There was a scene where the power gets cut and someone goes running through the dark in a jump scare while one of the characters says "Who is that!?", the outline showed who it was unless this was done by a separate actor again? Unsure.
The outline was portrayed by either the stagehand or director, I can't remember which. But it was NONE of the actors in the film specifically to prevent anyone from figuring it out. @@_JackNapier
One thing that you didn't mention, that I have honestly never encountered being addressed, is the disappearence of, the character, _"Nails"._ He disappears in a particular scene towards the end of the movie when the dynamite is being put down by Macready & the Thing is trying to stop them. _Nails_ is literally there in one camera-shot & he is gone in the next shot. Now, granted, if this situation was real & I was in this situation, I would just assume that the disappearence of someone meant that they were dead & I likely wouldn't bring it up either. So, within the flow of the story, in some context, it does make sense that they wouldn't bring it up. But, it does feel like a hole in the story that Carpenter just let that one go because it was easier to do that than to address it. Doing so might've caused a rewrite to the script, more scenes being shot, more money being spent & the movie taking longer to finish, ..all to address something considered relatively unimportant. Still, though; this is a flaw in this movie that always irked me. Call it a pet-peeve I guess...
So here is something that has been mentioned and makes sense. When Macready hands Childs the liquor bottle and Childs drinks from it, Macready chuckles a little. Why? Because Childs just drank gasoline from a molotov cocktail. Those were the only bottles he had on him just prior to meeting up with Childs. His cabin was destroyed. So didn't get it from there. Childs jacket IS a different one from when he was guarding door. Macready took note of all this and KNOWS Childs is The Thing. This movie is a classic! Just amazing how we as a ppl can still debate on what actually happened, after all this time! Well done John Carpenter
My favorite trivia for this movie is that they asked people who were actually stationed in Antarctica about it. One of them replied that watching the movie and coming up with anti alien plans had become a tradtion for a while. He did comment that "despite this, we have yet to find where they keep the flamethrowers"
@dubuyajay9964 Yeah they debunked that in the article where I read the trivia (about the flamethrowers) apparently the equipment is too sensitive so using something like a flamethrower would damage it they have de-icing equipment specially made for them. As to the tradition I mentioned that, but the article was from a number of years ago so I don't know if they still do.
One detail it took me many viewings to spot is when the dog-thing is burned by Childs. The humans don't realise it yet, not until Fuchs figures it out, but unless a thing is burned to ashes there is still cellular activity in the remains, enough to keep infecting others. When Childs torches the dog-thing, two of the crew rush in with extinguishers and put it out before it is properly burned. Which two? Palmer and Norris...
Another thing to keep an eye out for is the pencil that Blair uses to point out the Dogs transformation, he puts it to his lips. And everyone is watching him as he does. But later on Macready takes a sip from the Smirnoff bottle that Blair has. So maybe Alcohol can't be assimilated by the alien just a theory maybe. But still has a point . Childs and Palmer sharing a joint.
Child’s blood came up clean in the blood test that seemed to work though. I believe he is infected when he sees Blair and leaves his post to follow him.
Also, a fun fact: If you rewatch the opening scene, pay attention to Jed’s facial expressions. He’s the wolfdog that plays the Thing - and he’s clearly having a delightful time playing with everyone in the snow.
@@someguy403 He is in fact a wolfdog. He’s a Vancouver Island wolf - Alaskan Malamute hybrid. It’s why he stares like that and has such an uncanny vibe.
The Thing is an awesome movie. Too bad it was panned and hated when it was came out. As Marty McFly once said "I guess you guys aren't ready for that yet. But your kids are gonna love it."
The biggest reason why it failed in it's original theatrical release, is because it was released only a couple weeks after E.T, also bad marketing sealed it's fate. Luckily, The Thing found it's audience as a home video release, It was a hit on VHS (rentals) during the 1980's.
Carpenter himself once stated in an interview that the status of Childs and MacReady at the end is left an intentional mystery. Other than that, there are a few issues with the most common theories about Childs during the final scene. His breath is, in fact, visible but is harder to see depending on the lighting of the particular shot and the quality of the source format. It is very clearly noticeable in the recent 4K UHD release. Also, Childs being willing to take a drink from MacReady's bottle isn't really very suspect behavior. At that point, both have more or less admitted to each other that there was nothing left to do and no chance of survival. Childs drink seems like more of an acceptance of his impending death. A sort of informal toast to the approaching oblivion. And MacReady's laugh seems like a similar type of acceptance, the way people often attempt to cope with tragedy by finding some form of humor in it. "This is the end for us. Might as well share one last drink together." But the mere fact that people continue to discuss moments like this from the film all these decades later is a testament to just what an excellent, finely-crafted film it is!
You can argue either, both or neither are infected. Carpenter deliberately doesn’t give us enough information to be 100%. I don’t believe there’s an answer. As the video states you’re supposed to be in the same position as the characters and never really know who is and isn’t.
@Nosmo King makes sense. If the thing replicated perfectly you’d see the breath anyway. I like taking a different viewpoint every time I watch and see if the film still holds together. More or less it does. Random thought I had last time I watched was does the thing know if someone else is a thing (do they work completely independently). Was wondering if both Childs and McRaedy were infected would they know and attack each other or not. So many questions
@@pablom-f8762 doesn't really mean anything, the prequel film added it's own rules to the creature, and shouldn't be retroactively applied to the original film.
Interesting fact, the scene where Blair is doing the examination of the Alien and puts the pencil to his mouth was not in the script; the actor did this simply out of habit, so technically, despite it being seen in the film, this is not the actual point in the story Blair gets infected as it was an oversight. Blair's infection seems to occur at some point when he gets locked up; we know that he is fully aware the Alien will consume them all and prepares to hang himself. we see the noose in the background when the team go to see him, and now he suddenly proclaims he's a lot better and would like to come back in. At this point, its safe to assume he's infected at this stage.
MaCready drinks from his liquor bottle then. He smirks and laughs the same way MaCready does at the end when Childs drinks after him. MaCready was infected. If he wasn't, then it's a huge plot hole.
@@russiannpcbot6408 Again, you're just wrong. The pencil thing was an oversight, the filmakers have outright stated this, they didn't notice the actor even did that and that wasn't in the script or the stage directions. Blair is a human well into his incarceration, it is commonly accepted that he was infected while out there.
@@NottherealLucifer It's accepted that he's infected when he says he wants to return to be with everyone else. That is when MaCready drinks from his liquor bottle. The camera zooms in on Blair smirking after he does, the exact same way MaCready does when Childs drinks after him at the end. I'm right and you were too slow to catch it and too full of yourself to accept it.
@@russiannpcbot6408 MacReady drinks from Blair’s vodka when they bring Blair out to the shed, before he is infected. Nobody enters the shack during the scene where you find out Blair was infected, they talk to him through a slot in the door. In that scene, you can see the noose in the background. Maybe it’s been a while since you’ve seen the movie. I’m sure you’ll notice next time you watch.
The Thing is proof that you can have a horror movie without relying on cheap jump scares. The premise itself is terrifying. Being absolutely stuck in the middle of nowhere with no one to help, realizing you can't trust anyone anymore, having to come to terms that what you're dealing with is better to be in the middle of nowhere and realizing its either you and your friends (or can you even call them that?) or the rest of the world. The consistent and growing feeling of dread throughout the movie is extremely well-maintained.
The critics of the time didn't recognize or appreciate the masterpiece that had been shown to them. This film was way ahead of its time. I'm glad its finally getting its flowers
@@magicman25103 If I remember right the movie was considered a gratuitous ignorant slash movie. Consider that most critics like to believe they are gods on earth and this makes them very inept at criticise stuff. Also there is a phobia of being considered “lesser” if they do not like the “mature adult” narratives of their era,
@@Adam-Adam. and in the games, neither of them was The Thing. Comics and Games are not canon. Has to appear on the Silver Screen to be canon, all other media is just that "other". Besides, Child's still had his gold tooth and the creatures cannot replicate inorganic matter.
@@Adam-Adam.MaCready was infected halfway through the movie. He drank after the infected guy they lockedup on his own. The infected guy smirked and laughed the same way MaCready did when Childs drank from the same container he had. That's all it takes to get infected. People are added absurd guess work to draw conclusions. Everything i just said can be verified watching the movie. It's a huge plot hole if I'm not right.
@@russiannpcbot6408 Incorrect. Blair was the one they locked up on his own, because they thought he was infected, but they were wrong. Blair destroys all the methods of escape _because_ he isn't infected, he's attempting to halt the thing so that it gets stuck out here in the frozen wastes. If he had already been infected he wouldn't have done that, the thing wants to get to civilization more than anything else. You're the one being absurd, you obviously don't even understand anything happening in the movie. It isn't a plot hole _and_ you're not right, that's the option you completely missed. That scene exists specifically to make you second guess if Macready is infected or not, that's the point of it. You fell for that bait and now you're using it as your entire argument. Blair gets infected _because_ he gets locked up alone, not the other way around. You're the one adding absurd guesswork to draw your conclusion, you're assuming that Blair smiles because Maccready drinks from his bottle and you're assuming Macready laughed for the same reason, both of which are just asinine. The reason Mac laughs at the end is because he has accepted his fate, it's the exact same reason Childs decides to drink from the bottle. If either of those men are the thing, the other is screwed, and the thing would be aware that the other person could have some ace up their sleeve to kill it if it attacks. That's the accepted interpretation of that scene from any professional who matters. Two men accepting their circumstances, and accepting that the fight is over regardless of who's human and who isn't.
@russiannpcbot6408 You're wrong. Mac drank the vodka BEFORE Blair could have. They brought the bottle with them, it is clearly placed on the table in the tool shed, and Mac picks it up, takes a swig, and places it in front of Blair before leaving (This entire sequence occurs at 55:45 in the film. Fuchs places the bottle at 55:50, Mac picks it up at 56:05 and takes a swig at 56:07. He places the bottle down at 56:19.) We are never shown that Blair even takes a drink from the bottle. You're just plain wrong about this.
I’m actually surprised that with all the extensive research you did on this movie that you didn’t mention that the score is not just a single note being played but it actually represents the heart beat and when the heart motif is doubled it actually represents the thing imitating the heart beat. That was intentional by the composer.
Something i never realised until i was older is - some of the forms you see the thing as (especially the dog in the kenal scene) are some of the other things it has taken over on another planet, like the flower and the spider legs e.t.c i thought this made the film even more genius.
Childs is deff the thing, I saw someone comment this on the ending scene. The thing in 1982 is smarter and more cautious then the thing in 2011. The thing in 1982 only cares about surviving. not killing the whole crew. The last few lines of dialogue is perfectly written. The thing, Childs knows he wont make it out alive if they dont work together, Thats why it keeps asking "what should we do now or you dont have to worry about me'' And then comes one of the most badass lines ever. Macready says ''Why Don't We Wait Here, See What Happens'' bc Macready is ready to die to kill the thing, but the thing is not ready to die and is willing to work together with macready to survive.! Childs is the thing its very clear at this point tbh
Also the guy that was doing the research had told then that they couldn't let this get out of the base even if it means they all die, only the Thing would suggest trying to survive because it has no knowledge of this
@@bannedtwice7767 It would have learned from the mistake it made at the end of the prequel! Remember? Messing up the earring got it fried at the end of the 2011 movie, so it would have learned from its mistake.
@president5301 intereseting points (in regard of the dialogue); but the thing wont die from the cold. So it does not necessarily feel an urge to be safed together with Mcready. It can last and wait for a late rescue. Furthermore there is no option left. They are going to die (if both are human) anyway. Addressing Heavy Spoiler's argument: childs drinks from Mcready's bottle although warned not to do so earlier on is not necessarily an indication for childs being the thing, either. They are both in a hopeless situation ... everything is lost anyway, so why not enjoying the last hours with some good old liquor ... Of course I am not saying childs is not the thing in the end ... I am merely saying even after 40 years there still is no proof
I prefer to think that neither of them is the Thing...that they killed it, but it no longer makes a difference. I view the shared drink as them both accepting that they're dead, regardless.
Hah! I've figured it out! The DRINK is THE THING!! No poor fool stuck in Antarctica is gonna let good booze go to waste!! Gotcha, John Carpenter! You're so sly, but so am I!
This is how I view the ending. The message is that whether one or both are infected, it doesn't seem to matter. MacReady says "I don't think we're in much shape to do anything about it". The base is destroyed, the fire will die out and they're stuck in the middle of an Antarctic blizzard. No rescue attempt will come until spring. There's nothing left to do but enjoy a final drink together and "see what happens".
I like your theory better than mine. My theory was that MacReady isn't a Thing, and it doesn't matter whether or not Childs is, because MacReady burns him down, just in case. The tooth though... that's telling.
It's insane to me that this movie still holds up as well as it does. I held on to my original VHS copy from the 80s until a few years ago. It's such a great film.
Yeappers. I'm a sucker: got the collector's DVD, Blu ray & a Blu-ray (with a cool slip cover)a foreign steelbook & the 4k from Best Buy. Yeah, got THAT bs 2011 Blu Ray remake too. 👾👾👾
The fact that we’re still discussing this is a testament to how incredible this movie is. I’m still constantly changing my mind on whether Childes or Macready were infected (starting to think it might’ve been Mac)
But then why would it just aimlessly roam the base? It could've started building another ship, or even just went off to the continent on foot, or something along those lines. Now, Childs has a very interesting thing going for him. He asks "are you the only survivor?", and it makes sense for the Thing to ask this, it wants to know if it has to be on the lookout for other survivors. But it makes sense for the human-Childs to ask, with a bit of a suspicion - why are you the only one alive and where are the others? And I think it's a stalemate for both - neither of them can know if the other is infected, so they just "wait and see what happens"
@@iluxa-4000 I recently saw a video with Carpenter and Russell doing a commentary on scenes from the movie and both basically said it was impossible to know. So now I’m convinced there is no real answer, and when Carpenter says that he definitely knows who it was, he only says that because it drives engagement with the movie. It’s fun to think about, but I don’t think having a definitive answer would be a good idea
I figured Child's was The Thing because, in the final scene, Macready gave him petrol or something instead of alcohol because the "alcohol ran out" ages ago, while Macready would have plenty of petrol because he uses it for explosives. The Thing doesn't know what alcohol or petrol should taste like, so he drinks it without complaint, which makes Macready chuckle because he figured it out.
well no, because we see the thing retains it's victim/host/replica/whatever's memories, and as such would most certainly know what alcohol tastes like, and to follow that up petrol/gas/whatever has a very distinct smell to it which the thing would also remember as not only are the only 2 infected who could possibly pass on the infection present when they burn the bennings thing (which they do using petrol/gas/whatever) but also so is childs, therefore allowing the thing to know not only the smell of fuel but also how alcohol is supposed to taste. it's a cool theory, and would be a smart plan, but it just dont quite line up. also while we do see maccready throwing molotovs, something like that would be setup beforehand as an explicit detail, just as a general... thing.
Carpenter stated that, at the end, one is human and one is the thing. And McReady has stated that he was told to film his final scene with a flame thrower underneath his blankets even though no one could see it.
@@bootyman20yea I don’t see enough ppl saying this. If the thing is able to replicate exactly how people can act amongst people who know them well, it would easily be able to tell gasoline from alcohol lol
those "strange goggles" are actually glare reduction goggles. They reduce the amount of light coming in, and act also as sunglasses, in order to save the eyes from the glare reflected off of snow.
I don't know if you're supporting his comment or not, but the first glasses that protected our eyes from sun and snow were like this, no dark transparent plastic or glass. Only an opening like that.@@fleacythesheepgirl
Really happy someone pointed it out. there's an Inuit film called Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner, and a few of the characters wear them often. Very nice film also set in the snow.
Its difficult because as everyone knows this movie is made with practical effects. Meaning their breath from the cold air is real, not added in post. In order for them to not have visible breath it would be on the actors to not breathe as heavily. Youll notice MacReady really emphasizes his breathing, and when Childs takes a drink he acts as if he is taking a large sign of relief, but there is barely any breath. That cant be a coincidence.
This has been debunked a million times. You can see his breath. Also why would an entity who can imitate a creature at the cellular level not imitate breathing?
The fact that you can interpret the ending either way elevates the film to become social commentary about paranoia destroying each other. If The Thing did get out, it would destroy a lot of us, but we’d also destroy a lot of ourselves.
Neither of them were the Thing. It fits perfectly with the theme of paranoia throughout the entire movie because in the end, neither can trust the other to not be the Thing. Also, calling back to the chess scene, when beaten by a cheater the only recourse left was to destroy the mechanism that allowed the opponent to win, which in this case means everyone had to die.
