@bluersun said: So, just being in contact with the Thing won't infect another being (seems legit) but it has to consciously infect... I'm definitely with that idea. I'm currently watching The Blob '58 - which is what brought me back here - and I remember an old IMDb post about a Blob Vs Thing post... I know I'm digging up another subject altogether, but just mentioning it! Anyway, glad this thread still has legs

Heh, good to see you, man!

You summed it up surprisingly well, although I still would not use the word "infect". Apart from that, yes the Thing has to have the plan to devour and imitate its victim, and that process takes time. I believe when Palmer thing is surrounded, he has the right idea not to devour Windows, only munch on him enough to (maybe fatally) injure him, and move on / escape. By the time he could do that though, MacReady has the flamethrower fixed, and we all know what happens.

I'll also go off on a tangent and mention here that Rob Ager has a very interesting take on the tactic of Palmer-thing in one of his videos. Just tried to find it, but dang it, it was removed from YT or something I only found this thread on reddit, that had the original video link. Anyways, in short he argues that Palmer thing intentionally makes his transformation the most horrific way possible, destroying Palmer's original face in the process, to try to paralyze Mac and Windows with fear, to make them unable to move, unable to react and just be done with everyone . The plan doesn't work, but well... interesting interpretation.

As for the Blob, I only saw the '88 remake which is decent for a mindless fun movie, but it's really nothing more. I vaguely remember The Thing VS The Blob thread I think from IMDb though, but I only remember seeing the title of the thread, I never clicked it as far as I can remember

I still think that question 2 should have a yes answer and for the following reasons

-a)Doc's test showed that it can overtake it's prey on a cellular level although not the most effective and fast way to assimilate it's prey.The one on one assimilation is the most effective BUT the fact that it can infect and imitate more than one victim at the time is proof that even the smallest amount of material can infect it's victims.because by the time we find out Hallahan was assimilated Palmer had already been assimilated as well (remember the image of the sitting shadow figure with the (infected)husky).

-b)From a viewpoint of practicality it would take far more time for the creature to fully take over the world than the projection on Doc's computer program gave.So it's one on one assimilation would become a disadvantage when it has to infect the entire world population.For that to work it would have to infect a large population through cellular level assimilation,otherwise it would take years and years before the world would have been infected if it had to attack each individual on Earth so by then it would have been found out giving the uninfected part of the world time and ample chances to destroy the alien threat.

So the answer of 2 should be yes, but it depends on the circumstances it finds itself .With a relatively small but very isolated group it is preferable to use the one on one method of assimilation and besides having to assimilate the Humans it also has to cope with the harsh climate as well.But once it gets to a more mild climate and with vast centers of population from a point of practicality it would seem more logical that it would use assimilation on a cellular level because it could simple jump in a drinking water reservoir of a major city and it would be able to infect a city of millions in a matter of hours.

@sati_84 said:

@bluersun said: So, just being in contact with the Thing won't infect another being (seems legit) but it has to consciously infect... I'm definitely with that idea. I'm currently watching The Blob '58 - which is what brought me back here - and I remember an old IMDb post about a Blob Vs Thing post... I know I'm digging up another subject altogether, but just mentioning it! Anyway, glad this thread still has legs

Heh, good to see you, man!

You summed it up surprisingly well, although I still would not use the word "infect". Apart from that, yes the Thing has to have the plan to devour and imitate its victim, and that process takes time. I believe when Palmer thing is surrounded, he has the right idea not to devour Windows, only munch on him enough to (maybe fatally) injure him, and move on / escape. By the time he could do that though, MacReady has the flamethrower fixed, and we all know what happens.

I'll also go off on a tangent and mention here that Rob Ager has a very interesting take on the tactic of Palmer-thing in one of his videos. Just tried to find it, but dang it, it was removed from YT or something I only found this thread on reddit, that had the original video link. Anyways, in short he argues that Palmer thing intentionally makes his transformation the most horrific way possible, destroying Palmer's original face in the process, to try to paralyze Mac and Windows with fear, to make them unable to move, unable to react and just be done with everyone . The plan doesn't work, but well... interesting interpretation.

