@@badism8369 Mac was drinking that whiskey so it's wasn't poisoned or anything. I personally think that Mac laughed because he fully realized the situation they were in (everybody dead and the camp destroyed and yet they can't trust each other).
I think the simplest reason why both have to be human is that it provides a completion to the themes of paranoia throughout the movie. The Thing may have failed at actually spreading itself across the planet, but it did wind up planting the seeds of paranoia that neither man, after all they've experienced, can overcome, even in their last moments of life.
Amen to that! It's as bad as the people who watch Shutter Island and somehow think the island drives you mad. Instead of the character choosing to die as the good man he remembered instead of what he became.@@WynneL
His movies are great but I feel like The Thing is far beyond the others, if only it had been succesful on its time he coukd have continued doing masterpieces such as this.
Been a fan of The Thing since I was a kid when it aired on TV in the early 80s, it never once crossed my mind that either Childs or MacReady were anything other than human.
@@ErikJoeNoise02 Same here as well. I was shocked to learn of people being so confident about Childs being a Thing. My gut told me anything BUT that, and I'm glad this video went into all the reasons why it's wrong. Some I hadn't even thought of.
I always thought the point of the ending is they are both human and paranoid of each other. To me it was never a question if they were human but if they could trust each other at that point after everything that happened.
If you're willing to accept the 2002 video game as a canon sequel (that was endorsed by John Carpenter himself and even had him in a VA cameo), then it's revealed that Childs is a human as he's found dead from hypothermia, and MacReady ends up assisting them in taking down the final boss. I'm currently unaware of if MacReady is human or not as I never played the game and everything I'm finding says he just somehow survived and came back to help, but it seems to be that way.
I have yet to get it firsthand, but there is a comic book series about how Mac gets back to civilization, but The Thing is there too (under the guise of a sheep, no less.)
Even more proof that the Thing replicates every last detail is when Norris has a heart attack during the skirmish with MacReady. Human Norris had a heart condition which the Thing had to then deal with under the stress of the siuation. This then shows that the Thing will replicate everything someone has trait wise, even if it could be perceived as somewhat of a weakness that could hinder it, leaving it vulnerable for a period of time.
Nicely reasoned. Whether people agree or not, I think we can all agree The Thing is a great film which has aged extremely well (apart from the computers, and I'm totally willing to overlook those).
You convinced me Childs is human. After your input, the only way I see thing Childs approaching Mcready is a tip of the hat to a hard fought adversary.
I've yet to hear a specific argument for child's being human so here goes. All your points are good but it seems simpler than that. His coat is filthy after tons of ash rained down on him from the compound burning. His breath is harder to see because he has the shadow of the wall he is leaning against blocking the light. Mac's up against a brightly lit, firey background. Child's has a normal amount of steam that can be seen against a black background. Love your stuff, guy.
THE specific argument for Childs being human is that he doesn't act like a Thing. Quite apart from the question of why a Childs-Thing would actually approach MacReady rather than just stay in the shadows and watch MacReady freeze to death, Childs DOES approach MacReady and DOES ask him if everyone else is dead. Then when he receives affirmation that they are the last two left standing he..... sits down, shares a drink of whiskey, and remarks on what a whacky day this has turned out to be. Which - as this channel points out - is a "specific argument" for Childs being human, because that's exactly what a human survivor would do. We know that for a fact, since that's exactly what MacReady does. A Childs-Thing would have to act in an entirely un-Thing-like manner (every other Thing that catches a human on their own kills them and assimilates them), so the only two alternatives are (A) Carpenter is a poor director (he's not), or (B) Childs is not a Thing (he's not). It really is that simple.
As most, if not all comments here, will be about debating this theory, I just want to leave a comment saying that I believe "the hallway sequence" is, in my eyes, the scariest moment in the entire movie. That long tracking/panning (?) shot of the long, empty corridor, then showing the door to the generator room for the very first time in the movie, and finally the empty entrance room is freaky as hell! I always imagine that there is someone lurking at the far end of that corridor. I cannot imagine being in that empty outpost by myself, with the possibility that there may be a malevolent, aggressive, shapeshifting alien creature lurking around is truly terrifying. My only argument is I, personally, feel that this POV, if it is a POV, is actually Blair-Thing. He is stalking the corridor, looks down at the door and checks the door. Childs is already gone. It might be possible that Childs thought he saw Blair in the snow (which is impossible as Blair seconds later destroys the Generator) but possible with his tired eyes OR he heard Blair, freaked out and went running, which goes against his aggressive character. I do like the idea that someone wrote years ago on Outpost31 forums that Childs didn't see Blair-Thing, but actually saw Fuchs-Thing. The theory behind this is that the body Mac, Nauls and Windows discovered in the snow was actually Bennings, which had been dug out by Blair. Blair assimilated, or partially assimilated Fuchs and Fuchs-Things heads off to the tool shed or elsewhere to help build the craft. It is also impossible for a flare to cause such burns to someone as Fuchs received and I would guarantee that someone would have noticed a flamethrower being used on him. It's just a fun little theory that I feel does hold some credence, but it does have its flaws too, one of which I am willing to admit is that the Bennings-Thing was most likely burnt to absolute ashes the second time around. Then again, the only way they could identify Fuchs was by his "glasses" and Blair-Thing proves that Things don't need to wear glasses...
I've always thought that, from a morality standpoint, both men are human and were honorable enough to be willing to die to make sure, even if for themselves. They knew the stakes for error, now. The character in the ending is also the polar opposite of the Mac who took a chess loss against a lower version of a non-human opponent like a child. Opening Mac is NOT Final Mac. He fulfilled his arc and Childs was likely on one himself, as HE is the main character of this story if you're him, supported by his literal POV angles, as this video also addresses. That POV was a glimpse of another man's movie...and they converge in the final scene. Stalemate. Just two dudes having a drink, freezing to death, and saving the world.
Since watching this movie as a small child (and many times since) I've always felt that both Childs and Mac were human, and that makes the tragedy of their predicament, despite the 'victory' over destroying the Thing, that much more palpable, and memorable. It's one of the best endings in movie history, in my view.
Ah, finally! Thank you for saying with exasperation what I'm usually too exasperated to say when I hear/read "Childs is a Thing" again. If it's any consolation, I'm pretty sure this interpretation sticks around for at least three reasons I can identify: 1) The unhappy "happy" ending. This is a rare instance where the heroes won the war but lost the battle. They are victorious but will die anyway, and no one will celebrate their sacrifice let alone even know what they accomplished. Some audience members don't know how to walk away from an ending like that, so they need to re-frame the exchange in the snow as a final showdown between protagonist and antagonist, where the last human pulls one over on that sneaky Thing by beating him at his own game by making him drink poison in disguise. 2) "The Blade Runner effect." Harrison Ford swears Deckard isn't a replicant, but Ridley Scott says he is (and even put a literal gleam in his eye to drive the point home). Some viewers are always looking for an Easter egg, even if that egg might contain a face-hugger. 3) From Antarctica to Hollywood. The most compelling evidence to the conspiracy crowd is probably correct, but you have to realize that Childs was a character, and Keith David was the THING. See, Keith David has quietly gone on to dominate the human race. He has 363 credits on the IMDB (and 13 additional ones listed as "Upcoming"), and that number obscures the fact that those credits include 547 episodes of television. His next credit after "The Thing"? Nine episodes as Keith the Handyman on "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood." Can he do good war movies? Yes. He was in "Platoon." Can he do 5hit war movies? Yes. He was in "Braddock: Missing in Action III." How about voiceover work? Well, he's credited as the narrator in more than half of the additional 133 credits under "Self." Animation? He's been in Disney, done anime, and is the goldanged President of the United States on "Rick & Morty." Can he sing? Gawd, yes. But does he ever stop to take a breath? Nope. This is not an actor. This the resume of a man who slept for thousands of years and is trying to make up for lost time. Does he write or direct? Never. He just transforms for role after role after role. He can be anyone, play anyTHING. How is it possible? He ain't human I tell ya!
I agree with most of these points except the hallway shot. The director placed that scene in the movie to show that child’s was no longer in his spot, which causes suspicion. Saying that it was child’s POV or that he left to be in a safer spot is a bit of a stretch. A lot of the time, the answers are more straightforward and simple. And upon first viewing, the hallway shot always seemed it was supposed to cause suspicion. Never did I expect it to be there for any other reason But that’s just my take. Keep up the good work! I could talk about the thing all day!!
I just like the optimistic outlook of them both being human and having eliminated the Thing. It justifies all the hardship they went through, including their imminent deaths by freezing. That may not be a well-reasoned point of view backed up by evidence like you present it here; but at least it's slightly hopeful:)
Nothing wrong with there being some sort of small light in the darkness. And it is a movie in the end, so looking for narrative significance and character development is perfectly valid. Gut feelings often precede conscious realizations, so those are valid too. I like the idea and themes of two men being infinitely suspicious of one another, only to realize at the end of their lives that if either was the Thing they'd be dead already. So they laugh together, realizing the one they most unfairly suspected became their only ally. So they share a last drink like old friends. It is emotionally rewarding.
