Talk:The Thing (2011 film)

What are the actors salaries a piece in this film?

It would be nice to know how much the actors are getting in this film besides the production cost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.140.176 (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"possibly following MacReady's brother "?

This passage is far too cryptic. McReady (Kurt Russell in the 1982 film) had a brother? What relevance would he or a brother, for that matter, have to the Norwegian storyline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.8.107 (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Reason for release date postponed

It would be interesting to provide an explanation for Universal delaying te film to October. I read that it may be because of reshoots because of "lack of character development" or that because Universal wanted to save the summer slot for a new Fast And The Furious film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.103.231 (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Plot and general Synopsis

After viewing a test screening i can confirm many events of the film, unfortunately some editors don't want this information published until the film's general release. Here is some main points...

Kate Lloyd is recruited by fellow scientist's Sander and Adam to journey with them to Antartica where a Norwegian team (Thule Base) have unearthed the 'find' of the century. Arriving at McMurdo Base the trio enlist Americans Carter, Jamieson and Griggs to fly them to Thule in a CH-53 Sea Stallion(?) Helo. The scientist's arrive at Thule and visit the site of the UFO before returning and begin investigating a body found near by. During the night the Thing escapes from its 'icy coffin' and disappears, everyone begins a search except for Griggs who is repairing the navigation equipment aboard the CH-53(?) alone. While the search is ongoing, one of the scientist's is attacked by a 'tenticle' in front of his terrified friend and pulled into a building. The witness, who is extremely shocked and is suffering from a heart complaint, needs to be flown back to McMurdo for treatment with the dead body of what they think is the first victim. When the dog handler tries to use the dogs, the dogs escape and attack the Thing who has been hididng in the Snow Cat garage. The Thing then attacks/assimilates the dogs but is interupted by the dog handler who raises the alarm and the Thing is 'killed' with a flame thrower.

The next day on the helo Carter and Jamieson are piloting, with Griggs looking after the sick Norwegian, at the same time Kate discovers a blood stained shower cubicle and races to stop the helo. With the helo lifting high off the ground Carter suddenly see's Kate waving in a distressed manner and descides to return and land. In the back Griggs panics and attacks the Norwegian and when blood and body parts splatter into the dashboard Carter and Jamieson crash the helo into a nearby mountain. Thinking all aboard are dead, the rest go back to examine the corpse of the Thing and the dead sled dogs. The scientist's discover the true nature of the alien being by autopsy. While Sander believes the danger is over, Kate is more and more convinced that a member of the team has been assimilated, and as a woman and the one remaining American she is isolated an disbelieved. Suddenly while alone with the only other female team member, Kate is attacked as the woman reveals herself to be an immitation. Kate manages to escape but the female-Thing manages to attack another team member before being killed. The base then searches for the female-Thing's victim only to find him mid-transformation, after they witness the Thing completing its immitation they kill it. Its only now that the team members begin to suspect each other, paranoia is rife and only those who can prove they're still human are trusted. Then out of the blue Carter and Jamieson turn up, seemingly they have survived the crash.

Eventually the 'unproven' are released only for one of them to transform into the Thing and attacks Adam. While Kate and two Norwegians fight the Thing, its limbs which have detached are attacking Sander and the Englishman, another limb-Thing is pursued by Carter and Jamieson. The Adam/Norwegian-Thing transforms into the famous Split-face monster and is killed when it manages to smash through a wall to the outside and is burned with a flamethrower. The Englishman, cornered by a limb-Thing with no other escape route slashes his throat and wrists with a straight razor. Sander is then attacked before one of the two remaining Norwegians disappears outside, followed by the second. Kate finds Carter and Jamieson who informs them that Sander-Thing has attacked him and has left for the UFO. After begging Carter to kill him, Carter kills his friend and him and Kate go after Sander.

Finding the UFO again, Kate and Carter enter only to be seperated when a floor gives way beneath Carter. Kate carries on and finds the cockpit where Sander-Thing has transformed back into its original form and is piloting the UFO. As the UFO begins to lift off Carter appears and helps Kate kill the Thing with explosives. The pair escape as the UFO explodes and is returned to its icy grave. As the pair return to a Snow Cat, Kate turns on Carter, she has noticed a significant difference in him and while he begs for his life she roasts him with a flame thrower.

After the credits The next day a Norge helo lands at Thule, the pilot notices one of the Norwegians who disappeared the night before. He is chasing a sled dog, shooting him with a rifle. The Norwegian tells the pilot something and they both chase after the dog in the helo.

