Made this vid early last year. Posting now while I'm busy working on my book and game. You may also notice a lot of my vids are no longer searchable on YT. I'm taking anything that the YT algo no longer recommends to new viewers and making those vids still free to watch, but accessible only by their links on my website. Along with other free material on my site that's never been on YT at all, you'll find dozens of hrs of extra vids and articles, alongside a couple of hundred hrs worth of items that can be ordered as dl's. Site link in video description. Cheers folks. Hope you enjoy. Rob :)
@@lepterfirefall I def know that if I post a couple of short experimental vids the algo recommendations plummet. A shame because I often consider those experimental vids much more important than the usual film analysis stuff. That's why I'm shifting my gaming vids over to the Ager Games channel too. Might even make one of my channels exclusively for psychology only content.
On the shot with the blow up doll at MacReady's computer, is the icon on his computer supposed to represent a Trojan Horse? Isnt that a wonderful metaphor for The Thing? Sneaking its way in somewhere hiding inside something else. Trojan Horse, baby!
yes! nailed it on why you chose not to use 'black' and 'white' or refer to the US as 'America'. well done, sir. excellent channel. really top notch, Mr Ager.
I seek out your work and am more than happy to check your website for your new material. I can't think of a better way of controlling the algorithm that wants so badly to control you! Thanks for all you do!
For both reasons: 1. Killing it to prevent imitation 2. Mercy killing Remember, this is an actual existential threat to all of humanity. MacReady had a generalized understanding of the modus operandi of this alien species... This is why Rob Ager gives it proper context.
1:01:25 Regarding the generator, honestly, the most chilling scene of the film is them realizing that Blair *TOOK* the generator and destroyed it. "The generator's gone." "Any way we can we fix it?" "It's *GONE* , MacReady." That generator had to have been pretty damn large and heavy, which makes finding out that it's literally gone all the more terrifying.
This is one scene I wish we got an establishing shot on. If we had seen the basement when the base was still 100% it would have made that scene sink in more
For many years as a fan I cherished the moment of Garry commenting, "It's GONE MacReady" as if implying that the generator has been physically removed. When watching it with my friend who is a bit of an engineer he says, no the generator is still physically there, just ripped up. Kinda ruined that treasured moment for me :(
I watched it the other day and the generator is still there, the "it's GONE" line is just to highlight how messed up and out of commission the generator is.
My late mother took me to see the thing in 1982, the cashier literally spent 3 minutes trying to talk my mother out of letting me in...even offering to give the money back. I was 13 & LOVED it. I was amazed at adults getting up and walking out first dog thing. Never ONCE, in my dozens of times watching this film since, did i think that the film was racialized in any way!!
It's all on the dog scene for sure. Anyone I show this film damn near vomit or try to leave. It's like the grossest bit of the movie too they really weren't messing around
@@arhexirthesnake I was drunk and also innocently asked her if she was lesbian, cause she was butch ..that didn't go down well either , Turns out she was into men and didn't much care for lesbos , pretty disastrous conversation , I was trying liberal conversation with a danish nationist:)
Religion, politics, race, sex, gender, economics... this film transcends them all. Why? If the organism reached civilization, none of it would matter. There would be nothing left. Just a planet with imitation life.
@@collativelearning Cards on the table, here: my general worldview is very liberal, but I do agree with your assessment that as far as this film is concerned, many of the subtexts or motivations that people are trying to shoehorn in simply don't fit. Your comparison of the Thing being akin to a black hole that consumes indiscriminately is quite appropriate - it doesn't care if you're black, white, gay, straight. trans, bi, rich, poor, left, right, whatever. And this is reflected in the writing - it's very "big picture," the fate of all life on the planet is at stake.
These old school serious film analysis videos that lack any fancy schmancy editing/background music are always such a comfort to watch. Ironically, they have this unsettling vibe about them and this documentary vibe, which feels like the topic at hand is an actual real life thing and not just a movie or show. Idk, these vids are always so intriguing and comforting to watch for me while idk, drawing, building legos, etc... Also bro, your voice is impeccable
I enjoy guys like Mauler and the Little Platoon who use the more frenetic editing and joke insert style you mention but I see your point, Rob has a very distinctive analytical voice and his style definitely lends him a more mature and academic feel.
It's quite convenient because I can't be bothered with meaningless editing embellishments like swipt sound effects and unnecessary eye candy CGI graphics. If what you're saying is interesting people can visualize it anyway, which makes the experience more personal to them .In fact I often switch off any video I click on that has all those by the numbers excessive editing tropes. It's clutter that distracts from whatever good stuff they might be saying. Cheers :)
@@collativelearningexactly!! Idk, it's weird, I'm only 16 and it's odd that I am so into this type of content, i've always assumed that the modern way of making RUclips vids (incredibly embellished with fast paced everything, annoying sound effects, chill/upbeat background music, etc.. from RUclipsrs like Mr. Beast or something) are all so that children or people my age won't get bored easily and zone out/exit the video because most people have quite unfortunately very short attention spans nowadays takes to TikTok lol but like, I remember man, I looooved watching all your Full Metal Jacket analysis videos, oh and the Pulp Fiction Golden Watch one. I just love how seriously you take it, it's like we are uncovering a mystery, like archeologists trying to piece together a story based on clues etched all around a cave. Like it's so fun listening, finding out about hidden things on the screen that I won't notice on my own and learning about different theories based on the hidden things from a movie, it's so eerie, to see how there might be things hidden in plain sight that can drastically change the meaning of the story or show a perhaps different perspective that the movie makers cheekily hid just for the sole purpose of maybe someday, analytical people can find and revel about it
@@_neon-xeon_3966 If you're thinking like that at 16 you're way ahead :) I've actually been considering making a video about all those phony video editing tropes.
@@frankenjstein9371 I feel like that might not be true considering there are transcriptions/translations that make perfect sense as far as I'm aware. It'd be pretty strange if some gibberish they made up fit so perfectly.
The norwigian guy , how get Shot in the beginning , was a born German . It sounds a little bit German . His Name is Norbert Weisser . As a German I den das , many acters in Filme , how play germans , are Not German . You can hear that ,because of there Funny German speaking .sorry for the Bad english...I am German. .
1:09:04 No, the time setting isn't vague. After the opening credits and right before the opening shot of the cliff, the movie clearly states that this takes place in Antarctica, Winter 1982. After the encounter with the Norwegians, MacReady remarks that it's the first week of winter.
@@octagonseventynine1253 Sure thing: Stevie Richards Show, (Wrestling podcast and analysis from former WWE wrestler) TheChoiceVoice, (Casual guy just reviewing movies and being blunt and honest, pretty funny as well.) Solidrev, (Another casual guy reviews games and is also quite blunt and funny to listen to.) JesterBell (Former professional comic reviewer, gives a lot of news on what's going on within the entertainment industry, what the problems are, and points out some of the flaws in modern mainstream entertainment. Also reviews movies and shows. Her uploads are quite consistent, having videos coming out every couple of days.) Those are my personal recommendations. If you don't like them, I'm sure you can find plenty. RUclips dislikes people being honest and not always playing by the terrible algorithm's rules.
When it comes to breaking down embedded psychology in films, Rob Ager is second to none. When it comes to breaking down embedded socio-political commentary in films, or socio-politics in general, particuarly when it comes to U.S. socio-politics, Rob is out of the loop and talking out of his depths.
If you express relief when your blood test comes out clean, it's not because you're unsure of yourself but just that other people have seen that you're clean.
Even as a queer person myself, I never once interpreted any homosexual or homophobic themes from this movie. It seems like way too much of a logical leap.
Dude idk what he was talking about there, I haven't seen a single bit of evidence supporting that or even a review saying it that weird gender wars rant he went on seemed so out of left field, what the fuck was that about?
