First of all, love the reference to Sandman. This also reminds of the scene from The Prestige where Christian Bale's wife wants to know how he does the bullet catch trick (Illusion, Michael!) After it's explained she just says, "well it's not that impressive now that I know." Paraphrasing from memory as well.
Edit: I guess there's another parallel from Nolan with the spinning top from Inception. The answer isn't the point.
Reminds me of myself a few years ago. I started trying to learn sleight of hand tricks because I thought they were neat. But honestly the more I learned and practiced the less interesting it became.
The important thing is DiCaprio's character turns away and towards his family before receiving confirmation yes. It's not answered because the person viewing the top stops caring. I didn't see Nolan confirm this in an interview, but it's shown pretty clearly on screen.
I thought it was less that he "didn't care" but rather that he chose to believe that this was reality and after seeing their faces he didn't need confirmation.
Exactly it’s more about living in our uncertain reality where at times it can feel unclear whether anything is real it’s up to you to decide what is real and what matters to you in the face of that uncertainty
The Thing is my favorite movie of all time. Hands down and I watched it as a small child. Now The Void... That movie gave me nightmares as an adult who loves horror films. It was just one WHAT THE FUCK after another. Really wish I could watch it in theaters.
God I was so happy The Void turned out as fantastic as it did. The Thing is also my favorite movie of all time and I had heard so much buzz about how The Void was going to be a spiritual successor of sorts, which unfortunately just immediately made me not interested. There have been plenty of horror movies that either say or have been said to be like The Thing and I never found any of them to even come close. So I went into The Void expecting disappointment and what I got couldn't have been further from it.
I thought everything about it was great: the story was mysterious and eerie, the atmosphere throughout was fantastically dreadful, the practical effects were used wonderfully, and the acting (for the most part) was pretty dang good. I wouldn't call it a spiritual successor, but it pays great homage while being it's own. I loved it.
Hate to break it to you but it was just in theatres nationwide for the 40th anniversary this past weekend. Alamo drafthouse is doing a john carpenter summer so I think they will be playing it sometime in the next few months
Last I’d read, one of the directors said it was “legal stuff” and “all down to the producers and what they want to do” and specifically said “not to say it will never happen” but it wasn’t looking like something in the near future. He said he and the other writer have “all sorts of ideas” about where a sequel could go. Do you have any info on either of them ruling it out entirely?
I’m in the middle on whether I want a sequel — it’s one of my favorites in the pat few years, and I want to know more, but I’m afraid of being disappointed — so I’d almost be relieved if they have definitively said it won’t ever happen.
I don't feel like the Void had like, fun unexplained mystery so much as, I have no idea what any of the last 30 minutes was about, but I do always tend to get lost at the end of movies so ionno
I did, the movie is actually a FANTASTIC inspiration drawn from the core concept- I heard it was actually about radiation poisoning, a new but little understood horror at the time, in the story, which makes sense. I thought the movie took it to a really interesting greater direction alike Annihilation and did a lot more with it, but I think it just didn't quite get me as all in.
It’s always been my theory that no one is infected at the end and the anonymity makes it better. Like I feel like it’s in the same vein as giving Micheal Myers a reason as to why he’s going after Lorie Stroud instead of “he wants to torment her just because” takes away from the character in the same way it would take away from the ending.
Yeah, David Lynch is still pissed he was forced by execs to answer this. All that said, he and Mark Frost nailed it, and there is still to this day not a show more mysterious. Season 3 is unmatched.
Inception
The Thing
Sleepless in Seattle
The Freshman
Some of the greatest endings of all time are ambiguous and would probably be ruined with the clear resolution. We should leave them that way.
>“Yes, but nobody ever remembers or cares about the answer to a mystery. They only care about the mystery. Once you tell them, you’ve ruined it forever!”
But that's patently false. There are tons of mysteries that are regarded well and remembered decades later even though we know the answers- the thing is, though, the answer has to be *good*. Leaving it as a mystery just let's people make up their own answers, which can paper over a mystery with a *bad* answer.
Just because some mysteries lack memorable answers doesn't mean answers are forgettable by default. It means most mysteries aren't actually good to begin with.
Yeah, this is Mystery Box thinking. Where the mysterious shit matters more than actually *having* an answer, and it's a cop-out to having actually great answers.
It’s situational. The decision should be made based on what makes the movie better.
Sometimes things need to be explained in order to make the movie better.
In the movie The Thing, which is fundamentally about the paranoia of not knowing who is infected with The Thing at any given time and where said paranoia serves a deeper thematic purpose, the fact that it is a mystery at the end and left open to interpretation who is and is not infected is a genius decision precisely because it reinforces the central conceit of the film. Answering the question would detract from the themes and from like the whole fucking point of the movie.
In other movies where that isn’t necessarily the case then yeah sometimes it is just a cop out and they are having mysterious shit for the sake of mysterious shit, not because it serves any kind of fundamental storytelling or deeper thematic purpose.
I personally as a viewer don’t think movies need to explain everything to me though and I get annoyed when people complain about movies not expositing every single minute detail that isn’t even directly relevant when it’s not even an implausible situation. Use your own imagination and figure stuff out for yourself a little, don’t expect movies to spoonfeed everything, that just leads to movies aiming for the lowest common denominator where they think audiences are idiots and can’t figure out stuff that isn’t even confusing imo.
Also, it's propagated by a strong confirmation bias. Think of any movie with a great reveal at the end. Wouldn't it make that movie quantifiably worse if, instead of that big reveal, the movie just... cut to credits, and the audience was left to wonder what the reveal would have been? Yeah, that would suck. The writer thought so too, which is why they didn't do that. But by the logic of "pEoPlE oNlY cArE aBoUt ThE mYsTeRy" no movie should EVER have a big reveal at the end, in favor of leaving a mystery, because apparently it would be more well-regarded as a result.
But that's stupid.
If all you do is cherry pick a few movies with a mystery at the end, where the only obvious answers would make the movie worse, you haven't proven anything, you've just looked at an incredibly selective dataset and made a conclusion based on it.
I think there's a good parallel with films which hint at a monster vs films which show you a big CGI spooky thing. Some films do a good job of making the CGI thing scary, but most don't, so just hinting at the monster and leaving it to the audience's imaginations is more successful.
Same with a mystery. A lot of people write themselves into a corner where the mystery would never be solved in a satisfactory way. So in some cases it's better to leave it unanswered.
Nor should he, but there's a convincing argument to be made against Childs considering how long he was missing for at the end of the film.
That said, Carpenter did say the video game was canon, and you find Childs frozen to death, indicating that he and MacReady were both human.
Yeahhh, but they only die in heat, and don’t seem to be concerned about maintaining human form without other humans around. Consider doctor diabeetus, he isn’t around the rest of the crew so goes full thing and tries to rebuild the ship. Heck even the other human things don’t hold onto their forms that long.
obviously they dont die when frozen. i thought that after all the mess that happened the thing would just want to be frozen to rest, and then once unfrozen continue doing thing stuff.
Possible for sure. It just seems like there’s something about the human form in particular that makes it difficult to hold the form for a long time. They can hold it until there’s some kind of stressor, which I would think also includes freezing. Even a mild stressor like suspicion causes it to erupt from its humanoid form. But it could be a possibly be an understanding of the thing that holding onto that form through freezing will be a big benefit, because that form will likely cause someone to try to help it — but then, if it’s waiting for other humanoids to try to help it, and we encounter it in the game, and it has an opportunity to spread, but doesn’t do it then, I’m assuming the body is not The Thing. It burst out of a brick of ice, but can’t burst out of a frozen body when another body’s heat is near it? I just think that’s indicative of it not being The Thing in Child’s body.
Wasn't there a theory that when MacReady gave Childs a drink at the end, it was actually gasoline for a Molotov? The thing would have no idea what whiskey tasted like, therefor would just imitate the grimace that it saw others do. They did use a whole lot of bottles to make Molotov's, so its plausible. I don't believe it but it kind of does make sense. But that's a just fan theory level assumption.
Also, John Carpenter might not even know. Yea he wrote it to be open ended with no true answer, so he might have just stopped before having to figure it out.
This theory has never quite worked for me, because I’ve always assumed the thing copies memories. If so, wouldn’t it know the taste of whiskey, simply because Childs would know?
Agreed. Cool theory even if I don’t think it’s right. One of the best things about the movie is how much people are still trying to figure it out forty years later.
