(First of all there is no absolutism to what I'm saying is true, but an observation)
There was a scene when Blair was doing his calculations on the computer, weighing up the probability if this thing was to assimilate a global population. Being the mathematician
that he is. Blair was the first to realize the consequences if the thing got into the public domain. After that, he went nuts thus destroying all the communication equipment. To his mind, it was a logical act because in all probability, they where all dead. I dont think Blair was assimilated then. His assimilation may have occurred in the shed.
Thanks rob for the videos. Must of said this before. ha keep up the good work.
if you remember the 'tell' from the 2011 prequel, the thing can't assimilate inorganic material, so like SPOILER ALERT........ carter's earring is missing we learn he is an assimilant, Childs still has his earring since the beginning of the film, so perhaps he is still human or the thing has learned to recover a person's jewellery since the prequel or Child's is partly infected and unaware of it like Norris. the problem with that theory is we would see his ear bleed from restudding it.
Love this movie, seen it many times and never considered some of the things you mention in this video. This video was posted on my birthday, which is cool because I saw a version of The Thing i never knew existed on Tv with deleted scenes and brief narration on a birthday of mine several years ago and was thrilled, i felt like the movie gods gave me a birthday present, wish i would have seen this video last year on my birthday, would've been nice coincidence, oh well, thanks for posting!
Wait so, was MacReady infected then he gives Childs the drink so he can infect Childs before Childs torches MacReady? Is that why MacReady chuckles at the end after he gives Childs the drink?
Childs is not infected in fact he dies due to the elements of the weather. In 2002 a video game was released which was supposed to be a direct sequel to the thing. A member of beta team finds child's dead frozen due to the elements. I played the game before I ever became a fan of the game. Foe those who have it try and see if its backwards compatible with xbox360.
@Bronxguyanese The game wasn't made by the film makers. It's simply the game designer's take on the movie. I could write a sequel in which Mac is the thing but it doesn't make it so in the original :)
@robag88 There is even a newer theory that the bottle is NOT whiskey at all, it is gasoline molotov, and it is Mac laughing at childs knowing this and being able to figure out that Childs was in fact a imitation that was trying to drink it like a regular drink when in fact, to normal people would KNOW that it is gas they are drinking.
I find this analysis fascinating, but there's a lot in the movie that is intentionally misleading and ambiguous. The best thing about the ending is it's ambiguousness. Some things just don't have answers, and don't need them.
@acidjack73 but this hypothetical answer to the ending of this movie does in fact make alot of sense he made good connections throughout the movie. i give this guy a thumbs up goood job
RJ MacReady isn't infected and nor is childs, in the videogame RJ is the Chopper Pilot that helps Cpt.Blake, whereas Childs dies from hypothermia, seen in the first cutscene. My theory here is that the liquid that the thing sprays on it's victims, seeps through the clothes and into the pores of the skin. Perhaps Childs was attacked by one of the aliens, the liquid was sprayed on him and he took off his Parka before he got contaminated.
i can respect everyones opinions but mine is with hope that Macready is human and its childs after all childs wasn't breathing at the end and i dont think they did that on accident lol it would be pretty weird if it was, at this point with both movies being awesome i truly hope they make The Thing 2
Childs is not the thing, he was wearing an earring at the end, when he turns to look at the camp and comments on the fire. The prequel confirms that the thing cannot assimilate inorganic material. Whether or not this movie works in conjunction with the prequel, we don't know. But going by the ideology that it cannot assimilate inorganic things, Childs, was not the thing. However, I think if a sequel was made, the huge twist would be that MacReady turns out to be the thing.
i strongly believe that Macready is human at the end he is breathing while child's is not and like what most people are saying about all of this alcohol kills most of everything including germs and infections therefor i dont believe he is the thing and if they did make him out to be the thing then it would be really fucking gay cause his character is awesome.
Childs wasn't assimiliated, he died from exposire in the game under the same name which acted as a sequel to the movie. If the thing was resistant to extreme cold, why did childs die from exposure in the game?
A part of the entity escaped through the kennel ceiling at the beginning of the film, before Childs arrived with the flame thrower. This could have infected Blair, Palmer, and/or Norris. Blair mentioned hearing things out in the shed, before he requested to come back in. It was the stray entity, which eventually infected him
@robag88 i didnt quite get the last bit,did you say the script suggests it or that the script scene of the chess game at the start applies. beacuase we dont have the script when we watch the film
Until the very end...MacReedy is now the Thing...at least he's at the point of no return...and giving Childs the bottle with his saliva on it will soon infect Childs. The chuckle at the end was the Thing saying, "Checkmate...I win. Hehehe."
Childs is genuinely human. MacReedy is the Thing. I say this because if Blair was infected before he was locked up in the shed, then MacReedy taking a swig of his Vodka would've slowly infected him (probably not as rapidly as everyone else due to a few cells). MacReedy fights and destroys the Blair Thing because its become compromised (Palmer showed the Thing will sacrifice itself). Knowing Childs is alive and with a flamethrower it'd rather prove itself as "human" as possible
My only question is...was Blair already assimilated when he was locked up in the shed? If so then the whole theory of single cells from the Thing infecting everyone else can be debated...since MacReedy took a swig of Blair's Smirnoff just before he saying, "Trust in the lord."
I do like your metaphor of a Chess game...if you think about it...a Chess board has identical pieces and you "capture" a piece either by the mirror piece or another...to assume that piece's position on the board.
Interesting analysis. I always thought Child`s was not infected, but this does make me wonder...
But a lot of it is conjecture. It wouldn`t surprise if Carpenter didn`t mention a lot of this in the DVD because he really wasn`t thinking THAT deeply into it. Heck, maybe he added bits just because he knew it would add a bit of `mystery` to the film and like with anything over time; other people then start analsysing it to death.
In reference to the theory about the bottles being used to infect people. MacReady leaves a bottle of vodka in the shed with Blair. But before leaving he takes a drink of it. Could have been a point of infection?
@mottlee Whoa! I just left a comment saying the same thing and I just read your post! Great minds think alike, lol. Yes, I agree about the Vodka bottle being a point of infection. It also makes me believe, if the theory of single cells infecting a human entirely, that Blair was assimilated AFTER he was locked up and his mental breakdown in the communication room was genuine insanity.
We see that room 3 times. 1st when Norris is having chest pains and the coats and boots are in position A. 2nd when Childs is looking out of the window and the coats are in a different position. When we see the room for the final time the coats are back in position A - exactly the same as the first time we saw them. There is no way this would have been deliberate. Films are almost always shot out of sequence and I think this is just an oversight on the part of the film makers.
But i have a question. What about Nauls at the end when he was standing guard and spotted the shadowy figure? could he have been infected then? I always wondered when at the end he wonders off alone to investigate the noise as MacReady is preparing the dynamite. If he was human shouldn't he have stayed and helped finish blowing up the place? Maybe he wandered off to join the thing to become the big creature
@BBPhobia Nauls felt he could move away a bit from mac because it wasn`t that far away. I could quite easily see how he was just suspicious at first so didn`t call McReady, he decided to have a quick look. He was watching their back to avoid any nasty surprises.
The Thing probably quickly got him by the mouth (like with Gary) just as nauls realised the Thing was there and it was too late. the Thing got Nauls.
Nauls just made a mistake and got nabbed before he could warn Mac.
Childs wasn't infected!You find him frozen to death with the bottle next to him in the beginning of the game the thing which is basically a sequel to the movie.Also looks like Mcready survived or did he...
