|
|
Post by novastar6 on Dec 9, 2021 23:40:24 GMT
... I think it's very cool 40 years later people are still debating, arguing, theorizing who's who and what's what. You rarely see that with any movie, that proves people are interested in it, in the fate of the characters. at the end of the film I was just happy to see that it was finally over and still had no idea of who the characters were as individuals and didn't care what the future held for them. They had lost me from the moment someone went looking for someone who was missing and I had No IDEA who that character was ... and it went downhill from there.
There's fanfiction for that, a big genre is 'fix-it' fics where the writers correct what they didn't like and give the characters a more suited ending, and as it turns out, The Thing has very little fanfiction, especially very few 'fix-it' stories, so more likely they're just that intrigued.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicktatler76 on Dec 10, 2021 9:48:41 GMT
I'm somewhere in the middle when it comes to this movie. I did enjoy it, but I thought it could've been improved in certain areas. I agree that the characters weren't interesting enough to make one care about them, I also felt that Kurt Russell's character could've been more badass and charismatic. The sense of isolation and the mystery aspect should've been played up more. I also didn't care for the open ending. I'm someone who usually hates these sort of ambiguous endings. Some regard it as brave and thought-provoking, I find it frustrating and needlessly downbeat. Overall a great idea and excellent effects though. I didn't mind the characterisation, it was a realistic dynamic for me- a bunch of men, some with questionable people skills, chucked together for work. Various cliques and members who didn't get on (Windows and Palmer, Mac and Childs etc). Mac was a moody loner which makes him ideal for a remote posting like that. |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Dec 13, 2021 16:57:07 GMT
I actually don’t think Blair was a Thing when he’s smashing things. I love the film tho because so much of it is intentionally ambiguous and you can’t really know several things for sure.
Great flick. Prob #2 on my fave horror list.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Dec 13, 2021 17:04:01 GMT
It's hardly surprising Blair was infected, during the autopsy he prodded the carcass with a pencil and then put the pencil in or around his mouth (always found this odd for a doctor who should know better). Especially as Fuchs later recommended everyone preparing their own food and eating from tins to avoid infection. This is where I think he was infected as after his meltdown he was isolated and the person he spent most time with was Fuchs who was human. The part where the dog's walking around camp and it goes into the room with the shadow on the wall- I'm fairly sure that shadow looks like Norris, has that been confirmed anywhere? I think 'Norris' killed Fuchs. The shadow was played by another person, not in the cast. So that it wouldn’t be obvious who it was. The safe assumption is that it’s Norris or Palmer since we know they are both secretly assimilated earlier on. My money is on Norris. |
|
|
|
Post by nicktatler76 on Dec 13, 2021 17:54:00 GMT
It's hardly surprising Blair was infected, during the autopsy he prodded the carcass with a pencil and then put the pencil in or around his mouth (always found this odd for a doctor who should know better). Especially as Fuchs later recommended everyone preparing their own food and eating from tins to avoid infection. This is where I think he was infected as after his meltdown he was isolated and the person he spent most time with was Fuchs who was human. The part where the dog's walking around camp and it goes into the room with the shadow on the wall- I'm fairly sure that shadow looks like Norris, has that been confirmed anywhere? I think 'Norris' killed Fuchs. The shadow was played by another person, not in the cast. So that it wouldn’t be obvious who it was. The safe assumption is that it’s Norris or Palmer since we know they are both secretly assimilated earlier on. My money is on Norris. Yes my money would be on Norris based on what we see, it looks like his kind of build. |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Feb 22, 2022 17:35:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Feb 22, 2022 19:24:06 GMT
I saw that. I'm not sure he really means it though. He has said before that if he was going to direct again he wouldn't do something like flying up to the North of Canada to live in and shoot in the elements now because he wouldn't be that dedicated as an older man anymore. There was a sequel/continuation story developed for TV as a miniseries years ago that was set in the heat of the desert in the American southwest. It's another one of those unmade projects that sounds really good when the writer talks about it now, but of course we'll never know how it would really have turned out. Maybe that's the kind of thing he'd be interested in, but I'd think he'd be more inclined to write and produce than to direct it himself. |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Feb 23, 2022 0:45:56 GMT
It’s one of those ideas doomed to fail. If you keep the aesthetic and isolation then it’s bound to feel like a copycat, but if you lose it you lose what makes the movie work so well. |
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Feb 23, 2022 15:11:41 GMT
I saw that. I'm not sure he really means it though. He has said before that if he was going to direct again he wouldn't do something like flying up to the North of Canada to live in and shoot in the elements now because he wouldn't be that dedicated as an older man anymore. There was a sequel/continuation story developed for TV as a miniseries years ago that was set in the heat of the desert in the American southwest. It's another one of those unmade projects that sounds really good when the writer talks about it now, but of course we'll never know how it would really have turned out. Maybe that's the kind of thing he'd be interested in, but I'd think he'd be more inclined to write and produce than to direct it himself. I would have rather had that then the prequel/remake thing we had years ago: |
