|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It was very important in Carpenter's film that there were no women, because the de facto female character was the thing itself (equated to the female-voiced chess computer). But in Nyby's version, the inclusion of a woman is crucial, as that film stresses the alien's asexuality. It's like 'Alien' in a way - the original script had the caveat that every character could be cast as either male or female, it ultimately didn't make a difference. Later on in production as the casting and roles were solidified, more concrete references to gender (Parker and Brett looking down their nose at Ripley because she's a woman; Lambert feeling betrayed by Ripley when she won't break the quarrantine and let them back on the ship) and inter-character sexual relationships start cropping up (Dallas and Ripley having sex; Lambert showing interest in Ash -- both were largely cut from the movie by the end, though). I always saw the Thing as asexual anyway. Yeah you could go with the rape motif, but at best it's impregnating host cells with copies of itself (since it reproduces like a virus) so that'd make it male, I guess? edit--  light spoilers I guess, but the prequel's facebook page has some really cool concept art galleries, including concept art from the (canceled) Sci-Fi Channel TV series we were supposed to get. The concept art is friggin' ridiculous. 
Xenomrph fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Jul 14, 2011 |
#
?
Jul 14, 2011 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 02:48 |
|
|
quote:I always saw the Thing as asexual anyway. Yeah you could go with the rape motif, but at best it's impregnating host cells with copies of itself (since it reproduces like a virus) so that'd make it male, I guess? The Thing does have a female character: The Thing itself. Anyway: quote:On the one hand, then, the thing baldly encountered. On the other, some thing not quite apprehended. Could you clarify this matter of things by starting again and imagining them, first, as the amorphousness out of which objects are materialized by the (ap)perceiving subject, the anterior physicality of the physical world emerging, perhaps, as an aftereffect of the mutual constitution of subject and object, a retroprojection? You could imagine things, second, as what is excessive in objects, as what exceeds their mere materialization as objects or their mere utilization as objects-their force as a sensuous presence or as a metaphysical presence, the magic by which objects become values, fetishes, idols, and totems. Temporalized as the before and after of the object, thingness amounts to a latency (the not yet formed or the not yet formable) and to an excess (what remains physically or metaphysically irreducible to objects). But this temporality obscures the all-at-onceness, the simultaneity, of the object/thing dialectic and the fact that, all at once, the thing seems to name the object just as it is even as it names some thing else." All well and good. I blanch at the titular Thing being re-imagined for Today's Brandscape as a totem of banality or a metatexual copycat, but I'm not writing it off in the least. I also have to confess that the great majority of trailers nowadays are really not to my taste at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2011 21:53
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:edit-- The Sci-Fi miniseries sounded much, much more interesting than this. The effects would've probably been too much for a basic-cable budget, sadly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2011 21:57
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:The Thing does have a female character: The Thing itself. Edit-- ahahaha loving fantastic Wikipedia posted:The Thing is typically viewed by members of the winter crew at the U.S. South Pole station after the last flight out (usually in a double-feature with The Shining). 
Xenomrph fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Jul 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2011 21:59
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:While that's an interesting interpretation, ultimately I don't buy it. Carpenter didn't include any female characters because he recognized that the "damsel in distress"/sexual tension/male-female power dynamic would ultimately hurt the story and draw attention away from the fear/paranoia aspects he wanted to explore. The original story had no female characters, so he was staying true to that as well. These goals aren't mutually exclusive. They're the same goal. The original story describes McReady as a bronzed apollonian (I'm pretty sure that exact adjective is used) Adonis who is ultimately humbled by the alien's viral nature and then by its atomic technology, and other weird invisible forces like telepathy. The thing challenges masculine agency in a very straightforward way. It questions how much of your behavior is governed by tiny things outside your control. Even in Nyby's version, the hero is frequently compared to the alien, and repeatedly humbled by his lover. In the end, the situation goes well outside his control and he's like "ah well". As in the other versions, he's been "feminized". Hendry: "I've given all the orders I want to give for the rest of my life." Nikki: "If I thought that was true I'd ask you to marry me." This is actually very similar to the subtext in Quarantine, although that's more psychological (not so much in REC).