Also...McCready blew up both the Palmer-Thing and the large Thing in the generator room. It was sufficient to scatter biological material...but did it burn it all to ash?
One of them is confirmed as the Thing. It's a detail that's always missed, but The Thing is part of a thematic trilogy where the detail tying the three together is that the events of each film will lead to the destruction of the human race. It's called the Apocalypse trilogy for a reason, meaning not only is one of them The Thing, but we even know it makes it back to humanity, and destroys us. Incidentally dispite being the best known the Thing is my second favorite of the trilogy, and it's not even a close call. Into The Mouth of Madness is my favorite of his films. Prince of Darkness rounds out the trilogy.
@@gregorykiernan7849 little bits and blobs aren't enough mass to hibernate on. Those bits might be able to burrow into one of the carcasses left behind though.
@@mason7067 Honestly It sounds like the Director was having a lark. Playing on the Audiances paranoia for a bit of fun. But Ultimately I think that laugh at the end the two share shows the truth of it. They both were sitting their wondering if the other was the Thing, and then realized. It doesnt really matter. Because either way. They aren't making it out alive.
They reveal the answer in the comics thing from another world (original 1952 movie title/book) issue 1&2 reveal that child’s waaa thing and mcready survived the first movie
@@stevo-kun3924 yeah the comic got gay af thou, it eventually became story where certain things develop independence from the hive mind and start fighting the things that still wanted to assimilate the world like some gay ass superhero anime weaboo shit I was like what the fuck lol 😂😂
Something I just want to mention... the Norwegian was wearing traditional snow goggles. They protect your eyes from too much light coming in (from sun and sun that reflects off of the snow). It helps stop snow blindness while also increasing visual accuity. This may be a stretch but I think the norwegian's use of traditional, inuit design is meant to represent him as having a better perspective on what is happening and sort of represents a deeper connection to the arctic vs the tech heavy, fire first americans.
Idk if you’ve ever been to Norway but it’s a lot like Antarctica during the winter. Very cold and very white with very short albeit bright AF days. So those type of goggles fit Norwegian winter garb. Our unit went over this past winter (December 2021-March 2022) and the locals could all spot the Americans right away even though we were all bundled pretty thick. Winter in America is nothing remotely close to Norway’s so many of us had the wrong gloves, glasses/goggles, etc. But those Norwegians had what we called “Ray Charles” on, heavy thick black snow goggles. So yes, Norwegians very much have better perspective on how to survive down in the cold, but also in the movie context of knowing the dog is a Thing/the danger.
I've only just watched the Thing for the first time and I can buy Childs being the Thing, but I could see it being MacReady and I could see it being neither one of them. I watched this based on your breakdowns and it was fantastic. The suspense was great. It watched this while in the exercise bike and was able to knock out almost 40 miles and didn't even notice because I was so engrossed in the movie
But there’s a little detail: MacReady doesn’t hear Childs approcing and he is about to drink from that bottle. He stops when Childs reveals his presence.
@@RyanHaragan This is actually what I thought last time I watched The Thing earlier this year. I thought they are both content to freeze for now, and be thawed out when someone comes to see what happened to the team, when they never respond, or when supplies are next sent.
@@amandahuginkiss6868it's more likely both are human, and are aware that fighting for their survival was worthless since both will freeze to death anyway. It's them accepting their fate.
My step dad raced sled dogs and I grew up around many huskies. My first question is why nobody noticed it wasn’t their dog. Any musher would notice that right away. The dogs are members of the group in a situation like this. I’m so glad I didn’t see this as a kid, but I loved it at 45.
@@asickler1978They did notice it wasn't their dog. It showed up being chased by the Norwegians, they killed the Norwegians. So the option was either A. Take it into the camp, or B. Let it freeze to death outside. They did the former, and it hung out with them in the camp until it annoyed one of the guys in the req room by bumping into him, and they told the kennel guy to put the dog in the kennel. They knew it wasn't their dog, but they accepted it as a dog (which was a mistake).
Its rare to have a movie thats this old and the special effects still look fantastic to this day. One of my favorites of all time. The Thing prequel was better than most ppl give it credit for, it lines up every horrible thing that the American search team sees at the Norwegian camp. Its very well done and completely underrated, but the 1982 the Thing is a masterclass in film making, suspense, paranoia, isolation and fear.
I agree. The prequel is actually pretty good, and the 1982 The Thing is one of my favorite movies ever, i absolutely love it and I've watched it several times!
I just would have enjoyed it more if the original vision was kept. i.e not painting over the incredibly detailed practical effects for "looking too much like an 80s movie" and gutting how the final act was supposed to pan out by covering it up with CGI too.
FINALLY someone who enjoys THE THING Prequel I completely agree with you John Carpenters THE THING is an ABSOLUTE MASTERPIECE What's hilarious is that John Carpenters movie while being THE MOST HATED FILM IN AMERICA AT ONE POINT has been re-evaluated and is considered a Sci-Fi Horror Classic While The Prequel is hated because alot of people have I think an irrational hatred of CGI. An overabundance of CGI isn't what's killing movies these days. What's killing movies is WOKE IDENTITY POLITICS
honestly i think the ambiguity makes it better, i never really cared if childs was a thing, just the possibility that he definitely could be one makes this one of my favourite endings to any movie
Interesting that as you point out, MacReady pours his whisky into the computer when faced with an impossible situation, and at the end, he toasts an equally impossible situation. Perhaps this arc gives a clue to the entire film - is he toasting his victory or has he now learned to accept defeat? The answer is linked to his friend's identity :)
The chess scene is to establish Mac’s character. The brash way he deals with situations. It’s how he dealt with The Thing at the end by just blowing everything up, like he did the computer.
You could argue it's a foreshadowing event. Mac loses to the machine, so pours whiskey onto it in "celebration," thus killing the machine. He does the Sam with Childs, except we don't see the final fight (according to the screenplay, Mac had a flamethrower hidden from Childs's view). Just a theory, mind.
MaCready was infected halfway through the movie. He drank after the infected guy they lockedup on his own. The infected guy smirked and laughed the same way MaCready did when Childs drank from the same container he had. That's all it takes to get infected. People are added absurd guess work to draw conclusions. Everything i just said can be verified watching the movie. It's a huge plot hole if I'm not right.
@@findlestick It was to show he was a brash alcoholic that fell to temptation when he drinks from infected Blair's liquor bottle. He somehow sobers up the rest of the movie then uses the same trick to infect Childs at the end. The Thing knew Childs didn't trust MaCready so it went through a staged fight to draw Childs out. Keep in mind that it was MaCready's suggestion for the remaining survivors to split up. That decision is what got everyone but him killed. It was only his apparent victory that made Childs vulnerable. MaCready came up with the idea of the blood test as well. Being infected, he could control the reaction of his own infected blood (guess).
I’ve seen every horror film known to mankind and in my opinion John Carpenter’s The Thing is damn near as perfect as you can get. This is truly a masterpiece film. From casting, special effects, editing you name it!
Well said! In all the decades since I saw this, I've never seen another horror film that gives me the same sense of paranoia and dread that this one does. That 2011 reboot/sequel/remake/whatever it was meant to be can't even hold a candle to this.
I clearly remember the first time seeing it, and it has stuck with my ever since, that rarely happens. Still here with me twenty years later, please never leave.
Thing Bennings had CLEARLY visible breath. So the breath is instantly shot down. The fact that the clothing was mixed up, the door is left open, the generator was missing and Childs claiming he saw and chased Blair do point to him having being assimilated.
Childs left before Blair got to the door, proving him human. The shot that reveals that same door is Blair's POV. Childs is already gone by the time the shot ends.
@@Yashirmare Blair is already in the generator room at that point; Carpenter doesn't use split screen like De Palma, so when you see the open door, Childs has ventured outside, next shot he's going into the tundra, and the men see him. The shot that's before that looks down the hall, down the steps which lead to the generator room, then focuses on the open door ( but stops before it enters that part of the room). We don't see the rest of the action (which is Blair going down the steps) to preserve the mystery, and to also cast doubt on Childs (but not definitively). Carpenter shows you things plainly (his style) but leaves out bits of information when it comes to the Thing, and deliberately doesn't provide answers about the creature, creating unease and tension.
The one argument I never got was dealing with the no breath theory. From my understanding, the thing metabolizes in the same way as any other cell that has mitochondria and would take on the metabolic behaviors of the species it mimics. So it would still take in oxygen, heat produced inside the body would allow for vapor to be produced when breathing out.
Plus earlier in the movie when fake Bennings was about get burned you can clearly see the breath coming out of his mouth. The no breath theory does not hold water. Although it goes to show how great the movie is that folks are still pondering it 40 years later.
@@PlasteredDragon You can see the breath only in the modern quality version of the movie because you weren't supposed to see it in the original version. This is a case of " the costume looks ugly in HD" , the original movie , with the original quality , made it so that we couldn't see the breathing of the actor, because Childs , doesn't breathe warm air at the end of the movie. Of course nowadays , with image quality that can see the inner working of the actor's nostrils from 500m away , you see everything the movie tried to hide before with a particular lighting.
@@rgoodwyn You have to understand that this movie couldn't digitally remove an actor's breath and the guy needed to breathe. Now in the ONE scene where this detail was important , they made it so that his breathing wasn't apparent, because he IS the thing , it is only seen in HD versions , something that wasn't thought about in the 80s.
Plus Bennings showed breath vapors when he changed right before they set him on fire. Plus Keith David said the reason he had no “vapors” was because he was close to the fire and was warm.
Absolutely the best horror movie ever. I’ll never forget being so excited to share it with my best friend, only to have to turn it off because it scared her. To be fair we probably were too young at the time to watch it, but I just loved it.
Lol. Last year I shared this movie with my best friend because for some reason he had never seen it. He was so blown away by the effects and the story as well as how real each character felt (whereas in most horror movies they are all your typical sex/drug crazed teen idiots). The movie is a very good sci-fi murder mystery
The fact that child's drinks from the bottle is what does it for me. You see Macready making molotov cocktails. He pretends to take a drink to get Childs to imitate him, but Macready knows it's gasoline. Also, they establish Macready as willing to die to keep the thing in place. They establish the thing as willing to do whatever it takes to survive, including cooperation. Child's approaching Macready at the end wouldn't be natural considering the paranoia that was established throughout the movie. The thing might not have understood this, so Child's casually saunters up to Macready not understanding that a real human in that situation would be paranoid as hell and probably wouldn't just plop down next to someone who was out of sight. The thing imitates human behavior but does not understand the nuance. That drink of the bottle at the end seals it for me. It was full of gasoline (you see Macready make molotovs), but if Child's was still a human he wouldn't risk being contaminated and the thing would want to infect Macready anyway. He also wouldn't know Macready is or isn't a thing. Him being so comfortable at the end is unnatural.
No because the thing as a dog, at the beginning, can also understand a dog AND humans from the previous outpost out of incredible adaptation skills, appearing scared and seeking refuge among the other humans at the other outpost, jumping on one of them licking affectionately like a good boy would, just to gaslight them into killing the norwegian pursuers. It understands the flaws of human beings and their feelings, their intellectual properties too. They literally killed a human over a dog out of emotional confusion despite the last norwegian survivor not showing intent of killing them (he injured one of them and was seemingly angry, yes, but that doesn't explain everything), walking among them to chase the dog, yet he got shot dead. They literally witnessed an helicopter dropping grenades and shooting this one particular dog. A very peculiar situation in Antartica that doesn't justify shooting the norwegians dead either. It's just very strange, think about it if you were one of them. The movie shows that humans and the monster, both, can make valid rational and emotional decisions, or invalid decisions based on gut feelings and logical thinking at different points. It's perfectly possible at this point that both Mac and Childs don't care about the rules anymore or, surprise, forget about things after spending long hours trying to survive. Humans can make mistakes. The monster too though. If you rationalize everything, you end being a robot and robot also make mistakes. If you only trust what you feel, that will drive you mad. It's not about spotting details or nuances. Carpenter knew that us, the spectators, would argue endlessly about that and analyze everything. In which case, we would have already found a the real answers or consensus. There is no real answer, he made the movie that way. Or you can just chose to believe what you want to believe but no answer can outweigh another in The Thing.
Nope. Childs has a fucking flamethrower and you think handing him AMMO for it is checkmate? You gotta be joking. The Thing is MORE INTELLIGENT than a human, not less.
This is certainly one of the greatest, most frightening horror films ever made. This is true horror. Paranoia mixed with bodily horror. It’s remarkable. Frightening, but I loved it.
One of my all time favorite movies. The soundtrack is second to none. The opening scene with the shaky cam focused on the mountains. The monotonous bass of the soundtrack and then the helicopter slowly comes into view. That first scene, alone has the hairs standing up on the back of my neck.
I miss when having a shaky camera was a tasteful effect used sparingly instead of "man that fight scene didn't look very believable... Let's just make the camera move around so much you can't tell what's happening instead of redoing it though"
If Childs was a Thing,why didn't he attack MacCready when he saw him??My guess,Childs wasn't yet infected,but he knew both of them couldn't survive so they just waited for the end...
I always wondered if a lick, or a shared drink can really turn someone into the thing. Biologically, it makes sense that it could spread like a disease/virus. It's just that if the Thing could do that, it would be so powerful that it's actions don't make much sense. It could have stayed in dog form, lick some faces, wait till those humans have become Things, use them to infect the food, and have the whole base taken over before anyone even knows the Thing exists. After its narrow escape from the Norwegian base, I don't think it would be taking more risks by exposing itself with direct and open attacks.
I’ve noticed this too. Many types of viruses/bacteria can be passed through bodily liquids other than just blood, so infecting everyone should’ve been rather easy - especially if it waited until everyone was asleep. Could’ve simply bit itself then dripped a few drops of blood on each their faces while they slept. Movie would be over the following morning. Lol.
@@hamsterfromabove8905 The "dog" knew exactly what it was doing. You could see it watching and actually sneaking around trying to look obscure. It knew but acted like the creatures it took over
I always thought it assimilated like a cell and that it has to more or less engulf the creature it wants to use, break down the genetic information and absorb it before it can use it and that that was also why there could be more than one Thing at a time since it can divide its own body mass. I also wondered if by dividing its own mass to avoid total destruction, would the forms it could take on be limited to the amount of its own body/cell mass or could it rapidly reproduce the lost mass and to take on the larger assimilated forms?
The Thing probably was going to stalk the men one by one but getting thrown into the kennel ruined that. The other dogs could sense there was something different about him so so he had to act and it gave him the opportunity to infect a number of victims at one time without interruptions...or so the thing thought. John Carpenter's "The Thing" will always be one of the best Sci-Fi horrors ever made, everything about it was great and I doubt it could ever be improved on, even with today's technology. It'll always be one of my favorite movies.
The blood test scene is iconic … and it’s potentially how Childs got infected. To break it down, Mac has the gun, so he’s in charge. He forces Windows to collected samples of everyone’s blood, and the remaining men are tied down to the furniture. They are essentially arranged in a line: Palmer, Garry, and Childs are on the couch, and Nauls is in a chair. As the audience, we’re shown the END of the blood collection process. Windows cuts Nauls’ thumb with a knife, collects the blood in a dish, and then wipes the knife on his pants. Then, he collects his own blood. He’s also not wearing any gloves. Finally, when Mac does the test blood, he doesn’t go straight down the line. So, it’s possible that Windows collected Palmer’s blood, wiped the knife on his pants, and then collected Childs’ blood with the contaminated knife! Why didn’t Childs’ immediately turn into a Thing? I think the transformation speed is based on the degree of contamination. If people (or doggos, sadly) are attacked directly, they change almost instantaneously. However, if they only have minor contact, such as traces of saliva or blood, then the change takes far longer. But how could Mac make that mistake? Well, it was the 1980s, so their medical knowledge wasn’t the same as ours. They clearly knew about saliva contamination … but it’s possible they didn’t realize that blood contamination was a risk. By this point in the movie, their situation had devolved in chaos, so it also could have been a fatal oversight. Why didn’t other people get infected? It’s possible that they did get infected. However, since people seem to transform at different rates, they potentially died as humans before the change occurred. For example, Cooper was killed by a Thing, but he still passed the blood test. Well, then, why did Childs need to change his coat? It’s still possible that he was attacked by the Thing … since Blair was on the loose. Alternatively, he had a violent transformation that shredded his coat and caused him to knock the other coats on the floor. Or both could be true at once. Either way, I think this detail in the blood test adds to the horror. The whole point of the blood test is for Mac to root out the Thing. However, once we learn that Palmer is the Thing … it’s now possible that Mac himself has doomed everyone else to that horrible fate.
I also saw Windows just wipe the knife on his pant leg, so that was a possible infection route. But also, when Mac was testing Palmer's blood he was holding the dish in his hand when the alien blood jumped out. Could have easily splashed on Mac at that point.
