@JaggedBird ehhhhh... the comics weren't all that great. Each set had one good one, but the rest were pretty mediocre. Then there was a three issue run that ignored the previous two limited runs and went back to directly after the movie. So they're not all Canon. When it comes to film canon, any expanded universe COULD be considered canon, but they could be made non canon as soon as a new film entry happens. It's happened to every single huge franchise. Predator, Alien, Star Wars, even in TV shows like Stranger Things. Season 4 completely made the comics non canon. So if you want to consider them canon, go for it. But considering nothing has been put on film, I only consider the two films canon with everything left ambiguous and left to the viewer to follow clues in the film.
@@JaggedBirdyeah, and so is the contradicting PS2 game. No, the Canon is this film. Want to run wild with sequel material, knock yourself out. The only true Canon is this film. Yes, read the Darkhorse Comics, fun books but deflate John Carpenter's film. Just like John Carpenter's Halloween, it was never topped, thar 1978 ending was never even ⅛ topped by any sequels, remakes, reboot timelines etc. The ending of John Carpenter's Halloween and The Thing are perfect as is, bleak as it can be, again that is the point. I'm told Prequel 2011 is Canon... if that's true than Childs is without question not a thing because of the earring. Yeah, I'm just sticking with the 1982 classic: John Carpenter's The Thing. It begins and ends there. There is no other Canon. The prequel, the Dark horse Comics and the PS2 game, all considered Canon by... someone, all contradict one another and Contradict John Carpenter's The Thing. I'm good. The 1¾ hour film is what it needs to be, same as Halloween. ALL Halloween sequels (minus Halloween 3, different thing) are God awful that just serve to deflate John Carpenter's Halloween. As does the Novelization. I recommend reading Frozen Hell or the short story of Frozen Hell called Who Goes There, credited to Bill Lancaster's screenplay is based on.
There is an Important Distinction between what is “intended,” and what a film communicates. Just as the laugh at the end isn’t necessarily a gotcha acknowledgment, Child’s “well, then we’re wrong,” doesn’t necessarily mean he doesn’t care if he kills an innocent man; he’s shutting down the argument to continue his will.
I think that both men being human at the end also fits in with the script's atmosphere of doomed camaraderie, where we see both men kind of go "f*** it, who really cares whether he's the thing or not" then enjoy a drink together. Also, as you pointed out, if one of them was the thing they would have just attacked on sight.
@@alandouglas2789 that’s the thing that convinced him and if you’re talking about the first guy he means that people come up with these theories and they are usually wrong
I always assumed they were both human at the end of the movie. Figured it was ironic that the only 2 people to survive were the 2 that clearly liked each other the least of all the characters
John Carpenter confirmed ONE of them was infected. But your assumption is correct, assuming Movie Timelines is correct when he stated, "John Carpenter told Keith David & Kurt Russel to talk to each as if they were both human."
The fluid the kennel-thing sprays on the dog appears to be some kind of digestive fluid. You see a dog in that scene later that has it's shin and fur melted off.
Fun fact: Originally Nauls was supposed to burst from the ground and was going to be shown being assimilated and he was supposed to be calling for macready to help him only for the top of his head to be blown off. However this was cut because the team didn't have enough money to pull this off.
Don't quote me on this, but I heard recently that John Carpenter wanted to spend the money to make a special Carpenter's Cut that included a few of the deleted scenes and added a little spice to the movie that he could not do originally. If this is true, I wonder how could they pull off that scene of Nauls getting assimilated. The actor is 40+ years older now, on one hand they could CGI it or they could hire a stand in actor that physically is close to Nauls.
The point of the ending, from my perspective, IS the ambiguity. Sometimes fanboys just aren't satisfied with ambiguity ... but I am 🤷♂️. And I think in this case the ending's ambiguity improves the film overall.
I totally agree. Almost all of my favorite movies, horror or otherwise, end with ambiguity. I want to think about it, puzzle over it, and potentially discuss it with other people. Why insist on a definitive interpretation? I never understood why some people are more comfortable or satisfied with that goal. Oh well. To each their own.
In my imagination Nauls IS duplicated and they never had the chance to freeze to death. 😁 Now the thing is refrozen and, to this day, is patiently waiting for another expedition to thaw it.
Finally someone closes the book on the stupid Childs thing theory. Also the fluid it sprays the dogs with is it's digestive juices. You can see the same dog half melted on the ground before the tentacles overtake it.
I still say Childs is a thing at the end. Nothing will convince me otherwise. My evidence is we see Childa by the door. Then next we see a pov shot and Childs is missing this is BEFORE we see him run out in the Snow. Why would he go chase Blair into the snow? Plus the door looks like it has been open a while and there is snow on the ground from blowing in. That is my evidence for Childs being a thing. Nothing else will convince me and NO I don't take the comics or that crappy game as canon.
@@LUCKO2022 I agree with you about child's but what makes me wonder is couldn't child's have gone away from the door within the building looking for something? Water, alcohol, weed, food, bathroom break, Etc... Blair come through the front door sees no one there and goes into the basement for the generator, then the point-of-view shot is child's seeing the open door and the noise in the basement, thinking that Blair has come in and he just bolts... in self-preservation thinking he probably could die trying to take Blair out by himself. So he runs away into the snow and Blair cuts the power. Then later when human child's approaches McCready after seeing the camp blow up LOL he lies, rather than saying he ran away like a chickenshit he says he saw Blair and went after him. Somewhat cowardly saving himself and still being human when he talks to McCready. Also I might get that point he didn't care about drinking from the same bottle because they were both going to be dead in a few hours anyway. I'd say his biggest error was assuming that McCready was human since he blew the camp and was the only one that survived although even if McCready was a thing at that point, child's believe it at least that it wasn't in the shape to try anything anyway. For the record, I don't think McCready was a thing either.
"John Carpenter said he was a thing!" and Ridley Scott says that Deckard was a Replicant and even went out of his way to try to make it canon in the final cut, so sometimes you can just ignore what a director says. Besides, Carpenter seems like the type that would purposely changes his answer to the question every time it gets asked for his own amusement and to keep the debate alive among the fanbase.
Windows getting infected and the cell graphic are the movie literally showing you the thing can still take over a body via contamination even if it doesnt perform a full absorption. Also the fact that the Norris thing not only created a Norris head in its chest cavity, but also was able to detach the original Norris head that turned into a spider creature shows that even if it is in the process of creating a copy, it can still ultimately have control of the original host body as well. The rules with what the thing is capable of doing seem very fluid, but the cell theory makes the most sense in these cases, even if it isnt always taken into account by the script (childs and palmer sharing a blunt, dog licking benning's face, etc.)
but if the cell graphic is showing the cell theory...it's still just a graphic. it's not the thing actually doing it. it's a computer representation of how blair thinks it works. and the norris thing isn't creating a copy. it already IS a copy. a copy that can alter every fiber of its form, which is why it's able to separate the head with another head in its chest. norris isn't in the process of being taken over. he was taken over long earlier. also, if you're going to use scenes from the film as evidence for the theory, it doesn't make sense to just write off scenes from the film that don't support it like the lick and the blunt. those are evidence against the cell theory and the movie is literally showing you that.
Dog never licks skin, blunt is shared before palmer is assimilated The time spent on the graphic of the cells is specifically to get the point across that that is how it works. You did the same thing - disregarded the scene because it didn’t fit your theory. Windows doesn’t get anything bitten off, he’s all broken and bloodied but still in more or less one piece, then “he’s coming back”. Nothing in the film counteracts the idea of the thing being able to transmit via infection, and it being brought up so much with no reveal of it being a red herring (and in windows a demonstration), kind of a stretch to just say “oh that’s cos they were wrong”.
The best fk up that could possibly contradict it is the single scalpel for the blood test. though we only see windows wipe it after nauls to use on himself, to borrow your argumentation: maybe they sterilised it every other time, and this time he was more focussed on the flamethrower pointed at him. Personally I think the crew either forgot about contamination, genuinely thought a wipe was good enough, or they wanted the wiping gesture to show the tension between Mac and windows and sacrificed the details for the overall scene.
Always assumed that the reason the spaceship in the initial sequence is careening like that is because the thin broke loose and absorbed the entire crew.
That makes sense, and maybe more to it was that the thing had gotten loose and was attacking the crew. It might be that the ship was near our planet and they figured it’d be frozen in the ice and be stuck. Not figuring that there’d be intelligent life that’d come across the crash ship someday?
I always assumed Cooper didnt turn because his infection point was his arms that got bit off and he bled to death. All that blood pourin out, no way Thing-NA could get in him, and The Thing cant do anything with dead flesh anyway.
Wait, who says that the Thing can't do anything with dead flesh? Due to it's nature it's obvious why it would prefer living organisms, but i don't see why it wouldn't be able of assimilating cadavers and such. Pretty sure it can, just chooses not to.
@@fistoftulkas7335 Why do viruses only work in living organisms? Maybe there's a mechanism in living prey that it needs to duplicate itself. For instance maybe it need the ribosomes/organelles in the cell for replication. On a multicellular level I'm sure it could break raw biomass down and use it's shapeshifting to turn that into new cells. (This gets into the territory of "can it assimilate plants" and "why can't it photosynthesis") But at it's heart it's basically a virus or bacteria. Not very complicated, but very adaptable.
@@movietimelines but when we compare your first Thing UA video to this one, your shirt has a bluer tint in this video. Proof that at some point in between the two videos you were absorbed.
I would assume that if you can be infected by enough Thing cells getting inside you, they would travel through your blood to do it. Copper lost his arms, and likely bled out so fast that he died before any part of the Thing could turn him.
Yeah the thing with the single cell theory is not that it couldn’t do it but there’s basically no intelligence in cells that small so they might not even start to assimilate or are so little in number that the white blood cells take it out first. But if there’s enough there to assimilate than it works
I always assumed it was a prisoner in its way being exiled to a back-water planet when it escaped and crashed the ship. After absorbing the actual pilots and crew it assumed knowledge in how to assemble such a craft
The jackets being rearranged can kind of be explained. Childs has a flamethrower and he's near the generator. The thing wants at that generator, and it knows flamethrower=death. It can't attack safely, but it can trick Childs when he steps away for some reason (patrol, pee, doesn't matter). Shuffle the jackets and boots around so it looks like the others got back, which covers up the fact it stole a jacket - which it puts outside, in view of the door but away from the building. Childs gets unnerved by the obvious change in the room and looks outside, maybe because he's just suspicious or maybe because he fell for it, sees the jacket decoy, and runs off to burn it (or runs the opposite way, whichever). As soon as he's outside, Blair thing has free access to the ginny. Its probably just a continuity error - but it does offer an explanation other than the jacket theory if continuity error isn't enough.
