In honor of my going to see John Carpenter's The Thing on the big screen tonight, I offer to the public an age-old debate which has perplexed my mind for years, namely: who would win in a fight -- the blob or the thing? Howard Hawks' original Thing monster was a lumbering Frankenstein-type dude from a planet where man evolved from vegetable. No question there; the blob would turn him into carrot smoothie. But Carpenter's thing is a shapeshifter and assimilator. Both it and the blob work on a cellular level, the thing digesting and replicating cells in its own chemical composition, the blob simply digesting and converting tissue into its own goopy and ever-increasing mass. Both organisms are capable of surviving individually on a microscopic level, in small segments that can separate or rejoin at will. Both grow indefinitely.In light of upcoming rumored remakes of both films (the third versions of each, not including several blob sequels), it is a timely debate. So which is it? Would the blob dissolve the thing into more pink slop, or would the thing eat the blob and convert it into more pink Kurt Russell? These are the deep, important questions that keep me up at night. These are the issues on which I base my support of political candidates. Someone solve this for me, so I can sleep.
One thing is certain: against the team of Blob and Thing stars McQueen and Russell, both creatures would surely perish. I mean, look at them:
Addendum, posted after the initial post: a chat with my friend G.
G:
Is the blob acidic? It seems to be.
Strange Case:
I would say that if it is, that's a good point in its favor. Then again, who knows what neutralizing properties the thing is capable of imitating.
People inside the blob seem to be digested.
In the 80's remake of the blob (photo above), they suggest that it is viral.
How do they suggest viral? That almost doesn't make any sense.
It's been a while, but I recall them sending some viral experiment into space in a small satellite. It crashes back to earth and has become the blob.
It's vaguely cancerous.
Because it grows. But if it's a cancer, I say the thing imitates and replaces the blob tumor.
I'm having a real back and forth in my science here... I'm gonna have to grab a reference book.
Look for G's exciting and thoroughly-researched comment to follow.
3 comments:
Dude. The petri dish scene.
Personally, dear sir, I've wondered things like this quite a bit myself. I always thought The Predator would whip Alien, no content until they released the movie and had come up with ways of the aliens fighting back.
In this particular case, I say one of two things would happen. Seeing as how the Thing makes a perfect imitation of another life form, it depends on your personal theories of HOW it does this. If you believe the original life form is preserved, then the thing would be able to become the exact equivalent to the blob and no clear winner would emerge from exactly identical opponents. On the other hand, if you believe that the Thing, "consumes," what it imitates in some form or fashion, then I say The Thing would win. If it, on a cellular level can get into the human body, then it has special abilities beyond our understanding which allow it to go in, kill off any original host cells, while at the time becoming replicas of the cells. This of course could be argued that the blob's cellular defenses are not known either. So I guess the only definite answer you could give would be that its a tie.. heh
I was thinking Thing-Blob, as in Thing-Dog, but from memory that depends on The Blob having a cellular structure.
Like Marshmallow Kitty versus Choo-Choo Bear, then might just Combine And Power Up.
Post a Comment