Another thought in those waking moments: ever since your idea of the chess theme, it's been gnawing at me...I think Mac's "drink in the computer" was blowing up the camp. I never made that connection before - always distracted by the suspense! And after watching this video, it's clear to me that the person seen leaving the outpost is, if I follow your analysis, Childs in the throes of assimilation.
Interesting! I never caught on to details like this. This movie has haunted my dreams for almost 30 years. Just last night I had another Thing-ish dream, and in the early waking moments I had these thoughts: Norris deliberately had the heart attack to get rid of Doc Copper, who had announced in front of everybody that a blood serum test would work. Blair deliberately misled Mac in suspecting Clark. Mac had the advantage in the blood test but never suspected Palmer. Constant one-up-manship.
Carpenter may have intended for Childs to be an alien in the end and changed it at some point. However, the ending would have simply become the same as Invasion of The Body Snatchers which was released only 5 years peviously. I like the ending the way it is regardless, the other "theoretical ending" is typical and expected. Carpenter had an alternate ending in the script for 6 months later the dormant alien comes to surface through Russel's charecter in a doctors office. It too would be passe'.
How about the idea that Fuchs was assimilated? To me the movie doesn't clearly show, even in the HD version, that the burnt remains Windows, Nauls and McCreedy stumble upon are that of a human, let alone Fuchs. All they find are his mangled spectacles, which for all intents and purposes could have been damaged during his assimilation. Also, when asked if he'd seen Fuchs, Blair responds, "It ain't Fuchs...it ain't Fuchs!"
could the figure they see running from camp he was talking about in the first part be Kate from the thing 2011 cause in the end she is seen in the mobile thing she could have drove to the base and see that the thing had attacked here and ran out
Have you people even seen the 2011 The Thing?!?! There's a reason they didn't change the name. It makes perfect sense the way it behaves in the prequel, and the way it gets owned by a group of slack jaws. It isn't as good as the original but what sequel is? As far as very late remakes go, it was done rather well, my expectations were FAR lower than what we got.
so much fanboy-ish remarks....but you gotta agree with the logic that thing cannot replicate inorganic material either you like the prequel or not. So I still believe Childs is not infected.
STOP CITING THE PREQUEL, IT WAS MADE BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE AND HAS NO BEARING ON THE 1982 FILM. IT IS ALSO VERY POORLY MADE AND SHOULD NEVER BE MENTIONED BY ANYONE EVER.
@TheTrueHaddock It was written a bit differently, sure, but it was great in its own right. I expected it to be a worthless cash in, but it's clear that they really were trying to expand upon the Thing and add something to the story.
Jellymad of my mad thumbs up. Bitches see it and they be all over dis dick. Dey be like "OoooOOOooh Daaayum, da new Thing movie DID suck." An I'm like nah bitches you be suckin'
Oh shit, I'll defiantly take your shit opinion into consideration, kiddo. Stay mad, the 2011 movie is shit and cannot be used for analysis of a film made almost 20 years prior. Haw Haw Haw Haw.
@TheTrueHaddock Yeah, I think that comparing The Thing '82 to The Thing '11 makes no sense at all because the fact that The Thing can't imitate those objects was made for the new film. So it shouldn't really be considered as a tip here.
@MatadorShifter Clothes and earrings don't just vanish when someone is assimilated. I think it's safe to say that in the prequel, it was still getting the hang of copying our minds and may have simply "forgotten" that he was supposed to wear an earring, but by this point in the Carpenter film, as Childs, the Thing learned from it's mistake and wore the earring.
@NickonAquaMagna2 but that doesn't make sense. because if Carter Thing was incinerated, how would the Thing "learn from it's mistakes", and know not to make the same mistake with the Outpost 31 crew? the only Thing to survive in the prequel was the dog.
@TheWuCepticon81 Well, I suppose I didn't word that very well, but perhaps during the time that the Dog thing maintained its disguise and studied the humans around it at outpost 31 before transforming into the Kennel Thing, it may have learned that, well, we like earrings an' whatnot. Whatever strand of it was then passed on to Blair and Childs and the others would remember this when creating new disguises out of its victims.
@NickonAquaMagna2 One theory is the Thing from the prequel was a bit rusty from having been frozen for so long which is why that film was more action based versus the 1982 version which is much more cerebral. Rob makes a great point in comparing the this with a Chess game since Chess is all mental, which is why this was so good, the mental elements of fear outweigh the physical.
It also explains why the Thing was more calm when around people than the one in the prequel it learned and adapted.
@MatadorShifter I agree it shouldn't affect events in the '82 film. the prequel isn't canon enough to be taken seriously along with Carpenter's. but still, I always assumed the Thing couldn't imitate inorganic matter. that makes perfect sense, because if it could imitate inorganic materials, then it could imitate clothes then. and that's just silly.
@TheTrueHaddock That's actually where you're really wrong. The prequel leads straight into the 1982 version. The writer also paid attention to every little detail of the Norwegian base from Carpenter's version so they could properly remake it without there being any loop holes or mistakes. So the fact that it was made by different people holds no valid arguement since it's the same story, just a different cast.
Doesn't anyone think it's suspicious that Macready didn't die in the generator room when he blew up the Blair monster? Remember that Nauls and Garry loaded the place up with dynamite before they were assimilated. And theoretically when Macready threw his dynamite at the Blair monster and it detonated, it would have caused the chain reaction of explosions that we see in the film that destroyed the entire camp. Macready shouldn't have survived because he was in the room with all the explosives.
@uchihatheitachi one could explain in that The Childs-thing wanted or needed additional biomass to survive the freeze the Childs-thing could not be sure that macready was not the thing.
@uchihatheitachi Imo he didn't attack Mac because there was no point in doing so. They were both going to freeze. The thing wanted to freeze to be later found by rescue team and it knew very well that human beings are incapable of surviving hibernation so it must have been the reason.
But with all due sincereity, I really really enjoyed you're video, and I hope you make another regarding the prequel, as TT is my favorite movie of all. Be well.
Well, I like the idea that the Thing from the prequel learned about the earring tell, and the Childs-Thing just put in an earring after the assimilation. It would not be that hard for a Thing to put in an earring.
idk if its true but i read somewhere that Carpenter has had an idea for a sequel, and that its about MacGready and Childs surviving and making contact with a rescue team. Dont know what to think about that.
if child's is an alien too it makes sense in the fact that the coat changed, the alien rips through your clothing when taking you over..therefore would need a change of coat. I just diddnt know how the alien would get to him without being burned.
somehow Macreedy if the thing got infected after blowing it up..maybe had blood splatter on him or another thing somewhere else..no idea. Just think tht he got infected after blowing it up
All the way thru the movie Macreedy wanted the thing destroyed at any cost.Yet at the end he wants to sit&do nothing..and even laugh and joke about it...he cant assimilate child's when hies armed so is happy to just freeze.. child's im not sure if hies a thing but if he is i dont know how the thing got him without getting flame thrown, child's would have burned pretty much any1 approaching him except for Macreedy at tht point obviously. Maybe they are both things but i do believe Macreedy is 1
the alien was very clever, it diddnt assimilate Clark even though he was alone with the dog for over an hour...because the dog knew he would be a prime suspect. i believe the 1st person taken over by the alien/dog was Palmer's due to tht room the dog went in was in fact Palmer's room as when the alarm goes off Palmer comes out of what appears to be that same room. As for the end...i guess that Macreedy is the thing, based on his personality change.....
