The Thing (1982) -- the scene with MaReady checking on Blair in the cabin

Submitted by darthvirgin t3_yhyyzj in movies

Watching The Thing (1982) for the fifth or sixth time tonight, my friends and I realized something we never had about the scene where MacReady goes to check on Blair in the cabin they've locked him in. It's a disturbing scene because Blair has evidently casually hung up a noose to kill himself with, but he makes no acknowledgement of it to MacReady while they talk. You can interpret Blair's ignoring the noose as him thinking he doesn't need to spell it out to MacReady that he's contemplating suicide if he's kept in there any longer OR you can interpret it to mean that he's not acknowledging the noose because he's no longer human. The original Blair hung the noose, was subsequently killed and replicated by the Thing, and MacReady is indeed having that conversation with a being that doesn't even understand what a noose is. Brilliant to create that kind of ambiguity.

...no one else I was with had realized it before either, so I don't feel too dumb.

EDIT: Seeing a number of comments where people are commenting on whether the noose is something they'd noticed or not -- it's very prominent IMHO, and I'm not suggesting anyone wouldn't have seen it. I'm saying I hadn't realized the potential interpretation before.

176

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Phillyredsox t1_iughi9o wrote

I wanna come back inside. I’m okay.

143

Cogdill1 t1_iuiefvt wrote

holy shit now i have to go watch it again….

7

ReggieLeBeau t1_iuj9d5i wrote

Hey, wait a minute. Wait a minute, man. I want to come back inside, don't you understand? I'm alright, I'm much better. And I won't harm anybody. Now you gotta let me come back insi---

7

Slick_36 t1_iugm9t0 wrote

The Thing is all about self-preservation, the noose is 100% something only Blair would have put up. Blair was suicidal out of obligation, he's trying to protect the world and prevent rescue. It's very off that suddenly not only would he would desperately want to be inside, but to be around everybody else at that moment too. He was the most paranoid & the most on guard, saying he's no threat to anyone is a dead giveaway it's not him, the only end to the threat was cutting off the Thing from living matter.

96

darthvirgin OP t1_iugof0z wrote

I never implied I thought the noose was put up by the Thing though.

5

Slick_36 t1_iugp5p9 wrote

I wasn't trying to imply that you did, I was just emphasizing the distinction between Blair and the Thing. Who Blair was when he hung that noose up and who we see pleading to be let inside are complete opposites. That's around the time that we see even the blood alone will fight to survive. It's a core aspect of the Thing because that tenacity to survive is normally what makes a hero, not a monster. It's more human than we'd like to think.

32

Froegerer t1_iui3mdp wrote

Yep it seems like once you are infected the thing will just chill inside and let the host autopilot as if nothing was wrong until it feels threatened then it takes over. Blair was suicidal so the thing took over and it explains why he's so different when talking MacReady.

6

Douglasqqq t1_iugkknc wrote

I have the same issue with this theory that I have with the one about MacReady giving Childs petrol to drink at the end; You gotta assume The Thing has a pretty complete understanding of the person it's assimilating.
It seems to have full inventory of it's victims' language, physical capacity, mannerisms, manner of speaking, character, and knowledge of surroundings and existing relationships. Blind spots like what a noose is, or petrol tasting different to whiskey, don't add up to me.

78

darthvirgin OP t1_iuglypz wrote

Agreed, but it’s not super clear how the assimilation process works, and there are other characters who it evidently mimicked quite perfectly as they’re doppelgängers in multiple scenes.

20

WR_MouseThrow t1_iugpk7i wrote

It's not super clear but I think you can infer that the assimilated have a good handle on human behaviour, and that Blair put the noose out as a not-very-subtle threat of "let me back in before I kill myself" (whether he was already assimilated at the time or not).

16

Froegerer t1_iui23hd wrote

They make it sound like you somehow keep your consciousness until it decides takes over. Like it assimilates everything but the brain or part of the brain so the host has no idea and makes it impossible to identify without something like a janky hot wire blood test. Some character said something like, "you could be one of those things and not even know it!".

3

Badloss t1_iui8xb9 wrote

I don't think that's what's going on. I think The Thing is perfectly emulating the person, if you were assimilated then you are dead and your consciousness is gone.

I think the characters are just wrong when they say that, or they're imperfectly trying to describe how good the mimcry is

7

SplinterPizza t1_iuil07m wrote

If you perfectly replicated the Human brain inside a computer... Would it think it's conscious? His point still stands.

3

Badloss t1_iuimitz wrote

It doesn't, because that's not what the thing is doing.

