was made for "network television". I don't see that in the sources, and while my memory is bad, I recall watching this version on subscription cable television, not network TV.

Thanks for the article. Viriditas (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the future, as swapping the pilot and passenger is a popular hobby among readers... In the opening sequence, the Norwegian helicopter contains two different men:

• Pilot (left side (looking at the helicopter)): Wearing a pilot's face mask and goggles. When the helicopter lands, he exits on the left and takes the rifle. He does not have binoculars around his neck.
• Passenger/sniper (right side): Seen leaning out of the helicopter during the chase and identifiable by the binoculars around his neck. After landing, he retrieves grenades and accidentally blows himself up.

The later presence of the rifle does not mean the pilot and the passenger are the same person, the pilot simply has or takes the gun after landing. The man who detonates the grenade is the passenger with binoculars, not the pilot. Please read before making this change going forward. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]