What would actually happen if The Thing managed to actually infect a female and had sex with a human and got impregnated? Would the resulting child turn into a hybrid?
>>70174045
It would assimilate the female from the inside soon after sex. No child.
A Thing is not human, it doesn't get pregnant and it would turn any human that had sex with it into a Thing. It doesn't even need to get pregnant since it can infect others and split itself into autonomous parts.
>>70174045
nihonjin please leave
>>70174045
>had sex with a human and got impregnated
Well, this is stupid, but...
It is unlikely that it would allow itself to have sex to begin with. The Thing assimilates people when it is in a secluded 1:1 environment.
Second, the thing would just assimilate any growing cells and it is incredibly unlikely that the thing would remain dormant and non creaturefied for 9 months.
>>70174045
If a human was to approach a female Thing to have sex with it, The Thing would infect him anyway.
>>70174199
>A Thing is not human, it doesn't get pregnant
What makes you so sure it doesn't? When The Thing assimilated Norris it also took his heart problems on itself and got a heartattack. It's not farfetched that it could in fact get impregnated too if it ever came that far.
considering it simply touching you is about the same as being impregnated I have to question your logic
the second The Things cells meet with yours - you're now it, and though this is still up for debate I'm convinced the thing is sentient up to the point of the knowledge that the infected has
it doesn't have speech, and a primal intelligence - it lives only to procreate and consume so really The Thing is chaos incarnate
it merely appears to be human, it doesn't have the same body functions.
its like asking if you fucked a wax statue of kim kardashian, if it would get pregnant.
>>70174045
probably something like this
>>70174358
>considering it simply touching you is about the same as being impregnated
?
The bigger question is if the movie gave us false hope. Sure MacReady killed the Blair Monster and prolly also killed Childs. But we still have probably million pieces of that thing lurking around and I doubt the Blair Monster got completely blown to smitherens. The meat root of the body is probably still on the floor stiring about.
>>70174734
>The bigger question is if the movie gave us false hope.
How?
The movie ends with Mac dying anyways.
There's no help coming and there's a storm rolling in.
He's dead 100%.
The movie ends with him knowing this and as the credits roll, we hear the Thing's theme.
The only hope for humanity is if whoever finds the wreckage of the site doesn't totally fuck up and unthaw parts of the Thing without any containment
Would the thing be classified as a parasite? What else would it be considered as?
>>70175009
A parasite needs a host to live. The Thing completely takes over the body and makes it it's own.
>>70174476
Did you watch the movie?
>>70174045
I literally finished watching this flick an hour ago. I decided to see it because it is so often discussed on /tv/, and there I found yet another thread. Don't ever recommend a film to me or my wife's son ever again! Boring, stupid monster flick. The worst ending you could ever imagine, no explanation, not everyone dies, it just cut to credits without a reason. Everyone saying it's one of his favorites must be either baiting or have seen like 10 film in his entire lifespan. I can not believe anyone can even like this, this board is retarded.
>>70175188
You need to work on your english and look up what impregnation is and how it works and what it's implications are.
>>70175188
did you watch the movie? people have been touching infected people all over the place and nothing happened so that point is busted.
>>70174360
There's no reason why it wouldn't have the same biological functions as what it's hiding as. It mimics the physiology of an organism on a cellular level, it could probably impregnate or become pregnant if it wanted to although it would obly be able to use the dna of the organism who's reproductive systems it had incorporated and standard assimilation would probably be it's primary objective 100% of the time.
>>70175218
>>70175315
The post above this one is such horrible bait. I have to comment on it but I can't allow them the satisfaction of a (You)
>>70174045
The real question is, what happens if a facehugger face-hugs a thing-person?
Thing-xeno? I would pay good money to see this.
Thing vs Predator. I would also pay to see this.
Get it done.
>>70176928
The facehugger gets absorbed by the Thing.
>>70176984
But the Acid Blood would probably kill the Thing Cells
>>70176984
Well obviously but play the game, man.
THING-XENO??
>>70177287
OOOOOOH PLOT TWIST
>>70175499
>>70175568
Not a bait. Saw it today for the first time thanks to /tv/ and regret it. Horrible movie. Give me one reason to consider this movie worthy of watching or liking. Also seeing virtually zero criticism towards this film in this board is depressing. How can I even consider seriously any recommendations from now on?
>>70176984
Suppose for a minute that the thing-person was in containment surrounded by ten men with flamethrowers on it waiting for a reaction. Thing will do anything to survive, is it so unlikely that it would hold back on thingin' out to preserve its own life?
>>70177287
Since the Thing imitates its host to the cellular level, it can just copy the alien's resistance to its own blood
>>70174345
What happened with Norris is that it copied him and wasn't aware of his medical condition, so it copied that as well.
