The Thing

alternative theory i just thought of: the film THING has telepathic capability not over humans in its own vicinity, but over john carpenter, so JC didn't have to think abt all this, it was dictated by TRANS-CELLULOID THOUGHTWAVE

there it is

so who does that make me?

merely another branch of the wider slimey consciousness i guess, an internal checking mechanism or summat

the reason i don;t think it has any capacity to think out the box of its most recent host -- once it's achieved proper mimicry -- is that it doesn't have anything to do this extra over-arching thinking with: it's an exact copy, with all the host's memories and capabilities, and no more

i don't know that this is true, either. it constructs an exact external semblance of its prey (and probably an internal one, too, for the most part), but i don't know that this precludes its maintenance of the structures necessary to support independent intelligence, at least to the best of its ability. i mean, it can repurpose its mass at will to suit whatever ends it might desire, so this doesn't seem like too much of a stretch. could thing blair speak norwegian? i don't think there's any way to know for sure. it probably wouldn't even if it could, except under certain circumstances, as this wouldn't help it "blend in".

just speculating, but i think the story leaves lots of room for interpretation on this score. it's maybe most reasonable to assume that the thing is just a simple but dangerous space-disease that arrived on spaceship it didn't build, but we don't really know for sure.

the film THING has telepathic capability not over humans in its own vicinity, but over john carpenter, so JC didn't have to think abt all this, it was dictated by TRANS-CELLULOID THOUGHTWAVE

A+

so who does that make me?

fact-checking cuz

also, if the thing is true hivemind, and there's reason to think this might be so, then all its cells might function as brain cells, regardless of any other apparent purpose.

The Thing arrived on a pred ship iirc

Yes I think "hivemind" is where my own "but that's scientifically impossible" is kicking in -- which is a factor limiting my imagination i suppose (i also feel a hivemind would behave differently, but nothing rules it out)

Yr absolutely right tho that the undecideability is part of what makes it scary: people we like (or don't dislike) improvising solutions to a threat they really haven't pinned down even by the end of the film... I actually think Carpenter did sit down with the monstermaker and think through fairly exactly what he felt the THING can and can't do (iirc there was a longish unexpected hiatus between the script and design stage and the actual shooting); he never makes it explicit but its behaviour feels to me (as someone who has watched and pondered this film FAR TOO MUCH) logically of a piece, certainly not purely BOOspectacle-led or "who cares, they'll be too busy screaming"

otm, agree w all that, except that i'm a bit more inclined to accept hivemind as a possible & satisfactorily sci-fi plausible explanation.

something that's vaguely suggested by the original that i was disappointed to see the prequel/remake ignore: to become thing is not necessarily to be annihilated. one might be the thing and not know it, might have no rupture in the continuity of self. all the characters focus, naturally, on the idea that someone else must be the monster, because they know that they themselves are not. but what if this assumption were faulty? what if the monster were hidden not just in a simulacrum of your body, but in your experiencing self, in your "i am"?

yeah, this was the central existential dread of the first movie.. i believe it's childs who voices it

it suggests a creepy rejoinder to the question of what would happen if the entire world were Thingified - if the Thing "trades up" to become every single person in the world... what would be the difference, between that world and this one? (presuming that beyond this limit-point no further trade-ups are possible/desirable)

re Thing intelligence and what sort it is: i like to imagine that Things in their native environment are actually quite fastidious and genteel, and that back on Thingworld there is an elaborately ritualized form of Thing-on-Thing sex that Earth conditions make impossible (for whatever reason)

which explains the instinct to get the hell off our godforsaken planet, and get back to where the Thingin is good

I prefer to imagine Thing planet as full of hilarious body horror japes - voluntary autodecapitation, head running off on spider legs, etc.

Taking the "jacket on back of chair" to next level by having your body actually stay in work while your head is down the pub.

only needs one orchid-tingue head-spider to get hammered and the whole hivemind has a hangover

"there is no i in thing" <-- tagline for the high-concept horror-comedy based on this insight

I think of the Thing as viral. That is, survival is paramount. It exists to exist. I'm not sure the Thing has any motivation other than survival.

Alternatively: we are all the Thing!

http://cps-static.rovicorp.com/2/Open/Starz/That%20Thing%20You%20Do!/_derived_jpg_q90_444x444_m0/ThatThingYouDo-Poster.jpg?partner=allrovi.com

Makes you think. (Thingk).

Another thingk coming.

what would be the difference, between that world and this one? (presuming that beyond this limit-point no further trade-ups are possible/desirable)

yeah, to my mind, that's the interesting question. greg bear asks it in his novel blood music: if everyone were infected and transformed, and happy about it, still in some sense "themselves", then would that be so bad?

in some sense "themselves"

these four words doing a lot of work here

troo

but that's the question, innit? what are we but what we think we are? and aren't we always engaged in a process of transformation, anyway? you can never step into the same river twice, etc.

yes, i know, "makes u think"

"makes u thingk"

what are we but what we think we are?

it's definitely subtextual (and this is not an original take) but always took the horror of The Thing to be precisely the possibility that we aren't who we think we are, and that the movie dramatizes an ultimately futile quest to distinguish Ego from Other (or that the Ego is always already infected and inhabited by the Other), etc....the real protagonist is then the Thing itself because that's the drama we all face, having to "pass," to fake it, to have no identity but pursue one. that's what i thingk anyway.

someone should write an academic treatise on this very phenomenon: on "thingking"

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cMdbfkl3Rz4/Ss0fQj0fKOI/AAAAAAAAFhE/vXF5Y1siqWM/s800/THIMK.jpg

yeah, to my mind, that's the interesting question. greg bear asks it in his novel blood music: if everyone were infected and transformed, and happy about it, still in some sense "themselves", then would that be so bad?

