Just finished watching this for the first time in over ten years. I have a few questions.
1. Why didn't the Norwegians tell anyone about the shit going down?
2. When did Blair get infected, and who infected him?
3. When did the stoner guy on the couch get infected?
4. Why wasn't this film successful when it first came out?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
>Why didn't the Norwegians tell anyone about the shit going down?
Probably the same reason why the Americans didn't tell anyone. Nobody trusted anyone and their radio equipment was destroyed. There's a shitty 2011 prequel that takes place in the Norwegian camp
>When did Blair get infected, and who infected him?
Blair probably go himself infected while doing the autopsy of the dog thing
>When did the stoner guy on the couch get infected?
Probably early on by the Norwegian dog
>Why wasn't this film successful when it first came out?
Because of E.T.
Wouldn't that nigger be wearing gloves and shit?
1. In both the 1982 film and in the strongly disliked 2011 prequel which explores the Norwegian camp, there is plenty of context. At first, some scientists wanted to keep the discovery secret for themselves, not knowing what they'd found until it was too late. By that point everyone was too busy trying (and failing) to stay alive that they didn't have any time to talk to others. Basically the Norwegian camp follows the same basic plot outline as the American one - everything happens so quickly, and the few times they do try the radio don't work, so pretty soon other things take priority.
2. We will never know exactly when Blair was infected. My personal view is that the mass of thing-stuff that they burned and buried was still strong and warm enough that it re-assembled while everyone else was inside, and it chose the solitary Blair for its next victim (easy pickings, the rest of the group doesn't know). Another valid theory is that Blair started to be infected when he touched the end of his pencil to his mouth while explaining the dog-thing creature to the group - it's possible some Thing cells got into Blair from there, and besides Blair was arm-deep in Thing at multiple points, so one little cut or imperfection in his skin would have doomed him.
3. It is not clear whether the dog-thing infects Norris or Palmer first. My personal view is that Norris was the first victim, while Palmer was the next victim, during a two-day interim (not shown in the film). I believe that it's Palmer's long johns which Mac is holding when he makes his tape, but again, we'll never know for certain.
4. It was the summer of E.T., and people were in the mood for a happy alien story, not a bleak and horrifying one. Anons today underestimate what a huge cultural event E.T. was.
3.
>Why didn't the Norwegians tell anyone about the shit going down?
Watch the 2011 film
That's like telling somebody to eat dog shit to know what dog food tastes like
>pubic hair on the neck
What did it mean by this?
Friendly reminder this film doesn't make sense from a narrative standpoint because John sacrificed logic, timelines and linears in order to create the ultimate paranoia/isolation terror. It worked, though, the film is one of my all-time favorites, it's just that it doesn't make any fucking sense because many things (no pun) contradict each other, and the film bends its own established rules on few occasions. The fact no one has figured it out 35 later is a testament to that
>many things (no pun) contradict each other, and the film bends its own established rules on few occasions.
such as?
I prefer to believe that Blair gets infected when the lights go out. It explains a great deal more. Blair would not run the computer simulations if he himself were the thing - he would already know how fast he could take things over. Here's how it goes:
>Palmer assimilated by dog on screen
>Norris partially assimilated by eating something tainted
>Blair goes nuts and is sent to shack
>Lights go out
>Palmer assimilates Blair in his shack
>Palmer runs into Fuchs on his way back
>Burns him and litters his corpse with MacReady's clothing
This is further explained by Palmer being the last one seen with the flamethrower prior to the lights going out.
>1. Why didn't the Norwegians tell anyone about the shit going down?
Probably the same reason as the Americans - there was a snowstorm during the period in which they had the knowledge to do so.
>2. When did Blair get infected, and who infected him?
He was infected by Palmer when the lights went out imho. This explains Fuchs' burning - Palmer didn't have time to assimilate him so he burned him instead. This further makes sense when you realize Palmer was the last to have the flamethrower before the lights went out.
