i see some good discussion in the comments here guys, and some interesting points. keep 'em coming! only thing i'll point out is that several people have used the "bottle of kerosene" theory to show that childs is infected, saying that mac passes him a bottle of kerosene to see if he'll drink it. go watch the scene again, though, because right before childs shows up, mac is bringing the bottle to his lips to take a drink himself! so, unless he's cool with drinking kerosene, that's just alcohol in that bottle, folks.
@This is going to make me sound like a bitch but see here is where I disagree with that theory if McCready was the thing then why blow up /kill the other one attacking him?
@This is going to make me sound like a bitch but . I agree with you this has been one of my theories also that macready was the thing. He was the one conducting the blood test he could have faked it and as far as him torching other things that proves nothing we see that Palmer pointed out the crawling head for it to be burned they will turn on each other for survival and or to take suspicion off themselves. And then we see mac in the scene making the recording it appears that someone is behind him and he's wearing the same jacket that nauls finds.. moments later he walks in on Fuchs acting strangely. In just a few moments after he leaves the lights go out and something runs past Fuchs how could McCready not have heard or seen anything?. McCready himself says later that the lights were off in there for hours why would he leave Fuchs alone for that long?.
You have no idea how happy I am to see someone dismiss “breath theory” as bullshit. Not only does Childs visibly create breath clouds in the final scene, but the Bennings-thing, in the most iconic shot in the movie, creates a breath cloud as it lets out its infamous roar.
yeah the breath theory makes no sense. the thing can copy complex water/carbon based lifeforms, but a bit of humidity in the exhaled air is too difficult?
There is also a stupid theory that states that Childs was a Thing because he drank petrol as that was what Mac and the others were throwing (allegedly) in the warm things up scene... even though it is clear to see in the film that Mac was about to drink from the bottle before he hears Childs come up behind him. Also, I think these people forget that alcohol is flammable also and that they were using J&B whiskey not petrol (albeit J&B tastes like petrol anyway)
Its been debunked for a while. The guy in this video just copied from various theory videos and put them together, with 90% of them answered by either the crew in commentary, or already theorized by others.
@@adamhickey396 I have a bottle of JB Scotch. Its 40% ABV, just the minimum to be flammable...in the arctic, it probably wouldn't be as good as petrol. But I'll go with Petrol being in the bottles thrown to ignite the camp. IF Mac had a bottle of Petrol, it would have been smelled well before Childs took a drink. The Thing assimilates everything of someone, including biological traits, would this not include taste buds? If it can assimilate a bad heart, English language, and human behavior, it could easily figure out what tastes good and what doesn't.
Ironically I was just watching this masterpiece again just recently on Hulu. The Thing is not just one of the best Scifi/Horror films but I think it's one of the best films ever made PERIOD. The score, atmosphere, acting, practical effects etc. Thank you John Carpenter !
I like to watch this during the middle of winter with artic like winds howling outside cold temps thick snow outside at 2 in the morning with the lights off. Also the fan made movies on yt are great so check them out.
Right! Framing a monster movie on a "who done it" mystery premise. Instant drama, speculation, and actions to make other parties seem guilty. GREAT story telling!!!
How did critics give it a bad review back then ? Just goes to show how useless and idiotic critics can be. "The Thing" is suspenseful, imaginetize, engrossing and atmospheric. It's easily of the best horror films of all time.
Uncommon theory from me: “why would the alien ship be crashing in the first place?” I believe that “the thing” was quite possibly an organism that other aliens may have found and brought aboard but it was a disaster basically facing the same fate the Norwegians and Americans did, thus the ship crashing almost making it a prequel to the prequel, idk haha just a thought
if i remember right the writers of the prequel explain, that the Ship Belong to a group of aliens scientists, they to form one planet to another capturing and studying animals, but one day they take a animal that was in reality the thing, and it begin to kill the ship crew, the pilot and last survive, crash the ship, so the Thing cant use the ship to go to other planets
A scene was cut from the 2011 prequel depicting this; but Universal felt that it would be 'confusing'....Ya know, because according to Universal you haven't the brain to figure this out. I think the same 'geniuses' were involved in the creation of the 'Emoji Movie.'
I never took the ending as ambiguous. I believed that they briefly tested each other to see if either one was a Thing, they both realized they are still human and were 100% definitely going to die. But they finally saw eye to eye, treated each other with the respect that they never did previously and shared a final drink. They sat and waited to die, only content in the fact that they had basically just saved the planet. I always thought this was abundantly clear and never once thought it was supposed to be a cliff hanger.
I don’t think it’s abundantly clear. It purposely ends leaving one to wonder. We can think what we want but there’s no proving it which is why we’re here discussing it
@@Spooky_515no it’s clear. I completely agree. Childs could burn Mac down on the spot if he is thing and what more thing was in generator room. How could it can change Childs? Lights go down and that is what made them to burn camp down. Idk but many people could somehow fit there many things I just don’t see how.
The only reason the kennel thing decided to 'show itself' was because the dogs basically sussed it out. They have stronger senses in regards to smell, this is shown by the growling and fear. The Thing was cornered and had no choice.
So you mean that: 1) Dogs and other animals can smell if an organism is thingified 2) Blair could have a small brain time, because he didn't have an idea if dogs started bad gut feeling before flowered face or not, so for prevention he killed all of the dogs. Still he could see in the kennel, that the Thing is resistant to most things except of fire, explosives and (maybe) chemicals, so he should know, that fireaxe wouldn't be enough to kill the Thing. BUT he also should know, that nothing can cure death, even something from space and he killed dogs just in case if Thing survived on fur in stuff thingified dog was aiming at the others.
I didnt see any growling or fear until it made its move. I was specifically watching for the dogs to react because its was what I was expecting and was surprised when they didn't until it starting shaking/transforming.
I don't believe this is right. The dogs started to become roused when the dog thing began to transform. The film is edited in such a way that it seems like it's only minutes between the dog being put in the kennel and it beginning to assimilate the others. In actual fact, several hours had passed by as the dog thing would likely have waited until it was sure all the humans were asleep but hadn't counted on Mac still being up and about.
it's not a bad movie, it's just not a really good one either. i'd love, love, love to see a version with the original practical effects that Mikey Rotella, cohost of Dead Last, helped create.
kingkoop28 There was no need for the CGI. A team had already done a lot of the scenes using practical effects as a nod to Rob Bottin’s work on the first film. When it had all wrapped, Universal stepped in, cut all the effects work out and replaced it with rushed CGI. No real reason was given as to why. The effects team didn’t find out their work had been wasted until they saw the movie at the premier. I agree it was a low and very stupid thing for Universal to do. Almost like they wanted it to fail.
Having deployed to Iraq twice, boots are the toughest thing to put on if you get woken up for an emergency. Being the groups doctor, he would be the most likely to get woken up in the middle of the night, so he probably slept like that so he could get up in the shortest amount of time.
There is some validity to this point. I was active duty Navy for 22 years. It was not uncommon for Sailors to sleep in their boots or have them the first thing they put on in case of an emergency, such as General Quarters or a fire on the ship. In am emergency you have to get moving and boots are one of the first things you put on, even the older uniform pants were flared at the bottom so you could put on pants after your boots.
@@peterdanior4538 I was never deployed to Iraq, but I can 100% understand why people would do that, it makes sence and can save a lot of time in an emergency.
While the reasoning behind keeping the boots on is pretty sound, there is one (two?) minor flaw: dude's got civvie pants. Ever tried putting on or taking off regular pants with just sneakers on your feet? It is NOT a swift process, to say nothing of trying it with boots. Experienced thinking, kudos. :) But I'm afraid I must dispute.
Blair’s ship is not a “rocket ship” it’s an hovercraft built in hope for him to traverse the ice and escape Antarctica to reach the rest of humanity. JC told me this himself at a convention in the UK.
I don't even think that helicopter was meant to fly out of Antarctica. Antarctica is a very large continent. Those are the kind of helicopters that are transported by ships because it doesn't have that big of a fuel tank. The Blair thing was HOPING to crash land somewhere closer to the sea to be discovered
@@jco156 Because Blair destroyed the choppers when he was still human. The thing's objectives change as the movie progresses. Its ultimate goal is to get to populated areas and start spreading. But if it hijacked a chopper as Palmer, that would arouse suspicion, it would be better if an imitated person could travel to populated areas legitimately. Building the hovercraft comes later when the people at the outpost have figured out a way to test someone to determine if they are human. At this point the thing is running out of options. Finally when the hovercraft is destroyed, its goal becomes to simply kill the remaining team members and freeze in the ice until a rescue team shows up.
@@jco156 simple answer planes fly intercontinental and choppers do not due to choppers max range being around 300 miles, that means fro their point of origin with a full tank can get about 300 miles out maybe a little more if you conserve fuel..... planes like the 747 have a range of well over 5K miles for perspective
Here is one theory I like regarding Childs at the end:- Childs says he saw Blair, went out after him but got lost in the storm. There may be some truth to that HOWEVER it wasn’t Blair that he saw... but Fuchs. Earlier in the film, Fuchs discovers MacReady’s tattered coat. Later his body is found charred in the snow by Windows and identified by his glasses. But who says that body is Fuchs? The hypothesis goes that the body which the trio found was actually the charred remains of Bennings, exhumed by Blair or Palmer at some point during the lights out sequence. Fuchs Thing would no longer need his glasses as evident by the final scene where Blair Thing is seen without his glasses. Also, how plausible is it for a flare to incinerate a body in such a way as that corpse was found? A flamethrower perhaps, but the only flamethrowers would’ve been inside at the time and their absence would have been noted. Also, I’d argue that the sight of a burning Fuchs outside whilst the light were out would’ve been noticed by someone passing a window. The glow of the flames would’ve been evident. I reckon The Thing was playing a long game. Fuchs could have easily been hiding with Blair in the toolshed whilst all the events were going on outside. Then he was used as a decoy to infect Childs whilst the other three went after Blair. Quite an abstract theory but I’d be interested to hear thoughts :D Love this film! Wish more films would make people think and theorise like this one does!
Fuchs could have been the wild card all along I agee. I also do think that the writers did intend that one cell cpukd infect someone. I think not excepting the theory that if exposed to one cell a host could become taken over without being consumed and replicated. They even had a scene where they show the computer simulation of how one blood cell asimulation and replicates other blood cells. So it stands to reason if the Thing can replicate on a large scale then it could replicate on the very small scale also.
besides, the generator goes out in the building childs just left, so blair had just sabotaged the generator. This has some validity to it, though i think childs was going out to freeze himself.
I think it would be hilarious if the thing duplicated someone with Alzheimer's or schizophrenia. It wouldn't know what it is or what it's doing. Then again no one could tell it was a thing because the person you really didn't act like a human to begin with.
As to the "why doesn't it try to communicate?" you touch on the answer later, it's a predator, we are food/hosts, you don't try to communicate with the cattle.
@@davidf2676 Bingo!! The guy in the video tends to forget the idea is survival instinct. Also, the organism has witnessed what happens when it does reveal itself.
I think McReady and Childs even had that conversation at the end. The Thing only needs time and opportunity. If one were “it” then it would have attacked. On the other side, it may have already known the fate of both in the situation. Since it only replicated to survive rather than eat, it may have just let the clock play out and went dormant waiting for “greener pastures” so to speak rather than risk a conflict with someone who has proven their ability to fight it. I think we are doing exactly what the film intended. It came out in 1982, and here we are still discussing it. That’s what great films do. And it delivered.
he has seen them use dinamite, macready could be hiding some under the blanket as far as the thing knows, an attack is risky. waiting macready to die from exposure is safer, and allows it to freely hybernate without the risk of a surviving macready exposing the existance of the thing to the rest of the world.
@@wizzolo I would assume that the creature would take out Macready as soon as it possibly could considering how much of a threat Macready was to its future plans. However perhaps the creature felt like it had the upper hand and maybe it actually admired Macready's abilities and therefore wanted to assimilate him ?
@@mistergeopolitics4456 considering the assimilating abilities of the thing, it probably wants to assimilate "worthy opponents" in order to gain their traits.
The easier strategy for a "Childs Thing" would be to wander off into the snow to go into hibernation versus snooping around the camp and risking a confrontation with a surviving human with nothing to lose and who would want to determine if Childs was human before he died of exposure.
@@TheLAGopher Personally I'd like to think that in that final moment when Macready is disarmed, alone, and with no chance of survival, the Thing is gloating to Macready knowing that its already won by showing up in front of him. Also the Childs Thing needs to be at camp for the rescue team to find it, it can't just go off into the tundra or else the rescue team might miss it.
I wonder if you're still conscious when it has fully assimilated you? Probably not because its a biological function of the creature but that'd be a terrifying thought
I think we can pinpoint exactly when Palmer was infected. Right after Norris, Palmer, and Macready come back from Antarctica and they all start to make sense of where the Thing came from, Nauls comes in and comments on some "Dirty Johns in the kitchen trash can!" I think that right as the 3 of them came back from the spacecraft, Macready would've split off from them to deliver the news to the rest of the crew, giving Norris ample alone time with Palmer to assimilate him.
It was not flying the ship that crashed,.. the shipped that crashed was another race that had it captured, it broke free and made the ship crash to earth. "The Thing" was not the pilot.
My favorite is him saying 'I'll kill you' and then firing the revolver. Wilford Brimley was a great actor, it's sad that he passed away August 1st of this year.
I have always hated the Childs is infected argument. It takes an otherwise amazingly bleak and nihilistic ending and just turns it to overkill. The film ends with two guys in the snow waiting for a rescue team that isn't going to arrive in time suspecting one another due to their cosmically valid paranoia. It really doesn't need to be darker.
Here is the problem with that: the comics were claimed canon- and child's was indeed a thing. Furthermore- if child's was human, he would not have drunk from that bottle- in case Russel was a thing. Instead he drank from the bottle. Whether or not ya could spread it that way- these guys survived by paranoia... Notice, Russel assumes child's is a thing- confirms it when the thing drinks from the bottle. He chuckled when child's drinks. Also before ya go BSing my spelling and grammar- fucking mobile automatically corrects it to child's.
@@darreny1375 first off, I don't playing the spelling/grammar card unless that's what I'm debating. If I can understand what you're getting at, we are good. The comics were decent, and I will fully admit that my version requires that they are not canon. That said, the canon is in question for anything other than the film. Carpenter said the videogame was the true sequel, and I believe you if you say the comics were also called canon. The issue is that both can't be canon due to the timing of events. I still like my take on the ending. Also, I am aware that the script indicates Child's is infected. But, the film came out in theaters in a time before easy access to screenplays, so I only am working with what I'm seeing. That said, I could be wrong and the whole "glimmer eye" theory could date back to the eighties. Perhaps the screenplay was available at the time with some ease.
There is a novel told from the Thing's perspective. The thing states that it is, in fact, attempting to communicate through assimilation, being the best way of communication his species evolved and thinks that the way humans are and speak are primitive. The Thing also explains that it NEEDS biomass to continue to duplicate and that with each chunk lost it becomes more and more difficult to survive and increasingly animalistic. I don't know about this novel's canonicity, but even if it isn't, I've always thought the Thing attacked the dogs to absorb more biomass to extend its life and/or copy more humans.
The whole Norris scene was exactly what I was thinking. "Oh crap, this guy died of fright." And then a minute later it actually was "Oh crap, this creature copies your body as perfectly as it can." Since it somehow made a bad human body with a weak heart, that had a heart attack while the Thing was using the body, so it just lied down and then later used the corpse to do some assimilation. Hey, I'm down for both Mcreedy and Childs being human.
I don't really like the theory of imperfect copies. I don't exactly know how heart attacks work but I'm assuming it's usually the result of high stress. Norris was slightly knocked over, which I suppose could've caused stress, but if the Thing was in control then he wouldn't experience high stress in that situation, the Thing would be calm. And when Blair Thing is attacking people, we see that he no longer needs his glasses, implying that the Thing imitates the appearance of people but does not copy traits, such as bad eyesight, which would be compromising for it. So Norris thing knew that Norris had a heart condition and it decided that imitating a heart attack would be strategic. Norris' heart stopped, so probably cardiac arrest. And yet, the Thing continued to live inside him, so if the Thing was alive then why would a fake heart no longer working have any impact on the Thing?