Hypothetically the Thing could get pregnant as a woman (or copy a recently impregnated woman), but once it became aware it was pregnant it would be able to get rid of it consciously if it so desired.
To my understanding, the Thing has some innate ability to copy others, but that doesn't mean it understands what its copying on a cellular level, hence the copy of the defect. So it could get pregnant, I just see no reason as to why the Thing would allow itself to remain pregnant.
>>70177458
What did you not like about it
>>70177508
But it's shown in both films that its cells first need to come into contact with that of its host to take them over. You can't jump into a pool of acid, THEN build up an immunity to it. Alien blood chews through fucking anything.
>>70177716
Maybe it wouldn't beat the facehugger, but I'm confident the Thing would be able to assimilate the xeno at some point of the process.
>>70177458
Give me one reason why you didn't like it or take your opinion seriously
What I like so much about The Thing is that no clear rules are laid out. We know fuck all about this thing and it is scary as hell.
Both the Predator and Xenomorphs lost 50% of their scaryness factor for me once we found out more info about them.
What do we really know for a fact about the thing? It puts self-preservation above all else, even other things. It assimilates cells of the host. The only way to kill it is to burn all the cells to a cinder. It can't assimilate inorganic substances.
Other than that, we got nothing and it's great. Fear of the unknown is the best, and to top it off, we even have to fear what are seemingly friendly characters as the paranoia increases.
>>70177664
It has very few monster action for a monster movie film. The pacing is pretty slow so the film is rather boring, again, for a monster movie that should be thrilling. It has no intrigue, or even if it has one the ending is... There is no ending, the movie is cut for no reason. No explanation. Why didn't everyone dies in the end? What happened after that? Why wouldn't they make it that Kurt Russell is the thing all the time and in the end he wins, or someone else? No music other than very simple main theme. No beautiful thrilling atmosphere or image like in Silent Hill. The whole movie is people talking to each other for an hour and 5 min of monster action which wasn't that bad but again, monster movie should bring much more. I won't say film have no meaning because monster film don't have to have one. Do I have a point?
>>70178149
>It has no intrigue
>No beautiful thrilling atmosphere
>It has very few monster action for a monster movie film
What the fuck
>>70178238
Ok have you seen Silent Hill? Name me one thing that is done better in The Thing compared to Silent Hill.
>>70178149
>look mom i'm baiting for my le /r/4chan screencrap xd
Brothers, does any other movie has this big FAQ on imdb? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084787/faq?ref_=tt_faq_sm
Goddamn it, what a KINO!
>>70178444
muh bait is the only argument this board is capable of
what would happen if The Thing ate The Stuff?
The Thing is such a great film and it's hard to believe it wasn't particularly well received when it came out.
John Carpenter is my G.
>>70182017
Eat more, you can never get enough.
>>70182355
not in the Thing but had to post
>>70178149
>its a monster film with very little monster
the fucking point of the movie is how the monster can replicate people perfectly and hide among them, how anyone could be the thing at any time and how it prays in peoples psyche.
In meme words that you would understand: we all are... The Thing.
The irony is also how the thing is literally the most powerful and perfect organism but it happened to land on the only place on Earth that can be contained due to the lack of humans to assimilate with no chance to escape because of the harsh enviroment.
The pacing is perfect, you can't even recall how much time or who the thing was alone with for a huge part of the movie, esentially making you trust nobody, not even the main cast actor.
The ending was also spectacular and they didn't need to show who died, they would have both died from freezing to death, and if one of them was the thing, it would just have gottene frozen again.
IF, because its left to the audience to determine if there was still a thing alive, people are still making theoriea about Childs having no exhaling vapor and drinking a bottle of gasoline thinking it was just a regular drink.
And many more ending Theories.
The atmosphere was top notch, you felt alone as a viewer.
You couldn't figure out which character you wanted to side with.
The sense of absolute dread and no escape by being surrounded by miles and miles of freezing cold wasteland with no communication, being forced to stay indoors along with everyone else, which could at any point turn outnto be thr thing and comsume your ass, literally becoming you.
>>70174045
The thing assimilates organic matter to it's own, so by "consuming" a human, it's not human anymore. It looks like a human on the outside, but all it's inner workings are changed and gone. In other words: No sperm, no ovum, not even the hormones that make people want to have sex.
>>70178355
Sweet jeesus, are you honestly trrying to say Silent Hill was better than Carpenter's "The Thing"?
I'll ignore the trolling and simply give a quick list of......
-Easy one. Special effects. Thing's effects are the gold standard for character design. Silent Hill was passable at best CGI.
