THE COMPUTERS

                 THE THING, having been produced on the cusp of a digital universe, is a resolutely all-analog film, without a frame electronically processed. It is somehow fitting that the computers appearing in the movie are both mock ups, non-functioning props made out of bits and pieces, with the video display portion in both cases shot well after principal photography.

              Originally a much shorter moment containing less specific information, with Blair at the computer John essentially created a new scene in post-production built out of inserts. The only two pieces done during filming were those of Blair intently watching. John saw this as an opportunity to hammer home to the audience, in the simplest possible way, the idea of assimilation and it's consequences ( this became a primary concern as editing on the film advanced ).

               

                      An analog endeavour, the program simulation was written by John and animated on film by fellow USC alumnus John Wash.    None of us had any idea what this ought to  look like, so JC instructed John to make it as simple and familiar as possible by using video game graphics... 

                    It was then transferred ( at a special 24 frame rate in order to avoid scanning lines) to U Matic 3/4 inch tape, fed back to a monitor, and photographed.

                 This information, written by John, was designed to lay out the stakes for the men ( and the audience) in sledgehammer fashion. There is nothing coy or shaded about the message here... 

                      Also added by John, Blair's reach for the gun was shot on the insert stage later ( with someone else's hands ) to complete the scene...

                McCready's chess game was an actual program, something designed for an Apple II computer ( the only one I knew of  was owned and offered up by our Production Manager Robert Brown). On set we tried to photograph it operating in the same frame with Kurt, but the results were a mess. For photographic purposes it too was converted to 24 frame analog video, recorded onto 3/4 inch tape and played back later, which resulted in an acceptable image...

SAM PECKINPAH'S THE THING ?

                     The day finally came when we to receive Universal's official "green light" to schedule THE THING for production. As the meeting began in Production President Ned Tannen's office John revealed that he had a script of his own with another company (EMI ) also targeted for production, a special effects western that had been budgeted at Twenty Five Million Dollars ( I believe this was the first incarnation of EL DIABLO ). Much as he wanted to direct THE THING, he said this film was set up first and took precedence - he would feel honor bound to make it next if it were to be green lit, which he felt was just around the corner.


               This was news to us. The meeting turned from a celebration into something close to a wake. As eager as the studio was to make the film with John the screenplay had achieved its own level of stardom and they were not prepared to wait any longer. While agents and lawyers scrambled to figure something out, we were instructed to look into other directors.

                   I was stunned. I could not believe after all this time and being this close to having John make this movie things were about to fall apart. I was so used to the idea of John and this material as an ideal match that I couldn't even think of anyone else to direct. When David Foster asked me if I had any initial thoughts, in jest and exasperation I said "What about Sam Peckinpah?". David, who had successfully worked with Peckinpah on THE GETAWAY, paused for a second and said "Well, You Know"...
.
             It took a week or so for the natural order of things to be restored. In that week I can't be certain whether David made a call to Peckinpah or not. I do know he made an exploratory call to Walter Hill, who wasn't interested ( Bill Lancaster, also at a loss, suggested his BAD NEWS BEARS director Michael Ritchie ). Fortunately for you and for me EL DIABLO wasn't as far along as was previously thought, and John was finally clear to begin preparation...

Walter Hill on the set of SOUTHERN COMFORT

THE SCREENPLAY

               
         



              ( from last post )   ... was there someone out there of our generation who had no preconceived ideas or baggage, who hadn't written science fiction or horror before, and might like to try his hand at this?

Bill plays "The Hippie",upper right, in his dad's movie THE MIDNIGHT MAN 1974

         

                   Bill Lancaster hadn't read WHO GOES THERE? He wasn't sure whether or not he had seen THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD as a child - if he had, it didn't leave much of an impression. He later told me his father, Burt Lancaster, didn't particularly care for science fiction, calling it a "children's playground".              

          The movie he remembered giving him nightmares as a kid was NIGHT OF THE HUNTER. He said he later figured out what had scared him so much - in Robert Mitchum's out sized portrayal of a megalomaniac preacher (and his signature, almost inhuman wail), it was the idea of a man capable of becoming a monster... 