Now Josh, hear me out. I do not disagree with you, but to play Devil’s advocate here, what if, Childs was a Thing, and he decided that he wanted to honor his victor by sharing a last drink with him? Yea yea, all the “stupid” reasons why that you mentioned, but, what if, the Thing WAS smart enough to realize a human Childs WOULD take the drink? Then he’s just acknowledging his defeat with a worthy opponent. Like an honorable soldier. That being said, seriously, I’m on your side. Just couldn’t resist the fun take. Happy New Year!!
@@ChewsCarefully aw, thank you for your reply. My autistic arse appreciates it. I feel it wasn’t difficult to understand, but always appreciate a reply on a half year old comment, and will happily discuss what you didn’t understand bud
The biggest reason, IMO, that it makes logical sense for both Childs and Mac to be human at the end of the film is because The Thing is just one part of John Capenter's Apocalypse Trilogy alongside Prince of Darkness and Mouth of Madness. But the most emotionally resonant and impactful meaning of the ending, what makes it 'apocalyptic', isn't the idea of this creature making it to population, it's the idea that Mac and Childs, the two humans left alive, have to come to terms with their own apocalypse: the end of their own lives. There is no rescue, there is no salvation, there is no happy ending for either of these characters. Having one of them still being the monstrous duplicative Thing lessens that idea and I really think that's one of the core ideas Carpenter was striving for at the ending.
Hey Josh I used to be in the Childs was a Thing camp due to the scene where he leaves his post, and you really debunked that in the 2nd round of unanswered questions. I actually like the plot device that Childs is all out for himself, and hears Blairmonster and just says im out. Great work on this movie Josh!
Well, it is plausible: Childs was told to stand guard and burn Blair if he tries to make it back to the main building. But a Blair-Thing in the basement means that it is already behind Childs, and discretion might then be the better part of valour. Maybe, but I think that is unnecessary. Childs is regarded by all as being hot-headed and prone to rash violence. So GIVEN his orders from Mac (if Blair tries to make it back... burn him) then it would be entirely in his character to rush out at and chase shadows. Remember: when Childs does head out into the storm the camp is still brightly lit AND he has no reason to believe it would soon be plunged into darkness. As far as Childs is aware he believes he has caught a glimpse of that sucker, and he'll be damned if he will let it get away.
100% Right! Mac even says it in the movie. "I know I'm human. But if you were all these things, you would attack me now." Mac/(Carpenter) felt if Childs was a Thing, it would just kill him and be done with it. And that's why Mac smiles at the end. Cause he knows Childs is human.
I like that we don't know, but despite think it was Childs for a time I think it could be Mac. The breath and jacket thing was debunked by the actor himself, which is simply the lighting. The whole kerosene thing and sharing food and that, while its under the assumption that Mac told everyone what Fuchs told him. We never see him do it and given the panic of the lights going out and Fuchs missing, I don't see Mac stopping and going "oh by the way". That and if he did tell everyone and Childs was the Thing, then he would know what Childs knows. As for the Blair killing part, to me it looked like he was absorbing Garry, Blair just killed him first so he wouldn't make noise. The jacket on the hook thing, that was also explained by the actor as a simple continuity error. I believe Childs was human, and he did get lost in the storm thinking he saw Blair out there. And he didn't born Mac right away cause he didn't want to kill a fellow human survivor of this nightmare. The reason I'm leaning towards Mac is he flat out say it wants to freeze and sleep tell someone else finds it. Then he later turns around and says lets blow up stuff and let it freeze. This was odd, but then he blows up the giant Blair dog Thing 🤷♂ I'm thinking that like Blair, Mac was slowly turning and it was slowly starting to affect his thinking. Maybe that's why the giant Blair dog Thing didn't straight up kill Mac right there. It had more then enough time, it might have sensed a bit of itself in him and paused. Of course that's a big if he was infected. After blowing the place up Mac is seen with a blanket and a bottle (not kerosene) indicting some time had passed. He convinces Childs to just chill out and freeze to death, and shares his drink with Childs and laughs. Which makes me think Mac just infected Childs and laughed. I heard Carpenter is making a sequel, but if not or until then, Carpenter has said he considers the 2002 game to be a sequel. In that game we see Childs dead and Mac is the thing. So if the creator gives it his thumbs up on it be Mac that's good enough for me. But again, movie wise, I like not knowing.
Agree with you that MacReady was likely the only person that Fuchs confided in and, well, it did get very hectic very quickly from then on. Note also that the other time that someone confides in MacReady (Blair: keep an eye on Clarke) we DO see MacReady pass on that information. So others were shown being told that, whereas we never see MacReady tell anyone else about Fuchs theory. Which by movie-logic implies that MacReady never told anyone else.
The only argument I might have is that if the Thing needs to freeze it has to get away from camp but wouldn't that make it difficult to find by the rescue teams, etc,.? The Thing was only discovered in the first place because of the large spaceship...
Mac says it himself "If we've got any surprises for each other, I don't think we're in any shape to do anything about it." Eliminating the bottle theory too. Either one of them is and they freeze, or neither are.... and they both freeze.
Can someone confirm, I was positive I have seen lightened still that show that MAC has a flame thrower with him while on the ground just under some cover at the end. That was used to confirm the drink he gave Childs was a test and that he would burn him, but since Childs did drink he knew they were both safe.
I appreciate the return to this subject. This was an excellent video. Not too long ago there was a video uploaded claiming both were the thing and I only made it in about five minutes before my brain started to ache...an ache that sort of continued until this video, so this was the remedy I needed. While I'm sorting out my computer issues, I have limited time with a laptop connected to the internet, ergo I had to wait until today to express my thanks for making such a strong argument for something I've personally always felt was true.
I'm glad that people take away their own interpretations, but for me - I never suspected either of them of having been assimilated. Because I was so impacted by my impression that I had when I first saw it. To me it was a revelation to, instead of ending with the lone survivor hero cliche, it gave the audience an ending with humanity looking into humanity, and facing, together, the ultimate outcome of their decisions, their actions, their sacrifice. Two humans that had significant differences & disagreements, in their views of many things, but now bonded by being on the right side of "for the greater good". But what do I know, I'm basing my interpretation on nostalgia of what I felt when I was a kid & saw it for the first time, and have just let that stick with me as my conclusion.
If either one, or both, of them has been replicated, then that is a sour ending. Everything they all did, was for nothing (big picture). If neither has been overtaken, then it is a bittersweet ending. You are saddened by their fate, but inspired that their fate may have saved the fate of humanity. (Not just because of their defeat of that particular invader (as in 'invasive species'), but also due to the revelation of such entities that will likely occur during the investigation of the international tragedies there. That investigation could lead to plans/defenses/technologies/medical advances... in preparation of a possible future encounter. For me, that was also part of the impact of the ending. Part of the unsaid thoughts haunting both men, CHILDS: "I don't know if we got lucky, or if that Thing just got unlucky. Either way, I think we may be about out of luck. [stares at the fire]. But, we got it." MACREADY: "Yeah. We got this one. [Stares at the sky.] But what if the next one lands in Wyoming?" CHILDS: "What if the next one... is a thousand of them Things [also looks to the sky]." A sort of, 'we did our part, I hope the rest of humanity can do theirs' ending. Like a feeling you sometimes get at the end of some of the old Twilight Zone episodes. (And yes, just like 'Alien' had 'Aliens', 'The Thing' should have 'The Things'. Childs & MacReady coming out of retirement to save humanity all over again.)
I love your thoroughness and analysis. Way to keep this gem of a movie alive and in people’s thoughts. I’ve seen this movie at least 50 times and my wife thinks I’m nuts.
The replacement jacket theory also doesn’t stand up to scrutiny because through the course of the film, the Thing caught on to the rest of the crew realizing that assimilation meant tearing through clothing. Windows and Garry were attacked by going for their exposed heads.
Okay last comment i just really live the Thing, its my faborite movie of all time, horror or otherwise, tied with Gattaca and Trainspotting for my triforce of favorite films, rob ager has tons of cool videos on the Thing, highly revommend his Collative Learning channel
I know people thought Childs was the thing because of a different jacket. As you pointed out, the jackets were placed back on the racks, but not how they looked at first. Maybe that was a slip up from the filming crew and they quickly placed them back. Also, with Childs jacket being dark, my take on that was it being a lighter color due to the frigid weather. Good Indepth video.
John Carpenter said that one of those two men is the Thing, and he should know. Also, Carpenter said that the video game, which takes place immediately after the movie, is canonical, and in that story Macready was a dead human and Childs was a Thing.
JC wouldn't necessarily know himself. If you listen to the commentary track with him and Kurt, the Thing's "rules" are not entirely clear even to them. Can you be a Thing and not even know it? The answer is like "maybe" or "I don't know".