@@zekun4741 Heart attacks are caused by one of three things I think. Stress/stresses (physical and emotional) or blockages or nerve malfunction. Considering the changes this creature can preform then it could both remove certain detrimental effects or copy them. Knocking someone down usually is not enough, but such long lasting anxiety, since I think the movie takes place over the course of a few normal days, would be enough stress for weak organs. This could have been the Thing's plan the whole time, to play to the strengths of the body on hand. Yes, I see your point.
To add to your comment, or actually being a bastard and side-tracking it, I dislike the theory of a slow take-over of victims. Like that it happens so gradually the host would never notice. Nonsense. If that's so, how could they actively act as a Thing if it's not complete? The brain and the body must be in the Thing's control and be so perfectly as to not arouse suspicion or you know, just to get "work" done. And if slow take-overs was a thing, then the Thing would have no reason whatsoever to attack anyone. It'd be madness. Just spread one thing-particle, and let that microscopic piece somehow take over a whole human being in X amount of time. Attacks and maulings would just jeopardize everything.
The both of them being human is the only ending that makes sense, I've always argued for it. After everything that happened, all the paranoia and horror, the two previous friends sitting face to face waiting to freeze to death because they cant trust each other.
Don't forget the Dark Horse comic book series which kicks off straight after the conclusion of the movie. ******SPOILERS**** MacReady continues to fight the Thing on the mainland & Childs is in fact The Thing!!
The only reason I think Childs is a thing is due to the cinematography in two separate scenes. Before they go to Blair’s shack at the end, the “POV” shot from Mac walking down the hall and finding Childs dozing off. That’s almost the same shot when they go back into the place and it’s empty. But if you pay attention to the storage room doors and the clothing in the scenes, you’ll notice when Childs is there you’ll see the door by the stairs is closed as is the door behind him (to the right of the screen). There’s also a couple jackets hanging on the wall and some boots on the floor. That next shot I mentioned you’ll see both doors are now open and both look to be entrances to the same storage room. You’ll also see the boots are not in the same placement and one of the jackets is missing. And unless I’m mistaken, Childs jacket has changed colors from when Mac finds him to when we see him running out. I believe Blair found Childs dozing off, used both storage room doors to get behind him and copied. The new Childs took a jacket hanging and went out while Blair took out the power (distraction?).
Exactly, he only split up to either find more survivors while also being a back up copy in case shit goes wrong. I always think to that chess scene in the beginning and it showing that Mac lost.
Well that obviously isn't true for the movie - why? Because that someone who sabotaged the blood samples was definitely already the Thing and he did that because he wanted to prevent the blood to be used to determine who is the Thing + Blair - already the Thing - was trying to build a hovercraft so that he would survive and escape to the mainland
@@wes8723 Excellent point. The Thing hid torn clothes and used torn up clothes belonging to Mac to frame him. People arguing that people don't know they are a Thing seems ridiculous.
Yes, in the short story they don't know if they're the thing *****spoilers**** Nauls kills himself by fear and then transforms ********* Here in the movie the only one Who doesn't behave like a thing IS Norris until we see him fall by heart attack and transforms but he IS the only one Who could infect palmer so, he must know, right? That IS right unless we think in a kind of Split personality where the thing IS the dominant and It "lets" the human personality be until It needs to show its true nature. We (maybe) see a little of THIS in the prequel in the helicopter scene but it's not a solid proof. As for the 1st movie, It stays as a speculation only.
Something I never see discussed is the scene where Blair says his OK in the hut while there is a rope noose beside him, IMO this shows Blair was assimilated at this point, Blair was gonna self delete, The Thing being an alien and with an extreme survival extinct had no idea what the rope noose was for or why Blair had made it, which is why Blair Thing made no attempt to hide it and ignored it completely
Nah perfect copy with memories . Guy in the video said that scene only made sense so they’d leave him the shed to keep building the ship. Because the noose would’ve definitely made Blair look crazy
You answered a lot of questions but you (and for that matter nobody ever has) answered my biggest question in The Thing. I've always considered that there is still one thing left at the base thought it was not much of a threat because it is so small. Im of course talking about the animated blood during the blood test scene. As far as we ever see, when the blood flees from the hot needle and Mac drops the petrie dish, that blood on the floor crawls away. It seemingly completely escapes because Mac and the gang are too concerned with the Palmer/Thing at the time to do anything about it. We never see it destroyed with Palmer or even Windows in the scene, so as far as the framing of the story goes, the blood escaped and is out there somewhere maybe hoping to catch a seagull at some point. Though most likely it just freezes someplace and never develops into a threat to the world.
that is actually a very good question. at some point, i plan to do a follow up to this video and maybe i'll look into that (and give you a shout out for the question)
I like to think that Child’s thing doesn’t immediately kill Mac just because it knows it’s already won. And decides to toy with him a bit. Also if you take the prequel into account, maybe the thing learned from it’s mistake by actually remembering to put the metal stud on It’s ear.
we should consider that they've successfully used fire to destroy pieces of it up to this point, and just before MacReary had blown up the whole facility, which i dont think it believed he would do without knowing the fate of his friends. It wasn't afraid, but very wary of any fire he might have at this point, because it was clearly down to just Childs. More efficient to try to establish trust than risk being killed, especially since MacReary was clearly going to freeze soon.
It wouldn’t remember because the woman torched the dude. So no bodies=no memories. As far as I know, any “thing” would have had that last dudes memories, travel to the dog who we see in the original and survive each firey death
I've seen about a thousand "The Thing Explained" videos. This is my favorite so far. Also the most logical and thought out explanation of the ending. Fair play
Thank you, thank you, *THANK YOU SO MUCH* for re-uploading, my husband and I are so glad that it's back up!! Our son is getting into horror (he's 14 y.o.) so you and your channel are our lifeline for amazing content and new ideas for him 🙂 Cheers, so happy you got it figured out with YT/whomever had the problem with your content 😁
glad you're enjoying it! next friday is a Dead Last episode that features a bunch of my favorite horror flicks growing up, so i'm sure there's some good stuff in there as ideas!
I totally agree with you on the fact that both were human, it makes perfect sense. More than the creature, the real antagonist in this film was man own paranoia. Having the survivors frozen to death because they can't trust each other, after destroying the worst menace that humanity has ever had, is kinda ironic.
I love this movie, and I relly liked this analysis. I think most people make 2 incorrect assumptions when analyzing this movie: 1- The thing is a perfect strategist: It is not, its cognitive abilities have limitations, sure it is smart and absorbs informations from the creatures he copies, but its strategy is not perfect, also we don't know for sure what kind of "psyche" it does have, what its ultimate goal is, nor the amount or level of details of the informations it has. It surely makes tactical mistakes, revealing himself in the kennel alarming everybody is an example, so we cannot make absolute deductions based on his strategy, it may be making mistakes. It is also entirely possible that the thing copies a creature, and lies inside of the unaware copy for the right moment (or neccessity) to take control and/or strike, just avoid copying the last minute of the victim's memory, and the copy might be unaware of its true nature. 2- There are no mistakes or continuity errors in the movie: it is nearly impossible, as a director maniacal about details as you can be, to not make a handful mistakes in a whole movie. Making a movie is an incredibly complex process, and so we can not use the most obscure details to make reliable deductions, but we can only strongly rely on the explicitly given information, and take everything with a pinch of salt. A couple considerations: about the keys and the sabotaged blood: when the crew finds the sabotaged blood, Garry should be suspicious of Windows as he lent him the keys earlier on, but he does not mention this to anyone ( he says he only lent the keys to Copper) , nor Windows mentions dropping them on the floor. Also someone must have brought Garry the keys back later, as they use them to open the blood storage. Earlier on, Bennings casually asks windows to get the keys from Garry, this implies that it's not that uncommon to lend the keys to eachother on occasion. Maybe Garry has different sets of keys for different doors, and the one he lent to windows, which dropped them, is a different one than the blood storage one? It would make sense, but the movie does not make it clear enough to assume this. I think this is an inconsistency or an error from the director, it was just meant to escalate the paranoia, and to show that the creature can strategize, possibly in a previous edit of the movie some scenes/events were in different order or something like that, we should not read too much into it IMHO. About childs: he is very paranoid, this is explicitly shown multiple times in the movie. Are we supposed to believe that he left his guard post unattended, leaving the door open nonetheless, and ran out chasing a shadow alone? Even assuming that the mismatched jackets on the wall are just a continuity error ( unlikely as the panning looks very deliberate) it's more likely that the thing jumped a tired and sleepy Childs (shown earlier to be approached by Macready without him noticing), went out to hybernate, saw the explosions and realized his buddy thing lost, and changed strategy coming back in the end to follow a different approach: Macready is a resourceful human, maybe he has an idea to survive and give the alarm? Maybe that solution could spare the thing another risky hybernation? Also if the thing makes sure Macready dies and does not give the alarm, it can hybernate without risking to wake up in a containment facility. But Macready might be hiding a weapon or some dynamite under the blanket, better let the cold kill him: so far the thing has lost all the direct physical confrontatios it had against Macready. The whole single cell contamination is a Chekhov's gun, it gets mentioned/"shown", and then at the end of the movie it "shoots": Childs nonchalantly drinks from the bottle, the musical cue plays, and Macready smirks. Even if the single cell contamination is overestimated, Childs could not know that, the characters in the movie believe in it, it's us, the viewers, that can have reservations about it, also the thing should know that childs would not drink, another possible example of it committing a "tactical mistake". My theory is that Carpenter created some inconsistencies intentionally to leave space to interpretation and discussion, and others unintentionally.
that's the beauty of the film that you the viewer can decide both human? . There is no right answer. I always thought he was human because I wanted to believe him after all that had happened but i think he was got by Blair now
More movies, especially horror and sci-fi, need to be more comfortable leaving a lot of things unexplained. Nothing scares us better than ourselves and leaving a lot open to interpretation gives people something to ponder and / or discuss which gives it life far after the viewer is done watching. So many films are ruined because they try to explain every single detail.
Question 13. Thank you thank you thank you. Everyone says that this is a hotly debated topic, but nowhere... NOWHERE that I can find on the internet have I found a credible argument or any argument for Child's NOT being the thing. I don't know how we can describe this as a "debated" topic when before this 100% say Child's was a thing. On my first watch, and on all subsequent watches, I think it is absolutely obvious that Child's and Macready were not Things. Absolutely great analysis! It is fantastic to see the first and only argument to this point... I can now say, for the first time, finally, it truly is a debated topic. --And everyone else is wrong. :) Loved this video.
I'm so glad he covered the theories and debunked them. It's almost impossible to talk to the people who believe in the theories, having a video to show them helps so very much. The whole thing about The Thing not having warm breath was one of the worst of the theories people came up with.
I finally watched this movie kept hearing how awesome it is and it’s normally not my type of horror but I really liked it! The effects were great the music is great everything is awesome. Going to go watch it again, btw love your channel from one horror lover to another keep up the awesome work.
Ho mate, brilliant video. I enjoyed this. I have always believed Childs was human. I have heard theories about him being assimilated as the Blair thing was hiding down in the boiler room just by where Childs was guarding. The Blair thing could've came upstairs and taken Childs over.
In the comics, it’s confirmed that Childs isn’t infected, but whenever rescuers come to their aid, all hell breaks loose on the ship. Part of the comics even go back to when the thing crash landed and how in impacted the natives there. Pretty good read, too.
So there are 2 questions examined that I want to expand on here. First, one of the bigger mysteries in the film is when is Palmer infected? While I agree with the author's take that it happens the night Bennings is assimilated, I think it happens earlier in the evening. I think his assimilation happens after Palmer, Norris, and MacCready notice where the alien's body was found in the snow but before the scene where everyone is in the rec room talking about the discovery. Palmer is shown to be one of the people talking in this scene. As crazy as this may sound, Palmer was already infected at this point. The reason I think that, this is also the scene where Nauls reveals that someone left their dirty long johns in his kitchen trash can. Sure, you could say the Long Johns may have been here longer but why not show Nauls' reveal of this clothing until this scene. It's a key scene in the movie because it suggests someone was taken over by the Thing and that it had to have just happened. Therefore, I think when Mac, Palmer and Norris returned from the crash site, the unaccounted time that followed is when Norris infected Palmer. I always thought after they returned from the crash site, Norris found a way to get Palmer alone and that's when he attacked. And shortly after the assimilation is when the scene with the guys conversing in the rec room regarding the discovery took place. The second question which is the biggest mystery in the movie is whether Child's and or Mac were things or human. While I agree with all your points about Mac being human, I am still suspicious of a Childs. Here's why: First off, for people who think he is human because he has his earring still, you are basing it off the theory Kate comes up with in the prequel from 2011 in that the Thing cannot replicate inorganic material. Now, it's hard to base anything off his theory because the original creators of the 1982 film did not even expand on that theory initially and because this film came before the prequel, the theory doesn't fully make sense. It would be more logical to assume this had the prequel came before John carpenter's film. But just to play devil's advocate for people who think he is human because of the earring, he still is a thing because if the thing was aware of this extra item on Childs the thing could be sure to wear the earring after the assimilation. The thing clearly pays close to attention to detail of its victims, thus how the thing can make a perfect replica of the person it infects. That's one theory to why I think Childs is a thing. But this is a looser theory simply because it's basis comes from a theory discussed in Thing 2011. My 2nd reason and primary theory for why I think Childs is a thing stems from his questionable decision to leave the base to look for Blair as he explains to Mac when he finds him after the big battle. First, it's illogical for Childs to leave the camp because there is a storm as you can see in that scene so him leaving the camp if he were human is a risky move because he could get lost in the storm and die. But what we know about the Thing is that if it freezes it clearly does not die. So why would Childs go out in the cold? I think the reason is Blair finds Childs and assimilates him while he is by himself. Now I'm sure people wonder how could he have been assimilated when he had the flame thrower to defend himself? Well does everyone remember what happened to Windows? He could have been frozen with fear much like Windows with his encounter with Palmer Thing, but I think what happened was he caught him off guard due to Childs being exhausted. No one was clearly sleeping well if at all at this point in the film, can you imagine how exhausted Childs could have been? Hell before, Mac finds Childs to tell him "we are going to test Blair" you can see Childs right before that encounter drifting off slightly.... Still not enough evidence to suggest he is a thing? Here is my other reason why I think he is infected. In the scene where Mac talks to Childs about testing Blair, look at the coats on the wall next to Childs. There is a blue coat next to him that looks very similar in color to Childs. Now fast forward a little to the scene where they show the whole base. The camera pans down the stairs to where the generator room is and then moves into the room where Childs was keeping watch. The door is now open but notice the blue coat next to Childs is gone. Instead, there is a beige coat in the place of where the blue one was that was hanging. Why were the coats rearranged? Well, since the thing is capable of violent assimilation as was evidenced by Bennings assimilation earlier on, I think Blair snuck up on Childs while he was keeping watch and assimilated him violently to speed up the transformation process tearing his clothing. Seizing the opportunity to wear another blue coat similar, Childs thing took that Blue coat. This is all conjecture of course but I think if Blair assimilated Childs which I wholeheartedly believe I have to think Blair would have talked to Childs about leaving camp and hiding in the snow so that he could freeze and live on. Blair thing was going to deal with Mac and the others and in the off chance Blair thing lost, the thing needed a contingency plan and that's where Childs thing came into play. Now I'm sure I will be questioned about how I think Blair thing got to a Child's in the first place, if that were true. Again, the devil is in the detail in that scene where we discover the door was open where Childs was keeping watching. The fact that the camera panned down the stairs where the generator room was is not a coincidence. That same room is where the final battle against Blair thing happened. Since Blair clearly was not in the shed which Mac and the others discovered, Blair thing was already most likely in the generator room at this time. And since Childs was in a room alone not too far from the generator room, Childs was a sitting duck and Blair thing took an opportunity to assimilate someone else. The last thing I will say is about the author's point that if a Child's were a thing, why not torch Mac or assimilate him upon finding him? I think the answer is simple. Since the thing is clearly intelligent knowing full well how to blend in as a crew member he is smart enough to fake emotions a human being would exhibit... Case in point look at Palmer thing's reaction when he noticed Norris's spider head. Playing on that human emotion, the Thing at this point in the film knows it's won the Chess battle so there is really no real gain to assimilate Mac or torch him because Mac is most likely going to die anyway from the Thing's perspective. Last, I think Mac also became suspicious of Childs anyway that he was a thing and he felt it was confirmed by one simple action Childs took. When he took the bottle of alcohol, you have to think Mac remembered what Fuchs said about not sharing any food or drinks with other crew members since it is possible a single cell of the thing could infect someone. This information was shared with Mac, but if you notice there is no scene after that where Mac shares that information with the rest of the crew. Which means Mac may have been the only person aware of that theory. When Childs takes the bottle of alcohol with no care in the world, Mac laughs and the music begins which to me suggested Mac was convinced at that point Childs was a thing and God know what would happen, thus why Mac suggested too "Let's just wait awhile and see what happens." I am aware that there is a possibility Mac shared Fuchs theory with the others offscreen, but even if that were true, there is potential the Thing could have forgotten that which is why Childs move to take the drink was even more suspicious. Plus, since the Thing most likely thought it won already what difference does it make to drop your guard and take the drink, the Thing at is point is already thinking Mac will die anyway so who cares if Mac finds out.....for all we know Childs could have assimilated Mac just as the end credits where about to begin because the last thing we see in the film is a full shot of the burning camp. You don't see Childs or Mac anymore.......so who knows.... This movie is amazing on so many levels and I appreciate the perspective the author provided in this video. That's my take. I believe Childs was a thing. Obviously, I do not care if those who read this agree or disagree with my take, it's just what I observed in a fantastic movie. I'd be curious though to see if anyone else felt similarly to certain key scenes as I did.