                  


               Having been a fan of  THE BAD NEWS BEARS since it's release in 1976, the idea of having Bill in to meet was mine. Watching the film again recently I found what impressed me so much at the time. The main characters (interestingly, in this case a team of 12 boys in the process of becoming men, one aging misanthrope and his barely teen aged daughter) are drawn with economy and precision - you understand quickly who's who. Well crafted, there is no particular emphasis on individual family back story or background, the focus for the most part is concentrated around events on the field of play. The dialogue has a natural, unfiltered air to it - you feel as if you are eavesdropping on kids talking like kids. Thirty five years on it still feels contemporary, nimble and fresh, a deserved winner of the Writers Guild award in 1977 for Best Original Screenplay (comedy).


                 When Bill did read WHO GOES THERE? he pronounced it "workable", not an overly enthusiastic initial response. But he said next that what intrigued him most was the chance to be able to push the paranoia aspect to an extreme. He imagined descending levels of mistrust among the characters so profound that the line of reality became blurred - something, if he worked it correctly, so airtight that it no longer mattered whether there was a monster or not - the men became the biggest threat to themselves. This was music to our ears, and as the conversation progressed I could see John visibly relax, maybe for the first time during this process. I know it was difficult for him to cede the writing of his movie to someone else, but with Bill an easy sort of camaraderie was forming ( one that was to continue and strengthen through pre-production ). There seemed to be melding of the minds, and I could sense John thinking, Ok, you supply the story and structure, I'll supply the monster...

               
               ..." I also thought it was timely, that in re-making the short story I could be true to my day making the movie, just like Hawks was true to his day when he made his." John Carpenter - Creative Screenwriting magazine            


                All of us participated in one initial meeting to make sure we were all on the same wavelength, using the novella as a template. It was here that we came to quick agreement on keeping the characters all male ( David Foster, whose expertise on such matters we paid attention to, believed it might actually be a selling point ). We knew the size of the group had to be reduced ( from something like 30 ) but left the exact number up to Bill. We eliminated the idea of telepathy as a form of communication from the creatures arsenal, figuring Bill would have his hands full trying to effectively dramatize the assimilation aspect alone ( and, boy, were we right ). In hewing close to the short story we all wanted to retain the idea of Blair as the one infected early on ( we liked the fact that behaving as he does throughout the story makes the creature clever ).

               We assumed a basic scenario regarding the creature's arrival - Spaceship in trouble, crash lands on Earth, creature gets out, freezes, wakes up probably not in the best of moods, and does what it has to do to survive and get the hell out of there. A character ultimately defined by its actions, perhaps the purest distillation of the Hawks ethos. No detailed back story, no thought of personality, intent or agenda at that time ( we did briefly discuss whether it was criminal in nature or not, but figured it really did not matter for the telling of this story ) ...


                 Calling it the "centerpiece" of the novella, nothing was more important to John than the inclusion of the blood test. He later told me the scene was the biggest single reason he wanted to make the movie and one he "knew how to do" ( I thought of this years later as I watched John at the moviola, alone, personally editing the scene ). As if all this wasn't enough Bill was also tasked with the idea of opening the film up, taking it outside Outpost 31 and giving it a sense of scale, if possible, but not at the expense of the internal drama.


              And with that, Bill and John headed up to John's place in Inverness, California to brainstorm and drink beer for a week or so...

               Six or seven weeks later, Bill ambled in with thirty pages, wanting to know if he was on the right track.Those first thirty pages were the first thirty minutes of THE THING as you see it today. The stunningly original opening scene ( fulfilling brilliantly the request that the film open up before closing back down ). The characters, their interaction, and the dialogue everyone now seems to know so well were all there, and remained essentially unchanged from this draft to the finished film.Thoughtful and smart, we were all knocked out by the quality of the writing. Bill took our enthusiasm very much to heart, although he knew he was a lot of hard work away from completion...


               Mindful of the difficult job still ahead, John said to Bill  "see you in about a year"... 