It's a continuity error, check it. Take note of that room earlier on in the movie and you will notice that the coats are arranged identically to that scene near the end when the door is open. The order of coats from left to right is blue, beige, green, white.
So I’m sold on both of them being human at the end, but I was wondering what do you think Macready’s chuckle is meant to mean? That he’s paranoid and thinks Childs is a Thing? That it’s a bit of morbid relief that they’re both going to die as humans?
i think it's an exasperated laugh, followed by that defeated look on his face. i think he's amused by the ridiculousness of his situation, out there in the snow, about to die, sitting across from a man that he can't trust.
I have a suspicion that the goo the thing sprayed at the dog may have been stomach acid of some sort to help digest it. That's why there's the other dog partially decomposed but still not merged with the thing.
One of the brilliant points of filmmaking in this movie is how Carpenter made it so we're not sure what happened or who's who at the end. It takes talent to pull that off and raises this film from a mere monster movie in the classic it is. Henry James did something similar with 'Turn of the Screw.'
Here's a much better question - why didn't the thing just stay as the dog and behave normally for a few months until it could get to civilization? As McReady says,"this thing just wants to hide" well it was hidden but chose not to stay hidden and put itself in danger.
Good question but the other dogs knew the Norwegian dog was off from the get so the ruse wouldn't have lasted long. Or imagine if the thing had been successful in imitating all the dogs, then there would be a pack of Husky things that could attempt to reach civilization. Remember Blair yelling about how no normal dog could run from the Norwegian station all the way to the US station.
That was probably its master plan, but when the other dogs attacked it, it had no other choice but to counterattack. He also infected a member of the station before that, as a safety measure, but its plan was probably to just hide too. The thing's plan went to heck when he was forced to transform and everyone saw it.
I have watched this theory video several times because these answers feel definitive. Wish more fans of this franchise would have more love for the 2011 Prequel because it gave us SOOO much background information on why the 1982 🎥 film matters so much to us sci-fi geeks 🙌💯🍿
Evidence leans more on Childs being a thing admittedly but in the DVD/Blu ray, the last chapter of the film is title “one last thing”. It’s the last scene and it shows Childs in the preview. Also right at the moment he takes a sip, the music cue “dun dun” sparks. I’ve always taken those as hints he wasn’t human in the end.
If you freeze the screen at 2:26 you can seen part of Blair's head on the right side and the alien teeth on the left side. Never noticed this before looking at the big alien at the end of the movie......
Probably the best part of being an amalgam of malleable flesh is that you can design intricate controls and use every control all at once because you essentially have unlimited appendages provided you have enough mass. It can operate much more complex machinery than a person. I’m just imagining it all spread out throughout the tiny ship it was building, using all the buttons and controls at once
I think it was confirmed to be a hovercraft. At least that’s what I’ve heard. Supposedly John carpenter said so himself. It was just supposed to get the thing out of Antarctica and to a populate location
I always assumed it wasn't even meant to carry a whole person-sized creature or even go very far. If it could get just a piece of the Thing a thousand miles, that's all it would need to find all of the biomass it would ever need.
I think it is just a simple cabin to protect it from the cold. If it pretends to be human for rescue mission, it needs an explanation how it survived the freeze-over.
Regarding the bottle scene the thing mimics it's host perfectly. Including any pre existing conditions. I mean the thing literally had a heart attack (and it ate the doc because it perceived the shock as a attack like it's blood does to blood test.) Which means if a thing drank kerosene it would die like any other human.
@@morrigannibairseach1211 although we are discussing fiction here a scientific theory has a different definition from just a normal theory for example Einstein's theory of gravity
@@denton713 ...I kind of doubt you know the proper meaning of theory if you think that Einstein had a theory on gravity. His theories were relativity and special relativity. A theory is a testable model that can make predictions and explain facts. By using quotations I was mocking the lay conception of theory as "an idea" and thus something to be omitted easily. In the book they talk about how can a thing mimic something so completely without actually being it? The model proposed was that it'd have to be a cellular organism capable of manipulating the wall and plasma. What is proposed is a model that explains the facts available and even makes an accurate prediction via the blood test. So even though it is fiction it is a theory in universe. So what was your point of telling me something I already know anyways? You kind of just stopped so it feels like this was supposed to be a "look at how smart I am" moment but you fucked it but by saying Einstein had a theory of gravity. If you can get whatever lost paper you found by him published you can get him a posthumous Nobel prize. Git gud.
@@Neoprenesiren Einstein showed mathematically that gravity is not really a force of attraction between all objects with mass, as Newton thought. Instead, gravity is a result of the warping of space-time. Einstein's ideas have been supported by evidence and are widely accepted today
i've said it before, carpenter says a lot of things. haha, even though i have entertained a few theories, my best guess was neither was the thing, and the only thing that survived... was the fear and mistrust.
Carpenter said in the commentary that the thing wasn't the original pilot of the ship that crashed. Rather it was an organism on another planet somewhere far away. The ship itself was piloted by other aliens that were in a sense scientist, going around catching other organisms on other planets to study and experiment on. The thing somehow managed to escape and thus caused the ship to crash on Earth. I could have sworn that I read somewhere that Nauls death was written in the script that he would somehow get cornered by the thing in a bathroom or something and commits suicide. But then for some reason it was never filmed. At least that's what I thought I read. I always felt that maybe Childs was in fact lying about seeing Blair and that's why he took off. I think maybe he lied not because he's the thing, but because he was freaking out and was thinking the hell with all of this and just wanted to somehow bail. Sure they're out in the middle of Antarctica, but considering what they're dealing with, he's probably thinking fuck it. I would rather freeze to death or at least make an attempt to escape. When Mac asks him where he went, he told him he thought he saw Blair because he didn't want Mac to think he was considering abandoning all of them and saving his own ass. When the whole base exploded, he saw it and maybe thought everyone including the thing was dead and that's why he came back. That's why I think that he is in fact still human at the end of the movie and not the thing.
Here's a question that I'd really like to get your opinion on. I've always wondered, if given certain circumstances, if a thing in human form could be compelled to speak as itself and drop any attempt at pretending to be human? Let's say for the sake of this hypothetical situation that one is hopelessly trapped somehow, it's been found out beyond a shadow of a doubt as to its true identity so further deception would be useless, and has no hope of escape or success through attack. Maybe captured and placed in a secure holding cell. Could it or would it have a genuine conversation with its human captors? If asked, would it speak about its origin and the worlds that it had previously visited and colonized during its travels?
There's probably a good chance it's had conversations with species it's assimilated. Wouldn't want to be on the same planet as that Thing, though. Even in the deepest and most secure containment.
I read somewhere else that the thing absorbs the entire genetic and subatomic footprint of its prey - which includes its intelligence and consciousness. Hence why Taylor, the other, permanently stoned, helicopter pilot could continue as human for so long before suddenly erupting when it was cornered without any seeming signs of recent contact. Although it is a base organism it can utilise the higher functions of its victims as it finds it advantageous to do so. Thus if the thing absorbed Woody Allen it would totally be able to write and shoot award-winning films, and pick up the Oscars for them (but it still wouldn't be funny).
You have the answer to this situation in Taylor. When finally cornered he broke cover even though he was securely bound. As I said above, the thing can make full use of higher intelligence when it wants to, but at heart it is just a virus.
@@nobbynoris No doubt that it could imitate Woody Allen perfectly, including his lack of talent. The question is though does it have a separate intelligent identity that KNOWS it's using Woody as a cover, or is the Woody cover just some advanced type of instinctual behavior. Let's say hypothetically you've got Woody-thing trapped, it can't attack and it can't flee and there's no logical point in continuing to pretend to be Woody. Could it then drop the Woody scharade have a genuine conversation with you as its true self?
Great videos on this. Something I'd like to highlight here regarding whether Childs was a Thing or not is: The Thing wanted information. It coming up from behind and having a flamethrower makes me think Childs Thing would be safe. The Thing did ask "are you the only one who made it? Did you kill it?". Useful to know. McReady also recorded tapes and saved them somewhere. Now, the Thing may not know this, but it just goes to show that freezing in the snow is also damn risky. The Thing doesn't know what information is out there and if there is anything there to tip it off, it's screwed or at least will have another existential fight again. Regarding the directing decision of not explaining to any actor whether they are a Thing or not, I think that's just intentional. That way, you get humans playing as humans and not Thing humans. As said, your videos here have been great and thank you for making them.
@@movietimelines Oof, that blows, man. I got mine piece by piece over the internet, including the other two or three Thing serials besides the one that follows the events of the film.
i know i’m kinda late to this, but Nauls actually does get assimilated. there is a scene that was scrapped because it was too expensive, but it does show Nauls’ death and it’s honestly horrific.
@@alandouglas2789 Here's a link to what the storyboards were for that sequence! ruclips.net/video/TjwpIa9hVkg/видео.html Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about how it would have gone- but it absolutely would have been the most chilling death in the film.
Also it’s shown now in the new blue ray dvds that he actually DOES have breath. You just couldn’t see it in the 1980s filming. And he could have just been too cold to have a lot of visible breath at the time.
I think the thing is not friendly towards earlier versions of itself. It wants to be the most perfect imitation. That’s why it wasn’t friendly toward split-face, Norris (heart attack), and Bennings (malformed arm).
Oh, as for Nauls, there is a series of story boards showing worms coming out of Nauls face before he’s drug underground. It was cut for pacing and the fact they ran out of $$$. It was never needed to be seen.
I believe the bottle that Mac was about to drink contain kerosene or gasoline, and he was going to kill himself before he froze or die after consuming it. It could have still been a trap. The thing is, it's the saying was trying to escape, why not just run away while being in the form of the dog in the first place rather than trying to take absorbing someone else? At this time no one was suspicious that the thing was replacing the crew.