Its revealed in the new prequel that The Thing cant replicate metal like piercings, fillings, metal plates for bones. So this means Childs is not infected because he has an earring.
@cjcool91 The Thing prequel is written by different writers. And whose to say it needs to replicate the ear ring when it could just use the one that's already there?
@notfriendlyyurrf Its about what happens in the Norwegian base just a few days before Macready and Dr. Copper discover the remains of the base and coming across the guy who slit his throat and wrists, the split faced thing and the axe on the door....all of this is explained in the prequel. It obviously connected right to the John Carpenter version. So if you wanna watch these movies in chronological order it starts with The Thing (2011) and then The Thing (1982)
@cjcool91 I could write a fan fiction prequel to The Thing and it could be great or terrible and I could line it up perfectly with the beginning of the 80s version of The Thing but it still wouldn't be canon. I wouldn't be magically privy to what Carpenter, Lancaster et al had in their minds and intentions 30 years ago. Writing a sequel/prequel doesn't allow you to insert your own art, no matter how good or bad it is, into someone else's body of art.
@cjcool91 There are lots of official sequels that misinterpret their sources. 2010: Odyssey Two ... Return to Oz ... etc. Even the Star Wars prequels mismatch the originals in places, despite Lucas helming them all.
@robag88 The point being attempted here is 100% INVALID, The Thing starts to figure out people as it goes, it's reckless and foolish at first. It figures out things as it goes that's why the creature in the prequel does things that make no sense for the original.
@Brian10962001 I completely disagree with that. In Carpenter's The Thing the creature is shrewd and plans ahead right from the beginning. If that's not the case in the new Thing film then that's more likely to do with inferior script writing. The Thing prequel is a cash in rehash and is almost 30 years out of date as a source for assessing Carpenter's version. It is based upon the new writer's interpretation of the Carpenter version.
So what writers are we to assume have the correct storyline considering the obvious contradiction? PERSONALLY..I'll assume the alien indeed CANNOT replicate inorganic material.. I'll also deduct that Childs indeed WAS NOT infected based off of that.. rather than make concessions upon the aliens own personal image concearns.. while exausted..in the freezing cold...fully aware it'd be a dead giveaway if it's seen NOT wearing jewelry.. .. lol.
@robag88 Yeah. But in the end The main character killed a guy, because he was wearing the ear ring on the WRONG ear. god, everything is so much confusing.
@robag88 Dude, in the prequal it also reveals that in the end the guy was wearing the earring on the WRONG ear! and the girl burns him! Also, in The thing game you find Childs frozen body and Macready is alive.
. Macready killed the great monster because of the spoil of his plans. At the end what he wants to say Macready in Childs laughing, is that once they find them and thaw,they will continue their plywood for the survival or their war.The thing played chess with the thing and the humans were the pawns in that case. So, the thing lost from the thing.The whole movie is about the things behavior and how the thing society works.I quess all species have ego inside them..
i think mc ready is infected if childs is the thing he knows about the whole not sharing drink and eating only out of tins or does he u see fuchs told mcready this but did mcready tell everyone else and im not so sure cause childs wouldnt have drank it he is the thing i talked to my bro about this i think this is the genius of the film to make the audience believe that snake the hero in this film is actually the enemy all along to fool us childs should have left him outside he was right.
If you operate under the assumption that the infection can be spread via a single cell AND that when somebody is assimilated it retains that persons knowledge & experience the ending becomes more obvious. Just by watching the movie with an eye to people sharing drinks etc. you can tell that Kurt Russell, at least, is almost certainly a 'thing'.
Childs is not infected play the video you game "the thing (2002)"! or watch DSQTTANTI's Channel. at the begin of the game Childs is died in a building.
@J9CashMusicNet So you're saying you'd rather believe the writers of a b-grade video game than the director of the movie it was based on? Ok, now go play in the yard, grown ups are talking here.
@hafabee Isn't it interesting what some people find obvious others do not see and vice versa? The first time I watched the movie I noticed the coats; however, I did not put together the chess game and whiskey. So awesome to talk about this movie. It's so kick ass and we'll never be able to know for sure. Oh yea did half of the dog thing get away?
@trdi well I agree that Bennings was most likely not assimilated right in front of the others by the dog he was killed off before the blood test. Although if the dog could infect that easily then why turn into that creature and make all the noise attacking the other dogs therefore drawing attention to itself.
i always thought it was macready infected at the end but you may be right with your clothing analasys. Hit coat was blue for all but the end, then he got blairs coat. good call. wow you've made me see this film in a whole new way thanks.
I think everybody should watch Child's earring carefully. The Thing can't imitate piercings, metal plates or fillings... this will be shown in the prequel...
@KronnangDunn Just because The Thing can't imitate those objects, doesn't mean it can't wear them. Personally I think it means that The Thing learned from its mistakes the first time when it attacked the Norwegian camp, and simply put the earring back on when it finished assimilating Childs.
I can't understand people saying Mac was infected when he was the one who blew the thing up? At this point, he would have had a considerable advantage over Child's and killing part of itself wouldn't make sense.
I dont think Childs was infected. Even if he was, The Thing would most likely freeze first, and MacReady would go back to his cabin, as it was never blown up.
Thus, the two are waiting to see what happens--both waiting to freeze before they are discovered and thawed again.
BTW: Blair gets contaminated during his examination/presentation of the remains of the dog/thing. He touches his pencil eraser to its remains, then puts that pointer to his mouth while he talks. (We see this same eraser in his drawer when he grabs his gun)
...When Childs joins MacReady while the camp burns, he takes a drink of the JB and MacReady laughs. This laugh means one of two things, and both mean that the Thing has succeeded:
1)When Childs drinks from the contaminated bottle, the assimilated MacReady realizes that he has won over a human Childs and it's only a matter of time until it wins or;
2)The drinking of the JB is a signal to the assimilated MacReady that Childs is assimilated too--thus MacReady's laugh is a laugh of victory. . .
@suprsikosxy it was self preservation a thing can kill another thing like the way palmer and norris werent working together but where clearly infected i just have a sneaky feeling with mcready watched it again last night in a scene he leaves a bottle of whiskey on the table not finished after he gets called also why not let blair stay at his shack although cud be he feels blair is infected there its just a strange ending but its brilliant leaves u guessing.
@joshmehlerfsu this is the only functional theory I have red so far about this ending. occam's razor: the solution is always the most obvious thing...as a child and the other 1000 times I watched the thing I never noticed this, but now after reading all these pages of mental jerk-offs, this solution is really so simple. stop checking coats and scripts and ambiguous hints...that bottle probably means a lot, and it's such a big detail that I have never considered it.
What a thorough analysis. However, a couple points I'd like to add. Whereas you focus on clothing, my focus has always been on the bottle of JB.
The bottle of JB gets knowingly contaminated almost immediately by an already-assimilated Bennings (via the dog) after getting shot by the Nowegian (look at his face as he does so!). MacReady then drinks from it in the scene in which he examines the torn clothes. It is clear that he has been assimilated at this point. . .
@joshmehlerfsu Your theory has one hole though. It is all based on assumption that Bennings was contaminated at the beginning and he contaminated the bottle. You can believe that, but it's not a fact. For all we know, it could take much longer for contamination to happen and I don't believe that either Bennings or the JB bottle were contaminated at the start of the movie.
@joshmehlerfsu Oh, how could I have forgotten the blood test... no way man, I retract my statement, that your theory has one hole - it is completely impossible to be correct. The blood test was legit and everyone who passed it was not infected at that point.