Not to mention that the ending is more bleak if they're both human. They won, but only by ensuring their own death. There is no saving them, and they're standins for all of us. You can fight, and you can destroy the enemy, but you can't do it in way that saves yourself. I like that way more than "hey hey hey, let's keep this open for sequels!"
Thank you SO MUCH for making this! It drives me so crazy people want to mess up the ambiguity of the movie for absolutely no reason or thematic payoff whatsoever. I always thought and felt that Childs was human; the details you went into made me all the more certain. Now I have somewhere to point everyone who denies it. Childs as an alien is so boring and adds nothing because it's what you expect. Childs as a human, trapped at the end of his life with the lone wolf who's been mutually suspicious with him the whole time--THAT is a story. Unrestrained paranoia can end us just as surely as anything else. Ironic that they end up seeking *human* comfort in one another.
Gotta say I believe 99.99% of what you said. The only bit I don't agree with is the speculation that Childs abandons his post because he got spooked by noises in the basement. Come on, man! That's Keith David you are slandering. He has never played a character who wasn't fearless. His lawyers will probably be in touch....
Whoa yah! Love this debate, i like both theories! Edit i thought the only good evidence for childs thing was the jacket change, did nt k ow that was debunked
I’ve always felt that childs was the thing at the end due to the whole dog assimilation scene. The thing yes is a smart creature, but it was so stupid that mind you, It has the memories of a dog, but was too dumb to realize maybe I shouldn’t assimilate these dogs because they make noise. It just seems at some point hell bent on assimilating over true preservation.
1:28 Now debateable as to if they are or are not Canon, The Thing Comics which at the time WERE CANON confirmed that Childes was NOT a Thing... But I am looking forward to this video... And I may even throw in some additional giveaways that Childes is Human once I have heard it all... Very SIMPLE THINGS that everyone overlooks - And ONE EXTRA that is NOT referenced directly in the film... But will be the subject of my own FAN THEORY VIDEO that I am currently scripting... Though the idea in the end was it was NEVER supposed to have an answer... Whatever you believe is the right answer! The entire film is about PARANOIA... FEAR... MISTRUST! You are supposed to question the ending! However, A Little clue to my Fan Theory - You should also Question The rest of the film... There are many moments that when you truly think about he and what you know at that point make no sense unless you assume that what everyone thinks is going on is WRONG! 4:32 OK! We are already at that point - THE JACKET, Yes... This one is wrong - And another clue that makes it clear that it is wrong... THE FLAMETHROWER! The Thing is VERY VULNERABLE to Fire... Why would it strap back on the Flamethrower, a Container of highly Volatile Flammable Liquid that, If McReady Ruptured teh Containers or snagged a pipe would leave it EXTREMELY VULNERABLE? The entire place is in flames, Even if the Thing did Kill McReady, if those pipes or canisters are ruptured, Hot ash spells an end to the creature!!! And one thing we know for sure about the Thing, It has a sense of Self Preservation! It would NOT risk it s own life!!! It NEEDS a Body... Preferably it needs a Human Body!!! So even if it has assimilated another Dog off Screen... That is not going to help it... It needs a Human Host! Also, and this did not come into play until the 2011 prequel, but Childes has an Earring... And the Thing CANNOT REPLICTE NON ORGANIC MATTER! Now, I say this came into play in the 2011 Prequel, But it also shows here too - The Thing TEARS APART the victims Clothes' - It cannot copy their clothes!!! So it would NOT be able to Copy Childes' Earring... And it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that as it copies the DNA that it would assimilate a Hole that does not naturally appear in Childes' Body... So the Thing would NOT have picked up teh Earring and put it back in its ear! Its copying its victims on a cellular Level - So it would copy the body from teh cells... Those Cells may register damage but not what kind (Hence how the Thing falls prey to a Heart Attack... The necessary information about what Damage to the Heart Cells is not contained in the cells!) - Ergo it would not know to leave a hole to insert a foreign object! 19:29 "The Childes Thing approaches goes up to Mcready to fond out if McReady is a Thing as well" - THAT MAKES NO SENSE! The movie itself shows us that The Thing KNOWS who is infected... It would not need to approach him! There are several moments in the movie where TWO PEOPLE are infected at the same time... But neither seems to show any sign of acknowledgment nor fear! It is very safe to say that The Thing when it infects someone gives off what I can only assume would be a "Pheromone" - It knows who is infected! It is how teh Dogs also know who is infected, they can smell the pheromones that humans cannot! Got to say it - I agree with @Movie Timelines - And while I watched this, I wrote out my Fan Theory very roughly! Christ... If this channel is interested, I can send them my rough draft and let them work their magic... I had offered it to MatPat previously but he doesn't respond!
@@movietimelines Only one action so far as I can tell. One video makes a good case for him having seen the spider-head & choosing not to burn it, & playing the long chess game including sacrificing a pawn (Palmer) in order to gain trust from the rest of the group with the blood test, including that since we never see Mac fill up his vial, _HE may_ have been the one to sabotage the blood earlier & steal some to use For This Test thinking several moves ahead. The only one action _I_ can think of anyway that contradicts him being The Thing is that he blows up the Blair Thing & his ship. I can't reconcile that with being The Thing. Even if they were two separate Things arguing about whether to leave the planet or stay, let the other one go & you stay. So no, Mac isn't the Thing. I'm not married to either theory but I _love_ thinking all things through.
I love your nerdy dedication to this particular topic. I have a similar one for the Scream franchise, particularly 5 & 6. I’m convinced that Richie used a fake name in 5 & his dad used their real name. For me that makes the most sense. But I get a lot of pushback that it’s the other way around. No matter how many times I explain why that has to be the case, it always falls on deaf ears
Good video. 6:04 - Instinct is powerful. The thing might have as much of a choice to approach its prey as you do to drive passed McDonald's. 9:26 - Perfectly good assessment. Your sound has something of late 70s Bollywood about it, but I don't know if you're levels are bad or if your mic is, but my god, it's harsh on the ear.
Whatever your thoughts on the issue you've gotta hand it to Carpenter, he made it deliberately ambiguous to cause just these kind of discussions and here we are still talking about it. Mans a freakin' genius.
Childs heard the Blair thing down in the generator room, left his post, and went outside, then power shut off throughout the camp. The Blair thing can not assimilate Childs destroy the generator at the same time. In fact, it would no longer be the Blair thing. It would be the Childs thing in appearance. The Childs Thing would have killed Garry and Nauls. Not the Blair Things. Childs wasn't assimilated by the Blair Thing. 🤔
The pov shot is BLAIRS' POV, as he's looking around seeing if the coast is clear before he goes into the generator room. ( The Blair-thing isn't Blair by this point, it's using a completely different alien consciousness that is building the ship, it just LOOKS like Blair at this point. This is why Childs goes after him, because Blair's literally walking around in sub-freezing temperatures without a coat on). Childs DOES see Blair outside, and he's already out the door before the pov shot. Blair has gone into the generator room by then. Blair doesn't imitate Garry and Nauls, it kills them to use their bodies to grow bigger, as it needs more genetic material to do so.
I definitely agree with your take on the "bottle issue" but I feel like the more likely answer is he just didn't care. The end of the movie is so bleak and they have no clue if they'll even survive the night so why not drink. While I think it would be interesting if one of them were the thing I also think you're right about the monster not really having a motive for doing so at that point.
Actually, Gary knows were actually absorbed by the thing. In fact, there is a cut scene which there are up boards of in which you will see Knowles irrupt Ing from the ground with tentacles coming out of his face screaming for help. And I do believe you can see faces in the things body of who they used to be when it irrupt from the ground. But there is no question that is absolutely absorbs Gary as it drags him away in his face is attached to his arm or hand, merged with his head absorbed him.
What I've more wondering is if the remains of Palmer that he threw the stick of dynamite at still have cellular activity and can infect some via contact for example. Not quite the same as burning him entirely.
Childs is human. If you notice Childs ear as he looks to the left towards the burning compound, he's wearing his earring. There's a slight glint and if you look closely, you can see the earring. In the 2011 prequal the earring missing is brought up and it's confirmed that it doesn't put on jewelry or dental fillings.
Preach it Josh. There should be no more arguments after seeing this. I'm on Team human Childs. Side note how awesome is Keith David in this and everything he does.
Also, i wanna point out that the thing is NOT A COPY...it us an imitation. Huge difference. It cannot replicate ALL memories of a human. If it did that then it would BECOME that "person" (even just mentally, if not physically). An exact copy IS that person!! This has actually been proven in metaphysics (philosophy). Twin humans being an exception because of their external environment changing their mental and physical states (different memories)...an exact memory copy completely would mean BEING the same person entirely.
