HOME | DD

crazygoji In reply to iloveabby64 [2009-02-15 03:44:53 +0000 UTC]

There is no "true form" at all.


If anything, it's some...small...cell...thing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Koverus In reply to PepsiFiend13 [2007-10-22 20:54:04 +0000 UTC]

thanks, so many people have added this, i think i will have to redraw it, as it is one of my older pieces... well, all the stuff on here is old now that i think of it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PepsiFiend13 In reply to Koverus [2007-10-22 22:52:10 +0000 UTC]

i would like to see another , its like the only alien the thing iv seen all others are the fantastic four the thing

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

NorthStarIo In reply to russetwolf13 [2012-01-20 08:37:48 +0000 UTC]

Yeah! The whole movie is great! You have to remember though, The Thing doesn't necessarily need to be centered - since it mixes and matches all of the species parts to make an efficient trap/ new animal/ killing technique when it transforms so it might not be symmetrical at all. It could in fact be all over the place.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

russetwolf13 In reply to NorthStarIo [2012-01-21 00:17:23 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, but a blob of teeth and shit isn't as scary as a blob of teeth made out of your best friend's abdomen.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

NorthStarIo In reply to russetwolf13 [2012-01-24 16:39:54 +0000 UTC]

Yeah I know, I was just saying it doesn't have to be symmetrical.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

russetwolf13 In reply to NorthStarIo [2012-01-24 22:16:11 +0000 UTC]

Who said anything about symmetrical?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

NorthStarIo In reply to russetwolf13 [2012-01-24 23:31:36 +0000 UTC]

You said centered and then followed it up by talking about The Thing's shape and structure. Maybe there was a mis-understanding and you meant centered in a different way?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

russetwolf13 In reply to NorthStarIo [2012-01-24 23:45:18 +0000 UTC]

Well, that was 2008, so I've no idea.

But what I could have been talking about is the fact that it's just sort of a random assemblage of limbs and mouths with no real reason to it.

The Thing can become anything it wants, and it wants to be whatever it's imitating. It doesn't exist in any sort of natural state besides that. So taking on a form that's recognizable as a Thing is not deliberate, it's a rushed defense mechanism.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

NorthStarIo In reply to russetwolf13 [2012-01-26 04:14:52 +0000 UTC]

That is kinda true. Who knows if its rushed though. I mean, there is some theory that it mentally evolves through it's prey - which is possible. I mean, If I was the thing, I'd mix and match a bunch of parts to create the most efficient killing machine at the time of assimilation.
I always thought that it wasn't something that naturally evolved on a planet somewhere but was instead created in an alien lab. I mean Prometheus is supposed to explain a secret about the Xenomorph - which is also an ecosystem destroying organism. I love ecology and even though it's science fiction I love to look deeper. Meaning I don't think something that encroaching or invasive would just evolve.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Koverus In reply to NorthStarIo [2012-10-09 13:23:04 +0000 UTC]

I had no idea my drawing spawned such a debate, but since its here ill toss my two cents in, even though its a few months to late. From what I recall of "The Thing" It would assimilate its host one cell at a time, and each cell was in itself a single living entity (recall the blood test scene) working together to create one body. From what I remember of its transformation, It's changes were random with the only purpose being to weaponize the whole body. Most of the other changes seemed to be random side effects of this. This drawing was based on the final form in the film, where its body was made of a conglomeration of other bodies.
Personally I always viewed the creature as an embodiment of chaos, its only purpose to consume and destroy.
I think we should all watch the movie again though, and I need to redraw this...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

NorthStarIo In reply to Koverus [2012-10-10 02:02:34 +0000 UTC]

I agree with you. I own it and have watched it plenty of times though. I mean, its obviously not peaceful and is like "mmkay guys, I'll only freak out and do that weird thing if you try to hurt me ..." Lol I mean if you pay attention to its natrual weapons, such as the flower from the dog - it is actually made of overlapping dog tongues and teeth on the inside. It mashes up parts to make a more effective killing machine.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

russetwolf13 In reply to NorthStarIo [2012-01-26 23:53:16 +0000 UTC]

I have no idea what all that evolution nonsense is supposed to mean, or what it has to do with anything we've said.