I don't think assimilation can occur so easily. Alcohol is toxic to most cells, and exposure to pure JB would kill them. And assimilation is not a passive activity, the creature has to kill and digest the victim before becoming them. Simply putting a few of its cells onto the victim would not trigger assimilation, and if it did, the victim would know something was going on and would probably not be in a comfortable position, at least not in one so easily hid from the others.
I noticed the chess parallel bookends before and I did figure that MacReady was going to kill Childs just to be on the safe side (ie. passing him the bottle of JB, akin to giving some to the chess computer) but I NEVER noticed that Childs was wearing a different jacket! Great observation I love it.
Based on your theory, how do you know that Nauls wasn't infected? He's the only character that disappears at the end with no explanation. Maybe he set up MacCready against Childs. If the two of them froze to death and if Nauls was The Thing then he could just become frozen and wait until someone shows up to thaw him out. Also, since the organism that is The Thing can infect more than one person at a time and going with the chess metaphor, it's possible that Nauls sacrificed Childs to win.
I'm surprised he never mentioned the fact that the only bottles MacReady had at the end of the film were Molotov cocktails. In the final scene you never see MacReady drink from the bottle, and I always thought it was his way of testing Child's humanity since people can't ingest gasoline and the thing obviously wouldn't be able to tell the difference between alcohol and gasoline.
@callimah That's pretty plausible. In all the movies I've seen, they seemed to suggest that the alcoholic drink would work fine. It's been a while since I've watched, so I can't remember if McReady was shown drinking from that bottle, or if it was established that they were using gasoline for the molotov cocktails.
(First of all there is no absolutism to what I'm saying is true, but an observation)
There was a scene when Blair was doing his calculations on the computer, weighing up the probability if this thing was to assimilate a global population. Being the mathematician
HoneyMonster666 17 hours ago in playlist Film Analyses by Rob Ager
@HoneyMonster666
(sorry pressed the button by accident)
that he is. Blair was the first to realize the consequences if the thing got into the public domain. After that, he went nuts thus destroying all the communication equipment. To his mind, it was a logical act because in all probability, they where all dead. I dont think Blair was assimilated then. His assimilation may have occurred in the shed.
Thanks rob for the videos. Must of said this before. ha keep up the good work.
HoneyMonster666 17 hours ago in playlist Film Analyses by Rob Ager
if you remember the 'tell' from the 2011 prequel, the thing can't assimilate inorganic material, so like SPOILER ALERT........ carter's earring is missing we learn he is an assimilant, Childs still has his earring since the beginning of the film, so perhaps he is still human or the thing has learned to recover a person's jewellery since the prequel or Child's is partly infected and unaware of it like Norris. the problem with that theory is we would see his ear bleed from restudding it.
DarkOsmotic 2 days ago
Love this movie, seen it many times and never considered some of the things you mention in this video. This video was posted on my birthday, which is cool because I saw a version of The Thing i never knew existed on Tv with deleted scenes and brief narration on a birthday of mine several years ago and was thrilled, i felt like the movie gods gave me a birthday present, wish i would have seen this video last year on my birthday, would've been nice coincidence, oh well, thanks for posting!
arvayith 5 days ago
Wait so, was MacReady infected then he gives Childs the drink so he can infect Childs before Childs torches MacReady? Is that why MacReady chuckles at the end after he gives Childs the drink?
SoLiDJinZo 2 weeks ago
@SoLiDJinZo
No. He chuckles because Childs had no problem taking a drink from someone who could be infected. But since we no Mac wasn't infected, Childs must be,
rehzon 2 weeks ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@robag88 The video game was declared an official and canon sequel to the movie by John Carpenter himself.
MrNukeskywalker 2 weeks ago
Childs is not infected in fact he dies due to the elements of the weather. In 2002 a video game was released which was supposed to be a direct sequel to the thing. A member of beta team finds child's dead frozen due to the elements. I played the game before I ever became a fan of the game. Foe those who have it try and see if its backwards compatible with xbox360.
Bronxguyanese 2 weeks ago
@Bronxguyanese The game wasn't made by the film makers. It's simply the game designer's take on the movie. I could write a sequel in which Mac is the thing but it doesn't make it so in the original :)
robag88 2 weeks ago 10
@robag88 There is even a newer theory that the bottle is NOT whiskey at all, it is gasoline molotov, and it is Mac laughing at childs knowing this and being able to figure out that Childs was in fact a imitation that was trying to drink it like a regular drink when in fact, to normal people would KNOW that it is gas they are drinking.
jayofthe400 1 week ago
I find this analysis fascinating, but there's a lot in the movie that is intentionally misleading and ambiguous. The best thing about the ending is it's ambiguousness. Some things just don't have answers, and don't need them.
acidjack73 3 weeks ago 2
@acidjack73 but this hypothetical answer to the ending of this movie does in fact make alot of sense he made good connections throughout the movie. i give this guy a thumbs up goood job
Steven11525 2 weeks ago
Yep, the earring. Childs is OK. The Prequel Team was very clever in that regards.
ImperialGenKlenner 1 month ago
@ImperialGenKlenner I bet he has fillings, too
frozenpinky 3 weeks ago
RJ MacReady isn't infected and nor is childs, in the videogame RJ is the Chopper Pilot that helps Cpt.Blake, whereas Childs dies from hypothermia, seen in the first cutscene. My theory here is that the liquid that the thing sprays on it's victims, seeps through the clothes and into the pores of the skin. Perhaps Childs was attacked by one of the aliens, the liquid was sprayed on him and he took off his Parka before he got contaminated.
TrueLeonPriest 1 month ago
Are we deliberately being misled to believe that (a possibly infected) Nauls is approaching McCready at the end.
MilkyWahey 1 month ago
Childs was previously wearing a blue parka! Nauls was wearing a white parka! Childs was wearing a white parka at the end!
MilkyWahey 1 month ago
what happened to Nauls?
MilkyWahey 1 month ago
perhaps the ending was deliberately meant to be ambiguous? neither, or either or both infected?
MilkyWahey 1 month ago
i can respect everyones opinions but mine is with hope that Macready is human and its childs after all childs wasn't breathing at the end and i dont think they did that on accident lol it would be pretty weird if it was, at this point with both movies being awesome i truly hope they make The Thing 2
MasterGWT 1 month ago
Childs is not the thing, he was wearing an earring at the end, when he turns to look at the camp and comments on the fire. The prequel confirms that the thing cannot assimilate inorganic material. Whether or not this movie works in conjunction with the prequel, we don't know. But going by the ideology that it cannot assimilate inorganic things, Childs, was not the thing. However, I think if a sequel was made, the huge twist would be that MacReady turns out to be the thing.
yourfacemeetsmyfist 1 month ago
that movie was so deep
TheGiofromgeorgia 1 month ago
i strongly believe that Macready is human at the end he is breathing while child's is not and like what most people are saying about all of this alcohol kills most of everything including germs and infections therefor i dont believe he is the thing and if they did make him out to be the thing then it would be really fucking gay cause his character is awesome.
MasterGWT 1 month ago
3:15
best rage quit in movie history.
AgentX7Y 1 month ago
The most telling thing,and I deliberate hint in my opinion is that Macready's breath "mists" with the cold and Childs's does not.
choc113 1 month ago
Childs wasn't assimiliated, he died from exposire in the game under the same name which acted as a sequel to the movie. If the thing was resistant to extreme cold, why did childs die from exposure in the game?
TrueLeonPriest 2 months ago
@TrueLeonPriest How does a video game have any bearing on the discussion of this movie?