                ... well it wasn't, quite, but still a very long time. There was a contractual delivery date but we didn't pressure Bill, knowing that we were on to something very special. Bill eventually delivered his first draft three and a half months late, in the fall of 1980 ( too late for the film to be made as a summer 1981 release,which was the original thought ). Four copies were made, one each for John, myself, David Foster, and David's partner Larry Turman. The reaction? First, David: "They'll be crazy if they don't want to make this". Then John, who still needed to formally commit to directing the film: "This is the best script I've ever read". Are you in, I asked. A pause, and then "Oh,Yeah"...


                As with the initial thirty pages, the rest of this first draft resides in much of  THE THING as it now exists. Only minor changes were made in terms of characters and dialogue from this point forward ( name changes, for instance). The only substantial alterations made to the screenplay during pre - production were those necessitated by budget concerns ( the original Bennings death on ice sequence, for example ) and, most importantly, the effects sequences, which were re-conceived by John, Rob, and Bill ( who actively participated in many of these meetings, and would work the ideas into subsequent drafts ). This first pass compellingly made the case for this film in terms no studio could afford to ignore - and with John's star having ascended I wondered if we at long last had managed to catch lightning in a bottle - an ideal match of director and the script he was born to make...

               So excited were we by the screenplay we decided to make a big deal out its delivery.  We dressed a couple of actors in parkas and snowshoes and send them shivering up the elevator to hand the script in person to Universal Motion Picture President Ned Tannen for his formal approval. My idea originally was to encase the script in a block of ice, but I had to settle for a cooler full of dry ice...


               The reaction to the screenplay by the studio was everything we had hoped for. Their enthusiasm matched ours, and was such that they had no notes. No one questioned the idea of an all male cast. They expressed no concern over the ambiguity of the ending, later to be the cause of so much angst. Everyone realized the script worked, and with the euphoria the film was quickly scheduled as a release "sometime"in the summer of 1982 ( at this early stage we had no inkling what Universal had in the pipeline, or what their summer lineup would eventually consist of ).    

Bill, second from left. Photograph by Peter Sorel

                Bill maintained an active presence as pre-production on THE THING advanced. In addition to being an essential participant in the effects meetings, he also sat in on a number of casting sessions as well as cast rehearsals, his opinion always welcome. This was a real tribute to John, who felt secure enough by this time to allow this interaction to occur, and a testament to the bond that that formed between them. As the movie swung into production he largely disappeared from view, a victim of his own success, to write FIRESTARTER for John and the studio... 
                

           




                 In the short time between Universal's acceptance of the script and its first formal publication Bill wanted someone to bounce some ideas around with and take care of a few last minute notes John and we had. John was tied up, so he asked me. This was a time where Bill was as happy as I had seen him. The early reviews were in, and they were great - he knew, we knew, he had this project licked, so we worked for the next six days or so at my home in an relaxed, expansive atmosphere. The work was minor -  fine tuning scene transitions, a line here or there, debating the  question of when to be clear about things ( I remember: Me: "Dammit, Bill, we've got to get across the idea that somebody here ain't who he appears to be". Bill: "Then why don't we just say it" ). We had the time and the inclination to talk through many matters. It was here we discussed the last scene ( his feeling: human, but written with plenty of room for argument ). He took a craftsman's pride and pleasure in the dialogue and the way he was able to "slide stuff  in" as he put it, in an offhand way ( "Wakes up, probably not in the best of moods"... "I don't know what's in there, but it's weird and pissed off, whatever it is", ect.). He took delight in trying to avoid using the word "Thing" in dialogue until absolutely the right moment - when Windows blurts out "he could be one of those things" ( this changed later on ). He was good company and it was here that our working relationship evolved into friendship, something that I will always cherish.  


                    A second-draft version of Bill's screenplay for THE THING is available both at Outpost 31 and at IMDB. Given the time and care Bill took with it's execution probably the highest compliment you could pay him would be for you to think of it as a good read... 

       

THE WRITERS B. C. ( BEFORE CARPENTER )

" The group tensed abruptly. An air of crushing menace entered into every man's body. Sharply they looked at each other, more keenly than ever before - is that man next to me an inhuman monster?"

