What is canon?
I think it's about time we had a specific discussion about this. What aspects of The Thing 'mythos' should we regard as being unarguably set in stone? Certainly the film itself, I would imagine, and I doubt that anyone would dispute this. Can we go beyond this to establish anything else as canon? How much weight do we give to, for example, the pronouncements of John Carpenter, Bill Lancaster, Rob Bottin and the cast? Also, what about the computer game, ADF's novelization, the comics, various 'official' illustrations etc. etc.? Also, given the degree of antipathy to any companion/sequel/prequel movie or similar project, could/should any such thing ever be accepted as canon and if so, under what circumstances? Finally, who defines/who is in the most suitable position to define what is canon? Us (if we can reach a consensus)? John Carpenter? Universal Studios? XidiouX

I personally accept the video game as canon.

I guess only the movie should be considered canon, as there are too many incoherencies if you consider the original short story, the script of the movie, the Dark Horse comics and the video game to be canon. I have a very personal take on the question. I have discovered the Thing by reading the novel first, so some of the questions which are highly debated here are clearly answered in this, notably the fact that an assimilated perso is no longer himself but a Thing in disguise. That's an important point to me as, for me, supposing that somebody can be a Thing and not know it messes a lot of things up and makes the story much more confusing. However, I know that some people involved in the making of the movie (like Charles Hallahan for instance) thought that maybe somebody could be a Thing and not know it. So, I don't mind if people enjoy the movie with this point of view, although it kind of contradicts some older stuff happening in the movie which was based on the script, where people who are assimilated are no longer themselves but only Things in disguise. So, I consider Campbell's short stories (where the question of being a Thing and not knowing it is clearly answered), the short story and the script to be canon. The movie is "canon" but there are so many loose ends that it is easy to end up with opposite conclusions on some of the "mysteries" of the movie and there will never be a definite answer to these. So it is kind of pointless to base arguments on the movie as it kind of contradicts itself on some issues. On the other hand, I consider the video game and the Dark Horse Comics not canon as they take for granted that a Thing can infect only by touch (which is not the case in the short story, the novel and the script) and that Things do not know, er, that they are Things (although this is never clearly addressed in the video game, where the Thing is seen as a virus). Also, the fact that the video game script was drastically changed is one of the main reasons why I don't consider it canon. In the original script, both Macready and Childs were discovered frozen in the US Outpost ruins and at the end, Blake ended up infected by the Thing. Although there was already some irritating points (such as the Thing being treated as a virus), it was closer to the tone and ambiance of John Carpenter's movie. So here you go, for me, the original short story, the script, the novel and the movie are canon but I have no problem understanding that other people may have another point of view on this.

Yes I did find the way they treated the thing in the video game to be rather unsatisfying, especially for the fans. But the video game itself plays out what could easily make a fine sequel to the movie if done in current times (without the vivendi's ideal of being infected of course.)

I'd say...
Campbell's short story, Lancaster's script, the film and at least certain character tidbits thrown out by John and Kurt on the special edition commentary. The Short Story: for the general ideas, concept and character information. It does introduce a few of the pivotal characters and their quirks, the dog town sequence and the Blood Test and heat as a way to kill the Thing. It also ends on an open-ended note. Lancaster's script: as the Guide to the Thing (I've got to reread it but I don't remember much of his descriptions regarding The Thing and how it assimilates, attacks etc.). Carpenter's Film: The bible as far as I'm concerned. It takes the best elements of the short story and Lancaster's script and weaves them together into what we know and love. John, Kurt etc. takes on their characters: Knowing that Kurt puts a lot of preparation into the men he portrays, I definitely hold his and John's assertion that Mac served in Vietnam as canon. His P.T.S.D. actually serves him well in the film. In various interviews done at the time, Kurt validates this history for MacReady. So combining this with his performance, I'd say that's canon. I'd like to hear other cast members on their characters and how they interpreted them, how they felt about them etc. NOT CANON: The comics, game (which I don't have and won't), BBC radio play etc. do not fall into canon imo. The Dark Horse Comics: For a while I thought at least the first DH comic mini series could have been an extension of the canon but rereading it recently made me take a serious about face. In addition, looking over what a lot people here said was wrong about it I can only agree. So much of it is full of plot holes and utter nonsense. Particularly in regard to being assimilated and the writers' assertion that both men were THINGs. Game: Okay, I haven't played this and won't (I'm not a gamer per say) but it sounds like it doesn't fit the source material much at all. BBC Radio Drama: Obviously at under 30 minutes, a lot of Campbell's story wouldn't make it. My biggest beef, Mac NEVER gives himself the blood -*test*-('"). To just presume your human without proof doesn't sound like what we've known and loved. I don't find Anne Billson's excellent book on The THING to be canon either (while she does agree with Carpenter that The Thing is female outside of this, it's her opinion over fact which is fine). --- I'll have the 70s comic adaption of Campbell's story within a month I think. Again given the length of the comic I'm sure not everything will be addressed. It will be interesting to see what made it and what didn't.