|
Post by sostie on Apr 25, 2017 11:26:26 GMT
I always wondered though, why The Thing wanted to take over people in the first place, with the potential of a possible infestation of Earth's population. What did it want with it and to serve what purpose? For the guys on the base, it was just about surviving, but on a worldwide scale, like whatever! What was the metaphor or symbolic theme behind it all? I think The Thing should be seen as some sort of virus as opposed to a creature, albeit an advanced virus...viruses fight and adapt to survive, that is it's motivation. Survival. And keeping anonymous is one of its ways of doing that. The Thing is seen as an individual creature, but what rarely, if ever, is mentioned is that there are more than one "Things"...there are multiple infections at the same time. The spacecraft carrying the The Thing was not it's craft, but of an Alien it has assimilated, perhaps why it is assumed that The Thing is one creature.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 25, 2017 12:58:41 GMT
I think these are interesting points guys. Can I just ask that we focus on the topic of this discussion...the brief and disappointing climax with Blair-thing? You guys are awesome and thoughtful with your responses regardless, but I'm just a little more curious about your views on that aspect. Of course, I'm talking about those who haven't commented on here yet LOL. I will say that Carpenter knows how to expertly direct paranoia and dread and the build up to the creature reveal was very effective. It's too bad the actual payoff, aside from the briefly-shown effects work, couldn't match it as much IMO. McCready blew it up so effortlessly that it was almost a pointless reveal to not have the monster do ANYTHING. You know it's true in that sense.Not at all. As has been mentioned: it wasn't an action movie; the climax did not necessitate a drawn out action sequence. The rhythm and flow of the movie would be thrown off with anything bigger or longer. Brief? Yes. Disappointing, not really. It fits the movie better than a chase scene would.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 26, 2017 13:04:27 GMT
...while it's true we weren't provided much backstory, it wasn't necessary since the film established character and relationships much more effectively. Plus, it's not about feeling for them. It's about feeling the growing dread and paranoia, which the film does masterfully. What characters knew about the danger? Well, there was Doctor Loomis and the police chief he spoke too. And again, while they didn't know when the danger was coming, they knew from who it was coming, particularly the audience. There was no fear that suddenly Little Timmy would be the killer. Or that Laurie's friend was behind the mask. We always knew who the bad guy was. It was always the guy in the Captain Kirk mask. With the thing, the characters, and just as important, the audience doesn't know where, and worse who, the danger was. He could be in the scene and no one would know it until it revealed himself. There was no such uncertaity in Halloween. True about not having to feel for the characters so much, but for the "predicament" and the dread and paranoia that was created due to it. Yes, it was masterfully done. These characters though, did became aware of the horror that was engulfing them, yet didn't know when and where it would rear it's Thingy head. There was definitely certainty about the danger of a horror with The Thing. In Halloween, the only main characters who were really certain of a horror, was Loomis and the police chief. Myers of course too, as he was perpetrating it. He played mind games and with Laurie in particular. The victims in Halloween, were oblivious to the horror that would greet them. The guys in The Thing, were attempting not to become victims. They knew of the danger present and "were" aware of what was confronting them. This wasn't so creepy, as the human horror that awaited it's characters in Halloween. Yes, the characters in the Thing knew there was a danger. But they never knew which among them was the danger. Even after they'd killed one Thing, they didn't know if another one of them was infected. In Halloween, the danger was always Michael Myers. Always. Once Laurie starts making her getaway from him, she only worries about him. There was no danger she'd be attacked by someone else. The biggest difference though is audience engagement. Again, the audience always knew the danger would come from Michael Myers. We knew there was no danger from Loomis or Annie or anyone else. In the Thing, the audience doesn't know if the danger will come from Clark, Childs, or even MacReady himself. That's the true uncertainty. The audience knew no more than the characters.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 27, 2017 13:20:35 GMT
Exactly. And it wasn't until that point, very late in the movie, that Laurie is in real danger. And she always knows where the danger is coming from. The boogey man.
With the Thing, the characters are all in danger from the moment the thing shows it can mimic them. For most of the movie. And then they never know who among them is the thing. The danger isn't out there. It's right in their group. They, and the audience don't have to wait for the danger to show up. It's already there. And they don't know who it is.
Incorrect about the audience sitting back and waiting for The Thing. That's actually what they did with Halloween. If Michael Myers wasn't around, they knew there was no danger. They had to wait for him to pop up for any real scares.
But with the Thing, they never knew where the alien was. They never knew who it was. The audience, like the characters, were trying to figure out who the alien was impersonating. They were far more invested because they were as clueless and helpless as the characters.
The paranoia and terror were far more prominent in The Thing. The real horror is watching men they've worked closely with, and were friends with, turning into a monster. That supersedes the stranger danger from Halloween.
|
|