                      Well, this always seemed like a great premise for a movie to me, so  in late 1975 I took the idea of making WHO GOES THERE? to producer David Foster, whose company, Turman-Foster Productions, had recently made an production arrangement with Universal Studios. My first reading of the novella at age 12 had provoked a number of sleepless nights - initially out of fear, but later from curiosity as I tried to figure out why I was so excited by this material ( what I was reaching for at the time was the phrase Unity of Time, Place, and Action ). At it's heart a classic locked door murder mystery, it had always seemed to me that the story's strength lay in it's success in dramatizing the internal nature of the conflict and the resultant issues of trust and identity rather than the external threat posed by the creature ( which is what happened in just about every monster movie I had ever seen ). My hope was to stay as faithful as possible to this basic idea by utilizing the shape - shifting aspect central to the novella, rather than attempting any sort of straight - ahead remake of the first film...

The original appearance of WHO GOES THERE? August, 1938

                The rights to the short story had been kicking around Hollywood for awhile, usually with a very low level of interest attached ( I think it was actually out of print at the time ). It was sitting with the writing team of Hal Barwood and Matthew Robbins, but when they passed Universal bought the rights for us to produce. Separately, to cover all the bases, the studio also acquired the re -make rights to the original film as well as its title from a gentleman named Wilbur Stark, and is the source of his Executive Producer credit on THE THING  ( Mr. Stark was well known to many of us at the studio, and owned the re-make rights to much of the RKO Studio library. He would wander into your office, pull out a well-worn list and ask if you were interested in re-making OUT OF THE PAST. And if not, what about I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE? or GUNGA DIN?...). I initially lobbied to have the project's first working title be WHO GOES THERE?, but at this early stage the studio felt there was some visibility, and therefore some value, in keeping things THE THING...  

           It was my intent to involve John at this point. I remember us first discussing the novella at the student cafeteria at USC in 1970 over mounds of french fries, and periodically since at various fast food restaurants scattered around Los Angeles ( Bobs Big Boy on Vine St. in Hollywood was a particular favorite, not just with John, but with David Lynch, who claimed he did his best thinking and writing while downing their silver goblet milkshake). This was years before John was to change the landscape with HALLOWEEN, and the studio was reluctant to commit to a relatively inexperienced director. We were asked to initially consider filmmakers who were than under contract to Universal, so I decided to bide my time and work to get a script written...


                

Tobe Hooper

Kim Henkel

                Tobe Hooper and Kim Henkel had recently arrived at the Universal lot courtesy of the success of  THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE and of director William Friedkin, who was loosely shepherding their initial stint at a major studio. They were looking for a project and the studio suggested THE THING, which seemed like a good idea to all involved. Their initial enthusiasm dimmed upon reading the novella, however. The issue of trust didn't particularly interest them as an overall theme. They also worried about their ability to dramatize the mechanics of assimilation and didn't want to be constrained by its use. Rejecting  the short story's central premise, they chose instead to try to fashion something original that, in their words, would "address the larger picture"...


            Written quickly in order to avoid an impending writers strike, what I remember of the script was an attempt at an man versus monster epic set at the bottom of the world, a sort of Antarctica MOBY DICK with an Ahab-like character (I believe his name was The Captain) battling a large, but decidedly non-shape shifting creature. Seemingly written as a tone poem with a stab at a Southern, Davis Grubb-like feel the script was dense, humorless, almost impenetrable (the word John used for it when he later came on board was incomprehensible). Judged by all at the time to be something akin to a disaster, we agreed to part company...




               For the record, we then had a short, exploratory meeting with director John Landis, who was in early post-production on ANIMAL HOUSE, and who passed...

David Wiltse

          

                 David Foster then suggested New York playwright and author David Wiltse, who had recently re-written several scripts for the studio and was thought highly of. Although agreeing to take the assignment on, David considered himself a "serious writer" ( his words ), and the conflict between this perception of himself and the material he was working with was something he could never reconcile. A mis-match of historic porportions, and our fault for attempting it. The only image from the script I seem to recall was the creature as abstraction, a pyramid of blue glowing light floating out over the ice, enveloping its victim and disappearing inside...

William F Nolan

               On the strength of the success of LOGAN'S RUN Universal suggested William F. Nolan, who was familiar with the short story ( he called it an "old chestnut") and had his own take on the material. Mr. Nolan has recently published his treatment so readers may judge for themselves, but we found at the time the results disappointing, and chose not to proceed.

