A Script By: Bill Lancaster - The Thing

0:02 I couldn't be more excited to bring you this episode of A Script By, just in time for Halloween. Now, anyone who knows me knows what a huge John Carpenter fan I am. And there is one film in particular that has always held a special place for me. Not just the finished film, but the screenplay behind it. I'm talking, of course, about John Carpenter's The Thing, a screenplay by Bill Lancaster with some important contributions from Carpenter himself. And that's part of what makes today's episode so fascinating. We'll explore the creative relationship between writer and director, how Lancaster's screenplay evolved under Carpenter's direction, and how their collaboration helped produce one of the most terrifying films ever made, and arguably one of the five greatest cult classics in cinema history.

0:49 This is a script by Let's Turn the Page. Welcome to A Script Buy. I'm your host, Brad Kozo. This is the show where we break down some of Hollywood's most famous scripts and see why they are still relevant today. Now, John Carpenter's The Thing is one of those films I can revisit endlessly and still find something new. It's a great horror movie, but it's also a remarkably disciplined piece of storytelling. Twelve men, one Antarctic outpost, and an organism that can perfectly imitate another living thing. The monster is terrifying.

1:51 The loss of trust is worse. To get ready for today's episode, I read John W. Campbell's Who Goes There? I watched the 1951 Thing from Another World and, of course, studied the 1981 second draft of Lancaster's screenplay. Now, our question today is a simple one. What did Lancaster put on the page and what did Carpenter change or leave out to make the film work? Before we dive in, it's time to welcome back to a script by the creator and host of DocuBay 77 and my good friend Dayton Johnson. Dayton, welcome back. It is always a pleasure. Man, I am so stoked to discuss this film. This is honestly probably my second favorite Carpenter film. Second favorite.

2:39 And you can tell by the shirt I'm wearing what my favorite one is. Yeah, if you can't see, he's wearing an awesome They Live shirt. Yes, I love that film. What's your history with the thing? I mean, do you remember when you first saw it? I mean, and how's it changed over the years? So I'm sure I caught it on cable much too young. I obviously did not see it in the theater. It was definitely one of those films my parents were not going to go see. And I wasn't quite old enough to sneak in, you know, seeing as how I was, you know, 82. So I was 11. So I saw it on cable at least a few different times, probably not all the way through in one sitting because I was trying to watch it without the parents noticing. But once I got older, I started renting it a bunch.

3:24 And I just thought it was such a great movie. You know, when you're younger, like, oh, it's so gory. It's cool. It's sci-fi. It's horror, you know. And as I got older... it became a regular Halloween watch for me because a lot of horror films, especially for a long time, were just trash. And this one to me was just everything I wanted out of a Halloween film at the time. And as I've grown and learned to appreciate film more, I've learned to appreciate what Carpenter does with the story. And I learned to appreciate more the performances from these 12 men. And yeah, it's honestly, I adore this film so much. And yeah. So when you reached out and said, do you want to talk about the thing? I said, no, hell yeah.

4:18 Yes. I watch it at least once a year, every two years, probably. I mean, it was one of those films that it was always on late at night. So it was always catch just a little bit of the beginning, fall asleep. And then wake up like right towards the end and just can be completely lost. And it wasn't until I was, when we were working together at Suncoast. Okay. You just put that movie in your hand, you're looking at it and it's got that great Drew Strayer's Impasse poster. And you're just looking at it. I'm like, I've got to like this. There's no way I wouldn't like this. So I bought it and it was confirmed. Like the minute I finished, I'm like, this is amazing. I mean, because I always, in my opinion, it was Escape from New York was the number one Carpenter film. But after seeing this and just the more and more and more, I just, it's probably the film besides Star Wars I've bought again and again and again. So, yeah. And every time I watch it, I almost want to like start it over.

5:23 Yeah. Yeah. Actually watching it for this, I put it on. And I was just like, man, this is just so damn good. So damn good. So, yeah, I watched it about two years ago and we actually reviewed it alongside of the original film from 51. So, but yeah, it's it. I think it just gets better and better and it holds up. Like if I show it to somebody who's never seen it, somebody, you know, like if I can get my daughter to watch it, she'd probably like it. But I think it's it's too probably too gory for her. I don't know anybody that has seen it and said they don't like it or they think it's meh. Everybody that has seen it says, oh yeah, of all ages that have seen it, they're like, oh yeah, it's fantastic.

6:06 It has an impact on you for sure. Yeah. Well, let's talk about our writer. So the story begins in 1938 with Who Goes There? Published by John W. Campbell Jr. under the name Don A. Stewart. Its great idea is not simply an alien in Antarctica. It's an alien that can become someone you know. Once that possibility exists, every human relationship becomes a potential threat. In 1951, producer Howard Hawks and director Christopher Niby, or Nibi, you probably know that better than I did. Maybe. Nibi sounds right. Yeah. They brought us The Thing from Another World. Now, I thought it was an okay film in its own right, but its alien is a much more conventional external monster.

6:52 Carpenter loved that movie even so much that you see it in the background on the television in Halloween. So he initially questioned why anybody should remake it. But it was producer Stuart Cohen who encouraged Carpenter to return to Campbell's original story. That's where Carpenter found the hook. This wasn't just a monster picture. It could play like a murder mystery where nobody knows which suspect is the murderer or whether the suspect is even human. Bill Lancaster, Burt Lancaster's son, wrote the screenplay. His best known credit was The Bad News Bears, covered by Jeff Johnson and surely you can't be serious as Jason Colvin on a film by. Now, that does sound like an unlikely resume for a nightmare like The Thing. But think about it. What comedy requires?

