MovieChat Forums > The Thing (1982) Discussion > At the end, Childs is the thing. MacRea...

At the end, Childs is the thing. MacReady is not.

posted 7 years ago by fishrock (53)
51 replies | jump to latest

MacReady is breathing out freezing water vapor breath like a steam engine. Childs is not. He might not even be breathing.

Earlier on, we see at least one partially assimilated thing breathing mist, but it was still of human body temperature, and still had water vapor in its lungs, and still had lungs, probably, because it was still breathing. It didn't have time to reach ambient temperature. It hadn't time to complete assimilation.

Childs had plenty of time to complete assimilation. And plenty of time to cool to the ambient air temperature, where even if he had lungs with water vapor in them, his breath would not mist.

[–] FredBurroughs (21447) 7 years ago

Cool theory, but Carpenter has gone on record that the visibility of Childs' breath is due to a lighting choice. MacReady is leaning close to a lighting source, while Childs' lighting is placed off camera farther away from him. In the newly remastered bluray, his breath is clearly visible.

[–] fishrock (53) 7 years ago

I did not know this.

On considering this, I don't care what Carpenter is reported to say years after the fact.

But, if Childs' breath is visible on the newly remastered bluray, I do have to consider the possibility that a theory I have held dear for over 30 years might be in question.

Or, the target of a conspiracy that goes all the way to the top.

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

lol

[–] catsidhe (1649) 6 years ago

But, if Childs' breath is visible on the newly remastered bluray, I do have to consider the possibility that a theory I have held dear for over 30 years might be in question.

Or, the target of a conspiracy that goes all the way to the top.

One of the best things I've read on MC. 😅

[–] lennonforever (2453) 7 years ago

Childs was no where to be found while Mac was fighting hard!

[–] fishrock (53) 7 years ago

You're right! He wasn't! He wandered off right before they started blowing up the place, IIRC. He was alone and unaccounted for. We saw MacCready the whole time.

I still hold to my theory. Childs is now the Thing, and is just waiting to freeze again. As MacReady put it, all it wants to do is go back to sleep until the rescue party comes for it.

Director says otherwise, I say director lies like a kid with a mouthful of stolen cookies. He wants an unambiguous ending, he has the perfect media to accomplish that..., the movie. Oh, but the lighting and the mist and the angles, and..., and that's assuming he ever even said this.

Yeah..., right.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 7 years ago

Do you want people to debate with you on your theory or you just want to be sure that we got it??

It is cool that you think further than what you obviously see. A lot of directors love to add subtle elements so the viewers figure things out or simple notice them. But it still is only a THEORY, not a fact.

[–] fishrock (53) 7 years ago

Honestly, I am not terribly invested in it one way or another. I watched the end of it when it played recently, came here, saw no one had mentioned this particular detail and made a comment. I saw it in a theater when it came out in 82 and the people I saw it with discussed this detail, in the theater while the scene was going on. In whispers. And then we debated it over Jack in the Box tacos afterwards. And talked about Spider head. And how aliens are falling out the skies like flies, man, they practically own South America.

I didn't see this particular point on this board so I thought I'd share.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7699) 6 years ago

Jack in the Box! That is a place I've not heard of in years! I think there used to be one in a town near my Great Grandmother's hometown of Eldorado, Illinois. But it has since closed down. I'm not even sure they're even still around. On the theory, I kind of like to think neither of them is the Thing cause it was destroyed by McCreedy and that unfortunately they'll both die. But at least have the comfort of knowing they're dying human beings.

[–] lennonforever (2453) 7 years ago

I'm not sure JC is telling the truth. We all saw MacReady the entire time. Yes, I agree with you .The Thing just wants to sleep now.

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

So why didn't childs attack MacReady then? Thats pretty much the things MO.

[–] fishrock (53) 7 years ago

Who says he didn't? We just didn't get to see it if he did post credits.

In any event, there was no need to right then. Saving him for dessert, maybe.

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

To me the ending was emphasising that they were both human but it didn't matter as they were both going to freeze death. And worse being the earth is already screwed as the thing was just going to go back into hibernation until a rescue crew came investigate outpost 31.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

This was my interpretation as well.

[–] lennonforever (2453) 7 years ago

The Thing is an organic creature. It must need to sleep. It expended a great deal of energy throughout the entire few days of its rampage. Why kill Mac now? No need. It will, all in good time.

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

I'm not convinced the thing needs there are organisms on earth that barely ssleep and some like the dolphin evolvd that each half of the brain can sleep independent of the other so its half awake while the other half is sleeping.