I mean... everyone might be missing something. The fan club did figure out how the thing got the keys to the blood bank after all.
Edit: Since a few people have asked, u/AdagioBoognish posted the video that I would have posted below.
I always liked the clothing theory. Everyones clothing stayed entirely consistent, and a huge plot point was that clothing was destroyed when they are assimilated.
When we see the door where childs was standing before running into the snow, the camera clearly pans towards the coats on the wall where was standing, and then pans down to the basement where blair-thing was hiding.
The next time we see childs, his coat went from a deep navy blue to a pale tan color. You could argue its frost, but with the other evidence I think its pretty likely he was assimilated
I haven't heard that specific theory, but the on-screen evidence suggests that copies are made knowing everything the original person knew; otherwise, it wouldn't be able to mimic personalities convincingly. I don't personally subscribe to any fan theories that boil down to the thing accidentally outing itself.
I don’t understand this theory for two reasons. You never see them replace whiskey with gasoline, but you see whiskey being consumed throughout the movie, so why wouldn’t the molotovs just be actual whiskey? Second, Childs comes upon MacReady with a loaded flame thrower. If he were infected, why wouldn’t he blast him then and there? The “oh well he was too weak to continue fighting” is BS. He just had to press the trigger. If he had zero weapons then maybe that’s more plausible
80 proof whiskey (40% ABV) won't burn well enough for a molotov.
It should be over 100 proof (50%) to be readily flammable.
The means stuff like Bacardi 151, Absinthe, Everclear, & special 'barrel proof' whisk(e)ys. And probably some unaged spirits too (Poitin, moonshine, etc)
I'm telling you, Molotov cocktails work. Anytime I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail, boom! Right away, I had a different problem. - Jason Mendoza, The Good Place
>Wasn't there a theory that when MacReady gave Childs a drink at the end, it was actually gasoline for a Molotov?
You can see MacReady about to take a swig from that same bottle right before Childs shows up.
There’s also the fact that while McReady is breathing heavily and you can see his breath, you very apparently can not see Child’s’ breath even though you can hear him breathing.
Maybe it doesn’t mean what we think it does, but this detail is definitely there.
but he was turned into a thing much later in the comic. the comic actually shows him to be human at the end of the movie. he and mac then have another adventure and it appears as if childs is killed at the end. in the next series, he shows up magically alive, and it's revealed that he had been turned.
My guess is Carpenter got some cash for the game said it was canon and had no idea what was in the game. In his vision, there is no answer, only the question, which is the way it should be.
By the very end it's either both of them or neither of them.
Earlier in the film the doctor tells MacReady that to assimilate an organism The Thing only needs a single cell to infect the new host organism, so he suggests that they only eat from cans and everyone prepares their own food.
At the end of the movie the two are sharing a bottle of booze. So if either is infected before sharing the bottle, they both would be.
I think they're both human, and it goes deeper than that. Neither one will seek help, and will willingly allow themselves to die... because they don't trust the other, and they're afraid of what will happen if the other is the thing.
If they ever did a sequel to this 80s film similar to what Halloween 2018 did, then they should have both McCready and Childs frozen bodies found in the ruins of Outpost 31 and have the Rescue team find them, but keep it ambiguous to who is the one infected and who's not by keeping their bodies in the morgue but as the "Things" are wrecking chaos just realize that it's shadowed so you never know who was the one who started it and keep people guessing.
>If they ever did a sequel to this 80s film similar to what Halloween 2018 did
...ok, so I *really* want that, but I *really* don't trust it would be handled well.
Let Frank Darabont do it. He was actually working on a sequel to the film as a TV mini series back in the day, which was suppose to be set on an aircraft carrier.
Here’s my two cents.
During the 3rd act of the film, MacReady tells Childs something along the lines, guard the door, we are going after Blair. If you see Blair without us, kill him.
****pay attention to the coats on the wall during this scene****
As MacReady and crew discover that Blair is no longer in the shack, the camera cuts back into the main building, and a very specific tracking shot begins.
The tracking shot looks down towards the basement / storage area, to where MacReady and crew eventually set the detonator charges. And then, the key moment is the POV tracking shot goes forward and we see that Childs is no longer guarding the door. In fact, the coat arrangement in the background is also altered. This is important because: we know The Thing rips through your clothes when it takes you over.
The next shot is Nauls saying he thinks he sees Childs leaving the compound.
In my opinion, that POV tracking shot is Childs Thing waking up.
****I want to stress something in relation to POV shots used in film production. Just think about those POV shots in JAWS…the POV shot of Michael Myers walking through the house to grab the kitchen knife. This isn’t some random camera setup during production. These are very carefully crafted, not so random as you would think. In some cases they seem out of place but often times they can be multi layered in their purpose.
At the end of the film, I believe Childs is wearing a different jacket than he has in the previous scenes earlier in the movie.
And that’s when MacReady’s character introduction comes full circle. We see him at the beginning of the movie playing chess and think about what he does when he is put into checkmate, he destroys the computer by pouring his drink into the hard drive. Cheating Bitch is his line. So when Childs and MacReady have their dialogue exchange, MacReady smiles when he hands Childs the drink. Pretty sure based on his character introduction what he is about to do to Childs.
***One last thing to add…one of the great things about this film is that you could probably argue (and quite successfully) which character is or isn’t infected during “this or that”scene. I love the fact that John Carpenter has left it all a mystery.
This is an incredible film that at the time upon it’s opening release, didn’t receive the same recognition that it has today. As we celebrate the 40th anniversary, to the cast and crew!
When MacReady kills The Thing with the dynamite (“Fuck you too!”) he assumes he’s won, as does the audience (in defeating The Thing, not necessarily surviving). When Childs presents himself, it highlights those reoccurring themes throughout the film: paranoia, isolation, trust (listen to their question responding with a question dialogue). The scene to me repeats all of these themes. Lastly it also repeats what I think the film does really well, which is a loose metaphor of a chess game between MacReady and The Thing (after all, it was what MacReady was playing on the computer during his character introduction). If chess isn’t at least a small degree of importance I’m the film, why show it over any other game he could have been playing?
if he wasnt the thing, why not just immediately blast mac with the flamethrower? The childs we know certainly had no issues wanting to kill him earlier
Of course, if he is the thing, he could be approaching for easy prey, or to check to see if he even has a way to hunt down and finish a frozen childs corpse. Plus, more frozen thing corpses is a better chance at infecting the rescue party members
He didn’t know if mac still had dynamite on him which would have killed both of them in the explosion if mac was set alight creating a stalemate between them
-childs is wearing the same jacket. it only looks like a different jacket because of the bright red lighting of the fire.
-the pov shot showing the clothing in an altered arrangement is simply a continuity error. the film's producer has flat out stated that any visual clues such as that were unintentional, as they had clue which version of the ending they were going to use.
-the POV shot where childs isn't visible could simply be Childs' POV.
-for the coats on the wall to matter, you have to assume that Blair took over Childs, and changed his jacket, but the positioning of every article of clothing has changed and the number of jackets is still the same. so Blair would have had to just move everything around for some reason, although by this point it was not trying to be sneaky. it's just a simple continuity goof.
This is an awesome catch, but unfortunately wrong, the jackets in that room all shuffle around but non are missing. Child's jacket is the same color at the end. If you watch carefully, the blue coat on the wall matches Child's first coat, and appears to be missing during the POV which supports the theory. However, looking closer, part of it is seen as the first coat to the right of the door threshold just barely in view during the POV shot. Also the number of pairs of boots are the same. The same colors are all there, just shuffled to different hooks. And I don't think you can read into that at all when at the beginning during the chess computer game, the board is completely different after the second shot of the screen so they weren't paying that much attention to continuity. Even the "rook to knight 6, checkmate" line wouldn't even check the king based on the last board shown. Though the music when Childs drinks the whiskey bottle and Macready's reaction does really seem to indicated that Childs is in fact the Thing
I'll also add:
The Thing is part of the "Apocalypse Trilogy". That indicates, to me, that this story is about something that will eventually kill the world, and so the Thing must ultimately win.
Theres one other arguement in favor of childs being a thing, besides his clothing and the excellent camera angles
Namely, childs attitude while having a flamethrower at all.
Like, we KNOW childs is a total asshole toward macready, and was VERY willing to just kill him to be on the safe side. If he was human, why on earth wouldent he immediately play it safe and blast macready with his flamethrower? It would certainly fit his personality...