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2011 22:02
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:These goals aren't mutually exclusive. They're the same goal. In fact, that should be proven true in the prequel, assuming it follows properly into the Carpenter movie (everyone dies).
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2011 22:08
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I can understand that, but how does that make the Thing "female"? If I'm understanding you right, the Thing removes agency from the protagonists, but that isn't necessarily male agency, since you could assume the same outcome (distrust/assimilation/death) would come about whether the characters were male or female. "Who Goes There?" and all subsequent versions of the story rely heavily on Prometheus/Pandora archetype. That's why you see so many flamethrowers, and why The Thing is considered "artificially intelligent". (See: the chess computer.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2011 22:16
|
|
|
The slippery fleshiness of the Thing in Carpenter's film is a pretty gross rebuke to the rugged individualism and alpha-male bickering of (especially) MacReady and Childs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2011 22:24
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It's a specific sort of masculine attitude being challenged. Liberal humanism, for starters. "Rationality". Modernism, etc. If so, I'm still hesitant to equate it to the chess computer or a man-made intelligence. It's not "artificial" in the sense that you can have an "artificial heart" or the "AI" in a videogame reacts to the player. AI is limited by the information available to it and the parameters established in its programming. Sure the line can get a little blurry, but I think there's an important distinction between a man-made intelligence that can learn (but still obeys mandates established by its creator) and an intelligence that can actually "step back" mentally and evaluate and comment on those mandates. Like the difference between, say, Skynet and the actual Terminator robot. The Thing acts as its own free-thinking entity regardless of how many intelligences it assimilates. All that knowledge acts merely as a means to an end to let the Thing do whatever it wants. It isn't governed by human intelligence beyond being able to keep up its disguise as a human.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2011 22:28
|
|
|
I think the Thing is artificially intelligent in the sense that it simulates everything it infests to the point that the simulated "host" doesn't even realize it's a Thing, (i.e. Thing.Dog is an AI, even if Thing.Thing is not) but I'm not sure that's exactly what SMG et al are getting at.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2011 22:29
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I think the Thing is artificially intelligent in the sense that it simulates everything it infests to the point that the simulated "host" doesn't even realize it's a Thing, (i.e. Thing.Dog is an AI, even if Thing.Thing is not) but I'm not sure that's exactly what SMG et al are getting at.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2011 22:46
|
|
|
So I noticed that Quarantine 2 is up for streaming on Zune and was wondering how it is. The synopsis makes it sound like a total deviation from Rec 2. No handheld cam style or anyting and it takes place in an airplane/airport? I'm thinking about renting it to give it a go since I liked Rec and Rec 2 as well as Quarantine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 00:36
|
|
|
Levantine posted:So I noticed that Quarantine 2 is up for streaming on Zune and was wondering how it is. The synopsis makes it sound like a total deviation from Rec 2. No handheld cam style or anyting and it takes place in an airplane/airport? I went into it with no expectations and was still let down. I was bored by the one hour mark and the ending was just stupid. I loves me some crappy movies, but this was just bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It's a specific sort of masculine attitude being challenged. Liberal humanism, for starters. "Rationality". Modernism, etc. Why is liberal humanism a masculine attitude? Or rationality or modernism, for that matter? Why did you put rationality in scare quotes, and how was rationality being challenged by the Thing? I was under the impression that, had everybody remained rational, the situation wouldn't have escalated the way it did. If the Thing was artificially intelligent, which incidentally is a really weird concept to just submit without support or qualification, what does an artificially intelligent antagonist have to do with the Prometheus archetype? And how does any of this add up to the thing being female?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 05:19
|
|
|
How exactly does The Thing work, anyway? Does it make copies of itself based on it's prey's visage, or does it absorb it's victims?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 05:39
|
|
Cubone posted:Sorry, I'm completely lost as to what you're trying to convey here. You noticed who you're quoting, right?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 05:40