The thing has access to the host's memories and instincts and uses them to perfectly imitate the host. I disagree that it's building a functional simulation of the host's consciousness to do that

4

SplinterPizza t1_iuiocdo wrote

>The thing has access to the host's memories and instincts and uses them to perfectly imitate the host. I disagree that it's building a functional simulation of the host's consciousness to do that

Sure but the point is we only know what the film shows us. And it's pretty clear the what it mimics is a perfect representation of a human. It has the memories of the person it devours. Now for the extrapolation on that, If it's mimicking down to the Neurons then it stands to reason it can mimic the mind of the person.

It understands what a noose is. It understands what Alcohol tastes like. The characters in the film make a salient point that maybe you wouldn't even know you were a mimic.

3

Badloss t1_iuir2ed wrote

Yeah I mean of course we're all speculating. I just disagree that the mimics don't know they're mimics. I think they know exactly what they are and just know exactly how to fake being human.

There's actually a great example of what you're talking about in the Dune books though. The Tleilaxu invent perfect Face Dancers that completely replicate their target and then the mimicry is so perfect that the copy believes it's the original and they lose control of them

3

Sadatori t1_iugqez8 wrote

Since the Thing knew how to build a spaceship, that meant it retains the knowledge of the beings it assimilates so it would know what a noose is as well, but I still absolutely love how it completely ignores the noose while talking and absolutely love the movie and how we can still try and get more out of it to this day

7

striker907 t1_iugudwk wrote

I don’t think the spaceship thing confirms that personally. I saw that as knowledge possessed by the “original being” or form of the Thing, considering it crash landed onto Earth with a similar-looking ship.

Am I wrong? It’s all a guess

5

BOEJlDEN t1_iugxvvs wrote

I assumed that the ship was piloted by a completely separate alien species that was infected by the Thing. I don’t think that was the Thing’s ship

13

MattyKatty t1_iuh3buz wrote

It's ambiguous in the 1982 version. It was meant to be shown in the 2011 prequel but then they CGI'd over it.

2

CMelody t1_iujl3me wrote

That was my thought, too. Blair figured out pretty quickly that the Thing had to be isolated before it assimilated all life on Earth.

After they realized the same, I think the aliens in the ship crashed on purpose on what they thought was a backwater planet with no sentient life to quarantine the Thing where it could do no harm.

1

dudinax t1_iugxnfl wrote

I always thought the implication was the thing caused the crash. Didn't they find a body in the wreck? I suspect that's not the thing's true form.

8

badger81987 t1_iuirxs6 wrote

It probably doesn't really have one, kind of like The Builders in The Expanse. Pure parasites.

2

dudinax t1_iugxk57 wrote

I agree about the whiskey, but the thing does not handle social situations totally perfectly. It would obviously know what the noose is but might underestimate its effect on real people.

9

SplinterPizza t1_iuiksok wrote

>It would obviously know what the noose is but might underestimate its effect on real people.

Why would you think this?

Nothing suggests otherwise. It literally has full access to the human's it mimics and perfectly mimes them.

3

dudinax t1_iujfjrp wrote

It's been a while since I've seen the movie, but my impression was the thing was good, but not perfect at social manipulation.

0

SplinterPizza t1_iujhhgh wrote

Well you should watch it again, because it's a great movie. But no. The only way they can tell is by doing a blood test.

2

duck_duck_ent t1_iujgmws wrote

I love this movie and I watch it at least once every 2-3 months. I recently saw it in the theater and the theory that Childs is given petrol has always been a good one, along with the visible breathe.

So during this last rewatch, I paid extra attention to the Molotov’s they were making. All the bottles were stripped of labels. Just clear green bottles.

McReady was ready to drink that last bottle before Childs shows up. It has a label on it.

The noose… a part of me thinks it was made as a last resort, if anything left of him was able to fight back he would have done it…

Also! I love how Carpenter makes you feel the guy with the dog is a Thing! I always forget he has clean blood

3

Ok-Needleworker-4818 t1_iuk88pa wrote

I'm torn on the Molotov cocktail drinking theory. It's obvious as I mentioned above that the thing knows everything the copied life forms know. Knowing what something taste like though? It's interesting to think about that. It knows what alcohol is but maybe it would just think the gasoline is a different tasting alcohol? Cool theory either way.

1

Creative-Cash3759 t1_iuggr0r wrote

I haven't seen this movie tbh. but I got curious after reading your post! where can i watch this?

20

Dispositionpsn t1_iugii95 wrote

You haven't watched the greatest horror film of all time? Just buy it, it's worth it. And also don't watch the remake from the 2000s. Just watch Carpenters version then the true original if you like old films

27

CMelody t1_iugtzti wrote

The 2000s one was a prequel, not a remake. It ends exactly where John Carpenter's film begins.

