Plot hole in John Carpenter's "The Thing"

[Creepy Green Light]

It's not just "The Thing", but several UFO type movies. But in The Thing, this never made sense to me, even as a child;

The ET/alien occupant is very exotic looking (and sounding). All types of different shapes, appendages, screams & roars like a wild animal, tentacles, etc. etc. How would a species of this thing be able to work in some type of factory in order to manufacture the flying saucer you see in the film? And how would a creature like that be able to be taught how to "sit" at the controls and fly it? And communicate back to HQ's on it's mission progress?

Whenever I see this wild looking space aliens I always try and envision the factory that their kind works at in order to mfg the flying saucer/UFO. If you think of it in those terms, a lot of times it doesn't make any sense and it just plain silly.

 

[Ron Away]

It's not just "The Thing", but several UFO type movies. But in The Thing, this never made sense to me, even as a child;

The ET/alien occupant is very exotic looking (and sounding). All types of different shapes, appendages, screams & roars like a wild animal, tentacles, etc. etc. How would a species of this thing be able to work in some type of factory in order to manufacture the flying saucer you see in the film? And how would a creature like that be able to be taught how to "sit" at the controls and fly it? And communicate back to HQ's on it's mission progress?

Whenever I see this wild looking space aliens I always try and envision the factory that their kind works at in order to mfg the flying saucer/UFO. If you think of it in those terms, a lot of times it doesn't make any sense and it just plain silly.

Because,look over there (pointing) runs away!

 

[DaveM]

The same goes for alien abductions. They only want our women...

 

[Ron Away]

The same goes for alien abductions. They only want our women...

They can have mine!

 

[Polterwurst]

The virus-like organism in The Thing (80s Carpenter version) was not supposed to be identical with the ETs steering the craft.

As far as I remember, it was being transported in it (probably as a biological weapon, yes, they could do a cross-over with the Xenomorph Alien franchise), got out and took over the original crew.

Apparently, although it was mimicking these intelligent ETs, it wasn't able to reproduce their technological comprehension, so it crash-landed. Looks like it's not really capable of very high intelligent performance, just basic running around and looking befuddled. And absorbing other organsims, of course.

I guess it was different in the original movie. James Arness' ET could have been more proficient, having been born with arms and legs and all, but it didn't seem too bright either. Maybe it was still warming up after thousands of years of being frozen stiff, when they fried it.

 

[Vimana]

I want to back Polterwurst in thinking that the original idea was not that the Thing was a pilot, but a passenger, and perhaps one that speaks to extreme decontamination when moving to new worlds. I never ever regarded THE THING as being the pilot and I'm now sort of curious how many others misunderstood this? Chime in.

 

[Beaumains]

The Thing occupies the same space as the xenomorph of the Alien films. It was a prisoner/stow-away/infection of the original crew. The Thing in the film appears to retain some/all of the knowledge and memories of the organism(s) it copies/takes over. So this could explain the attempted construction of a space vehicle (it may or may not actually have been intended as a space vehicle, it's never explained in the film. The characters and audience make that assumption). Though it's knowledge may have been incomplete.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Burnt State]

I want to back Polterwurst in thinking that the original idea was not that the Thing was a pilot, but a passenger, and perhaps one that speaks to extreme decontamination when moving to new worlds. I never ever regarded THE THING as being the pilot and I'm now sort of curious how many others misunderstood this? Chime in.

I just watched it last weekend for the fourth or fifth time and I was watching this time around to see how the movie was addressing aspects of the original movie where the creature from the ship has also been thrown out of the ship upon impact and is frozen in the ice until it is carved out to only melt and wreak havoc on the inhabitants of the polar base. In the original movie we understand this to be a pilot. In that movie blood is what sustains that living vegetable. In Carpenter's much more moody version the alien is reduced to an invasive viral organism whose interactions with our lifeforms creates the multiplicity of life forms in one. This may simply be a virus and the original pilot could be dead.

 

[Beaumains]

Carpenter's The Thing is more faithful to the original story Who Goes There by John W. Campbell than the 1951 The Thing (from another World). So, I would not include the 1951 version in this discussion, great movie that it is.
In the final scenes of the 1982 film, we see the Thing in its more "natural" form in which it's showing us aspects of many of its former victims.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Vimana]

I always liked John Carpenter movies for his handcrafted music. Anyone else out there like the fact he composed all that cool electronics music for things like The Fog and Escape from New York? My favorite may be They Live, both in music and movies.

 

[Burnt State]

I always liked John Carpenter movies for his handcrafted music. Anyone else out there like the fact he composed all that cool electronics music for things like The Fog and Escape from New York? My favorite may be They Live, both in music and movies.

His musical talents define his movies wonderfully. He is the auteur and a unique one at that. Many directors will shoot and edit their masterpieces, but composing the tunes is a very unique feature. Throughout still or slightly meditative visual moments he constantly uses the score to build tension, and holds his audience in anticipation from the get go.

 

[Burnt State]

Carpenter's The Thing is more faithful to the original story Who Goes There by John W. Campbell than the 1951 The Thing (from another World). So, I would not include the 1951 version in this discussion, great movie that it is.
In the final scenes of the 1982 film, we see the Thing in its more "natural" form in which it's showing us aspects of many of its former victims.

I agree that Carpenter is more faithful to the novella but he definitely sticks in some homage moments to the original film, especially as the Americans are reviewing the Norwegian's video footage which lifts scenes from The Thing From Another World. I'm not too sure though about seeing the thing in its natural state as it appears to be an amalgamation of a whole history of forms it has contacted but no real unique original species that I could tell. Carpenter seems to go full bore into the land of phantasmagoria, heavy on the gore, in order to shock that audience.

Back to the original question: I don't think there are plot holes per se as it seems all three texts reference the thing as the pilot. One assumes, as displayed in Carpenter's version, that the thing can adapt to be whatever shape is necessary to either blend in with other species, to survive in whatever spiderhead shape it needs to or to become a good looking husky. And if it needs to complete manoeuvres using delicate controls then the appropriate appendages will be grown.