this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
38 points (97.5% liked)

Science Fiction

898 readers
1 users here now

This magazine is aimed at fans and creators of sci-fi and related media of all kinds. It includes all content related to the sci-fi genre and only content related to the sci-fi genre. The goal is to build a community for everyone who enjoys science fiction and related topics. This includes the obvious books, movies, and TV shows, but also original writing, the discussion of writing SF, futuristic art and designs, and the science and technologies that inspire the sci-fi genre. **Team Top 20**

founded 2 years ago
38
John Carpenter Confirms He Knows Who Was Human at the End of 1982's The Thing (www.syfy.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

"Yes, I know. I know who's the Thing and who's not in the very end," he said during an interview with ComicBook.com. But if you were hoping for any elaboration, then keep on hoping. "Nope," Carpenter added when probed for more information. "Cannot tell you. Sorry,"

It was pretty much the same answer he gave SYFY WIRE last summer: "I know, but I'm not telling you ... I just feel like it's a secret that must be kept. The gods came down and swore me to secrecy."

top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Russell is the human.

Russell noticeably runs out of vodka earlier in the movie, but then has a full bottle of a clear liquid at the end of the movie right after he uses fuel to create the explosion.

When childs takes a sip of the vodka that is actually gasoline and doesn't react, that was Kurt Russell's test to see if childs was the thing or a human.

Childs is The Thing.

This is such a good theory. I don't know where I heard it, but whoever said this, I've been thinking about it for years and it has made me appreciate this movie even more than I already did. I recently saw it in the movie theater for its anniversary and it was so cool.

[–] ampedwolfman 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It is a good one. I heard another one that may intrigue you as well.

The theory (that I didn't come up with) states that Kurt Russell is the thing through most of the movie. He gets infected by one of the passengers on the helicopter on the way there. They make clear indication that they should prepare there own meals and not eat after one another once they determined how it takes over you. During that time Kurt Russell shares drinks 3 different people, including childs. Doesn't matter if it's kerosene or not childs just got infected. And this part is the stretch. Because I know you guys are like, "fuck this guy he fights the thing at the end." They make several points to say that every part of that thing is a whole. It will do whatever it needs to to protect itself. They already knew that Childs was missing and knew that the thing existed. If they managed to get out alive it would be easier for Kurt Russell to hide from Childs until he could turn him. They even find his torn up clothes behind the furnace.

Pretty neat theory. Does take a little mental gymnastics to get behind.

Also, pretty stoned. Forgive my like grammatical errors and quick changes of topic.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Haha all good, I do like that theory. At what point could one of the passengers have affected Kurt Russell on the helicopter?

And then the blood test works against this hypothesis as well since his blood doesn't react to heat right?

I definitely think that you can patch together this theory somehow, I'm just curious about those two points.

Now that we've been talking about it though, I want to watch it again to try and work things out. I know I'm just going to get caught up and how good the movie is though haha

[–] ampedwolfman 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

  1. It would have been off camera, and I think it was palmer and the doc (who goes crazy shortly after) that went. Palmer could have been the silhouette to the dog goes to at the beginning.

  2. He comes back into the storage room where bennings gets taken over. Bennings had the keys to the locker and dropped them in that storage room. He could have easily tampered with the blood for the tests. Using his old blood then draining everyone else's. We never see him cut himself.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh okay. Love it, thanks.

I'll watch it again with this in mind. Hm. But then if he tampered with the blood, the theory is that he deliberately let that one blood test fail and executed part of himself to convince the others of his humanity?

[–] ampedwolfman 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The keys fell out of bennings jacket. He comes in through that same storage room. He could have easily been the one to have contaminated the blood. Used his original blood and drained everyone else's.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's what I mean, so following macs access to the blood via the keys, the theory is that mac purposely made one test fail in front of the humans so he could kill part of himself and convince the humans he was human?

[–] ampedwolfman 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah man, it was his way to hide.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

That could work. It would ultimately be less suspicious than if everyone turned out human in the test after they know something is going on.

[–] Bytemeister 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Counterpoint to 2. No way they were all going to go through the test with fresh blood and not demand that Mac do the exact same procedure. Pretty confident that the results of the blood test cleared up who was human.

[–] ampedwolfman 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

All I'm saying is, they don't show him cut himself, nor do they show him with a bandage.

[–] Bytemeister 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Hard to operate a torch with a slashed thumb would be my guess. I'd chalk it up to a cinematic choice for brevity and interest as well.

Also consider that this blood test was happening at the highest point of paranoia, no way they would let Mac get away with using a different blood source. Didn't Blair (or someone else) destroy all the blood that was being used for the previous immunology test at this point? Where would Mac have gotten his own blood from if not from himself?

