If they aren’t aware, then how did Blair know how to build a mini-flying-saucer, or to assimilate Gary at the end? They simply try to maintain their cover until it is blown, but will work behind the scenes to further their/Its ends.
That’s how I remember it, too. Funny thing is, I can’t really recall if I filled in those blanks from the old story to the movie or if it comes across adequately in the movie itself. Did anyone here see the movie that wasn’t already familiar with the story?
Yes, that should say “when provoked”
You realize that is contradictory with your previous take that the Thing somehow had memory problems after transformation?
Either the Thing knows it needs to lie low, no matter what, and is very conscious of what it is, or it doesnt know its true nature and wouldnt see the point of trying to hide anything.
How so? The trauma of the transformation could easily cause amnesia (that’s how it worked in The Faculty, which was a high school riff on The Thing), but when “attacked” the Thing wakes up and fights back.
I think it does infect them. Isn’t there a scene where they find a burned skeleton in the snow, and they surmise that it was someone who realized they were infected, and immolated himself to prevent himself from changing?
It’s not uncommon in those scenarios, either. There’s a short story, Bradbury, I think, where the main character learns at the end of the story that he’s not the person he remembers being, but instead, is a duplicate of the guy with a mini-nuke built in. Star Trek: Deep Space 9 did a variation on it, where Miles O’Brian is convinced that everyone he knows has been replaced with a copy. At the end of the ep, he finds out that he’s the copy, made when the real O’Brian was kidnapped by aliens.
In the case of The Thing, I don’t think that the creature itself forgets what it is, but rather, as part of the infection process, it keeps the original memory intact, presumably as superior camoflage, but it still has its own intellect running beneath it, ready to overwhelm the human consciousness. A kind of Manchurian Candidate from space, if you will.
I do think you’re right that this idea isn’t offered directly in the film itself, though.
What do we care about a bunch of Swedes?
It’s not that the Thing infects people, but rather, that it copies them in such great detail that it also copies their memories and (at least a superficial overlay of) their personalities. So while the copied personality is active, that personality might be genuinely worried that it’s a Thing, and if the personality is strong enough (or close enough to the surface at the moment), the copy might even seek to destroy itself.
At least, that’s how it worked in the original story. I’ve never seen the movie.
That was the premise of the movie Imposter, which was based on a Phillip K. Dick story.
Patriot Hills (that wikipedia article is perfect coverstory), all a bit too convenient.
But seriously, I think the film is entirely realistic in depicting an arctic expeditionary team, or a seasonal isolated work station, not unlike sea and arctic oil rigging or other maritime expeditionary forces. Most recent and somewhat successful use of this theme was in the comic book/movie 30 days of Night. It’s really Alien in the arctic, this film was a specific response to the success of Alien in '82.
Personally, I’d rather see a new film out of Hollywood and Carpenter rather than a rehash of the Thing or turning it into a franchise. I hate this remake fad.
That’s the story I was thinking of. I didn’t think it was a Dick story, because I remember reading it, and being able to understand exactly what was going on.
Carpenter’s not making it and it’s not a remake.
Ohhh… then that’s even worse, be betting on that to flop in Hollywood mogul.
I dont remember this. I’ll have to rewatch it. Arent you confusing with the half-transformed Thing that they burn in the middle of the camp, at night?
It is a bit contradictory with the animalistic tendencies the Thing displays. Anyway, that sort of things tend to make more sense in a novel (where you can be shown things from the inside) than a movie (where you see things from the outside).
Fair point, and in some scenes , it looks like that’s what Carpenter was going after. The problem of the movie plot isnt so much in each scene, but that the whole picture itself isnt very coherent on either the Thing’s nature, mind, and most especially its M.O.
But one could argue that even offering a better level of explanation might susbstract from the Thing’s alienness. Better to be confusing but scary than coherent and only slightly creepy.
It’s coherent, it’s just not explicit. The original John Campbell story doesn’t spell it out, either, but you can figure it out from what happens – pretty clearly The Thing can superficially act like whatever it has taken over, because it apparently absorbs memories as well. But it’s definitely The Thing underneath it all. Blair (the moustacheless Wilford Brimley Character) clearly looks and acts like Blair (when they come looking for him in the tool shed, and later when he attacks noiselessly in the basement), but he’s a Thing by that point, secretly building his ship. Another Thing also pretty clearly takes on the persona of Palmer until revealed.
The question I have is why , once revealed, The Thing acts like a mindless rampaging monster, rather than interacting as an intelligent being (which it clearly is – it knows how to build a spaceship from scratch). It never converses intelligently with people as “the thing”, only as part of its cover. One could argue that it thinks of us as beneath it, or that there is some fundamental cultural gap that cannot be overcome, but when The Thing is acting like its shapeshifting self it never seems to act as if it has any intelligence the Thing as an incomplete Bennings, when revealed, simply makes an unearthly and inarticulate cry.
By the way, when my boss went on a sabbatical to Antarctica, we gave him an ice-cream cake and a copy of Carpenter’s The Thing at his going-away party. In this light, I find it amusing that:
[QUOTE=Miller]
I think it does infect them. Isn’t there a scene where they find a burned skeleton in the snow, and they surmise that it was someone who realized they were infected, and immolated himself to prevent himself from changing?
[/QUOTE]
No, there was a later scene where MacReady, the cook and one other person find an extremely charred body partially covered by drift outside the station. If memory serves, the cook asks “Is it Fuchs?” MacReady picks up a bent, destroyed pair of wire-rimmed glasses and says “Yes, it was Fuchs.”
[QUOTE=Chronos]
At least, that’s how it worked in the original story. I’ve never seen the movie.
[/QUOTE]
Dude, do yourself a favor. The book aside, it really is an outstanding film that’s a classic in its own right.
They also speculate that he burned himself when he confronts the Thing, rather than be changed. Nobody ever suggests that he was infected, then immolated himself to prevent being changed over into a complete Thing.
It’s always bugged me, by the way, that he was able to so completely immolate himself with only a flare, when gasoline-soaked Things don’t seem to burn so completely (and crematoria apparently require high temperatures and long times to completely burn a person).
By the way, I get the distinct impression in the original story that Thing cells don’t invariably infect completely – they appear to be vulnerable to our body’s antibodies and other defense mechanisms. I note that the Thing requires a macroscopic input to affect tissue. Which is just as well, because otherwise all the thing would have to do is to aerosolize bits of itself and send them through the ventilators in order to take over the entire station.
My guess is that when the Thing is employing a human persona, it isn’t really “acting” - rather, as another poster suggested, it’s running the human persona as a sort of program on top of its own personality. The problem the Thing has is that it doesn’t fully understand the human persona - it’s a black box, so far as its concerned. It can “run” the human mind, and observe the results, but it can’t actually make intelligent adjustments on the fly. So if “let the human mind operate normally” isn’t yielding the desired results, there’s really nothing to be done other than ditch it entirely.