MovieChat Forums > The Thing (1982) Discussion > Another Why I think Childs Was Infected ...

Another Why I think Childs Was Infected Thread


I just watched this at a special screening last night(original 35mm) and personally I think Childs infected.
I took a quick glance over the boards here. I noticed a lot of hints/theories covered, but there is one detail I didn't notice anyone explicitly mentioned, it may have been, but I didn't go through every page of threads on this forum.

Anyway the first scene is Mac playing chess against the PC. He assumes he has the game won, but In his last move he puts his king in the corner, and is then checkmated by the black rook.
Now if we jump to the last scene we see Mac walk into the burned out room where he sit down to take a much deserved rest(he assumes his battle is complete) in the corner wedged between oil drum, and the burned out wall. Just as he sits down Childs steps into the doorway armed, thus cutting Mac's only visible means of egress(aka Checkmate).
I mean it doesn't even seem all that cryptic to me.
It wouldn't be much of a stretch for Childs to be represented as the black rook. Just look how the we view the rook in game. It is seen as a powerful stoic piece that barrels straight ahead into battle, much as Mac himself describes Childs when they are trying to decide who the should be leader.
Then since Mac is a standard white male, white hat protagonist he can easily be represented by the white king as well, beyond the fact that it was his actual avatar in that first scene.
I could be wrong, but to me it makes sense that a filmmaker like Carpenter would sneak a visual reference to the ending in the first shot as a form of visual, and thematic symmetry.

I Shoot People for a Living.

reply

I used to think so, but now I don't know anymore. Was he infected or eatan by Thing and then replicated? Why are the coats and boots so messed up for those two eerie tracking shots of the hallway and Childs' position? If it was just one coat missing, then I'd say Childs was definitely duplicated, but the coats are just all over the place compared to the previous shot. Was it a continuity error and hiw did is slip by Carpenter in editing and post-production, considering it's probably meant to be a key clue. Why the goof?

In all the brutal honesty, Carpenter sacrificed a lot of of logic, continuity and "rules" in order to create paranoia and dread. The fact there's so many theories, options and schools of thoughts on various topics and details means some things simply don't add up. The fact that even after 34 years we know jackcrap is the result of both careful writing/directing/editing and deliberate omissions where (IMO) Carpenter just said *beep* it" during the editing and post-production.

TLDR, it's still one of my very favorite films ever simply due to the unmatched isolation terror atmosphere, but it's not some high-end masterpiece where just about every puzzle is carefuly put there.

reply

Good food for thought, nicely interpreted. I think that's part of the beauty of this films ending....so much is left to the imagination.

reply

Carpenter said on at least 1 interview I am aware of, post digital netwotk, that he deliberately left the finale open.

reply

Genius observation.

reply

It's an excellent observation, yes, although I'm not 100% convinced Childs is the Thing. But that is a great bookending image that makes me wish the OP was an active account, instead of a dead-account ex-IMDb-er.

reply

Or the end could playing off that chess introduction where Mac is cornered… but has actually won.

reply


Hah, LITERALLY replaying the chess intro - black rook gets him in checkmate and he responds by pouring alcohol into the computer to "win"

By giving Childs alcohol, he's symbolically (SYMBOLICALLY mind you - no one's saying you can kill the Thing with bourbon) replaying the supposed checkmate and "winning" again (because Childs isn't actually The Thing)

That's stretching the metaphor it too far, obviously

I tend to go with Carpenter's stated purpose: to leave it utterly ambiguous in keeping with the film's central theme of paranoia and uncertainty

Sort of like the end of "Inception" - it's not that the top stops spinning or continues, the point is that Cobb no longer cares.

reply

Earing + Gold tooth = Childs is human

reply

Why couldn't the Thing mimic the tooth? If it goes in on a molecular level, couldn't it get the tooth, too? At the very least, it would be able to take the tooth from an "absorbed" Childs and push it into its own gums, couldn't it? And the earring it could attach as well. It shreds clothes, but the earring would be fine. Although, there is a question as to how it would know to put on the earring...

reply

It's been established that the Thing can't mimic inorganic material so it "spits out" things like fillings, gold teeth, & earrings when it assimilates someone.

reply

Cool. I must have missed that in the film. I know it can't do clothes, but I figured if the tooth was "attached", it'd be able to do that.

It could still remove that stuff from Childs and use it, though, right? Like, couldn't it just take his earring? It rips the clothes because of the transformation, but why couldn't it take the earring?

Also, as a small side-note, while it is potential proof that Childs has a gold tooth, I tend to disregard things like fillings because that's probably just the actor's fillings (ie, this isn't a "clue" the filmmakers left us with).

reply

It should be noted that the Thing being unable to mimic inorganic material (in addition to clothing) was established in the 2011 prequel film. It was indeed likely just an oversight that the simply wasn't thought about in the original 1982 film but based on how deliberately ambiguous the original ending was, I believe it his fair to factor in everything we were given onscreen & follow the internal logic established in the films.

Based on what we were given. Childs was wearing what appears to be the same jacket the last time we saw him as human, He's still wearing his earring & he still has his gold tooth. It's possible if unlikely that The Thing had the time, foresight, & luck to re-pierce Child's ear & grab a nearly identical new jacket but there's just no explaining away the gold tooth. Child has to be human

reply

I haven't seen the 2011 film, nor have I read the novel (or seen the original movie, for that matter). Because The Thing is meant to be self-contained, is based-on the novel/original film, but not slavish to those properties, I look to it for its own answers.

Of course, even in this film we have the clear knowledge that it doesn't mimic the clothes of its victims, so presumably anything inorganic can't be mimicked. This does bring up an interesting question about whether or not it would mimic a bad heart if somebody had a pacemaker... It'd be funny to have a story about this alien species where one or two of them go down by mimicking somebody with a physiology that it will kill it.

Somebody else on these boards is saying that Childs' jacket is different. It's blue at first and beige later?

reply

In the 1982 film the Thing did seem to unintentionally inherit Norris' heart condition, leading to a heart attack & being forced to reveal itself. Also the issue about Childs' jacket has been debated over the years but I believe it has been pretty much concluded that it was the same blue jacket, just covered in frost.

reply

Interesting about the jacket. I'm a long-time "enjoyer" of The Thing, but not a "fan", so I'm not as up on all the nuances of this discussion.

I sorta take what Carpenter was going for: ambiguity. We're not supposed to know. We're supposed to feel their mistrust, and it ends with us in the same place as the characters at the beginning. I also think it's the strongest possible ending because it hammers home that primary theme of paranoia.

reply

The way Childs takes a swig of the Whisky without any suspicion and MacReady laughs to himself makes me think he could well be a Thing.

reply