>3. When did the stoner guy on the couch get infected?
He was the first to be infected when it goes into the room with the person's shadow. The director has stated that it was Palmer, but his shadow was too much of a give-away, so they used a stunt double's shadow instead.
>4. Why wasn't this film successful when it first came out?
Because it came out around the same time as ET
He's got nuthin' - just lame b8.
So I always assumed Blair was the first person infected. Two things always stuck out that made me think this.
1. He elaborates heavily into the fact that the imitations would be perfect, so much so that they wouldn't even know they were imitations.
2. Towards the end when the group goes out to the shed and find the tunnel with the ship that Blairthing was building, one of them makes a remark that "he's been busy for a long time out here.", or something to that effect. I just figured that Blairthing had been building it out there even before he was confined to the shed, and that's also why when they confined him he didn't transform, since he could just devote all his time to working on that ship instead of splitting time pretending to be normal and working on it whenever he could sneak away.
He does wear gloves. Thats not when he gets infected cause after that he destroys all the radio equipment and gets locked in the shed.
Sometime during his stay in the shed is when he got infected
Norwegians dont tell anyone cause they dont speak fucking english
How stupid are you?
So what happened at the end? Was childs the thing?
And here we go
A lot of Norwegians are fluent in English. More than 80% knows how to speak some English.
That and lets not forget that they were not any Norwegians, they were scientists, it's pretty standard to know more languages when you are a doctor.
>1. Why didn't the Swedes tell anyone about the shit going down?
Why didn't the americans?
The thing usually turns into a mix of pieces of different creatures that are not where they are supposed to be, because they are useful adaptations for the moment.
Maybe it was hoping to break through the ceiling and escape, so it grew fur, or it could just be that it's a messy process and the genetic sequences it has don't always express themselves properly.
Nah he couldnt be. He had a flamethrower and easily could have of just snuck up on the main dude in thing form if he wanted.
In the 80s nobody gave a fuck about learning English.
>Childs was the Thing
Mac is going to freeze to death, the Thing will be found and we're all doomed once it's found.
>Childs wasn't the Thing.
It vanished into the snowstorm while Childs was chasing it. Mac and Childs will freeze to death and we're all doomed once it's found.
>1. Why didn't the Norwegians tell anyone about the shit going down?
Even disregarding the borderline heretical choice to replace the practical effects, the 2011 falls flat to me because it makes The Thing behave more like a rabid animal rather than what we saw in Carpenters.
>4. Why wasn't this film successful when it first came out?
John Carpenter films usually aren't. Ghosts of Mars was good too but it got absolutely trashed by (((critics))).
After the movie ended Macready killed childswith the flamethrower
Why did it grow another human face?
I reject this view.
First of all, as a piece, 2011 is careful to repeat most of the same sorts of dramatic arcs, in sequence, as take place in 1982. They knew that 1982 was a solid formula and so they were careful to ape that. Two examples of this are how the Juliette-thing essentially moves us along from the first act to the second act (now everyone understands perfectly what this thing is capable of, and what the stakes really are), and how the incapicatated, previously trusted team member turns out to be a Thing and decimates the team in the film's flashiest and most memorable sequence (Norris-Thing/Edvard-Thing). The point being that in terms of story beats, 2011 maps onto 1982 (exactly because they really, sincerely tried very carefully to describe the same creature with same m.o., morphology and so on), and this because the same creature is being described in the one movie, under the same sorts of, er "environmental and evolutionary pressures", is again described under like circumstances in the other. In terms of story, the 2011 filmmakers succeeded to create a worthwhile companion piece, which is the main thing about the movie that people like you (the majority) miss.
Or suppose not, and suppose that we allow that the Things in 2011 behave more erratically than in 1982. Then even in this other case, your view is still mistaken in the sense that you don't account for chronology and motivation. In 2011, the creature is interacting with and becoming humans for the very first time ever, and has to figure out how they work. Moreover, it has a ready, viable escape in the saucer, which is scuttled. In this other interpretation, the thing has logged experience being human, which it turns to the later chess match, more necessary now since it doesn't have an immediate means of escape at any one time. Either way, you're wrong.