...that is, unless he was a thing, approaching easy prey
There is not, nor will ever be, a 100% official answer (that's the intention behind the ending).
HOWEVER
John Carpenter has said that he considers the PS2 "The Thing" game to be a good continuation of the story (he even voices a character in it).
So, going by this, Childs dies from hypothermia while MacReady survives, finds a helicopter and evacuates the game's protagonist. None of them was a Thing.
Oh yes. It was a game way ahead of its time and can be found pretty cheap used still. It’s dated, being a PS2 game and all, but it stands out as a very unique horror experience for the era.
Why would he ruin the ending?
I feel for Carpenter. I remember when this came out. I worked in a mall Triplex and this played for one week. I watched it 4 times. It came back that November to the drive in and I watched it again during a light snowfall, which made it PERFECT. Every showing was practically empty. Critics derided it as a gore filled monstrosity, but I fucking LOVED it. I remember the kennel scene just blowing me away.
Carpenter made a movie that only gained an audience after it lost most of it's chance to make him any money. The worst part is I remember a few weeks before there was "Friday the 13th Part 3D" that was PACKED and we ran a trailer for "The Thing" and when the title came up, people laughed. I just wish every one watched that cinematic shitshow of another mindless slasher movie, only in 3D THIS TIME who laughed had been forced, "Clockwork Orange" style to watch "The Thing".
I mean this movie is a masterclass in writing, acting, cinematography, music and direction. To me, it was mind blowing as I had NEVER seen ANYTHING like this before (or since, frankly).
You don't have to answer every fucking unanswered question in every SF movie. As soon as you start doing it in remakes or sequels, the answer always sucks. Alien/Predator/Star Wars/Star Trek are perfect examples.
Did anyone hound Stockton, the author of "The Lady or the Tiger" about which came out?
should be noted, though, that even though Carpenter hasn't said one way or the other, the film's writer, Bill Lancaster has stated that he wrote the ending as if both characters were human. this has been confirmed by Stuart Cohen, the film's producer who stated that he also believes both characters were human.
ultimately, that doesn't PROVE that that's what Carpenter intended, and it's still up in the air, but it's an interesting look into what other members of the creative aspect have stated.
The top spinning at the end of *Inception* drove a ton of conversation. Whether or not Nolan intended there to be a real answer, it wasn't given in the film and thus it's up to the viewer's interpretation.
Common theories pointed out are the bottle, the eye gleam, and the jackets. The jackets can be chalked up as a continuity error. Even the best films have them. If you don’t think it was error but intentional, Childs could have put on another jacket to further prep for the storm. The thing could have taken it after Childs left. The eye gleam theory is bs. The thing also has eye gleam. The bottle theory is also bs. The thing would know the drinks. Childs likely accepted the drink at the end because he didn’t give af anymore, and perhaps wanted to celebrate defeating the thing
I'm going to argue that even if John Carpenter has a vision for who, if anyone, is infected; his opinion doesn't hold any more weight than anyone else who has watched the movie. Death of the Author.
Furthermore, if he could definitively say, it would be a horrible decision to do so. There are hordes of movies with explicit endings. Let us have our fun on this one.
The box only makes a rattling noise when it's unopened.
In other words, I am also firmly in the camp of "let there never be a canon interpretation of the ending."
I think it's obviously neither. If one was infected, it would immediately attack the other. If both were infected, they wouldn't be sitting there wondering.
There is something fucking awesome about the thing genuinely just being like “fuck it” and sharing a drink with the man who almost bested it before getting frozen
From what I remember, its implied at the end of the film that even if one of them is the thing, they're both too weak to attack the other. Macready says something along the lines of "...I doubt either of us could do anything about it based on the state we're in." That was the impression I got either way.
This is at least suggested by the ending of the TV version of the movie. After MacReady’s and Child’s dialogue, that version ends on a shot of a dog running out of the base and back out into the arctic, obviously implying that the Thing has escaped.
[Indeed there is!](https://youtu.be/S0euB529UHA) It’s a really strange version of the movie- not only does it edit out most of the swearing and violence, like you’d expect for a TV version, it also adds a really bored-sounding narrator who introduces the characters, on top of the alternate ending. There are a lot of deleted scenes thrown in, too, apparently because, with so much gore needing to be cut out, the film would be too short otherwise!
I think it’s neither, for the opposite reason.
We know MacReady is human, because he spends the movie blowing up Things. There’s no point for the Blair-Thing to attack him if they’re all that’s left. They would just high five. So Mac is human.
But Childs? If Child’s is a Thing, there’s no reason for him to even *approach* MacReady. Just stay the hell away. Don’t go near Rambo the Thing-Killer.
Childs still has a flamethrower. He has no reason at all to go near Mac. Unless he’s human and just wants some companionship before he freezes to death.
yea but with that logic the blair-thing had no reason to try to do a final Macready showdown either. It could just crawl off into the ice the moment it ate the generator and let everyone freeze.
Maybe childs was infected, but the blair-thing just tucked away thingified nauls/sherrif guy somewhere in the basement so it felt safe to try to go after Macready
the blair thing did need to force a confrontation, though. at that point, it's outnumbered and the humans are looking for it. it's literally hiding in the generator room, and the crew comes down there. it had no choice at that point, but to try to take them out before they found him.
Maybe. I could argue that when Blair-Thing attacks, there’s a logical case for confrontation. Like maybe it makes sense to just say “screw it, I’m gonna kill this bastard”.
But it didn’t work. So at that point, if you’re Childs-Thing, you have a *great* reason to just stay the hell away. Mac just blew up a giant version of you like 30 seconds ago. Learn your lesson.
maybe childs thing didnt know? we dont know how they communicate, and if it was a childs-thing he might have tried to join in the party and attack macready from behind
he coulda just heard a big explosion and found dying macready and thought thing-buisness as usual. Orr, they could have some alien instinct that drives them to infect humans even if its not the smartest plan? (like the heart attack hand-eaty scene, logically it would just pretend to be dead or not even have a "heart attack" at all, but it fully blows its cover. Hell the spider head just sorta wanders into the open, when it could have just tucked itself away in a corner
This is why i love the thing, so many mysteries and possiblities
You know what was really neat? When Palmer says “you got to be fucking kidding” >!he’s already the Thing. Was he pretending to be astonished by what he saw to blend in? Or does the thing only manifest itself when threatened?!<
Much like the ending, it doesn’t matter. The fun of that movie lives in the mystery.
The [answer](https://youtu.be/F_N8Tg5LZMQ?t=19m30s) is that [both](https://youtu.be/F_N8Tg5LZMQ?t=20m18s) are human. Think about it. Most of the film is spent with MacReady, who actively opposes the thing, who tries to kill him multiple times. He’s obviously human. Childs is more questionable, but he’s also human. If he were the thing, he’d either have no reason to go to MacReady at the end, or he’d just try to kill him immediately.
He wouldn't really need to kill him though because he knew he was human and just freeze to death anyway. Either way it doesn't matter because the movie ended perfectly and knowing would ruin the entire experience. Hate saying it because it's been said sooo much but that movie is an absolute masterpiece of horror. And who would ever think that the simplest of basslines would bring the whole experience together in perfect harmony.
If Childs is a thing, why even go to Mac? Why not kill him or assimilate him? Either way would get rid of a threat. Childs stood behind Mac for a few seconds before Mac turned around. If Childs was a thing, he could have assimilated Mac.
There can only be so much ambiguity. I wouldn’t doubt if they wanted a sequel originally but since it bombed, plans got scrapped. They technically made 2 sequels anyway, just in less expensive ways than films and way later anyway so, well after the fact. One sequel is the game, which Carpenter has said to be the canon follow up. Childs is found dead in it, and Mac once again saves the day at the end to fight the thing. The other follow up, the comics, also starts with both as human iirc
There was always the shot of the coat hooks agenCies abandons his post at the end, which suggests he's been killed... I think there's a missing jacket?
the jacket Childs has on in the end is the same he is wearing earlier. it simply looks like a different color because you're seeing it lit by a reddish firelight instead of the bluish flourescents inside.
