Who was the Thing at the end?

GOD I LOVE THIS FUCKING MOVIE SO MUCH.

They wouldn't they get infected from random skin flakes and hit? Like why attack someone when a piece of hair is all you need to infect them?

The cells need an organic or liquid based medium to survive.

Also its the arctic nigga.

Holy fuck I had too much to drink. Sorry for this.

IT AIN'T ME : THE MOVIE

Presumably from the Thing's perspective a single cell infection isn't reliable, but from a Human perspective a single cell could be a huge problem.

Childs is the thing. Watch the last scene: Mccready passes him the bottle, watches him drink it and then smiles knowingly. They had filled them with kerosene to make Molotov cocktails and the thing has no reaction because it doesn't know the difference between alcohol and gas. Mccready however, like he says, is not really in any shape to do anything about it.

...

Its pretty obvious m8eys

You can see his breath frosting. I just watched the clip. Still, the smile and the bottle, though.

I always took it that the Childs was the thing because he's wearing a different coat at the end than he is in the rest of the movie

Why would childs remove his own coat during the chaos, and its not like the thing understands the concept of 'ownership' so one coat is as good as any in order to appear more human

this one

Nice. Except that when one is absorbed by the Thing, the new Thing absorbs everything from it's human host. Including personality and all memories. Child's would take one swig of the kerosene and say "What the fuck is this? kerosene!"

Wasn't the 2002 "The Thing" video game a canonical sequel? In that case Macready was not infected and Childs dies of hypothermia.

WHAT A TWIST

But to what extent? Depending on if you consider the prequel canon it was established the thing has problems with this, like at the end forgetting which ear is pierced.

It is but really, it's a video game and "canonical video game sequels" are rarely upheld in canon so to hell with it.

That should really tell you all you need to know about the ending.

It was whiskey not vodka, and she was a cheating bitch.

And the Thing isn't a cheating bitch?

It was just trying to capitalize on earthlings, what are you some kind of commie?

THE THING LITERALLY DID NOTHING WRONG

Most pointless pre/sequel ever?

Did anyone actually want to see the Norwegians(?) side of things?
Because everything that happened to the Norwegians you were going to see happen to the Americans

I really don't get movies where you already know how it's going to end.
I didn't even get it when I was a kid and my mom dragged me to Titanic. Where's the tension? We all know the boat's gonna fucking sink.

Would have been alright if they used the all the practical effects that they filmed.

that undermines the movie's theme of justified paranoia, though. It's not a case of "lol, their silly paranoia was their own downfall." Any paranoia or suspicion on McReady's part is entirely apt.

Didn't watch it for the same reason I didn't see the Robocop or Total Recall remakes. but there was one scene I've seen isolation where some chick gets taken over by the thing that has some amazing puppetry and costume work.

It would have been acceptable if they didn't leave the main protag alive at the end.

I haven't watched the move in years, but I always thought it (deliberately) suspicious that we, as the audience, lose sight of Macready very near the end, where he splits from Childs and goes off on his own.

Why did they switch to CGI if they went through all the trouble of building models and puppets?

...

Unless the main protag of the prequel is the person trying to shoot the dog-thing at the beginning of the original, that is atrocious.

I remember watching the special features of the disappointing Silent Hill movie. The things it had going for it most were artistic design, creature effects and incredible costumes. Yet there are still some parts that look far worse than what was captured on film because they decided to "enhance" them in post-production.

Market research showed practical effects were "too 80s" to modern audience. Funny how the movie might have been one of the last to have chance for large scale practical effects. Even for it the CGI's cost was trivial compared to the puppetry.

HAS THE STORM PASSED!?!?

He is.

Neither are the Thing. The Thing escapes as a wolf into the blizzard. That was supposed to be the ending, but the test audience found it to be too grim and they scraped it.

Shh, you'll encourage (((them))) to come back and shitpost.

Just keep talking about The Thing.

Best thing about the movie is how if you speak norwedgian the chopper guys explain exactly what the dog is and spoil everything for the audience but not macreadys men.

I love that shit.

God damn Swedes

(((((((check those dubs)))))))))

Mac they're Norwegian.

Whys da choppa say nork den?

Go back to Holla Forums, kid.

"Get the hell away from that thing. That's not a dog, it's some sort of thing! It's imitating a dog, it isn't real! GET AWAY YOU IDIOTS!!"

There is no prequel. There was a shitty movie that came out and pretended to be connected to the original, but that doesn't make it a prequel. Even if the stated purpose of such a movie was to be a prequel, it obviously wasn't.

