The Thing question: Why flamethrowers?

[Love_Rhombus]

@TreacherousCretin

Which always made me wonder why there were weapons on the Nostromo to begin with.

Back to The Thing, I also wonder why “El Capitan” (Jim Cromwell) is wearing a holstered sidearm at the beginning of the film.

.

As I understand it, he’s the lone military presence at the base. Army, I think?

[TreacherousCretin]

@MovieMogul

Not James Cromwell. Donald Moffat.

Yes. Thank you.

[TreacherousCretin]

@Love_Rhombus

As I understand it, he’s the lone military presence at the base. Army, I think?

Yes, but why the need to be armed?

.

[Isamu]

@TreacherousCretin

Yes, but why the need to be armed?

.

Norwegians?

[Grumman]

@TreacherousCretin

Yes, but why the need to be armed?

He’s American?

[Hail_Ants]

I would guess the thinking for Carpenter’s film went like this:

We’re going to need the humans to have some kind of defense, but why would an Antarctic scientific base have automatic weapons? Ah! Flamethrowers! Normally to, um, defrost things, yeah that’s it!

I don’t know if any arctic bases ever kept or used them for that, but I ***seriously ***doubt it. Flamethrowers are impressive looking, but they don’t really create a high amount of sustained BTUs useful for defrosting things. Not to mention that you don’t defrost equipment by squirting it with ignited, jelled gasoline.

[Miller]

@TreacherousCretin

Yes, but why the need to be armed?

.

At the start of the film, when Moffat kills the last surviving Norwegian, he says something to McReady about how “Carrying a gun doesn’t seem so silly now,” or words to that effect, indicating that carrying it was considered a little odd by at least some of the other guys. So I think it was a bit of an eccentricity in the character, and not some Arctic weather base regulation.

[SunSandSuffering]

I wondered when El Capitan was gonna get a chance to use his pop gun.
Any horror film needs either flamethrowers or chainsaws.

[Death_of_Rats]

If you are jerry-rigging a weapon, a rudamentary flamethrower is probably one of the easier to make. You can rig one out of a lighter and a can of Aqua-net, after all. As long as you have a source of flame and a container of flammable gas under pressure you are most of the way there. It was a more effective weapon in the movie because, well, it’s a movie, but it is not impossible to think that if they have the basic components, some basic engineering skills and metal fabrication ability that they could rig one up. All of those thing would be available at a remote station that is expected to be self-sufficent for most of the year.

[Scubaqueen]

@Hail_Ants

I would guess the thinking for Carpenter’s film went like this:

We’re going to need the humans to have some kind of defense, but why would an Antarctic scientific base have automatic weapons? Ah! Flamethrowers! Normally to, um, defrost things, yeah that’s it!

I don’t know if any arctic bases ever kept or used them for that, but I ***seriously ***doubt it. Flamethrowers are impressive looking, but they don’t really create a high amount of sustained BTUs useful for defrosting things. Not to mention that you don’t defrost equipment by squirting it with ignited, jelled gasoline.

FWIW, fire was a very important tool in arctic or near-arctic conditions. Can’t speak for flame throwers, however my grandfather was a Commander in the SeaBees during WW2 and his unit built the airfield at Reykjavik, Iceland, that I believe is still in use today.

According to him, they poured gallons and gallons and gallons of oil, then set fire to it to get down to the tundra below in order to start building the airstrip.

[TreacherousCretin]

@Miller

At the start of the film, when Moffat kills the last surviving Norwegian, he says something to McReady about how “Carrying a gun doesn’t seem so silly now,” or words to that effect, indicating that carrying it was considered a little odd by at least some of the other guys. So I think it was a bit of an eccentricity in the character, and not some Arctic weather base regulation.

I think you just answered my question. I never noticed that line before- I’ve only seen the movie a couple of dozen times.

.

[Miller]

@Death_of_Rats

If you are jerry-rigging a weapon, a rudamentary flamethrower is probably one of the easier to make. You can rig one out of a lighter and a can of Aqua-net, after all. As long as you have a source of flame and a container of flammable gas under pressure you are most of the way there. It was a more effective weapon in the movie because, well, it’s a movie, but it is not impossible to think that if they have the basic components, some basic engineering skills and metal fabrication ability that they could rig one up. All of those thing would be available at a remote station that is expected to be self-sufficent for most of the year.

The problem with this is, the first time they use the flamethrower its on the dog-thing in the kennel. Which is also the first time they learn that there’s a monster about. They didn’t have time to jury-rig any flamethrowers. They just had some lying around.

[Grestarian]

@blondebear

Salt is good for fighting giant monster slugs and snails.

And Triffids (plants super-animated by meteor dust).

–G?!?:dubious:

[G0sp3l]

@SunSandSuffering

I wondered when El Capitan was gonna get a chance to use his pop gun.
Any horror film needs either flamethrowers or chainsaws.

Either? I think I just had a braingasm!!! Follow me here… a flamethrower AND a chainsaw!!! The rest just writes itself. Throw in a hot chick or a kid or a dog if you want to attract some of the less awesome crowd (why would you want to?).

PURE AWESOMENESS turned up to 11venty1

[Odesio]

Didn’t they use flamethrowers to melt snow before Kennedy’s inaugural walk? Flamethrowers wouldn’t be good at defrosting equipment, but I bet it’d get rid of snow drifts in a hurry.

[tanstaafl]

They make these things already. Why not have something similar at an antarctic base?

[psiekier]

@Love_Rhombus

I’ve watched the original and the prequel, and never thought to ask WHY both camps have flamethrowers handy lying round to be used?

To diverge along msmith537’s line of thinking, they have flamethrowers because “take off and nuke the entire site from orbit” is not a viable option.

If you remember the old sci-fi game Star Frontiers, it was a little harder on the science than some other games. For example, there was no “artificial gravity”, and space ships would have to speed up and slow down by turning around and traveling for weeks at a time - although they had to fudge a bit on FTL travel to make the game mechanics work.

Anyway, one thing that was universally looked down upon and in some places outright prohibited was the use of PGS (projectile/gyrojet/sprayer) weapons on board spacecraft. Generally, such guns - including “sprayers” like flamethrowers - wouldn’t be allowed through the door, limiting even authorized security and law enforcement personnel to lasers, stun-guns, or hand-to-hand weapons.

Nobody wants to be the guy who missed with a rocket launcher in the crowded confines of the spaceship’s hallway and voided the entire air supply - whether everyone onboard is already wearing sealed spacesuits or not!