The Thing - Can someone explain...

Discussion in 'Entertainment and Movie Talk' started by joeranger, Mar 24, 2012.

  1. joeranger

    joeranger Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,706
    The progression of how it spread? I always think I am missing something.

    Is there some kind of diagram of who gets infected and when? Starting with the dog running into camp?
    I would like to watch it with a cheat sheet and look for signs that people were infected and how they acted.
     
  2. CB2001

    CB2001 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,155
    Well, most of the information is speculative, as there are some pieces that are ambiguous as to who got infected when (namely off screen infections that we get hints about, but no definitive answer to until the Thing has a Thing-out), while there are more up front and obvious ones (such as the Kennel dogs and Bennings for example). The film was purposefully designed in a way where you can't be sure of who, let alone when, a character was absorbed and duplicated.

    The closest thing that could possibly help you show the narrative flow is this image from the Outpost 31 website (Warning: Graphic heavy): http://www.outpost31.com/vistar/images/the-thing_chart.jpg

    They also have text breakdown of the timeline: Outpost #31 - Movie - Timeline
     
  3. Jet Beetle

    Jet Beetle Sr Member Gone but not forgotten.

    Trophy Points:
    2,147
    The act of infecting another living being changed a bit from the clues we got in the Carpenter version and the newer movie. MacReady says it likes to strike when people are alone - which made me think it took some time or at least a bizzare intrusive act - in the new movie it could just grab you and merge with your body. I, of course, prefer the Carpenter rules - a small part of the Thing can take over an entire organism. So, if you were eating a steak and the thing dripped some blood on it - you are now a Thing.
     
  4. CB2001

    CB2001 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,155
    What Jet Beetle has said is true. But one thing to keep in account with both films (or just with Carpenter's film alone), is that the Thing's first encounters with human beings was with the Norwegians, and it learned how aggressive humans can be. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised its original strategy was an up front assault on the creature it was planning to absorb and mimic, like how most predatory creatures on Earth charge at their intended target while surrounded by other similar targets (like a lion after a gazelle in a heard of gazelles). That could be a factor to take into account when it comes to the crashing of the saucer, that it tried to forcibly assault and turn the crew up front, possibly leading to one of them to attempt to crash the ship in order to stop it from spreading further. And by learning what it did from the Norwegians, it changed its strategy of attack when it came to Outpost 31. We have to remember, the Thing is like a virus, but one that has the ability to think and, as we've seen in Carpenter's film where one of the Things attempted to build a smaller saucer in an attempt to leave, to learn and apply knowledge it's acquired and absorbed.

    Of course, this is all speculative. For all I know, I could be very well wrong.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2012
  5. Jet Beetle

    Jet Beetle Sr Member Gone but not forgotten.

    Trophy Points:
    2,147
    I could go with that CB. Changing his tactics to avoid the humans committing suicide or loosing all potential hosts. Could be the beast's assumed or learned in his travels that creatures have trouble killing those they knew, much the way when someone turns into a zombie and it slows their loved ones down from pulling the trigger against them. The Thing didn't count on the fact that Kurt Russell don't play that ****.
     
  6. CB2001

    CB2001 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,155
    True on that. In fact, I think I remember someone here saying that the pilot of the saucer may have been the alien version of R.J. MacReady (if you believe the idea that the pilot deliberately crashed the saucer, when the odds of survival were slim, it did pretty much what MacReady did: tried to make sure the Thing couldn't do any more harm and was willing to die in order to stop it from doing what it did to others).

    But I agree, Kurt Russell pretty much made MacReady totally boss. :D
     
  7. SSgt Burton

    SSgt Burton Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    That was me. :cool

    One of a few scenarios of why the ship crashed.

    The biggest question is who was infected first- Palmer or Norris? Apparently the answer around the net is pretty much 50-50. "The Thing" aficionados have tried to analyze the shadow on the wall of the sitting person that the dog-thing encounters and arguments go either way.

    In either case, if you watch the film and assume that it could be either Palmer or Norris, their interactions with the other Outpost members take on a whole new meaning---

    When Mac, Copper and Palmer find the flying saucer, it is Palmer who finds the hole in the ice (that the Norwegians cut the Thing out of). If Palmer is The Thing, why does he call the other group members over to have a look? Is he gaining their trust? Acting exactly as a human/Palmer would?

    Palmer makes his “Chariots of the Gods” comment- if he is a Thing by this point then he IS the aliens the "Chariots" comment refers to. It becomes another whole level of sarcasm.