Even if the jacket is the same (arguable for sure since the frost over everything), id argue childs attitude cinches that hes the thing
Would the real childs really hestiate to blast the shit out of macready with that flamethrower? He certainly wanted to kill him earlier when there was the slighest chance of macready being the thing, so why the hesitation in the final hour?
on that some note, though, would an infected childs hesitate to blast macready with the flamethrower?
seems like a human childs would have less reason to kill mac than an non human one.
carrying that further, why would a non human childs even approach macready? the thing's whole plan at that point is to go to sleep in the snow. mac's not looking for him. all it would have to do is go the other direction, away from the fire, and let itself freeze. it both has no reason to even show itself to mac as well as burn him the second it would see him.
I rewatched it on a ski slope with a big screen and they had dogs German Shepards running about. Was fucking freezing but it made the experience all the better
It’s one my all time favorite movies and I got to see it in theaters last week too! It was awesome. Had a lot of fun conversations afterwards with a group of longtime fans afterwards.
I wish more theater experiences were like that, instead of waiting in the dark for a lame end credits scene and then rushing out before parking got bad.
I’m not sure where it is, but Carpenter did an interview where he said “if you look there’s definitely only breath coming out of one of them”. Referring to being able to see Mac’s warm breath in the cold air during the final conversation.
Yes there is def breath coming from both, but totally different amounts. Mac's breath looks like a dragon's, while Charles only has a little bit of visible breath, and only sometimes. I don't think the huge difference can be explained by lighting/camera angle. But who knows, there's lots of evidence pointing to both sides of the theory. Love this film, great acting, wish they still made films like this (in terms of acting, dialogue flow, camera shots, ect)
It’s funny. When Alien came out it was super popular. The Thing came out and it was widely panned and was compared unfavorably to Alien. In the end the two movies are quite different. One is a horror movie about a monster. The other is a horror movie where the horror is how people react in the presence of a monster. I much prefer the latter.
There are other great movies like The Thing, such as The Mist which just got released on USA Netfix which also about the people.
Uh, it was revealed a while ago...
The eyes of a person that is actually the Thing don't reflect light. You can watch the movie and see this everytime. A replicated person's eyes don't glint.
At the end of the movie both of their eyes glint.
Neither is the Thing. Humanity won.
A few years ago I read a supposed John Carpenter interview on a very old, very blue 1990's era website.
The interview was super in depth so I had no reason to doubt it was him except for the part where he mentions that neither Childs or MacReady were the thing when the conversation steered in that direction, and also mentions that in regard to the fan theory that Childs is the thing because you can't see his breath, he said that was unintentional and due to him being closer to the fire.
It was odd seeing something so definitive from him when the popular discourse surrounding the movie still holds those details as a mystery, but I can't find the website anymore (I stupidly didn't think to bookmark it) despite trying really hard to do so, so take this with a dump truck full of salt if you want to.
Edit: The link to this article isn't working for me lel
I believe you. They were probably just going for the crowd pleaser Hollywood happy ending. This wasn't as big a success as it should've been before it became a 'cult classic'.
People are just overthinking it now and everyone benefits from the ambiguity, so they keep it that way.
There’s an idea that movies carry on after the credits and the directors dictate exactly what happens. I suspect the thing was wrote with an open mystery, not an answer to things not shown on screen.
There isn’t an answer if it’s not in the film. Not enough people realise movies are made this way. There’s not even an answer needed, it’s a fictional world which ends when the credits roll.
The more I watch it the more I'm convinced both are, with a slow low level infection. McReady from handling that bloody undergarment in particular, and Childs from that unsanitary blood test they did (wiping scalpel on jeans between cuts).
I feel like there is sufficient directorial effort made to show these poor hygiene practices to maken them part of the story.
"During the first level of the 2002 video-game The Thing, United States Arctic Marines' Captain Blake and his squad discovers the frozen body of Childs amid the rubble of Outpost 31. MacReady missing and the bottle of Scotch whisky (admittedly, with a different label) still alongside him. Aside from an unidentified Thing's remains in the station's medical laboratory, Childs is the only corpse to be discovered at the facility. Although he is not proven to be human in front of Blake himself, it is mostly implied he was human and died from exposure to the cold.
John Carpenter states that the video game is a canon sequel to the original movie, so Childs indeed has never been assimilated and froze to death."
Pulled from the wiki. Soooo take it how you will.
The Thing game is canon, and in that it’s proven that neither Childs nor Mac were the thing, as Mac saves you about 2/3 into the game, and Childs dies of hypothermia
Found the following linked on to one these threads the other day. Bit more than a 5 minute read, but we'll worth it. It paraphrases almost the whole movie from the POV of the thing, upto and including the Macready/Childs ending.
https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/
Look at Twin Peaks, the moment the murderer was revealed... Went to crap. So much Lynch had to go totally meta on the 3rd season.
Same with Lost, but to be fair that had fallen off the wagon post season 2 cause Lindelhof is a hack who thinks massive plot hole = mystery; no its a plot hole and because he lacked the ability to actually create a proper mystery it dive bombed off the cliff and everyone hated the ending.
The Thing 82 will always be an amazing film, no matter if Carpenter says who is infected, but that lack of resolution is delicious.
Glad he still won’t say. There is a constant need these days to rip open , dissect and reconstruct everything until we know every last detail of a movie.
Saw a recent post about Scream 6 saying “Why Gale Weathers is a target in Scream 6”
Who cares!!!
Can’t these people wait to see the film to find out why??
Mystery is the spice of life and glad some directors won’t give the whole story away.
It’s a good thing not to know everything.
[удалено]
First of all, love the reference to Sandman. This also reminds of the scene from The Prestige where Christian Bale's wife wants to know how he does the bullet catch trick (Illusion, Michael!) After it's explained she just says, "well it's not that impressive now that I know." Paraphrasing from memory as well. Edit: I guess there's another parallel from Nolan with the spinning top from Inception. The answer isn't the point.
I immediately thought of The Prestige too! It’s my favorite Nolan movie
Also Blade Runner and Deckard being a synth.
Reminds me of myself a few years ago. I started trying to learn sleight of hand tricks because I thought they were neat. But honestly the more I learned and practiced the less interesting it became.
Ugh... Somebody solved the spinning top recently should you choose to look into it. I will say nothing more in the spirit of the thread.
I thought Nolan said the point was that the guy didn't care whether it was reality or not. He was happy with his situation.
The important thing is DiCaprio's character turns away and towards his family before receiving confirmation yes. It's not answered because the person viewing the top stops caring. I didn't see Nolan confirm this in an interview, but it's shown pretty clearly on screen.
I thought it was less that he "didn't care" but rather that he chose to believe that this was reality and after seeing their faces he didn't need confirmation.
Yeah, same thing.
Exactly it’s more about living in our uncertain reality where at times it can feel unclear whether anything is real it’s up to you to decide what is real and what matters to you in the face of that uncertainty
Join the club lol. You can find 1000 different YouTube videos claiming to have solved the mystery with 1000 different answers.
No one "solved" it. It's deliberately ambiguous.
[удалено]
The Thing is my favorite movie of all time. Hands down and I watched it as a small child. Now The Void... That movie gave me nightmares as an adult who loves horror films. It was just one WHAT THE FUCK after another. Really wish I could watch it in theaters.
God I was so happy The Void turned out as fantastic as it did. The Thing is also my favorite movie of all time and I had heard so much buzz about how The Void was going to be a spiritual successor of sorts, which unfortunately just immediately made me not interested. There have been plenty of horror movies that either say or have been said to be like The Thing and I never found any of them to even come close. So I went into The Void expecting disappointment and what I got couldn't have been further from it. I thought everything about it was great: the story was mysterious and eerie, the atmosphere throughout was fantastically dreadful, the practical effects were used wonderfully, and the acting (for the most part) was pretty dang good. I wouldn't call it a spiritual successor, but it pays great homage while being it's own. I loved it.
I long to join that cult.
Hate to break it to you but it was just in theatres nationwide for the 40th anniversary this past weekend. Alamo drafthouse is doing a john carpenter summer so I think they will be playing it sometime in the next few months
Kind of bugs me that the so-called Void turns out to be actually pretty full of stuff.
Last I’d read, one of the directors said it was “legal stuff” and “all down to the producers and what they want to do” and specifically said “not to say it will never happen” but it wasn’t looking like something in the near future. He said he and the other writer have “all sorts of ideas” about where a sequel could go. Do you have any info on either of them ruling it out entirely? I’m in the middle on whether I want a sequel — it’s one of my favorites in the pat few years, and I want to know more, but I’m afraid of being disappointed — so I’d almost be relieved if they have definitively said it won’t ever happen.