There is a very nice touch towards really devious levels of intelligence that the "dog" takes the opportunity to wander around the complex so that it's got a good layout of the place before it starts to attack anyone.
In case no one has mentioned this. Just a lovely detail, the Norwegian is actually using a scoped version of the old standard issue military rifle in norway. As would probably have been used at the research facility of the Norwegians. The inaccurate thing of that scene is that Bennings would probably have lost his leg, due to the high velocity of the bullets and also the caliber. Love this move, such a great enertainer, again and again.
That round might have made amputation necessary but it would not have have come anywhere near tearing his leg off. Very few shoulder fired rounds would have the potential to rip off limbs
If you look at the magazine you can see by its shape that this is not the Norwegian AG3, based on the 7.62 NATO H&K G3 rifle, but as the mag is long and curved, is likely an HK33 or 43, a 5.56mm version of the same action. Either way, you're assuming the leg hit is center mass of the leg. If it hits the bone, sure, he would be crippled. But 7.62 M80 spec fmj or SS109 62gr steel-tipped 5.56 will do damage, they wouldn't sever a leg or really necessitate amputation considering people have been shot with both and lived. They're good rounds but bullets aren't RPGs lol. If you look at the scene where doc is stitching the leg, he appears to be on the inside thigh, and I've seen most describe it as a graze. A graze would not destroy Bennings entire leg whether or not the rifle is intended to stand in for an AG3 or not. In fact as long as it didn't hit the femoral or the bone, and it could even have been a ricochet off the ground and thus expended a lot of its energy on the ground. Bullets aren't saw blades. They do damage by energy transfer, and since an SS109 (well, an M855 but they are the same basic design, SS109 is the European spec and M855 the American spec) with the more standard longer ogive, begins tumbling at around 20cm of ballistics gel, comparable to the length an M80 takes (from frogspad(dot)com- terminal ballistics 2, I would just link but youtube does not like links, it is easily found on google), and 20cm is about 7.87 inches. Even if we assume the shorter ogive M855 it begins tumbling around 10cm which is 3.9 inches. Bennings is a pretty slender built guy so we can infer that the round didn't have enough leg in its path to begin tumbling, amd because there isn't a huge amount of blood (trust me, someone shot in the thigh even missing the femoral, by a 9mm NATO fmj produces plenty of blood, I used to be a firearms instructor and helped keep a woman alive when her husband unintentionally shot her in the upper thigh, through and through, at point-blank range) we can assume he wasn't hit the femoral, and we can assume that because he needs no assistance that it didn't hit the bone either. I think it's pretty clearly intended to have been a fairly shallow graze and not being shot square on in the leg.
I think the bigger, more obvious problem is the Norwegian not speaking English. All people stationed at Antarctica are required to speak and read English as a common language in case assistance is required. It has been that way since stations were first constructed on Antarctica.
Palmer had the most realistic acting in this movie. He showed true fear, frustration, anger, comic relief, and that smirk he gave, man. Great acting is that smirk right there.
I’m gonna switch it up and say, they’re both the thing. They both smile after child’s takes a sip because they realize they’re both things so no need to kill each other. They roasted some marshmallows and talked about all the craziness they caused. The end
that's my theory too and it fits the whole arc of the film and it's a foreshadowing of the AI on the computer Dr Blair uses and it says it will simulate the world within a year
@@pulloutsange Ah! But are the comics Canon???? The only Canon is the Movie... And as we follow McReady to the end... He cannot be a Thing! More Logical... Both Men are Human, But as with the Comics Storyline... The Thing is NOT DEAD... We have to remember that it lives on a CELLUAR LEVEL... Even a Single Cell on piece of Clothing can then find and assimilate a host so being rescued means the beast can reproduce once more... Hence the Comics Storyline... It does not need a Body to travel... It needs a body to fully function!
the thing wouldn't have a sense of humor. And if it truly does imitate someone, then it wouldn't be a 'thing,' it would be that person's clone, and they wouldn't assimilate. So clearly the Thing only takes on personality traits for deceptive reasons; there is no reason to laugh here, unless you are human and realize you are f8cked.
The Theory I always liked was that MacReady had only empty bottles of booze at this point and what was in the bottle near the end was just straight gasoline. MacReady was getting ready to kill himself when Childs shows up, and by drinking the bottle and not reacting to the taste revealed them self as a thing.
Never thought of that for some reason; yeah, Mac probably thought he was the last man standing by then. The only reason I'm still skeptical of Childs being a thing is that he wears an earring, and the Thing can't replicate inorganic material. That's how we knew Doc was still himself earlier, as he has one in his nose. But I suppose by now the Thing could have recalled this knowledge and put in Childs' earring to fool Mac. I love how a film over 40 years old can still have us all scratching our heads!
MaCready was infected halfway through the movie. He drank after the infected guy they lockedup on his own. The infected guy smirked and laughed the same way MaCready did when Childs drank from the same container he had. That's all it takes to get infected. People are added absurd guess work to draw conclusions. Everything i just said can be verified watching the movie. It's a huge plot hole if I'm not right.
@@NotSure-e8z The comic isn't canon. None of the comic spin-offs from the 80s or 90s were canon for anything. The director has never revealed who was infected at the end. In my most obnoxious Ben Shapiro voice, facts don't care about your feelings. I cited things that actually happened and doesn't rely on assumptions or speculation. Connect the dots.
I love how both parties director&writers and the actors involved have never confirmed or denied any of the theories it is what makes a good horror movie scarier is the mystery of it like is it still out there or did the humans succeed
The dialogue says it all childs asks how will we make it and Kurt says maybe we shouldn't i think that says it all. The thing is always thinking survival
There are a few possibilities. Childs is a thing, Childs is not a thing, a personal favorite of mine is that McCready somehow got infected and is a thing, or that they are both things and know they are and that is why Childs drinks and MaCready laughs. I like to think that they are both human and are accepting their fates as they won but they are both going to die in the end sadly.
remember, McCready says "...if one of us is the Thing, then we aren't in any shape to do anything about it.." neither attacked the other. They sat down and knew they'd freeze to death when the fire went out. Meanwhile the Thing was actually one of the dogs and ran away at first light..
Can you explain to us why the bottle in it is a bottle of Whiskey bearing the J&B label even when Child is drinking from it if it is a bottle of wine? Also why did he remove the rag from the bottle before he knew Child was still alive if it was full of gasoline?
@@azellray Not really, MacReady looks drunk at the end of the movie and he definitely looked like he was about to drink from the bottle before Childs show up. You are also forgetting that the thing copy organisms PERFECTLY, it's even stated in the movie, so it could definitely taste and smell gasoline. Mac, the doc and Blair were the only ones who knew the spreading via contact, with doc dead and Blair gone crazy, that leaves ony Mac, and we never see him sharing that information. If anything, MacReady thing at the end laughs at Childs (who is armed with a flamethrower) because he just infected himself, which would explain the ominous music.
@@memorydancer Too many people forgets the PERFECTLY part. If the thing can talk like Childs and fool everyone, that means it has access to all the info in Childs' brain, including how gasoline smells.
@@juanausensi499 that's true. I still think they are both human or infected in the end. It's fits better with the theme of paranoia, the thing is dead but the damage is done.
The Thing has always been my favorite movie. In the 90's my sister was dating a guy from Norway she met in college. They came over for dinner one night, so I put on the The Thing. I asked him to translate for us, so he did. It was pretty cool to finally find out what was being said in the opening.
I thought it was both tbh because macready says something like “so we will wait here until they come find us” where earlier in the film he clearly states “we cannot let them find us and must destroy everything “ which included himself if needed. One of the biggest details i noticed through the film is that each new person who presented with abstract thought against what their norm had been established as- was evidently revealed to part of the thing. I was able to make a few calls of who was part of the thing as the film was progressing, i forget the scientist but even he presents as calm after his range of elevated emotional- the polarizing behaviors , although unsuspecting, was kind of consistent among those whom were eaten. This is why i think macready changed while out because of the stark shift in what their goals were, from “we wont let them find us” to “so we will wait for them”
I'm so happy you made this! Nice breakdown. THE THING (1982) is a hallmark of horror, easily one of the best in the genre. When juxtaposed, the scenes of MacReady pouring his drink into the computer and later handing it to 'Childs' act as a nice subtle parallel. Great points, mate! I'll definitely be coming back to rewatch this video in the years to come.
Something I never thought about - you show how MacCredy pours a drink into the computer to break it as punishment for cheating, and you say the computer may in a way represent the Thing. The ending scene, he gives Childs the alcohol/gasoline, and chuckles as Childs/Thing drinks it.
I just watched this movie for the first time in a theater with my sons a couple weeks ago. I really enjoyed the practical effects and I’m glad I was able to experience it on the big screen!
@@Captainkirk88410 yes. There are clearly no other ways for somebody to watch a movie in a theater after it’s original run has ended, so I obviously broke physics to traverse time and space.
Figure Carpenter purposely left the ending ambiguous so that he would have something to work with if he were to make a sequel. That's common. The most brilliant scene, I thought, was when the crew goes back to the Norwegian station to investigate what happened. The bloodied axe in the wall was an excellent touch - what the hell happened here? Just a very cool foreshadowing of things to come.
The coffin like box at 8:50 was a call back to the 1951 film "The Thing From Another World," also simply known as "The Thing." Which is hailed as the original. The creature was introduced in that cubed like box. So Carpenter's film was actually a reimagining of the classic. 😁
Both are adaptations of the Campbell story, "Who Goes There?". It gets on my nerves a little that people still refer to Carpenter's version as, in some shape or form, a remake of the other movie. Point of fact, Carpenter's version is more faithful to the original novella.
This is my favourite Sci-fi movie of all time and spent years after preying for a sequel that never came, I watched it at the cinema when it came out and its special effects were years ahead of its time even 20 years later it was still ahead of others. The other great thing about his breakdown is it answers my question on the blood i have since its release. Brilliant work on a brilliant movie well done!!!
The Dog Thing was the most memorable part of the movie for me. Its hesitation entering the hallway, and the uncanny way it lay alert in the kennel, staring straight ahead. Very good editing, it was the one time we knew for sure the Thing was there, and it was freaky in how not-dog it was.
one of the best films ever. great review. my dad was actually stationed in antartica during vam, and was terrified to ever watch the movie. a few years ago when i was talking about what cinematic masterpiece it was, he finally got the curage to watch. and it blew his mind. and became one of his fav movies a well.
The Thing is no doubt one of the films that made me like the horror genre. This film is so splendidly made. Because I was only 12 in 1982 I saw the film a few years after it was released . I always was a bit sad about the dogs that were killed … The creatures are amazing. They are real works of art and I must say that in today’s times of CGI they still work. There is this scene I love and thats the one where the head of creature Norris is severed from the body and starts walking away on these creepy spider legs. It’s that kind of dark humour that makes me appreciate this film so much. Carpenter made a masterpiece that is timeless.
I have no interest in most modern horror, but the horror of the 70s and 80s were an absolute feast, because you had actual proper artistic directors who knew that half of what made horror great was the intrigue, and that the mise-en-scene was a crucial way of decoding the intrigue. There's still good horror produced today, and there was a lot of terrible horror produced back then, but The Shining, The Exorcist and The Thing are held up as exemplars of the genre precisely because the directors didn't treat their audiences like passive viewers, but people who could be intrigued.
I think you are right about child's. But my reasoning was taking a swig of the bottle and macreedy's chuckle reaction but although I've watched the thing 10+ times I never noticed his blue jacket was white at the end
I just noticed something at 3:10. Childs is still wearing his earring in his right ear. Is it understood that the thing can not copy earrings, fillings, etc? Has anyone else noticed this?
That detail is usually ignored because that rule was only introduced in the 2011 prequel. And even if it was considered canon, the thing most likely would have learned to put anything metallic back on the person it was imitating to not rouse any suspicion.
I always thought Childs drinking alcohol was proof he wasn't a thing. On a cellular level alcohol is poisonous. The thing is independent on a cellular level so some cells would have freaked out when exposed to alcohol.
@@francisharkins Gas is poisonous also which would have caused the thing to freak out. Do a quick Google search of what happens if you drink gas. I think it was booze. It doesn't matter if it was gas or alcohol there was no freak out.
The thing is alien in nature, and doesn't have to follow the rules that we have set necessarily either. That's part of what makes the Thing terrifying, that no matter what you do or assume about earth biology, it doesn't have to apply to The Thing. That's why there's so much uncertainty throughout, and why you need to slowly piece things together. For instance, if what you say is true, I believe these researchers would know, particularly the doctor, and they could just all chug some alcohol and see who was the thing. I'd also like to say your line of thinking is part of the reason why people feel like they do "stupid" things all the time. Sometimes, the more attached you are to what you know, and the things that you understand, the harder it is to understand something that falls outside your range. It's part of what makes kids so great at learning, because they are willing to take in new information, and don't often think about how they are related to the things until you've made them notice it somehow. What you're saying is probably correct, but you have to throw out what you know when it comes to anything other worldly, and learn about it from the ground up.
The Thing expected to ingest a liquid that is toxic to humans. It couldn't distinguish between gasoline and alcohol because they are too similar chemically, they both destroy cells in the same way until reaching the digestive system and the movie ends before that happens.
This movie, conceptually, still scares me to this day the idea that someone isn't who you think they are and much much worse,is so frightening. Imagine you're sitting in a room with a coworker and they simply start to come apart through their clothes and move toward you. most people might get caught up in the special effects of the time and think its corny. but the thought behind this movie is much more scary to me edit: If the Norweigian was able to calm himself down, he could have gotten translation, organized and ended the movie before the dog could have infected anyone, but I definitely wouldn't have been in my right mind by then. I'd be so angry, terrified, stressed out I'd be like stand back, I gotta kill this THING
I watched both of them the first and second "the thing" you are absolutely right but at the same time I understand why he was so desperate to eliminate the infected dog by any means because what it did to their crew. I often think of scenerios I would not want to live in and would have no idea how me an average person would be able to survive and this one ranks top 5 for me along with scenerios like being alive in dead space, resident evil, gears of war, the thing, and the tomorrow war (white spikes are overpowered).
@@riftsplitter2159 might be top 3 for me. White Spikes really took over the Earth, no planes, drones, missiles etc kiled them before they overran entire countries?? Oh yeah you forgot one, the Quiet Place! you mean to tell me a 40cal can't kill one of those things? we aren't getting the full story of that universe. maybe other parts of the world fought them off but small towns and rural areas havent
@@iunderstanphotography2780 the quiet place is so full of plotholes i fail to see why it was applauded as much as it was. I could not enjoy the movie because of it.
@@origami83 hahaha what did you dislike the most? I took it as the struggle of a family in this area where they lived. We never got the story on how the military reacted or what happened to the rest of the country/world
@@iunderstanphotography2780 The deaf girl, she would be dead in the first 5 min because she dont know when she makes sounds. Also the creatures reaction is very inconsistent. Sometimes they react to the smallest sound, other times they dont.
I presumed that MacReady chuckles at Childs after he accepts a dram of straight blended whiskey because it is clear that Childs isn't a big drinker and is not really enjoying it. Instead of simply refusing the drink, Childs chokes it down as a way of conveying that there is no longer any animosity between the two men, which amuses MacReady. 😂
Nah, if Childs was the Thing, it would have just attacked McReady. The Thing always attacks when it's alone with a victim, especially if the victim is in a weakened state. The only reason not to attack when there were multiple armed humans around was because it wasn't sure it could win. But in this case, there was no such issue.
Yeah also there isn’t a definite answer either way and that goes with the theme of paranoia and mistrust we don’t know there isn’t an answer and that’s fine
If you watches the other alternate ending, it looked like they both froze to death and the THING took off in the form of a dog and left. Both Childs and Mcreaty was armed and ready.
another theory is that The Thing realized that neither it, nor McReady were in any state to continue fighting, and even offered to work together to survive, but McReady was ready and willing to freeze to death and ensure there were no survivors because allowing it to make it to civilization would have been the end to life on earth.
Here is some additional information that can help prove that Child's was assimilated. Right before Macready, Nauls, and Gary go to test Blair, we can see Child's nodding off, showing some fatigue. Chances are the guys were going without sleep just to be sure. He only woke up when Mac called to him. So when they went out Child's must have fallen asleep. We then seen the camera looking at the basement, meaning that the Thing must have been down there this whole time. Plus we see the room where the coats are. But when the camera was panned out, we can see a room that leads into the coat room as well, meaning the Thing could have snuck up behind Childs that way as he slept. Also as for Blair. I have to say when he was destroying the radio room, he was human. After finding out what the Thing is capable of, he could have realized that one or more of them weren't human anymore, and got paranoid. So he ensured that no one could get out nor contact the outside world, keeping the Thing isolated. Now as for why his clothes are different, we see him in a yellow button up shirt, then a gray sweater. Yet when he was watching the computer simulation if you look close you can see the gray sweater underneath his yellow shirt. My theory is that Blair ended up killing the dogs, not trusting neither one wasn't infected. Yet in the process got their blood on him, so he removed his yellow shirt, switching to the gray sweater we see. All because he can't risk the blood touching him.
