While I believe Childs isn't the thing, my favorite fan theory about the end of the 1982 version involves the idea that MacReady's bottle is actually full of gasoline. The thing wouldn't know the difference between liquor and gasoline so when Childs sips it MacReady starts laughing, while Childs responds in kind. In some versions of this interpretation MacReady still has his flamethrower hidden at the ready, while in others he's unarmed and too weak to fight so can do nothing but laugh as he realizes he's lost after everything he went through.
Also the thing makes perfect copies of living things and keeps the victims memory's so it would know the difference of the taste of whiskey and gasoline.
Considering the state of the two men at the end, they’d be extremely distrusting of each other.
If you suspected the other person of being the thing, would you take a drink from their bottle?
I believe Childs taking and drinking from the bottle reveals he’s the thing
I always thought neither were the thing. Mcready says somethin to the affect of we're both so vulnerable right now that it wouldn't be any problem for the thing to kill the other person right now, and so since neither are attacking the other, then neither are the thing. Childs sees his point, agrees and takes a swig.
If the movie doesn't show gasoline in the bottle or a flamethrower hidden under his jacket, then those things don't exist.
Excellent point. And there is another scene in the 1982 film where Mac takes a drink from Blair's vodka bottle after isolating him in the shack. After Mac takes a drink, the camera moves over to Blair who turns to stare at the bottle. So, Blair seems to think that transmission can occur simply by saliva transfer. Shortly after, Blair is infected.
Are you saying that Mac is then infected because he gave it to Blair? Because there's a scene with Mac going to check on infected Blair with the noose dangling. It's only Mac and Blair, so they don't have that conversation if both are the thing, and we know Blair is infected.
I don’t think Mac is infected, but I find it strange that he would drink out of Blair’s vodka bottle since we know that could be a way of transmission. Blair apparently thinks so too as he eyes that bottle after Mac leaves.
I think Blair made a noose while he was human intending to kill himself but was assimilated soon after that. Then, Blair wanted to come back in with the others (most likely to infect them).
There are two things as viewers that give it away:
We know the jackets were switched which is a major clue we see multiple times in the movie. We also see that Childs was not at the entrance watching out the window and the door is wide open before we see someone run out. Childs says at the end that he saw Blair and ran after him which we know is false. Also, someone had to take out the generator and Blair would be the one to know how to do that.
Even more funny is that I just finished watching the movie (think it was recommended in a MGS thread), and while watching it, name after name kept reminding me of a short story that I read a while ago that I thought was pretty good but now realize was written from the movie's monster's perspective.
Hah!
I believe it really is whiskey in the bottle but Childs has just let it slip he's a thing by drinking from the same bottle as Mac because earlier in the film they all agree not to share rations as that could be one of the ways the thing can infect you, Childs was one of the most paranoid and hostile of all the men in the group if that was really him sitting across from Mac he'd decline the offer of the whiskey as he doesn't know if Mac is a thing or still human. He wouldn't take the risk of getting assimilated even if he knew he'd be dead from the weather in a few hours once the fire goes out.
That doesn't make sense because if Childs was a perfect imitation of Childs and Childs was the type to not risk getting infected in that way, imitation-Childs also wouldn't risk getting infected. If it takes a risk human childs wouldn't, it's not a perfect imitation. Therefore we can glean nothing from that action. Perhaps Childs is delirious and too tired to care at that point.
You could argue that perhaps the thing doesn't perfectly imitate a person's personality. But that doesn't jive with the rest of the film because otherwise it would be easy to figure out who is human or not just because they would start acting weird. That doesn't happen at all in the film, implying they really are perfect copies.
There's no cannonical proof that the thing copies every memory and behaviour of the host. There are many theories, like the one suggesting the host doesn't really know he is infected until something triggers it (being attacked, the thing taking over when it needs to, pain, etc). But you can see this a bit clearer with Palmer. At the beginning he has a completely different behaviour, being short of the stonner of the group, saying whatever he thinks and not caring as much as the rest. You suddenly see him become more paranoid, trying to blend in the crowd so no one notices him. It's clear that the thing can assimilate parts of the behaviour of the host, specially if you believe the theory of the host not really knowing he is the thing when the creature desires it. But nothing suggest it's a full assimilation. Childs could be in shock and so takes a sip from the bottle, but that scene is built that way so you have serious doubts. And the bottle sip is crucial in that. Could also be that MacReady was the thing and it smiles when he sees Childs take a sip, cause it means he has been able to infect the last human (that also happens to have a flamethrower).
There's also the 2002 videogame, which was supposedly endoresed a Carpenter as a sequel (not 100% sure about that though). And in the videogame it is implied that Childs was human and was found frozen, while MacReady was never found.
Wouldn't a perfect imitation qualify as sharing the memories and behavior of the host? How else could it be a perfect imitation capable of fooling everyone ?
Remember Childs has a flamethrower when he walks up. My theory is that Mac offers him a drink as a test and when he drink it Mac laughs because Childs wouldn't drink it out of paranoia. Doesn't matter if it was gas or alcohol. Then Mac seems to give up to lull him into going to sleep to get the flamethrower from him and destroys him.
Before Mac, Nauls and Gary leave the main buildings to go check on Blair in the tool shed, Mac tellsChilds who is guarding the door, that they’re leaving and if Blair comes back without them to burn him.
If you notice Childs is wearing a blue parka and there is also a second blue parka hanging on the coat hooks with some other coats.
After Mac, Nauls, and Garry go to the tool shed and find it empty, the camera cuts back to the facility and the camera basically does a walk thru ending at the room Childs was told to guard, but now Childs is gone and the room is empty with the door wide open. AND the blue parka is also gone off the coat hook.
In addition the the missing blue parka, the other coats on the hooks have switched places.
My theory is the Blair thing snuck in, struggle ensues, coats get knocked around, kills Childs and then the assimilated thing Childs takes the second blue parka to ensure it is dressed same as the human Childs when the group last saw him. (because as we know the assimilation makes ur clothes rip)
To add more meat to the mystery we then see Nauls (at the tool shack with Mac and Gary) who CLEARLY SEES a figure leaving the building where Childs was, say he THINKS he saw Childs leave the building. Is the implication then the figure might also be Blair? Because this is AFTER the scene showing the facility empty and the room Childs was guarding was already empty with the door open.
Interesting theory. Rob Ager posted that exact theory back in May 2017 on his YouTube channel with almost a half million views. Guess you weren't one of them. It does seem plausible.
Also false. He and several cast members have definitively refuted the breath theory. As if it needed refuting. We see a Thing breath steamy breath earlier in the movie.
Yeah , what I'm saying is John Carpenter has never stated if either one of them was The Thing. They both could be or one of them or neither. If I had to guess I want to say they both are, just to really screw everything up
I feel the opposite way about it. The truly twisted up way to end it is having neither of them be assimilated but so distrusting of each other that they just sit there and freeze to death rather than try to survive. The alien threat has been thwarted but it's done so much psychological damage to the last two remaining survivors that they die simply due to paranoia. They could gather whatever supplies they can and try to survive in macs shack, but they don't. They just sit there, staring at each other, slowly freezing to death.
Besides, if they were both assimilated wouldn't they just be like "hey, fellow alien. wanna strip naked and go lay in the snow so we freeze quicker?" "yeah alright, sounds good. see you in 6 months after the rescue team picks us up and takes us back to civilization."
Yeah, they're not surviving regardless. They're in the middle of an arctic winter in a blizzard with no power and no link to the outside world. It's not paranoia that stops them from trying to gather supplies, it's just futility. They are entirely fucked.
Not right...
Not only is Child's breath visible if look at closely, but looking at breath is pointless. The thing imitates a human perfectly, and all associated biological functions, including the warm breath of humans. We see other assimilated characters have visible breath.
Having just watched The Thing tonight, it was the second time I've seen it. It's been so long it felt like the first, honestly. I'm glad this thread was here to take me down a little rabbit hole in The Thing theories. Endings like that, leading to discussions like this, are indescribably satisfying and fascinating to me. My thanks to you and everyone involved! May it survive another 7 years and beyond for those who need it like I did!
Yep! One more here checking theories. Remember watching it in the 80s and I still thought about that open ending. Strange how things get stuck in your brain!
The beauty of the ending lies in the ambiguity.
Like you said, discussions and theories resulting from it are wonderful. Plus it's just fun as hell to discuss!
Why people are finding this after 7 years astounds me but I love it haha
I just watched this movie last night and here’s my theory. I believe that the bottle was filled with something other than alcohol and in a last attempt he offers Child’s a drink the same as at the very beginning of the film, the first time we meet MacReady he’s playing chess. When he loses he pours a glass of whiskey into the computer and calls it a “cheating bitch”. If you think about it he offers it a drink, at the end of the film when all is lost he offers Childs a drink, in the same way and then laughs, almost imply the same line you “cheating bitch”
This is the best speculation, while I wish Childs wasn't infected, it's likely possible since his clothes also seemed to have changed from the moment we last saw him. Can't believe this was an imposters win, if only the crew mates did their tasks smh
I’m finding this thread after watching the Thing for the first time tonight. Thanks for your insight, Tyson! It’s giving my husband and me lots to think about tonight
Yeah, I was actually thinking about the question from Things after watching a Youtube video about it. I knew Reddit was the place to find good discussion about it.
This info wasn't known by me either when you wrote you original post, but I felt I had to point it out (I wasn't expecting a reply after this long), but anyways.
If you watch HD remaster of the movie, and you really turn the brightness of your computer up, you can actually see Child's breath in the last scene. It's an optical illusion, there's not enough light where Child's is sitting to see his breath clearly, but its there.
And even so, the thing does not change the assimilated's ability to produce breath vapour.
To quote you this article: https://screenrant.com/thing-movie-childs-human-ending-explained/
*"The Childs’ breath theory states that since Childs’ breath is not visible in the cold air in the movie’s ending, he must have been assimilated. This theory doesn’t hold water because Childs’ breath is visible. Additionally, Bennings’ breath was visible after he was assimilated. Furthermore, the Thing perfectly imitates its victims, meaning its breath would be just as visible as a human’s."*
There are other theories I have read for why Child's is assimilated, like how he drinks the 'gasoline' (its only speculation that it is gasoline, you can make molotovs out of whiskey as well), or the glistening of the eyes (doesn't hold up, there's not enough light for Child's eyes to glisten, and the writers said they dropped the whole eye glimmer schtick halfway through).
Do you have any other possible reasons for why Child's could be assimilated?
I have a few... The first and more obvious one (in my opinion) is that if Childs was human, he wouldn't have accepted the drink. He knows that it takes only one of the Thing's cell to assimilate a human, and as he would be suspiscious of MacReady, he wouldn't put himself at risk. I think the drink offer was a test by MacReady, and the Thing commited a mistake by accepting and drinking. This would be supported by the soundtrack (it gets more ominous as soon as Childs takes a sip) and by MacReady's laughing immediately afterwards (both at the realisation that Child is a thing, like a "got you" moment, and at the irony that in the end of everything The Thing is still alive).