    Of course there is Palmers’ double bluff of saying he doesn’t want to go with Windows and rather go with Childs (casting suspicion that Windows might be a Thing... when in hindsight he clearly wasn’t and Palmer was).

    Consider Norris turning down the gun Garry offers him. Essentially it would put Norris in charge. His answer is so subtle and very human (he just doesn't have what it takes to be a leader) however if he is a Thing at this point, being in charge means everyone will be focused on Norris- something the Thing definitely does not want; more attention.

    Norris is the one drawing blood from Garry, Copper and Clark (which when Copper says he's going to break the needle, Childs responds that Norris is "doing a real fine job"--- Childs is completely convinced Norris is human)...

    ...Or Childs could be a Thing at this point for all we know! :eek :lol


    Later in the film (before Norris/Thing reveals itself) when the paranoia levels peak amongst the men, Norris has a line or two about “That’s just what this thing wants- for us to turn on each other.” However by this point he and Palmer are definitely the Thing. So his statement is ironic in that The Thing is solidifying his humanity with the group, while at the same time flat out revealing The Thing’s game plan.

    There is also the “bluff” the Thing tried to pull by planting MacReady’s torn clothes, casting suspicion that MacReady has been assimilated. Windows asks when could the Thing have gotten to MacReady and Palmer (a Thing at this point) says it could have been anytime. Palmer mentions “the lights going out and guys were missing” and Norris adds “That would have been the perfect time.”

    But MacReady wasn’t a Thing and Norris and Palmer definitely were at that point- so what did Norris mean by “The perfect time”? Is he just playing along heightening the possibility that Mac is a Thing...

    Or is he just talking out loud (as The Thing)--- saying that, “It would have been the perfect time for me to assimilate MacReady... but I missed the opportunity to do it.”


    Needless to say I love this film! :D


    Kevin
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2012
  8. joeranger

    joeranger Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,706
    Oh well you guys clearly were not paying enough attention; I'll watch it again and answer all these questions;)

    I think the main question is answered for me. The real genius of this movie is that we don't know. Why would an alien/thing trying to act human act a certain way?

    It reminds me of a far side cartoon where an alien in a back ally with a fake human face and a tail coming out of the back of his trench coat says to two thugs, "Why yes. I would like a knuckle sandwich".

    One other question. Are they working together? Communicating?
     
  9. Solo4114

    Solo4114 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    4,470
    On the subject of infection itself, here's a question for you guys.

    The Carpenter version of the film -- and even the Prequel -- suggest that the smallest portion of the Thing can take over a host organism. So, as said, a mere drop of thing-blood will do it.


    I think the actual infection/assimilation depends heavily on the method of infection, though. In other words, the Thing isn't fully a "thing" and doesn't have complete control, depending on how the infection happens. This would also explain WHY the Thing chooses one approach over another.

    So, for example, a small amount of the Thing could conceivably take over a host, but it'd depend on how much of the Thing made it to the host, and then it'd vary by time. If we assume from the prequel that even a microscopic portion of The Thing can infect a host, then even a single drop of blood or saliva could do it. Thus, the Thing could simply drop some blood in the water supply and wait a day or two. The problem would be that the hosts could realize what was up and kill themselves, or might be discovered and destroyed before being turned. Or killed in an accident. Or whatever.

    By contrast, absorbing someone wholesale is a LOT faster, but also messier, noisier, and offers no stealth. If you get caught in the act, someone's gonna torch ya. Of course, sometimes speed is more important than stealth, and survival most important of all.


    I think this explains a few things in the film.

    First, it explains Blair. At the start of the film, Blair's behavior suggests that he's human. The Thing would obviously want to allow for outside communication, which is why Blair's destruction of the radio suggests he's human. If he's infected at that point, the infection may not have had time to take him over yet, although he might be noticing the effects. If he isn't infected then, the Thing could simply bring him some food while he's in the cabin, feed it to him, and wait until he can say "I'm better now." Again, this would explain how and why Blair clearly turns.

    Second, it'd explain how someone who might be infected could ALSO appear human. If assimilation was happening slowly, and the blood drawn hadn't been contaminated yet, then an infected person might still appear human from the blood test.

    Contrast all of that to what happens at the Norwegian camp with one of the characters. Grabbed and gobbled, right there on screen. Absorbed right before your eyes, and right at the central processing spot (his head), too. After that, the Thing has almost instantaneous control of the host. So, it can be assumed that this approach, while less stealthy, is a LOT faster. A hybrid approach could be taken, too, for example sticking someone with a tentacle, and then pumping some Thing-blood into them to speed up the process.