7:38 A group of characters with sharply different personalities introduced economically who become interesting through how they clash. That is exactly the skills this story needs. Lancaster doesn't stop to give 12-man elaborate backstories. He gives them jobs, habits, voices, and reactions. Gary expects to be obeyed. Blair trusts his scientific reasoning until his findings terrify him. Childs challenges authority. Palmer seems relaxed, even when he shouldn't be. And McCready, off by himself with a bottle and a chess computer, isn't anybody's obvious choice for a leader. The film also keeps the all-male group of the draft. Whatever we make of that choice, the dramatic effect is to strip the station down to one closed social system. There's no rescue coming, no safe place to withdraw, and no relationship the creature can't contaminate.

8:30 So Lancaster, coming from that ensemble comedy, do you see that skill in the way these men are established before the horror really starts? Yeah, because there's a really good way that he– just in some of their dialogue, he writes what they're doing– You learn their jobs. I know when I read the screenplay the first time, it actually lists the cast and what their jobs were. To be fair, I skipped right past that because I didn't want to– because I kind of knew the characters anyway. But what I found was interesting was as I read through how some of the ones on the page, they translated to the film. And then there were some that were on the page that were tweaked for the film. But as I was reading, you definitely got the– Their attitudes, their emotions, what kind of people they were. And everything from when Palmer made the comment, I was wondering when he was going to use his pop gun. That line right there tells you that he doesn't think much of that guy. And it's just– it gives you enough. And McCready is a hard ass.

9:35 He's like, I don't want to do this. He has to be convinced to go back up in the helicopter and things like that. So there's– you're right. We have no backstory with these people. We have no idea. But– It's not long, like even with the first 10, 15 pages that we've learned pretty much all we need to know about most of these characters pretty quickly. So yeah, he does a really good job giving us enough information without using a lot of... explanation or whatever. It's just, okay, here we go. This is what you're going to get with how they're acting and what they're saying very quickly. Well, and the best place to start for that is, as you mentioned, is the first 10 pages. But first, We're going to take our first break, and when we return, we will get into the first 10 pages in Act 1 of John Carpenter's The Thing. Welcome back to A Script By. We are talking the first 10 pages of John Carpenter's The Thing. The wrong question. Now, Campbell's novella opens with the men already gathered around the frozen creature.

10:36 They know they've found something impossible. They're arguing about what to do with it. The script opens with motion and confusion. Something falls toward Earth, and then a Norwegian helicopter is pursuing a dog across the Antarctic snow. The men in the helicopter are desperate to kill it. We have no idea why. That's a fantastic opening question. Why would anyone go to this much trouble to kill a dog? When the chase reaches the American outpost, everything goes wrong. The Americans don't understand the Norwegian's language or his urgency. To them, he looks like a dangerous man attacking a defenseless animal. The action is perfectly clear. Its meaning is not. That's the craft lesson. Lancaster doesn't start by explaining the monster.

11:21 He starts with people behaving in a way we cannot explain. The mystery then pulls us forward. Then there's MacReady and the chess computer. He's alone, drinking, playing a game against an opponent he can't intimidate. When he loses, he calls it a cheatin' bastard, or in the Finnish film, cheatin' bitch. That draft gives us that frustration. Now, in the finished film, Carpenter takes that gag further by having McCready pour whiskey into the machine. That distinction matters. It's a small example of how a character idea on the page becomes a memorable visual beat. Even without knowing the story, we understand something about McCready. He doesn't like losing control. He's competitive, independent, and perhaps a little too quick to destroy a problem he can't solve. In hindsight, It's an intriguing introduction to a man who will eventually decide the entire station has to burn. Lancaster is also introducing an ensemble through behavior, not biography. We can identify the commander, the doctor, the scientist, the men who challenge each other. We don't need a separate scene explaining everyone's past. After 10 pages, here's what we know. By page 10, we know the place, the people, and the mystery. We don't know the threat, but we've watched two men die trying to stop it. That's enough.

12:40 And the truly frightening part is that the Americans think the danger has passed. What do you prefer as an opening? The novella's immediate debate over the frozen alien? Or Lancaster's chase that forces us to ask what we're missing? Oh, absolutely what they put in the script. Because that's a giant mystery unfolding very quickly. I mean, yeah, the way the book opens is kind of cool. And the book is very science-heavy story. You know, and it's very science. Considering when it was written, that was a bit of a surprise to me, how science heavy it was. But I don't think that works on film to a point. There are some films that are able to pull off science heavy discussions or whatever. But that's not what this film is about. And with him getting right in, it's like obviously something's been going on. And it's like starting a movie at the beginning, you know, in the middle.

13:34 Like we've already missed kind of like the first scene, you know. Yeah. And that's– and so, you know, you got the Norwegians. They know what's going on. Not us Americans. We don't know what's going on. As viewers, we don't know what's going on. So there's a giant mystery dropped right in our lap. And what I love about that is it's like they're just kind of hanging out, you know, waiting. This dog comes running up. And then it just goes to shit. Helicopter. Well, the script crashes, you know, the guy starts shooting at, you know, everybody and, you know, one of them could even get shot. So yeah, it's a lot very quickly. And then they try to explain, well, what do you think happened? And even later, like, well, you know, they went stir crazy and things like, you know, they're just trying to figure it out, but. And even us as viewers, if you haven't seen it, we're trying to figure it out too. We're like, why on earth would anybody want to shoot such a beautiful animal? You know, what's going on?