Exactly, remember the beginning chess scene and the alcohol in the machine after losing? Same motif . Mac was destined to lose that night and Childs drinking that alcohol while having the flamethrower was the final fuck you to Mac. Also, seemed like the Thing had a personal grudge against Mac (obviously) .
And it bothered me that the Blair thing just became a monster at the end and became so reckless . Child’s being his backup gives us the reason . Nice play too, he sends child one direction and turns the power off funneling everyone into the generator room to try to take them out. Dam did Mac get out played
I will never understand the shadow confusion, its blatantly Norris, its his exact shape/size and outline including head shape, hair style and clothing, like, it doesn't need to be compared, its utterly self evident.
No, the author is right. Pay close attention to the coat and the ski cap the third guy is wearing. Palmer wears a green coat with a green ski cap. He is the only one who wears that combination of the crew members. And since clothing continuity is a consistent theme of this movie everyone wore the same gear. Another way you can tell, pay attention to the scene where the three men look at the crater where the alien was. The guy in green is of taller stature.... Taller then Mac and Norris. The doc was the same height as Norris. Palmer is one of the taller members of the crew, roughly same height as Childs who was one of the tallest members of the crew.
The Thing has GOT to tie into Scandinavian folklore. The creature escapes from a Norwegian research facility and makes attempts to appear exactly like a human. Just like in Scandinavian folklore, the troll does the same.
Years ago I read an interview with one of the producers for The Thing who said that they were careful with anyone who was infected as a Thing, always showing them without reflected light in their eyes. It was extrapolated from that remark that Childs was a Thing at the end, but the thing is in that last scene he actually does have some reflected light in his eyes in a couple of shots. That bolsters your hypothesis that Childs was human at the end.
it is possible that the copies are initially unaware ( their brain is created by the thing, it could simply omit the memory of the last minute of the victim's life, and the first minute of the copy's life, and it would have no clue) and the thing hides inside them waiting for an opportunity/necessity to take control.
I think that it had to do with the leadership position itself. Norris-thing didn't want to be the leader since that would mean that all attention would be on him as the leader. As a subordinate, he could move around unnoticed more easily.
There is a great short story called "The Things" it's the story of The Thing from the perspective of the alien. As far as trying to communicate the story asserts that the "absorbing" is it communicating, it's just unaware that we perceive it as the destruction of the original life form. Also as it takes in new life forms it takes on their traits, and absorbing humans makes it more aggressive.
i love that story. it was such a great idea. i wish there were more stuff like that out there. if you dug that, check out the video for Wolfie's Just Fine "trying to sleep." its a music video and song from the perspective of the graboids from tremors
Duh. I would love to see that in a followup film. Where the Thing takes our traits... of self destruction. Makes for an excellent self reflective humanity tale.
The Ending: Childs is a Thing,.. MacReady showed us that he knew, watch MacReady take that sip from the bottle,.. he doesn't really drink anything, yet when he gives it to childs, he swigs on it freely, this proves Childs is a thing, Why you ask? Because those bottles were turned into Molotov Cocktails earlier, and no human can consume them.. ... :D
They used the drinks in the bar for the molotovs. The bottle Mac pulls out at the end is the same one he was drinking from at the start. Seems a bit odd for Mac to take a Molotov apart and poor some out so it looks the exact same as his own bottle when he didnt even know Childs was going to walk up
I believe Mac drank from it, but the fact that Childs drank from it without being worried about contamination, is why I think he's a thing, plus Mac chucked when he took the bottle
Question 13: If MaCreedy was infected he would seek clothing even though the thing can survive freezing temperatures for the same reason Norris had a heart attack, even though it can survive the cold the body it assimilated has an aversion to extreme cold and it would make sense to wait for the fires to go out before staging itself to be discovered You can not dismiss the vodka bottle thing the scene were Fuchs suggests this he has his hand ON A VODKA BOTTLE and then at the end they drink from the same bottle, this movie far too deliberate to ignore that. and what if the entire contents of that bottle was the thing as opposed to a single cell it may not be enough to take someone over but it would be disruptive enough to attack BUT having said all that I do not think MaCreedy was infected but I suspect Childs was, drinking from the bottle was a test, only the thing would drink from that bottle without fear of being infected, MaCreedy even gives a slight chuckle at the thing's fatal mistake. I think as the thing assimilated humans it got smarter and childs was the culmination of that knowledge as the humans gained understanding of the thing, the thing gained understanding of how the humans perceived it and it's strategy and ability to blend in improved as it assimilated more humans to the point it understood duplicating their bodies wasn't enough and after it assimilated Childs not only did it understand it needed clothing to blend in, it made damn sure to take that earring off his dead body and this leads me to my next point that if Childs was a thing he would not immediately attack him because it learned the most important thing of all and that is to FEAR MaCreedy, all the other humans were afraid of him and he just blew up the entire camp, he is capable of anything and would take himself out with a smile to kill it, he was the human that most aggressively and successfully exterminated it, he was clever and understood the creature taking away it's greatest advantage, it's ability to hide. he could easily have dynamite attached to his body so burning him that close would be a bad idea, it also can't hide out and wait for him to freeze because it has to make sure all the humans are dead before it freezes or it risks being found and burned or blown up I saw a documentary somewhere on youtube (sorry I don't remember the name) that states there is a version of the script where MaCreedy has a shotgun under that blanket and the the movie ends with that long shot of the camp burning but you hear a single shotgun blast and it ends still not clearly revealing their fate
Macreedy scene with the computer explains a lot about the character, MaCreedy dont play by the rules, he find his own way to play and win, if he believes that he will lost he takes everything with him, is his nature, by now the thing probably know that too
@@Second_Opinion_2 I personally don't think Child's is the The Thing, but it's incredible that after all these years people are still debating about it.
@@poobingo1555 I remember for the first ten or fifteen years after the movie was released I didn't think Child's was infected, sometimes I wonder if my opinion changes as I get older and reflects my views on life, it really stays with you The reason people are still talking about it today is because it was made at a time when money and politics was not the main focus of movies. I think this is one of the films that will be studied as long as cinema exists in one form or another even though it is was not intended to be, at the time it was made people saw it as just a run of the mill horror sci fi movie, but it is pure story telling which in my opinion is a lost art
@@Second_Opinion_2 I watched this movie for the first time a couple of days ago, I loved the movie but I remember being confused because of the ending. "Is that it?" I thought, then I realized the reasoning behind leaving it on a cliffhanger. I realized that JC wanted the audience to come up for themselves who they thought weren't or were the thing, and express the paranoia shared between the two. It was an absolutely brilliant move on his part and made the movie come full circle, you don't really see storytelling like this anymore. And the fact that till this day that people are debating on it is incredible.Jc made it so that there was just the right amount of evidence to support either argument. I think that them both being human falls in line with the rest of the themes in the story like, mistrust and paranoia. I don't really think that you could ever make a sequel to this movie without ruining the whole point of the original. All though, apparently The Thing video game and the comics are canon, but they both contradict themselves, for example in the game Child's is found frozen to death, but in the comics he is alive and saves Mac from freezing to death. Honestly I wouldn't consider those as canon, their stories are all over the place. It's mine boggling how when it was originally released that people didn't really like it, probably because of the success of E.T. The film score was even nominated for worst musical score at the Razzie awards. Even though the movie wasn't appreciated it's time I'm glad it's getting the love it deserves now. It's definitely one of the best horror movies of all time, they truly don't make movies like they used to.
In the bonus feature where a crew member talks about additional/alternate ending shot. It involves Kurt Russel's character being rescued and he is given a blood test. Crew member mentions noting about childs. This is an indication that Childs was infected. Additional: in another youtuber video he mentions that John Carpenter during an interview was asked about the two characters childs and MC Ready ending. Acording to Mr. carpenter "yes one of them was a thing".
Absolutely loved your reasoning, thanks for sharing... really enjoyed it! I just love the Things ability to turn into the most hideous killing machines ever, would love to see more of it (practical effects not shite VFX!!). Take care, courtesy a fan from Carnage Counts. :)
One of my all time favorites. Up there with “Aliens” , and “ The Road Warrior “ But there’s One thing I could never quite figure out. What the hell is a science and research station doing with a bunch of flamethrowers?????WTF
Great video, I had noticed Copper lacking pants in the scene leading up to the dog kennel but figured he was just very shocked and thrown off by the alarm. While you make some good points on why Childs doesn’t just assimilate or burn Macready at the end of the movie if he is a Thing, I do believe he is a Thing and the movie actually shows you the evidence via the clothing. In a scene where you see Childs wearing his dark blue jacket and he is guarding a room looking outside a window with other jackets hanging, there is a second dark blue coat that matches the one he wears. Not long after there is a panning shot of the building and that second jacket is no longer hanging in its spot and no one else is wearing that kind of jacket. The reason he doesn’t attack on sight is for story purposes, the ambiguity of the ending and maybe while it has a flamethrower, it could be non-functional and just for show. The Childs thing might be wary of Macready as it looks like Macready won against the Blair Thing. When Childs first walks up to Macready he looks at him and sizes him up. This could be viewed as a human scared of encountering a Thing, but it could also be a Thing checking if Macready was a Thing or not and actually showing moment of surprise that Macready has won. By your assertion The Thing is very intelligent and doesn’t act out of haste unless it has to, Childs Thing would recognize that Macready is very vulnerable outside without shelter and becoming easier prey quickly as the time passes.
I have a different (shocking I know) interpretation of the ending. We have to go back to the beginning to understand it. When we are introduced to MacReady, he is playing chess and destroys the computer because it is a "cheating bitch". This is foreshadowing the ending. While Mac and the remaining survivors are getting ready to blow up the camp, Childs-Thing mysteriously disappears for the climax of the movie. Choosing to wait out the final battle ensures The Thing will have a better chance at beating MacReady by completely avoiding the final confrontation. By destroying the camp MacReady wins, granted everyone is dead and soon he too probably will be, but he fucking won. But then Childs-Thing reemerges like the cheating bitch it is.
Rob Ager theorised similarly and I think you both have a great point here. So, hats off for reaching that on your own! But the elaborate, McReady did indeed face a non-human opponent who check-mated him, but he offered it a drink and fried its circuits. In the end, he also faces a cheating bitch, a non-human. Now, according to the script, McReady apparently has a flame thrower on him... Hidden. Now imagine that. Him giving a drink to the Thing. That the Thing accepts when it shouldnt'. The badass music comes on. McReady chuckling. I mean if that was me, even if I was exhausted, I wouldn't be chuckling if I had some confirmation that the Childs very likely was a Thing. You're about to freeze to death. You're sleep-deprived. The Thing has survived and is sitting across from you. I wouldn't be chuckling unless I had an ace up my sleeve.
I just Wana know how come in the scene when fuches is telling macready they should all eat outa cans macready just pops around the corner wearing a fresh af pair of white sneakers...only time in entire movie lmao like wtf
Probably doesn't matter tbh. If you go off the idea that single cells aren't enough to take a host it's pretty inconsequential. I don't think a tiny puddle of angry blood is going to be doing much, it was in the palm of MacReady's hand and all it seems all it could do was jump and scream. Probably lacks any coordination to attempt an attack since the intelligence seems to be directly proportional to the mass of the thing.
There were a few alternate endings.One,it showed one of the dogs looking at the site and runs off showing the audience that The Thing survived.Two,you see McReady rescued and his blood is tested and its negative for the Thing.
The only thing, that makes me think that childs is the thing is, first the director said in the latest interview that yes, one of those men was a thing. Second of all, if u look closely childs is wearing a plue coat. And when the lab explodes, he's wearing white coat. So why would he change his clothes, even tho if he wasn't a thing he's blue coat was in perfectly fine condition. I suspect that childs was killed by a thing when he went to look for blair. And as we know, when thing takes ur form, it shreds your clothes to pieces. So thing (childs) while the crew was distracted by everything it changed its clothes to look more alike human. And in the end, Mac doesn't give him a drink, he gave him gasoline from the molotov coctail, that he had many if when destroying the place. And he gived it to childs to see if he reacted, and as we know...he didn't. So mac smiles, it was not a smile of happiness, it was a smile of anxiety, fear. That he was the only human alive in this place...and we see that Mac doesn't drink from that bottle, he just has it in his hand, until childs shows up...if u look at it from that perspective, it's more undersranding and Canon. As we know the thing videogame is a sequel to john carpenter's the thing . And we see in that game that childs body is burned and frozen which means that when mac found out about childs being thing. He waited when it wasn't really concentrated. He took a chance, grabbed his flamethrower and burned him to chrisps. That ending makes more sense and is convincing enough to say that it is true, which it is.
It wasn't gasoline as McReady was about to drink it. But yes, you are right, Childs was a super paranoid guy but then drank the bottle no problem. McReady laughed as it wasn't what Child's would do.
The characters acted like there were only two possibilities- fully human people, and imposters pretending to be human. I always thought there was a third possibility- people who are infected but don't yet realize it. That group may have included everybody. It only takes breathing in one cell.
Can't be. The Thing video game is canonized by Carpenter and neither Childs nor MacReady are a Thing. Childs died freezing and MacReady (somehow?) survived and shows up at the end of the game.... for some reason. Yeah, the game kinda red-cons a lot and has plot holes, but Carpenter gave his blessing so.... 🐸
@@0verWay I have played it, but one questions comes to mind from your comment. Could MacReady have survived because he was a Thing biding its time until help arrived?
@@hanniballahr94 the way the game plays out, it makes 0 sense though. He even gets a chopper and helps the player kill the boss Thing. Why? If MacReady was the Thing, he would've used the chopper to get to the main land. And I'm even generous here, not asking where he got the chopper from.
Thank you so much for doing this. I grew up watching this film with my Mother on a movie channel called Select TV [there were only two movie channels at the time, ON and SelectTV]. We watched this movie countless times over the years; it was so ahead of its time. When the sequel came out my mother had already passed away. I remember tearing up while watching the sequel because so many questions were answered. I realized that there are so many unanswered questions to this film, I just wish she was here to share some answers with.
