MovieChat Forums > The Thing (1982) Discussion > *A* Thing, not *the* Thing.

*A* Thing, not *the* Thing.


People keep mentioning *the* Thing. There is no *one* Thing; it doesn't jump from host to host, it reproduces. There was more than one Thing operating at the base. How can anybody not see that?

reply

Well it's essentially like a virus which we refer to in a singular sense when referring to a specific kind of virus. It's kinda a technicality but correct to a point.

But yeah at any point in the film I believe there is up to 3-4 creatures lurking around. One thing I am not totally clear on is whether they thought uniquely or all cooperated and were aware of each others existence. At least one was out building a saucer ship while another was infiltrating the group. Either of them could have been the one that got to Blair in the shed.

reply

I submit it that Blair was already A Thing before he was placed in the shed. He had already ransacked the vehicles for spare parts; he wanted uninterrupted isolation to build his little flying saucer, so he faked psychosis.

reply

Blair was absolutely not a Thing when he was throwing his hissy fit with the ax. The Thing would not be drawing attention to itself the way he was by getting violent, kill all the dogs to be on the safe side, plus he was doing whatever he could to isolate them from the mainland, whereas the later construction of the craft to go "anywhere but here" would be contradicted by that action.

Some"thing" got to him while he was in the shed, likely at the same time MacReady's bloody clothes were planted and when Fuchs was murdered... I would guess either just before or just after the "it ain't Fuchs" scene when Blair is acting extra weird.

reply

Well, it's a story, so you can spin just about any way you want, but I'd be willing to bet the writers had it in mind that Blair was already a Thing when he was hauled off to the shed.

reply

It's not just my opinion but also an objective FACT (as has been proven by dozens of "experts" and confirmed by Carpenter, Lancaster, and Brimley himself) that Blair was not a Thing when they put him in the shed. Case not just closed, but MEGA-closed.

WUUUuAAAaahhh!!!!!

reply

Maybe it was a single thing, we don't know if each of the apparently individual creatures was truly independent or a part of a collective. Just because we didn't see a physical connection between the creatures doesn't mean they were still connected. The reality is it was a movie and not intended to be anything beyond entertainment. If you want to really spoil your enjoyment of a movie over something so trivial maybe you can start counting gun shots in movies to see how many times the shooters are magically getting guns to fire bullets that shouldn't be there.

reply

"Watchin' Norris in there gave me the idea that... maybe every part of him was a whole, every little piece was an individual animal with a built-in desire to protect its own life. Ya see, when a man bleeds, it's just tissue, but blood from one of you Things won't obey when it's attacked. It'll try and survive..."

I'm inclined to posit that creates like this, while they may cooperate with each other to a general degree (repeatedly inciting confusion and conflict like the Palmer-Thing, for example) so long as the playing field is open, would not be above screwing each other over if they found themselves in a "him-or-me" situation. Such creatures seem unlikely to form, or to be a component of, a gestalt.

reply

*A* Thing, not *the* Thing.
posted 3 days ago by CDWard (151)
7 replies | jump to latest

People keep mentioning *the* Thing. There is no *one* Thing; it doesn't jump from host to host, it reproduces. There was more than one Thing operating at the base. How can anybody not see that?"

It's because we're not nitpicky like you and choose to dissect the title of the movie. Thank GOD!! That social media didn't exist to point stuff out like this back in 1982

reply

It’s a hivemind

reply