But since the Thing is obviously intelligent, and it's a shapeshifter, the most efficient killing form would still be that of a friend or ally, whom you've preferably killed already.

A multiarmed multimouthed monstrosity would be a terribly inefficient in comparison.

I mean, the movie flat out tells you that it mostly does that monstery thing in reaction to physical damage, not out of any attempt at strategic murdering.

You think it would have done this [link] if it had a choice in the matter. It would have been much better to just take the shocks and come back to life, or play dead and wait till it's not surrounded by armed men.

Only at the beginning and end does it take on a form that's not human on purpose.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

NorthStarIo In reply to russetwolf13 [2012-01-27 05:12:26 +0000 UTC]

The beginning and the end prove that though ... you seem to think it had a heart attack because it copies Norris's genetic illnesses as well as himself. Firstly, this is all a matter of opinion now that we've gone this far and, not to call you out or be a complete asshole, but it seems you have your guard up or something. Its understandable that 90 percent of the people you talk to on the internet are over aggressive, childish, or trolls so therefore one can assume that this net guy you talk to will be another asshole - just a note: I'm not one of them.

Now firstly, in my opinion his heart attack doesn't have to be genetic ... it could have been a clot. Which in case, is not your organic material or your DNA in any way, so it wouldn't copy it.

I say, it transformed not a reaction, but because John wrote in the script that it will transform at that moment. Saying this, bad media or good media, it also brings the prequel into the discussion (along the lines that we are talking about the universe within the movies rather than out). In that movie it transforms at multiple inappropriate times and kills many unexpecting humans and still gets away.

In the original movie it kills the man left in the storage room in a form that resembled a ball of tentacles. I doubt that it picked up a knife and stabbed him but rather created an advantage through some organic apparatus use for killing. In order to absorb a full grown human, while in a full grown human state, it will have to undergo drastic physical change in the first place so why not accommodate the absorption with "a multi mouthed monstrosity' able to take in more mass than a human form can.

But again, the movie is flawed.

In that scene, when the thing assimilates that man, therefore adding its mass onto him or vice versa, it leaves the room in a size big enough only for one of them. We know this is not possible unless the Thing compacted (densified) the human form and therefore made the man an imperfect replica. In a perfect world it would have split and went in two directions or became something much larger.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

russetwolf13 In reply to NorthStarIo [2012-01-29 10:53:48 +0000 UTC]

You made a pointless argument that had nothing to do with what we'd said so far, I dismissed it, end of story.

Now, first off, "because the director said so" is a cop out, so take that right off the table. And while you're at it, as far as I care there is no prequal to John Carpenter's The Thing, so let's burn that bitch till it has not even cellular life within it.

If Norris had a heart condition, and the Thing imitated him perfectly, then it would have said heart condition, pure and simple. As a perfect imitation it would be subject to the limitations of the person it was imitating, and if it suffered a heart attack it would be unable to move without "breaking character", which it was forced to.

It never takes on a nonhuman form without reason. Assimilating Bennings it did not have a full human sized biomass to work with, after both bodies had been badly burned, the vast majority of it's biomass had been destroyed. What mass it had would easily be hidden in a single human body with little notice, a mere thickening of the intestinal walls would have been enough overall. It needed Bennings as a means of recovering, it had no choice in the manner with which it did this.

But, ultimatly it doesn't need to pick up a knife, but it can, and neither does it need to grow extra limbs. Toward the end it easily kills Gary without becoming even mildly inhuman, since it had no need to do so. Growing extra mouths no more creats a more efficient killing machin that surgically implanting knives into your stomach would make you more capable of stabbing a man.

Anything it could do with a monstrous form it could do more easily with a perfectly human seeming form. Though it did, at one point, take in a large amount of mass in order to kill a man. But not because this form was the choice it wanted to make, it was simply the option open to it.

It could have imitated Nauls and Gary both, but the time that would take would clue MacReady in pretty much instantly, so there was no point in wasting the time.

The movie's not flawed, you just weren't watching closely.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

NorthStarIo In reply to russetwolf13 [2012-01-29 21:22:18 +0000 UTC]

SO, before I read the rest of your comment - you can't take my opinion so THAT'S why your arguing with me? Because you've clearly dismissed mine and also saying "end of story" like that actually has an effect. Your upset. I'm not. End of story lol.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

russetwolf13 In reply to NorthStarIo [2012-01-29 21:37:19 +0000 UTC]

Can't take your opinion? Your opinion had nothing to do with anything?