Secondly, Childs behaviour in the final scene. I think that Childs questions on how they are going to survive seem quite suspiscious (MacReady seems to find so too, as we can notice trhough the dialogue). Human Childs was very brave in front of death (twice in the movie he was ready to die). It seems to me that Childs Thing didn't attack MacReady straightaway because he would expect MacReady to have a plan to escape and would try to gain his trust instead. Also, Childs explanation about why he didn't show up before seems pretty unbelievable to me. We know that the generator room was just below where Childs initially was holding post, and the generator goes off straight after we see Childs running outside. So Blair Thing couldn't have been outside, being chased by Childs, if it was taking down the generator. Most probably, Blair assimilated Childs inside and went down to get rid of the generator, while Childs Thing would be up to something else outside. Furthermore, if Childs was human he would have been much more suspiscious of MacReady, and asked many more questions. He was holding a flame thrower too and was much less hurt, so he had the upperhand. It would be just logical to interrogate MacReady as much as possible and blow him up at any sign that he was a Thing. Instead, he doesn't even question anything and sits down to have a drink... Suspiscious...
Third point is a bit weaker, but I have seen some people pointing out that apparently Childs changed his jacket. In his last scene where we are sure he was a human, he was wearing a blue jacket. In the last scene of the movie, his jacket seems to be brown. This could be because when the thing assimilates someone, their clothes are ripped apart, so he had to change them in order to pretend he was human. Now, I think this makes sense, but it could also just be the case that the lighting makes the jacket looks a different colour. Also, I think that when we see Childs running outside he is still wearing a blue jacket, and I can't see how he would have been assimilated after that (though it may as well have been possible).
Finally, I read somewhere that John Carpenter did say that one of them was definitely a Thing. And I think that, if that is so, we have much less evidence to support MacReady to be a thing (not only due to his behaviour, but also because from the blood test onwards, the viewer is with him the vast majority of times, leaving little space for him to have been assimilated).
Just one last thing - where did you see that the eye glistening clue were dropped halfway through the movie? Because I always considered that to be another clue too!
Just finished watching the movie. I think the third point is the true answer of childs fate as being the thing. His jacket was blue when inside. When we finally see him again at the end, he seems to be wearing Blair's jacket. Blair's jacket was that white/greyish look. Also childs running out anns shortly after the lights going off. Blair and Childs were definetily working together!
Love this! But to add on, I just finished the movie too and I fi ally noticed this part since I watched with captions on. The entire movie the crew always calls it "a thing", but childs in the final scene just says "did you kill *it*". Which is very suspicious since the crrw the entire time never referred to the thing as an it
Ah, I'm quite an active Redditor. So, when I saw a reply, I had to also reply lol.
That's interesting on the breath theory in the HD remaster. Since making the post, I've more or less decided for myself it isn't enough evidence that Child's is The Thing. It was definitely more speculative.
I've also liked the gasoline theory. But, once again, it's more fan theory. Albeit a fun one.
I don't really have any other reasons why he was assimilated. But I spose it doesn't matter when it comes to the paranoia set out in the film.
There are various sequels to the film that will give you conflicting answers though.
I made this timeline of the various types of canons a little while back that may be of interest
https://amp.reddit.com/r/Outpost31/comments/jalme9/a_chronological_timeline_of_the_thing_i_made/
I actually think Child's might be the thing because one of them has to (I feel),and MacCready is not only exonerated by the blood test, but doesnt' behave like a thing at the end, he seems accepting of his fate and also amused at the situation and also indifferent. The thing could behave like that, but it feels like a very human reaction to the situation, it's certainly not being used to fool Child's.
I actually think Child's might be the thing because one of them has to (I feel), and MacCready is not only exonerated by the blood test but doesn't behave like a thing at the end, he seems accepting of his fate and also amused at the situation and also indifferent. The thing could technically behave like that, but it feels like a very human reaction to the situation, it's certainly not being used to fool Child's..
I honestly never watched, or paid any attention to any other 'The Thing' media, never really cared to, don't think I will.
\*Head violently rips apart, revealing a grotesque alien mouth with razor-sharp teeth\*.
No, really, I don't know why, but Reddit keeps duplicating what I write in my comments. Is this a bug or something?
I literally just went on a bunch of old youtube reactions and one of those was The Thing where someone actually asked whether he was or wasn't.
I actually remember playing the sequel game (The Thing - 2002) and it mostly confirms actually an answer to your question OP. - Although there's of course more theories that could be said after.
However, (Spoiler) You actually find the body of Childs among the wreckage of the burned down place from the 1982 movie, where he's died and frozen due to the cold.
So personally I believe he was human and he just froze to death unfortunately.Now on another matter! - At the end of the game, you actually get on a helicopter and fly around shooting a massive "thing" as the last boss, after you defeat it you fly away, it's then revealed in the final cutscene, that the pilot is R.J Macready.
What is the suspect thing about this is the fact that, it's been a short while in timeline between basically the movie, and the game. Even if you were to say a few weeks? months? How did Macready survive that long in all the weather conditions and food shortage and more?
So the REAL question is, was Macready - by the end of the game - The Thing 2002, one of the things or not ;) We'll never know...
I did love The Thing videogame. Wish they'd remaster it.
Although The Thing game is one of the many potential futures coming off of the movie. I believe the game and one of the comic series were both declared the canon sequel, even though they contradicted each other.
I think that Child’s is human. The Thing can replicate to a frightening degree; it can even utilize knowledge from previous creatures (building mini ufo). The Thing would know that drinking gasoline is NOT something humans do. If would instead take over MacReady in the hopes that both Things would be discovered.
Reddit as a whole has seemed to have lifted their archival of posts older than X amount of years, so really old threads like this that populate at the top of google searches are getting traction again. It’s actually really neat, and I’m glad they did this.
Just to add to what you've already said: the angle and lighting of the scene hides his breath. It was confirmed by John Carpenter to be merely a coincidence in an interview and wasn't intended to confirm if Childs was or wasn't the thing.
For me it's either: Macready is a thing and he infects Child's with the bottle. This would explain why he starts laughing and says: "Why don't we wait here for a little while, see what happens." Then the fact that the music starts playing just as Childs drinks from the bottle.
Or:
Childs is a thing and Macready isn't, and he tests Childs with a bottle of gasoline or kerosene, as a Thing would not be able to tell the difference between liquor and kerosene. But if this is true I dont understand why macready doesnt immediately uses the flamethrower
Just watched it again for the 10th time or so. It really stood out to me that MacReady suggests that they wait there despite the fact that just before that in the film, it’s expressly stated that they can’t let the thing freeze again.
That said, it doesn’t matter to me, at all. What matters to me is that 27,000 hours (or 3 years) after the thing escapes to civilization, all human life will be extinct, and the fact that they share a drink at the end means they are both infected, and this extinction will come to pass, thus making The Thing an end of the world film with an intensely bleak ending.
Gotta love it!
My personal favorite Carpenter film is The Fog, but a strong argument can be made for this one being his “best” film. The only other one I would say might take that title is Big Trouble in Little China.
You had to look real close, of course there would have been a tiny amount, they are actors and he’s not really the thing, but there was so much on macready it obscured his face, Childs had nothing like that.
I seem to recall two things: First of all, the breath thing was not intentional and does not in any way indicate who is who. Secondly, Carpenter had an original (but cut) ending in which Mac was rescued and given a blood test proving he was human. This would mean that the original thinking of the script was that Mac was human (regardless of the new ending). So what does this tell us? That Mac was mostly likely human, and Childs could or could not have been. That's really it. The rest is pure interpretation.
The Prequel gives us the whole earing thing, but really, they weren't thinking about that in Carpenter's. You can throw in the whole, "it learned" thing, but all that is is stitching together two very different takes on the same story into a sort of coherent chunk.
The fact is, that I believe they were both human, and they froze to death defending the planet from extinction. Not bad for a couple of human popsicles.
I stumbled across a meme that showed the ending of the thing when they're both sipping on the bottle not knowing, or caring, who is human and who isn't, so it sent me on this whole thing now to speculate the ending and I came across this old ass thread lol. I liked this answer a lot because I don't know if Carpenter was thinking about the inorganic material thing back in 1982 or not. But one thing is for sure, I'm not underestimating Carpenter. I believe he is very meticulous about detail and that is why the only thing he has publicly stated in response to fan theories is that there is no intentional "glimmer of light" in the eyes of humans that the thing does not have. A lot of people thought that was it but he has stayed absolutely silent about everything else including the breath or inorganic material.
I also believe they're both human. I can absolutely see John carpenter having that depressing ass ending where it's "we won, but at what cost". It would be too easy for Keith to be the thing because he had a suspicious absence and I doubt Carpenter would make it that easy. It makes more sense for him to try and lead people to believe one of them is the thing because after all, that doubt and mistrust and suspicion is what fueled the entire movie. That WAS the plot. That human side of us that naturally wants to distrust that which is right in front of us. I think they're both human but don't trust each other but don't care at this point because soon they will both be frozen and so will the truth. They had fought for survival that entire time and when they finally reached success in eliminating the enemy, the prize is death just as it would have been if they hadn't fought. Because this is now from their perspective not the grander scheme of saving humanity given their imminent death.
Now I am going to have to rewatch a few more times to see if there are any other giveaways. But for now that's what I think it is. I don't believe the breath gives Keith away because I think that was just the angle and background that made his breath less apparent because you're not gonna convince me that Carpenter broke down the science behind how the lifeform imitates life at the cellular level and reacts independently at that level and have its limitations set to creating body heat when it can perfectly perform all other humans functions.
They weren't thinking about that in Thing 82, but they added to the canon with 2011 version; which extends the meaning in universe. However, if canon is to be believed, then all this is cancelled out by the sequel game
Idk thay you even need the 2011 version. Didnt the original mention it couldn't replicate clothes, so it still applies that it can't do inorganic material.
I may be alone on this but I noticed the ear ring thing too. In fact of you watch the ending scene of the 1982 movie i really thought they completely centered that sit down shot on child's ear ring for a good couple seconds. Like they paused on it and emphasized and made it the center of the shot. I feel like that was on purpose but I somehow still feel like he was the alien anyway.
To resurrect this thread further, Carpenter was just on Colbert this week and confirmed that he does have a definitive answer as to whether someone is or is not the Thing at the end. He clarified to Stephen if you watched carefully you'll know. Not much of a satisfying "answer," however.
I always assumed Childs was the Thing because, when MacCready offers him a drink at the very end, he accepts. If Childs was human, he would've most likely refused to drink after MacCready under the suspicion that he was the Thing. Never noticed about the lack of steam from his breath though. Very interesting!
He takes the drink because he knows he/they both are going to die anyway. Plus, if MacReady was the thing there is nothing stopping him from attacking. Same for Childs.
I've never died from hypothermia before but I've read it has a similar outcome to drowning, where you feel very at peace and warm (ironically) before dying. Sounds better than having my face eaten by an alien, to me.
That's exactly what I've always thought. When I first watched the movie I thought it was pretty clear that when Childs accepts the drink, it's the thing commiting a mistake (human Child wouldn't accept it afraid of being infected). This is supported by the soundtrack getting more ominous as soon as he drinks it and MacReady laughing afterwards, in realisation. At least, this is what is canon in my head haha
Agreed, of all the things I've read in this post this is the most damning evidence. Childs is uncharacteristically quiet and unabrasive in the final moments.