14:29 And that's what I also like about the characters is that they don't do something dumb to invite the terror in. They do something that any sane human would do and believe. You know, it wasn't like, oh, don't do that. Don't do that. You know, so I liked that. They were really, I mean, they were seduced right away. Right away. Absolutely. Absolutely. Well, let's get into act one. The threat is already inside. In the rest of act one, McCready and Copper investigate the Norwegian station. They don't witness the disaster. They walk through its aftermath. The ruined rooms, the bodies, the excavation in the ice, and those burned. Impossible remains become clues in a story nobody has yet figured out. That's environmental storytelling.

15:23 We reconstruct the catastrophe alongside the characters. Lancaster trusts us to notice details and to make connections without pausing the movie for a lecture. Meanwhile, the dog is inside the American compound. That's the brilliant reversal of the opening. The Americans thought they were protecting an innocent animal. In reality... They have admitted the very thing the Norwegians were trying to destroy. It's a form of dramatic irony, but not because the audience has all the answers. We don't. We simply understand that the dog is connected to the nightmare and that the Norwegian station, while the Americans still treat it as a basic stray. And that is an important distinction from Campbell. In the novella, the scientists knowingly consider thawing the alien. Here, the danger enters because the men misunderstand evidence. They're not being stupid. They're making a reasonable judgment with incomplete information. That's much more unsettling. As we move toward the kennel, the other dogs react badly. The newcomer is unnaturally still. Lancaster lets that discomfort sit. And then the story is ready to reveal what has been hiding in plain sight. The first act begins with, what are they chasing? It ends with a much worse realization.

16:38 The thing they were chasing is now living with us. So is discovering the destruction after the fact more frightening than seeing what happened to the Norwegians? Oh, yeah. Because, I mean, yeah, it would have been kind of cool to see that. But like I said, you know, we're showing up as viewers and as, you know, our 12 men at Outpost 31 are showing up late to a story. You know what I mean? They've already missed their first act. They missed, you know, the whole run. Like they're just like, you know, well, we're going to do this part and then these guys are going to come in. and they're going to try to pick up the pieces. So yeah, when they're walking through, when they see, especially the guy that slashed his wrist, like killed himself with the razor, that was frozen. I mean, what a description, you know, and that comes through.

17:25 What a description in the page too. That was really great. Because it's, you're kind of like, when I'm reading that, I'm like going, because I could see it. I mean, I know I've seen that scene, but he did such a good job putting that in there that you're like, yep, that made it to the screen perfectly. But The idea like there was one– there was more bodies in the screenplay and like one was actually like fell and like startled them or whatever. So there's a lot more for them to see and I think it's more frightening because if you walk into a thing like that, even sometimes like you come home and things are out of sorts, you instantly kind of go, OK, what's wrong? You're instantly put on guard and that's what happens here. We see something that is just horrible. There's the smoke. The building is pretty much gone. And all you can think is, what happened? And you have no idea, not a clue. And, of course, they can't read it in the notes because it's in Norwegian. So they're still not getting the answers.

18:26 It's great. And every logical explanation is– completely dismissed due to what they find how they find it so it's not sir crazy it's not their power went down or anything like that it's something they can't explain something. Just way too weird. Well we're going to take our second break but when we return we're going to dive into acts two and three of the thing welcome back to a script by we're discussing bill lancaster screenplay for john carpenter's the thing and getting into act two, the collapse of trust. The kennel sequence changes the entire genre of the story. Until now, this has been an investigation. The men are trying to understand a disaster somewhere else. Then the dog opens up into something impossible, and suddenly the disaster is theirs. The creature can assimilate and imitate other organisms. That's an astonishing special effects premise, but its real value is dramatic. Once the men know what it can do, they can't trust appearances, behavior, or even memories of the person standing next to them.

19:37 Blair grasps the implications first. If the organism reaches the wider world, the danger could be catastrophic. His discovery ought to make him the most useful man in the room. Instead, it drives him toward panic. and desperate action. Knowledge doesn't restore order. It breaks it. Notice how clearly Lancaster handles the monster's presence. Once the intimidation rule is established, he doesn't need a transformation in every scene. A perfectly ordinary conversation becomes threatening. Somebody walks into a room, and we wonder where he's been. Somebody objects to a plan, and we wonder whether he is frightened or protecting the creature. And the chain of command collapses. Gary begins as the station commander, but authority means less and less when the group can't agree on what is real. MacReady steps into that vacuum, not because he's a polished leader, and not because everybody likes him. He acts when the others hesitate.

20:31 That's what makes him such an interesting protagonist. He's capable, stubborn, aggressive, and sometimes... frightening himself. The line between leadership and coercion gets thinner as the situation gets worse. The defibrillator sequence is another wonderful example of the story weaponizing our assumptions. Copper tries to revive Norris. In an ordinary movie, a doctor using a defibrillator is an act of rescue. Here, the body itself becomes the threat. The scene takes a familiar, life-saving action and turns it into a horrifying reversal. By this point, the men have stopped asking only how to kill the monster. They have to answer a more urgent question.

21:13 How can we tell whether the monster is standing right next to us? McCready eventually proposes a test based on the creature's own biology. And we will return to that detail later because I think it's one of the big things we'll talk about and be on the page. But for now, what matters structurally is that the film has turned a physical threat into a crisis of evidence. Every accusation could be true. Every defense could be a lie. And the stakes keep escalating. The men begin by investigating a mystery. Then they fight to stay alive. But once they understand what this organism can do outside of Antarctica, survival may not be enough. If one infected person escapes, everybody else could be at risk. That is the turn that drives us into the final act. The heroes may have to destroy their only shelter and themselves to stop the thing. At what point does the movie become more frightening to you? The first major creature reveal or the moment men start treating one another as potential monsters?