Certainly I could mindlessly and abruply blurt out my love of french toast like a fucking psycho, that wouldn't make it relevant to what the hell is going on.

I'm still on the fence about wether or not you're a moron.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

NorthStarIo In reply to russetwolf13 [2012-01-30 04:09:13 +0000 UTC]

It's easy to see your a troll. A very bad one too. Anyone with half a brain could tell that my "mindless moron talking" is called conversation and intelligent debate. Your avoiding the topic and it's to see what kind of person you are by looking through your previous comments to other works. If you want an end of story, why continue talking to me. I'll grant you that, knowing that you handled this situation poorly.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

russetwolf13 In reply to NorthStarIo [2012-02-01 00:56:09 +0000 UTC]

I love how you somehow deem yourself qualified to rate trolls.

I'll rate your "intelligent debate" at "horrifyingly low standards".

Here, let's directly confront your point about the Thing not evolving naturally, but first you have to explain WHAT THE FUCK THAT HAS TO DO WITH ANYTHING I, OR YOU, HAVE EVER SAID!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

NorthStarIo In reply to russetwolf13 [2012-02-01 03:33:05 +0000 UTC]

I honestly don't understand what you don't understand. I'm trying to make my point clear but I see we have kinda reached and impasse since we believe two separate things. You believe the transformation is a defense mechanism. I don't. Firstly, humans defensive mechanisms are learned, right? Like martial arts, weaponry, stuff like that. You admitted that the creature was intelligent right? So why would it have a primitive sense of danger and therefore act out in a primitive way?

I could see your point with the electrocution, where it might have not been able to understand what was happening and translated the electric shock to an attack and therefore defended itself. But that would defeat the point of the blood test scene wouldn't it?

Kurt Russel explains that every piece of the creature is a living animal with an instinct to survive on ITS OWN. If the creature hadn't 'mentally evolved', like what I was saying, it wouldn't have been able to grasp that it's identity had been compromised. It wasn't 'under attack' in that scene. Only the thing blood reacted and tried to save itself. So it shouldn't have made the thing transform unless it knew it was ABOUT to be attacked. Do you see what i'm saying? (I don't believe it's one of those sci-fi hive mind's either)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

russetwolf13 In reply to NorthStarIo [2012-02-08 02:35:35 +0000 UTC]

What the fuck are you rambling about?

"Intelligent" does not translate to"knowing alien kung fu". Nevermind the fact that people don't tend to respond rationally to being electrocuted.

How that defeats the point of the blood test is beyond me. In what world your logic seems sound, I can't even comprehend it.

The blood test scene directly stemmed from the scene where Norris transforms. Did you even watch the movie? MacReady gets his entire blood test idea from that scene, and he's proved right in the next, when it's attacked the Thing can't control itself anymore.

I still have no idea what point you're trying to make about it 'mentally evolving' whatever the fuck that means.

Palmer's outed, so it transforms to acquire more powerful muscles and various attack advantages. But it did this because it didn't have a choice in the matter, hiding wasn't an option anymore. If it could have it would have pretended to be Palmer till doomsday or a better opportunity arose.

Whatever your point is, my point is simple. The Thing never willingly takes on a nonhuman form, it's always forced to do so either because it's under attack, or it's disguise has failed. The whole reason it's cautious about absorbing people is fear of being caught out of it's disguise.

That's the entire point of the movie, the stated modus operendi of the Thing in the damned movie. This is a rare case where there's literally no room for interpretation, that's just what it is!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

NorthStarIo In reply to russetwolf13 [2012-02-08 04:44:44 +0000 UTC]

I would say your right but I see it from a different perspective. That is the perspective of everyone who was killed by The Thing. Which it never showed. To keep the suspense, it never showed it assimilating its prey? How do you think it did that?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Koverus In reply to KailinShadowen [2007-05-23 03:03:40 +0000 UTC]

yea... i saw that when i was 8 or so, and that was the only part i could remember... stays with me to this day...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1