The Thing prequel
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
DrkMatter
Well-Known Member
I finally got around to watching this. I guess because of all the bad word of mouth I read about the film, I was expecting the worse.
But, I was pleasantly surprised. I liked it. It doesn't hold a candle to the original of course.
But it was quite entertaining.:thumbsup
But, I was pleasantly surprised. I liked it. It doesn't hold a candle to the original of course.
But it was quite entertaining.:thumbsup
If that's how you feel, than take a look at the ending to John Carpenter's The Thing again (Mac and Childs), and remember the new clue that the prequel gave us in telling who is the Thing. Here's a hint.
"Fires got the temperature up all over the camp. Won't last long though."
CB2001
Master Member
If you mean Childs' earring, don't you think it learned from its mistakes from the Norwegian camp (which includes the fact that it knows that humans can determine who could possibly be a Thing due to the fact that a Thing doesn't absorb non-biological items), picked up his earring after taking him over on a cellular level and then put the earring back in?
CB2001
Master Member
Especially when a creature like the Thing can learn from past mistakes. I mean, the Blair-Thing was working on a saucer of his own (which indicates that knowledge is transfered from one Thing and another and is carried on as blueprints). We know it doesn't absorb non-organic material, as it rips through the clothes of an individual it is taking over. And both of those details were in Carpenter's film. If clothes can't be absorbed, then its more than likely that anything metal or lead can't be absorbed either. Doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility for a creature that absorbs and mimics to the finest detail.
Well, the Thing that assimilated Sam was from a Thing that was fully aware of the non-biological weakness yet it still ditched the ear ring. In regards to learning from it's mistakes, the only Thing that was aware of it's ear ring weakness didn't make it out alive, so the possible solution to this mistake died with it.
And even if Carpenter didn't take that into account while making the original, you've got to admit that it was a very clever and non-retconny way of answering that one question that many here wouldn't even notice.
Hovito loincloth
Well-Known Member
Hmmm, two research stations in Antarctica. Both have rifles, shotguns, handguns and flamethrowers. The Norwegian one has a case of grenades. My question is ; What are they researching? Infantry tactics on penguins?
Hovito loincloth
Well-Known Member
Hmm, snowplough or flamethrower? Snowplough or flamethrower? What to choose, what to choose?
Probe Droid
Master Member
Was also pleasantly surprised by this film. Had fun with it.
Solo4114
Master Member
FLAMETHROWER!!! It's WAY more fun.
I'd use chemicals to de-ice planes, rather than something that might warp or crack the fragile metal. I'd use dynamite or shaped charges to blast ice rather than an omnidirectional fragmentation grenade. Actually, I can't remember if they were all frags or if there were some thermite grenades in there, too.
CB2001
Master Member
The deleted scenes and most of the scenes cut prior to the reshoot only shows how the suits interference screwed it up, it being the second worst decision they made in relation to anything Thing related (the first worst mistake was releasing Carpenter's The Thing out at the exact same time as Spielberg's E.T.).
CB2001
Master Member
True. It doesn't the fact they released it at the same time that E.T. was out was still a big mistake. The Thing came out two weeks after (I've checked iCal and tracked back to confirm it), and E.T. was probably still at number one the second weekend, which was June 18.
But, the fact that Blade Runner and The Thing were both dark sci-fi while E.T. was light hearted is one of the major factors that lead to the lack of box office. But most importantly, they eventually found their audience thanks to VHS.
Similar threads
