MovieChat Forums > The Thing (1982) Discussion > Can The Thing assimilate a host if they'...

Can The Thing assimilate a host if they're already dead?


Something that popped into my head last night!

reply

Yes, compare the two photos of Fuchs being impaled with a shovel: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/thethingfanfr/deleted-scenes-pictures-t4602.html

reply

Thank you for sharing. I know next to nothing about the lore. Would you be so kind to provide some context for the picture in question?

reply

Fuchs wanted to do an experiment involving the weed stash taken by Palmer, who was already a thing. Palmer decided to do an experiment of his own by impaling him with a shovel while trying to assimilate him. He drained him of his lifeforce.

The thing has the ability to regenerate. Notice how the Blair thing didn't need glasses anymore when he grabbed Garry.

reply

Oh yeah! I vaguely remember that scene you're talking about.

reply

It's a movie, it doesn't exist. None of it makes sense, and it's a bad movie at that.

reply

I wouldn't call it a "bad movie". I just found the violence and gore ridiculously excessive to the point of being absurd.

But maybe that was the point.

reply

Probably

I still enjoy the character driven original "Thing From Another World".

reply

I haven't seen it. How different is it compared to the remakes.

And by the way! Your username had me going for a moment 😁

reply

Completely different, it's B&W from the 50s.

reply

Grandpa alert

reply

There is a reason it's called a classic.

reply

There’s a reason this one is a classic too.

reply

It's not, the reason you think it's a classic is so many fake posts talking it up - this movie really stinks.

reply

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about since "The Thing (1982)" isn't a remake, or reboot, sequel, or anything of "The Thing from Another World (1951)", but rather a adaptation of the "Who goes there?" novella. They are literally two entirely different movies that happen to share a couple of the ideas from the novella.

Edit: and by a couple I literally mean 1) Cold place, and 2) Alien.

reply

That is a fool's logic. They movies were both based on the same short story, and since the classic version was first, that makes the second weirdo version a cheap remake.

reply

Ok. You're wrong. But apparently you like being wrong. Or you're just a troll, none the less I'm not biting but I'm sure someone else will.

reply

You like being wrong by claiming the other person is wrong or calling them names, with no argument. Then you bit and lied about it ... like I give a rip. You like the movie. Nothing wrong with that, they make kids shows for kids, and retard shows for retards ... I'm glad you have some content that pleases you.

reply

I actually never proclaimed anywhere that I liked the movie or not. I don't need to like a movie to know whether or not you're wrong about something. Since you did manage to insinuate such a thing, seemingly because I came across your misleading insinuation about "The Thing (1982)" being a reboot/remake/whatever of "The Thing from Another World (1951)", and this misleading incorrect statement of such happened to be on "The Thing (1982)'" board in particular.. on top of being wrong and a troll, you're also now prejudice and short sighted.

Good job.

reply

Fake posts? You think this is all some sort of grand conspiracy to make The Thing look better than it actually is? Sorry, but there's too much anecdotal evidence to suggest this film is a classic for it not to be.

reply

The movie ( it's hardly a "film" ) was a special effects demo at the time - that's all. It had no pretty girls in it, or human drama or character arcs, it was garbage except for its special effects, and now 40 years later its a nothing burger. Someone has to like these old crappy flicks, so thanks for doing your job.

reply

Ah yes, the whole "people only like The Thing because of its special effects" argument. It's not even the strongest element of the film, but sure? I really have to wonder if people from the 50's just don't have an eye for cinematography or an ear for music? Or if paranoia, the study of friends being forced to become enemies under circumstance, or the shapeshifting alien are all too complicated for people over a certain age? I mean, I'd argue a cellular creature that mimics lifeforms with perfect accuracy is far more interesting, compelling, and scary than a lumbering Frankenstein monster ripoff. But for whatever reason, boomers seem to find the Frankenstein monster more original and frightening? Whatever rocks the wheelchair.

But yeah, it's ONLY worth watching as a "special effects demo". You say there's no "human drama"? I highly recommend paying attention to the movie next time. You call this a "retard film" yet you yourself seemed to have blatantly missed the most easily observable point of the movie.

Also, trying to use "there's no pretty girls" as a legitimate argument is hilarious. I've got news for you...check out Pornhub, tons of plenty girls there.

reply

The movie makes plenty sense. You simply over think it and have bad taste

reply

"You simply over think it and have bad taste"

I immediately thought of Peter Jackson's debut film when I read this comment 😁

I incidentally referenced his sophomore film in another "Thing" related post just now!

reply

In an unfilmed scene from the original script, the first Thing/Dog took off from the base when realized it had been discovered and they were destroying the others. It took a piece of another dog to sustain itself so that would imply it could.

reply

I don't think there is evidence of this anywhere in the movie.

The Thing most likely needs cellular activity to devour and imitate a being (dog, human, etc.) - there is no indication of it doing it to corpses.

It doesn't really matter either way, because the Outpost 31 crew incinerates all the dogs and all the corpses for good measure anyways, so there is no way a Thing could have survived as a corpse - IMO.

reply

I agree that the film makes it pretty plain that the Thing only seems interested in living tissue as that's all we actually see.

When it assimilates things violently, like the dogs, Windows, and Bennings etc it inflicts some pretty substantial trauma which likely kills the people before being fully assimilated. This could account for the leftover blood and gore all over the place which gets left behind, being possible the leftover biological tissue that was too dead to assimilate. I believe there's a little "window" of time that The Thing could quickly assimilate after killing someone but there is a limit to it, as this leftover blood appears benign. It's good that they cleaned it up anyway, just in case.

I believe Windows was not fully killed by Palmer but was just mortally wounded when he was covered in slime... and the croaking could have been him being assimilated or just trying to breathe in spite of his severe injuries.

I also believe that Blair's computer simulation should not be treated as canon because he likely animated it himself off of guesswork. There wasn't any evidence in the movie that a small particle of The Thing could in fact assimilate anything. Otherwise, MacReady would have been assimilated when the contaminated blood splashes all over him during Palmer's test. I think the creature had to be of a certain mass to attack people or have developed specialized structures in itself, kind of like how a Portuguese Man O War has specialized "stinging cells" within itself, an otherwise unified collection of individual cells rather than an actual animal.

When The Thing is "killed" I think it's really just mimickry and it has to go dormant for a period maybe to instinctively fool people into thinking it is dead as a defense mechanism. Burning it seems to be the only real way to kill it. Otherwise it seems fine running around in the snow and playing dead until it gets eventually thawed out.

reply

No, that would make it too powerful.

But then, the film is pretty weak on explaining The Thing’s power levels. Is ‘one drop in your tea’ enough or does it need full tentacled assimilation?

I like the film but if Carpenter had spent less time on puke-inducing gore and more time on tightening the script this could have been a masterpiece.

reply