As for the Blob, I only saw the '88 remake which is decent for a mindless fun movie, but it's really nothing more. I vaguely remember The Thing VS The Blob thread I think from IMDb though, but I only remember seeing the title of the thread, I never clicked it as far as I can remember

Blob 88 was a fun horror that could have been a part of something bigger with the religious aspects, the government... I liked the different takes the remake had on the original (you might like it, it's good cheesey fun) Yes 'infect' isn't the right term, but it broadly serves a purpose after a couple of riojas I've watched quite a bit of Rob Ager's stuff but I don't recall that one... I'll try and find it as even if I don't always agree with them, he at least has some fun and interesting theories...!

@Nexus71 said:

I still think that question 2 should have a yes answer and for the following reasons

-a)Doc's test showed that it can overtake it's prey on a cellular level although not the most effective and fast way to assimilate it's prey.The one on one assimilation is the most effective BUT the fact that it can infect and imitate more than one victim at the time is proof that even the smallest amount of material can infect it's victims.because by the time we find out Hallahan was assimilated Palmer had already been assimilated as well (remember the image of the sitting shadow figure with the (infected)husky).

-b)From a viewpoint of practicality it would take far more time for the creature to fully take over the world than the projection on Doc's computer program gave.So it's one on one assimilation would become a disadvantage when it has to infect the entire world population.For that to work it would have to infect a large population through cellular level assimilation,otherwise it would take years and years before the world would have been infected if it had to attack each individual on Earth so by then it would have been found out giving the uninfected part of the world time and ample chances to destroy the alien threat.

So the answer of 2 should be yes, but it depends on the circumstances it finds itself .With a relatively small but very isolated group it is preferable to use the one on one method of assimilation and besides having to assimilate the Humans it also has to cope with the harsh climate as well.But once it gets to a more mild climate and with vast centers of population from a point of practicality it would seem more logical that it would use assimilation on a cellular level because it could simple jump in a drinking water reservoir of a major city and it would be able to infect a city of millions in a matter of hours.

I'm no scientist, so I can't say much about how the infection/takeover would or could work... To what degree could a person's immune system fight it off (if at all) would drugs or even alcohol affect it? My question is, does The Thing gain mass? It can obviously divide itself and so attack multiple victims but if it were to do this would the replication be the same size? Obviously this would be a pointless endeavour and only a useful tactic if it were attacking smaller creatures... Or midgets. So I'm not sure about it infecting a reservoir being the best tactic as if it does gain mass with each attack the speed it would multiply would increase (1 becomes 2, 2 becomes 4, 4 becomes 16 etc). Is there any evidence that backs up or counters that theory? When Bennings is taken over we see the attack and then we see Bennings-Thing, but we don't see the original Thing again... Or do we? An answer to that might go a way as to answering whether or not The Thing gains mass...

@Nexus71 said:

I still think that question 2 should have a yes answer and for the following reasons

-a)Doc's test showed that it can overtake it's prey on a cellular level although not the most effective and fast way to assimilate it's prey.The one on one assimilation is the most effective BUT the fact that it can infect and imitate more than one victim at the time is proof that even the smallest amount of material can infect it's victims.because by the time we find out Hallahan was assimilated Palmer had already been assimilated as well (remember the image of the sitting shadow figure with the (infected)husky).

-b)From a viewpoint of practicality it would take far more time for the creature to fully take over the world than the projection on Doc's computer program gave.So it's one on one assimilation would become a disadvantage when it has to infect the entire world population.For that to work it would have to infect a large population through cellular level assimilation,otherwise it would take years and years before the world would have been infected if it had to attack each individual on Earth so by then it would have been found out giving the uninfected part of the world time and ample chances to destroy the alien threat.