Idiot
It had assimilated a husky guy who (its perfect copy of him, anyway) really was having a heart attack at the moment. It was disoriented and had to react to perceived threat/attack (defibrillation) just as any cornered animal would: by fighting. Its pure Thing-instinct kicked in, which entails the following: grow some shit to immediately get a better sensory understanding of what's going on (eyes, ears, whatever else it knows to do etc), fight attackers (chopping Copper's arms off), and spread your seed around (all that green shit coming out of the chest cavity, flying all over the place).
This is why the dog-thing grows eyes and claws and shit all at once, when it is cornered, and why Edvard-Thing acts as it does. Huh, it's almost as if m.o. and morphology really are consistent among the two films, after all.
>1-4
Watch the prequel
"It has no pace, sloppy continuity, bland characters... It's my contention that John Carpenter was never meant to direct science fiction horror movies. Here are some things he'd be better suited to direct: Traffic accidents, train wrecks and public floggings..." - Alan Spencer, Starlog magazine November, 1982
"A surprising failure" "Carpenter's most unsatisfying film to date." - Phil Hardy, Science Fiction (1984)
"Too phony looking to be disgusting. It qualifies only as instant junk" "A foolish, depressing, overproduced movie that mixes horror with science fiction to make something that is fun as neither one thing or the other. Sometimes it looks as if it aspired to be the quintessential moron movie of the 80's" - Vincent Canby, New York Times
"It seems clear that Carpenter made his choice early on to concentrate on the special effects and the technology and to allow the story and people to become secondary. Because this material has been done before, and better, especially in the original "The Thing"" - Roger Ebert
"This movie is more disgusting than frightening, and most of it is just boring." David Denby, New York Magazine
"The structure of the piece reminds unpleasantly of porno films..." - Daily Variety
"So single-mindedly determined to keep you awake that it almost puts you to sleep" - David Ansen, Newsweek
"A wretched excess" - Gary Arnold, The Washington Post
"The only avenue left to explore would seem to be either concentration camp documentaries or the snuff movie." - William Parente, The Scotsman
Audiences didn't show up, either. Despite Carpenter's proven track record with Halloween ($47 million), The Fog ($21 million), and Escape from New York ($25 million), the box office for The Thing only amounted to $13.8 million, with an opening weekend gross of $3.1 million.
"In France, I'm an auteur. In England, I'm a horror movie director. In Germany, I'm a filmmaker. In the US, I'm a bum." - John Carpenter
"I take every failure hard. The one I took the hardest was "The Thing". My career would have been different if that had been a big hit... The movie was hated. Even by science-fiction fans. They thought that I had betrayed some kind of trust, and the piling on was insane. Even the original movie's director, Christian Nyby, was dissing me." - John Carpenter
"What the old picture delivered – and what Carpenter has missed – was a sense of intense dread." Variety (In 1951, the same paper had said of Nyby's film: "The resourcefulness shown in building the plot groundwork is lacking as the yarn gets into full swing. Cast members fail to communicate any real terror.")
"If you want blood, go to the slaughterhouse. All in all, it's a terrific commercial for J&B Scotch." - Christian Nyby, director of the original
"We're Dead" remarked producer David Foster. The occasion was his return from the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood and the premiere engagement of E.T. THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL, where the trailer for THE THING also happened to be playing. The icy silence of the matinee audience of grandmothers escorting their grandchildren ( and vice versa ) was enough to elicit his precise statement of our predicament.