Child’s still has his earrings on at the end and the thing can’t replicate anything that’s not organic. The nose ring thing supports that theory even without the bad 2011 movie
what's strange is that Blair mentions how "no dog could survive a thousand miles in the cold", yet still destroys the radios etc which doesnt help anyone but the thing: now no one can contact the outside, and it can survive the freezing
@@stealthyturtles good thinking, but if they can put on clothes, I think it's smart enough to put his earrings on etc. maybe a tattoo would've given it away
@@jacobpeters5458 it prevents any outside transports from coming in and leaving. The idea was to prevent it from spreading, doesn't matter if it can survive freezing so long as it doesn't get off of antartica.
MacReady mentioned that it was the Blair Thing that got to the generator after Childs left the main camp entrance, so it's highly unlikely that Childs got to the generator. While it's true that you can barely see Childs breath at the end but it doesn't prove that Child was assimilated. If you go to the scene where Bennings was assimilated, you can clearly see the breath of the Bennings Thing before MacReady torched it. The only reason we can't see Childs breath is because he's sitting closer to the fire, something that Keith David mentions in an interview about the ending.
I don't say it's very often, but what a hell of an break down in a review with this movie? I've seen it over a 100 times and you pointed out things that I've missed. & also ALIEN'S 2 & the Thing are the 2 best 80s Horror movies, in my opinion, without a doubt!! I've seen both of them hundreds of times and never gets old. Thank you
I just finished Frozen Hell - the novella that Who Goes There? is based on from 1934. It’s very similar to the movie. In the novella the Thing can read minds and can exactly replicate people right down the breathing and, I imagine, having a light in the eye. Just a few things to add.
That's what I loved about The Thing. The ambiguity of the end and the mysteries it still leaves behind for people to try to solve. I personally feel that this is how to do a cosmic horror film. But the same can't be said about the prequel. The monster itself wasn't being sneaky or try to break up the group and felt too much like a slasher movie.
Possibly. Or perhaps they both knew they were screwed, so Childs drank after Macready because he had nothing to lose and also showed trust in Macready. Which is significant because they both had an inate distrust for each other. They're both human and have accepted their fate.
one vital piece of information you forgot, (or missed): Child's is sporting an earring in his right ear. It's shown briefly at the end when he and Mcready are together. Therefore, Childs cannot be a tihng.
That's true, but what's also true is after it's first meeting with humans ie the Norwegians, it has learned and adapted, so there is no reason why an assimilated victim wouldn't adapt and pierce its own ear, since that is it's weakness and exposes it, plus it wouldn't make any mess either as imitated people are perfect copies and Childs even says himself, how would you even know it was me? And since he said it, if he was assimilated, The Thing would know this and adapted....the only real person we can assume as still human, is Mac, since we are with him all the time....but it's def ambiguous as to who would be an alien and out the two it's Childs, the movie leaves it like Inception and down to your own interpretation.
@@joeman8523 I will stubbornly give you that one. Although, I wasn't a fan of the prequel, & dont personally consider it Canon. I've seen it multiple times, and I'm always left underwhelmed & dussapointed. But I see your point. Totally plausible.
@@thomaspappalardo7589 yeah. I know. I got schooled by some guy who reminded me of the prequel film, & how the female protagonist found fillings from someone's teeth in the shower. I relented & claimed it was plausible, but keep in mind, I'm basing my thoughts only on the original, and not the terrible prequel, which I refuse to accept as Canon.
Calling the captain cowardly because he shot the Norwegian from the window is ridiculous. He saw a threat and dealt with it as quickly as he could. The guy was waving a gun around and shot a team member.
As far as Childs sharing a drink with Mac at the end and not caring about germs it could just be because at that point he knows he’s screwed anyway so what’s the point of caring🤷🏼♂️ This is one of my all time favorites and a must watch during my cold Wisconsin winters, preferably during a snowstorm
My daughter was born in 2005. She likes nothing I grew up with but she adores this movie. She loves the concept and the effects of this classic movie. She also recommends this to her friends. This is proof that no matter what year a movie is made, if it's done correctly then it can relate to any generation
I first saw this as a 12 yr old many years ago and my love and appreciation of it only increases with time. It's genuinely a perfect film, one of a very select group. Halloween is another, a perfect horror film.
I always thought Childs wasn’t the thing because at the end he still has the metal tooth but then I remembered they didn’t establish the whole metal thing until the new one
Well now that we have the whole metal thing, a sequel would have to take that into account. Besides, not being able to imitate metal and having to discard any such metals in the body does make a lot of sense. So I'm fine with it. Pacemakers too.
Agreed. You made a very good point, and the metal thing was unknown for many years until the prequel movie was released. This is one of the reasons why I like the 2011 prequel movie.
Having Paul back to do this video is a Halloween miracle! I'll have to rewatch this with the breath and eye light thoughts in mind... the kids will LOVE this one, a classic fo sho!
I like how you pointed out that the fear is more present in the scenes with all or most of the people present which is usually the opposite in most horror films. Great point.
The comics confirmed Childs was The Thing in the sequel comics. Carpenter also said the breath missing from Child’s was by accident and kept it in because it gave more suspicion of “Who is The Thing.”
Hands down my favorite horror movie of all time. Thanks for breaking this down Lord Spoilers! I’ve watched this movie at least 10 times and you’ve enlightened me to things I never noticed (like Window’s keys falling). If a true sequel is ever made, I hope they take the same amount of care in writing the plot that Carpenter did and using animatronics and prosthetics. The prequel had a good story and actors but the CGI took me out of it completely. Since you’re going back and doing older movies, would love to see you break down my all time favorite movie, “The Counte of Monte Cristo” with Jim Caviezel 😄 (Edit: grammar)
This film was astounding on so many levels. Performances, practical effects, score and the overwhelming and appropriate sense of paranoia was genius. I heard the theory that Childs was The Thing because no ‘vapor’ was coming out of his mouth unlike McGreedy who appeared to be human in the finale scene but not anywhere else. Fascinating
One of the best sci for horror. I always thought Macready hand Childs a drink was a test that the drink was clearly not meant to be drank ie fuel or pee and by Child drink and not reacting to it Macready knew he was the thing. That why he grinned. But love the fact that we are not meant to know. Thank’s for the breakdown really enjoyed watching it.
The whole drinking after someone is a dead give away. They were told not to eat or drink after someone. Childs drinking the bottle, is a dead give away that he is the Thing.
@@cainabel6356 Fuchs told McReady not to eat or drink after someone. We don't know if that info was shared with anyone else. And that was an educated guess from Fuchs, we don't really know if the thing really can infect a whole body from a single cell. What the movie shows us is always violent full-body takeover.
@@cainabel6356 No, Fuchs told that only to McReady. In fact, Fuchs didn't talk to anyone else afterwards. After that scene, he encounters the thing and dies.
Something I never see mentioned is that there are comics that continue the story of MacReady and Childs after this movie, which reveals that neither of them were the Thing in the end, although it does of course find a way to come back
Ehhhh. A few things wrong w the Molotov: 1. The thing reacts to terrible caustic substances. So, there is no reason if it were gasoline for childs to retract and spit 2. Mcready thinking: should I freeze to death where I’d go to sleep…or vomit blood and die a horrible death? I think he was aiming for sleepy time.
It's funny, The Thing is probably the most discussed and theorized movie I can think of. At this point, anytime I watch a breakdown/conjecture video on the movie, I'm basically just evaluating how much research has gone into the video itself, because I've seen the theories in various forms all over the place. Childs doesn't have visible breath? Trick of the camera. What happened to the keys? Well you hear them drop at one point. Extra respect for not even bothering with the theory that MacReady is actually tricking Childs into drinking from a Molotov bottle at the end, since that one is so easily disproven. In regards to the Childs/Coats situation, I think it's entirely possible that at least one of MacReady's group grabbed one of those jackets before they headed out, and the mix and match is just from the three of them gearing up to go see Blair. The ending is deliberately vague so as to give an "eye of the beholder" mentality towards whatever happens after the credits roll. Personally, I like the idea of two determined, regular dudes- the ones who were most at odds throughout the movie no less- just relaxing and sharing a final drink as they accept their oncoming death, knowing that, whatever happens to them, they stopped a global catastrophe. It's a noble and tragic ending. Though I welcome anyone to interpret it differently for whatever reason they subscribe to.
I think both Mac and Childs may very well have been human, but neither one could know for certain if the other one was. But because of the crazy situation they’ve just endured, the sleep deprivation and the hypothermia taking its toll, they’re not acting like their usual selves and don’t have the energy to be at odds with each other anymore. Instead they share a drink and as they slowly succumb to the cold, they both die alone, not knowing if the other one is human and if they’ve lost.
But did they actually stop it? There could be pieces of the creature still lying around, even with that large explosion, not to mention all of the bodies they had to dispose of prior. If they made one mistake it's still over, even with all of that effort.
HAPPY HALLOWEEN! If you enjoyed this video then please subscribe to the channel ruclips.net/channel/UCq3hT5JPPKy87JGbDls_5BQ *Check out our BEST new videos below* *Barbarian Ending Explained* - ruclips.net/video/qT1WLqCAvls/видео.html *Ant-Man And The Wasp Quantumania Trailer Breakdown* - ruclips.net/video/ANmKbU40P-Q/видео.html *House Of The Dragon Episode 10 Breakdown* - ruclips.net/video/qNKURZaAMOU/видео.html *Halloween Ends Ending Explained* - ruclips.net/video/hcjssyxIkmo/видео.html *Rings Of Power Episode 8 Breakdown* - ruclips.net/video/U95eZrQHrUo/видео.html *SHE HULK Episode 9 Breakdown* - ruclips.net/video/UunqBb6HcUk/видео.html
I honestly thought it was you who gave me the idea that, when Childs takes a swig of the drink, our man smiles in response because the Thing can’t tell what its consuming. So in the opening shot he’s faking drinking what was in the bottle, he was pretending too, and it was actually gasoline. Thats why he smiles, he sees Childs drink the gasoline without any reaction, and at that moment he knows
One of my favorite movies and I was Leah’s took it as this: neither was a thing at the end but our paranoia wants to make us believe otherwise. Child’s taking the drink and mcreedy offering it was just them accepting their fate. Neither knew if the other was friend or foe and neither cared as they were both about to die regardless. I also recall reading interview from this movie where carpenter hunter at something similar and Keith David being asked about the script and saying that he was indeed NOT a thing and the script never intended for him to be one either. Take that as you will, the point is it’s supposed to be a mystery and until carpenter confirms otherwise, we don’t know for sure.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Check out our breakdown of the 2011 Thing Prequel here - ruclips.net/video/9NePaB27Tik/видео.html
Bro your videos are way better than Mark Collets F*** that guy
Carpenter confirmed he wasn't the Thing.
There was a scene where the power gets cut and someone goes running through the dark in a jump scare while one of the characters says "Who is that!?", the outline showed who it was unless this was done by a separate actor again? Unsure.
The outline was portrayed by either the stagehand or director, I can't remember which. But it was NONE of the actors in the film specifically to prevent anyone from figuring it out. @@_JackNapier
One thing that you didn't mention, that I have honestly never encountered being addressed, is the disappearence of, the character, _"Nails"._ He disappears in a particular scene towards the end of the movie when the dynamite is being put down by Macready & the Thing is trying to stop them. _Nails_ is literally there in one camera-shot & he is gone in the next shot.
Now, granted, if this situation was real & I was in this situation, I would just assume that the disappearence of someone meant that they were dead & I likely wouldn't bring it up either. So, within the flow of the story, in some context, it does make sense that they wouldn't bring it up. But, it does feel like a hole in the story that Carpenter just let that one go because it was easier to do that than to address it. Doing so might've caused a rewrite to the script, more scenes being shot, more money being spent & the movie taking longer to finish, ..all to address something considered relatively unimportant.
Still, though; this is a flaw in this movie that always irked me. Call it a pet-peeve I guess...
So here is something that has been mentioned and makes sense. When Macready hands Childs the liquor bottle and Childs drinks from it, Macready chuckles a little. Why? Because Childs just drank gasoline from a molotov cocktail. Those were the only bottles he had on him just prior to meeting up with Childs. His cabin was destroyed. So didn't get it from there. Childs jacket IS a different one from when he was guarding door. Macready took note of all this and KNOWS Childs is The Thing. This movie is a classic! Just amazing how we as a ppl can still debate on what actually happened, after all this time! Well done John Carpenter
That's what I think too and that's why McCready laughed when he drank it
I'm pretty sure a thing would know its drinking gasoline; it imitates the person, and knows literally everything, all their memories etc
@@pyropulseIXXI Yeah but MacReady had just pretended to drink the gasoline. So the Thing would want to do the same thing to "fit in".
Very well said! And fit in with how he beat the superior foe - that beat him at chess.
Exactly, I love that theory.
My favorite trivia for this movie is that they asked people who were actually stationed in Antarctica about it. One of them replied that watching the movie and coming up with anti alien plans had become a tradtion for a while. He did comment that "despite this, we have yet to find where they keep the flamethrowers"
But they did have shotguns????
😂
@@gregorykiernan7849 Bears
I thought they used those to melt ice off of equipment. And isn't it a tradition in Antartic crews now to show this film to new ppl?
We need to get those men flamethrowers immediately!
@dubuyajay9964 Yeah they debunked that in the article where I read the trivia (about the flamethrowers) apparently the equipment is too sensitive so using something like a flamethrower would damage it they have de-icing equipment specially made for them. As to the tradition I mentioned that, but the article was from a number of years ago so I don't know if they still do.
One detail it took me many viewings to spot is when the dog-thing is burned by Childs. The humans don't realise it yet, not until Fuchs figures it out, but unless a thing is burned to ashes there is still cellular activity in the remains, enough to keep infecting others. When Childs torches the dog-thing, two of the crew rush in with extinguishers and put it out before it is properly burned. Which two? Palmer and Norris...
Another thing to keep an eye out for is the pencil that Blair uses to point out the Dogs transformation, he puts it to his lips. And everyone is watching him as he does. But later on Macready takes a sip from the Smirnoff bottle that Blair has. So maybe Alcohol can't be assimilated by the alien just a theory maybe. But still has a point . Childs and Palmer sharing a joint.
Child’s blood came up clean in the blood test that seemed to work though. I believe he is infected when he sees Blair and leaves his post to follow him.
Omggg i noticed that but didn’t realized I was like why go in there with the things and put out the fire instead of letting it burn 💀😭😭
@@shazram9747Alcohol is an antiseptic so likely kills The Thing’s contaminants
@@shazram9747 Even if alcohol couldn't, the bottle itself is still dangerous.
Also, a fun fact:
If you rewatch the opening scene, pay attention to Jed’s facial expressions. He’s the wolfdog that plays the Thing - and he’s clearly having a delightful time playing with everyone in the snow.
The dog was the best actor imo
Dude that dog gave me the creeps haha best dog actor of all time 😂
Wolfdog? I thought it was a normal husky?
@@user-Kova15 I thought it was just a husky too, looks way too small to be a wolfdog, those things are usually huge.
@@someguy403 He is in fact a wolfdog. He’s a Vancouver Island wolf - Alaskan Malamute hybrid. It’s why he stares like that and has such an uncanny vibe.
The Thing is an awesome movie. Too bad it was panned and hated when it was came out.
As Marty McFly once said "I guess you guys aren't ready for that yet. But your kids are gonna love it."
Nice!!!
A certain little film called *"ET: the Extraterrestrial"* had something to do with it as well.
The biggest reason why it failed in it's original theatrical release, is because it was released only a couple weeks after E.T, also bad marketing sealed it's fate.
Luckily, The Thing found it's audience as a home video release, It was a hit on VHS (rentals) during the 1980's.
One of my top 5 horror sci-fi films. Carpenter is a genius of making the viewer feel the paranoia and isolation of the characters in his films
@@56postoffice ET remained some child movie.
While The Thing became one of the best sci-fi horror movie.