           Common to all three of the adaptations was the rejection of the novella's central device. Perhaps it was due to my own inexperience, but I did not understand why there was so much resistance to trying to dramatize the internal nature of the conflict and its consequences ( note to self - maybe because it's really, really hard to pull something like this off.. ). I certainly understood the impulse for writers to want to put their own stamp on their work and if anybody had came up with something interesting in place of the chameleon aspect we would have been open to it. As it was the scripts made many of the same mistakes ( going to great lengths to establish the characters and the important work that they were doing, for instance), becoming more or less formulaic, and none were thought to be viable...


             Things were then quiet for a time, the projects fortunes at a low ebb. After three tries, we had succeeded in draining any enthusiasm the studio had for making a grade A monster movie. We simply hadn't made the case. But there was something on the horizon that could...

 



                         On the Monday following ALIEN's opening weekend I walked into David Foster's office and asked the following question -  "Do you think they'll understand now"? Hollywood likes nothing more than precedent, and ALIEN'S financial success would serve as a terrific springboard for us. David responded "I think they will". And they did. Johns star had risen and the studio immediately agreed to re-start the project with him as director. John made it clear that his interest lay in adapting the novella's central premise as the core of his movie - nothing else would do, and was a deal breaker if anyone tried to suggest anything else.
          

          At the outset, John also made clear his intention not to write the screenplay himself, a first. He half-jokingly said he had earned the right to have someone else do the suffering , and his career had reached the point where he no longer had the kind of concentrated time to devote to the endeavor. The search began...

Richard Matheson

Nigel Kneale

Richard Matheson was approached and available but turned us down cold, refusing even to meet. His agent asserting that even if we planned on using the novella as source he would never be involved in something called THE THING.

             Nigel Kneale (QUATERMASS) was discussed. A sticking point was the need to have someone essentially Los Angeles based due to John's schedule...

Derek Washburn

Ron Koslow

  We met with Derek Washburn (THE DEER HUNTER) and Ron Koslow (LIFEGUARD and later BEAUTY AND THE BEAST)   

                  ... and a few others but no one seemed quite the right fit. We detected a heavy note of condescension from some toward the entire project. For others, it was old hat. It struck us that we had been meeting with or discussing writers primarily much older than we - was there someone out there of our generation, with no pre-conceived  ideas or baggage, who hadn't written science fiction or horror before but might like to try his hand  at it ?

NEXT:  THE SCREENPLAY

                              



                   ....

TWO OR THREE THINGS YOU DIDN'T KNOW...

  




   (1)  THE OPENING CREDITS

         Our original idea was to place the credits at the back end of the movie, and open the film with the saucer crashing to earth revealing the main title. This would have been fine if the movie's official title was THE THING, but it wasn't - as JOHN CARPENTER'S THE THING the Directors Guild stipulated that John's directing credit also appear upfront, and with that decision by contract the other credits moved up as well.


          Rob Bottin's credit was the subject of much discussion and negotiation with the make-up union at the time. We were warned if we used the word "effects" after make-up as well as the word "created" there would be a penalty involved. We honestly couldn't come up with another way to accurately phrase Rob's contribution to the film, and as a result Universal was fined Twenty Five Thousand Dollars...  

          After viewing the completed main title we felt that using the traditional Universal logo at the beginning would not only conflict with the opening shot of the saucer careening toward earth, but make the sequence redundant and perhaps confusing. Before the credit situation was resolved one studio executive suggested that we fade off the "Universal" on the logo, pan the camera left to pick up the spacecraft and have it continue on its merry way to crash into the logos' remnants. We referred to this as the ABBOTT AND COSTELLO GO TO MARS version of the opening. In the end, we had to argue our case in order to receive special dispensation from corporate management ( above the motion picture division) to add the simple black and white lettering that opens the film. The unsettling music underneath is John's...

          The entire opening sequence was fashioned and produced by Peter Kuran for an even-then bargain Twenty One Thousand Dollars, model included. Peter and his model maker Susan Turner saved money by borrowing the motion control rig set up by John Dykstra for BATTLESTAR GALLATICA  and shooting in the middle of the night, the only few hours it wasn't in use. Another colleague, Jim Danforth, painted the matte used of the earth in his spare time over a weekend...