No dispute from me, your analysis is spot on, I have pointed out many of the same details, only to have people continue to dispute these facts. Thanks for posting.
Most of the theories involving the "single cell" center around the characters belief that The Thing operates that way. So theories like tricking Childs into drinking from the bottle are still plausible, as it doesn't really matter if a single cell is capable of infecting a whole human or not. What is important is the characters believe this to be true, and have been taking precautions against it. There is more than enough evidence in the movie to suggest that Childs is infected. First, the story he tells Mac is complete bullshit. He couldn't have seen seen Blair outside, as when he leaves the station, it immediately loses power. Second, when you see Childs in the hallway standing guard, there is a blue coat on the wall very similar to the one he has on, but when you see the hallway again, the blue coat is gone. Third, as I stated above, Childs would know better than to risk drinking from the bottle Mac gives him because he believes infection can spread from a single cell. The reason Childs doesn't just attack is because there is no reason too. Mac has a flamethrower strapped to his back, and had been hurling dynamite, so attacking with the flamethrower is out, as is trying to attack him head on. At that point its safer for The Thing to just let Mac die from the cold and go back into hibernation.
I forgot about mcready having dynamite. Norris had the heart attack and palmer was there when mcready threatened to blow the camp up. If childs became a thing later after he had passed the blood test, childs thing would probably remember that mcready has the dynamite. Smart on both their parts. Mcready can have emergency explosives just in case to defend himself and someone with a flame thrower that was infected wouldn't want to risk getting caught in the blast if the dynamite was ignited.
Fuchs only told MacReady about about the cell theory, when did MacReady share that info to anyone else? No where in the movie is it shown, so therefore Childs would not have been suspicious of drinking after MacReady. Childs not attacking MacReady because he has a flamethrower strapped to his back means nothing, Palmer attacked Windows who had a flamethrower pointed right at him. The Reason Childs or MacReady didn't attack each other is neither of them is the THING!!
@@jaleelel-shabazz5459 Uh no, the whole team was told to prepare their own meals in case one cell was infectious. Also, you missed the point about the flame throwers. Childs can't burn Mac with the flame thrower because if he does, he ignites the rest of the fuel in Macs tank, as well as the dynamite. Its suicide.
@@Saber0003:When in the movie was the whole team told to prepare their own meals? When did they show anyone eating out of a can?...Childs is NOT the THING!
The director confirmed at least one of them is infected at the end and the movie strongly suggest it's Childs. Aside from him having a significant chunk of time where he's just gone, lured outside alone to be targeted. There's a scene where you can see a close copy of the coat Childs is wearing on a hanger on the wall seen before he leaves, but it's gone later. The best strategy for the thing to survive at that point is to actually take over an enemy and make it convincing that he's not infected. If a rescue team arrives and sees the dead Things and the burning camp he'll need an alibi and to make sure any other survivors don't suspect him, so he went to the only other survivor for that. He didn't just immediately attack McCready since there wouldn't be a change of clothes nearby to put him in and he's already armed with the flamethrower. By now it's shown that the Thing learns, it could've just jammed the earstud back in considering it has the sense to manipulate and get similar clothes. The eyeglint isn't reliable but the breath is so discounting it without using an example of why you did and just saying "give me a narrative reason" is just as weak as only relying on it as proof.
Question: Are either McCready or Childs a Thing at the end? Answer: Just like movies The Hateful Eight, Reservoir Dogs and that old timey movie Shane... *IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE THEY'LL BE DEAD SOON ANYWAY.*
Frozen. But the thing will defrost when the bodies are recovered and no one outside the camp knows about the thing. So it's very relevant to know here. If one is infected the world ends.
I like to think that Palmer-Thing reacted to the Norris-Head-Thing out of exasperation because the Norris-Head-Thing's cover was blown as Windows noticed it skittering away as did Palmer-Thing.
So my theory on the Thing's intelligence: 1. It's not particularly smart. It's certainly not super intelligent. It possibly derives some intelligence from the host it takes over, but at its base level it likely has equal intelligence to that of an amoeba. This would mesh with the concept of the Thing being able to split into tiny components that still function individually without a brain; such as Palmer's blood (hey what happened to that blood by the way?). In its cellular form it has no intelligence; all it does is absorb. The more mass it gains and absorbs, the more intelligent it becomes, to the point of gaining self-awareness. 2. I imagine that the Thing retains memories of the stuff it imitates, but it's actual intelligence is limited to the body it takes over. Whatever intelligence the space ship pilot had was likely lost when the Thing had to abandon that form in favor of humans/dogs, but it retained the memories of the pilot. This could explain how the Blair Thing was able to construct a makeshift space ship; Blair had inherited schematic memories from the space ship pilot on HOW to construct a space ship, but his human mind didn't have the intelligence to realize such a project, Essentially memories of how to put something together but not enough understanding of how to actually make it work. Concepts too complex for the human brain to make proper sense of. Plus a lack of materials, obviously. 3. The space ship at the start of the film was likely piloted by a different type of alien (likely highly intelligent and advanced) that was infected by the Thing and crashed during the attack. Why would it otherwise crash? You can't accidentally crash a space ship like you can a car; gravity works very differently in the void of space. Plus space is... kinda big; accidentally ramming into a planet is pretty much nigh impossible. 4. I think the Thing might have actually been pretty confused and maybe even scared, unsure what to do and how to handle this sudden self-awareness it gained only recently. If it was hyper intelligent to begin with, then it would surely not have acted as randomly and recklessly as it did. It could have killed and absorbed everyone with relative ease early in the movie when it roamed around freely and unsuspected. Why didn't it? Most of the time it's trying to hide and run away and appearing just generally unsure of itself - why? It has superior strength and survivability - so again, why? Because it was confused and not sure what to do. Even at regular human intelligence it should have been smart enough to stealthily divide and conquer as soon as it entered the base in dog form. The only time we see it show any sign of super human intelligence is Blair's space ship project; and I reckon that's just trying to sort through confusing memories from the space ship pilot it doesn't fully understand. In essence, from the Thing's perspective, the movie is ITS personal horror story; it's the quintessential "Where am I, who am I, what am I?" paradox. Suddenly becoming self-aware based on the memories and intelligence of other life forms sounds pretty damn frightening and disorienting if you ask me.
@@Knifegash Hot dang! Thanks for the share, that's like taking all of my thoughts and actually making it sound good and sensible, hah. That was a fantastic read.
@@skittles074 That's a good point if we count the prequel into the mix! Although honestly I would not, because the Thing creature was conceived by Mr. Carpenter (although you could argue that he took queues from the original Who Goes There). I don't think the team behind the prequel had any inside info on Carpenter's original thoughts about the monster from the first film. But it's still a solid theory that fits the narrative, yes :)
The way to tell who is a Thing and who is not is the highlight in there eyes. The film crew later revealed that they put a highlight in the eyes of everyone human. So the ending is one human and one thing freezing. Now you can watch the movie and see who is human and who is not.
unfortunately, this doesn't hold up as they've stated that they attempted this and abandoned it partway through filming. check out the scene as palmer is transforming. there's a light in his eyes. check out when blair is killing garry. light in his eyes.
I disagree, there is a lot of evidence of Childs being a thing. I posted my own comment just a few moments ago with more details. But my evidence is this: In camera shots of the generator room the jackets are rearranged and Childs story makes no sense considering how soon the generator was destroyed after he left the building and is spotted by Nawls, the chess match, scotch being poured in the computer and handed to Childs, the skepticism MacReady has when Childs returns and other clues. But that's what makes this movie amazing. Being able to debate the ending and no one being truly wrong. I love this movie!
@@FitGuyAZ577 MacReady was in generell suspicuous at the end and in the Videogame which is considered Canon afaik, Childs was found Frozen to Death and was therefore a real human
@@JAGtheTrekkieGEMINI1701 I don't consider the video game to be canon. Plus Carpenter went back on that when he said that one of them was infected at the end. I think they will never clear it up completely, so neither of us is wrong. But I think there is a lot of evidence that can be pointed to that supports my position from the movie itself.
@@FitGuyAZ577 mmhhh.. OK but only cause you do Not consider it does Not mean that it IS not Canon. And what If Carpenter was Just toying with the Fans?
@@JAGtheTrekkieGEMINI1701 Good points. I just have a hard time taking a video game as a sequel to this classic. And Carpenter could've just been trolling to keep the conversation fresh. Either way, isn't it awesome we're still talking about this in 2020?
Your version of the ending is the exact one I'd prefer as I am fond of both characters, and your argument is super detailed. My only hang ups are that the cinematographer "implied" that Childs was infected and that John Carpenter himself said that one of them is definitely infected in the end. Obviously, Carpenter could just have said that to get people talking about it or because it's been a minute since the movie came out and he may have forgotten some details. I just feel weird rejecting his word on this one
Why feel weird on rejecting his word? Carpenter has changed his answer over the years because he's probably tired of being asked, and probably will never give a definitive answer.
Was that after the lab level, @Litshttam? I never progressed beyond the lab level. Not because the game was too scary. Life got in the way. By the time I had the time to play the game again I forgot about it and played Final Fantasy XII instead. By the time I remembered about The Thing game my PS2's spindle died.
Originally, @Litshttam, the game was so. Eventually that status was revoked. Thankfully, I should say. The crazy Government conspiracy was a wee bit *too* crazy even for me.
@@adamgray1753 Yeah but the comic books aren't canon. Obviously any writer can do what he wants with a potential sequel but taken as a stand alone I think it's pretty clear that they were both human
Not taking the comic into consideration since it came out after this movie, I believe Childs was a thing. I explain why I think that in my longer post from 2 days ago. Does anyone else think Childs was infected?
There's a big detail about childs that EVERYBODY missed. Childs has been in the cold for at least thirty minutes at this point. His body temperature has been lowered, and that's why he has no warm breath. As for the earring thing, I'm sure the thing can shove one back on.
One idea is that the people don't know they are "infected" until threatened, and their conscious mind is then overridden by the Thing. Sometimes it affects their subconscious to get them to take certain actions, or takes over for a task while they "black out". The thought of it hiding inside you without you knowing it, slowly taking control, until it is too late. This could explain why the infected still act like themselves, and why the transformations take place when exposed.
![Stromae, Pomme - “Ma Meilleure Ennemie” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1F3OGIFnW1k/mqdefault.jpg)
i see some good discussion in the comments here guys, and some interesting points. keep 'em coming!
only thing i'll point out is that several people have used the "bottle of kerosene" theory to show that childs is infected, saying that mac passes him a bottle of kerosene to see if he'll drink it.
go watch the scene again, though, because right before childs shows up, mac is bringing the bottle to his lips to take a drink himself! so, unless he's cool with drinking kerosene, that's just alcohol in that bottle, folks.
@This is going to make me sound like a bitch but what about the Flare fuchs used on himself?
Unless he did not take a drink look at McCready smile when he childs drinks it
@This is going to make me sound like a bitch but see here is where I disagree with that theory if McCready was the thing then why blow up /kill the other one attacking him?
@This is going to make me sound like a bitch but . I agree with you this has been one of my theories also that macready was the thing. He was the one conducting the blood test he could have faked it and as far as him torching other things that proves nothing we see that Palmer pointed out the crawling head for it to be burned they will turn on each other for survival and or to take suspicion off themselves. And then we see mac in the scene making the recording it appears that someone is behind him and he's wearing the same jacket that nauls finds.. moments later he walks in on Fuchs acting strangely. In just a few moments after he leaves the lights go out and something runs past Fuchs how could McCready not have heard or seen anything?. McCready himself says later that the lights were off in there for hours why would he leave Fuchs alone for that long?.
Mac faked taking the drink??
You have no idea how happy I am to see someone dismiss “breath theory” as bullshit. Not only does Childs visibly create breath clouds in the final scene, but the Bennings-thing, in the most iconic shot in the movie, creates a breath cloud as it lets out its infamous roar.
EXACTLY!!!
yeah the breath theory makes no sense. the thing can copy complex water/carbon based lifeforms, but a bit of humidity in the exhaled air is too difficult?
There is also a stupid theory that states that Childs was a Thing because he drank petrol as that was what Mac and the others were throwing (allegedly) in the warm things up scene... even though it is clear to see in the film that Mac was about to drink from the bottle before he hears Childs come up behind him.
Also, I think these people forget that alcohol is flammable also and that they were using J&B whiskey not petrol (albeit J&B tastes like petrol anyway)
Its been debunked for a while. The guy in this video just copied from various theory videos and put them together, with 90% of them answered by either the crew in commentary, or already theorized by others.
@@adamhickey396 I have a bottle of JB Scotch. Its 40% ABV, just the minimum to be flammable...in the arctic, it probably wouldn't be as good as petrol.
But I'll go with Petrol being in the bottles thrown to ignite the camp. IF Mac had a bottle of Petrol, it would have been smelled well before Childs took a drink.
The Thing assimilates everything of someone, including biological traits, would this not include taste buds? If it can assimilate a bad heart, English language, and human behavior, it could easily figure out what tastes good and what doesn't.
Ironically I was just watching this masterpiece again just recently on Hulu. The Thing is not just one of the best Scifi/Horror films but I think it's one of the best films ever made PERIOD. The score, atmosphere, acting, practical effects etc. Thank you John Carpenter !
I like to watch this during the middle of winter with artic like winds howling outside cold temps thick snow outside at 2 in the morning with the lights off. Also the fan made movies on yt are great so check them out.
Right! Framing a monster movie on a "who done it" mystery premise. Instant drama, speculation, and actions to make other parties seem guilty. GREAT story telling!!!
@Fred Hall heat is shit
How did critics give it a bad review back then ? Just goes to show how useless and idiotic critics can be. "The Thing" is suspenseful, imaginetize, engrossing and atmospheric. It's easily of the best horror films of all time.
@@mistergeopolitics4456 critics don't mean shit. Watch the movie and decide for yourself. 👍
Uncommon theory from me: “why would the alien ship be crashing in the first place?” I believe that “the thing” was quite possibly an organism that other aliens may have found and brought aboard but it was a disaster basically facing the same fate the Norwegians and Americans did, thus the ship crashing almost making it a prequel to the prequel, idk haha just a thought
if i remember right the writers of the prequel explain, that the Ship Belong to a group of aliens scientists, they to form one planet to another capturing and studying animals, but one day they take a animal that was in reality the thing, and it begin to kill the ship crew, the pilot and last survive, crash the ship, so the Thing cant use the ship to go to other planets
The Thing was the Imposter, and won.
That would almost make them Space Jockeys - I like to keep my retro sci-fi horror separate where possible.
A scene was cut from the 2011 prequel depicting this; but Universal felt that it would be 'confusing'....Ya know, because according to Universal you haven't the brain to figure this out. I think the same 'geniuses' were involved in the creation of the 'Emoji Movie.'
Meaning the Thing is more if a parasitic lifeforms than an intergalactic traveller. Nuce theory. I like it.
I never took the ending as ambiguous. I believed that they briefly tested each other to see if either one was a Thing, they both realized they are still human and were 100% definitely going to die. But they finally saw eye to eye, treated each other with the respect that they never did previously and shared a final drink. They sat and waited to die, only content in the fact that they had basically just saved the planet. I always thought this was abundantly clear and never once thought it was supposed to be a cliff hanger.
I don’t think it’s abundantly clear. It purposely ends leaving one to wonder. We can think what we want but there’s no proving it which is why we’re here discussing it
@@Spooky_515no it’s clear. I completely agree. Childs could burn Mac down on the spot if he is thing and what more thing was in generator room. How could it can change Childs? Lights go down and that is what made them to burn camp down. Idk but many people could somehow fit there many things I just don’t see how.
@@petervlcko4858 John Carpenter has confirmed one of them is the thing. Does not clarify who however.
@@alexarmstrong2019 He was pulling your chains.
@@yolo25000 You are in denial.
