MovieChat Forums > The Thing (1982) Discussion > The 2 central questions of the plot - st...

The 2 central questions of the plot - state your standpoint!

posted 4 years ago by sati_84 (467)
32 replies | jump to latest

I think there are 2 crucial questions about the nature of the Thing, so I'd like to ask them, and then ask you to state your standpoint and back it up with evidence/arguments.

1. Does a Thing know that it is a Thing and not the dog/person/whatever anymore?

I wholeheartedly think that the answer is YES. My evidences are the following:

a) Someone got to the blood

This event does not make any sense if one of the imitations (either Palmer-thing or Norris-thing) did not anticipate that the group will devise a test to discover them. To stop this plan, they got to the blood. Simple as that.

b) Norris-thing's "heart attack"

This is IMO a diversion created by Norris-thing. He fakes a heart attack, but not because the thing imitated the faulty heart. The Thing does not even imitate all the internal organs, since that would not make any sense, it only needs to keep up the facade. It only needs to look like Norris from the outside (evidenced by the actual, revealed contents of his chest - there was no heart there at all!). So the imitation somehow gets the memories of the imitated person, and from that memory, it knew that Norris had a heart condition. It tried to "die" and make the group forget about the body. But they wouldn't leave it alone, shocking it with electricity even, and it did not like that, so it burst out, and we all know the rest. More on this in a separate thread here.

c) The internal logic of the film suffers, if Things don't know they are Things

If the imitations don't know that they are imitations, the whole internal logic and tension of the mind games and paranoia and all, and the infamous "The thinking man's horror film" alias goes out the window! I have always seen this story, even when I first saw the film at 11 years old, as a story of a group of people trying to outwit an unknown group of alien organisms who are trying to hide, and play mind games with the crew to separate some members from the group, devour them and imitate them. This is an intergalactic chess game, combined with a (or several) murder mystery (mysteries) and if the imitations don't know that they are imitations, then the multi-layered storytelling is simply not there anymore - and that would hurt the film.

2. Single cell "infection" theory - yay or nay?

I wholeheartedly think that single cell "infection" is NOT possible - the Thing is not a virus! Again, the logic and the thrill would go out the window the instant this theory is accepted, since Norris or Palmer only would have to scratch the skin of the others or drop a few drips of thing-fluid into their food or do some other BS like this and bam! - the humans stand no chance at all against something like that. Blair's animation is a bit misleading I think, and Fuchs' theory is just wrong. I don't mind that it was included in the film, but I think it is wrong.

How does it go instead of single cell infection? Well, I have always thought that the Thing needs a "critical mass" to be able to devour a victim. A dog-sized Thing can devour a human, and from then on, a human imitation of course can devour another human. But say that blood imitation in the dish MacReady used to bust Palmer, is still crawling around in the station - but can't devour anyone, since it does not have enough mass for that. So in my interpretation, the Thing attacks you, devours you, consumes you (this is the part where you are dead) and then imitates you. End of story, no infection and no "you" anymore, just a cold and calculating alien who wants to stay hidden and devour others.

This is of course my opinion, but I think I have backed it up with enough evidence and arguments. Now it's your turn: state your standpoint on these questions and let's hear your arguments!

[–] sati_84 (467) 4 years ago

(bump)

[–] Zilkin (407) 4 years ago

I think it can infect from a single cell that is why the world was at stake since as soon as it leaves the station it will assimilate entire biosphere. If it was just assimilating one by one it would be easier to stop it.

[–] sati_84 (467) 4 years ago

I disagree. The world can be at stake even if single cell infection is off the table. If no one survives who can inform humanity about the thing's imitation ability... it would take a while for the world to detect what is even happening. And by that time, it's likely too late.

The implication is there even without single cell takeover IMO.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I think you missed the point of the movie completely. It was intended for entertainment purposes only, like other science fiction movie it isn't intended to stand up to close scrutiny only to intended to be entertaining.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I think you missed the point of the question completely. It was intended for entertainment purposes only, like other similar questions on forums it isn't intended to stand up to close scrutiny but is only intended to be entertaining.

[–] sati_84 (467) 4 years ago

*clap* Thank you! :-)

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

What do you think of my answers to your questions?

[–] sati_84 (467) 4 years ago

Already replied in the meantime :-)

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

A thing knows it's a thing but the emulated organism does not. As there's no room for being both a liver cell and being something else, the thing must be multidimensional. It is therefore reasonable to assume that it's higher functions are multi dimensional, too.
As consciousness is an emergence it can relatively easily be simulated within the emulation. Therefore the emulated entity can be as aware as is deemed necessary by the thing. Not having the emulated organism being aware is the most logical way to avoid detection.

[–] sati_84 (467) 4 years ago

Nice and thoughtful reply.

I would raise two points: one is the blood incident, the other is Blair's spaceship construction project. I don't think this gradual change of awareness would allow Blair to still think he's human and to work on the ship. Could you explain how that would work in your scenario?

