Oh yes, I do believe my band has a name. The Screeching Blood. Thank you!
IIRC, the blood jumps up from the petri dish and lands on the floor. Then as Palmer convulses it’s attracted back to him, and there is a scene where the blood spatters are moving across the floor toward him, as if they have a mind of their own, and want to get back to him.
So unusual for an internet article!
I guess if I’d tried to claim that this was the definitive article on the movie, or something along those lines, then pointing out the lack of copy-editing would have made more sense.
It does gather in one place some lesser-known facts about the movie and its making (that near-accident on the road, for instance). As I said: worth a read.
Matter of opinion. To me it’s clearly two sets of teeth. Also, the expressions on the faces differ notably, though of course both portray (at a minimum) distress. One with eye closed; the other with eye in a maximum-widened expression. One with a curved nose, other with a flat nose. Etc.
Again: matter of opinion.
It just seems intuitively obvious that this was a guy who had been Thinged, the Norwegians figured it out and set fire to him, and he tried to split to survive the way the Norris-Thing did when it split off the spider-head. Only the fire cooked it before it could completely separate. At least, that was the implication I took from it.
I haven’t seen the prequel, but I gather it figured out some way to make it two different Things that decided to merge together for whatever reason?
It’s unusually bad even for an internet article. I do agree it’s an interesting read, and I don’t think you put it forth as some kind of definitive article, so I’m not sure why you’re defensive about me pointing out copy editing mistakes. Did you write it?
My source of information is the film itself; the creature in question is most obviously a split face not a two face.
Nope. I linked to that article because it had the largest, clearest instance of a photo of the ‘found at the Norwegian station’ Thing that I happened to find in the time I was searching.
That’s a not-unreasonable surmise.
But look at the photo again. One eye is wide open and the other is closed.
So, under this theory, while the Thing is being cooked by the Norwegians, with all the attendant pain and distress, it chooses to…wink???
In any case, I’m still not clear on why the ‘Thing is one guy splitting into two’ concept is a valid plot development/piece of horrific atmosphere, while the ‘Thing is one Thing assimilating a very unhappy human’ concept is an INvalid plot development/piece of horrific atmosphere.
I guess if the idea is that 'the 2011 filmmakers were awful because they took a Very Clear situation and interpreted it differently,’ then I guess I could understand the righteous outrage. But it really is NOT Very Clear that Carpenter and his fabricator/effects guy had laid down a 1982 law that this was one Thing splitting.
If anyone finds an answers-this-point interview with either Carpenter or Rob Bottin or any other relevant person, I bet a lot of us would enjoy reading it.
Its progressed far enough in the division that the two halves of the face have started working independently. Possibly, if it started dividing after it was set on fire, one half of the face was already dead tissue, and the other half was the viable tissue trying to escape before the heat killed it, too.
If it is meant to be a Thing infecting and converting another person, it doesn’t really look like how it does for the other Things we see infecting people in the first film. It doesn’t ooze onto them and melt them, it grows claws or fangs or tentacles and stabs/bites/injects them. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the concept of a creature that duplicates people by first turning into a caustic ooze and partially melting them, but it does sounds like a change from the rules implicitly laid down by the original.
But again, I haven’t seen the prequel, and I didn’t make the initial complaint about the scene, so I’m just sort of guessing, there.
Anything is possible, in the absence of a definitive statement from those who made the movie.
Eh, I don’t really consider that definitive one way or the other. I’m less interested in what the filmmaker was trying to convey, than in what they actually conveyed.
Ridley Scott being the prime example. Ohhh, what would happen if The Thing tried to absorb an Alien Xenomorph?
Interesting philosophy, given that “what they actually conveyed” is rarely going to be a consensus.
Did the top fall over in Inception? Does Jack in The Shining freeze to death in the snow, or does he live on in the 1920s as a ghost–or was he always a ghost? Who got shot at the end of The French Connection? Is Blade Runner’s Deckard an android? Did Travis Bickle have a happy ending in Taxi Driver, or was he experiencing a dying delusion?
Etc., etc., etc.
Of course “what they actually conveyed” to you will always be unambiguous.
Yeah, I think most of those movies would be much less interesting if you have an “authoritative” answer to how to interpret them. “Is Dekkard a replicant?” is a fun discussion, with evidence for both sides. “Ridley Scott says he is/isn’t,” kills that discussion.
I guess, then, one has to ask is the purpose of a discussion to eliminate possibilities and arrive at a definitive conclusion or is the purpose of a discussion discussion itself?
It’s quite definitely the second one, I think we all agree on that.
Fair enough.
Think of all the happy hours–in their millions–that could never have been as happy if we knew for certain whether or not Balrogs have wings.
In all likelihood, we do.
Actually, Ridley does say he is. Harrison Ford believes he isn’t, which just goes to show how good the deception is. 
One of the biggest mistakes anyone can make is to assume that science fiction fans want definitive answers to plot questions.
What science fiction fans want is to argue about plot questions.
Isn’t that the title of this thread… essentially?
That’s funny, the one critique I have of the film is that it’s a total sausage fest. OTOH maybe that would be the likely composition of a crew of Arctic scientists in the day. I can’t help it, I like to see female representation. But it’s hard to imagine another Ripley. I think tokenism might have been worse.