I do think both were probably human at the end, but...if one of them was a Thing, I've long thought it was much more likely to be Mac. First, Mac was certainly in proximity of the Blair Thing, and potentially a Garry and Nauls Thing, too, while it's simply unknown whether Childs came into contact or not. (Yes, Nauls was intended to die by his own hand, before the Thing could get him, but as-is in the movie, we simply don't know his fate. He could have shown up as a third survivor--human or thing--which I thought would have been interesting if there had been a sequel. As for Garry, I'm not convinced that he was outright killed. With what we're shown, I wonder if the Blair Thing was trying to assimilate Garry without the telltale signs of ripped clothing? It knew it was pretty likely to freeze at that point, so having that knowledge when it thawed out again would be very useful. And, in fact, that could be how an assimilated Mac still had the same clothes on at the end.) Second, as a human, Mac would have had a hard time hearing a normal conversation after all those explosions, particularly after he ducked into that small tunnel as the final blasts went off. (Of course, most films ignore the probable hearing damage from nearby explosions and gunshots, which is probably just the case here.) Finally, think about Mac's words right before the trio starts blowing up the base--"It just wants to go to sleep in the cold until the rescue team finds it." Then, after destroying most of the base, Mac's final words indicate that he is ready to go to sleep in the cold. Granted, probably just his resignation to the situation, but curious that he's ready to do exactly what the Thing wanted...and after insuring that the camp was in complete ruins.
I have some more fuel to add to the fire, proving Childs is not The Thing. So, according to The Thing "Lore" it is a perfect organism. Meaning it would not consume anything that would be harmful to its body. That being either alcohol or kerosene. Plus, if you look closely, Childs still wearing his earring. According to The Thing "Lore" when a person is taken over, any inorganic objects are pushed out of the body, including earrings. If, some day, they want to continue this series with a sequel movie, they will need to come up with a better idea. Except for being lazy and say Childs is The Thing. Cause he is not. Thank You for you time. A forever fan - Billy J. Jarrett.
As someone else pointed out if you're using cannon from the prequel/remake. Charles has an earring in so unless the thing learn from that mistake beforehand which it could have why put the earring in. My biggest question is we never learned anything really of child's backstory and whether or not he's a drinker. Cuz the only person we see in the movie drinking is Mac. Maybe that's why McCready is laughing at the end because he sees Child's take a drink.
I cut school to see this movie when I was 13 or 14 years old, and it scared the s**t outta me! During the ending scene it never even occurred to me that Mac and Childs were anything other than human, and no asinine theory saying otherwise has ever come close to changing my mind. Great work, thanks foir the vid.
I agree I watched the thing for the first time two weeks ago and from the evidence of how the creature acts in the film as well as simple logic, I can not see a possibility where Childs could be a thing.
Hi Josh, well done and good points overall but started thinking about a tangent. I am thinking a rescue team may have already been inbound at the start of the film. In the original 1950s Thing it was established that the alien craft disrupted long range radio transmissions. Both the Norwegian and US research stations would be having the same issue in the 1982 version and in the beginning of the film Windows complains he hasn't been able to reach anyone 9n the outside for weeks which could be explained by the Norwegians exposing the craft. So it is highly plausible that either a Norwegian or US team could arrive any time since both bases fell out of contact at the same time weeks ago and the powers that be would normally ask a neighboring nation at the south pole to in essence do a "welfare check" on its station to see why they've dropped off the face of the earth. We don't have Norwegians in the 50's version but in both,long range radio outbound is hampered/not possible. The only factor keeping the sound of chopper blades from being heard slowly getting louder is the storm that hit the base soon after the film started. Both Childs and Mac could be semi retired and managing a casino in Reno in todays world when the government calls them in to consult since a cold case investigative team that went to the old station 31 lost radio contact and hasn't been heRd from for a week😏🙈🙉. Happy New Year to you and your family. Keep up the 80s Quest! Any chance you'll do a review of Shockwaves with Cushing and John Carradine?
John Carpenter himself confirmed in many different interviews that one of the 2 man at the end is a thing. It HAS to be Childs. The hallway scene is the main reason why. Blair thing had acces to the basement and we see the door behind Child (wich was previously closed) is now open. AND a coat is missing. It tells us that a sleepy Childs got caught from behind and got assimilated. There's no way he saw Blair thing and ran away to save his life. He, himself, says the reason he left the place was because he saw Blair outside. The real Childs would never go alone outside for such a dumb reason. PLUS the real Child is super cautious during the entire movie and never would have drink the whisky at the end knowing he could get infected by doing so. But Childs thing would, knowing it would infect Mc ready as soon as he drinks back from it.
John has changed his answer repeatedly over the years. He’s also confirmed that both were human. And also confirmed that he didn’t know if they were human. And your other discussions never answer WHY a thing child’s would approach Mac. You say only a thing child’s would drink in order to infect Mac but as stated in the video, a thing didn’t need to infect Mac and trying to do so jeopardizes it’s mission.
This well always be some of John Carpenter best work back he was on the way to becoming one of the best film directors ever this movie is so over looked it's a classic hands down bar none love this video ❤
It's not remotely overlooked, its beloved by millions, constantly in the zeitgeist and talked about. Overlooked films don't get prequels, as bad as that was.
With regard to claims about "changing coats", I can prove that the tracking shot is a continuity error. Go to the moment where MacReady, Garry and Nauls burn all the rooms in the main building and then start heading down the stairs to the generator room. Freeze the shot and look over their shoulder. You are looking into that coat-room. And what do you see? Answer: you see the "missing" blue coat still sitting on that peg. That is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE if we hold to the "missing coat" theory. The tracking shot must be a continuity error: filmed later, and without care for the continuity team.
yeah, i showed that in my other Thing video, as well as a quote from the producer explicity stating that it's a continuity error. but, since it's in the film, people still use it as evidence.
@@movietimelines ah, OK, I thought I was the only person on the planet who had caught a glimpse of that blue coat still on its peg. But, honestly, this video is the best debunking of the whole "Childs is a Thing!" nonsense.
This tidbit doesn't refute your argument, but I just wanted to mention that Fuchs is only shown telling MacReady about everyone preparing their own meals. Then he dies. We don't see him telling anyone else this, and I don't think we see MacReady tell anyone Fuchs' suggestion. So Childs may not have been aware of that idea, which could be why he had no problem taking a drink from MacReady. Again, this is not a counter-argument to your point. In fact, it actually augments your observation.
I think mac is the thing, notice early in the movie when doc goes crazy and are locked in the cabin mac takes the vodka bottle and puts his mouth on it but didn't drink as maybe to infect the doc via his spit
The irony is that both are probably human at the end but they can't trust each other
That makes it more tragic.
They're both human but broken.
They'll never trust another living thing for as long as they live.
@@chumorgan443 so the next few hours
Spot on
Childs trusted Mac enough to drink that whiskey. That was damn strange and why Mac laughed and the creepy music started.
@@badism8369 Mac was drinking that whiskey so it's wasn't poisoned or anything. I personally think that Mac laughed because he fully realized the situation they were in (everybody dead and the camp destroyed and yet they can't trust each other).
I think the simplest reason why both have to be human is that it provides a completion to the themes of paranoia throughout the movie.
The Thing may have failed at actually spreading itself across the planet, but it did wind up planting the seeds of paranoia that neither man, after all they've experienced, can overcome, even in their last moments of life.
I can't tell you how happy I am to be in the corner of the internet where people understand both basic logic AND thematic payoffs in cinema.
Amen to that! It's as bad as the people who watch Shutter Island and somehow think the island drives you mad. Instead of the character choosing to die as the good man he remembered instead of what he became.@@WynneL
JC deserves a lifetime achievement award for his contributions to cinema.
His movies are great but I feel like The Thing is far beyond the others, if only it had been succesful on its time he coukd have continued doing masterpieces such as this.
Been a fan of The Thing since I was a kid when it aired on TV in the early 80s, it never once crossed my mind that either Childs or MacReady were anything other than human.
Same here.
@@ErikJoeNoise02 Same here as well. I was shocked to learn of people being so confident about Childs being a Thing. My gut told me anything BUT that, and I'm glad this video went into all the reasons why it's wrong. Some I hadn't even thought of.
Watching Josh attempt to tamp down his exasperation at all of the nonsense is genuinely hilarious.
*Michael Scott slamming hands on table*
THANK YOU!!!
I always thought the point of the ending is they are both human and paranoid of each other.
To me it was never a question if they were human but if they could trust each other at that point after everything that happened.
If you're willing to accept the 2002 video game as a canon sequel (that was endorsed by John Carpenter himself and even had him in a VA cameo), then it's revealed that Childs is a human as he's found dead from hypothermia, and MacReady ends up assisting them in taking down the final boss. I'm currently unaware of if MacReady is human or not as I never played the game and everything I'm finding says he just somehow survived and came back to help, but it seems to be that way.
I have yet to get it firsthand, but there is a comic book series about how Mac gets back to civilization, but The Thing is there too (under the guise of a sheep, no less.)
Even more proof that the Thing replicates every last detail is when Norris has a heart attack during the skirmish with MacReady. Human Norris had a heart condition which the Thing had to then deal with under the stress of the siuation. This then shows that the Thing will replicate everything someone has trait wise, even if it could be perceived as somewhat of a weakness that could hinder it, leaving it vulnerable for a period of time.
