The Thing

The Thing (1982)

1 suggested correction

(10 votes)

Other mistake: When Doc uses a computer to watch/simulate dog cells being assimilated by a "thing" cell, we can see a single cell fusing with multiple dog cells to imitate them. This process would lead to the dog being digested until it remains only one cell, and not to the replacement of all of its cells by the imitators. (00:40:30 - 00:41:25)

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: The computer simulation isn't showing just one cell taking over an entire dog, but showing how the creature can get the genetic makeup of whatever it touches and replicate it perfectly.

envisaged0ne

I think it's fair to consider this a goof. John Carpenter states on the director's commentary his goal through this sequence was to demonstrate the life cycle of the Thing, and acknowledges that the visual isn't accurate for that purpose.

TonyPH

Pretty much the entire rest of the movie unfolds as though the simulation showcased the Thing spreading / multiplying: it's followed by text saying the entire human population could become "infected" after a certain amount of time; it's not until after this scene that anyone besides Blair is worried that one or more of them has been taken over. It's a valid movie mistake because the movie itself seems to assume the audience saw something different than what was actually shown.

TonyPH

Plot hole: It's never explicitly stated or shown that the Thing reproduces with each victim until the movie is nearly over (when Palmer infects Windows). Most viewers figure it out from the context, but it's unclear just when and how the characters themselves have come to this conclusion. This was an inadvertent result of an editing decision and a visual goof: there is a deleted scene in which Blair explains much more directly that the Thing multiplies according to how many victims it takes, and in its place in the final film is a scene containing a computer simulation that director John Carpenter acknowledges was a failed attempt at explaining the organism's life cycle.

TonyPH

More mistakes in The Thing

Clark: I dunno what the hell's in there, but it's weird and pissed off, whatever it is.

More quotes from The Thing

Trivia: The TV edit of the film differs widely from the theatrical release - lots of footage was purposely edited out, such as when the dead Norwegian on the table blinks, and there is also a narration. Director John Carpenter has publicly stated that he finds the TV edit embarrassing and a disgrace to his movie.

More trivia for The Thing

Question: Was the huge monster McReady encounters, and subsequently blows up, the actual "default" form of the Thing? After all, the correspondent DVD chapter is titled "The Real Thing". Yes, they do say that the Thing could've imitated millions of different lifeforms, but it must've had a form to begin with.

Answer: At the end, the large creature presented itself as an amalgam of beings it had absorbed-part Blair, part dog, and various other beings with tentacles, insect-like legs, and a worm-like body. I don't believe that we really ever see what its true form is, if it has one.

Erik M.

Answer: In the book, it was vaguely humanoid with blue rubbery skin, a head of writhing tentacles, and 3 glowing red eyes. There is a picture of it in Barlowe's Guide to Extraterrestrials by Wayne Barlowe.

Grumpy Scot

More questions & answers from The Thing

Join the mailing list

Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.