Carpenter himself once stated in an interview that the status of Childs and MacReady at the end is left an intentional mystery. Other than that, there are a few issues with the most common theories about Childs during the final scene. His breath is, in fact, visible but is harder to see depending on the lighting of the particular shot and the quality of the source format. It is very clearly noticeable in the recent 4K UHD release. Also, Childs being willing to take a drink from MacReady's bottle isn't really very suspect behavior. At that point, both have more or less admitted to each other that there was nothing left to do and no chance of survival. Childs drink seems like more of an acceptance of his impending death. A sort of informal toast to the approaching oblivion. And MacReady's laugh seems like a similar type of acceptance, the way people often attempt to cope with tragedy by finding some form of humor in it. "This is the end for us. Might as well share one last drink together."
But the mere fact that people continue to discuss moments like this from the film all these decades later is a testament to just what an excellent, finely-crafted film it is!
You can argue either, both or neither are infected. Carpenter deliberately doesn’t give us enough information to be 100%. I don’t believe there’s an answer. As the video states you’re supposed to be in the same position as the characters and never really know who is and isn’t.
And he still has his earring stud.
@Nosmo King makes sense. If the thing replicated perfectly you’d see the breath anyway.
I like taking a different viewpoint every time I watch and see if the film still holds together. More or less it does.
Random thought I had last time I watched was does the thing know if someone else is a thing (do they work completely independently). Was wondering if both Childs and McRaedy were infected would they know and attack each other or not.
So many questions
Agree. The sip theory can be thrown out because Childs said nothing about using the same scalpel as everyone else during the blood test scene.
@@pablom-f8762 doesn't really mean anything, the prequel film added it's own rules to the creature, and shouldn't be retroactively applied to the original film.
Interesting fact, the scene where Blair is doing the examination of the Alien and puts the pencil to his mouth was not in the script; the actor did this simply out of habit, so technically, despite it being seen in the film, this is not the actual point in the story Blair gets infected as it was an oversight.
Blair's infection seems to occur at some point when he gets locked up; we know that he is fully aware the Alien will consume them all and prepares to hang himself. we see the noose in the background when the team go to see him, and now he suddenly proclaims he's a lot better and would like to come back in. At this point, its safe to assume he's infected at this stage.
MaCready drinks from his liquor bottle then. He smirks and laughs the same way MaCready does at the end when Childs drinks after him. MaCready was infected. If he wasn't, then it's a huge plot hole.
@@russiannpcbot6408 Again, you're just wrong. The pencil thing was an oversight, the filmakers have outright stated this, they didn't notice the actor even did that and that wasn't in the script or the stage directions. Blair is a human well into his incarceration, it is commonly accepted that he was infected while out there.
@@NottherealLucifer It's accepted that he's infected when he says he wants to return to be with everyone else. That is when MaCready drinks from his liquor bottle. The camera zooms in on Blair smirking after he does, the exact same way MaCready does when Childs drinks after him at the end. I'm right and you were too slow to catch it and too full of yourself to accept it.
@@russiannpcbot6408
MacReady drinks from Blair’s vodka when they bring Blair out to the shed, before he is infected. Nobody enters the shack during the scene where you find out Blair was infected, they talk to him through a slot in the door. In that scene, you can see the noose in the background. Maybe it’s been a while since you’ve seen the movie. I’m sure you’ll notice next time you watch.
I mean, I think that’s possible but I also think since it was just that little bit on the pencil, it took longer to simulate him
The Thing is proof that you can have a horror movie without relying on cheap jump scares. The premise itself is terrifying. Being absolutely stuck in the middle of nowhere with no one to help, realizing you can't trust anyone anymore, having to come to terms that what you're dealing with is better to be in the middle of nowhere and realizing its either you and your friends (or can you even call them that?) or the rest of the world. The consistent and growing feeling of dread throughout the movie is extremely well-maintained.
The critics of the time didn't recognize or appreciate the masterpiece that had been shown to them. This film was way ahead of its time. I'm glad its finally getting its flowers
eeeeehh, more that it got severely overshadowed by ET.
The critics at the time a lot like the critics of today, tend to know three fiths of fu*ck all about what makes a good film
"finally"? Bro what? This film has been considered a certified classic for over 20 years. Wtf you mean "finally"?? 😂
They were all whoring out for Spielbergs "E.T." >_>
@@magicman25103
If I remember right the movie was considered a gratuitous ignorant slash movie.
Consider that most critics like to believe they are gods on earth and this makes them very inept at criticise stuff.
Also there is a phobia of being considered “lesser” if they do not like the “mature adult” narratives of their era,
The fact that this is STILL be discussed and has not been figured out without any doubt after all this time, just shows how great this movie is.
They already showed Childs was infected in the comics
@@Adam-Adam. and in the games, neither of them was The Thing. Comics and Games are not canon. Has to appear on the Silver Screen to be canon, all other media is just that "other". Besides, Child's still had his gold tooth and the creatures cannot replicate inorganic matter.
@@Adam-Adam.MaCready was infected halfway through the movie. He drank after the infected guy they lockedup on his own. The infected guy smirked and laughed the same way MaCready did when Childs drank from the same container he had. That's all it takes to get infected. People are added absurd guess work to draw conclusions. Everything i just said can be verified watching the movie. It's a huge plot hole if I'm not right.
@@russiannpcbot6408 Incorrect. Blair was the one they locked up on his own, because they thought he was infected, but they were wrong. Blair destroys all the methods of escape _because_ he isn't infected, he's attempting to halt the thing so that it gets stuck out here in the frozen wastes. If he had already been infected he wouldn't have done that, the thing wants to get to civilization more than anything else. You're the one being absurd, you obviously don't even understand anything happening in the movie.
It isn't a plot hole _and_ you're not right, that's the option you completely missed. That scene exists specifically to make you second guess if Macready is infected or not, that's the point of it. You fell for that bait and now you're using it as your entire argument. Blair gets infected _because_ he gets locked up alone, not the other way around. You're the one adding absurd guesswork to draw your conclusion, you're assuming that Blair smiles because Maccready drinks from his bottle and you're assuming Macready laughed for the same reason, both of which are just asinine. The reason Mac laughs at the end is because he has accepted his fate, it's the exact same reason Childs decides to drink from the bottle. If either of those men are the thing, the other is screwed, and the thing would be aware that the other person could have some ace up their sleeve to kill it if it attacks. That's the accepted interpretation of that scene from any professional who matters. Two men accepting their circumstances, and accepting that the fight is over regardless of who's human and who isn't.
@russiannpcbot6408 You're wrong. Mac drank the vodka BEFORE Blair could have. They brought the bottle with them, it is clearly placed on the table in the tool shed, and Mac picks it up, takes a swig, and places it in front of Blair before leaving (This entire sequence occurs at 55:45 in the film. Fuchs places the bottle at 55:50, Mac picks it up at 56:05 and takes a swig at 56:07. He places the bottle down at 56:19.) We are never shown that Blair even takes a drink from the bottle.
You're just plain wrong about this.
I’m actually surprised that with all the extensive research you did on this movie that you didn’t mention that the score is not just a single note being played but it actually represents the heart beat and when the heart motif is doubled it actually represents the thing imitating the heart beat. That was intentional by the composer.
…writes that down for my 2011 the thing video
Holy fuck
The score is not just a single note being played? Score? What?
Heart motif?
I have no idea what you're saying
@@geraldbroflovski3216musical terms
@@geraldbroflovski3216 Score is a line of music. And they're just saying it's supposed to sound like it's replicating a heart beat.
Something i never realised until i was older is - some of the forms you see the thing as (especially the dog in the kenal scene) are some of the other things it has taken over on another planet, like the flower and the spider legs e.t.c i thought this made the film even more genius.
Childs is deff the thing, I saw someone comment this on the ending scene. The thing in 1982 is smarter and more cautious then the thing in 2011. The thing in 1982 only cares about surviving. not killing the whole crew. The last few lines of dialogue is perfectly written. The thing, Childs knows he wont make it out alive if they dont work together, Thats why it keeps asking "what should we do now or you dont have to worry about me'' And then comes one of the most badass lines ever. Macready says ''Why Don't We Wait Here, See What Happens'' bc Macready is ready to die to kill the thing, but the thing is not ready to die and is willing to work together with macready to survive.! Childs is the thing its very clear at this point tbh
Childs makes the scotch look so tasty and delicious when he drinks from the bottle.
Also the guy that was doing the research had told then that they couldn't let this get out of the base even if it means they all die, only the Thing would suggest trying to survive because it has no knowledge of this
He is still wearing his earring....
@@bannedtwice7767 It would have learned from the mistake it made at the end of the prequel! Remember? Messing up the earring got it fried at the end of the 2011 movie, so it would have learned from its mistake.
@president5301 intereseting points (in regard of the dialogue); but the thing wont die from the cold. So it does not necessarily feel an urge to be safed together with Mcready. It can last and wait for a late rescue. Furthermore there is no option left. They are going to die (if both are human) anyway.
Addressing Heavy Spoiler's argument: childs drinks from Mcready's bottle although warned not to do so earlier on is not necessarily an indication for childs being the thing, either. They are both in a hopeless situation ... everything is lost anyway, so why not enjoying the last hours with some good old liquor ...
Of course I am not saying childs is not the thing in the end ... I am merely saying even after 40 years there still is no proof
I prefer to think that neither of them is the Thing...that they killed it, but it no longer makes a difference. I view the shared drink as them both accepting that they're dead, regardless.
Hah! I've figured it out! The DRINK is THE THING!! No poor fool stuck in Antarctica is gonna let good booze go to waste!! Gotcha, John Carpenter! You're so sly, but so am I!
This is how I view the ending. The message is that whether one or both are infected, it doesn't seem to matter. MacReady says "I don't think we're in much shape to do anything about it". The base is destroyed, the fire will die out and they're stuck in the middle of an Antarctic blizzard. No rescue attempt will come until spring. There's nothing left to do but enjoy a final drink together and "see what happens".
I like your theory better than mine.
My theory was that MacReady isn't a Thing, and it doesn't matter whether or not Childs is, because MacReady burns him down, just in case.
The tooth though... that's telling.
There is a comic that takes places after this movie and neither Childs or McCready is the thing.
@themetalone i thought the same thing
It's insane to me that this movie still holds up as well as it does. I held on to my original VHS copy from the 80s until a few years ago. It's such a great film.
Yeappers. I'm a sucker: got the collector's DVD, Blu ray & a Blu-ray (with a cool slip cover)a foreign steelbook & the 4k from Best Buy. Yeah, got THAT bs 2011 Blu Ray remake too. 👾👾👾
@@gummislayer1969the remake was WAAAAAYYYYYY better! I am 15 and I know ALOT OF STUFFFF!
@@GabrielAlcala956 Buuhaaahaaa!!! Touche, Fam!!! 😆💙🙏👊🏾
same, I still got the VHS. such a great movie
Good films withstand the test of time
Frankly I'm not surprised an older film is better than newer stuff. They just had more soul in their writing etc
The fact that we’re still discussing this is a testament to how incredible this movie is. I’m still constantly changing my mind on whether Childes or Macready were infected (starting to think it might’ve been Mac)
But then why would it just aimlessly roam the base? It could've started building another ship, or even just went off to the continent on foot, or something along those lines.
Now, Childs has a very interesting thing going for him. He asks "are you the only survivor?", and it makes sense for the Thing to ask this, it wants to know if it has to be on the lookout for other survivors. But it makes sense for the human-Childs to ask, with a bit of a suspicion - why are you the only one alive and where are the others? And I think it's a stalemate for both - neither of them can know if the other is infected, so they just "wait and see what happens"
@@iluxa-4000 I recently saw a video with Carpenter and Russell doing a commentary on scenes from the movie and both basically said it was impossible to know. So now I’m convinced there is no real answer, and when Carpenter says that he definitely knows who it was, he only says that because it drives engagement with the movie. It’s fun to think about, but I don’t think having a definitive answer would be a good idea
@@SlackerZero: The movie ends with both Childs and Mac being human.
@@JaleelShabazz-w1d there’s no way to really know; it was written to be ambiguous
Could be both and they just don’t realize it.
I figured Child's was The Thing because, in the final scene, Macready gave him petrol or something instead of alcohol because the "alcohol ran out" ages ago, while Macready would have plenty of petrol because he uses it for explosives. The Thing doesn't know what alcohol or petrol should taste like, so he drinks it without complaint, which makes Macready chuckle because he figured it out.
well no, because we see the thing retains it's victim/host/replica/whatever's memories, and as such would most certainly know what alcohol tastes like, and to follow that up petrol/gas/whatever has a very distinct smell to it which the thing would also remember as not only are the only 2 infected who could possibly pass on the infection present when they burn the bennings thing (which they do using petrol/gas/whatever) but also so is childs, therefore allowing the thing to know not only the smell of fuel but also how alcohol is supposed to taste. it's a cool theory, and would be a smart plan, but it just dont quite line up.
also while we do see maccready throwing molotovs, something like that would be setup beforehand as an explicit detail, just as a general... thing.
Carpenter stated that, at the end, one is human and one is the thing. And McReady has stated that he was told to film his final scene with a flame thrower underneath his blankets even though no one could see it.
@@duffahtolla where was this stated
@@duffahtolla Speak, CHILD
@@bootyman20yea I don’t see enough ppl saying this. If the thing is able to replicate exactly how people can act amongst people who know them well, it would easily be able to tell gasoline from alcohol lol
those "strange goggles" are actually glare reduction goggles. They reduce the amount of light coming in, and act also as sunglasses, in order to save the eyes from the glare reflected off of snow.
You can get sunburned on your eyeballs and go snow blind 😃
I don't know if you're supporting his comment or not, but the first glasses that protected our eyes from sun and snow were like this, no dark transparent plastic or glass. Only an opening like that.@@fleacythesheepgirl
Really happy someone pointed it out. there's an Inuit film called Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner, and a few of the characters wear them often. Very nice film also set in the snow.
You absolutely CAN see Child’s breath, especially in the 4K version. It all depends on the angle of the scene, but you can see it.
Totally! I never understood the whole lack of breath argument… Bennings had breath galore right before they torched him.
Its difficult because as everyone knows this movie is made with practical effects. Meaning their breath from the cold air is real, not added in post. In order for them to not have visible breath it would be on the actors to not breathe as heavily. Youll notice MacReady really emphasizes his breathing, and when Childs takes a drink he acts as if he is taking a large sign of relief, but there is barely any breath. That cant be a coincidence.
@@Nemzky the difference is the camera angle. The light is behind McReady, so it’s easy to see. The breath thing has been debunked multiple times.
You can see his breath just before he sits down when he says "Did you kill it?"
This has been debunked a million times. You can see his breath. Also why would an entity who can imitate a creature at the cellular level not imitate breathing?
The fact that you can interpret the ending either way elevates the film to become social commentary about paranoia destroying each other. If The Thing did get out, it would destroy a lot of us, but we’d also destroy a lot of ourselves.
Neither of them were the Thing. It fits perfectly with the theme of paranoia throughout the entire movie because in the end, neither can trust the other to not be the Thing. Also, calling back to the chess scene, when beaten by a cheater the only recourse left was to destroy the mechanism that allowed the opponent to win, which in this case means everyone had to die.
Also...McCready blew up both the Palmer-Thing and the large Thing in the generator room. It was sufficient to scatter biological material...but did it burn it all to ash?
One of them is confirmed as the Thing. It's a detail that's always missed, but The Thing is part of a thematic trilogy where the detail tying the three together is that the events of each film will lead to the destruction of the human race.
It's called the Apocalypse trilogy for a reason, meaning not only is one of them The Thing, but we even know it makes it back to humanity, and destroys us.
Incidentally dispite being the best known the Thing is my second favorite of the trilogy, and it's not even a close call. Into The Mouth of Madness is my favorite of his films.
Prince of Darkness rounds out the trilogy.
There's actually a comic series of this, I don't know if it came before or after. But if you tie them together, childs is infected
@@gregorykiernan7849 little bits and blobs aren't enough mass to hibernate on. Those bits might be able to burrow into one of the carcasses left behind though.
@@mason7067 Honestly It sounds like the Director was having a lark. Playing on the Audiances paranoia for a bit of fun.
But Ultimately I think that laugh at the end the two share shows the truth of it. They both were sitting their wondering if the other was the Thing, and then realized. It doesnt really matter. Because either way. They aren't making it out alive.
Wow, thanks for making this. This is the scariest film I've ever watched. 40 years later, we're still talking about the ending.