Of course test screenings can be different to the final release and ive no doubt various events will be moved around for better effect.86.21.136.74 (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Production documents

http://www.visualhollywood.com/movies_2011/thing/notes.pdf

Useful behind-the-scenes info for anyone editing this article Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Day/Night

In the movie it´s getting dark at night. This is obviously an error as polar cycles are either 24 hour darkness or 24 hour daylight. Is this mentionable in the article? -- 141.39.13.5 (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think so. --93.41.184.192 (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Equinoxes exist in Antarctica just as everywhere else in the world, and a day/night cycle is apparent even south of the Antarctic circle. Just north of the circle and there's no 24 hour days or nights, just south of the circle and there's only 24 hour days/nights one day a year at the solstices. Travel further south and the number of eternal nights/days per winter/summer increases. The film states it is winter 1982 - not early-, late- or mid-winter, and as it doesn't give the latitude either it is not possible to deduce anything about the film's scientific consistency by the mere fact that there is a day/night cycle. There are inconsistencies in the film, but they are not within the scope of this article - bloopers, trivia and inconsistencies belong on IMDB, not on wikipedia. FanN | talk | 21:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Link to 1982 film

A while ago, the last few or so words in the plot linked to the 1982 film. I thought this would've helped editors to navigate. Now it's been delinked and a hidden note saying not to add it. Is there a reason for this? PS, forgive me if this is a standard within all film articles. GSorby – Ping 21:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for it. There is a link at the start of the article and there is probably another elsewhere. Films do not typically link to the sequel because it is a sequel and may contain a similar plot. This is not the case of any Die Hards, Harold and Kumars, Terminators, Aliens, Matrix, Lord of the Rings, Nightmare on Elm Street, Saw's or any other films, and there is no need for it to be the case here. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Completely understandable. As long as there's at least one link to the sequel then I think it's fine. Thanks. GSorby – Ping 21:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be linked but it can still be mentioned in the plot to remind people. And all of those films you listed except Lord of the Rings do not follow on from each other literally straight afterwards. Charlr6 (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

What does the time difference between a film have. to. do. with. anything? They are separate films. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

They link directly in 100%. You can watch it back-to-back in one straight go. But with the Die Hards, Harold and Kumars, Terminators, Aliens, Matrix, Nightmare on Elm Street and Saw's they are all individual stories. Lord of the Rings is one big story and can be watched directly back-to-back. If The Thing (1982) was based in Los Angeles and is about a group of scientists studying the Thing after finding it in Antarctica but then it escapes like it would, then there wouldn't need to be any reference because they can be viewed separately if you want to. But as The Thing (2011) is linked directly, 100% into The Thing (1982) its relevant. Even though in '82s Thing they explain parts, it doesn't explain what happened to the Norwegian crew, which is what this film explains. It gives more to the over-all story. If it wasn't supposed to, then this wouldn't have been a direct prequel, or would focus on another crash landing at another part of the planet and then scientists try and study the Thing until it escapes. But both "Things" are literally connected and can be viewed back-to-back, unlike the Die Hards, Harold and Kumars, Terminators, Aliens, Matrix, Nightmare on Elm Street and Saw's. They all have small connections obviously, but nothing big, not a huge connection like '82 does with '11s Thing. So there should be the connection.

If you are so worried about there being too many links or references to the '82 Thing, then one can be moved to the end of the Plot.

It's very easy to understand, and there isn't any rule on Wikipedia saying that it can't be mentioned. And if there was it would have been mentioned already. Charlr6 (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

They could have followed it to a third station for all you know. It doesn't lead into the other film, I didn't see MacReady, Childs or the American base at the end of this film, it stands alone and does not require the 82 film for understanding. If anything it retcons stuff from the 82 film. And Saw has things going on, LITERALLY at the same time as the other films, its infinitely more connected and reliant on the other films than this. It's an unnecessary thing. People not remembering mentions or links earlier in the article is of no concern, that is why we don't link the same thing over and over and over again, it is assumed you have read from the start. 21:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually you are right and wrong about Saw, but only one film happens at the same time as a previous film, and thats the fourth film I believe happening at the exact same time as the third one. But the rest are all sequels. And its mostly flashbacks in other films that would happen at the same time as a previous one.

The ending links directly into the next film, so for the audience to understand whats going to happen next after they chase the dog in the helicopter, they will have to watch the next film. Charlr6 (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

So basically we will do the same thing we always do, which is have an endless discussion that goes nowhere. It's unnecessary, you do not need to see the other film to understand what happens next, it goes off to as uncertain a future as the female Dr. does, if there were no 82 film, the ending would be left open to interpretation entirely, it is not so incoherent it requires another film to fill it out. It's a silly argument, "Well this one takes place in an undisclosed arbitrary time frame near to the other film so we need to add an explanation because people are too stupid to understand that is the end of the plot section." The end of Captain America features a stinger followed by an advert for the Avengers, there is no link leading into the Avengers in the plot section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

That's because The Avengers and Captain America are much more unrelated than The Thing '82 and The Thing '11.

But there is no rule about putting it in for this article. Just a single line. In essays and coursework in college you have to write end explain everything as if the person who will be marking your work won't know anything about the subject. You have to explain everything to them, as if they are stupid, even though its just to show them that you know what the course and subject is fully about.

I'm not saying people are stupid, but it helps them. And as like I said there is no rule about this, it seems like you are the only one against a one ,less than 10-worded, sentence be put in explaining the connection. So as there is no rule, it seems more like you personally don't want it in.