    You've got to figure that the process starts slow, depending on how much "Thing" is introduced to the host, but progresses at an exponential rate. If one thing makes one copy, and two things make two copies, four things make four copies, and so on, you've got standard exponential growth right there. So, the bigger the initial "thing" that gets to the host, the faster it'll turn. Likewise, if the Thing can get hold of the host's brain, that's it. It has control. After that, further conversion merely creates redundancies so that if, for example, you blow a limb off of a controlled-but-not-fully-assimilated host, the limb will just lie there, rather than turn into a "Thingling."



    One factor that still puzzles me, though, is how the Thing apparently does not obey the laws of conservation of matter. It seems able to make "more" of itself than what's there initially. Like, how is it that some "things" are able to become physically bigger than their host organisms are? Almost as if they can inflate. I don't get that part. Unless "Things" are more elastic and simply appear bigger, when they're really just stretched very thin.
     
  10. crabra comander

    crabra comander Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,466
    Just gonna throw in something simple here: Is it possible someone fully assimilated has no clue they're a Thing and would go about their business while the Thing is sort of subconsciously controlling their actions?
     
  11. SSgt Burton

    SSgt Burton Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    I guess the easiest way to answer that is going by the dog/thing (as it is too hard to tell with the human characters as they are meant to keep "us" the audience guessing just as much as the other characters).

    So with the dog- when it is around other humans it totally acts like a dog. However when it is alone it clearly behaves very methodically and very undog-like. We easily see that the dog is no dog and it is The Thing in disguise.

    So my take on it is that when a person is assimilated there is nothing left of the original person. The Thing has completely taken over and has either "learned" correct repsonses/actions (from its interactions with people over the two camps) to ensure its camouflage is perfect, or has retained the memories of the host.

    I'm thinking more the latter as it really didn't have much time to interact with people considering how well it imitated the behaviour of the members of the American camp.


    Now about the "one drop of the Thing can assimilate you"... What if Blair was infected when he did the autopsy of the Dog/Thing?

    Now think if he was a Thing when he smashed up the radio room-

    The Thing might require a radio in order to bring more "hosts" from the outside World to the camp to assimilate, however more importantly before Blair goes nuts, the men were discussing using the blood in the storage fridge as a test to find out who was who. At least one other person (Palmer or Norris or both) were a Thing, so the radio room chaos was a perfect distraction in order for another Thing to recover the keys to open the fridge (Windows dropped the keys when he was frightened by Bennings' transformation), and destroy the blood bags.

    Of course- that could go either way that Blair was human and sincerely trying to save mankind by destroying the radio (although the radio could just have easily been used to warn the outside World to stay away- so if he was a Thing he was preventing the men from warning anyone), and The Thing used the chaos as a perfect opportunity to slip away and destroy the blood bags.

    Oops! I remembered that a bit wrong- the blood bag test was discussed after Blair went nuts, however I think it still stands that the Thing slashed the bags during the radio room rampage as it was probably aware of the importance of the bags even before the men planned on using them.


    Kevin
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2012
  12. CB2001

    CB2001 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,155
    Definitely. It's either the pilot tried to crash it to stop it or the pilot inadvertently crashed it when being taken over.

    A lot of fans have asked that question, one of them even going as far as to attempt to recreate the shadow on the profile on the wall to determine which of the two it was in the scene with the Dog-Thing. But the fact is that for that scene, Carpenter got a crew member to sit in and play the shadow on the wall, so to make it ambiguous about who it was. And I think that shows how great Carpenter is as a director, going as far as to keep the audience guessing by substituting someone who could be either Palmer or Norris with the shadow.

    If you were a human being and you found a huge hole in the ice that matched the block that the Norwegians found, wouldn't you share that with the others in your group? I know I would, I'd either show them or tell them about it.

    Well, he did just see a UFO. At this point, we don't even know if Palmer is a Thing or not. If he is, yes, it'd be ironic that the Thing would refer to the "Chariots of the Gods", because its the kind of thing that Palmer would say (and since a Thing takes over a human body on a cellular level, the first thing that goes is the areas where the human personality and individual are located, leaving the area where memories are stored intact until they're absorbed too, according to the Alan Dean Foster novel adaptation).


