Count me with the “Blair was already Thingified” and created the disturbance to buy time for his/its project in isolation. Otherwise, we have to believe that some time between the scene where MacReady first checks on Blair, and the scene where they discover Blair’s project, the Thing got to Blair. I don’t recall anything in the plot to suggest that this happened, and it seems beneath Carpenter to just casually let something as important as that happen off camera or otherwise without explanation. Also, if Blair was a late convert, where would he have gotten the time to build the ship as far along as he did?
Of course, it’s been 10 years since I’ve seen it. Maybe I’ll watch it again tonight and see if I get any new insights. (I have the VHS version. Is this a different version from the DVD?)
Great, great movie. One of the ten best horror films ever made, and I’ll arm-wrestle anybody who disagrees.
divemaster: The DVD is the same movie as the VHS, but it’s got all sorts of extra goodies on it. For example…
The DVD explains how this effect was done, and it’s really, really simple. They carved the lettering into some solid surface (don’t remember if it was metal or plaster or what), stretched somewhat thick black plastic (like heavy-duty trash-bag material) over the back side, put a camera in front and a bright light and a fog machine on the other side, and lit the plastic on fire. Look at it again, and you can totally tell this is how they did it. Doesn’t make it any less iconic, though.
I remember reading a review shortly after the movie came out: “John Carpenter has made a movie so scary, it crawls up your leg.”
I seem to recall in the DVD commentary that Carpenter & Russell speculated that you could be Thingified and not know it right away; it wasn’t an instantaneous transformation but a gradual occupation of the host. Thus, Blair could destroy what he did because he genuinely (and selflessly) wanted them to be isolated and not spread the organism and yet still be occupied with the Thing, who gradually took him over after they put him out in the shack.
Me, I always felt that Blair was not yet infected when he had his demonstration – why would The Thing so vividly call attention to its plans and shortcomings in that fashion? (Blair shouts: “That Thing wanted to be us! No dog can make it a thousand miles to the Coast!” during the tirade). The Thing had plenty of time and opportunity to get to him in The Toolshed. In Campbell’s original story, Blair reverts to religious fanaticism, so the question doesn’t come up.
I always felt that, despite the single-cell captures shown on the monitor, The Thing was kinda like an invading infection, and that your body’s defences – leucocytes, platelets, etc. – would overwhelm any “invasions” by the Thing unless they were of massice size. I mean, otherwise all the Thing would have to do to infect the whole camp is slough off a bunch of microscopic spores into the ventilation duct.
In Campbell’s original story “Who Goes There?” (arguably his best, and the only story of his I ever liked), the space ship is described as being “like a submarine”. It was changed into a flying saucer for the 1951 movie because saucers were “the ;atest thing” in extraterrestrial ship design (Kevin Arnold had reported the first “flying saucers” in 1947). The 1982 remake knowingly tips its hat to the 1951 version, including retaining the flying saucer.
As I recall, in the John Campbell story, the flamethrowers were adapted from blowtorches that were used to defrost the airplane engines. (The story was written in the 1930’s, and depicted a much larger camp, with about 30 or 40 personnel. That would have been too expensive for John Carpenter, so they reduced it to 12 personnel.)
In the story, they actually destroyed most of the Things with high-amp current, which should work better than flamethrowers; cooks 'em from the inside. Now I’m getting hungry.
In the DVD commentary, Carpenter and Russell emphasize that the Thing isn’t evil; it’s just trying to survive in a hostile environment.
I always thought Antarctica is a great setting for a spooky movie. The isolation, the eerie beauty of the ice shelf; it’s like another planet. I wonder if you could make a good movie of H.P. Lovecraft’s In the Mountains of Madness. (How many times can you tell the special effects guys to make it “unspeakable”?)
I also recommend that any John Carpenter fan worth their salt get the DVD. Just loaded with extras. You get to see a lot more of the alien in the final battle w/MacReady and the do go over how Nauls was “assimilated” by Blair. They also go over some of the special effects scenes (esp. the futile attempt to revive Norris who is suffering a heart attack (sidenote: Charles Hallahan died of a real heart attack in 1997. RIP)).
Can’t help you with the blood question; it’s never really cleared up in the movie and JC doesn’t address it in the commentary on the DVD.
Alright, Carpenter aficionados, did anybody else catch what movie the kids that Jamie Lee Curtis was babysitting in Halloween were watching that fateful night? Mmm-hmm, you guessed it. The Thing from 1951.