It's a mistake to assume that the spaceship in the beginning of the film belongs to the Thing. Blair-Thing attempting to make his own craft, being a 100% indication that the previous craft originated from the Thing's race, remains a tenuous assumption. In fact, that the first spacecraft appears to be in distress and crashes on Earth, may be an indication that the Thing 'escaped' or had been 'let loose' and assimilated the non-Thing alien race that actually originated the first craft. Like many things, we are left, intentionally, to wonder about these possibilities. Great video, as always.
@collativelearning I'd speculate it's like the Xenomorph. A biological weapon designed to eliminate an entire species while leaving the infrastructure.
Creatives frequently leave things open to interpretation which drives lore nerds mad decades later , he must have meant x truth is he didn't he wanted the viewer to decide , maybe he didn't even really know him self
I’m surprised in the Dangers of Science section you didn’t mention the conversation between Windows and Bennings. They are in a room with the Thing as it’s defrosting and Windows says (I’m paraphrasing) Why don’t we burn that thing? Bennings replies “Are you kidding? That’s going to win someone the Nobel prize.” So, the motivation is to benefit science and scientists, rather than do, what seems to be, the common sense thing, and destroy something that is dangerous and unknown. The result is that Bennings is instantly killed, with the Thing trying to absorb him and imitate him.
As for Childs: I used to think he was a Thing. however: throughout the film he looked only after himself. The POV shot before he is seen walking into the night before the lights go out from being the generator being consumed : In order for the time to work, the POV Blairmonster goes downstairs to destroy the generator and implies that Childs hears something gets spooked and runs off to avoid having to face it alone. I do not believe Childs was infected. The only way Childs being a Thing would work is if the Blairmonster replicated him, separated from him and then went down and cut the power AT THE SAME TIME Childs walks out the door. Unlikely but possible. Childs likely was human. A great youtuber Movie Timelines made by Josh Spiegel dispelled this on a 13 more Unanswered Questions on The Thing video which I recommend if you like Rob Agers channel.
@@Unncle_Ruckus Another comment that I'm responding to here should CLUE YOU IN: "There are plenty of third world aliens flooding over at our and proliferating at our expense. On that theme, us being replaced is quite accurate to the movie." Why don't you tell me who brought it up first then, Sir? 🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐
I have a different theory on the VD poster being part of the movie set. “They aren’t labeled, chum.” is a poster warning men that you don’t know who carries this disease. This is the same warning given to the members of the team. They don’t know who is carrying the disease (the Thing). It’s almost an ironic poster, warning of a different hidden monster you can’t see (although a much less dangerous monster.) But it ironically parallels the same threat each man on the team faces with the Thing in their midst.
Of course, but I think that's a given. Collative Learning usually spells such things out, but in this case I think he took it as granted that we understood this was the point when he called the poster a joke prop (or whichever term it was he used).
i actually appreciate how the film makes practically nothing of race between the main characters, race rarely seems to be an issue in Carpenters movies as far as i have seen and I laud him for that as he has quite a diverse range of movies
I think that race is used slightly symbolically in They Live and nothing else. Like I believe the two main characters being black and white were done deliberately, but for the most pro-human reason a film director could do.
@@christiangottsacker6932Race is involved in a few of JCs work but never overtly. That's why it's so effective. The entire walk to the homeless camp from the work site in 'They Live' is definitely about race IMO. Not racism per say but just the general mistrust we carry for each other, even when we're literally in the exact same situation(Economically/Financially etc.) I just find their interactions thru the film as absolutely hilarious and JC knew what he was doing. If he had either bring race up, it immediately loses it's punch. Instead it's just simmering beneath the surface. Once we(Both races) see the truth, we see were both pawns in the game. Class-ism is the real enemy.
That was quite the year in cinema for teenagers going constantly/weekly to the cinema (me included). Fantastic & very different Movies, affordable prices. Good times!
It appears that if a movie doesnt have any bad in it, its not good. The irony in this. The movies you point out are horrible or filled with horror. Its what you like. Okay.
that term doesn't apply to them anymore, they used to be underrated but now those films are widely celebrated and loved, you wanna talk about underrated? watch Figures in a Landscape (1970)
About the AIDS portion, John Carpenter draws comparisons between the HIV/AIDS epidemic at the time and the film in the director's commentary. I forget his exact wording because it's been a while since I've watched it, but he brings it up at a couple points, including the blood test.
The computer chess game (and the hardware it's running on) date it to taking place in late 1978 at the earliest, and probably 1979-1982 or so. Of course there's lots of examples of 1970s and 1980s computers showing up in movies taking place in the 2000s+ but The Thing really feels like it was taking place in its time of release, and not the future. And the chess computer prevents it from being more than a few years in the past, unless it's in an alternate timeline where personal computers are invented earlier. Thanks for the great video, Rob!
"We have no indication of competition between imitations in the film." This isn't entirely true. The Palmer-Thing points out the escaping Norris-head-thing to MacReady for no apparent reason, when obviously it should want it to escape.
I have never wrapped my head around if they compete, co-operate or have a hive mind or what. Do other things know if you are infected, if they didn't see it? Do the false personalities the Things put on have any basis in the original person or is it 100% the Thing guiding every single move and word?
@@riverblack123 Certainly possible - probable even, but it's ultimately ambiguous. We can't really know what it's motives are in this scene. It's established in the film that fire doesn't actually kill the thing definitively. Perhaps the things actually WANT to be torched. Perhaps it allows small particulates to easily infect others through breathing the smoke. Not a crazy idea seeing as the film highlights the potential for this more covert kind of infection with the talk of eating out of cans, joint sharing scene, etc.
The cat’s already out of the bag for the Thing’s Norris imitation. Sacrificing a small part of itself shouldn’t be much trouble for it, and it effectively throws suspicion off Palmer for both the characters and the audience. If it was working against itself, it really wouldn’t be as great of a threat to the whole of humanity as Blair, Macready, and the computer thought.
These theories are prime support for the Billy Joel line in It's Still Rock and Roll to Me about if you are a straight A student you think too much. These theories are what blooms when intellectuals have too much time on their hands and nothing else to think about. I'm not watching The Thing to uncover some complex social/political statement or dissentation. I am watching The Thing to enjoy an extremely well made sci-fi/horror film centered around isolation and paranoia with the most amazing practical special effects ever developed. Sometimes things are that simple.
Dear Lord. Everyone who came up with these "theories" are probably in so much pain from dislocating their arms after REACHING so damn far. Most of these theories had me shaking my head. I pity the people who come to these conclusions.
You lack imagination and perspective. You need to understand that Stanley Kubrick took 2 years writing and making this film, He 100% put thought in every frame
@occamrtzero8579 LOL Stanley Kubrick was such an amazing writer and director that we even credit him for working hard on movies he didn't direct it seems.
To be fair to Mac in the final showdown, both Nauls and Garry weren't supposed to leave each other's line of sight. The blame should go to Nauls for not alerting Mac.
I think there’s an interesting comparison to make between The Thing and The Shawshank Redemption, which similarly has almost no female roles but expresses the concept of women symbolically (the posters, the rebirth imagery, the name “mother” visible on Andy’s wall next to the Rita Hayworth poster etc)
It always irks me how everyone describes the characters in the film as "Paranoid". Paranoia is irrational suspicion and fear, no one in this film is irrational in their suspicions or fear, no one in this film is paranoid. Once the The Thing is revealed, everyone's suspicion about one another is entirely rational as they know it can mimic living things perfectly and they are absolutely in a real dangerous situation. Before The Thing is revealed, everyone is almost overly relaxed and casual considering they just had two random people show up at the camp and seemingly attack them and blow things up. One of them was shot and yet they're all sitting around casually playing cards and making jokes like nothing happened. They show no paranoia about one another before the reveal of The Thing. Garry's shooting of the Norwegian seemingly attacking them is perfectly rational, the Norwegian just shot one of them while acting erratically and they try to throw a grenade in the crew's direction. It's like a weird mind virus, man. One person says something, everyone else just repeats it.
That one guy, Windows I think it is with the curly hair, I would consider that the only instance of paranoia in the film during the blood scene but that was only after the fact he was swapped. After begging and squirming in the chair he finally turns into the culprit. The real paranoia was only in part of the thing since it was trying its hardest not to be found and when it was it would try to flee/attack. There's other key moments of “irrational suspicion” for sure but I wouldn't exactly call it paranoia but rather accusations and skepticism. The guy locked in the toolshed was also “paranoid” to a degree far more than the group but that's also most likely do to the fact he was thing-ified.
@@cosmicXtropics There is another take on that scene: Windows didn't run out of paranoia, but because he realized he was the last person holding Garry's keys, and was afraid that the crew would realize that and accuse, and probably kill, him. In the scene where McReady tries to enter the camp, Windows is worried about Mac being a human and letting him die, while Childs was the paranoid one.
I've always viewed this as Carpenter's take on H.P Lovecraft's "At the mountains of madness". The set up is similar, a research team travelling to a remote location, the discovery of an unknown organism and the fear of the unknow. While it lacks some of the more extraordinary events, like a non-euclidian city and ancient alien texts, it has a lot on common. The first attack is on dogs in both, the ransacking of belongings, the harsh inescapable setting, the autopsy and the Thing being very similar in nature to the Shoggoths.
Something weird went on with this film's release. My Dad and I knew it was a classic on very first viewing. All my friends thought it was great. Hardly met anyone who disliked the film. And yet the reviews were so bizarely negative. If we were going to go conspiracy on it, I'd say the press might have had it in for Carpenter because his previous movie, Escape From New York, was such a scathing attack on perceived hypocrisies in the US system, esp NY corporatism. They may have gone full revenge.
@@collativelearning You'd think given the winter setting, they would have released it around october / november time. A summer release just seems totally bizarre.
@@collativelearningThe ending in despair, after everything MacReady did upset me first time I watched it. This is probably why I don't watch it again and again. The interesting thing is film's editor pointed this out to Carpenter and they also tried a brighter ending according to the wikipedia page: "Carpenter filmed multiple endings for The Thing, including a "happier" ending because editor Todd Ramsay thought that the bleak, nihilistic conclusion would not test well with audiences." I agree with that both as a part of the audience and as a film editor. However, watching The Thing today, has the nostalgic element which they didn't by then. Also not having any CGI, top quality practical effects, top notch acting, no bs film music and no forced agenda makes it a real delight. These factors are hard to come by nowadays.
Your analysis of movies is the most detailed, professional, and insightful I have seen on all of RUclips. Also the fact that The Thing is so highly debated just shows the genius of Carpenter and why it is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, horror film of all time.
I've never interpreted it in any way lol to me it was just some guys and alien. Pretty straight forward stuff and the dynamic between the guys is realistic. I doubt they put this much thought into it.
The brilliance of the film is that it is very ambiguous and doesn't get too deep into "lore" or origin. We fill in the missing details with our own interpretation, fears, biases, and opinions. Essentially, we assimilate ourselves into the movie. We...are The Thing.
If you notice he beats the computer at chess by feeding it alcohol. At the end he also gives the thing alcohol (which could be gas/petrol) I believe this shows he is one step ahead and knows its the thing.
I love that regardless of who views The Thing someone will always have an opinion or a different view point that brings unique conversation and dialogue to the table. Great job on this video!
The best part of the film is the mystery surrounding the motives of The Thing. After he has ingested and duplicated most the people from the Norwegian camp, he clearly understands fear, pain, paranoia, etc. Yet he persists. The fact that there is no metaphor--no symbolic understanding and merely primal infection for its own sake--makes this movie great for me. The Thing doesn't have an agenda. He is not in pursuit of any abstract ideal. He is there to consume and spread. This is why I believe the original form of the Thing is a cell. We see its original form in the movie under the microscope. It is simply a more complex, anatomical version of a cell that is successful in reproducing.
I disagree on chapter 5. I think The Thing can be as easily interpreted as the force of nature, elan vital, because of how many species it has already absorbed. It can’t absorb any non-living objects, but it can absorb any living ones to their cellular level. The most interesting aspect shown in the movie is how Blair-thing still remembers how to replicate dog which would mean The Thing is some sort of data repository for all the species it ever touched. So in a sense its the next evolutionary step for every specie - united in near immortal omnipotent super being with extraordinary intelligence. I would even go as far as to make an analogy with RNA and primordial soup
Rite ! All his blood poured out his body n eyes popping he had to have super strength cause he stomped his feet threw the floor before flying up to ceiling 😮 his head looked a Venus fly trap! 🪰
Another excellent video analysis Rob, 10/10 as always. Not sure if others have pointed this out but just after the opening credits it does come up and say that this is set in 1982. I look forward to your future videos, keep up the good work.
Liked and subbbed! At first I didn’t know anything about this channel and thought this video was going to be your “run of the mill” thing theories, and this be a me far more interesting and u think it’s quite original and very relevant especially comparing contemporary times to and with a film that came out in the 80s that was a remake from a film from the 50s! Absolutely brilliant! I wonder if I was still in college (about 18 years ago,) then and now and wrote a paper with this exact content, how it would be received. Again, absolutely brilliant video and content; bravo!
*THIS* is exactly why I subscribed to your channel! Sophisticated and entertaining analysis of my favorite classic movies. Could listen to you for hour after hour. 😊
This is one of my favorite films and one of the favorite films of my father, who introduced me to it. I have seen it so many times throughout my life, including most recently with a packed audience at the Charles theatre, and have loved seeing your analysis of it. But never did I think I would be emotionally moved by this film. Your description of Macready’s sacrifice recontextualized the film for me and made me somewhat teary-eyed. I’ve always loved this film for its pragmatism and attention to detail but I had never thought of it as a triumphant victory until hearing that. Way to go
Rob your second to last point of people needing to have a level of paranoia towards people really hit home. I've mostly gone through life thinking people have their best intentions at heart which has resulted in being burned. All the better this psychological analysis comes from what is possibly my favourite film. Thank you!
It's a tough pill to swallow. For about my first thirty years I clung onto the belief that most people genuinely are interested in truth. Then I had to accept that a lot of the time people actively aavoid truth, instead seeking out lies that are convenient to themselves personally.
A lot of these ‘interpretations’ sound like frustration that earlier films had the unmitigated gall to avoid being embroiled in the sacrosanct rhetoric of modern times.
That's the problem. Too many people are plagued with an obsession with modernism and framing every aspect of life, history and entertainment around that.
I love when people over analyze movies. Like they will say stuff like "Ah yes Halloween is deep and symbolic and is a metaphor for x y and z. And it actually means this and that when you look deep down into it." And John Carpenter would just be in the corner like "I just wanted to make a movie about a guy with the knife that kills people on Halloween because that would be really spooky.... it's not that deep." Like I don't mind analyzing film and whatnot but sometimes you got to keep in mind what was probably going through the heads of the creators when they were actually making the film. Because "ah yes the thing is actually a metaphor for racism and totally not because John Carpenter just wanted to remake the thing and make it spooky". 😂🙄😒
@@gringles you interpreting that it means nothing is also you interpreting it through your personal lens. no matter how objective you might think you're being your perception will always be filtered through your own personal beliefs and life experiences
My rule has always been that if you're in a room w/ John Carpenter & Keith David, it's totally fine to just let them talk about whatever the hell they wanna talk about because it's gonna be interesting no matter what
Once again deep research in a great video. I can't thank you enough for your contribution in the sixth art. Will not stop promoting your videos in my channel.
The interpretation of The Thing as a metaphor specifically for AIDS or Covid is unconvincing, but the creature spreads itself through assimilation so the theory that The Thing is about physical or mental contamination makes perfect sense. It's interesting that The Thing and Invasion of the Body Snatchers, which has a similar assimilation theme, in their original versions and first remakes were made within just a few years of each other. Rob's assumption that Childs is infected at the end is inconsistent with the Carpenter's obvious intention to make the ending ambiguous. We can offer guesses that Childs or MacReady might be infected, but it's impossible to assert that one of them is "really" infected in a fictional movie that doesn't want us to know the rest of the story.
@@Myndir the camera pans out to show Outpost 31 is in a snowglobe; turns out this was all happening in young autistic boy’s imagination! St. Elswhere, you hacks!
Garry's shot at the beginning actually missed its intended mark and hit MacReady square in the head. The rest of the film is his descent into Hell where he's to be punished eternally for unspecified sins.
still to this day...The Thing is one of the only horror movies that makes me respect all the characters and the monster in it ( rather than roll my eyes and actually end up cheering for the monster.) Each and every one of them display such a broad degree of intelligence and complexity. Even the monster itself learns and adapts its strategy so quickly and constantly. The level of fear and uneasiness is maintained throughout its duration. The closest modern film that can compare to it even slightly is The Empty Man. Everything else nowadays...you are lucky to get anything more than just jumpscares.
A British psychologist compared the Aliens to fashism and the Thing to comunism.A vary interesting comparison. Also...u cant help but to think that the Thing is somewhat natcisistic
Regarding the immigration theory: In the ancient world, there is a universal pattern - the image of a center, an anchor by which we interpret the world. That anchor is our home, our family, our tribe, our temple, but also our own center of consciousness. As one moves further and further from this center, one finds all that is not aligned with our identity. Initially, one finds the neighbor, that which we can still recognize first, but soon we find the stranger, the foreigner, and ultimately the barbarian and even animality itself. As we move away from that which we know, we fall into a space where things don't quite have identities. That's a great way to understand strangeness archetypically. The theory of immigration isn't entirely wrong because immigration involves our relationship with the unknown. However, these interpreters only grasp the archetype of the stranger in its current political manifestation. Strangeness is a spectrum with all kinds of extremes. A specific type of strangeness - whether slightly different or very different, whether dangerous or promising - cannot be regarded as representative of strangeness itself. "The Thing" explores an archetypal dimension of the alien in its extreme, that of all-destroying chaos. The migration interpreters do not recognize the higher, archetypal dimension and seek ultimate categorizations on lower levels such as politics.
@@MrJamesC The Thing may be “all destroying,” but is it chaotic? It seems very deliberate in its approach to dealing with those who would destroy it. Perhaps the Thing might have started out as “chaotic” back at the Norwegian station, but maybe it became more deliberative as it assimilated humans?
@@robertbusek30 I agree with you in part. All in all, it is important where you stand. As viewers, we don't look over the action like a chessboard, but are anchored in the human perspective. There may be intrinsic motivations for the thing, but we don't experience them. We don't even know whether it perceives itself as a unity with all its forms. For us it appears as confusing and destructive and that is the point. The story is not a biological forensic analysis, but a story, even if it uses scientific allusions to appear more credible. There is no such thing as pure chaos, because the mere fact that chaos is perceptible requires an overarching conceptual structure. Chaos can therefore only be suggested. The Joker in Dark Knight, who also represents chaos, creates it precisely by acting very strategically while denying the existence of a plan. So by chaos I don't just mean absolute arbitrariness, but the chaos of, for example, inconsistency or the hybridity of the thing.
@@MrJamesC It would be interesting to see someone try to tell the story from the Thing's POV. I've often thought the same about the xenomorph from the original Alien film.
@@robertbusek30 I don't even think the Thing would perceive itself as all destroying, much less chaotic. It's a primal form of the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" assimilation. The destruction and chaos only occur at the point of human resistance.
@@robertbusek30 There's a short story retelling the film from the POV of the Thing. It's called "The Things" by Peter Watts. You can easily find it and read it online. Just search for it.
Made this vid early last year. Posting now while I'm busy working on my book and game.
You may also notice a lot of my vids are no longer searchable on YT. I'm taking anything that the YT algo no longer recommends to new viewers and making those vids still free to watch, but accessible only by their links on my website. Along with other free material on my site that's never been on YT at all, you'll find dozens of hrs of extra vids and articles, alongside a couple of hundred hrs worth of items that can be ordered as dl's. Site link in video description.
Cheers folks. Hope you enjoy.
Rob :)
This is the first video that's been recommended to me for a long time so you may be right there. You did pop up though.
@@lepterfirefall I def know that if I post a couple of short experimental vids the algo recommendations plummet. A shame because I often consider those experimental vids much more important than the usual film analysis stuff. That's why I'm shifting my gaming vids over to the Ager Games channel too. Might even make one of my channels exclusively for psychology only content.
On the shot with the blow up doll at MacReady's computer, is the icon on his computer supposed to represent a Trojan Horse? Isnt that a wonderful metaphor for The Thing? Sneaking its way in somewhere hiding inside something else. Trojan Horse, baby!
yes! nailed it on why you chose not to use 'black' and 'white' or refer to the US as 'America'. well done, sir. excellent channel. really top notch, Mr Ager.
I seek out your work and am more than happy to check your website for your new material. I can't think of a better way of controlling the algorithm that wants so badly to control you! Thanks for all you do!
I always thought that Mac shoots the dog in the grasp of the thing as a mercy killing because it is clearly in pain and has no hope of survival.
"Man's Best Friend" ends up becoming it's "Greatest Enemy."
That was always my understanding,as well.
Agreed.
For both reasons:
1. Killing it to prevent imitation
2. Mercy killing
Remember, this is an actual existential threat to all of humanity.
MacReady had a generalized understanding of the modus operandi of this alien species...
This is why Rob Ager gives it proper context.
I always took it as “god damn that thing is disgusting kill it immediately” dog people 😂
1:01:25
Regarding the generator, honestly, the most chilling scene of the film is them realizing that Blair *TOOK* the generator and destroyed it.
"The generator's gone."
"Any way we can we fix it?"
"It's *GONE* , MacReady."
That generator had to have been pretty damn large and heavy, which makes finding out that it's literally gone all the more terrifying.
I agree, it's an amazing and chilling line. I would say he probably used it for his ship though rather than just destroy it.
This is one scene I wish we got an establishing shot on. If we had seen the basement when the base was still 100% it would have made that scene sink in more
For many years as a fan I cherished the moment of Garry commenting, "It's GONE MacReady" as if implying that the generator has been physically removed. When watching it with my friend who is a bit of an engineer he says, no the generator is still physically there, just ripped up. Kinda ruined that treasured moment for me :(
I watched it the other day and the generator is still there, the "it's GONE" line is just to highlight how messed up and out of commission the generator is.
@@Ben-fk9ey I hate the fact that you are probably right.
My late mother took me to see the thing in 1982, the cashier literally spent 3 minutes trying to talk my mother out of letting me in...even offering to give the money back. I was 13 & LOVED it. I was amazed at adults getting up and walking out first dog thing.
Never ONCE, in my dozens of times watching this film since, did i think that the film was racialized in any way!!
That’s an awesome memory, your mom was a cool lady
@@acespectre5461 TY!
This movie absolutely freaked me out as a kid. My parents were AWOL. :D
It's all on the dog scene for sure. Anyone I show this film damn near vomit or try to leave. It's like the grossest bit of the movie too they really weren't messing around
I fast forward the dog scene but that's just the dog lover in me.
I think Mac calling the Norwegians Swedish is just there because it is funny.
It's an american thing to do
@@arhexirthesnakerent free
I once called a danish woman Scandinavian and got lecture for 10 minutes about her history, they realy hate the term:)
@@richardPhilips2 Well obviously. She is Jutish.
@@arhexirthesnake I was drunk and also innocently asked her if she was lesbian, cause she was butch ..that didn't go down well either , Turns out she was into men and didn't much care for lesbos , pretty disastrous conversation , I was trying liberal conversation with a danish nationist:)
Religion, politics, race, sex, gender, economics... this film transcends them all. Why? If the organism reached civilization, none of it would matter. There would be nothing left. Just a planet with imitation life.
Haha
Cosmic Horror in its finest. Imagine if it managed to escape? 💀
@@vee-bee-a The story actually continues in some comics.
@@collativelearning Cards on the table, here: my general worldview is very liberal, but I do agree with your assessment that as far as this film is concerned, many of the subtexts or motivations that people are trying to shoehorn in simply don't fit.
Your comparison of the Thing being akin to a black hole that consumes indiscriminately is quite appropriate - it doesn't care if you're black, white, gay, straight. trans, bi, rich, poor, left, right, whatever. And this is reflected in the writing - it's very "big picture," the fate of all life on the planet is at stake.
@@vee-bee-aLovecraftian at it's finest
These old school serious film analysis videos that lack any fancy schmancy editing/background music are always such a comfort to watch. Ironically, they have this unsettling vibe about them and this documentary vibe, which feels like the topic at hand is an actual real life thing and not just a movie or show. Idk, these vids are always so intriguing and comforting to watch for me while idk, drawing, building legos, etc...
Also bro, your voice is impeccable
I enjoy guys like Mauler and the Little Platoon who use the more frenetic editing and joke insert style you mention but I see your point, Rob has a very distinctive analytical voice and his style definitely lends him a more mature and academic feel.
It's quite convenient because I can't be bothered with meaningless editing embellishments like swipt sound effects and unnecessary eye candy CGI graphics. If what you're saying is interesting people can visualize it anyway, which makes the experience more personal to them .In fact I often switch off any video I click on that has all those by the numbers excessive editing tropes. It's clutter that distracts from whatever good stuff they might be saying. Cheers :)
@@collativelearningexactly!! Idk, it's weird, I'm only 16 and it's odd that I am so into this type of content, i've always assumed that the modern way of making RUclips vids (incredibly embellished with fast paced everything, annoying sound effects, chill/upbeat background music, etc.. from RUclipsrs like Mr. Beast or something) are all so that children or people my age won't get bored easily and zone out/exit the video because most people have quite unfortunately very short attention spans nowadays takes to TikTok lol
but like, I remember man, I looooved watching all your Full Metal Jacket analysis videos, oh and the Pulp Fiction Golden Watch one. I just love how seriously you take it, it's like we are uncovering a mystery, like archeologists trying to piece together a story based on clues etched all around a cave. Like it's so fun listening, finding out about hidden things on the screen that I won't notice on my own and learning about different theories based on the hidden things from a movie, it's so eerie, to see how there might be things hidden in plain sight that can drastically change the meaning of the story or show a perhaps different perspective that the movie makers cheekily hid just for the sole purpose of maybe someday, analytical people can find and revel about it
@@_neon-xeon_3966 If you're thinking like that at 16 you're way ahead :) I've actually been considering making a video about all those phony video editing tropes.
Nah, I disagree. I think what's mostly missing is a 5 minute intro followed by a sponsor message, with a few ads thrown in for good measure. ;)
The Norwegian yelled in the beginning is not easy to understand because it's very dialect "Det ekkje ei vanli bikkje!!!" "That's not a normal dog"
You have dialects of Norwegian? 🤨
No it was gibberish. As stated in the commentary track.
@@frankenjstein9371 I feel like that might not be true considering there are transcriptions/translations that make perfect sense as far as I'm aware. It'd be pretty strange if some gibberish they made up fit so perfectly.
@@tigerburn81Yes, why wouldn't they ?
The norwigian guy , how get Shot in the beginning , was a born German . It sounds a little bit German . His Name is Norbert Weisser . As a German I den das , many acters in Filme , how play germans , are Not German . You can hear that ,because of there Funny German speaking .sorry for the Bad english...I am German. .
1:09:04 No, the time setting isn't vague. After the opening credits and right before the opening shot of the cliff, the movie clearly states that this takes place in Antarctica, Winter 1982. After the encounter with the Norwegians, MacReady remarks that it's the first week of winter.
Criminaly under rated channel
Some of the most underrated channels are among the best on RUclips. Rob Ager is one of them.
@@QuothTheRavenclaw11 i know i,v subbed to him for 8 years
@@QuothTheRavenclaw11can you recommend some more?
Couldn’t agree more with you here one of the reasons I subscribed to this channel
@@octagonseventynine1253 Sure thing:
Stevie Richards Show, (Wrestling podcast and analysis from former WWE wrestler)
TheChoiceVoice, (Casual guy just reviewing movies and being blunt and honest, pretty funny as well.)
Solidrev, (Another casual guy reviews games and is also quite blunt and funny to listen to.)
JesterBell (Former professional comic reviewer, gives a lot of news on what's going on within the entertainment industry, what the problems are, and points out some of the flaws in modern mainstream entertainment. Also reviews movies and shows. Her uploads are quite consistent, having videos coming out every couple of days.)
Those are my personal recommendations. If you don't like them, I'm sure you can find plenty. RUclips dislikes people being honest and not always playing by the terrible algorithm's rules.
When it comes to breaking down embedded psychology in films, Rob Ager is second to none.
When it comes to breaking down embedded socio-political commentary in films, or socio-politics in general, particuarly when it comes to U.S. socio-politics, Rob is out of the loop and talking out of his depths.
I love his videos, but agree that he should avoid US socio-politics. Not his strong point.
I wish this movie was 3 hours long an got into the Things origins more and who was flying the saucer to Earth
If you express relief when your blood test comes out clean, it's not because you're unsure of yourself but just that other people have seen that you're clean.
Even as a queer person myself, I never once interpreted any homosexual or homophobic themes from this movie. It seems like way too much of a logical leap.
Dude idk what he was talking about there, I haven't seen a single bit of evidence supporting that or even a review saying it
that weird gender wars rant he went on seemed so out of left field, what the fuck was that about?
@@Batchall_Accepted that rant was really weird
@@Batchall_Acceptedagreed, that being on his very first point almost turned me away from watching the rest of the video, really weird and uncalled for
»They're turning the freaking frogs gay!« - Alex Jones
It's a mistake to assume that the spaceship in the beginning of the film belongs to the Thing. Blair-Thing attempting to make his own craft, being a 100% indication that the previous craft originated from the Thing's race, remains a tenuous assumption.
In fact, that the first spacecraft appears to be in distress and crashes on Earth, may be an indication that the Thing 'escaped' or had been 'let loose' and assimilated the non-Thing alien race that actually originated the first craft.
Like many things, we are left, intentionally, to wonder about these possibilities. Great video, as always.
Yeah that's a wonderful source of mystery surrounding the whole story. Where the hell did this world eater creature evolve?
Excellent point. It was after many viewings that I considered this.
@collativelearning I'd speculate it's like the Xenomorph. A biological weapon designed to eliminate an entire species while leaving the infrastructure.
Creatives frequently leave things open to interpretation which drives lore nerds mad decades later , he must have meant x truth is he didn't he wanted the viewer to decide , maybe he didn't even really know him self
Hi sorry if I'm a bit dumb but do you mean The Thing was here before the ship crashed? Or am I way off?
Metal wedding ring in freezing temperatures would kill your finger.
I’m surprised in the Dangers of Science section you didn’t mention the conversation between Windows and Bennings. They are in a room with the Thing as it’s defrosting and Windows says (I’m paraphrasing) Why don’t we burn that thing? Bennings replies “Are you kidding? That’s going to win someone the Nobel prize.” So, the motivation is to benefit science and scientists, rather than do, what seems to be, the common sense thing, and destroy something that is dangerous and unknown. The result is that Bennings is instantly killed, with the Thing trying to absorb him and imitate him.
Good point.
Rip Shelley Duvall, just read she died from diabetes complications. Unforgettable in the Shining of course.
Ah no. Just looked that up. shame.
Rip
Sticking The Shining on tonight for sure ❤
@@collativelearning keep these videos coming I enjoy this a lot oh yeah also my condolences on the passing of the actor Shelly Duval .