I know this is an old video, but I have to put in my two cents on the ending: I personally believe Childs is a thing not because of the breath, or the eye gleam, but because it makes sense in the narrative. At the very beginning, Mac is playing chess with the computer, smirks thinking he's won, loses, then pours the drink in the machine and says "Cheating, bitch." I believe this parallels the ending where Mac is playing a mind game with this creature the whole time, sits down believing he's won, then the thing shows up at the end proving he's lost. Mac gives him a drink paralleling the whiskey that was poured into the computer and they both sit down to freeze. As for why the thing didn't kill Mac at the end, he has no reason to. The thing wins if it survives because come spring, it'll thaw out and continue its assimilation. I like the idea that at the end, they sit down together and freeze, not making any more moves because they are both aware of the futility of it.
@@petervlcko4858interesting part of the original script. mac actually has a flame thrower under the blanket and he is ready to fry childs if he tries anything which i think is an awesome detail they decided to leave out.
But there wasn't any blood on Macs clothes opposed to Bennings when he was assimilated. Then Mac passes the blood test after, so it answers their assumptions.
I always felt that way with the infected people in the thing, would be interested if anyone agrees or disagrees with me. The people that are infected somehow don’t know really that they are infected until the thing shows itself. Like a puppet or a parasite that takes over their brains and doesn’t show itself to the person being infected. So Palmer didn’t ever really know he was the thing or the person who sabotaged the blood bank did this not really fully knowing so. Like in a trance or in their „sleep“. I don’t think Palmer therefore rats out the thing spider head he is not aware he is a duplicate. How should he? He and his mind and abilities were taken over. That’s for me at least what makes this way way more scarier. Does something speak against my Theory logically I am maybe missing?
My compliments on this pair of videos (Just watched them for the first time). They and the accompanying comments, had me do something I didn't think I would: I rethought some earlier conclusions. If Childs really is HUMAN at the end of the film, in the stand-off with Mac, then I have two questions: 1) What is the purpose of the film first showing us Childs, at his ‘guard station,’ with the coats and boots arranged one way, and then later, a second shot that starts looking down the main hallway, panning right, tilting down to look at the door to the generator room, then tilting back up while continuing to pan right, ending on the empty room Childs had been in, with two other doors to the room open, with the various coats and shoes in a different configuration than they were before? And, 2) When Childs drinks from the bottle at the end, what is the purpose of the film playing the signature ‘heartbeat/drumbeat’ sound, that the film has previously associated with the Dog-Thing? •••• To answer question 1: - The MOST LIKELY scenario (but not the only one!) consistent with these clues, is that Childs was attacked (by Blair-thing?). There was a struggle, during which coats and shoes were scattered. If there was a struggle, how likely is it that Childs was able to fend off Blair-thing? Do we ever see a one-on-one confrontation between a thing and a human (in which both beings are in physical contact, struggling w/each other), in which a human would-be victim escapes? (No.) Here’s an alternate scenario: 1) Childs sees Blair-thing, who is either entering or leaving the generator room. 2) The two look at each other. Childs is so tired that he doesn’t think he can take Blair-thing, even with the flame thrower. Blair-thing says, or gestures, that if Childs doesn’t make a move, then Blair-thing will leave him alone. (This is consistent: the thing DOESN'T attack at every encounter; it attacks when it thinks it has the advantage. Also, its shape changing, and other activity requires energy, which it has a limited supply of.) Childs backs down and Blair-thing leaves. (This is also consistent with Childs's earlier behavior: he sees the Kennel-Thing, but hesitates to burn it until it's almost too late. Afterwards, he says, "I just cannot believe any of this Voodoo bullshit" - despite what he's just seen. He saw it, but even after the immediate danger had passed, he couldn't handle it.) 3) Childs will now need a cover-story to answer: how did Blair-thing get past him (either to sabotage the generator room, to grab the generator as parts for the hovercraft, or to get additional parts from the generator room, after Blair-thing had already taken the generator). So, Childs creates chaos in the coat room, to make it look like the Thing attacked him. Then, he flees, assuming his best chances are to avoid Blair-thing and everyone else. (Childs is not only scared, but very tired; you’re unlikely to think clearly in even one of those states, let alone both together.) 4) When Mac and the others start blowing up the camp, Childs runs from the explosions. 5) When Childs shows up and Mac asks him where he was, Childs can’t tell Mac the truth, so he invents a BS story. Even though the story isn’t very plausible, the odds of Mac accepting it and not turning violent, are better than they would be if Childs told Mac the truth. •••• To answer question 2: The film plays the ‘Thing-heartbeat/drumbeat’ theme when we see the dog-thing doing something, and also when we see the tilt-and-pan shot from the hallway, to the generator room, to the coats room. Also, the film DOES NOT play the heartbeat theme EVERY SINGLE TIME we see the dog-thing. Nor do we hear it as the split-faced-Thing from the Norwegian camp thaws and attacks Bennings. I’d always previously gone on the assumption that the music cue at the end was intended to be a clue, that Childs is the thing. But, what if those music cues are to indicate something else - like, “trouble” or “uncertainty” or “paranoia”? If so, then the music cue as Childs drinks, indicates something more subtle and indirect. Not: Childs is The Thing, but: Mac can’t trust Childs. The chances are wildly low that Mac and Childs could survive with the camp in ruins, even if they worked together - but they can’t even do that.
Your suggestion of how it’s cells works is even scarier than it may first appear. A Thing mass has enough cells in each piece, that it can take over each cell in another mass no matter how many cells it has, even if it’s a full being. A Thing can break itself off to become two beings and still have enough cells to take over anything.
I think the fanon question of intelligence is the most interesting thing here, at least from a purely scientific perspective. On the one hand, intelligence needs mass, and while I agree that it most likely is hiveminded; this would need a local nexus or source, since receiving commands from light years away isn't exactly a feasible method of communication and control. However, intelligence in animals on Earth correlates to brain mass/body mass, meaning if it gained more mass but only focused on replication, it shouldn't really get that much smarter as it would just be keeping the same ratio. This is of course why the Flood in Halo, a very similar being if we believe it is a hivemind, builds graveminds, huge piles of biomass for the sole purpose of calculation and thought, allowing the intelligence to increase exponentially with every assimilation, and the point before this is why sometimes isolated pockets of it build their own proto graveminds to control them with the main one out of contact. So I could see it having more intellectual capacity as it gathers more mass, but unless it chooses to actually use it that way by forming into a big ol' brain, it most likely retains a roughly similar level of intelligence regardless of its total accessible biomass.
Nauls’ death or assimilation was meant to be seen, but Rob Bottin didn’t have both the time nor money to pull it off so it was scrapped. In fact, the whole showdown with Blair-Thing was completely cut off. Blair-Thing was supposed to do a little bit more than destroy some floors, pops out roaring just to be blew up in a minute. They have some stop motion animation where BlairThing was doing more, but it was scrapped by Carpenter because he thought it looked too obvious that this was stop motion.
HEY MAN THANK YOU FOR THE RESPONSE ABOUT THE DEPRESSION FROM THE FEW POSTS TO GO AND I FINALLY THOUGHT OF THE TIMELINE WHAT ABOUT A TIMELINE SURROUNDING THE CHARACTER OF RANDALL FLAGG. HE MAY NOT HAVE HIS OWN MOVIE BUT HE'S BEEN IN ENOUGH MOVIES AND TV MINISERIES LET'S NOT FORGET STORM OF THE CENTURY
With regard to the jacket, note that it isn't JUST that the Blue Jacket is missing, but that a LIGHT COLORED Jacket has taken its place. If Blair had assimilated Childs then the Childs-Thing would indeed need to take the blue jacket and put it on. But *why* would he take the time to replace it with another, lighter colored jacket? What purpose would that serve it? And where is the torn jacket? But note that we know two facts: Blair must be in the generator room when Childs leaves his post, and Blair was furnished with a LIGHT COLORED JACKET when he was locked into the tool shed. We also know two other facts: Things can succumb to the cold, and there is a snowstorm raging outside that door. I think that Childs was being honest: he thought he saw Blair out in the snow, and so he gave chase. That left the exit door unguarded, and Blair-Thing was about to exit when - whoah! - it looks mighty cold out there. I'll just take off my light colored jacket and put on that much heavier blue jacket. And once Blair gets back to the tool shed he can see that his cover was blown, so he went down into the tunnel. Which doesn't have a snowstorm. So he strips down to his long-johns and takes out Garry and Nauls. Too easy. It explains everything, including the jacket switcheroo and the absence of a torn blue jacket. (And as a side note, it's amusing how people can hold to mutually-exclusive views: Childs-Thing had to take that blue jacket off the hook but - look! - he isn't wearing a blue jacket when he meets MacReady. Ahem, did he take a blue jacket or didn't he? Both claims can not be true.)
Great video. The ending theories have all been debunked a million times over but they just won't go away. The most grating is the misinterpretation of Mac's wry laughter. As long as new fans find the movie the same theories will continue to crop up. Stay vigilant, brother! lol
The video game The Thing. I had it. MacReady does save you but it’s kinda like the head part. He does it for the greater good. At the very end when you are flying away, he reveals he’s the Thing. He’s flying you back to a more populated area.
I always saw it as Palmer Thing jumping really high to free himself from the ropes, and sticking to the ceiling like one of those sticky hands that you slap on hard surfaces. And it's either some digestive fluid, or its own cells, to speed up the process. Maybe it can't fit too much into one big mass at the same time.
I would like to know what you can work out of the events in the Norwegian base. Like what is possible to infer about it. Like lets assume the prequel doesn't exist as it is just a remake that was placed in a different base to try & hide it being a remake.
In the book, Blaire explains that the Thing expands its biomass as it absorbs living things. If it absorbs a dog, it has it's original biomass + the dog's biomass to utilize, and so on. Things happen a bit differently in the book than it does in the movies. But the Thing itself seems to have similar "rules".
Awesome video, Josh. My favorite horror movie ever and you still manage to scratch new mental itches for me. So, since The Thing seems to have spurred the most debate/pushback from your fans and commenters, what movie that you've covered would you say garnered the second most such feedback?
I agree that at the end they were both human. I believe the point of that is the tension that they the characters, do not know who is or isn’t human . It harkens back to the original old 50s movie where the point of it was that you couldn’t trust anybody and you didn’t know who was who. They were ending the movie on that note, they could not trust each other yet they were there trapped together alone. It’s terrifying, even without the monster there to be alone in the cold about to die, even though you have what could be a friend right there with you but you can’t trust them. Trust, to not have trust is to be afraid and that is scary. Anyway, that’s how I interpreted it 🖤
That’s actually a fake hand and the angle is positioned very specifically so you can’t see the dish. There was a puppet that was pushed through the fake hand to make the effect of the blood jumping.