    Actually, the actor who played Norris stated that he was a Thing at that point, and saying that when Garry made the offer to him, he stated that the Norris-Thing had sort of an internal message that said, "don't do it, it'd draw attention to us." He talks about it during the retrospective making-of documentary on the DVD (the same documentary is on the Blu-Ray with the extra view setting turned on). And it makes sense. If the Norris-Thing was in charge, everyone would be looking to him to make decisions and there wouldn't be any chance for him to be alone with anyone else (thus cutting down the chances to potentially infect other members of the group).

    Again, that's Carpenter being the master craftsman of his art. He never gives you definitive answers of when someone is infected, or how. A great example is what happened to Fuchs. We still don't know if he was murdered by one of the Things (let alone which one, but some think maybe it was the Blair-Thing) or if he committed suicide to avoid being turned into a Thing.

    However, at that point, Childs was still human (especially when we find out later with Mac's needle test).

    Again, you have to look at it like a Thing. If you're trying to play a human and not stand out against the group, you'd say things like that. Why do you think the Palmer-Thing reacted to the Norris-Spider-Thing going by? Because that is what a human being would do, thus a Thing (having to absorbed the personality of the person it took over) would play the role of the person down to the finest detail (much like how an actor plays a character). Setting MacReady up as a likely suspect works better because it causes confusion instead of allowing the group to band together (plus, MacReady was smarter than most of the men, and since it had taken over Blair and killed Fuchs, it had taken out the only people who could have helped in figuring out who is a Thing or not and by taking out MacReady, it would have taken the last person who was capable of thinking outside the box in this situation. I mean, who'd thought that MacReady's test would work when it was based on what he saw happened with the Norris-Thing and not based on any kind of scientific method?)


    I know. I kept telling my film school classmates that they should watch Carpenter's films, especially The Thing. I honestly feel its one of the best examples of excellent filmmaking and suspenseful storytelling, next to any of the works of Alfred Hitchcock (whom we know inspired him).
     
  13. SSgt Burton

    SSgt Burton Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Thanks CB. :thumbsup

    Most of my questions are rhetorical. Though I didn't know about the crew member as a stand-in for the shadow. Learned something new! :) :thumbsup

    I've watched the Bluray documentary, the "in movie" interviews and read an essay from Outpost 31.com (where most of what I mentioned comes from).

    I kind of forgot about Childs passing the blood test. :$ :lol

    The whole movie becomes severly ironic if you assume everyone who was indeed a Thing was infected a lot sooner than we assume. For instance Blair looking at the computer simulation of how long it will take to infect the planet... If he is a Thing he's just getting an estimation on how long it will take for him to take over the World!

    Carpenter was just brillant! The Thing is a masterpiece disguised as a horror/sci-fi film.


    Kevin
     
  14. CB2001

    CB2001 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,155
    No problem, man. :D

    Actually, a lot of people have asked some of the questions that's been discussed (including this one) and the kind folks over at Outpost 31 have compiled a completed FAQs that pretty much clears up some of these questions (while those that there isn't a definitive answer, it does attempt to address both sides to the same issue) using the film (it hasn't yet been updated with the info from the prequel) and the novel adaptation by Alan Dean Foster:

    BTW, a stand-in is a crew member who stands in an actor's spot (normally of same height and width as the actor) so that the shot can be set up and that the shot is in focus while the actor can remain in the green room and prepare for the following scene.


     
  15. jcoffman99

    jcoffman99 Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    2,466
    I just saw this film for the first time tonight. Awesome flick.

    John
     
  16. SSgt Burton

    SSgt Burton Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    I envy you! :D


    I would love to be able to watch this movie for the first time once again!


    Kevin
     
  17. aeonpulse

    aeonpulse Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    1,606

    Ya know, (this is way off topic, but) I've thought about this before, most recently after seeing Cabin in the Woods last weekend. Sometimes I wish I had a machine that could wipe parts of my memory, so I could watch my favorite movies "for the first time" as many times as I wanted. I wouldn't even use the machine to wipe out things that I'd rather not remember, I'd just use it for movie memories! Although, I'd be sure to keep a tally of how many times I've seen each movie.
     
  18. DARTH SABER

    DARTH SABER Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,790
    I always assumed that if the Thing even touched you, contact with oil from the skin, you were pretty much done .
     
  19. terryr

    terryr Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,147
    There's DNA is saliva. So Norris was infected first. But maybe it just took a while to replicate.
    If a drop of blood could infect you then the Thing wasn't very clever. Just put some blood in the food and sit back and wait. All of them would slowly turn.
     