But yes, don't watch it. Unfortunately not a great film, and I'd had high hopes for it.

18

Froegerer t1_iui3vjs wrote

Man, it's not great but I totally enjoyed the 2000s prequel. Solid 6.5/10

11

Dispositionpsn t1_iugu5la wrote

Oh I didn't know that lol. The video game was the perfect sequal to Carpenters film tho

4

CMelody t1_iugurnv wrote

I saw several interviews with the prequel filmmakers, and they obviously have a lot of reverence for the Carpenter film and really strived to create a movie that would fit perfectly with it, plot wise.

I know a lot of people complain that using CGI instead of practical effects ruined the experience, but I don't think that was the problem. In The Thing, even years later many fans remember the character's names. There was something unique about all of them, and Carpenter was able to establish them all very quickly before shit started going wrong.

But there was no decent character development in the prequel. It seemed like we were watching a bunch of nameless Norwegian guys getting wiped out and there was no reason to root for any of them, and sadly Mary Elisabeth Winstead wasn't enough (love the actress, just not in this film). The audience needs to feel connected so there are stakes to their peril. A lot of screenplay sins can be forgiven if you like the characters you are watching onscreen.

12

HoboJack t1_iuh2nm6 wrote

I haven't watched the prequel but one of the most common complaints I have read is that the Thing reveals itself multiple times for no real reason, unlike in the 1980s film where it does its best to hide and only comes out when backed into a corner.

9

MattyKatty t1_iuh3ogx wrote

I somewhat agree and disagree with this assessment. Longtime fans would have rooted for the two Norwegians seen in the beginning of the 1982 movie, except only one is really shown at a decent length. I agree that they should have had more character development in that direction.

But I think having the Norwegians be separate from the main characters, in a suspicious way as they mumble to each other in a foreign language, was an interesting take on it. The language gap was a realistic barrier.

Edit: Also I made this comment before opening the actual conversation so I didn't know you commented on the language barrier above, though that was in reference to the 1982 movie.

1

Ok_You9503 t1_iuh5lri wrote

Yes, by far one of the best horror movies of all times.

1

Toadman005 t1_iuioj8b wrote

To say nothing of it filling in the unknown, and what it presented was never going to be as terrifying as our imaginations.

1

CMelody t1_iuiszfu wrote

I just watched a doc about the making of Jaws (there are a few, all worth a watch) where Spielberg admitted that the failure of the mechanical shark (and having to find creative ways to film the attacks) was a blessing in disguise. As you said, rarely seeing the monster can be so much more terrifying.

I think the same can be said of gore. There are people who think Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Halloween are total bloodfests, when really they aren’t. The killing mostly occurs out of frame, and the gore shown is quite tame compared to Friday the 13th or Hostel. What we imagined Leatherface and Michael Myers would do to their victims was scarier.

2

Toadman005 t1_iuitqjx wrote

Agreed 100%. Less is always more. Something seemingly lost on film makers today.

2

CMelody t1_iuix0vr wrote

I have seen so many horror films, love the genre but it is tough to unnerve me.

Imagine my surprise when Paranormal Activity freaked me the hell out. It is really kind of funny how effective it was considering it boils down to two people hearing strange noises in their house. Bloodless, never saw the entity, it was almost entirely suspense. Not getting a complete explanation of what was happening upped the creep factor.

3

Toadman005 t1_iuizdp8 wrote

That was the last real "scary" experience I had in theaters. God I loved that movie. At 2 am the next night though....not so much.

2

CMelody t1_iuj6r3b wrote

Been there. Lying awake in bed hearing strange creaks downstairs, being too chicken to investigate.

2

Toadman005 t1_iujahq9 wrote

Hell yes, the mind can really start to play tricks....gets the heart beating so hard, you swear the bed is shaking, and it's not you causing it...

2

CMelody t1_iujcv79 wrote

I remember reading Salem’s Lot as a kid, was so into it I stayed up until it was several hours past my bed time to finish it. I realized as I was groggy half dreaming that I’d left the light on in my closet with the door cracked open. I kept dreaming/hallucinating that a vampire was inside slowly opening the door. I was scaring myself so much I pulled my gothy cross earrings out of my jewelry box and put them on to protect myself if I fell asleep.

Felt so dumb the next morning when I woke up with the clunky earrings poking me.

2

dudinax t1_iugxquu wrote

I didn't watch the whole thing. What turned me off was adding Americans to it. Seemed like an obvious sop to the US market and not something the movie really needed.