-Acting. Seriously man. Not even close. Character decisions ACTUALLY make sense in the Thing, in Silent Hill every single step taken is counter to what any sane person would do. I know it's loosely based on the first game, but they still could have come up with a better reason to bring your daughter to a fuggin ghost town she has nightmares of.
-The ending. Silent Hill movie had a vague ending, as did the Thing. The Thing's ending worked more for me because once again, it fit the characters. MacReady and Childs were on a suicide mission before blowing the shit out of the research facility, so just sitting there and getting drunk and accepting your fate makes sense.
I didn't hate the Silent Hill film, but damn man, you can't really believe it's better.
-Sense of dread and paranoia.
"The Thing" is a great barf-bag movie, all right, but is it any good? I found it disappointing, for two reasons: the superficial characterizations and the implausible behavior of the scientists on that icy outpost. Characters have never been Carpenter's strong point; he says he likes his movies to create emotions in his audiences, and I guess he'd rather see us jump six inches than get involved in the personalities of his characters. This time, though, despite some roughed-out typecasting and a few reliable stereotypes (the drunk, the psycho, the hero), he has populated his ice station with people whose primary purpose in life is to get jumped on from behind. The few scenes that develop characterizations are overwhelmed by the scenes in which the men are just setups for an attack by the Thing.
1/2
That leads us to the second problem, plausibility. We know that the Thing likes to wait until a character is alone, and then pounce, digest, and imitate him--by the time you see Doc again, is he still Doc, or is he the Thing? Well, the obvious defense against this problem is a watertight buddy system, but, time and time again, Carpenter allows his characters to wander off alone and come back with silly grins on their faces, until we've lost count of who may have been infected, and who hasn't. That takes the fun away.
"The Thing" is basically, then, just a geek show, a gross-out movie in which teenagers can dare one another to watch the screen. There's nothing wrong with that; I like being scared and I was scared by many scenes in "The Thing." But it seems clear that Carpenter made his choice early on to concentrate on the special effects and the technology and to allow the story and people to become secondary. Because this material has been done before, and better, especially in the original "The Thing" and in "Alien," there's no need to see this version unless you are interested in what the Thing might look like while starting from anonymous greasy organs extruding giant crab legs and transmuting itself into a dog. Amazingly, I'll bet that thousands, if not millions, of moviegoers are interested in seeing just that.
2/2
>it's an internet neckbeard talking about his sex fantasies
>>70182784
>>70182833
Fuck off Ebert.
>>70182588
>>70182707
>look mom i'm baiting for my le /r/4chan screencrap xd
>>70182833
The buddy system only works so well. The reason "The Thing" only consumes others 1 on 1, is because it doesn't want to risk getting caught while it's still vulnerable. If it finds a situation where people are distracted and not paying attention, it would obviously pounce on two or more people.
Also, you're opinions of the characters behavior is only YOUR opinion. I think the behavior the characters demonstrated is plausible, mainly because of the setting and their background.
>>70182997
>I don't agree with you and have zero arguments so I'm gonna shitpost like reddit does
The Thing (1951) is obviously much much better than this garbage.
>>70183101
The post above this one is such horrible bait. I have to comment on it but I can't allow them the satisfaction of a (You)
>>70175218
How does it feel to be the wrongest person in the world?
>>70183179
>look mom i'm baiting for my le /r/4chan screencrap xd
>he ran out of arguments 10 minutes ago after his got shot down in record time and all he can do now is shitty unfunny shitposting
can't make this up
>>70183349
The post above this one is such horrible bait. I have to comment on it but I can't allow them the satisfaction of a (You)
>The Thing reveals itself during a bloodtest
>through whatever means, it gets contained. No additional pieces in or out of its prison, no ways for it to sneak out
>people then attempt to communicate with it through telecommunication
what would happen? would it talk? if so, how?
>>70183333
quads for anti shitposting
>>70183408
It would try to convince them to let it out and that it was just scared/confused. Sort of like with Blair in his boarded shelter saying he was alright and to let him join the rest.
>>70183712
Oh you mean in thing form, I'd assume it would just change back to whoever it assimilated
>>70174045
There is a lot of supposition in your questions, so I'll just clarify some things. First, the thing does not reproduce sexually, so even if it took over the body of a female it would have no reason to sexually reproduce because it could easily assimilate the other person and bypass the need to have sex. Second, If somehow a thing was caught in a situation where they'd have to preform in front of people it would just assimilate all the sperm that enter the body, so it would not get prego. Finally, if somehow there was a child it would be a thing because the goal of the thing is to assimilate and having a hybrid would make no sense.
>>70183642
that's shitposting too
guys are you for real love this film about monsters screaming and shitting all over the place? are you all THAT retarded?