  20. Solo4114

    Solo4114 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    4,470
    The prequel film pretty much establishes that. In some ways that makes it even scarier, but in other ways it strikes me as "too easy." Plus it raises some real questions like "Why not just get everyone in a room and shoot out twenty tendrils to touch them each and be done with it?"
     
  21. 0neiros

    0neiros Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,790
    aeonpulse may be the first person ever to be happy of an Alzheimers diagnoses. :)
     
  22. CB2001

    CB2001 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,155
    Except, I think at the beginning of the film, they were wearing gloves due to going out (even Mac took a moment to throw on his jacket and his gloves before coming down from his shack. No saliva to skin contact.
     
  23. Sluis Van Shipyards

    Sluis Van Shipyards Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    4,470
    I saw the newer one the other night. I want my money back. Nowhere near as good as the first and half of it was so dark you couldn't see what was going on.
     
  24. JMChladek

    JMChladek Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,306
    If you guys want to have a go at a fascinating mind bending read that turns some of what you think about The Thing on its ear, have a glance at this:

    Clarkesworld Magazine - Science Fiction and Fantasy : The Things by Peter Watts

    It is a short story by author Peter Watts, told from the perspective of "The Thing". It doesn't take long to read, but it is rather fun and introduces some interesting concepts to the discussion.
     
  25. Solo4114

    Solo4114 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    4,470
    Yeah, I read that. It was TERRIFIC. Really well done.
     
  26. terryr

    terryr Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,147
    Were the gloves leather?

    Which brings up a point. Could it use a dead body? If it just uses the DNA as a blueprint and spreads its own cells around, could it 're-animate' dead bodies? There would be no brain memory I suppose. Or would there?!
     
  27. CB2001

    CB2001 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,155
    Doubt it can use a dead body. If it did, it would have gotten the guy who killed himself in the radio room at the Norwegian base.
     
  28. Colin Droidmilk

    Colin Droidmilk Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,296
    Just wanted to chip in with: I read the original story again last night, and was again blown away by how close to the film it is, with a lot of cute stuff not in the film too, like the cook looking at the milk bucket - from which some of them drank that morning - and screaming and vomiting after McReady comes back from checking the status of the animals using a serum test and tells them 'there are no cows left'. and it also blows my mind that it was written in 1938!
     
  29. Apollo

    Apollo Legendary Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    5,035
    You should read some of his other storys Campbell was WAY ahead of his time


     
  30. Clutch

    Clutch Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,336

    He said the word, 'biomass' twenty six times. :lol
     
  31. terryr

    terryr Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,147
  32. SSgt Burton

    SSgt Burton Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Total necro post however I thought this info was pretty convincing-


    THE THING film analysis (update) "Was Childs infected?" part 1/2 - YouTube

    (Make sure to watch part 2 as well)

    "The Thing" as a film has a lot of hidden details that don't reveal themselves until you watch it several times.

    Personally after watching these two youtube vids I'm convinced Childs was a Thing by the film's denouement. ESPECIALLY drinking from the bottle Mac nonchalantly hands him without any hesitation or fear of infection.

    Childs was suspicious of everyone, yet he doesn't have a problem having a good old drink with his "buddy" Mac. :unsure


    Man I love this film! :D


    Kevin
     
  33. Jedi2016

    Jedi2016 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    That was an excellent video, thank you. I'm going to go through the rest of that guy's analyses now.. hehe.

    Some good points about Childs, and also the amount of detail that Carpenter put into that film. He makes a good point about how Carpenter had extra time to plan the shoot than he normally does, and he apparently used it to craft an extremely detailed piece that we're still unraveling. Very cool stuff.
     
  34. Wes R

    Wes R Legendary Member

    Trophy Points:
    6,750
    I just thought Childs didn't care as they were both going to freeze to death anyhow.
     
  35. SSgt Burton

    SSgt Burton Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Well you have a bit of point there Wes...

    The Youtube author hangs a great deal of his argument on Childs' parka going from dark blue to tan---

    I've just watched the scenes in question: Childs is wearing a dark blue/green parka when MacReady tells him they're going to to get Blair. In that scene there is (from left to right) a navy blue parka, an OD green parka, a lighter green parka and a tan parka hung up on the walls.

    However in the long tracking shot (in which the "Thing's theme is heard for the second time in the film) when we get to the same spot Childs was standing at, there is- a tan parka, two OD green parkas and two more tan parkas.

