Threatthriver/General_Text_Data · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 238k
glowing face. The tagline was also changed from "Man is the warmest place to
hide" – written by Stephen Frankfort, who wrote the Alien tagline, "In space,
no one can hear you scream" – to "The ultimate in alien terror", trying to
capitalize on Alien ' s audience. Carpenter attempted to make a last-minute
change of the film's title to Who Goes There? , to no avail. [74] The week
before its release, Carpenter promoted the film with clips on Late Night with
David Letterman . [75] In 1981, horror magazine Fangoria held a contest
encouraging readers to submit drawings of what the Thing would look like.
Winners were rewarded with a trip to Universal Studios . [44] On its opening
day, a special screening was held at the Hollywood Pacific Theatre , presided
over by Elvira, Mistress of the Dark , with free admission for those in
costume as monsters. [74] Box office [ edit ] The Thing was released in the
United States on June 25, 1982. [12] During its opening weekend, the film
earned $3.1 million from 840 theaters – an average of $3,699 per theater –
finishing as the number eight film of the weekend behind supernatural horror
Poltergeist ($4.1 million), which was in its fourth weekend of release, and
ahead of action film Megaforce ($2.3 million). [76] [77] It dropped out of the
top 10 grossing films after three weeks, [78] and ended its run earning a
total of $19.6 million against its $15 million budget, making it only the 42nd
highest-grossing film of 1982. [c] [55] [76] [79] It was not a box office
failure , nor was it a hit. [80] Subsequent theatrical releases have raised
the box office gross to $19.9 million as of 2023 [update] . [81] Reception [
edit ] Critical reception [ edit ] I take every failure hard. The one I took
the hardest was The Thing . My career would have been different if that had
been a big hit ... The movie was hated. Even by science-fiction fans. They
thought that I had betrayed some kind of trust, and the piling on was insane.
Even the original movie's director, Christian Nyby, was dissing me. — John
Carpenter in 2008 on the contemporary reception of The Thing [82] The film
received negative reviews on its release, and hostility for its cynical, anti-
authoritarian tone and graphic special effects. [83] [84] Some reviewers were
dismissive of the film, calling it the "quintessential moron movie of the
80's", "instant junk", [9] and a "wretched excess". [85] Starlog ' s Alan
Spencer called it a "cold and sterile" horror movie attempting to cash in on
the genre audience, against the "optimism of E.T. , the reassuring return of
Star Trek II , the technical perfection of Tron , and the sheer integrity of
Blade Runner ". [86] The plot was criticized as "boring", [87] and undermined
by the special effects. [88] The Los Angeles Times ' s Linda Gross said that
The Thing was "bereft, despairing, and nihilistic", and lacking in feeling,
meaning the characters' deaths did not matter. [89] Spencer said it featured
sloppy continuity, lacked pacing, and was devoid of warmth or humanity. [86]
David Ansen of Newsweek felt the film confused the use of effects with
creating suspense, and that it lacked drama by "sacrificing everything at the
altar of gore". [88] The Chicago Reader ' s Dave Kehr considered the dialogue
to be banal and interchangeable, making the characters seem and sound alike.
[90] The Washington Post ' s Gary Arnold said it was a witty touch to open
with the Thing having already overcome the Norwegian base, defeating the type
of traps seen in the 1951 version, [85] while New York ' s David Denby
lamented that the Thing's threat is shown only externally, without focusing on
what it is like for someone who thinks they have been taken over. [87] Roger
Ebert considered the film to be scary, but offering nothing original beyond
the special effects, [91] while The New York Times ' s Vincent Canby said it
was entertaining only if the viewer needed to see spider-legged heads and dog
autopsies. [9] Reviews of the actors' performances were generally positive,
[92] [86] while criticizing the depictions of the characters they portrayed.
[91] [93] [88] Ebert said they lacked characterization, offering basic
stereotypes that existed just to be killed, and Spencer called the characters
bland even though the actors do the best they can with the material. [91] [86]
Time ' s Richard Schickel singled Russell out as the "stalwart" hero, where
other characters were not as strongly or wittily characterized, [92] and
Variety said that Russell's heroic status was undercut by the "suicidal"
attitude adopted toward the film's finale. [93] Other reviews criticized
implausibilities such as characters wandering off alone. [91] Kehr did not
like that the men did not band together against the Thing, and several reviews
noted a lack of camaraderie and romance, which Arnold said reduced any
interest beyond the special effects. [88] [85] [90] The film's special effects
were simultaneously lauded and lambasted for being technically brilliant but
visually repulsive and excessive. [87] [92] [85] Cinefantastique wrote that
the Thing "may be the most unloved monster in movie history ... but it's also
the most incredible display of special effects makeup in at least a decade."
[94] Reviews called Bottin's work "genius", [87] [86] noting the designs were
novel, unforgettable, "colorfully horrific", and called him a "master of the
macabre". [92] [85] Arnold said that the "chest chomp" scene demonstrated
"appalling creativity" and the subsequent severed head scene was "madly
macabre", comparing them to Alien ' s chest burster and severed head scenes.
[85] Variety called it "the most vividly gruesome horror film to ever stalk
the screens". [93] Conversely, Denby called them more disgusting than
frightening and lamented that the trend of horror films to open the human body
more and more bordered on obscenity. [87] Spencer said that Bottin's care and
pride in his craft were shown in the effects, but both they and Schickel found
them to be overwhelming and "squandered" without strong characters and story.
[92] [86] Even so, Canby said that the effects were too "phony looking to be
disgusting". [9] Canby and Arnold said the creature's lack of a single,
discernible shape was to its detriment, and hiding it inside humans made it
hard to follow. Arnold said that the 1951 version was less versatile but
easier to keep in focus. [85] [9] Gross and Spencer praised the film's
technical achievements, particularly Cundey's "frostbitten" cinematography,
the sound, editing, and Morricone's score. [89] [86] Spencer was critical of
Carpenter's direction, saying it was his "futile" attempt to give the audience
what he thinks they want and that Carpenter was not meant to direct science
fiction, but was instead suited to direct "traffic accidents, train wrecks,
and public floggings". [86] Ansen said that "atrocity for atrocity's sake" was
ill-becoming of Carpenter. [88] The Thing was often compared to similar films,
particularly Alien , Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), and The Thing from
Another World . [91] [87] [9] Ebert and Denby said that The Thing seemed
derivative compared to those films, which had portrayed the story in a better
way. [91] [87] Variety called it inferior to the 1951 version. [93] Arnold
considered The Thing as the result of Alien raising the requirement for
horrific spectacle. [85] The Thing from Another World actor Kenneth Tobey and
director Christian Nyby also criticized the film. Nyby said, "If you want
blood, go to the slaughterhouse ... All in all, it's a terrific commercial for