−3

CMelody t1_iugyl6c wrote

I would have been fine with an all Norwegian film, and you're right that it felt like pandering to the market to have it in English. The language barrier while they investigated the Norwegian camp added to the mystery of the Carpenter film.

I have only seen it once when it first came out so I could be remembering wrong, but it felt like a retread of the first film in structure, too. Maybe that is why the other redditor assumed it was a remake rather than prequel.

2

Inevitable_Soft4897 t1_iuho3k6 wrote

how could you not know? did you even watch it?

5

Dispositionpsn t1_iuho9z7 wrote

Nope. I refused. Then I caught a few minutes on cable and confirmed all my fears of it being shit, so I turned it off.

−6

Inevitable_Soft4897 t1_iuhohzb wrote

"hey, I've never seen this movie... but it's shit. don't watch it."

classic.

4

Dispositionpsn t1_iuhr3z8 wrote

Notice I didn't offer an opinion on why. I didn't need to see the new robocop, or new total recall to know they are shit. At least with this I gave it a chance lol. I'll be sure to watch it next time because I upset someone on Reddit.

−5

badger81987 t1_iuis9j4 wrote

>I'll be sure to watch it next time because I upset someone on Reddit.

Or you could not be an edgey teenager and pass on commenting on movies you've never seen.

2

Swords_Not_Words t1_iuhq9v7 wrote

Imagine non-recommending a movie that you know absolutely nothing about. Clown

2

Dispositionpsn t1_iuhrfkw wrote

There is a massive consensus it's trash, and I did watch some of it and it confirmed my fears of it being trash.

−1

Swords_Not_Words t1_iuhtbeo wrote

So you blindly follow other people's opinions instead of forming your own. Got it.

1

Tangocan t1_iuiokza wrote

Totally fair. Nothing wrong with reading reviews anyway.

No idea why the other guy is being such a chud about it.

1

Psychotron69 t1_iuiij8z wrote

NO! Watch the 2000s prequel after you watch the 1982 movie.

The 2000s prequel gets shat on but I thought it paid homage to the storyline nicely and did a good job of explaining what happened to the Norwegians.

4

Bo-Katan t1_iuity3v wrote

The only thing the prequel failed at was with the CGI and they had the movie with practical effects... Otherwise it is a good movie.

2

Optimus-Maximus t1_iuizr6r wrote

> You haven't watched the greatest horror film of all time?

Not only this, but one of the greatest films of all time. Full stop.

3

darthvirgin OP t1_iugjpr5 wrote

You definitely ought to watch it. As to where, that's entirely dependent on which country you're in. In Canada my only option was to rent/buy or pirate.

15

Picard2331 t1_iugsdyq wrote

It is straight up one of the best horror movies of all time.

I dont know where you can watch it or how much it costs, but it'll be worth it.

14

TazplexNoises t1_iuhxr6r wrote

I never found the prequel as bad as folk make out.

I quite often watch them back to back and find them enjoyable.

Your call obviously but it’s by no stretch an awful unwatchable film imo.

6

BelovedApple t1_iujvpup wrote

Was on at the cinema tight in my town. Still holds up well.

1

DavidDLC t1_iugxkgi wrote

Just watched it myself for the first time. It’s on Peacock if you have that

0

Petal_Chatoyance t1_iuhfwby wrote

The Thing that was Blair knew full well what the noose is and was for.

Allow me to introduce you to the TRULY scariest part of The Thing (one of my very favorite movies).

The Thing replicates a person down to every last cell. That means every neuron in the brain. Think about that carefully. It knows everything the person it absorbed knew. Everything. But it gets worse. Much worse. It's even stated in the film itself: what if you were the Thing and didn't even know it?

The Thing can become anything it ever absorbed in the past - including all memories. That is how it could build a flying saucer under MacReady's cabin, where Blair is being kept. It can also run a personality as part of its camouflage.

That means it is entirely possible that in that moment, in that cabin, Blair didn't know he was the Thing. That could have been - likely was - Blair's mind and memories, Blair's consciousness, being simulated by the Thing. For just long enough to talk to MacReady, Blair was alive again, sort of, unaware that he was already very dead.

And it gets worse still: the Thing is ultimately in control. The living mind of the simulated Blair could be manipulated. The Thing wants back in with all the humans. So, it would know - because it is superintelligent (you need to be to build an impromptu flying saucer from scraps and bits - also, I have read the original story it comes from "Who Goes There" by John W. Campbell) - that the presence of a noose would tug on MacReady and the other's sympathy to manipulate them.