    To me this just seems like a continuity error. :unsure

    Gettting to Childs' appearance at the end (where the author claims he is wearing a tan parka), it seems more like his dark green/blue parka is just frost covered; his pants (which where definitely a dark blue) appear the same way as his jacket- frosted giving the impression they are lighter in colour.

    Now I don't know what the hell to believe. :unsure :lol


    One thing (no pun intented ;) ) I'm sure of is that during that tracking shot we are definitely looking through the Thing's eyes. However it could be Blair-Thing just as easily as Childs now being a Thing.

    At any rate, Childs behaviour IS unlike how he has behaved throughout the film- it doesn't make sense that Childs would go out after "Blair" alone in the night. Childs is not the "hero" type to leave the safety of the camp on what could be a suicide mission.


    Another thing about the exchange between Childs and MacReady at the end- as Mac hands Childs the bottle of whiskey Mac has his eyes completely trained on Childs with a slight smirk on his face- it's as if the bottle is one more "Thing test" up Mac's sleeve.

    The second Childs drinks from the bottle the "Thing's Theme" plays again for the third and final time (and becomes the end credits music). Mac chuckles as Childs enjoys the drink.


    What the hell does this mean?!? :wacko :angry

    Is the music cue an indication that Childs is a Thing and "failed" Mac's test?

    Or is Mac's chuckle a sign that he believes Childs is still human? Does he believe the Thing wouldn't "enjoy" a drink of whiskey? Was Mac expecting a reaction similar to the computer frying at the start of the film?

    Or maybe...

    Just maybe...

    Mac WAS a Thing at the end!

    Mac handing the bottle to Childs (and him accepting it) has sealed Childs' fate...

    And Mac's "chuckle" is more along the lines of-

    "ha... I got you."



    (Well personally I don't really believe Mac was a Thing, but that's the beauty of this film; it has you guessing right to the end!)



    PS- I really wish I could illustrate all this with screencaps, however I don't know how to do this with a bluray disc. :unsure

    Kevin
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2013
  36. Apollo

    Apollo Legendary Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    5,035
    ...and you know Carpenter is enjoying us still discussing this Classic!!
     
  37. Jeyl

    Jeyl Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,670
    I'm not convinced that a tiny cell of the Thing can assimilate an entire human. If it was that easy, all the Thing would have to do is spit on someone. I mean, every time it transforms the amount of blood, goo, slime ect comes out like an out of control hose. The way I see it, the Thing has a pretty small life span. The smaller it is, the shorter it lives. So a single cell Thing would be dead by the time it assimilated enough cells to control a human host. The only way it can prolong it's life and reproduce at the same time is through assimilation. If the Thing cannot assimilate something within a certain amount of time, it will die. This is why I think the Thing willingly freezes itself after it crashes.

    This is what I use to explain the Thing's sudden spontaneous attacks. If all the Thing wanted to do was hide, why would it attack in an environment where it's clearly at a disadvantage? I see the Thing attacking in these situations because it needs to assimilate in order to survive. Other times it feels the need to sacrifice a big chunk of itself so a part of it can get away and assimilate someone else like the tied up prisoners.

    Again, I know it doesn't match up with everything, it's just the theory I use.
     
  38. EvilRocketeer

    EvilRocketeer Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,465
    i thought carpenter admitted that he was planning a sequel and childs was infected......but later was scrapped for the newer thing version
     
  39. CB2001

    CB2001 Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    3,155
    Never heard such a rumor. I know that there was an extra bit of an ending to The Thing where we see Mac being rescued, and then his blood is tested to discover that he is human (and we find out that Childs, who froze to death, was human as well), but Carpenter chose not to use it where it ends on such a bleak note.
     
  40. Galactus

    Galactus New Member

    Trophy Points:
    17
    Is each Thing an individual or a part of a collective intelligence?
     
  41. Jeyl

    Jeyl Master Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,670
    I would argue it's a bit of both. It's only when a Thing is separated from itself that it becomes an individual. Otherwise it wouldn't be able to control all those trillions of little Things and if it shared a collective intelligence, they would be in constant contact with each other and most likely share each other's feelings like pain. I think
     
  42. Galactus

    Galactus New Member

    Trophy Points:
    17
    I wonder if Things communicate by touch, memories stored on a DNA level.
     
  43. Laspector

    Laspector Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,415
    I actually like this theory. I don't think I've ever heard a discussion on what a Thing eats. I mean all creatures must eat in order to survive so maybe assimilation is the Thing's way of eating--it's main way of surviving.

    Good point.
     

Share This Page