Here's what John Carpenter had to say about it the other night on Colbert.
Here's what John Carpenter had to say about it the other night on Colbert.
@Windowsanders, I'm curious to hear your take on the '82 ending re: whether or not Mac and Childs are human or Things.
IMHO, they're both human. I highly doubt Kurt Russell would have intended Mac to be a Thing, and Childs (barely visible) is wearing an earring - and we know Things can't assimilate inorganic material like fillings, earrings, etc.
That dog at the beginning was almost certainly shot many, many times and not one of them noticed any wounds in the creature.
That's ridiculous.That dog wasn't shot once in the 1982 film or the prequel.
It's a shape-shifter.Then why were no wounds noticed on the creature?
It wasn't hurt. It wasn't a dog.And no visible or audial evidence of same whenever the Norwegian was firing?
It wasn't hurt.And no alteration in the dog's behavior or tactics?
Yes. It's called keeping your surprise a surprise.If Carpenter shows finger-slicing, arm-needling and shootings of humans and uninfected dogs, do you truly believe he'd hold back in this regard?
I was talking about the film.Yes, Lars was a terrible shot until he fired on human legs, but at best the thing-dog was only grazed in the novel.
Yeah, I just watched the scene on Youtube, and the Norwegian guy never even came close to doing anything to the dogThing, he totally missed it with the grenade, and he only thing (in general not Thing) he shot was George's leg. He didn't have the gun out in the helicopter, so he didn't appear to be shooting before they got to the American base either.Then why were no wounds noticed on the creature? And no visible or audial evidence of same whenever the Norwegian was firing? And no alteration in the dog's behavior or tactics? If Carpenter shows finger-slicing, arm-needling and shootings of humans and uninfected dogs, do you truly believe he'd hold back in this regard? Yes, Lars was a terrible shot until he fired on human legs, but at best the thing-dog was only grazed in the novel.
To my recollection, he fires multiple times at the dog-thing while the chopper is in the air.He didn't have the gun out in the helicopter, so he didn't appear to be shooting before they got to the American base either.
Yeah, we see fully clothed things for goodness sake. And they appreciate that clothing identifies the wearer, because they used MacReady's to fool the others. It is/they are obviously quite intelligent, as mentioned because of the UFO being built.Y'all focusing too hard on an offhand comment that was only supposed to be in relation to the Thing not being able to wear an earring. (A position which I still don't undertsand.)
Another possibility is that the alien pilot had gotten infected by the thing, maybe while trying to get away from it.(always assuming the Thing was what was flying the original saucer rather than a prisoner aboard it.)
How else could knowledge of the UFO have made it through the dog and the other intermediate forms and finally to Blair without it being carried on a cellular level or at most a tiny cluster of cells? As theorized in the film by the guy who said they need to prepare their own food (I forget his name), the thing seems to be transmitted by mere particles of the whole.The Thing doesn't have a collective consciousness, does it?
Yeah the "TV cut" made some fairly drastic alterations to the film.I seem to remember a narrated made-for-tv version where the dog at the beginning was seen again at the end
Who names ANYBODY Windows?
Yeah the "TV cut" made some fairly drastic alterations to the film.
Anybody ever read the Starstream comic adaptation of "Who Goes There?"
![]()
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.