They reveal the answer in the comics thing from another world (original 1952 movie title/book) issue 1&2 reveal that child’s waaa thing and mcready survived the first movie
@@stevo-kun3924 yeah the comic got gay af thou, it eventually became story where certain things develop independence from the hive mind and start fighting the things that still wanted to assimilate the world like some gay ass superhero anime weaboo shit I was like what the fuck lol 😂😂
That was issue 3 lol that’s why I didn’t bring it up. Agreed was gay and I’m gay 😂 ain’t that some sh*t lmao
@@stevo-kun3924 sorry man I meant like "bad" gay
@@toy5965 lol 😂
Something I just want to mention... the Norwegian was wearing traditional snow goggles. They protect your eyes from too much light coming in (from sun and sun that reflects off of the snow). It helps stop snow blindness while also increasing visual accuity. This may be a stretch but I think the norwegian's use of traditional, inuit design is meant to represent him as having a better perspective on what is happening and sort of represents a deeper connection to the arctic vs the tech heavy, fire first americans.
Out of all comments best one
@@ViewtifulBr080 aww thanks 😊
I agree
Great observation
Idk if you’ve ever been to Norway but it’s a lot like Antarctica during the winter. Very cold and very white with very short albeit bright AF days. So those type of goggles fit Norwegian winter garb.
Our unit went over this past winter (December 2021-March 2022) and the locals could all spot the Americans right away even though we were all bundled pretty thick. Winter in America is nothing remotely close to Norway’s so many of us had the wrong gloves, glasses/goggles, etc. But those Norwegians had what we called “Ray Charles” on, heavy thick black snow goggles.
So yes, Norwegians very much have better perspective on how to survive down in the cold, but also in the movie context of knowing the dog is a Thing/the danger.
I've only just watched the Thing for the first time and I can buy Childs being the Thing, but I could see it being MacReady and I could see it being neither one of them. I watched this based on your breakdowns and it was fantastic. The suspense was great. It watched this while in the exercise bike and was able to knock out almost 40 miles and didn't even notice because I was so engrossed in the movie
You lame zoomer. 🫵🤣
what psychopath watches this movie while riding a exercise bike??
@@whiteboikevfirst time too lol wth. Maybe after you’ve seen it but why have sound of that thing while watching a suspenseful horror movie? Haha
But there’s a little detail: MacReady doesn’t hear Childs approcing and he is about to drink from that bottle. He stops when Childs reveals his presence.
So does that mean they were both the thing
Also it's funny that Mac was surprised to see childs but childs wasn't surprised to see him.
@@RyanHaragan This is actually what I thought last time I watched The Thing earlier this year. I thought they are both content to freeze for now, and be thawed out when someone comes to see what happened to the team, when they never respond, or when supplies are next sent.
@@amandahuginkiss6868it's more likely both are human, and are aware that fighting for their survival was worthless since both will freeze to death anyway. It's them accepting their fate.
@@JohnDoe-in9lc
I’ve always considered Childs like someone who hates everybody. When he sees Mac he’s like “Damn, I’m not alone”.
The scene in the kennel where the dog doesn't want to go in is one of the most chilling and memorable scenes in a horror movie to me,
Screwed me up as a kid. Haha
My step dad raced sled dogs and I grew up around many huskies. My first question is why nobody noticed it wasn’t their dog. Any musher would notice that right away. The dogs are members of the group in a situation like this. I’m so glad I didn’t see this as a kid, but I loved it at 45.
@@asickler1978They did notice it wasn't their dog. It showed up being chased by the Norwegians, they killed the Norwegians. So the option was either A. Take it into the camp, or B. Let it freeze to death outside. They did the former, and it hung out with them in the camp until it annoyed one of the guys in the req room by bumping into him, and they told the kennel guy to put the dog in the kennel.
They knew it wasn't their dog, but they accepted it as a dog (which was a mistake).
and then the way the one dog tried to chew its way out through the fence was also pretty intense and disturbing.
That isn't a dog not wanting to go in. That's The Thing mimicking a dog. The other dogs who are already in the cage are the real dogs.
Its rare to have a movie thats this old and the special effects still look fantastic to this day. One of my favorites of all time. The Thing prequel was better than most ppl give it credit for, it lines up every horrible thing that the American search team sees at the Norwegian camp. Its very well done and completely underrated, but the 1982 the Thing is a masterclass in film making, suspense, paranoia, isolation and fear.
Loved it....perfect prequel.
I agree. The prequel is actually pretty good, and the 1982 The Thing is one of my favorite movies ever, i absolutely love it and I've watched it several times!
The 2011 one was yet another masterpiece. I enjoyed it immensely. Yet that n the original was panned
I just would have enjoyed it more if the original vision was kept. i.e not painting over the incredibly detailed practical effects for "looking too much like an 80s movie" and gutting how the final act was supposed to pan out by covering it up with CGI too.
FINALLY someone who enjoys THE THING Prequel I completely agree with you John Carpenters THE THING is an ABSOLUTE MASTERPIECE What's hilarious is that John Carpenters movie while being THE MOST HATED FILM IN AMERICA AT ONE POINT has been re-evaluated and is considered a Sci-Fi Horror Classic While The Prequel is hated because alot of people have I think an irrational hatred of CGI. An overabundance of CGI isn't what's killing movies these days. What's killing movies is WOKE IDENTITY POLITICS
Childs still has his earring so idk why yall think its him at 00:36 he turns his head revealing that earring he been wearing this whole time.
honestly i think the ambiguity makes it better, i never really cared if childs was a thing, just the possibility that he definitely could be one makes this one of my favourite endings to any movie
Interesting that as you point out, MacReady pours his whisky into the computer when faced with an impossible situation, and at the end, he toasts an equally impossible situation. Perhaps this arc gives a clue to the entire film - is he toasting his victory or has he now learned to accept defeat? The answer is linked to his friend's identity :)
The chess scene is to establish Mac’s character. The brash way he deals with situations. It’s how he dealt with The Thing at the end by just blowing everything up, like he did the computer.
You could argue it's a foreshadowing event.
Mac loses to the machine, so pours whiskey onto it in "celebration," thus killing the machine. He does the Sam with Childs, except we don't see the final fight (according to the screenplay, Mac had a flamethrower hidden from Childs's view).
Just a theory, mind.
@@peterclarke7240OK
You Two Calm down
Perfect Summary
MaCready was infected halfway through the movie. He drank after the infected guy they lockedup on his own. The infected guy smirked and laughed the same way MaCready did when Childs drank from the same container he had. That's all it takes to get infected. People are added absurd guess work to draw conclusions. Everything i just said can be verified watching the movie. It's a huge plot hole if I'm not right.
@@findlestick It was to show he was a brash alcoholic that fell to temptation when he drinks from infected Blair's liquor bottle. He somehow sobers up the rest of the movie then uses the same trick to infect Childs at the end. The Thing knew Childs didn't trust MaCready so it went through a staged fight to draw Childs out. Keep in mind that it was MaCready's suggestion for the remaining survivors to split up. That decision is what got everyone but him killed. It was only his apparent victory that made Childs vulnerable. MaCready came up with the idea of the blood test as well. Being infected, he could control the reaction of his own infected blood (guess).
I’ve seen every horror film known to mankind and in my opinion John Carpenter’s The Thing is damn near as perfect as you can get. This is truly a masterpiece film. From casting, special effects, editing you name it!
Well said! In all the decades since I saw this, I've never seen another horror film that gives me the same sense of paranoia and dread that this one does. That 2011 reboot/sequel/remake/whatever it was meant to be can't even hold a candle to this.
I clearly remember the first time seeing it, and it has stuck with my ever since, that rarely happens. Still here with me twenty years later, please never leave.
Thing Bennings had CLEARLY visible breath. So the breath is instantly shot down. The fact that the clothing was mixed up, the door is left open, the generator was missing and Childs claiming he saw and chased Blair do point to him having being assimilated.
Childs left before Blair got to the door, proving him human. The shot that reveals that same door is Blair's POV. Childs is already gone by the time the shot ends.
@@21stcenturyhiphop If Childs is already gone why do we see him leaving in the next shot, seconds before the generator goes out?
@@Yashirmare Blair is already in the generator room at that point; Carpenter doesn't use split screen like De Palma, so when you see the open door, Childs has ventured outside, next shot he's going into the tundra, and the men see him.
The shot that's before that looks down the hall, down the steps which lead to the generator room, then focuses on the open door ( but stops before it enters that part of the room). We don't see the rest of the action (which is Blair going down the steps) to preserve the mystery, and to also cast doubt on Childs (but not definitively). Carpenter shows you things plainly (his style) but leaves out bits of information when it comes to the Thing, and deliberately doesn't provide answers about the creature, creating unease and tension.
The clothing isn't even mixed up, its covered in frost and obscured by the lighting
The one argument I never got was dealing with the no breath theory. From my understanding, the thing metabolizes in the same way as any other cell that has mitochondria and would take on the metabolic behaviors of the species it mimics. So it would still take in oxygen, heat produced inside the body would allow for vapor to be produced when breathing out.
Yeah that theory doesn't make sense. And in higher quality cuts of the film you can see Child's breath anyway.
Plus earlier in the movie when fake Bennings was about get burned you can clearly see the breath coming out of his mouth. The no breath theory does not hold water. Although it goes to show how great the movie is that folks are still pondering it 40 years later.
@@PlasteredDragon You can see the breath only in the modern quality version of the movie because you weren't supposed to see it in the original version.
This is a case of " the costume looks ugly in HD" , the original movie , with the original quality , made it so that we couldn't see the breathing of the actor, because Childs , doesn't breathe warm air at the end of the movie.
Of course nowadays , with image quality that can see the inner working of the actor's nostrils from 500m away , you see everything the movie tried to hide before with a particular lighting.
@@rgoodwyn You have to understand that this movie couldn't digitally remove an actor's breath and the guy needed to breathe.
Now in the ONE scene where this detail was important , they made it so that his breathing wasn't apparent, because he IS the thing , it is only seen in HD versions , something that wasn't thought about in the 80s.
Plus Bennings showed breath vapors when he changed right before they set him on fire. Plus Keith David said the reason he had no “vapors” was because he was close to the fire and was warm.
Absolutely the best horror movie ever. I’ll never forget being so excited to share it with my best friend, only to have to turn it off because it scared her. To be fair we probably were too young at the time to watch it, but I just loved it.
Lol. Last year I shared this movie with my best friend because for some reason he had never seen it. He was so blown away by the effects and the story as well as how real each character felt (whereas in most horror movies they are all your typical sex/drug crazed teen idiots). The movie is a very good sci-fi murder mystery
The fact that child's drinks from the bottle is what does it for me. You see Macready making molotov cocktails. He pretends to take a drink to get Childs to imitate him, but Macready knows it's gasoline.
Also, they establish Macready as willing to die to keep the thing in place. They establish the thing as willing to do whatever it takes to survive, including cooperation.
Child's approaching Macready at the end wouldn't be natural considering the paranoia that was established throughout the movie. The thing might not have understood this, so Child's casually saunters up to Macready not understanding that a real human in that situation would be paranoid as hell and probably wouldn't just plop down next to someone who was out of sight.
The thing imitates human behavior but does not understand the nuance. That drink of the bottle at the end seals it for me. It was full of gasoline (you see Macready make molotovs), but if Child's was still a human he wouldn't risk being contaminated and the thing would want to infect Macready anyway. He also wouldn't know Macready is or isn't a thing. Him being so comfortable at the end is unnatural.
No because the thing as a dog, at the beginning, can also understand a dog AND humans from the previous outpost out of incredible adaptation skills, appearing scared and seeking refuge among the other humans at the other outpost, jumping on one of them licking affectionately like a good boy would, just to gaslight them into killing the norwegian pursuers. It understands the flaws of human beings and their feelings, their intellectual properties too. They literally killed a human over a dog out of emotional confusion despite the last norwegian survivor not showing intent of killing them (he injured one of them and was seemingly angry, yes, but that doesn't explain everything), walking among them to chase the dog, yet he got shot dead. They literally witnessed an helicopter dropping grenades and shooting this one particular dog. A very peculiar situation in Antartica that doesn't justify shooting the norwegians dead either. It's just very strange, think about it if you were one of them.
The movie shows that humans and the monster, both, can make valid rational and emotional decisions, or invalid decisions based on gut feelings and logical thinking at different points.
It's perfectly possible at this point that both Mac and Childs don't care about the rules anymore or, surprise, forget about things after spending long hours trying to survive. Humans can make mistakes. The monster too though. If you rationalize everything, you end being a robot and robot also make mistakes. If you only trust what you feel, that will drive you mad.
It's not about spotting details or nuances. Carpenter knew that us, the spectators, would argue endlessly about that and analyze everything. In which case, we would have already found a the real answers or consensus. There is no real answer, he made the movie that way. Or you can just chose to believe what you want to believe but no answer can outweigh another in The Thing.
Nope. Childs has a fucking flamethrower and you think handing him AMMO for it is checkmate? You gotta be joking. The Thing is MORE INTELLIGENT than a human, not less.
Why child did not torch mcready ?
This is certainly one of the greatest, most frightening horror films ever made. This is true horror. Paranoia mixed with bodily horror. It’s remarkable. Frightening, but I loved it.
One of my all time favorite movies. The soundtrack is second to none. The opening scene with the shaky cam focused on the mountains. The monotonous bass of the soundtrack and then the helicopter slowly comes into view. That first scene, alone has the hairs standing up on the back of my neck.
Chiles was not theThing. We follow McCready, so we know he is not the thing, if Chiles was the thing he would have taken McCready.
The sound track was 10 out of 10 if watching the thing for the 1st time watch the thing in the dark the sound track is even better
I miss when having a shaky camera was a tasteful effect used sparingly instead of "man that fight scene didn't look very believable... Let's just make the camera move around so much you can't tell what's happening instead of redoing it though"
If Childs was a Thing,why didn't he attack MacCready when he saw him??My guess,Childs wasn't yet infected,but he knew both of them couldn't survive so they just waited for the end...
Is it Chiles or Childs?? Ether way he has an ear ring.
I always wondered if a lick, or a shared drink can really turn someone into the thing. Biologically, it makes sense that it could spread like a disease/virus. It's just that if the Thing could do that, it would be so powerful that it's actions don't make much sense. It could have stayed in dog form, lick some faces, wait till those humans have become Things, use them to infect the food, and have the whole base taken over before anyone even knows the Thing exists. After its narrow escape from the Norwegian base, I don't think it would be taking more risks by exposing itself with direct and open attacks.
I’ve noticed this too. Many types of viruses/bacteria can be passed through bodily liquids other than just blood, so infecting everyone should’ve been rather easy - especially if it waited until everyone was asleep. Could’ve simply bit itself then dripped a few drops of blood on each their faces while they slept. Movie would be over the following morning. Lol.
That's assuming it's intelligent. It might only have the intelligence of what it's imitating. As a dog it's acting purely on instinct.
@@hamsterfromabove8905 The "dog" knew exactly what it was doing. You could see it watching and actually sneaking around trying to look obscure. It knew but acted like the creatures it took over
I always thought it assimilated like a cell and that it has to more or less engulf the creature it wants to use, break down the genetic information and absorb it before it can use it and that that was also why there could be more than one Thing at a time since it can divide its own body mass. I also wondered if by dividing its own mass to avoid total destruction, would the forms it could take on be limited to the amount of its own body/cell mass or could it rapidly reproduce the lost mass and to take on the larger assimilated forms?
The Thing probably was going to stalk the men one by one but getting thrown into the kennel ruined that. The other dogs could sense there was something different about him so so he had to act and it gave him the opportunity to infect a number of victims at one time without interruptions...or so the thing thought.
John Carpenter's "The Thing" will always be one of the best Sci-Fi horrors ever made, everything about it was great and I doubt it could ever be improved on, even with today's technology. It'll always be one of my favorite movies.
The blood test scene is iconic … and it’s potentially how Childs got infected.
To break it down, Mac has the gun, so he’s in charge. He forces Windows to collected samples of everyone’s blood, and the remaining men are tied down to the furniture.
They are essentially arranged in a line: Palmer, Garry, and Childs are on the couch, and Nauls is in a chair. As the audience, we’re shown the END of the blood collection process. Windows cuts Nauls’ thumb with a knife, collects the blood in a dish, and then wipes the knife on his pants. Then, he collects his own blood. He’s also not wearing any gloves.
Finally, when Mac does the test blood, he doesn’t go straight down the line. So, it’s possible that Windows collected Palmer’s blood, wiped the knife on his pants, and then collected Childs’ blood with the contaminated knife!
Why didn’t Childs’ immediately turn into a Thing?
I think the transformation speed is based on the degree of contamination. If people (or doggos, sadly) are attacked directly, they change almost instantaneously. However, if they only have minor contact, such as traces of saliva or blood, then the change takes far longer.
But how could Mac make that mistake?
Well, it was the 1980s, so their medical knowledge wasn’t the same as ours. They clearly knew about saliva contamination … but it’s possible they didn’t realize that blood contamination was a risk. By this point in the movie, their situation had devolved in chaos, so it also could have been a fatal oversight.
Why didn’t other people get infected?
