Yes - and I loved every minute of it!!!

Is it paranoia if there actually is a monster that can look like anybody and definitely wants to kill you?

Is it paranoia if there actually is a monster that can look like anybody and definitely wants to kill you?

Sure, you'd experience extreme paranoia, that's what this film is essentially dealing with, but I think the stomach-churning imagery somewhat detracts from the tension.

As a fan of gore in general, I would say it's up to your taste. Personally, I felt that Carpenter executed a perfect balance between giving us a great monster but also playing on that paranoia one gets during a Twilight Zone episode. Did I flinch when the Thing attacked the dogs? Hell yes. Was it a red herring for the plot or overall psychological tension of the film? I guess if you can't look past some practical effects (that still hold-up pretty well to this day), then it's a loss.

I will admit, however, that I didn't have everyone's names down the first few times I watched it. It's a good thing I've seen it at least ten more times after.

To each their own, I guess, in regard to the gore.

I'm personally numb to the grotesqueries now. But the total on screen time of all that stuff is limited and gives plenty of time to chew on the paranoia of who's who. For me, the paranoia is heightened because of gruesome violence that awaits the next victim and the potential for 27,000 hours wait time to world domination!

I like what was said - to each their own on this matter. I imagine it would be difficult to enjoy a film if your heads in a trash can for the majority of it! ;⁾

"You gotta be fucking kidding!"

@Drooch said:

I respect Carpenter's commitment to gore, but I think it damages the film. The main focus of the story is paranoia - how these men turn on each other in the presence of a malevolent being that can become any one or more of them - that's a powerful psychological horror concept, but it gets diluted by having the Thing graphically turn people inside-out, tearing of limbs, chewing faces, slaughtering dogs etc. I should be stewing over who might be an alien, but I'm spending most of the time trying not to yak.

It takes a certain type of horror fan to enjoy these scenes, but... they are extremely well done and creative gore scenes. When it comes to gore, it's one of (if not THE) best gore effects ever put on film

It also makes the threat confusing - does the alien 'become' you by simply touching you or dropping one of its cells into your tea (which makes it extremely powerful and virtually unstoppable), OR does it have to go through the whole disgusting aggressive tentacled penetration procedure with the blood and screaming? The film needs to pick one and run with it so that we can understand what our heroes are up against. It appears to be able to do both, and if that's the case, then why even bother with the clunky tentacle screaming method?

I agree with you completely. The main reason why I'm not a fan of the "single cell infection theory" is that from a story standpoint it doesn't make sense. As you say: why bother to violently absorb and form an imitation of someone when you can gradually take them over by spraying some "thing-juice" at them or put a few drips into their food / drink or something like that. But narratively, that's bullshit. For that reason I kind of don't like how Carpenter included that simulation Blair is running on his computer, and I sort of don't like how Fuch is mentioning canned food, etc.

Narratively it makes sense that these things are included - thus my solution is that I think they (the characters) are wrong. There needs to be a "critical mass" to absorb a person, so a dog-sized thing has enough mass to absorb a human, but let's say a head walking on spider legs is too small for that. Drips of thing juice and other bullshit scenarios like that don't fly with me.

My guess? Carpenter wanted to explore the gory possibilities of this creature, he couldn't help himself, even if it diluted the power of this paranoia piece.

Oh, but it doesn't dilute at all. On the contrary - it adds tension to the situation. But I can sort of understand why you don't see it like that, considering you found the gore effects disgusting. But beyond that - the gore scenes are creative and are adding value to the movie and to the narrative. This movie wouldn't be the same without them.

And what makes gory Sci-fi films like Robocop and Predator no different?

Although it's often dismissed as a "remake" of The Thing from Another World, it's a very different film when it's actually a faithful adaptation of the John W Campbell novella Who Goes There and do you think it adapted the story well more than Hawk's version of the book?

And what makes gory Sci-fi films like Robocop and Predator no different?

The gore levels are vastly different. Robo and Total are action movies with moments of splatter, The Thing has sequences of lingering grue, such as bloody human organs being pulled from a hideous mutation In graphic close up during a prolonged autopsy scene. Stomach churning moments like when a dog turns inside out before spraying goo and deadly tentacles at other dogs, all in graphic detail. A fat man's gut ripping open to reveal gigantic teeth that bite off another man's arms, before his head detaches and sprouts spider legs - it's revolting.

I wouldn't change the film - it's very good, and famous for its gruesome imagery - I just find it so relentlessly vomit-inducing that it detracts from the very effective paranoia element. Plus the confusion over infection/replication which makes combatting the creature less engaging since its powers haven't been clearly defined.

@Drooch said:

... which makes combatting the creature less engaging since its powers haven't been clearly defined.

Part of what makes _Alien (1979) _great is that upon first viewing, the creature 's powers are not clear. Upon further viewings, you must realize that at any point the crew cannot and should not rule out anything from the creature's repertoire. At one point in the novelization, Ripley even mentions that they should even assume that the creature can turn invisible.