Now, consider all of that. You could be the Thing and not know it. You could be alive one moment, thinking you are safe, but you are already dead, already eaten. The Thing is just using you, letting your mind run for a bit, before packing you back into nonexistence.

That, I think, is far more horrifying than all of the gore and shapeshifting. That is true shapeshifting - not merely mimicking the body, but also the mind.

How do I know this is true?

Interviews with Campbell as well as with Carpenter make this clear. The Thing, the concept from "Who Goes There" was originally written as a scare story vaguely about the spread of Communism. The paranoia is that your neighbor could secretly be a Communist, and they could turn other neighbors Communist, yet still act perfectly normal. This was the time of the big Red Scare, and Americans were made to be terrified of Communism, so stories that played on that fear sold well. What if, then, your neighbor managed to somehow convince YOU to be a Communist? Then what! Oh GOD the horror!

That is the original notion that became a science fiction story about an alien creature.

I'll give you one more fun fact: in the original story, they get to see the Thing frozen in the ice, looking as it did when it was still a copy of the alien that owned the giant saucer in the ice. That being had blue skin, three red eyes, three legs, two arms, and tendrils around the mouth and head. In the end, when they discover the saucer under MacReady's cabin, they also find special lights the creature made that told them what kind of starsystem the Thing preferred: a young starsystem with actinic - bluish - light from a very young star.

Read the original story, if you can. It's cool.

18

badger81987 t1_iuisu32 wrote

Are you familiar with the Expanse? I feel like you'd find the Protomolecule endlessly interesting.

7

Petal_Chatoyance t1_iujhafx wrote

Absolutely love The Expanse. I read all the novels out loud to my spouse. Watched the series too. I am a big fan of Hard SF.

5

tkmoney t1_iujqxs4 wrote

The question of "do you know you're infected with the thing?" is something I always think about when I watch this movie. Another thing to look at with this theory is Norris. I think he is one of the earliest ones to get infected if not the first in the group. We get that little scene towards the beginning of the movie with the infected dog wandering around the camp and then going in someone's room. We only see a silhouette of the person in the room and maybe before HD it was much harder to tell who that is. I think its clearly Norris in that room.

Later in the movie, there is a moment when Norris is asked to take charge of things and Gary hands him his gun but Norris turns it down and doesn't want the responsibility. So if we assume that Norris is infected, why did he turn it down?

  • It could be that the thing wants to hide and by turning down the gun it only gains more trust from the others.

  • It could be that Norris who doesn't know he is infected really doesn't want the responsibility but the thing doesn't understand what the gun is? Like the thing is "in the backseat" of his mind but can take over whenever they want.

IDK its fun to think about

3

alcervix t1_iugflc1 wrote

Interesting , I'll have to watch again to see that scene

9

Pitiful-Let9270 t1_iugghc4 wrote

I usually like to wait for it to snow to watch the thing. May have to make an exception.

6

JoshuaCalledMe t1_iugp3yr wrote

I always saw the noose as Blair kind of saying 'fuck you' to everyone who locked him up, like saying 'you left me rope, I can make a noose, not killing myself because I'm not losing my mind'. It's there to make a point, however clumsily.

In the commentary, which is well worth a listen, Carpenter muses on identity during an earlier scene with Norris, where Garry offers him the gun and he doesn't want it. Carpenter wondered if Norris felt something was wrong with him and didn't trust himself with the responsibility for some reason, which also led to thoughts on if you're so perfectly copied by the thing, do you even know you're not you?

This in turn feeds into Palmer's response to the blood test He's completely himself tying the bodies up (they're dead Mac!), but once that hot wire comes to his petri dish, he has a sudden look of complete resignation. Not fear, not threat, not panic at his imminent discovery, but resignation, like 'oh... well, that's that then'.

Which then leads to the brilliant ending and if the survivors even know if they are or are not copies.

Also in the commentary, Carpenter talks about bad test screenings for the ambiguous finale, so they filmed an ending where Mac is rescued and has a blood test revealing he's not the thing. Would love to see it.

9

CMelody t1_iugu7qs wrote

I'd love to watch an alternate ending, but the finale was one of the best parts of the film!

8

Dr_Herbert_Wangus t1_iuinaca wrote

Your analysis gave me a spooky thought - what if Blair had already used the noose? What if the Thing got to him while he hung there dead, slithered him out of the noose after assimilation, and subsequently had the conversation with Mac?

9

BoredOfBordellos t1_iuja004 wrote

I think it has to assimilate living organic tissue not dead. But I could be wrong about that and it could be there’s a certain amount of time within the life of the cells “decay” that it can still assimilate.