It’s possible that they did get infected. However, since people seem to transform at different rates, they potentially died as humans before the change occurred. For example, Cooper was killed by a Thing, but he still passed the blood test.
Well, then, why did Childs need to change his coat?
It’s still possible that he was attacked by the Thing … since Blair was on the loose. Alternatively, he had a violent transformation that shredded his coat and caused him to knock the other coats on the floor. Or both could be true at once.
Either way, I think this detail in the blood test adds to the horror. The whole point of the blood test is for Mac to root out the Thing. However, once we learn that Palmer is the Thing … it’s now possible that Mac himself has doomed everyone else to that horrible fate.
I also saw Windows just wipe the knife on his pant leg, so that was a possible infection route. But also, when Mac was testing Palmer's blood he was holding the dish in his hand when the alien blood jumped out. Could have easily splashed on Mac at that point.
There is a very nice touch towards really devious levels of intelligence that the "dog" takes the opportunity to wander around the complex so that it's got a good layout of the place before it starts to attack anyone.
Even in the 90's I was telling people that The Thing was the greatest horror film ever made. They didn't believe me, but time has proven me right 😎
Sheeiitttt! I said it in the 80's mofo!
You should start a gofundme to build a statue of you somewhere, like in a park.
@@shoobidyboop8634 damn right
@@salvatronprime9882The remake was WAAAAAYYYY BETTTER! Nobody believes me but in 20 years I will be laughing all the way to the bank!!!!!!!!!
@@GabrielAlcala956 cool!
In case no one has mentioned this. Just a lovely detail, the Norwegian is actually using a scoped version of the old standard issue military rifle in norway. As would probably have been used at the research facility of the Norwegians. The inaccurate thing of that scene is that Bennings would probably have lost his leg, due to the high velocity of the bullets and also the caliber. Love this move, such a great enertainer, again and again.
That round might have made amputation necessary but it would not have have come anywhere near tearing his leg off. Very few shoulder fired rounds would have the potential to rip off limbs
If you look at the magazine you can see by its shape that this is not the Norwegian AG3, based on the 7.62 NATO H&K G3 rifle, but as the mag is long and curved, is likely an HK33 or 43, a 5.56mm version of the same action.
Either way, you're assuming the leg hit is center mass of the leg. If it hits the bone, sure, he would be crippled. But 7.62 M80 spec fmj or SS109 62gr steel-tipped 5.56 will do damage, they wouldn't sever a leg or really necessitate amputation considering people have been shot with both and lived. They're good rounds but bullets aren't RPGs lol.
If you look at the scene where doc is stitching the leg, he appears to be on the inside thigh, and I've seen most describe it as a graze. A graze would not destroy Bennings entire leg whether or not the rifle is intended to stand in for an AG3 or not. In fact as long as it didn't hit the femoral or the bone, and it could even have been a ricochet off the ground and thus expended a lot of its energy on the ground. Bullets aren't saw blades. They do damage by energy transfer, and since an SS109 (well, an M855 but they are the same basic design, SS109 is the European spec and M855 the American spec) with the more standard longer ogive, begins tumbling at around 20cm of ballistics gel, comparable to the length an M80 takes (from frogspad(dot)com- terminal ballistics 2, I would just link but youtube does not like links, it is easily found on google), and 20cm is about 7.87 inches. Even if we assume the shorter ogive M855 it begins tumbling around 10cm which is 3.9 inches. Bennings is a pretty slender built guy so we can infer that the round didn't have enough leg in its path to begin tumbling, amd because there isn't a huge amount of blood (trust me, someone shot in the thigh even missing the femoral, by a 9mm NATO fmj produces plenty of blood, I used to be a firearms instructor and helped keep a woman alive when her husband unintentionally shot her in the upper thigh, through and through, at point-blank range) we can assume he wasn't hit the femoral, and we can assume that because he needs no assistance that it didn't hit the bone either. I think it's pretty clearly intended to have been a fairly shallow graze and not being shot square on in the leg.
@@jonintheredZ06 The rifle is HK93, semi auto import version of HK43.
I think the bigger, more obvious problem is the Norwegian not speaking English. All people stationed at Antarctica are required to speak and read English as a common language in case assistance is required. It has been that way since stations were first constructed on Antarctica.
You'd need something like a .50 BMG to start tearing limbs off.
Palmer had the most realistic acting in this movie. He showed true fear, frustration, anger, comic relief, and that smirk he gave, man. Great acting is that smirk right there.
I’m gonna switch it up and say, they’re both the thing. They both smile after child’s takes a sip because they realize they’re both things so no need to kill each other. They roasted some marshmallows and talked about all the craziness they caused. The end
that's my theory too and it fits the whole arc of the film and it's a foreshadowing of the AI on the computer Dr Blair uses and it says it will simulate the world within a year
that’s crazy
You're wrong. Read the comic book that exposes the ending of this movie.
@@pulloutsange Ah! But are the comics Canon????
The only Canon is the Movie... And as we follow McReady to the end... He cannot be a Thing!
More Logical... Both Men are Human, But as with the Comics Storyline... The Thing is NOT DEAD... We have to remember that it lives on a CELLUAR LEVEL... Even a Single Cell on piece of Clothing can then find and assimilate a host so being rescued means the beast can reproduce once more... Hence the Comics Storyline...
It does not need a Body to travel... It needs a body to fully function!
the thing wouldn't have a sense of humor. And if it truly does imitate someone, then it wouldn't be a 'thing,' it would be that person's clone, and they wouldn't assimilate. So clearly the Thing only takes on personality traits for deceptive reasons; there is no reason to laugh here, unless you are human and realize you are f8cked.
The Theory I always liked was that MacReady had only empty bottles of booze at this point and what was in the bottle near the end was just straight gasoline. MacReady was getting ready to kill himself when Childs shows up, and by drinking the bottle and not reacting to the taste revealed them self as a thing.
Never thought of that for some reason; yeah, Mac probably thought he was the last man standing by then. The only reason I'm still skeptical of Childs being a thing is that he wears an earring, and the Thing can't replicate inorganic material. That's how we knew Doc was still himself earlier, as he has one in his nose. But I suppose by now the Thing could have recalled this knowledge and put in Childs' earring to fool Mac. I love how a film over 40 years old can still have us all scratching our heads!
@@ZenMonkeyGodyea the ear ring is not relevant as its outside of the body, in the prequel its in the wrong ear which gives it away
MaCready was infected halfway through the movie. He drank after the infected guy they lockedup on his own. The infected guy smirked and laughed the same way MaCready did when Childs drank from the same container he had. That's all it takes to get infected. People are added absurd guess work to draw conclusions. Everything i just said can be verified watching the movie. It's a huge plot hole if I'm not right.
@@russiannpcbot6408 The comic book disagrees with this theory.
@@NotSure-e8z The comic isn't canon. None of the comic spin-offs from the 80s or 90s were canon for anything. The director has never revealed who was infected at the end. In my most obnoxious Ben Shapiro voice, facts don't care about your feelings. I cited things that actually happened and doesn't rely on assumptions or speculation. Connect the dots.
I love how both parties director&writers and the actors involved have never confirmed or denied any of the theories it is what makes a good horror movie scarier is the mystery of it like is it still out there or did the humans succeed
The dialogue says it all childs asks how will we make it and Kurt says maybe we shouldn't i think that says it all. The thing is always thinking survival
There are a few possibilities. Childs is a thing, Childs is not a thing, a personal favorite of mine is that McCready somehow got infected and is a thing, or that they are both things and know they are and that is why Childs drinks and MaCready laughs. I like to think that they are both human and are accepting their fates as they won but they are both going to die in the end sadly.
None of us are making it out of here
They're both things and all they want to do is go back to sleep and wait for the rescue team.
remember, McCready says "...if one of us is the Thing, then we aren't in any shape to do anything about it.." neither attacked the other. They sat down and knew they'd freeze to death when the fire went out.
Meanwhile the Thing was actually one of the dogs and ran away at first light..
@@iunderstanphotography27809
If anyone noticed,earlier,McReady had filled the wine bottles with gasoline,which was why he smiled when Childs drank it.
Can you explain to us why the bottle in it is a bottle of Whiskey bearing the J&B label even when Child is drinking from it if it is a bottle of wine? Also why did he remove the rag from the bottle before he knew Child was still alive if it was full of gasoline?
@@thesilencer8074 My guess is he was testing Childs.If Childs were human,he'd automatically smell the gasoline,long before he drank it.
@@azellray Not really, MacReady looks drunk at the end of the movie and he definitely looked like he was about to drink from the bottle before Childs show up.
You are also forgetting that the thing copy organisms PERFECTLY, it's even stated in the movie, so it could definitely taste and smell gasoline.
Mac, the doc and Blair were the only ones who knew the spreading via contact, with doc dead and Blair gone crazy, that leaves ony Mac, and we never see him sharing that information.
If anything, MacReady thing at the end laughs at Childs (who is armed with a flamethrower) because he just infected himself, which would explain the ominous music.
@@memorydancer Too many people forgets the PERFECTLY part. If the thing can talk like Childs and fool everyone, that means it has access to all the info in Childs' brain, including how gasoline smells.
@@juanausensi499 that's true. I still think they are both human or infected in the end. It's fits better with the theme of paranoia, the thing is dead but the damage is done.
The Thing has always been my favorite movie. In the 90's my sister was dating a guy from Norway she met in college. They came over for dinner one night, so I put on the The Thing. I asked him to translate for us, so he did. It was pretty cool to finally find out what was being said in the opening.
What was said?
@@MegaMar14 If you watch the video he tells you what was said.....
@@MegaMar14 The people from The Norwegian camp were warning The Americans that the dog isn't really a dog.
@Clearwood_ no thanks, just tell me since you watched.
@@jamesbernard3255 what's the exact translation?
I thought it was both tbh because macready says something like “so we will wait here until they come find us” where earlier in the film he clearly states “we cannot let them find us and must destroy everything “ which included himself if needed. One of the biggest details i noticed through the film is that each new person who presented with abstract thought against what their norm had been established as- was evidently revealed to part of the thing. I was able to make a few calls of who was part of the thing as the film was progressing, i forget the scientist but even he presents as calm after his range of elevated emotional- the polarizing behaviors , although unsuspecting, was kind of consistent among those whom were eaten. This is why i think macready changed while out because of the stark shift in what their goals were, from “we wont let them find us” to “so we will wait for them”
I'm so happy you made this! Nice breakdown. THE THING (1982) is a hallmark of horror, easily one of the best in the genre. When juxtaposed, the scenes of MacReady pouring his drink into the computer and later handing it to 'Childs' act as a nice subtle parallel. Great points, mate! I'll definitely be coming back to rewatch this video in the years to come.
Something I never thought about - you show how MacCredy pours a drink into the computer to break it as punishment for cheating, and you say the computer may in a way represent the Thing. The ending scene, he gives Childs the alcohol/gasoline, and chuckles as Childs/Thing drinks it.
I just watched this movie for the first time in a theater with my sons a couple weeks ago. I really enjoyed the practical effects and I’m glad I was able to experience it on the big screen!
Ishtuk jugia baichung vutia?
@@mdmohitulhaque8648 my apologies, but English is my only language and I couldn’t find a translation for your question.
How did you watch this in a theater?? The movie is nearly 40 years old. Are you a time traveler?? 😅
@@Captainkirk88410 yes. There are clearly no other ways for somebody to watch a movie in a theater after it’s original run has ended, so I obviously broke physics to traverse time and space.
dont get confuse between The Thing 2011, The Thing 1982
The thing 2011 is prequel to The Thing 1982
what a stunning masterpiece, totally enjoyed both
this movie still gives me chills all these years later
Figure Carpenter purposely left the ending ambiguous so that he would have something to work with if he were to make a sequel. That's common.
The most brilliant scene, I thought, was when the crew goes back to the Norwegian station to investigate what happened. The bloodied axe in the wall was an excellent touch - what the hell happened here? Just a very cool foreshadowing of things to come.
The coffin like box at 8:50 was a call back to the 1951 film "The Thing From Another World," also simply known as "The Thing." Which is hailed as the original. The creature was introduced in that cubed like box. So Carpenter's film was actually a reimagining of the classic. 😁
Both are adaptations of the Campbell story, "Who Goes There?". It gets on my nerves a little that people still refer to Carpenter's version as, in some shape or form, a remake of the other movie. Point of fact, Carpenter's version is more faithful to the original novella.
Which is not to say Carpenter didn't pay homage to the Nyby-directed version.
if memory serves James Arness was the original thing
This is my favourite Sci-fi movie of all time and spent years after preying for a sequel that never came, I watched it at the cinema when it came out and its special effects were years ahead of its time even 20 years later it was still ahead of others. The other great thing about his breakdown is it answers my question on the blood i have since its release. Brilliant work on a brilliant movie well done!!!
The Dog Thing was the most memorable part of the movie for me. Its hesitation entering the hallway, and the uncanny way it lay alert in the kennel, staring straight ahead. Very good editing, it was the one time we knew for sure the Thing was there, and it was freaky in how not-dog it was.
one of the best films ever. great review. my dad was actually stationed in antartica during vam, and was terrified to ever watch the movie. a few years ago when i was talking about what cinematic masterpiece it was, he finally got the curage to watch. and it blew his mind. and became one of his fav movies a well.
The Thing is no doubt one of the films that made me like the horror genre. This film is so splendidly made. Because I was only 12 in 1982 I saw the film a few years after it was released . I always was a bit sad about the dogs that were killed … The creatures are amazing. They are real works of art and I must say that in today’s times of CGI they still work. There is this scene I love and thats the one where the head of creature Norris is severed from the body and starts walking away on these creepy spider legs. It’s that kind of dark humour that makes me appreciate this film so much. Carpenter made a masterpiece that is timeless.
I have no interest in most modern horror, but the horror of the 70s and 80s were an absolute feast, because you had actual proper artistic directors who knew that half of what made horror great was the intrigue, and that the mise-en-scene was a crucial way of decoding the intrigue.
There's still good horror produced today, and there was a lot of terrible horror produced back then, but The Shining, The Exorcist and The Thing are held up as exemplars of the genre precisely because the directors didn't treat their audiences like passive viewers, but people who could be intrigued.
I think you are right about child's. But my reasoning was taking a swig of the bottle and macreedy's chuckle reaction but although I've watched the thing 10+ times I never noticed his blue jacket was white at the end
I just noticed something at 3:10. Childs is still wearing his earring in his right ear. Is it understood that the thing can not copy earrings, fillings, etc? Has anyone else noticed this?
That detail is usually ignored because that rule was only introduced in the 2011 prequel. And even if it was considered canon, the thing most likely would have learned to put anything metallic back on the person it was imitating to not rouse any suspicion.
I always thought Childs drinking alcohol was proof he wasn't a thing. On a cellular level alcohol is poisonous. The thing is independent on a cellular level so some cells would have freaked out when exposed to alcohol.
Except it wasn't Alcohol... it was gasoline from the last few Molotov Cocktails.
@@francisharkins Gas is poisonous also which would have caused the thing to freak out. Do a quick Google search of what happens if you drink gas. I think it was booze. It doesn't matter if it was gas or alcohol there was no freak out.
@@francisharkins there is nothing supporting that claim though
The thing is alien in nature, and doesn't have to follow the rules that we have set necessarily either. That's part of what makes the Thing terrifying, that no matter what you do or assume about earth biology, it doesn't have to apply to The Thing. That's why there's so much uncertainty throughout, and why you need to slowly piece things together.
For instance, if what you say is true, I believe these researchers would know, particularly the doctor, and they could just all chug some alcohol and see who was the thing.
I'd also like to say your line of thinking is part of the reason why people feel like they do "stupid" things all the time. Sometimes, the more attached you are to what you know, and the things that you understand, the harder it is to understand something that falls outside your range. It's part of what makes kids so great at learning, because they are willing to take in new information, and don't often think about how they are related to the things until you've made them notice it somehow. What you're saying is probably correct, but you have to throw out what you know when it comes to anything other worldly, and learn about it from the ground up.
The Thing expected to ingest a liquid that is toxic to humans. It couldn't distinguish between gasoline and alcohol because they are too similar chemically, they both destroy cells in the same way until reaching the digestive system and the movie ends before that happens.
This movie, conceptually, still scares me to this day
the idea that someone isn't who you think they are and much much worse,is so frightening. Imagine you're sitting in a room with a coworker and they simply start to come apart through their clothes and move toward you.
most people might get caught up in the special effects of the time and think its corny. but the thought behind this movie is much more scary to me
edit: If the Norweigian was able to calm himself down, he could have gotten translation, organized and ended the movie before the dog could have infected anyone, but I definitely wouldn't have been in my right mind by then. I'd be so angry, terrified, stressed out I'd be like stand back, I gotta kill this THING
I watched both of them the first and second "the thing" you are absolutely right but at the same time I understand why he was so desperate to eliminate the infected dog by any means because what it did to their crew. I often think of scenerios I would not want to live in and would have no idea how me an average person would be able to survive and this one ranks top 5 for me along with scenerios like being alive in dead space, resident evil, gears of war, the thing, and the tomorrow war (white spikes are overpowered).