|
|
|
That trailer raises some nitpicks with me but it's not like it's depicting the events of the Carpenter movie so I have no problem watching it as a standalone work. Also I liked the Dawn of the Dead remake for what it was.SpeedofLife posted:How exactly does The Thing work, anyway? Does it make copies of itself based on it's prey's visage, or does it absorb it's victims? Going by the Carpenter movie, it devours and digests prey if it can get away with it, in turn perfectly replicating into that. It almost managed it with Bennings, and off screen did it with others. Or if busy/compromised, it can wound and contaminate prey badly enough to turn into another Thing even after the original Thing is gone. It's what was happening to Windows after being mauled by Palmer Thing. phelps fucked around with this message at 06:56 on Jul 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 06:50
|
|
|
Slasherfan posted:Trailer for the new The Thing movie. So it's The Thing with a female McCready. I'm guessing she'll be the Snow Cat driver instead of pilot or something. Still, it looks good from the trailer. Not getting my expectations up though, I expect it to suck and if it doesn't, I can be pleasantly surprised.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 07:37
|
|
|
SpeedofLife posted:How exactly does The Thing work, anyway? Does it make copies of itself based on it's prey's visage, or does it absorb it's victims? It's infecting each individual cell in the prey's body, and then mimicking that cell before spreading to the next one and repeating the process. Ideally it would capture its prey and do that process quickly and messily in private (as it did with Bennings, and likely did with Palmer and/or Norris). Otherwise it can infect someone through contact and then assimilate them passively over time (like it did with Blair). wormil posted:So it's The Thing with a female McCready. I'm guessing she'll be the Snow Cat driver instead of pilot or something. Still, it looks good from the trailer. Not getting my expectations up though, I expect it to suck and if it doesn't, I can be pleasantly surprised.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 08:18
|
|
|
Cubone posted:Sorry, I'm completely lost as to what you're trying to convey here. [quote="Feminism and the 'Crisis of Rationality"] There is a measure of consensus within feminist theory that rationalist values are in crisis—that the very arrival of women on the scene of intellectual activity necessitates a reappraisal of those values.1 Sometimes the claim is that conventional scientific research procedure reflects an objectifying, control-seeking attitude to its subject-matter which can be regarded on psychological grounds as characteristically masculine...[/quote] Cubone posted:Why did you put rationality in scare quotes, and how was rationality being challenged by the Thing? I was under the impression that, had everybody remained rational, the situation wouldn't have escalated the way it did. Would you recognize the stereotype of the rational man and the "emotional" woman? Cubone posted:If the Thing was artificially intelligent, which incidentally is a really weird concept to just submit without support or qualification, what does an artificially intelligent antagonist have to do with the Prometheus archetype? Are viruses intelligent? The thing learns from the beings that it takes over. It is essentially programming itself with the minds of the victims. Cubone posted:And how does any of this add up to the thing being female? SYMPATHETY and EMPATHETY are emotionally derived qualities that are usually associated with women. The gender conflict in the film is between the fierce rationality of the men, who sit everyone down and administer tests in order to determine who is whom, and the "female" Thing, which is a literal embodiment of empathy. We understand one another through empathy. In this case the Thing understands us at a cellular level. Once the process is complete the victim is wholly sympathetic to it's way of thinking. Think about the image of a hand underneath someone else's skin. It is an act of forceful union and forced submission but it is explicitly sensual. Rationalism does win in the end. The characters realize that masculine rationality has failed - They are sitting face to face and yet cannot tell who the monster is. On the other hand, the empathic monster knows very well whom it has become, and therefore whom it's enemy is. Hyper-femininity, once unleashed would destroy the entire world, so the only rational thing do to at that point is to self destruct. In doing so Mcready is acknowledging the power of his feminine opponent, but he is also acknowledging the power of his opponent. He is learning to become sympathetic. Spermanent Record fucked around with this message at 09:53 on Jul 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 09:44
|
|
|
Levantine posted:So I noticed that Quarantine 2 is up for streaming on Zune and was wondering how it is. The synopsis makes it sound like a total deviation from Rec 2. No handheld cam style or anyting and it takes place in an airplane/airport? It's pretty bad. It does directly tie into Quarantine (The only intriguing parts of the film) and then sets up Part 3 but that's not enough seeing as it does everything else so poorly. Someone actually raised a good point on IMDB. Quarantine was pretty successful, so why the straight to DVD, no budget sequel?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 10:26
