Was this movie really THAT hated?
I hear it nonstop that The Thing was the universally panned disaster that nobody liked, but all the research I've done seems to suggest that wasn't actually true.
90% of the reviews that I've read from 1982 seem to be leaning more towards the "meh, it's okay" stance than flat out dislike. The film even received positive reviews from many notable critics, including James Berardinelli and frequent hater-of-horror Gene Siskel. Even Roger Ebert, a critic who's infamous for destroying and detesting The Thing, actually only gave the film a 2.5/4 and called it "lackluster". A 2.5/4 equals a 6.4/10. Not really "absolutely hated" material. If anything, it's slightly above average. Even The Guardian's infamous "instant junk...the essential moron movie of the 80's" gave the film a 5/10 rating.
Many have claimed the gore was the reason why critics were turned off, but 90% of the reviews I've read don't back this claim. While the gore was occasionally quoted as a negative factor, most unenthusiastic reviews cited the theme, tone, lack of character development, and slow pace as more alarming issues. Most seemed to be bored by the film, and many thought it was too dark and hopeless and should've been more uplifting. At the same time, tons of critics actually praised the special effects, along with the direction and acting. Hell, some even praised Ennio Morricone's Razzie-award nominated score!
Also, I hear and see an uncountable amount of people claiming the film bombed due to E.T. playing in theaters next door, and that people 1982 didn't want to see a scary alien. That's absurd. Too many examples of similar films with opposing themes playing at the same time in theaters and both doing fine have occurred to list. If anything, it appears that mismarketing and poor advertising lead to the lackluster performance.
So it appears this movie was really just seen as mediocre. It just seems that a lot of people take the extremely negative quotes from critics out of context to paint a picture that was far more severe than it really was. I think part of this misconception was perpetuated by Carpenter himself, who took the film's failure incredibly hard and exaggerated just how much it failed, because in his eyes, he was reflected how he felt. Sure, it does make for a more interesting story, but was The Thing "universally panned"? I'm not too sure. Audiences loved it too, including a young Quentin Tarantino who claimed to have seen it 18 times in theaters, so I don't think it was.