MovieChat Forums > Creepshow (1982) Discussion > How could an animal have survived in a c...

How could an animal have survived in a crate since 1834?


I know it's fictional, but even fictional animals usually obey the laws of nature to some extent.

reply

What like zombies, etc?

I guess you do not understand what the word "supernatural" mean then?

Also, within the "reality" of the film itself. The stories are literally from a comic book.
In our world, comic books don't make real world sense.

And so, God came forth and proclaimed widescreen is the best.
Sony 16:9

reply

I understand supernatural, but it's odd that a story would ask us to suspend disbelief twice. First that such a monkey could exist, and second, that it could survive in a crate with no food or water for about 150 years. There was no need to say the crate was so old. They could have left the date to our speculation.

reply

And third, that it also cannot be drowned!

reply

I have always wondered how it stayed alive as well.

reply

It was hibernating.

reply

Plus, if it was a yeti, as I suggested in my earlier post it must have been adapted to some very harsh conditions

reply

It was a supernatural demon in my opinion.

reply

I too have always wondered how a carnivorous yeti could possibly survive 150 years with no food or water. The hibernation theory seems to be the only logical conclusion, but I highly doubt the creature would've sustained enough nourishment to survive its 150 year stint. Maybe it is some sort of immortal yeti? It would certainly explain its ability to survive underwater.

Another thing I find interesting is that the creature's captors stored it underneath a staircase in a university and somehow forgot about it? You'd think that the creature would've been thoroughly studied! All of these things considered, I still really enjoy the story for its creativity. You don't go into a film like this and take things too seriously.

From now on, we are enemies... you and I.-Amadeus

reply

Another thing I find interesting is that the creature's captors stored it underneath a staircase in a university and somehow forgot about it? You'd think that the creature would've been thoroughly studied! All of these things considered, I still really enjoy the story for its creativity. You don't go into a film like this and take things too seriously.

Maybe someone realized it couldn't be killed, so they drugged it, and hid it someplace they hoped no one would ever find it. They probably figured it's far too dangerous so science be damned.

One theory I thought of was that Henry actually knew about the crate. Don't ask me to go into great detail why, it's just how calm he is, why he decides to cover it up, and why he even believes his friend in the first place that a creature came out of a 150 year old crate and ate two people. When Henry's listening to Stanley, I don't know if Hal Holbrook's acting is subtle or he just doesn't care.

A prequel set in 1834 is something I would be interested in seeing in a future CREEPSHOW movie, especially if Henry's ancestor was the man who captured the creature, as corny as that sounds.


http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/

reply

DUDE!!! that's an awesome idea all around.. tie in/ back story/ everything... I'm praying for this Creepshow segment every night from here on out haha

reply


I think this is why Adam Sandler films do well..no need for thinking.

All jokes aside, the thing in the crate was very adept to survival. Even after it killed someone, remember it moved its crate back into place (helping you to believe that wherever it was before the University, it survived and maybe just found that the University was a great place for food). It had found ways to survive and kill -- seemingly for a long time. And it was thrown into the ocean, so it is a thought that it would bust out of age old, dry wood and chains to survive and find another place to hide and survive. So... is it a far fetched suspension of disbelief or the viewers missing vital clues to its past, present and future survival?

And here is another noodle-scratcher, is it really about 'the crate' or about a henpecked husband finally getting rid of his overbearing, alcoholic wife? I mean, how convenient was that for him?


It knows what scares you. It has since the very beginning.

reply

Maybe once "Fluffy" (Tom Savini's nickname for the creature) eats, it sort of stores food. It may only eats something like once every 100 years and hibernates. Then again, we don't actually see inside of the crate. Maybe it keeps body parts in it and eats bits and pieces through the years.



"I'm in such bad shape, I'm wearing prescription underwear." Phyllis Diller 1917-2012

reply

[deleted]

My only theory is that the creature was in a state of suspension or a extended state of hibernation, but how that works is beyond me.

"I'll go,because I am Cinema!" - Ben (Man Bites Dog)

reply

I think the creature was probably in hibernation for a long period of time. But I've also considered this: maybe it kills its prey, then consumes the remains slowly over a long period of time. It couldn't have eaten the entire bodies of Mike the janitor, Charlie, and Wilma in the short space of time in which the story occurs. Keep in mind how small the creature actually is compared to the size of an adult human. Maybe the creature dismembers the victims and keeps their body parts in the crate as a kind of food stock, allowing it to live through the centuries.

I like the theory of Henry knowing about the creature before he is told by Dex. It does explain why he's so calm when Dex is telling him the story, but I think it's more about Henry thinking "What a perfect way to get rid of my awful shrew wife." Perhaps he trusts Dexter so much that he wouldn't challenge the credibility of the story. Look at the surprise on his face when he finally sees the creature. For a moment before Wilma is eaten, he feels defeated and probably doesn't even believe that the creature exists.

"The Crate" is the most realistic story in the film and my personal favorite - it leaves you with lots of questions and I understand why so many people are curious about the creature and its origins!

reply

I think the creature was probably in hibernation for a long period of time. But I've also considered this: maybe it kills its prey, then consumes the remains slowly over a long period of time. It couldn't have eaten the entire bodies of Mike the janitor, Charlie, and Wilma in the short space of time in which the story occurs. Keep in mind how small the creature actually is compared to the size of an adult human. Maybe the creature dismembers the victims and keeps their body parts in the crate as a kind of food stock, allowing it to live through the centuries.


This is a great analysis. I never thought of that before. Thanks.

reply

I only noticed this viewing, but the story about the monster from The Crate kind of reminds me of Barnabas Collins from Dark Shadows. Barnabas is a vampire chained in a coffin in a secret compartment of the family mausoleum. A man named Willie Loomis who is looking for the missing jewelry Barnabas was supposedly buried with finds the location of the hidden coffin, cuts the chains, and releases Barnabas. I always wondered how he survived without blood for almost two centuries. I suppose the hibernation theory could apply in both cases. I would hope they were hibernating because it would drive you insane seeing nothing but the darkness of a box (or coffin) for so many years. I wouldn't wish that on any creature.

Death lives in the Vault of Horror!

reply

I've always thought the crate was actually a gateway/doorway to some other dimension. Activity on the outside of the crate, or it being disturbed, triggered the creature to come out.

So it's not actually living in the crate, the crate is just a bridge between the creature's world and ours.

reply

I've always thought the crate was actually a gateway/doorway to some other dimension.

That would've been cool. Like that FUTURAMA episode.


http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/

reply

this one doesn't. if it was killable, it probably wouldn't be in that crate. wood and nails reek of desperation.

reply