[–] crc32 (2584) 4 years ago

Sati_84 no he's treating te thing like a Computer host and virtual machine where a host operating system can take over from time to time with out the VM knowing about it. Ie the thing can access the imitations memories but but the imitation can't access the outer things outer things memory. The thing can take over when it knows its alone and switch off the imitations ability t o remember and return the brain to homeostasis when it needfs to switch back to the imitations runnng mode. IE the imittion won't even realize or be aware they are missing time. Most of your memories are reconstructions anyways so the brain of the imitation would just fill in the gaps like like your do with your memory. For example you really don't remember the color of your 1st grade rooms floor. Your brain just makes up a color when you think back and that becomes your reality. If you have amnesia your brain does the same thing until your confronted with a hard conflict.i Anopther example would be that people don't realize they are missing time until some one confronts them with evidence or something. For excample they a person suffering from asmnesia won't realize they are missing time until they look in the mirror and realize they have a head inmjury or can't determine the cause of the pain on their head. If the thing covered up the UFO blair woulden't know about it cause the imitation isn't allowed to form memories. It will be like split personality except their is a main personality (The thing) that is omniscient. If computers can do it a specialized biological brain should be able to as well.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

We experience large periods of time running in unconscious mode. Sometimes we forget how we even drove home, for instance. Doing "Thing quests" could be during such times, induced. The blood incident: A smaller, non-conscious part could be reliant on instincts upon threats. There is no reason to assume that the multidimensional aspect of the thing would suggest a group consciousness among separate instances in ours. What is puzzling, however, is that, assuming Blair was infected during the autopsy by only a few cells, his Thing cells still retained such elaborate schematics for assembling a space ship. To counter that; deduction could be superb and fed by the memories of the host. Read about a spaceship, build some electrical/mechanical devices in your life and a sufficiently intelligent being who has access to your memory can quickly think up some uses and become creative. After all; all it takes to take on the sky is inspiration and good math skills.

[–] Drooch (5333) 4 years ago

2) I’m unsure about this. Why does Windows’ corpse twitch and move as if it’s becoming a Thing, causing MacReady to incinerate it? Palmer-Thing chewed Windows’ head for 10 seconds and it appears to have ‘infected’ Windows.

Why does the Thing spray the dogs with Thing-juice? Hoping to infect them?

My suspicion is that Carpenter threw all these things into the screenplay without realising they contradict each other and now we’re picking up the pieces.

[–] WuchakTheBitch (100) 4 years ago

Windows appeared to be covered in some kind of slime after the Palmer-Thing ejected him from its mouth. It seemed he was being assimilated.

Same with the juice the dog thing was spraying. Just launching more of itself at its victims in order to digest them.

[–] sati_84 (467) 3 years ago

Palmer-thing did not have time and opportunity to properly devour and imitate Windows, so it just chewed on him a bit, in order to incapacitate him. At least that's how I always saw it.

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

So why is his corpse twitching as if it’s becoming a Thing, causing MacReady to incinerate it?

[–] sati_84 (467) 3 years ago

Twitching can be caused by damage to the nervous system by having his head and neck chewed on by a set of really sharp teeth...

[–] wearsalan (5554) 3 years ago

Question 1: Yes

Question 2: No

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

Yeah but that’s not what’s implied by MacReady incinerating him - the suggestion is that he’s twitching because he’s becoming a Thing (and is moving much more than post death spasm, he’s almost squirming). MacReady roasts him for this reason.

Then you’ve got Blair’s computer model and Fuch’s warning about a drop of water - the movie pushes the ‘infection’ theory but doesn’t do anything with it (because it negates all the other behaviours of the alien).

I see it as a flaw in the film that they kept it in. Assimilation was a good enough threat to not require a half baked infection possibility.

[–] sati_84 (467) 2 years ago

You have a good point there.

During the filmmaking process they might have considered going with infection, but later realized this would not allow them to craft the plot they wanted to present. Hence the back and forth.

And I'm fine with it. I mean this is something they should mention in the movie in some form, since the audience will eventually wonder. But having a character (Fuchs) mentioning it, who might be wrong covers all bases.

And the Windows twitching scene still could go either way. I personally don't think there is enough mass transferred from PalmerThing to Windows to assimilate him, and torching him was the best and safest option, since he was a goner, and he had some thing in him, so MacReady must have thought it's better be safe and did it. And if you go with the possibility of infection, then that was the reason.

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

I wish they’d done the Alien/Predator thing of ultimately revealing the strengths and weaknesses of the alien creature, making a final battle more exciting.

We never really understand the Thing and MacReady (and the film) seems satisfied that lobbing some dynamite at it has killed it. I’m not convinced.

I only raise this because overall it’s an awesome horror film and it frustrates me that it just falls short of greatness because of the confusion around the creature’s powers.

[–] sati_84 (467) 2 years ago

Fair criticism, I always considered the ending battle as a weak point in the movie. It's still awesome and cool, of course, but it doesn't really follow the logic establihed until that point. And yes, the creature's powers and abilities are not consistent towards the end. We did not know it can turn someone's head inside out, and at the very end, it kind of makes no sense for it to collect all its mass together and act as a conventional monster.