Another thing they don't show in that scene is a blood bag.

[–] ampedwolfman 1 points 1 year ago

They never show who destroyed the blood which is why this stays semi plausible. It does make sense that they would need to see everyone draw their own blood and you could make a point for brevity. But again, they never show it and even some sleight of hand could have been used. The thing in this movie was very crafty and only showed itself when the time was right. Considering all that happened off screen it's hard to say.

I know also that John Carpenter saw the 2001 game as a direct sequel to the movie as he never expected there to be a second movie and at the end of that Macready is the helicopter pilot that flies you back to the mainland and it's assumed that he is the thing. Take that for what you will.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What about the blood test? It shows that only Palmer is infected. Blair is unknown as they couldn't test his blood at the moment.

[–] ampedwolfman 5 points 1 year ago

The keys fell out of bennings jacket. He comes in through that same storage room. He could have easily been the one to have contaminated the blood. Used his original blood and drained everyone else's.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've never heard this one before. That's fucking brilliant.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Isn't that great? I read it right before the 25th anniversary came out or whatever anniversary it was and I got to watch it in the theaters, it was so good seeing that scene after reading that theory

[–] Bytemeister 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I dislike the gasoline theory, Things have the memories, mannerisms, and skills of their hosts. Childs thing would know that the contents of the bottle is not booze, and it would know what gas smells like.

My "fan theory" is that Things aren't consciously aware that they are Things. Easiest way to pretend to be someone, is to actually be someone. The Thing is acting as a higher layer of consciousness within them. The Thing doesn't control their every movement, but it makes subtle unconscious directions to the host, but the host never knows they are a thing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I get that, although I think the thing has to learn a lot when it start to replicate people, I don't think it instantly understands everything after assumng a form. A form is very powerful even without convincing dialogue or behavior. If the form is perfect and you are fairly agreeable, the schematic perceptions of others do most of the heavy lifting for the thing.

With the combined cold, a chemical explosion in the background and strong antarctic winds, I wouldn't be surprised if there was no discernable smell from the bottle, then childs takes a swig and even though the thing realizes it's a caustic liquid, I don't think gasoline would be instantly perceptibly more caustic than high-content ethanol to an imperfect alien sensibility and he would immediately know to spit it out.

I don't recall the thing havingv the memories, skills or mannerisms of their forms, otherwise I don't think the thing either have destroyed everything rather than using the machines to escape.

The thing often plays along with a scenario until they're alone with someone else and then reveals it's true nature, either signaling foresight and planning, self-awareness, or such a high level of biological automation that the humans may as well be considered the same sort of biological automatons, since their behaviors are not much more complex than that of the thing.

The vodka might not be the answer, but it does fit in so well with what is shown on screen. Of course there's so much that is not shown, but voids, unless heavily framed into unrelenting specificity, aren't really a point for or against anything

[–] Bytemeister 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don’t recall the thing havingv the memories, skills or mannerisms of their forms...

They speak English. What are the chances that's the native language of the Thing? They obviously make a perfect copy of their victims, even to tiny details like heart defects.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The chances that English is the creature's native language is just about zero.

All indications pointed the thing arriving extraterrestrially, but even if it was from an earlier terran civilization, I don't see how modern English would be its native language.

The perfect copy thing is an interesting point, but I don't think is borne out by the movie since every character who's opened up in one way or another has alien physiology under the skin, regardless of exposure or assimilation time.

I think even if the alien were able to perfectly recreate a specific human brain, that doesn't necessarily mean it could act on the whole of that information instantaneously or comprehensively, but I can't recall if the movie bore this out either, other than circumstantially.

Like having a perfect dictionary and encyclopedia right in front of you with every question you could ever ask, but you'd still have to flip to the pages to figure out what was the most likely behavior and motivation, even if you're flipping through those pages mentally.

I do see people mentioned a perfect recreation more than once, is this because it appears to perfectly copy the cells under the slide? Does some character say it's a perfect copy? The doc says "given enough time a copy would be perfect", right?

Because a lot of theories talk about perfect copies egardless of the imperfect copies the movie shows us with larger organsms even though the thing apparently as enough time to recreate any large being perfectly with such a rapid rate of cellular, assimilation and copying.

This is really making me want to watch the movie again.

[–] Bytemeister 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I think even if the alien were able to perfectly recreate a specific human brain, that doesn’t necessarily mean it could act on the whole of that information instantaneously or comprehensively, but I can’t recall if the movie bore this out either, other than circumstantially.

Definitely rewatch, especially with winter and Halloween coming up. In case you don't rewatch it, consider the scene with Bennings-Thing in the snow. The Thing hadn't finished copying him yet, so there is some "setup" time. Bennings didn't talk, he just kind of moan/howls at the men, it is unclear whether he hasn't replicated vocal chords yet, or if the Thing hadn't finished copying his mannerisms. It's the only scene where you actually see the Thing in the process of copying it's victim.

