Your definition can vary, but the only rule is that the villain is fictional. So no actor portrayals of Adolf Hitler or anything like that. It can be from a book, a movie, TV series, video games, anime, whatever you want. And it can be just personally terrifying to YOU, or what you consider to be the overall most terrifying villain ever written. Maybe it's not THE most terrifying villain ever, even to you personally, but you feel it's the BEST villain in fiction due to how it was written or portrayed/acted. Annnd go.
(Here's mine.)
The "Thing" from John Carpenter's "The Thing". Facing off against that thing is an absolute worst case scenario. What a brilliant idea to be overlaid atop the original black and white film ("The Thing From Outer Space"). Which in itself was based on John W. Campbell's novella called "Who Goes There?"
Carpenter's version doesn't follow too closely to either of it's pieces of source material but honestly made for a truly terrifying story and creature. And these days IS "The Thing" if you were to ask 9/10 people.
The creature of Carpenter's version is horrifying and could be considered a form of ultimate evil as it will instill distrust, paranoia and deceit to anyone around it, If it hasn't already murdered and assimilated you. And a creature with the ability to inadvertently end humanity as a whole if left unchecked.
However, while it could be argued to not be "canon", Peter Watt's short story titled "The Things", completely changes your perspective as to the motivations behind the creature's actions. As it takes place from the perspective of the alien life form as it, or at least some of it survives the events of the original film, "The Thing From Outer Space" before being frozen and then discovered by the crew at the beginning of Carpenter's "The Thing".
It's no less frightening, but it entirely changes how you see the creature and why the events of Carpenter's story happen.
And to argue that it's not canon would therefore also argue that Carpenter's version isn't either. So I'd argue in favor of it being canon. Seriously, if you're a fan of Carpenter's "The Thing", do yourself a favor and read Peter Watt's short story.
(Here's mine.)
The "Thing" from John Carpenter's "The Thing". Facing off against that thing is an absolute worst case scenario. What a brilliant idea to be overlaid atop the original black and white film ("The Thing From Outer Space"). Which in itself was based on John W. Campbell's novella called "Who Goes There?"
Carpenter's version doesn't follow too closely to either of it's pieces of source material but honestly made for a truly terrifying story and creature. And these days IS "The Thing" if you were to ask 9/10 people.
The creature of Carpenter's version is horrifying and could be considered a form of ultimate evil as it will instill distrust, paranoia and deceit to anyone around it, If it hasn't already murdered and assimilated you. And a creature with the ability to inadvertently end humanity as a whole if left unchecked.
However, while it could be argued to not be "canon", Peter Watt's short story titled "The Things", completely changes your perspective as to the motivations behind the creature's actions. As it takes place from the perspective of the alien life form as it, or at least some of it survives the events of the original film, "The Thing From Outer Space" before being frozen and then discovered by the crew at the beginning of Carpenter's "The Thing".
It's no less frightening, but it entirely changes how you see the creature and why the events of Carpenter's story happen.
And to argue that it's not canon would therefore also argue that Carpenter's version isn't either. So I'd argue in favor of it being canon. Seriously, if you're a fan of Carpenter's "The Thing", do yourself a favor and read Peter Watt's short story.
Last edited:
