| Quick Links - DISC. BOARD | Outpost#31 Store | | ||
|
|
|
|
|
Stuart Cohen's Q&A on John Carpenter's The Thing Stuart Cohen, co-producer of The Thing, very kindly agreed to take questions about the movie from Outpost #31. Stuart also writes a uniquely informative blog on his experiences making The Thing. As such, he has been doing a tremendous service to The Thing fan community, for which we are highly grateful. All of the questions were submitted by members of our discussion forums. Here they are, presented in the order in which they were asked, along with Mr. Cohen's answers. Gary asks: In John W. Campbell's short story and Alan Dean Foster's novelization, there is absolutely no doubt that when somebody has been taken over by The Thing, the original person is dead and only his personality and memories are retained by the Thing in order to create a perfect imitation. This is the dialogue that confirms it in the original short story. (...) Kinner shuddered violently. "Hey. Hey, Mac, would I know if I was a monster? Would I know if the monster had already got me? Oh Lord, I may be a monster already." "You'd know," MacReady answered. "But we wouldn't," Norris laughed shortly, half-hysterically. (...) However, in the documentary "Terror takes shape" featured on the DVD and Blu-Ray of John Carpenter's The Thing, Charles Hallahan says that the actors wondered if you would know if you were a Thing. He concluded by saying that Norris didn't know that he was infected but on a subconscious level, he was. This completely contradicts the short story and the novelization and doesn't make sense to me, as Blair would probably have realized that something was wrong when he was building a UFO for instance, which was not a very "human" thing to do. So, my question, taken directly from Outpost31's FAQ: there is no doubt about it in the short story and in the novelization, but in the movie, does a Thing know that they are a Thing? I listened to the DVD commentary again recently and I was surprised that Charles spoke of that. Our working presumption was that of the novella – and is really the only way to dramatically proceed. I think that Charles is referring to the sort of speculative discussion one has discussing motivation sitting around a table with other actors examining ways to play the role, but never intended to be put into effect… In any case, for our storytelling purposes I know John had all the actors play things absolutely straight, including Blair…
ChariotsOfTheGods asks: When was Blair assimilated? Specifically, was it before or after the radio room incident? Most definitely before…
Jeremy asks Mr. Cohen, in the deleted out takes of this film...there was this scene where Bennings seems to be taking out the trash and from our point of view we notice that he's not alone. Who is this shadowy character supposed to be? Here's the scene in question http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xu2cFljkPw It begins at 2:00 mark... Intended to be Blair, but never seen…
Mr. Noc asks: Was there any actual difference between the coat that Childs wore throughout the movie and the one at the end, or were they the same coat? I think it’s the same coat. I sent Rob Ager a fan letter when I first saw his analysis which I thought was thoroughgoing and scholarly, but I don’t believe there was anything specifically planned by John to indicate identity at the end. The scene was re-worked so many different times in editing in order to save it from being entirely cut that anything that arises ( Child’s lack of breath in two cuts, for instance ) was probably accidental…
Mr. Carmichael asks: Who killed Fuchs or was it suicide, either way who jumped him in the lights out scene? Ah, poor Fuchs – his off-screen demise was brought on by a combination of lack of time and money. John disliked the way he had originally shot it, so something simple had to be devised for the location shoot in Stewart. We left open –ended the idea of murder or suicide. Neither John nor I have a clue as to who ran by Fuchs in the hallway – it was designed that way. Your guess in this instance is literally better than ours… Who set up MacReady with the torn shorts and who turned his light in his shack? Left open ended Was there a definite idea whether Childs or Mac was infected at the end? No definite idea Was Norris keeling over a true heart attack (the thing assimilating even his flaws) or a cell by cell assimilation reaching its end? Yes, we presumed the heart attack to be real… Who got to the blood, who took the keys and how did they get back to Gary? We don’t stipulate, was done off camera after Windows dropped them and then planted back onto Gary… Who was assimilated first; Palmer or Blair and did you ascertain timescales for Blair? (He studied the thing's cellular propagation at a computer before going nuts, a very 'unthing' act.) No certain timeline, but Blair early on, presumably before Palmer… don’t know that I necessarily agree with you about an “unthing “ act… could be a clever thing to do… Was there an idea as to the Thing's origins? No, not really. Endless discussions about this with writers before John came on as director, almost none thereafter – for the purposes of this story, it really does not matter – think of the creature as the ultimate distillation of the Howard Hawks credo – a character defined by its actions, doing what it has to to survive… Was there a plan as to what actually happened at the Norwegian camp? (excluding the prequel, obviously). No, the idea here simply was to create an overall impression that all hell had broken loose, let you fill in the details in your own mind and carry that idea back to Outpost 31. Detail was in fact stripped from this scene, not added… What actually happened to the full and scripted lights out scene? Cut by John – felt it slowed things up… What happened to the scripted scene were the men listen to a tape from the Norwegian camp were a thing attack can be heard in the background. Originally a part of the Norwegian Camp sequence, then re-written as part of the video review scene, this was not shot… What changes were made from the 1st draft to the 2nd draft of Lancaster’s script? Bill’s first draft script, while several months late, was right on the money with the characters and dialogue you love to quote 95% there. I don’t think much changed except some formatting done to make the script acceptable for widespread studio publication. The changes really began occurring from 2nd to 3rd and beyond, with Rob and budget considerations the biggest reasons… Was the Nauls death via the Blair box monster as bad as is made out? Well, we laughed at the test footage – probably not a good sign… Are there any deleted scenes as yet unknown? Kudos to Outpost 31’s deleted scenes page – I don’t think so, no. Perhaps some dialogue extensions here and there… Why was the story changed from them directly finding the thing to them coming across it via the Norwegians? A way to open the story up and get it away from Outpost 31 without sacrificing tension. Bill Lancaster’s brilliant idea… Where there any sequel plans tossed around at the time? Absolutely not – as I’ve written about, we were accused at the time of deliberately leaving things open ended to encourage the idea of a sequel, which didn’t sit well with the audience – times have changed…
Boomwolf asks: How many different "thing-outs" were conceived for the different characters, and were there ever any concept drawings? See below In the script, Norris and Palmer's "Thing-outs" are quite different from the final film. Norris is burned before hurting anyone, and Palmer-Thing Kills Copper instead of Windows (Sanchez) ALSO, Macready also fights Palmer thing "Mano-a-Thingo" when it "Windows" Copper to death. Mac literally goes to town on the nasty with some kind of steel tool! He still blows Palmer up, only he blows up INSIDE, Sending THING CELLS everywhere... Was this changed because it didn't mesh well with the Idea of a single cell taking over an organism? No. The scenes you refer to were written by Bill Lancaster before Rob Bottin came on board. Keep in mind this script was also a sales tool to convince the studio to make the film, and Bill had to come up with something and write it in some detail. Once Rob joined, everything was re-conceived. Bill took an active part in many of the meetings and re-wrote the script to fit… Why did the "Norris-SPIDER-HEAD" wander out of its hiding place? Was Palmer's "betrayal” of a fellow Thing a scheme cooked up between Palmer-Thing and Norris-Thing to insure the trust of the humans if one of them was ousted? Did the things have different identities, or is it one "Mind" with many bodies? I think we assumed they were operating independently.. Was the thing ever supposed to have any sort of telepathy, either between its own assimilated forms, or even having the ability to read human minds? (as in the Campbell version – XidiouX) No, Bill Lancaster eliminated the telepathy element – we were having enough trouble explaining the mechanics of basic assimilation… A cut action scene involved Mac, Childs, and Bennings chasing infected sled dogs over the ice. How for did this scene make it before it was decided to be cut, and why was it cut? Were any creatures designed or as-of-yet unseen drawings produced? What would the running time of the entire scene be had it been shot? Were there ever any discussions on whether or not the thing might speak during the film? I can confidently say this is the first time I have been asked this question. No, but now that we know The Thing can sing… How many different endings were discussed? Discussed with John and Bill, only the one – three were shot and or edited… Were Kurt Russell or Keith David ever contractually signed on for a sequel, if the film did well? (if it hadn't been a poor reception) No Do you think E. T. was a real reason for the film doing so poorly? Partly, but I think now it had more to do with the time – I am writing a long piece on this… Would audiences have felt differently if the fates of Macready and Childs had been less bleak and uncertain? See above Was the "original" form of the thing ever shown in the film? Were there any bits and pieces that were "thing-original"? Was the "true" form ever planned to make an appearance? The closest thing to a true form would have been the originally envisioned Blair monster, with bits and pieces of its many assimilations ( as well as a partial Nauls ) – most of this was jettisoned because of time and money… If Blair WAS a Thing before destroying the radio....did he REALLY kill all the dogs? How does that explain the alternate ending showing a dog fleeing the camp? Were all the dogs accounted for? The dog that knocks Clark down, was it ever caught? Yes. Forget about the fake alternate ending… Why were some gory scenes from the Norwegian camp not in the film, specifically the scene with the severed arm caught in a door? Was this ever filmed? No, never filmed… One of the proposed endings included Macready trying to flush the Thing out in an amusing scene where he brings the outpost down around them with the snowplow, whilst singing a Mexican tune loudly. This scene is similar to a fight at the end of James Cameron's "ALIENS" Is this a coincidence? Interesting - I would think it’s a co-incidence, but wasn’t James Cameron hanging around the set of Escape From New York ? Bill was writing the script during that time… Considering The Thing came out first... Had Rob Bottin not taken over the creature designs, do you think the Dale Kuipers "Thing" would have been better received by audiences? Which did you personally prefer, when it came time to choose the monster? As a single entity I actually think Dale’s would have been harder to execute, forcing John into quicker cuts, etc. I love Rob’s concept and think it fits perfectly with the films overall tone – a de-constructivist monster among men in the process themselves of literally falling apart… WHAT WAS THE LOGIC BEHIND HAVING FLAMETHROWERS IN ANTARCTICA? Even Child's sounded surprised. None – but we liked the visual metaphor – fire and ice…
Jeremy asks: Mr Cohen, I know that the film isn't released yet but what are your thoughts on the upcoming prequel? My former partner is involved, so no comment…
Mr. Noc asks: On the DVD commentary track, Carpenter comments that they "didn't get it quite right" regarding the Thing's life cycle but that "it doesn't matter." From this it may be concluded that the goal with the computer sequence was not truly accomplished, so it must therefore be regarded with scepticism. What is a more accurate look at the thing's life cycle? The computer sequences were re-written and re-shot to make it as simple as possible for the audience to understand the basic mechanics of assimilation (A into B, Dog becomes Man, etc. ), John’s biggest concern. Everything else was incidental…
Mr. Carmichael asks: What happened with the original dog kennel scene when it begins to attack the other dogs? The making of mentioned a vibrating dog built by Bottin and there are glimpses in the trailer of the dogs attacking the thing dog before it's face bursts open. The vibrating dog in the end looked too mechanical, and was cut… At what point in the shoot did you decide to go with the more low key ending over the scripted version (the one that involved MacReady taking on the Blair monster with a bulldozer). When we couldn’t afford the scripted version… Why have more behind the scenes shots failed to surface over the years? I for one would love to see more shots of Bottin's work without the goop. Most of the unseen footage you are aware of was cut around the same time. The reel that exists has been formatted into television aperture, which tells me it was probably meant to be included in that dumb ass version the studio prepared… perhaps that’s the only reason it still exists… Palmer thing has the same mutated hands as the Bennings thing and his transformation isn't as dramatic as the rest (as Bottin himself has admitted he isn't as pleased with it as the rest.) Was the budget running thin at this point? I’m sure you are right about the hands – I hadn’t thought of it, but as I’ve written about we were short on money and time at that point… Why was the MacReady blow-up doll stuff cut? It seemed more odd than funny, out of place. One of the earliest things cut… Was there a back-story made up for any of the characters but most specifically MacReady No. Also does he have a first name? (Also the other characters – we only seem to know that Bennings’s given name is George – XidiouX) Not that I remember Where there any characters that were difficult to cast and did anyone pass on the parts at all? I am currently writing about this and it will be up on the blog sometime soon… Was the lighting on the set all done with existing practicals or using stage lighting? I ask because it looks like it has been perfectly lit by the overhead lamps above rather than stage lighting. Yes, you are correct – we think of it as source lighting , and is accomplished by making it look like the room is lit by lamps, windows, etc. in the frame. In fact the studio mistakenly built a lighting grid above the set which Dean never used…. What did Universal think of the film before it was decimated by ET and the reviews came in? Mostly disappointment. In the words of one executive, the film just “missed”. If you have any doubt what the film was thought of in certain quarters, take a look at the bastardized T.V. version, prepared without our knowledge… Did JC spend many takes getting the performances perfect or was the majority of it sorted out with rehearsals, also how involved was JC with the actors on set and getting those nuanced performances is the majority of it down to the old adage: 'Cast right and ninety per cent of your performance problems are over.' Really, a combination of all of the above, but rehearsals helped. All of the actors brought a lot with them to work with… Was there anymore stuff planned for the spaceship, was there meant to be an interior to it, etc.? No. The film is a masterpiece but if there was one thing better than it IMO it was Lancaster's script. If the film had had its 25 mill to pull of Lancaster's initial script do you believe the film would have gone down in history as a master piece rather than the cult film it has become. Not necessarily, but I agree it would have been fun to see more of Bill’s if we could have afforded it… Was anything planned by Bottin that couldn't be achieved due to budget reasons but would have been epic? Nothing you haven’t heard of… Did JC have anything to do with the writing process or was it all Lancaster? I am addressing this in an upcoming piece…
McTimmah asks: I've watched the film countless times now, and think there are a lot of wonderful little moments that encourage speculation, however there was always one scene in particular that I wondered about, and that is when MacReady goes to visit the wreckage of the alien's spacecraft. When Mac goes out to the wreckage, he brings Norris and Palmer with him, both who are later revealed to be Things themselves. At least one of them had to be infected at this point, though I think the general assumption was that they were both probably infected by this point in the narrative. If that is the case however, how come neither took the very easy opportunity to infect MacReady here when they were far away from the rest of the group? Interesting, but we don’t know when Norris was infected – if not, would change the odds in Macs favour…
Mooretallica asks: Hi Mr Cohen, It has always been my firm belief that Palmer was assimilated during Blair's meltdown when he destroys the communications equipment. During this scene he is the only absent person. I believe that an event in which a team member was shooting at other team members would attract everyone. If Palmers absence during this scene was not a clue by JC, why was the actor playing Palmer not in this scene? I can’t imagine JC giving him the day off for no reason. We know the thing imitates, but do the cells take on the function as well as the form? Norris' head sprouts eyes when it escapes, and Blair thing looks around, turning his head when assimilating Gary. Does this mean that the imitated human eyes are actually working as eyes? Thanks for your time Mooretallica I asked David Clennon this on your behalf at a reunion screening in Los Angeles recently to see if he remembered anything out of the ordinary, and he didn’t. We think John simply had trouble staging the scene in those narrow corridors with 12 guys, and eliminated several…sure, we presumed the eyes worked as eyes…
Ravege asks: Ok, I don't have a plot specific question, as I like the movie ambiguous. Good man So production question: Was the Norwegian camp, in fact, filmed using the remains of the American base? Is the Norwegian interior filmed using any of the interior sets of the American base, or some part of the base whose interior we never see? Yes, the back part of the base – my idea, kept us in one location, saved 250,000 – the Norwegian camp interior was a separate set on stage
VAGABOND asks: Hello, first time poster here. I know there are already tons of super-specific questions and these have been asked already, but, I'd love to know the answers (or your best guesses) to the general timeline questions for the things that happened off-screen so we can all go back and watch the movie knowing who is doing what and where at all times. I think that would be so cool For example: - The point in times where Blair and Norris were assimilated and by which thing (Dog, Palmer, cell contamination) We don’t know
ChariotsOfTheGods asks: Question: When writing and filming the movie, was Antarctica's unusual first-week-of-Winter day/night cycle taken into account with relation to the exterior lighting in each scene? No.
Splitface asks: What really happened after the landing at Outpost 31? Which one of the two characters is played by Larry Franco and who plays the other Norwegian?" I notice there has been some confusion recently on this. Larry Franco ( our esteemed assistant director) was shooting at the dog from the helicopter. Larry Franco also blows himself and the helicopter up. Norbert Weisser (taller, thinner ) goes after the dog and is shot by Gary….
Jeremy asks: why was blair making a noose? ( i remember seeing a still shot from a pamplet that came with the dvd of wilford brimeley holding a rope) A wonderful touch by Bill Lancaster – this is part of Blair playing possum, a theatrical way to convince McCready and the others that he really was over the bend…
XidiouX asks: Can we expect a new release with perhaps additional features to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the film next year? I don’t know – probably time for someone to do a little digging. Carpenter has expressed some dissatisfaction with the ultimate form of the Palmer-Thing. I read, in Anne Billson’s book, that the original intention was to have another head come out of Palmer’s head and have seen such a monster illustrated in Dale Kuipers’s Sketchbook. If this is the case, what were the problems with realising this monster? No, this all evolved well after Dale left the film. There were no discussions on how to execute anything Dale did – it was too early on in the process… The scene now is one in which the mechanics begin to show… There’s a lot of green goo during The Thing’s transformations. Was there any discussion of what this is in terms of the creature’s biology? Not in terms of the creatures biology, but absolutely intentional in trying to avoid comparisons with real life blood – letting. The best example would be Norris’s head separating and beginning to move off the table. We all had real concern that this would be way over the top if there was too much red – Rob himself insisted on using green and yellow, comic book colors to try to make clear that this was no longer a human being. It didn’t seem to work at the time. Many people still thought they were looking at a slow motion human decapitation, and this was the partial origin of all the gore –pornographer charges that were beginning to circulate… My view is that Windows was the last to have the keys (as seen around the time he discovers Bennings.) If this was the case, did he run down the corridor to break up the argument over the issue before it started to focus on him? Windows does have the keys and you hear him drop them off camera.. Was there intended to be have been any antipathy between Windows and (the human) Palmer? There was more of this sort of byplay between all of the characters shot, but whittled down in editing… If so, was the fact that the Palmer-Thing chose to attack Windows intended to convey something about the nature of The Thing, in relation to the organism it is an imitation of? No What was the purpose of the fluid that The Thing sprayed on the dogs? I don’t know – seemed like the right thing to do at the time… What was the intended significance of the chess game? None beyond the usual – no specific significance with the number of pieces, their positions, etc. Is it mere coincidence that the movie (almost) begins and ends with characters picking up live explosives about to go off? Yep. Did Blair ‘catch’ The Thing during either of the autopsies? Blair was infected off – camera… During the opening sequence, the alien ship is seen to tilt suddenly as it approaches Earth. Was this intended to indicate something significant happening on board, such as a struggle over the controls? No, only that the craft was having trouble…
|
|
www.outpost31.com
© 2001-2011 |