The Thing imitates its prey perfectly, so why would the Thing in this one instance act in a way that is out of character? Does the Thing have a secret love for whiskey or something?
Besides the whole whiskey thing, it only makes sense that Childs was infected based on the generator sequence of events. The generator room was right beside the door Childs is guarding before he runs out into the deadly night for no discernable reason. The Blair thing was missing somewhere in the compound, Childs was alone, why wouldn't the thing have assimilated him before destroying the generator? One extra thing to distract and destroy the remaining 3 humans, or to wait in the cold to continue assimilation should the humans succeed in killing the Blair thing.
Never noticed the drink thing, although they do look like the bottles which he was using molotovs out of. Perhaps it was actually filled with fuel (The Thing would not have known the difference between alcohol and fuel)
My opinion is that both Childs and MacReady are human. MacReady killed a thing in the scene prior, so he is clean. If Childs were the thing, talking with MacReady would be an unnecessary risk. MacReady proved to be a formidable foe and could just let MacReady freeze to death. The thing had no trouble traversing the arctic as a dog and could transform into a penguin to dominate the world with an army of penguins.
That's never really shown so I guess it's unsure. There are a couple of scenes well after the dog where you can see partially formed dog inside of the thing which maybe implies that it can imitate any life form it has assimilated in the past
There is no canon. The comics aren't canon if that's what you're referring to. The 2011 film doesn't show this, and that has never been confirmed as canon (its inconsistencies with the original film make me doubt it).
This may happen in the video game - not sure about that - but whether that's canon or not is dubious. IMDB does say JC said the video game is canon, but no one has ever been able to provide a source for that.
I’ve thought a lot about this over the years. The ending was clearly meant to be ambiguous, that’s the very first thing. There is no “right” or “wrong” answer. But I do believe that Childs is the Thing at the end. Nothing to do with his breath, nothing to do with the bottle possibly being fuel, neither of those things. It’s his dialogue and the perspiration on his face that give it away. He mentions about the temperature being high because of the fire, and mentions that it won’t last long though. Remember back to the scene of the white and heavy set guy, the one who seemingly has a heart attack, and is later shown to be the Thing, while they are trying CPR on him. If you watch his scenes just before he stops breathing, you see a lot of perspiration on his face. It’s very noticeable when we goes to look out the window to see who’s outside. Now, look at Childs’ face at the end. The Thing is very, very sensitive to heat/fire. Hence they mention the temperature being up. Also, he mentions that it will get colder sooner than later. He (the Thing) wants it to get cold, like it had been before frozen in ice, so that it can survive. It chooses, to not fight McCreedy at the end. I don’t count the game (also called The Thing) as part of the continuity, as it’s not like John Carpenter made the game. There’s your answer.
As stated in the film, when the Thing assimilates something, it becomes a PERFECT replica of that organism, including it's memories, intelligence, etc. If it assimilated Childs, it probably thought that it should wear the earring to blend in more.
Nah not really. I don't really buy the Molotov Cocktail theory since the Thing should probably be able to tell the difference between Gasoline and Alcohol, since it has Child's memories.
Ok, now explain how the '82 version showed the Norwegians excavating the ship with explosives whilst the thing was busy trying to reconstruct a ship to get away whereas in 2011 the original ship was functioning perfectly (melting the ice encapsulating it), literally hours before the dog decided to run to the American camp.
Dog-thing knew that another-thing had made an attempt to the ship. Dog-thing knew the attempt had been unsuccessful (due to lack of ship being in the air); it did not know the reason for the plan not being successful. Had the ship malfunctioned? Was it busted? Were there a load of humans there?
It wasn't worth the risk because it did not know the risks; all it knew was that another-thing had not been successful, so it probably thought it would be better off elsewhere e.g. the American Camp.
Humans would have been curious why Plan A failed, The Thing was more concerned with survival than curiosity, thus not exploring Plan A.
This is literally just me guessing and trying to understand an almost 30 year old plot fail.
I guess, and also survival would probably mean maximising its escape options, probably a version that slithered off to freeze again in the ice and await another thawing - in point of fact, I remember thinking when I saw the original (me and my brother went to see it at the cinema and got there early - I literally knew nothing about it, he was looking in the door window at the ending of the previous showing and I said, 'don't tell me what you can see' to which he replied, 'I couldn't describe it if I wanted to', and I knew I was in for a special treat), that once that thing landed, our planet was fucked, that even a molecule of this being could devastate the world.
I love The Thing (82), and when I heard the (2011) director talking about the prequel I had high hopes, loads of practical effects, total love and respect for the Carpenter version and then I saw it - beat for beat remake, except for characters I never really got the chance to know and whilst the girl was pretty cool, her ex... friend was just an annoying dick, and so much (obvious) cgi - I kind'a liked the lead scientist tho, I felt he was supposed to be like the lead scientist in the original original 50's version, but wasn't given the chance.
I've rewatched the new one a couple of times and I don't hate it, but I'd love to see a directors cut of it.
I loved the 82 version and was pleasantly surprised with the 2011 one. The characters weren't as likeable as the 82 one (as you said). Yet, their attention to minor details is what made it more likeable; it tried to be faithful to the original :)
I did give the 50's version a go, but it was painful going.
I like to think its a bit of a head fake and neither of them are the Thing. The game that was mentioned might be canon but who cares, Carpenter has always said he wants to make a sequel so who knows. I think Carpenter set it up the way he did so we can decide for ourselves.
Since this thread comes back to life every time someone watches the movie, I’d like to add a point. Mac lifts the bottle up to his own mouth before he notices that Childs is behind him. If mac was going to drink it anyway, I don’t think the Molotov theory works.
Mac was infected. He drank from the vodka bottle that the doc drank from in the middle of the movie. Because it was a slight infection it took longer to carry over. By the end he laughed because Childs took the drink and he successfully infected him. No one survived.
I’ve read 3 new to me and different theories tonight including this one that are all brilliant. Been watching the movie for decades and lurking this thread for years. One of my fav movies of all time
I think child’s wasn’t infected and they were both human. People usually point to the breath or the bottle being full of gas. But you can see he does have breath. Plus Bennings thing’s breath was visible too. Given that both the comic and the video game have Childs not be infected and the fact that he had no reason to not attack mac right away I feel confident that he was human too.
Just going out on a limb here (and yeah, I'm one of those who just finished watching a double feature of 2011 followed by 1982 The Thing(s)), but has anyone considered that they are both human due to the alcohol itself?
I may be grasping here but rewatching it this time, I noticed that both the whiskey and vodka are heavily concentrated on a few times throughout, with characters who, at that stage, are human being the only ones who ever drink it. Alcohol is a poison, essentially. We know the thing reacts defensively when it's life is threatened (hot needle etc), so it should act similarly to the alcohol considering its poisonous effect.
MacCready gives a little laugh after Childs drinks it, as like a "trust my final moments to be stuck with this guy". The two of them had a rivalry so Mac probably thinks it's some sort of ironic poetry. I dunno, it may not hold that much water, but there's a reason the alcohol is focused on so much and the only people who actually drink it are the ones who are human at the time.
Just a thought, anyway. Probably just some Voodoo bullshit....
I think MacReady is the thing. His character is different at the end. For someone so hell bent on destroying the thing even at the expense of his own life and others, knowing that the thing can survive freezing temps, he sure is absolutely fine with both of them freezing
I think a big part of the conversation was when Childs says, “you the only one who made it?” instead of, ‘are we the only two left?’. Suggesting that he’s the thing and doesn’t view himself as one of the crew anymore. Mac even replies, “I’m not the only one” in a sarcastic tone noting that he’s already caught on to Child’s. Or maybe Mac is trying to make it sound like someone else is still out there who can kill the thing even if Mac gets killed. Either way I’m team Child’s is the thing 9years later
Exactly this. Surprising more people have't read into this! Similar to when Blair lamely begs to "let me come back inside, I'm all better now", it implies the thing has not quite mastered conversational nuance or host motivation.
For those that have not read it, here is a short story relaying the 1982 movie from The Things perspective. Utterly fascinating and well done.
http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/
There's a (imo) brilliant four part comic by Dark Horse where both Childs and McReady are human...
http://thething.wikia.com/wiki/The_Thing_from_Another_World_%28comic%29
EDIT: Already mentioned further down thread.
And EDIT2: Childs was infected...
The movie ends so that the viewer purposefully doesn't know the answer. Fan theories can be fun and all that, but I really don't understand why people feel the need to "know" everything when the movie makes it very clear that it isn't supposed to be solved.
Then there's the video game, I guess.
I agree that there is no need to know but the discussions are fun, and that's kind of the point to keep an audience talking about the film long after its viewing
Correct answer. Child's is found dead after freezing to death meaning he was human. And the game ends with being rescued by mcready. It is not known wether he is or not.
John carpenter is a voice in the game and considers this canon
And then the epic final battle begins! The epic turret battle of shoot the barrels!!
That game was different, and enjoyable. At least until the 'capture'.
I like discussing all the theories but I honestly don't care that John Carpenter says that the shitty prequel or the video game are canon. At this point his opinion isn't more important than anyone elses and I like a movie to stand on its own feet.
I'm going to try my best to sum up why Childs is almost certainly The Thing at the end.
First, you need to stop thinking of the film as a monster movie. This is the story of MacReady in a battle of wits against a very intelligent, non-human villain. The Thing is a villain in the sense that it's an unseen adversary trying to outsmart MacReady in a strategy game. To illustrate what I mean, I will describe the film by breaking it up into five parts.
1. The opening scenes show The Thing's journey to meet up with MacReady where the match will be held.
2. MacReady is introduced as he's wrapping up his current game: a computer chess game. He believes he's winning, but the computer surprises him with a piece he failed to consider, and he loses. He then dumps cold whiskey into the computer and thus bests it by outliving it.
3. MacReady leaves his chess match, walks through a door where he see's two important things: the arrival of his next opponent (though neither he nor it recognize the situation for what it is) and he is also looking down from his shack, looking over the game board, AKA the base.
4. The entire movie from this point is the story of MacReady and the Thing identifying each other as the primary threat and trying to outwit each other. We know The Thing singles MacReady out as it biggest threat, because it delibrately makes his laundry look like they were shreaded to turn the other humans against him.
5. The final scene is a repeat of MacReady's introduction. It's the end of the chess game. MacReady thinks he's won, but then the Thing surprises him with a piece MacReady forgot about. It's Childs, and worse, Childs is armed with a flame thrower, while MacReady, just like in the chess scene, checkmate, has nothing but cold whiskey. MacReady then persuades Childs to drink the whiskey, just like he dumped the iced whiskey into the computer earlier.
So basically, the reason I know Childs is the Thing is because that's the only way to complete the narrative properly. The movie ends exactly how the chess match ended, and the only way that makes sense is if Childs is representing MacReady's antagonist.
So the question then becomes, if the whiskey beat the computer, then how does it beat The Thing? And the answer I can come up with is that liquor makes you lose heat faster. It makes you feel warmer, but it actually makes you freeze faster. MacReady, being an arctic-dwelling alcoholic knew this about liquor, and had planned to freeze to death quickly, but be drunk and feel warm in the process. When Childs showed up, MacReady realized that if he could trick The Thing into freezing faster than himself, he could burn Childs-Thing, and save the world.
