The Thing - Can someone explain...
- Thread starter joeranger
- Start date
CB2001
Master Member
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.
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.
JMChladek
Sr Member
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.
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.
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?!
CB2001
Master Member
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.
Colin Droidmilk
Sr Member
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!
Clutch
Master Member
SSgt Burton
Sr Member
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!
Kevin
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!
Kevin
Jedi2016
Sr Member
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.
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.
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!
Kevin
I just thought Childs didn't care as they were both going to freeze to death anyhow.
SSgt Burton
Sr Member
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
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:
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.
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.
EvilRocketeer
Master Member
i thought carpenter admitted that he was planning a sequel and childs was infected......but later was scrapped for the newer thing version
CB2001
Master Member
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.