HabAnagarek 1 month ago
@HabAnagarek Because it continues the story. Research it, insteading asking redundant questions.
TrueLeonPriest 1 month ago
@HabAnagarek The video game was declared an official and canon sequel to the movie by John Carpenter himself.
TollBoothWillie2 1 month ago
@TollBoothWillie2 evidence, please.
yourfacemeetsmyfist 1 month ago
The shadow that is seen when the dog enters the room I believe is Norris, if you look closely you can make out the hair cut...
dd31406 2 months ago
@dd31406 i never could decide if it was norris or palmer cuz they both got that fro cut. hard to tell when looking at shadows.
343xbv 2 months ago
@dd31406
Palmer's shadow. Remember his bed was closer to the door. And after
smoking a joints, would be an easier target.
rehzon 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A part of the entity escaped through the kennel ceiling at the beginning of the film, before Childs arrived with the flame thrower. This could have infected Blair, Palmer, and/or Norris. Blair mentioned hearing things out in the shed, before he requested to come back in. It was the stray entity, which eventually infected him
grantjoh2931 2 months ago
@robag88 i didnt quite get the last bit,did you say the script suggests it or that the script scene of the chess game at the start applies. beacuase we dont have the script when we watch the film
charlie61087 2 months ago
this ring is also seen in this scene
Gronlund88 2 months ago
remember Childs has an earring in hes right ear for the entire movie. The thing cant replica clothes or rings
Gronlund88 2 months ago
Until the very end...MacReedy is now the Thing...at least he's at the point of no return...and giving Childs the bottle with his saliva on it will soon infect Childs. The chuckle at the end was the Thing saying, "Checkmate...I win. Hehehe."
mguy091 2 months ago
Here's a theory...
Childs is genuinely human. MacReedy is the Thing. I say this because if Blair was infected before he was locked up in the shed, then MacReedy taking a swig of his Vodka would've slowly infected him (probably not as rapidly as everyone else due to a few cells). MacReedy fights and destroys the Blair Thing because its become compromised (Palmer showed the Thing will sacrifice itself). Knowing Childs is alive and with a flamethrower it'd rather prove itself as "human" as possible
mguy091 2 months ago
My only question is...was Blair already assimilated when he was locked up in the shed? If so then the whole theory of single cells from the Thing infecting everyone else can be debated...since MacReedy took a swig of Blair's Smirnoff just before he saying, "Trust in the lord."
I do like your metaphor of a Chess game...if you think about it...a Chess board has identical pieces and you "capture" a piece either by the mirror piece or another...to assume that piece's position on the board.
mguy091 2 months ago
Interesting analysis. I always thought Child`s was not infected, but this does make me wonder...
But a lot of it is conjecture. It wouldn`t surprise if Carpenter didn`t mention a lot of this in the DVD because he really wasn`t thinking THAT deeply into it. Heck, maybe he added bits just because he knew it would add a bit of `mystery` to the film and like with anything over time; other people then start analsysing it to death.
But interesting points anyway.
seafireliv 2 months ago
In reference to the theory about the bottles being used to infect people. MacReady leaves a bottle of vodka in the shed with Blair. But before leaving he takes a drink of it. Could have been a point of infection?
mottlee 2 months ago
@mottlee Whoa! I just left a comment saying the same thing and I just read your post! Great minds think alike, lol. Yes, I agree about the Vodka bottle being a point of infection. It also makes me believe, if the theory of single cells infecting a human entirely, that Blair was assimilated AFTER he was locked up and his mental breakdown in the communication room was genuine insanity.
mguy091 2 months ago
We see that room 3 times. 1st when Norris is having chest pains and the coats and boots are in position A. 2nd when Childs is looking out of the window and the coats are in a different position. When we see the room for the final time the coats are back in position A - exactly the same as the first time we saw them. There is no way this would have been deliberate. Films are almost always shot out of sequence and I think this is just an oversight on the part of the film makers.
gabrielthetoad 2 months ago
That still doesn't answer the ultimate question about Childs and that coat could have been got from somewhere other than that room of course.
gabrielthetoad 2 months ago
@gabrielthetoad. take notice of Childs earring. hes wearing it through the entire movie;) hes not infected
Gronlund88 2 months ago
@Gronlund88 Explain how logic in the 2011 movie, done 30 years later with an entirely different crew of people, can have any bearing on this movie.
HabAnagarek 1 month ago
2 dislikes? Must have been Childs and Blair
gypseysurprise 2 months ago
But i have a question. What about Nauls at the end when he was standing guard and spotted the shadowy figure? could he have been infected then? I always wondered when at the end he wonders off alone to investigate the noise as MacReady is preparing the dynamite. If he was human shouldn't he have stayed and helped finish blowing up the place? Maybe he wandered off to join the thing to become the big creature
BBPhobia 2 months ago
Comment removed
seafireliv 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BBPhobia Nauls felt he could move away a bit from mac because it wasn`t that far away. I could quite easily see how he was just suspicious at first so didn`t call McReady, he decided to have a quick look. He was watching their back to avoid any nasty surprises.
The Thing probably quickly got him by the mouth (like with Gary) just as nauls realised the Thing was there and it was too late. the Thing got Nauls.
Nauls just made a mistake and got nabbed before he could warn Mac.
seafireliv 2 months ago
very interesting analysis thank you
BBPhobia 2 months ago
Childs wasn't infected!You find him frozen to death with the bottle next to him in the beginning of the game the thing which is basically a sequel to the movie.Also looks like Mcready survived or did he...
pant104 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Another thought in those waking moments: ever since your idea of the chess theme, it's been gnawing at me...I think Mac's "drink in the computer" was blowing up the camp. I never made that connection before - always distracted by the suspense! And after watching this video, it's clear to me that the person seen leaving the outpost is, if I follow your analysis, Childs in the throes of assimilation.
HabAnagarek 2 months ago
Comment removed
HabAnagarek 2 months ago
Interesting! I never caught on to details like this. This movie has haunted my dreams for almost 30 years. Just last night I had another Thing-ish dream, and in the early waking moments I had these thoughts: Norris deliberately had the heart attack to get rid of Doc Copper, who had announced in front of everybody that a blood serum test would work. Blair deliberately misled Mac in suspecting Clark. Mac had the advantage in the blood test but never suspected Palmer. Constant one-up-manship.
HabAnagarek 2 months ago
Carpenter may have intended for Childs to be an alien in the end and changed it at some point. However, the ending would have simply become the same as Invasion of The Body Snatchers which was released only 5 years peviously. I like the ending the way it is regardless, the other "theoretical ending" is typical and expected. Carpenter had an alternate ending in the script for 6 months later the dormant alien comes to surface through Russel's charecter in a doctors office. It too would be passe'.
karinnicefigure 3 months ago
Comment removed
karinnicefigure 3 months ago
The Prequel is very good, and ties in DIRECTLY to the old movie. So you have to use it as actual fodder. If not, thats fine, you're just an idiot
khadorstrong 3 months ago
How about the idea that Fuchs was assimilated? To me the movie doesn't clearly show, even in the HD version, that the burnt remains Windows, Nauls and McCreedy stumble upon are that of a human, let alone Fuchs. All they find are his mangled spectacles, which for all intents and purposes could have been damaged during his assimilation. Also, when asked if he'd seen Fuchs, Blair responds, "It ain't Fuchs...it ain't Fuchs!"