glowing face. The tagline was also changed from "Man is the warmest place to

hide" – written by Stephen Frankfort, who wrote the Alien tagline, "In space,

no one can hear you scream" – to "The ultimate in alien terror", trying to

capitalize on Alien ' s audience. Carpenter attempted to make a last-minute

change of the film's title to Who Goes There? , to no avail. [74] The week

before its release, Carpenter promoted the film with clips on Late Night with

David Letterman . [75] In 1981, horror magazine Fangoria held a contest

encouraging readers to submit drawings of what the Thing would look like.

Winners were rewarded with a trip to Universal Studios . [44] On its opening

day, a special screening was held at the Hollywood Pacific Theatre , presided

over by Elvira, Mistress of the Dark , with free admission for those in

costume as monsters. [74] Box office [ edit ] The Thing was released in the

United States on June 25, 1982. [12] During its opening weekend, the film

earned $3.1 million from 840 theaters – an average of $3,699 per theater –

finishing as the number eight film of the weekend behind supernatural horror

Poltergeist ($4.1 million), which was in its fourth weekend of release, and

ahead of action film Megaforce ($2.3 million). [76] [77] It dropped out of the

top 10 grossing films after three weeks, [78] and ended its run earning a

total of $19.6 million against its $15 million budget, making it only the 42nd

highest-grossing film of 1982. [c] [55] [76] [79] It was not a box office

failure , nor was it a hit. [80] Subsequent theatrical releases have raised

the box office gross to $19.9 million as of 2023 [update] . [81] Reception [

edit ] Critical reception [ edit ] I take every failure hard. The one I took

the hardest was The Thing . My career would have been different if that had

been a big hit ... The movie was hated. Even by science-fiction fans. They

thought that I had betrayed some kind of trust, and the piling on was insane.

