Discuss The Thing
Discuss → Movies → The Thing → General
The 2 central questions about the plot - state your standpoint!
posted by sati_84STAFFMOD on November 24, 2017 at 10:04 AM
I think there are 2 crucial questions about the nature of the Thing, so I'd like to ask them, and then ask you to state your standpoint and back it up with evidence/arguments.
1. Does a Thing know that it is a Thing and not the dog/person/whatever anymore?
I wholeheartedly think that the answer is YES. My evidences are the following:
a) Someone got to the blood
This event does not make any sense if one of the imitations (either Palmer-thing or Norris-thing) did not anticipate that the group will devise a test to discover them. To stop this plan, they got to the blood. Simple as that.
b) Norris-thing's "heart attack"
This is clearly a diversion created by Norris-thing. He fakes a heart attack, but not because the thing imitated the faulty heart. The Thing does not even imitate all the internal organs, since that would not make any sense, it only needs to keep up the facade. It only needs to look like Norris from the outside (evidenced by the actual, revealed contents of his chest - there was no heart there at all!). So the imitation somehow gets the memories of the imitated person, and from that memory, it knew that Norris had a heart condition. It tried to "die" and make the group forget about the body. But they wouldn't leave it alone, shocking it with electricity even, and it did not like that, so it burst out, and we all know the rest. More on this in a separate thread here.
c) This is not an event, but a principle: if the imitations don't know that they are imitations, the whole internal logic and tension of the mind games and paranoia and all, and the infamous "The thinking man's horror film" alias goes out the window! I have always seen this story, even when I first saw the film at 11 years old, as a story of a group of people trying to outwit an unknown group of alien organisms who are trying to hide, and play mind games with the crew to separate some members from the group, devour them and imitate them. This is an intergalactic chess game, combined with a (or several) murder mystery (mysteries) and if the imitations don't know that they are imitations, then the multi-layered storytelling is simply not there anymore - and that would hurt the film.
2. Single cell "infection" theory - yay or nay?
I wholeheartedly think that single cell "infection" is NOT possible - the Thing is not a virus! Again, the logic and the thrill would go out the window the instant this theory is accepted, since Norris or Palmer only would have to scratch the skin of the others or drop a few drips of thing-fluid into their food or do some other BS like this and bam! - the humans stand no chance at all against something like that. Blair's animation is a bit misleading I think, and Fuchs' theory is just wrong. I don't mind that it was included in the film, but I think it is wrong.
How does it go instead of single cell infection? Well, I have always thought that the Thing needs a "critical mass" to be able to devour a victim. A dog-sized Thing can devour a human, and from then on, a human imitation of course can devour another human. But say that blood imitation in the dish MacReady used to bust Palmer, is still crawling around in the station - but can't devour anyone, since it does not have enough mass for that. So in my interpretation, the Thing attacks you, devours you, consumes you (this is the part where you are dead) and then imitates you. End of story, no infection and no "you" anymore, just a cold and calculating alien who wants to stay hidden and devour others.
This is of course my opinion, but I think I have backed it up with enough evidence and arguments. Now it's your turn: state your standpoint on these questions and let's hear your arguments!
Reply by bluersun
on November 24, 2017 at 6:14 PM
I'd have to say I agree with you on both points, however I would say what if the single cell could infect another single cell, multiply to 2... 4...16... etc. in order to gain mass...?
Reply by sati_84
on November 27, 2017 at 10:12 AM
I think Blair's simulation is too reductive. The process in which a cell is attacted and absorbed by a Thing cell, should trigger some defense mechanisms of the body. There should be some reaction to counter this, as we have no reason to believe that on a cell by cell level this would not be just as aggressive as it is on the macro level, evidenced by the violent takeovers. So this is essentially attacking, killing and devouring of a cell - imitation only comes later. Cell damage has to be countered somehow.
What I really liked about the original novella (Who Goes There, from where your username is derived :-) ) is the exchange in which Copper is briefing the team on how astronomically unlikely it is that an alien organism could act like a virus in our earthly bodies. I think he cites some disease that affects tobacco or some other plant as evidence - even on our Earth, if you encounter this plant disease, it is not "compatible" with a human body, so it would not have any effect on it. This seems to support my idea in-universe as well (although there is no similar dialogue in the movie). I mean if the thing-cells are not "compatible" with our cells right from the get-go (and why would they be, as discussed above), then they have no mechanism to "mask" the attack against the individual cells. And you can't just go around openly attacking and murdering cells left and right in the human body.
Other than this, I think for the plot to work, we kind of have to rule it out. As I have already mentioned in my OP, it would be sooooo BS to have the thing spraying thing-juice on people or to have it just go around, dripping something into their food, drinks, etc. It would be no fun, you cannot write a plot around that. The audience would just ask: "why doesn't it do X and just be done with the whole crew?". I can see you got it from my OP, just wanted to reiterate this point for emphasis.