I really liked your answers a lot, even from the first video. I always thought the it didn't really matter whether or not one of them was a thing at the end. In fact, I enjoyed not knowing ( I had never really gone into detail to figure out whether or not one was infected). I thought not knowing gave the ending more ambiguity and suspense. That being said, I most liked the idea about them both being clean and the ending being more than figuring out which one isn't human. To me, it was more about two people who can no longer trust each other, but can do little about it, except just share a bottle and wait. I find that ending to hold a lot more meaning and really holds to the main theme of the movie, which seemed to be distrust and paranoia.
I have a couple theories about how the Thing works: 1. It feels pain and reacts to pain harshly and takes pain very seriously, hence how it whips tentacles when it gets shot in the prequel, and Copper's defib and the reaction to the blood test, and why it doesn't just detach itself all the time to swarm people 2. To fully assimilate memories it has to fully assimilate a person, and if it doesn't do it properly it comes out deformed like Bennings-thing 3. Its level of intelligence and strategy depends on the intelligence of animals or people it assimilates, and it has to learn things which is why it's not as sneaky in the prequel, and it needs to recollect cells of other things to share knowledge 4. It has to make an active choice rather than passive instinct to assimilate someone which is why Clark doesn't get assimilated by Dog-thing
Carpenter has said the film refers to the AIDS paranoia of the time. In that light, having two men share a bottle at the end provides a little bit of resolution to the paranoia theme. They might die, but they have restored trust.
The only question I have, which has never been touched upon is the other dog. When "the thing' dog is put in the kennel, he is seen shooting something liquid at another dog ( I always likened this to maybe a silk like webbing it picked up from another host body). Later we see the thing tendrils wrapping / consuming the other husky dog's downed form. When the team comes to the kennel, they engage with the original thing / husky , and toast it. Nothing is ever shown about the other husky . Maybe it is just assumed to have been taken care of with the original thing / husky corpse, but it is never shown. Any thoughts?
All the rest of the dogs were killed by Blair plus if that dog was infected why did it not infect Clark he was alone with all those dogs and then the thing would have two more things on it’s side Blair messed with the thing big time
6:06 he bled out and the tear was above where it bit, so he would've been clean regardless. The thing was in a human form upon him doing the defibrillators, so he's not infected. Like you said as well, he wasn't injested or absorbed either.
Well done. Based on what you presented I agree. Most likely two humans at the end. Carpenter most consistently sticking with "I don't know". I also don't agree with the single cell infection theory. If for no other reason than it would be to easy for the Thing to win. But to corner, consume, duplicate, and blend? Well now that takes strategy. That's a game of chess 😉
1. There was going to be a scene showing how Nauls was assimulated, but they cut it for time. If you consider the video game canon (I think John Carpenter does), they show Naul's assimilated body but it dies. 2. It's up in the air of what you want to believe. The thing is an alien invader, zoo theory or the experiment. I personal believe the thing escaped from it's cage and infected the crew. 3. You might have a point there supported by the 2011 film. The helicopter scene with the sickly guy wasn't fully affected. 4. I think the fluid that it secreates at times is to slow it down and then ingest it. This works great advantage if you're a slow moving thing and want to get at your target. Well it's a hive mind made up by constant betrayal in the favor of stealth. 5. Yeah, i have to agree with you there. It had to hid underground since the group kept tabs on Blair. The aircraft could have meant for travel to a large populated area until it was able to duplicate one of the continents to invade the others and/or build a ship to get off the planet. 6. Either that or try hiking it to another part of the camp. It wasn't really a threat due to being a 1% piece of itself, but i never heard of it rejoining Palmer as well. 7. Yeah, i always thought it was part of the main body and never thought once that it could have been detached. 8. I've never hated the word Fanon, but as far as this one, i think the theory adds up. Think about the different motivations. I think it's like an Among Us game. Each one had different modes of survival. They all want to survive as well. However, due to their circumstances, they drew the short end of the stick. It could also be different parts to it as well. Some things have detachable parts to separate itself. Some things might be completely hole to devour it's prey while others have the "Divide and conquer" tactic. These could be different parts of the hivemind or each thing has their own strategy of how to infect the crew. 9. I just chalked that up that Child's breath is not visible in the position he's at. I can relate this to personal experience. One day i was waiting on a bus stop with other classmates. Some of their breath was visible but others weren't. You're not able to see Child's breath as well as Mac's due to Child being in an area where the breath isn't seen as well. 10. I never really believed in this theory for how ridiculous it sounded. 11. Well, i think this was a test to see if Childs was really human or not. Remember what Mac did to the chess computer when Mac lost. Maybe it was a similar thing here and that if Childs drank out of it, Mac would also try to destroy it. It's a matter of perspective really 12. I've heard about this theory multiple times. It's just frost from being outside too long. Anyone who wore a jacket and being outside in a blizzard would have the same frost covered jacket. Childs could have taken both jackets since it was getting cold outside. 13. This is why i hate when directors/producers confirm/deny theories. If it was true, then they would have placed it in the movie. Watch the dang movie and make your own assumptions.
The most unbelievable part of this whole movie to me is Blair Thing building a mini spacecraft........ under the floor boards.......oh and with helicopter parts ...... no one ever really discusses how cooky that is, even in a movie where an alien is assimilating other life forms lol.
Blaire building stuff under his shack was in the book Who Goes There? In which the events of the book spanned a longer time. So he had more time to build. The Thing is incredibly intelligent. Originally he made something atomic and an anti-gravity jetpack. In 1938.
On the first one I always like the idea that it was some kind of organism created or found by the aliens on the ship that got loose and assimilated the aliens. The thing isn't really it's own creature but a parasitic force of consumption and replication of its host. If what it does best is assimilate other living creatures there is no reason to believe it didn't assimilate the aliens on the ship as opposed to just being one.
In "Who Goes There?" MacCreedy and others do survive. So it'd be fitting for the film to follow that. Also the dogs being killed by an axe doesnt mean they weren't infected. In the book the thing can't assimilate or reanimate the dead. Also fun fact: in the book they drink alien milk cause the cows were assimilated and even milked by humans who only figured that out after.
Also a major plot point of the book was infection. Not just assimilation. That's why Blaire went so crazy. He likened it to a certain cow disease where the only way to combat it was to kill every infected and any that was near it. Part of the beginning goes over how diseases only rarely and after long coexistence can jump species. It was initially argued that any pathogens wouldnt be able to infect humans. That you'd have better luck giving the flu to wheat. Of course this conviction goes out the window later.
FUN FACT: in the scene where Copper uses the defibrillators, they actually had a stand-in double. They found a person who had a hinged chest cavity with teeth.
Would saliva react the same way blood did? If yes why didnt noone thought of that, its more safer either if u still believe the single cell theory or just being safe overall
In the the thing 2011 when the main character "Forget her name" she origally suppose to saw the dead alien pilot there are images online if you want to look at it
![Twenty One Pilots - “The Line” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E2Rj2gQAyPA/mqdefault.jpg)
I always took MacReady's laugh as a bleak, ironic thing. They both made it to freeze to death.
You do know there's comics that are a sequel to this? It's a canon and fascinating read
MacReady probably toyed with the thought that’s all life is. Making it through every just to freeze. Then finding himself living the metaphor.
@JaggedBird ehhhhh... the comics weren't all that great. Each set had one good one, but the rest were pretty mediocre. Then there was a three issue run that ignored the previous two limited runs and went back to directly after the movie. So they're not all Canon.
When it comes to film canon, any expanded universe COULD be considered canon, but they could be made non canon as soon as a new film entry happens. It's happened to every single huge franchise. Predator, Alien, Star Wars, even in TV shows like Stranger Things. Season 4 completely made the comics non canon. So if you want to consider them canon, go for it. But considering nothing has been put on film, I only consider the two films canon with everything left ambiguous and left to the viewer to follow clues in the film.
Agreed
@@JaggedBirdyeah, and so is the contradicting PS2 game. No, the Canon is this film. Want to run wild with sequel material, knock yourself out. The only true Canon is this film. Yes, read the Darkhorse Comics, fun books but deflate John Carpenter's film. Just like John Carpenter's Halloween, it was never topped, thar 1978 ending was never even ⅛ topped by any sequels, remakes, reboot timelines etc. The ending of John Carpenter's Halloween and The Thing are perfect as is, bleak as it can be, again that is the point.
I'm told Prequel 2011 is Canon... if that's true than Childs is without question not a thing because of the earring. Yeah, I'm just sticking with the 1982 classic: John Carpenter's The Thing. It begins and ends there. There is no other Canon. The prequel, the Dark horse Comics and the PS2 game, all considered Canon by... someone, all contradict one another and Contradict John Carpenter's The Thing. I'm good. The 1¾ hour film is what it needs to be, same as Halloween. ALL Halloween sequels (minus Halloween 3, different thing) are God awful that just serve to deflate John Carpenter's Halloween. As does the Novelization.
I recommend reading Frozen Hell or the short story of Frozen Hell called Who Goes There, credited to Bill Lancaster's screenplay is based on.
That movie was not only a masterpiece it was a monster-piece.
There is an Important Distinction between what is “intended,” and what a film communicates.
Just as the laugh at the end isn’t necessarily a gotcha acknowledgment, Child’s “well, then we’re wrong,” doesn’t necessarily mean he doesn’t care if he kills an innocent man; he’s shutting down the argument to continue his will.
"This is pure nonsense "
"Doesn't prove a thing "
I just cannot believe any of this voodoo bullshit.
You believe any of this voodoo bullshit, 1_Bad_z?
I think that both men being human at the end also fits in with the script's atmosphere of doomed camaraderie, where we see both men kind of go "f*** it, who really cares whether he's the thing or not" then enjoy a drink together.
Also, as you pointed out, if one of them was the thing they would have just attacked on sight.
Everybody gangsta until they’re proven wrong five times in a row.
He’s convinced me about the POV
Huh? Can you elaborate on your comment please?
@@alandouglas2789 pov is point of view
@@thegamewin100 umm der…
@@alandouglas2789 that’s the thing that convinced him and if you’re talking about the first guy he means that people come up with these theories and they are usually wrong
I always assumed they were both human at the end of the movie. Figured it was ironic that the only 2 people to survive were the 2 that clearly liked each other the least of all the characters
I don't think they disliked each other really. It's a stressful situation and they are both alpha men trying to control the situation.