|
|
|
Cubone posted:Sorry, I'm completely lost as to what you're trying to convey here. "In critical theory, the posthuman is a speculative being that represents or seeks to enact a re-writing of what is generally conceived of as human. It is the object of posthumanist criticism, which critically questions Renaissance humanism, a branch of humanist philosophy which claims that human nature is a universal state from which the human being emerges; human nature is autonomous, rational, capable of free will, and unified in itself as the apex of existence. Thus, the posthuman recognizes imperfectability and disunity within him or herself, instead understanding the world through context and heterogeneous perspectives while maintaining intellectual rigour and a dedication to objective observations of the world. Key to this posthuman practice is the ability to fluidly change perspectives and manifest oneself through different identities. The posthuman, for critical theorists of the subject, has an emergent ontology rather than a stable one; in other words, the posthuman is not a singular, defined individual, but rather one who can "become" or embody different identities and understand the world from multiple, heterogeneous perspectives." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthuman#Posthuman_in_posthumanism As noted before, the protagonists in each of the Thing stories - although especially in Carpenter's version and Who Goes There? - are self-styled, rugged individualists pitted against nature. These are a traditional/stereotypical/archetypical masculine roles. The posthumanism that challenges these attitudes is kinda important to feminist theory, for hopefully obvious reasons. Prometheus is an archetypal scientist character. Pandora, however, is the archetypal anti-scientist - an impulsive naif whose curiosity unleashes disorder and chaos. She is also an 'artificial person' created by the gods, much like the fire Prometheus stole. There is obvious similarity to Eve, crafted from Adam's rib. This is working in an old dichotomy between man and nature. Women are "more natural". Men conquer nature with progress. For example, they can survive deadly temperatures with nifty arctic bases. They can fly helicopters thousands of miles over the ocean. In The Thing, the alien screws with all this technology. It confuses the men's rational goals with paranoia and sleep-deprivation (see also: invasion of the body snatchers). It's a revolt by the body and its various prosthetic technologies against the mind. And of course the body wins. Cubone posted:If the Thing was artificially intelligent, which incidentally is a really weird concept to just submit without support or qualification, what does an artificially intelligent antagonist have to do with the Prometheus archetype? Again, Pandora is the artificial woman sent down to punish mankind for its trespasses. Prometheus controls nature with technology. Pandora messes up that power dynamic. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 11:44 on Jul 16, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 10:30
|
|
|
If this helps here is a satirical "rationalist" description of women.Edwin Abbott, 1884 posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 10:44
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:While that's an interesting interpretation, ultimately I don't buy it. Carpenter didn't include any female characters because he recognized that the "damsel in distress"/sexual tension/male-female power dynamic would ultimately hurt the story and draw attention away from the fear/paranoia aspects he wanted to explore. The original story had no female characters, so he was staying true to that as well. Just because there's women in it doesn't mean they're be damsels in distress. From the trailer, it looks like the exact opposite. There's a decent chance this remake will be poo poo, but it won't be because there's women in it. I've never understood the canonization of The Thing, so my perspective is different, but sexual tension and male/female power dynamics can only enhance the fear and paranoia. Just look at the Alien films, or The Terminator, or Dawn of the Dead, or Jurassic Park, or even and especially the goddamn Howard Hawks version of this story. Carpenter's smarter decision was to eliminate the military/science schism from his version, which was pretty played out by the 80s. If this film can unite the intelligence of the original with the paranoia of the remake, I'll be very happy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 18:25
|
|
|
Do we have a "___________ MONSTER IS A WOMAN MEGATHREAD" thread yet?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 18:55