So the answer of 2 should be yes, but it depends on the circumstances it finds itself .With a relatively small but very isolated group it is preferable to use the one on one method of assimilation and besides having to assimilate the Humans it also has to cope with the harsh climate as well.But once it gets to a more mild climate and with vast centers of population from a point of practicality it would seem more logical that it would use assimilation on a cellular level because it could simple jump in a drinking water reservoir of a major city and it would be able to infect a city of millions in a matter of hours.

Hey there, I'm back and just thought about how to answer this, when I came across a Reddit post from the user cavalier78, which raised a very important plot point about why cell by cell takeover should not work.

I'll cite it soon, but before I do, let me clarify that I'm aware that my argument always gets a bit boring since I can't let go of the notion that this is not a science fiction science question, but a "how to write a movie with the most effective plot" kind of question. As much as I like to speculate about fictional science (trust me, I really do!) I rarely do it in this thread or about The Thing specifically, because I think it derails the conversation. So let me say, that from an in-universe scientific standpoint, the cell by cell takeover could work. I think even looking at it from that viewpoint it's extremely unlikely because of two reasons (I already mentioned both:

1. There must be some kind of reaction from the immune system, which would counteract the cell by cell takeover. I don't know enough about the human immune system to be confident in this, but I think the white blood cells would very much fight back, quickly causing inflammations and other symptoms.

2. It's extremely unlikely that the Thing's cells would be compatible with human cells on a cellular level, as mentioned in the original novella. This is why devouring is working, because it's on the physical level, and not happening on the cellular level. After that, the Thing can analyze and copy what was devoured, while building the imitation.

Of course there are easy ways out of both of my complaints, since for #1, you can say: every aspect of the thing cells is identical to normal cells, so the immune system would not detect them as foreign cells, thus no inflammation, no reaction from white blood cells and other components of the system. And to that I wouldn't be able to say anything more :) And to #2 you could say that well, The Thing can imitate anything, so it's essentially compatible with... anything. And to that I wouldn't be able to say anything either :)

This is why I'm sticking to focusing on what is possible according to the logic of the plot. So the mentioned reddit user commented the following when cell by cell takeover came up in a thread:

If it just takes a few cells, then they're all fucked.

At the very beginning of the film, in the span of about twenty seconds, the dog runs up and licks Bennings in the face. Then he gets shot by the Swede Norwegian guy, and MacCready runs over and hands Bennings a whiskey bottle. Bennings promptly takes a big swig from it, with that same mouth that the dog just licked. We all know Mac is not one to let alcohol go unfinished. Likely he finished that bottle off later on. So boom, two people infected immediately.

The problem with the "viral infection" idea, is that the dog was loose for hours in the camp. It could have licked the water faucets, guy's toothbrushes, all their personal effects. But then, the dog would have absolutely no reason to go for the hostile takeover of the other dogs. All it had to do was wait.

I have to believe that the Thing behaves logically. Blair-Thing is building a space ship. Dog-Thing watches the men leaving in the helicopter, and coming back in the helicopter. It knows what they found. The Thing is smart. If the virus theory is true, it could have just acted like a normal dog for a week or so, and it would have won. Since it didn't do that, then the violent absorption process is necessary.

When I collected my arguments against the cell by cell takeover, I did not think about the time when the dog was roaming around the camp, but it's there in the movie. It didn't lick the humans and infect them. Also, the dog thing did not go for the obvious "lick them when they are sleeping, and take over all of them slowly" route with the dogs either. So here are two additional points why cell by cell takeover should not work. I say "should not" because from a scientific viewpoint, we cannot rule it out.

To quote something specifically from Nexus:

Doc's test showed that it can overtake it's prey on a cellular level although not the most effective and fast way to assimilate it's prey

By "test" I think you mean the computer simulation (if not, please clarify), for which all data was provided by Doc himself... so he assumed cell by cell takeover is working, and that's what the computer used as basis for that simulation, as it only had data for that. From then on, it's only a matter of a simple calculation, but of course those are just numbers. Even with cell by cell takeover, I don't think the final figure can be trusted. As you mentioned in your post, large populations could realize what is happening and take countermeasures (testing and burning everyone who is a thing, etc.), and with that humanity could slow down the threat significantly, maybe even stop it completely.