22:17 That's a good question. Honestly, the scene in the kennel is always throwing me off. Because number one, I'm an animal lover. And to watch what happens to those animals is... horrible because they are innocents. You know what I mean? The animals, they're not, they didn't start this. They didn't bring it upon themselves. They obviously, they sensed something wrong with the newcomer, but they're innocents. So when it comes to the people, unfortunately, if, you know, the whole bear men thing, I mean, I'm going to pick dogs over people more often than not. So I'd say most people would.

22:58 Yeah. So the fact is, it gets more interesting, the more paranoia starts to roll out because you're right. Every scene, there's an argument, every scene there now becomes, you know, questions, you know, and, you know, you know, what's his name was alone with a, with a dog, you know, and the dog was walking around. And so it's, it's, it's here, it's there. And so we don't know. And that's one thing that's really great about the script too, is that, We don't know anything either. We know as much as what's happening to those guys. So it's not like we're let in on the secret. You know what I mean? So as we're watching, we don't know who's infected either.

23:39 And so we're getting tense. We're trying to go, well, maybe it's them. Maybe it's them. Well, they're protesting too much. So maybe it's them. So, you know, being in their situation, I think obviously the paranoia is more frightening because people do terrible things when they're scared. Oh, yeah. So that's awful. So the the the reveal in the kennel is horrible, but the people that stop trusting each other is scarier. Yeah, I agree, because with just, you know, a monster, then then, OK, everybody's together. We're going to kill it.

24:20 Right. But now, I mean, you could be alone. And the rest of them could be the thing. You could be the thing and not even know it. Right. I mean, it would, it opens up so many doors of pure terror, just pure, I mean, internal, internal terror. Yeah. Because, because I know at one point when McCready says, I know I'm human, like, do you know? Yeah. That's, and that becomes a question that I've asked myself over and over again. Every time I watch it, I'm like, you know, Obviously, at some point, the creature knows who they've taken over, like when Fuchs is running away and he doesn't get a chance to change or whatever. So there's those moments, obviously, but once they're completely changed, do they know? And you just wonder. You wonder if it doesn't have a memory or whatever. Maybe that's part of what the alien does is make sure, no, they're just going to keep their personality. They're going to keep acting like this until I step up and change things.

25:22 Right. Palmer was acting all cool until he wasn't, you know what I mean? And Blair was acting all cool until he wasn't. So it's, you know what I mean? It's, so yeah, it's, it's great. It's, it's so much fun to watch and there's layers. There's lots of things going on, lots of things to discuss and lots of questions. Yeah. Well, let's try and get those answered in act three. Winning may mean dying. In Act 3, Lancaster and Carpenter make one last change to the central question. It's no longer, who is the thing alone? It's, can we keep it from getting out? Blair, the scientist who understood the threat most clearly, has himself been assimilated. Beneath his shack, the men discover an astonishing construction project, a spacecraft. Whatever the creature's ultimate purpose, it's intelligent, resourceful, and looking for a way out. MacReady's final choice is devastatingly simple. Destroy the station.

26:21 Destroy the equipment. Destroy anything the organism could use to survive or escape. Now what's impressive about this as character writing is that MacReady doesn't become a different person. He's still the same stubborn SOB combative man we met playing chess. But the meaning of his determination has changed. He isn't trying to win a personal contest anymore. He's prepared to die to prevent the creature from winning. And then Carpenter gives us that extraordinary final scene. MacReady sits among the burning wreckage. Childs returns from the darkness. Each has a story. Neither can verify the others. They share a moment of exhausted conversation. And the film refuses to settle the question of who's human. The structure is beautifully clean. Act 1 asks, what happened to the Norwegians? Act 2 asks, who among us is human? Act 3 asks, can we stop this thing even if it costs us everything? And the creature may be gone, the paranoia isn't. And that's an ending that stays with you long after the credits. So does that ending work because we're still trying to identify the creature or because these two men have lost the ability to trust anyone, whether they're human or not?

27:39 Honestly, I think it works on a lot of different levels because... It works because there's always going to be a discussion afterwards. Well, is MacReady the alien? Because Child's disappeared. Is he the thing? And there's been a lot of people that when it comes to the film that you can't see Child's breath, but you can see MacReady's breath. I'm like, that's just camera angles. It's just lighting. Because somebody says, well, the Child's– you can't see his breath, so he's the thing. And that's what I'm like going– I think that's thin, but it's an interesting thought. It's one of those things that you look at that. And every time I watch the ending, you know, I kind of go, it doesn't matter because if one, it doesn't matter because they're both going to freeze. And if, if the thing is still in one is in one of them, it's going to be there to be found again. So, and then you got to wonder what happens in the spring where whatever, whoever shows up looking for him and then the whole thing starts all over again. You know what I mean? Which is just kind of fantastic to think about. That's more fun in a way to think about than who's who at the end. But it's a fantastic way to end because I love a good– I don't always need a happy ending in every film. They make sense in certain ones. They don't make sense in other ones. This is a film that never needed a happy ending. There's a resolution, but it has– and it has a great ending. And I love it regardless, whether

29:09 it's on the script or whether it's in the final film, it's a great way to end it because you discuss it afterwards. It's a scene you discuss endlessly, you know, in debate and whatever. So I think it's a great ending. And I cannot think of a happy ending. Okay. Maybe not even just happy, but you know, positive that would work. No, that would work in a, in a, in definitely in a John Carpenter film. Right. You know, you've got stuff like this. You've got the ending with... Escape New York where Snake Plissken's tearing up the you know tape so that ending is so him but also I just can't think of any other way they could have gone with it sure they could have gone with a big scare or maybe we'll see something later but I like you. I like that. It's open-ended and you don't even have yet, you know, that whole, like, I believe you, the whole thing with the breath and stuff, you don't have a definitive thing to say it's child's it's McCready. Sure. Child's did wander off, but he said he thought he saw Blair. Did he see Blair? Was he chasing him? You know, and sometimes it doesn't make sense.

