I think out of all the movies I've ever seen this is the one...

Poltergeist completely dicked this back in the summer of '82.

- Completely destroyed it at the box office. They overlapped and Poltergeist's 3rd weekend was above The Thing's opening weekend. Poltergeist was the 8th highest grossing film overall for 1982. A major, major hit.
- Was well received by critics.
- Was nominated for Academy Awards and BAFTAs, winning the BAFTA was best special FX. My hot take is that Poltergeist has better FX than The Thing, namely much more diverse and imaginiative work. The Thing is tentacle mutilations repeated over and over again. Well executed to be sure but Poltergeist is the better FX showcase.
- Is more iconic.
- Better OST if we're being honest here. I love Morricone's work but his score for The Thing is very minimalist and not among his best work. Goldsmith's OST for Poltergeist is superb.
- An original I.P.
- Better acting, I'd say. JoBeth Williams deserved an Academy Award nomination.

The thing is though people these days find that Spielbergian suburban American depiction to be tame, childish and dated. Whilst The Thing is edgier.


I see zero reaon why people could ever argue The Thing over Poltergeist. Save for gore and explosions. Yet here we are Poltergeist is considered a classic but more of a 40th-90th best horror movie of all time whilst some people think The Thing is the outright best of all time. Gore and explosions go along way I guess.

"Basically all people are left with are the special effects (the gore)."

I used to think this way when I was 15 years old and saw this movie for the first time 40 years ago. It was more disgusting than frightening to me. Took me a while to see the movie and story behind the effects. Hopefully you'll have a similar eye opening moment sometime.

You're right it's really good(actually one of the best movies of 1982)but I don't see it being overrated at all.
1. It's really a reimagining more than a remake.
2. Yes, Alien is better but they both belong in the upper tier of great movies.
3. It was a box office disappointment. It was released at the wrong time, a Xmas release would have been way more appropriate. Still, it made a ton of money in home video.
4. It wasn't well received by critics. Siskel always played the cynic and Ebert got it wrong, which he admitted to later. Plus, real movie buffs don't rely heavily on critics.
5. Zero awards. Yes, zero awards but kinda expected with it being hard R Horror. The electronic music is iconic.
6. It wasn't influential. Maybe because of it's uniqueness it's very hard to replicate(haha). It's truly a one off. There has been some influence however. X-Files had an episode or two that were heavily based on The Thing. The young SFX wizard Rob Bottin instantly became a living legend and went on to work on countless hit movies. They made one of the very first long form documentary for DVD, which is really a gold standard to this day.

I don't think all we're left with is the SFX. How about Carpenter doing an excellent job building up the suspense?.. Production was excellent, the actors really fit their roles well. plus the right amount of comic relief for such a heavy movie And the ending is an unsolved mystery that fans still argue about to this day, over 42 years after it's release.

So no, I don't think The Thing is overrated. I saw it opening night and it blew me away and my friends loved it too. I think a movie that fits closer to the category of being really good but overrated would be Dark Knight and Avatar.

"It wasn't influential."

Yeah, like Spinal Tap weren't bothered about their Boston gig being cancelled. "It's not a big college town." Jeez.

too much credit for 'inventing' slashers

"Credit" is the opposite of what whoever did it should get for that 🤣

I like it for the suspense. The horror of not knowing who to trust. The tension and atmosphere is made even better by having the film in an isolated cold location.

I've not seen the original or the later film so seeing this one first probably helped but I think it's a well produced film.

I feel like a lot of your arguments (such as the film being a box office disappointment and getting razzies) would technically mean the film is under-rated, at least historically. I think a lot of the modern fanboyism is maybe an overcorrection to the film's unfairly maligned past reputation and reappraisal. It has a lot in common with Brian De Palma's SCARFACE, which was also a remake, but similarly enjoyed a massive boost in pop culture sentiment over a decade after it came out, to the point of being somewhat of an annoyance to anyone who has a non-bipolar opinion of said movie.

Personally I remember seeing this film twice as a kid in the 80's and 90's and had a very average opinion of the film. I liked the effects but they lost a lot of lustre on TV and home video. When I saw it a 3rd time (in lovely HD in an auditorium) in a college film class in 2002 or so (at the age of 21), I found a lot in it to appreciate far beyond my previous experience and considered myself a major fan. It took maturity and a better quality copy of the film to really appreciate what works in it. It's a mystery, a thriller, an action movie, and a horror movie all wrapped in a sci-fi, pseudo-fantasy (Antarctica is real life but about as alien of an environment on this planet as you can get), and it balances all genres well. The jump scares work to maximum effect, there is a constant feeling of dread and unease throughout the film, and it has a streamlined, no-nonsense approach. There's a lot working in favor of this movie beyond just the effects. I do put it in my top-10 horror movies of all time, mainly because it has a lot of rewatchability akin to DAWN OF THE DEAD.

But yes, I find the fanboys drooling over the effects to be annoying as well. It's not a perfect film by any stretch, especially with how it decides to wrap up during the climax with The Thing acting very stupidly and allowing Kurt Russell time to throw things at it, etc.

It’s a sillly b-movie