Except for the spaceship being underground and only accessible by tunnel (still don't get why they did that) it was faithful to the original and a decent pre/sequel IMHO.

It wasn't faithful in 90% of the movie.

Weren't there comics in which Childs does turn out to be a Thing and MacReady barely escapes death again, and finally gets rescued when another Thing crashes in like South America?

yyyyyyep and they are as bad as 90's comics can be.

But not nearly as bad as current comics.

The fact that they don't immediately shoot the other one show that they are both human, as the Thing would not hesitate to go for the kill on a 1vs1 situation.

That's fucking grim.

Sums up the EU pretty well

how so? i went in with low expectations, so maybe being surprised it wasn't as shit as i thought it'd be kinda numbed my hatred for it.

sure as hell wasn't perfect, but it definitely could have been worse

I thought it was common knowledge that Childs was the thing because he didn't have nearly as much air coming out of his mouth as Macready did, and that was because he's the thing and he doesn't actually have lungs.

Am I wrong?

...

Childs also hadn't thought the thing moments before.

?

pro tip: physical activity in the Antarctic is taxing.

I couldn't understand what you wrote. I get what you mean now.

Norway isn't in the EU.

Sweden is

So is Portugal, but that doesn't make Norway any more in Europe.

The fuck is that supposed to be?

trump?

I still don't get it.

Earlier on they fill all the bottles with gasoline to make molotov cocktails.

I actually find this shit to be fucking hilarious.

It's not a bad movie, it's not just a good prequel to The Thing. Modern sensibilities in sequels/prequels always clash with the movie they are connected to. The movie had the thing in it, that's the only connection it really had. The plot connection doesn't fit when everything about it is like a bizarro alternate universe version.

It is not a prequel to the movie even if it is pretending to be.

The newer The Thing was originally a remake, but was quickly rewritten into a prequel, sometimes on the spot.

They would have been better off just leaving it as a remake.

damn swedes

they would have been better off not making it at all

...

You know how WW2 movies are going to end but you watch them anyway. The idea is that it's awesome to see everything that leads up to that point.

Same with porn.

I think neither of them were a thing why would a thing willingly walk back towards the last human without immediately attacking him. As Macready said if everyone was a thing they'd just attack him right then. If there's two people and one is a thing there's is no need for deception unless the human is armed. If Childs was a thing and Macready was armed it would have logically just let itself freeze somewhere safe where it would have been found.

Nah the lighting was just drastically different.

IT REALLY MAKES YOU THINK

Was Carpenter involved in the game, because if not, then it's not canon.

It was licensed, used sound and voice clips from the movie.

So it wasn't canon then? You do realize Carpenter puts his name before shit he approves of for a reason, right?

He was.

You go to theatre to watch actors, not listen to stories you haven't heard before.

In the script it's noted MacReady has a flamethrower.

bazinga!

I watched the commentary with John Carpenter and Kurt Russel, and they said they didn't even know. They said everyone working on the show would have long discussions about whether or not the Thing had it's own consciousness, whether or not all of the different incarnations of the Thing had their own consciousnesses, whether or not every cell that made up every incarnation of the Thing had it's own consciousness, or if it was all just a hive mind. According to them, no one ever reached a conclusion.

There is a very well written short story by some american sci-fi writer about the Thing from the Things perspective. It is horrified to be cut off from the galactic hive mind, it views humans like we would someone with severe late stage ebola and thinks our flesh is being retarded into one form by a large cancerous mass in the skull.

Only too late does he begin to converse mentally with those he absorbs and discovers the cancer they call a brain isnt infesting them, it is them. They were born unable to change, born seperate and alone forever and The Thing feels pity and realises he isnt under attack, he is just alien to these creatures and this is all a colossal misunderstanding.

He asks one of the last men he absorbs why they fight and gets the words "violation" and "rape" from their blinking out conciousness. At the end of the story as Childs he plans to wait for macready to freeze to death then slumber in the ice again with a new purpose since after his long slumber his kind may be extinct: he will go to the population of this world, unite them and free them of the brain and the unchanging flesh, he will rape freedom into them because no just being could leave them in such a pitiable state. "So i will rape all of them" it thinks.

I imagine the sjws would have a field day on its word usage here.

Don't you dare imply that the fine and noble art of theatre is the same thing as going to the cinema, you fucking philistine.

… no I don't.

You don't know how WW2 ended? We Won! USA! USA! USA!