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Feb 23, 2022 16:30:08 GMT
I saw that. I'm not sure he really means it though. He has said before that if he was going to direct again he wouldn't do something like flying up to the North of Canada to live in and shoot in the elements now because he wouldn't be that dedicated as an older man anymore. There was a sequel/continuation story developed for TV as a miniseries years ago that was set in the heat of the desert in the American southwest. It's another one of those unmade projects that sounds really good when the writer talks about it now, but of course we'll never know how it would really have turned out. Maybe that's the kind of thing he'd be interested in, but I'd think he'd be more inclined to write and produce than to direct it himself. I would have rather had that then the prequel/remake thing we had years ago: Yeah, me too. That one was just kinda dull and I didn't care for the fact that it was both a prequel and a remake for no logical reason. This probably makes more sense in the 'Horror movies we never got' thread, but the writer of that mini-series project was on the 'Best Movies Never Made' podcast to discuss the whole development and plot of the proposed project, and then ultimately how it fell apart. It sounded great, but of course most of these unmade things do.
|
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Mar 21, 2022 13:10:35 GMT
I just finished the novelization last night, VERY different experience, especially towards the end.
Now everybody remembers I said Blair was obviously a Thing when he started going crazy and destroying the communication equipment...the way the novelization was written, did a much better job making that seem like he was just panicked about the prospect of anybody human being taken over by it and bringing in more outsiders to better those odds.
Now something I thought about while reading it. The thing can't replicate any unorganic materials, hence a big debate about Childs with his earring, but is it possible if Childs was infected, the thing took his earring out, and then put it back in once it finished replicating him?
|
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Mar 21, 2022 19:34:14 GMT
Easily one of my favorite things (no pun intended) about the movie. Not everything has a definitive answer. Especially the ending. It's intentionally left ambiguous with no way to know for sure. I love it.
|
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Mar 22, 2022 11:38:22 GMT
Easily one of my favorite things (no pun intended) about the movie. Not everything has a definitive answer. Especially the ending. It's intentionally left ambiguous with no way to know for sure. I love it. That's one of the issues with doing any kind of follow up. That ending is the perfect way to ultimately thematically illustrate what the movie had been about the whole way, and that proposed sequel miniseries was gonna have them both die, and John Carpenter's recent comments about a sequel suggested he would have them both live. Either way, answering the question that is that ending is kind of a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Mar 22, 2022 11:48:50 GMT
I just finished the novelization last night, VERY different experience, especially towards the end. Now everybody remembers I said Blair was obviously a Thing when he started going crazy and destroying the communication equipment...the way the novelization was written, did a much better job making that seem like he was just panicked about the prospect of anybody human being taken over by it and bringing in more outsiders to better those odds. Now something I thought about while reading it. The thing can't replicate any unorganic materials, hence a big debate about Childs with his earring, but is it possible if Childs was infected, the thing took his earring out, and then put it back in once it finished replicating him? I think the movie does quite a good job at making Blair seem like he's looking out for humanity in that moment. They all think he's crazy, but he's taking the logical step based on what they learned, and the next time we see him he seems like he's preparing to kill himself which he wouldn't do if he was taken over. It's definitely possible that a Thing could have just picked up an earing or other jewelry or article of clothing. As much as the remake-that's-also-a-prequel is kinda lame, it did make a point of using this idea as a plot device, and I thought that made sense. They're version of the blood test was looking to see if people had fillings, and she ultimately knew that Joel Edgerton was a Thing because he had lost his earring. But clothing would have to be stolen from a body or something too. You can argue that it can replicate cotton or other fabrics, but these guys are all wearing jackets with zippers and buttons and stuff, and it has to steal those items off of the guys there's no reason it couldn't steal an earring as well. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Mar 22, 2022 13:10:54 GMT
Easily one of my favorite things (no pun intended) about the movie. Not everything has a definitive answer. Especially the ending. It's intentionally left ambiguous with no way to know for sure. I love it. That's one of the issues with doing any kind of follow up. That ending is the perfect way to ultimately thematically illustrate what the movie had been about the whole way, and that proposed sequel miniseries was gonna have them both die, and John Carpenter's recent comments about a sequel suggested he would have them both live. Either way, answering the question that is that ending is kind of a problem. Exactly. It doesn't need an answer. The ending is perfect as is. It perfectly encapsulates that feeling of dread and paranoia that permeated throughout the movie. An answer would ruin that. We don't need to know who if either of them is a Thing. The point is that even at the very end, we can't be sure. It's the perfect thematic ending.