See also the original novel and the first 2 film versions of Invasion of the Body Snatchers--once the pod people take over, they just go about their normal lives, 'happy' to be emotionally dialled-down group-thinkers

saw this tonight...first half hour I was like, "eh, maybe it won't be as bad as I thought" and then it just turned into SCREE!alien!flamethrower!SCREE!alien!grenade!flamethrower-flamethrower!SCREEEEEEEE for like, ever.

jjjusten pretty much nailed it upthread. My feeling is that the whole point of the original Carpenter movie was the characters' reactions TO the alien. Like, actually developing some of the characters to show their personalities under stress etc etc. In the remake they had like, what, TEN plus people in that research station and I didn't give a hoot about any of them, including fake Uncle Owen.
I think that's what bugged me the most, is that it was like the worst kind of sci-fi to me, where whoever's making it thinks it's all about the creatures and the spaceships and for the most part it's the people in these movies and stories that make the creatures/spaceships memorable. I'd be curious to see Ronald D Moore's version of the screenplay.

and it made the same stupid mistake that Super 8 made in its shonky ending. I DON'T WANT TO SEE INSIDE THE SHIP if you don't know how to end the bloody movie. That's not an exciting thing that needs to happen if the story's pretty much over with. It's like, "uh guys we've still got 20 minutes of movie left to fill in, whaddya wanna do? I dunno. Show em inside the ship maybe?" So dumb.

The only thing I liked was the closing credits where they recreated the helicopter scene from the Carpenter original.
And the music was pretty good I thought.

agree on all counts, except that i didn't really hate it. just half dug it for a while, then started to roll my eyes and tune out as it slid off the ledge into SCREE!alien!flamethrower!SCREE! all of the characters were dull, two-diminesional and poorly motivated, including the creature itself. disagree abt the music, though. found it very distracting and inappropriate. especially jarring when they switched to carpenter-style minimalist thingmusic for the end credit linking scenes. i mean, i liked that music, but it made me wonder why they'd gone for the orchestral glop earlier.

I'm not sure the Thing has any motivation other than survival.

As opposed to all the other species out there...

I keep wondering if the Thing reproduces sexually or by some kind of parasitic host takeover or are the taken-over hosts just programmed to destroy/self-destruct?

xpost yeah contenderizer despite my ranting I didn't really HATE it, but it got really boring really quickly.

but I also don't want to be placated by the fact that it didn't out-and-out suck. Mediocrity is still unacceptable, lol.

Problem with genre entertainment as a whole; too easy to focus on the genre trappings as those are the lowest hanging fruit and either miss or not care about characters or dialogue or plot or anything you can have an actual emotional connection to.

It's one of the reasons why I get irritated over friends online or elsewhere gushing about some upcoming flick cuz its got spaceships or superheroes or some shit in it.

Not that I'm substantially less gullible or susceptible to genre stuff(I'd get a kick out of someone doing a cyberpunk genre exercise or something), but by only going off the most superficial details means you can't tell the difference between, say, Brett Ratner's Xmen 3 and First Class, or even the 2nd Xmen flick.

you are so otm with all of what you just said, kingfish

I will *double* otm you :)

"uh guys we've still got 20 minutes of movie left to fill in, whaddya wanna do? I dunno. Show em inside the ship maybe?" So dumb.

Didn't this start with the re-release/re-edited Close Encounters: The Special Edition?

I haven't seen that version. Tell me they did not do that.

They did, but I want to say Spielberg considers it a mistake, like the walkie-talkie for guns swap and CGI E.T. in "E.T." He still did it, though.

Yeah, he did it under studio pressure because he was never happy with the film as released, and wanted to do some additional editing. His preferred cut is kind of a weird hybrid of the original and "special edition" edits minus the inside-the-ship stuff.

yuk

it's weird that he dissatisfied with the original cut/version/whatever. it was critically lauded and hugely popular at the time, certainly one of my favorite spielberg films.

I know, mine too!

the dvd/blu-ray has all of the various cuts btw so it's not like a star wars scenario

Yeah, ET, too, has both versions on it.

I think we have an old dvd editon, never upgraded to a blu-version

if you have the older dvd, then it's probably Spielberg's hybrid cut, which is pretty close to the original cut with some of the special edition scenes spliced in (minus the "inside the ship" scene).

iirc before the movie was on dvd the only version available for many years was the special edition.

and it made the same stupid mistake that Super 8 made in its shonky ending. I DON'T WANT TO SEE INSIDE THE SHIP if you don't know how to end the bloody movie. That's not an exciting thing that needs to happen if the story's pretty much over with. It's like, "uh guys we've still got 20 minutes of movie left to fill in, whaddya wanna do? I dunno. Show em inside the ship maybe?" So dumb.

I don't quite get this...? Super 8 never showed us the inside of the ship (since SPOILER! SPOILER! it literally ended with the ship being put together and flying away). The alien itself was only properly shown in the finale though, but that was necessary to establish the connection between it and the kid (since SPOILER! the big theme in the movie was forgiveness, and the connection between helped the alien to forgive the human race and move on), because in the end Super 8 wasn't a horror movie but an E.T. variation. I agree with your point in general, but I don't see how Super 8 is an example.

the most unrealistic part of this movie is that MacReady would waste both good liquor and his only friend/source of entertainment in the opening. although maybe he has a huge stockpile of booze and back-up Chess Wizard computers in his shack, wouldn't put it past him.

childs is such a fascinating and singular character. definitely holding the place of the "#2" in the film and meant to be on par w/macready in strength and conviction and technically an ally in the "action film" sense but also spending much of the film diametrically opposed to macready and his theories. i recognize this stems from the crushing paranoia of the film but in probably most other hands childs would be macready's bff and would stand fast with him every step of the way, and also he'd probably die 2/3rds of the way in.