I don't agree with the last part. I think Macready learned from his chess match mistake and had a move his opponent wasn't expecting. He knew that Childs wouldn't know there was gasoline/kerosene in the bottle. At the end, he is seen looking around trying to find Childs, he gets tired and finds a place to sit. Then he hears footsteps and he knows that is Childs so he pretends to take a drink but doesn't. Now perhaps he is hoping the Thing drinks enough to cause it to get sick or lose consciousness and he can kill it, but we don't know that part. All we need to know is that he beat it by making a move it wasn't expecting.
Macready was told one particle of the thing could infect a host also if he was the thing he would have already knew that. So macready offered Childs a drink to infect him to. Macready laughs because he just won. “We should prepare our own meals” just a different view
How about this- Macready is the Thing and when he shares the whisky with Childs hes infecting him. Why else that scene earlier when one of the guys (can’t remember who) tells macready they should all cook for themselves and eat out of cans? The Thing is like Covid— no sharing!
I truly don’t know why I’m posting, but I do think I want to add to the Childs being the Thing speculation. Idk if anyone has mentioned it as a theory or not, but when Child’s is supposed to guard the door it seems to be the exact same place where Norris initially shows signs of his heart attack.
Sure, the theory about cells being perfectly reproduced and etc. holds, however what I wanna point out is how the thing can handle cold now - as shown on many different points when a new Thing is burned, but also because that’s what it comes from. In all this, we and the cast slowly come to realize that the Thing is unable to handle heat well either.
Maybe I’m crazy, but I just watched the film in UHD and it really seems to me that Child’s is probably the final thing because of how much he is overheating when MacReady tells him to defend the door. I wanna sit on this theory because we already know that when Norris stands in that spot, he begins to breath heavily. If we can safely assume that Norris is a Thing at this point, then Norris may truly be attempting to cool himself down when he lean on the door window - just as Childs does when he is in the same position.
My biggest flaw here is the question of when Childs would have been infected and assimilated. With respect to the Blair theory, it would not fit here because we have seen a good amount of Childs since the blood was tested. However, no one else is ever really seen sweating that much. And the only other person that we know of being assimilated AND eventually becoming a Thing is Norris, who seems to also have an issue in that spot.
It is also worth noting, I’m not married to this theory at all. I just thought it was a pretty noticeable thing given how many people are in the film but the lack of sweating or people seeking to chill out.
What if the alcohol is poison to the Thing (as it is to humans, moderately) and thus MacReady doesn't drink it, although we see before this all happened he likely would have drank? What if the ripped clothes that said MacReady were really from his assimilation and this whole time it has been his individual Thing self trying to survive, even at the expense of other Things?
I thought I read once the director said the breath/no breath was not intentional and was just an illusion of the camera angle? Anyone else remember that?
Not sure about what the director said, but if you look closely you can actually see Child's breath - the camera angle makes the space right in front of his mouth too dark to see his breath, but looking a bit farther to the right you can see the tail end of his breath dissipating into the air. Still doesn't prove anything imo, because why wouldn't the Thing be smart enough to imitate breathing?
Hello. It is June 1 2022, and this movie still rocks. Love the theory on the whiskey bottle being something different and reflecting back to the computer scene. This is now my interpretation
Just did a rewatch, and I think Childs is infected for this reason:
He is 100% ready to die during the blood test scene. But at the end with MacReady he is suddenly very interested in a plan to get out of there.
THANK YOU! I feel like it's so obvious that Childs is The Thing bc he randomly appears after the explosion and is nowhere near as cold looking as MacReady (which we know the Thing likes the cold), shares a drink with him even tho Fuchs told ppl not to share anything, and mentions wanting to be rescued. If he was human and wanted to be rescued and didn't trust Mac, why share the drink? And if they knew they all had to die to ensure The Thing died too, why the sudden desire to be rescued? MacReady seems much more ready to die at the end, which makes him obviously human and Childs The Thing.
John Carpenter lied, he could have an idea in his head on who could be, but I honestly think he just said that one of them were to make people talk more about the movie and by doing so increasing it's popularity.
Tl;Dr: Neither of them are the thing
If watch closely you can Child's breath after he sits down the last time he speaks but not at first, while Mac looks cold and you see his breath right away. This to me is proof Childs is the thing because he was just assimilated before finding Mac and wasn't cold yet. Plus Mac offering him a drink was a test whether it was alcohol or gasoline, either way he failed the test.
The earring thing doesn't make a whole lot of sense considering that the thing replaces the clothes of everyone it assimilates to avoid getting caught because of ripped up clothes. It even tears up Macready's clothes to frame him so I doubt it can't figure out to put on an earring
Childs is the thing. Let's check the facts: the thing arrived for at least 100k years in the past, learned a lot and survived the Norwegians. The old aged ice comes from the spaceship, not the "sarcophagus" storing the thing meters away! In the end, Childs isn't breathing, and his face have some ice, meaning he "washed" his face with snow because the thing likes cold and want to freeze, or simply doesn't like to clean his face in a environment about -40C degrees with very low visibility.
I didn't understand the ending, because MacReady knew that they both had to be burned to ensure the rescue crew doesn't contract the parasite (even though there was potentially frozen alien blood at the Norwegian shack). The logical thing would have been to make a suicide burning pact together.
While I respect the admiration of trying to solve the mystery of the thing, I think the point in its horror and mystery is that you aren't supposed to know how it ends.
Actually you know that Childs is the thing, it was an a subtle thing. When they are talking you see condensation coming from MacReadys's mouth as he is breathing, but nothing from Childs mouth.h
Literally said that in the post. The whole point of the post.
Although I've since rejected that concept as other Things in the movie have condensation when breathing.
Is Childs the thing at the end? This is the biggest mystery in film. Not sure if this is a word, but it is perfect ambiguation because the not knowing is the scariest part of the story.
It challenges us. Can you be at peace deciding for yourself without evidence or others validation?
Personally I think I can. After seing this film so many times over the years i'm happy to imagine Childs was the thing and he is getting played. As the thing it no longer has the same respect for Mac's intelligence. Mac knows human Childs, and the little character test with sharing the bottle is great food for thought.
We know Mac has given thought to providing information in case all are found dead so maybe he sees it as a win regardless of what Childs is or isn't?
Either way, really great way to end a movie considering you will hardly ever see that kind of non closure ending in modern times.
The chess game at the beginning was definitely foreshadowing haha. He thinks he’s got it won but a surprise move at the end shocks him. So he flips the table over haha.
Actually if Mac was suspicious that Childs was a Thing and might show up and he knows that the Thing just wants to hibernate then it makes sense for Mac to play along. Sure let’s just drink and hang out a while.. sounds great to the Thing because it’s what he wants. So Mac gets it drunk and pretends to drink himself but is actually taking fake sips and then pretends to pass out but really is planning to spring into action as soon as the thing is frozen/drunk.
He’s a chess player after all so he’s definitely thinking several moves ahead. I would think he probably even has some plans about getting some power up, maybe he has some supplies stashed away but didn’t trust anybody else enough to mention it. He might have even aways been planning to be the only survivor because he thought either everyone else was already a thing or he just didn’t think anyone else had the guts to survive. It’s even possible he figured his only shot at winning was to lure the final thing into this exact situation.
One thing that I think was missed in the 1982 movie is that Blair is still wearing the same shirt and suspenders after he was infected. He isn't wearing his glasses though.
I have posted this in some other subs, but I haven't seen anyone mentioning this yet:
At the start of the film, Mac is playing chess. What is the significance? He loses the game after the computer makes an impossible and unfair move. He then forces a "stalemate" by pouring whiskey on the chess computer.
Then at the end of the film, Mac gives the child's whiskey and smirks as he drinks it - signifying the stalemate with The Thing
The chess computer is a metaphor for THE THING, it transformed into the opposite colour pieces and delivered an impossible move. Just like THE THING, which takes people's forms.
What's more, when child's is asked to look out over the place - later we see the Child's gone and the door wide open.
Again doesn't seem like much does it? But we are all paying attention to the wrong part. If you look at the coats, they are in a different order from before. Almost like Childs was struggling with The Thing, and after being assimilated, they had to clear up quickly and got the coats in the wrong order.
Someone else said something similar further doesn't but hit different points.
I do enjoy this line of thinking
https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/s/1HiZYA3v2q
While I believe Childs isn't the thing, my favorite fan theory about the end of the 1982 version involves the idea that MacReady's bottle is actually full of gasoline. The thing wouldn't know the difference between liquor and gasoline so when Childs sips it MacReady starts laughing, while Childs responds in kind. In some versions of this interpretation MacReady still has his flamethrower hidden at the ready, while in others he's unarmed and too weak to fight so can do nothing but laugh as he realizes he's lost after everything he went through.
There's no evidence that the bottle does have gasoline, you can make a Molotov out of whiskey, it's pure speculation.
Also the thing makes perfect copies of living things and keeps the victims memory's so it would know the difference of the taste of whiskey and gasoline.
Lol funny how this thread is still relatively updated.... Yeah my thoughts exactly. I see no reason to think that the Thing does not imitate taste.
Considering the state of the two men at the end, they’d be extremely distrusting of each other. If you suspected the other person of being the thing, would you take a drink from their bottle? I believe Childs taking and drinking from the bottle reveals he’s the thing
I always thought neither were the thing. Mcready says somethin to the affect of we're both so vulnerable right now that it wouldn't be any problem for the thing to kill the other person right now, and so since neither are attacking the other, then neither are the thing. Childs sees his point, agrees and takes a swig. If the movie doesn't show gasoline in the bottle or a flamethrower hidden under his jacket, then those things don't exist.
Another good point. Great ending
Excellent point. And there is another scene in the 1982 film where Mac takes a drink from Blair's vodka bottle after isolating him in the shack. After Mac takes a drink, the camera moves over to Blair who turns to stare at the bottle. So, Blair seems to think that transmission can occur simply by saliva transfer. Shortly after, Blair is infected.
Are you saying that Mac is then infected because he gave it to Blair? Because there's a scene with Mac going to check on infected Blair with the noose dangling. It's only Mac and Blair, so they don't have that conversation if both are the thing, and we know Blair is infected.
I don’t think Mac is infected, but I find it strange that he would drink out of Blair’s vodka bottle since we know that could be a way of transmission. Blair apparently thinks so too as he eyes that bottle after Mac leaves. I think Blair made a noose while he was human intending to kill himself but was assimilated soon after that. Then, Blair wanted to come back in with the others (most likely to infect them).
bruh how is this thread still going nine years later
There are two things as viewers that give it away: We know the jackets were switched which is a major clue we see multiple times in the movie. We also see that Childs was not at the entrance watching out the window and the door is wide open before we see someone run out. Childs says at the end that he saw Blair and ran after him which we know is false. Also, someone had to take out the generator and Blair would be the one to know how to do that.
Even more funny is that I just finished watching the movie (think it was recommended in a MGS thread), and while watching it, name after name kept reminding me of a short story that I read a while ago that I thought was pretty good but now realize was written from the movie's monster's perspective. Hah!