As an unabashed fan of this movie, I have to say there are several things that made this movie scarier than just the effects: the remote location (and knowing they were cut off from the rest of the world), an all male cast, the absolute unforgiving harshness of Antarctica, an enemy they can’t kill (and they can’t keep from multiplying), and
the fact that nobody survives (as far as we can tell).
Matter of fact, I loved the premise of this movie so much that I began writing a sequel after about the 20th viewing. It started out with a US Navy ship investigating why they can’t raise anybody at the weather station. They find the place destroyed and two frozen bodies sitting in chairs facing each other. They bring the bodies aboard, they thaw out, and ta-dah!. Round 2. I didn’t get very far into the story before I lost interest (I’m not very good with fleshing out a story with details and dialogue), but I still have it on my hard drive.
Last paragraph, I swear. I have an art book called Barlowe’s Guide to Extraterrestrials. It features 50 very well drawn color depictions by Wayne Barlowe of interesting aliens from science fiction stories that hadn’t been illustrated before. He conceived what they would look like from the story descriptions. One of them, of course, is The Thing from Who Goes There? by John Campbell. From the art book:
The picture he drew definitely would make me rather encounter it as a dog.
Campbell’s story was actually one of his later ones, and came out in the late forties, not long before the movie was made. I don’t recall the size of the camp, but I didn’t think it was that big. All the names in the Carpenter film (not the 1951 film) were taken from the Campbell story.
There was extensive coverage of this in the magazine Cinefantastique when the film came out. A lot of the “goop” was Knox unflavored gelatine, with other stuff like melted Bubble Yum chewing gum and liquid latex. This is a wonderful growth medium for micro-organisms and mold, so after a couple of days it reportedly got pretty rank.
Dark Horse comics actually did a short series that was a sequel to the Carpenter film. Interestingly enough, they follow pretty much the story line you suggest. I didn’t buy the series, but there was a gross picture of The Thing bursting out aboard a submarine.
Another nice thing about the DVD version extras is the explanation of how the cast was assembled and parts chosen. I’m not going to spoil it… rent or buy it and see.
One thing to add… the opening scene with the chopper chasing the dog was one of the finest initial grippers I’ve ever seen. Just try and turn away. Can’t be done!
Nobody’s mentioned another appeal of the movie: the intense homoerotic tension. Okay, maybe not.
Actually, it’s a nice change when the director reads and understands the original story. Twenty years ago I would have said John Carpenter was the man to watch when it came to horror and science fiction; since then he’s done some good stuff, but lately it’s like he’s imitating himself. (Anybody see Ghosts of Mars? Sorry, John Carpenter’s Ghosts of Mars, because apparently he has to have his name in the title.)
Love the movie, love the DVD. And it’s quite a trip to be able to see the trailer on the DVD, too. I love the opening voice-over of the trailer, as if on a radio broken up with static: “Can anybody hear me? We found something in the ice…we found something…” Yeah, you sure found some THING, all right…
It’s been said many times before, but I wish the current crop of special effects artists would sit down and watch this movie. I didn’t know the name Rick Baker before this movie, but I sure did afterwards. As a highly impressionable twelve-year old, this movie lit the fuse in me to become a special effects artist, which I clung to for the next several years (sadly, gave up on this, though given the state of special effects now, probably not so bad). My parents humored me with endless supplies of plaster, glass eyes, karos syrrup…you name it, I was trying to do it, with mixed results.
I wish directors now would remember how real these things looked, because they were. They were actually there, writhing around and spewwing noxious stuff. Rick Baker also did work for the Howling, American Werewolf in London (for which he won an Oscar, if I remember correctly) and the Michael Jackson Thriller video. I still hold him in the highest regard, and haven’t seen much in the last twenty years that impresses me more. This movie just wouldn’t be the same with CGI. Thanks for the reminder; I rented it again today.
Nope. Didn’t notice any homoerotic tension at all. Why can’t a movie with an all-male cast just be appreciated for its content and lack of misogyny and sexism.
There aren’t many filmmakers out there who can resist T-n-A. David Lynch is the perfect example. His stories are terrific, but I haven’t seen one yet without a scene that makes me feel like females are nothing more than sex objects.
Hail John Carpenter for this movie - the director who can keep his d^ck in this pants.