The only reason the kennel thing decided to 'show itself' was because the dogs basically sussed it out. They have stronger senses in regards to smell, this is shown by the growling and fear. The Thing was cornered and had no choice.
So you mean that:
1) Dogs and other animals can smell if an organism is thingified
2) Blair could have a small brain time, because he didn't have an idea if dogs started bad gut feeling before flowered face or not, so for prevention he killed all of the dogs. Still he could see in the kennel, that the Thing is resistant to most things except of fire, explosives and (maybe) chemicals, so he should know, that fireaxe wouldn't be enough to kill the Thing. BUT he also should know, that nothing can cure death, even something from space and he killed dogs just in case if Thing survived on fur in stuff thingified dog was aiming at the others.
I didnt see any growling or fear until it made its move.
I was specifically watching for the dogs to react because its was what I was expecting and was surprised when they didn't until it starting shaking/transforming.
@Enemy Visitor Exactly. Sometimes people forget that the primary goal of a movie is to entertain.
Correct!
I don't believe this is right. The dogs started to become roused when the dog thing began to transform. The film is edited in such a way that it seems like it's only minutes between the dog being put in the kennel and it beginning to assimilate the others. In actual fact, several hours had passed by as the dog thing would likely have waited until it was sure all the humans were asleep but hadn't counted on Mac still being up and about.
it’s sad because the director of the prequel film said that “it felt like his child was murdered” after he saw what universal did to it
Still a cool movie. Nowhere close to deserving all the hate it gets.
it's not a bad movie, it's just not a really good one either. i'd love, love, love to see a version with the original practical effects that Mikey Rotella, cohost of Dead Last, helped create.
@@movietimelines That would be ideal. Maybe one day it'll happen. Fingers crossed.
What killed the prequel was the reliance on too much CGI
kingkoop28
There was no need for the CGI. A team had already done a lot of the scenes using practical effects as a nod to Rob Bottin’s work on the first film. When it had all wrapped, Universal stepped in, cut all the effects work out and replaced it with rushed CGI. No real reason was given as to why.
The effects team didn’t find out their work had been wasted until they saw the movie at the premier.
I agree it was a low and very stupid thing for Universal to do. Almost like they wanted it to fail.
Having deployed to Iraq twice, boots are the toughest thing to put on if you get woken up for an emergency. Being the groups doctor, he would be the most likely to get woken up in the middle of the night, so he probably slept like that so he could get up in the shortest amount of time.
There is some validity to this point. I was active duty Navy for 22 years. It was not uncommon for Sailors to sleep in their boots or have them the first thing they put on in case of an emergency, such as General Quarters or a fire on the ship. In am emergency you have to get moving and boots are one of the first things you put on, even the older uniform pants were flared at the bottom so you could put on pants after your boots.
@@FriendlyNeighborhoodUnclePete Yes, even taking off your boots is a process that you might want to skip all together.
@@peterdanior4538 I was never deployed to Iraq, but I can 100% understand why people would do that, it makes sence and can save a lot of time in an emergency.
While the reasoning behind keeping the boots on is pretty sound, there is one (two?) minor flaw: dude's got civvie pants. Ever tried putting on or taking off regular pants with just sneakers on your feet? It is NOT a swift process, to say nothing of trying it with boots. Experienced thinking, kudos. :) But I'm afraid I must dispute.
i love this whole discussion, although i think i just want to start a new fashion trend of being nude with boots.
Blair’s ship is not a “rocket ship” it’s an hovercraft built in hope for him to traverse the ice and escape Antarctica to reach the rest of humanity. JC told me this himself at a convention in the UK.
I don't even think that helicopter was meant to fly out of Antarctica. Antarctica is a very large continent. Those are the kind of helicopters that are transported by ships because it doesn't have that big of a fuel tank.
The Blair thing was HOPING to crash land somewhere closer to the sea to be discovered
@@jco156 sabotage.
@@jco156 Because Blair destroyed the choppers when he was still human. The thing's objectives change as the movie progresses. Its ultimate goal is to get to populated areas and start spreading. But if it hijacked a chopper as Palmer, that would arouse suspicion, it would be better if an imitated person could travel to populated areas legitimately. Building the hovercraft comes later when the people at the outpost have figured out a way to test someone to determine if they are human. At this point the thing is running out of options. Finally when the hovercraft is destroyed, its goal becomes to simply kill the remaining team members and freeze in the ice until a rescue team shows up.
@@jco156 simple answer planes fly intercontinental and choppers do not due to choppers max range being around 300 miles, that means fro their point of origin with a full tank can get about 300 miles out maybe a little more if you conserve fuel.....
planes like the 747 have a range of well over 5K miles for perspective
@@jco156 Do you honestly think a chopper that small could "make it a thousand miles to the coast"??
Here is one theory I like regarding Childs at the end:-
Childs says he saw Blair, went out after him but got lost in the storm. There may be some truth to that HOWEVER it wasn’t Blair that he saw... but Fuchs.
Earlier in the film, Fuchs discovers MacReady’s tattered coat. Later his body is found charred in the snow by Windows and identified by his glasses. But who says that body is Fuchs?
The hypothesis goes that the body which the trio found was actually the charred remains of Bennings, exhumed by Blair or Palmer at some point during the lights out sequence. Fuchs Thing would no longer need his glasses as evident by the final scene where Blair Thing is seen without his glasses. Also, how plausible is it for a flare to incinerate a body in such a way as that corpse was found? A flamethrower perhaps, but the only flamethrowers would’ve been inside at the time and their absence would have been noted. Also, I’d argue that the sight of a burning Fuchs outside whilst the light were out would’ve been noticed by someone passing a window. The glow of the flames would’ve been evident.
I reckon The Thing was playing a long game. Fuchs could have easily been hiding with Blair in the toolshed whilst all the events were going on outside. Then he was used as a decoy to infect Childs whilst the other three went after Blair.
Quite an abstract theory but I’d be interested to hear thoughts :D Love this film! Wish more films would make people think and theorise like this one does!
Interesting theory, I always did have a problem with Fuchs incinerating himself with a flair.
Fuchs could have been the wild card all along I agee. I also do think that the writers did intend that one cell cpukd infect someone. I think not excepting the theory that if exposed to one cell a host could become taken over without being consumed and replicated. They even had a scene where they show the computer simulation of how one blood cell asimulation and replicates other blood cells. So it stands to reason if the Thing can replicate on a large scale then it could replicate on the very small scale also.
And to help the case Childs isn’t a thing is that he still has his gold tooth
besides, the generator goes out in the building childs just left, so blair had just sabotaged the generator. This has some validity to it, though i think childs was going out to freeze himself.
I think you're WAY over thinking it
I think it would be hilarious if the thing duplicated someone with Alzheimer's or schizophrenia. It wouldn't know what it is or what it's doing. Then again no one could tell it was a thing because the person you really didn't act like a human to begin with.
So you’re saying Biden could be a THING.😂😂😂😂😂💀
I like the way you think.
As to the "why doesn't it try to communicate?" you touch on the answer later, it's a predator, we are food/hosts, you don't try to communicate with the cattle.
Wdym, I talk to my dogs all the time
I talk to my pets, but I eat my cattle. F*ck 'em. ;)
@@davidf2676 Bingo!! The guy in the video tends to forget the idea is survival instinct. Also, the organism has witnessed what happens when it does reveal itself.
bryan diaz varela I’m talking about small dogs, not good ones
bryan diaz varela small dogs aren’t real ones, they don’t count
I think McReady and Childs even had that conversation at the end. The Thing only needs time and opportunity. If one were “it” then it would have attacked.
On the other side, it may have already known the fate of both in the situation. Since it only replicated to survive rather than eat, it may have just let the clock play out and went dormant waiting for “greener pastures” so to speak rather than risk a conflict with someone who has proven their ability to fight it.
I think we are doing exactly what the film intended. It came out in 1982, and here we are still discussing it. That’s what great films do. And it delivered.
he has seen them use dinamite, macready could be hiding some under the blanket as far as the thing knows, an attack is risky.
waiting macready to die from exposure is safer, and allows it to freely hybernate without the risk of a surviving macready exposing the existance of the thing to the rest of the world.
@@wizzolo I would assume that the creature would take out Macready as soon as it possibly could considering how much of a threat Macready was to its future plans. However perhaps the creature felt like it had the upper hand and maybe it actually admired Macready's abilities and therefore wanted to assimilate him ?
@@mistergeopolitics4456 considering the assimilating abilities of the thing, it probably wants to assimilate "worthy opponents" in order to gain their traits.
The easier strategy for a "Childs Thing" would be to wander off into the snow to go into hibernation versus snooping around the camp and risking a confrontation with a surviving
human with nothing to lose and who would want to determine if Childs was human before he died of exposure.
@@TheLAGopher Personally I'd like to think that in that final moment when Macready is disarmed, alone, and with no chance of survival, the Thing is gloating to Macready knowing that its already won by showing up in front of him. Also the Childs Thing needs to be at camp for the rescue team to find it, it can't just go off into the tundra or else the rescue team might miss it.
I'd rather be killed by a xenomorph or another movie monster than this. Just the thought of being trapped in a room with it.
I know. Most monsters/villains just kill you. This one....violates you.
@@DoctorPorkenfries being mouth diddled then having your chest pop its load ISNT a violation? Lol
I wonder if you're still conscious when it has fully assimilated you? Probably not because its a biological function of the creature but that'd be a terrifying thought
@@CrashHeadroom You die quickly tho.
With this thing... I have a feel that you're on for a long ride with it. A ride through hell.
It gives me conniptions
I think we can pinpoint exactly when Palmer was infected. Right after Norris, Palmer, and Macready come back from Antarctica and they all start to make sense of where the Thing came from, Nauls comes in and comments on some "Dirty Johns in the kitchen trash can!" I think that right as the 3 of them came back from the spacecraft, Macready would've split off from them to deliver the news to the rest of the crew, giving Norris ample alone time with Palmer to assimilate him.
They're in Antarctica the whole time... wdym "come back from Antarctica"?
@@dustywaynemusic6297 I meant to say crash site, I was just dumb and put Antarctica on accident. My mistake.
It was not flying the ship that crashed,.. the shipped that crashed was another race that had it captured, it broke free and made the ship crash to earth. "The Thing" was not the pilot.
Is this a theory or did you have evidence?
Maybe it was created by the aliens.
Verified in prequel.
@@kylebrett4125 evidence,.. it is canonized lore
@@proudarmedreadytobugaloode6295 and in comics
“THAT THING WANTED TO BE AAAAAAHHHHHHSSSS!! “
- “I’LL KEEL YEOUUUUU!!”
Lmfao
I still love how he says both those lines, he's gone totally tonto.
I love that delivery lol
Rip to Wilford Brimley :/
I'll KILL YOU!! ...I thought I was the only one who thought that was funny. Then McCready had to put to swift shots to the face💥💥😆
IT'S GONE MCREADY! 😁
My favorite is him saying 'I'll kill you' and then firing the revolver. Wilford Brimley was a great actor, it's sad that he passed away August 1st of this year.
He was truly great in this film.
So, if Wilford Brimley's character had diabetes, and was taken over by The Thing, that means The Thing now has diabetes #themoreyouknow
If Blair was taken over couldn't he be infectious when mac took a swig of his vodka in the tool she'd?
@Litshttam thinking about this movie can drive you crazy huh?
@@josephcontreras8930 He hadn't been infected yet. Blair isn't infected until Mac's second visit out to the shed.
I have always hated the Childs is infected argument. It takes an otherwise amazingly bleak and nihilistic ending and just turns it to overkill. The film ends with two guys in the snow waiting for a rescue team that isn't going to arrive in time suspecting one another due to their cosmically valid paranoia. It really doesn't need to be darker.
Here is the problem with that: the comics were claimed canon- and child's was indeed a thing.
Furthermore- if child's was human, he would not have drunk from that bottle- in case Russel was a thing. Instead he drank from the bottle. Whether or not ya could spread it that way- these guys survived by paranoia...
Notice, Russel assumes child's is a thing- confirms it when the thing drinks from the bottle. He chuckled when child's drinks.
Also before ya go BSing my spelling and grammar- fucking mobile automatically corrects it to child's.
@@darreny1375 first off, I don't playing the spelling/grammar card unless that's what I'm debating. If I can understand what you're getting at, we are good.
The comics were decent, and I will fully admit that my version requires that they are not canon. That said, the canon is in question for anything other than the film. Carpenter said the videogame was the true sequel, and I believe you if you say the comics were also called canon. The issue is that both can't be canon due to the timing of events. I still like my take on the ending.
Also, I am aware that the script indicates Child's is infected. But, the film came out in theaters in a time before easy access to screenplays, so I only am working with what I'm seeing.
That said, I could be wrong and the whole "glimmer eye" theory could date back to the eighties. Perhaps the screenplay was available at the time with some ease.
Maybe he is...maybe he not....we will never know.....yet...maybe
@@moodyowlproductions4287 schrodinger's infected.
Either one or the other is infected and thats a fact. I personally think chids but it can be the other guy
There is a novel told from the Thing's perspective. The thing states that it is, in fact, attempting to communicate through assimilation, being the best way of communication his species evolved and thinks that the way humans are and speak are primitive.
The Thing also explains that it NEEDS biomass to continue to duplicate and that with each chunk lost it becomes more and more difficult to survive and increasingly animalistic.
I don't know about this novel's canonicity, but even if it isn't, I've always thought the Thing attacked the dogs to absorb more biomass to extend its life and/or copy more humans.
I believe that's a fan fiction story online.
It talks about taking communion
The whole Norris scene was exactly what I was thinking.
"Oh crap, this guy died of fright."
And then a minute later it actually was
"Oh crap, this creature copies your body as perfectly as it can."
Since it somehow made a bad human body with a weak heart, that had a heart attack while the Thing was using the body, so it just lied down and then later used the corpse to do some assimilation.
Hey, I'm down for both Mcreedy and Childs being human.
I don't really like the theory of imperfect copies. I don't exactly know how heart attacks work but I'm assuming it's usually the result of high stress. Norris was slightly knocked over, which I suppose could've caused stress, but if the Thing was in control then he wouldn't experience high stress in that situation, the Thing would be calm. And when Blair Thing is attacking people, we see that he no longer needs his glasses, implying that the Thing imitates the appearance of people but does not copy traits, such as bad eyesight, which would be compromising for it. So Norris thing knew that Norris had a heart condition and it decided that imitating a heart attack would be strategic. Norris' heart stopped, so probably cardiac arrest. And yet, the Thing continued to live inside him, so if the Thing was alive then why would a fake heart no longer working have any impact on the Thing?
@@zekun4741
Heart attacks are caused by one of three things I think. Stress/stresses (physical and emotional) or blockages or nerve malfunction. Considering the changes this creature can preform then it could both remove certain detrimental effects or copy them.
Knocking someone down usually is not enough, but such long lasting anxiety, since I think the movie takes place over the course of a few normal days, would be enough stress for weak organs. This could have been the Thing's plan the whole time, to play to the strengths of the body on hand.
Yes, I see your point.
To add to your comment, or actually being a bastard and side-tracking it, I dislike the theory of a slow take-over of victims. Like that it happens so gradually the host would never notice. Nonsense. If that's so, how could they actively act as a Thing if it's not complete? The brain and the body must be in the Thing's control and be so perfectly as to not arouse suspicion or you know, just to get "work" done.
And if slow take-overs was a thing, then the Thing would have no reason whatsoever to attack anyone. It'd be madness. Just spread one thing-particle, and let that microscopic piece somehow take over a whole human being in X amount of time. Attacks and maulings would just jeopardize everything.
@@chinchilla415
Indeed. It doesn't fit the modus operandi.
@@chinchilla415 Yeah, if that's the case, the Thing wouldn't need to do lots of complicated stuff to assimilate
The both of them being human is the only ending that makes sense, I've always argued for it. After everything that happened, all the paranoia and horror, the two previous friends sitting face to face waiting to freeze to death because they cant trust each other.