Susan Turner

     (2) WHERE'S BLAIR ?

                ... and why isn't he in the official cast photograph? The simple answer is that Wilford Brimley was never on location for filming in Stewart, B.C. The only exterior shot needed, that of Blair being taken to the cabin, was filmed using a well padded double ( Blair's cabin had been shot on stage, with the exception of Mcready's exterior closeup ). Another pressing mystery solved...

     (3) FILM MAKING 101

          When shooting the opening sequence on the Juneau Ice field John, with limited resources and a small crew, had the use of only ONE picture helicopter when filming the air to air portions which had to serve double duty as both Norwegian and American.




             Therefore THIS helicopter

                and THIS helicopter

         ... are the same. John Lloyd supplied us with two complete sets of decals, one Norwegian, the other American. A do it yourself affair, the idea was to be able to "change over" the helicopter completely on both sides, but we found it slow going so with both time and light a constant problem we resorted to doing one side Norwegian, the other American. This is why in the opening shots  the helicopter is primarily shown from the side flying from right to left ( for the last part of the sequence when filming in Stewart six months later John DID have the luxury of using two separate helicopters, appropriately marked, allowing him to fly them around the camp at will )... 

          

THE FINAL DAYS

                "We're Dead" remarked producer David Foster. The occasion was his return from the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood and the premiere engagement of E.T. THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL, where the trailer for THE THING also happened to be playing. The icy silence of the matinee audience of grandmothers escorting their grandchildren ( and vice versa ) was enough to elicit his precise statement of our predicament.

     

                   The ground had been shifting underneath our feet ever since the public previews, one executive confiding to me that the studio considered the movie a "missed opportunity", a product of failed expectations. The advertising campaign had changed overnight - the somber, predominately black and white imagery ( which we had been consulted on ) replaced overnight with the now familiar "glow face" ( which we hadn't ), the tag line " Man Is The Warmest Place To Hide" dumped for "The Ultimate In Alien Terror", which I abhorred ( "Man" was written by a publicist named Stephen Frankfort, who also came up with what I thought was the best tag line ever for ALIEN - "In Space, No One Can Hear You Scream".  He was hired early on and his company also created the earliest teaser with the ice block. The "Alien Terror" tagline was concocted by a studio suddenly desperate to display the word "Alien" above the title ). Both I thought represented a last minute demotion to "B" film status, something we had fought for years, and evidence that Universal was effectively throwing in the towel in trying to reach a broader, more mainstream audience.


                  At least the sniping over the ending was finally over - the studio recognizing, in the words of  head of distribution Robert Rehme that "the movie they had was the movie they had, and it was time to get it out there". Universal approved the making of six 70mm stereo prints, two of which we planned to use for the critics screenings on both coasts in an effort to put our best foot forward...

                 ..."a foolish, depressing, over-produced movie... aspiring to be the quintessential moron movie of the 1980's" - Vincent Canby, The New York Times



                      ... a lot of good this did. The reviews, primarily from print sources at that time ( newspapers and weekly magazines ) were delivered to us in packets assembled by the studio's publicity department. Either one paragraph dismissive or openly hostile, the general line labelled the film as an exercise in unrelenting gore at the expense of story, character development, and tension.




               ..."the structure of the piece reminds unpleasantly of porno films...Daily Variety




 We were not prepared for the amount of anger unleashed on the film in general, or on John in particular ( the gore - pornographer charges that were made in some quarters were outrageous and particularly stung).






               ..."this movie is more disgusting than frightening, and most of it is just boring." David Denby 

               "...It has no pace, sloppy continuity, bland characters... It's my contention that John Carpenter was never meant to direct science fiction horror movies. Here are some things he'd be better suited to direct: Traffic accidents, train wrecks and public floggings..." Alan Spencer, Starlog magazine November, 1982

                  THE THING had no official premiere as such, just a lame attempt at a opening day screening at the Hollywood Pacific theatre presided over by Elvira, where free admission was given if you came dressed as your favorite monster. After the film started I walked around the corner to the Cahuenga Newstand to pick up the new issue of  STARLOG, whose review promised to be more sympathetic to the cause. No such luck - a pan, where it seemed to me that even the fan base had deserted us...

