If you were in Macready's shoes, what would you do??
At the end of the film, we know Macready and crew decided to torch the camp so the Blair-Thing couldn’t survive, freeze , be found later, and potentially be unleashed on civilization. However, since Macready was clearly in the leadership position at this point, do you think he should have made the call for all of the crew to stick together, hunt down and kill the Blair Thing in a group effort? I know he had civilization’s best interest in mind, but he basically signed he and his remaining crew’s ultimate death certificate by deciding to torch the whole camp so abruptly. Think back..At this point, they knew Bennings, Norris, Fuchs, Doc, Windows and Palmer were all dead. Macready, Childs, Nauls, and Gary all proved they were human based on the results of their blood -*test*-('")s. So the Blair-Thing was the only Thing left at the point Gary is proven to be human (Granted, I would go back and burn the remains of Norris and Doc just to be sure..) So, if Macready decided they would all stick together, not only to be a stronger force, but to also keep eyes on each other to know for SURE none of them were taken over…….Using some stealth and wit, they would have had a better chance of taking the Blair-Thing out. If they did in fact find and take the Blair-Thing out, they could have still had shelter, rations, etc and used their intelligence and instinct to ride the rest of the winter out until spring came and they were rescued. All that being said, did Macready make a hasty decision to destroy the whole camp without really thinking? If you were Macready, would you have done the same thing?

I don't think they would have been able to stand the ongoing storm for a lot of time. I don't remember what temperature this is at this point but basically, they are going to die in a matter of hours, maybe days at most. And this was the beginning of the winter, so months of darkness, nobody would have checked on them for a long time. I guess that's why they decided to burn the camp.

After the Palmer-Thing episode, we all stick together, even when one of us has to go to the bathroom. When we go to sleep, we do so together, and all huddled up together, maximising the amount of physical contact between each of us, so as to make it impossible for The Thing to assimilate anything less than all of us simultaneously. We keep the camp intact and explore for long as it takes until we feel confident that we have destroyed every last trace of it. Also, do what we can to repair the radio and try to get rescued. XidiouX

You're right Childs-Thing, what happens in the novel and script makes much more sense because the survivors from OP 31 try to survive the winter by using portable heaters instead of letting themselves die like they do in the movie, as if there was no backup plan if the generator was gone. Anyway, Xidioux's idea is probably the best one.

After posting it, I realized that some might be uncomfortable with the level of intimacy that would be required of the survivors, all of whom would be male. As a heterosexual, I know that I would. However, I would simply have to accept the fact that there are far greater things at stake than any homophobic inclinations I may have, and I would just have to try to overcome them, if only temporarily. Still, there are limits... "Those aren't pillows!" - Steve Martin. ...and anyone without pyjamas, especially pyjama bottoms, gets shot. I mean it (click!) :evil: XidiouX (At least I wouldn't have to worry about "Commando" Copper.)

interesting...
While Mac is a sore loser (see the chess game), he won the most important battle. Entrenched military instinct meets survival of the fit-*test*-('"). He knew they wouldn't survive and ultimately did the right thing. With the generator gone, and only so many hours before they freeze to death, Childs being able to rig enough heat to keep the men alive wouldn't be feasible. Portable heaters against a below zero storm that just doesn't seem possible to me. A rescue scenario, well if someone else saw the outpost on fire, possibly. But it's slim.

He's more the kind of person who doesn't work or think within a rule-bound framework, this being entirely consistent with him being a bit of a loner. The appreciation of this is essential for the understanding of how the "cheatin' bitch" scene foreshadows the manner in which MacReady ultimately defeats The Thing: he destroys the entire camp, which is the 'board' upon which the game of himself versus The Thing is played. Also, by destroying his chess computer, he forfeits any future opportunities to play chess. By destroying the camp, he forfeits any future opportunities to do anything. It doesn't matter, because he will do anything to win. Why? Remember that he is a Vietnam vet. Unspeakable atrocities and countless scenes of men torn apart have been burned into his mind*. Is it any surprise that, to MacReady, life is cheap, even his own? Perhaps he had some very narrow escapes in Vietnam, and feels that he shouldn't even be here anyway. However, the USA's humiliating exit from Vietnam is also burned into his mind, and it hurts, badly. That's why he still wants to win, even at the cost of his own life, and therefore at the cost of anything, including fidelity to the rules. XidiouX *And it is any surprise that when confronted with the visceral nature of The Thing, he is psychologically better equipped to deal with the scenes of rendered flesh that arise than the others at Outpost 31?

If I were Mac I'd most definitely burn the whole base down after having just gone through all of that. I would be desperate to get rid of that thing to keep it from overrunning humanity.

Thanks IKIH. It could also be said that one thing that MacReady and The Thing have in common is that they are both anarchists. Neither are bound by any rules of engagement. This is obvious with MacReady. In the case of The Thing, it is free to assemble itself into any form based on parts of lifeforms it has assimilated, to make full use of the faculties that these endow it with, and it does so with complete abandon*. The number of forms it can take scales exponentially with the number of lifeforms it has assimilated, just as the complexity of a photofit kit does with the number of complete photos used to build it. Can an anarchic enemy only be defeated by becoming an anarchist oneself? Not necessarily, although when trying to defeat such an adversary, any set of rules one chooses to obey forms a constraint which can only make the job harder. MacReady abandoned all the rules in order to defeat The Thing, just as he did with his chess computer, regardless of the fact that in both cases, the rules were there for a good reason - survival after victory. Oh, and in MacReady's case, what actually were the rules? In both cases (chess computer/defeat of The Thing) they could probably be described in many equivalent ways and the likely terms of his employment contract are probably as good as any. "They'll show us how to break the rules but never how to make the rules" - David Bowie. XidiouX * My understanding of anarchism is that it is not about absolute freedom, but rather about deciding not to restrict oneself to a (proper) subset of the set of possible actions. This set of possible actions is always constrained by various factors. After all, if I decided to become an anarchist, then no matter how hard I flapped my arms, I would not fly!