30:25 Why wouldn't child's be there? If the entire thing blasts out as the Blair monster, So many things. So many things. So many things, yes. And ambiguous endings are good when they work. And this one works. Absolutely. Well, we have now closed out all three acts of John Carpenter's The Thing. And we're about to go beyond the page. So now it is time to go beyond the page. And our first beyond the page is going to be subtext, setup, and silence. There are three craft choices I want to pull out before we compare the script to the finished film. First, the chess computer. We touched on it earlier as a characterization. It also foreshadows the larger story. MacReady faces an opponent he can't read, accuses it of cheating, and ultimately refuses to play by the rules. In the finished film, pouring whiskey into the computer makes that idea visual. Later, destroying the station becomes a much more terrible version of the same impulse. Second, the dog. It is a Trojan horse in the most literal, dramatic sense. The Americans do the compassionate thing and let it in. Only later do they realize their apparent rescue was the creature's entry point. Lancaster turns a simple act of kindness into the story's central mistake without making the characters foolish. Third, dialogue. Early on, these men sound like co-workers who've been isolated way too long. There's irritation, sarcasm,

32:01 routine friction. Palmer jokes. Childs pushes back. Gary expects his rank to mean something. McCready keeps his distance. After the kennel, those same kinds of exchanges become impossible to interpret. A question might be innocent or a way of gathering information. A denial might be true or a perfect interpretation. imitation of what a frightened human would say. The dialogue has acquired a second layer without anyone needing to announce it. One of my favorite examples in the finished film is Gary's outburst about being tied to the couch. It's funny, but there's humiliation behind it. The station commander has become a suspect who can't even decide when he's allowed to stand up. And MacReady's dialogue becomes shorter and more forceful as his authority grows. He doesn't win the group over with inspirational speeches, except one. He makes decisions, issues demands, and sometimes uses threats. The script asks an uncomfortable question.

33:00 Is he becoming a good leader or simply the most dangerous person in the room? There's a final visual contradiction I love. Fire and ice. The cold is killing them and the warmth is what keeps them alive. But fire is also their best weapon against the creature. By the end, destroying the station means destroying their own protection from Antarctica. The tool that may save humanity could kill the people using it. All of that works because the story establishes rules and then lets them generate consequences. And it sets up the next question. How much of that power came from Lancaster's pages? And how much came from what Carpenter chose to remove? What's a small piece of setup, dialogue, or visual storytelling you notice now that you missed in earlier viewing?

33:46 Honestly, I think– it's not a small detail, but I love the interaction that Doc and MacReady have when they go to the Norwegian camp. I think that you're kind of getting a relationship like the Doc really wants to go, and even though MacReady doesn't want to, he's like, whatever. So he's just almost trying to get out of it by asking about the weather or whatever. But when they get there, just the details within that camp– are giving us things to worry about, you know, and with, with no answers, but the little things that are, I think more and more important as the script progresses is the clothing, the finding of the clothing, the ripped clothing, you know, and how it's used later to basically frame McCready. Yeah.

34:37 You know what I mean? So I think that was one of those little things. I mean, to be fair, we could, it, it, the film still works without that idea, but, So that and also asking about the dog wandering through all the places there until he gets put in the kennel. Who was alone with the dog? So things like that, it starts to add so much. So you're thinking, is it a dog wanderer? I mean our dog walks all over the place. Our cats walk all over the place. You don't think anything of it. So it's a very normal thing for us to watch this animal who was attacked just kind of meander around. Yeah. I think, you know, like I said, the clothing being torn and then the dogs just kind of looking about, maybe trying to find, well, who am I going to get next? And, you know, we don't know that necessarily at that point. So it's after the fact that we have when we know what he is, that him meandering around the camp has way more weight on a second viewing. Yeah.

35:37 And I think just the great misdirection. I mean, the fact that Clark was with that dog for an hour and a half. why didn't he get infected? This creature is extremely intelligent because I mean, you think to yourself originally, yes, he's obviously infected. I mean, once he starts, you see him sneaking around and stuff. It just almost confirms it to a T and that misdirection that he used. And also later in the blood test and stuff like that. But that's what I really love is that, that great misdirection where they get you looking one way and then you're kind of slapped in the face on the other side as you're turning. Well, yeah, it's like, cause like, uh, he, when he picks up the scalpel, you're thinking, okay, here it comes. It's, it's got him. And then it turns out it's Palmer, the pothead. You know, it's like, we didn't, it's like, I didn't expect that. You know, I mean that the whole, the whole scene with the blood test was such a, you know, such a great, you know, every time you test somebody's blood, you're kind of like waiting, you're waiting for a reaction. And then you get the hiss. It doesn't happen. You're like, oh. So with Clark, he's like, Clark was human. So that makes you a murderer, which is a great line from Childs. You're like, well, I mean, he did attack me. Yeah. I was waiting. I kind of feel like, you know, McCready, he's a man of few words because I know personally if somebody accused me of murder, but like, dude attacked me. I shot him to defend myself. Exactly. McCready doesn't care at that point.

37:05 He's like, nah, I'm going on with this. I'm going to test more blood. So. Yeah, that's great. It was a great misdirection. Our next Beyond the Page is going to be page versus screen. And this one, less is more. Carpenter has discussed revising Lancaster screenplay, especially through the middle and cutting dialogue that slowed the picture or repeated information. That's an essential screenwriting lesson. A scene can be clear and interesting on the page and still lose energy. Once actors, images, and sound are doing some of the storytelling and the cuts weren't only exposition. Some humor went to a comedic McCready scene involving a blow up doll was filmed and left out. Thank God.