2

atomicsnarl t1_iugn0li wrote

I've always wondered why, if the alien was smart enough to mimic/occupy a human, why it just didn't communicate that way and say "take me to your leader" or some such.

Really! Or did the alien(s) who piloted the ship die and this thing was a space flea infestation?

7

SouthernEast7719 t1_iugpja5 wrote

I like the idea The Thing was a invader on the ship as well, maybe the pilots were trying to escape it after finding it on some planet and the ship crashed after they were taken over...

16

MattyKatty t1_iuh404m wrote

> I've always wondered why, if the alien was smart enough to mimic/occupy a human, why it just didn't communicate that way and say "take me to your leader" or some such.

"This thing doesn't want to show itself, it wants to hide inside an imitation. It'll fight if it has to, but it's vulnerable out in the open." - Macready

It's too scared to do that, and it knows it can win if it hides successfully in people.

16

dudinax t1_iugxvf6 wrote

I always assumed the thing infected the ship and (indirectly) caused the crash.

9

gomjabar2 t1_iuh1nqk wrote

It knew how to construct similar under Blair's cabin. Also my personal idea is that luckily it didn't make itself something small (like a cockroach) and just hide out till spring.

4

smappyfunball t1_iuh3s7m wrote

I assumed the craft it was building under the shack was just to get it to civilization, not back to space. I doubt it could build an interstellar ship from helicopter and snow plow parts

8

SchrodingerMil t1_iuitvme wrote

It couldn’t have hid as a roach or something due to the cold of Antarctica. You have to remember it was frozen when the Norwegians found it.

1

Mazuna t1_iuidct7 wrote

Part of it is I think you’re applying some kind of human logic to an unknowable “thing”. It’s mimicry only extended so far as to keep itself safe. It’s motivations are not for us to know and it could even be said that it’s mimicry is purely instinctual and it’s not even consciously trying to trick people, it’s just as natural to it as breathing is to us.

It may be able to mimic humans but not understand them, like a parrot repeating a phrase.

3

KaiG1987 t1_iujqe30 wrote

I definitely always assumed that the Thing was not the original creator of the spaceship it arrived on.

The fact that it crashed in the most remote and inhospitable area on the planet suggests that maybe the crew crashed there on purpose after realising they were infected. Maybe the Thing had managed to influence them to travel to a garden world like Earth in the first place, but they were able to sabotage its plans at the last minute.

2

Linubidix t1_iuh0zy4 wrote

I'm impressed after so many viewings, you'd never noticed it.

7

BestFluffyPancakes t1_iugm9h5 wrote

I thought it absorbed the intelligence of the people it assimilated. If it didn't, couldn't you spot it by asking, "What's the name of your wife?" or, "What did we have for dinner last night?"

6

pjs1975 t1_iugs1ar wrote

Maybe while it's copying someone, it's exactly copying everything, knows what they know, but once it changes, it can no longer remember that version of itself because it's no longer structured that way. Also when it's just blood getting into someone's food or whatever, there's no way it's that smart right?

2

SplinterPizza t1_iuilal8 wrote

>Maybe while it's copying someone, it's exactly copying everything, knows what they know, but once it changes, it can no longer remember that version of itself because it's no longer structured that way

We can only go off what the film shows us.

And nothing suggests this in the film. It's relatively straight forward. It's perfect doppelgangers. Once they find out who is the Thing it doesn't make sense for it to switch back to that disguise.

1

Dispositionpsn t1_iughaqe wrote

I've always seen the noose but I never thought about it that way. I just thought he made it in case he wanted to kill himself. If he was already taken over though, couldn't the thing just mutate into something and ooze out a small window or something?

4

HorrorMovieFan45 t1_iugjpmg wrote

***Spoilers *** (I don’t know how to do the thing where you hide the text.)

The Thing is in the shack because it has a lair underneath (which McReady later finds) where it has been collecting the parts it’s been taking and is building a ship.

7

badger81987 t1_iuitci2 wrote

Pretty sure it dug the pit while being left ignored in the shack. Unobserved, it could mutate out any feature that would be effective at excavation or escape to go gather parts.

0

pjs1975 t1_iugrk9t wrote

But neither character talks about the noose. I think Mac is just dealing with crazier and crazier situations every minute, he's not letting Blair out no matter what he says or does.

Blair is either lying to get back inside, or genuinely wants back in, Mac just gives him some alcohol and says "Trust in the Lord." To me it's ambiguous but not because of the noose, because Mac is treating him like a human, but still not trusting Blair enough to let him out of jail.