How is that ironic?
I wouldn't say they disliked each other, why do you think that
@@dontdiscriminatehateeveryo9263 yep what i thought both survivers
John Carpenter confirmed ONE of them was infected. But your assumption is correct, assuming Movie Timelines is correct when he stated, "John Carpenter told Keith David & Kurt Russel to talk to each as if they were both human."
The fluid the kennel-thing sprays on the dog appears to be some kind of digestive fluid. You see a dog in that scene later that has it's shin and fur melted off.
Was about to say.
That makes sense actually
Acid for piss?
@@Emulous79 acid for digestion, i thought it was the thing trying to assimilate the dog by spraying it with thing juice
Agreed
Fun fact: Originally Nauls was supposed to burst from the ground and was going to be shown being assimilated and he was supposed to be calling for macready to help him only for the top of his head to be blown off. However this was cut because the team didn't have enough money to pull this off.
With today's technology I think, it could be easily done.
Don't quote me on this, but I heard recently that John Carpenter wanted to spend the money to make a special Carpenter's Cut that included a few of the deleted scenes and added a little spice to the movie that he could not do originally. If this is true, I wonder how could they pull off that scene of Nauls getting assimilated. The actor is 40+ years older now, on one hand they could CGI it or they could hire a stand in actor that physically is close to Nauls.
They filmed Nauls' death, but it didn't look good enough, so they cut that.
The point of the ending, from my perspective, IS the ambiguity.
Sometimes fanboys just aren't satisfied with ambiguity ... but I am 🤷♂️. And I think in this case the ending's ambiguity improves the film overall.
fanboy
I totally agree. Almost all of my favorite movies, horror or otherwise, end with ambiguity. I want to think about it, puzzle over it, and potentially discuss it with other people. Why insist on a definitive interpretation? I never understood why some people are more comfortable or satisfied with that goal. Oh well. To each their own.
In my imagination Nauls IS duplicated and they never had the chance to freeze to death. 😁
Now the thing is refrozen and, to this day, is patiently waiting for another expedition to thaw it.
Finally someone closes the book on the stupid Childs thing theory. Also the fluid it sprays the dogs with is it's digestive juices. You can see the same dog half melted on the ground before the tentacles overtake it.
o poor dog
I always thought it was some paralyzing venom as this thing has spider legs at the time it was jetting out the fluid.
Closes the book? Childs was the thing.
I still say Childs is a thing at the end. Nothing will convince me otherwise.
My evidence is we see Childa by the door. Then next we see a pov shot and Childs is missing this is BEFORE we see him run out in the Snow. Why would he go chase Blair into the snow? Plus the door looks like it has been open a while and there is snow on the ground from blowing in.
That is my evidence for Childs being a thing.
Nothing else will convince me and NO I don't take the comics or that crappy game as canon.
@@LUCKO2022 I agree with you about child's but what makes me wonder is couldn't child's have gone away from the door within the building looking for something? Water, alcohol, weed, food, bathroom break, Etc... Blair come through the front door sees no one there and goes into the basement for the generator, then the point-of-view shot is child's seeing the open door and the noise in the basement, thinking that Blair has come in and he just bolts... in self-preservation thinking he probably could die trying to take Blair out by himself. So he runs away into the snow and Blair cuts the power. Then later when human child's approaches McCready after seeing the camp blow up LOL he lies, rather than saying he ran away like a chickenshit he says he saw Blair and went after him. Somewhat cowardly saving himself and still being human when he talks to McCready. Also I might get that point he didn't care about drinking from the same bottle because they were both going to be dead in a few hours anyway. I'd say his biggest error was assuming that McCready was human since he blew the camp and was the only one that survived although even if McCready was a thing at that point, child's believe it at least that it wasn't in the shape to try anything anyway. For the record, I don't think McCready was a thing either.
"John Carpenter said he was a thing!" and Ridley Scott says that Deckard was a Replicant and even went out of his way to try to make it canon in the final cut, so sometimes you can just ignore what a director says. Besides, Carpenter seems like the type that would purposely changes his answer to the question every time it gets asked for his own amusement and to keep the debate alive among the fanbase.
A sequel unanswered questions video? Now this is *epic*
Agreed
Windows getting infected and the cell graphic are the movie literally showing you the thing can still take over a body via contamination even if it doesnt perform a full absorption. Also the fact that the Norris thing not only created a Norris head in its chest cavity, but also was able to detach the original Norris head that turned into a spider creature shows that even if it is in the process of creating a copy, it can still ultimately have control of the original host body as well. The rules with what the thing is capable of doing seem very fluid, but the cell theory makes the most sense in these cases, even if it isnt always taken into account by the script (childs and palmer sharing a blunt, dog licking benning's face, etc.)
but if the cell graphic is showing the cell theory...it's still just a graphic. it's not the thing actually doing it. it's a computer representation of how blair thinks it works.
and the norris thing isn't creating a copy. it already IS a copy. a copy that can alter every fiber of its form, which is why it's able to separate the head with another head in its chest. norris isn't in the process of being taken over. he was taken over long earlier.
also, if you're going to use scenes from the film as evidence for the theory, it doesn't make sense to just write off scenes from the film that don't support it like the lick and the blunt. those are evidence against the cell theory and the movie is literally showing you that.
Dog never licks skin, blunt is shared before palmer is assimilated
The time spent on the graphic of the cells is specifically to get the point across that that is how it works. You did the same thing - disregarded the scene because it didn’t fit your theory.
Windows doesn’t get anything bitten off, he’s all broken and bloodied but still in more or less one piece, then “he’s coming back”.
Nothing in the film counteracts the idea of the thing being able to transmit via infection, and it being brought up so much with no reveal of it being a red herring (and in windows a demonstration), kind of a stretch to just say “oh that’s cos they were wrong”.
The best fk up that could possibly contradict it is the single scalpel for the blood test. though we only see windows wipe it after nauls to use on himself, to borrow your argumentation: maybe they sterilised it every other time, and this time he was more focussed on the flamethrower pointed at him.
Personally I think the crew either forgot about contamination, genuinely thought a wipe was good enough, or they wanted the wiping gesture to show the tension between Mac and windows and sacrificed the details for the overall scene.
Always assumed that the reason the spaceship in the initial sequence is careening like that is because the thin broke loose and absorbed the entire crew.
That makes sense, and maybe more to it was that the thing had gotten loose and was attacking the crew.
It might be that the ship was near our planet and they figured it’d be frozen in the ice and be stuck. Not figuring that there’d be intelligent life that’d come across the crash ship someday?
I always assumed Cooper didnt turn because his infection point was his arms that got bit off and he bled to death. All that blood pourin out, no way Thing-NA could get in him, and The Thing cant do anything with dead flesh anyway.
Wait, who says that the Thing can't do anything with dead flesh? Due to it's nature it's obvious why it would prefer living organisms, but i don't see why it wouldn't be able of assimilating cadavers and such. Pretty sure it can, just chooses not to.
@@fistoftulkas7335 Why do viruses only work in living organisms? Maybe there's a mechanism in living prey that it needs to duplicate itself. For instance maybe it need the ribosomes/organelles in the cell for replication. On a multicellular level I'm sure it could break raw biomass down and use it's shapeshifting to turn that into new cells.
(This gets into the territory of "can it assimilate plants" and "why can't it photosynthesis")
But at it's heart it's basically a virus or bacteria. Not very complicated, but very adaptable.
You know who is a Thing? Josh. I mean he's in the freezing cold in a t-shirt, come on.
True! No breath. Wait. I have no breath? ! Am I a thing as well?
but i DO have an eye gleam!
@@movietimelines but when we compare your first Thing UA video to this one, your shirt has a bluer tint in this video. Proof that at some point in between the two videos you were absorbed.
@@movietimelines Totally not proof, imposter! Sowing the seeds of confusion!
he is either thing or finnish lol
I would assume that if you can be infected by enough Thing cells getting inside you, they would travel through your blood to do it. Copper lost his arms, and likely bled out so fast that he died before any part of the Thing could turn him.
Yeah the thing with the single cell theory is not that it couldn’t do it but there’s basically no intelligence in cells that small so they might not even start to assimilate or are so little in number that the white blood cells take it out first. But if there’s enough there to assimilate than it works
I always assumed it was a prisoner in its way being exiled to a back-water planet when it escaped and crashed the ship. After absorbing the actual pilots and crew it assumed knowledge in how to assemble such a craft
The jackets being rearranged can kind of be explained. Childs has a flamethrower and he's near the generator. The thing wants at that generator, and it knows flamethrower=death. It can't attack safely, but it can trick Childs when he steps away for some reason (patrol, pee, doesn't matter). Shuffle the jackets and boots around so it looks like the others got back, which covers up the fact it stole a jacket - which it puts outside, in view of the door but away from the building. Childs gets unnerved by the obvious change in the room and looks outside, maybe because he's just suspicious or maybe because he fell for it, sees the jacket decoy, and runs off to burn it (or runs the opposite way, whichever). As soon as he's outside, Blair thing has free access to the ginny.
Its probably just a continuity error - but it does offer an explanation other than the jacket theory if continuity error isn't enough.
Very interesting point. If not a continuity error, then its a very subtle mind game by the antagonist.
It's a continuity error, check it. Take note of that room earlier on in the movie and you will notice that the coats are arranged identically to that scene near the end when the door is open. The order of coats from left to right is blue, beige, green, white.
So I’m sold on both of them being human at the end, but I was wondering what do you think Macready’s chuckle is meant to mean? That he’s paranoid and thinks Childs is a Thing? That it’s a bit of morbid relief that they’re both going to die as humans?
i think it's an exasperated laugh, followed by that defeated look on his face. i think he's amused by the ridiculousness of his situation, out there in the snow, about to die, sitting across from a man that he can't trust.
Hmm, I hadn’t though of it like that until now. Thanks for a new perspective!
But didn't Carpenter or someone on the team come out and say that 1 of them was indeed a thing?
@@andrewdecker616 check out my follow up for this video for the answer to that.
@@movietimelines I will do. Thanks
I have a suspicion that the goo the thing sprayed at the dog may have been stomach acid of some sort to help digest it. That's why there's the other dog partially decomposed but still not merged with the thing.