The ground had been shifting underneath our feet ever since the public previews, one executive confiding to me that the studio considered the movie a "missed opportunity", a product of failed expectations. The advertising campaign had changed overnight - the somber, predominately black and white imagery ( which we had been consulted on ) replaced overnight with the now familiar "glow face" ( which we hadn't ), the tag line " Man Is The Warmest Place To Hide" dumped for "The Ultimate In Alien Terror", which I abhorred ( "Man" was written by a publicist named Stephen Frankfort, who also came up with what I thought was the best tag line ever for ALIEN - "In Space, No One Can Hear You Scream". He was hired early on and his company also created the earliest teaser with the ice block. The "Alien Terror" tagline was concocted by a studio suddenly desperate to display the word "Alien" above the title ). Both I thought represented a last minute demotion to "B" film status, something we had fought for years, and evidence that Universal was effectively throwing in the towel in trying to reach a broader, more mainstream audience.
Are there any other great Ayyyyylium movies like this one? Or any good horrors similar to this movie?
This. What makes the thing so scary in the Carpenter films is that it plays with its prey. It behaves like a sentient creature, not an animal. There are multiple times in the movie where the thing probably could've just fucked everyone, like when the Palmer thing was tied down with Gary and co., but instead, it goes all out and aims to strike as much fear and paranoia as possible. Whereas in the 2011 flick, it just kinda attacks whenever it feels like it. There's no method, or reason, just, eh, guess I'll fuck this dude now
>In 2011, the creature is interacting with and becoming humans for the very first time ever, and has to figure out how they work
So it thought that if it slowly turned into a screaming monster that breaks down walls and chases after people, the humans wouldn't have noticed it?
It's assumed that the Thing has assimilated thousands of other aliens. If it landed on a new planet it wouldn't behave like a wild animal. When it had characters cornered with nobody around, instead of just silently killing them it takes the time to transform into a monster.
> it has a ready, viable escape in the saucer, which is scuttled
Then why the fuck did it crawl out of the ice to begin with?
The director clearly was a fan of the 1982 version but he had no idea why it worked.
Of course, with historical hindsight (and especially given the present readership), we are now inclined to read these blurbs and not merely know the critics to be wrong, but to be scandalized that so many can so uniformly so badly misread a film, and so totally fail to see what we all now know to be present in the film.
Some comments can be explained away by the absence of certain technologies: the "too phony looking to be disgusting" falsity can be partially explained in the sense that the critic had not yet had the benefit of seeing really awful CGI in any film, and thus not be obliged to appreciate practical effects as much as he should have. Ebert totally misses the present story,
So how is it that they were all so wrong? On the one hand, we should get the banality that taste is subjective out of the way (this is true, but unhelpful). On the other hand, we should look at differences in the historical periods to gauge things a bit better.
Even in the 80s, society was a lot more moral-faggy than it was today. Even though people have always been able to appreciate bleak and/or strange art, when it hits as hard as this film, I think that the respectable critics actually felt a vague moral duty to trash the film, and that this is the reason why they all piled on with their false opinions.
>Are there any other Ayyyyylium movies like this one?
Not hundreds, but a lot
>Great
Nope. Black mountain side is comfy and decent, but otherwise
I'm pretty sure they actually had sex after the film ends. They drink a bit and then they get down to it.
>MacCready: "The way I see it, if we fuck and you attack me, you're the Thing. If we fuck and neither of us gets killed, we're both good."
It's the only way to be sure.
>So it thought that if it slowly turned into a screaming monster that breaks down walls and chases after people, the humans wouldn't have noticed it?
This is a bogus complaint, and you know that it's bogus. You just haven't analyzed things closely enough, because you want to make your swipe stick, somehow, when it applies to the 2011 film, and ignore like circumstances in the 1982 film as it fits your convenience.
The juliette-thing is caught with its pants down (metaphorically) and so it reverts to pure survival mode, giving up the pretense of simulation. What other things do this under duress? Oh yeah, most of them, especially the dog-thing when it's cornered (which busts through a ceiling itself btw, further putting the lie to your attempt here).