37:50 Yeah. A hundred percent. I mean, yeah, I mean, I, I love dark humor in, in a horror and the thing has plenty, you know, the, uh, You got to be effing kidding me. You know, there's plenty, you know, Hey man, I want to come back inside. There is humor in it. Yeah. You don't need to force it. Yeah. So Carpenter seems to have recognized the difference between a joke that reveals character in a joke that releases too much tension. He also sharpened McCready's central role, including writing a speech outside in the snow. That's important. Revision isn't just subtraction. Sometimes you cut five explanations and add one moment that tells the audience exactly where the story is going. Consider the Norwegian station. An earlier scripted scare involved a body dropping into view, carpenter moved away from that, more conventional jolt. Instead, the location itself becomes evidence of a catastrophe. We spend the scene studying the aftermath and imagining what could have caused it. Then there's Benning's. An earlier version involved a more elaborate chase in Death in the Snow, a sequence that was abandoned amid production constraints and finances. The finished film gives us something far more disturbing. Bennings, partially transformed, standing in the cold with those ruined hands.

39:10 He's recognizably himself, but he's not himself. Then that inhuman scream, and McCready burns him. I think that is much more frightening than a chase. The suspense isn't whether Bennings will get away. It's the realization that Bennings is already gone. And finally, the ending. Carpenter has described an earlier, more explicit resolution involving the creature surviving until rescuers arrive. The finished film gives us McCready and Childs beside a dying fire with no proof either way. The uncertainty isn't a missing explanation. It's the entire point of the movie. I don't want any of this to diminish Lancaster. He built the characters, the dramatic rules, the escalating paranoia, and some of the film's unforgettable set pieces. Carpenter recognized what performances, images, editing, and silence could carry without another line of dialogue. That's the collaboration I keep coming back to. A strong screenplay, followed by a filmmaker willing to ask what the camera can do better than another page of explanations. When does taking material out of a film stronger and what does it risk losing the character detail the writer did so much work to establish?

40:24 Well, I think what it comes down to is, you know, do we need this scene? You know, there are some times when scenes are removed for time and they were cool scenes. And, you know, you're kind of like, oh, man, that would be great to have that in there. But does it add anything? No. Did it further the story? No. I think when you remove something that, you know, for time or because it's going to cost too much and that ultimately hurts the story, that's the only time I kind of feel like cutting stuff hurts. Because when I was reading the screenplay and that chase scene was in there, I'm like, I was reading it going, I'm so glad this didn't make it into the film. Because it felt extra.

41:10 It kind of felt... Because honestly... Running after the dogs and the whole thing was kind of interesting, but the idea of Blair murdering the dogs when he kind of goes off the rails was way more impactful than a chase scene. You know what I mean? I think that hit more home. Honestly, when I was reading it and thinking about the film … It's well written. It is. It is. But, okay, so this is a perfect example, and I've said this so many times, that a good director … can take an average or good script and just make a great film. A so-so or bad director can take a great script and make it dumpster fire.

41:52 This is a perfect example of Carpenter taking a good script that does give us good characters, but realizing what is needed and realizing what works better visually than on the page. and giving us something that's better than what we were reading. He did. He made great choices. The fact that child's in the screenplay is growing pot does not make sense with how intense he is. It doesn't make any sense. And it doesn't make any sense of how intense he is about saving it. There's this whole situation about burning the pot and child's almost coming to tears. Yeah. It makes a little embarrassing, you know? And I'm like, yeah, I mean the stuff, that they cut was genuine. That would, Nope, that's not that character. That's not that character.

42:40 And it didn't make sense. You know what I mean? And I love how they changed the, the defibrillator scene, you know, cause in the script, it, something happens, you know, but in the movie, that is one of the most iconic scenes, you know, in any eighties movie going through the chest and, Oh my God. Cause you don't, it's like, it's like the alien is like the chest buster from alien. You know, you don't know what's coming the first time you watch it, but man, when it happens, it's amazing. So the fact is Carpenter had a great story with this Lancaster script. He absolutely did. There was a lot there to work with and he made cuts because the movie with what was there could have been over two hours long, could have been two hours and 20 minutes, two hours. And that could have been too much. It would have felt, it would have felt long. this is, it never slows down, you know, just for the sake of slowing down. You know what I mean? It ramps up, the paranoia gets heavier, the change with the final scene with everything makes more sense on the screen because I was reading it, I'm like, okay, so they're just going to start blowing stuff up, but I, maybe I missed it when I reread it the second time, but there's never, I don't remember there being a point where they say, okay, we're just going to blow this place up to try and destroy it because that's what they do in the movie.

43:59 They're like, We're going to bring everything into the ground. In the script, it sounds like they're just going– well, let's hope it comes at us so we can kill it. I don't know. What the changes they made with how it actually ended with the explosion, with bringing the camp to the ground is way more visually entertaining I think. Yeah. Yeah. And I think, like you said, it could have been two hours to 15 or whatever, but I think it's like 140 or something like that. Yeah. I mean, and like you said, once it starts, it just keeps going. But I think that speed of the film is what makes that creature even more terrifying. It's like, look how quick you tore this thing apart and imagine what else it can do. So yeah, that kind of speed through it is... I mean, it's basically one big night, really.