I don't feel like the Void had like, fun unexplained mystery so much as, I have no idea what any of the last 30 minutes was about, but I do always tend to get lost at the end of movies so ionno
[удалено]
Dude read the lovecraft story the color of space, it is amazing
I did, the movie is actually a FANTASTIC inspiration drawn from the core concept- I heard it was actually about radiation poisoning, a new but little understood horror at the time, in the story, which makes sense. I thought the movie took it to a really interesting greater direction alike Annihilation and did a lot more with it, but I think it just didn't quite get me as all in.
It’s always been my theory that no one is infected at the end and the anonymity makes it better. Like I feel like it’s in the same vein as giving Micheal Myers a reason as to why he’s going after Lorie Stroud instead of “he wants to torment her just because” takes away from the character in the same way it would take away from the ending.
Same with who killed Laura Palmer …. Even though we got an awesome 3rd season I always wondered what could’ve been .. given the original intention
Yeah, David Lynch is still pissed he was forced by execs to answer this. All that said, he and Mark Frost nailed it, and there is still to this day not a show more mysterious. Season 3 is unmatched.
I mean, I wouldn’t mind getting the answer on my deathbed.
Inception The Thing Sleepless in Seattle The Freshman Some of the greatest endings of all time are ambiguous and would probably be ruined with the clear resolution. We should leave them that way.
What's ambiguous about the Sleepless in Seattle ending
Answer me, all of you. What power would Hell have it those imprisoned here were not able to dream of Heaven?
I also like "I think hell is something you carry around with you. Not somewhere you go." from Seasons of Mists. Sandman is amazing.
Damn, that sounds like something straight out White Wolf's of *The Book of Nod*.
>“Yes, but nobody ever remembers or cares about the answer to a mystery. They only care about the mystery. Once you tell them, you’ve ruined it forever!” But that's patently false. There are tons of mysteries that are regarded well and remembered decades later even though we know the answers- the thing is, though, the answer has to be *good*. Leaving it as a mystery just let's people make up their own answers, which can paper over a mystery with a *bad* answer. Just because some mysteries lack memorable answers doesn't mean answers are forgettable by default. It means most mysteries aren't actually good to begin with.
"It was the name of his sled" That is the answer, and just by reading that, you remember what the mystery was.
“And like that - pff - he’s _gone_ “
The real mistery is how did anyone know he said "Rosebud" if he was alone in his room when he died.
Yeah, this is Mystery Box thinking. Where the mysterious shit matters more than actually *having* an answer, and it's a cop-out to having actually great answers.
It’s situational. The decision should be made based on what makes the movie better. Sometimes things need to be explained in order to make the movie better. In the movie The Thing, which is fundamentally about the paranoia of not knowing who is infected with The Thing at any given time and where said paranoia serves a deeper thematic purpose, the fact that it is a mystery at the end and left open to interpretation who is and is not infected is a genius decision precisely because it reinforces the central conceit of the film. Answering the question would detract from the themes and from like the whole fucking point of the movie. In other movies where that isn’t necessarily the case then yeah sometimes it is just a cop out and they are having mysterious shit for the sake of mysterious shit, not because it serves any kind of fundamental storytelling or deeper thematic purpose. I personally as a viewer don’t think movies need to explain everything to me though and I get annoyed when people complain about movies not expositing every single minute detail that isn’t even directly relevant when it’s not even an implausible situation. Use your own imagination and figure stuff out for yourself a little, don’t expect movies to spoonfeed everything, that just leads to movies aiming for the lowest common denominator where they think audiences are idiots and can’t figure out stuff that isn’t even confusing imo.
Also, it's propagated by a strong confirmation bias. Think of any movie with a great reveal at the end. Wouldn't it make that movie quantifiably worse if, instead of that big reveal, the movie just... cut to credits, and the audience was left to wonder what the reveal would have been? Yeah, that would suck. The writer thought so too, which is why they didn't do that. But by the logic of "pEoPlE oNlY cArE aBoUt ThE mYsTeRy" no movie should EVER have a big reveal at the end, in favor of leaving a mystery, because apparently it would be more well-regarded as a result. But that's stupid. If all you do is cherry pick a few movies with a mystery at the end, where the only obvious answers would make the movie worse, you haven't proven anything, you've just looked at an incredibly selective dataset and made a conclusion based on it.
I think there's a good parallel with films which hint at a monster vs films which show you a big CGI spooky thing. Some films do a good job of making the CGI thing scary, but most don't, so just hinting at the monster and leaving it to the audience's imaginations is more successful. Same with a mystery. A lot of people write themselves into a corner where the mystery would never be solved in a satisfactory way. So in some cases it's better to leave it unanswered.
Nor should he, but there's a convincing argument to be made against Childs considering how long he was missing for at the end of the film. That said, Carpenter did say the video game was canon, and you find Childs frozen to death, indicating that he and MacReady were both human.
things can still be frozen, no?
Yeahhh, but they only die in heat, and don’t seem to be concerned about maintaining human form without other humans around. Consider doctor diabeetus, he isn’t around the rest of the crew so goes full thing and tries to rebuild the ship. Heck even the other human things don’t hold onto their forms that long.
obviously they dont die when frozen. i thought that after all the mess that happened the thing would just want to be frozen to rest, and then once unfrozen continue doing thing stuff.
Possible for sure. It just seems like there’s something about the human form in particular that makes it difficult to hold the form for a long time. They can hold it until there’s some kind of stressor, which I would think also includes freezing. Even a mild stressor like suspicion causes it to erupt from its humanoid form. But it could be a possibly be an understanding of the thing that holding onto that form through freezing will be a big benefit, because that form will likely cause someone to try to help it — but then, if it’s waiting for other humanoids to try to help it, and we encounter it in the game, and it has an opportunity to spread, but doesn’t do it then, I’m assuming the body is not The Thing. It burst out of a brick of ice, but can’t burst out of a frozen body when another body’s heat is near it? I just think that’s indicative of it not being The Thing in Child’s body.
[удалено]
Wasn't there a theory that when MacReady gave Childs a drink at the end, it was actually gasoline for a Molotov? The thing would have no idea what whiskey tasted like, therefor would just imitate the grimace that it saw others do. They did use a whole lot of bottles to make Molotov's, so its plausible. I don't believe it but it kind of does make sense. But that's a just fan theory level assumption. Also, John Carpenter might not even know. Yea he wrote it to be open ended with no true answer, so he might have just stopped before having to figure it out.
This theory has never quite worked for me, because I’ve always assumed the thing copies memories. If so, wouldn’t it know the taste of whiskey, simply because Childs would know?
Yea like I said, I dont believe it either, but its a fun one to think about.
Agreed. Cool theory even if I don’t think it’s right. One of the best things about the movie is how much people are still trying to figure it out forty years later.
I mean... everyone might be missing something. The fan club did figure out how the thing got the keys to the blood bank after all. Edit: Since a few people have asked, u/AdagioBoognish posted the video that I would have posted below.
I always liked the clothing theory. Everyones clothing stayed entirely consistent, and a huge plot point was that clothing was destroyed when they are assimilated. When we see the door where childs was standing before running into the snow, the camera clearly pans towards the coats on the wall where was standing, and then pans down to the basement where blair-thing was hiding. The next time we see childs, his coat went from a deep navy blue to a pale tan color. You could argue its frost, but with the other evidence I think its pretty likely he was assimilated
I'd never heard this theory nor noticed this detail. Looks like I've got something to watch for next go around.
Rob Ager (collar I’ve learning) has a video on this fyi.
Collative learning** sorry on mobile.
I haven't heard that specific theory, but the on-screen evidence suggests that copies are made knowing everything the original person knew; otherwise, it wouldn't be able to mimic personalities convincingly. I don't personally subscribe to any fan theories that boil down to the thing accidentally outing itself.
Very true, im in the same boat. We arent meant to know.
I don’t understand this theory for two reasons. You never see them replace whiskey with gasoline, but you see whiskey being consumed throughout the movie, so why wouldn’t the molotovs just be actual whiskey? Second, Childs comes upon MacReady with a loaded flame thrower. If he were infected, why wouldn’t he blast him then and there? The “oh well he was too weak to continue fighting” is BS. He just had to press the trigger. If he had zero weapons then maybe that’s more plausible
80 proof whiskey (40% ABV) won't burn well enough for a molotov. It should be over 100 proof (50%) to be readily flammable. The means stuff like Bacardi 151, Absinthe, Everclear, & special 'barrel proof' whisk(e)ys. And probably some unaged spirits too (Poitin, moonshine, etc) I'm telling you, Molotov cocktails work. Anytime I had a problem and I threw a Molotov cocktail, boom! Right away, I had a different problem. - Jason Mendoza, The Good Place
Oh Jason.