The noose could mean anything really. He could have chickened out, a Thing could have taken him over prior to him completing the suicide, heck he could be a Thing that doesn't know he's a Thing making a noose, or he's a Thing knowingly making a noose for sympathy. It could be the Thing making a noose so that Mac would think he's still too crazy to let inside, but secretly wants Mac to leave him so he can finish his Saucer.

3

FlibV1 t1_iuh0337 wrote

I wonder if the Thing can replicate dead people?

Maybe Blair had already killed himself and the creature saw it as an easy chance to replicate someone.

3

dog_superiority t1_iui6wbh wrote

Seems to me that if the Thing can understand the importance of blood in the refrigerator, then it can understand nooses.

3

Toadman005 t1_iuib9eo wrote

I always interpreted it as Blair had it to kill himself, and the Thing absorbed him, and the "Blair" that has that convo with Macready is already the Thing. And that it was a visual clue to viewers that he was not human, and Macready missed it.

3

bekilledoff t1_iugiwbk wrote

Neat alternative theory for the noose. I'd never considered that Blair was transformed while in captivity. Makes sense and like many things in the film, we'll never know the truth lol

2

badger81987 t1_iuitjry wrote

It's the perfect cover really, leave a mimic or two with the group to keep them distracted/turn them while it makes a new ship underground unobserved.

2

SplinterPizza t1_iuikh2r wrote

>indeed having that conversation with a being that doesn't even understand what a noose is.

Where does this line of thinking come from? You see this kind of logic to justify all sorts of fan theories in the The Thing... But literally nothing could possibly suggest that.

The creature can perfectly mimic humans down to their DNA. It clearly has their thoughts, memories, etc. For all we know when it's in Human form it might still retain the actual consciousness of the person it's replicated. Meaning they don't even know they're the Thing.

What we do know is the film shows us that it's a perfect replica of a person down to the mannerisms. It understands what a noose is. It understands what alcohol tastes like.

2

Bottom-Shelf t1_iuime5h wrote

The Thing loves to stir conflicts and point the finger. Watch Palmer and Norris when Macready is trying to get inside when locked out. At that point they’re fully assimilated and are diverting everyone’s attention.

So, I see it as a very logical theory that the noose was used by Blair since he knew the implications and when assimilated, it tried to use the imagery of the noose as motivation for Mac to let him back in otherwise he’ll “commit suicide” which has already taken place.

After all he feels “much better now.”

2

BaboonHorrorshow t1_iuj4fj1 wrote

Yes! As someone who’s seen the movie dozens of times, this is a great take. It creates such paranoia - is Blair willing to kill himself to keep himself from being eaten by the Thing, or is he already gone?

This sense of constant dread is why The Thing may be my favorite all time movie

2

spygentlemen t1_iujx64c wrote

I'm pretty sure Blair killed himself and the Thing assimilated his corpse to be honest. Blaire is acting differently than normal, which despite the fact he would have been doped up some, he had a complete breakdown a few scenes earlier and was doing everything he could to make sure no one could escape.

The last thing he says when we see him after they isolate him in the shack is "Watch Clark". Despite being doped up to keep him calm, you can still see he's dead serious and terrified. Next time we see him, he isn't terrified and just appears a little crazy. But the issue the brief conversation he has.

He wants to come back in and is suddenly big on self preservation. It's Brimley's last scene with any dialogue, but its incredibly telling because Blair knew everyone had to die, and was setting everyone up to die for the greater good. The Blair they speak to in the shack later, basically wants to save himself.

I believe it was the thing purposely playing everything off to make him look crazy to keep the others from bothering it while it was attempting to make itself an escape ship just in case it couldn't win.

We never knew if the Thing was able to communicate with other portions to itself, but considering Palmer and Norris were already infected I always assumed it was communicating with itself and one party was working on the escape ship, and the other party was working on keeping the remaining humans paranoid and scared while trying to assimilate them.

Just a theory of mine.

2

aram182 t1_iuh2q42 wrote

Thing was not native from the alien space ship. Aliens seems to be some kind of dna collectors who somehow unfortunately picked up the thing virus or whatever form it was. At appears that mid was it attacked them and crash landed.

As for noose I don’t know. However mcready drinking from the vodka bottle was always strange to me. Because earlier Fuchs recommend everyone to eat from the seperate cans. So technically mcready could be infected from the Blair / also could infect him, if basing in some theories that mcready was also infected.

1

Alive_Ice7937 t1_iuhujos wrote

>Thing, and MacReady is indeed having that conversation with a being that doesn't even understand what a noose is. Brilliant to create that kind of ambiguity.