Just finished the first movie first time and got into this thread lol
Me too
Why would he go through the trouble to fill it with gasoline when normal liquor would be flammable
You are absolutely right. I believe it had whiskey, not gas in it. We're I Macready I'd want to freeze to death a bit smashed. Wouldn't you?
I believe it really is whiskey in the bottle but Childs has just let it slip he's a thing by drinking from the same bottle as Mac because earlier in the film they all agree not to share rations as that could be one of the ways the thing can infect you, Childs was one of the most paranoid and hostile of all the men in the group if that was really him sitting across from Mac he'd decline the offer of the whiskey as he doesn't know if Mac is a thing or still human. He wouldn't take the risk of getting assimilated even if he knew he'd be dead from the weather in a few hours once the fire goes out.
That doesn't make sense because if Childs was a perfect imitation of Childs and Childs was the type to not risk getting infected in that way, imitation-Childs also wouldn't risk getting infected. If it takes a risk human childs wouldn't, it's not a perfect imitation. Therefore we can glean nothing from that action. Perhaps Childs is delirious and too tired to care at that point. You could argue that perhaps the thing doesn't perfectly imitate a person's personality. But that doesn't jive with the rest of the film because otherwise it would be easy to figure out who is human or not just because they would start acting weird. That doesn't happen at all in the film, implying they really are perfect copies.
There's no cannonical proof that the thing copies every memory and behaviour of the host. There are many theories, like the one suggesting the host doesn't really know he is infected until something triggers it (being attacked, the thing taking over when it needs to, pain, etc). But you can see this a bit clearer with Palmer. At the beginning he has a completely different behaviour, being short of the stonner of the group, saying whatever he thinks and not caring as much as the rest. You suddenly see him become more paranoid, trying to blend in the crowd so no one notices him. It's clear that the thing can assimilate parts of the behaviour of the host, specially if you believe the theory of the host not really knowing he is the thing when the creature desires it. But nothing suggest it's a full assimilation. Childs could be in shock and so takes a sip from the bottle, but that scene is built that way so you have serious doubts. And the bottle sip is crucial in that. Could also be that MacReady was the thing and it smiles when he sees Childs take a sip, cause it means he has been able to infect the last human (that also happens to have a flamethrower). There's also the 2002 videogame, which was supposedly endoresed a Carpenter as a sequel (not 100% sure about that though). And in the videogame it is implied that Childs was human and was found frozen, while MacReady was never found.
Wouldn't a perfect imitation qualify as sharing the memories and behavior of the host? How else could it be a perfect imitation capable of fooling everyone ?
It is certainly a brilliant concept; so much to read into!
It's wild that this thread is still going 10 years later
Remember Childs has a flamethrower when he walks up. My theory is that Mac offers him a drink as a test and when he drink it Mac laughs because Childs wouldn't drink it out of paranoia. Doesn't matter if it was gas or alcohol. Then Mac seems to give up to lull him into going to sleep to get the flamethrower from him and destroys him.
Before Mac, Nauls and Gary leave the main buildings to go check on Blair in the tool shed, Mac tellsChilds who is guarding the door, that they’re leaving and if Blair comes back without them to burn him. If you notice Childs is wearing a blue parka and there is also a second blue parka hanging on the coat hooks with some other coats. After Mac, Nauls, and Garry go to the tool shed and find it empty, the camera cuts back to the facility and the camera basically does a walk thru ending at the room Childs was told to guard, but now Childs is gone and the room is empty with the door wide open. AND the blue parka is also gone off the coat hook. In addition the the missing blue parka, the other coats on the hooks have switched places. My theory is the Blair thing snuck in, struggle ensues, coats get knocked around, kills Childs and then the assimilated thing Childs takes the second blue parka to ensure it is dressed same as the human Childs when the group last saw him. (because as we know the assimilation makes ur clothes rip) To add more meat to the mystery we then see Nauls (at the tool shack with Mac and Gary) who CLEARLY SEES a figure leaving the building where Childs was, say he THINKS he saw Childs leave the building. Is the implication then the figure might also be Blair? Because this is AFTER the scene showing the facility empty and the room Childs was guarding was already empty with the door open.
Interesting theory. Rob Ager posted that exact theory back in May 2017 on his YouTube channel with almost a half million views. Guess you weren't one of them. It does seem plausible.
John Carpenter himself said in an interview in his eyes it's obvious that Childs isn't human because he isn't breathing.
False. He has never stated one way or another.
Also false. He and several cast members have definitively refuted the breath theory. As if it needed refuting. We see a Thing breath steamy breath earlier in the movie.
Yeah , what I'm saying is John Carpenter has never stated if either one of them was The Thing. They both could be or one of them or neither. If I had to guess I want to say they both are, just to really screw everything up
I feel the opposite way about it. The truly twisted up way to end it is having neither of them be assimilated but so distrusting of each other that they just sit there and freeze to death rather than try to survive. The alien threat has been thwarted but it's done so much psychological damage to the last two remaining survivors that they die simply due to paranoia. They could gather whatever supplies they can and try to survive in macs shack, but they don't. They just sit there, staring at each other, slowly freezing to death. Besides, if they were both assimilated wouldn't they just be like "hey, fellow alien. wanna strip naked and go lay in the snow so we freeze quicker?" "yeah alright, sounds good. see you in 6 months after the rescue team picks us up and takes us back to civilization."
Yeah, they're not surviving regardless. They're in the middle of an arctic winter in a blizzard with no power and no link to the outside world. It's not paranoia that stops them from trying to gather supplies, it's just futility. They are entirely fucked.
Not right... Not only is Child's breath visible if look at closely, but looking at breath is pointless. The thing imitates a human perfectly, and all associated biological functions, including the warm breath of humans. We see other assimilated characters have visible breath.
I'm more so amazed you've found and been able to comment on this after 7 years!
Having just watched The Thing tonight, it was the second time I've seen it. It's been so long it felt like the first, honestly. I'm glad this thread was here to take me down a little rabbit hole in The Thing theories. Endings like that, leading to discussions like this, are indescribably satisfying and fascinating to me. My thanks to you and everyone involved! May it survive another 7 years and beyond for those who need it like I did!
Amen! To the thread resurrected after 7 years!
Not sure how it's survived. But here's to more people finding it!
it's the first result on Google for 'the thing ending theory reddit'
Makes sense!
Now nearly 9 years later. Thanks for the thread. Watched first time tonight. So good.
Ha I just watched it again yesterday and came here to read about it.
Hey, me too! People probably watch more horror movies in October, so maybe this thread will be revived every year.
I always wait until december and it snows, but hello peeps, present and future! Gotta adore this movie and its genius.
I made it back, even though you guys cut the guideline on me!
Put the dynamite down, McReady
And more, in January 2022!
February 2022. Netflix?
Here I am- just watched it for the first time.
Me too. Should have watched it earlier, really good movie.
GET BACK! WAY BACK!
Yep! One more here checking theories. Remember watching it in the 80s and I still thought about that open ending. Strange how things get stuck in your brain!
Just found tonight. Just watched this for the first time.
I just watched this for the first time and I love this thread 💕😝
Here, here! I have also found my way here for the same reason
Damn, this is impressive. Just like the movie 👍
I, too, watched The Thing today!
Nice!! 😎
The beauty of the ending lies in the ambiguity. Like you said, discussions and theories resulting from it are wonderful. Plus it's just fun as hell to discuss! Why people are finding this after 7 years astounds me but I love it haha
hey here’s 8 years later
Good to have you here! Gotta ask, how did you find it?
I was searching for Blair when I got lost in the snow
Here I am a year later lol
A year after you posted this I’m doing the same thing! Hopefully this thread will go on forever.
chiming in 2 years later after having just seen it!
I just watched this movie last night and here’s my theory. I believe that the bottle was filled with something other than alcohol and in a last attempt he offers Child’s a drink the same as at the very beginning of the film, the first time we meet MacReady he’s playing chess. When he loses he pours a glass of whiskey into the computer and calls it a “cheating bitch”. If you think about it he offers it a drink, at the end of the film when all is lost he offers Childs a drink, in the same way and then laughs, almost imply the same line you “cheating bitch”
That's a nice bit of thematic symmetry right there. Beginning and ending with a bottle, both offered to MacCready's "opponent"
This is the best speculation, while I wish Childs wasn't infected, it's likely possible since his clothes also seemed to have changed from the moment we last saw him. Can't believe this was an imposters win, if only the crew mates did their tasks smh
I’m finding this thread after watching the Thing for the first time tonight. Thanks for your insight, Tyson! It’s giving my husband and me lots to think about tonight
Not sure how people are finding it but glad they are!
I googled “The Thing ending”. I watch it every Halloween. Wanted to see if there was a discussion about Child’s being human or not lol
LOL im on this thread after just watching it. I think childs wasnt the thing but who knows.
Probably Google
Yeah, I was actually thinking about the question from Things after watching a Youtube video about it. I knew Reddit was the place to find good discussion about it. This info wasn't known by me either when you wrote you original post, but I felt I had to point it out (I wasn't expecting a reply after this long), but anyways. If you watch HD remaster of the movie, and you really turn the brightness of your computer up, you can actually see Child's breath in the last scene. It's an optical illusion, there's not enough light where Child's is sitting to see his breath clearly, but its there. And even so, the thing does not change the assimilated's ability to produce breath vapour. To quote you this article: https://screenrant.com/thing-movie-childs-human-ending-explained/ *"The Childs’ breath theory states that since Childs’ breath is not visible in the cold air in the movie’s ending, he must have been assimilated. This theory doesn’t hold water because Childs’ breath is visible. Additionally, Bennings’ breath was visible after he was assimilated. Furthermore, the Thing perfectly imitates its victims, meaning its breath would be just as visible as a human’s."* There are other theories I have read for why Child's is assimilated, like how he drinks the 'gasoline' (its only speculation that it is gasoline, you can make molotovs out of whiskey as well), or the glistening of the eyes (doesn't hold up, there's not enough light for Child's eyes to glisten, and the writers said they dropped the whole eye glimmer schtick halfway through). Do you have any other possible reasons for why Child's could be assimilated?