Reply by bluersun
on November 27, 2017 at 11:30 AM
Yeah, I'm just trying to look at it from another angle - perhaps more science fiction than science fact - "What if..." not stating it is... just throwing it out there... Also, it's been years since I've read the original (yep, that's where my username comes from!) and confuse many of the differences with ADF's novelization of the film and JWC's novella... Time for a re-read...! :)
Reply by sati_84
on November 28, 2017 at 2:16 AM
Haha, sure! Here ya go!
Reply by bluersun
on November 28, 2017 at 4:59 AM
That's awesome! Thank you very much :)
Reply by sati_84
on November 28, 2017 at 5:52 AM
No problem at all. Also, ADF's novelization has a number of differences in plot (fates of characters) and certain events before the finale are also different (I would say a bit more cheap) than in the movie. I'm planning to re-write a post I submitted years ago on the IMDb boards (RIP) about the differences between the novelization and the movie.
Reply by bluersun
on November 28, 2017 at 6:58 PM
I look forward to reading your post... I'm definitely going to re-read both versions soon as I have the novelization on a book shelf with a few other ADF books
Reply by bluersun
on June 3, 2018 at 7:10 PM
@sati_84 Just wondering if you ever got around to rewriting that post about the differences - I'd be very interested in reading it...!
Reply by sati_84
on June 5, 2018 at 2:13 AM
Hey, oh, no, I haven't, sadly, I need to find a resource for that, since I must have written it down somewhere else as well... If I didn't, then I need to read the book again to catch all of the differences again.
I can't give you a deadline, but The Thing is due for a re-read anyways, so I might bump it up my list to create the post :)
Reply by bluersun
on June 5, 2018 at 3:09 AM
Yeah, I should probably get round to re-reading them, also I forgot to say I got a book by Jez Conolly from the 'Devil's Advocate' series of film studies about The Thing (if it helps the ISBN is 978-1-906733-77-3) that's waiting on my shelf...!
Reply by sati_84
on June 5, 2018 at 4:17 AM
Ah, that should be a nice read! I'll try to get it myself, sounds really interesting.
Reply by bluersun
on June 5, 2018 at 4:37 AM
Cool, keep in touch and let me know what you think of it if you do get it :) I've just started reading it...!
Reply by Nexus71
on December 22, 2018 at 9:55 PM
1) Yes taking into account the prequel in the second movie the creature relies far more on it's ability for stealth and imitation to achieve it's goals in the first movie it initially acts aggressively but along the way finds out that it is better to stay low and since it has the ability to assimilate memories and intelligence it knows damn well what it is and what it is trying to achieve.
2)Yay Doc's test showed that one single alien cel was able to take over multiple other cells which suggests it kind of works like a virus,but like any disease the severity of it is depended on the amount of bacteria or viruses that have invaded the body so maybe for the creature to quickly fully assimilate it's victim it would need to infect it's victim with a sufficient amount of material so infection on a cellular level might work but when it's prey is not fully assimilated it might come aware of what is happening so it can warn others not to come near it so it would prevent the thing from using it's strongest assets stealth and it's ability to make a believable copy of it's victim so others won't know what is happening.
Reply by sati_84
on January 2, 2019 at 9:28 AM
High five, and agreed - although I'm vary to take the prequel into account. Any movie has to stand on its own, and the 1982 film does a tremendous job at that.
Interesting take, however if we observe all the deaths / assimilations that are shown and implied in the movie, the takeover cannot be gradual. So maybe I should rephrase this from "single cell infection theory" to "gradual takeover", to make my point more clear.
We can pick the case of Bennings. In the movie, Bennings is long dead by the time the imitation makes that horrible growl (illustrating the forming of the vocal chords in a very creative way). Or let's see what happens to Windows: his head was munched by the Palmer thing's teeth, so I think he was "only" killed (or "only" fatally injured) by Palmer-thing, but we see no signs of imitation happening. That scenario could allow some gradual takeover to happen (I have to admint, we can't rule it out), so in-universe MacReady has the right idea to burn Windows then and there. However, between us I would say that if the Palmer thing doesn't return to fully devour him, if left alone in that state, Windows would not be an imitation, just dead, as my interpretation needs the "critical mass".
So even after reading your comment I would still say that what the thing does is ultimately very different from an infection, it's more like devouring (eating, digesting, killing) and thus it only works on a macro level, not cell by cell. At least we don't see any evidence in the movie that it does work on a cellular level.
Reply by bluersun
on January 2, 2019 at 9:10 PM
In my two glasses of wine state that took a while to get through... 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