So in the case of The Thing, I don't see a problem with the creature's powers not being clearly defined. That actually fuels the paranoia factor for me :-)

it's very good, and famous for its gruesome imagery - I just find it so relentlessly vomit-inducing that it detracts from the very effective paranoia element.

It shouldn't detract from the paranoia element. In fact, these are two different things. The paranoia element is there and effective as ever, if you keep one thing in mind: someone or multiple someones are secretly things, and until the blood test, the characters have no way to tell who is who. That's it. So the paranoia is there all along, provided by this simple fact.

I guess what you are talking about is that the gore effects are too flashy for you, and that detracts from the narrative. Not from the paranoia, but from the plot, since your mind is occupied by the effects, and you don't have the capacity to care about the plot, thus you can't enjoy the paranoia aspect of said narrative. Which is perfectly OK from a subjective standpoint, but objectively, the effects don't detract from the paranoia element.

For me, subjectively, the gore effects are necessary for us to see what exactly is at stake. That at any moment what could happen to anyone. And the fact that they are done this well and this creatively, makes the creature even more unpredictable - thus upping the intensity of the paranoia element.

Every good villian needs to show it's actions instead of telling. The way it interacts and bonds with it's environment adds weight of the terrible fate awaiting the men or when they speak of it. Very haunting.

@Drooch said:

Whenever a fan has suggested we watch the film, they never say 'by the way, you're about to watch some of the most stomach-churningly disgusting imagery ever put on film, so you may want to hold off eating until its over.'

I respect Carpenter's commitment to gore, but I think it damages the film. The main focus of the story is paranoia - how these men turn on each other in the presence of a malevolent being that can become any one or more of them - that's a powerful psychological horror concept, but it gets diluted by having the Thing graphically turn people inside-out, tearing of limbs, chewing faces, slaughtering dogs etc. I should be stewing over who might be an alien, but I'm spending most of the time trying not to yak.

It also makes the threat confusing - does the alien 'become' you by simply touching you or dropping one of its cells into your tea (which makes it extremely powerful and virtually unstoppable), OR does it have to go through the whole disgusting aggressive tentacled penetration procedure with the blood and screaming? The film needs to pick one and run with it so that we can understand what our heroes are up against. It appears to be able to do both, and if that's the case, then why even bother with the clunky tentacle screaming method?

My guess? Carpenter wanted to explore the gory possibilities of this creature, he couldn't help himself, even if it diluted the power of this paranoia piece.

It is a perfection of cinema - every last bit. 10/10

@Drooch said:

It also makes the threat confusing - does the alien 'become' you by simply touching you or dropping one of its cells into your tea (which makes it extremely powerful and virtually unstoppable), OR does it have to go through the whole disgusting aggressive tentacled penetration procedure with the blood and screaming? The film needs to pick one and run with it so that we can understand what our heroes are up against. It appears to be able to do both, and if that's the case, then why even bother with the clunky tentacle screaming method?

The audience is shown the tentacle-osmosis sequences in the third person omniscent. We see how the creature really works ... while the characters try to piece the puzzle together while literally in the dark. They suppose things like "one-cell" rule and use computer simulations to make a best-guess. Their conclusions could be false and just a cause of further paranoia.

McCready's blood test occupies a kind of middle ground. But I suppose while the cellular level is indeed in communication with the creature-agent, single cells alone are not enough to overtake a host rapidly. Perhaps a one-cell might work like the FLU but the immune system of the host could fend it off.

Hence the need for tentacle-osmosis in the dark of the night

@volkstraum said:

@Drooch said:

It also makes the threat confusing - does the alien 'become' you by simply touching you or dropping one of its cells into your tea (which makes it extremely powerful and virtually unstoppable), OR does it have to go through the whole disgusting aggressive tentacled penetration procedure with the blood and screaming? The film needs to pick one and run with it so that we can understand what our heroes are up against. It appears to be able to do both, and if that's the case, then why even bother with the clunky tentacle screaming method?

The audience is shown the tentacle-osmosis sequences in the third person omniscent. We see how the creature really works ... while the characters try to piece the puzzle together while literally in the dark. They suppose things like "one-cell" rule and use computer simulations to make a best-guess. Their conclusions could be false and just a cause of further paranoia.

McCready's blood test occupies a kind of middle ground. But I suppose while the cellular level is indeed in communication with the creature-agent, single cells alone are not enough to overtake a host rapidly. Perhaps a one-cell might work like the FLU but the immune system of the host could fend it off.

Hence the need for tentacle-osmosis in the dark of the night

Completely agreed! I also think that the single cell infection theory is wrong, and there is no evidence in the film to support it - the absorption and imitation process is violent, and requires critical mass.

Also, with the blood test, MacReady might have been intuitively right: that small pool of blood had just enough mass to have that small reactive agency to react to the heated needle.