One of the brilliant points of filmmaking in this movie is how Carpenter made it so we're not sure what happened or who's who at the end. It takes talent to pull that off and raises this film from a mere monster movie in the classic it is. Henry James did something similar with 'Turn of the Screw.'
Here's a much better question - why didn't the thing just stay as the dog and behave normally for a few months until it could get to civilization? As McReady says,"this thing just wants to hide" well it was hidden but chose not to stay hidden and put itself in danger.
Good question but the other dogs knew the Norwegian dog was off from the get so the ruse wouldn't have lasted long.
Or imagine if the thing had been successful in imitating all the dogs, then there would be a pack of Husky things that could attempt to reach civilization. Remember Blair yelling about how no normal dog could run from the Norwegian station all the way to the US station.
That was probably its master plan, but when the other dogs attacked it, it had no other choice but to counterattack.
He also infected a member of the station before that, as a safety measure, but its plan was probably to just hide too.
The thing's plan went to heck when he was forced to transform and everyone saw it.
I have watched this theory video several times because these answers feel definitive. Wish more fans of this franchise would have more love for the 2011 Prequel because it gave us SOOO much background information on why the 1982 🎥 film matters so much to us sci-fi geeks 🙌💯🍿
Evidence leans more on Childs being a thing admittedly but in the DVD/Blu ray, the last chapter of the film is title “one last thing”. It’s the last scene and it shows Childs in the preview. Also right at the moment he takes a sip, the music cue “dun dun” sparks. I’ve always taken those as hints he wasn’t human in the end.
Because Mac infects him through the drink, the Mac thing wins which is why he laughed. He also did the same to infect Blaire when sipping his drink
If you freeze the screen at 2:26 you can seen part of Blair's head on the right side and the alien teeth on the left side. Never noticed this before looking at the big alien at the end of the movie......
I've always liked that mini spaceship the Blair-Thing was making, it looks cool.
Probably the best part of being an amalgam of malleable flesh is that you can design intricate controls and use every control all at once because you essentially have unlimited appendages provided you have enough mass. It can operate much more complex machinery than a person. I’m just imagining it all spread out throughout the tiny ship it was building, using all the buttons and controls at once
It's kind of cute tho.
I think it was confirmed to be a hovercraft. At least that’s what I’ve heard. Supposedly John carpenter said so himself. It was just supposed to get the thing out of Antarctica and to a populate location
I always assumed it wasn't even meant to carry a whole person-sized creature or even go very far. If it could get just a piece of the Thing a thousand miles, that's all it would need to find all of the biomass it would ever need.
I think it is just a simple cabin to protect it from the cold. If it pretends to be human for rescue mission, it needs an explanation how it survived the freeze-over.
Regarding the bottle scene the thing mimics it's host perfectly. Including any pre existing conditions. I mean the thing literally had a heart attack (and it ate the doc because it perceived the shock as a attack like it's blood does to blood test.) Which means if a thing drank kerosene it would die like any other human.
The reason it doesn’t infect copper is because the thing knows that everyone witnessed copper die so making a duplicate of him wouldn’t make sense
I like the books take on duplication. How it slowly assimilates you from the inside with the single cell theory.
True. Who Goes There? says the Single Cell Theory is true so it's not just a "theory" but literally part of the original source material.
@@morrigannibairseach1211 although we are discussing fiction here a scientific theory has a different definition from just a normal theory for example Einstein's theory of gravity
@@denton713 ...I kind of doubt you know the proper meaning of theory if you think that Einstein had a theory on gravity. His theories were relativity and special relativity.
A theory is a testable model that can make predictions and explain facts.
By using quotations I was mocking the lay conception of theory as "an idea" and thus something to be omitted easily. In the book they talk about how can a thing mimic something so completely without actually being it? The model proposed was that it'd have to be a cellular organism capable of manipulating the wall and plasma. What is proposed is a model that explains the facts available and even makes an accurate prediction via the blood test. So even though it is fiction it is a theory in universe.
So what was your point of telling me something I already know anyways? You kind of just stopped so it feels like this was supposed to be a "look at how smart I am" moment but you fucked it but by saying Einstein had a theory of gravity. If you can get whatever lost paper you found by him published you can get him a posthumous Nobel prize.
Git gud.
@@denton713 That's newton
@@Neoprenesiren Einstein showed mathematically that gravity is not really a force of attraction between all objects with mass, as Newton thought. Instead, gravity is a result of the warping of space-time. Einstein's ideas have been supported by evidence and are widely accepted today
i've said it before, carpenter says a lot of things. haha, even though i have entertained a few theories, my best guess was neither was the thing, and the only thing that survived... was the fear and mistrust.
Damn i wish we gotten a thing 2 with kurt and keith!
Carpenter said in the commentary that the thing wasn't the original pilot of the ship that crashed. Rather it was an organism on another planet somewhere far away. The ship itself was piloted by other aliens that were in a sense scientist, going around catching other organisms on other planets to study and experiment on. The thing somehow managed to escape and thus caused the ship to crash on Earth. I could have sworn that I read somewhere that Nauls death was written in the script that he would somehow get cornered by the thing in a bathroom or something and commits suicide. But then for some reason it was never filmed. At least that's what I thought I read. I always felt that maybe Childs was in fact lying about seeing Blair and that's why he took off. I think maybe he lied not because he's the thing, but because he was freaking out and was thinking the hell with all of this and just wanted to somehow bail. Sure they're out in the middle of Antarctica, but considering what they're dealing with, he's probably thinking fuck it. I would rather freeze to death or at least make an attempt to escape. When Mac asks him where he went, he told him he thought he saw Blair because he didn't want Mac to think he was considering abandoning all of them and saving his own ass. When the whole base exploded, he saw it and maybe thought everyone including the thing was dead and that's why he came back. That's why I think that he is in fact still human at the end of the movie and not the thing.
So many unanswered questions!!!
Thank you for blessing us with this video
Here's a question that I'd really like to get your opinion on.
I've always wondered, if given certain circumstances, if a thing in human form could be compelled to speak as itself and drop any attempt at pretending to be human? Let's say for the sake of this hypothetical situation that one is hopelessly trapped somehow, it's been found out beyond a shadow of a doubt as to its true identity so further deception would be useless, and has no hope of escape or success through attack. Maybe captured and placed in a secure holding cell. Could it or would it have a genuine conversation with its human captors? If asked, would it speak about its origin and the worlds that it had previously visited and colonized during its travels?
I don’t know I feel like it’s whole purpose is to replicate and it probably just is in its nature
There's probably a good chance it's had conversations with species it's assimilated. Wouldn't want to be on the same planet as that Thing, though. Even in the deepest and most secure containment.
I read somewhere else that the thing absorbs the entire genetic and subatomic footprint of its prey - which includes its intelligence and consciousness. Hence why Taylor, the other, permanently stoned, helicopter pilot could continue as human for so long before suddenly erupting when it was cornered without any seeming signs of recent contact. Although it is a base organism it can utilise the higher functions of its victims as it finds it advantageous to do so. Thus if the thing absorbed Woody Allen it would totally be able to write and shoot award-winning films, and pick up the Oscars for them (but it still wouldn't be funny).
You have the answer to this situation in Taylor. When finally cornered he broke cover even though he was securely bound. As I said above, the thing can make full use of higher intelligence when it wants to, but at heart it is just a virus.
@@nobbynoris No doubt that it could imitate Woody Allen perfectly, including his lack of talent. The question is though does it have a separate intelligent identity that KNOWS it's using Woody as a cover, or is the Woody cover just some advanced type of instinctual behavior. Let's say hypothetically you've got Woody-thing trapped, it can't attack and it can't flee and there's no logical point in continuing to pretend to be Woody. Could it then drop the Woody scharade have a genuine conversation with you as its true self?
Great videos on this. Something I'd like to highlight here regarding whether Childs was a Thing or not is: The Thing wanted information. It coming up from behind and having a flamethrower makes me think Childs Thing would be safe. The Thing did ask "are you the only one who made it? Did you kill it?". Useful to know. McReady also recorded tapes and saved them somewhere. Now, the Thing may not know this, but it just goes to show that freezing in the snow is also damn risky. The Thing doesn't know what information is out there and if there is anything there to tip it off, it's screwed or at least will have another existential fight again.
Regarding the directing decision of not explaining to any actor whether they are a Thing or not, I think that's just intentional. That way, you get humans playing as humans and not Thing humans.
As said, your videos here have been great and thank you for making them.
Dam bro nice point about humans acting like humans to keep it ambiguous
Nice! Came here from your suggestion on your previous video. I'm with you! Also, those Thing comics are my favorite comics ever!
Yeah. I used to have them at one point and they got lost with a bunch of other comics when I moved. :(
@@movietimelines Oof, that blows, man. I got mine piece by piece over the internet, including the other two or three Thing serials besides the one that follows the events of the film.
This is actually the exact video I wanted to see from you.
i know i’m kinda late to this, but Nauls actually does get assimilated. there is a scene that was scrapped because it was too expensive, but it does show Nauls’ death and it’s honestly horrific.
Got any proof?
@@alandouglas2789 he was supposed to be half alive and begging for mac to help him, look it up man it’s crazy
@@alandouglas2789 Here's a link to what the storyboards were for that sequence!
ruclips.net/video/TjwpIa9hVkg/видео.html
Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about how it would have gone- but it absolutely would have been the most chilling death in the film.
To bad no directors or extended cut
Also it’s shown now in the new blue ray dvds that he actually DOES have breath. You just couldn’t see it in the 1980s filming.
And he could have just been too cold to have a lot of visible breath at the time.
I think a certain deleted scene explains what happened to that poor dude.
The most sensible videos I've seen on the movie. Good work.
I think the thing is not friendly towards earlier versions of itself. It wants to be the most perfect imitation. That’s why it wasn’t friendly toward split-face, Norris (heart attack), and Bennings (malformed arm).
Oh, as for Nauls, there is a series of story boards showing worms coming out of Nauls face before he’s drug underground. It was cut for pacing and the fact they ran out of $$$. It was never needed to be seen.
Finally...intelligent and well thought out answers from somebody paying attention rather than knee-jerk Swiss cheese theories
I believe the bottle that Mac was about to drink contain kerosene or gasoline, and he was going to kill himself before he froze or die after consuming it. It could have still been a trap. The thing is, it's the saying was trying to escape, why not just run away while being in the form of the dog in the first place rather than trying to take absorbing someone else? At this time no one was suspicious that the thing was replacing the crew.