GabeLoser 3 months ago
could the figure they see running from camp he was talking about in the first part be Kate from the thing 2011 cause in the end she is seen in the mobile thing she could have drove to the base and see that the thing had attacked here and ran out
Thejakebak 3 months ago
@Thejakebak Nice time travel you got there, mate.
IFaZI 3 months ago
Have you people even seen the 2011 The Thing?!?! There's a reason they didn't change the name. It makes perfect sense the way it behaves in the prequel, and the way it gets owned by a group of slack jaws. It isn't as good as the original but what sequel is? As far as very late remakes go, it was done rather well, my expectations were FAR lower than what we got.
Brian10962001 3 months ago
so much fanboy-ish remarks....but you gotta agree with the logic that thing cannot replicate inorganic material either you like the prequel or not. So I still believe Childs is not infected.
cjcool91 3 months ago
STOP CITING THE PREQUEL, IT WAS MADE BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE AND HAS NO BEARING ON THE 1982 FILM. IT IS ALSO VERY POORLY MADE AND SHOULD NEVER BE MENTIONED BY ANYONE EVER.
GODDAMN.
TheTrueHaddock 4 months ago 18
@TheTrueHaddock first of the prequel was amazing and way better in they way evrey thing looks
Thejakebak 3 months ago
@TheTrueHaddock the PREQUEL does have a bearing the camp they go to at the start is the camp in the new film
shadowlight9 3 months ago
@TheTrueHaddock It was written a bit differently, sure, but it was great in its own right. I expected it to be a worthless cash in, but it's clear that they really were trying to expand upon the Thing and add something to the story.
NickonAquaMagna2 3 months ago
@TheTrueHaddock shut up you fucking retard
paramedion 2 months ago
@paramedion
Ahahahahaha, faggot. Get on my level.
TheTrueHaddock 2 months ago
@TheTrueHaddock lol, try harder you homo
paramedion 2 months ago
@paramedion
Jellymad of my mad thumbs up. Bitches see it and they be all over dis dick. Dey be like "OoooOOOooh Daaayum, da new Thing movie DID suck." An I'm like nah bitches you be suckin'
True story. blat blat. Also you're a faggot.
TheTrueHaddock 2 months ago
@TheTrueHaddock I'm a girl so no. You're a retard by the way
paramedion 2 months ago
@paramedion
"Name: Slut"
Oh shit, I'll defiantly take your shit opinion into consideration, kiddo. Stay mad, the 2011 movie is shit and cannot be used for analysis of a film made almost 20 years prior. Haw Haw Haw Haw.
TheTrueHaddock 2 months ago
@TheTrueHaddock you're right, you've made me upset and mad
paramedion 2 months ago
@TheTrueHaddock Yeah, I think that comparing The Thing '82 to The Thing '11 makes no sense at all because the fact that The Thing can't imitate those objects was made for the new film. So it shouldn't really be considered as a tip here.
MatadorShifter 2 months ago
@MatadorShifter Clothes and earrings don't just vanish when someone is assimilated. I think it's safe to say that in the prequel, it was still getting the hang of copying our minds and may have simply "forgotten" that he was supposed to wear an earring, but by this point in the Carpenter film, as Childs, the Thing learned from it's mistake and wore the earring.
NickonAquaMagna2 2 months ago
@NickonAquaMagna2 but that doesn't make sense. because if Carter Thing was incinerated, how would the Thing "learn from it's mistakes", and know not to make the same mistake with the Outpost 31 crew? the only Thing to survive in the prequel was the dog.
TheWuCepticon81 2 months ago
@TheWuCepticon81 Well, I suppose I didn't word that very well, but perhaps during the time that the Dog thing maintained its disguise and studied the humans around it at outpost 31 before transforming into the Kennel Thing, it may have learned that, well, we like earrings an' whatnot. Whatever strand of it was then passed on to Blair and Childs and the others would remember this when creating new disguises out of its victims.
NickonAquaMagna2 2 months ago
@NickonAquaMagna2 One theory is the Thing from the prequel was a bit rusty from having been frozen for so long which is why that film was more action based versus the 1982 version which is much more cerebral. Rob makes a great point in comparing the this with a Chess game since Chess is all mental, which is why this was so good, the mental elements of fear outweigh the physical.
It also explains why the Thing was more calm when around people than the one in the prequel it learned and adapted.
mguy091 2 months ago
@MatadorShifter I agree it shouldn't affect events in the '82 film. the prequel isn't canon enough to be taken seriously along with Carpenter's. but still, I always assumed the Thing couldn't imitate inorganic matter. that makes perfect sense, because if it could imitate inorganic materials, then it could imitate clothes then. and that's just silly.
TheWuCepticon81 2 months ago
@TheTrueHaddock That's actually where you're really wrong. The prequel leads straight into the 1982 version. The writer also paid attention to every little detail of the Norwegian base from Carpenter's version so they could properly remake it without there being any loop holes or mistakes. So the fact that it was made by different people holds no valid arguement since it's the same story, just a different cast.
archangel312 1 month ago
@TheTrueHaddock
I haven't seen it but want to, now that I know it was made by someone else...meh, not so much...
AgentX7Y 1 month ago
Besides the earring, Childs has a gold tooth. I guess the thing could have slipped it on after taking over Childs, but it seems unlikely.
chance20m 4 months ago
So that most likely means that either Macready is immortal... or he is the Thing. Just my opinion though.
drmcnashville 4 months ago
Doesn't anyone think it's suspicious that Macready didn't die in the generator room when he blew up the Blair monster? Remember that Nauls and Garry loaded the place up with dynamite before they were assimilated. And theoretically when Macready threw his dynamite at the Blair monster and it detonated, it would have caused the chain reaction of explosions that we see in the film that destroyed the entire camp. Macready shouldn't have survived because he was in the room with all the explosives.
drmcnashville 4 months ago
@drmcnashville He got out just before the explosion.
NotCliffyB 4 months ago
You have good points. But if Childs was really the thing. Than why he didn't blast Mac?
uchihatheitachi 4 months ago 2
@uchihatheitachi yea i agree
robohunter2000ad 4 months ago
@uchihatheitachi Can assimilated people automatically tell who else is infected?
robag88 3 months ago
@robag88 Oh, yeah. But Mac would still kick his ass.
uchihatheitachi 3 months ago
@uchihatheitachi one could explain in that The Childs-thing wanted or needed additional biomass to survive the freeze the Childs-thing could not be sure that macready was not the thing.
rayyf69 3 months ago
@uchihatheitachi Imo he didn't attack Mac because there was no point in doing so. They were both going to freeze. The thing wanted to freeze to be later found by rescue team and it knew very well that human beings are incapable of surviving hibernation so it must have been the reason.
MatadorShifter 2 months ago
Comment removed
uchihatheitachi 4 months ago
But with all due sincereity, I really really enjoyed you're video, and I hope you make another regarding the prequel, as TT is my favorite movie of all. Be well.
GabeLoser 4 months ago
Well, I like the idea that the Thing from the prequel learned about the earring tell, and the Childs-Thing just put in an earring after the assimilation. It would not be that hard for a Thing to put in an earring.
PR
patty113 4 months ago
idk if its true but i read somewhere that Carpenter has had an idea for a sequel, and that its about MacGready and Childs surviving and making contact with a rescue team. Dont know what to think about that.