Occams razor shows that there was a high probability that neither one of MacReady or Childs was the thing.

[–] lennonforever (2453) 7 years ago

I disagree . Mac is human, Childs is the thing. It is the SIMPLEST SOLUTION. That is Occams Razor.

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

Fair enough. So now the real question. Who was the first thing. I mean after the dog.

[–] lennonforever (2453) 7 years ago

Well, the craft that fell to Earth all those years ago.

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

I did say "After the Dog".

[–] Ace_Spade (9544) 3 years ago

Bennings, I think. I thought it was Clark for awhile, but he passes the test, later on, so it couldn't have been him. The first one we see, then, is Bennings.

[–] kenburke (2369) 4 years ago

It didn't have too. The Childs creature knew the cold would kill MacReady and put itself in stasis. When rescuers discovered the Childs body it would be taken somewhere, thaw out, then contaminate the planet.

[–] crc32 (2584) 3 years ago

"I knew some of you are human too cause if you wern't you'd all attack me now". This logic stats that on a one on one situation the thing will attack which didn't happen. The real thing was out there some where. I don't know why people are hung up that childs was a thing. The point the movie was making at this point is that it didn't matter as thething most likely survuved and these two humans were going to die for nothing.

[–] Martoto (5024) 7 years ago

The problem with this is, you can see Childs breath. It's just that when people propose this they only highlight the last shot of Childs in the movie. But a few moments earlier when we see Childs walking up behind Mac, we can clearly see his breath. It's only when he's sitting down in shadow that his breath becomes unlit and doesn't show on camera.

One of them is definitely the Thing though. Carpenter has admitted this.

Consider this. Who goes to the spaceship site with Mac and Norris?

[–] lennonforever (2453) 7 years ago

Not sure what you are getting at?

[–] Marty1968 (332) 7 years ago

A sequel of sorts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-86OqvaZ_88

[–] Martoto (5024) 7 years ago

Well, who joins Norris (a thing), and Mac (maybe a thing) on the chopper ride out to the crash site?

[–] Ilyathe2nd (168) 2 years ago

Palmer, if you're still wondering, and he doesn't go into the crater, so at that point he could already be one.

[–] LennyNero (498) 7 years ago

I always figured that they were both human at the end, and that the downer ending had more to do with that fact that they were both going to die anyway. I figured that if one of them was the Thing there wouldn't be any need for posturing since there are only two of them left.

[–] bobbydallas (8511) 6 years ago

I thought the same thing. Either way they're both toast...

[–] macken74 (653) 7 years ago

My thinking is that i think JC just left it wide open for anyone to interpret anyway they wanted ! ... And i dont think the lack of visible breath from childs was intentional from the director at the time ! .... Its just a theory that the fans have came came up with down the years , not a thing the JC intentionally put in at the time !

My two cents is , i think both were still human .

[–] Darren (1342) 6 years ago

Another reason this explanation doesn't really hold up, when you think about it, is that when the Thing copies a human, it copies them perfectly -- so perfectly that it copied Norris' heart condition and suffered a fatal heart attack. So when it copies Childs, it would be breathing exactly the same way Childs does.

And as someone remarked, you actually can see Childs' breath in a few frames, it's just the lighting that makes it difficult to see.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Right. Whether you can see Childs' breath or not has nothing to do with him being a Thing.

[–] Lampedusean (498) 5 years ago

Darren became a state senator. Fishrock, the original poster, is now a greeter for an Alaskan hemp store.

[–] Supratad (137) 4 years ago

LOL. Hey, I got that joke at least. That was hilarious.

[–] Darren (1342) 5 years ago

You can read, right? I'll quote my last sentence, and add emphasis for the reading impaired.

And as someone remarked, you actually can see Childs' breath in a few frames, it's just the lighting that makes it difficult to see.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

"Another reason this explanation doesn't really hold up, when you think about it, is that when the Thing copies a human, it copies them perfectly -- so perfectly that it copied Norris' heart condition and suffered a fatal heart attack. So when it copies Childs, it would be breathing exactly the same way Childs does."

Wow.

I was agreeing with this point. Should have been obvious I think. I think you might be the one with reading issues.

Is that why you're so salty?

[–] Darren (1342) 5 years ago

Sorry, my apologies. Prefacing the post with "Right" made it read more like sarcasm. My mistake.

[–] Martoto (5024) 6 years ago

I personally think it's more likely the other way round.

Childs is still in the same clothing we last saw him in when we knew we was human. No rippped clothes - not assimilated.

Mac on the other hand has found himself a bedsheet or something to cover himself up.