|
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Mar 22, 2022 15:17:23 GMT
I just finished the novelization last night, VERY different experience, especially towards the end. Now everybody remembers I said Blair was obviously a Thing when he started going crazy and destroying the communication equipment...the way the novelization was written, did a much better job making that seem like he was just panicked about the prospect of anybody human being taken over by it and bringing in more outsiders to better those odds. Now something I thought about while reading it. The thing can't replicate any unorganic materials, hence a big debate about Childs with his earring, but is it possible if Childs was infected, the thing took his earring out, and then put it back in once it finished replicating him? I think the movie does quite a good job at making Blair seem like he's looking out for humanity in that moment. They all think he's crazy, but he's taking the logical step based on what they learned, and the next time we see him he seems like he's preparing to kill himself which he wouldn't do if he was taken over. It's definitely possible that a Thing could have just picked up an earing or other jewelry or article of clothing. As much as the remake-that's-also-a-prequel is kinda lame, it did make a point of using this idea as a plot device, and I thought that made sense. They're version of the blood test was looking to see if people had fillings, and she ultimately knew that Joel Edgerton was a Thing because he had lost his earring. But clothing would have to be stolen from a body or something too. You can argue that it can replicate cotton or other fabrics, but these guys are all wearing jackets with zippers and buttons and stuff, and it has to steal those items off of the guys there's no reason it couldn't steal an earring as well. And actually in the novelization when they realize it shreds the clothes because it can't replicate them, somebody made a point if they had any wool clothes it could possibly replicate them.
|
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Mar 22, 2022 15:25:17 GMT
I think the movie does quite a good job at making Blair seem like he's looking out for humanity in that moment. They all think he's crazy, but he's taking the logical step based on what they learned, and the next time we see him he seems like he's preparing to kill himself which he wouldn't do if he was taken over. It's definitely possible that a Thing could have just picked up an earing or other jewelry or article of clothing. As much as the remake-that's-also-a-prequel is kinda lame, it did make a point of using this idea as a plot device, and I thought that made sense. They're version of the blood test was looking to see if people had fillings, and she ultimately knew that Joel Edgerton was a Thing because he had lost his earring. But clothing would have to be stolen from a body or something too. You can argue that it can replicate cotton or other fabrics, but these guys are all wearing jackets with zippers and buttons and stuff, and it has to steal those items off of the guys there's no reason it couldn't steal an earring as well. And actually in the novelization when they realize it shreds the clothes because it can't replicate them, somebody made a point if they had any wool clothes it could possibly replicate them. I don't know how obnoxiously nerdy we want get here, but MacReady is wearing that leather jacket most of the time. Leather could be replicated, but again whatever zippers or buttons his jacket has couldn't be replicated if they were metal. But could it replicate them if they were plastic since plastic is petroleum based? What about any of the stains or dyes or paints or anything that the clothing may have? A wool sweater is organic, but if it's dyed with an artificial clothing dye or has some kind of printing on it could it replicate that? Could it approximate the look of the garment with different material that the average person wouldn't pick up on? All of this overthinking would not occur to the characters in this situation, but after 40 years of this movie existing people have thought about from all angles.