Rally351 4 months ago
if child's is an alien too it makes sense in the fact that the coat changed, the alien rips through your clothing when taking you over..therefore would need a change of coat. I just diddnt know how the alien would get to him without being burned.
hunkydave000 4 months ago
somehow Macreedy if the thing got infected after blowing it up..maybe had blood splatter on him or another thing somewhere else..no idea. Just think tht he got infected after blowing it up
hunkydave000 4 months ago
All the way thru the movie Macreedy wanted the thing destroyed at any cost.Yet at the end he wants to sit&do nothing..and even laugh and joke about it...he cant assimilate child's when hies armed so is happy to just freeze.. child's im not sure if hies a thing but if he is i dont know how the thing got him without getting flame thrown, child's would have burned pretty much any1 approaching him except for Macreedy at tht point obviously. Maybe they are both things but i do believe Macreedy is 1
hunkydave000 4 months ago
the alien was very clever, it diddnt assimilate Clark even though he was alone with the dog for over an hour...because the dog knew he would be a prime suspect. i believe the 1st person taken over by the alien/dog was Palmer's due to tht room the dog went in was in fact Palmer's room as when the alarm goes off Palmer comes out of what appears to be that same room. As for the end...i guess that Macreedy is the thing, based on his personality change.....
hunkydave000 4 months ago
Its revealed in the new prequel that The Thing cant replicate metal like piercings, fillings, metal plates for bones. So this means Childs is not infected because he has an earring.
cjcool91 4 months ago
@cjcool91 The Thing prequel is written by different writers. And whose to say it needs to replicate the ear ring when it could just use the one that's already there?
robag88 4 months ago 11
@robag88 The prequel IS canon to the John Carpenter version....CHILDS IS NOT INFECTED.
cjcool91 4 months ago
@cjcool91 You are kidding right?
notfriendlyyurrf 4 months ago
@notfriendlyyurrf nope Childs is not infected.
cjcool91 4 months ago
@cjcool91 Goddamn it the prequel isn't CANON! The prequel film doesn't even makes any sense at all.
I don't know of any collaboration between John Carpenter and the director of the prequel.
notfriendlyyurrf 4 months ago
@notfriendlyyurrf Like it or not the prequel is in canon....the ending is pretty much the beginning of John Carpenters version.
cjcool91 4 months ago
@cjcool91 That doesn't make it canon
notfriendlyyurrf 4 months ago
@cjcool91 Please define how you interpret whether a film is canon or not.
notfriendlyyurrf 4 months ago
@notfriendlyyurrf Its about what happens in the Norwegian base just a few days before Macready and Dr. Copper discover the remains of the base and coming across the guy who slit his throat and wrists, the split faced thing and the axe on the door....all of this is explained in the prequel. It obviously connected right to the John Carpenter version. So if you wanna watch these movies in chronological order it starts with The Thing (2011) and then The Thing (1982)
cjcool91 4 months ago
@cjcool91 That doesn't make it Bloody Canon!!!!!
notfriendlyyurrf 4 months ago
@cjcool91 I could write a fan fiction prequel to The Thing and it could be great or terrible and I could line it up perfectly with the beginning of the 80s version of The Thing but it still wouldn't be canon. I wouldn't be magically privy to what Carpenter, Lancaster et al had in their minds and intentions 30 years ago. Writing a sequel/prequel doesn't allow you to insert your own art, no matter how good or bad it is, into someone else's body of art.
KooKooRooWhore 1 month ago
@cjcool91 There are lots of official sequels that misinterpret their sources. 2010: Odyssey Two ... Return to Oz ... etc. Even the Star Wars prequels mismatch the originals in places, despite Lucas helming them all.
robag88 3 months ago
@robag88 The point being attempted here is 100% INVALID, The Thing starts to figure out people as it goes, it's reckless and foolish at first. It figures out things as it goes that's why the creature in the prequel does things that make no sense for the original.
Brian10962001 3 months ago
@Brian10962001 I completely disagree with that. In Carpenter's The Thing the creature is shrewd and plans ahead right from the beginning. If that's not the case in the new Thing film then that's more likely to do with inferior script writing. The Thing prequel is a cash in rehash and is almost 30 years out of date as a source for assessing Carpenter's version. It is based upon the new writer's interpretation of the Carpenter version.
robag88 3 months ago
@robag88
So what writers are we to assume have the correct storyline considering the obvious contradiction? PERSONALLY..I'll assume the alien indeed CANNOT replicate inorganic material.. I'll also deduct that Childs indeed WAS NOT infected based off of that.. rather than make concessions upon the aliens own personal image concearns.. while exausted..in the freezing cold...fully aware it'd be a dead giveaway if it's seen NOT wearing jewelry.. .. lol.
GabeLoser 4 months ago
@robag88 Yeah. But in the end The main character killed a guy, because he was wearing the ear ring on the WRONG ear. god, everything is so much confusing.
uchihatheitachi 4 months ago
@robag88 Dude, in the prequal it also reveals that in the end the guy was wearing the earring on the WRONG ear! and the girl burns him! Also, in The thing game you find Childs frozen body and Macready is alive.
uchihatheitachi 4 months ago
@robag88 Exactly! Sheesh...
HabAnagarek 2 months ago
Comment removed
LittleMann459 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Respond to this video... @cjcool91 yeah but i don't think this was taken into account when carpenter made the thing
LittleMann459 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cjcool91
The Thing takes over the body by overtaking the persons cells, it's a cellular virus. Therefore the earing would still be there.
The Thing prequel is a load of shit.
Kamissick 4 months ago
where is movie review??
KodierungHerz 4 months ago
I think that the Thing exists as a whole organism, despite that all its parts can move independently.
They probably exist as a hive mind, capable of telepathic communication.
Not exactly disproven.
reddakotadog 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Part 1 (of the comment)
I think everyone is infected.Basicaly ,what the director wants to show us is that other
life forms did not differ from the humans. People only think one thing,
themselves and how to survive or conquer.The thing refuses to lose from his own kind.
Wanted to get the spacecraft and leave, ignoring the other things.The thing is like a small - large
society, "the big fish eats the small".Humans witness the war of the things basicaly.
LifeSucks0000 4 months ago
Part 2 (of the comment)
. Macready killed the great monster because of the spoil of his plans. At the end what he wants to say Macready in Childs laughing, is that once they find them and thaw,they will continue their plywood for the survival or their war.The thing played chess with the thing and the humans were the pawns in that case. So, the thing lost from the thing.The whole movie is about the things behavior and how the thing society works.I quess all species have ego inside them..
LifeSucks0000 4 months ago
Comment removed
LifeSucks0000 4 months ago
i think mc ready is infected if childs is the thing he knows about the whole not sharing drink and eating only out of tins or does he u see fuchs told mcready this but did mcready tell everyone else and im not so sure cause childs wouldnt have drank it he is the thing i talked to my bro about this i think this is the genius of the film to make the audience believe that snake the hero in this film is actually the enemy all along to fool us childs should have left him outside he was right.
kratos122221 4 months ago
@kratos122221 No that wouldnt make any sense of him killing blair.
jaylenworld 4 months ago
dude.....you just blew my mind
TheDestinyHolder 4 months ago
If you operate under the assumption that the infection can be spread via a single cell AND that when somebody is assimilated it retains that persons knowledge & experience the ending becomes more obvious. Just by watching the movie with an eye to people sharing drinks etc. you can tell that Kurt Russell, at least, is almost certainly a 'thing'.
Wallyrus 4 months ago
Just saying that the directer was voice actor I'n the game. And I read he wanted to me sequel but instead did it with a game.
J9CashMusicNet 4 months ago
Childs is not infected play the video you game "the thing (2002)"! or watch DSQTTANTI's Channel. at the begin of the game Childs is died in a building.