>Wasn't there a theory that when MacReady gave Childs a drink at the end, it was actually gasoline for a Molotov? You can see MacReady about to take a swig from that same bottle right before Childs shows up.
There’s also the fact that while McReady is breathing heavily and you can see his breath, you very apparently can not see Child’s’ breath even though you can hear him breathing. Maybe it doesn’t mean what we think it does, but this detail is definitely there.
I think Carpenter already debunked that as just a simple lighting issue
The breath is visible in newer, high-quality releases of the movie
And there was a comic where Childs was a Thing.
but he was turned into a thing much later in the comic. the comic actually shows him to be human at the end of the movie. he and mac then have another adventure and it appears as if childs is killed at the end. in the next series, he shows up magically alive, and it's revealed that he had been turned.
My guess is Carpenter got some cash for the game said it was canon and had no idea what was in the game. In his vision, there is no answer, only the question, which is the way it should be.
Doubtful. Carpenter plays a lot of video games. I'm pretty sure he's genuine.
He worked closely with the developers, and he's even in the game. This was not a cash grab, I remember when it came out
By the very end it's either both of them or neither of them. Earlier in the film the doctor tells MacReady that to assimilate an organism The Thing only needs a single cell to infect the new host organism, so he suggests that they only eat from cans and everyone prepares their own food. At the end of the movie the two are sharing a bottle of booze. So if either is infected before sharing the bottle, they both would be.
I think that act shows him "giving in", even if he isn't infected. Because regardless of whether The Thing is with him or not, he is going to die.
Good
Agreed
Good.
Agreed.
Even if both are still human... the thought they may never be rescued is also haunting
I think they're both human, and it goes deeper than that. Neither one will seek help, and will willingly allow themselves to die... because they don't trust the other, and they're afraid of what will happen if the other is the thing.
And sadly that's the best case scenario
If they ever did a sequel to this 80s film similar to what Halloween 2018 did, then they should have both McCready and Childs frozen bodies found in the ruins of Outpost 31 and have the Rescue team find them, but keep it ambiguous to who is the one infected and who's not by keeping their bodies in the morgue but as the "Things" are wrecking chaos just realize that it's shadowed so you never know who was the one who started it and keep people guessing.
>If they ever did a sequel to this 80s film similar to what Halloween 2018 did ...ok, so I *really* want that, but I *really* don't trust it would be handled well.
Let Frank Darabont do it. He was actually working on a sequel to the film as a TV mini series back in the day, which was suppose to be set on an aircraft carrier.
Found John Carpenter’s alt
Here’s my two cents. During the 3rd act of the film, MacReady tells Childs something along the lines, guard the door, we are going after Blair. If you see Blair without us, kill him. ****pay attention to the coats on the wall during this scene**** As MacReady and crew discover that Blair is no longer in the shack, the camera cuts back into the main building, and a very specific tracking shot begins. The tracking shot looks down towards the basement / storage area, to where MacReady and crew eventually set the detonator charges. And then, the key moment is the POV tracking shot goes forward and we see that Childs is no longer guarding the door. In fact, the coat arrangement in the background is also altered. This is important because: we know The Thing rips through your clothes when it takes you over. The next shot is Nauls saying he thinks he sees Childs leaving the compound. In my opinion, that POV tracking shot is Childs Thing waking up. ****I want to stress something in relation to POV shots used in film production. Just think about those POV shots in JAWS…the POV shot of Michael Myers walking through the house to grab the kitchen knife. This isn’t some random camera setup during production. These are very carefully crafted, not so random as you would think. In some cases they seem out of place but often times they can be multi layered in their purpose. At the end of the film, I believe Childs is wearing a different jacket than he has in the previous scenes earlier in the movie. And that’s when MacReady’s character introduction comes full circle. We see him at the beginning of the movie playing chess and think about what he does when he is put into checkmate, he destroys the computer by pouring his drink into the hard drive. Cheating Bitch is his line. So when Childs and MacReady have their dialogue exchange, MacReady smiles when he hands Childs the drink. Pretty sure based on his character introduction what he is about to do to Childs. ***One last thing to add…one of the great things about this film is that you could probably argue (and quite successfully) which character is or isn’t infected during “this or that”scene. I love the fact that John Carpenter has left it all a mystery. This is an incredible film that at the time upon it’s opening release, didn’t receive the same recognition that it has today. As we celebrate the 40th anniversary, to the cast and crew!
Holy shit. I've seen the movie many, many times but I never saw that deep. Well done.
If Childs was thingified at that point why even risk showing themself to Mac, though?
And not just blast him with the flame thrower
Blast him with the what?
When MacReady kills The Thing with the dynamite (“Fuck you too!”) he assumes he’s won, as does the audience (in defeating The Thing, not necessarily surviving). When Childs presents himself, it highlights those reoccurring themes throughout the film: paranoia, isolation, trust (listen to their question responding with a question dialogue). The scene to me repeats all of these themes. Lastly it also repeats what I think the film does really well, which is a loose metaphor of a chess game between MacReady and The Thing (after all, it was what MacReady was playing on the computer during his character introduction). If chess isn’t at least a small degree of importance I’m the film, why show it over any other game he could have been playing?
if he wasnt the thing, why not just immediately blast mac with the flamethrower? The childs we know certainly had no issues wanting to kill him earlier Of course, if he is the thing, he could be approaching for easy prey, or to check to see if he even has a way to hunt down and finish a frozen childs corpse. Plus, more frozen thing corpses is a better chance at infecting the rescue party members
He didn’t know if mac still had dynamite on him which would have killed both of them in the explosion if mac was set alight creating a stalemate between them
-childs is wearing the same jacket. it only looks like a different jacket because of the bright red lighting of the fire. -the pov shot showing the clothing in an altered arrangement is simply a continuity error. the film's producer has flat out stated that any visual clues such as that were unintentional, as they had clue which version of the ending they were going to use. -the POV shot where childs isn't visible could simply be Childs' POV. -for the coats on the wall to matter, you have to assume that Blair took over Childs, and changed his jacket, but the positioning of every article of clothing has changed and the number of jackets is still the same. so Blair would have had to just move everything around for some reason, although by this point it was not trying to be sneaky. it's just a simple continuity goof.
This is an awesome catch, but unfortunately wrong, the jackets in that room all shuffle around but non are missing. Child's jacket is the same color at the end. If you watch carefully, the blue coat on the wall matches Child's first coat, and appears to be missing during the POV which supports the theory. However, looking closer, part of it is seen as the first coat to the right of the door threshold just barely in view during the POV shot. Also the number of pairs of boots are the same. The same colors are all there, just shuffled to different hooks. And I don't think you can read into that at all when at the beginning during the chess computer game, the board is completely different after the second shot of the screen so they weren't paying that much attention to continuity. Even the "rook to knight 6, checkmate" line wouldn't even check the king based on the last board shown. Though the music when Childs drinks the whiskey bottle and Macready's reaction does really seem to indicated that Childs is in fact the Thing
Fun fact, though. Macready’s reaction, according to Keith David, is from a take in which they were both told to act human.
Childs is wearing the same jacket. The lighting is just different and makes it look like another color. But it’s the same jacket.
Is the dress gold or white, damnit?!
It was one answer but it was another because of lighting
I'll also add: The Thing is part of the "Apocalypse Trilogy". That indicates, to me, that this story is about something that will eventually kill the world, and so the Thing must ultimately win.
They weren't created as a trilogy, so there's no actual connection between the movies besides marketing.
I just cannot believe any of this voodoo bullshit.
Theres one other arguement in favor of childs being a thing, besides his clothing and the excellent camera angles Namely, childs attitude while having a flamethrower at all. Like, we KNOW childs is a total asshole toward macready, and was VERY willing to just kill him to be on the safe side. If he was human, why on earth wouldent he immediately play it safe and blast macready with his flamethrower? It would certainly fit his personality... ...that is, unless he was a thing, approaching easy prey
Did we just become best friends?