44:56 It didn't take long. What, a couple days, I think? Yeah. Yeah, so it was fast. So let's go to the moment that defines the script. And I believe the moment that defines the thing, and I don't think there's any question, is the blood test. Yes. Now, Carpenter considered this sequence essential, and I think he understood why. The entire premise of the film is distilled into one dramatic experiment. For most of the story, the men have tried to determine who is human by watching behavior, listening to explanations, and making accusations. None of that works when the creature can imitate a person perfectly. But Lancaster has already established a crucial biological rule. Every part of the organism can act to preserve itself. MacReady reasons that even a little infected blood should try to escape when threatened.

45:49 He heats a wire and starts testing samples one at a time. The men are restrained, they cannot run, and the audience has to wait with them. And like you mentioned before, here's that tiny detail I love in the draft. Each time the hot needle touches blood and nothing happens, Lancaster gives us one word. Hiss. Negative. Hiss. Negative. Hiss. Negative. Three tests, three ordinary sounds. He teaches us rhythm. We're starting to expect the next sample to behave exactly like the others. Then Lancaster adds misdirection. Gary challenges whether the test proves anything. McCready points out that Gary was the only one who had access to the sabotage blood supply and tells him he'll be tested last. Now our attention moves to Gary. McCready has essentially named his suspect.

46:40 We're waiting for Gary's turn, wondering whether the test will expose him. Instead, McCready reaches Palmer. The hot wire touches the blood, and this time it doesn't hiss. It leaps and all hell breaks loose. The effects are extraordinary, of course, but the shock is earned before we ever see them. Lancaster has built an expectation through repetition, then aimed our suspicion at a different man. Palmer's reveal breaks both patterns at once, and there's something else. This is the first time the truth can no longer depend on somebody's word. A man can lie. A perfect imitation can lie. but the blood responds according to the rules we've already learned. For a moment, the characters have evidence that they can actually trust. To me, it is the perfect example of writing, directing, acting, and effects all working together. Lancaster builds the logic in the trap, Carpenter controls the weight, Rob Bottin delivers the impossible image, and the scene turns a tiny dish of blood into the only honest witness in the room. That's why it's my defining moment. The thing is a movie about not knowing who to trust for a few minutes.

47:50 The answer is sitting right there in a Petri dish. What makes the blood test unforgettable for you? The pattern in the misdirection Lancaster creates or the timing and effects Carpenter brings to the screen. Wow. So the the whole idea because you want it to work because you you're at this point you want these guys have a break. There's got to, something has to go their way and you're thinking, okay, this has got to work. And so as we keep going through the different people and especially if you had a thought of maybe who you thought was the thing and when it proves, well, it's not them, it's not them, you know, because Palmer's been so relaxed and kind of laid back.

48:33 And we, at some point we're like, when did it get him? At what point you're like, when did it get him? So when he, When he turns, honestly, it's the Petri dish. It's the jumping of the blood and the Petri dish getting dropped. That freaks me out. Because when that happens, because you're like, you point out the hiss. And when that doesn't happen and it freaks– because even McCready drops it. He drops it. So– and then of course now you're like, OK, here comes Palmer. And honestly with that scene, he goes completely nuts and he can't– McCready can't get the flamethrower to work. But it's poor windows when it happens to him. I'm just like, man, it's a great, exciting and terrifying scene. But for me, the moment that Petri dish in the blood and it reacts that it's a jump scare. It's a perfect jump scare.

49:26 Cause you're like waiting for the hiss and it goes another way. It's great. Yeah. I mean, and he, and he throws out Gary. Yes. And you're like, all right, he's right. Gary was the only person that could get to that blood. That makes total logical sense. Yep. Once again, misdirection. Well, then let's get into legacy lessons and companion picks. Now we can't finish without talking about the summer of 1982. Spielberg's E.T. arrived on June 11th. Two weeks later on June 25th, audiences got both Blade Runner and The Thing. Three very different visions of encounters with the non-human. E.T. offered friendship and wonder. Blade Runner asked, what makes us a human? Carpenter offered the terrifying possibility that we might not be able to tell a human from an imitation. As we know, E.T. became a phenomenon.

50:22 Blade Runner and The Thing had a much harder time finding their audience. E.T. wasn't the only reason, of course. Reviews, expectations, and the film's darker tones all mattered. The Thing was met with harsh criticism and disappointing box office, but people kept discovering it on video and revisiting. The effects held up, the performances held up, and the story became more frightening as viewers began to appreciate how precisely it was constructed. The influence is easy to see in Tarantino's Hateful Eight, strangers trapped in winter, suspicious of one another, with Kurt Russell and Ennio Morricone linking the films even more directly. You can also see the DNA of alien imitation and paranoia in later horror and science fiction. And in 2025, The Thing was selected for the Library of Congress National Film Registry. 43 years after a disappointing release, the film received recognition as part of America's film heritage. That's a remarkable reversal. So what should a screenwriter take away? Establish rules that produce conflict. Let characters reveal themselves through decisions rather than biographies. Use what the audience doesn't know to create tension. And when you revise, ask whether the line is really necessary or whether the image already says it better.

51:45 Why do you think this film has grown in reputation over the years? I mean, obviously so many films from that era, besides the couple that we mentioned, just haven't. But this one just keeps delivering. Yeah. I think because it works on multiple levels, you know, for me, like I said, it's a nice little Halloween watch. That's not a slasher film. It's not the typical Halloween fair. The paranoia, you know, the visual effects. I mean, the practical effects are still solid. I mean, the, the, you know, the burnt remains when they're, when they're doing the autopsy, stuff like that, all that stuff looks so fantastic. And again, I think it was just ahead of its time. You know what I mean? I think it just hit at the wrong time, you know, and we weren't ready for it.