Imagine if he didn't have a heart attack. They never would have thought of the blood test and him and Palmer could have just assimilated more people
@@chaosthebaryonyx6344 Doctor Copper wouldn’t have died :(
Lets be honest Childs was too cool 😎 to be an imitation 😂
Thank you!!! I been trying to tell people that, 😆 🤣
Yep, nobody - but nobody nor anything - can hope to imitate Childs.
thanks for the SuperThanks!
Nicely reasoned.
Whether people agree or not, I think we can all agree The Thing is a great film which has aged extremely well (apart from the computers, and I'm totally willing to overlook those).
You convinced me Childs is human.
After your input, the only way I see thing Childs approaching Mcready is a tip of the hat to a hard fought adversary.
I've yet to hear a specific argument for child's being human so here goes. All your points are good but it seems simpler than that. His coat is filthy after tons of ash rained down on him from the compound burning. His breath is harder to see because he has the shadow of the wall he is leaning against blocking the light. Mac's up against a brightly lit, firey background. Child's has a normal amount of steam that can be seen against a black background. Love your stuff, guy.
THE specific argument for Childs being human is that he doesn't act like a Thing.
Quite apart from the question of why a Childs-Thing would actually approach MacReady rather than just stay in the shadows and watch MacReady freeze to death, Childs DOES approach MacReady and DOES ask him if everyone else is dead.
Then when he receives affirmation that they are the last two left standing he..... sits down, shares a drink of whiskey, and remarks on what a whacky day this has turned out to be.
Which - as this channel points out - is a "specific argument" for Childs being human, because that's exactly what a human survivor would do.
We know that for a fact, since that's exactly what MacReady does.
A Childs-Thing would have to act in an entirely un-Thing-like manner (every other Thing that catches a human on their own kills them and assimilates them), so the only two alternatives are (A) Carpenter is a poor director (he's not), or (B) Childs is not a Thing (he's not).
It really is that simple.
Yeah I agree with that. Just never heard the specific argument I mentioned and it seems relevant to debunk the "breath and coat" points of view.
I totally agree with you. I saw this movie when it first came out in theaters and I’ve always believed they were both human.
@11:00 You can hear the frustration in movie timelines guys voice and you know what I'm on his side. Movie timelines guy preach baby preach
To add to that, Josh, if Childs was the Thing he would burn or assimilate MacCready right off the bat. Not wait and chat...
Carpenter himself said both of them are human in an interview for Empire in 2004.
Keith David, the actor, has said Childs (his character) was not a Thing as well.
As most, if not all comments here, will be about debating this theory, I just want to leave a comment saying that I believe "the hallway sequence" is, in my eyes, the scariest moment in the entire movie.
That long tracking/panning (?) shot of the long, empty corridor, then showing the door to the generator room for the very first time in the movie, and finally the empty entrance room is freaky as hell! I always imagine that there is someone lurking at the far end of that corridor.
I cannot imagine being in that empty outpost by myself, with the possibility that there may be a malevolent, aggressive, shapeshifting alien creature lurking around is truly terrifying.
My only argument is I, personally, feel that this POV, if it is a POV, is actually Blair-Thing. He is stalking the corridor, looks down at the door and checks the door. Childs is already gone. It might be possible that Childs thought he saw Blair in the snow (which is impossible as Blair seconds later destroys the Generator) but possible with his tired eyes OR he heard Blair, freaked out and went running, which goes against his aggressive character.
I do like the idea that someone wrote years ago on Outpost31 forums that Childs didn't see Blair-Thing, but actually saw Fuchs-Thing. The theory behind this is that the body Mac, Nauls and Windows discovered in the snow was actually Bennings, which had been dug out by Blair. Blair assimilated, or partially assimilated Fuchs and Fuchs-Things heads off to the tool shed or elsewhere to help build the craft. It is also impossible for a flare to cause such burns to someone as Fuchs received and I would guarantee that someone would have noticed a flamethrower being used on him.
It's just a fun little theory that I feel does hold some credence, but it does have its flaws too, one of which I am willing to admit is that the Bennings-Thing was most likely burnt to absolute ashes the second time around. Then again, the only way they could identify Fuchs was by his "glasses" and Blair-Thing proves that Things don't need to wear glasses...
I've always thought that, from a morality standpoint, both men are human and were honorable enough to be willing to die to make sure, even if for themselves. They knew the stakes for error, now.
The character in the ending is also the polar opposite of the Mac who took a chess loss against a lower version of a non-human opponent like a child. Opening Mac is NOT Final Mac. He fulfilled his arc and Childs was likely on one himself, as HE is the main character of this story if you're him, supported by his literal POV angles, as this video also addresses. That POV was a glimpse of another man's movie...and they converge in the final scene. Stalemate.
Just two dudes having a drink, freezing to death, and saving the world.
Since watching this movie as a small child (and many times since) I've always felt that both Childs and Mac were human, and that makes the tragedy of their predicament, despite the 'victory' over destroying the Thing, that much more palpable, and memorable. It's one of the best endings in movie history, in my view.
Ah, finally! Thank you for saying with exasperation what I'm usually too exasperated to say when I hear/read "Childs is a Thing" again. If it's any consolation, I'm pretty sure this interpretation sticks around for at least three reasons I can identify:
1) The unhappy "happy" ending. This is a rare instance where the heroes won the war but lost the battle. They are victorious but will die anyway, and no one will celebrate their sacrifice let alone even know what they accomplished. Some audience members don't know how to walk away from an ending like that, so they need to re-frame the exchange in the snow as a final showdown between protagonist and antagonist, where the last human pulls one over on that sneaky Thing by beating him at his own game by making him drink poison in disguise.
2) "The Blade Runner effect." Harrison Ford swears Deckard isn't a replicant, but Ridley Scott says he is (and even put a literal gleam in his eye to drive the point home). Some viewers are always looking for an Easter egg, even if that egg might contain a face-hugger.
3) From Antarctica to Hollywood. The most compelling evidence to the conspiracy crowd is probably correct, but you have to realize that Childs was a character, and Keith David was the THING. See, Keith David has quietly gone on to dominate the human race. He has 363 credits on the IMDB (and 13 additional ones listed as "Upcoming"), and that number obscures the fact that those credits include 547 episodes of television. His next credit after "The Thing"? Nine episodes as Keith the Handyman on "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood." Can he do good war movies? Yes. He was in "Platoon." Can he do 5hit war movies? Yes. He was in "Braddock: Missing in Action III." How about voiceover work? Well, he's credited as the narrator in more than half of the additional 133 credits under "Self." Animation? He's been in Disney, done anime, and is the goldanged President of the United States on "Rick & Morty." Can he sing? Gawd, yes. But does he ever stop to take a breath? Nope. This is not an actor. This the resume of a man who slept for thousands of years and is trying to make up for lost time. Does he write or direct? Never. He just transforms for role after role after role. He can be anyone, play anyTHING. How is it possible? He ain't human I tell ya!
🤣This tickled me so much. He was in Mass Effect! He'll be in Shelby Oaks! You're right, he's EVERYWHERE!
... I'm still laughing at 2). But 3) is Indisputable Evidence if ever there was any.
"They Live."
I also have always thought that they were both human at the end of the film.
I agree with most of these points except the hallway shot. The director placed that scene in the movie to show that child’s was no longer in his spot, which causes suspicion. Saying that it was child’s POV or that he left to be in a safer spot is a bit of a stretch.
A lot of the time, the answers are more straightforward and simple. And upon first viewing, the hallway shot always seemed it was supposed to cause suspicion. Never did I expect it to be there for any other reason
But that’s just my take. Keep up the good work! I could talk about the thing all day!!
Thanks for the late Christmas present!
I just like the optimistic outlook of them both being human and having eliminated the Thing. It justifies all the hardship they went through, including their imminent deaths by freezing. That may not be a well-reasoned point of view backed up by evidence like you present it here; but at least it's slightly hopeful:)
Nothing wrong with there being some sort of small light in the darkness. And it is a movie in the end, so looking for narrative significance and character development is perfectly valid. Gut feelings often precede conscious realizations, so those are valid too.
I like the idea and themes of two men being infinitely suspicious of one another, only to realize at the end of their lives that if either was the Thing they'd be dead already. So they laugh together, realizing the one they most unfairly suspected became their only ally. So they share a last drink like old friends. It is emotionally rewarding.
Now Josh, hear me out. I do not disagree with you, but to play Devil’s advocate here, what if, Childs was a Thing, and he decided that he wanted to honor his victor by sharing a last drink with him? Yea yea, all the “stupid” reasons why that you mentioned, but, what if, the Thing WAS smart enough to realize a human Childs WOULD take the drink? Then he’s just acknowledging his defeat with a worthy opponent. Like an honorable soldier. That being said, seriously, I’m on your side. Just couldn’t resist the fun take. Happy New Year!!
I _(*hic*!)_ don' unnerstand your _(*hic*!)_ thinking there, Bud...