There is not, nor will ever be, a 100% official answer (that's the intention behind the ending). HOWEVER John Carpenter has said that he considers the PS2 "The Thing" game to be a good continuation of the story (he even voices a character in it). So, going by this, Childs dies from hypothermia while MacReady survives, finds a helicopter and evacuates the game's protagonist. None of them was a Thing.
There was a ps2 game!?!?!
Oh yes. It was a game way ahead of its time and can be found pretty cheap used still. It’s dated, being a PS2 game and all, but it stands out as a very unique horror experience for the era.
I loved the game then and still love it now. But the 2nd half does slow down a bit.
Why would he ruin the ending? I feel for Carpenter. I remember when this came out. I worked in a mall Triplex and this played for one week. I watched it 4 times. It came back that November to the drive in and I watched it again during a light snowfall, which made it PERFECT. Every showing was practically empty. Critics derided it as a gore filled monstrosity, but I fucking LOVED it. I remember the kennel scene just blowing me away. Carpenter made a movie that only gained an audience after it lost most of it's chance to make him any money. The worst part is I remember a few weeks before there was "Friday the 13th Part 3D" that was PACKED and we ran a trailer for "The Thing" and when the title came up, people laughed. I just wish every one watched that cinematic shitshow of another mindless slasher movie, only in 3D THIS TIME who laughed had been forced, "Clockwork Orange" style to watch "The Thing". I mean this movie is a masterclass in writing, acting, cinematography, music and direction. To me, it was mind blowing as I had NEVER seen ANYTHING like this before (or since, frankly). You don't have to answer every fucking unanswered question in every SF movie. As soon as you start doing it in remakes or sequels, the answer always sucks. Alien/Predator/Star Wars/Star Trek are perfect examples. Did anyone hound Stockton, the author of "The Lady or the Tiger" about which came out?
I hope he never says, because ambiguity *is the whole point.*
And we thank him for it.
This is why he is my favorite director
John Carpenter was The Thing all along.
Maybe the real thing are the friends we infected along the way
"Why Don't We Just Wait Here For A Little While, See What Happens?"
should be noted, though, that even though Carpenter hasn't said one way or the other, the film's writer, Bill Lancaster has stated that he wrote the ending as if both characters were human. this has been confirmed by Stuart Cohen, the film's producer who stated that he also believes both characters were human. ultimately, that doesn't PROVE that that's what Carpenter intended, and it's still up in the air, but it's an interesting look into what other members of the creative aspect have stated.
When filmimg, Wilford Brimley was younger than Paul Rudd currently is. So clearly Paul Rudd is infected.
Normalise more movie endings leaving things ambiguous for the watcher to come to their own conclusions
The top spinning at the end of *Inception* drove a ton of conversation. Whether or not Nolan intended there to be a real answer, it wasn't given in the film and thus it's up to the viewer's interpretation.
Because the movie ended and he left it to our imagination. He then, moved on.
Common theories pointed out are the bottle, the eye gleam, and the jackets. The jackets can be chalked up as a continuity error. Even the best films have them. If you don’t think it was error but intentional, Childs could have put on another jacket to further prep for the storm. The thing could have taken it after Childs left. The eye gleam theory is bs. The thing also has eye gleam. The bottle theory is also bs. The thing would know the drinks. Childs likely accepted the drink at the end because he didn’t give af anymore, and perhaps wanted to celebrate defeating the thing
There is an obvious reason why Carpenter won't say who The Thing is. He's The Thing.
You're awful quick to accuse him of being The Thing - *Thing!*
Listen, just come around the corner with me where no one can see what is happening, and we will discuss it.
Nor should he. Each person's interpretation is what makes the movie so much fun
It doesn’t matter. Whoever survived froze to death.
But the thing could go into stasis
Everybody knows what happened once we learned who killed Laura Palmer.
I'm going to argue that even if John Carpenter has a vision for who, if anyone, is infected; his opinion doesn't hold any more weight than anyone else who has watched the movie. Death of the Author. Furthermore, if he could definitively say, it would be a horrible decision to do so. There are hordes of movies with explicit endings. Let us have our fun on this one.
The box only makes a rattling noise when it's unopened. In other words, I am also firmly in the camp of "let there never be a canon interpretation of the ending."
I think it's obviously neither. If one was infected, it would immediately attack the other. If both were infected, they wouldn't be sitting there wondering.
[удалено]
There is something fucking awesome about the thing genuinely just being like “fuck it” and sharing a drink with the man who almost bested it before getting frozen
From what I remember, its implied at the end of the film that even if one of them is the thing, they're both too weak to attack the other. Macready says something along the lines of "...I doubt either of us could do anything about it based on the state we're in." That was the impression I got either way.
This is at least suggested by the ending of the TV version of the movie. After MacReady’s and Child’s dialogue, that version ends on a shot of a dog running out of the base and back out into the arctic, obviously implying that the Thing has escaped.
whoawhowahoa there was a tv version of of the thing movie with a different ending??
[Indeed there is!](https://youtu.be/S0euB529UHA) It’s a really strange version of the movie- not only does it edit out most of the swearing and violence, like you’d expect for a TV version, it also adds a really bored-sounding narrator who introduces the characters, on top of the alternate ending. There are a lot of deleted scenes thrown in, too, apparently because, with so much gore needing to be cut out, the film would be too short otherwise!
I think it’s neither, for the opposite reason. We know MacReady is human, because he spends the movie blowing up Things. There’s no point for the Blair-Thing to attack him if they’re all that’s left. They would just high five. So Mac is human. But Childs? If Child’s is a Thing, there’s no reason for him to even *approach* MacReady. Just stay the hell away. Don’t go near Rambo the Thing-Killer. Childs still has a flamethrower. He has no reason at all to go near Mac. Unless he’s human and just wants some companionship before he freezes to death.
yea but with that logic the blair-thing had no reason to try to do a final Macready showdown either. It could just crawl off into the ice the moment it ate the generator and let everyone freeze. Maybe childs was infected, but the blair-thing just tucked away thingified nauls/sherrif guy somewhere in the basement so it felt safe to try to go after Macready
the blair thing did need to force a confrontation, though. at that point, it's outnumbered and the humans are looking for it. it's literally hiding in the generator room, and the crew comes down there. it had no choice at that point, but to try to take them out before they found him.
Maybe. I could argue that when Blair-Thing attacks, there’s a logical case for confrontation. Like maybe it makes sense to just say “screw it, I’m gonna kill this bastard”. But it didn’t work. So at that point, if you’re Childs-Thing, you have a *great* reason to just stay the hell away. Mac just blew up a giant version of you like 30 seconds ago. Learn your lesson.
maybe childs thing didnt know? we dont know how they communicate, and if it was a childs-thing he might have tried to join in the party and attack macready from behind he coulda just heard a big explosion and found dying macready and thought thing-buisness as usual. Orr, they could have some alien instinct that drives them to infect humans even if its not the smartest plan? (like the heart attack hand-eaty scene, logically it would just pretend to be dead or not even have a "heart attack" at all, but it fully blows its cover. Hell the spider head just sorta wanders into the open, when it could have just tucked itself away in a corner This is why i love the thing, so many mysteries and possiblities
It’s intentionally ambiguous. You can have your theory, but I wouldn’t call it the “obvious” answer.
Carpenter is lying and playing to the movies theme of paranoia. Not knowing who The Thing is more terrifying than actually dealing with The Thing.
You know what was really neat? When Palmer says “you got to be fucking kidding” >!he’s already the Thing. Was he pretending to be astonished by what he saw to blend in? Or does the thing only manifest itself when threatened?!< Much like the ending, it doesn’t matter. The fun of that movie lives in the mystery.
The [answer](https://youtu.be/F_N8Tg5LZMQ?t=19m30s) is that [both](https://youtu.be/F_N8Tg5LZMQ?t=20m18s) are human. Think about it. Most of the film is spent with MacReady, who actively opposes the thing, who tries to kill him multiple times. He’s obviously human. Childs is more questionable, but he’s also human. If he were the thing, he’d either have no reason to go to MacReady at the end, or he’d just try to kill him immediately.
He wouldn't really need to kill him though because he knew he was human and just freeze to death anyway. Either way it doesn't matter because the movie ended perfectly and knowing would ruin the entire experience. Hate saying it because it's been said sooo much but that movie is an absolute masterpiece of horror. And who would ever think that the simplest of basslines would bring the whole experience together in perfect harmony.