So bottom line is the computer simulation was based on an assumption, which from the POV of the plot is wrong. Fuch's assumption is also wrong about the food, but it creates value in the context, since it shows how massive the problem they are dealing with actually is, and how little they understand it. They assume a few things about how the creature works, but those conclusions are derived from very limited information and "on the field". They did not have months or years in a lab to study the creature, and that's what makes it great writing.

**In summary: **for the plot to work, cell by cell takeover should not be possible.

For fun scientific speculation, we can discuss how cell by cell assimilation could work - but it would be very difficult to write as brilliant plot as the Thing's around that...

I think the original post is half-right.

As far as Things being self-aware, I disagree. I think it has its own collective consciousness which can override its host's consciousness whenever there's a hint that its survival is threatened. The host then goes dormant while The Thing controls them in a zombie-like manner like Blair when we last see him or Palmer when he fails the drug test. At that point, the mind of the host doesn't exist (or is asleep and unaware) while The Thing uses the body to do what needs to be done. I think the movie theorizes that consciousness is not physical (more like the electrical impulses between neurons in the brain, which may not even be affected at all if the body is replaced cell-by-cell). I think that's far more plausable than The Thing copying and pasting a person's memories and personality like a computer program. Does it have some mechanism to replace or delete recent memories such as violent assimilation experience? I would have to say that's likely because of how we see the dogs conscious and agitated while they are in the process of being assimilated (otherwise we'd get traumatized dog copies afterward). So that may counteract my theory to some level, but I think even with modern technology we have the ability to create short-term amnesia (think like an alcohol black-out) which wouldn't be too hard for The Thing to master over millennia of evolution encountering species on many planets.

As far as The Thing being unable to infect with a single cell, I agree, but for different reasons:

My theory is that The Thing most closely resembles a Portuguese Man o War creature; it is a collective of specialized cells with some devoted to digestion, some to copying, and some "stinging" cells for self defense. When we see it spray gunk all over the dog, I think the implication is that The Thing is acting like a Velvet Worm and spraying adhesive to slow down its prey (a substance that likely contains no copying cells as otherwise that's all it would have to do to copy them). Then when it's copying the dogs, internal organs and all, it requires all the red hose-like tendrils to connect to the prey (which we also see wrapped around Bennings when he is copied). For a full assimilation, digestion, and cell-copy/replacement, I believe it requires the use of these specialized cells on a macro level "it tears through clothes". Otherwise, why would it bother? Is it simply for sake of expediency? I'm not quite sure what happened when it killed Gary or Windows. Probably an imperfect abbreviated version of both attack AND assimilate by injecting a base-ball sized amount of itself into the host's head.

Thanks for the reply, it's always nice to see a detailed reaction. I went through your points and still disagree on a few points, so I'll try to challenge your view further - so let's begin.

As far as Things being self-aware, I disagree. I think it has its own collective consciousness which can override its host's consciousness whenever there's a hint that its survival is threatened. The host then goes dormant while The Thing controls them in a zombie-like manner like Blair when we last see him or Palmer when he fails the drug test. At that point, the mind of the host doesn't exist (or is asleep and unaware) while The Thing uses the body to do what needs to be done.

Technically, your version could be true here. I would however say that from the perspective of construing a narrative for a horror, I'd much prefer my version. For example: the dog walks over to someone to assimilate him, as evidenced by the infamous "shadow shot". In which scenario is the villain (The Thing in this case) more threatening - if it randomly waited for the dog to just happen to find itself alone with someone in their room - or if it's in control using the host's characteristics, memories, etc. and planning the situation intentionally? My money is on the latter - the Thing would be really-really inefficient if it let it's host's mind to control bodies it already took over, trusting blind luck to get a random chance to assimilate someone. I think this should be much more deliberate. I would also say that using the host's memories and knowledge it can spread ominous messages, and cause disturbances in the group - like framing MacReady with the torn long johns. And yes, technically it could work as you say that whoever framed MacReady doesn't have a memory of going up his shack and planting that "evidence", but wouldn't the host notice the missing time? In the movie no one is like "hey, I don't remember saying that" or "What was I doing in the last hour?", etc. I feel if the filmmakers would've wanted to imply that the thing is only occassionally in control, they would have included this in some way in the final film's narrative.