They can make blood test again if they want to.
Crazy how they almost made a part 2 in 2003 with kurt and childs where part 1 left off
God I wish they did
@@jackswan3420 i know!!!!!😭😭
part 2 is actually a thing, it's the game that came out on the ps2.
Don't forget the Dark Horse comic book series which kicks off straight after the conclusion of the movie. ******SPOILERS**** MacReady continues to fight the Thing on the mainland & Childs is in fact The Thing!!
@@craigrides3209 Yeah they're good but that series didn't make much sense and wasn't nearly as good as the film, do admire their efforts though
The "no pants" thing will forever haunt me now. Thanks for that....sigh
I wear no pants...I wear no pants....I wear no...wear no...wear no pants.
Cmon. We have XXI century. Penis is another part of the body like ARM, nose or finger. Nothing to be ashamed of.
@@Watcher4111 then why does my grandma keep telling me to stop jerking on it all the time???
Copper is masturbating, just explaining that.
The only reason I think Childs is a thing is due to the cinematography in two separate scenes. Before they go to Blair’s shack at the end, the “POV” shot from Mac walking down the hall and finding Childs dozing off. That’s almost the same shot when they go back into the place and it’s empty. But if you pay attention to the storage room doors and the clothing in the scenes, you’ll notice when Childs is there you’ll see the door by the stairs is closed as is the door behind him (to the right of the screen). There’s also a couple jackets hanging on the wall and some boots on the floor. That next shot I mentioned you’ll see both doors are now open and both look to be entrances to the same storage room. You’ll also see the boots are not in the same placement and one of the jackets is missing. And unless I’m mistaken, Childs jacket has changed colors from when Mac finds him to when we see him running out. I believe Blair found Childs dozing off, used both storage room doors to get behind him and copied. The new Childs took a jacket hanging and went out while Blair took out the power (distraction?).
Agreed. This scene with the empty entryway is very suspicious and ominous. JC wouldn't include it there unless it had a particular purpose.
Exactly, he only split up to either find more survivors while also being a back up copy in case shit goes wrong. I always think to that chess scene in the beginning and it showing that Mac lost.
Awesome job. One of the best analysis videos on The Thing on all of You Tube.
RIP, Wilford Brimley. What a fantastic run he had. See you next time.
The Thing(1982) is a MASTERPIECE!
Yeah!!!!!
I love the thing one of my favourite movies 👍
1:00 i know (like most The Thing Fans) that they used a completly different actor but the hair of the mans shadow looks like Norris and not Palmer.
I agree. I know it's meant to be ambiguous, but the shadow looks more like Norris to me.
@@owie4070 same here it definitely looks like Norris! 👍
It's Norris cause the collar of the shadow
@@kevinmoore2474 I completely agree! 👍
It's norris, since he was alone or looked to be alone.
In the original short story, victims of the thing we're such perfect copies they believed themselves to be the original.
which makes it all so more sinister that in the background of the copies mind is the thing watching the situation and taking over when needed
Well that obviously isn't true for the movie - why? Because that someone who sabotaged the blood samples was definitely already the Thing and he did that because he wanted to prevent the blood to be used to determine who is the Thing + Blair - already the Thing - was trying to build a hovercraft so that he would survive and escape to the mainland
@@wes8723 Excellent point. The Thing hid torn clothes and used torn up clothes belonging to Mac to frame him. People arguing that people don't know they are a Thing seems ridiculous.
Yes, in the short story they don't know if they're the thing *****spoilers****
Nauls kills himself by fear and then transforms
*********
Here in the movie the only one Who doesn't behave like a thing IS Norris until we see him fall by heart attack and transforms but he IS the only one Who could infect palmer so, he must know, right? That IS right unless we think in a kind of Split personality where the thing IS the dominant and It "lets" the human personality be until It needs to show its true nature. We (maybe) see a little of THIS in the prequel in the helicopter scene but it's not a solid proof. As for the 1st movie, It stays as a speculation only.
Something I never see discussed is the scene where Blair says his OK in the hut while there is a rope noose beside him, IMO this shows Blair was assimilated at this point, Blair was gonna self delete, The Thing being an alien and with an extreme survival extinct had no idea what the rope noose was for or why Blair had made it, which is why Blair Thing made no attempt to hide it and ignored it completely
Nah perfect copy with memories . Guy in the video said that scene only made sense so they’d leave him the shed to keep building the ship. Because the noose would’ve definitely made Blair look crazy
You answered a lot of questions but you (and for that matter nobody ever has) answered my biggest question in The Thing. I've always considered that there is still one thing left at the base thought it was not much of a threat because it is so small. Im of course talking about the animated blood during the blood test scene. As far as we ever see, when the blood flees from the hot needle and Mac drops the petrie dish, that blood on the floor crawls away. It seemingly completely escapes because Mac and the gang are too concerned with the Palmer/Thing at the time to do anything about it. We never see it destroyed with Palmer or even Windows in the scene, so as far as the framing of the story goes, the blood escaped and is out there somewhere maybe hoping to catch a seagull at some point. Though most likely it just freezes someplace and never develops into a threat to the world.
that is actually a very good question. at some point, i plan to do a follow up to this video and maybe i'll look into that (and give you a shout out for the question)
LOL I never noticed about Doc's pants. And I've watched it a dozen times.
One of my 3 favorite Horror Movies, The Exorcist, Alien and the Thing.
It’s hard to pick one out of these three greats.
all excellent films
Yaz C How about 1978: Invasion of the Body Snatchers?
PianoMan 2018 I have to say I find it better than the original. Plus having Kevin McCarthy come back for that cameo was so cool.
Good picks!
I like to think that Child’s thing doesn’t immediately kill Mac just because it knows it’s already won. And decides to toy with him a bit. Also if you take the prequel into account, maybe the thing learned from it’s mistake by actually remembering to put the metal stud on It’s ear.
we should consider that they've successfully used fire to destroy pieces of it up to this point, and just before MacReary had blown up the whole facility, which i dont think it believed he would do without knowing the fate of his friends. It wasn't afraid, but very wary of any fire he might have at this point, because it was clearly down to just Childs. More efficient to try to establish trust than risk being killed, especially since MacReary was clearly going to freeze soon.
It wouldn’t remember because the woman torched the dude. So no bodies=no memories. As far as I know, any “thing” would have had that last dudes memories, travel to the dog who we see in the original and survive each firey death
Child's wasn't a thing
When I saw the Thing for the first time, I never took Childs or MacReady to be the thing in the End. That thought didn't even arise!
I've seen about a thousand "The Thing Explained" videos. This is my favorite so far. Also the most logical and thought out explanation of the ending. Fair play
Thank you, thank you, *THANK YOU SO MUCH* for re-uploading, my husband and I are so glad that it's back up!! Our son is getting into horror (he's 14 y.o.) so you and your channel are our lifeline for amazing content and new ideas for him 🙂
Cheers, so happy you got it figured out with YT/whomever had the problem with your content 😁
glad you're enjoying it! next friday is a Dead Last episode that features a bunch of my favorite horror flicks growing up, so i'm sure there's some good stuff in there as ideas!
I totally agree with you on the fact that both were human, it makes perfect sense. More than the creature, the real antagonist in this film was man own paranoia. Having the survivors frozen to death because they can't trust each other, after destroying the worst menace that humanity has ever had, is kinda ironic.
I love this movie, and I relly liked this analysis.
I think most people make 2 incorrect assumptions when analyzing this movie:
1- The thing is a perfect strategist:
It is not, its cognitive abilities have limitations, sure it is smart and absorbs informations from the creatures he copies, but its strategy is not perfect, also we don't know for sure what kind of "psyche" it does have, what its ultimate goal is, nor the amount or level of details of the informations it has.
It surely makes tactical mistakes, revealing himself in the kennel alarming everybody is an example, so we cannot make absolute deductions based on his strategy, it may be making mistakes.
It is also entirely possible that the thing copies a creature, and lies inside of the unaware copy for the right moment (or neccessity) to take control and/or strike, just avoid copying the last minute of the victim's memory, and the copy might be unaware of its true nature.
2- There are no mistakes or continuity errors in the movie:
it is nearly impossible, as a director maniacal about details as you can be, to not make a handful mistakes in a whole movie.
Making a movie is an incredibly complex process, and so we can not use the most obscure details to make reliable deductions, but we can only strongly rely on the explicitly given information, and take everything with a pinch of salt.
A couple considerations:
about the keys and the sabotaged blood:
when the crew finds the sabotaged blood, Garry should be suspicious of Windows as he lent him the keys earlier on, but he does not mention this to anyone ( he says he only lent the keys to Copper) , nor Windows mentions dropping them on the floor.
Also someone must have brought Garry the keys back later, as they use them to open the blood storage.
Earlier on, Bennings casually asks windows to get the keys from Garry, this implies that it's not that uncommon to lend the keys to eachother on occasion.
Maybe Garry has different sets of keys for different doors, and the one he lent to windows, which dropped them, is a different one than the blood storage one?
It would make sense, but the movie does not make it clear enough to assume this.
I think this is an inconsistency or an error from the director, it was just meant to escalate the paranoia, and to show that the creature can strategize, possibly in a previous edit of the movie some scenes/events were in different order or something like that, we should not read too much into it IMHO.
About childs: he is very paranoid, this is explicitly shown multiple times in the movie.
Are we supposed to believe that he left his guard post unattended, leaving the door open nonetheless, and ran out chasing a shadow alone?
Even assuming that the mismatched jackets on the wall are just a continuity error ( unlikely as the panning looks very deliberate) it's more likely that the thing jumped a tired and sleepy Childs (shown earlier to be approached by Macready without him noticing), went out to hybernate, saw the explosions and realized his buddy thing lost, and changed strategy coming back in the end to follow a different approach: Macready is a resourceful human, maybe he has an idea to survive and give the alarm? Maybe that solution could spare the thing another risky hybernation? Also if the thing makes sure Macready dies and does not give the alarm, it can hybernate without risking to wake up in a containment facility. But Macready might be hiding a weapon or some dynamite under the blanket, better let the cold kill him: so far the thing has lost all the direct physical confrontatios it had against Macready.
The whole single cell contamination is a Chekhov's gun, it gets mentioned/"shown", and then at the end of the movie it "shoots": Childs nonchalantly drinks from the bottle, the musical cue plays, and Macready smirks.
Even if the single cell contamination is overestimated, Childs could not know that, the characters in the movie believe in it, it's us, the viewers, that can have reservations about it, also the thing should know that childs would not drink, another possible example of it committing a "tactical mistake".
My theory is that Carpenter created some inconsistencies intentionally to leave space to interpretation and discussion, and others unintentionally.
No, I agree. They are both human at the end. That's my feel and I'm sticking to it.
that's the beauty of the film that you the viewer can decide both human? . There is no right answer. I always thought he was human because I wanted to believe him after all that had happened but i think he was got by Blair now
chagadiel exactly, the entire theme of the film is that you don't know who to trust.
I believe it was confirmed the breath thing wasn't really intentional. They're both human!
@@emeryltekutsu4357 John Carpenter already said one of them is assimilated, he just won't directly say who is.
@@C4MG1RL I thought all he said was that the fact that his breath showing was basically just an angle and it wasn't something intentional on his part.
More movies, especially horror and sci-fi, need to be more comfortable leaving a lot of things unexplained.
Nothing scares us better than ourselves and leaving a lot open to interpretation gives people something to ponder and / or discuss which gives it life far after the viewer is done watching.
So many films are ruined because they try to explain every single detail.
Absolutely. This is exactly why I don’t like supernatural horror. Too much explanation, exposition, and backstory.
Question 13. Thank you thank you thank you. Everyone says that this is a hotly debated topic, but nowhere... NOWHERE that I can find on the internet have I found a credible argument or any argument for Child's NOT being the thing. I don't know how we can describe this as a "debated" topic when before this 100% say Child's was a thing. On my first watch, and on all subsequent watches, I think it is absolutely obvious that Child's and Macready were not Things. Absolutely great analysis! It is fantastic to see the first and only argument to this point... I can now say, for the first time, finally, it truly is a debated topic. --And everyone else is wrong. :) Loved this video.
😡😡😡
Rob Ager from Collative Learning does deep dives into some of these questions. Check his shit out.
I'm so glad he covered the theories and debunked them. It's almost impossible to talk to the people who believe in the theories, having a video to show them helps so very much. The whole thing about The Thing not having warm breath was one of the worst of the theories people came up with.
@@My-Name-Isnt-Important Indeed
Props for mentioning Rob! Nobody dissects film like he does!
@@grimcity THere's a few. Georg Rockall Schimtt, Rossatron,
@@Halbared Thank you for the heads up!
I finally watched this movie kept hearing how awesome it is and it’s normally not my type of horror but I really liked it! The effects were great the music is great everything is awesome. Going to go watch it again, btw love your channel from one horror lover to another keep up the awesome work.
One of my favorite movies, John Carpenter is a master.
Ho mate, brilliant video. I enjoyed this. I have always believed Childs was human. I have heard theories about him being assimilated as the Blair thing was hiding down in the boiler room just by where Childs was guarding. The Blair thing could've came upstairs and taken Childs over.
Favorite line: “Good shot McCready,!” after Mac punches out Blair.
Theyllboth be frozen like Jack Nicholson in the shining.
I've seen the thing hundreds of times and been stumped by the blood safe mystery... i like your theory. Good call
Omg THIS IS THE VIDEO IVE WAITED FOR IN MY 10 YEARS OF YT
In the comics, it’s confirmed that Childs isn’t infected, but whenever rescuers come to their aid, all hell breaks loose on the ship. Part of the comics even go back to when the thing crash landed and how in impacted the natives there. Pretty good read, too.
It depends which comics series you read because their is another one where childs is infected
So there are 2 questions examined that I want to expand on here. First, one of the bigger mysteries in the film is when is Palmer infected? While I agree with the author's take that it happens the night Bennings is assimilated, I think it happens earlier in the evening. I think his assimilation happens after Palmer, Norris, and MacCready notice where the alien's body was found in the snow but before the scene where everyone is in the rec room talking about the discovery. Palmer is shown to be one of the people talking in this scene. As crazy as this may sound, Palmer was already infected at this point. The reason I think that, this is also the scene where Nauls reveals that someone left their dirty long johns in his kitchen trash can. Sure, you could say the Long Johns may have been here longer but why not show Nauls' reveal of this clothing until this scene. It's a key scene in the movie because it suggests someone was taken over by the Thing and that it had to have just happened. Therefore, I think when Mac, Palmer and Norris returned from the crash site, the unaccounted time that followed is when Norris infected Palmer. I always thought after they returned from the crash site, Norris found a way to get Palmer alone and that's when he attacked. And shortly after the assimilation is when the scene with the guys conversing in the rec room regarding the discovery took place.
The second question which is the biggest mystery in the movie is whether Child's and or Mac were things or human. While I agree with all your points about Mac being human, I am still suspicious of a Childs. Here's why:
First off, for people who think he is human because he has his earring still, you are basing it off the theory Kate comes up with in the prequel from 2011 in that the Thing cannot replicate inorganic material. Now, it's hard to base anything off his theory because the original creators of the 1982 film did not even expand on that theory initially and because this film came before the prequel, the theory doesn't fully make sense. It would be more logical to assume this had the prequel came before John carpenter's film. But just to play devil's advocate for people who think he is human because of the earring, he still is a thing because if the thing was aware of this extra item on Childs the thing could be sure to wear the earring after the assimilation. The thing clearly pays close to attention to detail of its victims, thus how the thing can make a perfect replica of the person it infects. That's one theory to why I think Childs is a thing. But this is a looser theory simply because it's basis comes from a theory discussed in Thing 2011.