There's more in your post to unpack, and you're driving at conditionally good points, but you ignore decent speculations (which are all we have at this point) for where we don't have perfect information as to the rest. In particular, you have a lack of imagination about how it might happen that the thing is out in the cold while the saucer is right there - I can think of a good three or four reasonable story explanations. Further, your "wild animal" sentence is baseless in the sense that it'll do whatever makes the most sense in a given scenario. If it lands on a planet populated only with space-deer, then yeah, it'll "act like a wild animal" for as long as this suits its purposees (assimilating the planetary population).
i just watched it. pretty cool, i liked the cinematography, and the uncertainness of the plot. it was almost a mystery at points. still, i dont really see why it's so acclaimed. it seems like a pretty standard horror movie. can someone explain?
>what makes The Thing scary is its disregard for ensuring that it's able to escape to civilization
I mean, it is scary that it plays with them. But I think the scarier thing would be The Thing reaching civilization.
I'd prefer a more logical reason as to why it didn't try infecting them when they were most vulnerable.
>The juliette-thing is caught with its pants down
How? MEW had her back turned and she was completely distracted and alone. Juliette could have just stabbed her or something.
The practical effects are really remarkable. The Thing is thus a great stopping point for millenials who want to be nostalgic for a visual world that they never really grew up in, but as Sup Forums makes perfectly clear, it really is better when done right.
Further, the setting is rather unique. Name another three films which take place entirely in Antarctica.
Its initial rejection by the critics and the people (see above) also lend it a historical cult status which has now mostly evaporated since it's now a popular and well known horror movie, having been rescued from its earlier ignominy.
The film is also a remake of a well-known and much-loved 1951 treatment of same story - the difference being that Carpenter's version hews far, far closer to the original short story, which is itself a classic of American science fiction.
All of this gives the film a unique and special charm, among horror/sci-fi pieces. It has historical cred and the film "had hard times" which also give it some cred.
The scene where Mac is doing the blood test is one of my favorites.
It's easily one of the best horror movie scenes of all time
WHat do you think is the best designed Thing imitation? It's hard, but I think the dog takes the cake. It may be because its the first time you see something so fucking horrible, but this abomination really stuck with me as a kid.
Say what you want about the prequel, but it had possibly the most disgusting Thing ever, I think.
Excuse me?
The Norwegians try to warn them at the start before they get shot and their helicopter blown up.
They are shouting Norwegian that the dog just aint right.
That scene is when my dad and 13 year old me started laughing our asses off. It was so god damn gross and goofy. What a gem.
Stand aside
I wonder if Norwegian viewers were annoyed they got a head start on the already shortlived mystery.
Imagine being 3 inches from this fucking thing.
>Ghosts of Mars wood good
m8...
the one where they try resusscitating the guy and his hands go through his chest
Post the webm
Every time I try to post a quote I get 'connection error' but yes, the Norwegians were shouting "Get away from the dog. It is not a dog. It is some kind of thing imitating a dog"
All I got is a gif, sorry.
...
The spider-head thing.
>prequel apologists
It would have been more useful to the Thing is Fuchs were turned.
Fuchs probably killed himself before it could get to him like it was said in the movie.
The one bit that always bugged me was when the tentacles come out the dead body and attack the guy in the chair.
The other guy walks in and finds the dude wrapped in slimy tentacles and then the guy runs off to get the others.
When they get to the original room, there is absolutely no trace anything went on.
They then get the dude outside, half turned, moaning, they burn him.
Ruins the whole mentality as to how the thing takes control of a host and how did it clean everything up so well while making it's escape?
Makes perfect sense actually.
The blood is part of the thing and can move on its own, as established by the scene where they stick a hot needle in everyone's blood sample.
No clean up needed when your mess is quasi sentient.
Didn't they check on Blair when the lights went out and he said he heard weird things outside?
Eitherway, Blair was assimilated while in the shack.
This scene was such bullshit, he's just sitting there sucking on it and not doing anything, it couldn't have been THAT strong.
Apologies, I should have explained better.