J9CashMusicNet 4 months ago
@J9CashMusicNet So you're saying you'd rather believe the writers of a b-grade video game than the director of the movie it was based on? Ok, now go play in the yard, grown ups are talking here.
kissakala666 4 months ago
@kissakala666 Carpenter said himself the game is considered canon so go eat a dick for acting like it isn't a valid part of this discussion.
MercyVirus 4 months ago
@hafabee Isn't it interesting what some people find obvious others do not see and vice versa? The first time I watched the movie I noticed the coats; however, I did not put together the chess game and whiskey. So awesome to talk about this movie. It's so kick ass and we'll never be able to know for sure. Oh yea did half of the dog thing get away?
MrGoblue85 4 months ago
@trdi well I agree that Bennings was most likely not assimilated right in front of the others by the dog he was killed off before the blood test. Although if the dog could infect that easily then why turn into that creature and make all the noise attacking the other dogs therefore drawing attention to itself.
MrGoblue85 4 months ago
Really awesome analysis dude, heres a responsie i found which brings up a couple of good points , it was done by a dude called Fatalerror094
MuayThaiMmaXboxGeek 4 months ago
i always thought it was macready infected at the end but you may be right with your clothing analasys. Hit coat was blue for all but the end, then he got blairs coat. good call. wow you've made me see this film in a whole new way thanks.
tylerclifford65 4 months ago
I think everybody should watch Child's earring carefully. The Thing can't imitate piercings, metal plates or fillings... this will be shown in the prequel...
KronnangDunn 4 months ago 5
@KronnangDunn
But you can't factor that in this film since that detail was added after 29 years.
snake2006 4 months ago
@KronnangDunn Just because The Thing can't imitate those objects, doesn't mean it can't wear them. Personally I think it means that The Thing learned from its mistakes the first time when it attacked the Norwegian camp, and simply put the earring back on when it finished assimilating Childs.
IEATFOOOOD 4 months ago 2
I can't understand people saying Mac was infected when he was the one who blew the thing up? At this point, he would have had a considerable advantage over Child's and killing part of itself wouldn't make sense.
19nisey69 4 months ago
I dont think Childs was infected. Even if he was, The Thing would most likely freeze first, and MacReady would go back to his cabin, as it was never blown up.
RDdaNINJA 4 months ago
Comment removed
AmadeusExcello 4 months ago
@AmadeusExcello Not really.
ThePhantomnaut 4 months ago
Thus, the two are waiting to see what happens--both waiting to freeze before they are discovered and thawed again.
BTW: Blair gets contaminated during his examination/presentation of the remains of the dog/thing. He touches his pencil eraser to its remains, then puts that pointer to his mouth while he talks. (We see this same eraser in his drawer when he grabs his gun)
joshmehlerfsu 5 months ago
...When Childs joins MacReady while the camp burns, he takes a drink of the JB and MacReady laughs. This laugh means one of two things, and both mean that the Thing has succeeded:
1)When Childs drinks from the contaminated bottle, the assimilated MacReady realizes that he has won over a human Childs and it's only a matter of time until it wins or;
2)The drinking of the JB is a signal to the assimilated MacReady that Childs is assimilated too--thus MacReady's laugh is a laugh of victory. . .
joshmehlerfsu 5 months ago
@joshmehlerfsu then why did MacReady kill the Blair Monster?
suprsikosxy 4 months ago
@suprsikosxy it was self preservation a thing can kill another thing like the way palmer and norris werent working together but where clearly infected i just have a sneaky feeling with mcready watched it again last night in a scene he leaves a bottle of whiskey on the table not finished after he gets called also why not let blair stay at his shack although cud be he feels blair is infected there its just a strange ending but its brilliant leaves u guessing.
kratos122221 4 months ago
@joshmehlerfsu this is the only functional theory I have red so far about this ending. occam's razor: the solution is always the most obvious thing...as a child and the other 1000 times I watched the thing I never noticed this, but now after reading all these pages of mental jerk-offs, this solution is really so simple. stop checking coats and scripts and ambiguous hints...that bottle probably means a lot, and it's such a big detail that I have never considered it.
RingOfFire79 3 months ago
What a thorough analysis. However, a couple points I'd like to add. Whereas you focus on clothing, my focus has always been on the bottle of JB.
The bottle of JB gets knowingly contaminated almost immediately by an already-assimilated Bennings (via the dog) after getting shot by the Nowegian (look at his face as he does so!). MacReady then drinks from it in the scene in which he examines the torn clothes. It is clear that he has been assimilated at this point. . .
joshmehlerfsu 5 months ago
@joshmehlerfsu Your theory has one hole though. It is all based on assumption that Bennings was contaminated at the beginning and he contaminated the bottle. You can believe that, but it's not a fact. For all we know, it could take much longer for contamination to happen and I don't believe that either Bennings or the JB bottle were contaminated at the start of the movie.
trdi 4 months ago
@joshmehlerfsu Oh, how could I have forgotten the blood test... no way man, I retract my statement, that your theory has one hole - it is completely impossible to be correct. The blood test was legit and everyone who passed it was not infected at that point.
trdi 4 months ago
@joshmehlerfsu
I don't think assimilation can occur so easily. Alcohol is toxic to most cells, and exposure to pure JB would kill them. And assimilation is not a passive activity, the creature has to kill and digest the victim before becoming them. Simply putting a few of its cells onto the victim would not trigger assimilation, and if it did, the victim would know something was going on and would probably not be in a comfortable position, at least not in one so easily hid from the others.
eits1986 4 months ago
but in the video game Childs dies
gamerboy448 5 months ago
That made my mouth drop at all the stuff you pointed out. It makes so much sense now!
MillerMUCKERS 5 months ago
I noticed the chess parallel bookends before and I did figure that MacReady was going to kill Childs just to be on the safe side (ie. passing him the bottle of JB, akin to giving some to the chess computer) but I NEVER noticed that Childs was wearing a different jacket! Great observation I love it.
hafabee 5 months ago
... because keep in mind too that MacCready loses the chess game at the end because the computer was a "cheating bitch."
ledeseptakon 5 months ago
Based on your theory, how do you know that Nauls wasn't infected? He's the only character that disappears at the end with no explanation. Maybe he set up MacCready against Childs. If the two of them froze to death and if Nauls was The Thing then he could just become frozen and wait until someone shows up to thaw him out. Also, since the organism that is The Thing can infect more than one person at a time and going with the chess metaphor, it's possible that Nauls sacrificed Childs to win.
ledeseptakon 5 months ago
I'm surprised he never mentioned the fact that the only bottles MacReady had at the end of the film were Molotov cocktails. In the final scene you never see MacReady drink from the bottle, and I always thought it was his way of testing Child's humanity since people can't ingest gasoline and the thing obviously wouldn't be able to tell the difference between alcohol and gasoline.
callimah 5 months ago 40
@callimah That's pretty plausible. In all the movies I've seen, they seemed to suggest that the alcoholic drink would work fine. It's been a while since I've watched, so I can't remember if McReady was shown drinking from that bottle, or if it was established that they were using gasoline for the molotov cocktails.
Scardy 4 months ago
@callimah Wow, I can't believe I didn't catch that either. Good eye.
HighPriestofLemuria 4 months ago
@callimah I'm pretty sure that everclear and other super high content alchohols are still explosive and can be used as molotov cocktails.
Fett52 4 months ago
@Fett52 And Macready is BAMF enough to be like , eh...fuck it. I'ma drink the everclear.
Fett52 4 months ago