My 2nd reason and primary theory for why I think Childs is a thing stems from his questionable decision to leave the base to look for Blair as he explains to Mac when he finds him after the big battle. First, it's illogical for Childs to leave the camp because there is a storm as you can see in that scene so him leaving the camp if he were human is a risky move because he could get lost in the storm and die. But what we know about the Thing is that if it freezes it clearly does not die. So why would Childs go out in the cold? I think the reason is Blair finds Childs and assimilates him while he is by himself. Now I'm sure people wonder how could he have been assimilated when he had the flame thrower to defend himself? Well does everyone remember what happened to Windows? He could have been frozen with fear much like Windows with his encounter with Palmer Thing, but I think what happened was he caught him off guard due to Childs being exhausted. No one was clearly sleeping well if at all at this point in the film, can you imagine how exhausted Childs could have been? Hell before, Mac finds Childs to tell him "we are going to test Blair" you can see Childs right before that encounter drifting off slightly....
Still not enough evidence to suggest he is a thing? Here is my other reason why I think he is infected. In the scene where Mac talks to Childs about testing Blair, look at the coats on the wall next to Childs. There is a blue coat next to him that looks very similar in color to Childs. Now fast forward a little to the scene where they show the whole base. The camera pans down the stairs to where the generator room is and then moves into the room where Childs was keeping watch. The door is now open but notice the blue coat next to Childs is gone. Instead, there is a beige coat in the place of where the blue one was that was hanging. Why were the coats rearranged? Well, since the thing is capable of violent assimilation as was evidenced by Bennings assimilation earlier on, I think Blair snuck up on Childs while he was keeping watch and assimilated him violently to speed up the transformation process tearing his clothing. Seizing the opportunity to wear another blue coat similar, Childs thing took that Blue coat. This is all conjecture of course but I think if Blair assimilated Childs which I wholeheartedly believe I have to think Blair would have talked to Childs about leaving camp and hiding in the snow so that he could freeze and live on. Blair thing was going to deal with Mac and the others and in the off chance Blair thing lost, the thing needed a contingency plan and that's where Childs thing came into play.
Now I'm sure I will be questioned about how I think Blair thing got to a Child's in the first place, if that were true. Again, the devil is in the detail in that scene where we discover the door was open where Childs was keeping watching. The fact that the camera panned down the stairs where the generator room was is not a coincidence. That same room is where the final battle against Blair thing happened. Since Blair clearly was not in the shed which Mac and the others discovered, Blair thing was already most likely in the generator room at this time. And since Childs was in a room alone not too far from the generator room, Childs was a sitting duck and Blair thing took an opportunity to assimilate someone else.
The last thing I will say is about the author's point that if a Child's were a thing, why not torch Mac or assimilate him upon finding him? I think the answer is simple. Since the thing is clearly intelligent knowing full well how to blend in as a crew member he is smart enough to fake emotions a human being would exhibit... Case in point look at Palmer thing's reaction when he noticed Norris's spider head. Playing on that human emotion, the Thing at this point in the film knows it's won the Chess battle so there is really no real gain to assimilate Mac or torch him because Mac is most likely going to die anyway from the Thing's perspective.
Last, I think Mac also became suspicious of Childs anyway that he was a thing and he felt it was confirmed by one simple action Childs took. When he took the bottle of alcohol, you have to think Mac remembered what Fuchs said about not sharing any food or drinks with other crew members since it is possible a single cell of the thing could infect someone. This information was shared with Mac, but if you notice there is no scene after that where Mac shares that information with the rest of the crew. Which means Mac may have been the only person aware of that theory. When Childs takes the bottle of alcohol with no care in the world, Mac laughs and the music begins which to me suggested Mac was convinced at that point Childs was a thing and God know what would happen, thus why Mac suggested too "Let's just wait awhile and see what happens." I am aware that there is a possibility Mac shared Fuchs theory with the others offscreen, but even if that were true, there is potential the Thing could have forgotten that which is why Childs move to take the drink was even more suspicious. Plus, since the Thing most likely thought it won already what difference does it make to drop your guard and take the drink, the Thing at is point is already thinking Mac will die anyway so who cares if Mac finds out.....for all we know Childs could have assimilated Mac just as the end credits where about to begin because the last thing we see in the film is a full shot of the burning camp. You don't see Childs or Mac anymore.......so who knows....
This movie is amazing on so many levels and I appreciate the perspective the author provided in this video. That's my take. I believe Childs was a thing. Obviously, I do not care if those who read this agree or disagree with my take, it's just what I observed in a fantastic movie. I'd be curious though to see if anyone else felt similarly to certain key scenes as I did.
Macready is confirmed to have had a flamethrower in that scene under his blanket so the thing absoulety does have a reason to kill him
Exactly, remember the beginning chess scene and the alcohol in the machine after losing? Same motif . Mac was destined to lose that night and Childs drinking that alcohol while having the flamethrower was the final fuck you to Mac. Also, seemed like the Thing had a personal grudge against Mac (obviously) .
And it bothered me that the Blair thing just became a monster at the end and became so reckless . Child’s being his backup gives us the reason . Nice play too, he sends child one direction and turns the power off funneling everyone into the generator room to try to take them out. Dam did Mac get out played
2nd video of yours I’ve watched. You have earned a sub. Great content.
Welcome aboard!
This is the best analysis of this movie I’ve seen. I’ve rewatched and studied it for years. Thank you!
I will never understand the shadow confusion, its blatantly Norris, its his exact shape/size and outline including head shape, hair style and clothing, like, it doesn't need to be compared, its utterly self evident.
Carpenter said, he used a member of the production crew to sit in on the shadow scene to throw the audience off.
Palmer didn’t go with Mac and Norris the doc did
That's what I was thinking too
Why would you risk both pilots on one flight???
No, the author is right. Pay close attention to the coat and the ski cap the third guy is wearing. Palmer wears a green coat with a green ski cap. He is the only one who wears that combination of the crew members. And since clothing continuity is a consistent theme of this movie everyone wore the same gear. Another way you can tell, pay attention to the scene where the three men look at the crater where the alien was. The guy in green is of taller stature.... Taller then Mac and Norris. The doc was the same height as Norris. Palmer is one of the taller members of the crew, roughly same height as Childs who was one of the tallest members of the crew.
The Thing has GOT to tie into Scandinavian folklore. The creature escapes from a Norwegian research facility and makes attempts to appear exactly like a human. Just like in Scandinavian folklore, the troll does the same.
Years ago I read an interview with one of the producers for The Thing who said that they were careful with anyone who was infected as a Thing, always showing them without reflected light in their eyes. It was extrapolated from that remark that Childs was a Thing at the end, but the thing is in that last scene he actually does have some reflected light in his eyes in a couple of shots. That bolsters your hypothesis that Childs was human at the end.
Watched dozens of videos expaining the thing. This must be the most accurate
Norris had a feeling something was off with him that's why he didn't take the gun
it is possible that the copies are initially unaware ( their brain is created by the thing, it could simply omit the memory of the last minute of the victim's life, and the first minute of the copy's life, and it would have no clue) and the thing hides inside them waiting for an opportunity/necessity to take control.
I think that it had to do with the leadership position itself. Norris-thing didn't want to be the leader since that would mean that all attention would be on him as the leader. As a subordinate, he could move around unnoticed more easily.
Fun fact: Every movie set after the Thing is technically a Thing movie.
There is a great short story called "The Things" it's the story of The Thing from the perspective of the alien. As far as trying to communicate the story asserts that the "absorbing" is it communicating, it's just unaware that we perceive it as the destruction of the original life form. Also as it takes in new life forms it takes on their traits, and absorbing humans makes it more aggressive.
i love that story. it was such a great idea. i wish there were more stuff like that out there. if you dug that, check out the video for Wolfie's Just Fine "trying to sleep." its a music video and song from the perspective of the graboids from tremors
Duh. I would love to see that in a followup film. Where the Thing takes our traits... of self destruction. Makes for an excellent self reflective humanity tale.
Came to post this. Incredible short story.
Im so happy you are starting to get popular you deserve it man
Your right, contamination would be really fast if done with single cells.
The Ending: Childs is a Thing,.. MacReady showed us that he knew, watch MacReady take that sip from the bottle,.. he doesn't really drink anything, yet when he gives it to childs, he swigs on it freely, this proves Childs is a thing, Why you ask? Because those bottles were turned into Molotov Cocktails earlier, and no human can consume them.. ... :D
Who says they used all the bottles?
They used the drinks in the bar for the molotovs. The bottle Mac pulls out at the end is the same one he was drinking from at the start. Seems a bit odd for Mac to take a Molotov apart and poor some out so it looks the exact same as his own bottle when he didnt even know Childs was going to walk up
TheInfamousTacos why is it the same bottle? Just the same brand.
I believe Mac drank from it, but the fact that Childs drank from it without being worried about contamination, is why I think he's a thing, plus Mac chucked when he took the bottle
Edward Dore Great art allows the audience to make it's own interpretation. The Thing's ambiguous ending certainly does that.
Question 13:
If MaCreedy was infected he would seek clothing even though the thing can survive freezing temperatures for the same reason Norris had a heart attack, even though it can survive the cold the body it assimilated has an aversion to extreme cold and it would make sense to wait for the fires to go out before staging itself to be discovered
You can not dismiss the vodka bottle thing the scene were Fuchs suggests this he has his hand ON A VODKA BOTTLE and then at the end they drink from the same bottle, this movie far too deliberate to ignore that. and what if the entire contents of that bottle was the thing as opposed to a single cell it may not be enough to take someone over but it would be disruptive enough to attack
BUT having said all that I do not think MaCreedy was infected but I suspect Childs was, drinking from the bottle was a test, only the thing would drink from that bottle without fear of being infected, MaCreedy even gives a slight chuckle at the thing's fatal mistake. I think as the thing assimilated humans it got smarter and childs was the culmination of that knowledge as the humans gained understanding of the thing, the thing gained understanding of how the humans perceived it and it's strategy and ability to blend in improved as it assimilated more humans to the point it understood duplicating their bodies wasn't enough and after it assimilated Childs not only did it understand it needed clothing to blend in, it made damn sure to take that earring off his dead body and this leads me to my next point that if Childs was a thing he would not immediately attack him because it learned the most important thing of all and that is to FEAR MaCreedy, all the other humans were afraid of him and he just blew up the entire camp, he is capable of anything and would take himself out with a smile to kill it, he was the human that most aggressively and successfully exterminated it, he was clever and understood the creature taking away it's greatest advantage, it's ability to hide. he could easily have dynamite attached to his body so burning him that close would be a bad idea, it also can't hide out and wait for him to freeze because it has to make sure all the humans are dead before it freezes or it risks being found and burned or blown up
I saw a documentary somewhere on youtube (sorry I don't remember the name) that states there is a version of the script where MaCreedy has a shotgun under that blanket and the the movie ends with that long shot of the camp burning but you hear a single shotgun blast and it ends still not clearly revealing their fate
Macreedy scene with the computer explains a lot about the character, MaCreedy dont play by the rules, he find his own way to play and win, if he believes that he will lost he takes everything with him, is his nature, by now the thing probably know that too
@@silverraven9436 exactly, every scene in this movie no matter how mundane it may seem says a lot
@@Second_Opinion_2 I personally don't think Child's is the The Thing, but it's incredible that after all these years people are still debating about it.
@@poobingo1555 I remember for the first ten or fifteen years after the movie was released I didn't think Child's was infected, sometimes I wonder if my opinion changes as I get older and reflects my views on life, it really stays with you
The reason people are still talking about it today is because it was made at a time when money and politics was not the main focus of movies. I think this is one of the films that will be studied as long as cinema exists in one form or another even though it is was not intended to be, at the time it was made people saw it as just a run of the mill horror sci fi movie, but it is pure story telling which in my opinion is a lost art
@@Second_Opinion_2 I watched this movie for the first time a couple of days ago, I loved the movie but I remember being confused because of the ending. "Is that it?" I thought, then I realized the reasoning behind leaving it on a cliffhanger. I realized that JC wanted the audience to come up for themselves who they thought weren't or were the thing, and express the paranoia shared between the two. It was an absolutely brilliant move on his part and made the movie come full circle, you don't really see storytelling like this anymore. And the fact that till this day that people are debating on it is incredible.Jc made it so that there was just the right amount of evidence to support either argument. I think that them both being human falls in line with the rest of the themes in the story like, mistrust and paranoia. I don't really think that you could ever make a sequel to this movie without ruining the whole point of the original. All though, apparently The Thing video game and the comics are canon, but they both contradict themselves, for example in the game Child's is found frozen to death, but in the comics he is alive and saves Mac from freezing to death. Honestly I wouldn't consider those as canon, their stories are all over the place. It's mine boggling how when it was originally released that people didn't really like it, probably because of the success of E.T. The film score was even nominated for worst musical score at the Razzie awards. Even though the movie wasn't appreciated it's time I'm glad it's getting the love it deserves now. It's definitely one of the best horror movies of all time, they truly don't make movies like they used to.
In the bonus feature where a crew member talks about additional/alternate ending shot. It involves Kurt Russel's character being rescued and he is given a blood test. Crew member mentions noting about childs. This is an indication that Childs was infected. Additional: in another youtuber video he mentions that John Carpenter during an interview was asked about the two characters childs and MC Ready ending. Acording to Mr. carpenter "yes one of them was a thing".
Wrong. Carpenter said the opposite
You made a really good point about the single cell theory
Your argument concerning the ending are rational and logical. I agree.
Absolutely loved your reasoning, thanks for sharing... really enjoyed it! I just love the Things ability to turn into the most hideous killing machines ever, would love to see more of it (practical effects not shite VFX!!). Take care, courtesy a fan from Carnage Counts. :)
welcome aboard! carnage counts rocks!
Here's another intresting fact: John Carpenter officially stated that the video game is canon
One of my all time favorites. Up there with “Aliens” , and “ The Road Warrior “
But there’s One thing I could never quite figure out. What the hell is a science and research station doing with a bunch of flamethrowers?????WTF
De-icing shit?
This film and others ones teach you one thing, always have a flamethrower around.
@@AnonymousAnonposter Your right, I’m gettin one. You can’t be to careful.
Marshmallows!
Great video, I had noticed Copper lacking pants in the scene leading up to the dog kennel but figured he was just very shocked and thrown off by the alarm.
While you make some good points on why Childs doesn’t just assimilate or burn Macready at the end of the movie if he is a Thing, I do believe he is a Thing and the movie actually shows you the evidence via the clothing. In a scene where you see Childs wearing his dark blue jacket and he is guarding a room looking outside a window with other jackets hanging, there is a second dark blue coat that matches the one he wears. Not long after there is a panning shot of the building and that second jacket is no longer hanging in its spot and no one else is wearing that kind of jacket.
The reason he doesn’t attack on sight is for story purposes, the ambiguity of the ending and maybe while it has a flamethrower, it could be non-functional and just for show. The Childs thing might be wary of Macready as it looks like Macready won against the Blair Thing. When Childs first walks up to Macready he looks at him and sizes him up. This could be viewed as a human scared of encountering a Thing, but it could also be a Thing checking if Macready was a Thing or not and actually showing moment of surprise that Macready has won.
By your assertion The Thing is very intelligent and doesn’t act out of haste unless it has to, Childs Thing would recognize that Macready is very vulnerable outside without shelter and becoming easier prey quickly as the time passes.
We know MacReady is human at the end because he survived and saves Captain Blake later on in The Thing video game.
Such an awesome game.
I have a different (shocking I know) interpretation of the ending. We have to go back to the beginning to understand it. When we are introduced to MacReady, he is playing chess and destroys the computer because it is a "cheating bitch". This is foreshadowing the ending. While Mac and the remaining survivors are getting ready to blow up the camp, Childs-Thing mysteriously disappears for the climax of the movie. Choosing to wait out the final battle ensures The Thing will have a better chance at beating MacReady by completely avoiding the final confrontation. By destroying the camp MacReady wins, granted everyone is dead and soon he too probably will be, but he fucking won. But then Childs-Thing reemerges like the cheating bitch it is.
Rob Ager theorised similarly and I think you both have a great point here. So, hats off for reaching that on your own! But the elaborate, McReady did indeed face a non-human opponent who check-mated him, but he offered it a drink and fried its circuits. In the end, he also faces a cheating bitch, a non-human. Now, according to the script, McReady apparently has a flame thrower on him... Hidden.