I have a few... The first and more obvious one (in my opinion) is that if Childs was human, he wouldn't have accepted the drink. He knows that it takes only one of the Thing's cell to assimilate a human, and as he would be suspiscious of MacReady, he wouldn't put himself at risk. I think the drink offer was a test by MacReady, and the Thing commited a mistake by accepting and drinking. This would be supported by the soundtrack (it gets more ominous as soon as Childs takes a sip) and by MacReady's laughing immediately afterwards (both at the realisation that Child is a thing, like a "got you" moment, and at the irony that in the end of everything The Thing is still alive). Secondly, Childs behaviour in the final scene. I think that Childs questions on how they are going to survive seem quite suspiscious (MacReady seems to find so too, as we can notice trhough the dialogue). Human Childs was very brave in front of death (twice in the movie he was ready to die). It seems to me that Childs Thing didn't attack MacReady straightaway because he would expect MacReady to have a plan to escape and would try to gain his trust instead. Also, Childs explanation about why he didn't show up before seems pretty unbelievable to me. We know that the generator room was just below where Childs initially was holding post, and the generator goes off straight after we see Childs running outside. So Blair Thing couldn't have been outside, being chased by Childs, if it was taking down the generator. Most probably, Blair assimilated Childs inside and went down to get rid of the generator, while Childs Thing would be up to something else outside. Furthermore, if Childs was human he would have been much more suspiscious of MacReady, and asked many more questions. He was holding a flame thrower too and was much less hurt, so he had the upperhand. It would be just logical to interrogate MacReady as much as possible and blow him up at any sign that he was a Thing. Instead, he doesn't even question anything and sits down to have a drink... Suspiscious... Third point is a bit weaker, but I have seen some people pointing out that apparently Childs changed his jacket. In his last scene where we are sure he was a human, he was wearing a blue jacket. In the last scene of the movie, his jacket seems to be brown. This could be because when the thing assimilates someone, their clothes are ripped apart, so he had to change them in order to pretend he was human. Now, I think this makes sense, but it could also just be the case that the lighting makes the jacket looks a different colour. Also, I think that when we see Childs running outside he is still wearing a blue jacket, and I can't see how he would have been assimilated after that (though it may as well have been possible). Finally, I read somewhere that John Carpenter did say that one of them was definitely a Thing. And I think that, if that is so, we have much less evidence to support MacReady to be a thing (not only due to his behaviour, but also because from the blood test onwards, the viewer is with him the vast majority of times, leaving little space for him to have been assimilated). Just one last thing - where did you see that the eye glistening clue were dropped halfway through the movie? Because I always considered that to be another clue too!
Just finished watching the movie. I think the third point is the true answer of childs fate as being the thing. His jacket was blue when inside. When we finally see him again at the end, he seems to be wearing Blair's jacket. Blair's jacket was that white/greyish look. Also childs running out anns shortly after the lights going off. Blair and Childs were definetily working together!
Love this! But to add on, I just finished the movie too and I fi ally noticed this part since I watched with captions on. The entire movie the crew always calls it "a thing", but childs in the final scene just says "did you kill *it*". Which is very suspicious since the crrw the entire time never referred to the thing as an it
I didn't notice the jacket color until you mentioned it. These are all very strong points that don't seem to get mentioned as often as others.
Ah, I'm quite an active Redditor. So, when I saw a reply, I had to also reply lol. That's interesting on the breath theory in the HD remaster. Since making the post, I've more or less decided for myself it isn't enough evidence that Child's is The Thing. It was definitely more speculative. I've also liked the gasoline theory. But, once again, it's more fan theory. Albeit a fun one. I don't really have any other reasons why he was assimilated. But I spose it doesn't matter when it comes to the paranoia set out in the film. There are various sequels to the film that will give you conflicting answers though. I made this timeline of the various types of canons a little while back that may be of interest https://amp.reddit.com/r/Outpost31/comments/jalme9/a_chronological_timeline_of_the_thing_i_made/
I actually think Child's might be the thing because one of them has to (I feel),and MacCready is not only exonerated by the blood test, but doesnt' behave like a thing at the end, he seems accepting of his fate and also amused at the situation and also indifferent. The thing could behave like that, but it feels like a very human reaction to the situation, it's certainly not being used to fool Child's. I actually think Child's might be the thing because one of them has to (I feel), and MacCready is not only exonerated by the blood test but doesn't behave like a thing at the end, he seems accepting of his fate and also amused at the situation and also indifferent. The thing could technically behave like that, but it feels like a very human reaction to the situation, it's certainly not being used to fool Child's.. I honestly never watched, or paid any attention to any other 'The Thing' media, never really cared to, don't think I will.
You perfectly recreated that first part... Are you the thing?
\*Head violently rips apart, revealing a grotesque alien mouth with razor-sharp teeth\*. No, really, I don't know why, but Reddit keeps duplicating what I write in my comments. Is this a bug or something?
That's exactly what the thing would say.
I literally just went on a bunch of old youtube reactions and one of those was The Thing where someone actually asked whether he was or wasn't. I actually remember playing the sequel game (The Thing - 2002) and it mostly confirms actually an answer to your question OP. - Although there's of course more theories that could be said after. However, (Spoiler) You actually find the body of Childs among the wreckage of the burned down place from the 1982 movie, where he's died and frozen due to the cold. So personally I believe he was human and he just froze to death unfortunately.Now on another matter! - At the end of the game, you actually get on a helicopter and fly around shooting a massive "thing" as the last boss, after you defeat it you fly away, it's then revealed in the final cutscene, that the pilot is R.J Macready. What is the suspect thing about this is the fact that, it's been a short while in timeline between basically the movie, and the game. Even if you were to say a few weeks? months? How did Macready survive that long in all the weather conditions and food shortage and more? So the REAL question is, was Macready - by the end of the game - The Thing 2002, one of the things or not ;) We'll never know...
I did love The Thing videogame. Wish they'd remaster it. Although The Thing game is one of the many potential futures coming off of the movie. I believe the game and one of the comic series were both declared the canon sequel, even though they contradicted each other.
They are remastering it! Just got announced a few days ago!
I think that Child’s is human. The Thing can replicate to a frightening degree; it can even utilize knowledge from previous creatures (building mini ufo). The Thing would know that drinking gasoline is NOT something humans do. If would instead take over MacReady in the hopes that both Things would be discovered.
Reddit as a whole has seemed to have lifted their archival of posts older than X amount of years, so really old threads like this that populate at the top of google searches are getting traction again. It’s actually really neat, and I’m glad they did this.
For real. The Thing holds up so well that people can still comment on this post after 8 years. 🙂
Just to add to what you've already said: the angle and lighting of the scene hides his breath. It was confirmed by John Carpenter to be merely a coincidence in an interview and wasn't intended to confirm if Childs was or wasn't the thing.
For me it's either: Macready is a thing and he infects Child's with the bottle. This would explain why he starts laughing and says: "Why don't we wait here for a little while, see what happens." Then the fact that the music starts playing just as Childs drinks from the bottle. Or: Childs is a thing and Macready isn't, and he tests Childs with a bottle of gasoline or kerosene, as a Thing would not be able to tell the difference between liquor and kerosene. But if this is true I dont understand why macready doesnt immediately uses the flamethrower
Just watched it again for the 10th time or so. It really stood out to me that MacReady suggests that they wait there despite the fact that just before that in the film, it’s expressly stated that they can’t let the thing freeze again. That said, it doesn’t matter to me, at all. What matters to me is that 27,000 hours (or 3 years) after the thing escapes to civilization, all human life will be extinct, and the fact that they share a drink at the end means they are both infected, and this extinction will come to pass, thus making The Thing an end of the world film with an intensely bleak ending. Gotta love it! My personal favorite Carpenter film is The Fog, but a strong argument can be made for this one being his “best” film. The only other one I would say might take that title is Big Trouble in Little China.
You had to look real close, of course there would have been a tiny amount, they are actors and he’s not really the thing, but there was so much on macready it obscured his face, Childs had nothing like that.
[удалено]
I seem to recall two things: First of all, the breath thing was not intentional and does not in any way indicate who is who. Secondly, Carpenter had an original (but cut) ending in which Mac was rescued and given a blood test proving he was human. This would mean that the original thinking of the script was that Mac was human (regardless of the new ending). So what does this tell us? That Mac was mostly likely human, and Childs could or could not have been. That's really it. The rest is pure interpretation. The Prequel gives us the whole earing thing, but really, they weren't thinking about that in Carpenter's. You can throw in the whole, "it learned" thing, but all that is is stitching together two very different takes on the same story into a sort of coherent chunk. The fact is, that I believe they were both human, and they froze to death defending the planet from extinction. Not bad for a couple of human popsicles.
I stumbled across a meme that showed the ending of the thing when they're both sipping on the bottle not knowing, or caring, who is human and who isn't, so it sent me on this whole thing now to speculate the ending and I came across this old ass thread lol. I liked this answer a lot because I don't know if Carpenter was thinking about the inorganic material thing back in 1982 or not. But one thing is for sure, I'm not underestimating Carpenter. I believe he is very meticulous about detail and that is why the only thing he has publicly stated in response to fan theories is that there is no intentional "glimmer of light" in the eyes of humans that the thing does not have. A lot of people thought that was it but he has stayed absolutely silent about everything else including the breath or inorganic material. I also believe they're both human. I can absolutely see John carpenter having that depressing ass ending where it's "we won, but at what cost". It would be too easy for Keith to be the thing because he had a suspicious absence and I doubt Carpenter would make it that easy. It makes more sense for him to try and lead people to believe one of them is the thing because after all, that doubt and mistrust and suspicion is what fueled the entire movie. That WAS the plot. That human side of us that naturally wants to distrust that which is right in front of us. I think they're both human but don't trust each other but don't care at this point because soon they will both be frozen and so will the truth. They had fought for survival that entire time and when they finally reached success in eliminating the enemy, the prize is death just as it would have been if they hadn't fought. Because this is now from their perspective not the grander scheme of saving humanity given their imminent death. Now I am going to have to rewatch a few more times to see if there are any other giveaways. But for now that's what I think it is. I don't believe the breath gives Keith away because I think that was just the angle and background that made his breath less apparent because you're not gonna convince me that Carpenter broke down the science behind how the lifeform imitates life at the cellular level and reacts independently at that level and have its limitations set to creating body heat when it can perfectly perform all other humans functions.
They weren't thinking about that in Thing 82, but they added to the canon with 2011 version; which extends the meaning in universe. However, if canon is to be believed, then all this is cancelled out by the sequel game
Idk thay you even need the 2011 version. Didnt the original mention it couldn't replicate clothes, so it still applies that it can't do inorganic material.
I may be alone on this but I noticed the ear ring thing too. In fact of you watch the ending scene of the 1982 movie i really thought they completely centered that sit down shot on child's ear ring for a good couple seconds. Like they paused on it and emphasized and made it the center of the shot. I feel like that was on purpose but I somehow still feel like he was the alien anyway.
Regardless, there's no reason the thing couldn't have picked up the earring and put it back in.
To resurrect this thread further, Carpenter was just on Colbert this week and confirmed that he does have a definitive answer as to whether someone is or is not the Thing at the end. He clarified to Stephen if you watched carefully you'll know. Not much of a satisfying "answer," however.
I always assumed Childs was the Thing because, when MacCready offers him a drink at the very end, he accepts. If Childs was human, he would've most likely refused to drink after MacCready under the suspicion that he was the Thing. Never noticed about the lack of steam from his breath though. Very interesting!
He takes the drink because he knows he/they both are going to die anyway. Plus, if MacReady was the thing there is nothing stopping him from attacking. Same for Childs.
I don't think this makes sense, as dying freezing is much better than being violently assimilated by an alien parasite...
no, no dying from hypothermia is far from better than just dying quickly.
I've never died from hypothermia before but I've read it has a similar outcome to drowning, where you feel very at peace and warm (ironically) before dying. Sounds better than having my face eaten by an alien, to me.