>yfw the thing will never capture mew on the derelict ship all alone and use her as a breeding slut until she runs out of eggs and then consumes her
>>70174345
>>70177636
I figured The Thing was just "faking" the heart attack. It has perfect control over its biology and form, it seems unlikely it could accidentally inherit a heart condition from a host.
>>70183876
I think once a Thing reveals its true nature it wouldn't turn back human. There isn't any way to make them believe it is actually a human again. I imagine a captured Thing would try to just to psychologically torture people with horrible noises, changing into more grotesque shapes, and maybe even trying to sow seeds of mistrust in the group. If it were to turn "human" again it would be to fuck with the people monitoring it.
>>70184123
The theory of faking it falls apart once you notice Norris has gotten Heartpain moments before while no one was in close proximity.
So what happened at the end was that guy alien and the drink he drank was gasoline?
>>70184443
I dont think it was. If you look closely you notice that MacReady was motioning to drink from the bottle before he was interrupted by Childs appearing.ΓΌ
>>70175218
>>70184443
The point of the ending is that they could both be Things, or one of them, or neither. They have no idea of the other's motives but aren't in any position to do anything about it anyway. That's the brilliance of the ending to me.
>>70174915
>The movie ends with him knowing this and as the credits roll, we hear the Thing's theme.
>The only hope for humanity is if whoever finds the wreckage of the site doesn't totally fuck up and unthaw parts of the Thing without any containment
In the video game (which Carpenter says is a sequel)...
>Entire army regiment is sent to Outpost.
>Military is betrayed by general who wants to weaponize thing.
>General locks PC in a room with a bomb made by the Joker.
>PC escapes and fights fellow soldiers and more things.
>PC corners general
>General injects Thing cells (blood test) into his body
>General turns into a 20 story tall hand with a mouth in the palm.
>RJ MACREADY SHOWS UP IN A FUCKING HELICOPTER
>PC gets in the helicopter and shoots at giant hand with a machine gun .
>Giant hand explodes like a Lambent Brumak.
>RJ lands helicopter, tells the PC "good luck" and flys away into the antarctic.
>PC is left in a destroyed burning base, with a storm rolling in, alone.
>>70177988
>>70184895
Anyone believing Mac was infected is retarded.
>>70184922
Forgot to attach image.
>>70184922
I love Carpenter but he freely admits he likes his shit getting adapted because he gets paid. I'm sure all it took for him to call the game canon was to send his check in the mail.
>>70180120
holy faq!
>>70174276
In the book the thing assimilated cows then gave milk that was, well, milk. So who knows.
>>70184922
are there any cool friendly mechanics in the game that mimic the sense of paranoia from the movie?
>>70174045
Actually, like it's been said, The Thing would not have sex...but it would be a funny/scary scene to see a guy possibly pull out his peen and when he's about to penetrate her, her vagina litteraly pulls itself out and grows huge and starts to suck his penis and actually starts to make him mutate and completely swallow him from her vagina.
>>70178149
Wow i hope you're really a try hard bait guy. Otherwise you're just a fucking idiot.
Not because you don't like the film, but because your arguments are completely absurd.
>>70186018
I think you have an insanity meter and for a while you have 2 AI buddies.
Your AI buddies can become infected during combat and will transform and attack you when your back is turned.
>>70186194
>>70184895
True, but there was an analysis here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SppG-I_Dhxw
I think Childs was infected and Mac wasn't, especially when you consider the deleted ending: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xu2cFljkPw
Macready 4 lyfe
>>70186018
They can get infected but it's totally random. Whenever you have AI companions, they ALWAYS turn at that certain point when you do something or walk over certain point. Kinda removes the paranoia when you know that "ok, if I walk one meter forward now, he will turn."
Loved the game when I was younger though and the movie is all time top-3 for me.
>>70186018
It had a lot of great ideas but the game is very dated.
Nearly all of the "friendly characters are assimilated!" encounters are scripted, plus the AI was very dumb. Fun game for its time but you are doing yourself a disservice if you go in thinking it's going to be great.
Forgotten, faded gem.
>>70185001
I remember reading somewhere that Carpenter Confirmed that they are both human. He also claims that game is canon, which means thatChilds is frozen at the outpost and MacReady got away from the site and flies a helicopter
The theory that "you cant see Childs' breath is retarded, especially when you can clearly see it in top quality.
>>70174045
The whole idea of sexual reproduction is (loosely) you're using half of each parent's dna. The Thing doesn't share; it only consumes the heat, energy, and structure of its host for itself. So it would just assimilate the other as soon as it came into physical contact with it.
>>70177329
THENO?
XING?