Consider these factors. It has clothes on, so the assumption that the thing has to rip through your clothes is not correct. Edit: the previous scene shows Benning's shirt and vest ripped up, but his pants and shoes are still intact. So it doesn't have to rip all the clothes, but I'd guess that extra physical contact accelerates the process. ~~It has his glasses on and wearing them correctly. So the Thing even copies imperfections and is aware that the glasses are need to correct for them.~~ I thought this dude had glasses for some reason. It's mouth just hangs open when it vocalizes, no lip or tongue coordination, but it still produces tone. To me, this indicates that it physically has the hardware to copy Bennings voice, but at this point, it has not completely copied his mind. To further explore this, It was able to move around, and open doors, which are typically complex and coordinated locomotions.

When you re-watch, pay special attention to this scene. Maybe you'll see something that I have forgotten.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I know exactly the scenes you're talking about, but I interestingly(and instinctively) came to the opposite conclusion, that it had mostly copied his brain, but hadn't yet copied the right hardware for speech to become possible, since all of the autopsied organisms we see are largely alien inside.

I'm definitely going to rewatch it again, I have the DVD and I just took it out to make sure I still had it ready to go.

So the things I'm going to look at are weather. The thing can duplicate a multicellular organism perfectly, what the indications for the efficacy of retaining memories following that duplication (whether it's more like a reference book or like automatic perfect memory), and what else should I be looking for?

Oh I'll definitely be marking down the voids, basically anytime someone or something is not on screen and could have been infected.

I wonder also if there's any indication that the creatures don't know each other. If they're infected and they signal to each other or test each other to see if they're infected are real.

I'm definitely going to watch it again, soon, and this will be my most detailed watch ever where I'm actually taking notes. Taking notes. I'm even going to come up with questions beforehand. Written down so I don't lose track while I get caught up in the movie.

What else is worth looking into?

[–] Bytemeister 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Hmm, a theory I've had for a while is that the thing isn't making careful calculated plans. It's actually kind of desperate, feral, and afraid of the people.

I don't think the Things are coordinated/working together, or are aware of other Things that they haven't created. Consider that when Bennings gets attacked, Palmer is already a thing at that point. It didn't need to do anything else to get off Antarctica.

I think Things are greedy. It wasn't enough to just get away, It was compelled to quietly assimilate all the life at the outpost. Only at the end, when it became clear that the people had the tools and knowledge to deal with it, did it try to just kill everyone and freeze again.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, definitely think the thing is terrified and desperate and also that they're separate beings.

But I just found out that the 2011 movie and the 2002 video game are supposed to be canon, at least the 2002 video game. Everyone is claiming that John Carpenter explicitly stated it was canon, which would answer the childs question definitively, but I haven't found that interview that everyone is talking about yet.

I'm going to do more research before I rewatch the movie I think and try and figure out how Canon the other entries into the series are first.

Great excuse to go read a bunch of essays and analyzes and watch interviews about a movie and lore I love

[–] Bytemeister 1 points 1 year ago

...since all of the autopsied organisms we see are largely alien inside.

The only time you see the innards of a thing is when it has already revealed itself to be a thing, and they people have killed it, or it is the frozen one that was an incomplete transformation. It copies at a cellular level, and can change its structures at will. Palmer didn't walk around with an alien set of jaws in his head and chest, just underneath his skin. If he had been "killed" and examined before being caught and transforming, his innards would appear to be completely human.

[–] mo_ztt 9 points 1 year ago

I had thought that part of that years-long process of script polish that it went through was embedding enough clues into the script that it's possible to deduce who was really human at which points. There are little clues like randomly panning down the stairs at one point in a shot to show that a particular stairway is empty, or the guy walking down the hall jingling the keys and then off-screen you hear him drop the keys on the ground when he gets surprised by something, explaining how it was possible to get access to the locked fridge.

I don't know the answer and I've avoided watching the Youtube videos which claim to break it down in case I want to try to sort it out for myself someday. But I thought that there was a puzzle you could solve that would lead to one specific supported answer.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

It's whatever Carpenter wants it to be. I don't think what he wants it to be is any more significant to the audience than whether one of the characters was secretly gay. If it wasn't answered in the film, it's meant to be a mystery.

[–] ekZepp 1 points 8 months ago

You just need to accept if the comics are canon or not. If they are, then the answer is clear.

[–] philoneous 1 points 1 year ago

I love that we’re still debating this 40+ years later - really shows the longevity of the film and the core “horror” concept of being replaced.