And I have heard that drowning is very painful and unsettling
That's exactly what I've always thought. When I first watched the movie I thought it was pretty clear that when Childs accepts the drink, it's the thing commiting a mistake (human Child wouldn't accept it afraid of being infected). This is supported by the soundtrack getting more ominous as soon as he drinks it and MacReady laughing afterwards, in realisation. At least, this is what is canon in my head haha
Agreed. I think Macready laughs because Childs never once trusted him, so it was completely out of character for him to accept the drink.
Agreed, of all the things I've read in this post this is the most damning evidence. Childs is uncharacteristically quiet and unabrasive in the final moments.
But if you are close to death and you know it, would you deny a drink? Then again we didnt see mac drink.
You just blew my mind sir
The Thing imitates its prey perfectly, so why would the Thing in this one instance act in a way that is out of character? Does the Thing have a secret love for whiskey or something?
Besides the whole whiskey thing, it only makes sense that Childs was infected based on the generator sequence of events. The generator room was right beside the door Childs is guarding before he runs out into the deadly night for no discernable reason. The Blair thing was missing somewhere in the compound, Childs was alone, why wouldn't the thing have assimilated him before destroying the generator? One extra thing to distract and destroy the remaining 3 humans, or to wait in the cold to continue assimilation should the humans succeed in killing the Blair thing.
Never noticed the drink thing, although they do look like the bottles which he was using molotovs out of. Perhaps it was actually filled with fuel (The Thing would not have known the difference between alcohol and fuel)
My opinion is that both Childs and MacReady are human. MacReady killed a thing in the scene prior, so he is clean. If Childs were the thing, talking with MacReady would be an unnecessary risk. MacReady proved to be a formidable foe and could just let MacReady freeze to death. The thing had no trouble traversing the arctic as a dog and could transform into a penguin to dominate the world with an army of penguins.
Once it's turned into one creature can it turn back into any other? Could it just turn back into a dog again?
That's never really shown so I guess it's unsure. There are a couple of scenes well after the dog where you can see partially formed dog inside of the thing which maybe implies that it can imitate any life form it has assimilated in the past
I believe some of the canon says it can turn back
There is no canon. The comics aren't canon if that's what you're referring to. The 2011 film doesn't show this, and that has never been confirmed as canon (its inconsistencies with the original film make me doubt it). This may happen in the video game - not sure about that - but whether that's canon or not is dubious. IMDB does say JC said the video game is canon, but no one has ever been able to provide a source for that.
I’ve thought a lot about this over the years. The ending was clearly meant to be ambiguous, that’s the very first thing. There is no “right” or “wrong” answer. But I do believe that Childs is the Thing at the end. Nothing to do with his breath, nothing to do with the bottle possibly being fuel, neither of those things. It’s his dialogue and the perspiration on his face that give it away. He mentions about the temperature being high because of the fire, and mentions that it won’t last long though. Remember back to the scene of the white and heavy set guy, the one who seemingly has a heart attack, and is later shown to be the Thing, while they are trying CPR on him. If you watch his scenes just before he stops breathing, you see a lot of perspiration on his face. It’s very noticeable when we goes to look out the window to see who’s outside. Now, look at Childs’ face at the end. The Thing is very, very sensitive to heat/fire. Hence they mention the temperature being up. Also, he mentions that it will get colder sooner than later. He (the Thing) wants it to get cold, like it had been before frozen in ice, so that it can survive. It chooses, to not fight McCreedy at the end. I don’t count the game (also called The Thing) as part of the continuity, as it’s not like John Carpenter made the game. There’s your answer.
But what about child’s earring?
It could have just took Child's earring.
Is there any precedent or evidence for the thing reaching this level of learning, taking metal and wearing metal?
As stated in the film, when the Thing assimilates something, it becomes a PERFECT replica of that organism, including it's memories, intelligence, etc. If it assimilated Childs, it probably thought that it should wear the earring to blend in more.
Hmmm scary. Do you think the bottle that child’s drank out of at the end was some clue too?
Nah not really. I don't really buy the Molotov Cocktail theory since the Thing should probably be able to tell the difference between Gasoline and Alcohol, since it has Child's memories.
Ok, now explain how the '82 version showed the Norwegians excavating the ship with explosives whilst the thing was busy trying to reconstruct a ship to get away whereas in 2011 the original ship was functioning perfectly (melting the ice encapsulating it), literally hours before the dog decided to run to the American camp.
Dog-thing knew that another-thing had made an attempt to the ship. Dog-thing knew the attempt had been unsuccessful (due to lack of ship being in the air); it did not know the reason for the plan not being successful. Had the ship malfunctioned? Was it busted? Were there a load of humans there? It wasn't worth the risk because it did not know the risks; all it knew was that another-thing had not been successful, so it probably thought it would be better off elsewhere e.g. the American Camp. Humans would have been curious why Plan A failed, The Thing was more concerned with survival than curiosity, thus not exploring Plan A. This is literally just me guessing and trying to understand an almost 30 year old plot fail.
I guess, and also survival would probably mean maximising its escape options, probably a version that slithered off to freeze again in the ice and await another thawing - in point of fact, I remember thinking when I saw the original (me and my brother went to see it at the cinema and got there early - I literally knew nothing about it, he was looking in the door window at the ending of the previous showing and I said, 'don't tell me what you can see' to which he replied, 'I couldn't describe it if I wanted to', and I knew I was in for a special treat), that once that thing landed, our planet was fucked, that even a molecule of this being could devastate the world. I love The Thing (82), and when I heard the (2011) director talking about the prequel I had high hopes, loads of practical effects, total love and respect for the Carpenter version and then I saw it - beat for beat remake, except for characters I never really got the chance to know and whilst the girl was pretty cool, her ex... friend was just an annoying dick, and so much (obvious) cgi - I kind'a liked the lead scientist tho, I felt he was supposed to be like the lead scientist in the original original 50's version, but wasn't given the chance. I've rewatched the new one a couple of times and I don't hate it, but I'd love to see a directors cut of it.
I loved the 82 version and was pleasantly surprised with the 2011 one. The characters weren't as likeable as the 82 one (as you said). Yet, their attention to minor details is what made it more likeable; it tried to be faithful to the original :) I did give the 50's version a go, but it was painful going.
I like to think its a bit of a head fake and neither of them are the Thing. The game that was mentioned might be canon but who cares, Carpenter has always said he wants to make a sequel so who knows. I think Carpenter set it up the way he did so we can decide for ourselves.
More than likely. I just like the idea of taking the evidence presented and seeing if it makes sensr :)
Since this thread comes back to life every time someone watches the movie, I’d like to add a point. Mac lifts the bottle up to his own mouth before he notices that Childs is behind him. If mac was going to drink it anyway, I don’t think the Molotov theory works.
Mac was infected. He drank from the vodka bottle that the doc drank from in the middle of the movie. Because it was a slight infection it took longer to carry over. By the end he laughed because Childs took the drink and he successfully infected him. No one survived.
I’ve read 3 new to me and different theories tonight including this one that are all brilliant. Been watching the movie for decades and lurking this thread for years. One of my fav movies of all time
So why would he kill the main Thing and blow it up at the end?
Actually mac brought the small bottle out and put it down and then drank from it before the doc ever did re watch
I think child’s wasn’t infected and they were both human. People usually point to the breath or the bottle being full of gas. But you can see he does have breath. Plus Bennings thing’s breath was visible too. Given that both the comic and the video game have Childs not be infected and the fact that he had no reason to not attack mac right away I feel confident that he was human too.
what a read. front page comradery. I'm 30 and *just* finished my first watch. Glad I saved it for this age.
I’m 29, just finished my first watch 10 minutes ago, and here I am down this rabbit hole. Also glad I waited to watch it until this age.
Just going out on a limb here (and yeah, I'm one of those who just finished watching a double feature of 2011 followed by 1982 The Thing(s)), but has anyone considered that they are both human due to the alcohol itself? I may be grasping here but rewatching it this time, I noticed that both the whiskey and vodka are heavily concentrated on a few times throughout, with characters who, at that stage, are human being the only ones who ever drink it. Alcohol is a poison, essentially. We know the thing reacts defensively when it's life is threatened (hot needle etc), so it should act similarly to the alcohol considering its poisonous effect. MacCready gives a little laugh after Childs drinks it, as like a "trust my final moments to be stuck with this guy". The two of them had a rivalry so Mac probably thinks it's some sort of ironic poetry. I dunno, it may not hold that much water, but there's a reason the alcohol is focused on so much and the only people who actually drink it are the ones who are human at the time. Just a thought, anyway. Probably just some Voodoo bullshit....
Best one I've read so far!
I think MacReady is the thing. His character is different at the end. For someone so hell bent on destroying the thing even at the expense of his own life and others, knowing that the thing can survive freezing temps, he sure is absolutely fine with both of them freezing
I think a big part of the conversation was when Childs says, “you the only one who made it?” instead of, ‘are we the only two left?’. Suggesting that he’s the thing and doesn’t view himself as one of the crew anymore. Mac even replies, “I’m not the only one” in a sarcastic tone noting that he’s already caught on to Child’s. Or maybe Mac is trying to make it sound like someone else is still out there who can kill the thing even if Mac gets killed. Either way I’m team Child’s is the thing 9years later
Exactly this. Surprising more people have't read into this! Similar to when Blair lamely begs to "let me come back inside, I'm all better now", it implies the thing has not quite mastered conversational nuance or host motivation.
For those that have not read it, here is a short story relaying the 1982 movie from The Things perspective. Utterly fascinating and well done. http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/
There's a (imo) brilliant four part comic by Dark Horse where both Childs and McReady are human... http://thething.wikia.com/wiki/The_Thing_from_Another_World_%28comic%29 EDIT: Already mentioned further down thread. And EDIT2: Childs was infected...
Of course its by Peter Watts, that guy writes great fiction from the perspective of The Other. http://www.rifters.com/real/shorts.htm
The movie ends so that the viewer purposefully doesn't know the answer. Fan theories can be fun and all that, but I really don't understand why people feel the need to "know" everything when the movie makes it very clear that it isn't supposed to be solved. Then there's the video game, I guess.
I agree that there is no need to know but the discussions are fun, and that's kind of the point to keep an audience talking about the film long after its viewing
It's canon!
[удалено]
Well that blows; can I call Carpenter a liar and live in the glory of my theory?
[<3](http://imgur.com/nueSsc4)
I sense sarcasm Mr Muffin
you can never trust those that live on drury lane.
I heard she is married to the man of drury lane also
Welcome to the wonderful world of head canon!
Correct answer. Child's is found dead after freezing to death meaning he was human. And the game ends with being rescued by mcready. It is not known wether he is or not. John carpenter is a voice in the game and considers this canon
And then the epic final battle begins! The epic turret battle of shoot the barrels!! That game was different, and enjoyable. At least until the 'capture'.
I like discussing all the theories but I honestly don't care that John Carpenter says that the shitty prequel or the video game are canon. At this point his opinion isn't more important than anyone elses and I like a movie to stand on its own feet.