Love it! No more debate the questions are answered!
I know this is an old video, but I have to put in my two cents on the ending:
I personally believe Childs is a thing not because of the breath, or the eye gleam, but because it makes sense in the narrative. At the very beginning, Mac is playing chess with the computer, smirks thinking he's won, loses, then pours the drink in the machine and says "Cheating, bitch." I believe this parallels the ending where Mac is playing a mind game with this creature the whole time, sits down believing he's won, then the thing shows up at the end proving he's lost. Mac gives him a drink paralleling the whiskey that was poured into the computer and they both sit down to freeze.
As for why the thing didn't kill Mac at the end, he has no reason to. The thing wins if it survives because come spring, it'll thaw out and continue its assimilation. I like the idea that at the end, they sit down together and freeze, not making any more moves because they are both aware of the futility of it.
And whew is that part Mac killed Childs like he did destroyed computer? What a parallel…
@@petervlcko4858interesting part of the original script. mac actually has a flame thrower under the blanket and he is ready to fry childs if he tries anything which i think is an awesome detail they decided to leave out.
I think it's the other way around, Mac is the thing and infects Childs just like he destroyed the computer. Through his saliva in the drink.
@@petervlcko4858childs drinking the scotch = the scotch being poured into computer. Not complicated.
for the first one there is some story boards that were supposed to show nawles when mcready was attacked
I've always wondered about mccready's tore up clothes that they found but they never mentioned it again
It must have been Blair thing who went to his shack when they were all inside and made fuchs think Mac was infected
But there wasn't any blood on Macs clothes opposed to Bennings when he was assimilated. Then Mac passes the blood test after, so it answers their assumptions.
@@codgumby4949 there wasn't any blood on the underwear nauls found in the kitchen either.
I always felt that way with the infected people in the thing, would be interested if anyone agrees or disagrees with me.
The people that are infected somehow don’t know really that they are infected until the thing shows itself. Like a puppet or a parasite that takes over their brains and doesn’t show itself to the person being infected.
So Palmer didn’t ever really know he was the thing or the person who sabotaged the blood bank did this not really fully knowing so. Like in a trance or in their „sleep“. I don’t think Palmer therefore rats out the thing spider head he is not aware he is a duplicate. How should he? He and his mind and abilities were taken over. That’s for me at least what makes this way way more scarier.
Does something speak against my Theory logically I am maybe missing?
My compliments on this pair of videos (Just watched them for the first time). They and the accompanying comments, had me do something I didn't think I would: I rethought some earlier conclusions.
If Childs really is HUMAN at the end of the film, in the stand-off with Mac, then I have two questions:
1) What is the purpose of the film first showing us Childs, at his ‘guard station,’ with the coats and boots arranged one way, and then later, a second shot that starts looking down the main hallway, panning right, tilting down to look at the door to the generator room, then tilting back up while continuing to pan right, ending on the empty room Childs had been in, with two other doors to the room open, with the various coats and shoes in a different configuration than they were before?
And,
2) When Childs drinks from the bottle at the end, what is the purpose of the film playing the signature ‘heartbeat/drumbeat’ sound, that the film has previously associated with the Dog-Thing?
••••
To answer question 1:
- The MOST LIKELY scenario (but not the only one!) consistent with these clues, is that Childs was attacked (by Blair-thing?). There was a struggle, during which coats and shoes were scattered.
If there was a struggle, how likely is it that Childs was able to fend off Blair-thing? Do we ever see a one-on-one confrontation between a thing and a human (in which both beings are in physical contact, struggling w/each other), in which a human would-be victim escapes? (No.)
Here’s an alternate scenario:
1) Childs sees Blair-thing, who is either entering or leaving the generator room.
2) The two look at each other. Childs is so tired that he doesn’t think he can take Blair-thing, even with the flame thrower. Blair-thing says, or gestures, that if Childs doesn’t make a move, then Blair-thing will leave him alone. (This is consistent: the thing DOESN'T attack at every encounter; it attacks when it thinks it has the advantage. Also, its shape changing, and other activity requires energy, which it has a limited supply of.) Childs backs down and Blair-thing leaves. (This is also consistent with Childs's earlier behavior: he sees the Kennel-Thing, but hesitates to burn it until it's almost too late. Afterwards, he says, "I just cannot believe any of this Voodoo bullshit" - despite what he's just seen. He saw it, but even after the immediate danger had passed, he couldn't handle it.)
3) Childs will now need a cover-story to answer: how did Blair-thing get past him (either to sabotage the generator room, to grab the generator as parts for the hovercraft, or to get additional parts from the generator room, after Blair-thing had already taken the generator). So, Childs creates chaos in the coat room, to make it look like the Thing attacked him. Then, he flees, assuming his best chances are to avoid Blair-thing and everyone else. (Childs is not only scared, but very tired; you’re unlikely to think clearly in even one of those states, let alone both together.)
4) When Mac and the others start blowing up the camp, Childs runs from the explosions.
5) When Childs shows up and Mac asks him where he was, Childs can’t tell Mac the truth, so he invents a BS story. Even though the story isn’t very plausible, the odds of Mac accepting it and not turning violent, are better than they would be if Childs told Mac the truth.
••••
To answer question 2:
The film plays the ‘Thing-heartbeat/drumbeat’ theme when we see the dog-thing doing something, and also when we see the tilt-and-pan shot from the hallway, to the generator room, to the coats room. Also, the film DOES NOT play the heartbeat theme EVERY SINGLE TIME we see the dog-thing. Nor do we hear it as the split-faced-Thing from the Norwegian camp thaws and attacks Bennings.
I’d always previously gone on the assumption that the music cue at the end was intended to be a clue, that Childs is the thing. But, what if those music cues are to indicate something else - like, “trouble” or “uncertainty” or “paranoia”? If so, then the music cue as Childs drinks, indicates something more subtle and indirect. Not: Childs is The Thing, but: Mac can’t trust Childs. The chances are wildly low that Mac and Childs could survive with the camp in ruins, even if they worked together - but they can’t even do that.
Your suggestion of how it’s cells works is even scarier than it may first appear. A Thing mass has enough cells in each piece, that it can take over each cell in another mass no matter how many cells it has, even if it’s a full being. A Thing can break itself off to become two beings and still have enough cells to take over anything.
I think the fanon question of intelligence is the most interesting thing here, at least from a purely scientific perspective. On the one hand, intelligence needs mass, and while I agree that it most likely is hiveminded; this would need a local nexus or source, since receiving commands from light years away isn't exactly a feasible method of communication and control. However, intelligence in animals on Earth correlates to brain mass/body mass, meaning if it gained more mass but only focused on replication, it shouldn't really get that much smarter as it would just be keeping the same ratio. This is of course why the Flood in Halo, a very similar being if we believe it is a hivemind, builds graveminds, huge piles of biomass for the sole purpose of calculation and thought, allowing the intelligence to increase exponentially with every assimilation, and the point before this is why sometimes isolated pockets of it build their own proto graveminds to control them with the main one out of contact. So I could see it having more intellectual capacity as it gathers more mass, but unless it chooses to actually use it that way by forming into a big ol' brain, it most likely retains a roughly similar level of intelligence regardless of its total accessible biomass.
Nauls’ death or assimilation was meant to be seen, but Rob Bottin didn’t have both the time nor money to pull it off so it was scrapped. In fact, the whole showdown with Blair-Thing was completely cut off. Blair-Thing was supposed to do a little bit more than destroy some floors, pops out roaring just to be blew up in a minute. They have some stop motion animation where BlairThing was doing more, but it was scrapped by Carpenter because he thought it looked too obvious that this was stop motion.
HEY MAN THANK YOU FOR THE RESPONSE ABOUT THE DEPRESSION FROM THE FEW POSTS TO GO AND I FINALLY THOUGHT OF THE TIMELINE WHAT ABOUT A TIMELINE SURROUNDING THE CHARACTER OF RANDALL FLAGG. HE MAY NOT HAVE HIS OWN MOVIE BUT HE'S BEEN IN ENOUGH MOVIES AND TV MINISERIES LET'S NOT FORGET STORM OF THE CENTURY
i like this. i don't have it on my list, but i'll put it on there.
Bonus question: if Childs was a thing why didn't he simply torch or kill Mac?
Because he isn’t one
This was really fun…thanks bro 🖤🤘🏼🔥
That was a great video. Really put things in perspective for me
Benings breath is the clincher…that would have been my response: if you can see his then the thing does produce breath vapor
Man, what a solid argument! You really went above and beyond on this one.
With regard to the jacket, note that it isn't JUST that the Blue Jacket is missing, but that a LIGHT COLORED Jacket has taken its place. If Blair had assimilated Childs then the Childs-Thing would indeed need to take the blue jacket and put it on. But *why* would he take the time to replace it with another, lighter colored jacket? What purpose would that serve it? And where is the torn jacket?
But note that we know two facts: Blair must be in the generator room when Childs leaves his post, and Blair was furnished with a LIGHT COLORED JACKET when he was locked into the tool shed.
We also know two other facts: Things can succumb to the cold, and there is a snowstorm raging outside that door.
I think that Childs was being honest: he thought he saw Blair out in the snow, and so he gave chase. That left the exit door unguarded, and Blair-Thing was about to exit when - whoah! - it looks mighty cold out there. I'll just take off my light colored jacket and put on that much heavier blue jacket.
And once Blair gets back to the tool shed he can see that his cover was blown, so he went down into the tunnel. Which doesn't have a snowstorm. So he strips down to his long-johns and takes out Garry and Nauls.
Too easy. It explains everything, including the jacket switcheroo and the absence of a torn blue jacket.
(And as a side note, it's amusing how people can hold to mutually-exclusive views: Childs-Thing had to take that blue jacket off the hook but - look! - he isn't wearing a blue jacket when he meets MacReady. Ahem, did he take a blue jacket or didn't he? Both claims can not be true.)
Spaghetti tentacles grab the dog. Thanks Josh, never having spaghetti again, EVER!.....lol
Great video. The ending theories have all been debunked a million times over but they just won't go away. The most grating is the misinterpretation of Mac's wry laughter. As long as new fans find the movie the same theories will continue to crop up. Stay vigilant, brother! lol
The video game The Thing. I had it. MacReady does save you but it’s kinda like the head part. He does it for the greater good. At the very end when you are flying away, he reveals he’s the Thing. He’s flying you back to a more populated area.