As for Childs: I used to think he was a Thing. however: throughout the film he looked only after himself. The POV shot before he is seen walking into the night before the lights go out from being the generator being consumed : In order for the time to work, the POV Blairmonster goes downstairs to destroy the generator and implies that Childs hears something gets spooked and runs off to avoid having to face it alone. I do not believe Childs was infected. The only way Childs being a Thing would work is if the Blairmonster replicated him, separated from him and then went down and cut the power AT THE SAME TIME Childs walks out the door. Unlikely but possible. Childs likely was human. A great youtuber Movie Timelines made by Josh Spiegel dispelled this on a 13 more Unanswered Questions on The Thing video which I recommend if you like Rob Agers channel.
Would be interesting if the Thing so perfectly cloned everyone that upon cloning the entire team, the outpost just continued operating as usual.
That might have been its original plan. After all, why “make waves” by needing to call in a rescue team?
@@robertbusek30 The true sequel is just them being productive as a team
@@OgYokYok Just like "Project 2025", huh?
Or is it "Invasion of the body snatchers, MAGA edition"?
@@hadara69 Someone always has to add a "fuck Trump" comment to something that has nothing to do with the matter
@@Unncle_Ruckus Another comment that I'm responding to here should CLUE YOU IN:
"There are plenty of third world aliens flooding over at our and proliferating at our expense. On that theme, us being replaced is quite accurate to the movie."
Why don't you tell me who brought it up first then, Sir? 🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐
I have a different theory on the VD poster being part of the movie set. “They aren’t labeled, chum.” is a poster warning men that you don’t know who carries this disease. This is the same warning given to the members of the team. They don’t know who is carrying the disease (the Thing). It’s almost an ironic poster, warning of a different hidden monster you can’t see (although a much less dangerous monster.) But it ironically parallels the same threat each man on the team faces with the Thing in their midst.
nice
You're absolutely right. The poster is meant as a self-referential trope, like the Minotaur poster in The Shining.
Of course, but I think that's a given. Collative Learning usually spells such things out, but in this case I think he took it as granted that we understood this was the point when he called the poster a joke prop (or whichever term it was he used).
i actually appreciate how the film makes practically nothing of race between the main characters, race rarely seems to be an issue in Carpenters movies as far as i have seen and I laud him for that as he has quite a diverse range of movies
Maybe he wants to suggest that when presented with a real threat, we set aside our differences and work together.
This is how it is in real life. The only people who make race an issue are leftists
I think that race is used slightly symbolically in They Live and nothing else. Like I believe the two main characters being black and white were done deliberately, but for the most pro-human reason a film director could do.
That was the world back then. Makes you think.
@@christiangottsacker6932Race is involved in a few of JCs work but never overtly. That's why it's so effective. The entire walk to the homeless camp from the work site in 'They Live' is definitely about race IMO. Not racism per say but just the general mistrust we carry for each other, even when we're literally in the exact same situation(Economically/Financially etc.) I just find their interactions thru the film as absolutely hilarious and JC knew what he was doing. If he had either bring race up, it immediately loses it's punch. Instead it's just simmering beneath the surface. Once we(Both races) see the truth, we see were both pawns in the game. Class-ism is the real enemy.
Released same day as Blade runner. Incredible. Both very underrated. One of the best scifi horror movies along with Alien.
That was quite the year in cinema for teenagers going constantly/weekly to the cinema (me included). Fantastic & very different Movies, affordable prices. Good times!
It appears that if a movie doesnt have any bad in it, its not good. The irony in this. The movies you point out are horrible or filled with horror. Its what you like. Okay.
Very true.
that term doesn't apply to them anymore, they used to be underrated but now those films are widely celebrated and loved, you wanna talk about underrated? watch Figures in a Landscape (1970)
Neither are underrated as they are both considered to be some of the best and top films of their genre by most people.
About the AIDS portion, John Carpenter draws comparisons between the HIV/AIDS epidemic at the time and the film in the director's commentary.
I forget his exact wording because it's been a while since I've watched it, but he brings it up at a couple points, including the blood test.
Well John carpenter knew more about aids in 81 then all the doctors in that case
The computer chess game (and the hardware it's running on) date it to taking place in late 1978 at the earliest, and probably 1979-1982 or so. Of course there's lots of examples of 1970s and 1980s computers showing up in movies taking place in the 2000s+ but The Thing really feels like it was taking place in its time of release, and not the future. And the chess computer prevents it from being more than a few years in the past, unless it's in an alternate timeline where personal computers are invented earlier. Thanks for the great video, Rob!
Oh, and I just saw someone point out that the film itself says Winter 1982. So, yeah. Not that it was really a major point anyway :)
"We have no indication of competition between imitations in the film." This isn't entirely true. The Palmer-Thing points out the escaping Norris-head-thing to MacReady for no apparent reason, when obviously it should want it to escape.
I have never wrapped my head around if they compete, co-operate or have a hive mind or what. Do other things know if you are infected, if they didn't see it?
Do the false personalities the Things put on have any basis in the original person or is it 100% the Thing guiding every single move and word?
@@rebornstillborn It's such a wonderfully constructed film. It gets more ambiguous and hopeless with every rewatch.
I think Palmer-thing pointed out the Norris-head in order to pass as human and keep suspicions low.
@@riverblack123 Certainly possible - probable even, but it's ultimately ambiguous. We can't really know what it's motives are in this scene. It's established in the film that fire doesn't actually kill the thing definitively. Perhaps the things actually WANT to be torched. Perhaps it allows small particulates to easily infect others through breathing the smoke. Not a crazy idea seeing as the film highlights the potential for this more covert kind of infection with the talk of eating out of cans, joint sharing scene, etc.
The cat’s already out of the bag for the Thing’s Norris imitation. Sacrificing a small part of itself shouldn’t be much trouble for it, and it effectively throws suspicion off Palmer for both the characters and the audience.
If it was working against itself, it really wouldn’t be as great of a threat to the whole of humanity as Blair, Macready, and the computer thought.
4:11 i sense some resentment on your end lmao
These theories are prime support for the Billy Joel line in It's Still Rock and Roll to Me about if you are a straight A student you think too much. These theories are what blooms when intellectuals have too much time on their hands and nothing else to think about. I'm not watching The Thing to uncover some complex social/political statement or dissentation. I am watching The Thing to enjoy an extremely well made sci-fi/horror film centered around isolation and paranoia with the most amazing practical special effects ever developed. Sometimes things are that simple.
I think you’re reading too much into this, Rob.
“The Thing” is just a great classic sci fi film.
Omg new Thing video from you! I love hearing your breakdowns of films, especially my favorite movie.
McReady being a Vietnam vet may originate from the novelisation by Alan D. Foster, I recall it being mentioned there
Dear Lord. Everyone who came up with these "theories" are probably in so much pain from dislocating their arms after REACHING so damn far. Most of these theories had me shaking my head. I pity the people who come to these conclusions.
Same. They all sound phony
Sadly, the sophisticates think this is normal thinking. Spoken to many of them IRL and it sounds like something our universities are teaching people.
Ikr it's craziness
You lack imagination and perspective. You need to understand that Stanley Kubrick took 2 years writing and making this film, He 100% put thought in every frame
@occamrtzero8579 LOL Stanley Kubrick was such an amazing writer and director that we even credit him for working hard on movies he didn't direct it seems.
To be fair to Mac in the final showdown, both Nauls and Garry weren't supposed to leave each other's line of sight.
The blame should go to Nauls for not alerting Mac.
“Inside of every person you know, is someone you don’t.”
Alot of people don't notice Blair's face on the giant Thing at the end of the movie.
Simply the best YT channel, so much thought and passion in your videos. Love mate.
An almost feature film length Rob Ager upload - saves the day! Much appreciated, thanks a bunch! 🎉
You have been one of my all time favorite RUclipsrs for so long. Thank you for uploading.
Rob's spoiling us today.
I think there’s an interesting comparison to make between The Thing and The Shawshank Redemption, which similarly has almost no female roles but expresses the concept of women symbolically (the posters, the rebirth imagery, the name “mother” visible on Andy’s wall next to the Rita Hayworth poster etc)
Both groups of men are also imprisoned in an incredibly hostile environment…
It always irks me how everyone describes the characters in the film as "Paranoid". Paranoia is irrational suspicion and fear, no one in this film is irrational in their suspicions or fear, no one in this film is paranoid.