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Just because there's women in it doesn't mean they're be damsels in distress. From the trailer, it looks like the exact opposite. There's a decent chance this remake will be poo poo, but it won't be because there's women in it. Alien is interesting because Ripley was originally male, and didn't really change in writing in the finished film. It was quite similar to The Thing in that it was essentially all males being invaded by an alien creature (although the Alien is presented as asexual/male as opposed to female). The final film changes that a bit, but in conception/on paper, it plays out very similar. Also, Predator.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 19:03
|
|
|
Darko posted:Alien is interesting because Ripley was originally male, and didn't really change in writing in the finished film. It was quite similar to The Thing in that it was essentially all males being invaded by an alien creature (although the Alien is presented as asexual/male as opposed to female). The final film changes that a bit, but in conception/on paper, it plays out very similar. Also, Predator. Yeah okay but there's more than one movie in the series.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 19:07
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Just because there's women in it doesn't mean they're be damsels in distress. From the trailer, it looks like the exact opposite. There's a decent chance this remake will be poo poo, but it won't be because there's women in it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 21:13
|
|
|
That's like the worst possible explanation for a creative decision. Like in Predator, there's no female commando, I guess, because John McTiernan wanted to eliminate 'woman cliches' - not because he was making a film about hypermasculine imperialistic dudes getting their comeuppance by a grotesque, racially and sexually ambiguous other. He just didn't want to have a woman accidentally baking a pie in his film or something. Oh and "that's just how it was originally written", which of course shunts the obvious question of why there weren't any women in Who Goes There? either. People making claims based on artist's intent always presume the artist to be an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
frozenpeas posted:Would you recognize the stereotype of the rational man and the "emotional" woman? SuperMechagodzilla posted:
Don't take this the wrong way but I think I'm just going to own my ignorance for the rest of this poo poo. Cubone fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Jul 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 22:43
|
|
|
Cubone posted:Okay. I've wrapped my brain around the concept that the Thing is a metaphorical "female", because females are emotional and it exploits emotional weaknesses. It doesn't exploit emotional weakness, it exploits the weakness (or insufficiency, anyways) of ultra-rational, positivist thinking, which in the case of the movie and popular culture is coded as male. This isn't quite "women are emotional, emotion is alien and scary," it's about a bunch of guys who are literally incapable of not being macho or not being scientists, and dying because macho rationalism can't save them from The Thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 22:55
|
|
|
Sure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 23:20
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:It doesn't exploit emotional weakness, it exploits the weakness (or insufficiency, anyways) of ultra-rational, positivist thinking, which in the case of the movie and popular culture is coded as male. So, how would being more emotional have helped them at all?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 23:37
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:That's like the worst possible explanation for a creative decision. The Predator is grotesque, but its not exactly sexually ambiguous -- its entire schtick is that its basically the alien example of one engaged in the stereotypical masculine pastime of big game hunting. There isn't anything feminine about it, from its deep guttural voice, its very male and heavily muscled body and the fact that it goes most of the movie in a blank emotionless mask. Nothing in the Predators design or actions within the film speaks of femininity. Everyone and their dog has heard the story of how the creature was originally designed to just be a humanoid praying mantis and then got redesigned because the character designer thought it would be neat to see a monster with mandibles, not because its actually some sort of vaginal symbolism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2011 23:43
|
|
|
EgillSkallagrimsson posted:So, how would being more emotional have helped them at all? What, literally helped the characters in the film? It wouldn't have, it's an alien that wants to infect their cells to make copies of itself. I don't think the Thing presents a viable alternative to rationalism, at least from a human perspective. I enjoy Carpenter's apocalypse trilogy as horror films because generally speaking I like rationalism, I think it's a pretty good model for viewing reality, and all three of his apocalypse trilogy films are about forces that threaten and destroy it. In At the Mouth of Madness art and creativity manifest as world-destroying evil, in Prince of Darkness faith and science are both ridiculed by "nature" in the form of bugs and STDs and a demonic pregnancy, and The Thing presents emotional and instinctual behavior as rebelling against the mind and winning. These aren't morality tales about how rationalism is bunk and it needs to go, they're the nightmares of a mind that wishes it were perfectly rational and is terrified by the cracks in its disguise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 00:01