I think the movie theorizes that consciousness is not physical (more like the electrical impulses between neurons in the brain, which may not even be affected at all if the body is replaced cell-by-cell).

You touched on an interesting idea. I myself think that the movie says that if you copy and re-build the brain, all the information (memories, personality traits) are also re-built. These are present for the Thing to use them as tools for maintaining the facade, but in my view, nothing remains from the original consciousness, the Thing fakes everything. It does so convincingly, but the original person is dead and replaced by a copy.

I think that's far more plausable than The Thing copying and pasting a person's memories and personality like a computer program.

See my above point: I also don't think that's what's happening. But your computer program analogy made me think, so let me use an analogy here. So let's say I see a beautiful picture on the Internet. I can't draw, so I have no chance to recreate that image. But if I find a computer program that gives me the location and the color of every single pixel in that image, based on that information, I can create a perfect copy of that image (or any image I wish). So I scan all images I like with my program and recreate them based on the pixel data. Then I show them to someone, maybe even the original artist, and everyone will agree that the images are identical. But the original image is the result of a very complex artistic process, and my copy is a brute-force recreation of the finished image. I think you see where I'm going here: When building an imitaton, the Thing has pixels and data but doesn't have artistic intent - it only uses data to recreate the end result. The artistic process cannot be "reverse engineered" from the end result, because all we see are pixels. And if the pixels are identical, we are fooled 100%, even if the image we are looking at lacks the artistic intent completely. So when the Thing copies a person, it recreates their body, how they behave, etc., and everyoneis fooled - but it doesn't recreate_ them_ (the artistic intent / essence of a person). For the sake of the movie (and it's a sci-fi so why not) I accept that the Thing can do this kind of scanning - extracting data - rebuilding process with a human as well as a comptuer can do it to an image. The scanning and extracting data process happens during the killing and devouring of the victim. And again - I think the narrative works way better if the original person is long dead and all we see is a copy, devoid of any humanity, consiting only of the calculated intentions of the Thing. That is true horror, as an unknown creature uses your memories and your characteristics to basically kill all humans.

Does it have some mechanism to replace or delete recent memories such as violent assimilation experience? I would have to say that's likely because of how we see the dogs conscious and agitated while they are in the process of being assimilated (otherwise we'd get traumatized dog copies afterward). So that may counteract my theory to some level, but I think even with modern technology we have the ability to create short-term amnesia (think like an alcohol black-out) which wouldn't be too hard for The Thing to master over millennia of evolution encountering species on many planets.

Interesting point, and it's great that you wanted to address the memory part of the process - but again - amnesia would be apparent for the victims because of the missing time, so I don't think this works in the context of the movie.

As far as The Thing being unable to infect with a single cell, I agree, but for different reasons:

My theory is that The Thing most closely resembles a Portuguese Man o War creature; it is a collective of specialized cells with some devoted to digestion, some to copying, and some "stinging" cells for self defense. When we see it spray gunk all over the dog, I think the implication is that The Thing is acting like a Velvet Worm and spraying adhesive to slow down its prey (a substance that likely contains no copying cells as otherwise that's all it would have to do to copy them). Then when it's copying the dogs, internal organs and all, it requires all the red hose-like tendrils to connect to the prey (which we also see wrapped around Bennings when he is copied). For a full assimilation, digestion, and cell-copy/replacement, I believe it requires the use of these specialized cells on a macro level "it tears through clothes". Otherwise, why would it bother? Is it simply for sake of expediency? I'm not quite sure what happened when it killed Gary or Windows. Probably an imperfect abbreviated version of both attack AND assimilate by injecting a base-ball sized amount of itself into the host's head.