Given the way the other characters that have been replaced act it seems that the Thing also acquires the knowledge of whatever it assimilates. (Otherwise it couldn't perfectly imitate the behaviour to fool the others). So if Blair was The Thing at that point it knew what a noose was. And if it's still just Blair then him ignoring it still makes sense. So a thing imitating him and ignoring it wouldn't be giving itself away since its consistent with Blair's previous behaviour.

1

MKdemonSW t1_iui15wx wrote

I noticed it the other night when I was watching it myself

1

MKdemonSW t1_iui2g54 wrote

I love the thing and I watch the prequel too see I didn't burst into flames. (Bursts into flames screaming) no seriously I like both movies and idc who knows lol

1

HappyCoincidence t1_iui5w6a wrote

I thought it was just a worse case option if the camp completely fell to the Thing. Unfortunately, it looks like it didn't work because he was somehow assimilated before being able to use it.

1

RedPillNavigator t1_iui5xzt wrote

When Blair asked to come inside he was already turned. He didn't acknowledge the noose because the Fuchs-Thing had just turned him. After leaving that is when he started digging

1

Sensitive-Menu-4580 t1_iui80ah wrote

I had the extreme pleasure of seeing The Thing (1982) remastered and in theaters recently, I can't imagine missing the noose but on a small screen it might pass by. I love the idea that Blair doesn't acknowledge the noose bc he's already the Thing who doesn't understand it. Incorporating that into my headcanon now, thanks OP

1

darthvirgin OP t1_iuikk81 wrote

Not sure why so many people are commenting on not noticing the noose. I never suggested I missed it. My post is about the interpretation. It’s literally centre of the frame from both angles the scene is shot at. It’s impossible to miss

2

CineCraftKC t1_iuj5bs2 wrote

I think Blair was already the thing when he destroyed the radio. Because it 1) isolated everyone from calling for help 2) convinced the others he wasn't the thing because of his motives seemed human and 3) it was a great pretext to isolate him, which is what the Thing wanted so it could work without being disturbed. I think everything after that was part of the Thing's act. Blair was its insurance, because even as the others were converted, and exposed, the Thing always had Blair as its secret host.

1

Funny_Science_9377 t1_iuk22du wrote

Maybe it’s just that Blair is so old school that he figured if he was the last man standing at the camp he would hang himself before he could be copied.

Also, regarding the 2000’s prequel my main objection is to the melting two faced corpse that the Americans find in the original movie. In the newer movie it’s a very graphic scene where the one Thing mashes his face into the other guy’s. That’s not how I ever pictured that Thing being created. The original artists clearly mean it to be a single melting face and the new movie changes that for this far less “believable” reason.

1

Ok-Needleworker-4818 t1_iuk7118 wrote

Well the thing would know what a noose is just like it knows what clothes are or how to use a doorknob. It knows everything the life forms it replicates know. So it is possible the thing left the noose up hoping the others would let him come in out of concern. Great scene for sure.

1

frankzzlackz t1_iugfr4y wrote

Yeah, the noose is almost invisible if you’ve never heard about it before. Such a great moment. I’d watched the movie a dozen times on various TVs, but it took a trip to a real theater for a midnight screening for me to see that the Dr. Copper has a very slender, gold nose ring in his face for the whole movie.

0

parkwayy t1_iugh2qb wrote

Invisible?... It's framed almost dead center.

Watched this for the first time the other day, and it was almost inexplicable why no one even mentioned it.

Felt like just a weird 80's movie thing. Like how all they do in this research base is just drink hard liquor.

22

Dispositionpsn t1_iugidmh wrote

I was gonna say the same thing but I didn't want to come off cocky lol. The noose is completely noticable, and not even close to invisible.

I do like the second theory the OP came up with tho.

4

frankzzlackz t1_iugwo0o wrote

Must be nice to see it on today’s nice big screens with high definition. In my day, we had to watch movies on 22 inches of curved glass, usually sitting at a funny angle, TEN FEET AWAY with our parents constantly telling us to get up and bring the dog in, get up and get me a Pepsi, get up and answer the phone!

You kids with your noticeable noose. HOW DARE YOU?

4

Uncle_Sasquatch t1_iugrc7q wrote

I watched this again just last night. We were laughing about the whole, "what is it they're even researching?" thing. And how an Antarctic research station has a bunch of guns behind glass and a flamethrower.

1

badger81987 t1_iuiu37k wrote

Typically weather research.

>And how an Antarctic research station has a bunch of guns behind glass and a flamethrower.

They only have the one revolver, likely a personal possession. The flamethrowers would have been for ice and snow clearance.

1

johnjames_34 t1_iuhcmd5 wrote

My all time favorite horror movie. I wish I could just go back in time without depression and see it again.

0