But the overall quaility of the film is so good, and the ending itself with Childs and Mac is so well done, I don't mind these details too much. They bother me that I have no clear answer to them, but this is a film where I can forgive this. But yes, there is no in-universe explanation I can think of for these...

[–] sati_84 (467) 3 years ago

I think Palmer-thing did not have the appropriate time to properly devour and imitate Windows, so he went for the easier option and chewed on him a bit to incapacitate him. He was covered in digestive fluid, yes, but it is still not an "infection".

The dog-thing did not want to "infect" the other dogs either. It later grabbed them with its tentacles. For this, it wanted to scare the dogs, and confuse them - hence the spraying.

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

https://moviechat.org/tt0084787/The-Thing/5f35046fca71460505b1dc3d/The-2-central-questions-of-the-plot-state-your-standpoint?reply=620280f010373601e0da8c03

[–] WuchakTheBitch (100) 4 years ago

The imitations absolutely know they are a Thing. They couldn’t be anything else. They are no longer human, they are an alien mass disguised to resemble one. It’s clear that each Thing (Norris-Thing, Palmer-Thing, Blair-Thing, Dog-Thing) is its own separate consciousness as well, with its own free will.

The Thing does not even imitate all the internal organs,

The Thing does mimic internal organs as shown when Blair dissects the split-face thing. Which is still what leads me to believe Norris-Thing inherited a duplicated heart defect.

As for single cell infection theory? Not likely once you consider the biology of the Thing and how it works.

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 2 years ago

This scene more than suggests that single cell infection is possible:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qSbYEbtfoY

Also, since Dr. Blair was isolated at the time of that scene and would remain so, he must have already been infected at that point - but he was clearly not aware of that himself. It seems that it is only when the thing reaches critical mass that it also takes over cognitive function.

I wholeheartedly think that single cell "infection" is NOT possible - the Thing is not a virus! Again, the logic and the thrill would go out the window the instant this theory is accepted, since Norris or Palmer only would have to scratch the skin of the others or drop a few drips of thing-fluid into their food or do some other BS like this and bam! - the humans stand no chance at all against something like that.

I think they could very well do that, and it'd work. The thing is - no pun intended - the writer never thought of that.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

"Also, since Dr. Blair was isolated at the time of that scene and would remain so, he must have already been infected at that point - but he was clearly not aware of that himself."

There was ample opportunity for a previously infected human to go outside to the tool-shed, and infect Blair. Possibly the same person who Fuchs followed after the lab lights were cut out.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

"Single cell infection"

I think, yes. Every part of The Thing is a whole. This being the case, once a single cell in your body is assimilated, that cell is also a whole Thing in and of itself, slowly converting all your cells from the inside.

[–] Ilyathe2nd (171) 2 years ago

It's shown in the film, as Blair analyses the cells and views the results on screen. A single cell starts to take over, assimilate and imitate neigbouring cells. The question is the time it takes to assimilate a whole organism.

[–] GoMangoMan (40) 2 years ago

1. Does a Thing know that it is a Thing and not the dog/person/whatever anymore?

yes, but note that that isn't necessarily mutually exclusive with the person still temporarily "existing". the thing is emulating human cellular structure, it's just human cellular structure plus something more. so as long as the imitation holds, it's possible that the original person is still functioning normally to some degree. Basically there can be two consciousnesses running at the same time, but unfortunately for the human part, the thing part has a lot more control at the cellular level. (I don't know this for sure, it's just a possibility.)

2. Single cell "infection" theory - yay or nay?

in the computer example that was shown, the infiltrating cells were around the same size as normal cells. this means it's likely that your immune system could protect you from smaller infections. this would also be why no one was infected by carrying the carcass from the Norwegian base, and it takes a massive attack like what happened to Bennings to assimilate someone.

[–] sati_84 (467) 2 years ago

1. I think this point was raised before, but wouldn't the "normal" consciousness notice missing time when the Thing takes over? There is nothing in the movie indicating that scenario...

2. Completely agreed!

[–] GoMangoMan (40) 2 years ago

1. I think this point was raised before, but wouldn't the "normal" consciousness notice missing time when the Thing takes over? There is nothing in the movie indicating that scenario...

it's possible they can both run concurrently. as long as there are thing neuron cells that are still also functioning like human neuron cells, then the human consciousness can still be running. the thing consciousness must work differently, some kind of cellularly-distributed consciousness, because even a small amount of fluid seems to have some awareness, and nervous tissue is not central to the thing's ability to think; any tissue seems to be.

for a slightly different theory, it's also possible that instead there is an alien "human" consciousness that is controlled by the relatively less intelligent distributed thing consciousness. as a dog, it gets to have a dog mind to make use of, but as a human, it gets to have a human mind. but when reduced to mere tissues, it functions only at a base level of survival instinct.

(some combination of these is also possible. maybe the second occurs at a later stage.)