Once the The Thing is revealed, everyone's suspicion about one another is entirely rational as they know it can mimic living things perfectly and they are absolutely in a real dangerous situation.
Before The Thing is revealed, everyone is almost overly relaxed and casual considering they just had two random people show up at the camp and seemingly attack them and blow things up. One of them was shot and yet they're all sitting around casually playing cards and making jokes like nothing happened. They show no paranoia about one another before the reveal of The Thing.
Garry's shooting of the Norwegian seemingly attacking them is perfectly rational, the Norwegian just shot one of them while acting erratically and they try to throw a grenade in the crew's direction.
It's like a weird mind virus, man. One person says something, everyone else just repeats it.
That one guy, Windows I think it is with the curly hair, I would consider that the only instance of paranoia in the film during the blood scene but that was only after the fact he was swapped. After begging and squirming in the chair he finally turns into the culprit. The real paranoia was only in part of the thing since it was trying its hardest not to be found and when it was it would try to flee/attack.
There's other key moments of “irrational suspicion” for sure but I wouldn't exactly call it paranoia but rather accusations and skepticism.
The guy locked in the toolshed was also “paranoid” to a degree far more than the group but that's also most likely do to the fact he was thing-ified.
@@cosmicXtropics There is another take on that scene: Windows didn't run out of paranoia, but because he realized he was the last person holding Garry's keys, and was afraid that the crew would realize that and accuse, and probably kill, him.
In the scene where McReady tries to enter the camp, Windows is worried about Mac being a human and letting him die, while Childs was the paranoid one.
I've always viewed this as Carpenter's take on H.P Lovecraft's "At the mountains of madness".
The set up is similar, a research team travelling to a remote location, the discovery of an unknown organism and the fear of the unknow.
While it lacks some of the more extraordinary events, like a non-euclidian city and ancient alien texts, it has a lot on common.
The first attack is on dogs in both, the ransacking of belongings, the harsh inescapable setting, the autopsy and the Thing being very similar in nature to the Shoggoths.
Thank you for uploading this Rob.
Thank you so much, Rob. This video made my day.
I have a theory that people in Spielberg's camp payed off critics to deliberately trash the movie when it was released.
Something weird went on with this film's release. My Dad and I knew it was a classic on very first viewing. All my friends thought it was great. Hardly met anyone who disliked the film. And yet the reviews were so bizarely negative.
If we were going to go conspiracy on it, I'd say the press might have had it in for Carpenter because his previous movie, Escape From New York, was such a scathing attack on perceived hypocrisies in the US system, esp NY corporatism. They may have gone full revenge.
Might it have something to do with “E.T.” having been released two weeks earlier?
@@collativelearning You'd think given the winter setting, they would have released it around october / november time. A summer release just seems totally bizarre.
The very same thing happened to Heaven's Gate, audiences loved It but critics and Hollywood thrashed it
@@collativelearningThe ending in despair, after everything MacReady did upset me first time I watched it. This is probably why I don't watch it again and again.
The interesting thing is film's editor pointed this out to Carpenter and they also tried a brighter ending according to the wikipedia page:
"Carpenter filmed multiple endings for The Thing, including a "happier" ending because editor Todd Ramsay thought that the bleak, nihilistic conclusion would not test well with audiences."
I agree with that both as a part of the audience and as a film editor.
However, watching The Thing today, has the nostalgic element which they didn't by then.
Also not having any CGI, top quality practical effects, top notch acting, no bs film music and no forced agenda makes it a real delight. These factors are hard to come by nowadays.
Your analysis of movies is the most detailed, professional, and insightful I have seen on all of RUclips. Also the fact that The Thing is so highly debated just shows the genius of Carpenter and why it is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, horror film of all time.
I've never interpreted it in any way lol to me it was just some guys and alien. Pretty straight forward stuff and the dynamic between the guys is realistic. I doubt they put this much thought into it.
The brilliance of the film is that it is very ambiguous and doesn't get too deep into "lore" or origin. We fill in the missing details with our own interpretation, fears, biases, and opinions. Essentially, we assimilate ourselves into the movie. We...are The Thing.
If you notice he beats the computer at chess by feeding it alcohol.
At the end he also gives the thing alcohol (which could be gas/petrol) I believe this shows he is one step ahead and knows its the thing.
he does not beat the computer
I love that regardless of who views The Thing someone will always have an opinion or a different view point that brings unique conversation and dialogue to the table. Great job on this video!
The best part of the film is the mystery surrounding the motives of The Thing. After he has ingested and duplicated most the people from the Norwegian camp, he clearly understands fear, pain, paranoia, etc. Yet he persists. The fact that there is no metaphor--no symbolic understanding and merely primal infection for its own sake--makes this movie great for me. The Thing doesn't have an agenda. He is not in pursuit of any abstract ideal. He is there to consume and spread. This is why I believe the original form of the Thing is a cell. We see its original form in the movie under the microscope. It is simply a more complex, anatomical version of a cell that is successful in reproducing.
I disagree on chapter 5. I think The Thing can be as easily interpreted as the force of nature, elan vital, because of how many species it has already absorbed. It can’t absorb any non-living objects, but it can absorb any living ones to their cellular level. The most interesting aspect shown in the movie is how Blair-thing still remembers how to replicate dog which would mean The Thing is some sort of data repository for all the species it ever touched. So in a sense its the next evolutionary step for every specie - united in near immortal omnipotent super being with extraordinary intelligence. I would even go as far as to make an analogy with RNA and primordial soup
I love that this is an international take. Adds major context from other cultures.
Wow! Over an hour on The Thing!!?? Fantastic! Cheers Rob!!
Just got the 4K disk, it’s glorious.
Excellent timing. Can't wait to watch this when I get home. Liked already.
Thoughtful analysis, sir.
The Thing isn’t as dangerous or ugly as some women.
Rob + The Thing = 👌
Been waiting for another video about The Thing from you for a very long time.
Jeez. If only we were all God's gift to movie analysis like this dude. The discourse around this movie has reached the apotheosis of pretention.
The Palmer Thing is extra scary. His skeletor face. Those souless eye sockets just staring through you.
Rite ! All his blood poured out his body n eyes popping he had to have super strength cause he stomped his feet threw the floor before flying up to ceiling 😮 his head looked a Venus fly trap! 🪰
@SouthPhilaMilla I know! Windows was too scared to even burn him. He froze up in terror!
@UnhealthyHeartbeatObsession if I was tied up next to him I'd be scared shitless
Thank You Rob.
Your work is in the top teir of YT material.
Another excellent video analysis Rob, 10/10 as always. Not sure if others have pointed this out but just after the opening credits it does come up and say that this is set in 1982. I look forward to your future videos, keep up the good work.
Your work is top notch
You keep referring to the Child's imititation like it's a confirmed thing, but it's really not.
Ikr
Great video exploring these theories, even if some are quite ridiculous
Thank you
Always outstanding work
Liked and subbbed! At first I didn’t know anything about this channel and thought this video was going to be your “run of the mill” thing theories, and this be a me far more interesting and u think it’s quite original and very relevant especially comparing contemporary times to and with a film that came out in the 80s that was a remake from a film from the 50s! Absolutely brilliant! I wonder if I was still in college (about 18 years ago,) then and now and wrote a paper with this exact content, how it would be received. Again, absolutely brilliant video and content; bravo!
That first ten minutes sounds like a lot of projection on his part, ironic.
*THIS* is exactly why I subscribed to your channel!
Sophisticated and entertaining analysis of my favorite classic movies.
Could listen to you for hour after hour. 😊
I love this film.
Oh yeah, me personally, I love this film.
Ppl love what they hate and hate what they love.