Even the original movie's director, Christian Nyby, was dissing me. — John

Carpenter in 2008 on the contemporary reception of The Thing [82] The film

received negative reviews on its release, and hostility for its cynical, anti-

authoritarian tone and graphic special effects. [83] [84] Some reviewers were

dismissive of the film, calling it the "quintessential moron movie of the

80's", "instant junk", [9] and a "wretched excess". [85] Starlog ' s Alan

Spencer called it a "cold and sterile" horror movie attempting to cash in on

the genre audience, against the "optimism of E.T. , the reassuring return of

Star Trek II , the technical perfection of Tron , and the sheer integrity of

Blade Runner ". [86] The plot was criticized as "boring", [87] and undermined

by the special effects. [88] The Los Angeles Times ' s Linda Gross said that

The Thing was "bereft, despairing, and nihilistic", and lacking in feeling,

meaning the characters' deaths did not matter. [89] Spencer said it featured

sloppy continuity, lacked pacing, and was devoid of warmth or humanity. [86]

David Ansen of Newsweek felt the film confused the use of effects with

creating suspense, and that it lacked drama by "sacrificing everything at the

altar of gore". [88] The Chicago Reader ' s Dave Kehr considered the dialogue

to be banal and interchangeable, making the characters seem and sound alike.

[90] The Washington Post ' s Gary Arnold said it was a witty touch to open

with the Thing having already overcome the Norwegian base, defeating the type

of traps seen in the 1951 version, [85] while New York ' s David Denby

lamented that the Thing's threat is shown only externally, without focusing on

what it is like for someone who thinks they have been taken over. [87] Roger

Ebert considered the film to be scary, but offering nothing original beyond

the special effects, [91] while The New York Times ' s Vincent Canby said it

was entertaining only if the viewer needed to see spider-legged heads and dog

autopsies. [9] Reviews of the actors' performances were generally positive,

[92] [86] while criticizing the depictions of the characters they portrayed.

[91] [93] [88] Ebert said they lacked characterization, offering basic

stereotypes that existed just to be killed, and Spencer called the characters

bland even though the actors do the best they can with the material. [91] [86]

Time ' s Richard Schickel singled Russell out as the "stalwart" hero, where

other characters were not as strongly or wittily characterized, [92] and

Variety said that Russell's heroic status was undercut by the "suicidal"

attitude adopted toward the film's finale. [93] Other reviews criticized

implausibilities such as characters wandering off alone. [91] Kehr did not

like that the men did not band together against the Thing, and several reviews

noted a lack of camaraderie and romance, which Arnold said reduced any

interest beyond the special effects. [88] [85] [90] The film's special effects

were simultaneously lauded and lambasted for being technically brilliant but

visually repulsive and excessive. [87] [92] [85] Cinefantastique wrote that

the Thing "may be the most unloved monster in movie history ... but it's also

the most incredible display of special effects makeup in at least a decade."

[94] Reviews called Bottin's work "genius", [87] [86] noting the designs were

novel, unforgettable, "colorfully horrific", and called him a "master of the

macabre". [92] [85] Arnold said that the "chest chomp" scene demonstrated

"appalling creativity" and the subsequent severed head scene was "madly

macabre", comparing them to Alien ' s chest burster and severed head scenes.

[85] Variety called it "the most vividly gruesome horror film to ever stalk

the screens". [93] Conversely, Denby called them more disgusting than

frightening and lamented that the trend of horror films to open the human body

more and more bordered on obscenity. [87] Spencer said that Bottin's care and

pride in his craft were shown in the effects, but both they and Schickel found

them to be overwhelming and "squandered" without strong characters and story.

[92] [86] Even so, Canby said that the effects were too "phony looking to be

disgusting". [9] Canby and Arnold said the creature's lack of a single,

discernible shape was to its detriment, and hiding it inside humans made it

hard to follow. Arnold said that the 1951 version was less versatile but

easier to keep in focus. [85] [9] Gross and Spencer praised the film's

technical achievements, particularly Cundey's "frostbitten" cinematography,

the sound, editing, and Morricone's score. [89] [86] Spencer was critical of

Carpenter's direction, saying it was his "futile" attempt to give the audience

what he thinks they want and that Carpenter was not meant to direct science

fiction, but was instead suited to direct "traffic accidents, train wrecks,

and public floggings". [86] Ansen said that "atrocity for atrocity's sake" was

ill-becoming of Carpenter. [88] The Thing was often compared to similar films,

particularly Alien , Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), and The Thing from

Another World . [91] [87] [9] Ebert and Denby said that The Thing seemed

derivative compared to those films, which had portrayed the story in a better

way. [91] [87] Variety called it inferior to the 1951 version. [93] Arnold

considered The Thing as the result of Alien raising the requirement for

horrific spectacle. [85] The Thing from Another World actor Kenneth Tobey and

director Christian Nyby also criticized the film. Nyby said, "If you want

blood, go to the slaughterhouse ... All in all, it's a terrific commercial for