I don't really see how this reason is different from mine - you are also saying that before copying the original and creating an imitation it has to digest the victim. And with that I agree :-) About Windows, I said earlier that the Thing had no time to properly go through the process, so it munched on his head, most likely creating fatal wounds, spraying him with digestive fluid in the process, as I guess it tried to keep him in reserve in case it made out of the building alive. But your "adhesive to slow down the prey" version works just as well. The case of Garry is interesting, but I think the filmmakers wanted to show something really weird there, unlike anything else we've seen before in the movie, and it's... hit and miss for me. There are viewings where I say to myself "that's ridiculous, they really ran out of ideas and time there" and there are times when I say "this is so weird and effective" - so I'm really ambivalent on this. Your version of an abbreviated version of attack and assimilate could work, I think in the case of Garry it just tried to quickly immobilize him to be digested and copied later - as evidenced by the fact that Blair dragged him to his lair later.

good points all; two questions I'd like to ask:

How do you think The Thing would behave if it was successfully captured (while assuming the shape of a human) and identified as a Thing after the capture? Would it freak out and start mutating immediately? Would it go into some kind of dormant torpor to wait it out (if it was in an enclosed space like a prison cell with clear plastic on all sides and no clear way out aside from tiny airvents)? I think that it would actually communicate as the host, but desperately try to gaslight whoever captured it. "You're crazy to think I am a Thing! Your test doesn't prove anything!" and then attack someone as soon as anyone came inside. I wonder if it would act like in the prequels and break off small pieces of it to exit through air vents etc.

Second question:

What about the Law of Conservation of Matter? If the Thing is a Dog and coverts Norris in the room, does this result in two organisms that weigh exactly the same as Norris and a Dog? Is any waste material created or can it perhaps just become more dense while maintaining an outward shape before splitting into multiple organisms? There looks like a lot of goo left over after Bennings was assimulated and I'm curious what all that was meant to be. I'm also curious because the final Blair Creature suddenly seems to have this additional mass (is that just the addition of Garry and Nauls in a short span of time?). It acts very strangely at the end too, speeding under the floor toward MacReady (where there is a lot of resistance to its momentum) but when it rises up, it just kind of stands over him and starts hatching a new dog out of its chest. I wonder if it was hindered in some way by having to digest the two other people at the same time.

Just spit-balling random ideas here. It's been a while since I found any group of people willing to invest into as much intelligent discourse into this movie. The facebook group is okay, but quickly loses steam as topics get memory-holed and responses are typically only a sentence or two at best.

Let's start at the end of your post: allow me to recommend the MovieChat forums - these are the IMDb boards basically - the site has the same design, and it has all the movie boards and threads that were already present at the time (2017) when the IMDb boards were shut down, so it serves as an archive as well :-) Check this out:

https://moviechat.org/tt0084787/The-Thing

I pretty much moved my activities 100% there, I don't create new posts here anymore, I only come back when someone responds to one of my earlier posts - like you did now.

On to your questions then :-)

How do you think The Thing would behave if it was successfully captured (while assuming the shape of a human) and identified as a Thing after the capture?

Really good question! We did not witness any such scenario in any of the films, so my answer would be that it would adapt to the situation. If this is the first test performed by the group that captured it, then maybe it would try gaslighting them, but if the test proved to be correct time and time again for a while for them, it would choose some other tactic, as it should possess the knowledge from its host. I don't have a good answer here, it really depends on the circumstancse.

I wonder if it would act like in the prequels and break off small pieces of it to exit through air vents etc.