And maybe as the audience are apparently intelligent enough to figure it out themselves, then we don't need to make any reference at all to the '82 film. Make sure this article makes the film seem very stand-alone, because when they read the plot and see the film themselves they will obviously connect the dots. So then there shouldn't be any reference should there? They aren't stupid are they? So why mention it at all? Mention it once in 'production' maybe and that could be it, or explain it once in the plot, the only time on the page. I haven't seen any other editors on this page agree with you yet. But why mention anything about it being a prequel because when they read the plot and see the ending "they get into the helicopter and chase the dog" or see the film then they should connect the dots shouldn't they? Hmm...

And discussions are explaining the points. Politics do the same, and film makers so they can get their views across to the studio. You don't want the discussion to continue, you never do and give a link to some Wikipedia rule or something. But there is no wikipedia rule or statement on this. And like I said, you seem like the only editor who doesn't want the final sentence on the page. Charlr6 (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

another exception to unrelated or non-contiguous sequels is Porky's II: The Next Day. Dano67 (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree that both a mention and a link would be useful. True, most prequels end just before the original. It might be more notable if there was some overlap. But if there is a direct link between closing and opening scenes, I think that's notable. And I don't see why a link would not also be useful. There's no rule against such a thing that I am aware of. Putting a hidden edit direction in the text without consensus is WP:OWN. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not OWN, its a timesaver, no different than putting one in that says don't take the plot over 700 words. Don't throw stuff like that around when you have no idea what you are talking about. There is also no overlap, there is two people flying off. There is no America base, no pilots being shot. It's unnecessary. See, that hidden edit direction is so I don't have to keep having this f**king discussion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the lovely warm welcome to this article, Darkwarriorblake. So, in your own words, the edit direction is a timesaver that you have added to make editing here more convenient for you personally. So, I have "no idea what I am talking about" - can you please show us any rules that prevent addition of a link to the other film there? I never claimed there was any overlap. Where is the consensus for your view? Does anyone else agree with you? If someoene diagrees with, you why do you see it as helpful to start swearing? I am perfectly familiar with the content of WP:OWN - are you? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Prequel or remake?

Are you sure that this is a prequel? It's set in the same year as the original. To me, it's more a remake than a prequel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boushenheiser (talk • contribs) 20:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No, this particular film is a prequel as it is set before the 1982 film. At the end of the new film, you see Lars shooting the dog as this leads into the beginning of the 1983 film. Additionally, in the 1982 film, the team go to the Norwegian camp where they find the remains of the Thing which was burned by Kate and her team. GSorby – Ping 21:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, then. Thanks for clarifying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boushenheiser (talk • contribs) 17:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the 1951 film with a similar name (The Thing from Another World) warrants mention. Carpenter claimed his film was not a remake, and there are very important plot differences, but there are also striking similarities. Nexus501 (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the scene showing Juliette/The Thing running away in flames is a direct homage to a famous scene in the original film with James Arness as the creature. Wonder if any reviewers caught that. Dano67 (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Novella

Are we sure it was a novella? I remember reading it, and I'm pretty sure it was a (very) short story. Infinityseed (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Kate's fate

What happened to Kate? The original 1982 film doesn't mention her.

It is uncertain, but her fate was left ambiguous like Childs and Mac McCready. However, the film's writer, Eric Heisserer, revealed in an interview with the website Bloody Disgusting that in the script he wrote, Kate does not survive. Kongbizarro (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed removal of redundant publisher information

A number of citations in this article unnecessarily include the publisher for periodicals and websites that have their own Wikipedia article. This information has no value to anyone wanting to check or track down references. For example, publisher=Washington Post Company for references to The Washington Post, or publisher=IMDB for references to Box Office Mojo, only make the article longer - significantly longer when repeated many times - without adding anything useful. Therefore I plan to upgrade the article's citations to remove all such redundant publisher info, bringing them into line with the recommended use of the cite template (see Template:Citation#Publisher). Please raise any questions here or on my talk page. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Bloody axe found stuck in Norwegian base.

A nice little detail I found after watching both the 2011 version of The Thing and John Carpenter's version right after it. In the 1982 movie, in the Norwegian base, when MacReady and Copper investigate it early in the film, they stumble upon a bloody axe stuck in the wall. The 2011 version pays homage to this and explains how it got there; as Kate and Carter were fighting off the creatures in the Norwegian base, Carter uses an axe to cut one of the smaller creatures in half as it crawled along the wall, causing the axe to get stuck. Kate then, after having known that any contact with infected blood will just create another creature, tells Carter to just leave it. I just felt that it was a good detail in the 2011 movie since they treated it with subtly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.131.108 (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Creating an article for 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 here.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Tom Woodruff Jr has an acting credit in the film, but nowhere can it be found what character he played

Why is it that Tom Woodruff Jr is credited as an actor in the film but there is no record anywhere of what character he played. If anyone has found this information,please comment CW the Movie Buff (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)