@@riftsplitter2159 might be top 3 for me. White Spikes really took over the Earth, no planes, drones, missiles etc kiled them before they overran entire countries??
Oh yeah you forgot one, the Quiet Place! you mean to tell me a 40cal can't kill one of those things? we aren't getting the full story of that universe. maybe other parts of the world fought them off but small towns and rural areas havent
@@iunderstanphotography2780 the quiet place is so full of plotholes i fail to see why it was applauded as much as it was. I could not enjoy the movie because of it.
@@origami83 hahaha what did you dislike the most?
I took it as the struggle of a family in this area where they lived. We never got the story on how the military reacted or what happened to the rest of the country/world
@@iunderstanphotography2780 The deaf girl, she would be dead in the first 5 min because she dont know when she makes sounds.
Also the creatures reaction is very inconsistent. Sometimes they react to the smallest sound, other times they dont.
I presumed that MacReady chuckles at Childs after he accepts a dram of straight blended whiskey because it is clear that Childs isn't a big drinker and is not really enjoying it.
Instead of simply refusing the drink, Childs chokes it down as a way of conveying that there is no longer any animosity between the two men, which amuses MacReady. 😂
Absolutely one of the greatest horror flicks ever
Nah, if Childs was the Thing, it would have just attacked McReady. The Thing always attacks when it's alone with a victim, especially if the victim is in a weakened state. The only reason not to attack when there were multiple armed humans around was because it wasn't sure it could win. But in this case, there was no such issue.
Yeah also there isn’t a definite answer either way and that goes with the theme of paranoia and mistrust we don’t know there isn’t an answer and that’s fine
If you watches the other alternate ending, it looked like they both froze to death and the THING took off in the form of a dog and left. Both Childs and Mcreaty was armed and ready.
Agreed. Also he points out in the video that it can’t imitate inorganic material. Childs still clearly has his hoop in his right ear at the end!
It could have assumed he is to dangerous and could let him freeze or get drunk and fall asleep to consume him.
another theory is that The Thing realized that neither it, nor McReady were in any state to continue fighting, and even offered to work together to survive, but McReady was ready and willing to freeze to death and ensure there were no survivors because allowing it to make it to civilization would have been the end to life on earth.
Here is some additional information that can help prove that Child's was assimilated. Right before Macready, Nauls, and Gary go to test Blair, we can see Child's nodding off, showing some fatigue. Chances are the guys were going without sleep just to be sure. He only woke up when Mac called to him. So when they went out Child's must have fallen asleep. We then seen the camera looking at the basement, meaning that the Thing must have been down there this whole time. Plus we see the room where the coats are. But when the camera was panned out, we can see a room that leads into the coat room as well, meaning the Thing could have snuck up behind Childs that way as he slept.
Also as for Blair. I have to say when he was destroying the radio room, he was human. After finding out what the Thing is capable of, he could have realized that one or more of them weren't human anymore, and got paranoid. So he ensured that no one could get out nor contact the outside world, keeping the Thing isolated. Now as for why his clothes are different, we see him in a yellow button up shirt, then a gray sweater. Yet when he was watching the computer simulation if you look close you can see the gray sweater underneath his yellow shirt. My theory is that Blair ended up killing the dogs, not trusting neither one wasn't infected. Yet in the process got their blood on him, so he removed his yellow shirt, switching to the gray sweater we see. All because he can't risk the blood touching him.
I agree
Child’s still has his earrings on at the end and the thing can’t replicate anything that’s not organic. The nose ring thing supports that theory even without the bad 2011 movie
what's strange is that Blair mentions how "no dog could survive a thousand miles in the cold", yet still destroys the radios etc which doesnt help anyone but the thing: now no one can contact the outside, and it can survive the freezing
@@stealthyturtles good thinking, but if they can put on clothes, I think it's smart enough to put his earrings on etc. maybe a tattoo would've given it away
@@jacobpeters5458 it prevents any outside transports from coming in and leaving. The idea was to prevent it from spreading, doesn't matter if it can survive freezing so long as it doesn't get off of antartica.
MacReady mentioned that it was the Blair Thing that got to the generator after Childs left the main camp entrance, so it's highly unlikely that Childs got to the generator. While it's true that you can barely see Childs breath at the end but it doesn't prove that Child was assimilated. If you go to the scene where Bennings was assimilated, you can clearly see the breath of the Bennings Thing before MacReady torched it. The only reason we can't see Childs breath is because he's sitting closer to the fire, something that Keith David mentions in an interview about the ending.
I don't say it's very often, but what a hell of an break down in a review with this movie? I've seen it over a 100 times and you pointed out things that I've missed. & also ALIEN'S 2 & the Thing are the 2 best 80s Horror movies, in my opinion, without a doubt!! I've seen both of them hundreds of times and never gets old. Thank you
Saw this at the cinema on it's original release. Blew everyone's minds! Still holds up today. one of the great films of all time
Same here.
Ditto
I just finished Frozen Hell - the novella that Who Goes There? is based on from 1934. It’s very similar to the movie. In the novella the Thing can read minds and can exactly replicate people right down the breathing and, I imagine, having a light in the eye. Just a few things to add.
That's what I loved about The Thing. The ambiguity of the end and the mysteries it still leaves behind for people to try to solve. I personally feel that this is how to do a cosmic horror film.
But the same can't be said about the prequel. The monster itself wasn't being sneaky or try to break up the group and felt too much like a slasher movie.
It was still learning to act human.
The prequel is awesome, it's different but follows the same terror
Possibly. Or perhaps they both knew they were screwed, so Childs drank after Macready because he had nothing to lose and also showed trust in Macready. Which is significant because they both had an inate distrust for each other. They're both human and have accepted their fate.
one vital piece of information you forgot, (or missed): Child's is sporting an earring in his right ear. It's shown briefly at the end when he and Mcready are together. Therefore, Childs cannot be a tihng.
That's true, but what's also true is after it's first meeting with humans ie the Norwegians, it has learned and adapted, so there is no reason why an assimilated victim wouldn't adapt and pierce its own ear, since that is it's weakness and exposes it, plus it wouldn't make any mess either as imitated people are perfect copies and Childs even says himself, how would you even know it was me? And since he said it, if he was assimilated, The Thing would know this and adapted....the only real person we can assume as still human, is Mac, since we are with him all the time....but it's def ambiguous as to who would be an alien and out the two it's Childs, the movie leaves it like Inception and down to your own interpretation.
@@joeman8523 I will stubbornly give you that one. Although, I wasn't a fan of the prequel, & dont personally consider it Canon. I've seen it multiple times, and I'm always left underwhelmed & dussapointed. But I see your point. Totally plausible.
It can take the earring off the floor and reinsert it in though.
@@thomaspappalardo7589 yeah. I know. I got schooled by some guy who reminded me of the prequel film, & how the female protagonist found fillings from someone's teeth in the shower. I relented & claimed it was plausible, but keep in mind, I'm basing my thoughts only on the original, and not the terrible prequel, which I refuse to accept as Canon.
And he still has his silver tooth at the end.........because everyone who became the thing their fillings fell out ........
Calling the captain cowardly because he shot the Norwegian from the window is ridiculous. He saw a threat and dealt with it as quickly as he could. The guy was waving a gun around and shot a team member.
As far as Childs sharing a drink with Mac at the end and not caring about germs it could just be because at that point he knows he’s screwed anyway so what’s the point of caring🤷🏼♂️ This is one of my all time favorites and a must watch during my cold Wisconsin winters, preferably during a snowstorm
This video and comment section brought a smile to my face. One of my all time faves!
My daughter was born in 2005. She likes nothing I grew up with but she adores this movie. She loves the concept and the effects of this classic movie. She also recommends this to her friends. This is proof that no matter what year a movie is made, if it's done correctly then it can relate to any generation
I'm also born in 2005. Going into it I was unsure but loved it
This movie will still be amazing in 50 years, or 100!
Of course. A great piece of art will always stand the test of time. Hitchcock. Leone, Kurosawa, Ford, Curtiz to name but a few.
The fact that the mystery was so well hidden in the writing and directing is why this classic is a.stand alone phenomenon of a film.
The thumping beat of the music is said to reflect a heartbeat, and the fact it starts at the end of the film signifies that the Thing was still alive.
I first saw this as a 12 yr old many years ago and my love and appreciation of it only increases with time. It's genuinely a perfect film, one of a very select group. Halloween is another, a perfect horror film.
I always thought Childs wasn’t the thing because at the end he still has the metal tooth but then I remembered they didn’t establish the whole metal thing until the new one
Well now that we have the whole metal thing, a sequel would have to take that into account. Besides, not being able to imitate metal and having to discard any such metals in the body does make a lot of sense. So I'm fine with it. Pacemakers too.
and his earring too.
@@limedickandrew6016 I second that. The metal thing does make a lot of sense, and now we know it thanks to the 2011 prequel movie. 🙂
Agreed. You made a very good point, and the metal thing was unknown for many years until the prequel movie was released. This is one of the reasons why I like the 2011 prequel movie.
He could Just fit the tooth in his mouth
Having Paul back to do this video is a Halloween miracle! I'll have to rewatch this with the breath and eye light thoughts in mind... the kids will LOVE this one, a classic fo sho!
I like how you pointed out that the fear is more present in the scenes with all or most of the people present which is usually the opposite in most horror films. Great point.
The comics confirmed Childs was The Thing in the sequel comics. Carpenter also said the breath missing from Child’s was by accident and kept it in because it gave more suspicion of “Who is The Thing.”
The comics aren't canon though?
Dante I actually buy your take on it!
For added fun; Carpenter has also said that The Thing videogame which opens with Child's frozen corpse is canon.
Take it all with a grain of salt.
@@joshuagorsuch8153 I didnt not know that. That makes the ending even better!
Hands down my favorite horror movie of all time. Thanks for breaking this down Lord Spoilers! I’ve watched this movie at least 10 times and you’ve enlightened me to things I never noticed (like Window’s keys falling).
If a true sequel is ever made, I hope they take the same amount of care in writing the plot that Carpenter did and using animatronics and prosthetics. The prequel had a good story and actors but the CGI took me out of it completely.
Since you’re going back and doing older movies, would love to see you break down my all time favorite movie, “The Counte of Monte Cristo” with Jim Caviezel 😄
(Edit: grammar)
This film was astounding on so many levels. Performances, practical effects, score and the overwhelming and appropriate sense of paranoia was genius. I heard the theory that Childs was The Thing because no ‘vapor’ was coming out of his mouth unlike McGreedy who appeared to be human in the finale scene but not anywhere else. Fascinating
This is absolutely the best breakdown of this movie I’ve ever seen. Thank you, Mr. Author.
One of the best sci for horror. I always thought Macready hand Childs a drink was a test that the drink was clearly not meant to be drank ie fuel or pee and by Child drink and not reacting to it Macready knew he was the thing. That why he grinned. But love the fact that we are not meant to know. Thank’s for the breakdown really enjoyed watching it.
The whole drinking after someone is a dead give away. They were told not to eat or drink after someone. Childs drinking the bottle, is a dead give away that he is the Thing.
@@cainabel6356 or both of them just don't care anymore. That's kind of the point- they'll both inevitably die, so there's no point
@@cainabel6356 Fuchs told McReady not to eat or drink after someone. We don't know if that info was shared with anyone else. And that was an educated guess from Fuchs, we don't really know if the thing really can infect a whole body from a single cell. What the movie shows us is always violent full-body takeover.
@@juanausensi499 The docor told everyone that a single cell is enough to take over someone's body.
@@cainabel6356 No, Fuchs told that only to McReady. In fact, Fuchs didn't talk to anyone else afterwards. After that scene, he encounters the thing and dies.
Something I never see mentioned is that there are comics that continue the story of MacReady and Childs after this movie, which reveals that neither of them were the Thing in the end, although it does of course find a way to come back
I'm a firm believer of the molotov cocktail theory. The drink would have had gasoline inside to create the molotov and that's how he knew.
It's a J&B bottle Mac's private drinking stash not a Molotov
exactly
@@ericksoto1063 They were using Mac's empty J & B bottles for Molotov cocktails when they were torching the facilitiy.
@@Bernie_Lomax In fact, they were not.
Ehhhh. A few things wrong w the Molotov:
1. The thing reacts to terrible caustic substances. So, there is no reason if it were gasoline for childs to retract and spit
2. Mcready thinking: should I freeze to death where I’d go to sleep…or vomit blood and die a horrible death? I think he was aiming for sleepy time.
When Child’s says ‘Are you the only one left?’ pretty much gives it away for me.
It's funny, The Thing is probably the most discussed and theorized movie I can think of. At this point, anytime I watch a breakdown/conjecture video on the movie, I'm basically just evaluating how much research has gone into the video itself, because I've seen the theories in various forms all over the place. Childs doesn't have visible breath? Trick of the camera. What happened to the keys? Well you hear them drop at one point. Extra respect for not even bothering with the theory that MacReady is actually tricking Childs into drinking from a Molotov bottle at the end, since that one is so easily disproven.
In regards to the Childs/Coats situation, I think it's entirely possible that at least one of MacReady's group grabbed one of those jackets before they headed out, and the mix and match is just from the three of them gearing up to go see Blair. The ending is deliberately vague so as to give an "eye of the beholder" mentality towards whatever happens after the credits roll. Personally, I like the idea of two determined, regular dudes- the ones who were most at odds throughout the movie no less- just relaxing and sharing a final drink as they accept their oncoming death, knowing that, whatever happens to them, they stopped a global catastrophe. It's a noble and tragic ending. Though I welcome anyone to interpret it differently for whatever reason they subscribe to.
I think both Mac and Childs may very well have been human, but neither one could know for certain if the other one was. But because of the crazy situation they’ve just endured, the sleep deprivation and the hypothermia taking its toll, they’re not acting like their usual selves and don’t have the energy to be at odds with each other anymore. Instead they share a drink and as they slowly succumb to the cold, they both die alone, not knowing if the other one is human and if they’ve lost.
Both good thoughts on what the ending told us.
But did they actually stop it? There could be pieces of the creature still lying around, even with that large explosion, not to mention all of the bodies they had to dispose of prior. If they made one mistake it's still over, even with all of that effort.
HAPPY HALLOWEEN! If you enjoyed this video then please subscribe to the channel ruclips.net/channel/UCq3hT5JPPKy87JGbDls_5BQ
*Check out our BEST new videos below*
*Barbarian Ending Explained* - ruclips.net/video/qT1WLqCAvls/видео.html
*Ant-Man And The Wasp Quantumania Trailer Breakdown* - ruclips.net/video/ANmKbU40P-Q/видео.html
*House Of The Dragon Episode 10 Breakdown* - ruclips.net/video/qNKURZaAMOU/видео.html
*Halloween Ends Ending Explained* - ruclips.net/video/hcjssyxIkmo/видео.html
*Rings Of Power Episode 8 Breakdown* - ruclips.net/video/U95eZrQHrUo/видео.html
*SHE HULK Episode 9 Breakdown* - ruclips.net/video/UunqBb6HcUk/видео.html
Why did you stop doing Andor breakdowns? I been lookin forward to those and there’s been nothing after ep 4.
My favorite movie!!
He also has no breath after drinking from the bottle but kirt does... you missed 5he biggest clue of all.
So happy to hear Rob Ager get credit! You guys did the right thing so I will to.
I honestly thought it was you who gave me the idea that, when Childs takes a swig of the drink, our man smiles in response because the Thing can’t tell what its consuming. So in the opening shot he’s faking drinking what was in the bottle, he was pretending too, and it was actually gasoline. Thats why he smiles, he sees Childs drink the gasoline without any reaction, and at that moment he knows
One of my favorite movies and I was Leah’s took it as this: neither was a thing at the end but our paranoia wants to make us believe otherwise. Child’s taking the drink and mcreedy offering it was just them accepting their fate. Neither knew if the other was friend or foe and neither cared as they were both about to die regardless.
I also recall reading interview from this movie where carpenter hunter at something similar and Keith David being asked about the script and saying that he was indeed NOT a thing and the script never intended for him to be one either. Take that as you will, the point is it’s supposed to be a mystery and until carpenter confirms otherwise, we don’t know for sure.
the sets aint the same at the start in that changing room, the bench goes all way to wall in top pic and doesn't in the bottom one 1:43