@@ChewsCarefully aw, thank you for your reply. My autistic arse appreciates it. I feel it wasn’t difficult to understand, but always appreciate a reply on a half year old comment, and will happily discuss what you didn’t understand bud
The biggest reason, IMO, that it makes logical sense for both Childs and Mac to be human at the end of the film is because The Thing is just one part of John Capenter's Apocalypse Trilogy alongside Prince of Darkness and Mouth of Madness. But the most emotionally resonant and impactful meaning of the ending, what makes it 'apocalyptic', isn't the idea of this creature making it to population, it's the idea that Mac and Childs, the two humans left alive, have to come to terms with their own apocalypse: the end of their own lives. There is no rescue, there is no salvation, there is no happy ending for either of these characters. Having one of them still being the monstrous duplicative Thing lessens that idea and I really think that's one of the core ideas Carpenter was striving for at the ending.
Surely The Thing escaping and making it to the rest of civilisation is far more in keeping with the meaning of the word 'apocalyptic'.
According to the late Bill Lancaster, the screenwriter both where human
I totally agree with you, and have always thought of that in this same way.
Great Great Breakdown And Explanation On The Ending Of "The Thing."👍🏾💯👍🏾
Hey Josh I used to be in the Childs was a Thing camp due to the scene where he leaves his post, and you really debunked that in the 2nd round of unanswered questions. I actually like the plot device that Childs is all out for himself, and hears Blairmonster and just says im out. Great work on this movie Josh!
Well, it is plausible: Childs was told to stand guard and burn Blair if he tries to make it back to the main building. But a Blair-Thing in the basement means that it is already behind Childs, and discretion might then be the better part of valour.
Maybe, but I think that is unnecessary.
Childs is regarded by all as being hot-headed and prone to rash violence.
So GIVEN his orders from Mac (if Blair tries to make it back... burn him) then it would be entirely in his character to rush out at and chase shadows.
Remember: when Childs does head out into the storm the camp is still brightly lit AND he has no reason to believe it would soon be plunged into darkness.
As far as Childs is aware he believes he has caught a glimpse of that sucker, and he'll be damned if he will let it get away.
Worth noting that Carpenter often said that he'd've done the first Dark Horse Comics series as the sequel and Childs remains human in it
Agree with all points you made. Thank you for your great channel!
100% Right! Mac even says it in the movie. "I know I'm human. But if you were all these things, you would attack me now." Mac/(Carpenter) felt if Childs was a Thing, it would just kill him and be done with it. And that's why Mac smiles at the end. Cause he knows Childs is human.
I like that we don't know, but despite think it was Childs for a time I think it could be Mac. The breath and jacket thing was debunked by the actor himself, which is simply the lighting. The whole kerosene thing and sharing food and that, while its under the assumption that Mac told everyone what Fuchs told him. We never see him do it and given the panic of the lights going out and Fuchs missing, I don't see Mac stopping and going "oh by the way". That and if he did tell everyone and Childs was the Thing, then he would know what Childs knows. As for the Blair killing part, to me it looked like he was absorbing Garry, Blair just killed him first so he wouldn't make noise. The jacket on the hook thing, that was also explained by the actor as a simple continuity error. I believe Childs was human, and he did get lost in the storm thinking he saw Blair out there. And he didn't born Mac right away cause he didn't want to kill a fellow human survivor of this nightmare. The reason I'm leaning towards Mac is he flat out say it wants to freeze and sleep tell someone else finds it. Then he later turns around and says lets blow up stuff and let it freeze. This was odd, but then he blows up the giant Blair dog Thing 🤷♂ I'm thinking that like Blair, Mac was slowly turning and it was slowly starting to affect his thinking. Maybe that's why the giant Blair dog Thing didn't straight up kill Mac right there. It had more then enough time, it might have sensed a bit of itself in him and paused. Of course that's a big if he was infected. After blowing the place up Mac is seen with a blanket and a bottle (not kerosene) indicting some time had passed. He convinces Childs to just chill out and freeze to death, and shares his drink with Childs and laughs. Which makes me think Mac just infected Childs and laughed. I heard Carpenter is making a sequel, but if not or until then, Carpenter has said he considers the 2002 game to be a sequel. In that game we see Childs dead and Mac is the thing. So if the creator gives it his thumbs up on it be Mac that's good enough for me. But again, movie wise, I like not knowing.
Agree with you that MacReady was likely the only person that Fuchs confided in and, well, it did get very hectic very quickly from then on.
Note also that the other time that someone confides in MacReady (Blair: keep an eye on Clarke) we DO see MacReady pass on that information.
So others were shown being told that, whereas we never see MacReady tell anyone else about Fuchs theory.
Which by movie-logic implies that MacReady never told anyone else.
Thanks for the Video 😀
Happy and a HEALTHY New Year !!!
Mac is human, we know that. If Child's was a Thing, he would've killed Mac with the Flamethrower he was holding...simple.
The only argument I might have is that if the Thing needs to freeze it has to get away from camp but wouldn't that make it difficult to find by the rescue teams, etc,.? The Thing was only discovered in the first place because of the large spaceship...
your assessment is as mine has been, brother! good video!
Mac says it himself "If we've got any surprises for each other, I don't think we're in any shape to do anything about it."
Eliminating the bottle theory too. Either one of them is and they freeze, or neither are.... and they both freeze.
His eyes shine in the clips you show.
Can someone confirm, I was positive I have seen lightened still that show that MAC has a flame thrower with him while on the ground just under some cover at the end. That was used to confirm the drink he gave Childs was a test and that he would burn him, but since Childs did drink he knew they were both safe.
I appreciate the return to this subject. This was an excellent video. Not too long ago there was a video uploaded claiming both were the thing and I only made it in about five minutes before my brain started to ache...an ache that sort of continued until this video, so this was the remedy I needed. While I'm sorting out my computer issues, I have limited time with a laptop connected to the internet, ergo I had to wait until today to express my thanks for making such a strong argument for something I've personally always felt was true.
I'm glad that people take away their own interpretations, but for me - I never suspected either of them of having been assimilated. Because I was so impacted by my impression that I had when I first saw it. To me it was a revelation to, instead of ending with the lone survivor hero cliche, it gave the audience an ending with humanity looking into humanity, and facing, together, the ultimate outcome of their decisions, their actions, their sacrifice. Two humans that had significant differences & disagreements, in their views of many things, but now bonded by being on the right side of "for the greater good". But what do I know, I'm basing my interpretation on nostalgia of what I felt when I was a kid & saw it for the first time, and have just let that stick with me as my conclusion.
If either one, or both, of them has been replicated, then that is a sour ending. Everything they all did, was for nothing (big picture). If neither has been overtaken, then it is a bittersweet ending. You are saddened by their fate, but inspired that their fate may have saved the fate of humanity. (Not just because of their defeat of that particular invader (as in 'invasive species'), but also due to the revelation of such entities that will likely occur during the investigation of the international tragedies there. That investigation could lead to plans/defenses/technologies/medical advances... in preparation of a possible future encounter. For me, that was also part of the impact of the ending. Part of the unsaid thoughts haunting both men, CHILDS: "I don't know if we got lucky, or if that Thing just got unlucky. Either way, I think we may be about out of luck. [stares at the fire]. But, we got it." MACREADY: "Yeah. We got this one. [Stares at the sky.] But what if the next one lands in Wyoming?" CHILDS: "What if the next one... is a thousand of them Things [also looks to the sky]." A sort of, 'we did our part, I hope the rest of humanity can do theirs' ending. Like a feeling you sometimes get at the end of some of the old Twilight Zone episodes. (And yes, just like 'Alien' had 'Aliens', 'The Thing' should have 'The Things'. Childs & MacReady coming out of retirement to save humanity all over again.)
Starting the new year good . HAPPY NEW YEAR
Another great video. Thanks Josh!!
Yeah it's called turn up the brightness and you'll be able to see his breath
I love your thoroughness and analysis. Way to keep this gem of a movie alive and in people’s thoughts. I’ve seen this movie at least 50 times and my wife thinks I’m nuts.
This really makes sense and is the best explanation as to why he is human
Ive been waiting for this since 2020 ur takes are so based
I bought The Thing on BluRsy the other month, and the guy serving me jokingly asked "but is Childs human?"
The replacement jacket theory also doesn’t stand up to scrutiny because through the course of the film, the Thing caught on to the rest of the crew realizing that assimilation meant tearing through clothing. Windows and Garry were attacked by going for their exposed heads.
What if Josh is actually a 'Thing' and he's trying to convince us Child's is human so he can be rescued and help infect the planet
Okay last comment i just really live the Thing, its my faborite movie of all time, horror or otherwise, tied with Gattaca and Trainspotting for my triforce of favorite films, rob ager has tons of cool videos on the Thing, highly revommend his Collative Learning channel
Great video. Your logic based on film narrative makes absolute sense.
Happy new years !
I know people thought Childs was the thing because of a different jacket. As you pointed out, the jackets were placed back on the racks, but not how they looked at first. Maybe that was a slip up from the filming crew and they quickly placed them back. Also, with Childs jacket being dark, my take on that was it being a lighter color due to the frigid weather.