Nazifags get fucking rekt.

USA practically wins the war single-handedly and no one gives a shit about the millions of German and Japanese citizens killed and the Soviet Union is totally innocent.

I don't watch WW2 movies, you jackasses.

Just watched this 5 minutes ago and liked it quite a bit but the movie was never actually scary. It was pretty much just a good mystery/drama with lots of gore.

After Holla Forums hyped it up so much as the best horror movie of all time I expected it to actually be pretty spooky.

What movies are you scared by? Because I don't generally find hardly any movies scary, only mentally disturbing or unsettling. Not being scared isn't usually a consideration for me in the quality of a horror movie.

The first half of Babadook, certain scenes in It Follows (any where you can see someone walking in the general direction of the protagonists and it's ambiguous as to whether or not they are the monster), the scene in Pan's Labyrinth with the monster, The Shining after Jack cracks, the clown of It, and surprisingly the entirety of Green Room which I did not expect to be scary since it doesn't seem like it's gonna be a horror movie.

Pretty much anything that has a lot of tension about what will happen next with really good sound/visual design, ideally where there is also a lot of mystery about the monster but since Green Room scared me that isn't necessary. My problem with most horror movies is that it is very obvious what will happen next (oh boy I see a dumb blonde teenage girl showering while the killer creeps around outside, what could possibly happen next?).

and it's that justified paranoia that finally destroys them.

If the Thing is able to take control of a human and act in a way that makes other humans unable to distinguish it, why the hell would it not have a concept of ownership?

Same as above. Im sure it would know the difference between alcohol and gas. What suggests otherwise?

I…I did not know this… and never even thought to ask…

In response to this, the only thing we know about the Thing is self preservation above all else. It is quite possible that when infecting a human before revealing itself, it is not actually controlling the human's actions. If the others knew the infected human was the thing, they would be roasted alive. Hence it used the human's own self preservation against the group.

There always seemed to be a massive disconnect between how an infected human acts and how the revealed thing acted (a hunter, revealing itself and infecting). Maybe this explains it?

The fucking Babadook scared you and the Thing doesn't? What planet are you from?

Do they trigger you?

Not the norwegian guys. The female. She got away in a snowcat.

I might not be remembering correctly but im pretty sure she died. I downloaded a random version though

Audio and animation, fam

I appreciate well done practical effects but it is nearly impossible to do a complex organism that also is well animated. In The Thing, in order to do the practical effects they have to do a lot of very timely repositioning each frame, and for a lot of it they can't really go backwards to revise an animation once they have it all together because subsequent frames will modify the model itself. These barriers make it impressive that the animation even gets finished, but the inability to spend a lot of time revising and tweaking almost always mean that it won't be good from a pure animation standpoint, and as an artist animation is more important to believably than pure fidelity. In horror, having the antagonist be believable is incredibly important to making them scary.

Then there's the audio, which was great for the time but without the aid of modern tech it just sounds cheesy compared to what even an amateur can to today.

Also the thing was almost always the focus in every scene, so there wasn't a lot of build up of tension before it gets revealed each time and since it's on the screen for so long you get used to it pretty easily.

I think it's a better movie than The Babadook in terms of story, pacing, and setting, but it certainly isn't more scary.

youtube.com/watch?v=SppG-I_Dhxw

Childs was infected.

No, I just don't watch very many movies at all, and WW2 movies just aren't among them.

Nah, I understand where he's coming from. World War II gets so much exposure in almost every form of media that I'm just so tired of hearing about it.

Nah, I gotcha. Some shit is like that. I guess I'm biased because I grew up watching films like that.

That's false. I'm Norwegian.

Listened to it just now 5 times and the only things I could get out of it was 'Get the fuck out' *gibberish* 'Of all things' *more gibberish* 'IT'S NOT REAL!'

It sounds like an American picked up some glosaries from a dictionary and pronounced it however he thought it would sound like.

My interpretation is that we don't know if either of them was the Thing, or if the Thing is dead, or if it's getting refrozen off in the darkness, and that ambiguity makes a better ending than knowing would.

Why aren't you in the EU?

Notice how hard he had to push the issue though.

Just checked. I saw it in the theater and in that version she walked towards the snow cat with fuel and the screen fades into the next scene. According to the director am the scene was supposed to end with her lighting the vehicle on fire and walking out into the Arctic to meet out her fate. Not sure if they later changed it in the dvd release so she is dead.

When I saw it in theaters I assumed she fueled it up and drove off.