This is one of my favorite films and one of the favorite films of my father, who introduced me to it. I have seen it so many times throughout my life, including most recently with a packed audience at the Charles theatre, and have loved seeing your analysis of it. But never did I think I would be emotionally moved by this film. Your description of Macready’s sacrifice recontextualized the film for me and made me somewhat teary-eyed. I’ve always loved this film for its pragmatism and attention to detail but I had never thought of it as a triumphant victory until hearing that. Way to go
Rob your second to last point of people needing to have a level of paranoia towards people really hit home. I've mostly gone through life thinking people have their best intentions at heart which has resulted in being burned. All the better this psychological analysis comes from what is possibly my favourite film. Thank you!
It's a tough pill to swallow. For about my first thirty years I clung onto the belief that most people genuinely are interested in truth. Then I had to accept that a lot of the time people actively aavoid truth, instead seeking out lies that are convenient to themselves personally.
Humans will human and fear is very strong motivator in humans
Oh hell yeah! thank you for sharing this Rob!
A lot of these ‘interpretations’ sound like frustration that earlier films had the unmitigated gall to avoid being embroiled in the sacrosanct rhetoric of modern times.
They come off as some college assignment about analyzing the movie through their “personal lens”.
That's the problem. Too many people are plagued with an obsession with modernism and framing every aspect of life, history and entertainment around that.
They can't comprehend that the story and message of the movie is on the screen.
I love when people over analyze movies. Like they will say stuff like "Ah yes Halloween is deep and symbolic and is a metaphor for x y and z. And it actually means this and that when you look deep down into it."
And John Carpenter would just be in the corner like "I just wanted to make a movie about a guy with the knife that kills people on Halloween because that would be really spooky.... it's not that deep."
Like I don't mind analyzing film and whatnot but sometimes you got to keep in mind what was probably going through the heads of the creators when they were actually making the film. Because "ah yes the thing is actually a metaphor for racism and totally not because John Carpenter just wanted to remake the thing and make it spooky". 😂🙄😒
@@gringles you interpreting that it means nothing is also you interpreting it through your personal lens. no matter how objective you might think you're being your perception will always be filtered through your own personal beliefs and life experiences
Well, this is my new favorite vid. I'll be back to listen to this again and again. Thank you!
I could hear about this movie forever...
I met John Carpenter and Keith David once but didn't ask any Thing questions 😔
My rule has always been that if you're in a room w/ John Carpenter & Keith David, it's totally fine to just let them talk about whatever the hell they wanna talk about because it's gonna be interesting no matter what
@@rjramrod😂
Once again deep research in a great video. I can't thank you enough for your contribution in the sixth art. Will not stop promoting your videos in my channel.
LOVE longer videos!!
I love these long ones you post to youtube. Super grateful for all your work. Many thanks
the scariest thing about this movie is that british people call it “da fing”
The interpretation of The Thing as a metaphor specifically for AIDS or Covid is unconvincing, but the creature spreads itself through assimilation so the theory that The Thing is about physical or mental contamination makes perfect sense. It's interesting that The Thing and Invasion of the Body Snatchers, which has a similar assimilation theme, in their original versions and first remakes were made within just a few years of each other.
Rob's assumption that Childs is infected at the end is inconsistent with the Carpenter's obvious intention to make the ending ambiguous. We can offer guesses that Childs or MacReady might be infected, but it's impossible to assert that one of them is "really" infected in a fictional movie that doesn't want us to know the rest of the story.
To think you had some of the better The Thing videos on this website.
4:10-5:09
What are you talking about
Listen to the words actually spoken instead of inserting dialogue of your own between the lines and you'll understand :)
@collativelearning i am my guy, now i dont know what your saying about inserting dialog and im still cpnfused at what tf you ment in that section
@@collativelearning what a hilarious straw man that you gotta say im 'inserting dialog'
I actually sat through the whole video and didn't even realize it. Great channel
14 - It was all a dream. My favourite.
@@Myndir the camera pans out to show Outpost 31 is in a snowglobe; turns out this was all happening in young autistic boy’s imagination! St. Elswhere, you hacks!
Garry's shot at the beginning actually missed its intended mark and hit MacReady square in the head. The rest of the film is his descent into Hell where he's to be punished eternally for unspecified sins.
I used to read word up magazine
@@JAMSTAR111 hell yeah. Brings a whole new meaning to “You know very well who you are.”
@@ASSLEVANIA haha very clever!
Whenever this man drops a video I cannot miss it. This channel is a gem.
I just see this movie as an a alien film
Awesome video as always, thank you for all your hard work on them
still to this day...The Thing is one of the only horror movies that makes me respect all the characters and the monster in it ( rather than roll my eyes and actually end up cheering for the monster.) Each and every one of them display such a broad degree of intelligence and complexity. Even the monster itself learns and adapts its strategy so quickly and constantly. The level of fear and uneasiness is maintained throughout its duration. The closest modern film that can compare to it even slightly is The Empty Man. Everything else nowadays...you are lucky to get anything more than just jumpscares.
So you respect the monster in it. Okay.
The stoner conspiracy guy was corny but other than that I agree with you.
Nice video and very enlightening. Thanks for giving me more to think about on one of my favorite movies of all time.
Wake up babe, new collative video just dropped (it's 1hr +) 🙌
Thank you for your free content Rob. It is appreciated.
Come for The Thing theories. Get a Men’s Rights lecture.
A British psychologist compared the Aliens to fashism and the Thing to comunism.A vary interesting comparison.
Also...u cant help but to think that the Thing is somewhat natcisistic
This guy is the best on RUclips at what he does
I got more out of this one video than hundreds of video essays where they basically just retell the plot for verbatim. Thanks!
Regarding the immigration theory: In the ancient world, there is a universal pattern - the image of a center, an anchor by which we interpret the world. That anchor is our home, our family, our tribe, our temple, but also our own center of consciousness. As one moves further and further from this center, one finds all that is not aligned with our identity. Initially, one finds the neighbor, that which we can still recognize first, but soon we find the stranger, the foreigner, and ultimately the barbarian and even animality itself. As we move away from that which we know, we fall into a space where things don't quite have identities. That's a great way to understand strangeness archetypically. The theory of immigration isn't entirely wrong because immigration involves our relationship with the unknown. However, these interpreters only grasp the archetype of the stranger in its current political manifestation. Strangeness is a spectrum with all kinds of extremes. A specific type of strangeness - whether slightly different or very different, whether dangerous or promising - cannot be regarded as representative of strangeness itself. "The Thing" explores an archetypal dimension of the alien in its extreme, that of all-destroying chaos. The migration interpreters do not recognize the higher, archetypal dimension and seek ultimate categorizations on lower levels such as politics.
@@MrJamesC The Thing may be “all destroying,” but is it chaotic? It seems very deliberate in its approach to dealing with those who would destroy it. Perhaps the Thing might have started out as “chaotic” back at the Norwegian station, but maybe it became more deliberative as it assimilated humans?
@@robertbusek30 I agree with you in part. All in all, it is important where you stand. As viewers, we don't look over the action like a chessboard, but are anchored in the human perspective. There may be intrinsic motivations for the thing, but we don't experience them. We don't even know whether it perceives itself as a unity with all its forms. For us it appears as confusing and destructive and that is the point. The story is not a biological forensic analysis, but a story, even if it uses scientific allusions to appear more credible. There is no such thing as pure chaos, because the mere fact that chaos is perceptible requires an overarching conceptual structure. Chaos can therefore only be suggested. The Joker in Dark Knight, who also represents chaos, creates it precisely by acting very strategically while denying the existence of a plan. So by chaos I don't just mean absolute arbitrariness, but the chaos of, for example, inconsistency or the hybridity of the thing.
@@MrJamesC It would be interesting to see someone try to tell the story from the Thing's POV. I've often thought the same about the xenomorph from the original Alien film.
@@robertbusek30 I don't even think the Thing would perceive itself as all destroying, much less chaotic. It's a primal form of the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" assimilation. The destruction and chaos only occur at the point of human resistance.
@@robertbusek30 There's a short story retelling the film from the POV of the Thing. It's called "The Things" by Peter Watts. You can easily find it and read it online. Just search for it.