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:macho rationalism can't save them from The Thing. Bob Quixote posted:Nothing in the Predators design or actions within the film speaks of femininity. Everyone and their dog has heard the story of how the creature was originally designed to just be a humanoid praying mantis and then got redesigned because the character designer thought it would be neat to see a monster with mandibles, not because its actually some sort of vaginal symbolism. Also I'd say that 'Predator' was more of a deconstruction of 80s action movies (especially with the otherwise by-the-book 80s action movie setup up until about when Hawkings gets killed) and American hunting culture, but that's just my interpretation. It isn't so much that authorial intent assumes the author is an idiot, it's that sometimes the simplest answer is, in fact, the best or most-correct one. Sometimes the director or writer just wants to see something that looks visually interesting or whatever. In 'Alien', Ridley Scott shot the alien egg upside down so that the water droplets on it would flow "upward" in the movie. There was no hidden symbolism or deeper meaning to the droplets, or why he filmed the egg that way, beyond "the drops flowing upward would be creepy and unsettling". That was literally the conscious reason why he did it that way. Sometimes movies get changed because of financial or technical decisions that prevent the "true vision" from being realized, for instance. Originally the Alien was supposed to be translucent - it was going to be essentially identical in design, but translucent. The reason that didn't happen is because there was no practical way to make that effect work with a guy in a suit. But if they had made it work, I imagine there'd be all kinds of talks about the symbolism of the translucency and whatever, just as there's people who talk about the blackness of the Alien representing filmmaker's desires to demonstrate the unknowable depths of space and soulless Lovecraftian horrors and the like, when the real reason it's black is because the translucency effects didn't work. Or in 'Alien3', you can get different meanings out of the Alien being born from an ox or from a dog (depending on the version of the movie you watch), and it's amusing to see people talk about the Alien taking "dog-like" actions throughout the movie... when all the adult Alien scenes were filmed under the assumption that the to-be-filmed ox-bursting scenes would work as planned (meaning that the adult Alien as filmed was, at the time of filming, assumed to be born from the ox and is not "dog-like" at all). People read into a lot of stuff, and it can be an interesting interpretation or viewpoint, but they don't always hold up. Xenomrph fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Jul 16, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 00:23
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:But in the end it does. Mac and the others realize that the only way to "win" is to destroy the camp and prevent it from getting to civilization, so they end up blowing up the makeshift UFO, blowing up the camp, and ultimately accepting that death is their only option if they want to save the world. It saves everybody else, sure, but everyone in the camp is dead. I guess you can kind of count that as a "win" for rationalism, but honestly I see it more as a combination of luck (that the Thing landed in Antarctica, for instance) and a symbolic microcosm. It's like the end of Lord of the Flies, sure the day is saved and things will be okay from that point on, but a miniature version of our society totally just imploded into murder and self-destruction when faced with a certain kind of problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 00:39
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:It saves everybody else, sure, but everyone in the camp is dead. I guess you can kind of count that as a "win" for rationalism, but honestly I see it more as a combination of luck (that the Thing landed in Antarctica, for instance) and a symbolic microcosm.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 01:23
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:But in the end it does. Mac and the others realize that the only way to "win" is to destroy the camp and prevent it from getting to civilization, so they end up blowing up the makeshift UFO, blowing up the camp, and ultimately accepting that death is their only option if they want to save the world. The meaning the receiver hears is more important than the one the messenger intends.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 02:48 |
|
|
I guess so. But SMG is talking about the messenger's intended message.
Xenomrph fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Jul 16, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2011 02:47
|
|