Plot hole: Through this film (and its predecessor) it is established that the creature imitates its victims perfectly, having all of their knowledge and memory. At the end, when the female lead tells the male lead she knew he was human because of his earring, he reaches for the wrong ear, confirming he is The Thing. Even if The Thing couldn't reproduce the earring, it would have known which ear it was supposed to be in.
The Thing (2011)
2 reviews
Directed by: Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.
Starring: Joel Edgerton, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Eric Christian Olsen, Ulrich Thomsen
Your rating
Average rating
(6 votes)
2011 saw the prequel to The Thing tackle the story about what happened to the Norwegian arctic camp populated by scientists who had originally discovered the spaceship-and the sole survivor. A larger team--including two women--face the shape-shifting, body-possessing horror in this less-suspenseful and more grotesque film that has the monster rampage and decimate the humans, filling in various gaps left as backstory in John Carpenter's original classic. Mary Elizabeth Winstead's plucky Paleontologist character Kate Lloyd tries her best to survive in a nod to the Last Girl trope and Alien's Ripley, but if you've seen The Thing, you know that things don't bode well for any of them. Imaginative SFX by the dynamic horror duo of Alec Gillis and Tom Woodruff, Jr. bring the nastiness to life. See it and watch 1982's The Thing in either order-the idea of an unknown and murderous life-form attacking isolated and ill-prepared people remains the same.
I own this movie (3 film box set) on DVD.
This is the often maligned prequel to the 1982 classic and usually judged on unfair parameters. The biggest mistake this movie made was just titling it The Thing again, leading many people to incorrectly believing it was a remake of the 82, when in fact it's a prequel. The ending of this film directly leads into how the 82 film begins.
Also why did they not put this film out a year later in 2012? Then it could have been for the 30th anniversary of the 82 film... strange decision.
But there was a lot of meddling by the studio in this movie. A big complaint for this movie is the heavy reliance on CGI for the alien rather than practical. When in reality a lot it actually used practical effects and were fully filmed. However the studio went back and demanded a CGI overhaul thinking people would reject the practical effects as looking too dated.
Ironically having the opposite effect of now the film having very dated looking 2011 CGI that doesn't hold up in 2025.
Combine that with the misconception that this is a remake and not a prequel, and it's a recipe for this movie having an unfair bad reputation.
There comes in my unpopular opinion. I think this movie is almost just as good as the 82 film, and is a great companion piece as a prequel setting up the events of that film. This also takes more of the ideas that were shown in the original 1951 film and update it. So this movie is almost more of a remake of the 50s film while the 82 film is an adaptation of the novella with this movie leading into it.
If you watched this back in the day had knee jerk bad reactions to it due to the semi-bad CGI and the misunderstanding of it being a remake of the 82 film, I say give it another shot.
I legit think this is a great movie worthy of standing along side the John Carpenter film and makes a must see companion piece. I rate this a 4 and a half out of 5 stars.
Mistake Status: Will do these 3 movies eventually.
More mistakes in The Thing
Adam Finch: So, I'm gonna die because I floss?
Trivia: Much of the ending was reshot, including a scene where the alien pilots within the spaceship were witnessed by Kate Lloyd dangling from some sort of tubes; the body of one was replaced post-production by an odd Tetris-like display.
More questions & answers from The Thing
Suggested correction: It is also established in this film that the creature cannot perfectly imitate inorganic materials; the tooth fillings, metal plate, etc. Kate knows that Carter is The Thing and asks him a trick question about his earring to confirm it. The fact that The Thing reaches for the wrong ear means that it didn't know where the earring really was because it cannot perfectly imitate inorganic materials. There is no mistake here.
THGhost
The mistake has nothing to do with The Thing not being able to imitate inorganic material. The mistake is The Thing has all the memories and thus should know which ear was pierced based on these memories.
Bishop73
This goes with my theory that he was actually human because he didn't try to assimilate her when they we're alone and far away from people, and he didn't change when he was threatened and accused which was backed by (potentially false if the theory is correct) evidence which would make it defend itself.
You're obviously wrong here. The Thing imitates the human perfectly including the memory and I'm pretty sure that if you only have one ear pierced you'd know which one is it, therefore the imitation would know.