I didn't like the prequel, and especially how it treated the "breaking off small pieces to escape" abiity of the creature. I think in The Thing 2011 it was oversued to the point that I think most of the viewers asked themselves "but why doesn't the Thing use this all the time", while the original 1982 version played it smart, the Thing only tried to pull this once, and it did so by creating a distraction Norris-head for the crew to look at while the "real" head tried to get away. It was unexpected, creative and clever - and it didn't work, as the group spotted the head. Another reason why I think the Thing would use this tactic sparingly is the fact that when it is small, like the size of a hand or a head, it's more vulnerable, and doesn't have enough mass / force to incapacitate or devour a human (unless it has the element of surprise). This means if it split itself up from a human sized Thing to several hand-sized ones, then it cannot form imitations anymore - or it can, but much much more slowly. And imitations are crucial for blending in, so it wouldn't give up the chance to create more.

The 2011 prequel suprisingly highlighted this point: one of the guys is a thing, detaches its arm and latches on to an unfortunate guy's face. It tries to merge with him (instead of devouring and imitating him), or does whatever else to him, but the point is - the process is apparently very slow. If left alone, maybe in 7-8 hours it could've killed and slowly devour him and build an imitation, but in no scenario is it workable for the Thing - the proccess needs to be much faster. So for this reason, I think in the case of Norris it was a last ditch effort, but in the prequel it was really stupid for the Thing to do it in clear view of 5-6 othe people without any attempt at a distraction... ridiculous.

What about the Law of Conservation of Matter? If the Thing is a Dog and coverts Norris in the room, does this result in two organisms that weigh exactly the same as Norris and a Dog?

In the case of Norris and the dog, I think the end result speaks for itself - there is a norris imitation, and there is a dog imitation. The dog imitation killed and devoured Norris, then built the Norris imitation, using the Norris-mass it gained from killing and devouring norris. So the law of conservation of matter was not violated - the only thing I want to know is how it cleaned Norris's sheets afterwards - the place must have been a bloody mess :-) Point is: a dog sized Thing has enough mass / tentacles to kill and devour a man, so I see no problem with that.

Is any waste material created or can it perhaps just become more dense while maintaining an outward shape before splitting into multiple organisms? There looks like a lot of goo left over after Bennings was assimulated and I'm curious what all that was meant to be.

Well, this is an interesting question - I myself don't think there is any "waste material" in the classic sense of the word. However killing a man and devouring the corpse is a messy affair. During the killing phase, some blood and other bodily fluids are spilled, and I think that's what we see in the case of Bennings.

I'm also curious because the final Blair Creature suddenly seems to have this additional mass (is that just the addition of Garry and Nauls in a short span of time?). It acts very strangely at the end too, speeding under the floor toward MacReady (where there is a lot of resistance to its momentum) but when it rises up, it just kind of stands over him and starts hatching a new dog out of its chest. I wonder if it was hindered in some way by having to digest the two other people at the same time.

From the perspective of the Law of Conservation of Mass, I think Garry, Nauls and Blair provides just enough mass to justify what we see. Especially if we presume that the Thing can form empty spaces inside of it to appear bigger - which it wanted at that point. I must say though that the final confrontation between the Blair-Thing and MacReady is my least favorite part. All throughout the movie, the Thing acts logically in every situaion, but suddenly it turns to a dumb Hollywood monster, allowing MacReady to even crack a one liner before blowing it up with dynamite.

I still think the movie is 10/10, but I find this scene a bit lacking. However, the Rule of Cool saves it, and if I squint, I can maybe accept that the Thing wanted to appear big to terrify MacReady, to be so frightening that Mac would give up - I think this is why the fake Norris head appeared to be so diabolically evil, it tried to paralyze the crew with fear. And in this scene, this is the reason it hatches that dog-thing head.

To bookend my post, let me link to this same thread on MovieChat:

https://moviechat.org/tt0084787/The-Thing/5f35046fca71460505b1dc3d/The-2-central-questions-of-the-plot-state-your-standpoint

And speaking of how the Thing tried to terrify the humans, there is a very interesting video on this very subject on YouTube, analyzing several transformation scenes from the movie, revealing the psychoanatomical aspects of the Thing. I'd very much recommend you to watch it - if you haven't seen it before, you're in for a treat :-) Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk8skg4JI_Y