Hello /tv/. This is a re-hash of a thread I did a few days ago, about Carpenter's 1982 THE THING and its (generally hated but Fuck You I Liked It) 2011 prequel.
I'll re-present my own (unprovable) theory of the events of the 1982 film, and some (unprovable) loose ends (OP pic related). The next few pics will be a HUGE timeline/body-count of both movies and a map (I made both), which I may delete after re-dumping. So if the pics are at all interesting to you, this is your chance to save them.
Next post will be an Antarctica map plus my theory on Carpenter's film.
Map of Antarctica. So here's now 1982 went down (my version):
-Norris was infected first. This is supported by Palmer sharing a joint with Childs, who remains human for most or all of the film. In other words, Palmer isn't infected yet, so only Norris can be by this interval in the first act.
-It is possible that one or both of the dogs which escape the kennel still managed to be infected (that one got spritzed). However, this is unlikely since they were (presumably) sedated and no other craziness came out of the kennel after that point. If one of them were infected, perhaps it was this (or Norris, or...) that got Palmer.
-The way that Blair was infected was, the pile of Thing-shit that they all burnt right in the middle woke and healed back up AGAIN, and took Blair next while no one was looking. Thus, per OP pic related, it was Blair-thing that walked past Fuchs' door, busy looking for parts for its saucer. But Blair-Thing was too intent on completing the saucer (and leaving the frame-job on Mac as an afterthought), and so he simply burned Fuchs without bothering to try and assimilate him - after all, there's plenty of Things on the interior of the compound.
The above pile of thing-shit is the better part of the missing biomass, off-screen somewhere, with which Blair-Garry thing re-merges to become the FINAL FORM beast.
Finally, I will post the big autistic body-count chart once more....
There.
The mysteries are part of what makes The Thing so great.
>>62896954
Wow you are so mindblowingly autistic
Excellent . An inventive and courageous young man
ok man i have not read all yet but im bumb
>>62897163
Wow that's a mess, I'm too tired for this thing but it looks interesting.
Did the thing alien build the craft it came in or did it consume the previous owners?
There were some good things about the Prequel, but in general I found it kind of dull. The sense of tension really doesn't build as well, and I never saw The Thing as the kind of monster to stay in it's monstrous form very long and stalk someone.
Some parts were interesting, like the fillings part, but even that was silly considering they could just check dental records.
The CGI effects certainly don't help. They look too fake.
The shadow looks like Norris but later Palmer comes out of the same room.
senpai
was commander shepard one?
>>62897163
Holy shit this is some weaponized autism right heregood work op
The Thing (1982) is my favorite movie, OP.
I am intrigued by your documents, even if I may not agree with them upon reading.
>>62898243
OP returns to his surprise to find the dump thread still alive.
You are pretty much right, anon! But the orientation of the barrels-boxes seems goofy, I'd have to review.
But, my above point about Palmer sharing the joint with Childs stands.
>>62900474
>>62900510
I am happy to have your grudging respect. I would be interested in hearing (the latter's) disagreements.
>>62898241
I have to bare my soul a bit about the prequel. The filmmakers really did try to live up to Carpenter, really did care about the project and understand the universe and want very badly not to fuck it up, and I tried it on. I got real, emotional moments of dread in the theater, two times: when the first victim was taken, and leading up to this version's "rec room" scene. These actually surprised me while I was sitting there, but although it's a (heh) copy, the experience was positive enough to make me do the above autism. The public has long since rendered its majority verdict, of course, but I have a solace: it's canon, in some sense.
>>62901643
here, get a free (You) for all that trouble
>>62897163
impressive
Hey op of you're still here may I ask why you did this? Do you just really love the thing that much?
>>62903730
ayy cheers guy, it's OP here.
The short answer is, yes, I just enjoy the Carpenter-classic and the maligned prequel enough to have made these things. Same reason any sperg fan does anything - "deep" interest in the subject.
More concretely, the prequel (much like Aliens to Alien) introduces a larger body of characters and kills them off in more rapid fashion, while still hewing to the exact same story-line. But where Aliens is accepted as a worthy companion, the Thing 2011 film is not. Either way, they all have body counts that I wanted to examine more closely, armchair-forensic like.
>>62897163
i presume the outpost 31 timeline itself was pretty accurate compared to this complete breakdown?
>>62903882
Yes it is, hence my citation right at the top. I performed a (personal, independent) close-watching of the Carpenter film and could not find a material error in the Outpost 31 account of things. Always look for that rec room clock. Actually, this is also great credit to Carpenter's attention to continuity-detail.
When you look very closely though, a whole day+ just goes "missing" right in the middle of that film, which I never really appreciated before (It's not cut to suggest that, you just get it from dialogue!).. this sets up vacant time for awful things to happen.
By contrast, the 2011 prequel has far fewer "looks" at clocks, but the principal events happen on a tighter schedule and actually destroy more people more rapidly., which I interpret as a vindication of my above cherished "dread" watching it for the first time - everything goes to hell FASTER in the prequel if you know Carpenter and pay attention.
>>62903970
thats what i figured since it says it up there, i figure i just expected them to have something wrong since they broke it down into an actual timeline
i guess their page itself specifically says if time was estimated, and leaves it out when there is no way they could know