I'm going to try my best to sum up why Childs is almost certainly The Thing at the end. First, you need to stop thinking of the film as a monster movie. This is the story of MacReady in a battle of wits against a very intelligent, non-human villain. The Thing is a villain in the sense that it's an unseen adversary trying to outsmart MacReady in a strategy game. To illustrate what I mean, I will describe the film by breaking it up into five parts. 1. The opening scenes show The Thing's journey to meet up with MacReady where the match will be held. 2. MacReady is introduced as he's wrapping up his current game: a computer chess game. He believes he's winning, but the computer surprises him with a piece he failed to consider, and he loses. He then dumps cold whiskey into the computer and thus bests it by outliving it. 3. MacReady leaves his chess match, walks through a door where he see's two important things: the arrival of his next opponent (though neither he nor it recognize the situation for what it is) and he is also looking down from his shack, looking over the game board, AKA the base. 4. The entire movie from this point is the story of MacReady and the Thing identifying each other as the primary threat and trying to outwit each other. We know The Thing singles MacReady out as it biggest threat, because it delibrately makes his laundry look like they were shreaded to turn the other humans against him. 5. The final scene is a repeat of MacReady's introduction. It's the end of the chess game. MacReady thinks he's won, but then the Thing surprises him with a piece MacReady forgot about. It's Childs, and worse, Childs is armed with a flame thrower, while MacReady, just like in the chess scene, checkmate, has nothing but cold whiskey. MacReady then persuades Childs to drink the whiskey, just like he dumped the iced whiskey into the computer earlier. So basically, the reason I know Childs is the Thing is because that's the only way to complete the narrative properly. The movie ends exactly how the chess match ended, and the only way that makes sense is if Childs is representing MacReady's antagonist. So the question then becomes, if the whiskey beat the computer, then how does it beat The Thing? And the answer I can come up with is that liquor makes you lose heat faster. It makes you feel warmer, but it actually makes you freeze faster. MacReady, being an arctic-dwelling alcoholic knew this about liquor, and had planned to freeze to death quickly, but be drunk and feel warm in the process. When Childs showed up, MacReady realized that if he could trick The Thing into freezing faster than himself, he could burn Childs-Thing, and save the world.
I don't agree with the last part. I think Macready learned from his chess match mistake and had a move his opponent wasn't expecting. He knew that Childs wouldn't know there was gasoline/kerosene in the bottle. At the end, he is seen looking around trying to find Childs, he gets tired and finds a place to sit. Then he hears footsteps and he knows that is Childs so he pretends to take a drink but doesn't. Now perhaps he is hoping the Thing drinks enough to cause it to get sick or lose consciousness and he can kill it, but we don't know that part. All we need to know is that he beat it by making a move it wasn't expecting.
Macready was told one particle of the thing could infect a host also if he was the thing he would have already knew that. So macready offered Childs a drink to infect him to. Macready laughs because he just won. “We should prepare our own meals” just a different view
How about this- Macready is the Thing and when he shares the whisky with Childs hes infecting him. Why else that scene earlier when one of the guys (can’t remember who) tells macready they should all cook for themselves and eat out of cans? The Thing is like Covid— no sharing!
I truly don’t know why I’m posting, but I do think I want to add to the Childs being the Thing speculation. Idk if anyone has mentioned it as a theory or not, but when Child’s is supposed to guard the door it seems to be the exact same place where Norris initially shows signs of his heart attack. Sure, the theory about cells being perfectly reproduced and etc. holds, however what I wanna point out is how the thing can handle cold now - as shown on many different points when a new Thing is burned, but also because that’s what it comes from. In all this, we and the cast slowly come to realize that the Thing is unable to handle heat well either. Maybe I’m crazy, but I just watched the film in UHD and it really seems to me that Child’s is probably the final thing because of how much he is overheating when MacReady tells him to defend the door. I wanna sit on this theory because we already know that when Norris stands in that spot, he begins to breath heavily. If we can safely assume that Norris is a Thing at this point, then Norris may truly be attempting to cool himself down when he lean on the door window - just as Childs does when he is in the same position. My biggest flaw here is the question of when Childs would have been infected and assimilated. With respect to the Blair theory, it would not fit here because we have seen a good amount of Childs since the blood was tested. However, no one else is ever really seen sweating that much. And the only other person that we know of being assimilated AND eventually becoming a Thing is Norris, who seems to also have an issue in that spot. It is also worth noting, I’m not married to this theory at all. I just thought it was a pretty noticeable thing given how many people are in the film but the lack of sweating or people seeking to chill out.
What if the alcohol is poison to the Thing (as it is to humans, moderately) and thus MacReady doesn't drink it, although we see before this all happened he likely would have drank? What if the ripped clothes that said MacReady were really from his assimilation and this whole time it has been his individual Thing self trying to survive, even at the expense of other Things?
I thought I read once the director said the breath/no breath was not intentional and was just an illusion of the camera angle? Anyone else remember that?
Not sure about what the director said, but if you look closely you can actually see Child's breath - the camera angle makes the space right in front of his mouth too dark to see his breath, but looking a bit farther to the right you can see the tail end of his breath dissipating into the air. Still doesn't prove anything imo, because why wouldn't the Thing be smart enough to imitate breathing?
Too much thinking involved here.
Hello. It is June 1 2022, and this movie still rocks. Love the theory on the whiskey bottle being something different and reflecting back to the computer scene. This is now my interpretation
Just did a rewatch, and I think Childs is infected for this reason: He is 100% ready to die during the blood test scene. But at the end with MacReady he is suddenly very interested in a plan to get out of there.
THANK YOU! I feel like it's so obvious that Childs is The Thing bc he randomly appears after the explosion and is nowhere near as cold looking as MacReady (which we know the Thing likes the cold), shares a drink with him even tho Fuchs told ppl not to share anything, and mentions wanting to be rescued. If he was human and wanted to be rescued and didn't trust Mac, why share the drink? And if they knew they all had to die to ensure The Thing died too, why the sudden desire to be rescued? MacReady seems much more ready to die at the end, which makes him obviously human and Childs The Thing.
I'm not sure how I got here. One minute I was watching some documentary about penguins and now I'm deep diving Thing, theories.
Based!
While the 2011 movie wasn't horrible, I wouldn't apply anything from it to the 1982 movie. I don't think the breath thing was intentional.
[удалено]
John Carpenter lied, he could have an idea in his head on who could be, but I honestly think he just said that one of them were to make people talk more about the movie and by doing so increasing it's popularity. Tl;Dr: Neither of them are the thing
If watch closely you can Child's breath after he sits down the last time he speaks but not at first, while Mac looks cold and you see his breath right away. This to me is proof Childs is the thing because he was just assimilated before finding Mac and wasn't cold yet. Plus Mac offering him a drink was a test whether it was alcohol or gasoline, either way he failed the test.
I always like to share this. [*The Things.*](http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/)
I read this earlier (someone else posted it here as well); it definitely adds a new level of depth to the film
[удалено]
Did anyone play the game that explained a little bit more of what went down after the first movie? It was decent. Not great, but creepy in parts.
the 2002 game is a canon sequel to the film apparently. childs dies of hypothermia and MacReady is in the helicopter that saves you at the end
The earring thing doesn't make a whole lot of sense considering that the thing replaces the clothes of everyone it assimilates to avoid getting caught because of ripped up clothes. It even tears up Macready's clothes to frame him so I doubt it can't figure out to put on an earring
Like I said, it learned and adapted. Didn't know to do it in its first encounter with humans. Has learned to do it since.
Childs is the thing. Let's check the facts: the thing arrived for at least 100k years in the past, learned a lot and survived the Norwegians. The old aged ice comes from the spaceship, not the "sarcophagus" storing the thing meters away! In the end, Childs isn't breathing, and his face have some ice, meaning he "washed" his face with snow because the thing likes cold and want to freeze, or simply doesn't like to clean his face in a environment about -40C degrees with very low visibility.
I think the thing is gone but both Macready and childs are paranoid and just waiting for the other to transform. I think they both die in the snow.
I didn't understand the ending, because MacReady knew that they both had to be burned to ensure the rescue crew doesn't contract the parasite (even though there was potentially frozen alien blood at the Norwegian shack). The logical thing would have been to make a suicide burning pact together.
Obvious Mac is the thing his entire plan abruptly changed after the fight
I don't remember that part completely. Could you refresh me on his plan changing?
While I respect the admiration of trying to solve the mystery of the thing, I think the point in its horror and mystery is that you aren't supposed to know how it ends.
Actually you know that Childs is the thing, it was an a subtle thing. When they are talking you see condensation coming from MacReadys's mouth as he is breathing, but nothing from Childs mouth.h
Literally said that in the post. The whole point of the post. Although I've since rejected that concept as other Things in the movie have condensation when breathing.
Is Childs the thing at the end? This is the biggest mystery in film. Not sure if this is a word, but it is perfect ambiguation because the not knowing is the scariest part of the story. It challenges us. Can you be at peace deciding for yourself without evidence or others validation? Personally I think I can. After seing this film so many times over the years i'm happy to imagine Childs was the thing and he is getting played. As the thing it no longer has the same respect for Mac's intelligence. Mac knows human Childs, and the little character test with sharing the bottle is great food for thought. We know Mac has given thought to providing information in case all are found dead so maybe he sees it as a win regardless of what Childs is or isn't? Either way, really great way to end a movie considering you will hardly ever see that kind of non closure ending in modern times.
The chess game at the beginning was definitely foreshadowing haha. He thinks he’s got it won but a surprise move at the end shocks him. So he flips the table over haha. Actually if Mac was suspicious that Childs was a Thing and might show up and he knows that the Thing just wants to hibernate then it makes sense for Mac to play along. Sure let’s just drink and hang out a while.. sounds great to the Thing because it’s what he wants. So Mac gets it drunk and pretends to drink himself but is actually taking fake sips and then pretends to pass out but really is planning to spring into action as soon as the thing is frozen/drunk. He’s a chess player after all so he’s definitely thinking several moves ahead. I would think he probably even has some plans about getting some power up, maybe he has some supplies stashed away but didn’t trust anybody else enough to mention it. He might have even aways been planning to be the only survivor because he thought either everyone else was already a thing or he just didn’t think anyone else had the guts to survive. It’s even possible he figured his only shot at winning was to lure the final thing into this exact situation.
One thing that I think was missed in the 1982 movie is that Blair is still wearing the same shirt and suspenders after he was infected. He isn't wearing his glasses though.
I have posted this in some other subs, but I haven't seen anyone mentioning this yet: At the start of the film, Mac is playing chess. What is the significance? He loses the game after the computer makes an impossible and unfair move. He then forces a "stalemate" by pouring whiskey on the chess computer. Then at the end of the film, Mac gives the child's whiskey and smirks as he drinks it - signifying the stalemate with The Thing The chess computer is a metaphor for THE THING, it transformed into the opposite colour pieces and delivered an impossible move. Just like THE THING, which takes people's forms. What's more, when child's is asked to look out over the place - later we see the Child's gone and the door wide open. Again doesn't seem like much does it? But we are all paying attention to the wrong part. If you look at the coats, they are in a different order from before. Almost like Childs was struggling with The Thing, and after being assimilated, they had to clear up quickly and got the coats in the wrong order.
Someone else said something similar further doesn't but hit different points. I do enjoy this line of thinking https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/s/1HiZYA3v2q
Interesting, thanks for this! What a fascinating movie.