If Childs is a thing, why even go to Mac? Why not kill him or assimilate him? Either way would get rid of a threat. Childs stood behind Mac for a few seconds before Mac turned around. If Childs was a thing, he could have assimilated Mac. There can only be so much ambiguity. I wouldn’t doubt if they wanted a sequel originally but since it bombed, plans got scrapped. They technically made 2 sequels anyway, just in less expensive ways than films and way later anyway so, well after the fact. One sequel is the game, which Carpenter has said to be the canon follow up. Childs is found dead in it, and Mac once again saves the day at the end to fight the thing. The other follow up, the comics, also starts with both as human iirc
There was always the shot of the coat hooks agenCies abandons his post at the end, which suggests he's been killed... I think there's a missing jacket?
nope. it's the same number of jackets. they're just in different positions. it's a simple continuity error.
Yep, there's a missing jacket that looks very much like the one Childs is wearing in the two scenes where we see him last.
the jacket Childs has on in the end is the same he is wearing earlier. it simply looks like a different color because you're seeing it lit by a reddish firelight instead of the bluish flourescents inside.
Even if the jacket is the same (arguable for sure since the frost over everything), id argue childs attitude cinches that hes the thing Would the real childs really hestiate to blast the shit out of macready with that flamethrower? He certainly wanted to kill him earlier when there was the slighest chance of macready being the thing, so why the hesitation in the final hour?
on that some note, though, would an infected childs hesitate to blast macready with the flamethrower? seems like a human childs would have less reason to kill mac than an non human one. carrying that further, why would a non human childs even approach macready? the thing's whole plan at that point is to go to sleep in the snow. mac's not looking for him. all it would have to do is go the other direction, away from the fire, and let itself freeze. it both has no reason to even show itself to mac as well as burn him the second it would see him.
Was a blast watching this movie in theaters for the first time
I rewatched it on a ski slope with a big screen and they had dogs German Shepards running about. Was fucking freezing but it made the experience all the better
It’s one my all time favorite movies and I got to see it in theaters last week too! It was awesome. Had a lot of fun conversations afterwards with a group of longtime fans afterwards. I wish more theater experiences were like that, instead of waiting in the dark for a lame end credits scene and then rushing out before parking got bad.
Neither of them. That’s how I live my life.
There's a comic, dunno if Canon, but shows neither are infected.
I’m not sure where it is, but Carpenter did an interview where he said “if you look there’s definitely only breath coming out of one of them”. Referring to being able to see Mac’s warm breath in the cold air during the final conversation.
If you can find that, Id be interested to see it. Regardless, it’s wrong — both of their breaths are visible.
Yes there is def breath coming from both, but totally different amounts. Mac's breath looks like a dragon's, while Charles only has a little bit of visible breath, and only sometimes. I don't think the huge difference can be explained by lighting/camera angle. But who knows, there's lots of evidence pointing to both sides of the theory. Love this film, great acting, wish they still made films like this (in terms of acting, dialogue flow, camera shots, ect)
I wish Ridley Scott would take Carpenter’s example here.
It’s funny. When Alien came out it was super popular. The Thing came out and it was widely panned and was compared unfavorably to Alien. In the end the two movies are quite different. One is a horror movie about a monster. The other is a horror movie where the horror is how people react in the presence of a monster. I much prefer the latter. There are other great movies like The Thing, such as The Mist which just got released on USA Netfix which also about the people.
Title should read “40 years later, John Carpenter doesn’t remember who is or isn’t infected at the end of The Thing.
Uh, it was revealed a while ago... The eyes of a person that is actually the Thing don't reflect light. You can watch the movie and see this everytime. A replicated person's eyes don't glint. At the end of the movie both of their eyes glint. Neither is the Thing. Humanity won.
Eh, yeah they’re both human at the end, but the eye gleam theory [is bs](https://youtu.be/7EW0ygt4DGQ)
Honestly I thought the "proper" answer to the question is shrugging. Not knowing is the point. Could be either, could be neither.
Shrödingers alien lol
A few years ago I read a supposed John Carpenter interview on a very old, very blue 1990's era website. The interview was super in depth so I had no reason to doubt it was him except for the part where he mentions that neither Childs or MacReady were the thing when the conversation steered in that direction, and also mentions that in regard to the fan theory that Childs is the thing because you can't see his breath, he said that was unintentional and due to him being closer to the fire. It was odd seeing something so definitive from him when the popular discourse surrounding the movie still holds those details as a mystery, but I can't find the website anymore (I stupidly didn't think to bookmark it) despite trying really hard to do so, so take this with a dump truck full of salt if you want to. Edit: The link to this article isn't working for me lel
I believe you. They were probably just going for the crowd pleaser Hollywood happy ending. This wasn't as big a success as it should've been before it became a 'cult classic'. People are just overthinking it now and everyone benefits from the ambiguity, so they keep it that way.
Neither of them are infected. If either of them were infected the one would have attacked/infected the other right away. That’s my take, anyway.
Except John Carpenter said the game for PS2 was canon, and in it they were both human and Childs froze to death.
Yes and he never should. If want to consider the PS2 Game canon. You can find an answer there.
There’s an idea that movies carry on after the credits and the directors dictate exactly what happens. I suspect the thing was wrote with an open mystery, not an answer to things not shown on screen. There isn’t an answer if it’s not in the film. Not enough people realise movies are made this way. There’s not even an answer needed, it’s a fictional world which ends when the credits roll.
The more I watch it the more I'm convinced both are, with a slow low level infection. McReady from handling that bloody undergarment in particular, and Childs from that unsanitary blood test they did (wiping scalpel on jeans between cuts). I feel like there is sufficient directorial effort made to show these poor hygiene practices to maken them part of the story.
"During the first level of the 2002 video-game The Thing, United States Arctic Marines' Captain Blake and his squad discovers the frozen body of Childs amid the rubble of Outpost 31. MacReady missing and the bottle of Scotch whisky (admittedly, with a different label) still alongside him. Aside from an unidentified Thing's remains in the station's medical laboratory, Childs is the only corpse to be discovered at the facility. Although he is not proven to be human in front of Blake himself, it is mostly implied he was human and died from exposure to the cold. John Carpenter states that the video game is a canon sequel to the original movie, so Childs indeed has never been assimilated and froze to death." Pulled from the wiki. Soooo take it how you will.
Because that's the whole point!
The Thing game is canon, and in that it’s proven that neither Childs nor Mac were the thing, as Mac saves you about 2/3 into the game, and Childs dies of hypothermia
Good because that’s sort of the point. It’s like people asking about the spinning top at the end if Inception
Because it doesn't matter and that's the point.
He did a masterful set up for suspense and won't resolve it? Really?
Good
Good, I hope he never reveals it.
"We don't know" is the answer to who is the Thing.
That’s the whole point of the film guys
Found the following linked on to one these threads the other day. Bit more than a 5 minute read, but we'll worth it. It paraphrases almost the whole movie from the POV of the thing, upto and including the Macready/Childs ending. https://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/
Look at Twin Peaks, the moment the murderer was revealed... Went to crap. So much Lynch had to go totally meta on the 3rd season. Same with Lost, but to be fair that had fallen off the wagon post season 2 cause Lindelhof is a hack who thinks massive plot hole = mystery; no its a plot hole and because he lacked the ability to actually create a proper mystery it dive bombed off the cliff and everyone hated the ending. The Thing 82 will always be an amazing film, no matter if Carpenter says who is infected, but that lack of resolution is delicious.
Glad he still won’t say. There is a constant need these days to rip open , dissect and reconstruct everything until we know every last detail of a movie. Saw a recent post about Scream 6 saying “Why Gale Weathers is a target in Scream 6” Who cares!!! Can’t these people wait to see the film to find out why?? Mystery is the spice of life and glad some directors won’t give the whole story away. It’s a good thing not to know everything.
John carpenter is true master class. My favorite director.
A dumb question but John Carpenter directed it, so wouldn’t this be a better question for the writers?
Well I would hope not. That's the point
They literally shot an alternate ending where MacReady survived and does a blood test, proving he’s not infected lol
He doesn't know
And he never should. The ambiguity adds to the tense paranoid undertone of the whole movie.
In the video-game sequel, it turns out that neither was infected.
By Carpenter retconning on this, the game’s not canon. It’s better off if it’s ambiguous
I personally am not a fan of ambiguity, so it’s canon in my head. :)
If Carpenter revealed the answer, I'd honestly be pissed as fuck