52:39 You know, obviously the critics weren't because one of the biggest complaints was how gory it was. It was so violent. It was so gory. And which I kind of thought was interesting considering a lot of the gore is on an alien. It's not like people were getting necessarily getting cut in half. I mean, yeah, windows gets pretty much eaten and whatever, but, I don't know. It, I, the biggest complaint people had is like, it's gross. I'm like, yeah, well, that's what makes it cool. That was Roger Ebert's, you know, review. It was just grotesque. Yeah. And I mean, I don't know if he ever changed his opinion about it later, but yeah, it just, I mean, I feel like though, it's a film that seems to keep getting bigger as time goes by. Um, There's, you know, I come across people that I normally wouldn't expect them to see it and they have, and obviously they've enjoyed it.

53:33 So I feel like it keeps becoming, I know it's considered, you know, one of the big cult classics, but it's, it's becoming bigger than that now. Yes. It's so big because people are seeing it. I'm like, this is not just a great horror film, science fiction film. This is just a damn good movie. It's satisfactory. It just works on so many levels. Yeah. There's actually– it was Pendragon, a gaming company, actually made a board game, a social deduction board game where one of the players is the thing and nobody playing the game knows who the thing is except for that one person. So your goal is to either infect the rest of the people or try to get out of the base and escape. So it's a great, and it even has Petri dishes, you know, so it's, it's, it's, yeah.

54:25 So the fact is, um, the, the iconic poster art, you know, personally, I think this is probably one of my favorite performances from, uh, from Kurt Russell. I love him as McCready and yeah, you can see, I mean, as much as I dislike the hateful eight, you can see the influence in that film for sure. It makes sense. And, but I just think it's one of those movies that the more people see it as it ages, you know, they're like, when was this made? Cause if you don't tell them, if you don't tell some people, I think some people would have a hard time figuring it out, especially if they don't know the actors, you know, but it holds up. It still looks, it still looks great.

55:09 It sounds great. And the funny thing is it would only work, you know, in a time where we don't have so many satellites, we don't have, internet you don't have you know what i mean so it works then you know it's almost like a period piece you know yeah like so yeah it it just gets better there's as much as i love films from the 80s or whatever not all of them hold up there's there's some of them just look scream so 80s this one is is timeless you know i mean it does say the very beginning of the film you know Antarctica in 1982. But the fact is, it's a title card. It could have been made 10 years ago and still use the same title card. Ultimately, that matters because of the technology that was available at that time to make them more isolated.

56:00 So yeah, it's great. Yeah. There's not any cringe moments in this movie. Some of them you watch and you're like, eh, they could have worked on that a little bit better, but not in this one. No, no, they got rid of the cringe thing with the inflatable. True. Yes. Yeah, they got rid of that. So for my companion pick, this might upset you, but I am going to go with the Hateful Eight, the extended four-part version that's on Netflix. Now, I know it's an obvious choice, but it is a useful comparison. Tarantino takes that same trapped-together distrust and builds much of the tension through dialogue, where Carpenter so often relies on science.

56:41 And my bonus pick is Philip Kaufman's 1978 Invasion of the Body Snatchers, which I believe was previously covered on a film by with Scott Hoffman and David Burns, if I'm correct, because I believe I listened to that episode. That makes sense. Same terrifying uncertainty about who is still human, but set in a crowded city rather than the Antarctic wilderness. Two different ways to make an ordinary human contact feel dangerous. What would be your companion picked today? Like I said, it can be anything. You know what? I just thought of another one. Honestly, you know what? When we– this might sound like a cheat, but when we did– because we did a Versus episode on the original 1951 and this one. And I think– because there's some things you can tell they pulled right from the original and put it into this one.

57:31 You know, like the on-fire alien going through the door, which is in the original in a different way, but it happens in this one too. I– and– I like to see the evolution, you know, going through the novella and then seeing that film and then watching this version. You can see the evolution of the storytelling. You can see the choices that were made and the DNA is still there, you know. And I really enjoyed comparing those two films together because you can see how over time they were telling this story. Well, I'm going to tell this story. But it's, you know, like I said, they're shared DNA, and it makes sense to me. So I know it sounds like a cheat, but I love putting those two together.

58:16 Yeah, I watched it for the first time recently, and I was, you know, the first five, ten minutes is pretty much almost the same as, you know, Carpenters, you know? And I did notice that the compounds, hallways and stuff, Very similar. Similar. Yeah. Very similar. So he still kept that look. And I thought that was really cool. Yeah. Yeah, he did. Another one I just thought of, if you really, really love the thing, and obviously you should, True Detective Season 4. That would be the one with Jodie Foster. Okay. Interesting. It takes place in, I think, Alaska.

58:57 Okay. But it very much mirrors the thing. Interesting. Give it a shot if you're interested. All right. Well, Dayton, thank you so much for coming back to a script by, I mean, I know you had to, you know, juggle some hoops and you were sick and stuff, but, but like you said, I knew you'd enjoy talking carpenter and, and digging into Campbell Lancaster and the changes that shaped this movie. I mean, like you said, it just made me appreciate it. You know, even more one current quick programming note. Most of you probably know that we originally planned Thelma and Louise for October, but with Halloween approaching, we couldn't resist spending the month with a thing. Our discussion of Callie Corey's Academy Award winning screenplay for Thelma and Louise will be coming in November. Thanks to everyone listening and supporting A Script By. Keep up with A Film By with new episodes every Monday and our Star Trek series Phaser set to stun on Wednesdays. You can find us on YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and X. Visit afilmbypodcast.com or email afilmbypodcast at gmail.com. And we want to hear from you. What do you think happens in those final minutes of the movie? Is MacReady human?

1:00:14 Is Childs? Or is the point that neither of them can ever know? Like I said, Dayton, thanks again. And to everybody listening, every great film begins with a great script. Until next time, this has been a ScriptBot.