Now imagine that. Him giving a drink to the Thing. That the Thing accepts when it shouldnt'. The badass music comes on. McReady chuckling. I mean if that was me, even if I was exhausted, I wouldn't be chuckling if I had some confirmation that the Childs very likely was a Thing. You're about to freeze to death. You're sleep-deprived. The Thing has survived and is sitting across from you. I wouldn't be chuckling unless I had an ace up my sleeve.
Bs he destroyed computer by whiskey. Child’s was pretty much alive by same move. Connection is none.
@@chinchilla415haha something under the blanket
I just Wana know how come in the scene when fuches is telling macready they should all eat outa cans macready just pops around the corner wearing a fresh af pair of white sneakers...only time in entire movie lmao like wtf
When everyone was tidied up for the blood test. Where did the infected blood go?
I think the infected blood was attempting to return back to the thing so it most likely got burned
Probably doesn't matter tbh. If you go off the idea that single cells aren't enough to take a host it's pretty inconsequential. I don't think a tiny puddle of angry blood is going to be doing much, it was in the palm of MacReady's hand and all it seems all it could do was jump and scream. Probably lacks any coordination to attempt an attack since the intelligence seems to be directly proportional to the mass of the thing.
There were a few alternate endings.One,it showed one of the dogs looking at the site and runs off showing the audience that The Thing survived.Two,you see McReady rescued and his blood is tested and its negative for the Thing.
Pugs not so scary but pugs with flame throwers, now that’s different
The only thing, that makes me think that childs is the thing is, first the director said in the latest interview that yes, one of those men was a thing. Second of all, if u look closely childs is wearing a plue coat. And when the lab explodes, he's wearing white coat. So why would he change his clothes, even tho if he wasn't a thing he's blue coat was in perfectly fine condition. I suspect that childs was killed by a thing when he went to look for blair. And as we know, when thing takes ur form, it shreds your clothes to pieces. So thing (childs) while the crew was distracted by everything it changed its clothes to look more alike human. And in the end, Mac doesn't give him a drink, he gave him gasoline from the molotov coctail, that he had many if when destroying the place. And he gived it to childs to see if he reacted, and as we know...he didn't. So mac smiles, it was not a smile of happiness, it was a smile of anxiety, fear. That he was the only human alive in this place...and we see that Mac doesn't drink from that bottle, he just has it in his hand, until childs shows up...if u look at it from that perspective, it's more undersranding and Canon. As we know the thing videogame is a sequel to john carpenter's the thing . And we see in that game that childs body is burned and frozen which means that when mac found out about childs being thing. He waited when it wasn't really concentrated. He took a chance, grabbed his flamethrower and burned him to chrisps.
That ending makes more sense and is convincing enough to say that it is true, which it is.
It wasn't gasoline as McReady was about to drink it. But yes, you are right, Childs was a super paranoid guy but then drank the bottle no problem. McReady laughed as it wasn't what Child's would do.
@@adamgriffiths7796 indeed...
The characters acted like there were only two possibilities- fully human people, and imposters pretending to be human. I always thought there was a third possibility- people who are infected but don't yet realize it. That group may have included everybody. It only takes breathing in one cell.
Carpenter already confirmed that one of the two survivors is a Thing on the end.
Smart answer. Good way to keep the discussion going. Imagine if he said no they are both human and it’s all good lol.
Can't be.
The Thing video game is canonized by Carpenter and neither Childs nor MacReady are a Thing. Childs died freezing and MacReady (somehow?) survived and shows up at the end of the game.... for some reason. Yeah, the game kinda red-cons a lot and has plot holes, but Carpenter gave his blessing so.... 🐸
@@0verWay I have played it, but one questions comes to mind from your comment. Could MacReady have survived because he was a Thing biding its time until help arrived?
@@hanniballahr94 the way the game plays out, it makes 0 sense though. He even gets a chopper and helps the player kill the boss Thing. Why? If MacReady was the Thing, he would've used the chopper to get to the main land. And I'm even generous here, not asking where he got the chopper from.
JC said one of them is the "THING" on Friday only to say neither is the "THING" on Saturday.
Thank you so much for doing this. I grew up watching this film with my Mother on a movie channel called Select TV [there were only two movie channels at the time, ON and SelectTV]. We watched this movie countless times over the years; it was so ahead of its time. When the sequel came out my mother had already passed away. I remember tearing up while watching the sequel because so many questions were answered. I realized that there are so many unanswered questions to this film, I just wish she was here to share some answers with.
No dispute from me, your analysis is spot on, I have pointed out many of the same details, only to have people continue to dispute these facts. Thanks for posting.
Most of the theories involving the "single cell" center around the characters belief that The Thing operates that way. So theories like tricking Childs into drinking from the bottle are still plausible, as it doesn't really matter if a single cell is capable of infecting a whole human or not. What is important is the characters believe this to be true, and have been taking precautions against it.
There is more than enough evidence in the movie to suggest that Childs is infected. First, the story he tells Mac is complete bullshit. He couldn't have seen seen Blair outside, as when he leaves the station, it immediately loses power. Second, when you see Childs in the hallway standing guard, there is a blue coat on the wall very similar to the one he has on, but when you see the hallway again, the blue coat is gone. Third, as I stated above, Childs would know better than to risk drinking from the bottle Mac gives him because he believes infection can spread from a single cell.
The reason Childs doesn't just attack is because there is no reason too. Mac has a flamethrower strapped to his back, and had been hurling dynamite, so attacking with the flamethrower is out, as is trying to attack him head on. At that point its safer for The Thing to just let Mac die from the cold and go back into hibernation.
I forgot about mcready having dynamite. Norris had the heart attack and palmer was there when mcready threatened to blow the camp up. If childs became a thing later after he had passed the blood test, childs thing would probably remember that mcready has the dynamite. Smart on both their parts. Mcready can have emergency explosives just in case to defend himself and someone with a flame thrower that was infected wouldn't want to risk getting caught in the blast if the dynamite was ignited.
Fuchs only told MacReady about about the cell theory, when did MacReady share that info to anyone else? No where in the movie is it shown, so therefore Childs would not have been suspicious of drinking after MacReady. Childs not attacking MacReady because he has a flamethrower strapped to his back means nothing, Palmer attacked Windows who had a flamethrower pointed right at him. The Reason Childs or MacReady didn't attack each other is neither of them is the THING!!
@@jaleelel-shabazz5459 Uh no, the whole team was told to prepare their own meals in case one cell was infectious.
Also, you missed the point about the flame throwers. Childs can't burn Mac with the flame thrower because if he does, he ignites the rest of the fuel in Macs tank, as well as the dynamite. Its suicide.
@@Saber0003:When in the movie was the whole team told to prepare their own meals? When did they show anyone eating out of a can?...Childs is NOT the THING!
@@josesosa3337: All speculation, There is no evidence showing MacReady having dynamite on him! Childs is not the THING!!
The director confirmed at least one of them is infected at the end and the movie strongly suggest it's Childs. Aside from him having a significant chunk of time where he's just gone, lured outside alone to be targeted. There's a scene where you can see a close copy of the coat Childs is wearing on a hanger on the wall seen before he leaves, but it's gone later. The best strategy for the thing to survive at that point is to actually take over an enemy and make it convincing that he's not infected. If a rescue team arrives and sees the dead Things and the burning camp he'll need an alibi and to make sure any other survivors don't suspect him, so he went to the only other survivor for that. He didn't just immediately attack McCready since there wouldn't be a change of clothes nearby to put him in and he's already armed with the flamethrower. By now it's shown that the Thing learns, it could've just jammed the earstud back in considering it has the sense to manipulate and get similar clothes. The eyeglint isn't reliable but the breath is so discounting it without using an example of why you did and just saying "give me a narrative reason" is just as weak as only relying on it as proof.
Question: Are either McCready or Childs a Thing at the end?
Answer: Just like movies The Hateful Eight, Reservoir Dogs and that old timey movie Shane...
*IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE THEY'LL BE DEAD SOON ANYWAY.*
The Thing can't die that easily you dumbass
Frozen. But the thing will defrost when the bodies are recovered and no one outside the camp knows about the thing. So it's very relevant to know here. If one is infected the world ends.
I like to think that Palmer-Thing reacted to the Norris-Head-Thing out of exasperation because the Norris-Head-Thing's cover was blown as Windows noticed it skittering away as did Palmer-Thing.
Yea either windows would have said something about it or he could to take suspicion off him
First video of yours and I'm subscribed, belled and hooked! Excellent video mate.
So my theory on the Thing's intelligence:
1. It's not particularly smart. It's certainly not super intelligent. It possibly derives some intelligence from the host it takes over, but at its base level it likely has equal intelligence to that of an amoeba. This would mesh with the concept of the Thing being able to split into tiny components that still function individually without a brain; such as Palmer's blood (hey what happened to that blood by the way?). In its cellular form it has no intelligence; all it does is absorb. The more mass it gains and absorbs, the more intelligent it becomes, to the point of gaining self-awareness.
2. I imagine that the Thing retains memories of the stuff it imitates, but it's actual intelligence is limited to the body it takes over. Whatever intelligence the space ship pilot had was likely lost when the Thing had to abandon that form in favor of humans/dogs, but it retained the memories of the pilot. This could explain how the Blair Thing was able to construct a makeshift space ship; Blair had inherited schematic memories from the space ship pilot on HOW to construct a space ship, but his human mind didn't have the intelligence to realize such a project, Essentially memories of how to put something together but not enough understanding of how to actually make it work. Concepts too complex for the human brain to make proper sense of. Plus a lack of materials, obviously.
3. The space ship at the start of the film was likely piloted by a different type of alien (likely highly intelligent and advanced) that was infected by the Thing and crashed during the attack. Why would it otherwise crash? You can't accidentally crash a space ship like you can a car; gravity works very differently in the void of space. Plus space is... kinda big; accidentally ramming into a planet is pretty much nigh impossible.
4. I think the Thing might have actually been pretty confused and maybe even scared, unsure what to do and how to handle this sudden self-awareness it gained only recently. If it was hyper intelligent to begin with, then it would surely not have acted as randomly and recklessly as it did. It could have killed and absorbed everyone with relative ease early in the movie when it roamed around freely and unsuspected. Why didn't it? Most of the time it's trying to hide and run away and appearing just generally unsure of itself - why? It has superior strength and survivability - so again, why? Because it was confused and not sure what to do. Even at regular human intelligence it should have been smart enough to stealthily divide and conquer as soon as it entered the base in dog form. The only time we see it show any sign of super human intelligence is Blair's space ship project; and I reckon that's just trying to sort through confusing memories from the space ship pilot it doesn't fully understand.
In essence, from the Thing's perspective, the movie is ITS personal horror story; it's the quintessential "Where am I, who am I, what am I?" paradox. Suddenly becoming self-aware based on the memories and intelligence of other life forms sounds pretty damn frightening and disorienting if you ask me.
On point 4 you could argue that the previous tactic was used at the norwegian camp and it had adapted from a more confrontational approach?
You, my very good friend, need to read this if you haven't already:
clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/
@@Knifegash Wow...what a great story
@@Knifegash Hot dang! Thanks for the share, that's like taking all of my thoughts and actually making it sound good and sensible, hah. That was a fantastic read.
@@skittles074 That's a good point if we count the prequel into the mix! Although honestly I would not, because the Thing creature was conceived by Mr. Carpenter (although you could argue that he took queues from the original Who Goes There). I don't think the team behind the prequel had any inside info on Carpenter's original thoughts about the monster from the first film. But it's still a solid theory that fits the narrative, yes :)
The way to tell who is a Thing and who is not is the highlight in there eyes. The film crew later revealed that they put a highlight in the eyes of everyone human. So the ending is one human and one thing freezing. Now you can watch the movie and see who is human and who is not.
unfortunately, this doesn't hold up as they've stated that they attempted this and abandoned it partway through filming. check out the scene as palmer is transforming. there's a light in his eyes. check out when blair is killing garry. light in his eyes.
It is Like I Said years ago on other RUclips Channels regarding the old Question If either of them at the end IS the Thing ..
And the answer is NO!!
I disagree, there is a lot of evidence of Childs being a thing. I posted my own comment just a few moments ago with more details. But my evidence is this: In camera shots of the generator room the jackets are rearranged and Childs story makes no sense considering how soon the generator was destroyed after he left the building and is spotted by Nawls, the chess match, scotch being poured in the computer and handed to Childs, the skepticism MacReady has when Childs returns and other clues. But that's what makes this movie amazing. Being able to debate the ending and no one being truly wrong. I love this movie!
@@FitGuyAZ577 MacReady was in generell suspicuous at the end and in the Videogame which is considered Canon afaik, Childs was found Frozen to Death and was therefore a real human
@@JAGtheTrekkieGEMINI1701 I don't consider the video game to be canon. Plus Carpenter went back on that when he said that one of them was infected at the end. I think they will never clear it up completely, so neither of us is wrong. But I think there is a lot of evidence that can be pointed to that supports my position from the movie itself.
@@FitGuyAZ577 mmhhh.. OK but only cause you do Not consider it does Not mean that it IS not Canon.
And what If Carpenter was Just toying with the Fans?
@@JAGtheTrekkieGEMINI1701 Good points. I just have a hard time taking a video game as a sequel to this classic. And Carpenter could've just been trolling to keep the conversation fresh. Either way, isn't it awesome we're still talking about this in 2020?
Your version of the ending is the exact one I'd prefer as I am fond of both characters, and your argument is super detailed. My only hang ups are that the cinematographer "implied" that Childs was infected and that John Carpenter himself said that one of them is definitely infected in the end.
Obviously, Carpenter could just have said that to get people talking about it or because it's been a minute since the movie came out and he may have forgotten some details. I just feel weird rejecting his word on this one
Why feel weird on rejecting his word? Carpenter has changed his answer over the years because he's probably tired of being asked, and probably will never give a definitive answer.
This is a great video dude. Well done, fr.
I always thought that both Mac and Childs were human.
The comics shows Childs was infected.
Was that after the lab level, @Litshttam? I never progressed beyond the lab level. Not because the game was too scary. Life got in the way. By the time I had the time to play the game again I forgot about it and played Final Fantasy XII instead. By the time I remembered about The Thing game my PS2's spindle died.
Oh, dang, @Litshttam. Whoops. Comes to show just how long it has been for me then. Thanks.
Originally, @Litshttam, the game was so. Eventually that status was revoked. Thankfully, I should say. The crazy Government conspiracy was a wee bit *too* crazy even for me.
@@adamgray1753 Yeah but the comic books aren't canon. Obviously any writer can do what he wants with a potential sequel but taken as a stand alone I think it's pretty clear that they were both human
Except John Carpenter already said that one of them, is in fact, “The Thing,” at the end. So...
Where did he say that?
@@061romell he said it on Twitter
Not taking the comic into consideration since it came out after this movie, I believe Childs was a thing. I explain why I think that in my longer post from 2 days ago. Does anyone else think Childs was infected?
No he didn't
@@loke72 he did in twitter
There's a big detail about childs that EVERYBODY missed.
Childs has been in the cold for at least thirty minutes at this point.
His body temperature has been lowered, and that's why he has no warm breath.
As for the earring thing, I'm sure the thing can shove one back on.
In the snow...during a rough patch of wind...with no real source of light? I doubt the thing, even to that point, was that much a sucker for detail.
I'm in total agreement that neither Childs or MacReady is the Thing at the end. Your points of references are accurate.
One idea is that the people don't know they are "infected" until threatened, and their conscious mind is then overridden by the Thing. Sometimes it affects their subconscious to get them to take certain actions, or takes over for a task while they "black out".
The thought of it hiding inside you without you knowing it, slowly taking control, until it is too late. This could explain why the infected still act like themselves, and why the transformations take place when exposed.
"If I were an imitation...a perfect imitation, how would you know it was really me?"