• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

IT'S BENNINGS!!!!

That dog at the beginning was almost certainly shot many, many times and not one of them noticed any wounds in the creature. The idea that a thing couldn't pierce its own ear and put an earring on so that no one could notice a recent wound is ludicrous. Of course a thing could wear an earring.
 
Here's what John Carpenter had to say about it the other night on Colbert.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

He looks and sounds in good shape for a guy in his mid seventies which is good to see. It's also nice to see him talking warmly about his work, I've heard many times over the years of him being a bit sniffy in interviews and clearly he's fine here (but as with many people maybe it comes down to which side of the bed he gets out in a morning!)
 
@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.

I vote human. And I also vote for not doomed. They may yet find a way to survive, even if they begin eating their own digits.

That dog at the beginning was almost certainly shot many, many times and not one of them noticed any wounds in the creature.

That dog wasn't shot once in the 1982 film or the prequel. Had be been so at that point, it'd give him good reason to mutate then and there and up his jig right at the story-start,
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Then why were no wounds noticed on the creature?
It's a shape-shifter.

And no visible or audial evidence of same whenever the Norwegian was firing?
It wasn't hurt. It wasn't a dog.

And no alteration in the dog's behavior or tactics?
It wasn't hurt.

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. It's called keeping your surprise a surprise.

Yes, Lars was a terrible shot until he fired on human legs, but at best the thing-dog was only grazed in the novel.
I was talking about the film.
 
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.
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.
 
No, there's a time near the beginning where he's got perfect firing position, and it just couldn't have been any better. Given what they've seen and been through, not to mention the fact that the "dog" just keeps on going, both he and the pilot are probably insane by the time they land, which is enough to explain their erratic behavior, but the idea that they missed every single time is simply absurd.
 
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.
To my recollection, he fires multiple times at the dog-thing while the chopper is in the air.

I never really thought that he hit the dog-thing on screen, but it was a long run from the Norwegian base, so there's I personally have no trouble believing he scored a hit or two on the way. But I'm not sure why it matters either.

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.)
 
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.)
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.

(always assuming the Thing was what was flying the original saucer rather than a prisoner aboard it.)
Another possibility is that the alien pilot had gotten infected by the thing, maybe while trying to get away from it.

The Thing doesn't have a collective consciousness, does 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.
 
I seem to remember a narrated made-for-tv version where the dog at the beginning was seen again at the end... knitting itself together...the Blair-Thing was trying to bud off a dog.

Several ideas:

I want to see a CGI Arness "carrot" and the three-eyed original walk atop the saucer looking for the escaped convict...the three eyes morphs into humans like Odo…less messy.
Maybe a fell Kosh like entity—like the movie poster..the most outre of Things..light from the face dissolving the convict to dust.

Shaggy from Scooby Doo coming apart like Palmer..

Lastly...if the American Werewolf remake ever happens...I want a dream sequence where a Norwegian is running in the snow being sniped at by a Husky werewolf in a chopper.

The werewolf pilot tries to fetch the grenade...
 
Last edited:
Who names ANYBODY Windows?

Being the radio operator, he was the base's "window" to the outside world.

Edit: I wonder if anyone's ever asked Kurt Russell what he thinks of the 2011 Thing (if he's even seen it) and if he considers it a worthy prequel to his film.

For that matter, what does John Carpenter himself think of it?
 
Last edited:
Yeah the "TV cut" made some fairly drastic alterations to the film.

Very obtrusive narration...mostly at the beginning.

I always wish that Carpenter hadn't used the 1950s film's logo at the beginning of his. (He'd already used it in HALLOWEEN.)

In the original novella, Copper, Mac, Norris and Benning (singular, mentioned in passing) all survive, but Blair is still a thing if memory serves....and so are Clark and Junkyard Garry. Those seven were used with Carpenter.
 
Anybody ever read the Starstream comic adaptation of "Who Goes There?"
Review224%2BStarstream%2Bscans1.png
 
That's a new one on me.

One transformation in the Dark Horse comics was called the "Liquid THING" and that probably does need CGI.

I think Bottin did the make-up for the poisoning of King Joffrey in GOT.

Here is a question or two---does the Thing look at the Blob as a culture to gobble up or vice versa?

Better yet--THE THING vs Odo.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top