                ..." because this material has been done before, and better, especially in the original THE THING and ALIEN, there's no need to see this version "... Roger Ebert - The Chicago-Sun Times

                  I spent opening weekend visiting a dozen or so theaters in the Los Angeles area. First up were the 70mm venues ( The Hollywood Pacific and the Crest in Westwood ) followed by a host of smaller theatres in the San Fernando Valley and vicinity ( most of which were still not equipped for Dolby stereo and played the film in mono ). Crowd size seemed to be pretty much the same wherever I went. Theatres were not filled for the 8 O'clock showing on opening Friday, maybe at most half-to three quarters full. GREASE II, also opening, was drawing consistently larger crowds in the multiplexes where both films were playing. There was no line for tickets for the 10 O'clock, with only a small group waiting to be let in...

              The reaction of those attending those first showings? Muted, at best. Not for the first time I sensed that the film made a  large portion of the audience feel uneasy, and that as captives they were neither  happy or comfortable with that fact...

I'd be delighted to report that I had some advance sense that the film was having an impact on future generations of critics and film goers that first weekend but the truth was I saw no evidence of any groundswell. My impression was that a very large portion those that came were unprepared for what awaited them. In theatre lobbies afterward the most positive reaction I could elicit was an ambivalent sort of "its okay". No excited overheard conversation, just quiet ( I suppose you could say they were stunned into submission but I think that's putting too kind a face on matters...). 

               " It Didn't Open " were the three words that greeted me on the phone Sunday morning, spoken by Universal V.P. Helena Hacker. The film was projected to earn under Three Million Dollars for the weekend, well below studio estimates. It would go on to lose close to 50% of its theatres by the middle of its second week of release and, in a yardstick measured closely by exhibitors in the age of Lucas and Spielberg, generate virtually no repeat business.

                 Early the next week I went to see John at his home. When he opened the door he looked stricken, as if he had physically been punched in the gut.The financial failure of the film was one thing, but another was the amount of vitriolic slop that was thrown in his face for good measure. It was if he had crossed a moral boundary of some sort and, as seriously as we both took our roles in the production of the film we both still knew it was only a movie...

  

                     The immediate consequences for John were severe. In advanced preparation of Stephen King's FIRESTARTER as his next film for Universal, the project was abruptly cancelled ( FIRESTARTER, with an initial draft written by Bill Lancaster, had sailed though development in something under a year and was, up until the day of THE THING'S release, a testament to the studios continued faith in John ). I was in the process of setting up a re -make of  ONLY ANGELS HAVE WINGS with John ( to have taken place along the Alaskan Pipeline with helicopters ) at another studio, but this went down in flames as well...

                Although the simultaneous release of E.T. by the same studio is often mentioned as a conditional reason for THE THING'S failure, I  think it more the case that the film was simply out of sync with the tone and tenor of the 1980's. At a time when people were seeking re-assurance THE THING was offering up very little. To be certain E.T. had sucked all the oxygen out of Universal's publicity and distribution departments, but I doubt that a release date later that year would have made much difference ( and exhibitors at the time had the quaint axiom that "snow" pictures didn't play well in Winter). Perhaps the title of the film was an issue. John himself  made a late plea for a title change ( back to WHO GOES THERE? ), worried about the surfeit of horror and fantasy films in the pipeline as well as the release later that summer of SWAMP THING...

                    Thirty years later, it seems to me that THE THING plays right into the wheelhouse of contemporary culture. In an Internet age where questions of identity are now commonplace ( the accepted use of assumed names at online forums, for instance) it is becoming increasingly easy to make the case that almost no one is who he appears to be - a  validation of the film's theme that trust, always a fragile commodity, is a hard thing to come by...

                 Several weeks after the film opened I was approached in a bar by writer - actor Buck Henry (creator of GET SMART, writer of THE GRADUATE, one of the stars of THE MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH) who told me THE THING was "twenty five years ahead of it's time". Alone in his sentiments then, it now seems he was pretty much on the money...