|
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Mar 22, 2022 17:41:26 GMT
And actually in the novelization when they realize it shreds the clothes because it can't replicate them, somebody made a point if they had any wool clothes it could possibly replicate them. I don't know how obnoxiously nerdy we want get here, but MacReady is wearing that leather jacket most of the time. Leather could be replicated, but again whatever zippers or buttons his jacket has couldn't be replicated if they were metal. But could it replicate them if they were plastic since plastic is petroleum based? What about any of the stains or dyes or paints or anything that the clothing may have? A wool sweater is organic, but if it's dyed with an artificial clothing dye or has some kind of printing on it could it replicate that? Could it approximate the look of the garment with different material that the average person wouldn't pick up on? All of this overthinking would not occur to the characters in this situation, but after 40 years of this movie existing people have thought about from all angles.
That's the sign of a good movie, people still ask questions about it 40 years later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Dec 22, 2022 20:29:00 GMT
The dog was a pro--the one in the hallway scene especially. I assumed the shadow on the wall was Palmer and that he was assimilated first. Norris seemed to have been assimilated from eating something and wasn't aware of it--that is why he had a version of himself inside his stomach (the documentary on the making of it is so funny-the actor mentioning what he thought when he watched that scene). The "recipient heart condition" biography idea was terrible-no one with such a condition would be in Antarctica. They used it in a voice over for the tv version. I assumed Blair was a thing when he did his radio freakout so he could be isolated to build a ship in the tool shed--but he had no way of knowing he would be put in there. The novel had a 13th character I remember and a chase in the snow after another dog-thing. The Dark Horse comic sequel is not bad--it starts with Childs and MacReady being rescued by a military-some great ideas in the comic. In one of them--they end up in South America and MacReady (I think) is in a room with a dozen other people and they do a test and realize the only one who isn't a thing is MacReady and he has to cut off his own hand and jump out the window to survive. It also suggests that the things will turn on each other in order to survive--I think the movie showed that too--Palmer didn't seem to be eager to do anything to protect other things like Norris--assuming that thing even knew that Norris was infected.
I agree with the criticisms that come up on the movie--the characters are not likable and they hate each other which is crazy for them being stationed there. Russell is fine but he does seem soft and young at times--and I find that distracting because Bill Warren talked about this in a review of the Thing movies-he felt Kenneth Tobey was much more realistic as the hero character. Rougher and tougher. MacReady pouring a drink in a computer is really dumb character display. The story is so interesting as a concept that it could be remade again much scarier--the scenario of a monster that absorbs you by touch or some unexpected contact --they could do more with it. Someone could be opening a can of stew with a hole in it already and out pops a thing tentacle in his eye. The problem with the 2011 version is that they ignored the physics of the thing--the 1982 film established that the thing needed time to transform--that deep breathing sound (borrowed from the 1978 Invasion of the Body Snatchers). The 2011 film had video game physics where the thing could split its human face apart in a half a second with no preparation. That makes no sense. The kennel scene I think-remains the best sequence in the movie for the creature. The Norris-Thing stuff is cool but it doesn't feel very suspenseful-it feels like an FX showcase. I wonder-did Stan Winsto do the entire kennel scene? I know Bottin did some of the dogs but not the main transforming one--that was Winston's people. Who did the mutant hands rising up to the ceiling? That was a major highlight. I feel the monster stuff loses effect after Norris--the Palmer Thing itself is kind of bland and unintentionally comical when it grabs Windows and he is making sounds as he is kicking in the air. The Blair-Thing is underwhelming. It feels like they were running out of ideas on what to do with it.
PS I think the best scary moment in the movie--without FX-is when the Norwegian guy is shouting as the dog is licking Bennings in the face. It sounds like he is saying "that thing! A terror is the thing!" And he sounds scared too--and I think he was just a crewman on set who spoke Norwegian but it's effective and old fashion horror moment since he is so worked up about a the dog. The performance of the guy drives the scene.
Brimley was ok but I heard he did not want to do the film--Donald Pleasence would have been great.
|
|