Good Indepth video.
John Carpenter said that one of those two men is the Thing, and he should know. Also, Carpenter said that the video game, which takes place immediately after the movie, is canonical, and in that story Macready was a dead human and Childs was a Thing.
I don’t believe that’s correct. The video game guys found a dead Childs (human) right off the bat if my memory serves. I played it when it came out.
I think in the game Childs is dead and Mac is pretty much alive, since he flies the chopper during the fight with the final boss at the end.
@@mgibb828 I must admit, I haven't played that game for ages, but Carpenter definitely said that one of them was a Thing, but didn't say which.
JC wouldn't necessarily know himself. If you listen to the commentary track with him and Kurt, the Thing's "rules" are not entirely clear even to them. Can you be a Thing and not even know it? The answer is like "maybe" or "I don't know".
@@JCIce007 Interesting. Thanks dude. 👍
1:11 Yep, same. I didn't expect so much passion. lol I love it and absolutely agree across the board. This is so overdue.
Hooray! UQ is always my favorite.
I truly appreciate your seeming frustration
Happy New Year Josh
Not to mention that the ending is more bleak if they're both human. They won, but only by ensuring their own death. There is no saving them, and they're standins for all of us. You can fight, and you can destroy the enemy, but you can't do it in way that saves yourself. I like that way more than "hey hey hey, let's keep this open for sequels!"
Yes I agree with you 💯
Perfect! Perfect! Perfect! 😃👍
Thank you SO MUCH for making this! It drives me so crazy people want to mess up the ambiguity of the movie for absolutely no reason or thematic payoff whatsoever. I always thought and felt that Childs was human; the details you went into made me all the more certain. Now I have somewhere to point everyone who denies it.
Childs as an alien is so boring and adds nothing because it's what you expect. Childs as a human, trapped at the end of his life with the lone wolf who's been mutually suspicious with him the whole time--THAT is a story. Unrestrained paranoia can end us just as surely as anything else. Ironic that they end up seeking *human* comfort in one another.
Great video but what’s even greater is that Hills shirt.
Gotta say I believe 99.99% of what you said.
The only bit I don't agree with is the speculation that Childs abandons his post because he got spooked by noises in the basement.
Come on, man! That's Keith David you are slandering. He has never played a character who wasn't fearless.
His lawyers will probably be in touch....
Whoa yah! Love this debate, i like both theories! Edit i thought the only good evidence for childs thing was the jacket change, did nt k ow that was debunked
I’ve always felt that childs was the thing at the end due to the whole dog assimilation scene. The thing yes is a smart creature, but it was so stupid that mind you, It has the memories of a dog, but was too dumb to realize maybe I shouldn’t assimilate these dogs because they make noise. It just seems at some point hell bent on assimilating over true preservation.
I felt like maybe Blair thing infected Childs as an last effort incase if Blair thing is killed off.
1:28 Now debateable as to if they are or are not Canon, The Thing Comics which at the time WERE CANON confirmed that Childes was NOT a Thing... But I am looking forward to this video... And I may even throw in some additional giveaways that Childes is Human once I have heard it all... Very SIMPLE THINGS that everyone overlooks - And ONE EXTRA that is NOT referenced directly in the film... But will be the subject of my own FAN THEORY VIDEO that I am currently scripting...
Though the idea in the end was it was NEVER supposed to have an answer... Whatever you believe is the right answer! The entire film is about PARANOIA... FEAR... MISTRUST! You are supposed to question the ending!
However, A Little clue to my Fan Theory - You should also Question The rest of the film... There are many moments that when you truly think about he and what you know at that point make no sense unless you assume that what everyone thinks is going on is WRONG!
4:32 OK! We are already at that point - THE JACKET, Yes... This one is wrong - And another clue that makes it clear that it is wrong... THE FLAMETHROWER!
The Thing is VERY VULNERABLE to Fire... Why would it strap back on the Flamethrower, a Container of highly Volatile Flammable Liquid that, If McReady Ruptured teh Containers or snagged a pipe would leave it EXTREMELY VULNERABLE? The entire place is in flames, Even if the Thing did Kill McReady, if those pipes or canisters are ruptured, Hot ash spells an end to the creature!!!
And one thing we know for sure about the Thing, It has a sense of Self Preservation! It would NOT risk it s own life!!! It NEEDS a Body... Preferably it needs a Human Body!!! So even if it has assimilated another Dog off Screen... That is not going to help it... It needs a Human Host!
Also, and this did not come into play until the 2011 prequel, but Childes has an Earring... And the Thing CANNOT REPLICTE NON ORGANIC MATTER! Now, I say this came into play in the 2011 Prequel, But it also shows here too - The Thing TEARS APART the victims Clothes' - It cannot copy their clothes!!! So it would NOT be able to Copy Childes' Earring... And it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that as it copies the DNA that it would assimilate a Hole that does not naturally appear in Childes' Body...
So the Thing would NOT have picked up teh Earring and put it back in its ear! Its copying its victims on a cellular Level - So it would copy the body from teh cells... Those Cells may register damage but not what kind (Hence how the Thing falls prey to a Heart Attack... The necessary information about what Damage to the Heart Cells is not contained in the cells!) - Ergo it would not know to leave a hole to insert a foreign object!
19:29 "The Childes Thing approaches goes up to Mcready to fond out if McReady is a Thing as well" - THAT MAKES NO SENSE! The movie itself shows us that The Thing KNOWS who is infected... It would not need to approach him! There are several moments in the movie where TWO PEOPLE are infected at the same time... But neither seems to show any sign of acknowledgment nor fear!
It is very safe to say that The Thing when it infects someone gives off what I can only assume would be a "Pheromone" - It knows who is infected! It is how teh Dogs also know who is infected, they can smell the pheromones that humans cannot!
Got to say it - I agree with @Movie Timelines - And while I watched this, I wrote out my Fan Theory very roughly! Christ... If this channel is interested, I can send them my rough draft and let them work their magic... I had offered it to MatPat previously but he doesn't respond!
You also got the 2002 sequel game that JC himself endorsed and that game has Childs human as well
The truly loony people are the ones who think Mac was actually the first one infected and a thing almost the entire time.
yeah, that one is the most ludicrous. so many of his action contradict this that it's silly.
Really, people think that?! He passed the blood test and everything! People really are nuts.
@@movietimelines Only one action so far as I can tell. One video makes a good case for him having seen the spider-head & choosing not to burn it, & playing the long chess game including sacrificing a pawn (Palmer) in order to gain trust from the rest of the group with the blood test, including that since we never see Mac fill up his vial, _HE may_ have been the one to sabotage the blood earlier & steal some to use For This Test thinking several moves ahead.
The only one action _I_ can think of anyway that contradicts him being The Thing is that he blows up the Blair Thing & his ship.
I can't reconcile that with being The Thing. Even if they were two separate Things arguing about whether to leave the planet or stay, let the other one go & you stay. So no, Mac isn't the Thing. I'm not married to either theory but I _love_ thinking all things through.
I love your nerdy dedication to this particular topic. I have a similar one for the Scream franchise, particularly 5 & 6. I’m convinced that Richie used a fake name in 5 & his dad used their real name. For me that makes the most sense. But I get a lot of pushback that it’s the other way around. No matter how many times I explain why that has to be the case, it always falls on deaf ears
Alternate theories are that Macreedy is the Thing or they're both the Thing. I like all three. Such an amazing movie
Good video.
6:04 - Instinct is powerful. The thing might have as much of a choice to approach its prey as you do to drive passed McDonald's.
9:26 - Perfectly good assessment.
Your sound has something of late 70s Bollywood about it, but I don't know if you're levels are bad or if your mic is, but my god, it's harsh on the ear.
Whatever your thoughts on the issue you've gotta hand it to Carpenter, he made it deliberately ambiguous to cause just these kind of discussions and here we are still talking about it. Mans a freakin' genius.
Childs heard the Blair thing down in the generator room, left his post, and went outside, then power shut off throughout the camp.
The Blair thing can not
assimilate Childs destroy the generator at the same time. In fact, it would no longer be the Blair thing. It would be the Childs thing in appearance. The Childs Thing would have killed Garry and Nauls. Not the Blair Things. Childs wasn't assimilated by the Blair Thing. 🤔
Agreed. Plus it takes a while to digest/ replicate a human, not in like 2 seconds that it’d have to be for that scenario to play out.
@@mgibb828 Yep. 😃👍
The pov shot is BLAIRS' POV, as he's looking around seeing if the coast is clear before he goes into the generator room.
( The Blair-thing isn't Blair by this point, it's using a completely different alien consciousness that is building the ship, it just LOOKS like Blair at this point. This is why Childs goes after him, because Blair's literally walking around in sub-freezing temperatures without a coat on).
Childs DOES see Blair outside, and he's already out the door before the pov shot. Blair has gone into the generator room by then.
Blair doesn't imitate Garry and Nauls, it kills them to use their bodies to grow bigger, as it needs more genetic material to do so.