They say one cell is enough to take control of a host as per the computer simulation.
Instead you have a full mass of 'Thing' under the sheet meaning the dead guy was a thing.
It takes control of the dude in the chair (sorry I haven't memorised all their names)
When they catch him outside he is the same size, build etc apart from a deformed hand.
What happened to the rest of all that mass?
Only a small bit of the thing from the corpse split off, the extra mass wouldn't be noticeable. 99% of the corpse was still under the sheets
They burn it with the other specimens.
Keep this in mind:
During the blood test, when MacReady drops the dish containing the contaminated blood, the liquid blood begins to move on its own.
Tbqh, the actual screenplay for the thing is pretty mediocre, especially compared to the movie, but I'll be damned if this wouldn't have been kino
That would mean the entire facility is riddled with Things then.
All spider head things and blood slugs rampaging throughout.
Why even bother with the blood tests if it could be anywhere as opposed to anyone?
Just get the fuck out.
How did the nigger manage to survive until the end?
Surely The Thing contaminated the stocks of fried chicken.
I'm so fucking mad reading this bullshit. I suppose it's a hard lesson about group-think and the validity of artistic criticism. Makes me wonder what current films will be praised in the next decade or two. It won't be BvS. Fuck off.
He's just stating a fact from the movie, don't get too worked up over it. If you want a non-canon explanation just assume it can't survive too long without been attached to the main body mass
The Dark Knight Rises
or they got it? IDK why couldn't that be an option though?
Childs was wearing someone else's jacket for literally no reason at the end, he was definitely turned.
that pencil that touched his lip....
This is the best analysis of this theory you're gonna get.
Man, what happened to practical effects
>1. They did in their language, Carpenter intentionally did not caption it so we were equally confused as the Americans. (assuming neither us, nor they spoke anything other than english)
>2. Blair probably got infected after he was put into the cabin, I only say this because you'll notice a noose, he intended to kill himself but infection got to him.
>3. I think the dog infected Palmer on the first night when we saw it enter somebodys room.
>4. Normies dont understand how good something is until they get the neurons firing.
Pretty good discussion in this thread, definitely makes me rethink some parts of the film, gonna have to re-watch.
It's the same reason they aren't all mutant dog aliens running around. Safety in numbers, in this case by being a complete organism. They only separate (like the spider head) when the rest of the collective is compromised.
The shadow is either Norris or Palmer. Both have curly, frizzy hair like the shadow on the wall does and are the only 2 with the hair type that are infected.
They've stated it's Palmer. David Clennon's silhouette was too obvious, so they switched him out with stunt double Dick Warlock for the shadow. It's still Palmer though.
That's pretty good to know then. One question answered
>MacReady laughs when Childs drinks the whiskey
>it's because he wasn't worried about being infected because he already is
Well, that went over my head.
...
>It was the summer of E.T., and people were in the mood for a happy alien story
why would people be in the mood for that, it's insanely specific
The thing absorbs the host's mannerisms and memories tho, it would act suspicious of the drink to maintain the façade.
I can imagine that better than I can imagine being one of three people retarded enough to split up, after all the shit that went down, in the heart of creepy alien tunnels. The fact the black cook and the fucking English expedition leader just wander off to die always pisses me off.
The twist is that it doesn't matter. There's a snowstorm that nothing will get out of. Everything is going to die. Even if you burn the thing, little bits of it are still alive, like with the dead dog. MacReady knows that he's lost, whether Childs is the Thing or not. His character has come full circle after calling the computer chess game a "cheatin' bitch" at the beginning of the movie: he can finally accept his defeat.
lol shut up
Confirmed for no imagination.
The thing is replicating into his fucking brain and taking over right up at the brain-stalk and shit. Jonas is experiencing quiet, muffled 14/10 pain while all of this is going on, and part of him is still actually there, just in time to witness (probably to his dimly-aware relief, but still) his own immolation.
The black cook was attacked and killed by the box monster.