Other questions:
Why was Palmer thing flying?
What was that liquid that the dog thing was firing?
I always saw it as Palmer Thing jumping really high to free himself from the ropes, and sticking to the ceiling like one of those sticky hands that you slap on hard surfaces.
And it's either some digestive fluid, or its own cells, to speed up the process. Maybe it can't fit too much into one big mass at the same time.
@@Casey5291 right before he drops in front of windows, his hands and feet are shown to be through the ceiling, so that's probably how stayed up there.
I would like to know what you can work out of the events in the Norwegian base. Like what is possible to infer about it. Like lets assume the prequel doesn't exist as it is just a remake that was placed in a different base to try & hide it being a remake.
In the book, Blaire explains that the Thing expands its biomass as it absorbs living things. If it absorbs a dog, it has it's original biomass + the dog's biomass to utilize, and so on.
Things happen a bit differently in the book than it does in the movies. But the Thing itself seems to have similar "rules".
Awesome video, Josh. My favorite horror movie ever and you still manage to scratch new mental itches for me. So, since The Thing seems to have spurred the most debate/pushback from your fans and commenters, what movie that you've covered would you say garnered the second most such feedback?
probably the romero zombie unanswered questions, even though it has like 1/3 of the amount of comments as the first thing video.
@@movietimelines Wow! And that covered so many iconic movies...not just one. The Thing is just a lightning rod I guess. I love it. ⚡
I agree that at the end they were both human. I believe the point of that is the tension that they the characters, do not know who is or isn’t human . It harkens back to the original old 50s movie where the point of it was that you couldn’t trust anybody and you didn’t know who was who. They were ending the movie on that note, they could not trust each other yet they were there trapped together alone. It’s terrifying, even without the monster there to be alone in the cold about to die, even though you have what could be a friend right there with you but you can’t trust them. Trust, to not have trust is to be afraid and that is scary. Anyway, that’s how I interpreted it 🖤
This movie makes me gizz every time
11:54 DOes anyone know what special effects were used in jumping blood? It's very interesting for me?
That’s actually a fake hand and the angle is positioned very specifically so you can’t see the dish. There was a puppet that was pushed through the fake hand to make the effect of the blood jumping.
I really liked your answers a lot, even from the first video. I always thought the it didn't really matter whether or not one of them was a thing at the end. In fact, I enjoyed not knowing ( I had never really gone into detail to figure out whether or not one was infected). I thought not knowing gave the ending more ambiguity and suspense. That being said, I most liked the idea about them both being clean and the ending being more than figuring out which one isn't human. To me, it was more about two people who can no longer trust each other, but can do little about it, except just share a bottle and wait. I find that ending to hold a lot more meaning and really holds to the main theme of the movie, which seemed to be distrust and paranoia.
This movie is one of the BEST!
GREAT Review man! 💯
How was the tunnel built? Where did the ice go???
I have a couple theories about how the Thing works:
1. It feels pain and reacts to pain harshly and takes pain very seriously, hence how it whips tentacles when it gets shot in the prequel, and Copper's defib and the reaction to the blood test, and why it doesn't just detach itself all the time to swarm people
2. To fully assimilate memories it has to fully assimilate a person, and if it doesn't do it properly it comes out deformed like Bennings-thing
3. Its level of intelligence and strategy depends on the intelligence of animals or people it assimilates, and it has to learn things which is why it's not as sneaky in the prequel, and it needs to recollect cells of other things to share knowledge
4. It has to make an active choice rather than passive instinct to assimilate someone which is why Clark doesn't get assimilated by Dog-thing
The most important one still remains copper's pants
Carpenter has said the film refers to the AIDS paranoia of the time. In that light, having two men share a bottle at the end provides a little bit of resolution to the paranoia theme. They might die, but they have restored trust.
The killing of Windows undermines this theory, since the thing only crushes his windpipe. His entire body is still in theory his own
The only question I have, which has never been touched upon is the other dog. When "the thing' dog is put in the kennel, he is seen shooting something liquid at another dog ( I always likened this to maybe a silk like webbing it picked up from another host body). Later we see the thing tendrils wrapping / consuming the other husky dog's downed form. When the team comes to the kennel, they engage with the original thing / husky , and toast it. Nothing is ever shown about the other husky . Maybe it is just assumed to have been taken care of with the original thing / husky corpse, but it is never shown. Any thoughts?
I have the same question as well
All the rest of the dogs were killed by Blair plus if that dog was infected why did it not infect Clark he was alone with all those dogs and then the thing would have two more things on it’s side Blair messed with the thing big time
Very good brother. Very good. 100% agreed
6:06 he bled out and the tear was above where it bit, so he would've been clean regardless. The thing was in a human form upon him doing the defibrillators, so he's not infected. Like you said as well, he wasn't injested or absorbed either.
Well done. Based on what you presented I agree. Most likely two humans at the end. Carpenter most consistently sticking with "I don't know". I also don't agree with the single cell infection theory. If for no other reason than it would be to easy for the Thing to win. But to corner, consume, duplicate, and blend? Well now that takes strategy. That's a game of chess 😉
1. There was going to be a scene showing how Nauls was assimulated, but they cut it for time. If you consider the video game canon (I think John Carpenter does), they show Naul's assimilated body but it dies.
2. It's up in the air of what you want to believe. The thing is an alien invader, zoo theory or the experiment. I personal believe the thing escaped from it's cage and infected the crew.
3. You might have a point there supported by the 2011 film. The helicopter scene with the sickly guy wasn't fully affected.
4. I think the fluid that it secreates at times is to slow it down and then ingest it. This works great advantage if you're a slow moving thing and want to get at your target. Well it's a hive mind made up by constant betrayal in the favor of stealth.
5. Yeah, i have to agree with you there. It had to hid underground since the group kept tabs on Blair. The aircraft could have meant for travel to a large populated area until it was able to duplicate one of the continents to invade the others and/or build a ship to get off the planet.
6. Either that or try hiking it to another part of the camp. It wasn't really a threat due to being a 1% piece of itself, but i never heard of it rejoining Palmer as well.
7. Yeah, i always thought it was part of the main body and never thought once that it could have been detached.
8. I've never hated the word Fanon, but as far as this one, i think the theory adds up. Think about the different motivations. I think it's like an Among Us game. Each one had different modes of survival. They all want to survive as well. However, due to their circumstances, they drew the short end of the stick. It could also be different parts to it as well. Some things have detachable parts to separate itself. Some things might be completely hole to devour it's prey while others have the "Divide and conquer" tactic. These could be different parts of the hivemind or each thing has their own strategy of how to infect the crew.
9. I just chalked that up that Child's breath is not visible in the position he's at. I can relate this to personal experience. One day i was waiting on a bus stop with other classmates. Some of their breath was visible but others weren't. You're not able to see Child's breath as well as Mac's due to Child being in an area where the breath isn't seen as well.
10. I never really believed in this theory for how ridiculous it sounded.
11. Well, i think this was a test to see if Childs was really human or not. Remember what Mac did to the chess computer when Mac lost. Maybe it was a similar thing here and that if Childs drank out of it, Mac would also try to destroy it. It's a matter of perspective really
12. I've heard about this theory multiple times. It's just frost from being outside too long. Anyone who wore a jacket and being outside in a blizzard would have the same frost covered jacket. Childs could have taken both jackets since it was getting cold outside.
13. This is why i hate when directors/producers confirm/deny theories. If it was true, then they would have placed it in the movie. Watch the dang movie and make your own assumptions.
nice video thanks for posting it
The most unbelievable part of this whole movie to me is Blair Thing building a mini spacecraft........ under the floor boards.......oh and with helicopter parts ...... no one ever really discusses how cooky that is, even in a movie where an alien is assimilating other life forms lol.
Blaire building stuff under his shack was in the book Who Goes There? In which the events of the book spanned a longer time. So he had more time to build. The Thing is incredibly intelligent. Originally he made something atomic and an anti-gravity jetpack. In 1938.
Yeah, this part was really silly.
Like, come on, did it melt the ice/snow???
On the first one I always like the idea that it was some kind of organism created or found by the aliens on the ship that got loose and assimilated the aliens. The thing isn't really it's own creature but a parasitic force of consumption and replication of its host. If what it does best is assimilate other living creatures there is no reason to believe it didn't assimilate the aliens on the ship as opposed to just being one.
In "Who Goes There?" MacCreedy and others do survive. So it'd be fitting for the film to follow that. Also the dogs being killed by an axe doesnt mean they weren't infected. In the book the thing can't assimilate or reanimate the dead.
Also fun fact: in the book they drink alien milk cause the cows were assimilated and even milked by humans who only figured that out after.
Also a major plot point of the book was infection. Not just assimilation. That's why Blaire went so crazy. He likened it to a certain cow disease where the only way to combat it was to kill every infected and any that was near it.
Part of the beginning goes over how diseases only rarely and after long coexistence can jump species. It was initially argued that any pathogens wouldnt be able to infect humans. That you'd have better luck giving the flu to wheat. Of course this conviction goes out the window later.
FUN FACT: in the scene where Copper uses the defibrillators, they actually had a stand-in double. They found a person who had a hinged chest cavity with teeth.
I think it was the last scene made, because they had to cut off coppers hand
i've actually met that stand in double and he does that chest cavity trick at parties.
@@movietimelines wow, what was it like to meet him? I’m sure it was exciting
@@Frozo-nt2ky Not really, I've seen him open up his chest too, but his heart is never in it
i didn’t get to talk him too long. he had to leave the party early because he said he didn’t have the stomach for it.
Phenomenal job.
Great video. I agree, our last humans were humans.
On a side note, I read the book, "Who Goes There." Great story.
for the record, you only need to be outside for a few seconds before you are covered in snow.
One thing I just noticed when you slowed down the blood test scene...infected blood gets on Mac's bare hand. He's infected too
Would saliva react the same way blood did? If yes why didnt noone thought of that, its more safer either if u still believe the single cell theory or just being safe overall
Is there any videos or photos of the guy they had for the Norris chest opining thing
13 unanswered questions for poltergeist
13 unanswered questions for Ghostbusters
I agree with you about everything covered here 😁👍🏻
In the the thing 2011 when the main character "Forget her name" she origally suppose to saw the dead alien pilot there are images online if you want to look at it