I definitely agree with your take on the "bottle issue" but I feel like the more likely answer is he just didn't care. The end of the movie is so bleak and they have no clue if they'll even survive the night so why not drink. While I think it would be interesting if one of them were the thing I also think you're right about the monster not really having a motive for doing so at that point.
Actually, Gary knows were actually absorbed by the thing. In fact, there is a cut scene which there are up boards of in which you will see Knowles irrupt Ing from the ground with tentacles coming out of his face screaming for help. And I do believe you can see faces in the things body of who they used to be when it irrupt from the ground. But there is no question that is absolutely absorbs Gary as it drags him away in his face is attached to his arm or hand, merged with his head absorbed him.
What I've more wondering is if the remains of Palmer that he threw the stick of dynamite at still have cellular activity and can infect some via contact for example. Not quite the same as burning him entirely.
Childs is human. If you notice Childs ear as he looks to the left towards the burning compound, he's wearing his earring. There's a slight glint and if you look closely, you can see the earring. In the 2011 prequal the earring missing is brought up and it's confirmed that it doesn't put on jewelry or dental fillings.
Some good, solid arguments, based on facts there. You’re wrong!😂😂🤣
Preach it Josh. There should be no more arguments after seeing this. I'm on Team human Childs. Side note how awesome is Keith David in this and everything he does.
Also, i wanna point out that the thing is NOT A COPY...it us an imitation. Huge difference. It cannot replicate ALL memories of a human. If it did that then it would BECOME that "person" (even just mentally, if not physically). An exact copy IS that person!! This has actually been proven in metaphysics (philosophy). Twin humans being an exception because of their external environment changing their mental and physical states (different memories)...an exact memory copy completely would mean BEING the same person entirely.
I do think both were probably human at the end, but...if one of them was a Thing, I've long thought it was much more likely to be Mac. First, Mac was certainly in proximity of the Blair Thing, and potentially a Garry and Nauls Thing, too, while it's simply unknown whether Childs came into contact or not. (Yes, Nauls was intended to die by his own hand, before the Thing could get him, but as-is in the movie, we simply don't know his fate. He could have shown up as a third survivor--human or thing--which I thought would have been interesting if there had been a sequel. As for Garry, I'm not convinced that he was outright killed. With what we're shown, I wonder if the Blair Thing was trying to assimilate Garry without the telltale signs of ripped clothing? It knew it was pretty likely to freeze at that point, so having that knowledge when it thawed out again would be very useful. And, in fact, that could be how an assimilated Mac still had the same clothes on at the end.) Second, as a human, Mac would have had a hard time hearing a normal conversation after all those explosions, particularly after he ducked into that small tunnel as the final blasts went off. (Of course, most films ignore the probable hearing damage from nearby explosions and gunshots, which is probably just the case here.) Finally, think about Mac's words right before the trio starts blowing up the base--"It just wants to go to sleep in the cold until the rescue team finds it." Then, after destroying most of the base, Mac's final words indicate that he is ready to go to sleep in the cold. Granted, probably just his resignation to the situation, but curious that he's ready to do exactly what the Thing wanted...and after insuring that the camp was in complete ruins.
I have some more fuel to add to the fire, proving Childs is not The Thing. So, according to The Thing "Lore" it is a perfect organism. Meaning it would not consume anything that would be harmful to its body. That being either alcohol or kerosene. Plus, if you look closely, Childs still wearing his earring. According to The Thing "Lore" when a person is taken over, any inorganic objects are pushed out of the body, including earrings. If, some day, they want to continue this series with a sequel movie, they will need to come up with a better idea. Except for being lazy and say Childs is The Thing. Cause he is not. Thank You for you time. A forever fan - Billy J. Jarrett.
As someone else pointed out if you're using cannon from the prequel/remake. Charles has an earring in so unless the thing learn from that mistake beforehand which it could have why put the earring in. My biggest question is we never learned anything really of child's backstory and whether or not he's a drinker. Cuz the only person we see in the movie drinking is Mac. Maybe that's why McCready is laughing at the end because he sees Child's take a drink.
I cut school to see this movie when I was 13 or 14 years old, and it scared the s**t outta me! During the ending scene it never even occurred to me that Mac and Childs were anything other than human, and no asinine theory saying otherwise has ever come close to changing my mind. Great work, thanks foir the vid.
Love this one. I’ve seen all types of theories and all very interesting but I always felt they were both human.
I agree I watched the thing for the first time two weeks ago and from the evidence of how the creature acts in the film as well as simple logic, I can not see a possibility where Childs could be a thing.
Hi Josh, well done and good points overall but started thinking about a tangent. I am thinking a rescue team may have already been inbound at the start of the film. In the original 1950s Thing it was established that the alien craft disrupted long range radio transmissions. Both the Norwegian and US research stations would be having the same issue in the 1982 version and in the beginning of the film Windows complains he hasn't been able to reach anyone 9n the outside for weeks which could be explained by the Norwegians exposing the craft. So it is highly plausible that either a Norwegian or US team could arrive any time since both bases fell out of contact at the same time weeks ago and the powers that be would normally ask a neighboring nation at the south pole to in essence do a "welfare check" on its station to see why they've dropped off the face of the earth. We don't have Norwegians in the 50's version but in both,long range radio outbound is hampered/not possible. The only factor keeping the sound of chopper blades from being heard slowly getting louder is the storm that hit the base soon after the film started. Both Childs and Mac could be semi retired and managing a casino in Reno in todays world when the government calls them in to consult since a cold case investigative team that went to the old station 31 lost radio contact and hasn't been heRd from for a week😏🙈🙉.
Happy New Year to you and your family.
Keep up the 80s Quest!
Any chance you'll do a review of Shockwaves with Cushing and John Carradine?
John Carpenter himself confirmed in many different interviews that one of the 2 man at the end is a thing.
It HAS to be Childs.
The hallway scene is the main reason why.
Blair thing had acces to the basement and we see the door behind Child (wich was previously closed) is now open. AND a coat is missing. It tells us that a sleepy Childs got caught from behind and got assimilated.
There's no way he saw Blair thing and ran away to save his life. He, himself, says the reason he left the place was because he saw Blair outside. The real Childs would never go alone outside for such a dumb reason.
PLUS the real Child is super cautious during the entire movie and never would have drink the whisky at the end knowing he could get infected by doing so. But Childs thing would, knowing it would infect Mc ready as soon as he drinks back from it.
John has changed his answer repeatedly over the years. He’s also confirmed that both were human. And also confirmed that he didn’t know if they were human.
And your other discussions never answer WHY a thing child’s would approach Mac. You say only a thing child’s would drink in order to infect Mac but as stated in the video, a thing didn’t need to infect Mac and trying to do so jeopardizes it’s mission.
This well always be some of John Carpenter best work back he was on the way to becoming one of the best film directors ever this movie is so over looked it's a classic hands down bar none love this video ❤
It's not remotely overlooked, its beloved by millions, constantly in the zeitgeist and talked about. Overlooked films don't get prequels, as bad as that was.
Sure. Good argument, but how do we know Childs isn't a terminator?
With regard to claims about "changing coats", I can prove that the tracking shot is a continuity error.
Go to the moment where MacReady, Garry and Nauls burn all the rooms in the main building and then start heading down the stairs to the generator room.
Freeze the shot and look over their shoulder. You are looking into that coat-room.
And what do you see?
Answer: you see the "missing" blue coat still sitting on that peg.
That is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE if we hold to the "missing coat" theory.
The tracking shot must be a continuity error: filmed later, and without care for the continuity team.
yeah, i showed that in my other Thing video, as well as a quote from the producer explicity stating that it's a continuity error. but, since it's in the film, people still use it as evidence.
@@movietimelines ah, OK, I thought I was the only person on the planet who had caught a glimpse of that blue coat still on its peg.
But, honestly, this video is the best debunking of the whole "Childs is a Thing!" nonsense.
Where did you get that Hills shirt? When I was in High School, the kids used to hang out on Friday nights at the Burger King in the Hills Parking lot.
www.redbubble.com/i/t-shirt/Hills-is-where-the-toys-are-by-ImSecretlyGeeky/22234742.240QL.XYZ
I got it here!
This tidbit doesn't refute your argument, but I just wanted to mention that Fuchs is only shown telling MacReady about everyone preparing their own meals. Then he dies. We don't see him telling anyone else this, and I don't think we see MacReady tell anyone Fuchs' suggestion. So Childs may not have been aware of that idea, which could be why he had no problem taking a drink from MacReady. Again, this is not a counter-argument to your point. In fact, it actually augments your observation.
the bottle has no kerosene, but that is not the point. The point is sharing and exchange of cells.
Just here to send love to Keith David
I think mac is the thing, notice early in the movie when doc goes crazy and are locked in the cabin mac takes the vodka bottle and puts his mouth on it but didn't drink as maybe to infect the doc via his spit
I'm only here to listen to Josh rant about the ending of The Thing for 20 minutes.